ALAMEDA COUNTY CDA PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT

Transcription

1 ALAMEDA COUNTY CDA PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT TO: WEST COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS HEARING DATE: APRIL 22, 2015 GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICATIONS: OWNER/ APPLICANT: REQUEST: ADDRESS, LOCATION AND SIZE OF PARCEL: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PLN (T-MOBILE) Public Storage Inc. (Storage Equities, Inc., property owner); applicant: Ginbar Ketema, Core Development Services To extend a use permit for operations of an existing telecom facility (stealth flag pole) for ten years, to April 8, 2025, with no changes to height or width Hesperian Blvd., west side, 191 north of Paseo Grande, unincorporated San Lorenzo area of Alameda County, designated County Assessor's Parcel Number: Parcel size is approximately 4.7 acres. ZONING: San Lorenzo Village Center Specific Plan (adopted October 7, 2004). Overarching Land Use Principle: Establish a balanced mix of diverse uses including a range of small-to-large retail stores and services, civic, institutional and residential uses. Encourage mixed retail/residential uses throughout the plan area. Identified as Area 6 (same Land Use Principle applies to all areas; special policies apply to San Lorenzo Theatre area). GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: RECOMMENDATION: Portion designated San Lorenzo Village Center Specific Plan (Eden Area Plan, adopted March 30, This project is Categorically Exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act; Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1, Existing Facilities, example (b) existing facilities of both investor and publicly owned utilities, used to provide electric power, natural gas, sewerage, or other public utility services. Staff recommends the Board review the attached staff report and draft conditions of approval, take public testimony and approve the extension of the use permit for two years pending the construction of a previously approved but yet to be constructed stealth monopine (redwood tree) on the same site intended to replace the stealth flag pole as a co-located telecommunications facility shared with AT&T Mobility, the proponent of the monopine. 1

2 PERTINENT FACTS History: August 20, 1955, the 87 th Zoning Unit initially classified the site as the R-1 (Single-Family Residence) District. July 30, 1987, 1785 th Zoning Unit reclassified the site to the PD (Planned Development) District allowing C-1 (Retail Business) District uses and a self-storage facility. September 26, 2001, Conditional Use Permit, C-7848, was approved allowing a radio transmission facility (cellular telephone antenna facility) for Cingular Wireless with a stealth design of one 45-foot flagpole with three panel antennae (located at southeast corner of Public Storage site, bordering Hesperian Boulevard); expired September 25, 2011 (subject of expansion application PLN submitted January 14, 2011). August 28, 2002, Conditional Use Permit, C-8027, approved to allow a radio transmission facility (cellular telephone antenna facility) for AT&T Wireless, in a light standard pole located at southwest corner of Public Storage site, with expiration August 28, October 7, 2004, San Lorenzo Village Center Specific Plan adopted designating the property as Area 6, allowing Commercial Comparison and Customer Intensive Commercial. June 11, 2008, Conditional Use Permit, C-8713, approved to allow continued operation of a wireless communication facility (AT&T Wireless, stealth light standard pole); expiration June 11, 2011 February 5, 2014, Conditional Use Permits PLN (T-Mobile), and PLN (AT&T Mobility), approved replacement of the AT&T Mobility stealth light pole facility with a new stealth monopine (redwood tree) antenna facility (56' high) with co-location capability, and approve continued operation of the existing T-Mobile flag pole for one year. (subject of current application, received February 5, 2015). Physical Features: The 4.7-acre property is irregularly shaped, comprised of one large nearly square area with 367' of frontage on Hesperian Boulevard and a depth of 411, supplemented by a large triangular (or grand piano -shaped) area on the north side, set behind five single family homes facing Hesperian Boulevard. A narrow stem (approximately 30 wide and 100 long) also extends directly west from the southwest corner of the property, which provides an emergency access driveway from Paseo Largavista. The site has level topography, and is developed with a multi-unit, single-story shopping center or shoppette facing Hesperian Boulevard, and a large self-storage facility complex across the rear of the site. The shoppette contains approximately 22,000 square feet of retail and service uses, and the storage facility is an estimated 63,000 square feet. Parking for the shoppette is located between the building and Hesperian Boulevard. The flag pole structure containing the T-Mobile telecommunications antenna is located at the southeast corner front of the parcel, almost directly bordering Hesperian Boulevard; the light pole housing the AT&T antenna is near the rear, southwest corner of the site. Adjacent Area: The site is bounded on the north and west sides by single-family homes, and on the east by the five homes facing Hesperian Boulevard (bordering the northern third of the site) and opposite Hesperian, a mixture of commercial uses. A vacant 2.23-acre site currently enclosed by a chain link fence lies directly south of the site, extending to Paseo Grande. A high hedge and a string of utility poles separates the subject site and this vacant site. A groundwater treatment installation occupies a relatively small portion of the site at the western end, bordering Paseo Largavista (about 5,000 square feet in area). On the opposite side of Paseo Grande is a large vacant parking lot (approximately 1.5 acres in area) between Hesperian Boulevard and Via Arriba, used on Saturdays for the San Lorenzo Farmer s Market. 2

