Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wireless Communications topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Subcommittee seeks design alternatives for rooftop telecom equipment at 800 North Elkton area
Summary
Design Review Subcommittee reviewed a proposal to add rooftop wireless antennas screened by parapet walls at a commercial building near El Camino and asked the applicant to present design alternatives that better integrate screening into the building massing before an administrative hearing
The Design Review Subcommittee reviewed a proposal to locate a wireless communication facility on a commercial building (referred to in the presentation as an 800 North Elkton-area property) within the city’s architectural overlay and requested the applicant return with alternative designs that more fully integrate screening into the building’s architecture.
Staff told the subcommittee the current proposal would install parapet screen walls (each about 8 feet high) that would enclose multiple antennas and roof equipment. The presenter said the project as submitted did not qualify as a “stealth” installation because staff found the screens were not sufficiently integrated into the building’s architecture and the screens do not fully conceal rooftop equipment. As a result, staff said a conditional use permit (CUP) might be required unless the design is revised to achieve architectural integration.
Why this matters: the property sits in a locally controlled architectural overlay that has Spanish/Colonial design expectations. Committee members argued the proposal in its current form would draw attention to the rooftop and could be made substantially less visible if the equipment were screened differently, set back on the roof, or if the building’s parapet were replaced with RF-compatible material and the screening were designed as a coherent architectural element.
The applicant’s representative described technical constraints, including antenna height and cabling: the proposed antennas were sized so the design allowed a service cable sweep beneath the panels, which led the team to specify roughly 8-foot-high screens in some locations. The presenter also noted constraints on the building backside where an existing three-foot parapet or wall would obstruct signal propagation if the antennas were lowered there.
Committee members and staff proposed alternatives: place screened equipment toward the center of the roof (where it would be less visible from the street), redesign the front canopy/portal so a continuous architectural screen runs front-to-back with thicker columns and a wider bay so the screening reads as part of the building, or remove the existing parapet and install RF-transparent cladding so antennas could sit behind the parapet line. Subcommittee members repeatedly encouraged design options that avoid “making an ugly building uglier.”
The subcommittee requested the applicant prepare several alternatives showing: 1) an integrated front/side screen that more closely matches existing colors and materials and beefs up the canopy columns; 2) roof-centered installations set back from perimeter parapets; and 3) a parapet modification option using RF-friendly materials. Staff said it would review the alternatives and determine whether the revised design would qualify as a stealth installation (in which case the project could be administratively approved by the Zoning Administrator) or whether it should proceed to the Planning Commission for conditional-use review.
No formal vote was taken on a final action; staff asked the applicant to return with the alternatives before the next administrative/ZA step so staff can assess whether the project qualifies for an administrative determination or requires a CUP and Planning Commission hearing.
