HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission 2012-09-25 #2 CITY OF
Community Development Department – Planning Division
P. O. Box 151560, San Rafael, CA 94915-1560
PHONE: (415) 485-3085/FAX: (415) 485-3184
Meeting Date: September 25, 2012
Agenda Item:
Case Numbers:
UP11-20, ED11-24, EX12-002
Project Planner:
Kraig Tambornini – (415) 485-
3092
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT: Lucas Valley Area (ExteNet Systems DAS Network) – Use Permit, Environmental
and Design Review Permit and Exception for installation of a wireless antenna network
within City public rights-of-way, as part of a distributed antenna system (“DAS”) public
telephone infrastructure project proposed to be implemented by ExteNet Systems, a
telephone corporation. The network would be comprised of five (5) nodes, consisting of
2’2” tall by 16” diameter omni-antenna placed on top of joint utility poles and ground
mounted equipment placed at or below grade near each antenna node. The project
sponsor is licensed by the State of California PUC as a telephone corporation that
provides infrastructure for wireless telephone service providers. The equipment within
San Rafael is part of a larger network that would extend to the City of Novato. Address:
Existing public rights-of-way in the median strip of Las Gallinas Ave (1900 block), Del
Ganado Rd (800 block), Las Gallinas Ave at Montevideo Way, adjacent to property at
714 Penny Royal Lane and along Manuel T. Freitas parkway near Las Pavadas; Terra
Linda, Santa Margarita and Mont Marin-San Rafael Park neighborhood areas.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ExteNet Systems, LLC is a telephone corporation that installs enhanced wireless antenna telephone
infrastructure (aka, distributed antenna systems, “DAS”) within public rights-of-way, under the provisions
of Ca Codes CPUC 7901-7912. ExteNet has received its required authorizations from the State Public
Utilities Commission to install infrastructure within rights-of-way as a public utility, and is a member of the
Joint Poles Authority (which is an arrangement between utility providers for use and maintenance of
shared above ground utility poles). Staff has determined that the project, although a public utility
improvement, remains subject to the Wireless communications facilities provisions of the San Rafael
Municipal Code Section 14.16.360; particularly to assure compliance with stealth design and Radio
Frequency (RF) emission standards. As such, the project requires a Use Permit, Environmental and
Design Review Permit and Exception to exceed the height limit of 30 feet for the subject areas. The
project is being processed as Master Use Permit and Design Review Permit entitlements, as the facility
is a single infrastructure network and may be expanded from time to time. The facility will also require
issuance of an encroachment permit from Public Works for work in the City rights-of-way.
The “DAS” infrastructure is proposed to be installed in the existing public rights-of-way running from north
San Rafael through Marin County and into the City of Novato, to provide infrastructure for wireless
service providers that would serve residential properties in the Lucas Valley area, west of Highway 101.
Wireless telephone service providers (e.g., carriers such as Sprint, AT&T, T-mobile, etc.) could utilize the
“DAS” telecommunications infrastructure to extend or enhance their services in these areas. Currently,
the infrastructure is proposed to serve T-Mobile, as a client of ExteNet. The company, ExteNet, does not
provide wireless services itself, therefore, does not require an FCC or PUC license to operate.
Two of the five antenna nodes are located within the median of Las Gallinas Avenue, in the Mont
Marin/San Rafael Park neighborhood. The remaining three sites, located within the Terra Linda/Santa
Margarita neighborhood area, include two nodes adjacent to residential lots at Penny Royal Lane and
Hibiscus Way and one node within the Del Ganado Road median strip. These rights-of-way are all within
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: UP11-20, ED11-24, EX12-002 Page 2
residentially designated neighborhoods. The zoning classifications of adjacent properties include R5,
R7.5, R10, R-20, PD and R5-EA. Zoning district development standards (i.e., lot coverage, setbacks,
etc.) would not apply to utility equipment placed in public rights-of-way. However, the standards in
Chapter 14.16.360 (Site & Use regulations) would apply to installation of the wireless antenna facilities.
Therefore, the 30-foot height limit established for the area pursuant to the General Plan 2020 Exhibit 8
would also be applicable to the project.
The project has been reviewed and recommended by the Design Review Board, with changes. As a
result of DRB’s review, facility LUC004A has been moved from a front yard location on Hibiscus Way to
the Manuel T. Freitas location (aka, LUC 004B). The Board supported the five locations, subject to
elimination of a proposed skirt screening below the antenna and with undergrounding of all equipment
cabinets (as recommended by staff). Staff supports the project, with incorporation of the additional
revisions recommended by the DRB.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving a Master Use Permit,
Environmental and Design Review permit and height Exception for the ExteNet Systems DAS project,
with conditions.
