The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03/05/2002, PH-3 - PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS TO ALLOW WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES IN i counat j aGEnaa uEpont ,�� PAI - 3 C I T Y OF SAN LUIS O B I S P O FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Directov�___ Prepared By: Whitney McIlvaine, Associate Planner SUBJECT: PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS TO ALLOW WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS. (GPA/TA 12-01) SPRINT PCS, APPLICANT CAO RECOMMENDATION As recommended by the Planning Commission, adopt a resolution approving a mitigated negative declaration, finding that a general plan amendment is not necessary, and approving a zoning text amendment to allow wireless telecommunication facilities in certain additional commercial zones, subject to specific development standards. DISCUSSION Data Summary Address: No specific address Applicant: Sprint PCS Representative: Gordon Bell, Bell +Associates Zoning: All zones potentially affected General Plan: All land use designations potentially affected Environmental status: On October 12, 2001, the Community Development Director determined that the project qualifies for a mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact. Situation In January, 2001 the City received an application on behalf of Sprint PCS to expand the areas available for wireless telecommunication sites. Such uses are currently allowable, subject to use permit approval,.in the Service-Commercial (C-S), Manufacturing (M), Public Facility (PF), and Agriculture (AG) zones. They are also conditionally allowed on top of South Street hills, but not elsewhere in the Conservation/Open Space (C/OS) zone. The application proposed to allow these facilities in all zones, subject to performance standards and siting criteria. In June, 2001, a Wireless 101 workshop was held for the benefit of City staff and the Architectural Review and Planning Commissions to enable a better understanding of industry needs and public concerns related to wireless telecommunication facilities. Some refinement to the original application from Sprint was made to reflect comments made by members of both commissions and the public. 3- Council Agenda Report—GPA/TA12-01 telecommunication text amendment 3/5/02 Page 2 The Planning Commission reviewed the application for a general plan and zoning text amendment in October, 2001, and continued action with direction. Based on Commission direction and previous comments from both the Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Commission, staff drafted an alternative amendment. That amendment proposed changes to the zoning regulations(but not to the Land Use Element) to allow wireless telecommunication facilities in certain additional commercial zones,but not in residential zones and not in additional open space areas. On December 19, 2001, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt staff's draft amendment to the zoning regulations with some minor changes to strengthen the proposed language, especially regarding aesthetics. Those changes are reflected in Exhibit A attached to the ordinance for approval (Attachment 10). Proposed Amendments Attached to the Planning Commission staff report are the applicant's proposed amendment and the Planning Commission's recommended amendment (Attachment 3 and Exhibit A to Attachment 10, respectively). The primary difference is that the applicant originally proposed amendments to the Land Use Element of the general plan with minor changes to the zoning ordinance for consistency. The applicant also proposed that such uses be allowable in all zones. The Planning Commission determined that a change to the general plan would only be necessary if open space sites other than the top of South Street Hills and residential zones were opened to telecommunication facilities. The Commission did not endorse these changes, but supported conditionally allowing telecommunication facilities in the Central-Commercial, Retail- Commercial,Tourist-Commercial, and Office zones. Typically the general plan provides the overarching policy basis for a community's land use pattern, while the zoning regulations include the more specific development standards which implement such polices. The Planning Commission, therefore, is recommending that specific development standards and siting criteria be located in the zoning regulations rather than in the general plan. Any amendment to the general plan would more appropriately be in the form of a broader policy statement. Besides the location of the amendment language, and the zones affected, the other difference between the applicant's original proposal and the Planning Commission's recommendation is that the Planning Commission's amendment contains more specific development standards, particularly regarding the aesthetics of new installations. At the December hearing, the applicant's representative and other representatives of the industry did not object to the revised amendment, although they expressed interest in seeing that additional open space sites be made available for telecommunication facilities, outside the three acre leasehold on South Street Hills. 3-2 Council Agenda Report—GPA/TA12-01 - telecommunication text amendment 3/5/02 Page 3 South Street Hills The three acre leasehold on top of South Street Hills is currently the only area of open space where telecommunication facilities are conditionally allowed. That development is controversial for several reasons. Visual mitigation has not been totally effective. The two monopoles, equipment, and the equipment bunker are visible from many areas of town, and are generally thought to detract from views of these hills. Access to the site raises issues related to aesthetics, erosion, maintenance, and incompatibility with residential neighborhoods at the base of the hill. The hilltop location of these facilities makes site visits and inspections difficult and inconvenient for City Planning and Building inspectors, and Commissioners. For these reasons, staff recommended to the Planning Commission that no additional areas of open space be made available for new telecommunication sites. The Planning Commission's recommended zoning text amendment would render existing facilities on South Street Hills non-conforming, primarily because of their visual impact, and would