March 29, 2005 

  

 

SUBJECT:	2004-0863 – Sprint PCS [Applicant] California Water Service Company [Owner]: Application on a 33,541 square-foot site located at 800 Carlisle Way in an R-0 (Low-Density Residential) Zoning District.  (APN: 309-12-013)
Motion	Appeal of a decision by the Planning Commission to approve a Use Permit to allow a 50-foot tall monopole on a non-residential use property in a residential zoning district.

 

REPORT IN BRIEF     

 

Existing Site Conditions	Cal Water facility: tank, pumps and accessory uses.
Surrounding Land Uses
North	Single-family Residential
South	Single-family Residential
East	Single-family Residential
West	Panama Park
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.
Planning Commission Action	Approve the Use Permit
Staff Recommendation	Deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to approve the Use Permit

 

 

For Project Site Map, click here.  (.jpg)

PROJECT DATA TABLE

 

 

 

Description of Proposed Project

 

The project consists of the installation of a 12” diameter monopole 50 feet high with associated ground equipment at the base of the pole.  The antennas will be screened inside the 12” diameter pole, except one antenna which will be placed on the pole mounted on the outside at 40 feet.

 

Background

 

A Planning Commission hearing was held for this project on Monday, January 24, 2005.  After presentations by the applicant and discussion from the neighbors, the Planning Commission, on a 6-1 vote approved the Use Permit with the change in project description for a tree pole rather than a standard monopole (Attachment J, Planning Commission Minutes).  A group of neighbors appealed the decision to approve the Use Permit, stating concerns about the location and land use compatibility of the tree pole (Attachment K).

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

  

 

File Number	Brief Description	Hearing/Decision	Date
2001-0320	Two sheds to house mechanical equipment and small quantities of water purifying chemicals	MPP	5/21/01

 

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 customers in the surrounding 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 Cal Water site has one water tank in the middle of the property, two small sheds and assorted pumps and small equipment.  The proposed monopole will go near the northwest corner of the property, approximately 130 feet from the homes across Carlisle Way and 37 feet from Panama Park.

 

The applicant chose the corner of the property to place the monopole closer to the park and further from residential properties on Kingfisher Way, to avoid Cal Water underground infrastructure and to not restrict future development options on the remaining portion of the property.

 

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 free-standing tower.”  As a free-standing facility, the proposed design is the least desirable.

 

The proposed wireless facility is known as a “repeater” site, which means it takes the signal from an adjacent Sprint facility (located ½ mile away at 958 East El Camino Real) and re-transmits it to extend the coverage of the existing site.  The 2’ x 2’ “planar array” antenna mounted outside the monopole at 40 feet is the antenna which picks up the signal from the adjacent site and then re-transmits it by the panel antennas located inside the pole at 50 feet.  According to the applicant, Sprint may, in the future, convert the repeater site to a full cell site.  This would involve adding additional and larger equipment at the base of the pole and at least one more antenna on the pole.  Sprint chose the use of a free-standing facility because of the lack of tall structures in the area on which the antennas could be placed.

 

SMC Section 19.54.040(p) also states that “the facility shall not be readily visible to the nearest residentially zoned property.”  The proposed slim-line monopole although of minimal design, would stand above the vegetation located near the pole and could be considered to be readily visible from the properties on Carlisle Way and Lillian Avenue.  A tree-pole (either a pine or broadleaf tree design) would better blend in with the vegetation on site and would be less readily visible from surrounding properties and public areas.

 

Alternative Locations/Designs Considered:  The residential area surrounded by Wolfe, Homestead, Sunnyvale-Saratoga and Fremont roads is roughly one mile square.  There are no wireless telecommunications facilities located within this area.  Most non-residentially used properties available for a wireless site within the area are located around the perimeter.  Retail, office or church sites are located on the perimeter of the one-mile square area; however, the only properties located within the one-mile square area which do not have residential uses are Stocklmeir School, Ortega Park, Panama Park and the Cal Water site.  The applicant has provided the following explanations about why these locations were not used:

 

1. Stocklmeir School- The applicant determined that the Cal Water site was a more appropriate location than the school property.
2. Ortega Park- The applicant identified a possible candidate on an existing light standard in the park.  They did not pursue this option based on previous feedback on other park sites.
3. Panama Park- The applicant also identified Panama Park for a site for a new monopole, but as noted above the applicant did not submit materials for review by the Parks and Recreation Department.

 

The Park staff has indicated that they find that telecommunications antennas and ground facilities are not consistent with the main objectives of maintaining and open space and recreational opportunities.  This being said the Parks Department reviews any and all applications for uses that are received and no materials were submitted by the applicant for departmental review.

 

The applicant states that they did not discuss the specific use of either Panama Park or Ortega Park for a telecommunication facility with the Parks Department.  The reason stated by Sprint is that when they were looking for a new facility in the proposed location, they had just received informal information for a similar site at Washington Park from Parks and Recreation. Park staff explained the department’s goals to maintain open space and recreational facilities and as a result, the applicant did not provide plans, specifications or a request for Washington, Ortega or Panama Parks for a location of a new telecommunication facility.

 

The City does not have a policy which prohibits the use of City parks or any other City property for wireless telecommunication facilities.  Staff reviews each proposal on a case-by-case basis weighing factors such as suitability of property, potential loss of open space, and current and potential future uses of property.

