Planning Commission Staff Report #24-783 (CUP #1277) — City Council/Public Finance and Economic Development Authority/Parking Authority, January 6, 2025

CITY OF MERCED

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Merced Civic Center
678 W. 18th Street
Merced, CA 95340
File #: 24-783 Meeting Date: 9/18/2024
Planning Commission Staff Report
Report Prepared by: Jessie Lee, Development Services Technician II SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit #1277, initiated by AT&T Mobility, on behalf of The Church of the Nazarene of Merced, California, property owner. This application involves a request to construct a 55-foot-tall wireless communication tower in the form of a stealth mono-pine tree at 1717 E. Olive Avenue, generally located at the northeast corner of E. Olive Avenue and Parsons Avenue, with a General Plan designation of Low Density Residential (LD), and a Zoning classification of (R-1-6) *PUBLIC HEARING*
ACTION: Approve/Disapprove/Modify
1) Environmental Review #24-10 (Categorical Exemption)
2) Conditional Use Permit #1277

SUMMARY
AT&T Mobility is requesting approval to construct a 55-foot-tall wireless communication tower in the form of a stealth mono-pine tree at 1717 E. Olive Avenue (Attachment D) within a Low Density Residential (R-1-6) Zone. The project is located at the northeast corner of E. Olive Avenue and Parsons Avenue within a developed lot occupied by the Bear Creek Community Church of the Nazarene. Per Merced Municipal Code Land Use Table 20.58-2 - Review Procedures for Support Towers for Wireless Communication Facilities, a site plan review is required for stealth facilities within an R-1 Zone that are over 140% of the maximum height allowed within this zone. However, as described in the background section of this report, because the Site Plan Review Committee is referring this request to the Planning Commission, the land use permit required is now a conditional use permit. On July 3, 2024, the Planning Commission considered this matter and voted to continue the public hearing to August 7, 2024. On August 7, 2024, the Planning Commission considered this matter and continued the public hearing to the Planning Commission meeting of September 18, 2024. Staff is recommending approval of this application subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report. Staff is recommending approval of this application subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report.

RECOMMENDATION
Planning staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Environmental Review #24-10 ( Categorical Exemption), and Conditional Use Permit #1277, including the adoption of the Draft Resolution at Attachment A, subject to the conditions in Exhibit A and the findings/considerations in Exhibit B.

CITY OF MERCED Page 1 of 3 Printed on 9/13/2024
powered by Legistar™ 1
File #: 24-783 Meeting Date: 9/18/2024

DISCUSSION
Project Description
The applicant is requesting to construct a mono-pine wireless communication facility at 1717 E. Olive Avenue, behind the Bear Creek Community Church of Nazarene. The proposed facility would include a 55-foot-tall mono-pine tower along with the necessary ancillary cabinet ground equipment enclosed by a 6-foot-tall sound-proof fence. The mono-pine tower would be located on the northern portion of the parcel. The proposed mono-pole would be 55 feet with the branches of the mono-pine extending up to a height of 60 feet. The antennas on the pole would be mounted at a maximum height of 48 feet. According to the applicant, the height is necessary to provide coverage to service the area. The mono-pine would be designed to blend in with the surrounding trees.

Surrounding uses as noted in Attachment B.

Surrounding Land Existing Use of
Land
City Zoning
Designation
City General Plan
Land Use
Designation
North Single-Family
Residential
Low Density
Residential (R-1-6)
Low Density
Residential (LD)
South Single-Family
Residential (across
E. Olive Avenue)
Residential
Planned
Development
(RPD) #19
Low to Medium
Density Residential
(LMD)
East Single-Family
Residential
Low Density
Residential (R-1-6)
Low Density
Residential (LD)
West Single-Family
Residential (across
Parsons Avenue)
Low Density
Residential (R-1-6)
Low Density
Residential (LD)
Background
The property is zoned Low Density Residential (R-1-6) and currently has a Church located on the southern portion of the subject site.

The existing Church located on the project site was originally approved and constructed in 1974. The site has historically been used for Church services, Sunday School, Day Care Center, and Church related activities.

The initial application for the stealth mono-pine telecommunication tower came in as Site Plan Review Application #544 and was heard at the Site Plan Review Committee Meeting of 4/25/2024. A public hearing notice was posted in Merced County Times and mailed to immediately adjacent property owners as required by MMC 20.68.050(E). Staff received 15 emails, and 9 voicemails in opposition, and 1 email in support of the project. During the site plan review public hearing, there were 15 speakers from the audience in opposition, of the project. The Site Plan Review Committee vote to refer Environmental Review #24-10 and Site Plan Review #544 to the Planning Commission CITY OF MERCED Page 2 of 3 Printed on 9/13/2024
powered by Legistar™ 2
File #: 24-783 Meeting Date: 9/18/2024
for final review and decision per MMC 20.68.050 (C)(2).

On July 3, 2024, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing for this CUP and accepted public comment. At the request of the applicant, the Planning Commission voted to continue the public hearing and decision on the CUP to the August 7, 2024 Planning Commission meeting, to allow the applicant additional time to research alternative locations as potential ground for the proposed cell tower. On August 7, 2024, the Planning Commission again at the request of the applicant, continued the public hearing to the Planning Commission meeting of September 18, 2024, to finalize the applicant’s determination of whether alternative suitable and feasible sites existed within the City.

At this time, the applicant is ready to move forward with the Planning Commission’s consideration of this CUP.

Findings/Considerations
Please refer to Exhibit B of the Draft Planning Commission Resolution at Attachment A.

ATTACHMENTS
A. Draft Planning Commission Resolution
B. Location Map
C. Overall Site Plan
D. Elevation
E. AT&T Photo Simulation
F. AT&T Coverage Map - 3 Miles Radius
G. Radio Frequency Emission Compliance Report
H. Alternative Sites Analysis
I. Draft Site Plan Resolution
J. Public Comments from Site Plan Review Meeting and Planning Commission Meeting of July 3, 2024.

K. Public Hearing Notice Map for CUP #1277
L. Categorical Exemption
M. Presentation
CITY OF MERCED Page 3 of 3 Printed on 9/13/2024
powered by Legistar™ 3

CITY OF MERCED
Planning Commission
Resolution #4137
WHEREAS, the Merced City Planning Commission at its regular meeting of, September 18, 2024, held a public hearing and considered Conditional Use Permit #1277, initiated by AT&T Mobility, on behalf of The Church of the Nazarene of Merced, California, property owners. This application involves a request to allow a construction of 55-foot-tall wireless communication tower in the form of a stealth mono-pine tree at 1717 E.

Olive Avenue, generally located at the northeast corner of E. Olive Avenue and Parsons Avenue with a General Plan designation of Low Density (LD), and a Zoning classification of R-1-6, and also known as Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 008-060-057; and,
WHEREAS, the Merced City Planning Commission concurs with Findings A through M of Staff Report #24-783; and,
NOW THEREFORE, after reviewing the City’s Draft Environmental Determination, and discussing all the issues, the Merced City Planning Commission does resolve to hereby adopt a Categorical Exemption regarding Environmental Review #24-10, and approve Conditional Use Permit #1277, subject to the Conditions set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

Upon motion by Commissioner ____________________, seconded by Commissioner ____________________, and carried by the following vote:

AYES: Commissioner(s)
NOES: Commissioner(s)
ABSENT: Commissioner(s)
ABSTAIN: Commissioner(s)
4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4137

Page 2 ends

September 18, 2024
Adopted this 18th day of September 2024
______________________________
Chairperson, Planning Commission of
the City of Merced, California
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Secretary
Attachment:

Exhibit A – Conditions of Approval
Exhibit B - Findings
n:shared:planning:PC Resolutions:Resolution: CUP 1277 1717 E. Olive Ave – Cell Tower 5 EXHIBIT A
of Planning Commission Resolution #4137

Page 1 ends

Conditions of Approval
Planning Commission Resolution #4137
Conditional Use Permit #1277

1. The proposed project shall be constructed/designed as shown on Attachment C (site plan) and Attachment D (elevations) of Staff Report #24-783, except as modified by the conditions.

2. All conditions contained in Resolution #1249-Amended (“Standard Conditional Use Permit Conditions”) shall apply.

3. The proposed project shall comply with all standard Municipal Code and Subdivision Map Act requirements as applied by the City Engineering Department.

4. All other applicable codes, ordinances, policies, etc. adopted by the City of Merced shall apply.

5. The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend (with counsel selected by the City), and hold harmless the City, and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and any officers, officials, employees, or agents thereof, from any and all claims, actions, suits, proceedings, or judgments against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, and any officers, officials, employees, or agents thereof to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board, or legislative body, including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the project and the approvals granted herein. Furthermore, developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, against any and all claims, actions, suits, proceedings, or judgments against any governmental entity in which developer/applicant’s project is subject to that other governmental entity’s approval and a condition of such approval is that the City indemnify and defend (with counsel selected by the City) such governmental entity. City shall promptly notify the developer/applicant of any claim, action, suits, or proceeding. Developer/applicant shall be responsible to immediately prefund the litigation cost of the City including, but not limited to, City’s attorney’s fees and costs. If any claim, action, suits, or proceeding is filed challenging this approval, the developer/applicant shall be required to execute a separate and formal defense, indemnification, and deposit agreement that meets the approval 6 EXHIBIT A
of Planning Commission Resolution #4137

Page 2 ends

of the City Attorney and to provide all required deposits to fully fund the City’s defense immediately but in no event later than five (5) days from that date of a demand to do so from City. In addition, the developer/applicant shall be required to satisfy any monetary obligations imposed on City by any order or judgment.