set a higher standard for any proposed new facilities in that location. Modifications to the existing facilities would require administrative use permit approval. Opening up new zoning districts for telecommunications facilities will not necessarily reduce pressure to develop additional sites on South Street Hills because of its elevation and strategic location within the San Luis Obispo service area. The Community Development has a pending application for a new facility on this hilltop. Recently Bell + Associates submitted a photo simulation of a potential installation near the base of the South Street Hills. It shows antennas, encased in a simulated rock, in an area zoned Open Space. Support facilities would be located on lower Higuera Street in a structure on a lot zoned Service-Commercial Mixed Use and currently occupied by McCarthy's car sales. There may be some justification for enabling this proposal if it provided for removal of facilities from the top of the hill. However staff does not support enabling this use in all open space areas. If the Council supports this proposal, a general plan text amendment will be necessary. CONCURRENCES The proposed text amendment has been reviewed by staff from the following departments: Fire, Public Works, Finance, Parks and Recreation, Utilities, and the City Attorney's. Office. Their comments have been incorporated into the amendment. ALTERNATIVES 1. Continue with direction to the applicant and staff. This would be appropriate if the Council feels an amendment to the general plan is warranted. 2. Deny the amendment based on findings. 3-3 Council Agenda Report—GPA/TA12-01 telecommunication text amendment 3/5/02 Page 4 ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission resolution 2. Planning Commission staff report 3. Applicant's proposed amendment 4. Applicable general plan policies 5. Needs assessments 6. Photo simulations for an installation at the base of South St. Hills 7. Minutes of the Oct. 24, 2001 meeting 8. Minutes of the December 19, 2001 meeting 9. Environmental initial study 10. Draft zoning text amendment ordinance 11. Draft Council resolution for denial 3 -� Attachment 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5327-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO EXPAND THE ZONES IN WHICH WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES MAY LOCATE SUBJECT TO CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (GPA/R/ER 12-01) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted public hearings in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on October 24, and December 19, 2001, for the purpose of considering Application GPA/R/ER 12- 01, a proposed general plan amendment and zoning text amendment to enable wireless telecommunication facilities to locate in all zoning districts;and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law;and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearings. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following findings: 1. A general plan amendment is not necessary since the Commission is not recommending that telecommunication facilities be located in residential zones or any other areas of the Open Space zone beyond the South Street Hills site. General plan policies in the Land Use, Open Space, and Circulation Elements related to hillside development, preservation of scenic corridors, and protection of residential neighborhoods all contain statements that do not support enabling wireless cell sites in these areas. However, enabling such facilities to locate in certain additional commercial zones would not be inconsistent with existing polices. 2. An environmental initial study was prepared for the proposed amendments as described in the application file GPA/R/ER. The Director issued a mitigated negative declaration, ER 12- 01. The Planning Commission finds and determines that the project's mitigated Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project, and recommends that the City Council adopt said mitigated Negative Declaration and incorporates the mitigation measures and monitoring program as outlined in Exhibit B, into the project. Section 2. Recommendation. The Planning Commission is recommending Council approval of an amendment to the zoning ordinance as outlined in Exhibit A, to conditionally allow wireless telecommunication facilities to locate in the C-R, C-C, C-T, and O zones, subject to certain site development standards. 3-5 Resolution No. 5327-01 GPA/R/ER 12-01 — Attachment 1 Page 2 On motion by Commissioner Loh, seconded by Commissioner Boswell, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commrs. Loh, Boswell, Aiken, Cooper, Osborne, Caruso, and Peterson NOES: None REFRAIN:None ABSENT: None The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 19`h day of December, 2001. zl� � ZZ/ — onal hisenand PlanningCommiss' n Secretary 3-6 Resolution No. 5327-01 GPA/R/ER 12-01 Attachment 1 Page 3 EXHIBIT A zoning text amendment to allow telecommunication facilities in additional commercial zones GPA/R/ER 12-01 Table 9-Uses R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 AG C/OS O" PF C-N C-C C-R C-T C-S M Allowed by Zone EXISTING: PC PC20 PC D D Antennas (municipal, commercial,and public utility broadcasting and wireless telecommunications) PROPOSED: PC20 PCT0 PC2 PC20 PC20 PC20 PC20 D20 D20 Antennas (municipal, commercial,and public utility broadcasting and wireless telecommunications) 20 —Allowed subject to compliance with development standards stipulated in Section 17.16.120. In Open Space and Agriculture zones, allowed if also consistent with Land Use Element Policy 6.1.2 and 6.2.2 and Open Space element policies regarding resource protection of hills and mountains and scenic resources. In order to approve a use permit for wireless telecommunication facilities in the Office zone, the Planning Commission must find that the project site is in a predominantly non-residential area. Section 17.16.120 Wireless telecommunication facilities. A. Purpose. To establish standards for the development, siting and installation of wireless telecommunications facilities; to protect and promote public health, safety, and welfare; and to preserve view corridors and avoiding adverse visual and environmental impacts. These standards are not intended to be all-inclusive. Projects may be subject to additional standards deemed appropriate through architectural review and use permit processing to address site-specific conditions. B. Definitions. 