HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Resolution 12795 (PG&E Tower Antennas - Denying Appeal)RESOLUTION NO. 12795
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL DENYING
AN APPEAL (AP09-003) AND UPHOLDING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
ACTION TO APPROVE A USE PERMIT (UP08-001) AND AN ENVIRONMENTAL
AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED08-002) TO ALLOW THE INSTALLATION OF
SIX PANEL ANTENNAS ON AN EXISTING PG&E TOWER WITH ASSOCIATED
EQUIPMENT CABINETS ENCLOSED IN A SHED SITED AT THE BASE OF THE
TOWER WHICH IS LOCATED ON 100 BLOCK OF WINDWARD WAY (APN: 009-
330-01)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL RESOLVES as follows:
WHEREAS, on January 14, 2008, Verizon Wireless filed applications for a Use Permit
(UP008-001) and an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-002) requesting the
installation of six panel antennas on an existing, PG&E lattice tower with associated equipment
cabinets located in a shed at the base of the tower The project application was deemed complete
for processing on April 23, 2008; and
WHEREAS, on May 20, 2008, the San Rafael Design Review Board favorably
reviewed the proposed project, recommending some plan changes and directed staff to review
the Alternative Site Analysis; and
WHEREAS, on October 22, 2008, Zoning Administrator reviewed the Use Permit
(UP08-001) and Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-002) applications, closed the
public hearing and continued the matter to October 27, 2008 to review and consider the
information submitted by neighboring residents; and
WHEREAS, on October 27, 2008, Joan Ripple, a neighbor's representative, contacted
the Zoning Administrator (ZA) to submit additional information regarding the health impacts of
radio frequency (RF) radiation and emissions. The ZA expressed that, although the public
hearing was closed, Ms. Ripple could submit the additional information. The ZA explained that
the information would be reviewed prior to making a determination on the applications by
November 4, 2008; and
WHEREAS, on November 4, 2008, following review of the additional information
submitted by neighboring residents, ZA approved the Use Permit (UP08-001) and ED Permit
(ED08-002) applications for the wireless facility. The approval incorporated two conditions,
among others, requiring: a) that within 45 days of commencement of operations of the wireless
communication facility, the telecommunication provider is to submit the results of RF testing to
the Community Development Department, Planning Division; and (b) every three years, the
wireless telecommunications provider is to participate in a study by the City to measure the
RFR of the facility; and
)a-7 15
WHEREAS, on November 12, 2008, Connie Barker, a resident of the Ecology House
located at 375 Catalina Blvd filed an appeal (AP08-007) of the ZA approval; and
WHEREAS, on January 13, 2009, the San Rafael Planning Commission held a duly -
noticed public hearing on the proposed project, accepting all oral and written public testimony
and the written report of the Community Development Department staff, and
WHEREAS, on January 13, 2009, following closure of the public hearing and
discussion, the Planning Commission voted to continue the project to date uncertain and
directed the project applicant to complete and submit a more substantive alternative site
analysis; and
WHEREAS, on February 26, 2009, the project applicant submitted a revised alternative
site analysis. The analysis was peer reviewed by an FCC -licensed RF engineer. The peer
review report dated May 27, 2009 concluded that the subject site is a better alternative site to
achieve the project objective. Another alternative would be to construct a new 75 to 80 feet tall
monopole near Pickleweed Park; and
WHEREAS, on May 26, 2009, the San Rafael Planning Commission held a duly -
noticed public hearing on the appeal, accepting all oral and written public testimony and the
written report of the Community Development Department staff. Following closure of the
public hearing and lengthy discussion, the Commission voted to deny the appeal and uphold
approval of the Use Permit and ED Permit with conditions of approval; and
WHEREAS, on June 2, 2009, Louise Yost and Connie Barker, residents of Ecology
House filed an appeal (AP09-003) of the Planning Commission action upholding of the Zoning
Administrator approval of the Use Permit and ED Permit; and
WHEREAS, on July 20, 2009, the San Rafael City Council held a duly -noticed public
hearing on the proposed project, accepting all oral and written public testimony and the written
report of the Community Development Department staff; and
WHEREAS, consistent with Wireless Communication Facilities Section
14.16.360.A.3, the City Council prefers the joint use of existing tower sites as a primary option
rather than construction of additional single -use towers; and
WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the City Council has confirmed that the
project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
which exempts additions to existing private structures that result in an increase of less than
10,000 square feet from the requirements of CEQA, if the project is located in an area that is
served by all available public utilities to allow for maximum development permissible under
the General Plan and if the project is located in an area that is not environmentally sensitive.
