PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF 01/26/04

2003-0753 - Nextel Communications [Applicant] Crown Castle International [Owner] - Application for a Use Permit on a 2.9-acre site to allow a sixth co-location of twelve panel antennae on 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)

Christine Cannizzo, Project Planner, presented the staff report.  She summarized the proposed co-location and Use Permit history. She reported that the Commission recently approved a co-location but was appealed to City Council because of the condition requiring that the monopole be replaced with a higher and camouflaged monopole.  The City Council overturned the Commission's condition and approved the Use Permit with the existing monopole without the camouflage requirement on 12/15/03.  Staff also noted that the AT&T equipment will have an overall height of 15 feet which would be visible from the 6-foot fence but no significant visual impact. She recommended Condition of Approval #15 to mitigate this impact to state "an equipment screen that is visually compatible with the surrounding shall be installed to conceal the equipment located at the base of the monopole from view.  The design of the screen shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to the issuance of the Building permit.  Staff reported that the application complies with the Wireless Telecommunications Ordinance.  Staff was able to make the required Findings and recommended adopting the Negative Declaration and approving the Use Permit as conditioned.

Comm. Simons asked clarification from staff whether Condition of Approval #4 was also required of every antenna user to renew every five years; therefore an antennae will be subject to renewal in the next two years and almost every year thereafter.  Ms. Ryan responded that some of the antennas were installed prior to the Telecommunications Ordinance and only four of the existing antennas are subject to the five-year renewal.  There are two antennas spaced out for a period of over a couple of years.  She added that the five-year renewal is at the staff level review.

Comm. Hungerford asked staff whether the five-year permit renewal would give an opportunity to review whether the application still meets the required Findings when residential properties are developed around this site. Ms. Ryan responded that the five-year renewal is to ensure that most up-to-date and aesthetically pleasant facilities are being provided.  She added that FCC is fairly restrictive on what the city could mandate and once the antennas are there, the pole can essentially remain but would need to upgrade the equipment to meet current standards.

Chair Babcock opened the public hearing.

David Naye, applicant/Nextel representative, availed himself to the Commission. He stated that his company conducted a due diligence process for the best site available. He He stated that the site is the best site to provide the coverage and the most compliant meeting City ordinance.  He added that using this site, Nextel would be able to provide cellular coverage in the downtown area which is currently not available to Nextel users.

Chair Babcock closed the public hearing.

Comm. Hungerford made a motion on Item #2003-0753 to adopt the Negative Declaration and approve the Use Permit with additional Condition of Approval #15 to state that "an equipment screen that is visually compatible with the surrounding neighborhood shall be installed to conceal the equipment located at the base of the monopole from view.  The design of the screen shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to the issuance of the Building permit".  Comm. Fussell seconded.

Comm. Hungerford commented that during his site visit he concluded that the pole would not be visible from other surrounding uses. He felt that the site is the best place for the pole and that he was able to make the required Findings.

Comm. Fussell, agreed with Comm. Hungerford.  He stated that during he site visit, he concurred that the existing monopole is not visible and is the best site for the pole.

Vice Chair Moylan agreed with the maker and the second. However, he was unable to make the required Finding #5. He felt that the proposal is not aesthetically feasible.  He still wants the owner to have the pole camouflaged.  He did not support the motion.

Comm. Simons offered a friendly amendment for the applicant to have an agreement with the owner to share in the expense requirement for future aesthetic enhancements.  Accepted by the maker and the second.

Comm. Simons agreed with Vice Chair Moylan.  He commented that he wished he had the foresight years ago to impose this condition to allow leverage in improving the aesthetics of the antenna and to have less of a burden on the last user for improvements.  He supported the motion.

Chair Babcock supported the motion.  She was pleased with the added Condition of Approval giving a chance to improve the aesthetics in the future.

FINAL MOTION:

Comm. Hungerford made a motion on Item #2003-0753 to adopt the Negative Declaration and approve the Use Permit with modifications: 1) add Condition of Approval #15 to state that "an equipment screen that is visually compatible with the surrounding neighborhood shall be installed to conceal the equipment located at the base of the monopole from view.  The design of the screen shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to the issuance of the Building permit" and 2) that the applicant enter into an agreement with the property owner to share in any expense requirement relative to future pole aesthetic enhancements required by the Director of Community Development.  Comm. Fussell seconded.

Motion carried 6-1 with Vice Chair Moylan dissenting.

 Ms. Ryan stated that the decision is final unless to the City Council within the 15-day appeal period.