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

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.

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: 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 site. 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 will 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 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.

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

1. Compliance with all FCC RF emission standards;

• This project meets all FCC RF emissions standards.

• 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. Using the exiting monopole is the most aesthetically preferable option for this site. Staff believes the construction of a new monopole at this site or in the immediate vicinity is less desirable.

The fifth co-location and the additional 10 feet of height to the monopole would not significantly impact the overall appearance of the site. The antennas will be visible from Pastoria and Hermosa Drive. The surrounding area consists of industrial buildings and the site is not visible from residentially zoned properties. Condition of Approval #3 requires that the antennas be painted to match the existing monopole. Although the equipment will match the color of the existing monopole, the proposed antennas would not be flush mounted. 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.

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.

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

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.

Prepared by:

Ryan M. Kuchenig
Project Planner

Reviewed by:

Gerri Caruso
Principal Planner

Reviewed by:

Trudi Ryan
Planning Officer

1. The proposed use attains the objectives and purposes of the General Plan of the City of Sunnyvale. The Wireless Telecommunications Policy promotes retention of local zoning authority when reviewing telecommunication facilities. The zoning code requires that the location of telecommunication facilities be designed with sensitivity to the surrounding areas. The proposed facility is compliant with all wireless telecommunication development standards:

Back to Attachments

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:

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. The proposed antennas will be painted to match the existing monopole and antennas.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Certification must be provided that the proposed facility will at all times comply with all applicable health requirements and standards pertaining to RF emissions.
7. The owner or operator of any facility shall obtain and maintain current at all times a business licenses issued by the city.
8. 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:

1. 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.
2. Name, address and telephone number of a local contact person for emergencies.
3. Type of service provided.

9. 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 tested on weekends or holidays, or between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekend nights. At no time shall equipment noise from any source exceed an exterior noise level of 60 dB at the property line.
    
11. Each owner or operator of a facility shall routinely and regularly inspect each site to ensure compliance with the standards set forth in the Telecommunications Ordinance.
    
12. The wireless telecommunication facility provider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the city of any of its boards, commissions, agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the city, its boards, commission, agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the approval of the project when such claim or action is brought within the time period provided for in applicable state and/or local statutes. The city shall promptly notify the provider(s) of any such claim, action or proceeding. The city shall have the option of coordination in the defense. Nothing contained in this stipulation shall prohibit the city from participating in a defense of any claim, action, or proceeding if the city bears its own attorney’s fees and costs, and the city defends the action in good faith.
    
13. Facility lessors shall be strictly liable for any and all sudden and accidental pollution and gradual pollution resulting from their use within the city. This liability shall include cleanup, intentional injury or damage to persons or property. Additionally, lessors shall be responsible for any sanctions, fines, or other monetary costs imposed as a result of the release of pollutants from their operations. Pollutants mean any solid, liquid, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals, electromagnetic waves and waste. Waste includes materials to be recycled, reconditioned or reclaimed.
    
14. Wireless telecommunication facility operators shall be strictly liable for interference caused by their facilities with city communication systems. The operator shall be responsible for all labor and equipment costs for determining the source of the interference, all costs associated with eliminating the interference, (including but not limited to filtering, installing cavities, installing directional antennas, powering down systems, and engineering analysis), and all costs arising from third party claims against the city attributable to the interference.

Back to Attachments

Back to 09/22/03 Agenda