Chapt 21.60 Wireless Tele (98)To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
MEMORANDUM
x~ Fierro, Senior Planner
J~sley, Deputy City Clerk
Ma~7,1998
MAY 0
CITY OF CA, ,
RLA N,Nu DEPT.
Text Amendment to add Chapter 21.60, Wireless Telecommunications
Facilities
At the regular meeting of May 5, 198, the City Council held a public hearing to
consider a City-initiated application for approval of a Text Amendment (TA 98-02) to
add Chapter 21.60, Wireless Telecommunications Facilities, to the Campbell Municipal
Code.
After due discussion and consideration, the City Council gave first reading to
Ordinance 1965. This Ordinance will receive second reading at the regular City
Council meeting of May 19, 1998.
A Summary of the Ordinance will be published in the Campbell Express dated May
13, 1998
Council
Report
ITEM NO:
CATEGORY:
MEETING DATE:
Public Hearing
May 5, 1998
TITLE
City-initiated Application for Approval of a Text Amendment (TA 98-02) to add Chapter 21.60,
Wireless Telecommunications Facilities, to the Campbell Municipal Code.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council take the following action:
1. Introduce the attached ordinance adding Wireless Telecommunications Facilities as
Chapter 21.60 of the Campbell Municipal Code; and
2. Adopt a Negative Declaration.
ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION
The City prepared an Initial Study for this project,and it was determined that no significant
impacts would be created as a result of the adoption of the Wireless Telecommunications
Ordinance. Based upon the information provided in the Initial Study, the Planning Commission
recommends that the City Council grant a Negative Declaration.
BACKGROUND
On March 3, 1998, the City Council directed staff to prepare an amendment to the Campbell
Municipal Code regulating the location and appearance of wireless telecommunications
facilities and the conditions under which they would operate. The City Council stated that they
desired an ordinance that focused on stealth technology in the siting and design of the facilities.
During development of the ordinance, representatives of the wireless telecommunications
industry were notified and had an opportunity to review and comment on the draft ordinance.
The proposed ordinance meets the requirements of the Federal Telecommunications Act which
allows local jurisdictions to regulate the location and appearance of facilities, but reserves to the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) the authority to set safety standards. As required
by Federal law, the ordinance does not discriminate amongst the providers and does not prohibit
or have the effect of prohibiting such facilities.
The Planning Commission considered Zone Text Amendment on March 24, 1998 and directed
staff to make modifications to the ordinance. On April 14, 1998 the Planning Commission
adopted Resolution No. 3156 recommending that the City Council adopt Chapter 21.60,
Wireless Telecommunications Facilities, Attachment A.
DISCUSSION
The Zoning Ordinance currently requires approval of a use permit for wireless
telecommunications facilities but does not provide direction for the siting, design or operation
City Council Report - May 5, 1998
TA 98-02 - Citywide
Page 2
of such facilities. The adoption of criteria in the ordinance gives guidance to wireless
telecommunication providers that assists them in determining the location and design of their
facilities. The ordinance will assist staff and the Planning Commission to evaluate applications.
The proposed ordinance contains provisions regulating the following:
1. Application submittal requirements. Specific information is required that will allow the City
to evaluate how each new facility will impact the community.
2. Siting and design criteria. The ordinance requires stealthing of antennas and associated
equipment. When stealthing is not possible, supporting evidence is required.
3. A two-tiered permit process. Facilities located in non-residential districts, that utilize stealth
technology and are not visible to the public may be approved administratively. Facilities that
do not utilize stealthing and/or are located in residential areas are subject to a Public Hearing
process for approval.
4. Operational Requirements. The draft ordinance provides operational requirements such as
noise standards, the removal of obsolete or abandoned facilities and maintenance of
landscaping required to screen the facilities.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Modify the language of the text amendment and Introduce the Ordinance.
2. Deny the text amendment.
3. Continue for further review.
FISCAL IMPACTS
None
Attachments:
I. Draft Wireless Telecommunications Facilitates Ordinance
2. Planning Commission Resolution and Minutes
3. Planning Commission Report
Prepared by: ~~"~ ~
Shi~/~erro,/~oe~e Planner
Reviewed by: ~ /.~--~-~r~j.,,a~~
'"'- Steve P~aseck~, Community Development Director
Approved by:
Bernard Strojny, City Manager
RESOLUTION NO. 3156
BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CAMPBELL RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A TEXT
AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE CAMPBELL MUNICIPAL CODE TO
ADD A TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES CHAPTER AND
RELATED AMENDMENTS. FILE NO. TA 98-02.
After notification and public heating, as specified by law, and after presentation by the
Community Development Director, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed.
After due consideration of all evidence presented, the Planning Commission did find as follows
with respect to application TA 98-02:
The availability of telecommunications facilities is in the best interest of the citizens of the
City of Campbell.
In order to protect the public health, safety and welfare, it is necessary to insure that the
siting of a telecommunications facility is compatible in scale and design with its locale and
is sited so as to minimize adverse visual impacts on natural resources, neighborhoods,
vistas, view corridors, architecture and structures.
o
This proposed text amendment is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Policy 9
which states that architectural review shall emphasize visually attractive on-site
environments through careful attention to building scale, architectural design, landscaping
and placement of screening of loading and mechanical equipment. The provisions of the
proposed ordinance will assure that, to the greatest extent possible, wireless
telecommunications facilities are attractive in design and have the least amount of visual
impact given the circumstances.
The based on the findings of the Initial Study, the proposed text amendment will not have a
significant effect on the environment. A Negative Declaration has been prepared and
adopted in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
The proposed text amendment will not have a significant effect on plant and animal life or
natural resources.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission concludes that:
The proposed text amendment will establish design criteria on the development of wireless
telecommunications facilities that will preserve the character and attractive nature of
Campbell.
The guidelines provided in the ordinance will aid in the harmonious development of the
community.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3156
TA 98-02 - Telecommunications Facilities Chapter to CMC
Page 2
The requirements of the wireless telecommunications ordinance will not be detrimental to
the health, safety or welfare of the city
The proposed ordinance regulations and guidelines permits a reasonable perimeter for
development of wireless telecommunications facilities.
The Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt the attached
Ordinance enacting the necessary legislation to make the proposed text amendment effective.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14t~ day of April, 1998, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
Francois, Gibbons, Jones, Keams, Lowe,
None
Lindstrom, Meyer-Kennedy
None
APPROVED:
Dennis Lowe, Chair
Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 1998 Page 2
AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS
There were no agenda modifications or postponements.
ORAL REQUESTS
There were no oral requests.
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairman Lowe read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record.
TA 98-02
City Initiated
Continued Public Heating to consider the City-initiated
application for approval of a Text Amendment (TA 98-02) to
amend the Campbell Municipal Code to add a
Telecommunications Facilities Chapter and related
amendments. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for
this project. Tentative City Council Meeting Date: May 5,
1998.
Ms. Sharon Fierro, Senior Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
· Staffhas revised the draft ordinance which was distributed with the packets. The draft being
distributed this evening reflects the new changes with underlines.
· The ordinance will allow stealth installations to be approved through an administrative
procedure.
· Advised that the Nextel representative, Karen Vernetti, is unable to attend this evening's
meeting as she experienced a flat tire on her car on route. Ms. Vemetti's concerns included
the height of antennas (page 19, number 8) which has been clarified; building height (page
19, number 4); the relationship to screening requirements for off-site improvements; and
relocation requirements.
· Said that Sprint forwarded a last minute letter addressing some concerns. A few of these
concerns have been addressed through some of the most recent changes.
Chairman Lowe asked if all of Sprint's concerns have been addressed.
Ms. Sharon Fierro replied that not all have been addressed. One concern they had was the
provision that they provide a five year plan when submitting any applications. Clarified that the
five year plan is not obligated to be site specific but simply general areas should be defined.
Chairman Lowe advised that while he had abstained from participating in the discussion of this
item at the last meeting, upon further discussion with the City Attorney, it has been determined
that he does not have a conflict which prevents him from voting on this issue. Therefore, he will
be participating in this evening's discussion and voting on the ultimate action.
Chairman Lowe opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1.
Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 1998 Page 3
Ms. Carrie Takeyasu, Legal Counsel, Sprint:
· Asked for clarification about facade-mounted antennas and what type of approval process is
proposed.
· Asked when antennas need a Use Permit and when they need Site and Architectural Review
Permit.
Ms. Sharon Fierro replied that not all facade-mounted antennas will automatically be handled
through an administrative process. Only stealth installations, those with the least controversy.
Ms. Carrie Takeyasu suggested that the last sentence Item 14 be deleted.
Ms. Sharon Fierro stated that the definition helps clarify and said that staff does not recommend
this modification.
Commissioner Gibbons stated that a rapid process for approval can be offered to providers. If
the applications do not meet the City's requirements, the applications can be brought to the
Planning Commission.
Ms. Carrie Takeyasu stated that different types of review can provide an incentive to providers.
Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, advised that page 17 includes new
language which clearly defines the types of permitting processes proposed.
Ms. Carrie Takeyasu stated that Sprint's next concern is the requirement for the provision of a
five-year plan when submitting antenna applications. She stated that this information is difficult
to predict as they don't always know six months in advance what they plan to do.
Chairman Lowe asked if revisions were possible.
Ms. Sharon Fierro:
· Advised that the provision of the five year plan does not constitute an approval of that plan.
The provider is not required to build all the sites they depict on their five year plan. It simply
represents a concept.
· Advised that other communities have this requirement for a five year plan.
Chairman Lowe opened the Public Heating for Agenda Item No. 1.
Ms. Carrie Takeyasu asked about the necessity of the security requirement. Said that lease
requirements will result in the removal of antennas once they are no longer required.
Commissioner Gibbons asked if flexibility in this requirement is possible.
Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 1998 Page 4
City Attomey William Seligmann stated that the City is looking for something that it can
enforce.
