COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
Inter-Departmental Correspondence
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
DATE:
January 22, 2007
BOARD MEETING DATE:
February 6, 2007
SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING:
300-foot radius
VOTE REQUIRED:
Majority
TO:
Honorable Board of Supervisors
FROM:
Lisa Grote, Director of Community Development
SUBJECT:
Consideration of a Use Permit Amendment, pursuant to Section 6500 of the County Zoning Regulations, to allow the extension of an existing 59' - 8" lattice communications tower and omnidirectional antennas to reach a maximum height of 71 feet, to accommodate an upgraded wireless communications facility consisting of three panel antennas, located at the Menlo Park Fire Protection District Station at 3322 Alameda de las Pulgas in the unincorporated West Menlo Park area of San Mateo County. (Appeal of the decision by the Planning Commission for denial.)
County File Number:
PLN 2005-00154 (Cingular Wireless)
RECOMMENDATION
Deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the use permit amendment, County File No. PLN 2005-00154, by making the required findings in Attachment A.
VISION ALIGNMENT
Commitment: Redesign our urban environment to increase vitality, expand variety and reduce congestion. Responsive, effective and collaborative government.
Goals: (12) Land use decisions consider transportation and other infrastructure needs as well as impacts on the environment and on surrounding communities. (20) Government decisions are based on careful consideration of future impact, rather than temporary relief or immediate gain.
BACKGROUND
Proposal: The applicant is proposing to extend an existing 59' - 8" lattice communications tower and omnidirectional antenna to reach a maximum height of approximately 71 feet. The heightened tower would accommodate an upgraded wireless communications facility consisting of three panel antennas, with the centerline of the antennas mounted at a height of 51 feet. Two existing omnidirectional antennas would be remounted on the heightened tower. The antennas would be controlled using existing equipment which is screened behind an existing 6-foot wood fence.
Zoning Hearing Officer Action: The proposed project was considered at the Zoning Hearing Officer hearing on April 6, 2006. The Zoning Hearing Officer approved the project with added conditions to address the aesthetic concerns raised by the neighbors. These conditions reduced the overall height of the project from approximately 81 feet to a maximum of 71 feet. The number of antennas was also required to be reduced from six to three, to be mounted at a maximum centerline height of 51 feet.
Planning Commission Action: On July 26, 2006, the Planning Commission upheld the neighbors’ appeal and denied the project. The Planning Commission’s decision for denial has been appealed by the applicant to the Board of Supervisors. See below for further discussion of the Zoning Hearing Officer hearings and Planning Commission hearings regarding this project.
Report Prepared By: Kevin Guy, Contract Planner, LSA Associates, Telephone 650/985-2590
Report Reviewed By: Lisa Aozasa, Senior Planner, Telephone 650/363-4852
Applicant/Appellant: Mike Mangiantini (for Cingular Wireless)
Owner: Menlo Park Fire Protection District
Location: 3322 Alameda de las Pulgas at Valparaiso Avenue, West Menlo Park
APN: 074-036-240
Parcel Size: 22,433 sq. ft.
Existing Zoning: R-1/S-72 (Single-Family Residential/5,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size)
General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential (6.1-8.7 dwelling units/acre)
Existing Land Use: Fire Station
Water Supply: California Water Service Company
Sewage Disposal: West Bay Sanitary District
Flood Zone: Zone C (area of minimal flooding); Community Panel No. 060311-0265B, Effective Date: July 5, 1984
Environmental Evaluation: Categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1 (minor alteration of an existing structure).
Setting: The subject property is located at the intersection of Alameda de las Pulgas and Valparaiso Avenue in West Menlo Park. The site is developed with a fire station utilized by the Menlo Park Fire Protection District. An existing communications tower is mounted on the roof of the fire station and is topped with an omnidirectional antenna, reaching an overall height of 59' - 8". Single-family residential uses are located in the surrounding area, and within incorporated Menlo Park and the Town of Atherton beyond.
Previous Approvals: A use permit (USE 97-0040) was originally approved in 1997 for a wireless communications facility consisting of two antennas mounted to the lattice tower. This use permit was renewed in 2002 (PLN 2002-00226). In July 2004, AT&T Wireless (now Cingular Wireless) applied for a use permit amendment to replace the existing lattice tower with a monopole, and upgrade the existing wireless communications facility. The project was later revised to extend the existing tower rather than replace the tower with a monopole.
Chronology:
Date
Action
July 12, 2004
-
Initial use permit amendment application submitted by AT&T (now Cingular Wireless).
November 15, 2004
-
Pre-application workshop held to discuss project with neighbors (see Attachment J).
April 4, 2005
-
Revised use permit amendment application submitted by Cingular Wireless.
April 6, 2006
-
Zoning Hearing Officer approved Cingular’s wireless facility proposal with revisions.
April 25, 2006
-
Appeal of Zoning Hearing Officer’s approval is filed by neighbors.
