COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM FULLERTON CITY HALL
THURSDAY, 9:00 A.M., April 15, 2004
| CALL TO ORDER:||Chairperson Rosen called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m. |
| COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:||Mullis, Rosen, Tabatabaee, Thompson, and Wallin |
| COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:||Becerra |
| STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:||Eastman, Kusch, Mizokami, and Norton |
| OTHERS PRESENT: ||Al Gamboa, AT&T Wireless; Frank Higham, Resident, and Charles Stinnett, Applicant and Property Owner. |
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
April 8, 2004 approved as written.
INTRODUCTIONS - COMMITTEE AND STAFF MEMBERS:
PRJ04-00252 ZON04-00032. APPLICANT: AL GAMBOA; PROPERTY OWNER: CALIFORNIA COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES.
A request to allow an unmanned wireless telecommunications facility consisting of four (4) equipment cabinets, three (3) sectors of two (2) antennas per sector, one (1) digital panel, one (1) GPS antenna to be mounted on the roof of the structure on property located at 4128 West Commonwealth Avenue (south side of Commonwealth Avenue, approximately 270 feet west of commonwealth and Edward Avenues) (C-H zone) (Categorically exempt under Section 15301 of CEQA Guidelines). (SM)
Planning Intern Mizokami explained that this proposal is for a roof-mounted facility consisting of three sectors, two antennas per sector, one digital panel, one GPS antenna, and four equipment cabinets. Both the equipment and the antennas would be located at the rear of the property. The antenna screening would extend 5 feet above the parapet wall. Mr. Gamboa, has requested that this request be postponed in order to clarify pending issues.
Mr. Gamboa said he would like to take the opportunity to circulate photo simulations of the site. He noted a discrepancy between the photo simulations and the plans. The building has an offset portion on the face (rear side) that does not go straight across, while the plans show that portion as flat. The photo simulation is accurate.
MOTION made SECONDED, and CARRIED by all members present, to CONTINUE Item No. PRJ04-00252 ZON04-00032 to May 6, 2004.
PRJ04-00250 ZON04-00031. APPLICANTS: AL GAMBOA AND SHANNON KILGORE; PROPERTY OWNER: GILBERT STORAGE INVESTORS.
A request to allow the co-location of an unmanned telecommunications facility, adding four (4) outdoor equipment cabinets, six (6) flat panel antennas and one (1) GPS antenna to an existing 56-0 high monopole, on property located at 530 North Gilbert Street (east side of Gilbert Street, between Moore and Raymer Avenues, approximately 350 feet south of Gilbert Street and Moore Avenue) (M-G zone) (Categorically exempt under Section 15301 of CEQA Guidelines) (AK).
Assistant Planner Kusch stated that this is a request to co-locate an unmanned telecommunications facility that includes four outdoor equipment cabinets, six flat panel antennas, one GPS antenna to an existing 56-0 high monopole.
Mr. Gamboa stated that he would like to postpone this request in order to clarify pending issues. However, he would like to get the Committees comments on the location of the equipment in relation to the building. Committee Member Thompson asked that the applicant verify the distance from the corner of the building to the equipment, it appears to be 22-feet. Twenty feet is the required distance for fire access. Committee Member Tabatabaee said that there must be a 4-foot clearance from the exiting system. Committee Member Wallin said he was not familiar with GPS antennas are they something new, and asked what type of emergency power would be used. Mr. Gamboa stated that all antennas within the last few years have incorporated GPS antennas because of the federally mandated Unite 911 Project for location emergency service abilities; the other reason is there is a whole industry developing of location-based services. In regard to the emergency power, the generator usually has two back-up batteries and the location should be noted on the plans. Committee Member Thompson said that a fire extinguisher would be needed.
The Committee had only two issues 1) verification of dimensional clearance between the corner of the building to the equipment, and the difference of the required clearance from the stairwell to the exiting system.
MOTION made SECONDED, and CARRIED unanimously by all members present, to CONTINUE PRJ04-00250 ZON04-00031 to May 6, 2004.
PRJ04-00276 ZON04-00037. APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER: CHARLES STINNETT.
A request for a 20% reduction in the required side yard setback, from 10 feet to 8 feet, to allow for a garage addition, on property located at 1217 Miramar Drive (approximately 220 feet south of Miramar and Skyline Drives) (R-1-20 zone) (Categorically exempt under Section 15305 of CEQA Guidelines) (SM)
Planning Intern Mizokami explained that this request was previously approved for a 20% reduction in the front yard setback to increase storage space in the garage, but at this time he has opted to expand the garage along the side instead, in lieu of the previous request. The house meets all other development standards.
Mr. Stinnett stated that when he bought the home three years ago and had it inspected, he learned that the previous owner had poured concrete in the garage on top of the existing slab making the floor level with the living area. When it rained, the water had a tendency to backup creating a drainage problem. He explained that in the process of enlarging the garage, he hopes to improve the drainage at the same time.
Since the prior request and extension of time for a 20% reduction in the required front yard setback is still valid, the Committee advised Mr. Stinnett that he must choose either the front yard or the side yard but cannot do both at the same time without applying for a new application. This is because the plans do not reflect the previous front yard setback reduction, and todays request would approve the side yard setback reduction only, as shown on the plans. Committee Member Wallin asked Mr. Stinnett if he would object to a condition limiting his addition to either the rear yard or the side yard. Mr. Stinnett said he would not have a problem with that condition, and that it is his intention to expand along the side of the garage rather than along the front. The Committee supported the request with the following condition: The applicant may choose either a rear yard or a side yard setback reduction to allow a garage addition, but cannot do both requests at the same time without the benefit of a new application
MOTION made SECONDED, and CARRIED unanimously by all members present, to APPROVE PRJ04-00276 ZON04-00037 as conditioned. (RESOLUTION NO. 364)
There is a 10-day appeal period where any action by this Committee can be appealed to the Planning Commission and ultimately to the City Council. The request may be approved subject to conditions. Minutes of the hearing and a Resolution will be prepared.