Ms. Carrie Takeyasu asked about the term "discernible noise" found on page 16, Item 1. Asked
for a term which is more concrete.
Chairman Lowe asked staff to explain Item 2 of Section 21.60.100, Noise Impacts.
Ms. Sharon Fierro advised that this item relates to residential installations.
Commissioner Gibbons stated that for commercial installations, this noise issue is between the
owners of the building and the lessee.
Ms. Carrie Takeyasu requested use of a general noise standard.
Ms. Sharon Fierro advised that this would be more restrictive to the providers than what is
proposed. There are currently no noise standards except residential.
Chairman Lowe advised that Ms. Takeyasu is representing the interests of Sprint only.
Commissioner Gibbons stated that there are two options. Utilizing the residential standards
throughout the City or allowing a lower noise standard for commercial/industrial areas.
Ms. Sharon Fierro advised that staff has sought to allow the providers as much flexibility as
possible to meet whatever standard which is compatible. Clarified that discernible is noticeable.
Commissioner Kearns stated that the meaning of discernible is clear.
Commissioner Jones stated that he agreed.
Ms. Sharon Fierro advised that providers will be required to provide noise information when
submitting a proposal. Noise issues have been woven throughout the code.
Ms. Carrie Takeyasu asked for clarifications for both Item 4 and Item 8 under Roof Mounted
Antennas.
Ms. Sharon Fierro stated that if a building has a height restriction, no antenna can be installed
that exceeds that height.
Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that this Ordinance can be considered a starting point. Better ways
may be determined after it is applied and used for a while.
Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 1998 Page 5
Ms. Sharon Fierro stated that some minor wording changes per the City Attorney's
recommendation have been implemented on pages 16 and 17. She added that not a lot of
ground-mounted antennas are installed in Campbell since there are no hills.
Chairman Lowe asked why it is not possible to require painting of all equipment to screen it.
Ms. Sharon Fierro advised that per Sprint's agreement with Lucent Technologies they are
prohibited from painted their equipment. If they are unable to paint, they will be required to
screen using other means such as landscaping. She added that language for a revocation process
has been added on page 24.
Ms. Carrie Takeyasu asked for exceptionary language for Item 8 such as is included for Item No.
4.
Ms. Sharon Fierro replied that Item No. 4 applies only to antennas and support structures.
Providers can raise the height of the parapet and thus raise the height of their antennas.
Chairman Lowe closed the Public Heating for Agenda Item No. 1.
Motion:
Upon motion of Commissioner Gibbons, seconded by Commissioner Kearns,
the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3156 recommending
approval a Telecommunications Facilities Chapter (Chapter 21.60) and
related amendments (as modified by the Planning Commission) and the
adoption of a Negative Declaration, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Francois, Gibbons, Jones, Kearns, Lowe
None
Lindstrom, Meyer-Kennedy
None
Chairman Lowe advised that this matter will be considered by Council at its meeting of May 5,
1998.
Chairman Lowe read Agenda Item No. 2 into the record.
TA 98-03
City Initiated
Public Hearing to consider the City-initiated application for
approval of a Text Amendment (TA 98-03) to amend the
Campbell Municipal Code to include a Tree Protection
Ordinance. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this
project. Tentative City Council Meeting Date: May 5, 1998.
ITEM NO. 1
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OF April 14, 1998
TA 98-02
Public Hearing to consider the city initiated application for approval of a Text
Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to establish regulations and guidelines
for Wireless Telecommunications Facilities.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission take the following actions:
Recommend that the City Council Grant a Negative Declaration for this amendment; and
Adopt a Resolution, incorporating the attached findings, recommending that the City
Council approve a text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance creating Chapter 21.60,
Wireless Telecommunication Facilities.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An initial study has been conducted for this project for the Commission's consideration. It
concludes this project will not have a significant effect on the environment, therefore, a Negative
Declaration has been prepared.
BACKGROUND
On March 24, 1998, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing on the Wireless
Telecommunications Ordinance, directing staff to make several changes to clarify the draft
ordinance.
DISCUSSION
Summary_ of Proposed Changes:
The draft ordinance has been amended to reflect the changes requested by the Planning
Commission and the City Attorney. Where new language was added it is underlined and in bold
type. Language which has been deleted remains with strikeout marks to illustrate deletions. A
brief overview of major comments and the changes made to the ordinance is described below:
Definitions:
The Commission expressed the concern that the term "Visual Impacts" is vague and requested
staff to clarify it in the ordinance. Staff has drafted a definition of visual impacts which is found
on Page 5 of the Revised Draft Ordinance. At the request of the City Attorney, a definition of
cell and cell site has been added on Page 2.
Planning Commission Staff Report for April 14, 1998
TA 98-02 - Wireless Telecommunications Facilities
Page 2
Permit Requirements:
The Permit Matrix on Page 6 of the revised draft has been reorganized for clarity and readability.
Section 21.60.030.7 Conditions, on Page 7 has been amended to clarify that the requirement to
relocate or redesign a facility applies to actions on an application by the Planning Commission or
Community Development Director. In practice, Staff could recommend an alternate solution to a
telecommunications location or design if the proposal deviated from the standards of the
ordinance. Staff could not deny the application or require relocation redesign.
Application requirements:
The representative of Nextel asked that a time limit be placed on the independent review
provisions found on Page 11. Staff has not included a separate time frame for this review
because all time lines to review and take action on development applications processed by the
Community Development Department are regulated by the Permit Streamlining provisions of the
State Government Code and the State Public Resources Code sections that refer to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Director's Discretion:
This section, found on Page 12, has been clarified to distinguish under what circumstances the
Director has the discretion to require a Use Permit in addition to a Site and Architectural Review
Permit. The wording was taken from the existing language in the Site and Architectural Review
Section of the Zoning Ordinance.
Length of Permit Term:
Several of the Commissioners asked that an administrative process be available for existing
facilities, required by this section to submit a new application every five years, when the facility
meets the requirements of this chapter and utilizes stealth technology. A new section, Existing
Facilities, has been added on Page 12 to clarify that these facilities could be reviewed under the
Site and Architectural Review Permit procedures by the Planning Director. Controversial
locations and installations would continue to be reviewed by the Planning Commission as
required by the ordinance.
Minimize Visual Impacts:
This section, found on Page 19, has been revised to reflect changes requested by Commissioner
Gibbons.
Height of Equipment:
The representative of Nextel Communications requested clarification of this provision found on
Page 20. It sets forth a height standard, but allows approval of higher equipment upon a finding
that it is not possible to meet the 5 foot height limitation and that sufficient screening is provided.
Planning Commission StaffReport for April 14, 1998
TA 98-02 - Wireless Telecommunications Facilities
Page 3
Complaint and Proceedings:
Revocation of Permit:
The modifications to these two sections clarify that the service provider will
opportunity to correct violations prior to the institution of revocation proceedings.
be given an
On April 10, 1998, a copy of the amendments to the draft ordinance was faxed to the
representatives of the wireless telecommunications industry for comments.
Recommended Amendment: Attachment B, Chapter 21.60, Wireless Telecommunications
Facility Ordinance, has been amended to reflect the comments of the Planning Commission.
Attachments:
A. Recommended Findings
B. Recommended Amendment
Submitted by:
Approved by:
Shart~n Fierro,;Senior Planner
Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director
ITEM NO. 3
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OF MARCH 24, 1998
TA 98-02
Public Heating to consider the city initiated application for approval of a Text
Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to establish regulations and guidelines
for Wireless Telecommunications Facilities.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission take the following actions:
Recommend that the City Council Grant a Negative Declaration for this amendment; and
Adopt a Resolution, incorporating the attached findings, recommending that the City
Council approve a text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance creating Chapter 21.60,
Wireless Telecommunication Facilities.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An initial study has been conducted for this project for the Commission's consideration. It
concludes this project will not have a significant effect on the environment, therefore, a Negative
Declaration was prepared.
BACKGROUND
On March 3, 1998, the City Council held a public heating to consider a request of the Planning
Commission recommending a development moratorium on installations of wireless
telecommunications facilities until an ordinance is adopted. Dave Hardy of Nextel
Communication and Judy Rowland of Cellular One asked the Council not to adopt a moratorium.
When questioned by the Council, Ms. Rowland confirmed that Cellular One had two sites under
consideration and that she intended to bring forward applications for new telecommunications
facilitates within the next few months.
After consideration of the issues and information before them, the City Council decided not to
adopt a development moratorium because staff was close to completing a draft ordinance and
because the Commission could adopt guidelines to be used before the ordinance takes effect.
The City Council did authorized staff to prepare the draft ordinance for consideration by the
Commission and asked staff to prepare interim guidelines to be adopted by the Commission.
In making their motion to direct the Commission to consider a telecommunications ordinance,
the Council stated that they were looking for stealthing techniques to be the cornerstone of the
ordinance.
Planning Commission Staff Report for March 24, 1998
TA 98-02 - Wireless Telecommunications Facilities
Page 2
DISCUSSION
The proposed ordinance would continue to require a Use Permit for visible antennas and
provides guidance in evaluating applications based on location and design criteria. Application
requirements and performance standards are also outlined.
Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996
Congress adopted the Telecommunications Act (the Act) in 1996 to deregulate the provision of
wireless services. One of the sections in the Act is entitled "National Wireless
Telecommunications Siting Policy". This section, while preserving the local jurisdiction's
control over the siting process, sets forth certain important limitations. Local jurisdictions cannot
unreasonably discriminate among providers of various services, and they cannot take action that
prohibits or has the "effect" of prohibiting the provision of wireless services.
The Act prohibits local jurisdictions from denying siting on the basis of Radio Frequency
Radiation emissions so long as such facilities comply with the regulations established by the
Federal Communications Commission. The draft ordinance comply with the provisions of the
Act.. Attachment B is a list of local communities that have adopted ordinances or guidelines
that regulate these aspects of telecommunications facility development.
Technology:
A brief outline of the wireless telecommunication technology is provided as Attachment "F".
Ordinance Summary:
· Application requirements. The ordinance details application requirements that will help the
City to evaluate the application. For example, a five-year plan is required that illustrates how
many new facilities will be needed over the next five years, how many will need additional
equipment including antennas and how many will be upgraded or will add technology to
existing facilities. Where a facility will be visible to the public and stealthing techniques are
not possible, more documentation is required. Pre-Application conferences are encouraged
to assist the applicant in preparing information. At that time the planner can verify the level
of information necessary. Submittal requirements can be waived or adjusted if not
applicable.
· Preferred and discouraged locations. The proposed ordinance states that commercial and
industrial sites are preferred locations. If a provider needs to install a facility in a non-
preferred location, more information is required to the City can understand why a preferred
site was not possible. The additional information may enable the City to direct the applicant
to a more desirable site, with less visual impacts.
Planning Commission StaffReport for March 24, 1998
TA 98-02 - Wireless Telecommunications Facilities
Page 3
Design preferences to minimize visual impacts. Stealthing techniques are encouraged. For
example, facade mounted antennas that are incorporated into the design of the building are a
type of stealthing.
An administrative process. An administrative process is available for certain types of
telecommunication facilities that are architecturally compatible with the building and its
surroundings and which are not controversial due to location or proximity to residential uses.
Other Provisions. The ordinance contains provisions intended to assure that the operation of
the facilities does not cause a nuisance. It addresses such issues as submission of documents
verifying compliance with the FCC's emission standards for electro-magnetic fields (EMF' s),
maintenance of screening (such as landscaping)and an ongoing ability to address complaints
about noise from generators and equipment cooling devices. The ordinance requires that the
service provider periodically submit a letter to the City verifying that the facility is in
compliance with FCC standards.
On March 16, 1998, staff met with representatives of the wireless telecommunications industry
and reviewed their comments. Carders who were not able to attend submitted written
recommendations. To the extent possible, the ordinance has been revised to incorporate their
suggestions.
General Plan Policies
Adoption of the Wireless Telecommunications Ordinance is consistent with General Plan Land
Use Policy 9 which states that architectural review shall emphasize visually attractive on-site
environments through careful attention to building scale, architectural design, landscaping and
the placement of screening of loading and mechanical equipment. The proposed ordinance
provides guidance for the review of the architectural design of telecommunications facilities to
assure that it results in attractive development and where necessary, screening is provided to
block visibility of less attractive features. Landscaping is required to mitigate visual impacts.
Maintenance of landscaping will assure that screening remains in place for the lifetime of the
facility.
It also furthers Land Use Policy 11 which states that the City shall protect residential uses which
adjoin commercial or industrial uses form potential noise, traffic, safety hazards, and glare
through site design. The proposed ordinance states a locational preference of commercial and
industrial sites. Additional information is required to prove that the facility has to be located in a
residential area. Where residential sites are absolutely necessary to complete the communication
network, stricter siting and performance standards apply.
Strategic Plan Policies
In 1994, the City Council adopted a Strategic Plan that outlines the City's vision for future
development. In the Vision Statement, the City Council stated that they desired "An attractive
Planning Commission StaffReport for March 24, 1998
TA 98-02 - Wireless Telecommunications Facilities
Page 4
and comfortable environment includes a community with visually attractive streetscapes,
neighborhoods, downtown and other commercial areas". The adoption of the Wireless
Telecommunications Ordinance furthers the vision of the Strategic Plan Land Use Objective of
An attractive community with an enhanced image, and the Community Goal of attractive
residential neighborhoods and business districts by setting forth criteria that encourages
stealthing and architectural solutions to visible antennas and equipment.
Recommended Amendment: Attachment B is the proposed Zoning Ordinance Text
Amendment to add Chapter 21.60, Wireless Telecommunications Facilities.
Attachments:
A. Recommended Findings
B. Recommended Amendment
C. Initial Study
D. Survey of Other Bay Area Communities
E. List of Existing Wireless Telecommunication Sites in Campbell
F. Technical Paper on Technology
Submitted by: ~~1~3~~
Sh"~i, Senior Planner
Approvedb~ ~k.~d~B ~ ff_.~~"
Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director
Attachment A
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF FILE NO. TA 98-02
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILIITES
SITE ADDRESS: City Wide
APPLICANT: City Initiated
P.C. MEETING: March 24, 1998
The Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to file TA 98-02:
1. The availability of telecommunications facilities is in the best interest of the citizens of the city
of Campbell.
In order to protect the public health, safety and welfare, it is necessary to insure that the siting of
a telecommunications facility is compatible in scale and design with its locale and is sited so as
to minimize adverse visual impacts on natural resources, neighborhoods, vistas, view corridors,
architecture and structures.
This proposed ordinance is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Policy 9 which states that
architectural review shall emphasize visually attractive on-site environments through careful
attention to building scale, architectural design, landscaping and placement of screening of
loading and mechanical equipment. The provisions of the proposed ordinance will assure that, to
the greatest extent possible, wireless telecommunications facilities are attractive in design and
have the least amount of visual impact given the circumstances.
Based on the findings of the Initial Study, the proposed text amendment will not have a
significant detrimental effect on the environment. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for
adoption in conformance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.
5. The proposed ordinance will not have a significant effect on plant and animal life or natural
resources.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission concludes that:
1. The proposed ordinance will establish design criteria on the development of wireless
telecommunications facilities that will preserve the character and attractive nature of Campbell.
2. The criteria provided in the ordinance will aid in the harmonious development of the community.
3. The requirements of the ordinance will not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the
city.
4. The proposed interim guidelines permit a reasonable perimeter for development of wireless
telecommunications facilities.
ITEM NO. 4
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OF MARCH 24, 1998
Public Heating to consider the City initiated application for approval of Wireless
Telecommunications Facilities Guidelines.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission Adopt a Resolution, incorporating
approving Wireless Telecommunication Facility Guidelines.
the attached findings,
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
This project is categorically exempt under Section 15305 (a) Class 5, Minor Alterations in Land
Use Limitations, of the California Environmental Quality Act; therefore no environmental action
is required.
BACKGROUND
On March 3, 1998, in conjunction with the decision not to adopt a Development Moratorium on
new wireless telecommunication facilities, the City Council authorized the Planning Commission
to adopt interim guidelines and directed staff to prepare a Wireless Telecommunication
Ordinance. The guidelines would be in effect until an ordinance becomes effective, which would
be mid June at the earliest.
DISCUSSION
The installation of antennas requires the approval of a Use Permit and Site and Architectural
Review Permit, providing policy guidelines to be used in evaluating each application on a case
by case basis. The proposed guidelines are a condensed version of the full Wireless
Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance, also under consideration at this meeting. Staff met
with members of the Telecommunications Industry on March 16, 1998 to go over comments and
concerns.
Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996
A description of the Federal Communications Act and its impact on the adoption of local
regulations is found in the Staff Report for the Wireless Telecommunications Ordinance.
Summary of the Guideline Provisions
The proposed guidelines will give guidance to applicants, staff and to the Planning Commission
on evaluating applications for Wireless Telecommunications Facilities. Listed below are some
key areas covered by the Guidelines:
· Application requirements:
· Information to be provided on the site plan and elevations, and other applicable plans.
Planning Commission Staff Report for March 24, 1998
Telecommunications Facilities Interim Guidelines
Page 2
A five-year plan describing how many new facilities will be needed over the next five
years.
· Where a facility will be visible to the public and stealthing techniques are not
possible, more documentation is required.
· Pre-Application conferences are encouraged to assist the applicant in preparing
information. At that time the planner can verify the level of information necessary.
· Submittal requirements can be waived or adjusted if not applicable.
Preferred and discouraged locations:
· Commercial and industrial sites are preferred.
· If a provider needs to install a facility in a non-preferred location, more information is
required to allow the City to understand why a preferred site was not possible.
Design preferences to minimize visual impacts: · Stealthing techniques are encouraged.
· Height limits are established, with provisions for flexibility upon proof of necessity.
Other Provisions: · Submittal of a letter verifying compliance with the FCC's emission standards for
electromagnetic fields (EMF's).
· Maintenance of screening, such as landscaping.
· Noise limits are established.
· Site maintenance and safety standards.
General Plan Policies
General Plan consistency is addressed in the Staff Report for the Wireless Telecommunications
Ordinance.
Recommended Amendment: Attachment B is the proposed Wireless Telecommunications
Guidelines.
Attachments:
A. Recommended Findings
B. Recommended Guidelines
Submitted by: ~~ 7~-~4J~.
Shar~ ~,~Se~er '
Approved byC ~/ff~
StevXWl~asecki, Di[ector of Community Development
Attachment #1
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
INTERIM GUIDELINES FOR WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILIITES
SITE ADDRESS: City Wide
APPLICANT: City Initiated
P.C. MEETING: March 24, 1998
The Planning Commission finds as follows:
1. The availability of telecommunications facilities is in the best interest of the citizens of the city
of Campbell.
In order to protect the public health, safety and welfare, it is necessary to insure that the siting of
a telecommunications facility is compatible in scale and design with its locale and is sited so as
to minimize adverse visual impacts on natural resources, neighborhoods, vistas, view corridors,
architecture and structures.
o
This proposed interim guidelines are consistent with the General Plan Land Use Policy 9 which
states that architectural review shall emphasize visually attractive on-site environments through
careful attention to building scale, architectural design, landscaping and placement of screening
of loading and mechanical equipment. The provisions of the proposed interim guidelines will
assure that, to the greatest extent possible, wireless telecommunications facilities are attractive in
design and have the least amount of visual impact given the circumstances.
This project is categorically exempt under Section 15305 (a) Class 5, Minor Alterations in Land
Use Limitations, of the California Environmental Quality Act; therefore no environmental action
is required.
5. The proposed interim guidelines will not have a significant effect on plant and animal life or
natural resources.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission concludes that:
1. The proposed interim guidelines will establish design criteria on the development of wireless
telecommunications facilities that will preserve the character and attractive nature of Campbell.
2. The criteria provided in the interim guidelines will aid in the harmonious development of the
community.
3. The requirements of the interim guidelines will not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare
of the city
4. The proposed interim guidelines permit a reasonable perimeter for development of wireless
telecommunications facilities.
MEMORANDUM
CITY OFCAMPBELL
Date: March 5, 1998
To: Sharon Fierro, Senior Planner
Con~,~nity Development Department
From: Ja~emsley
D~uty City Clerk
Subject: Adoption of development moratorium on telecommunication facilities until an
Ordinance is adopted.
At the regular meeting of March 3, 1998, the City Council authorized staff to
prepare a telecommunications ordinance and further authorized the Planning
Commission to adopt interim guidelines.
ORDINANCE NO.
BEING AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CAMPBELL ESTABLISHING A 45-DAY MORATORIUM UPON THE
ISSUANCE OF ANY NEW LICENSE OR PERMIT ISSUED FOR THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES AND
DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF.
WHEREAS, the United States Congress adopted the 1996 Federal Communications Act, which
encourages the growth of the telecommunications industry through deregulation, while
confirming local government's ability to regulate the installation of "PCS" and cellular
telephone facilities and other wireless telecommunications facilities for reasons of health and
aesthetics;
WHEREAS, the availability of telecommunication facilities is in the best interest of the citizens
of the City of Campbell, and
WHEREAS, applications have been submitted to the City for the installation and operation of
telecommunications antennas and related facilities and the City Council anticipates additional
applications and inquiries, and
WHEREAS, the siting and location of telecommunications facilities must be sensitive to the
needs of the wireless telecommunication industry, but also maintain an aesthetically appealing
City in the long term, and
WHEREAS, there is a need for regulations to ensure standardized procedures for processing
applications and protecting the public's interest in the development of telecommunication's
facilities, and
WHEREAS, the City of Campbell desires to assure that all wireless telecommunication facilities
comply with Federal guidelines for electromagnetic radiation to protect the public health and
safety, and
WHEREAS, the City of Campbell has no existing performance standards or guidelines
specifically for the siting and design of telecommunications facilities, and
WHEREAS, the City of Campbell is in the process of reviewing its Zoning Ordinance to
determine siting and locational criteria that assures that such facilities aide in the harmonious
development of the community, and
Council Resolution
Moratorium on Telecommunications Facilities
Page 2
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has requested that such an ordinance be prepared to guide
their review of applications to install telecommunications facilities, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has forwarded a request to the City Council requesting
that a development moratorium be established to allow a telecommunications ordinance to be
adopted.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL DOES ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: Moratorium on the approval of development applications or issuance of any
permits for telecommunications facilities: The City of Campbell will not accept, process or issue
any new use or development application or permit for wireless telecommunications facilities
during the pendency of this ordinance.
SECTION 2: Sunset Provision: This ordinance shall be null and void upon the effective date of
any amendment to the Campbell Municipal Code establishing regulations governing the
establishment of wireless telecommunications facilities or on April 17, 1998, whichever event
occurs first.
SECTION 3: Urgency: This ordinance is declared an urgency measure and shall be in full force
and effect upon its enactment. There is an urgent need for enactment of this ordinance for the
immediate preservation of the public peace and health in that:
Applications have been submitted to the City for the installation and operation of
telecommunications antennas and related facilities and the City Council anticipates
additional applications and inquiries, and
The siting and location of telecommunications facilities must be sensitive to the needs of
the wireless telecommunication industry, but also maintain an aesthetically appealing
City in the long term, and
There is a need for regulations to
applications and protecting the
telecommunication's facilities, and
ensure standardized procedures for processing
public's interest in the development of
The City of Campbell desires to assure that all wireless telecommunication facilities
comply with Federal guidelines for electromagnetic radiation to protect the public health
and safety, and
· The City of Campbell has no existing performance standards or guidelines specifically for
the siting and design of telecommunications facilities, and
Council Resolution
Moratorium on Telecommunications Facilities
Page 3
The City of Campbell is in the process of reviewing its Zoning Ordinance to determine
siting and locational criteria that assures that such facilities aide in the harmonious
development of the community
The City Council finds and determines that the construction of wireless
telecommunications facilities in many parts of the community without regard to
compatibility with the existing architecture or site design of the site upon which it is
intended to be located, will result in visual blight which reduces the quality of life within
the community to the extent that the overall public health is detrimentally affected,
impairing the wholesome condition of the community at large.
· The City is concerned that applications may be submitted for telecommunications
facilities prior to the adoption of regulations and guidelines.
SECTION 4: Exceptions to the Moratorium:
Ao
Requests for exceptions from the moratorium
Requests for exceptions from the moratorium will be granted by the Community
Development Director within 10 working days of the request if the applicant can
demonstrate either:
1. The moratorium would deprive the applicant's property of all reasonably viable
economic use; or
The moratorium effectively prohibits, rather than delays, the provision of wireless
telecommunication service or discriminates against the applicant in a manner
significantly different from other applicants.
A request for an exception must be filed in writing and describe the reason for the
request. If granted by the Community Development Director, use permit and site and
architectural review permit applications may be filed with accompanying fees and with
information specified by the Community Development Director sufficient to evaluate the
applications.
Approved Applications
Approved use and site and architectural permits for the construction of
telecommunication facilities which are not the subject of a pending appeal and which
have not expired are exempt from the terms of this moratorium.
Council Resolution
Moratorium on Telecommunications Facilities
Page 4
SECTION 5' Publication Clause: The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published at
least once in a newspaper of general circulation and circulated in the City within 15 days after its
adoption, in accordance with Government Code Section 36933, shall certify to the adoption of
this ordinance and shall cause this ordinance and her certification, together with proof of
publication, to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of the Council of the City of Campbell.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this
call vote:
__ day of
1998, by the following roll
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
APPROVED:
Jeanette Watson, Mayor
ATTEST:
Anne Bybee, City Clerk
Council
Report
ITEM NO.:
CATEGORY:
MEETING DATE:
Boards and Commissions
March 3, 1998
TITLE
Communication from the Planning Commission requesting adoption
moratorium on telecommunication facilities until an ordinance is adopted.
of a development
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt a development moratorium
on applications for new telecommunications facilities until the city has adopted an ordinance
regulating such facilities.
BACKGROUND
On February 10, 1998, the Planning Commission voted 6 to 1 to approve a motion requesting
that the City Council establish a moratorium on the approval of any new wireless
telecommunication antenna applications to allow time for the City to prepare a
telecommunications ordinance. The ordinance would incorporate guidelines for the siting and
design of telecommunication antennas and associated equipment.
The moratorium request was prompted by Nextel Communication's application to install a
monopole antenna "tree" at 700 Hamilton Avenue, approved by a 4 to 3 vote. The antenna was
designed to appear as a pine tree located in a cluster of existing trees at the southeastern comer of
the site.
Since 1995, when the Federal Communications Commission authorized the sale of frequencies
for the new wireless telecommunication technology, the City has approved 12 applications for
antenna locations. Attachment "B" contains a listing of these applications, their sponsors and the
location of the facilities. Based on information available from the FCC and specialists in this
field, there will be other licenses sold by the FCC and additional sites needed by existing
telecommunications providers. We will continue to receive applications for new antenna
locations.
Currently, antenna installations require approval of a use permit by the Planning Commission
and are reviewed on a case by case basis. The Planning Commission, in discussing the most
recent applications for Nextel Communications, expressed concern about the following issues:
There is no city standard to use for evaluating antenna applications, "We are operating
blind".
· Commissioners are not knowledgeable about the technology and what works or doesn't
work. An independent expert/consultant should evaluate applications and give
recommendations to the Commission.
· How do other cities evaluate antennas applications and how do we compare?
Staff Report- City Council Meeting of March 3, 1998
Moratorium on Telecommunications Facilities Applications
Page 2
· Is there more that can be done to reduce visual impacts of these antennas? What are the
choices?
· The height of antennas seems excessive. Can the height be reduced?
· When the Storage USA project was approved the applicant worked with the Commission to
provide an attractive project due to its visibility from STEX. The approval of rooftop
antennas ruins that effort.
· We require new buildings to screen roof equipment (Air-conditioning, etc.), why are we
approving roof mounted antennas that are not screened? Antennas that are visible to the
public are visual clutter.
· Why can't the industry use facade mounted antennas that blend with the architecture of the
building?
DISCUSSION
Development Moratorium: The California Government Code, Section 65858, provides that an
interim ordinance establishing a development moratorium may be adopted where a jurisdiction is
in the process of considering, studying or intending to study a development issue within a
reasonable period of time.
An interim ordinance is adopted as a urgency measure, supported by a 4/5th majority of the City
Council. Public notice is not necessary at this time. The interim ordinance is valid for a period
of 45 days at which time it automatically expires or may be extended for a period of six months.
The extension must be adopted as a regular ordinance of the city, meeting the noticing and
waiting period for public review. During the moratorium, the City has the opportunity to prepare
the telecommunications ordinance without jeopardizing community standards yet to be codified.
In an effort to comprehensively address the numerous issues related to antenna design, operation
and placement, staff has prepared a draft interim ordinance establishing a moratorium should the
City Council concur with the Planning Commission's recommendation. It is anticipated that this
draft ordinance would be reviewed by the Planning Commission by March 24, 1998.
Telecommunications Ordinance: A Telecommunications Ordinance would provide direction
to the telecommunication industry in siting and designing telecommunication facilities. Typical
ordinances include the following provisions:
· Application requirements
· Preferred and discouraged locations
· Design preferences to minimize visual impacts
· An administrative process for telecommunication facilities that are architecturally compatible
with the building and its surroundings
Staff Report- City Council Meeting of March 3, 1998
Moratorium on Telecommunications Facilities Applications
Page 3
Performance standards for the operation of the facilities, such as a time limit on the length of
the use permit, submission of documents verifying compliance with the FCC's emission
standards for electro-magnetic fields (EMF's), maintenance of screening (such as
landscaping)and an ongoing ability to address complaints about noise from generators and
equipment cooling devices.
In a survey of local communities, staff has found that many have already adopted ordinances or
guidelines for telecommunications antennas and equipment, see Attachment "C". Staff
anticipates that it will take approximately three months to bring an ordinance to the City Council.
It could be in effect by mid July, if approved.
If authorized to proceed with preparation of an ordinance, staff will invite comments by members
of the telecommunications industry and they will be invited to attend the public heatings.
Given the time it takes to prepare an ordinance, the City Council may wish to direct the Planning
Commission to consider interim guidelines that will be used until an ordinance can be adopted.
These guidelines could be heard on the Commission Agenda of March 10, 1998.
Nextel's application for the installation of antennas on the roof of Storage USA (Winchester
Boulevard at San Tomas Expressway) was approved by a split vote of 4 to 3 on January 8, 1998.
This approval was appealed to the City Council and is scheduled for the Council's March 3, 1998
meeting (this evening). The Council may wish to hold the heating on the Nextel appeal after
consideration of the moratorium.
FISCAL IMPACTS
There are no fiscal impacts anticipated with the preparation of the Telecommunications
Ordinance.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Do not adopt
a Development Moratorium and do not authorize preparation of a
telecommunications ordinance.
2. Authorize preparation of a telecommunications ordinance, but do not adopt a Development
Moratorium. In conjunction with this alternative, the City Council may which to authorize the
Planning Commission to adopt interim guidelines.
3. Request additional background information prior to providing direction to staff.
Attachment C
CITY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA
California Environmental Quality Act
INITIAL STUDY
Wireless Telecommunications Ordinance
March 1998
O~C H
Prepared By:
Sharon Fierro, Senior Planner
City of Campbell
Community Development Division
70 North First Street
Campbell CA, 95008
(408) 866-2140
This statement is prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST
I. BACKGROUND
Name and Address of Project Proponent:
City of Campbell
70 North First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
Name of Project:
Wireless telecommunications ordinance
Project Address:
City-wide
Project Description:
The project is an ordinance that specifies application requirements and review criteria for
telecommunications facilities. Application requirements are outlined to assure that the City has
sufficient information upon which to review an application. Criteria are specified that will be used
to evaluate each application. Locational preferences are specified. On-going operational criteria
are identified that will assure that such facilities operate in a manner consistent with promoting the
community's health, safety and welfare. Throughout the ordinance, flexibility has been provided so
that facilities that do not meet the established criteria can be built upon a submittal of
documentation that shows that no other reasonable alternative exists. The full draft of the
Ordinance is incorporated by reference herein.
Environmental Setting:
The City of Campbell has a population of 38,267 in a total land area of six (6) square miles. It is
located in Santa Clara County on the southwestem edge of the City of San Jose and is a fully
developed urban community with a mix of residential, commercial, industrial and institutional and
uses.
Date Checklist Completed: March 3, 1998
Prepared By: Sharon Fierro
Senior Planner
Initial Study Page 2
Wireless telecommunications ordinance March 3, 1998
II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT EVALUATION
Introduction: The following evaluation has been prepared to determine if the project may have a
significant impact on the environment. For the purposes of this study, a significant impact shall
mean a substantial or potentially substantial change in the physical environment.
Evaluations: An "A" rating indicates that based upon the available information, the
environmental coordinator has determined that there will be no impact on the environment. A
"B" rating indicates that the impact will be insignificant. A "C" rating indicates that a specific
change to the project (mitigation measures) could reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.
A "D" rating indicates that the impact may or will be significant.
Discussion: A description of the proposed mitigation measures and the factual data or evidence
used to reach conclusions regarding impact significance is attached following the Determination
in Section III.
A. Earth.
Evaluation of the impact of the project upon: (A) (B) (C)
(D)
No Impact Insignif. Insig. if May Be
Mitigated
1. Earth stability or geologic substructure conditions X [--] ~] [--]
2. Soil Conditions: (disruptions, displacements, compaction or X
overcrowding)
3. Topography or ground surface relief features X [--] [--]
4. Unique geologic or physical features X [--]
5. Wind or water erosion of soils (on or off site) X [--] [-] [--]
6. Beach sands, siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel X [--] [--] [---]
of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or the bay
7. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, X [-'] [--]
landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards
The adoption of this wireless telecommunications ordinance does not authorize construction. All
installations will need to receive approval of a use permit and/or site and architectural permit,
which are discretionary permits. CEQA review will be performed on a case by case basis and
mitigation measures will be required as necessary. Building permits will be required for all
installations to assure structural integrity and earthquake safety. Where necessary grading and
trenching permits will also be required.
Initial Study Page 3
Wireless telecommunications ordinance Mamh 3, 1998
B. Air.
Evaluation of the impact of the project upon:
1. The deterioration of ambient air quality X [--] ~] [~]
2. The creation of objectionable odors X [-'] [~ ~]
3. Air temperatures, moisture, movements, or micro-climates X [~ [--] [---]
The adoption of this ordinance will not affect air quality. Each application for installation of a
wireless telecommunications facility will be reviewed on a case by case basis to determine
specific impacts.
C. Water.
Evaluation of the impact of the project upon:
1. Currents or natural water courses X [-'] [~]
2. Absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water X [--] ~] [--]
runoff
3. Flood water courses or flows X [~] [--1 []
4. Amount of surface water in any water body X ['-] [~]
5. Discharges into surface waters, or alteration of surface water quality X
6. Direction or rate of flow of ground water X [--] [--] [--1
7. Ground water quantity (additions, withdrawals, interceptions of an aquifer?) X [--] []
8. Amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies X
9. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards (flooding) X
The adoption of this ordinance will not affect water quality. Each application for installation of a
wireless telecommunications facility will be reviewed on a case by case basis to determine site
specific impacts.
Initial Study Page 4
Wireless telecommunications ordinance March 3, 1998
Do
Plant-life and Wildlife
Evaluation of the impact of the project upon:
(A) (B) (C) (D)
No Impact Insignif. Insig. if May Be
Mitigated Signif.
1. The diversity of species or number of any species of plants X I"-]
2. The number of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants X
3. The normal replenishment of existing species X [--] ~--I [--]
4. Acreage of an agricultural crop X [--] ~] [--]
5. The diversity of species or numbers of species of animals X [] [] []
6. Numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals X ['-'] [--] [--]
7. The normal migration or movement of animals X [--] [--1
8. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat X ['-] [--]
The adoption of this ordinance will not affect plant life or wildlife. Each application for
installation of a wireless telecommunications facility will be reviewed on a case by case basis to
determine site specific impacts.
E. Noise.
Evaluation of the impact of the project upon:
1. Existing noise levels X [--] [--] [-]
2. Exposure of people to severe noise levels X [--] [--] [--]
The adoption of this ordinance will not significantly affect noise levels, some
telecommunications auxiliary equipment does generate some noise. Acoustical information is
required by the ordinance that will allow each application to be reviewed for noise impacts on a
case by case. Noise levels that adversely affect the intended or planned use of land be eliminated
or mitigated to a level of insignificance.
Initial Study Page 5
Wireless telecommunications ordinance March 3, 1998
F. Natural Resources and Energy
Evaluation of the impact of the project upon:
1. Rate of use of any natural resource X I--] [--] [--]
2. Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource X [--] [--] [--]
3. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy X [--] [--] [-]
4. Demand upon existing sources of energy X I-'] [-]
The adoption of the telecommunication ordinance does not affect natural resources or energy
consumption. Each application for installation of a wireless telecommunications facility will be
reviewed on a case by case basis to determine specific impacts.
Human Health
Evaluation of the impact of the project upon:
(A) (B) (C) (D)
No Impact Insignif. Insig. if May Be
Mitigated Signif.
1. The creation of any physical or mental health hazards X [--] [-] [--]
2. Exposure of people to potential health hazards X [--] ~] [--I
3. Risk of explosion of, or release of hazardous substances X I--[ [--] [-]
While the adoption of the wireless telecommunications ordinance will not create any health
hazards, research has determined that telecommunications facilities emit electromagnetic
radiation. Under the provisions of the Federal Telecommunication Act of 1996, The Federal
Government has preempted local control over such potential health hazards. It directs the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to establish and enforce safe emission limits. The
ordinance will require documentation that each facility meets the FCC standards. This ordinance
seeks to assure that the facilities are maintained in compliance with the Federal Guidelines.
H. Visual Impacts
Evaluation of the impact of the project upon:
1. Obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public X ['-] [--] [-]
2. Creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view X
3. Production of new light or glare X [--] ~] [--]
The proposed wireless telecommunications ordinance requires compliance with standards to
mitigate visual impacts to the extent practicable. Each proposal under the ordinance will be
evaluated on a case by case basis.
Initial Study Page 6
Wireless telecommunications ordinance March 3, 1998
I. Historical Resources
Evaluation of the impact of the project upon:
I 1. Significant archeological or historical sites, structures, objects
buildings
°riX ~] ~
Since the ordinance is not site specific, the impact on historical resources will made on a case by
case basis under the authority of a use permit, as required by the proposed ordinance.
J. Land Use
Evaluation of the impact of the project upon:
1. Present and/or planned land uses in the area X [--] [--1 []
2. Population: The location, distribution, density or growth rate of the X ~] [-'-] [~]
human population in the area
3. Housing: Existing housing or demand for additional housing X [~] [--] ['--]
4. Transportation: A) The generation of substantial additional vehicular X [--] [--] ['-]
movement
B) Existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking X
C) Existing transportation systems X [--]
D) Present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods X [-] ~] [-']
E) Waterborne, rail or air traffic X [--] [-] [--]
F) Traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians X ['-] [~] [-]
5. Recreation: The quality or quantity of existing recreational X [--] [--] [--I
opportunities
The proposed ordinance is not site specific and will therefore have no quantifiable land use
impacts. All applications for telecommunications facilities will be discretionary under the
proposed language and will therefore require compliance with CEQA. Each application will be
reviewed on a case by case basis and any impacts will be mitigated as part of that approval
process.
Initial Study Page 7
Wireless telecommunications ordinance March 3, 1998
K. Is the project consistent with:
Yes No
1. The General Plan X ['-]
2. The Zoning Ordinance X [~
3. Congestion Management Program X [-]
4. Other applicable land use controls X [--]
Adoption of the Wireless Telecommunications Ordinance is consistent with General Plan Land
Use Policy 9 which states that architectural review shall emphasize visually attractive on-site
environments through careful attention to building scale, architectural design, landscaping and
the placement of screening of loading and mechanical equipment. The proposed ordinance
provides guidance for the review of the architectural design of telecommunications facilities to
assure that it results in attractive development and where necessary, screening is provided to
block visibility of less attractive features. Landscaping is required to mitigate visual impacts.
Maintenance of landscaping will assure that screening remains in place for the lifetime of the
facility.
It also furthers Land Use Policy 11 which states that the City shall protect residential uses which
adjoin commercial or industrial uses form potential noise, traffic, safety hazards, and glare
through site design. The proposed ordinance state a locational preference of commercial and
industrial sites. Additional information is required to prove that the facility has to be located in a
residential area. Where residential sites are absolutely necessary to complete the communication
network, stricter siting and performance standards apply.
Le
Public Services and Utilities
Evaluation of the impact of the project upon:
(A) (B) (C) (D)
No Impact Insignif. Insig. if May Be
Mitigated Signif.
1. Fire Protection Services X [~] [--] [--]
2. Police Protection Services X [--] [--] [-]
3. Schools X ~] [--] [--']
4. Parks or other recreational facilities X
5. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads X ~] [--] [--]
6. Other governmental services X [-] [-] [-]
7. Power or natural gas systems X [-']
Initial Study Page 8
Wireless telecommunications ordinance March 3, 1998
8. Communication systems X [--] [~ [--]
9. Water systems X [-] [-] [-]
10. Sewer or septic tanks X [--] [] []
11. Storm water drainage X [--] [--] [~
12. Solid waste and disposal X [--] [-'] []
It is not anticipated that the installation of a wireless telecommunications facility will have a
significant impact on the provision of public services or utilities. Each application will require
approval of a use permit and/or site and architectural review permit, discretionary permits that
will also be required to be reviewed pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act. Site specific impacts will be evaluated at that time.
M. Mandatory Findings of Significance
Yes No
1. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, [--] X
substantially reduce the habitat or a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory?
2. Does the project have the potential to achieve short term goals to the [-] X
disadvantage of long term goals?
3. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively [-'] X
considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where
the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total
of those impacts on the environment is significant.)
4. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse [--] X
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Initial Study Page 9
Wireless telecommunications ordinance March 3, 1998
III. DETERMINATION AND RECOMMENDATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation and the information
coordinator has determined that:
available, the environmental
iCheck one)
X A) The proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment. A Negative
Declaration should be prepared.
[--] B) Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measured described on the
attached sheet(s) have been added to the project. A Negative Declaration should be prepared.
[--] C) The proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment. An Environmental
Impact Report should be prepared.
Date: ~~ 22j I q 5 ~// Signature:
IV.
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
Reference Documents:
1. Wireless Communication Facilities Issues Paper, San Diego Association of Governments,
1995.
2. Federal Communications Act of 1996.
3. Questions and Answers About EMF, Electric and Magnetic Fields Associated with the Use of
Electrical Power, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and U.S. Department
of Health, January 1995.
Initial Study Page 10
Wireless telecommunications ordinance March 3, 1998
Planning'Commission Minutes of February 1 O, 1998
DRAFT
Attachment E
Page 4
2. UP 97-16
Hardy, D.
Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. David Hardy, on
behalf of Nextel Communications, for approval of a Conditional Use
Permit (UP 97-15) to allow the installation of a wireless antenna tree
and equipment building on property located at 700 W. Hamilton
Avenue in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. This
project is Categorically Exempt. Planning Commission Decision
Final, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 days.
Ms. Barbara Schoetz Ryan, Planner I, presented the staff report as follows:
· The applicant is seeking approval to install a 60-foot wireless antenna tree with 12 antennas
on it.
· This installation will include a 200 square foot equipment building located 100 feet from San
Tomas Expressway, 40 feet north of Gale Drive, atop a 5-foot high landscape mound.
Surrounding uses include offices to the south, townhomes to the east, Gold's Gym to the west
and the Best Products site across the expressway.
· The applicant proposes to camouflage this antenna as a pine tree at the property owner's
request. The antenna tree will be located at the center of a grove of trees but will be taller
than the trees.
· From a distance, this antenna tree will not be too noticeable but from 100 feet or closer, it
will be fairly obvious.
· The antenna is proposed at 60 feet in height. The applicant may rent space on the lower
portion of the pole to another cellular provider.
Staff recommends lowering the height of the pole and better configuring the tree to blend in
with the other live trees in the grove. Additionally, staff recommends that shrubbery be
planted to obscure the equipment.
· Staff has distributed an additional Condition of Approval that was inadvertently left out of
the original Conditions which addresses the appearance of the antenna tree.
· Staff proposes a five-year limitation.
· This project was reviewed by SARC on January 20, 1998. SARC expressed concerns about
the height and size of the antenna, finding it noticeably artificial. SARC prefers a monopole
installation.
· This project is exempt from CEQA.
Chairman Lowe stated that this is the third type of antenna installation considered by the
Commission and wondered if there are any City standards to compare them.
Ms. Barbara Ryan advised that staff is in the process of drafting a Telecommunications
Ordinance.
Ms. Sharon Fierro, Senior Planner, advised that she has collected ordinances from other
California cities and has begun work on a draft for the City of Campbell.
DRAFT
Planning Commission Minutes ofFebruar7 10, 1998
Page 5
Chairman Lowe asked when this might be completed.
Ms. Sharon Fierro advised that the draft is 85 percent complete. Staff is seeking authorization
from Council at its March 3rd meeting to proceed with the draft ordinance.
Commissioner Gibbons asked how long before the Ordinance could become effective if
authorization to proceed is obtained from Council.
Ms. Sharon Fierro replied that it could be finalized in four months.
Commissioner Francois asked Ms. Fierro if the application under consideration this evening
generally complies with the sample ordinances from other cities.
Ms. Sharon Fierro:
· Advised that in some cases there is a requirement for the applicant to hire an independent
consultant to evaluate the technology and determine whether proposed antennas can be
lowered.
· Added that San Jose welcomes antenna applications but they don't want to see the antennas.
· Stated that staff will recommend the use of independent consultants to advise on these
applications.
Commissioner Jones presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows:
· SARC reviewed this project on January 20~h and is not in favor due to the size and mass.
· Advised that SARC believes that a monopole looks better.
· Expressed concern that this is a visible location and SARC is hesitant to go for this project.
Chairman Lowe opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2.
Mr. David Hardy, Applicant:
· Said that the radio frequency engineer told him that they would like to reduce the proposed
antenna to 57 feet. The antennas would be at 52 feet with five feet of foliage.
· Advised that as the trees surrounding this antenna grow, screening will be increased and the
antenna will blend in better.
Chairman Lowe asked staff if this is not too significant a change at this late date.
Mr. Steve Piasecki advised the Commission to listen to the applicant's proposal. The
Commission may find the need for a continuance, find that they cannot support the application or
find that they can support and approve it this evening.
bRAFT
Planning Commission Minutes of February 10, 1998
Page 6
Mr. David Hardy:
· Stated that he hoped the reduction in height will be beneficial.
· Advised that the last minute lowering of the antenna is the result of Nextel taking a harder
look at how it uses its frequencies. They have to be more efficient.
· Urged approval with the amended condition for a top height of 57 feet to blend in better and
make the landlord happy.
Commissioner Francois sought clarification on the amended proposed height.
Mr. David Hardy answered that the height of the antennas is at 52 feet with five feet of foliage
above.
Commissioner Francois asked if the applicant was willing to install additional landscaping in the
medium.
Mr. David Hardy answered that they never object to planting trees.
Commissioner Francois stated that the height and visibility is of concern to him.
Mr. David Hardy advised that there are trees ranging from 42 to 50 feet in height in this grove.
Over time, the antenna tree will better blend as the live trees grow higher. Added that they are
willing to provide additional planting.
Chairman Lowe asked about the beetle infestation affecting pine trees and who would be
responsible for replanting trees that die.
Mr. David Hardy advised that the arborist they have consulted with is not sure the trees on this
site are suffering from the beetle infestation. Stated that they are proposing to plant redwoods.
Ms. Barbara Ryan advised that the tallest existing tree is a Monterey Pine that is 50 feet tall.
Staff is recommending that the top of the tree antenna not be so square.
Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy advised that the greenery stops higher up the tree antenna than
on a real tree.
Ms. Barbara Ryan said that staff has already lowered the greenery and hopes to lower it further.
Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy said that she hopes it will look like other trees.
Ms. Barbara Ryan said that a condition is in place to require the antenna tree to be shaped to
blend in. The applicant is proposing a top height of 57 feet. Staff is proposing a top height of 50
feet.