BACKGROUND
History
On December 22, 2010 the City completed pre-application review (PA10-004) for the project, which
included review by the Department of Public Works and City Attorney’s office. Applicable City permit
requirements and preliminary project issues were identified as a result of this preliminary review. A
formal application was filed on March 25, 2011, and referred internally for review. As a result of the pre-
application review, ExteNet eliminated a proposed new utility pole installation that was proposed at the
end of Cedar Hill Drive off Lucas Valley Road, and a proposed side mount antenna on the Las Gallinas
Ave location. Pole-top installations were viewed as a less obtrusive design solution. Formal review of the
project submittal was suspended in order for ExteNet to conduct a public informational meeting, which
was conducted October 12, 2011. Peer review of the proposed antenna equipment was completed by a
third party, Kramer Firm, the City RFR consultant. Finally, the Design Review Board reviewed the project
at two meetings (June 19 and August 7, 2012), and recommended approval with some further revisions
to the proposed facility design and installation. Staff also notes that similar applications have been filed
and are being processed within Marin County and the City of Novato.
Utility Transmission Infrastructure Overview
The utility poles within the City rights-of-way are generally used for electrical transmission, telephone
communications and cable television infrastructure. PG&E and AT&T are the primary owners of the poles
and transmission systems for electrical and telephone, and have rights under franchise agreements to
use the rights-of-way. Cable television providers require a local franchise agreement. Ownership and
maintenance of the poles are primarily controlled by PG&E and AT&T, and shared use by other providers
is managed through agreement by a Joint Poles Authority collaborative group.
AT&T maintained ownership of its telephone distribution line infrastructure following deregulation, and
must make its infrastructure available to other telephone service providers (as is also the case with the
PG&E power lines, which must provide distribution for Marin Energy Authority and other energy
providers). Thus, for decades cities have had long-term working relationships with the utility transmission
companies that maintain the primary distribution infrastructure. The advent of new telephone
technologies has opened the doors for new corporations to install infrastructure in the rights-of-way,
under the CA Public Utility Commission (PUC) regulations. Local authority is discussed further below, but
generally is limited to issuance of an encroachment permit for installation of utility infrastructure in public
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: UP11-20, ED11-24, EX12-002 Page 3
rights-of-way. Additional local, state and federal permit requirements apply to telephone service providers
(e.g., carriers), including wireless telephone providers.
Typically, the initial installation of utility infrastructure is addressed at time of a subdivision approval, and
the cost for things such as undergrounding can be placed on the developer. PG&E and AT&T routinely
underground their transmission lines and equipment in new developments. Undergrounding of existing
lines can be accomplished in older neighborhoods when funded through local programs. In order to
maintain the character of its neighborhoods and implement its design objectives, the City must diligently
promote its policies for undergrounding of infrastructure where practical, particularly as smaller utility
corporations propose use of existing public rights-of-way for new technologies.
State Regulatory Authority
The State Public Utilities Commission has concluded that installation of advanced telecommunications
infrastructure is of statewide concern. Pursuant to CPUC 1001-1013 the state maintains the authority for
issuance of a certificate of convenience and necessity (CPNC) and franchise agreement authorizing
telephone corporations to construct infrastructure in rights-of-way. CPUC 7901-7912 establish that
telephone corporations “may construct telephone lines along and upon any public road, highway, waters
or lanes within the state, may erect poles, posts, piers or abutments for supporting insulators, wires and
other necessary fixtures of their lines, in such manner as not to incommode the public use of the road or
highway or interrupt the navigation of waters.” CPUC Section 234(a) defines “telephone line” to include
all equipment in connection with or facilitating communication by telephone, with or without use of
transmission wires.
Local Review Authority
The City may exercise reasonable control as to time, place, and manner in which roads, highways and
waterways are accessed. To be reasonable, “local controls shall be applied to all entities in an equivalent
manner.” Typically, a telephone corporation must only obtain ministerial level excavation, encroachment
and/or building permits for infrastructure construction. A City’s Public Works Department maintains
primary responsibility for authorizing work in rights-of-way.1 The City reserves its local authority to
regulate cable or telecommunications services provided by telephone corporations and cellular service
carriers2,3 and maintains control over access to and placement of new utility equipment in its public
rights-of-way. The General Plan 2020 Infrastructure Element contains local policy guidance regarding
installation and maintenance of public infrastructure.
Based on its review of all of applicable local and state codes and City General Plan 2020, staff has
determined that installation of “DAS” wireless facility infrastructure in City rights-of-way remain subject to
the discretionary zoning provisions of SRMC 14.16.360; in addition to obtaining encroachment permits
for telephone infrastructure work. This would include review of RFR emission thresholds and stealth
design requirements, to the maximum extent practicable. Therefore, staff has required a Master Use
Permit and Environmental and Design Review Permit for the ExteNet DAS wireless antenna system
network; in-lieu of requiring separate zoning permits for each antenna node location. The following
minimum information has been required for the “DAS” network application:
RFR report for each node
Plans for each node (site, elevation and details)
Photographs for each node
Coverage Map showing areas that could be served by system infrastructure
Photo-simulation for each node
1 Responsibilities for underlying property owners and City for the use, maintenance and improvements in public rights-of-way
are established in the Ca Streets and Highways Code. (Ca Codes 5610-5618 & Ca Codes 8300-8309).