3 Another 1.8-acre vacant lot lies south of Paseo Grande and west of Via Arriba. All of the vacant lands, as well as the project site, are within the San Lorenzo Village Center Specific Plan area. RESPONSE TO REFERRALS Building Inspection Department: The Building Official indicated there were no comments other than the requirement to obtain a building permit for any work on the site. Alameda County Fire Department: The Fire Department indicated in its response to the referral of the request for extension of the a use permit that it had no comments. Alameda County Sheriff s Office: The Sheriff s Office submitted a letter on March 13, 2015 noting their continuing concerns with certain wireless antenna transmission facilities having adversely affected radio communications operations of the Sheriff s Office. The Office indicated no opposition to the extension provided that Crown Castle agree to immediately correct any situation involving interference with public safety communications. More specifically, the agreement should provide for immediate shutdown of the antenna facility if the Office deems it warranted, and remain shut down until such interference can be eliminated. San Lorenzo Village Homeowners Association: The Association met on March 19, 2015 and received a presentation from Planning staff and the applicant. After taking some public comments, the Association Directors discussed the proposals and voted to recommend approval of an extension for two years, pending the construction of the yet-to-be-constructed stealth monopine previously proposed and approved on the same site by AT&T Mobility. They indicated favor towards the monopine, which was intended to replace both the stealth flag pole and AT&T s light standard as a common telecommunications facility for shared use or co-location by both T-Mobile and AT&T Mobility. The Association also recommended adopting a requirement that the flag be either illuminated at nighttime or raised and lowered respectively at sundown and sunrise in direct conformity to the U.S. Flag Code. (Minutes attached). ENVIRONMENTALREVIEW The flagpole use permit extension is Categorically Exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act; Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1, Existing Facilities, example (b) existing facilities of both investor and publicly owned utilities, used to provide electric power, natural gas, sewerage, or other public utility services. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS Requested Permit: Core Development Services (Ginbar Ketema, agent), on behalf of Crown Castle (owner of the flag pole, since 2014) and T-Mobile (cell phone service operator) requests that the Conditional Use Permit (CUP, PLN ) for the stealth flag pole be renewed for ten years. No changes to the antennae or the size of the pole (height or width) are currently proposed. Discussion: Conditional Use Permit PLN , as approved on February 5, 2014, provided for its termination after twelve months in order to facilitate co-location with the approved AT&T monopine for co-location at the site, and to allow for a period to evaluate maintenance and upkeep of the flagpole. The conditions also required that an interim report regarding the permit be submitted to the Board of Zoning Adjustments within six months (or by August 13, 2014, per the conditions) to determine compliance with the conditions of approval and address other issues, particularly its intentions to renew or modify the flag pole, cease operations, relocate to the proposed monopine as a co-located facility shared with AT&T 3