The project will add a 324 sq. ft. equipment shed within the base (footprint) of the existing
tower and a 126 sq. ft. paved area for locating an emergency generator outside the tower base.
2
Since the proposed addition doesn't exceed fifty percent of the floor area of the original
structure, or 2500 square feet, this addition meets the requirements for a categorical exemption
under Section 15301 of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the custodian of documents which constitute the record of proceedings
upon which this decision is based, is the Community Development Department.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of San
Rafael hereby denies the appeal (AP09-003) and upholds the Planning Commission's action
affirming the Zoning Administrator's conditional approval of the Use Permit (UP08-001) and
Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-002). The City Council finds that the points
of the appeal (in italics) cannot be supported for the following reasons:
Ecology House, as a home and community gathering place of almost 15 years standing -for
people disabled by environmental illness (EI) and chemical injury and intolerances (CI), is
a well established existing community. Should the area around it become substantially less
accessible to a significant segment of the particular disabled population that it currently
serves, the character of the neighborhood as an accessible community gathering place for
those people would most certainly be changed: General Plan 2020 Policy NH -2 (New
Development in Residential Neighborhoods) reads as follows:
"Preserve, enhance and maintain the residential character of neighborhoods to
make them desirable places to live. New development should:
• Enhance neighborhood image and quality of life,
• Incorporate sensitive transitions in height and setbacks from adjacent
properties to respect adjacent development character and privacy,
• Preserve historic and architecturally significant structures,
• Respect existing landforms and natural features,
• Maintain or enhance infrastructure service levels, and
• Provide adequate parking. "
As discussed above, the neighborhood character has been typically interpreted to mean and
apply to physical changes and improvements that could impact the character of the
environment/neighborhood. As proposed and conditioned, the project would be consistent
and would not conflict with Policy NH -2 for the following reasons:
a. The project site is located in a neighborhood that is developed with a broad mix of land
uses and improvements including commercial, light industrial, residential and
public/quasi-public facilities. In addition, the general area contains numerous PG&E
transmission towers that are identical to the tower on the project site. One of the
neighboring PG&E towers contains a Metro PCS array of antennas. This Metro PCS
facility is located approximately 600 feet to the south of the proposed project site.
Collectively, these land uses and improvements define the physical character of the
area. The proposed addition of six antennas on the existing PG&E tower with associated
improvements would not result in a physical change to the size or shape of this tower.
3
In fact, with the implementation of recommended conditions of approval (painting the
antenna and facilities to match the tower), there would be minimal visual changes to the
tower structure.
b. As discussed above, the property is located within the MR2 zoning district, which is
unique in that it is the only property located south of Bellam Boulevard that is
residentially -zoned. Bellam Boulevard clearly defines the separation between the
predominantly residential area of the neighborhood (north of Bellam Boulevard) and the
non-residential and light industrial area of the neighborhood (south of Bellam
Boulevard). While collectively, these land uses and improvements form the
neighborhood character, this division is apparent. Although the subject property is
residentially -zoned, which is unique, its location south of Bellam Boulevard makes it
more appropriate for the siting of telecommunication facilities because it is primarily
surrounded by non-residential land uses.
c. The proposed co -location of the facilities on an existing utility tower is precisely what
the City Code provisions for such facilities are intended to achieve. By co -locating, the
proposed facilities make use of an existing structure without changing its size, shape,
character or general appearance, thus making it blend in with the existing character of
the neighborhood.
Potential noise generation was assessed and considered in reviewing the project to
determine the potential for change in noise levels. The proposed project would include the
installation of an emergency generator for occasional use. The generator is designed to be
within the maximum 60 Ldn noise limit (exterior noise level allowed near new residential
development). Additionally, at the request of the residents of the Ecology House, the
generator is proposed to be located on the farther side of the PG &E tower. Therefore, the
project would not result in noise levels incompatible with the existing residential uses in the
neighborhood.