2 The PUC defers to the local government for review of cellular telecommunication service providers.
3 Cable/video providers remain subject local franchise agreements, managed by Marin Telecommunications Agency (MTA)
joint powers authority.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: UP11-20, ED11-24, EX12-002 Page 4
Peer review of the project design requirements and RFR emissions
Structural calculations for the subject utility poles
Joint Poles Authority agreement
State CPNC granted for the subject telephone company
If a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) determination was made by the CPUC for the project a
copy of this would also need to be submitted. Additional information could be requested, as necessary, to
confirm work is within a dedicated public right-of-way; such as a survey of the properties and respective
rights-of-way, title report confirming dedication of right-of-way in fee for public use, as well as map(s)
showing location of AT&T and PG&E transformer and related equipment that were installed to serve the
subdivision. This additional information was not needed as the facilities have been clearly established to
fall within dedicated public rights-of-way. Further, the environmental determination will be made by the
City.
The application materials provided have confirmed that ExteNet is a telephone corporation, has received
a State franchise agreement pursuant to the Ca PUC requirements, and has obtained membership in the
public utility pole infrastructure providers’ Joint Pole Authority. Therefore, staff has determined that the
following general criteria should apply to this project in order to determine whether the facility design and
placement would maximize stealth opportunities in compliance with local standards and policies:
Existing pole dimensions should not be materially altered for placement of new antenna (e.g.,
maintaining existing pole heights and/or respecting the height limit of the zoning district)
Existing utility pole infrastructure should be utilized to the maximum extent possible
Undergrounding of related ancillary equipment should be proposed to the maximum extent possible
(consistent with GP 2020 Policy I-4 and existing subdivision characteristics) and/or new equipment
should be collocated near the existing utility cabinets in the subdivision
RFR emission standards should not cause General Public exposure thresholds to be exceeded
Any infrastructure proposed on private property would be subject to all discretionary provisions of
SRMC 14.16.360
The use of existing public utility poles should not preclude future undergrounding of the shared facility
infrastructure, including overhead utility lines and any related equipment
The joint pole authority owners should provide assurance for removal should equipment become
obsolete or abandoned
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
ExteNet Systems (California) LLC proposes to install a Distributed Antenna System (“DAS”)
telecommunications network within the County of Marin (aka, Lucas Valley Network). “DAS” networks
provide telecommunications transmission services to wireless service providers (aka, carriers). “DAS”
infrastructure services allow wireless service providers to establish or expand their network coverage and
capacity. A “DAS” network consists of a series of telecommunications antennas and associated
equipment boxes, typically mounted on existing wooden utility poles within the public rights-of-way. The
antennas and equipment boxes are mounted on the same pole. These pole-mounted antennas and
equipment boxes are referred to as “nodes”. Five such nodes within the Lucas Valley system are
proposed to be located within the City of San Rafael. (The other nodes within the system are proposed to
be located in the unincorporated County and City of Novato; which are also processing zoning
entitlements for system segments within their jurisdictions.) The nodes are linked by fiber-optic cable that
is typically routed aerially from pole-to-pole. In some cases, “micro-trenching” is needed to route fiber-
optic cable where there is no overhead infrastructure available. The fiber-optic cable is typically
connected to the intended wireless service client’s equipment hub.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: UP11-20, ED11-24, EX12-002 Page 5
The proposed telecommunications facility equipment would be placed on existing utility poles within
existing rights-of-way throughout north San Rafael. Starting from the north and moving south and east,
the five antenna “nodes” proposed in San Rafael are as follows:
• LUC-014A located on a new 43’ tall pole (replacing existing 38’ utility pole) in the center median of
Las Gallinas Ave at Twelve Oak Hill Dr, with at grade equipment cabinet.
• LUC-009A located on a new 52’ tall pole (replacing existing 43’ utility pole) in the center median of
Las Gallinas Ave at Montevideo Dr, with at grade equipment cabinet.
• LUC-004B located on a new 47’6” pole (replacing 39’ pole) along Manual T Freitas at Munson
Park, with at grade equipment cabinet.
• LUC-003A located on a new 43’ tall pole (replacing 37’ pole) on Penny Royal Lne, adjacent to a
residential side yard, with below grade equipment vault in sidewalk.
• LUC-017A located on a new 43’ tall pole (replacing 36’ pole) in the center median of Del Ganado
Rd at Duran Dr, and at grade equipment cabinet.