DkAFT
Planning'Commission Minutes of February 10, 1998
Page 7
Commissioner Gibbons:
· Stated that size and proportion of this tree antenna are important factors. Said that the
diameter of the trunk is massive and painted brown.
· Said that the applicant has done a good job with the plans and providing information.
· Advised that the beetle infestation is making its way down San Tomas Expressway.
· Despite the best efforts of the applicant, said that she finds that this installation is
inappropriate due to its mass and the visible location.
Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy asked if the proposed antenna tree is as massive as the-one in
Walnut Creek.
Chairman Lowe asked about the composition of the tree branch materials and the impacts of high
wind on the antenna tree. Wondered if falling branches pose a hazard to people walking below.
Mr. David Hardy said he did not know but that the antenna trees are generally installed in areas
in which few people walk. Was not sure if the branches are welded on or bolted onto the pole.
Chairman Lowe asked what materials are used.
Mr. David Hardy advised that the branches are steel with fiberglass coating.
Ms. Sharon Fierro advised that Nextel will have to meet building code requirements. When
reviewing the Lawrence site, Barbara Ryan found no observable damage.
Commissioner Lindstrom asked for a comparison between this proposed installation and the
Pleasant Hill installation depicted on Attachment 6.
Commissioner Gibbons advised that the Pleasant Hill tree pole is lower than the surrounding
trees while this pole will be taller.
Mr. David Hardy added that the Pleasant Hill antenna is located on a hill and extra height is not
needed.
Commissioner Lindstrom:
· Asked whether additional foliage can be added to make the shape more conical.
· Advised that he went to look at the Lawrence installation and found that he had to look for it
to find it. Once you find it, it looks like a plastic Christmas tree.
· Said that he spoke with a local resident who lives near the Lawrence tree antenna. This
person had never noticed it.
Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy added that as Commissioners, they are trained to look for things
like this. A regular person doesn't. Suggested branches lower than proposed.
bRAFT
Planning Commission Minutes of February 10, 1998
Page 8
Ms. Lucy Chai, Owner, 762 Gale Drive:
· Said that she received heating notice for tonight's meeting and appreciated the consideration
being taken by the Commission in reviewing this application.
· Advised that she is a cell phone user herself but asks that the Commission wait for the
completion of the Telecommunications Ordinance so that this antenna complies with its
eventual provisions rather than being non-conforming.
Chairman Lowe closed the Public Heating for Agenda Item No. 2.
Commissioner Keams:
· Suggested a more
conical shape, blending in the trunk through the use of a bark-like
material.
Said that she understands the necessity for cell phones and the antennas to achieve range of
service.
Said that she hates to stand in the way of providing such service.
Commissioner Lindstrom asked for additional information about adding bark-like covering to the
antenna pole.
Ms. Sharon Fierro advised that some communities have this bark on its antenna poles. Staff is
recommending the use of such bark. The site on Lawrence does not include it.
Ms. Barbara Ryan said that the addition of shrubs and trees, the use of bark on the pole will help
to blend in the antenna tree.
Commissioner Jones:
· Said that he is concerned that they are operating blind.
· They are not knowledgeable about technology and what works or doesn't work.
· Suggested waiting for completion of the Telecommunications Ordinance for direction.
· Said that he likes the idea of an independent consultant to come in and review such
applications.
· Said that he would like to see a moratorium on antenna installations. Is it possible to make
such a motion.
City Attomey William Seligrnann advised that Council would be the body to enact such a
moratorium if the findings can be made that health and safety are being adversely affected. The
Commission can recommend that Council take such action.
Commissioner Jones asked when it would be proper to make this proposal.
City Attorney William Seligmann answered that an advisory recommendation can be made to
Council either before or after the vote is taken on this agenda item.
URAFT
Planning Commission Minutes of February 10, 1998
Page 9
Chairman Lowe suggested tabling this item until the Ordinance is complete.
City Attorney William Seligmann advised that tabling is not proper. A short continuance may be
proper to see if Council is interested in enacting a moratorium. However there is no moratorium
in place now. If the Commission feels more information is required on this application, some
grounds for continuance are required.
Commissioner Gibbons said that she does not know what other options are available. Said that
the other installations are in locations not similar to this proposed site.
Chairman Lowe proposed a motion for denial of this application.
City Attorney William Seligmann advised that the Chair cannot make the motion unless he
yields the gavel.
Chairman Lowe said he would not do that.
Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, advised that findings would be required.
City Attorney William Seligmann pointed out that draft findings for denial are included in the
staff report.
Motion:
Upon motion of Commissioner Jones, seconded by Commissioner Gibbons,
the Planning Commission voted to deny a Conditional Use Permit (UP 97-16)
to allow the installation of a wireless antenna tree and equipment building on
property located at 700 W. Hamilton Avenue by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Gibbons, Jones, Lowe,
NOES: Francois, Kearns, Lindstrom, Meyer-Kennedy
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
The motion failed for lack of a majority.
Chairman Lowe advised the Commission that the last Nextel antenna application approved by
the Commission was appealed to Council.
Commissioner Jones asked if he can make the motion that Council enact a moratorium.
City Attorney William Seligrnann advised that this motion would not resolved the issue of this
application.
Commissioner Lindstrom pointed out that the applicant clearly wants to address the Commission
once again.
Planning Commission Minutes of February 10, 1998
I.,RAFT
Page 10
Chairman Lowe stated that he was not willing to reopen the heating at this juncture.
Commissioner Lindstrom asked if Chairman Lowe would reconsider since he is asking as a
member of the Commission.
Chairman Lowe agreed to that request and reopened the Public Heating for Agenda Item No. 2.
Mr. David Hardy, Applicant:
Said that he has been "chomping at the bit" since the mention of a moratorium.
· Suggested that under the Brown Act, this possibility should be included on the agenda so that
interested people can be present.
· Opined that most things contained in an Ordinance can be achieved through the Conditions
of Approval.
· Warned that with such an Ordinance, instances will arise when applications will not have to
come to the Commission if compliance with the Ordinance provisions is achieved.
· Said that this is a separate agenda item.
Chairman Lowe asked the City Attorney if this perception was correct.
City Attorney William Seligmann advised that this is an ancillary issue. If Council decides to
enact a moratorium, the matter would be noticed. At this time, this is a procedural matter, a
request to Council, and as such is not in violation of the Brown Act.
Commissioner Lindstrom suggested that efforts be taken to blend the tree antenna into the grove
of trees to better fit. The tree antenna should be more like the shape of a tree with branches
extending down the pole/trunk. Asked if Mr. Hardy is aware of the Conditions.
Mr. David Hardy said that he is aware of the Conditions.
Commissioner Gibbons sought clarification that the top height being requested is 57 feet.
Mr. David Hardy reiterated that the antennas would be positioned at 52 feet with 5 feet of foliage
above the antennas.
Commissioner Gibbons said that 5-feet of foliage is insufficient.
Chairman Lowe re-closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2.
D,,AFT
Planning'Commission Minutes of February 10, 1998
Page 11
Motion:
Upon motion of Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy, seconded by Commissioner
Lindstrom, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3146
approving a Conditional Use Permit (UP 97-16) to allow the installation of a
wireless antenna tree and equipment building, with the maximum height of
57 feet (antennas at 52 feet with 5-feet of foliage) and the use of bark on the
base of the pole, on property located at 700 W. Hamilton Avenue by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Francois, Kearns, Lindstrom, Meyer-Kennedy
NOES: Gibbons, Jones, Lowe
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Commissioner Jones re-stressed that the Ordinance is only three months away. This is a very
visible location in the City.
Chairman Lowe expressed agreement.
Motion:
Upon motion of Commissioner Jones, seconded by Commissioner Gibbons,
the Planning Commission voted to recommend, by minute action, that the
City Council place a moratorium on future antenna applications until the
City has adopted and enacted a Telecommunications Ordinance. (6-1;
Commissioner Lindstrom voted against.)
PM 97-10/
R 97-06
Pacific States
Capital Corporation
Public Heating to consider the application States Capital
Corporation for approval of a el Map (PM 97-10) to
merge three parcels and the (R 97-06) of a Site and
Architectural .6) and Conditional Use Permit (UP 96-
18) to allow of a 95,000 square foot mini-storage
manager's living unit on property located at 50,
110 Curtner Avenue in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning
This project is Categorically Exempt. Planning Commission
Decision Final, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10
days.
Attachment D
Plannini Commission Minutes of January 27, 1998
Page 5
the result of the late operating hours, then those hours can be reduced.
Mr. Richard Haro advised that the Campbell Police Department is good at keeping
control. He stated that the Ordinance allowing outside seating is very clear.
seating customers outside of the new walled-in area cannot be allowed as
Beverage Control (ABC) liquor license regulations.
under
added that
Alcohol
Chairman Lowe closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2.
Motion:
Upon motion of Commissioner Gibbons by Commissioner Kearns,
the Planning Commission adopted No. 3141 granting a Site and
Architectural Approval (S a Conditional Use Permit (UP 97-21)
to allow the establishment new restaurant and bar (Katie Bloom's
Restaurant) and to
hours of operation
property located
AYES:
NOES: ~ne
ABSEN None
ABS
remise general liquor service and extended
business until 2 a.m., seven days a week, on
E. Campbell Avenue
Gibbons, Jones, Kearns, Lindstrom, Lowe
Meyer-Kennedy
Mr. Steve Pi~
appealed
Community Development Director, advised that this decision is final, unless
to the City Clerk within 10 days.
;sioner Lindstrom advised that the map attached to the staff report depicting other
:enses
Chairman Lowe read Agenda Item No. 3 into the record.
3. UP 97-16
Hardy, D.
