Council Meetings > 2004 > 2004October > Reports > 04-385

October 26, 2004

                                                                                                                                                           

SUBJECT:

2004-0590 – Magda Gabali (Appellant) Sandra Steele, The Alaris Group [Applicant] St Thomas Parish Wardens and Vest Al [Owner]: Application for related proposals on a 2.23-acre site located at 231 Sunset Avenue in a P-F (Public Facility) Zoning District (APN: 165-10-035):

Motion

Appeal of a decision by the Planning Commission approving a Use Permit to allow a new 50-foot monopole in the rear of the parking lot at St. Thomas Parish Church and denying a Variance from SMC (Sunnyvale Municipal Code) section 19.54.030 (p) to allow a 30-foot setback along the rear yard where 100 feet is required.

 

Project Site Map, click here (.jpg)

REPORT IN BRIEF     

 

Existing Site Conditions

Church

 

Surrounding Land Uses

North

Single Family Residential

South

Single Family Residential

East

Single Family Residential and Washington Park

West

Single Family Residential

 

Issues

Height

Design

Proximity to Residential Neighborhood

 

Environmental Status

A Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act provisions and City Guidelines.

 

PC Action

Approve the Use Permit with modifications and Deny the Variance

 

Staff Recommendation

Deny the Appeal and uphold the Decision by the Planning Commission to approve the Use Permit and Deny the Variance

 

 

PROJECT DATA TABLE

 

EXISTING

PROPOSED

REQUIRED/

PERMITTED

General Plan

School

Same

School

Zoning District

PF

Same

PF

Lot Size

2.23 acres

Same

No min.

Gross Floor Area (s.f.)

16,821

Same

58,101 max.

Lot Coverage (%)

17.4%

Same

40% max.

No. of Buildings On-Site

3

Same

Previous Use Permit

Building Height (ft.)

45 ft.

Same

Previous Use Permit

Monopole Height (ft.)

N/A

50 ft.

Up to 65 ft. permitted with major Use Permit

Area of equipment enclosure at the base of the pole

N/A

328 sq. ft.

No max.

Setbacks of proposed monopole (facing prop.)

·         Front

N/A

Approx 120 ft.

100 ft. min.

·         Left Side

N/A

102 ft.

50 ft. min.

·         Right Side

N/A

Approx 300 ft.

100 ft. min.

·         Rear

N/A

101 ft. *

100 ft. min.

Total Landscaping (sq. ft.)

23,818 (24%)

Same

19,367 (20%)

Parking

·         Total No. of Spaces

118

117

Permitted with previous Use Permit
 
* Note: The applicant has modified the plans to comply with the Planning Commission action.

ANALYSIS

Background

 

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

 

File Number

Brief Description

Hearing/Decision

Date

2002-0531

Use Permit to allow additions of classrooms and upgrade existing parish hall

Administrative Hearing

Approved

8/14/02

1285

Construct sanctuary

Planning Commission

Approved

10/11/65

 

Planning Commission Hearing: On September 13, 2004 the Planning Commission considered this item.  After presentations by the applicant and discussion from the neighbors the Planning Commission, on a 7-0 vote, approved the Use Permit with the condition that it meets the 100 ft. setback requirement, effectively denying the requested Variance (Attachment G, Planning Commission Minutes). A neighbor has appealed the decision to approve the Use Permit, stating concerns with health impacts, and seismic and structural safety of the pole (Attachment H).  

 

Description of Proposed Project

 

Since the Planning Commission hearing, the applicant has withdrawn their Variance request and modified their proposal to comply with the 100 ft. setback requirement from all property lines. The pole is now located in the center of the parking lot behind two existing trees. The appearance of the pole remains the same as proposed at the Planning Commission hearing. The 50 ft. high monopole is concealed as a pine tree with associated ground equipment at the base of the pole.  This equipment will be screened by a 6 ft. high wooden fence (Attachment E, Photo Simulations).

 

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 C, Initial Study).