2. The viability of Ecology House as a home and gathering place for the local EUCI
community is absolutely dependent on its remaining accessible to as large a segment of the
local population with CS/CI as possible. Any substantial increase in RF and EMF radiation
in Ecology House's immediate vicinity necessarily impacts its ability to serve the
population that it is both federally and locally funded specifically to serve: The Ecology
Mouse was built by Marin Ecumenical Association for Housing (EAII) in 1994, and is
owned and managed by Ecology Ilouse, Inc. The complex contains 11 rental apartment
units for chemically -sensitive, low-income residents that were built using non-toxic
building materials (which was confirmed in reviewing the initial building permit). Chemical
sensitivity was not defined but has been interpreted to refer to sensitivity to odors and air
emissions. A high tension PG&E power line running along Playa del Rey is located
approximately 100 feet from the nearest unit in the Ecology House. High tension power
lines are believed to carry EMFs. This power line existed when the Ecology House complex
was reviewed and approved by the City. Planning approvals were limited to an ED Permit.
The ED Permit approval did not include any special conditions or land use restrictions for
the Ecology House or the immediate neighborhood. Further, there was no special safety
4
zone placed or recorded on the property that would influence land use decisions on the
apartment site or neighboring properties. The testimony received at the City Council
hearing indicated that the project was built with consideration for persons with EMF
sensitivities as well.
An RF study prepared by Hammett and Edison, Inc. finds that the current RF levels inside
and outside the Ecology House are 0.05% (or less) and 0.45% respectively, of the
maximum exposure level allowed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The
study has calculated that the proposed Verizon project would add 0.40% to the public
exposure limit outside the Ecology House. Therefore, the maximum cumulative RF level
outside the Ecology House is expected to be 0.85%.
3. The independent review of the applicant's alternatives analysis addressed the technical
concerns of coverage areas, but not the issue of community and neighborhood identity and
its preservation. Since Ecology House specifically serves a disabled population, we
therefore ask, as a matter of reasonable accommodation under the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), and as a matter of complying with general plan provisions
requiring that the character of existing neighborhoods be preserved, that the city act to
preserve access to Ecology Hoarse for as broad a range of EUCI people as possible: As
discussed above in response to Appeal point #1, the Planning Commission concluded that
the project would not impact the physical character of the neighborhood. An Alternative
Site Analysis was prepared assessing four alternative sites within the service area and a peer
review was conducted by the City. SRMC Section 14.16.360C.3.d sets forth the purpose
and scope of an Alternative Site Analysis, which is to: a) identify other sites that have been
considered and rejected in favor of the proposed site; b) present supporting reasons why the
alternative sites were infeasible and rejected; and c) identify why the proposed site is
superior from a technical or other standpoint. The scope of the Alternative Site Analysis
prepared for this project complies with the requirements of the City Code.
The issue of reasonable accommodation under ADA has been researched and reported by
the City Attorney's Office. As a point of clarification, a request for reasonable
accommodation is not applicable in this situation. A request for reasonable accommodation
is made by a property owner to relieve their own property (not through the action on a
neighboring property) from a code requirement that challenges or impairs the right of
access or use.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of San Rafael
upholds the Planning Commission action to deny the appeal and affirm the Zoning
Administrator approval of Use Permit (UP08-001) and Environmental and Design Review
Permit (ED08-002) based on the following findings:
R
FINDINGS — Use Permit (UP08-001)
1. As proposed and as conditioned, the proposed telecommunication facility use is consistent
with the San Rafael General Plan 2020, the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance, and the
purposes of the MR2 district in which the site is located. Specifically, the project is
consistent with the General Plan Policy I-15 (Telecommunication Improvements) in that the
project would promote telecommunication access in the area.
The project is also consistent with the General Plan Policy NH -2 (New Development in
Residential Neighborhoods), that requires that new development and activities `preserve,
enhance and maintain the residential character of neighborhoods to make them desirable
places to live ....' The neighborhood character has been typically interpreted to mean and
apply to physical changes and improvements that could impact the character of the
environment/neighborhood. The project site is located in a neighborhood of mixed
character of vacant land and commercial as well as light industrial developments, mudflats
and seasonal wetlands and residential neighborhoods. The general area contains high
tension power lines and a number of similar PG&E transmission towers. One of the
neighboring PG&E towers contains a Metro PCS array of antennas. The mixed
neighborhood character described above would not be impacted by placing the wireless
antennae on an existing PG&E tower.