PRJ04-00274 ZON04-00035. APPLICANT: AL GAMBOA; PROPERTY OWNER: MARIPOSA VENTURES, LLP.
A request to construct, operate and maintain an unmanned wireless telecommunication facility consisting of four (4) equipment cabinets and three (3) sectors of two (2) antennas per sector, one (1) data panel and one (1) GPS antenna, on property located at 1031 Rosecrans Avenue (approximately 122 feet west of Rosecrans and Euclid Avenues) (C-2 zone) (Categorically exempt under Section 15301 of CEQA Guidelines). (AK).
The applicant, Mr. Al Gamboa indicated that photographic simulations were not yet available. Mr. Gamboa said the proposed antennas would be located on the roof of the building with associated equipment within the building. Staff indicated that there is some concern with AT&Ts approach to providing concealment for the antennas in terms of architectural consistency. The proposal would replicate the buildings Spanish roof tile as an architectural link between the existing building and the proposed structures screening the antenna. Staff thought that the height of the proposed structures would be too obtrusive. Mr. Gamboa was willing to entertain a marginal setback from the side of the building or redesign the crown of the structure. He indicated that there are technical requirements that require placement of the antenna at the southeastern corner of the building. The further the antenna is setback from the side of the building, the more obscure the reception of the antenna.
Committee Member Mullis asked if there was a reason the height of the structure is limited to 10-0. Mr. Gamboa believed that the Citys telecommunications ordinance restricted the height above the roof. Associate Planner Eastman thought the proposal is breaking the horizontal line and rhythm of the building. Setting it further back would be one recommendation. The best option might be to modify the structure by incorporating it into the architecture so that it becomes less intrusive. Mr. Gamboa indicated that the two proposed roof elements is an attempt to provide architectural symmetry to the building.
Assistant Planner Kusch asked the applicant if he had investigated the possibility of incorporating the proposed antennas within the existing pole sign located on the property. Mr. Gamboa indicated that there appeared to be a problem with incorporating the antennas into the pole sign given the existing language of the sign ordinance. He was not sure how the existing sign ordinance interrelated with the telecommunications ordinance. The existing sign is not tall enough to accommodate the proposed antenna. Associate Planner Eastman indicated that the telecommunication Code says you cannot affix signage to a monopole. If the monopole was in a sign, as opposed to affixing a sign to a monopole, then it is a matter of interpretation of the Code. Chairman Rosen indicated that he would not have a problem with integrating the antenna into a sign. He would have a problem if, as a result of the installation of the antenna, the sign exceeded the allowable height limit. The intent of the Code was to set back ground-mounted monopoles or stand-alone facilities away from the arterial streets and not stealthed facilities. If there is a preference to not incorporate the antenna on the sign for technical reasons that is a different issue. If a concern is a Code interpretation, then we are willing to make the interpretation in favor of the proposal. Mr. Gamboa indicated that the sign would have to be increased in height by 10-15 feet to accommodate technical requirements of the antenna. Associate Planner Eastman indicated that then there would be a conflict with sign code issues. Chairman Rosen stated that the signage would not be going higher, just the two supporting poles, so there may not be a Code violation. Mr. Gamboa stated that the antennas on the sign could be canisters that would be flush with the poles and typically on the interior of the poles. He stated a concern that if AT&T were to do something that is non-standard, then the proposal would not be a simple discretionary decision by staff, but an item that would require a major planning case. Committee Member Wallin requested a photo simulation of the sign incorporating the antennas.
Committee Member Mullis suggested to the applicant instead of looking at the Code at this point, begin thinking outside of the box and think in terms of staffs goals of pretending that the antenna is nonexistent. Chairman Rosen stated that the antenna stealthed in a creative way within an existing sign is a preferred solution than placing a couple of boxes on the existing building. He indicated that he was willing to work with the Code interpretation. He did not want to create something that is out of compliance with the existing Code.
Assistant Planner Kusch reported that a site visit of the property revealed a trailer occupying parking spaces at the northwest corner of the property. He indicated that he was not sure if the applicant should address removal of the trailer, or if it was an issue to be addressed by the Citys Code Enforcement Division. Chairman Rosen indicated that there was a need to have a conversation with the property owner.
Chairman Rosen asked the applicant, if the sign alternative was pursued, where the telecommunications equipment would be located. Mr. Gamboa indicated that the equipment would be placed in the building or at the base of the sign. Chairman Rosen stated that a decorative enclosure may be possible, but would need to be fully integrated with the building.
Assistant Planner Kusch indicated that his site visit revealed an empty tree well along the subject propertys Rosecrans Avenue street frontage. Chairman Rosen indicated that staff would look at the issue but it was not clear yet if the applicant would have to replace the tree.
Associate Planner Eastman indicated that there would be a need to readvertise reflecting the modification to the original proposal.
Mr. Higham, a homeowner on Rosecrans Avenue, voiced concern that the facility might interfere with radio and television reception. Mr. Gamboa responded that there are City and FCC requirements that AT&T must meet. In his experience, there has not been a time when radio and television interference was an issue. Chairman Rosen advised Mr. Higham that if there should be a problem, the City would require AT&T to re-calibrate their equipment.
MOTION made SECONDED, and CARRIED by all members present, to CONTINUE PRJ04-00274 ZON04-00035 to an indefinite time.
ADJOURNED AT 9:55 A.M. AS STAFF SITE PLAN REVIEW COMMITTEE: