2003-0493 - AT&T Wireless [Applicant] Crown Castle International [Owner]: Application for a Use Permit to allow a six-panel antenna addition to an existing monopole. The property is located at 375 North Pastoria Avenue in an M-S (Industrial & Service) Zoning District. (APN: 165-30-019) (Negative Declaration)

Ryan Kuchenig, Project Planner, presented the staff report. He gave a brief summary of the proposed project highlighting the use, site layout and landscaping. He noted that the applicant conducted a site analysis and determined that the proposed site the best meets their needs. He reported that staff did not receive any negative comments from the public. Staff was able to make the required Findings and recommended approval of the Use Permit.

Comm. Hungerford asked for clarification on Condition of Approval #6 and what "RF" stands for. Staff responded that the "RF" stands for "Radio Frequency" and the condition is based on the FAA requirements and standards.

Comm. Simons asked if staff explored the potential use of "stealth" antenna. Staff responded the staff and the applicant explored the idea but the design would not function properly to meet the applicant's needs.

Comm. Simons commented on antenna farms that he would like to see efforts to antenna blight. Gerri Caruso, Principal Planner, responded that the code defined antenna farm to be multiple poles and was written to be more restrictive for residential areas.

Comm. Simons stated that the height of the monopole appears to be an antenna farm and could potentially become one. Ms. Caruso responded that the providers need to be competitive and the option to meet the technological needs is to have more monopoles in the City.

Comm. Simons further noted that tall monopoles could potentially allow more than five or six antennas. R. Kuchenig responded that staff explored several options with the applicant. The reason the applicant conducted the site analysis was to determine if the proposed application is the best alternative.

Vice Chair Moylan asked staff whether increased pole height meets the beacon requirement and if the applicant could potentially use camouflage antennas. Ms. Ryan suggested that the applicant should be consulted.

Comm. Chu asked about the extended arms and the technological needs of the applicant. Staff deferred the question to the applicant.

Marian Miller, consultant for ATT and Crown Castle, addressed the questions about flush antennas stating that it was discussed with staff and because of the number of carriers in the monopole, it is necessary to go higher to separate from the others but was unable to do so. She noted that her clients would like to meet the aesthetic requirements and therefore painting the antennas similar to existing monopole is proposed. She also noted that the extensions are only three feet which is closer to the pole and less obtrusive than other antennas.

Vice Chair Moylan commented that the pole is already gigantic and now is the time to have poles be made more aesthetically pleasing.

Chair Babcock asked Vice Chair Moylan for clarification on height. Vice Chair Moylan made no height recommendation.

Comm. Simons commented that the proposed pole has come to the Planning Commission multiple time with the antenna additions and mostly flush mounted and he prefers to have a more aesthetically pleasing poles and antennas.

Comm. Swegles requested to have to re-open the public hearing.

Comm. Lee offered a friendly amendment to modify the stealth requirements to "he applicant shall provide details of the camouflage design to be approved by the Director of Community Development." he amendment was accepted by both the maker and the second.

Comm. Swegles asked the applicant the if the condition would be amenable to her clients. Ms. Miller responded that she will have to bring it back to AT&T. She added that she has looked at two nearby high technology buildings and they are not available and that the best alternative location is the proposed site. Further, she stated that the added condition may not be economically feasible to her clients and may have to look for other locations.

Comm. Moylan stated that the added condition is intended for the owner of the pole and not for AT&T.