The proposed project is also consistent with the General Plan Policy N-1 (Noise Impacts on
New Development) in that the emergency generator to be utilized occasionally, is of a
design which enables it to be consistent with the maximum 60 Ldn, exterior noise level
allowed near new residential development. Additionally, at the request of the residents of
the Ecology House, the generator is proposed to be located on the farther side of the PG&E
tower.
Additionally, the proposed project is consistent with the purpose of the MR2 District in
which it is located. Since the MR2 District does not address the location of wireless
communication facilities, the proposed location of the wireless communication facility is
subject to Zoning Ordinance Section 14.16.360 (Wireless Communication Facilities), which
establishes standards to regulate the general location (including the installation of such
facilities in residential zoning districts subject to conditions), the design and placement of
wireless communication facilities on public and private property in order to minimize the
potential safety and aesthetic impacts on neighboring property owners and the community.
The proposed project is consistent with these standards as the proposed facility would be
located on, and at the base of, an existing PG&E tower and screened behind an 8 -ft. high
fence; the proposed antennas will be integrated architecturally with the style and character
of the existing tower; since the project does not propose stealth design, the applicant studied
four (including the subject site) alternative sites to determine that the subject site is the best
option for the project; the proposed 74'-3" height is exempt from the 36 -ft. maximum
height requirement (Zoning Ordinance Section 14.16.120 Exclusions to the Maximum
Height Requirement); the setbacks required under the MR2 zoning district do not apply to
the proposed project because the project will be located within the base of the existing
6
tower; the project does not require additional landscaping since the facility will not be
visible to the public as it is located within the footprint of the existing tower and behind an
8 -ft. high wooden fence; the facility shall not produce RFR in excess of the standards for
permissible human exposure as adopted by the FCC; the noise study prepared for the
project indicates that at 50 feet from the generator. the noise level generated by the facility
will be less than the maximum allowed 60dBA for residential development; and the project
will not result in new lighting levels.
2. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, as evidenced in Finding
# 1 above and due to the consistency of the use with the applicable regulations of the
Federal Communication Commission, is determined to be not detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity, or to the general welfare of the city because the proposed wireless antennas are
located on an existing PG&E tower; will not result in new lighting levels; the emergency
generator will be located away from the existing residences so it will result only in minimal
noise.
3. As evidenced in Finding # 1 above, the proposed project complies with each of the
applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance in that the project will be screened from
public view; the antennas will be integrated architecturally with the style and character of
the existing tower; an alternative site analysis was completed to select the subject site as the
best option for the project; the proposed 74'-3" height is exempt from the 36 -ft. maximum
height requirement (Zoning Ordinance Section 14.16.120 Exclusions to the Maximum
Height Requirement); the setbacks required under the MR2 zoning district do not apply to
the proposed project because the project will be located within the base of the existing
tower; the project does not require additional landscaping since the facility will not be
visible to the public as it is located within the footprint of the existing tower and behind an
8 -ft. high wooden fence; the facility shall not produce RFR in excess of the standards for
permissible human exposure as adopted by the FCC; the noise study prepared for the
project indicates that at 50 feet from the generator, the noise level generated by the facility
will be less than the maximum allowed 60dBA for residential development; and the project
will not result in new lighting levels.
4. Previously submitted Alternative Site Analysis has been revised. The revised Analysis
provides detailed study of different sites and is accompanied by a service search ring and
coverage maps. The revised Alternative Site Analysis was peer-reviewed by Jonathan
Kramer, a City hired consultant who is an FCC -licensed RF engineer and an admitted
member of the State Bar of California. The consultant report dated May 7, 2009, confirms
the applicant's finding that the proposed height of the antennas is appropriate for coverage
of the large area; an alternative location near Pickleweed Park would necessitate a 75 -foot
to 80 -foot tall new monopole; and that the subject site is the optimal site to provide the
desired coverage with the least amount of visual impact.
7
FINDINGS — Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-002)
The General Plan Land Use Designation for this site is Medium Density Residential. The
proposed installation and operation of an unmanned wireless communication facility has
been designed to be consistent with the following design related General Plan 2020
policies: NH -2 (New Development in Residential Neighborhoods); NH -49 (Conflicting
Uses); CD -2 (Neighborhood Identity); CD -10 (Nonresidential Design Guidelines); CD -18
(Landscaping); I-15 (Telecommunication Improvements) in that:
a) The proposed new antennas would be mounted on an existing PG&E tower and would
appear to be a part of the existing tower. That would result in no significant physical
change to the tower or the site;
b) The project would locate the 10%2 -ft tall equipment shelter within the base of the
existing tower and behind an 8 -ft. tall wood fence. The equipment shelter would be
generally screened from public view by the proposed fence;
c) The proposed equipment area not being very visible to the public, will not need
landscaping;
d) The design of the facility is compatible with existing configuration of the buildings and
landscaping on the project site surrounding the lease area;
e) It would preserve the existing neighborhood identity and not impact any views due to
the antennas being located on the existing PG&E tower and the siting of the equipment
shelter behind a fenced area;
f) The proposed antennas and equipment shelter would blend consistently with the
existing PG&E tower's profile regarding structure, materials and color; and
g) It provides access to telecommunications in the area.
2. As proposed, the project is in keeping with the applicable criteria of San Rafael Non -
Residential Design Guidelines in that:
a) The project of collocation of antennas is designed to be consistent with the existing
tower profile; and
b) The project will maintain the overall visual quality of the area by not introducing any
new structures in the area, in that the new antennas to be located on the existing tower
would be consistent with the overall profile of the tower; and the proposed equipment
shelter would be located behind an 8 -ft. high wooden fence and within the footprint of
the tower.
3. The subject site is located within the Medium Density Residential (MR2) Zoning District.
Although the MR2 District does not address the location of wireless communication
facilities, the proposed location of the subject wireless communication facility is subject to
Zoning Ordinance Section 14.16.360 (Wireless Communication Facilities), which
establishes standards to regulate the general location (including the installation of such
facilities in residential zoning districts subject to conditions), the design and placement of
wireless communication facilities on public and private property in order to minimize the
potential safety and aesthetic impacts on neighboring property owners and the community.
8
The proposed project is consistent with these standards as they apply to the MR2 District in
that:
a) The proposed wireless facility which, although, is not located in a most preferred
industrial location, is proposed for placement on and at the base of, an existing PG&E
tower. The PG&E tower building on which the antennas will be mounted is not an
archaeologically or historically significant structure. The project will not impact any
views from the neighboring residential neighborhoods because the antennas would be
located on an existing tower and within the existing profile of the tower and the
equipment shelter would be located behind an 8 -ft. high fence within the base of the
tower;
b) The proposed antennas will be integrated architecturally with the style and character of
the existing tower;
c) The Zoning Ordinance encourages co -location in order to minimize the overall visual
impact of a new facility. Since the project is proposed in an MR2 zoning district and
does not propose stealth design, the applicant studied four alternative sites (including
the subject site) described as follows:
1) Adiacent PG&E tower at 100 Windward Way: The tower at 100 Windward Way
is currently being used by Sprint with their equipment located within the tower
footprint, which means the Verizon equipment would need to be located outside
the tower footprint. Therefore, PG&E is not interested in entertaining another
lease at this location;
2) 90 Windward Way: A ground lease for installation of facilities is not acceptable
to the property owner. Additionally, a collocation of the antennas at this location
would be at a lower elevation than the proposed one, which would necessitate a
taller monopole at this location rather than location on an existing tower at the
proposed site; and
3) PG&E towers located to the south of 100 Windward Way: Access to equipment
is constrained and telephone line access is difficult to obtain at these locations.
In addition, a ground lease was not acceptable to the property owner; and
4) PG&E Tower at 100 Block Windward Way: This site has access for
maintenance vehicles right off Windward Way. The leasing space was available
within the tower footprint. Considering the above analysis, this site presents the
best option for the applicant's project.
The submitted alternative site analysis concludes that alternative sites in the
neighborhood of the proposed project would be less efficient and less desirable than the
proposed site;
d) The revised Alternative Site Analysis was peer-reviewed by Jonathan Kramer, a City
hired consultant who is an FCC -licensed RF engineer and an admitted member of the
State Bar of California. The consultant report dated May 7, 2009, confirms the
applicant's finding that the proposed height of the antennas is appropriate for coverage
of the large area; an alternative location near Pickleweed Park would necessitate a 75 -
foot to 80 -foot tall new monopole; and that the subject site is the optimal site to provide
the desired coverage with the least amount of visual impact.