The sites would provide the potential for wireless telephone coverage and services to the surrounding
neighborhoods along Las Gallinas Ave and Del Ganado Rd. These areas are surrounded by hills and
valleys that limit wireless service coverage provided by conventional antennas (see Project Plans -
Coverage Map, Exhibit 5). All the utility infrastructure improvements are identified within the dedicated
public rights-of-way of Terra Linda Subdivision’s No.2 and No.5, recorded 1954. The five “DAS” nodes
proposed within the City of San Rafael include the following equipment components:
a. Omni-antennas measuring 2’-2” tall by 16” diameter mounted on 4” by 4” by 6’ post extensions to the
existing utility poles capable of supporting 1900 – 2100 MHz bands of service.
b. Equipment cabinets at four locations measuring 5’-2” tall by 2’-1” wide by 2’-1” deep and electric
meter placed at ground level, approximately 5-feet from poles, to house battery backups and a delta
node.
c. Cable runs underground from the cabinet through U-guard conduit along the pole to the antenna.
d. Overhead fiber-optic line runs along existing poles on the Las Gallinas Ave and Del Ganado
segments, with short underground “micro-trenching” runs on Las Pavadas, Duran Road and Penny
Royal/Pine Lane.4 (See Project Plans - Lucas Valley Construction Map) (Note: this component is not
subject to City discretionary review.)
The nodes would provide service coverage to the residential neighborhoods in the Terra Linda, Santa
Margarita and Mont Marin/San Rafael Park neighborhoods. The pole locations presented for
consideration are stated as maximizing the coverage objectives for the wireless service provider clients,
without “holes” or un-served areas of wireless coverage (see Project Plans - Coverage map).
RFR Emissions:
An RFR study has been required for the antenna nodes and confirmed to comply with FCC rules, as
required by the City regulations. The FCC establishes signage and RFR intensity requirements for both
service workers and general public exposure from telecommunications antenna. Emissions that do not
exceed 5% of the maximum recommended general exposure limit are considered to be safe without
requiring any special mitigation (e.g., safety barriers, signage). Peer review of the applicant’s RDR study
has been completed by Kramer Firm, the City’s RFR consultant for all 5 original nodes. Peer review of
4 City zoning review does not apply to the overhead telecommunications lines extended between existing utility poles.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: UP11-20, ED11-24, EX12-002 Page 6
the relocated node LUC004B has not been deemed necessary as the characteristics are substantially
similar to the related facilities, including previous LUC004A which was closer to residential properties.
ANALYSIS
General Plan 2020 Consistency:
The pertinent San Rafael General Plan 2020 Infrastructure Element policies include Policy I-2
(Adequacy of infrastructure), I-4 (utility undergrounding), and I-15 (access to reliable, modern and cost-
effective telecommunications). Policy I-4 encourages undergrounding of existing transmission lines. No
specific policy has been developed recommending undergrounding of new infrastructure, as this is
already the standard for new development and implicit of Policy I-4. The City typically exercises its
control over the design and placement of new utility infrastructure during review and approval of
subdivision improvements (State Subdivision Map Act Section 66410-65852.2). This usually is
accomplished at the expense of the developer, pursuant to SRMC Sections 15.06.130 (Undergrounding
Utilities) and Section 15.11.050 (Subdivision Improvement Agreements). This case is unique in that it
involves new technologies that were not considered when the utility infrastructure was designed and
installed in the rights-of-way for the subject areas.
The project would be in substantial compliance with City policies, provided that assurances are made to
require relocation of the omni-antenna at such time as the other electric, cable and telephone utility
infrastructure is relocated underground rendering the utility pole obsolete, and to assure that the joint
pole authority would remove any equipment associated with the “DAS” project should it become
obsolete. Furthermore, the antenna, its supports and equipment cabinets should be designed to
minimize visual impacts, including screening and/or undergrounding of cabinets, to be compatible with
the existing neighborhood and other utility infrastructure improvements in the neighborhoods. Note: draft
conditions of approval are recommended to address these concerns (Condition # of UP11-020 and
Condition #2 ofED11-024).
Zoning Ordinance Consistency:
The proposed omni-antenna and equipment cabinets have been deemed to be subject to Design Review
pursuant to Chapter 14.25 and SRMC 14.16.360, and require a major Exception pursuant to SRMC
Chapter 14.24 to exceed the 30-foot height limit that applies to the area; in addition to obtaining an
encroachment permit for work. The project nodes are all proposed in least preferred residential locations,
which are discouraged locations due to concerns with aesthetics and perceived health risks. Further,
given the technology associated with this utility infrastructure, which requires supporting ground or pole-
mounted equipment at each node location in order to provide enhanced services, and given that utility
companies typically do not provide routine landscape maintenance for their equipment, it is deemed
important that the City fully implement policies promoting screening and undergrounding of utility
equipment in City rights-of-way in order to preserve the character and aesthetic of its neighborhoods;
consistent with the General Plan 2020 Neighborhood and Community Design Elements.
