2004-0471 - Velocitel [Applicant] Birchwood Properties, Llc [Owner]: Application for a Use Permit on a 23,914 square-foot site to allow the co-location of six panel antennas on an existing 90-foot monopole and associated ground equipment.  The property is located at 1259 Birchwood Drive on an M-S (Industrial & Service) Zoning District. (Negative Declaration) (APN: 104-29-003) RK

Ryan Kuchenig, Project Planner, presented the staff report.  He highlighted the use, site layout and permit history. He noted the applicant’s proposal of six antennas would be positioned 58 feet from the existing antennas.  He further noted the applicant’s concerns that staff’s requirement of flush mounted antennas would decrease antenna capability and would limit future co-location. Staff was able to make the required Findings and recommended approval of the Use Permit subject to Conditions of Approval.

Chair Moylan opened the public hearing.

Howard Yee, applicant on behalf of AT&T Wireless, agreed with the Conditions of Approval.  He commented that it is more desirable to have flush mounted antennas in addition to them being less visible. He asked for clarification about Condition of Approval #5 on the five-year review of the Use Permit.

Gerri Caruso, Principal Planner, responded that the condition is in accordance with the Municipal Code.

Chair Moylan closed the public hearing.

Gerri Caruso, Principal Planner, clarified that the five year review is conducted at a staff level to give an opportunity to improve the visual nature of antennas.

Chair Moylan offered to clarify whether the third modification should state that the approval of the co-location is contingent upon replacing or incorporating a camouflage design to the existing monopole.  Comm. Simons agreed with the clarification.

Comm. Simons commented that he likes the ability of minimizing the number of monopoles and improving the coverage, performance and aesthetics of existing antennas with a camouflaged monopole.

Comm. Klein agreed with Comm. Simons.  He added that the added antennas would be beneficial and was pleased with the camouflaged design. He was pleased with the added cellular phone coverage.

Chair Moylan supported the motion.  He clarified that the requirement of changing the appearance of the monopole is on the owner of the pole and not on the applicant.  He stated that clearly the monopole is visible from a freeway therefore he was unable to make this required Findings.   However, with the added condition of a camouflage design monopole, which mitigates this visibility, he supported the motion.