July 26, 2006
-
Planning Commission granted the appeal and denied the proposed project. The Commission directed staff to return with Findings of Denial and Substantial Evidence on August 9, 2006.
August 9, 2006
-
Planning Commission adopted Findings of Denial and Substantial Evidence.
August 22, 2006
-
Appeal of Planning Commission denial is filed by the applicant.
February 6, 2007
-
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing.
Summary of Zoning Hearing Officer Hearing: The proposed project was considered at the Zoning Hearing Officer hearing on April 6, 2006. Following the staff presentation and comments from the applicant, several neighbors of the subject property spoke in opposition to the project. Specifically, they questioned the necessity of the project given Cingular’s existing signal quality in the area. In addition, they raised concerns regarding the aesthetics of the extended tower and proposed antennas.
The applicant responded that the height of the tower extension would allow for the proper operation of the Cingular facility, and would enhance the radio communications system used by law enforcement and life/safety personnel. The Zoning Hearing Officer approved the project with added conditions to address the aesthetic concerns raised by the neighbors. These added conditions reduced the overall height of the project from approximately 81 feet to a maximum of 71 feet. The conditions also reduced the number of antennas from six to three, to be mounted at a maximum centerline height of 51 feet.
Summary of Planning Commission Hearings: The Zoning Hearing Officer’s approval of the project was appealed by several neighbors of the subject property (see Attachment L). The appellant claimed that existing Cingular service is adequate in the area, and that the applicant failed to demonstrate a need for extension of capacity. The appellant also raised concerns regarding the potential health impacts from the radio frequency (RF) emissions from the antennas, and that a number of different configurations or alternatives sites should be evaluated to minimize the impacts of the project to the surrounding neighborhood.
At the hearing on July 26, 2006, the Planning Commission upheld the appeal and denied the project. The Commission directed staff to draft formal Findings of Denial and Substantial Evidence. The Commission adopted these findings on August 9, 2006. These findings stated that the proposed increase in tower height would result in a significant visual impact, and that the expanded signal coverage that would result from the upgrade of the facility is insufficient to justify these impacts. The applicant subsequently appealed the Planning Commission decision (see Attachment M).
DISCUSSION
A.
KEY ISSUES OF THE APPEAL
When the Planning Commission denied the project, they adopted specific findings and substantial evidence for denial that focused on two primary issues. The applicant’s appeal to the Board of Supervisors (Attachment M) also focuses on these issues, as discussed below.
1.
There is no evidence to support the finding that the project would be detrimental to the public welfare and injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood.
The proposed project would extend the height of the existing communications tower by approximately 11 feet to accommodate three panel antennas (see photosimulations in Attachment G). The Planning Commission stated that the additional tower height, combined with the proposed antenna panels, would create a significant visual impact to the surrounding neighborhood. Neighbors opposed to the project stated that the aesthetic impact would impair their enjoyment of their properties, and that the visible presence of the tower may negatively impact their property values.
The applicant states that the panel antennas are “low profile,” and that the addition of a section to the existing tower would not create new significant visual impacts. It should be noted that the tower structure uses a lattice configuration, topped by a narrow omnidirectional antenna. Therefore, the added tower height would not appear as a solid structure. Should the Board of Supervisors decide to approve the project per the alternative recommendation, a condition of approval has been added requiring that the new tower section and panel antennas are painted a light gray color to match the existing tower and make the project less conspicuous.
The applicant has submitted a report from a real estate appraiser that analyzes the likely effects of the proposed facility on the values of surrounding properties (see Attachment N). The report considers case studies of recent property sales in the area to determine how the visible presence of a nearby wireless facility might affect resale values. Based on these examples, the appraiser’s report concludes that, “. . . the proposed wireless communications tower extension would most likely have no effect on the market values of properties within visual range of the tower or on properties within the neighborhood.”
2.
The project is necessary for the public health, safety, convenience or welfare.
Wireless communication relies on a network of antenna sites that provides geographic coverage as users travel from one area to another, as well as sufficient capacity to handle increases in wireless communication. Capacity can be added by establishing new sites and by upgrading existing sites with more antennas. Without additions and upgrades, the reliability and quality of wireless communications may degrade over time.
Opponents of the project submitted a petition to the Planning Commission stating that existing wireless service is adequate in the area. The petition was signed by fourteen Cingular Wireless subscribers who live in the surrounding area. At the hearing, the Planning Commission reviewed maps comparing the existing signal coverage within buildings in the vicinity of the subject property with the coverage that would be achieved with the proposed upgrade of the existing facility. The Commission concluded that the increase in signal coverage would not be sufficient to justify the visual impact that would result from the heightened tower and antennas.
The applicant has submitted an analysis (see Attachment O) that illustrates the increase in voice calls and data communications (such as multimedia files and Internet use) handled by the existing facility between January 2006 through September 2006. Although the number of blocked calls fluctuates at individual points within this period, the applicant states that there is an increasing trend in blocked calls that will worsen with additional demand. (A “blocked” call occurs when a call is attempted but does not go through because there is no access to the network available.) The analysis also illustrates the geographic coverage of in-building service before and after the upgrade of the existing site. The analysis concludes that the proposed upgrade is needed to expand the geographic area served by the facility, as well as enhance the network capacity for increased reliability.