Based on this discussion, it is important that the need for each node location be demonstrated, that the
number of nodes be minimized, that stealth design be maximized, and that FCC limits on RFR emissions
be maintained at the lowest recommended levels for general population (e.g., public) exposure. Peer
review of the designs and RFR emissions has been required to confirm that each node would be
designed to comply with minimum technical standards, and comply with minimum RFR emissions
thresholds (Exhibit 4). Staff has concluded that the project may be supported with a few design changes,
as recommended by the Design Review Board; including undergrounding of all equipment cabinets.
Analysis of pertinent requirements and recommended design changes are provided below.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: UP11-20, ED11-24, EX12-002 Page 7
Chapter 16 – Site and Use Regulations
Section 14.16.360 requires an RFR study, photo-simulations, coverage maps, landscape plans for
ground mounted equipment, and alternative site analysis be provided for wireless communications
facilities that are subject to major review, including those proposed within residential areas.
Local review of this equipment is required to minimize the potential safety and aesthetic impacts on
neighboring property owners and the community, preserve the visual character of the city and to ensure
public health and safety, consistent with federal law and Federal Communication Commissions (FCC)
regulations, acknowledge the community benefit associated with the provision of wireless communication
services within the city, and encourage the joint use of new and existing tower sites as a primary option
rather than construction of additional single-use towers. The pertinent design requirements to achieve
these objectives are discussed as follows:
Co-Location. Service providers are encouraged to co-locate with other existing facilities to minimize
the overall visual impact of the new facility. Co-location is preferred over new monopoles or other
towers erected. Sited to be screened by existing development, topography or vegetation to the extent
consistent with proper operation of the wireless communication facility. Additional new, irrigated
vegetation, or other screening, may be required as a condition of approval
Stealth Design. All wireless communication facilities shall have a stealth design to screen or reduce
visual impacts and blend the facility into the existing environment. Examples of stealth design are
facade-mounted antennas located within architectural features so they are screened from view, or an
antenna design that mimics architectural features so they appear to be a part of the building design,
or facilities with colors and materials to minimize visibility such as a non-reflective finish in a color
compatible with the surrounding area.
Locations. New monopoles or towers shall not be located within residential, designated open space
or conservation areas unless sufficient technical and other information is provided to demonstrate to
the satisfaction of the planning commission or zoning administrator that location in such areas is
appropriate, subject to the findings that the location of the proposed facility site is essential to meet
the service demands of the carrier and no other alternative co-location, existing development or utility
facility site, or type of antenna support structure is feasible. This shall be documented by the
applicant providing a list of the locations of preferred technically feasible sites, the good faith efforts
and measures taken by the applicant to secure these preferred sites, and the specific reasons why
these efforts and measures were unsuccessful. and that the use of a monopole for the proposed
facility by itself or in combination with other existing, approved, and proposed facilities will avoid or
minimize adverse effects related to land use compatibility, visual resources and public safety.
Height. The maximum height of building-mounted antennas shall be in compliance with the height
limitations for the zoning district in which they are located. An exception to antenna height may be
granted by the planning commission or zoning administrator if the RFR exposures and aesthetic
quality of the proposed facility are found to be acceptable.
Setbacks. Towers, guy wires, and accessory structures, including equipment cabinets, shall comply
with the setback requirements of the applicable zoning district. Towers and support structures shall
be located a minimum of two hundred feet (200″) or at least three (3) times the height of the tower,
whichever is greater, from existing residential units or vacant residentially zoned property.
Landscaping. Wireless communication facilities shall be installed in a manner that maintains and
enhances existing vegetation and provides new landscape material to screen proposed facilities. The
emphasis of the landscape design shall be to visually screen the proposed facility and stabilize soils
on sloping sites. Introduced vegetation shall be native, drought tolerant species compatible with the
predominant natural setting of the adjacent area. Existing trees and other screening vegetation in the
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: UP11-20, ED11-24, EX12-002 Page 8
vicinity of the proposed facility shall be protected from damage both during and after construction.
Submission of a tree protection plan prepared by a certified arborist may be required. All vegetation
disturbed during project construction shall be replanted with compatible vegetation and soils
disturbed by development shall be reseeded to control erosion. Appropriate provisions for irrigation
and maintenance shall be identified in the landscape plan. The city may impose a requirement for a
landscape maintenance agreement as a condition of approval.
Noise. Wireless communication facilities shall be constructed and operated in a manner that
minimizes noise. Wireless communication facilities shall operate in compliance with the noise
exposure standards in San Rafael Municipal Code Chapter 8.13, Noise. Normal testing and
maintenance activities shall occur between eight a.m. (8:00 a.m.) and six p.m. (6:00 p.m.), Monday
through Friday, excluding emergency repairs.
Radio Frequency Radiation (RFR). 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. Applications for wireless communication
facilities shall include a RFR report, prepared by a qualified expert, which identifies the predicted and
actual (if available) levels of RFR emitted by the proposed facility operating by itself and in
combination with other existing or approved facilities which can be measured at the proposed facility
site. Measurements for RFR shall be based on all proposed, approved, and existing facilities
operating at maximum power densities and frequencies.