1. Wireless telecommunications facilities consist of commercial wireless communications systems, including but not limited to: cellular, PCS, paging, broadband, 3,7 Resolution No. 5327-01 GPA/R/ER 12-01 � Attachment 1 Page 4 data transfer, and any other type of technology that fosters wireless communication through the use of portable electronic devices. A facility includes all supporting structures and associated equipment. 2. Co-location is the practice of two or more wireless telecommunication service providers sharing one support structure or building for the location of their antennas and equipment. 3. Stealthing means improvements or treatments added to a wireless telecommunications facility which mask or blend the proposed facility into the existing structure or visual backdrop in such a manner as to render it effectively unnoticeable to the casual observer. C. Exempt facilities. The following wireless telecommunication facilities are exempt from the requirements of this section: 1. Government-owned communications facilities used primarily to protect public health, welfare, and safety. 2. Facilities operated by providers of emergency medical services, including hospital, ambulance, and medical air transportation services, for use in the provision of those services. 3. Satellite dish antennas for residential and commercial use, solely for the use of the occupants of the site, subject to compliance with development standards set forth in Section 17.16.100 et al of the zoning ordinance. 4. Any facility specifically exempted under federal or state law. D. Applications and approvals required. Installation of a new wireless telecommunication or modification of an existing installation shall require use permit approval and architectural review. The applicant shall submit application materials and fees as required by the Community Development Department. E. Building permit required. Wireless communications facilities shall not be constructed, installed or modified prior to obtaining a City building permit. F. Site development and performance standards. 1. Setbacks. All facility towers and accessory structures shall comply with the setback requirements of the applicable zoning district. Resolution No.5327-01 GPA/R/ER 12-01 Attachment 1 , Page 5 2. Height. The height of any antenna or support equipment shall be determined as part of the use permit on a case by case basis.. All facilities shall be designed to the minimum necessary functional height. 3. Site Access. Telecommunication facilities should use existing roads and parking whenever possible. New and existing access roads and parking shall be improved and surfaced where necessary to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 4. Aesthetics and Visibility. Facilities shall be creatively designed to minimize the visual impact to the greatest extent possible by means of placement, screening and camouflage. The applicant shall use the smallest and least visible antennas possible to accomplish the coverage objectives. Each installation shall be designed to blend into its surroundings so that the antenna(s) and equipment are not apparent to the casual observer. a. Building mounted facilities shall appear as an integral part of the structure. Equipment and antennas shall be compatible and in scale with existing architectural elements, building materials and site characteristics. Wall mounted antennas shall be integrated architecturally with the style and character of the structure. If possible, antennas and equipment shall be located entirely within an existing or newly created architectural feature so as to be effectively unnoticeable. b. Ground mounted support equipment shall be undergrounded or otherwise screened from view so as to be effectively unnoticeable. c. All connections and conduits between the base of the antenna(s) and support equipment shall be undergrounded. Connections and conduit above ground shall be fully enclosed to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Electrical and telephone service to the support equipment shall be undergrounded. d. Ground mounted antennas, poles, structures, equipment, or other parts of a telecommunications facility which would extend above a ridgeline so as to silhouette against the sky shall be discouraged. Where allowed, they shall be designed to be indistinguishable from the natural surroundings. 5. Lighting. All telecommunication facilities, not otherwise required to have lighting pursuant to Federal Aviation Administration rules, shall be unlit, except when authorized personnel are actually present at night, and except for exempt facilities. 6. Historic Buildings. Any wireless facility located on or adjacent to a historic building or site shall be designed to ensure consistency with the Secretary of Interior standards for remodeling and rehabilitation. 7. Equipment Upgrades. It shall be the responsibility of the owner/operator of a telecommunications facility to provide the City with a notice of intent to modify site equipment in any way. At the time of modification, co-location, or upgrade of facilities, existing equipment shall be replaced with equipment of equal or greater technical capacity and modified to reduce aesthetic impacts by reducing the size of the facility or .3- 9 Resolution No.5327-01 , GPA/R/ER 12-01 Attachment I Page 6 introducing camouflaging techniques to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Unused or obsolete equipment or towers shall be removed from the site within 90 days after their use has ceased. 8. Number of facilities per site. The City shall retain the authority to limit the number of antennas with related equipment and providers to be located at any site and adjacent sites in order to prevent negative visual impacts associated with multiple facilities. 9. Noise. Each facility shall be operated in a manner that minimizes any possible disruption caused by noise to people working and living in the vicinity. At no time shall equipment noise from any source exceed an exterior noise level of 55 dB at the property line or within 20 feet of such equipment, whichever is less. This requirement may be modified at the discretion of the Community Development Director where typical ambient noise levels exceed 55 d6. Outdoor noise producing construction activities shall take place only on weekdays between the hours of 8:00 am and 5:00 pm unless a different schedule is approved as part of the use permit. 