2004-0705 – AT&T Wireless [Applicant] St. Luke Lutheran Church of Sunnyvale, CA [Owner]: Application for a Use Permit on a 4.5-acre site to allow installation of a 65-foot tall monopole camouflage as a church tower containing six antennas with associated ground equipment.  The property is located at 1025 The Dalles in an R-1 (Low Density Residential) Zoning District.  (Negative Declaration) (APN: 320-11-010)  

Diana O’Dell, Project Planner, presented the staff report. She summarized the proposed application highlighting the use, site layout and architecture. She noted that the applicant considered several alternative locations. The subject site meets the coverage requirement and the installation is located the farthest from the home sites.  She stated the constraints and challenges to locate a 65- foot high structure in a residential neighborhood.  Staff recommended that the tower be camouflaged to be less visible.  Further she noted that the equipment be moved from the roof to the ground to be less visible from the street. She stated that the applicant conducted a community meeting with 20 attendees who expressed concerns about the look of the tower, the height, the proximity to homes and the safety of the radio frequency emissions. She reported that staff received several letters expressing concerns with the look, health, streetscape and the desire to preserve the residential character of the neighborhood. Staff was able to make the required Findings and recommended approval of the Use Permit subject to the Conditions of Approval.

Comm. Babcock asked staff how long has the existing tower been at the subject site.  Staff deferred the question to the applicant.

Further, Comm. Babcock asked staff in response to the neighbors’ privacy concerns on whether a security camera was being proposed to be placed in the tower. Staff responded no.

Comm. Simons asked staff to clarify what could the Commission decide on the proposed application. Staff responded that the Commission could only review the aesthetics, design and location criteria and that the Commission has no jurisdiction about the health and safety issues of the tower. She added that FCC is the federal governing body and is the final authority on safety of telecommunication towers.

Comm. Sulser asked staff about the height of the existing tower and whether the proposed tower would be taller. Staff responded approximately 55 feet high and the proposed tower would be 10 feet higher.

Chair Moylan opened the public hearing.

Howard Yee, AT&T Wireless/applicant, introduced the Radio Frequency consultant Rod Mather and Bob Carpenter member of St. Luke Lutheran Church. He explained how the site was identified making sure that the area meets the code requirements.  He also discussed the constraints in using public facilities and in finding the appropriate site to meet the desired coverage. He stated that he considered several sites and that the subject site meets the code requirement as well as the coverage goal. He added that the site is fairly large and meets the setback requirements relative to the height of the tower and it is surrounded with trees providing buffers to the residential areas.  He noted that although it is 65 feet high, the 10 feet is the cross and the existing structure is a little less than 55 feet high. He added that the design meets the criteria making it minimally visible.

Comm. Simons asked staff to clarify about the policy in using the public facility.  Ms. Ryan clarified that the policy about the city and school district states that no changes to the site could be made without first the review and approval of the School oard and the City Council. She added that the issue is not the tower per se but the use of the ground equipment encroaching on the available open space.

Comm. Simons recommended that staff recommend to City Council for a change of policy with the school district to address this constraint. Staff reminded the Commission that it is going to be labor intensive; however, staff can forward the request.

Comm. Simons asked Mr. Yee if there would be any interference in the later years when trees grows taller than the tower.  Mr. Yee explained the transmission of radio waves and how the antennas work and the reasons why carriers build a tower slightly above the trees. He added that there are other factors affecting reception such as the density of the trees, tall buildings and mountains. He added that if there is a distance from these factors, there is minimal transmission impact.

Comm. Sulser asked Mr. Yee the reasons for designing a replica of the existing tower as opposed to replacing or using a tree camouflage. Mr. Yee responded that the church prefers not to disturb the existing tower so replacing it was not an option and deferred further clarification to the church representative. He stated that he felt replicating the existing structure would be more consistent and compatible with the neighborhood.  He added that a tree camouflage was an option but opted to replicate the tower for more compatibility.

Comm. Fussell asked Mr. Yee if he explored using the existing tower.  Mr. Yee responded yes and that it was his first choice or maybe rebuild the tower.  However, the church was not supportive of this option and deferred further clarification of this decision to the church representative.

Chair Moylan asked Mr. Yee to clarify which customers does AT&T desire to provide coverage with the proposed tower.  Mr. Yee responded that predominantly travelers on Highway 85 and through the neighborhood and as the neighborhood.