4 Mobility, or construct an alternative structure or facility with co-location capability. Crown Castle submitted a letter report on September 4, 2014, asserting that it had complied with all of the conditions of approval, but stated that no definitive decision had been made by either Crown Castle or its tenant T- Mobile on the future of the flag pole. Planning staff accepted the letter report as complying with the condition. Through informal communications (i.e., by phone and ) between Crown Castle and staff in subsequent months, Crown Castle reported that AT&T Mobility had not communicated with them regarding the schedule of construction, and had indicated no progress toward building the monopine. The County Building Inspection Department has received no application to construct the facility since its approval. The approval of the monopine and its construction is valid for three years after the approval and would therefore become null and void on February 5, The San Lorenzo Village Homeowners Association, after hearing comment from the public and the applicant, in consideration of the fact that construction of the monopine by AT&T Mobility will continue to be valid for roughly two more years, recommended that the flag pole operation be extended for two years only, in order to fulfill the expectation that T-Mobile will co-locate on the monopine. (see attached minutes). Based on the Development Standards policy to encourage co-location of new antennas, Planning staff has in the past encouraged both AT&T Mobility and T-Mobile to propose alternative and appropriate stealth designs for the site, and suggested a variety of stealth designs. 1 However, only AT&T Mobility proposed a stealth design that was supported by Planning staff and by the Board of Zoning Adjustments in February of General Plan Conformity: The site is within the San Lorenzo Village Center Specific Plan, which was adopted October 7, 2004, designating the property as Area 6, allowing Commercial Comparison and Customer Intensive Commercial uses. The primary goal of the Specific Plan is for a mixture of small to large retail stores and services, civic, institutional and residential uses, with mixtures of different uses throughout the Plan area; other goals are for an improved anchor supermarket (currently located northeast of the subject site), better pedestrian and design connections between the supermarket and other parts of the Plan area, improved automobile access and circulation and a mixture of new and existing neighborhood-serving stores and businesses. Medium-density residential uses would also be allowed on upper stories above commercial uses on most parcels. In most respects, the Specific Plan applies to major development projects and public investments rather than to an individual utility or telecommunications facility improvement such as the current project. The project is deemed to be consistent with the Specific Plan because it does not represent an obstacle to achievement of the Plan goals. Telecommunications Standards: The Alameda County Development Standards for Siting of Telecommunication Facilities includes the following policies (underline emphasis added): I-2 Freestanding telecommunications towers shall be located and designed to minimize visual impacts. Although not all towers will be required to do so, monopoles in areas where adverse visual impacts cannot be avoided (as in some commercial areas), shall incorporate appropriate techniques to camouflage, disguise and/or blend them into the surrounding environment, or disguise them as a pieces of art/sculpture, flag poles, telephone poles, light standards, or other interesting visual forms that would not be considered an adverse visual impact. (p. 7). 1 Designs suggested by Planning staff to replace the flag pole included one or two faux Italian cypress, accompanied by one or two live cypress trees, in the planter strip perpendicular to Hesperian Boulevard, or a new architectural tower feature on the shopping center building. 4

5 T-Mobile Proposal. The flag pole, as it was maintained for most of the past thirteen years without a flag being maintained on it, was more enigmatic and mysterious than especially unattractive. With a flag, it is more benign and appropriate, although the larger-than-normal diameter of the pole is noticeable. While Crown Castle has maintained a flag on the pole for most of the past year and recently added up-lighting to comply with U.S. Flag Code standards, comments made at the meeting of the San Lorenzo Village Homeowners Association indicate it still is perceived as being poorly maintained. While the Development Standards for Telecommunications Facilities encourages the use of flag poles among other stealth technology designs (Policy I-2, Design Guidelines for Free Standing Telecommunications Towers), the failure to maintain a flag on the pole in compliance with the original conditions of approval in 2001 is a legacy that may not be easily overcome. The two-year period may be an appropriate period in which the community may further assess if the flag pole is being maintained to expectations and is otherwise no longer objectionable. Additionally, as reported to the Board of Zoning Adjustments in 2014, T-Mobile has a lease from the property owner through the end of By February 5, 2017, T-Mobile would be required to choose among four options: a) apply for a new use permit to renew or modify the flag pole; b) cease its operations on this site; c) relocate its antennas to the redwood monopine; or d) construct an alternative structure or facility with co-location capability in cooperation with AT&T. Any new conditional use permit application should be submitted by November 30, Staff s recommendation that the term expire in two years is based on a long-standing effort by Planning staff to obtain co-location consistent with the Telecommunications Policy, and provide for a substantially improved aesthetic benefit on the site, also consistent with the Telecommunications Policy. The two-year term would provide an adequate, if relatively short-term in nature, for the involved telecommunication carriers to work together or collaborate on a joint facility for co-location of their antenna requirements. A longer term of ten years would perpetuate the flag pole and provide little incentive for either AT&T Mobility or T-Mobile to consolidate their operations on a co-located telecommunications facility. Proposed conditions of approval would require the existing flag to be flown in conformance with the U.S. Flag Code (Chapter 1 of Title 4 of the United States Code), including either nighttime lighting, as recently installed, or raising or lowering the flag respectively at sunrise and sunset. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends the Board review the attached staff report and draft conditions of approval, take public testimony and approve the extension of the use permit for two years pending the construction of a previously approved but yet to be constructed stealth monopine (redwood tree) on the same site intended to replace the stealth flag pole as a co-located telecommunications facility shared with AT&T Mobility, the proponent of the monopine. TENTATIVE FINDINGS BASED ON INFORMATION AVAILABLE PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING 1. Is this use required by the public need? Yes. Telecommunication facilities provide necessary communication services, which are increasingly required by the public. Location of a facility in this area is necessary to enhance communications service in the vicinity. The Federal Communications Commission and the California state Public Utilities Commission recognize cellular systems as public utilities. 5