10. Backup Generators. Any facility utilizing temporary backup generators shall be required to meet or exceed Air Pollution Control District Standards. All generators shall be fitted with approved air pollution control devices. Projects that propose to include . backup generators shall require review and approval from the Air Pollution Control district. Project plans shall indicate location, size, horsepower, and type of fuel used for any proposed generator. Generators shall only be operated during power outages and for testing and maintenance purposes. Testing and maintenance shall only take place on weekdays between the hours of 8:00 am and 5:00 pm. 11. Biological Impacts. Wireless telecommunication facility shall minimize potential impacts to biological resources to the greatest extent possible. 12. Radio Interference. Interference with municipal radio communication is prohibited. Any telecommunication facility that the City has reason to believe is interfering with municipal radio communication shall cease operation immediately upon notice from the City, and shall be subject to use permit review and possible revocation. Testing shall be done prior to any permanent installation and frequencies shall be monitored at regular intervals after installation established by the use permit, at the expense of the facility owner/operator. 13. Airport Operations. Wireless communications facilities shall not be sited in locations where they will interfere with the operation of the San Luis Obispo Airport. Wireless towers and related facilities within the Airport Planning Area shall be referred to the Airport Manager or the Airport Land Use Commission for a determination of consistency with airport area standards. 14. Radio Frequency and Electromagnetic Exposure. a. Wireless telecommunications facilities operating alone or in conjunction with other telecommunications facilities shall not produce radio frequency radiation in excess of the standards for permissible human exposure as adopted by the Federal 3-1c) Resolution No. 5327-01 GPA/R/ER 12-01 _ - Attachment Page 7 Communications Commission (FCC). Applications for facilities shall include a radio frequency radiation (RFR) report that measures the predicted levels of RF radiation emitted by the proposed facility. The radio frequency radiation report shall compare proposed project levels to levels allowed by the FCC and shall show output of the proposed facility in combination with other facilities located or proposed in the vicinity. b. The City may require one or more post-construction RFR reports as a condition of project approval, to verify that the actual levels of RFR emitted by the approved facilities, operating alone or in combination with other approved facilities, substantially conform to the pre-approval RFR report and do not exceed current standards for permissible human exposure to RFR as adopted by the FCC. 15. Signs. Explanatory warning signs shall be posted at all access points to cellular telecommunication facilities in compliance with the American national Standards Institute (ANSI) C95.2 color, symbol, and content conventions. 16. Nuisance. Facility generators, mechanical equipment, construction, testing and maintenance shall be operated or performed in such a manner that no nuisance results. At the discretion of the Director, upon receipt of written complaints, the use permit allowing a telecommunications facility may be scheduled for public review. At the hearing, conditions of approval may be added, deleted, or modified, or the use permit may be revoked. 17. Interference with Public Services and Facilities. Telecommunication facilities within public parks shall not interfere with park operations or limit public use of park facilities. Installations in conjunction with other public facilities shall be held to a similar standard. 18. City inspection. The City shall have the right to access facilities after 24 hours written or verbal notice. G. Abandonment. It shall be the responsibility of the owner/operator of a telecommunications facility to provide the City with a notice of intent to vacate the site a minimum of thirty (30) days prior to ceasing operation. Any wireless telecommunication facility that is not operated for a continuous period of ninety (90) days shall be removed within ninety (90) days of the date upon which the operation ceased. H. Revocation of a Permit. Wireless telecommunication service providers shall fully comply with all conditions related to any permit or approval granted under this section. Failure to comply with any condition shall constitute grounds for revocation. If a condition is not remedied within a reasonable period, the Community Development Director may schedule a public hearing before the Planning Commission to consider revocation of the permit. Resolution No. 5327-01 GPA/R/ER 12-01 Page 8 Attachment 1 EXHIBIT B G PA/R/E R 12-01 REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAM Aesthetics Any general plan or zoning amendment for this project shall include provisions to ensure adequate review of telecommunication installations and shall establish performance standards for avoiding adverse visual impacts. Each installation should be designed to completely blend into its surroundings so that the antenna(s) and equipment are not readily apparent. Proposed installations which do not meet this criteria should be denied. Air Quality The City shall require information regarding use of generators as part of an application checklist for telecommunication projects. Any amendment to the zoning regulations for this project shall establish development standards for telecommunication projects to ensure compliance with Air Pollution Control District requirements. Biological Resources Any amendment to the zoning regulations for this project shall include performance standards to ensure there will be no significant adverse impact on biological and botanical resources. Cultural Resources Where a project may affect a historic resource, the City shall require a cultural resources survey consistent with adopted City guidelines for historical and archaeological preservation as part of an application. Any general plan or zoning amendment for this project shall include provisions to ensure that telecommunications installations will not have an adverse impact on cultural resources, and to ensure that any alteration to historic structures will be consistent with the Secretary of Interior standards. Proposed installations for which this finding cannot be made should be denied. Hazards The general plan and zoning amendment shall include provisions to ensure against interference with municipal radio operations and emergency broadcasting. 