6. The developer/applicant shall construct and operate the project in strict compliance with the approvals granted herein, City standards, laws, and ordinances, and in compliance with all State and Federal laws, regulations, and standards. In the event of a conflict between City laws and standards and a State or Federal law, regulation, or standard, the stricter or higher standard shall control.

7. In coordination with the Police Department and Fire Department, a frequency/inter-modulation study shall be prepared. Service may not be initiated until these departments have reviewed and have found the study to be acceptable.

8. At the time of building permit submittal, the applicant shall provide certification by a Radio Frequency Engineer, stating the RFR measurements and that they meet FCC radio frequency radiation standards.

9. The applicant shall work with the Merced Regional Airport and comply with all of their requirements for this type of structure and obtain all proper permits. Said requirements may include, but are not limited to, obtaining approval from the Airport Land Use Commission, or showing proof of submitting an FAA Form 7460-1 to the FAA.

10. The maximum overall height of the “Mono-Pine” stealth facility shall not exceed 55 feet. Antennas mounted to the stealth facility shall not be mounted higher than 60 feet in height.

11. The design of the mono-pine shall closely resemble the appearance of a real pine tree. At a minimum, the branch pattern on the “Mono-Pine” stealth facility shall have a maximum of 18 inches of height between each other and the lowest branch on the “tree” shall be a maximum of 20 feet above the ground.

12. The “Mono-Pine” stealth facility shall not have any form of steps, ladder, or pegs protruding from its side.
7 EXHIBIT A
of Planning Commission Resolution #4137

Page 3 ends

13. The color of the Mono-Pine shall match that of a real pine tree. These colors tend to be green (leaves) and brown (bark) and shall be consistently maintained. The antennas and any mounting equipment shall be painted to match the colors of the “tree.”

14. The Mono-Pine stealth facility shall be maintained at all times. At no time shall the Mono-Pine be faded or worn down to a state that would be considered unacceptable to City standards for a Stealth Facility. Should the natural weather elements (wind, rain, etc.) deteriorate any portion of the tree, new items of similar likeness shall be installed, replacing the deteriorated items.

15. No signs, other than warning and safety signage, shall be located on a support tower or ancillary facility.

16. Other than lighting required by the FAA or other regulatory agency for the purpose of safety, lights are not permitted on the “Mono-Pine” pole.

Any lighting used on the equipment shelter shall be appropriately “down-shielded” to keep light within the boundaries of the site and not impact surrounding properties.

17. Projections or appendages of any sort are not permitted, except for those related to a common Stealth Telecommunications Tower. If there are antennas projecting outward, they shall be screened behind the branches and shall be painted a color similar to the branches (green).

18. All ancillary equipment shall be contained inside the area enclosed by a solid fence. All ancillary equipment shall be screened from view from the public right-of-way.

19. The proposed 6-foot-tall soundproof wall proposed to enclose the cell facility and ancillary equipment is approved as proposed. The gate providing access to the facility shall be of solid material or other approved material that would screen the equipment inside the facility from public view. The soundproof wall shall be integrated into the site with landscaping consistent with other landscaping on the site.

20. The site shall be provided with landscaping consistent with the other developments on the site. If the other developments on the site have not been landscaped at the time the cell facility is complete, landscaping for the cell facility may be deferred for a period not to exceed 6 months unless an extension of time is granted by the Development Services Director.
8 EXHIBIT A
of Planning Commission Resolution #4137

Page 4 ends

21. Any noise generated by the facility from the equipment or the tower shall be kept to a minimum, so as not to cause a nuisance to the neighborhood.

22. All equipment, fencing, and other surfaces shall be maintained free of graffiti.
n:shared:planning:PC Resolutions: CUP#1277 Exhibit A
9 EXHIBIT B
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4137

Page 1 ends

Findings and Considerations
Planning Commission Resolution #4137
Conditional Use Permit #1277
FINDINGS/CONSIDERATIONS:

General Plan Compliance and Policies Related to This Application A) The project site has a General Plan designation of Low Density Residential (LD), and the zoning classification of Low Density Residential (R-1-6) and meets the requirements of those designations with approval of this conditional use permit. Per Merced Municipal Code Land Use Table 20.58-2 – Review Procedures for Support Towers for Wireless Communication Facilities, a site plan review permit is required for stealth facilities within an R-1-6 Zone that are over 140% of the maximum height allowed within this zone. However, because the Site Plan Review Committee is referring this request to the Planning Commission, the land use permit required is now a conditional use permit per Merced Municipal Code Section 20.58.050(A)(4).

Traffic/Circulation
B) The installation of the telecommunications tower would not increase traffic to the site or change the circulation on the site. Other than traffic during the construction/installation period, there would only be additional traffic to the site when maintenance is required and that would generally be by a single truck.

Parking
C) No additional parking spaces are required with this use as there will be no employees or customers onsite on a regular basis. The installation of the telecommunication tower does not affect the parking on the site for the existing church.

Tower Design
D) The proposed tower would be constructed to look like a pine tree, which would be compatible with other trees in the surrounding area. The overall height of the “tree” would be 55 feet with the antennas being mounted no higher than 60 feet (Attachment D of Planning Commission Staff Report #24-783). The mechanical equipment for the tower would be enclosed by the proposed 6- foot-tall sound-proof wall within a 25-foot by 25-foot area. Photo simulations showing the tower and the surrounding area are provided at Attachment E of 10 EXHIBIT B
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4137

Page 2 ends

Planning Commission Staff Report #24-783. The photo simulation compares the existing conditions to the existing conditions with the tower from all four directions.

As proposed, the tree branches would start at a height of approximately 30 feet above the ground. In order to give the tree a more natural appearance, Condition #11 requires the lowest branches to be a maximum of 20 feet above the ground. In addition, this Condition requires the spacing of the branches be a maximum of 18 inches apart.

Site Design
E) The wireless facility would be located within the northeast quadrant of the site. The tower and all equipment would be located within an approximately 625-square-foot area enclosed by a 6 ft-foot-tall soundproof fence. Access to the facility would be provided through a gate on the south side of the facility.

The tower would be approximately 245 feet from Parsons Avenue and approximately 379 feet from E. Olive Avenue. According to the applicants, the site is designed for AT&T to improve the LTE coverage in the area and provide new service on Band 14, which is a dedicated public safety network for first responders nationwide. The proposed facility is designed to be part of FirstNet and will provide coverage and capacity for the development of the FirstNet platform on AT&T LTE network. Deployment of FirstNet in the subject area will improve public safety by providing advanced communications capabilities to assist public safety agencies and first responders.

Federal Regulations
F) According to Section 332 (C) (7) of the Federal Telecommunication Act, local governments may not: (1) prohibit or effectively prohibit personal wireless service; (2) unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent service providers; or (3) regulate personal wireless service facilities based on the environmental effects from radio frequency emission to the extent such emission meets FFC Guidelines.

In addition, the radio frequency emission of the proposed cell tower will meet FCC guidelines (Attachment G of Planning Commission Staff Report #24- 783).

First Responder Communication Services
11 EXHIBIT B
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4137

Page 3 ends

G) The applicant has provided a map of existing and proposed wireless facilities within the 3-mile radius to illustrate service for local area and first responders (First Net Program) also known as First Responders Network (Attachment F of Planning Commission Staff Report #24-783).

Development Standards
H) Per Merced Municipal Code Section 20.92.060, all wireless communication facilities shall comply with the following development standards and requirements in addition to complying with all other applicable provisions of the Merced Municipal Code and the Merced Vision 2030 General Plan.

Color: Support towers shall be provided in a color that best allows it to blend into the surroundings. Antennas shall be placed and colored to blend into the architectural detail and coloring of the host structure.

Compliance with Standard: The color of the mono-pine tower will be compatible with the surrounding trees and landscaping. There are also pine trees along E. Olive Avenue and Parsons Avenue. The colors used for the mono-pine tree would be consistent with a real tree. Condition #13 requires the colors of the tower and antenna to match the colors of a real pine tree.

Display (Signs): No signs or display shall be located on a support tower or ancillary facilities except for warning and safety signage.

Compliance with Standard: The applicant has not proposed any signing to be attached to the tower. Condition #15 prohibits all signs other than warning and safety signing.

Equipment Shelters: The following guideline are to be used to ensure that equipment shelters are compatible with their surroundings: (1) equipment shelters located in underground vaults, or (2) equipment shelters designed consistent with the architectural features of the building immediately surrounding the site locations; or (3) equipment shelters camouflaged behind an effective year-round landscape buffer.

Compliance with Standard: All the equipment would be located within the fenced area and screened from public view by the 6-foot-tall fence (Condition #18).
12 EXHIBIT B
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4137

Page 4 ends

Interference: Wireless communication facilities shall not cause interference with public communication equipment.

Compliance with Standard: Condition #7 requires the applicant to work with the Police and Fire Departments to prepare a frequency/inter-modular study to ensure the proposed telecommunications facility does not interfere with the City’s communication equipment.

Landscaping and fencing: The following guideline is to be used to ensure that wireless communications facilities are compatible with their surroundings:

Installation of landscaping, served with an automatic underground irrigation system, that effectively screens the view of the tower site from adjacent properties. The standard buffer shall consist of a landscaped strip at least four (4) feet wide at the site perimeter, and fencing. Vines shall be used to cover the fence. Use of barbed wire is prohibited. Existing mature tree growth and natural landforms on the site shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible.