9
e) The proposed height of the six antennas is 74'-3" on a 117' high existing PG&E tower.
The maximum allowable height under the General Plan for structures in the area is 36
feet. Although height of the existing tower is not in question, according to Zoning
Ordinance Section 14.16.120 Exclusions to the maximum height requirement,
aboveground utility distribution facilities including communication towers are not
included in height calculations and may be permitted subject to an Environmental and
Design Review Permit. Additionally, the height of the proposed antennas is
approximately 42 feet lower than the tower height;
f) The setbacks required under the MR2 zoning district do not apply to the proposed
project because the project will be located within the base of the existing tower;
g) The project does not propose to add additional landscaping to the site. From the public
view, the proposed project site lease area is within the footprint of the existing tower
and behind an 8 -ft. high wooden fence;
h) The proposed base station, equipment cabinets, and other equipment associated with the
tower -mounted antennas would be installed on the ground. The equipment shall be
painted, and screened behind an 8 -ft. high wooden fence located behind an existing
chain link fence (partial); and
i) No advertising signage or identifying logos is proposed for facility except for small
identification plates used for emergency notification and legally required hazard
warnings, which are exempt from the provisions of the City's Sign Ordinance.
4. Radio Frequency Radiation (RFR) has been assessed and analyzed in considering these
applications. The proposed project is consistent with Zoning Ordinance Section
14.16.360.C.6, which requires that wireless communication facilities operating alone and in
conjunction with other telecommunication facilities shall not produce RFR in excess of the
standards for permissible human exposure as adopted by the FCC. Consistent with the
requirements of the City code, a Radio Frequency (RF) Study has been prepared for the
proposed project by Hammett & Edison, Inc (July 12, 2007 and amended on July 16, 2009).
The RF Study finds that the current RF levels inside and outside the Ecology House are
0.05% (or less) and 0.45% respectively, of the maximum exposure level allowed by the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The study has calculated that the proposed
Verizon project would add 0.40% to the public exposure limit outside the Ecology House.
Therefore, the maximum cumulative RF level outside the Ecology House is expected to be
0.85%. In addition, every three years, the applicant will participate in a study by the City to
measure the RFR of the facility so that the RF exposure would not be greater than 75
percent of the FCC standard for public exposure.
5. The proposed project is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance Section 14.16.360.C.7 which
requires that wireless communication facilities (and backup generators) shall be constructed
and operated in a manner that minimizes noise. Specifications submitted with the project
plans and application materials pertaining to noise generation for both the equipment shelter
and the emergency back-up generator indicate that at 50 feet from the equipment shelter, a
maximum of 54dBA would be produced, which is below the maximum allowed 60dBA for
residentially zoned properties. The generator noise data is given at points 23 feet from the
10
center of the generator and noise levels are assumed to dissipate further at greater distances.
Given that the closest building to the new wireless facility is just under 300 feet away, noise
would be less than significant. Further, since the generator would only be used when
absolutely necessary, emergency repair work performed by, or at the request of, a property
owner on his or her own private property is exempted through Section 8.13.070 of the San
Rafael Municipal Code.
6. The proposed project would not result in new lighting levels. As required by conditions of
approval, any exterior lighting would be manually operated, low wattage, and used only
during evening maintenance or during emergencies.
7. Pursuant to Section 15301(e) (1) of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
additions to existing private structures that result in an increase of no more than 50 percent
of the floor area of the structure before the addition, or 2,500 sq. ft., whichever is less The
project will add a 324 sq. ft. equipment shed within the base (footprint) of the existing
tower and a 126 sq. ft. paved area for locating an emergency generator outside the tower
base. Since the proposed addition doesn't exceed fifty percent of the floor area of the
original structure, or 2500 square feet, this addition meets the requirements for a categorical
exemption under Section 15301 of CEQA.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Use Permit (UP08-001) and Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-002)
Community Development Denartment. Planning Division
1. The building techniques, materials, elevations, and appearance of the project, as presented
for approval on plans titled Verizon wireless, "Pickleweed" PSL 4 40863151, Tower #
9/49, Linename Ignacio — San Rafael 115KV; prepared by JES Engineering, Inc.,
approved by the Design Review Board on May 20, 2008 and stamped approved on July
20, 2009 shall be the same as required for issuance of a Building Permit (except those
modified by these conditions of approval). Any modifications or revisions to the project
shall be subject to review and approval of the Community Development Department,
Planning Division. Modifications deemed not minor by the Community Development
Director shall require review and approval by the original decision-making body, the
Zoning Administrator and the Design Review Board, if necessary.