Use Permit

 

Use: The proposed freestanding telecommunications facility is intended to serve Sprint PCS customers in the surrounding residential neighborhood. Due to the increased demand for service from residential customers, the facility would need to be located in this residential neighborhood.

 

Site Layout: The church property has several buildings on the eastern part of the lot with a parking lot on the western edge. The proposed monopole will be installed behind two existing substantial trees at the center of the parking lot. Setbacks of 101 ft. from the rear and 102 ft. from the side comply with the Sunnyvale Municipal Code requirement for the P-F Zoning District that all freestanding facilities be setback two linear feet for every foot of vertical height (100 ft. minimum setback.) The proposed facility will be partially screened from Sunset Avenue by the existing trees.

 

Design:  SMC Section 19.54.040(a) states that “based on potential aesthetic impact, the order of preference for facility type is: façade mounted, roof mounted, ground mounted, and freestanding tower.” As a freestanding facility, the proposed design is the least desirable.

 

Alternative Locations/Designs Considered

  1. Washington Park – The applicant looked into installing antennas on existing light poles within the park.  The City currently discourages private telecommunication carriers from using City facilities.
  2. St. Cyprian Church – The church roof (approx. 30 ft.) was too low to install roof-mounted antennas and meet coverage objectives.
  3. Mary Manor Shopping Center – The proposed building roof (approx. 30 ft.) was too low to install roof-mounted antennas and meet coverage objectives.
  4. Roof-Mounted Facility at Subject Site – While the church roof is approximately 45 ft. tall, the church was concerned about the long-standing structural integrity of the roof, and did not wish to make further modifications.

Due to the limited area, low scale of buildings, and general residential character, finding an appropriate location and design was difficult.  The 50 ft. freestanding facility will be camouflaged as a pine tree (see Attachment 5, Photo Simulations). This camouflage is intended to mitigate potential visual impacts of the facility. To ensure that the proposed tree is realistic, staff recommends that the foliage begin 10 ft. from the ground and that branch design and length be approved separately by the Director of Community Development (Conditions # 14 and 15).

 

Ground Equipment: The proposed ground equipment is 328 sq. ft. and surrounded by a 6 ft. high fence. This equipment will be operating continuously and is required by SMC 19.42.030(a) to not exceed 50 dBA.  This standard is also applied to pool equipment and air conditioning units in residential neighborhoods. In order to ensure that the proposed equipment meets this standard, staff recommends that noise measurements be taken during equipment operation prior to building permit final (Condition #18)

 

Radio Frequency (RF) Emissions Exposure:  The RF Emissions Report (Attachment F) includes information about the proposed radio frequency of the tower.  The proposed tower emits 0.12% of the maximum standard permitted by the FCC and is considered safe for inhabited areas.  The FCC is the final authority on safety of telecommunications towers.  If the FCC has determined the facility to be in compliance with federal standards, the City is not permitted to make additional judgments on health and safety issues. This application shall be considered on design and location criteria only.

 

Existing Landscaping:  There are existing significant trees both in the parking area and surrounding the perimeter of the property. Two trees in front of the proposed facility are approximately 43 ft. in height, or seven feet shorter than the proposed pole. Other landscaping is approximately 20-30 ft. tall. The proposed tower will be the tallest “tree” on the property. The attached simulations demonstrate that the proposed design appear as part of the existing landscaping.

 

Comment on the Appeal

 

A neighbor appealed the decision to approve the Use Permit, stating concerns with RF Emissions and seismic and structural safety.

 

While both the Planning Commission and City Staff understand the neighborhood concerns on this issue, the City cannot make a recommendation on this application based on health concerns.  As discussed in the Radio Frequency Emissions Exposure section, this aspect of the project is under the jurisdiction of the FCC. An independent engineer’s report confirms its compliance with FCC standards at 0.12% of the Maximum Permissible Exposure limit.