Compliance with Standard: The proposed project includes the construction of a 6-foot-tallsound-proof fence to surround the entire facility. The fence would be finished with texture and color to match the future buildings on the site.

Landscaping would be provided around the perimeter of the fencing as required by Conditions #19 and #20.

Lighting: Except as specifically required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) or other applicable authority, support towers shall not be artificially lighted. In order to reduce glare, such lighting shall be shielded from the community to the extent allowed by the FAA. Equipment shelters may use security lighting that is appropriately down shielded to keep light within the boundaries of the site and not impact surrounding properties.

Compliance with Standard: All lighting shall be in compliance with FAA regulations. Any lighting for the equipment area shall be down shielded to protect prevent light from spilling over onto the adjacent properties. Condition #16 addresses lighting on the site and requires compliance with this standard.

Radio frequency radiation (RFR): Upon request to construct a wireless communications facility or to mount wireless communication antennas to an existing wireless communication facility, the applicant shall provide 13 EXHIBIT B
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4137

Page 5 ends

certification by a Radio Frequency Engineer, stating the RFR measurements and that they meet FCC radio frequency radiation standards.

Compliance with Standard: Condition #8 requires this certification be submitted during the building permit stage.

Setbacks and siting:

1. All equipment shelters, or other on-the-ground ancillary equipment shall meet the setback requirements of the zone in which they are located.

2. Antenna and antenna arrays are exempt from the setback standard of this section and from the setbacks for the zone in which they are located.

3. Support towers that do not exceed 125% of the height limit of the zone in which they are located need only meet the setback requirements for that zone.

4. Support towers that exceed 125% of the height limit of the zone in which they are located shall be set back from all property lines as required by that zone or one foot for every 10 feet of total tower height, whichever produces the greater setback.

5. To the greatest extent possible, support towers should be placed to the rear or side of buildings.

Compliance with Standard: The site is located within the Low Density Residential (R-1-6) Zone. Based on Standard #4 above, a 55-foot-tall tower would need to have a setback of at least 5.5 feet. The tower is approximately 245 feet from Parsons Avenue and 379 feet from E. Olive Avenue, which are both greater than the minimum setback required by this standard.

The tower is located near the northeast corner of the site. Because the site has streets on both west and south sides, this location seems appropriate for the site. The proposed location places the tower behind the existing Church on the site and away from E. Olive Avenue.

Heights: No support tower, other than a stealth facility, may exceed the following heights:

1. Within a Low Density Residential (R-1) zone and a High Medium Density (R-3) zone: 55 feet; and,

2. Within a Central Commercial (C-C) zone, a Thoroughfare Commercial (CT) zone, and a General Commercial (C-G) zone: 120 feet; and,

3. Within an Industrial zone: 150 feet, and,
14 EXHIBIT B
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4137

Page 6 ends

4. Within a Planned Development: as permitted by the site utilization plan.

Compliance with Standard: The proposed tower would be 55 feet tall and is considered a stealth facility with its pine tree design. Therefore, with Conditional Use Permit approval, the tower could exceed the above height limits. The Low Density Residential (R-1-6) Zone allows a maximum height of 55 feet. Therefore, the height is subject to approval by the Planning Commission. The existing buildings on-site are approximately 30 feet tall.

There are 3 trees in back of the subject site that are approximately 20-25 feet tall.

Neighborhood Impact/Interface
I) The project site is located at the northeast corner of Olive Avenue and Parsons Avenue. The subject site is primarily surrounded by single-family residential homes.

A stealth facility decreases the impact on the surrounding area by helping to integrate the tower with the surrounding natural landscape. The requirement to provide a landscaping combined with the conditions of approval addressing lighting, noise, etc. reduces the impacts to the area.

As required by State law and the Merced Municipal Code, public hearing notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the site (Attachment K of Planning Commission Staff Report #24-783), and in addition, to any residents who spoke for this item during the Site Plan Review Committee Meeting of April 25, 2024.

Staff received 3 emails and 2 voicemails in opposition and 1 email in favor after the Staff Report #24-552 was prepared. Those emails and voicemail were provided to the Planning Commission via email prior to the meeting and posted on the City website. At the Planning Commission Meeting of July 3, 2024, there were 14 residents that testified in opposition and cited their concerns about the impacts on property values, the potential health effects of the radiation from the cell towers on their neighborhood and school children, and the aesthetics of the stealth “monopine.” At the Planning Commission Meeting of August 7, 2024, there was 1 resident that testified in opposition.

As of the time that this staff report was prepared, staff has not received any additional comments from the public for this proposal other than those provided during the Site Plan Review and Planning Commission Meeting of 15 EXHIBIT B
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4137

Page 7 ends

July 3, 2024, as shown at Attachment J of Planning Commission Staff Report #24-783. If additional comments are received prior to the Planning Commission Staff Report being published, those comments will be added to the report. Any comments submitted after the publication of the staff report and by 1:00 p.m. on the day of the Planning Commission hearing will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and posted to the City’s website.

Mandatory Findings for Conditional Use Permits
J) Merced Municipal Code (MMC) Section 20.68.020 requires that the following findings be made by the Planning Commission in order to approve a Conditional Use Permit:

1. The proposed use is consistent with the purpose and standards of the zoning district, the general plan, and any adopted area or neighborhood plan, specific plan, or community plan.

As described in Finding A, the proposed land use is consistent with the General Plan designation of Low Density Residential (LD). The Zoning Ordinance was updated in 2016, to allow stealth wireless communication facility and antennas within a residential zone with a Site Plan Review Permit rather than a Conditional Use Permit.

However, the Site Plan Review Committee heard this item at their meeting of April 25, 2024, and voted to refer this application to the Planning Commission (Attachment I of Planning Commission Staff Report #24-783).

2. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use will be compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity of the subject property.

The wireless communication tower would be disguised as a pine tree (55-foot-tall stealth mono-pine) and would be located on the northern portion of the parcel. According to the applicants, the height of the stealth mono-pine is necessary to close an LTE service coverage gap in the area.

The location is adjacent to single-family homes on Vickie Court, visible from the homes on Teak Ave., Parsons Ave., and Evette Court including the south side of East Olive Ave. The homes on Vickie Court will have the most impact because of visibility in the backyard. Only 16 EXHIBIT B
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4137

Page 8 ends

three (3) other trees are on this property, so the antenna will be higher, visible, and taller than others in the area.

3. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare of the City.

The proposed project does not include any uses that would be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare of the City.

Implementation of the conditions of approval and adherence to all applicable Building Codes, Fire Codes, and Federal and City Standards would prevent the project from having any detrimental effect on the health, safety, and welfare of the City.

4. The proposed use is properly located within the City and adequately served by existing or planned services and infrastructure.

The project site is located within a developed area that is adequately served by infrastructure.

Wireless Communication Facilities Findings
K) To approve a wireless communication facility requiring a Site Plan Review or Conditional Use Permit, the review authority must make the following findings (if applicable) in addition to the findings required by Chapter 20.68 (Permit Requirements) for the applicable permit:

1. For a proposed lattice tower located in other than an industrial district, the applicant has demonstrated that there is no feasible alternative to use of a lattice tower at the proposed site or within the search ring.

The proposed wireless communication tower is a stealth mono-pine located in a zoning classification of Low Density Residential (R-1-6).

The applicant provided an alternative site analysis at Attachment H of Planning Commission Staff Report #24-783 showing that AT&T searched for, but did not find, feasible collocation opportunities in and around the coverage objective area. The applicant also considered alternative sites and did not find any that suited their needs as well as this site.

2. The proposed wireless communication facility is designed at the minimal functional height.
17 EXHIBIT B
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4137

Page 9 ends

The wireless communication tower would be disguised as a pine tree (55-foot-tall stealth mono-pine) located on the northern portion of the parcel. Ancillary cabinet ground equipment would be enclosed by a 6- foot-tall fence. According to the applicants, the proposed height of this wireless communication is necessary to provide coverage to service the area.

3. The location for the wireless communication facility minimizes the visibility of the facility from residentially zoned property and minimizes the obstruction of scenic views from residentially zoned property.

The location for the wireless tower is adjacent to single-family homes on Vickie Court, visible from the homes on Teak Ave., Parsons Ave., and Evette Court, including the south side of East Olive Ave. The homes on Vickie Court will have the most impact because of visibility in the backyard. Only three (3) other trees are on this property, so the antenna will be higher, and more visible. The proposed stealth facility helps the facility blend in with the surrounding trees on-site and throughout the neighborhood. However, the Planning Commission heard public comments from several neighbors in opposition to the tower’s location and aesthetics, despite it meeting the City’s standards for such facilities as spelled out in the Municipal Code.

4. Projection of the antenna or antenna array has been minimized to the greatest extent possible.

Based on elevations provided, the large cellmax antennas located on the site plan protrudes 4 feet more than the limbs of the tree/tower. There are smaller antennas that do not project out as much. In order to minimize the visibility, the antennas will need to be painted green (Condition #13).

5. In the case of an application for use of a new site for wireless communication facilities, all reasonable opportunities to locate the facility or to co-locate the facility on an existing structure have been exhausted by the applicant and are not feasible.

The Applicant has provided an alternative site analysis for co-locations; however, the conclusion is that there are no viable or available 18 EXHIBIT B
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4137

Page 10 ends

alternative locations (Attachment H of Planning Commission Staff Report #24-783).