Public Heating to consider the application of Mr. David Hardy, on
behalf of Nextel Communications, for approval of a Conditional Use
Permit (UP 97-16) to allow the installation of 12-foot high, roof-
mounted cellular antennas on the Storage USA mini-storage building
located at 187 E. Sunnyoaks Avenue in an M-1-S (Light Industrial)
Zoning District. This project is Categorically Exempt. Planning
Commission Decision Final, unless appealed in writing to the City
Clerk within 10 days.
Planning Commission Minutes of January 27, 1998
Pase 6
Ms. Aki Irani, Planner I, presented the staff report as follows:
· The applicant is seeking approval of a Conditional Use
Permit to allow wireless roof-
mounted antennas and an equipment room to be located on a three-story mini-storage.
· The site is zoned M-1-S (Light Industrial) and the General Plan designation is Industrial.
· Staff finds the proposed installation not compatible as the site is highly visible from
Winchester Boulevard, Sunnyoaks Avenue, Dell Avenue and San Tomas Expressway.
· Staff finds that the applicant has made no attempt to obscure the antennas and no alternative
sites have been proposed by the applicant. The proposed landscaping is not adequate to
screen.
· Staff recommends denial. If the Commission chooses to approve, staff has prepared
proposed Conditions of Approval. Staff suggests that significant additional landscaping
should be added with trees planted in groves in off-site locations.
Commissioner Jones presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows:
· SARC reviewed this application on January 15, and was not supportive of the proposal due to
the number of antennas and the lack of adequate screening.
· The site is highly visible as San Tomas Expressway is elevated.
· SARC prefers more facade-mounted antennas.
Chairman Lowe opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3.
Mr. David Hardy, Applicant, 475 14th Street,//200, Oakland:
· Advised that he represents Nextel Communications.
· Said that this is their first application in Campbell and they have another application pending.
· Stated that Nextel does not have good coverage in the South Bay and there is significant
demand.
· Said that Nextel service operates with a walkie-talkie system combined with pager devices.
· The reasons for selecting this site include the need to keep antenna sites at the same height
and distance from one another.
· These proposed antennas will allow for better coverage in buildings.
· A challenge in selecting sites in Campbell is that Campbell has been careful to keep buildings
low. There are few tall buildings.
· Advised that they are not adverse to facade-mounted installations.
· The Storage USA building is three stories tall and close to many thoroughfares which makes
it a good site for them.
· The mansard roofs do not allow enough height to accommodate facade installation.
· Stated that the aesthetics of this installation require a judgment call. While he is aware of the
City's desire to screen antennas, this is an active area in which most people are driving by.
With the mountains in the background, these antennas would not be the highest thing visible.
· Advised that he had placed a mock up of the antennas on site and, if necessary, proposed
postponing the vote to allow the Commissioners the opportunity to look at the mock ups.
PlanninICommission Minutes of January 27, 1998 Page 7
· Said that he wants to be treated fairly and urged approval.
Commissioner Francois asked why height was needed.
Mr. David Hardy answered that the height is needed to fit the network and to be most effective or
"more bang for the buck."
Commissioner Francois stated that he is concerned about the aesthetic impact.
Commissioner Lindstrom asked if Nextel was supportive of the need to install redwood trees.
Mr. David Hardy replied that they were.
Commissioner Lindstrom also reminded the Commission that the approval is good for five years.
Mr. David Hardy advised that to install on the facades, they would have to re-engineer the
building to raise the mansard roof.
Chairman Lowe stated that he was on SARC when this building was approved. It was purposely
kept as low as possible.
Commissioner Lindstrom asked about the other sites proposed in Campbell for Nextel
installations and whether the applicant accepts the Conditions of Approval for this project.
Mr. David Hardy replied that they support the Conditions.
Commissioner Gibbons stated that both SARC and the applicant have made efforts to work this
out. The applicant 'has made a good effort. However, she cannot support this application
because of the height and visibility which defeats the previous approval of the site.
Chairman Lowe asked about the differences in cost for installing a roof-mounted versus facade-
mounted antennas.
Mr. David Hardy said the difference is not significant. However, when they investigated the cost
of lifting the parapet on this building it was determined to be better than $100,000.
Chairman Lowe closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3.
Commissioner Lindstrom:· Stated that he wished Commissioner Alne was here to provide his eloquence and expertise
on this subject.
· Advised that this is an area that he would like to see antennas installed.
Planning Commission Minutes of January 27, 1998 Page 8
· Said that if the mock antennas are already there and he drives in that area often, the antennas
must not stand out.
· The applicant is trying to grow communications in the area.
· Said that aesthetics is not the way to look at this.
Commissioner Keams:
· Stated that she concurred with Commissioner Lindstrom.
· Said that good communications are important.
· Opined that antennas are better located in an industrial area as opposed to near residential
areas.
· Said that we must move into the 21St Century and not be left "in the dust."
Commissioner Jones:
· Stated that he is concemed about the aesthetics of placing 12 antennas if there are other
options available such as the use of a monopole.
· Agreed that antennas are coming and that a limit to five years for any approval is a good
plan.
· Said that he does not want to see another antenna farm like on Hamilton Avenue.
· Said that he cannot support this application.
Chairman Lowe:
· Agreed with Commissioner Jones.
· Said that this installation will add to visual clutter.
· Said that this installation will defeat the efforts undertaken when the design of this building
was approved.
· Said that he would not support this request and that a side'mounted installation is less
intrusive.
Commissioner Gibbons stated that the applicant seems to have concems about the requirement
for trees on CalTrans property.
Chairman Lowe reopened Public Hearing No. 3.
Commissioner Lindstrom again asked if the applicant agrees with the Conditions of Approval.
Mr. David Hardy replied that he does agree, if feasible, to install the landscaping in the public
right-of-way.
Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that staff understands the concerns as to whether CalTrans would
permit the planting of trees in its jurisdiction. Said that staff can work with the applicant to meet
this condition for trees.
Planning Commission Minutes of January 27, 1998 Page 9
Chairman Lowe asked if the trees would interfere with the antennas.
Mr. David Hardy answered that the trees would not impact the effectiveness of these antennas.
Chairman Lowe again closed Public Heating No. 3.
Motion:
Upon motion of Commissioner Lindstrom, seconded by Commissioner
Meyer-Kennedy, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3142
granting approval of a Conditional Use Permit (UP 97-20) to allow the
installation of 12-foot high, roof-mounted cellular antennas on the Storage
USA mini-storage building located at 187 E. Sunnyoaks Avenue, by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Francois, Kearns, Lindstrom, Meyer-Kennedy
NOES: Gibbons, Jones, Lowe
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, advised that this decision is final, unless
appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 days.
PM 97-06/
PD 97-01
Shakeri, O.
Public Heating to consider the application of Mr. Omid Si
approval of a Parcel Map (PM 97-06) to create a rear and a
Planned Development Permit (PD 97-01) to two detached
townhomes on property located at 105 Sunm Avenue in a PD
(Planned Development) Zoning District. ect is Categorically
Exempt. Tentative City Council Me February 17, 1998.
Ms. Aki Irani, Planner I, presented the staff report
· Advised that the applicant is seeking
of a Parcel Map and Planned Development
Permit to allow the construction townhomes.
The property is currently dev with a single-family residence, carport and shed which
will be demolished to buil new units.
The project or( before the Planning Commission in July 1997 and the
Commission denial due to deficiencies in parking and open space.
The has revised his project to address these concerns. Open space was increased
40 percent. The project has been better designed.
site.
Attachment D
Survey of Telecommunications Ordinances and Guidelines
Selected Bay Area Communities
Santa Clara County Ordinance\Guidelines?
Cupertino Ordinance
Gilroy Ordinance
Los Altos Guidelines
Los Altos Hills Guidelines
Los Gatos No
Milpitas No
Morgan Hill No
Mountain View Guidelines
Palo Alto No
San Jose Ordinance
Santa Clara Ordinance pending
Saratoga No
Sunnyvale Ordinance
Alameda County
Oakland Ordinance
Hayward Ordinance
Dublin Ordinance
Union City Ordinance
Contra Costa County
Danville Ordinance
Hercules Ordinance
San Mateo County
Daly City Ordinance
San Francisco Guidelines
Other
Petaluma Ordinance
Note: Each city with a No answer requires a use permit.
Attachment E
File No.
L~P 95-17
UP 96-07
UP 95-20
UP 95-22
UP 96-10
UP 96-15
UP 96-17
UP 9%14
UP 9%16
UP 9% 22
1996
1988
Address
CELLULAR ANTENNA APPROVALS
through February_ 1998
Appffcant
Description of Inzt~llalion
Colxll~oll
Name
700 West Hamilton Avenue
176 Gilman Avenue
1300 Whiteoaks Road
700 West Hamilton Avenue
125 East Stmnyoaks Avenue
1849 Pollard Road
1630WestCampbeUAvenue
Creekside Way ~_.I-Iamilton
187 East Sunnyoaks Avenue
700 West Hamilton Avenue
600 East Ham/ton Avenue
McGlincey Lane
GTE Mob/lnet
GTE Sprint
PacBetl Mobile
Services
PacBell Mobile
Services
PacBell Mobile
Services
GTE Sprint
GTE Sprint
GTE Sprint
Nextel
Nextel
GTE Mobiluet
GTE Mobilnet
Monopole Roof Mount
Monopole Roof
RoofMotmted 6 antennas
Roof Mounted 6 antennas
Roof Mounted 6 antennas
Tower 4 antennas
Monopole Parking
~Rear of Bui/ding
P G & E Tower
Area
Roof Mounted
Monopole Tree in Landscape
Area
Monopole Roof
Monopole
Gold's Gym
Industrial Bldg.
Meta Software
Gold's Gym
Office Building
P G & E Tower
Kirk'wood
Plaza
PG&E
Substation
Storage USA
Gold's Gym
Fry's
Industrial Site