I. RECOMMENDATION:
The recommendation is for the Planning Commission to approve Resolution 020P-008 for an application for Conditional Use Permit (CUP No. 20-02) and Variance based on the Findings, and subject to the Conditions of Approval.
II. BACKGROUND:
On May 27, 2020 the began processing an application for a conditional use permit and variance for the construction of a new 73-foot monopine cellular facility at 117 Truman Street.
Conditional Use Permit Application
In accordance with Section 9-5.125(e), all commercial telecommunication and wireless services and facilities shall require a conditional use permit. This use classification requires special consideration to ensure that they can be designed, located, and operated in a manner that will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of surrounding properties. The process for review of Conditional Use Permit applications is designed to evaluate possible adverse impacts and to minimize them where possible through the imposition of specific conditions.
Variance
Variances are intended to provide a mechanism for relief from the strict application of this title where strict application will deprive the property owner of privileges enjoyed by similar properties because of the subject property's unique and special conditions. Variances may be granted with respect to dimensional and performance standards, but variances from the use regulations of this title are not allowed.
California Environmental Quality Act
This application constitutes a project in accordance with the California Quality Act, therefore staff has prepared an environmental analysis as part of this land use application.
Comments
Once the application was deemed complete staff requested comments from the necessary City Departments. This proposal including conditions of approval reflect feedback from the necessary City Departments.
III. PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS:
AT&T Wireless is proposing the construction of a new 73-foot cellular tower (faux monopine tree) and the associated ground mounted equipment at 117 Truman Street (APN: 071-134-18). The proposed unmanned telecommunications facility consists of nine (9) AT&T panel antennas and associated equipment, to be mounted at a 66’ centerline on a 73’ tall monopine, a monopole built to resemble a pine tree. Top of steel would be 70’, with the remaining height consisting of the artificial branches that make up the monopine’ s crown. (This is necessary to stealth the antennas while maintaining the tapered look of a natural tree.)
The 50’ by 50’ equipment area will be surrounded by a 6’-tall chain link fence with vinyl slats. The lease area will contain a walk-in cabinet and 30KW standby diesel generator installed on a new concrete pad, along with a diesel fuel storage tank. Power and telecommunications cables will be installed underground within the lease area. The unmanned facility will provide high-speed internet access 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
All antenna arrays, wiring equipment will be encased inside of the mono-pine trunk and enclosure. The monopine is designed to appear just like a large pine tree, with sufficient foliage to conceal the antenna arrays. The “trunk” will include a bark-like finish, and coloring to match that of an actual pine tree. There will be no reflective material on the “tree” and will comply with the General Standards for Wireless Telecommunication Facilities. The wireless site has been designed as a co-locatable facility with land available for one additional carrier’s equipment. The design for co-location will limit the potential for proliferation of cell towers in the immediate vicinity. Any new antennas will be integrated into the pine tree design and equipment screened from view.
Surrounding Uses
|
Location
|
Use
|
|
South
|
RV Storage Lot (Zoned Service Commercial)
|
|
North
|
Existing Residence (Zoned Service Commercial)
|
|
West
|
Retail (Dollar General) General Commercial
|
|
East
|
Contractors Yard, Storage Facility
|
Standards for all Telecommunications Facilities 9-5.125
|
Requirement/Development Standard
|
Proposed Project
|
Complies
(Yes/No)
|
|
A network design plan for all of the service provider's existing and planned sites in the City and surrounding jurisdictions. The network design plan shall indicate the location of existing and proposed facilities and the service area covered by each site.
|
Coverage Maps showing existing LTE coverage and proposed LTE coverage have been provided in relation to existing sites throughout the community.
|
Yes
|
|
For new telecommunication facility locations, a written statement with supporting maps and documents showing that the possibility of co-location has been fully explored and is not possible at the time of application.
|
An alternative site analysis was provided identifying possible co-location opportunities and unfortunately the locations identified are not suitable for future needs. See attached Alternative Site Analysis.
|
Yes
|
|
An evaluation of the radio frequency (RF) field exposure conditions of the facility, prepared by a qualified electrical engineer licensed by the state of California, demonstrating that the radiation levels generated by the facility meet Federal standards and that interference to consumer electronic products is unlikely to occur. The evaluation shall include the maximum exposure conditions directly adjacent to the antenna and at the closest point the public could come into contact with radiation, including upper floors of residential, institutional or commercial buildings, the maximum exposure conditions at the nearest residential use, the maximum exposure at the nearest school or day care use, the maximum exposure level at the nearest hospital or nursing home, and the maximum cumulative exposure conditions of all commercial wireless services and facilities within one mile of the proposed site. Certification shall be provided by the electrical engineer prior to final inspection of the facility that the RF field exposure conditions are per the submitted evaluation
|
As presented in the
Radio Frequency Study (attached), based on worst-case predictive modeling, there are no modeled exposures on any
accessible ground walking/working surface related to ATT’s proposed antenna that exceed the FCC’s
occupational and/or general public exposure limits at this site.
|
Yes
|
|
A site plan showing the location of proposed facilities, and the location and use of existing buildings on the site and adjacent properties.
|
The Site Plan has been provided and reviewed by staff for compliance in addition to comments provided by the City Engineer.
|
Yes
|
|
Visual representations sufficient to accurately show the appearance of the proposed facility, such as elevation drawings, photographic simulations, mock-ups, and/or story poles. When feasible, scaled mock-ups shall be constructed on site.
|
Full Photo Simulations have been provided of the proposed facility from a North, West, East and South orientation.
|
Yes
|
|
A co-location agreement binding the applicant and property owner to make the facility available in the future for the installation of additional communication equipment by other wireless communication providers.
|
As a condition of approval, the applicant prior to issuance of a building permit shall provide a copy of a co-location agreement which shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.
|
Conditioned
(#9)
|
|
An abandonment agreement, requiring removal of the facility if use is discontinued for more than one year.
|
As a condition of approval, the applicant, prior to issuance of a building permit shall provide a copy of an abandonment agreement which shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.
|
Conditioned
(#8)
|
|
If a monopole is proposed, an explanation as to why other facility types are not being considered, and a description of proposed screening of the monopole from public and private residential view.
|
This has been discussed in the alternative analysis in that other locations were not suitable for the needs of the project and result in the necessary coverage desired. The mono-pine will create an artificial natural element to blend in with the surrounding environment to the extent possible and balance the immediate need for increased cellular and wireless coverage in the City.
|
Yes
|
|
All monopoles shall be limited to the maximum height allowed for the Zoning District in which it is located.
|
Staff has analyzed the variance request for an increase in height and made the appropriate findings to support approval of such increase. See findings below in the report.
|
Variance (Yes)
|
|
Monopoles shall be considered only when the applicant demonstrates that the proposed facility cannot, or should not, be placed on an existing building, utility pole, or other structure.
|
The applicant discussed this in the alternative site’s analysis and ground that this facility could not be placed on either a building or existing structures due to the height needed to provide adequate coverage.
|
Yes
|
|
Monopoles shall be located a minimum of 150 feet away from any property line of a residentially zoned property.
|
The closest residentially zoned property is approximately 215 Feet to the east and 405 Feet to the northeast (Coaling Station B). There is a residence adjacent to the proposed site however it currently operates under a legal non-conforming use (Zoned Service Commercial - CS).
|
Yes
|
|
Substantial landscaping or other screening shall be provided to screen monopoles from public or private residential view. Landscape screening shall be designed to achieve its desired appearance within a two-year period of time.
|
Screening has been provided as a way to reduce visibility of the equipment and with the development of a mono-pine, this will limit the industrial metal monopole look where a tree structure attempts to blend in with the surrounding environment to the extent possible.
|
Yes
|
|
Monopoles shall be designed to minimize their visual impact to the greatest extent feasible, considering technological requirements, by means of placement, screening, and camouflage, such as enclosures and structures made to look similar to or compatible with existing architecture, and artificial trees.
|
There are a variety of trees within the surrounding areas but limited trees in the direct vicinity of the proposed site. Staff did not think it would be feasible to require the applicant to provide additional artificial trees to create a blending effect when there are very few trees in the direct vicinity of the proposed site.
|
Yes
|
|
Monopole equipment facilities shall be screened from public view.
|
The equipment has been screened from view by chain link fence and slating material.
|
Yes
|
Public Notification
On June 29, 2020, public hearing notices for this project were posted and mailed to property owners located within 300 feet of the project site. As of this report, the City has received no written or oral comments on the project.
Environmental Review
The California Environmental Quality Act (Section 21000, et. seq. of the California Public Resources Code, hereafter CEQA) requires analysis of agency approvals of discretionary “projects.” A “project,” under CEQA, is defined as “the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” The proposed Project is a project under CEQA.
Staff has reviewed the project to determine the required level of review under CEQA. The project is categorically exempt from CEQA review pursuant to Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines. This exemption includes projects that involve the construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures.
The Project consists of a CUP to construct and operate a wireless cellular facility to improve the wireless coverage and capacity for both current and new customers. The proposed location is not considered environmentally sensitive. All public utilities and services will be available to the Project site. Based on staff’s review of the Project, no special circumstances exist that would create a reasonable possibility that granting a CUP for this project will have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, the proposed Project is exempt from CEQA and no further environmental review is required.
IV. FISCAL IMPACT:
None determined at this time.
V. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION:
Telecommunications Findings
- The proposed telecommunication facility will provide a public benefit to the City of Coalinga. The City of Coalinga is lacking in cellular and wireless coverage and with the addition of a new facility, it will drastically improve coverage in the community when cellular reliability and wireless coverage is important to public safety, education and communication.
- The radiofrequency report demonstrates that the proposed facility is within public exposure and occupational limits established by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The radiofrequency report prepared and provided by the applicant confirms that it meets the public exposure occupational limits established by the FCC.
- The proposed telecommunication facility is visually compatible with the building it is attached to, and its neighborhood and surroundings, in compliance with the standards in Section 9-5.125(i) of this article, Visual Compatibility. The proposed monopine, in staff’s opinion is the best attempt to blend an industrial facility (typically a monopole or lattice structure) into the existing natural environment. Although there may not be several pine trees is town where are several coastal redwoods that may represent a similar appearance to the artificial pine tree proposed by the applicant.
- If a new location is being proposed, the applicant has demonstrated that co-location is not possible elsewhere. See Attached Alternative Sites Analysis.
- Any other required finding for Conditional Use Permits. Conditional Use permit findings have been provided below and in the resolution.
- All proposed modifications to existing telecommunication and wireless facilities shall demonstrate continued compliance with public exposure and occupational limits established by the FCC, as well as continued visual compatibility with the building that the facility is attached to, and its neighborhood and surroundings, in compliance with the standards in Section 9-5.125(i), Visual Compatibility. This has been included as a condition of approval to ensure ongoing compliance with public exposure and occupational limits as established by the FCC.
Conditional Use Permit Findings
A Conditional Use Permit shall only be granted if the Planning Commission determines that the project as submitted or as modified conforms to all of the following criteria. If the Planning Commission determines that it is not possible to make all of the required findings, the application shall be denied. The specific basis for denial shall be established for the record. Staff feels that the findings for a conditional use permit have been met and will not have a detrimental effect on health, safety and general welfare of the community.
- General Plan consistency. Approval of the proposed project will advance the goals and objectives of and is consistent with the policies of the General Plan and any other applicable plan that the City has adopted;
- Neighborhood compatibility. The location, size, design, bulk, coverage, density, traffic generation and operating characteristics of the proposed project are consistent with the purposes of the district where it is located, and will not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood and surrounding properties;
- Asset for the neighborhood. The nature use and architectural/design features of the proposed development make it attractive, functional and convenient. The proposed development enhances the successful operation of the surrounding area in its basic community functions, or provides an essential service to the community or region.
All elements of project are consistent with the City’s adopted General Plan. The project is also in compliance with the Wireless Communication Facilities regulations found in the Planning and Zoning Code. The site design and layout will meet the design criteria while providing wireless coverage to a part of town where there now exists a coverage gap.
Variance Findings
A variance shall only be granted if the Planning Commission determines that the project as submitted or as modified conforms to all of the following criteria. If the Planning Commission determines that it is not possible to make all of the required findings, the application shall be denied. The specific basis for denial shall be established for the record. Applications for variances shall be reviewed administratively in accordance with these findings.
(1) There are special circumstances applicable to the property, including its size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, whereby the strict application of this title will deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other property of the same classification in the same zoning district;
Siting of telecommunication facilities require extensive technical analysis to ensure the placement of the facility will result in adequate coverage including the ability to co-locate. The coverage maps identify the proposed location as a suitable location to provide the desired outcome of effective coverage to the community after conducting the alternative sites analysis.
The request to exceed the maximum height allowed by 23 feet is necessary to provide maximum cellular coverage in the immediate residential and commercial areas in addition to allow for collocation. Furthermore, the planning and zoning code prohibits wireless telecommunication facilities in residential zones, except for such facilities are located on a major collector or arterial street or associated with permitted nonresidential uses such as parks or high density residential zones so siting these facilities are critical to ensure adequate coverage. The proposed monopine will be designed as a pine tree and designed to blend in with the existing environment to the extent possible considering the limited trees within the direct vicinity. Furthermore, the applicant will improve the site with fencing and screening to further conceal the equipment enclosure.
(2) Such special circumstances were not by the owner or applicants;
The increase in height is not a special circumstance created by the owner or applicant. The height increase will substantially improve the cellular and wireless coverage in the area of the proposed monopine as described in the coverage maps and siting analysis in addition to providing opportunity for co-location. The increased height will benefit the surrounding properties with increased coverage in cellular service as well as wireless service. The technical analysis shows that any incremental lowering of the antennas would lead to an incremental loss in coverage, limited colocation and possibly invalidate the project.
(3) The variance does not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is located; and
There are currently two (2) other cellular towers in the city limits. One is located on Lucille and W. Elm Ave at approximately 90 feet and the other on 1st Street near Forest which is about 80 feet in height. The height limit for towers in the CS (Commercial Service) district is 50 feet. Exceptions to the height limit may be granted when the Planning Commission approves a variance to do so. The height of the proposed cellular antenna tower is 73 feet, thus requiring a variance approved by the Planning Commission. This is something that any other project proponent would have the ability to request with adequate analysis and consideration to alternative co-location.
The highest point of the antennas is 66 feet in order to optimize its coverage objectives. Any incremental lowering of the antennas would lead to an incremental loss in coverage and possibly no-project. The Applicant has solicited to co-locate the wireless antennas at nearby locations on existing electrical towers; however, the property owners have expressed no interest in the co-location of new antennas. The tower could be reduced to 70 feet with the removal of the trees crown, but staff supports leaving the crown of the tree as it provides an aesthetic feature to the overall tree aesthetics. Given the Applicant’s assertion that the location provides the best capacity coverage in the area and the property owners of other suitable sites expressed no interest in co-locating, staff believes the request for a height exception for a 23-foot increase is reasonable and therefore supports the request.
| | |