2. Prior to any construction, a building permit shall be obtained for the work. Plans submitted
for a building permit shall include a plan sheet, which incorporates these conditions of
approval.
3. All 15/8" hardline coaxial cables shall at all times be run on, and affixed to, the inside of
the PG&E tower leg(s) to the approximate level of the antennas. At the approximate level
of the antennas, '/2" coaxial jumper cables shall be used to interconnect the 15/8" hardline
coaxial cables to the antennas.
4. All panel -type antennas shall employ only rear -facing connectors.
5. All antenna mounting bracket pipes shall be of the minimum height required to attach the
antenna. No antenna bracket pipes shall protrude more than six inches above and below
the associated panel antenna.
6. All portions of all cables on and adjacent to the tower from ground level to the antenna
connectors shall be completely painted a flat, non -reflective gray that is selected to closely
match the color of the PG&E tower. The paint color shall be subject to the prior written
approval of the Director of the Community Development Department.
7. All cable attachment hardware, antenna brackets, antenna attachment hardware, and any
other physical elements of the project attached to the PG&E tower shall be completely
painted the same color as approved by the Director of the Community Development
Department in condition 6.
8. All antenna radomes (panels, GPS antenna, etc.) shall be completely painted the same
color as approved by the Director of the Community Development Department in
condition 6.
9. All of the project elements described in conditions 6 through 8, inclusive, shall be
completely repainted as required by the City. The paint used shall be a non -reflective gray
that is selected to closely match the color of the PG&E tower as it exists at the time of
repainting. The paint color shall be subject to the prior written approval of the Director of
the Community Development Department.
10. To ensure adequate circulation, parking, and access for emergency vehicles in the
neighborhood, the applicant shall submit a construction management plan to the Planning
Division for approval before Building Permit submittal. The plan shall specify the
methods and locations of employee parking, material drop-off, storage of materials,
storage of debris and method of its disposal, size limits on delivery vehicles, construction
days and hours, and appropriate safety personnel.
11. Except for clearing for the ground mounted equipment pad, no part of the existing
landscape including any trees shall be removed.
12. The existing chain link fence shall not be removed.
13. All site improvements, including but not limited to, the fencing and structures shall be
maintained in good, undamaged condition at all times. Any damaged improvements shall
be replaced in a timely manner.
IM
14. Any future changes in the materials, colors and design of the existing tower would require
that the design of the proposed equipment shelter be modified to be compatible with the
change. Modifications to the design of the equipment shelter shall be reviewed by the
Planning Division.
15. The service provider shall properly maintain this facility during the life of the permit. In
the event the wireless facility becomes abandoned, all wireless antennas and associated
accessory structures shall be removed from the subject property within thirty (30) days of
abandonment. The service provider shall notify the Planning and Building Divisions
within ten (10) days of abandonment. The removal of the entire facility shall take place
within Twenty (20) days of the notification of the abandonment and shall be restored to
the design prior to the installation of the wireless antennas. Failure to remove the
equipment shall be subject to action by the City's Code Enforcement Division.
16. If technology improvements or developments occur which allow the use of materially
smaller or less visually obtrusive equipment, or equipment that generates less RF
emissions, the carrier shall be required to replace or upgrade the subject facility as related
to Use Permit (UP08-001) and Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-002).
17. Testing shall be conducted once the six panel antennas are mounted and equipment
installed and operating at maximum capacity. Within 45 days of commencement of
operations of the wireless communication facility, the telecommunication provider, or its
successors, shall submit the results of this testing to the Community Development
Department, Planning Division. The testing shall entail verification of compliance with the
FCC's Radio Frequency (RF) emission standards. This testing shall be conducted during
normal business hours and on non -holiday weekday with the facility operating at
maximum power. The telecommunication provider, or its successor, shall provide the
Community Development Director with a report, prepared by a qualified expert, indicating
the actual RFR levels of the operating facility, measured at the property line or nearest
point of public access and in the direction of the maximum radiation from each antenna, is
in compliance with the standards established by the FCC for RFR.
