Use: The proposed freestanding telecommunications facility is intended to serve AT&T Wireless customers in the surrounding residential neighborhood. Due to the increased demand for service from residential customers, the applicant is locating this facility in a residential neighborhood. Freestanding telecommunication facilities up to 65 ft. tall on non-residential properties within residential zones (such as churches, schools, etc.) may be considered with a Use Permit.
Site Layout: The tower placed at the center of the site, with a 216 ft. setback from the western property line and 211 ft. setback from the northern property line (Attachment D, Site Plan). It will be installed adjacent to a one story building behind the parking lot. This placement will require the removal of one tree.
Alternative Locations Considered
1. Cupertino Middle School. Proposed to mount six antennas on an existing stadium light pole (may replace pole) within the school site located at the corner of Bernardo Ave. and Helena Drive. The applicant states that he was told the City would not permit the installation on a stadium light.
The Cupertino Middle School has a joint agreement with the City to maintain a portion of the local school site as a community park. It is not clear if the stadium lights were on this jointly maintained property or the school property. If the facility were to be located in the jointly maintained area, a modification of the legal agreement between the City and the School District would need to be approved prior to the applicant submitting for a Use Permit for that site.
2. San Antonio Park on Astoria Drive. Did not pursue this site. Parks staff has discouraged the use of park sites if any ground area is needed for the facility equipment. There is a general concern of incremental encroachment that would reduce park area available to the public.
3. PG&E tower at the terminus of Holt Avenue. This site is similar to the proposed site in that it is adjacent to single family homes and AT&T's proposed antennas and equipment cabinets would be closer to the existing homes. The end of Holt Avenue (cul-de-sac) is private property and AT&T was not sure whether it could obtain the right to access the road to get to the tower.
AT&T chose this site because it was in the middle of the area they wished to cover and the actual installation could be located the furthest from home sites. Due to the limited area, low scale of buildings, and general residential character, finding an appropriate location and design is difficult. It is challenging to locate a 65 ft. high structure in a neighborhood that is predominantly 15-26 ft. in height without it being visible from surrounding properties and the street. For that reason, staff recommends that the tower be camouflaged in some way (flag pole, pine tree, church tower or cross, etc.) to appear as a structure that would more naturally appear in a residential neighborhood.
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.” Staff finds that this structure is a combination of a freestanding structure and a stealth façade mount. The proposed facility is not exposed as a plain monopole but camouflaged as a church tower.
Much of the church is low scale and one story. The main sanctuary building has a steep roof of about 32 ft. An existing 55 ft. tower on the northeast corner of the property is located next to a memorial garden. It is staff’s understanding that due to the trenching and associated work needed to install an antenna, this location was ruled out.
The proposed tower design matches the style of the existing tower, with a brick veneer and masonry on the exterior. The antennas are placed at 55 ft. high, and a 10 ft. high white cross is installed on top (Attachment E, Photo Simulations). With the Planning Commission action these antennas would be placed at 50 ft.
Ground Equipment: An enclosed equipment area is proposed within a corner of the church building. This enclosure will have walls to match the building exterior and a flat top roof. The applicant is proposing a rooftop air conditioning unit. Staff is concerned with the visual impact of this location and is recommending that the unit be relocated to the ground adjacent to the structure with appropriate screening (Condition #5).
Landscaping: The location of the tower and equipment requires the removal of one tree. This tree is medium-sized and in relatively good condition. Staff recommends that one additional 24-inch box tree be planted on-site to mitigate the removal (Condition #4).
Parking/Circulation: This installation does not remove any parking spaces from the site. None are required for the proposal.
Radio Frequency (RF) Emissions Exposure: The RF Emissions Report (Attachment H) includes information about the proposed radio frequency of the tower. The proposed tower emits 0.91% 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.
Comment on the Appeal
An appeal letter has been submitted that was signed by 30 residents. This letter states two main concerns: the proposed facility is visible from the surrounding residential properties and there are other more appropriate locations for a telecommunications facility.