 

Additionally, staff has prepared a proposed Study Issue paper for Council on the topic “Consider establishing Council Policy regarding commercial use of parks, open space and recreation facilities owned and maintained by the City”.  A main focus of this potential Study Issue for calendar year 2006 is to consider the impacts of cell sites to these properties.

 

Due to the limited area, low scale of the buildings around the residential area, and general residential character, the applicant has stated they have had difficulty finding a suitable location for the facility.  Placing the wireless telecommunications facility on an existing public facility property being used by Cal Water allows two quasi-public facilities on the same property.  Staff recommends, however, revising the design to a tree pole to help mitigate potential visual impacts of the facility.

 

Ground Equipment:  The equipment area will be 375 sq. ft. in size surrounded by a 6 ft. high wood fence.  The equipment in the compound will operate 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 1.Y.).

 

Radio Frequency (RF) Emissions Exposure:  The RF Emissions Report (Attachment F) includes information about the proposed radio frequency emissions of the tower.  According to the report, the proposed facility would emit 0.054% 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 facilities.  If the facility meets the FCC standards, the City is not permitted to make additional judgments on health and safety issues.  The proposed application shall be considered on design and location criteria only.

 

To ensure the facility does not exceed federal guideline emission standards, staff recommends that the applicant take two readings of radio frequency emissions: one before the facility is constructed (to take the ambient level of existing emissions) and one after the facility is complete and operating at full capacity.  These readings should be taken at each property line and submitted to the Director of Community Development in order to ensure the facility meets federal standards (Condition 1.J.).

 

Existing Landscaping: There are significant trees on the Cal Water site, including: 3 pine trees between 20-35 ft. in height, a 41 ft. eucalyptus and a row of olive trees along Carlisle Way no higher than 15 ft. in height.  The larger trees are located behind the proposed free-standing pole.  The proposed monopole would be the tallest object on the site.  The attached photo simulations show both the slim-line monopole and the tree pole designs (Attachment E).  The simulations show how the tree pole would better blend in with the existing vegetation on site.

 

Conclusion

 

Compliance with Development Standards/Guidelines: The project as currently designed does not meet the criteria that the freestanding structure not be readily visible to surrounding residential properties.  Staff recommends changing the design to a tree pole in order to meet the criteria and to have it better blend in with the existing vegetation on site.

 

Expected Impact on the Surroundings:  The monopole will have a visual impact to the surrounding properties and public streets.  This impact will be reduced if the design is changed to a tree pole.  Proposed noise and radio frequency emissions will meet applicable standards and no further impact is expected.

 

Staff Discussion:  The applicant’s goal to provide service to the surrounding residential area is consistent with current wireless company’s needs.  The subject area is a mile square and has few non-residentially used properties on which a wireless site can locate.  The proposed Cal Water site would be the most appropriate because it already has a public use on the site.  The design initially proposed for a slim-line monopole would be too obvious on the site and would be visible from many locations throughout the neighborhood.  Staff recommends changing the design to a tree pole.  This would allow the site to better blend in with the surrounding areas and also to allow possible future co-location opportunities with other wireless carriers.

 

Comment on Appeal

 

The appellant has stated that the proposed tree pole will be an unsightly intrusion in the neighborhood and will not blend in with the surroundings.  The appellant suggests the Ortega Park property would be a better location for the wireless site.  Staff feels the tree pole is a good design because it is placed in among other trees, which is the best situation for a tree pole.  Staff also prefers having a telecommunications facility on a public utility facility than on a park because the ground equipment would not infringe on public use of the park.

 

 

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

 

 

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

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

 

 

A noticed Neighborhood meeting was held on January 10, 2005 and was attended by 4 members of the public.  The concerns raised were regarding noise, interference and radio frequency issues.  Staff has received 3 calls and/or e-mails regarding the project with concerns expressed about these issues.  Staff has also received comments from a member of the public regarding the lack of adequate wireless phone coverage throughout the city (Attachment H).

 

Notice of Public Hearing	Staff Report	Agenda
·         Published in the Sun newspaper ·         Posted on the site ·         56 notices mailed to adjacent property owners and residents within 300’ 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 and approve the Use Permit with attached conditions.
2. Adopt the Negative Declaration and approve the Use Permit with modified conditions.
3. Adopt the Negative Declaration and do not approve the Use Permit.
4. Do not adopt the Negative Declaration and direct staff as to where additional environmental analysis is required.

 

 

Recommend Alternative 1, with revision to tree pole design.

 

Reviewed by:

Trudi Ryan

Planning Officer 

 

Prepared by: Andrew Miner, Associate 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.     Letter from the Applicant (.pdf)

H.     Letter from Other Interested Parties (.pdf)

I.       RF coverage maps (.pdf)

J.       Planning Commission Minutes of 01/24/05 (.pdf)

K.      Letter of Appeal (.pdf)

 

Goals and Policies that relate to this project are:

 

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.

 

1.                  The proposed use attains the objectives and purposes of the General Plan of the City of Sunnyvale as the project provides for residential access to telecommunications services while designing the facility to blend in 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 (as conditioned) will not negatively impact the surrounding residential properties and the RF emissions are substantially below federal limits.