3�ia Resolution No.5327-01 GPA/R/ER 12-01 Attachment Page 9 Any zoning text amendment for this project shall include performance standards requiring that explanatory warning signs be posted at all access points to cellular telecommunication facilities in compliance with the American national Standards Institute (ANSI) C95.2 color, symbol, and content conventions. Any zoning text amendment for this project shall include performance standards requiring cellular telecommunications facilities to meet FFC standards for maximum radio frequency and electromagnetic exposure at all times while in operation. Noise The City shall require information regarding use of generators as part of an application checklist for telecommunication projects. Any amendment to the zoning regulations for this project shall establish'development standards for telecommunication projects to ensure compliance with Air Pollution Control District requirements. Public Services Any zoning text amendment for this project shall include performance standards to ensure that unmanned telecommunication facilities within public parks do not interfere with park operations or limit public use of park facilities. Monitoring Program: Planning Commission and City Council review, and preparation of application checklist by Community Development Department staff. 3-13 Attachment 2 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM# BY: Whitney McEvaine, Associate Planner 781-7164 MEETING DATE: December 19, 2001 FROM: Ron Whisenand, Deputy Community Development Directgf2�1 FILE NUMBER: GPAIR 12-01 PROJECT ADDRESS: Citywide SUBJECT: Review of proposed general plan and zoning text amendments to allow wireless telecommunication facilities in all zoning districts. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution finding that a general plan amendment is not necessary, and recommending that City Council approve a text amendment to allow wireless telecommunication facilities in certain additional commercial zones only, subject to specific development standards. BACKGROUND Situation The City has received an application on behalf of Sprint PCS to expand the areas available for wireless telecommunication sites. The zoning regulations currently allow these facilities, subject to use permit approval, in the Service-Commercial (C-S), Manufacturing (M), Public Facility (PF), and Agriculture (AG) zones. They are also conditionally allowed on top of South Street hills, but not elsewhere in the Conservation/Open Space (C/OS) zone. The application proposes to allow these facilities in all zones subject to performance standards and siting criteria. The Planning Commission reviewed this application in October and made certain recommendations. Based on Commission recommendations, staff is proposing an amendment to the zoning regulations to allow wireless telecommunication facilities in certain additional commercial zones, subject to development standards. Data Summary Address: No specific address Applicant: Sprint PCS Representative: Gordon Bell, Bell + Associates Zoning: All zones General Plan: All land use designations Environmental status: On October 12, 2001, the Community Development Director determined that the project qualifies for a mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact. 3�� Attachment 2 GPA/R 12-01 PC 12-19-01 Page 2 Site description This is not a site specific project. The applicant wishes to expand the number of potential wireless cell sites throughout the City. In addition, other wireless telecommunication companies have expressed interest in several sites where the zoning regulations do not currently allow wireless telecommunication facilities. Examples in the downtown area include the Anderson Hotel, the Palm Street parking garage, and the City/County library (all in the Central-Commercial zone). In the Office zone, carriers are interested in locating antennas on top of the AT&T building at the corner of Morro and Mill Streets and on the building occupied by Verizon at the northwest corner of Mill and Osos Streets. Carriers have also inquired about the possibility of putting an antenna and equipment on and near the City water tank in the Bishop's Peak Natural Reserve (zoned Conservation/Open Space), and on La Cuesta Inn on upper Monterey Street (in the Tourist-Commercial zone). Amendments Proposed by the Applicant and Staff The applicant's proposed amendments are attached. The general plan amendment would add a new policy section enabling wireless telecommunication facilities (antennas and equipment) in all zoning districts, including residential zones, subject to siting criteria and development standards. The proposed zoning text amendment would change Table 9 — Uses Allowed by Zone to show wireless telecommunication facilities as allowed in all zones subject to either a Planning Commission or an administrative use permit. An additional footnote would be added following Table 9 to indicate that such facilities are allowed in residential districts "only if located on governmental/institutional property such as churches, water tanks, substations, etc." Consistent with preliminary direction provided by the Commission in October, the amendment proposed by staff is different in that it would locate performance standards in the zoning regulations; would not change the general plan language; and would limit the number of new zones in which telecommunication facilities could locate. Existine General Plan Policies Only Land Use Element Policy 6.2.2.A.2 directly addresses wireless communication facilities — and it only addresses development within the three-acre leasehold on top of South Street Hills in the context of the hillside development standards. Although monopoles were approved in the past for the South Street site under this policy, it is not likely they would be today. A plain reading of the policy would point to a requirement for the more sophisticated camouflage techniques that are increasing available. The policy language is attached. Staff is not recommending any change to this language. -IS Attachment - 2 ............. GPA/R 12-01 PC 12-19-01 Page 3 Planning Commission Direction On October 24, 2001, the Commission continued action with direction to: I. Eliminate the need for a general plan amendment. 