The issue of visibility was discussed in the Alternative Locations section of the staff report. Residential neighborhoods typically have lower building heights scale which makes it challenging to locate a sufficiently tall facility to meet technical requirements. For that reason, staff works with the applicant to provide facilities in residential neighborhoods to be camouflaged so that they are recognized as typical residential structures and not as a monopole telecommunication facility with an antenna array.
The second issue of appropriate location is a complicated one. For every telecommunications location, the applicant looks at a series of possible locations in terms of both technical requirements and land use desirability. A feasible project needs property owner agreement, technical compliance with the needs of the provider, compliance with the zoning regulations and approval from the City. Staff understands that the neighborhood is not comfortable with the application, but cannot guarantee that the neighborhood around Cupertino Middle School or another site would be more comfortable with a provider on that site.
There have been several misconceptions stated in the City newspaper and in public testimony about City policy towards telecommunications providers and on the Cupertino Middle School site in particular. To clarify:
· The City does lease property to private telecommunications providers. Some examples are two facilities on the Public Safety pole along El Camino Real, at the Corporation Yard on Commercial Street and at Braly Park on the PG&E tower.
· Although there are facilities at Braly, City staff discourages the use of park property for the telecommunications providers. The concern is that the associated ground equipment occupies land that would otherwise be used for park services.
· There is an agreement between the City and the Cupertino Union School District Board for what can be done within the area of shared use. Light poles and required ground space located in the shared use area would be covered by the agreement. Any modification to any aspect of the agreement requires approval of both the School Board and the City Council and the initiator must cover the costs of all proceedings associated with changes to that agreement. While the Parks and Recreation Department discourages the addition of fixtures and structures which do not serve the primary mission of open spaces to protect park space, (such as advertising or cell towers), each request is reviewed individually. To date, the Parks and Recreation Department has not reviewed any specific design proposed for cell towers or supporting structures at Cupertino Middle School.
Compliance with Development Standards
Staff has received comments from surrounding neighbors that are significantly concerned with this application. These comments range from aesthetics and height of the tower, health impacts from emissions, and concerns about proximity to single family homes (Attachment G). However, this tower meets applicable standards of the Sunnyvale Municipal Code including height and setback. Staff finds the design consistent with the design requirements in Chapter 19.54 of the Sunnyvale Municipal Code.
Expected Impact on the Surroundings
This tower will be visible from the surrounding properties. The applicant has attempted to mitigate visual impacts by camouflaging the installation as a church tower. Planning Commission reduced the height to sixty feet to reduce the impact on the neighborhood. Projected noise levels and radio frequency emissions will be below applicable maximum standards.
Findings, General Plan Goals and Conditions of Approval
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 A.
· Conditions of Approval are located in Attachment B.
No fiscal impacts other than normal fees and taxes are expected.
Prior to the Planning Commission hearing, the applicant held a community meeting on this installation, and approximately 20 neighbors attended, stating concerns with the look of the tower, the height, the proximity to homes and the safety of the radio frequency emissions. Staff has also received several letters and emails from neighbors stating concerns with the proposed application (Attachment G).
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
· 105 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 |
1. Adopt the Negative Declaration, deny the appeal and uphold the decision by the Planning Commission to approve the Use Permit with attached conditions, including reduced height.
2. Adopt the Negative Declaration, deny the appeal and uphold the decision by the Planning Commission to approve the Use Permit with modified conditions, including reduced height.
3. Adopt the Negative Declaration, grant the appeal and deny the Use Permit.
4. Do not adopt the Negative Declaration and direct staff as to where additional environmental analysis is required.
Alternative 1.
Reviewed by:
Trudi Ryan, Planning Officer
Prepared By: Diana O’Dell, Senior Planner
Reviewed by:
Robert Paternoster
Community Development Dept, Director
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. Letter from the Applicant (.pdf)
G. Letters from other interested parties (.pdf)
H. RF Emissions Report (.pdf)
I. Minutes from Planning Commission Meeting of October 25, 2004
J. Letter of Appeal with Petition (.pdf)