December 16, 2003

REPORT IN BRIEF 

03-435 Map

PROJECT DATA TABLE

ANALYSIS

Background

Previous Actions on the Site: The following table summarizes previous planning applications related to the subject site.

On September 22, 2003, the Planning Commission considered this application and approved the Use Permit, 6 votes to 1, subject to a camouflage design for the monopole.  The minutes of the Planning Commission hearing can be found in Attachment #7. The applicant has appealed the decision (Attachment #8) stating an undue economic burden is caused by the conditions of the Use Permit. Additional comment on this letter can be found on page 8 of this report. 

Description of Proposed Project

This proposal is to allow co-location of six panel antennas on an existing telecommunications monopole at 375 North Pastoria Avenue. The monopole was originally installed in 1994. The original application requested an extension to the monopole to a height of 113 feet, which would have required the approval of a variance.  Staff has worked with the applicant to reduce the overall height to 100 feet. Sunnyvale Municipal Code 19.32.030 allows telecommunication facilities to exceed the maximum building height in any zone district by a maximum of twenty-five feet. The maximum height allowed in the M-S Zoning District is 75 feet. Additionally, the antennas would be connected with cables to new equipment cabinets, which are located on the ground.  The equipment would lie within an existing telecommunication compound.  A six-foot chain link fence encloses this area.  Equipment is shielded from view by wood slats attached to the fence.

Environmental Review

A Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act provisions and City Guidelines. An initial study has determined that the proposed project would not create any significant environmental impacts (see Attachment 3, Initial Study).

Use Permit

Use: The proposed use is for a co-location of six panel antennas to an existing 90-foot monopole. This project results in a fifth co-location and a total of 27 panel antennas for the monopole.  The proposal would also extend the height of the monopole an additional 10 feet to a total of 100 feet. Any proposed increase to the existing tower over 100 feet would require a Variance application subject to approval from the Planning Commission.

Beacon: At the top of the monopole, a beacon lies 94 feet from the ground.  The beacon was installed in 1994 with the approval of the monopole and was required by the FAA.  The proposed project would extend the height of the monopole to 100 feet including the re-positioned beacon.  In the past, staff has considered the addition of a shield under the beacon to ensure visibility would be limited to air sight only.  A condition to require this shield was approved with a previous Use Permit (#2001-0234). Subsequently, it was determined that the shield would cause an increased negative visual impact. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, staff revisited the necessity for the shield with Use Permit #2001-0322.  Use Permit (2001-0322) was approved with a condition that eliminated the addition of a shield.  

Site Layout: The existing monopole is located at the mid-point of the western side of the property.  As mentioned previously, the proposed equipment will be located within an equipment enclosure that is screened by a six-foot cyclone fence with slats.  

Landscaping:  Staff does not recommend any additional landscaping for the site.  The monopole and equipment enclosure area is located close to the rear of the site.  There are some existing trees and landscaping that partially conceal the affected area from Pastoria Avenue.

Parking/Circulation: No additional parking is proposed for this project.  Access to the site is provided through the existing parking lot.

Compliance with Development Standards

The following sections of the Wireless Telecommunication Ordinances of the Sunnyvale Municipal Code apply to the proposed project:

19.54.140(a) – Wherever technically feasible, wireless telecommunication service providers are encouraged to co-locate telecommunication facilities in order to reduce adverse visual impacts; however; the city discourages the development of “antenna farms” or the clustering of multiple antennas on a single monopole, tower or other elevation, unless the site is determined to be suitable based on the following factors:

(1)   Compliance with all FCC RF emission standards;

• This project meets all FCC RF emissions standards. 

(2)   Visibility from residentially zoned property;

• This project is not noticeably visible from residentially zoned properties. 

(3)   Visibility from El Camino Real or the right of way of a freeway, expressway or other major arterial street;

• This project is not visible from any freeway, Mathilda Avenue or Central Expressway.  

(4)   Visibility from the Downtown Specific Plan area or other areas declared by the Director of Community Development to be visually sensitive; and

• This project is not visible from the Downtown Specific Plan area or other areas identified in the Telecommunications code as being sensitive. 

(5)   Lack of aesthetically preferable feasible alternatives.

• The project makes use of an existing monopole.  As conditioned by the Planning Commission, the monopole shall be redesigned to incorporate a more camouflage design. Staff believes the construction of a new monopole at this site or in the immediate vicinity is less desirable.

