Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Telecommunications topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council upholds Planning Commission and denies AT&T appeal for equipment at Edison tower
Summary
After a public hearing focused on aesthetics, setbacks and alternatives, the City Council voted 5-0 to deny AT&Ts appeal of the Planning Commissions denial of CUP 1933 to install antennas and a ground equipment enclosure on an SCE transmission tower.
The Fountain Valley City Council on March 18 voted to deny AT&Ts appeal of Planning Commission denial for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 1933, an application to mount wireless antennas partway up a Southern California Edison transmission tower and build a ground-level equipment enclosure.
Planning staff summarized the appeals technical case: AT&T said the site meets development standards, is the best feasible option to fill a coverage gap, and noted prior city approvals at other SCE sites. Staff said the proposed equipment enclosure would be larger than typical because of sloping terrain and would require a taller wall on the east side facing nearby residences (the applicant proposed an 8-foot enclosure that would be effectively 12 feet or more on the uphill side). Staff noted alternatives had been considered (about 15 candidate sites) and that SCE prohibits underground vaulting under its towers, limiting concealment options.
Residents and council raised objections on visual impact, proximity to homes and noise from equipment/generator. One resident said similar approved sites exist and asked why this location was treated differently; staff and the city attorney explained the city retains discretion through CUP findings and previous approvals included different site circumstances.
AT&Ts representative (SmartLink/AT&T) argued the site fills a significant coverage gap and that standard RF and noise studies are done for such installations. Council members questioned whether other private-property options had been exhausted (monopines, shopping-center sites) and asked for specific coverage metrics; the applicant said propagation maps show meaningful gain but agreed additional technical detail could be provided.
After discussion, council voted 5-0 to uphold the Planning Commissions denial (motion recorded as approving alternative number 1: deny the appeal) and encouraged the applicant to pursue other locations and provide additional technical data if they return.