6 2. Will the use be properly related to other land uses and transportation and service facilities in the vicinity? Yes. The existing rights-of-way provides safe and effective access to the facility for construction, maintenance, and emergency response. Utility sources and electrical connections are proximal to the proposed site, and other necessary service facilities are available. 3. Will the use, if permitted, under all circumstances and conditions of this particular case, materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing in the vicinity, or be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood? No. As regulated under the FCC and the PUC and as conditioned herein, the use would not have any detrimental effects upon the general public with regard to health and safety. 4. Will the use be contrary to the specific intent clauses or performance standards established for the District in which it is to be considered? No. Under Policy A-2, set forth in the Development Standards, Telecommunications facilities may be allowed subject to a Conditional Use Permit in all areas except the H-1 (Highway Frontage), and in those PD (Planned Development) Districts, which specifically prohibit their use. The site is in a general commercial category under the San Lorenzo Village Center Specific Plan, allowing a mixture of commercial uses and limited residential uses, and to which the proposed telecommunications facility would conform. AUTHORIZATION 1. Approval of this permit authorizes continued operation of a cellular telecommunication facility in the form of a free-standing, flag pole that cannot exceed 45- feet in height, on which the national flag of the United States shall be mounted, and use of space in an existing building for required ground equipment. GENERAL CONDITIONS 2. Public Safety Interference: The approved facility shall not interfere with public safety communications, and shall comply with the following regulations: a. The carrier will provide an intermodulation report from a certified radio frequency engineering firm. This report must clearly conclude that no interference will be caused to public safety frequencies in use at said site. b. In the event that carrier causes interference in violation of FCC rules and regulations, the carrier agrees to immediately correct any situation involving interference with public safety communications and to take all necessary steps to mitigate any type of harmful interference, regardless of the status of the FCC licenses, immediately upon notification by the County that a problem exists. If harmful effects of the carrier s radio frequency transmitters are not mitigated, the County will consider this as a violation of the conditions this permit and may take any lawful action to ensure that the interference ceases immediately. 3. Fire Department Approval. Applicant shall contact the Alameda County Fire Department, Fire Prevention Bureau, to obtain a fire clearance certificate. The Bureau may be reached by telephone at (510) The Applicant shall install a Knox Box at all entry gates, provide an 6