6. Support towers located in an agricultural zoning district are located and designed to minimize dangers to aerial sprayers.

The subject site is not located in an agricultural zoning district, but in a zoning district of Low Density Residential (R-1-6).

7. Sites near the project area, which are poorly suited for other forms of development, are unavailable for use by the wireless communication facility.

The majority of the surrounding parcels are fully developed and standard in size for residential development. There is an undeveloped parcel directly to the north (1712 Teak Avenue) zoned residential that could be developed as infill development for a single-family home.

Besides that parcel and the nearby Chenoweth Elementary School (180- feet north of the subject site), all other parcels within a 1/4-mile radius are fully developed. There are no sites nearby that are available and poorly suited for other forms of development.

8. For planned developments, the underlying land use designation permits and would not be adversely affected by the proposed type of wireless communication facility. For example: in an industrial planned development, a lattice tower may be found to be acceptable while in a residential planned development, a stealth facility or monopole may be found to be acceptable, but a lattice tower would not. To determine the effect of the proposed wireless communication facility on the land use designation and the permit process required, use Table 20.58-2.

The subject site is not located within a zoning classification of Planned Development. The subject site has a zoning classification of Low Density Residential (R-1-6). Table 20.58-2 prohibits wireless communication facilities with a guyed tower or lattice tower design.

However, this table allows stealth wireless communication facilities with a site plan review permit and is considered appropriate in residential zones as stealth facilities are allowed in residential zones as 19 EXHIBIT B
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4137

Page 11 ends

the they are designed to blend in with the existing physical environment. Stealth facilities may come in the form of flagpoles, water tanks, free standing signs, or more natural features such as a tree, as is being proposed by the applicant.

Environmental Clearance
L) Planning staff has conducted an environmental review (Environmental Review #24-10) of the project in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and recommends a Categorical Exemption with no further documentation required (Attachment L of Planning Commission Staff Report #24-783).
20 21
22 ATTACHMENT D
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
Existing LTE 700 Coverage
April 4, 2024
Proprietary and Confidential Business Information of AT&T >ĞŐĞŶĚ
ZĞůŝĂďůĞ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞ/ŶĚŽŽƌƐͬKƵƚĚŽŽƌƐZĞůŝĂďůĞŽǀĞƌĂŐĞŝŶdƌĂŶƐŝƚ/ŶĚŽŽƌŽǀĞƌĂŐĞ>ĞƐƐZĞůŝĂďůĞWƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƐŝƚĞ

ǆŝƐƚŝŶŐƐŝƚĞ
ZĞůŝĂďůĞŽǀĞƌĂŐĞKƵƚĚŽŽƌƐKŶůǇ/ŶĚŽŽƌŽǀĞƌĂŐĞ>ĞƐƐZĞůŝĂďůĞ

ATTACHMENT F
31 Proposed LTE 700 Coverage – 1717 East Olive Ave @ RC = 53 ft 1717 East Olive Ave
Proprietary and Confidential Business Information of AT&T April 4, 2024
>ĞŐĞŶĚ
ZĞůŝĂďůĞ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞ/ŶĚŽŽƌƐͬKƵƚĚŽŽƌƐZĞůŝĂďůĞŽǀĞƌĂŐĞŝŶdƌĂŶƐŝƚ/ŶĚŽŽƌŽǀĞƌĂŐĞ>ĞƐƐZĞůŝĂďůĞWƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƐŝƚĞ

ǆŝƐƚŝŶŐƐŝƚĞ
ZĞůŝĂďůĞŽǀĞƌĂŐĞKƵƚĚŽŽƌƐKŶůǇ/ŶĚŽŽƌŽǀĞƌĂŐĞ>ĞƐƐZĞůŝĂďůĞ 32 Existing and proposed sites within 3-mile radius
>ĞŐĞŶĚ
WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƐŝƚĞ
ǆŝƐƚŝŶŐƐŝƚĞ
April 4, 2024
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 46
47 48
49 50

CITY OF MERCED

SITE PLAN REVIEW COMMITTEE
RESOLUTION #544
AT&T Mobility
Construct a 55’ stealth monopine
wireless communication tower and an
8x8 walk in closet.

APPLICANT PROJECT

605 Coolidege Dr. Ste 100 1717 E. Olive Ave

ADDRESS PROJECT SITE

Folsom, CA 95630 008-060-057

CITY/STATE/ZIP APN

(916) 798-2275 R-1-6

PHONE ZONING
In accordance with Chapter 20.68 of the Merced City Zoning Ordinance, the Merced City Site Plan Review Committee considered and approved Site Plan Review Application #544 on April 25, 2024, submitted by AT&T Mobility, on behalf of the Church of the Nararene of Merced, California, property owner, to construct a 55-foot-tall stealth monopine wireless communication tower at 1717 E. Olive Ave. within a R-1-6 Zone. Said property being more particularly described as Adjusted Parcel D as shown on that map “Record of Survey for the Church of the Nazarene” recorded in Book 6, Page 21 of Merced County Records; also known as Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 008-060-057.

WHEREAS, the proposal is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and is in accordance with Section 15301 (a) (Exhibit D); and, WHEREAS, the Merced City Site Plan Review Committee makes the following Findings:

A) The proposal complies with the General Plan designation of Low Density (LD) and the Zoning classification of R-1-6.

B) The wireless communication tower would be disguised as a pine tree (55-foottall stealth monopine) located on the northern portion of the parcel. Ancillary cabinet ground equipment would be enclosed by a 6-foot-tall fence. Height is necessary to provide coverage to service the area.

C) Location is adjacent to single-family homes on Vickie Court, visible from the homes on Teak Ave., Parsons Ave., and Evette Court including the south side of East Olive Ave. The homes on Vickie Court will have the most impact because of visibility in the backyard. Only three (3) other trees are on this property, so the antenna will be higher, visible, and taller than others in the area.

DRAFT

ATTACHMENT I
51 Site Plan Approval #544

Page 2 ends

April 25, 2024
D) Based on elevations provided, the large cellmax antennas located on the site plan protrudes out 4 feet more than the limbs of the tree/tower. There are smaller antennas that does not project out as much. In order to minimize the visibility, the antennas will need to be painted green (Condition #8).

E) Applicant has provided an alternative site analysis for co-locations; however the conclusion is that it is not viable or available (Exhibit G).

F) Applicant has provided a map of existing and proposed wireless facilities within the 3-mile radius to illustrate service for local area and first responders (First Net Program) also known as First Responders Network (Exhibit E).

G) Support tower is not located in an agricultural zoning district.

H) The radio frequency emission of the proposed cell tower will meet FCC guidelines (Exhibit F).

I) The communication tower will not block any of the scenic corridors shown in General Plan Policy OS-1.3B.

J) The proposed communication tower would not create any unusual structures that are not already permitted within the R-1-6 Zone. Other structures (with similar functions, height, and designs), such as monopole tower for wireless communication providers, are allowed within the R-1-6 Zone with Site Plan Permit approval.

K) According to Section 332 (-C-) (-7-) of the Federal Telecommunication Act, local governments may not (1) prohibit or effectively prohibit personal wireless service (2) unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent service providers, (3) regulate personal wireless service facilities based on the environmental effects from radio frequency emission to the extent such emission meets FFC Guidelines.

L) Staff mailed a public hearing notice to property owners adjacent to the subject site, and published the public hearing notice in the Merced County Times. As of the time this report was prepared (4/18/2024), Planning Staff has received 5 emails and 5 voicemails in opposition and 1 email neutral of the project (Exhibit H).

M) Per Zoning Ordinance 20.58-2, a Site Plan Review Permit is required because the subject site is in an R1 Zone.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Merced City Site Plan Review Committee does approve Site Plan Review Application #544, subject to the following conditions:

1. All applicable conditions contained in Site Plan Approval Resolution #79-1-Amended (“Standard Conditions for Site Plan Application”) shall apply.

2. All other applicable codes, ordinances, policies, etc., adopted by the City of Merced shall apply including, but not limited to, the California building code and fire codes. 52 Site Plan Approval #544

Page 3 ends

April 25, 2024

3. The site shall be constructed as shown on Exhibit B (site plan) and Exhibit C (elevation), as modified by the conditions of approval within this resolution.

4. Notwithstanding all other conditions, all construction and improvements shall be in strict accordance with Zoning, Building, and all other codes, ordinances, standards, and policies of the City of Merced.

5. In coordination with the Police Department and Fire Department, a frequency/intermodulation study shall be prepared. Service may not be initiated until these departments have reviewed and have found the study to be acceptable.

6. At the time of building permit submittal, the applicant shall provide certification by a Radio Frequency Engineer, stating the RFR measurements and that they meet FCC radio frequency radiation standards.

7. The applicant shall work with the Merced Regional Airport and comply with all of their requirements for this type of structure and obtain all proper permits. Said requirements may include, but are not limited to, obtaining approval from the Airport Land Use Commission or showing proof of submitting an FAA Form 7460-1 to the FAA.

8. The private communication tower shall be a stealth monopine wireless communication facility and antennas shall be painted green to blend in.

9. The private communication tower shall be maintained at all times. At no time shall the private communication tower be faded or worn down to a state that would be considered unacceptable to City standards.

10. The private communication tower shall not have any form of steps, ladder, or pegs protruding from its side.

11. No signs, other than warning and safety signage, shall be located on a support tower or ancillary facility.

12. Other than lighting required by the FAA or other regulatory agency for the purpose of safety, lights are not permitted on the communication tower.