2. Strengthen standards for visual mitigation on South Street Hills by bringing South Street Hills into compliance with recommendation #6 below. 3. Expand available sites for wireless facilities in the Central-Commercial (C-C), Retail- Commercial (C-R), Tourist-Commercial (C-T) zones, and in the Office (0) zone subject to certain findings described in#5 below. 4. Prohibit such facilities in all residential zones, the Neighborhood-Commercial zone, and in the Conservation/Open Space zone, with the exception of the previously allowed South Street Hills site. 5. Only allow cell sites in the Office (0) zone if the project is located in a predominantly commercial area. 6. Require that all installations be designed so they blend in and are not readily apparent except to someone familiar with stealth techniques. 7. Report on the possibility of amortizing existing facilities, particularly on South Street Hills. 8. Address the issue of compatibility of residential uses and telecommunications antennas in commercial zones where both would be allowed, for example, in Mixed-Use zones and in downtown locations. 9. Provide an industry needs assessment for the local market. EVALUATION (Numbered headings refer to the list of Planning Commission directions above.) 1. Requirement for a General Plan Amendment: Alternative Approaches Typically the general plan provides the overarching policy basis for a community's land use pattern, while the zoning regulations include the more specific development standards which implement such polices. Staff, therefore, recommends that specific development standards and siting criteria be located in the zoning regulations rather than in the general plan. Any amendment to the general plan would more appropriately be in the form of a broader policy statement. I Attachment 2 GPA/R 12-01 PC 12-19-01 Page 4 It may not be necessary to amend the general plan at all if the Commission determines that telecommunication facilities should not be located in residential zones or any other areas of the Open Space zone beyond the South Street Hills site. General plan policies in the Land Use, Open Space, and Circulation Elements related to hillside development, preservation of scenic corridors, and protection of residential neighborhoods all contain statements that do not support enabling wireless cell sites in these areas. However, enabling such facilities to locate in certain additional commercial zones would not be inconsistent with existing polices. A general plan amendment would be appropriate if the Commission is inclined to enable telecommunication facilities to locate in additional open space areas and/or in residential zones, or if the Commission is inclined to modify existing Land Use Element policy 6.2.2.A.2, which specifically addresses the South Street Hills site. Recommendation: Based on Planning Commission direction that telecommunication facilities should not be located in residential zones or any other areas of the Open Space zone beyond the South Street Hills site, the revised amendment, prepared by staff, does not necessitate any changes to the general plan. 2. South Street Hills Staffs proposed zoning text amendment would render existing facilities on South Street Hills non-conforming, primarily because of their visual impact, and would set a higher standard for any proposed new facilities in that location. Modifications to the existing facilities would require administrative use permit approval. This requirement would allow for consideration of changes that may be necessary to improve consistency with the new standards. If the Commission and Council feel that South Street Hills is at capacity due to cumulative adverse visual impacts, the general plan policy specifically enabling such facilities could be repealed (which would require a general plan amendment). Consistent with this action, the zoning text amendment could prohibit such facilities in the Conservation/Open Space zone. Alternatively, the general plan policy could be modified to specifically preclude installations from silhouetting against the skyline. Recommendation: The Commission did not direct staff to make changes to Land Use Element Policy 6.2.2.A.2. A more stringent application of this and other existing polices related to hillside development and preservation of scenic corridors, together with the proposed zoning text amendment, should achieve the objective of strengthening standards for visual mitigation on South Street Hills without further modification of the general plan. 3 4 & 5. New Zones for Wireless Facilities:Concerns and Recommendations Conservation/Open Space: Policies in the Land Use Element and Open Space Element discourage development in open space areas, especially on the hillsides surrounding and within 3-1 .J Attachment 2 GPA/R 12-01 PC 12-19-01 Page 5 the city. The Circulation Element also discourages development that might interfere or degrade scenic corridors. Telecommunication installations, by their nature, are difficult to design so that they completely blend into open hillside and ridgeline sites. The three acre leasehold on top of South Street Hills is currently the only area of open space where such facilities are conditionally allowed. That development is controversial for several reasons. Visual mitigation has not been totally effective. The two monopoles, equipment, and the equipment bunker are visible from many areas of town, and are generally thought to detract from views of these hills. Access to the site raises issues related to aesthetics, erosion, maintenance, and incompatibility with residential neighborhoods at the base of the hill. The hilltop location of these facilities makes site visits and inspections difficult and inconvenient for City building inspectors, Commissioners, and members of the public. For these reasons, staff recommends that no additional areas of open space be made available for new telecommunication sites. Residential: At the City's Wireless 101 workshop in June, most Commissioners and members of the public were opposed to enabling wireless cell sites in residential areas. Concerns included