2004-0590 - Alaris Group [Applicant] St. Thomas Parish [Owner]: Application for a Use Permit on a 2.2-acre site to allow a new 50-foot tall monopole to be located at the rear of the parking lot.  The property is located at 231 Sunset Avenue in a P-F (Public Facility) Zoning District. (APN: 165-10-035) (Negative Declaration)

Diana O’Dell, Project Planner, presented the staff report. She summarized the proposed installation of the camouflaged monopole (“monopine”) with associated ground equipment to be screened by a six-foot high fence.  She discussed two merits of the application – the design and the location of the pole.  She reported that  a radio frequency study has been submitted by a professional engineer and concluded that it is in compliance with the FCC standards. Staff reported that other alternative locations and designs were explored and concluded that what is being proposed is the best site and design. She noted that the camouflage design is to mitigate the visual impact and to blend in with the perimeter landscaping in the neighborhood.  Staff was able to make the required Findings as the tree camouflage addresses the aesthetic and visual impacts and an adequate balance both on the aesthetic impact on the neighborhood and meet the need in providing wireless telecommunication facilities in the City.  Staff recommended approval of the Use Permit and the Variance with conditions of approval.

Comm. Simons asked staff to clarify whether because of the tree camouflage, staff felt that the setback deviation is acceptable.  Staff responded yes as it addresses the visual impact in the residential neighborhood and the setback is not for any health reasons.

Comm. Babcock asked staff to address why the ancillary equipment is located at the base of the pole.  She expressed concerns about the noise emission as the proposed location is near the residential neighborhood.  Staff responded that typically the ancillary equipment is located at the base of the pole and deferred further clarification to the applicant.  However, she noted that equipment is required to meet the noise standards such as AC units or pool equipment which is 50 dba at night time.  Comm. Babcock commented that AC units or pool equipment are not running 24 hours a day so this equipment should be subject to different standards.

Comm. Babcock further asked whether there is any requirement that it needs to be at the base of the pole and whether it could be moved farther about 30-50 feet away from the pole. Staff deferred the question to the applicant.

Vice Chair Hungerford confirmed with staff that the monopole is an artificial tree.  Staff said yes.

Vice Chair Hungerford asked staff to confirm the location of the fence.  Staff directed the Commission to the staff report, Attachment 4 Page 5 of 7 the pole is located at the far end of the parking lot with two entrances to the parking lot which is in closer proximity to the residential neighborhood.

Chair Moylan commented that the report indicated that a number of e-mails were received but only had one letter attached and that a letter with a petition was recently submitted to the Commission at the dais.  Staff apologized and explained the catastrophic loss of e-mail that the city experienced recently.

Further, Chair Moylan asked staff to clarify the noise requirements since the e-mail attached to the staff report expressed noise concerns.  Staff explained that the noise requirement is 50 db and staff recommended Condition of Approval #18 that after the equipment is installed and prior to finalizing the building permit a noise measurement is conducted to ensure that it meets the noise standard.

Chair Moylan opened the public hearing.

Sandra Steele, representing Sprint PCS, introduced the development team – Sam Boie, Sprint PCS, Radio Frequency (RF) Engineer and Bill Hammett of Hammett Medicine who prepared the RF Report. She stated that the RF exposures are regulated by the Federal Government and that the site falls over 1000 times below the government standards.  She described the location and design of the monopole. She added that one parking space would be used for the ground equipment. She noted that staff suggestions have been incorporated in the design of the monopole which is fully stealth mitigating any visual impact on the neighborhood.  She stated that it is typical to locate the equipment shelter below the pole and with the chosen location only one parking space would be used. However, she added that they are willing to move the equipment if the Commission deemed it necessary. She addressed the noise concerns that there is no air conditioning but rather an outdoor unit. There would be cooling fans in the RF cabinets with approximately 40 dba and would not be on 24 hours and there would be perceived noise reduction with the distance. She shared her experience that has been no complains received from sites located near residential areas.  She added that she is willing to conduct a noise test if conditioned and that she is willing to relocate the pole and meet the desire of the neighbors. She stated that the site is the ideal location as it meets city codes with the needed variance for the setback requirements to keep it close enough to the existing trees and mitigate visual impact.  She noted that she read the letter submitted to the Commission that evening and that she is willing to relocate the pole to the middle of the parking lot.  She reported that on September 1, 2004, a community meeting was conducted at the church where 102 notices were mailed and 30-40 members of the community attended where information was provided about the monopines and answered questions.  She stated that she is willing to work with the community. Lastly, she noted that the site is the ideal location after exploring several locations and that the site meets the site criteria as it meets the Radio Frequency coverage objectives, complies with city wireless codes, meets the construction feasibility and has a willing landlord.  She urged the Commission to approve the Use Permit and Variance.