William Lewis, neighbor, expressed the following concerns: 1) The height of the tower is quite visible and cannot be hidden.  He added that the applicant grossly misled the community on the goal of the tower. He stated that it was presented that the coverage is to serve the neighborhood but based on his testimony, the coverage is primarily for the commuters. In addition, the tower would be visually impacting the neighborhood. 2) The applicant has not exhausted all options in identifying appropriate sites. He recommended alternative sites such as Cupertino Union School District and a commercial property next to Highway 85 on Belleville with tall buildings. He felt that the project is not appropriate for the site and does not need to be there.

Comm. Simons asked Mr. Lewis if he has any visual design recommendation should the application be approved. Mr. Lewis responded that his concern is the height. He would prefer lowering the tower.  He likes the general idea of a proposed cross tower but prefers using or replacing the existing tower.

Chair Moylan asked the members of the public by show of hand who uses a cellular phone.  There were approximately 65% of the public present who indicated they use a cell phone.

Chris Rosenthal, member of the public, stated that the tower does not need to be at the site.  He questioned that goal of the tower and it is primarily to provide coverage to the neighborhood which is contrary to the oral presentation of the applicant. He showed some photographs in the neighborhood with lower tower and still meets the coverage area.  He contended that the design is too tall and is not being built on behalf of the neighborhood but rather for revenue purposes only.  He stated that it is not a stealth project and that the tower would obstruct his view of the mountains.  He opposed the project.

Comm. Fussell asked Mr. Rosenthal to clarify whether his objection is related to the height or the entire project.  Mr. Rosenthal responded that he prefers not to have the tower in his neighborhood.  However, he felt that the tower does not have to be 65 feet high.  Lowering the tower would still meet the desired coverage area.

Further, Comm. Fussell asked Mr. Rosenthal whether his contention is in part that providing coverage to commuters of Highway 85 is not a benefit to the community.  Mr. Rosenthal responded that there are sufficient structures in the area that could be used and still provide area coverage where the antennas could be massed effectively, such as pointing the antennas to area coverage.  He suggested using high tension wires along Los Altos, Mountain View where antennas are massed and still provide the coverage area.

Comm. Simons asked Mr. Rosenthal whether he objects to use of the existing tower.  Mr. Rosenthal responded that if the true objective of the project is to provide coverage to the neighborhood, no, as it is not a necessity.  He would prefer using the existing tower, less visually obstructive and would not ruin his view.

Chair Moylan clarified whether he lives on Wright Avenue and the tower is much closer to his home.  Mr. Rosenthal responded yes.  However, he added that he is used to looking at the existing tower that is blocked by trees.  He objected to the proposed tower in the middle of the lot as it would obstruct his view of the mountains.

Chair Moylan asked Mr. Rosenthal to clarify his e-mail that “Someone is going to pay dearly if this tower gets approved.”  Mr. Rosenthal responded that he is not happy with the idea of presenting that the tower is stealth, not going to be visible and would not impact the neighborhood.  Further, he clarified that he is unhappy and come election time, his voice would be very clear.  He stated that the project would have an economic impact to the neighborhood.  He strongly objected the project.

Comm. Simons clarified that the Commission are appointed by the City Council and not elected.   However, the decision could be appealed to the City Council.

Patrick Keating, member of the public, expressed concerns about the height and that it will be taller than any structures on the subject site, therefore would be visible. He stated that the tower does not meet the desirability and aesthetics.  He commented that there is an existing tower and the proposed tower would be the second tower and who is to say when the third or fourth tower would be built.  He reminded the Commission that the neighborhood will have to live with its decision. He concluded that the tower is too tall.

Comm. Simons reminded Mr. Keating that there are several mature tall trees in the neighborhood and asked if he prefers to have a tree camouflage tower.  Mr. Keating responded that he does not want a faux tree.  He stated that the proposed tower is too tall, higher than the church by 10 feet.  He felt that it is a commercial use and does not belong in a residential neighborhood.

Ping Beng, member of the public, expressed the following objections: 1) The goal of the project to serve the community is bogus. He stated that he is an AT&T users and has not experienced a drop.  2) The zoning limits up to 30 feet high structures therefore 65 feet high tower is too high.  He opined that 30 feet high tower is sufficient. The height is driven by saving money to put less antennas on a taller tower.  3) He asked why this project is given an exemption to SMC19.54.

William Carpenter, member of the public, stated that the proposed project will serve the public well.  He further stated that he is an AT&T user and has had drop call problems.  He added that the area has other structures that are taller such as the overpass blocking his view of the mountain but it serves the public. He opined that the project is good and will serve the public.  He added that there are some members of the neighbors who are in support of the project but were unable to attend the meeting.