B.
COMPLIANCE WITH COUNTY REGULATIONS AND POLICIES
1.
Conformance with General Plan
Applicable General Plan policies are discussed below:
Chapter 4 – Visual Quality
Policy 4.20 (Utility Structures) requires minimization of visual impacts generated by utility structures. As discussed previously, the Planning Commission denied the project partly due to the visual impact that would result from the heightened tower and panel antennas. The Commission stated that the increase in signal coverage that would result from the upgraded facility would not justify these visual impacts. The applicant asserts that the visual impacts from the project would be minimal, and that the upgraded facility is necessary to expand geographic signal coverage and network capacity.
2.
Compliance with Zoning Regulations
Under the provisions of Section 6500 (Use Permits), wireless communications facilities are permitted in the R-1 District after issuance of a use permit. The project complies with all development standards for this zoning district, with the exception of height.
The maximum permitted building height in the S-72 Combining District is 30 feet, and the maximum height for facilities such as antennas is 36 feet as required for safety or efficient operation. However, Section 6405 (Height: General Provisions and Exceptions) allows for towers and other mechanical appurtenances to exceed the maximum permitted height of the underlying zoning district upon the granting of a use permit. This section requires that the area excepted from the height restriction be limited to no more than fifteen (15) percent of the lot area, to a maximum of 1,600 sq. ft. at the case, and the maximum height does not exceed 150 feet. The height of the proposed tower (a maximum of 71 feet) is less than the maximum allowed, would allow for the safe and efficient operation of the antennas, and would occupy a very limited footprint on the roof of the fire station.
3.
Conformance with the Use Permit Regulations and Required Findings
Under the provisions of Section 6500 (Use Permits), wireless communications facilities are permitted in the R-1 Zoning District after issuance of a use permit. The following two findings must be made for the issuance of the use permit:
a.
Find that the establishment, maintenance and/or conducting of the use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, result in a significant adverse impact, or be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in said neighborhood.
As discussed previously, the Planning Commission stated that the additional tower height, combined with the proposed antenna panels, would create a visual impact that would be detrimental to surrounding properties and the neighborhood in general. The Commission stated that this visual impact would impair the ability of neighboring property owners to enjoy their properties, and that the increase in signal coverage that would result from the upgraded facility would be insufficient to justify these visual impacts. Opponents of the project believe that the visible presence of the tower may negatively impact the values of properties in the area.
The applicant states that the project would not result in significant visual impacts, and has submitted a report from a real estate appraiser that analyzes the likely effects of the proposed facility on the values of surrounding properties (see Attachment N). Based on studies of sales of comparable properties near wireless facilities, the report concludes that the proposed project would likely have no effect on the values of properties in the vicinity.
It should be noted that the proposed facility would meet the radio frequency (RF) emissions criteria set by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The RF report submitted for the proposed project concludes that the maximum RF exposure for all existing and proposed antennas on the tower would reach a maximum of 8.69 microwatts/cm2, which is equivalent to 1.6% of the applicable public exposure limit (see Attachment H).
b.
Find that the use is necessary for the public health, safety, convenience or welfare.
As discussed previously, the Planning Commission reviewed maps comparing the existing signal coverage within buildings in the vicinity of the subject property with the coverage that could be achieved with the upgrade of the existing facility. The Commission concluded that the project would not serve a sufficient public need (expanded signal coverage) to justify the visual impact that would result from the added tower height and panel antennas.
The applicant has submitted an analysis (see Attachment O) that illustrates the increase in wireless communications handled by the existing facility between January 2006 through September 2006. The analysis also illustrates the expanded geographic area of in-building service coverage before and after the upgrade of the existing site. The analysis concludes that the proposed upgrade is needed to expand the geographic area served by the facility and enhance the network capacity for increased reliability. The applicant also contends that the project would increase network coverage for emergency calls to law enforcement and other public safety personnel. It should be noted that the project has been reviewed, and is supported by the engineering firm responsible for the design and maintenance of the radio system utilized by personnel at the fire station (see Attachment I).
C.
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION
The Board of Supervisors may elect, after hearing public testimony, to uphold the appeal and approve the project by adopting the findings and conditions for approval included as Attachment B.
D.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15301, Class 1, relating to the minor alteration of an existing structure.
E.
PUBLIC COMMENT REVIEW
Issues raised by the opponents are summarized and discussed in previous sections of the report, and are detailed more specifically in Attachments K and L. Staff also received an email in support of the project from Carol Bartlett, a resident of Menlo Park who lives approximately 0.4 mile to the northeast of the proposed project (see Attachment P). Ms. Bartlett indicates that the wireless reception at her home has deteriorated over time, and that she supports the proposed upgrade to improve reception in the area.
F.
REVIEWING AGENCIES