Expected Impact on the Surroundings

The fifth co-location and the additional 10 feet of height to the monopole would not significantly impact the overall appearance of the site.  In the applicant’s proposed design the antennas would not be flush mounted and will be visible from Pastoria Avenue and Hermosa Drive.  In previous projects, staff has recommended antennas to be mounted directly to the pole, flush–mounted, rather than allow the facilities to project from the monopole.  However, the applicant has indicated that the antennas would not function effectively in this manner at this location on the monopole.  At this time, staff does not recommend the construction of an additional monopole.  The surrounding area consists of industrial buildings and the site is not noticeably visible from residentially zoned properties.  The Planning Commission added Condition of Approval #15 that requires the monopole to be redesigned to incorporate a camouflage design in an effort to limit the visual obtrusiveness of the pole and antennas.  Example of monopoles that have incorporated a camouflage tree design can be found in Attachment #9.

Alternative Site Analysis

Staff requested the applicant to provide an analysis of alternative sites that would meet the coverage objectives of the wireless facility. Six locations were reviewed as a part of this analysis.  As noted in the analysis, the following variables were taken in consideration: topographical constraints, population density, anticipated site traffic, and coverage objectives. The analysis cites concerns with specific sites over issues of equipment placement, landlord willingness and proximity to residential properties.  It was determined that the current project site was the best candidate for co-location.  The “Alternative Site Analysis” is located in Attachment #6. 

Staff was able to make the required Findings based on the justifications for the Use Permit.

• Findings and General Plan Goals are located in Attachment 1.
• Conditions of Approval are located in Attachment 2. 

No fiscal impacts other than normal fees and taxes are expected.

Comment on Appeal

The appellant has stated that Condition of Approval #15 requiring a camouflage design of the monopole and antennas would place an “undue economic burden on the applicant.”  Furthermore, the applicant states in the appeal letter that the requirement would “create a major disruption to the on-going network operations of five wireless carriers occupying the site.” See “Letter of Appeal from the Appellant,” in Attachment #8.  With the fifth co-location at the site, the Planning Commission considers this would be the most appropriate time to require a more aesthetically compatible design. Therefore, a camouflage design is needed.

The applicant is also appealing Condition of Approval #4 stating the operator shall renew the permit within five years of the approval of this permit.  This condition is placed in the Conditions of Approval as a reminder of the Code requirements and cannot be modified without approval of a Variance. Consistent with previous permits of the site and within the City, staff recommends that this condition remain.  Sunnyvale Municipal Code 19.54.120 requires this renewal to ensure that the facility complies with the then-current general and design standards.  Additionally, the renewal ensures that the facility is being used by the owner or operator and whether or not basic contact and site information supplied by the owner or operator is current.  This process is conducted administratively by a Miscellaneous Plan Permit.   If the City Council grant the appeal to not require a new camouflage design, staff recommends reinstating Condition of Approval #3, which requires the antennas to be painted to match the monopole.

1.             Affirm the Negative Declaration and approve the proposed project subject to Conditions of Approval in accordance with staff’s recommendation.

2.             Affirm the Negative Declaration and approve the proposed project subject to modified Conditions of Approval.

3.             Affirm the Negative Declaration and deny the project.

4.             Do not affirm the Negative Declaration and direct staff as to where additional environmental review is required.

Alternative 1

1.        Submit for Building Permits prior to construction/installation activity.

2.        Any major modifications or expansion of the approved use shall be approved at a separate public hearing by the Planning Commission. Minor modifications shall be subject to approval by the Director of Community Development.

2.        The proposed antennas will be painted to match the existing monopole and antennas.

3.        Every owner or operator of a wireless telecommunication facility shall renew the facility permit at least every five (5) years from the date of initial approval.

4.        Each facility must comply with any and all applicable regulations and standards promulgated or imposed by any state or federal agency, including but not limited to, the Federal Communications Commission and Federal Aviation Administration.

5.        Certification must be provided that the proposed facility will at all times comply with all applicable health requirements and standards pertaining to RF emissions.

6.        The owner or operator of any facility shall obtain and maintain current at all times a business licenses issued by the city.

7.        The owner or operator of any facility shall submit and maintain current at all times basic contact and site information on a form to be supplied by the city. Applicant shall notify city of any changes to the information submitted within thirty (30) days of any change, including change of the name or legal status of the owner or operator. This information shall include, but is not limited to the following:

(a)   Identity, including name, address and telephone number, and legal status of the owner of the facility including official identification numbers an FCC certification, and if different from the owner, the identity and legal status of the person or entity responsible for operating the facility.

(b)   Name, address and telephone number of a local contact person for emergencies.

(c)   Type of service provided.

8.        All facilities and related equipment, including lighting, fences, shields, cabinets, and poles, shall be maintained in good repair, free from trash, debris, litter and graffiti and other forms of vandalism, and any damage from any cause shall be repaired as soon as reasonably possible so as to minimize occurrences of dangerous conditions or visual blight. Graffiti shall be removed from any facility or equipment as soon as practicable, and in no instance more than forty-eight (48) hours from the time of notification by the city.

10.    Each facility shall be opened in such a manner so as to minimize any possible disruption caused by noise. Backup generators shall only be operated during periods of power outages, and shall not be t