13. Any noise generated by the facility from the equipment or the tower shall be kept to a minimum so as not to cause a nuisance to the surrounding businesses.

14. At the time of building permit submittal, the applicant shall provide a site plan to the Engineering Department showing all easements which includes, but is not limited to, railroad righst-of-way and City easements. The project shall not encroach into any rights-of-way or easements without first obtaining proper approval to do so.

15. The premise shall remain clean and free of debris and graffiti at all times.

If there are any questions concerning these conditions and recommendations, please contact Jessie Lee at (209) 385-6858.
53 Site Plan Approval #544

Page 4 ends

April 25, 2024
April 25, 2024

DATE SIGNATURE

Development Services Technician II
TITLE
Exhibits:

A) Location Map
B) Overall Site Plan
C) Elevation
D) Categorical Exemption
E) Existing and Proposed Site Map
F) Radio Frequency Emission Compliance Report
G) Alternative Sites Analysis
H) Public Comments
54 Subject Site

EXHIBIT A
55 EXHIBIT B
56 EXHIBIT C
57 58

EXHIBIT D
59 Existing LTE 700 Coverage
April 4, 2024
Proprietary and Confidential Business Information of AT&T >ĞŐĞŶĚ
ZĞůŝĂďůĞ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞ/ŶĚŽŽƌƐͬKƵƚĚŽŽƌƐZĞůŝĂďůĞŽǀĞƌĂŐĞŝŶdƌĂŶƐŝƚ/ŶĚŽŽƌŽǀĞƌĂŐĞ>ĞƐƐZĞůŝĂďůĞ ZĞůŝĂďůĞŽǀĞƌĂŐĞKƵƚĚŽŽƌƐKŶůǇ/ŶĚŽŽƌŽǀĞƌĂŐĞ>ĞƐƐZĞůŝĂďůĞ

ǆŝƐƚŝŶŐƐŝƚĞ
WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƐŝƚĞ

EXHIBIT E
60 Proposed LTE 700 Coverage – 1717 East Olive Ave @ RC = 53 ft 1717 East Olive Ave
Proprietary and Confidential Business Information of AT&T April 4, 2024
>ĞŐĞŶĚ
ZĞůŝĂďůĞ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞ/ŶĚŽŽƌƐͬKƵƚĚŽŽƌƐZĞůŝĂďůĞŽǀĞƌĂŐĞŝŶdƌĂŶƐŝƚ/ŶĚŽŽƌŽǀĞƌĂŐĞ>ĞƐƐZĞůŝĂďůĞ ZĞůŝĂďůĞŽǀĞƌĂŐĞKƵƚĚŽŽƌƐKŶůǇ/ŶĚŽŽƌŽǀĞƌĂŐĞ>ĞƐƐZĞůŝĂďůĞ

ǆŝƐƚŝŶŐƐŝƚĞ
WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƐŝƚĞ
61 Existing and proposed sites within 3-mile radius
>ĞŐĞŶĚ

ǆŝƐƚŝŶŐƐŝƚĞWƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƐŝƚĞ
April 4, 2024
62 EXHIBIT F 63
64 65
66 67
EXHIBIT G 68
69 70
71 72
73 74
75 76
77 78
79 From: Andrea Merg < >
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 8:36 AM
To: planningweb <[email protected]>
Subject: Cell tower proposal at Olive and Parsons
Dear Planning Division,
I was notified that a cell tower is being proposed on church property at the corner of Olive and Parsons near Chenoweth Elementary School. I am writing this email to voice my concern about putting this directly in a residential neighborhood and next to an elementary school. We do not know the full effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic waves on human health. The results are inconclusive and require more time in order to understand their long-term effects. In the meantime, there have been several studies that have shown negative effects on human health. In fact, the World Health Organization (WHO) upgraded the classification of radio waves to "possibly carcinogenic to humans" in 2011 (see link and attachment). The fact that this is being proposed in the middle of a residential neighborhood and across the street from an elementary school is appalling! These structures also lower property values. Would you or others that you know like to have a cell tower right behind their backyard? The answer for a vast majority of people is "no"! Please consider alternative locations that are not placed in residential neighborhoods and near schools, and that have good buffer space around the structure to minimize exposure to people in the surrounding area.

WHO link: https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.pdf Thank you,
Andrea Merg
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Merced -- DO NOT CLICK on links or EXHIBIT H 80
From: planningweb
To: Lee, Jessie
Subject: FW: Site Plan Review #544
Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 2:02:31 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Thanks,
Kayla Abarca
Administrative Assistant II, Planning Department
City of Merced | 678 W. 18th Street | Merced, CA 95340
(209) 385-6954 Direct | (209) 385-6858 Dept Phone
[email protected] | www.cityofmerced.org
From: Bryant Rodriguez < >
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1:53 PM
To: planningweb <[email protected]>
Subject: Site Plan Review #544
Good Afternoon,
My Name is Bryant Rodriguez and I reside at . I am attempting to make my opposition known to this proposal of a 55 ft cell tower. This would be basically in my backyard. I am opposed not only to the potential drop in my home's equity. I am wanting to bring up the potential health issues that could come up. Based on a review of studies published up until 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified RF radiation as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” This is not to mention the complete eye sore this will bring to my backyard that I will have to look at. I am in my backyard constantly whether gardening or playing with my children or just plain relaxing. I do not want to view this. I have spoken to multiple neighbors and they also do not want this. This was already attempted at the Calvary Chapel of Merced located at 1345 E Olive Ave, Merced, CA 95340. This was denied due to opposition and a compromise was that they would build a stealth tower at Rahilly park. Why is it that now they are attempting to put it at another church 1/4 of a mile down the road in another residential area where people do not want it?
Thank You,
Bryant Rodriguez
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Merced -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] 81 From: planningweb
To: Lee, Jessie
Subject: FW: Site Plan Review #544
Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1:36:59 PM
Thanks,
Kayla Abarca
Administrative Assistant II, Planning Department
City of Merced | 678 W. 18th Street | Merced, CA 95340
(209) 385-6954 Direct | (209) 385-6858 Dept Phone
[email protected] | www.cityofmerced.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Verrinder < >
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 9:15 PM
To: planningweb <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Site Plan Review #544
Hello,
As a property owner on I was recently notified of the intention of attempting to put in a cellphone tower on Church of the Nazarene of Merced property adjacent to my backyard. I am opposed. As a good neighbor, I wanted to notify you that I’ve decided to hold private Hardcore music parties every Sunday for hardcore music lovers. It will be loud, very loud, but during appropriate daytime hours. This will be happening every Sunday into the foreseeable future.

Best wishes,
Jason Verrinder
Sent from my iPhone
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Merced -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.]
82 I am a 20 year resident of , representing all the families in the area who will be directly affected by the construction of a cell phone tower on the property of Bear Creek Community Church, adjacent to the homes on my block.

I feel that the city of Merced, ATT, and the owners of the property on which Bear Creek Community Church is situated are all complicit in irresponsible behavior towards our community. It is well-documented and researched that cell phone towers emit dangerous radiation within their vicinity, causing a multitude of health issues. The wireless antennas on the tower emit radio frequency non-ionizing radiation. When these antennas are close to our homes and schools, the daily exposure to radio frequency radiation is increased, contributing to all sorts of maladies. To think that the city of Merced would put families and homeowners at risk is an outrage. Even more egregious is the fact that an elementary school is within very close range of the proposed cell tower. To put the 744 students and 80 staff members of Chenoweth School, directly across the street from the proposed construction site, which would then expose them to radiation on a daily basis, is truly a crime.

Children are more vulnerable to this type of radiation as they absorb it deep into their brains and bodies. A child’s developing brain and organ systems are more sensitive to environmental stressors.

Cell phone tower radiation exposures are continuous – day and night. How can the city even ponder putting such an environmental hazard so close to our homes and schools? The proposed tower will undoubtedly decrease the property values of the homes in the vicinity, in addition to presenting a host of health issues to the residents, school children, and school staff.

Rethink this issue.

Respectfully submitted,
Sheryl Wight
83 84
From: planningweb
To: Lee, Jessie
Subject: FW: Proposed Cell Tower at 1717 East Olive Avenue Date: Thursday, April 18, 2024 4:36:09 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Thanks,
Kayla Abarca
Administrative Assistant II, Planning Department
City of Merced | 678 W. 18th Street | Merced, CA 95340
(209) 385-6954 Direct | (209) 385-6858 Dept Phone
[email protected] | www.cityofmerced.org
From: Ronald Ringstrom < >
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2024 4:34 PM
To: planningweb <[email protected]>
Subject: Proposed Cell Tower at 1717 East Olive Avenue
We are unequivocally opposed to the construction of a 5G cellular phone tower on the property at 1717 East Olive Avenue. The entire area is residential, including our property at . Cell towers have absolutely no place in a residential area.

The proposed site is approximately 0.4 miles (line-of-sight) from our house. There is already a cell tower next to the McKee Fire Station about 0.36 miles (line-of-sight) from our property. Putting two cell towers so close to each other makes zero sense, even if they are operated by two different companies.

It makes no difference that the tower will be camouflaged by a fake tree. It will still be an incredible eyesore that will diminish the property values of all of the residents in the area. AT&T will probably say that their proposed 5G system will not emit signals causing any significant harm to people in the area. That's sales talk. The high frequency radio waves emitted from this site may have very harmful effects to the children attending Chenoweth Elementary School, which is only about 100 feet from the site, as well as all of the residents in the area. We simply do not have enough long-term data available to be assured it will not cause harm. We do not endorse a project having the potential to cause physical harm to residents or to destroy the value of their properties.