visual degradation of neighborhoods; intrusive noise and odors related to installation and maintenance (construction trucks, air conditioning, generator testing, etc.); privacy; and possible exposure to electromagnetic radio frequencies. Radio frequency exposure is regulated by the Federal government. A local jurisdiction cannot impose standards that are more restrictive than those established by the Federal Communications Commission. However, other issues related to privacy, noise, and visual impacts can be addressed through local ordinances. Certain uses typically located in residential zones, like churches, do offer opportunities for stealth installations. However, Land Use Element policy 3.0.3 expressly prohibits expansion of commercial and industrial uses into residential areas. Given the preponderance of concerns related to establishing such facilities adjacent to residential uses, staff is recommending against enabling telecommunication cell sites within residential zones. Office Zone: Portions of the Office zone in San Luis Obispo contains a significant amount of housing. A policy in the Housing Element suggests that the City re-designate areas of Office zoning which are largely residential as "Residential/Office." While some areas of the Office zone would be suitable for new cell sites, others may be more problematic because of the mix of office and residential uses. For this reason, staff recommends that approval of a new cell site in the Office zone be subject to a use permit finding that the proposed site is in a predominately commercial location versus a mixed residential/office area or predominately residential area. Neighborhood Commercial Zone: The City is in the process of updating its commercial zoning regulations. The update anticipates that large properties currently zoned Neighborhood- Commercial (C-N) will be re-designated "Community-Commercial," and that the Neighborhood Commercial zone will be applied only to smaller parcels scattered throughout residential areas (e.g. High Street Market). Again, because of the concerns raised in connection with 3 -18 Attachment 2 GPA/R 12-01 _... ... PC 12-19-01 Page 6 telecommunication facilities in close proximity to residential uses, staff is recommending against opening up the C-N zone to these uses. It is anticipated that the new "Community-Commercial' zone would be appropriate for new cell sites subject to adequate visual mitigation. Allowing wireless facilities on existing C-N zoned properties developed with neighborhood shopping centers, and anticipated to ultimately be zoned "Community-Commercial' is an alternative the Commission may want to consider. Recommendation: Staff's proposed amendment would enable wireless telecommunication sites to locate in the Central-Commercial, Retail-Commercial, Tourist-Commercial, and Office zones, subject to performance standards discussed below, but not in Neighborhood-Commercial zones, and not in residential zones or any additional Conservation/Open Space areas. It is not necessary to open up all zones to these uses to ensure carriers can provide service. Adequate sites will exist and adequate coverage will be possible with the additional commercial zones recommended. The Commission could also direct staff to open up sites within the Neighborhood-Commercial zone which are anticipated to be re-zoned"Community-Commercial.". 6.Stealth Techniques It is possible to develop wireless telecommunication facilities with minimal, if any, negative visual impacts. Antennas can be incorporated into existing architecture. Support equipment can be similarly screened or placed in an underground vault. At the Wireless 101 workshop conducted on June 12, 2001, Planning Commissioners, Architectural Review Commissioners, and the public commented on the need to minimize visual impacts of these facilities. Recommendation: Staff's proposed amendment would require telecommunication facilities to use the smallest and least visible antennas and equipment possible to achieve coverage and capacity objectives; and to blend into surroundings so that facilities are not readily apparent. Please refer to the section addressing "Visibility" in the draft text amendment. 7. Amortization The Assistant City Attorney has provided Planning Commissioners with a memorandum describing the legal issues related to establishing an amortization program for non-conforming telecommunications facilities and suggesting some alternative methods for removing non- conforming facilities or bringing them into compliance with current standards. Recommendation: Amortization is a large issue in itself. If the Commission wishes to pursue establishment of such a program, it should be pursued as a separate work item. 8.Telecommunications Antennas in Mixed-Use Areas Most of the concern regarding telecommunication antennas and sensitive receptors like �3-19 , e A GPA/R 12-01 ttachment 2 PC 12-19-01 Page 7 neighborhood residents, office workers, and school children has to do with uncertainty regarding radio frequency and electromagnetic exposure. Other concerns include visual blight and perceived reduction in property values. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 effectively preempts local government from regulating wireless facilities on the basis of environmental effects of radio frequency emissions, as long as facilities comply with Federal Communications Commission standards for such emissions. Most antennas transmit in a predominately horizontal direction. Therefore, the horizontal distance between an antenna and any sensitive receptor is the most critical. Transmission falls off fairly quickly in the vertical plane above and below an antenna. Thus, it could be safer standing 15 feet below an antenna than at a horizontal distance of 30 feet. A publication by the Federal Communications Commission and the Local and State Government Advisory Committee provides a series of tables showing worst case distances that should be maintained from single (versus co-located) cellular, PCS, and paging base station antennas. Recommended minimum horizontal distances range from 17 feet for a PCS base station antenna to 50 feet for a cellular base station antenna. Ordinances reviewed in preparation of this amendment proposal contained a range of horizontal separation requirements between wireless antennas and residential uses, from none at all to 500 feet. Recommendation: All applications will require a radio frequency exposure report, or documentation of categorical exclusion under the FCC guidelines. The City could simply require that the report address exposure levels for all people working and living within a certain distance of antennas (e.g. 100 feet as measured on a site plan). 