Comm. Babcock asked Ms. Steele if it is possible to relocate the ancillary unit about 30-40 feet away from the monopole.  Ms. Steele reported that if relocating the equipment requires two parking spaces, then the site would not meet the church parking requirement.

Comm. Babcock asked if the equipment is moved to the middle of the parking lot, would she still have a willing landlord.  Ms. Steele deferred the question to Randall Schwabacker, Sprint PCS Site Acquisition.

Randall Schwabacker, responded that the location would use the least amount of parking space and there would be an island where a tree could be planted.  He added that the church is willing to relocate the pole if necessary depending upon the location.

Comm. Babcock confirmed with Ms. Steele that she has read and agrees to meet the eight conditions to be added to the Conditions of Approval.  Ms. Steele responded that she scanned the document and felt that the requests were fair.

Comm. Fussell asked Ms. Steele at what distance could the monopole be to achieve the service area coverage identified. Ms. Steele responded that the location meets the coverage objective where the signal reaches half a mile.  She stated that the other areas such as Washington Park, the commercial sites would provide a smaller signal and would not meet their service criteria.

Chair Moylan stated that during his site visit, a church representative explained that there was once a cross on top of the church that caused damaged to the church so they replaced it with a tiny cross emerging from the ground instead of the roof top.

Magda Gabali, resident, stated that she read the staff report and expressed the following concerns - 1) safety of the long term exposure to radio frequencies; 2) preparer of the repot was contracted by Sprint PCS. She stated that the report should have been done by an independent contractor not hired by the applicant; 3) stability of the pole in the event of storm or other natural causes; 4) who would oversee the additional or limiting equipment; 5) interference on electronic equipment or satellites in the surrounding neighborhood, and 6) evaluation of environmental health and impact prepared by a non-committed contractor.

Steven Fong, resident, expressed concerns with the potential environmental impact of the proposed project.  The staff report nor the engineer’s report do not provide a conclusive evidence of potential health and safety risk. The RF report does not show specific calculation on the public exposure level. He stated that it is important to address the effect of radio frequency and to study the health impact to the neighborhood before making a decision on the project.

Comm. Simons asked staff to explain the Findings the Commission can make.  Staff responded by explaining the Federal legislation – Wireless Telecommunications Act of 1996 which include FCC regulation on health standards that is supposed to be consistent throughout the nation and that cities cannot make additional judgment based on health but can look at the location and design as part of the application.

Sharon Fong, resident, expressed concerns about the direct line of sight from her property within 20-30 feet. She recommended moving the pole to the center of the parking lot avoiding the need for a Variance on setback and avoid impacting the immediate neighbors.  She stated that the church is willing to relocate the pole to the center of the parking lot.  She also recommended other alternative sites such as industrial zone, open space or unused parcels away from residential and schools.

Chair Moylan asked Ms. Fong if there is any particular site that would be suitable.  Ms. Fong responded that she has no particular sites in mind.  She suggested the School District on Iowa, the commercial buildings on Mary and Washington but not sure if these sites would achieve the applicant’s goal and would not want the neighborhood in that area to be subject to this exposure.

Jane Mark, member of the public, expressed the following concerns -1) possible impact by seismic activity; 2) safety hazards; 3) additional noise levels; 4) needs stricter regulations for backup generators; 5) possible pollutants. She added that the report does not address the long term condition of the monopine such as artificial branch or vegetation may fall off.   Most importantly, the big concern is the public exposure to radio frequency emission. She noted that the City’s role is to address the proper disclosure of information related to the facilities’ operation to ensure compliance.  She also noted that there is inadequate noticing of the public hearing.  She conducted a survey of the neighborhood and majority indicated that they did not receive a copy of the noticing.  She suggested taking into consideration the public testimony when making their decision and suggested continuing the application.

Chair Moylan stated that the public testimony is taken into consideration when the Commission makes its decision.

Judi Nickey, resident, stated that the proposed monopole is not acceptable and the parking is not big enough to accommodate this pole.  She stated that she visited other monopoles and most are noisy and ugly.  She expressed concerns about the following: 1) hazards and dangerous machinery that would be hazardous to other animals; 2) the cumulative health impacts to the neighbors; 3) Concerns about the location; 4) the number of antennas; 5) patterns and the direction of the antennas must be facing away from the homes, and 6) the economic impact to the homes.

Harriet Rowe, resident, commented that in one of her Homeowners’ Association meetings, an independent consultant recommended that a monopole should be able to fall down without falling on any structure. Therefore, she suggested that relocating the monopole to the center of the parking lot would resolve the concerns expressed by the neighborhood.

Sandra Steele, applicant/Spring PCS, deferred to Bill Hammett to address the radio frequency and health concerns expressed by the neighbors.