We don't care that the church at that location wants to increase its revenue by allowing the proposed cell tower to be built on its property. Their interests are clearly contrary to the interests of residents in the area. We also don't care that AT&T is offering improved reception in the area. AT&T is a commercial enterprise solely motivated by profit.

They don't care about the welfare of the people who live here. I certainly hope the City of Merced will not place the profit-motivated interests of a huge corporation ahead of the safety and welfare of its citizens.

By the way, it is far past time for the City of Merced to increase the notification area for proposed projects. The existing notification radius is far too small. We should have been notified because this monstrosity will affect us.

Thank you for your attention to this email message.

Ron and Claudia Ringstrom
85 From: Andrea Merg < >
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 8:36 AM
To: planningweb <[email protected]>
Subject: Cell tower proposal at Olive and Parsons
Dear Planning Division,
I was notified that a cell tower is being proposed on church property at the corner of Olive and Parsons near Chenoweth Elementary School. I am writing this email to voice my concern about putting this directly in a residential neighborhood and next to an elementary school. We do not know the full effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic waves on human health. The results are inconclusive and require more time in order to understand their long-term effects. In the meantime, there have been several studies that have shown negative effects on human health. In fact, the World Health Organization (WHO) upgraded the classification of radio waves to "possibly carcinogenic to humans" in 2011 (see link and attachment). The fact that this is being proposed in the middle of a residential neighborhood and across the street from an elementary school is appalling! These structures also lower property values. Would you or others that you know like to have a cell tower right behind their backyard? The answer for a vast majority of people is "no"! Please consider alternative locations that are not placed in residential neighborhoods and near schools, and that have good buffer space around the structure to minimize exposure to people in the surrounding area.

WHO link: https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.pdf Thank you,
Andrea Merg
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Merced -- DO NOT CLICK on links or

ATTACHMENT J
86 From: planningweb
To: Lee, Jessie
Subject: FW: Site Plan Review #544
Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 2:02:31 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Thanks,
Kayla Abarca
Administrative Assistant II, Planning Department
City of Merced | 678 W. 18th Street | Merced, CA 95340
(209) 385-6954 Direct |
(209) 385-6858 Dept Phone
[email protected] |
www.cityofmerced.org
From: Bryant Rodriguez < >
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1:53 PM
To: planningweb <[email protected]>
Subject: Site Plan Review #544
Good Afternoon,
My Name is Bryant Rodriguez and I reside at . I am attempting to make my opposition known to this proposal of a 55 ft cell tower. This would be basically in my backyard. I am opposed not only to the potential drop in my home's equity. I am wanting to bring up the potential health issues that could come up. Based on a review of studies published up until 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified RF radiation as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” This is not to mention the complete eye sore this will bring to my backyard that I will have to look at. I am in my backyard constantly whether gardening or playing with my children or just plain relaxing. I do not want to view this. I have spoken to multiple neighbors and they also do not want this. This was already attempted at the Calvary Chapel of Merced located at 1345 E Olive Ave, Merced, CA 95340. This was denied due to opposition and a compromise was that they would build a stealth tower at Rahilly park. Why is it that now they are attempting to put it at another church 1/4 of a mile down the road in another residential area where people do not want it?
Thank You,
Bryant Rodriguez
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Merced -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] 87 From: planningweb
To: Lee, Jessie
Subject: FW: Site Plan Review #544
Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1:36:59 PM
Thanks,
Kayla Abarca
Administrative Assistant II, Planning Department
City of Merced | 678 W. 18th Street | Merced, CA 95340
(209) 385-6954 Direct |(209) 385-6858 Dept Phone
[email protected] |www.cityofmerced.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Verrinder < >
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 9:15 PM
To: planningweb <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Site Plan Review #544
Hello,
As a property owner on I was recently notified of the intention of attempting to put in a cellphone tower on Church of the Nazarene of Merced property adjacent to my backyard. I am opposed. As a good neighbor, I wanted to notify you that I’ve decided to hold private Hardcore music parties every Sunday for hardcore music lovers. It will be loud, very loud, but during appropriate daytime hours. This will be happening every Sunday into the foreseeable future.

Best wishes,
Jason Verrinder
Sent from my iPhone
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Merced -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.]
88 I am a 20 year resident of , representing all the families in the area who will be directly affected by the construction of a cell phone tower on the property of Bear Creek Community Church, adjacent to the homes on my block.

Rethink this issue.

Respectfully submitted,
Sheryl Wight
89 90
From: planningweb
To: Lee, Jessie
Subject: FW: Proposed Cell Tower at 1717 East Olive Avenue Date: Thursday, April 18, 2024 4:36:09 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Thanks,
Kayla Abarca
Administrative Assistant II, Planning Department
City of Merced | 678 W. 18th Street | Merced, CA 95340
(209) 385-6954 Direct |
(209) 385-6858 Dept Phone
[email protected] |
www.cityofmerced.org
From: Ronald Ringstrom < >
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2024 4:34 PM
To: planningweb <[email protected]>
Subject: Proposed Cell Tower at 1717 East Olive Avenue
We are unequivocally opposed to the construction of a 5G cellular phone tower on the property at 1717 East Olive Avenue. The entire area is residential, including our property at . Cell towers have absolutely no place in a residential area.

Thank you for your attention to this email message.

Ron and Claudia Ringstrom
91 From: planningweb
To: Espinosa, Kim; Lee, Jessie
Subject: FW: Site Plan Review #544
Date: Monday, April 22, 2024 11:56:58 AM
From: Amy de Ayora < >
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2024 10:29 AM
To: planningweb <[email protected]>
Subject: Site Plan Review #544
To whom it may concern:

Merced City Site Plan Review Committee,
We live with our four children at , which is located
directly behind the Church of the Nazarene (Bear Creek Community Church). We strongly object to this project for the following reasons:

1. The findings in Section 20.58.070 of the Zoning Code cannot be made. Specifically, subsection (C) requires a showing that “the location for the wireless communication facility minimizes the visibility of the facility from residentially zoned property.” This huge tower will absolutely be visible from our home as well as from the homes of our neighbors; in fact, it will shade our yard, block our views and ruin our property values. Additionally, the City must find that “all reasonable opportunities to locate the facility or to co-locate the facility on an existing structure have been exhausted by the applicant and are not feasible,” and that “sites near the project area, which are poorly suited for other forms of development, are unavailable for use by the wireless communication facility.” (Subsections E and F) Where is the evidence that this analysis occurred? It has not been provided to us. The City cannot act without thoroughly and fairly considering this information.

2. The public notice does not specify which CEQA exemption is being relied upon, so it is impossible to determine if the exemption actually applies to this project. In addition, a categorial exemption will not apply when there are “unusual circumstances” creating the reasonable possibility of significant environmental effects. The construction and operation of a cell phone tower within feet of our home is reasonably possible to have significant aesthetic and public safety (fire) impacts, among others.

We urge you to deny this site plan review. This is simply the wrong location for this project.

Jason and Amy Verrinder
Sent from Outlook
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Merced -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] 92 From: planningweb
To: Lee, Jessie
Subject: FW: Very important - CASE #544
Date: Thursday, April 25, 2024 11:26:11 AM
Attachments: image001.png
From: Nicole de Ayora < >
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2024 11:05 AM
To: planningweb <[email protected]>
Subject: Very important - CASE #544
To whom it may concern:

I am writing to express concern over the proposed cell tower installation at the Bear Creek Community Church. This location is one block away from Chenoweth Elementary School and several family residences.

It is disappointing and alarming that a cell tower would be even considered for a residential neighborhood. Both anecdotal reports and epidemiology studies have found headaches, skin rashes, sleep disturbances, depression, concentration problems, dizziness, memory changes and increased risk of cancer, tremors and other neurophysiological effects in populations near base stations.

Given these highly publicized concerns around health issues associated with cell towers, the 20 to 40 percent reduction in home and land
neurophysiological effects in populations near base stations. Given these highly publicized concerns around health issues associated with cell towers, the 20 to 40 percent reduction in home and land values, the environmental and visual impact, it is unconscionable that it be placed here.

Please conduct some additional research and find a more appropriate location. [NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Merced -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] 93 94
From: planningweb
To: Lee, Jessie
Subject: FW: Site Plan Review #544 - Public Comments
Date: Thursday, April 25, 2024 9:25:54 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Thanks,
Kayla Abarca
Administrative Assistant II, Planning Department
City of Merced | 678 W. 18th Street | Merced, CA 95340
(209) 385-6954 Direct |
(209) 385-6858 Dept Phone
[email protected] |
www.cityofmerced.org
From: Kathy Saetern < >
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2024 9:21 AM
To: planningweb <[email protected]>
Subject: Site Plan Review #544 - Public Comments
In regards to Site Plan Review #544, I am in opposition.

I am in opposition to the building of the 55-ft monopine tower and 8x8 walk-in closet shelter due to fire hazards, declining property value, and possible future health concerns. While there's no strong evidence that they cause any noticeable health effects NOW, I am making note that they are still relatively new. Without strong evidence leaning towards either side that they may or may not cause health concerns, I'd make the smart choice to not risk my life or my family and friends for future research.