Post-Approval Requirements. The following requirements apply to wireless antenna facilities:
Within forty-five (45) days of commencement of operations, the applicant for the wireless
communication facility shall provide the community development department with a report,
prepared by a qualified expert, indicating that the actual RFR levels of the operating facility,
measured at the property line or nearest point of public access and in the direction of maximum
radiation from each antenna, is in compliance with the standards established by the FCC for RFR.
The city will contract to perform the testing with a qualified expert and the owners or operators
shall bear the proportionate cost of testing for its facility.
The owner or operator of an approved wireless communication facility shall remove any
abandoned facilities or restore the existing approved use of a facility within ninety (90) days of
termination of use.
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 forty-five (45) days of notification.
Owner or operators of all approved wireless communication facilities shall make necessary
changes or upgrades to their facilities in order to comply with any newly adopted FCC standards
for RFR. Upgrades to facilities shall be made no later than ninety (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.
RFR Emissions Review
A confirmation that the facility would comply with the FCC’s RFR safety standards is sufficient for
purposes of Design Review. This discussion is provided for the benefit of the Board and public to confirm
that the applicable requirements have been met. Pursuant to the FCC Bulletin 65 Supplemental C,
harmful biological effects can occur from an exposure level from wireless antenna facilities of 4.0 W/kg;
i.e., specific absorption rate (SAR) as averaged over the whole-body. After applying additional safety
factors, the FCC established its limits for whole-body exposure at 0.4 W/kg for "controlled/occupational"
exposure and 0.08 W/kg for "uncontrolled/general population" exposure, respectively. The FCC further
establishes special mitigation requirements for any facility that would generate an exposure level at or
above 5% (.004W/kg) of the general population exposure limit.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: UP11-20, ED11-24, EX12-002 Page 9
The following conclusions have been provided based upon a peer review by the City’s independent
consultant, Kramer Firm, of the RFR studies prepared for the antenna nodes:
Node LUC-014A - ROW in median of Las Gallinas Ave at Twelve Oak Hill Dr - This node would result
in an overall height of 46’3” with antenna mounted at 44’ above grade, equipment cabinet 5-feet
south of the pole toward Twelve Oak Hill Dr intersection, at 5-feet above grade. The nearest
residence is approximately 63 feet from the facility. The general exposure limit threshold falls below
5% of the General Public Exposure limit at a distance of 21-feet from the antenna, which is worst
case. No accessible area is predicted to exceed the FCC 5% general public exposure limit.
Node LUC-009A - ROW in the median of Las Gallinas Ave at Montevideo Dr - This node would result
in an overall height of 54’3” with antenna mounted at 52’ above grade, equipment cabinet 5-feet west
of the pole toward Parkridge Rd intersection, at 5-feet above grade. The nearest residence is
approximately 107 feet from the facility. The general exposure limit threshold falls below 5% of the
General Public Exposure limit at a distance of 21-feet from the antenna, at the height of the antenna
which is worst case. No accessible area is predicted to exceed the FCC 5% general public exposure
limit.
Node LUC-004A - ROW adjacent to 459 Hibiscus Way residential front yard - This node would result
in an overall height of 47’4” with antenna mounted at 45’ above grade, equipment cabinet 5-feet east
of the pole along the residential properties street frontage, at 5-feet above grade and 8’ from the
curb. The nearest residence is 25 feet from the antenna and exposure level falls below 5% of the
General Public Exposure limit at a distance of 21-feet from the antenna, which is worst case. No
accessible area is predicted to exceed the FCC 5% general public exposure limit. (Note: this facility
has been relocated to LUC 004B, and would result in materially similar effects).
Node LUC-003A - ROW on Penny Royal Ln and adjacent to a residential side yard - This node would
result in an overall height of 45’ with the antenna mounted at 43’ above grade, equipment cabinet 5-
feet north of the pole along the residential property frontage, at 5-feet above grade and 5 feet from
the curb. The nearest residence is approximately 50 feet from the facility. The general exposure limit
threshold falls below 5% of the General Public Exposure limit at a distance of 21-feet from the
antenna, which is worst case. No accessible area is predicted to exceed the FCC 5% general public
exposure limit.
Node LUC-017A - ROW in median of Del Ganado Rd at Duran Dr - The subject node would result in
an overall height of 44’ with the antenna mounted 42’ above grade, equipment cabinet 5-feet east
toward the intersection at Duran Drive, at 5-feet above grade. The nearest residence is
approximately 48 feet from the facility. The general exposure limit threshold falls below 5% of the
General Public Exposure limit at a distance of 21-feet from the antenna, which is worst case. No
accessible area is predicted to exceed 5% of the FCC general public exposure limit.