Bill Hammett, California registered professional engineer, explained his company’s role is to ensure that the facility is meeting the FCC requirements.  Their task is to determine the facts which include the make and model of the antenna, the height, the proposed power level and the results are unbiased and without regard to whoever is the carrier.  He addressed the potential interference to home electronics, pacemakers or heart monitors.  He stated that carriers are authorized to meet the narrow frequency band assigned by FCC and must be contained. Several research studies have been conducted with a conclusion that there is no impact to electronic and other equipment.  He commented that handheld units would produce many times higher emission than the proposed antenna. He stated that the report has a conclusive opinion that the antennas will comply with FCC standards.  He addressed the emission from the second floor of the house that is adjacent to the site approximately 20-30 feet away with antennas oriented towards the home direction the emission would be 0.12%, over 800 times below standards.  He explained that the standard is intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for exposures 24 hours a day for all ages and is being looked at on a regular basis.

Comm. Simons asked Mr. Hammett if there is a difference in performance and power with flush mounted antennas and open antennas.  Mr. Hammett responded that he does not design the network and does not evaluate the performance.

Sandra Steele, applicant, addressed the concerns expressed by the neighbors- 1) stability – the project would go through a thorough building permit process and architectural and fire review. 2) location change – happy to comply if the Commission deemed it is necessary. 3) other sites did not meet the carrier’s objective.  She stated that originally they would like to place the pole on top of the roof but it was not acceptable. 4) Pollutants – she stated that to the best of her knowledge there are no pollutants with this installation.  5) Maintenance of the facility will be maintained on a regular basis. She stated that the use will be reviewed by the City after five years to assess the merits of the project.  She stated that it was unfortunate that some of the neighbors did not get the noticing. She further stated that she provided a large selection with very good designs to the neighbors.  6) Devaluation – she stated that there is no evidence that there would economic impact to the neighbors.

Comm. Simons asked Ms. Steele to address the backup generator sound levels.  Mr. Schwabacker responded that there would be no backup generators but rather batteries.  During an earthquake or other emergencies, then a generator would be used and must meet the noise ordinance.  He added that if the Commission deemed it necessary to put this as a condition to operate at certain hours, they are willing to comply.  He further added that during an extreme emergency, it may need to operate 24 hours since the landlines may be down.  He stated that on 9-11 the cell phones were the main form of communication.  He further stated that Sprint technology uses the latest digital technology, no air conditioning but cooling fans, operates on ambient temperature and typically are not operating except during hot temperature.  He added that there would be a wood fence, 20 feet away and with vegetation to attenuate the sound.  He stated that they are willing to accommodate what the Commission deemed necessary such as solid wall instead of a wood fence.

Chair Moylan asked the applicant to address that overtime the camouflage monopole may deteriorate such as falling limbs.  Ms. Steele responded that this is addressed in the regular maintenance of the monopole and replacement of limbs where necessary.  In addition, should this happen, the city could require that this issue be addressed.

Ms. Ryan clarified that the five year review is intended to assure that the most updated technology is being employed including minimizing aesthetics impacts.  Any additional condition of approval for on-going maintenance would be appropriate to add now.

Chair Moylan closed the public hearing.

Comm. Fussell asked staff to point out where in the conditions of approval the regular maintenance of the monopole would be addressed such as falling limbs.  Staff responded that it could be included in the good repair but Commission could add a condition for clarity.

Vice Chair Hungerford asked staff to explain as stated in the code about discouraging monopoles in the residential areas.  Staff responded that this type of monopole would normally not go before the Commission in an industrial zone. However, because it is located in the residential zone, a higher review level is required.

Comm. Simons commented that he does not want to have antenna farms in the city.  He stated that this is the second free-standing camouflage monopole and finds this application desirable. The latest designs are much better. He hoped that the modifications to the Conditions of Approval would be beneficial.

Comm. Babcock offered a friendly amendment that the Use would be dependent upon the church meeting the required parking spaces.  Accepted.

Comm. Babcock agreed with the neighbors that moving the monopole away from the property line would be the best alternative.

Chair Moylan clarified whether the friendly amendment may not be doable as it was mentioned that moving the monopole to the center of the parking lot, the church parking would be insufficient. Staff responded that staff would look at it further such as reconfiguration of the parking lot.  Comm. Babcock stated that if moving the monopole to the center of the parking lot would result in the church not meeting the parking requirement, then the there would be no monopole at the site.  Ms. Ryan added that there appears to be an opportunity to add parallel spaces and staff will work with the applicant.

Chair Moylan supported the motion because he was not able to make the required Findings for the Variance but only the Use Permit Findings.

FINAL MOTION:

Ms. Ryan stated that the decision is final unless appealed to the City Council and payment of the appeal fee within the 15-day appeal period.