Don Graham, representative of St. Luke Lutheran Church, stated that the church supported the project as it would benefit the community. The lease of the site would be an added income and will give it back into the property with the new memorial garden the community could enjoy.  He invited the public to visit the garden.

Comm. Babcock asked Mr. Graham for the purpose of the existing tower that was installed in 1971.  Mr. Graham responded that it is strictly aesthetics and that is a part of the design of the sanctuary with the cross tower.

Jim Keenan, member of the public, did not speak as his testimony has been covered by Mr. Carpenter.

Andrew Chen, member of the public, asked the Commission whether the site is big enough, would additional towers be allowed.  He presented photographs simulating the effect of the tower blocking the view from his street. He stated that he is an AT&T user and has not experienced a drop in cellular calls.  Further he added, based on the staff report, the coverage for the neighborhood is fair. Therefore, there is no need for the additional antennas on a tall tower. He urged the Commission to deny the application.

Howard Yee, applicant, stated that the locations suggested were explored.  Unfortunately, the locations were not feasible due to contracts and city policy.  He clarified that the service is not just for the neighborhood but also for travelers.  Further, he added that the antenna would provide wireless internet service in the near future in addition to cell phone use which would be an added benefit to the neighborhood.  He added that several locations were explored, the height is dictated by the other structures surrounding the area including the trees. He concluded that the project meets and complies with the policy and city ordinance and that it is a better solution to meet the demand.

Comm. Babcock asked Mr. Yee if lowering the height if the tower down to 55 feet would be feasible to serve the purpose.  Mr. Yee responded that the antenna is actually 55 feet high and the added 10 feet is the cross. 

Further, Comm. Babcock asked Mr. Yee whether lowering the total structures to 55 feet with the antennas to be at 45 feet would the project still be feasible. Mr. Yee responded that because of the oak tree a higher tower is being requested.  However, he conferred with the RF engineer in anticipation to this question and was advised the tower could only go down five feet lower to be effective.

Comm. Babcock further asked Mr. Yee if the tower is designed to hold more than one carrier.  Mr. Yee responded that the city encourages that the tower be designed to allow two carriers but the pole has to be modified subject to review by the Planning Commission.

Lastly, Comm. Babcock asked Mr. Yee if the antennas could be incorporated within the cross.  Mr. Yee responded that the cross is two narrow and could not incorporate the antennas.

Comm. Babcock asked staff whether previously approved projects where the antennas are within the cross are fairly larger.  Ms. Ryan responded yes and noted that the cross is placed on top of the sanctuary.

Further, Comm. Babcock asked staff how many church facilities that have been approved where antennas are within the cross.  Staff responded that there are two on top of the Resurrection Church, one on Mary Avenue north of El Camino Real. Staff added that these sites with camouflage crosses are primarily on top of taller church structures.

Comm. Simons asked Mr. Yee whether the tower could be shorter if it is a faux tree.  Mr. Yee responded no because of the location of the oak tree to the north. He explained how the faux should be designed to make it look more like a real tree.

Comm. Fussell asked Mr. Yee to further clarify that lowering the tower 10 feet would not be feasible.  Mr. Yee responded that because of the oak tree, the tower has to be above or at the same level of the oak tree to be provide efficient service and address possible interference.

Chair Moylan closed the public hearing.

Comm. Simons offered a friendly amendment that no tree removal permit on the property shall be approved for efficiency requirements. Accepted by the maker.

Comm. Babcock was able to make the required Findings.  She stated that the project is compatible with the church architecture and residential look of the neighborhood.  She added that the tower is over 200 feet from the property line meeting code requirements and produces substantially low RF emissions and noise.

Comm. Simons stated that he is not a supporter of antenna towers that are pure monopoles.  However, he finds it desirable if antennas are camouflaged to structures to reduce the antenna visibility. He acknowledged the concerns expressed by the neighbors but noted that the height would be compatible with the other structures in the area as well as the presence of tall trees.

Chair Moylan commented that the Commission is charged to meet the required Findings.  He stated that he is a strong supporter in the use of camouflage design monopole. He further stated that the proposed design is one of the nicest designs he has seen. However, based on public testimony, the primary purpose of the antenna is to provide services to commuters using Highway 85, as such he expressed safety concerns. As a result he was not able to make the required Findings and did not support the motion.

Comm. Babcock commented that Sunnyvale residents drive Highway 85 as well.

FINAL MOTION:

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