Thank you,
Kathy Cravalho
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Merced -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] 95 From: planningweb
To: Lee, Jessie
Subject: FW: ATT&T tower Site application #544
Date: Thursday, April 25, 2024 8:05:48 AM
Attachments: image001.png
From: Joe Brucia < >
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2024 7:42 AM
To: planningweb <[email protected]>
Subject: ATT&T tower Site application #544
My comment.....

I am Joe Brucia and live a few block north from the proposed cell phone tower. I have lived in Merced for over 40 years. I find it hard to believe that the Church of the Nazarine would consider putting a "tree" tower in what amounts to be the backyards of Vickie Court homes. Obviously, there is no "love thy neighbor.".

Historically, the residents of Vickie Court bought the homes knowing that beyond their fences there would never be the equivalent of a 4 story building that they would see every day from their kitchen windows.

There are options within the neighborhood for the ATT&T tree tower. May I suggest Rahilly Park.

The tower would blend with the existing trees. Just across the street of the proposed tower is the vacant land between Chenoweth School and Black Rascal Creek. I believe owned by the Merced City School District. Lots of vacant land in this area that will probably never be developed. A third alternative is the City firehouse area at Davenport Park. Lots of open space. In closing, I would hope the City has not told ATT&T "Not in our open space, try some one's...... backyard." Respectfully submitted,
Joe Brucia
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Merced -- DO NOT CLICK on links or 96 (209) 722-5761 744 West 20th Street Merced, California 95344-0288 Administration / FAX (209) 722-6421 • Finance / FAX (209) 722-1457 • Water Resources / FAX (209) 726-4176 Energy Resources / FAX (209) 726-7010 • Customer Service (209) 722-3041 / FAX (209) 722-1457 April 8, 2024
Kayla Abarca, Administrative Assistant II
City of Merced, Planning Division
678 West 18th Street
Merced, CA 95340
Re: Site Plan Review #544
Ms. Abarca,
The Merced Irrigation District (MID) has reviewed the above referenced Site Plan and offers the following comment:

1. MID operates and maintains the Bradley B Lateral Pipeline lying adjacent to the southernly line of the subject property within a 24-foot-wide fee strip as described in the deed recorded in Vol. 2838 of Deeds, at Page 55, Merced County Records.

MID respectfully requests that the City require, as conditions of approval, the following:

1. The property owner shall execute an Encroachment Agreement with MID for any proposed improvements lying within the MID fee strip and pay all associated MID fees.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above referenced application. If you have any questions, please contact me at 354-2882.

Sincerely,
Mike Morris PLS
Survey Project Manager
97 From: Randy Fontes
To: planningweb
Subject: Site Plan Review #544
Date: Monday, April 22, 2024 1:12:04 PM
I am opposed to the AT&T tower proposed for this site. The entire surrounding area is predominately residential. A 55ft. cell tower would be unsightly in our neighborhood. As I live directly across the street, it would be in plain view from all my front windows.

I also would question what effect it may have on our property values.

Randal & Dabby Fontes
Merced, CA 95340
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Merced -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] 98 From: planningweb
To: Espinosa, Kim; Lee, Jessie
Subject: FW: Site Plan Review Item #544
Date: Monday, April 22, 2024 8:01:12 AM
From: Salazar, Regina < >
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2024 4:53 PM
To: planningweb <[email protected]>
Subject: Site Plan Review Item #544
This email is regarding the cell tower being placed next door to Chenoweth school. As a parent and long time employee of the school district I strongly oppose this happening. The childrens health and well being is of the utmost importance and I strongly believe this will compromise both of those for all the scholars at the school.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
Gina Salazar
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system administrator. Please note any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Merced City Elementary School District.

Finally, the recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The District accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email. [NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Merced -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] 99 From: planningweb
To: Lee, Jessie
Subject: FW: Site Plan review #544
Date: Thursday, April 25, 2024 8:06:40 AM
Attachments: ~WRD0000.jpg
image001.png
Thanks,
Kayla Abarca
Administrative Assistant II, Planning Department
City of Merced | 678 W. 18th Street | Merced, CA 95340
(209) 385-6954 Direct |
(209) 385-6858 Dept Phone
[email protected] |
www.cityofmerced.org
From: Sandra Lupercio < >
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2024 8:44 PM
To: planningweb <[email protected]>
Subject: Site Plan review #544
Hello, my husband Jorge and I own our home at .. We are opposed to the At&t tower being built in the field right across the street from our house. That would literally take our view of the sky away as that would be what we would see right when we walk out our front door. Also, we have a special needs son that has epilepsy and seizures, so the radiation no matter to what degree would not be good for his health. Not to mention the hundreds of school kids that play daily right across the street about 250 ft away from the proposed tower. My last concern would be all of our property value. I am a Realtor and the cell tower would lower the value of all of our homes approximately 20%, I don't know about you, but when your home is your retirement or what you would leave to your kids, possibly losing $100,000 would be detrimental. We DO NOT want this tower being built here, there are so many other options close by that are not that close to homes. ex.Yosemite Ave and Parsons, Yosemite and Gardner, McKee and Olive, Lake and Yosemite. Thank you for your time and consideration.
--
Thank You
Sandra Lupercio
REALTOR® |
C:

W:
100
101
From: planningweb
To: Lee, Jessie
Subject: FW: Conditional Use Permit #1277 (Formerly Plan Review Permit #544) Date: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 10:30:04 AM
Attachments: image001.png
From: Jason Verrinder
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 3:38 PM
To: planningweb <[email protected]>
Subject: Conditional Use Permit #1277 (Formerly Plan Review Permit #544) To whom it may concern,
I am the homeowner at . I am against the proposed cell tower at the Church of the Nazarene. I would like to request the environmental checklist and/or other documentation supporting the Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt a CEQA Categorical Exemption for Conditional Use Permit #1277. The material is difficult to locate on the City’s website. The permit is for the installation of a cellular transmission tower. I understand that a public hearing related to said permit will be on July 3, 2024, the final day of the public review period. I plan to attend this hearing and have the following questions which I hope to have answered and included in the record:
· What other viable sites or alternatives were considered for tower placement? · What made the current location the preferred alternative? · Why is a public hearing being held on the final day of the public review period, before a national holiday?
· Can the public review period be extended? If not, why not? · Per the request above, is supporting documentation available for the CEQA CE related to conditional use permit #1277?
· Is the City planning to circulate an environmental document if public opposition warrants further input consistent with CCR §15102 and §15202? 102
· Can the conditional use permit be withdrawn after the close of the public review period if project scope, public concern, or other issues arise? Thank you,
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Merced -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] 103
104
From: Sherri Morris
To: planningweb
Subject: CUP#1277
Date: Monday, July 1, 2024 12:49:02 PM
>
> I am opposed to CUP #1277 of a Monopone cell tower initiated by AT&T at the Church of the Nazarene at 1717 E. Olive Ave.
>
> This location is at the back of my residential property line. If I look out my windows the tower will be in view.

The design of a monopine tower isnt appealing. There are no other trees in the area that it will blend in with. >
> I don’t feel the Church of the Nazarene or Merced planning commission has properly notified all residents in the surrounding area regarding the proposed tower site.
> I have not received any notifications regarding the CUP or previous hearing. I was informed by neighbors on multiple days after a previous hearing.
>
> Don B. Chenoweth school is across the street from the proposed location. Have “All” the parents of attending students been notified so they may be given an opportunity to voice their opinions? >
> The cell tower will impose a negative effect on residents heath based on numerous studies of these towers located close to residential areas.
> It will also negatively effect homes values due to the proximity to the tower for health and esthetic reasons. > I am opposed to having the tower errected close to my residential area. >
>
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Merced -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.]
105
From: Andrew Lesa
To: Bennyhoff, Jeff
Cc: MILESI, BRYANT A; OLSON, NELS L; Ashley Smith; MCCLOSKEY, DANIEL; Carl Jones; Quintero, Frank; Lee, Jessie; McBride, Scott
Subject: Re: AT&T Cell Tower Placement (CPU1277) : Resident Communication Date: Tuesday, July 2, 2024 1:59:25 PM
Attachments: Outlook-ugydd1uu
Good Afternoon Mr. Bennyhoff:

AT&T forwarded your communication requesting additional information regarding the AT&T proposed cell facility at 1717 E Olive Ave (CUP#1277). My office, under the lead of Carl Jones (copied), has been working on this project in an effort to address a lack of coverage in the City of Merced.

AT&T's goal is to fill a significant gap in coverage and improve cell service to this area of the City of Merced. My office, on behalf of AT&T, evaluated many properties to find the least intrusive means to fill the significant gap in coverage. Those alternative sites were detailed in the "Alternative Sites Analysis" provided to the Planning Department with our formal CUP application submittal.

I can confirm the City did NOT direct my office or AT&T to propose a new cell facility at the current location. This location was determined after substantial research. As you know, cell facilities must meet strict placement and design guidelines outlined in City Ordinances as well as meet the coverage objective of AT&T. Additionally, the site must have a willing landlord, adequate space for construction and access, a clean title, and pose no negative environmental impacts. It was only after proper due diligence that the proposed site location was identified as the best and least intrusive means to fill this significant gap in coverage.

Carl Jones will be attending and representing AT&T during tomorrow evening's meeting.

Please let me know if you have any additional questions we can help address.

Thank you.