18. Every three years, the wireless telecommunications provider, or its successor(s), shall
participate in a study by the City to measure the RFR of the facility approved by this
Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-002) and Use Permit (UP08-001). The
City will contract with a qualified expert to perform the independent testing and the
current wireless telecommunications provider, or its successor(s), shall bear the
proportionate cost of testing for the wireless telecommunications facility approved by this
Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-002) and Use Permit (UP08-001).
19. Any operational or technological changes to an approved wireless communication facility
affecting RFR exposures shall be reported promptly to the city, including any change of
ownership. The city may require new RFR testing within 45 days of notification.
13
20. In the event the FCC changes their standards, the owner or operator of an approved
wireless facility shall make necessary changes or upgrades to their facilities in order to
comply with any newly adopted FCC standards for RFR. The upgrades to facilities shall
be made no later than 90 days after notification of the changed FCC standards and the
owner or operator shall notify the city in writing that the upgrades have been completed.
21. The generator pad shall use simple paving material color matching the galvanized tower
and would be with no curbs or gutters. The generator shall be of type and design that
provides sound attenuation as required by the City ordinances.
22. The proposed wood fence shall be painted neutral colors.
23. Except for the repainting of any components for regular maintenance, all painting shall be
done offsite using low VOC paints.
24. The applicant shall give a 30 -day notice to residents of the Ecology House prior to the
initiation of construction activities or operation of the completed facility.
25. Contractor Contact Information Posting: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the
project site shall be posted with the name and contact number of the lead contractor in a
location visible from the public street.
26. Construction Hours: Construction hours shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday and Saturday from 9: 00a.m to 5:OOp.m. Construction shall not be
permitted on Sundays or City -observed holidays. Construction activities shall include
delivery of materials, arrival of construction workers, start up of construction equipment
engines, playing of radios and other noises caused by equipment and/or construction
workers arriving at or on the site.
27. On -Site Lighting: On-site lighting shall be shielded away from adjacent properties and
directed on site. The design and type of lighting fixtures and lighting intensity of any
proposed exterior lighting for the project shall be reviewed and approved by the
Community Development Director prior to installation of the lighting for compliance with
all applicable Conditions of Approval, ordinances, laws and regulations. Lighting fixtures
shall be of a decorative design to be compatible with the residential development and shall
incorporate energy saving features.
28. Archeological Features: In the event that archaeological features, such as concentrations
of artifacts or culturally modified soil deposits including trash pits older than fifty years of
age, are discovered at any time during grading, scraping, or excavation within the
property, all work shall be halted in the vicinity of the find, the Planning Division shall be
notified, and a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted immediately to make an
evaluation. If warranted by the concentration of artifacts or soils deposits, an
archaeologist shall monitor further work in the discovery area.
14
If human remains are encountered during grading and construction, all work shall stop in
the immediate vicinity of the discovered remains and the County Coroner and a qualified
archaeologist shall be notified immediately so that an evaluation can be performed. The
Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission, if the remains are
deemed to be Native American and prehistoric, so the "most likely descendant" can be
designated.
29. Final Inspection: Prior to the final inspection, the applicants shall contact the Community
Development Department, Planning Division, to request a final inspection. This inspection
shall require a minimum of 48-hour advance notice.
Community Development Department, Building and Fire Prevention Division
30. The generator shall require permit application for a deferred submittal submitted to the
Fire Prevention Division. The permit is required for the Generator based on the maximum
allowable quantities (MAQ) of diesel fuel used to operate the generator. This will be an
Aboveground Storage Tank Permit.
Public Works Department
31. A Best Management Practice plan shall be included in the building plan submittal. For a
copy of the BMP plan call Karen Chew at 415-458-5369.
I, ESTHER C. BEIRNE, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the forgoing
resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City
Council held Monday, the 20`h of July, 2009, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Brockbank, Connolly, Miller and Vice -Mayor Heller
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Boro
e ,
ESTHER C. BEIRNE, City Clerk
IN