Based on the RFR reports and reviews completed by Kramer Firm, staff has determined that each node
would comply with FCC OET Bulletin 65 rules regarding safety, with the following recommended
condition:
RFR Condition
“ExteNet and or its client(s) shall place and maintain an 8” wide by 12” high permanent
RFR caution sign in English and Spanish at the base of the 6’ tall utility pole extension just
above the cross arm. The sign shall be complaint with FCC OET Bulletin 65 or ANSI C95.2
for color, symbol and content conventions. The sign shall provide at all times a working
local or toll free telephone number to its network operations center, and such telephone
number shall reach a live person who can exert transmitter power-down control over this
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: UP11-20, ED11-24, EX12-002 Page 10
site as required by the FCC. The location of the sign must be visible immediately prior to
climbing above the base of the utility pole extension.”
Kramer Firm notes that if the utility, or carrier(s), agree to this condition there will be no basis to deny or
further condition the project based on its RFR emissions. This is based on the fact that the FCC
precludes local government from denying wireless service facilities based on health impacts if a facility
operates within the RF thresholds for public exposure limits established by the FCC for wireless facilities.
Therefore, this recommended condition has been included in Draft Resolution as Condition # 6 of the
Use Permit.
For informational purposes, staff further notes that concerns with environmental health risks associated
with both low frequencies (power lines) and high frequencies (radio wave) transmissions which generate
non-ionizing radiation have been identified to be primarily related to the potential thermal effects on
tissue. Radiation from low frequency electrical transmission is typically calculated using milligaus (mG),
which measures electro-magnetic field intensity. High frequency transmissions use more power and have
a shorter wave length and are calculated based on power density. The RFR exposure levels are reported
in published literature to drop off exponentially as distance from the source increases, and health effects
are dependent on both the amount of time and intensity of exposure to the source.
Stealth Design
The pole extension design details with the unconcealed square post bolted to pole-tops are not
considered to be harmoniously integrated with the existing utility pole. In order to comply with the City
zoning standards and policies related to wireless antenna as well as for new utility equipment
infrastructure placed in its rights-of-way, staff recommends that the antenna and equipment should be
further modified to minimize its visual impacts; particularly where proposed in rights-of-way that abut
residential yards. Additionally, staff notes that the photo-simulations appear to show equipment cabinets
that are wider than indicated on plans, and that the plans shall take precedence.
The following minimal and relatively simple modifications are recommended by the DRB and staff in
order to minimize the aesthetic impacts of the proposed antenna and equipment, with high-quality stealth
design solutions that would integrate into the context of the surrounding neighborhood and structures:
• Underground all equipment cabinets. If not underground, a graffiti abatement program needs to be
executed. Landscaping is not considered a suitable long-term solution to screen above ground
cabinets in the public rights of way due, as neither the City nor utility could agree to a long-term
maintenance program.
• Eliminate the “skirting” proposed below the radome antennas, intended to conceal cabling.
Replacement of each utility pole and installation of U-conduit painted out to match the pole is
sufficient.
These recommendations have been incorporated into conditions of approval #3 and #4 of ED11-24 and
Noise
Concern has been raised with the potential for electronic noise to result from the cabinets. The facility
does not require a transformer or generator thus is not anticipated to generate significant audible noise
that would violate residential noise thresholds of 40dBA at the property line. The applicant has stated
that a fan would trigger when the battery backups are in use. If placed below grade, A/C and sump pump
equipment could generate some residential noise. The utility equipment would be comparable to existing
utility cabinets located in the area and would not generate noise exceeding the residential noise
threshold standards.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: UP11-20, ED11-24, EX12-002 Page 11
Post approval requirements
The post approval requirements identified above would be required as a condition of issuance of
encroachment permits for the project. Public Works (DPW) is supportive of assuring that the project
would be designed to minimize its visual impacts and maintained in perpetuity. DPW further recommends
that a single contractor should be selected to perform the work to help assure it is completed in
compliance with all City requirements and as efficiently as possible. Post approval requirements have
been incorporated in the draft Use Permit conditions.
Chapter 24 – Exception
As previously discussed, the extension of the utility poles would exceed the City’s 30 foot height limit for
residential areas. Pursuant to SRMC Section’s 14.24.020.E, 14.24.060, and 14.16.360 the Planning
Commission may approve height exceptions of more than five-feet above the base height limit (30 feet)
for antenna facilities; where special circumstances warrant the increase and would not be detrimental to
the health, safety or general welfare. Both staff and the DRB have considered this request and
recommend that increased pole height appears justified in order to provide the desired service coverage,
and reduce the number of antenna nodes that would be required for the project.
Chapter 25 – Environmental and Design Review Permit
Design review criteria encourage equipment to be placed underground or concealed within stealth
enclosures, with colors and materials that would harmoniously integrate with the surroundings. Staff has
recommended screening and alternative design solutions in its discussion of Chapter 16 above (including
undergrounding and removal of proposed skirting of antenna cables); which, if implemented would satisfy
the pertinent design criteria of Chapter 25.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RECOMMENDATION
On June 19, 2012 the Board reviewed the project. Commissioner Lang served as the PC liason for the
meeting. After their review, the DRB continued the matter and recommended the following:
Conceal the support posts, cabling and conduit with stealth enclosures that would more seamlessly
blend in with the existing utility pole; in order for the Board to support the co-location design solution.