 

From a seismic and safety standpoint, the proposed installation must meet the City’s Building Code requirements for structural safety. This issue was not considered an environmental impact due the necessity of the facility complying with Uniform Building Code and other structural safety standards.

 

Compliance with Development Standards

 

This project, as redesigned, meets the requirements of the Sunnyvale Municipal Code.

 

Expected Impact on the Surroundings

 

There will be a minor visual impact on the surrounding properties, as there will be a new “tree” in the parking lot.  Proposed noise and radio frequency emissions will meet applicable standards, and no other impact is expected.

 

Findings, General Plan Goals and Conditions of Approval

 

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

·         Findings and General Plan Goals are located in Attachment 1.

·         Conditions of Approval are located in Attachment 2.

 

Fiscal Impact

 

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

 

Public Contact

 

The applicant hosted a neighborhood meeting on this proposal on Wednesday, September 1, 2004.  Approximately 20 members of the public came to the meeting and expressed concerns about height, noise, proximity to homes and safety of radio frequency emissions. Several have sent emails stating these concerns (see Attachment I, Letters from Interested Parties).

 

Notices of the Appeal were sent to surrounding property owners and residents. The site was posted with notice of the Appeal.

 

Notice of Negative Declaration and Public Hearing

Staff Report

Agenda

·         Published in the Sun newspaper

·         Posted on the site

·         103 notices were  mailed to the property owners and residents within 300 ft. of the project site

 

·         Posted on the City of Sunnyvale's Website

·         Provided at the Reference Section of the City of Sunnyvale's Public Library

·         Posted on the City's official notice bulletin board

·         City of Sunnyvale's Website

·         Recorded for SunDial

 

Alternatives

 

1.             Adopt the Negative Declaration and deny the appeal and uphold the decision by the Planning Commission to approve the Use Permit and deny the Variance with attached conditions.

2.             Adopt the Negative Declaration and deny the appeal and uphold the decision by the Planning Commission to approve the Use Permit and deny the Variance with modified conditions.

3.             Adopt the Negative Declaration and uphold the appeal to deny the Use Permit and Variance.

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

Recommendation

 

Alternative 1.

 

Prepared by:

Diana O'Dell
Project Planner

Reviewed by:

Robert Paternoster
Director, Community Development

Approved by:

Amy Chan
City Manager

 

Attachments:

 

A.                 Recommended Findings

B.                  Recommended Conditions of Approval 

C.                 Negative Declaration (pdf)

D.                 Site and Architectural Plans (pdf)

E.                  Photo Simulations (pdf)

F.                  RF Report (pdf)

G.                 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 13, 2004

H.                 Letter of Appeal (pdf)

I.                   Letters and Petitions from Interested Parties  (pdf)


 

Recommended Findings - Use Permit

 

1.       The proposed use attains the objectives and purposes of the General Plan of the City of Sunnyvale.  

Telecommunications Policy Goal B: Promote universal access to telecommunications services for all Sunnyvale citizens.

          Land Use and Transportation Element Action Statement N1.1: Limit the intrusion of incompatible uses and inappropriate development into city neighborhoods.

 

            Land Use and Transportation Element Policy N1.3: Support a full spectrum of conveniently located commercial, public and quasi-public uses that add to the positive image of the City.

 

          The project addresses these policies by providing for residential access to telecommunications services while designing the facility to blend with the residential character of the neighborhood.

          

2.                  The proposed use is desirable, and will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property, improvements or uses within the immediate vicinity and within the Zoning District because the proposed design will not negatively impact the surrounding residential properties and the RF emissions are substantially below federal limits. 

 

Back to Attachments

Recommended Conditions of Approval – Use Permit

 

In addition to complying with all applicable City, County, State and Federal Statutes, Codes, Ordinances, Resolutions and Regulations, Permittee expressly accepts and agrees to comply with the following conditions of approval of this Permit:

 

Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be subject to the review of approval of the Director of Community Development.

 

General

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 Director of Community Development. Minor modifications shall be subject to approval by the Director of Community Development.

 

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 standard