Andrew Lesa, Vice President - Operations
Epic Wireless Group LLC
605 Coolidge Drive, Suite 100, Folsom, CA 95630
530.368.2357
[email protected]
106
From: Bennyhoff, Jeff <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2024 11:26 AM
To: MILESI, BRYANT A <[email protected]>
Cc: McBride, Scott <[email protected]>; Quintero, Frank <[email protected]>; Lee, Jessie <[email protected]> Subject: AT&T Cell Tower Placement (CPU1277) : Resident Communication Bryant, We had several resident complains last night at our Council Meetings about AT&T plans for construction of a cell tower in the community located at 1717 E Olive Ave (CUP#1277). The resident’s stated AT&T was told by the Bryant,
We had several resident complains last night at our Council Meetings about AT&T plans for construction of a cell tower in the community located at 1717 E Olive Ave (CUP#1277). The resident’s stated AT&T was told by the City to place the tower at this location. We don’t believe this is an accurate statement and we want to make sure residents have clear communication over how the location of this tower is decided. We would like to find out additional information before July 3rd planning commission as this item is on the agenda. Please let me know if you can get us additional information or have a conversation over this item. I have attached the AT&T Alternative Site Analysis document for reference from this agenda item. As I do not directly deal with cell towers within the I.T. Department, I am cc’ing the City Manager, Deputy City Manager, and Jessie Lee, who is bringing this item before the planning commission.

Planning commission Item : https://cityofmerced.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx? ID=6735179&GUID=04E57C71-88F4-4E14-83BD-1AF782EAEF48&Options=&Search= Jeff Bennyhoff
Director of Information Technology
City of Merced | 678 W. 18th Street | Merced, CA 95340
209-385-6829 | www.cityofmerced.org
Bryant Milesi
AT&T Director - External Affairs
1215 K Street, Suite 1800 Sacramento, CA 95814
m 916.947.9046 | [email protected]
City of Merced records, including emails, are subject to the California Public Records Act. Unless exemptions apply, this email, any attachments and any replies are subject to disclosure on request, and neither the sender nor any recipients should have any expectation of privacy regarding the contents of such communications. The City of Merced shall not be responsible for any claims, losses or damages resulting from the use of digital data that may be contained in this email. [NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Merced -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] 107
108
NOTICE OF EXEMPTION _________
To: ____ Office of Planning and Research From: (Public Agency) P.O. Box 3044 City of Merced
Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 678 West 18th St.

Merced, CA 95340
X County Clerk
County of Merced
2222 M Street
Merced, CA 95340
Project Title: Conditional Use Permit Application #1277 (Environmental Review #24-10)
Project Applicant: Carl Jones, AT&T Mobility
Project Location (Specific): 1717 E. Olive Ave APN: 008-060-057 Project Location - City: Merced Project Location - County: Merced Description of Nature, Purpose, and Beneficiaries of Project: To install a 55-foot-tall stealth mono-pine wireless communication tower.

Name of Public Agency Approving Project: City of Merced Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: Carl Jones, AT&T Mobility Exempt Status: (check one)
___ Ministerial (Sec. 21080(b)(1); 15268);
___ Declared Emergency (Sec. 21080(b)(3); 15269(a));
___ Emergency Project (Sec. 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c));
_X_Categorical Exemption. State Type and Section Number: _15332/15303(d)_____ ___ Statutory Exemptions. State Code Number: ____________________.

General Rule (Sec. 15061 (b)(3))
Reasons why Project is Exempt: As defined under the above referenced Section, the proposed project is considered an in-fill project. The project location is within the City limits on a parcel less than 5-acres in size, and is surrounded by urban uses. The site can be served by all required utilities and public services, and the project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. No significant effects resulting from traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality will result from the construction of the building. The project is consistent with the City of Merced General Plan and Zoning regulations.

The proposed project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). This exemption provides for the construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures. This includes water main, sewage, electrical, gas, and other utility extensions (State CEQA Guidelines Class 3 15303(d). The proposed construction of wireless telecommunication facilities can be considered a utility extension.
109
110
Condition
Use Permit #1277
Submitted by AT&T Mobility55-foot-tall stealth mono-pine 1717 E. Olive Avenue
111

ATTACHMENT M
Presentation
Background Relevant Land Use Polices Location Map Site Plan & Elevations 112
Background
Project originally went to the Site Plan Review Meeting on 4/25/2024.
Due to interface review a Public Hearing was held;
where 15 speakers spoke against this project.
Due to community interest, the Site Plan Review
Committee voted to refer this item to the Planning Commission (per MMC 20.68.050C2) 113
Relevant Land Use Policies:
The project complies with the General Plan
designation of Low Density Residential and Zoning classification of (R-1-6). The maximum height of a structure allowed within the
R-1-6 Zone is 35-feet. The Municipal Code (MMC 20.58.2) allows a Stealth Wireless Communication Facility and Antenna over 140% of height limit with the approval of a land use permit. Stealth facilities are intended to blend-in with the
surrounding environment. Some examples include wireless towers disguised as trees or flagpoles. The communication tower would not block any of the
scenic corridors identified in the General Plan (Policy OS-1.3.B) 114
Chenoweth
Elementary
School
Subject Site
Single-Family Residential RPD #19
Single-Family Residential R-1-6
Single-Family Residential R-1-6
Bear Creek Community Church of Nazarene
115
Proposed Tower to
be located on ground level, on the northeast quadrant of the subject site Tower Equipment to
be located inside a 6-foot-tall soundproof fence.

SITE PLAN
CHURCH

PARKINGS
379 FT.
128 FT.
48 FT.
116
• Stealth Mono-pine Tower
Design
• Height of structure is 55ft.• Antennas shall be
painted green to blend in (Condition #13).
• Ancillary cabinet ground
equipment. Will be enclosed by a 6-foot-tall
sound-proof fence.
60’55’
20’
48’
117
View from E.

Olive Ave.
118
View from
Parsons Ave.
119
View from
Evette Ct.
120
View from
Kimberly Ave.
121
View from
Teak Ave.
122
Conditions Related to
Design Standards Maximum height of equipment shall not exceed 55 feet. The lowest branch shall be a maximum of 20’ above the ground. Maximum 18” between branches. No steps, ladders, or pegs protruding from the side of the tower. The color shall be consistent with a Pine tree (i.e., green leaves, brown trunk).
Applicant shall provide an Engineer’s report certifying the Radio Frequency Radiation (RFR) measurements meet Federal Communication Commission (FCC) standards. A frequency/inter-modulation study shall be provided and approved by the Police and Fire Departments.
123
Findings
The project site complies with the General Plan
designation of Low Density Residential (LD), and the zoning classification of Low Density Residential (R-1-6) with approval of this conditional use permit. Per
Merced Municipal Code Land Use Table 20.58-2 –
Review Procedures for Support Towers for Wireless Communication Facilities, a site plan review permit is required for stealth facilities within an R-1-6 Zone that are over 140% of the maximum height allowed within this zone. However, because the site plan review committee is referring this request to the Planning Commission, the land use permit required is now a conditional use permit. 124
Findings
According to Section 332 ( C ) ( 7 ) of the Federal
Telecommunication Act, local governments may not(1) prohibit or effectively prohibit personal wireless service (2) unreasonably discriminate among providersof functionally equivalent service providers, (3) regulate personal wireless service facilities based onthe environmental effects from radio frequency emission to the extent such emission meets FFC
Guidelines.
In addition, the radio frequency emission of the
proposed cell tower will meet FCC guidelines(Attachment G of Planning Commission Staff Report #24-552).
125
Reason for Request
The communication tower will be used by AT&T Mobility to improve local LTE coverage for the area and FirstNet (Federal Responder Network Authority).

EXISTING PROPOSED
126
Other Stealth Towers
Approved
Stealth Towers Approved Behind the Fire Station on Loughborough Drive (85 Ft. Tall).
Behind In-Shape on G Street (85 Ft. Tall). Behind the Food Bank on Olive Avenue (90 Ft. Tall).
Next to Simply Space on Yosemite
Avenue (75 Ft. Tall).
127
Public Hearing
Notice A public hearing
notice was mailed out to property owners within the 300-foot radius of the subject site including 15 residents that spoke at the Site Plan Review meeting of 4/25/2024. 128
Public Comments
Site Plan Review – Staff received 15 emails, and 9
voicemails in opposition, and 1 email in support of the project. At the meeting, there were 15 speakers in opposition to the project. Planning Commission – Staff has not received any
public comments as of today 6/13/2024.
129
Conditions
Condition #8 At the time of building permit submittal, the applicant shall provide certification by a Radio Frequency Engineer, stating the RFR measurements and that they meet FCC radio frequency radiation standards. Condition #9 The applicant shall work with the Merced Regional Airport and comply with all of their requirements for this type of structure and obtain all proper permits. Said requirements may include, but are not limited to, obtaining approval from the Airport Land Use Commission, or showing proof of submitting an FAA Form 7460-1 to the FAA. Condition #10 The maximum overall height of the “Mono-Pine” stealth facility shall not exceed 55 feet. Antennas mounted to the stealth facility shall not be mounted higher than 60 feet in height. Condition #13 The color of the Mono-Pine shall match that of a real pine tree. These colors tend to be green (leaves) and brown (bark) and shall be consistently maintained. The antennas and any mounting equipment shall be painted to match the colors of the “tree.” Condition #21 Any noise generated by the facility from the equipment or the tower shall be kept to a minimum, so as not to cause a nuisance to the neighborhood. 130
Planning Commission Action
Approve/Disapprove/Modify Environmental Review #24-10 Conditional Use Permit #1277 131

City Council/Public Finance and Economic Development Authority/Parking AuthorityJanuary 6, 2025

City Council/Public Finance and Economic Development Authority/Parking Authority
January 6, 2025