Place the cabinets proposed at Hibiscus Way and Penny Royal Lane underground; in order for the
Board to support these locations.
Move the cabinets proposed in Las Gallinas and Del Ganado median strip locations to the center of
the median, in less visible locations and conceal these with landscaping; in-lieu of undergrounding
equipment.
Provide a proposal for long term maintenance of facilities including landscaping and graffiti removal;
in-lieu of undergrounding equipment.
At its August 7, 2012 meeting the Board reviewed the revised plans. There was no Planning
Commissioner was present at this meeting to serve as PC liason. The Board recommended that the
revised designs and relocation of LUC 004A had substantially addressed its concerns (per the ExteNet
response memo dated 7/6/12, Exhibit 3). The Board recommended that the addition of U Guard conduit
and replacement of utility poles addressed its concerns with design and concluded a “skirt” under the
antenna would not be necessary. By a vote of 4 -0-2 (Chair Kent and Member Lentini absent) the Board
voted to recommend approval of the project with the following recommended changes.
1) Support of project without extended skirt at the base of the antenna.
2) Alternate placement/location of underground antennae on Manuel Freitas instead of Hibiscus Way
3) Underground placement of all cabinets.
The audio and video of the Design Review Board (DRB) meetings can be accessed online at:
http://www.cityofsanrafael.org/meetings/ and selecting the link for the June 19 or August 7 meeting
dates. The prior staff reports are also available at this webpage.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: UP11-20, ED11-24, EX12-002 Page 12
Revisions to Plans/Conditions of Approval Since DRB Recommendation
Staff does note that the plans that are before the Commission this evening do not incorporate all the
recommendations of the DRB. In summary
• The plans currently show that the extended skirt on all the site. A condition of approval has
been added Environmental and Design Review Permit # 4a, that require that the skirting
below the antennas be removed and this will be required to be shown on the plans submitted
for building permit
• The plans for LUC-004B do illustrate the alternate location recommended by the DRB The
median at Las Pavadas Ave at Manual T Freitas instead of the previously proposed site of
Hibiscus Way. To support this change, a condition of approval has been added Environmental
and Design Review Permit # 4b that confirms that this site is to be placed at Las Pavadas and
Manual T Freitas rather than Hibiscus Way.
• The plans before the Commission currently only show the underground placement of Site
LUC-003A (Penny Royal). The plans for the other 4 sites currently show above ground
cabinets. Therefore, a condition of approval has been added Environmental and Design
Review Permit # 4c, that require that the underground placement of all utility cabinet at all 5
locations.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The State PUC may act as the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for
issuance of a state franchise and all related work for construction of telephone corporation infrastructure.
Generally, installation of utility infrastructure may qualify as exempt from the provisions of CEQA
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15268 (Ministerial Projects), 15301(b) (Existing public utility
facilities, and/or 15303(d) (New utility extensions); where work is not within an environmentally sensitive
area, as defined under CEQA. The PUC has not made its determination for this facility. Thus, the City
must make its own environmental determination for the project. City staff concludes that the Categorical
Exemptions 15301(b) and 15303(d) would apply to the scope of work proposed.
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING / CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of hearing for the project for this Planning Commission meeting and the two prior DRB meetings
was conducted in accordance with noticing requirements contained in Chapter 29 of the Zoning
Ordinance. At least 15 days prior to all meetings, including this hearing, a Notice of Public Hearing was
posted and mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 400-foot radius of the subject sites and
the Santa Margarita, Terra Linda and Mont-Marin/San Rafael Park Neighborhood Associations, and all
other interested parties.
Public comments have been received in support and opposed to the project. Proponents in favor of the
project support need for enhanced wireless technology and to address lack of coverage in the area.
Opponents are concerned with visual blight, health and safety potential created by this project. Copies of
all written public correspondence on the proposed project received to date are attached to this report as
Exhibit 6. Any new correspondence received after publication of this report will be provided to the
Planning Commission at the hearing.
OPTIONS
The Planning Commission has the following options:
1. Approve the applicants as presented, with conditions recommended by the DRB and staff
2. Approve the application with certain modifications, changes or additional conditions of approval.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: UP11-20, ED11-24, EX12-002 Page 13
3. Continue the applications to allow the applicant to address any of the Commission’s comments or
concerns
4. Deny the project
EXHIBITS
1. Vicinity/Location Maps
2. Draft Resolution of Approval
3. ExteNet Systems 7/6/12 Memo to the DRB
4. Peer Review of RFR Reports (color copies distributed to Commission)
5. Lucas Valley “DAS” project construction and coverage maps (color copies distributed to Commission)
6. Public Correspondence
(Plans have been distributed to the Planning Commission only)