7 emergency contact to the Department, and maintain a fire extinguisher in the ground equipment area. 4. Public Agency Approval. Maintain compliance with the requirements of the following agencies: a. Alameda County Public Works Agency, Building Inspection Department b. Alameda County Public Works Agency, Land Development Department c. Alameda County Sheriff s Department d. California State Public Utilities Commission e. United States Federal Communications Commission 5. The project sponsor or its successors shall be responsible for payment of all reasonable costs associated with the necessary inspections of the conditions of approval contained in the authorization of the facility, including costs incurred by the Community Development Agency, the County Fire Department, the Building Inspection Division, the Public Works Agency or any other applicable Federal, State or County department or agency. 6. RF/EMF Emissions. Facilities shall be operated in a manner so as not to contribute to ambient RF/EMF emissions in excess of the current FCC adopted RF/EMF emission standards. In the event that a project implementation report to the FCC includes a finding that RF emissions for the site exceed FCC standards in any uncontrolled location, the Board of Zoning Adjustments may require the applicant to correct the emission to the satisfaction of the FCC. 7. Co-location: The applicant and owner shall allow other existing and future wireless communications companies including public and quasi-public agencies using similar technology to colocate antenna equipment and facilities, using the infrastructure at this site, wherever possible, provided that operations of existing users are not compromised, to the extent that all facilities shall minimize the number of buildings and antenna structures. The Applicant and any other wireless carrier so co-located shall provide a mechanism for the construction and/or maintenance of shared facilities and infrastructure and shall provide for equitable sharing of cost in accordance with industry standards. 8. Liability. By exercise of this Conditional Use Permit, the Permittee agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the County of Alameda, its officers, employees, agents and servants for any and all liability caused by the negligence or wrongful act of the Permittee arising out of the exercise of this Conditional Use Permit, and to pay all claims, damages, judgments, legal costs, adjuster fees, and attorney fees related thereto. 9. Optional Review/Revocation/Revision. At any time during the term of this permit and after notice as provided for in the initial hearing, this matter may be set for rehearing by the Board of Zoning Adjustments for the purpose of making a determination whether the use of the site has ceased for a period of six months, and whether the permit should therefore revoked. In addition, pursuant to Section , the permit may be revoked if the permit has otherwise been exercise unlawfully or contrary to any condition or limitation of its issuance. As part of such rehearing, and/or reconsideration for the permit, the Board may determine that conditions previously imposed should be modified or new condition should be added to assure continued affirmative findings for this permit. This reconsideration may include imposition of requirements such as painting antennas and support structures, and/or other treatments of the antennas and other appurtenances to insure public safety, compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood and with applicable policy. Any condition modified or added shall have the same force and effect as if originally imposed. 7

8 10. Transfer of Operations. Any entity that has acquired the facilities as authorized under this permit may maintain the benefits of the existing use permit provided that a letter of notification is submitted to the Board of Zoning Adjustments within six months after such transaction, and all conditions of approval for the subject facility are carried out by the new operator/permittee. 11. Site Restoration. Permittee shall provide written notification to the Board of Zoning Adjustments upon cessation of operations on the site by the Applicant or by any co-located additional telecommunications provider or carrier. If all operations have been terminated, the Applicant and/or property owner shall be required to remove all improvements authorized under this permit from the site and the property shall be returned within three months of cessation to a condition with no free-standing antenna facilities that are subject to the requirements of the County Development Standards for Telecommunication Facilities. 12. Signage. Permittee shall provide signage as required by the permitting authority (e.g. Fire Department, Planning Department) including phone numbers of the utility provider for use in case of an emergency. Signs shall be posted on the entrance to the building closest to the equipment. The antennas, cabinets, fencing, or mountings shall not be used for advertising. 13. Maintenance. All antennas and equipment shall be maintained in good condition throughout the term of the permit. This shall include keeping the equipment cabinets, fencing, and other structures graffiti free and in good condition. The flag shall be flown in conformance with the U.S. Flag Code (Chapter 1 of Title 4 of the United States Code), including raising or lowering the flag respectively at sunrise and sunset, or maintaining nighttime lighting. 14. Indemnification. The property owner shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless Alameda County or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against Alameda County or its, agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul Conditional Use Permit, PLN , the findings of the CEQA determination, or any combination thereof. Such indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, an award of costs and attorney's fees incurred by Alameda County in its defense. The County shall promptly notify applicant of any such challenge. 1. Expiration. Said Conditional Use Permit shall terminate on February 5, 2017, and shall remain revocable for cause in accordance with Section of the Alameda County Zoning Ordinance. Planner: Andrew Young Reviewed By: Sonia Urzua, Senior Planner H:\APPLICATIONS \PLN \Staff Reports\PLN WBZA w proposed conds.docx 8