9. Industry Needs Assessment The Land Use Element policy that enabled development of the three-acre leasehold on top of South Street Hills was adopted in 1996 when cell phone use was not yet so widespread. At the time, it was anticipated that eventually there might be as many as three carriers in this area, and that the South Street Hills site was really the only site necessary to provide adequate coverage and capacity. Currently there are at least eight different carriers providing service in the area. It was estimated at the Wireless 101 workshop that somewhere between 20 and 40 more sites will be needed for these and other carriers to provide adequate service. The Planning Commission asked industry representatives to provide a needs assessment to better clarify where and how many new cell sites the City could expect to see in the next few years. �j �l Attachment 2 GPA/R 12-01 PC 12-19-01 Page 8 Gordon Bell has submitted a generalized needs assessment as well as specific needs assessments for Sprint and Verizon. Specific needs assessments for other carriers (Cingular, Nextel, Edge, Alpine, CellularONE, etc.) have not been provided as of the writing of this report. Summarizing Gordon's reports, there are roughly four areas of town where coverage can be problematic: At the north end of the city along Highway One; the downtown core; along Los Osos Valley Road between Madonna Road and Foothill Boulevard; and near the intersection of South Higuera and South Streets. The attached e-mail message from Dino Putrino (CellularONE) notes coverage problems near the intersection of Johnson Avenue and Laurel Lane and in the airport area. Maps accompanying Gordon Bell's reports show 10 sites where applications have been made for new cell sites, both in the city and outside city limits. Six of those sites are proposed for co-location. Recommendation: Review the attached material submitted by Gordon Bell and determine if it is adequate and if it sufficiently demonstrates the need to expand potential locations for new facilities beyond the zoning districts in they are currently allowed. Permit Requirements All wireless cell site projects would continue to be subject to architectural review and be required to obtain a use permit. Zoning regulations currently allow these projects to apply for an administrative use permit in the C-S and M zones. In other zones, a Planning Commission use permit is required. Recommendation: Staff recommends that a Planning Commission use permit be required for projects in any additional zones allowed by action on this amendment request, as shown in the shaded lower row in the table below, subject to footnote 20. Table 9-Uses R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 AG C/ O" PF C-N C-C C-R C-T C-S M Allowed by OS Zone Antennas(municipal, PC P&O PC D D commercial,and public utility broadcasting and wireless telecommunications) Antennas(municipal, '12620 12020, .PCS PCO PCO PC'0 PC' D' D�0 - commercial,and public utility broadcasting and wireless telecommunications) Note 20 - Allowed Open cpaee ..,,.._.. .my if__ ..stmt with Land Use Element Pokey 6.1.2 and 6.2.2 and Open Spaee element pelieies regafding Feseu f hills and fneuntalfis and.seenie _eseutee. Allowed subject to compliance with development standards stipulated in Section 17.16.120. In Open Space and Agriculture zones, allowed if also consistent with Land 321 Attachment 2 GPA/R 12-01 PC 12-19-01 Page 9 Use Element Policy 6.1.2 and 6.2.2 and Open Space element policies regarding resource protection of hills and mountains and scenic resources. In order to approve a.use permit for wireless telecommunication facilities in the Office zone, the Planning Commission must find that the project site is in a predominantly non-residential area. Environmental Review The environmental initial study is attached. Mitigation is recommended to avoid impacts or reduce potential impacts to less than significant level. As recommended, the mitigation measures, in part, provide a basis for developing performance standards (discussed below). In its previous review of the initial study, the Planning Commission recommended that the mitigation measure for potential biological impacts be reworded to allow for mitigation to reduce impacts to a less than significant level rather than simply require that biological impacts be avoided altogether. The resolution reflects that change. Development Standards Rather than locating development standards in the general plan, staff recommends locating them in the zoning regulations in Chapter 17.08: Uses Allowed in Several Zones. Working from the applicant's submittal and the recommended mitigation in the initial study, staff developed standards to address the issues listed below. Please carefully review Attachment A to the resolution for specific language and be prepared to offer suggestions for additional criteria, specific wording, and format. The proposed zoning text amendment includes development criteria related to the following topics: • Permit Requirements • Aesthetics • Setbacks • Height • Backup Generators • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources • Radio Interference • Airport Operations • Radio Frequency and Electromagnetic Exposure • Noise • Compatibility with Public Services and Facilities • Site Access • City Inspection • Removal of Obsolete or Abandoned Equipment �a� - Attachment 2 GPA/R 12-01 PC 12-19-01 Page 10 • Co-location • Maximum Site Capacity • Site Maintenance • Nuisance • Signs • Lighting ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend that the City Council approve the proposed general plan amendment and zoning text amendment as submitted. 2. Deny the proposed amendments, based on findings. 3. Continue with direction. Attached: Draft resolution recommending approval of a zoning text amendment Applicant's proposed amendment Applicable general plan policies Needs assessments Minutes of the Oct. 24, 2001 meeting Environmental initial study Distributed separately: a Memo from the City Attorney's office regarding amortization �d CITY OF SAN LUIS Ot3ISP(' Attachment 3 TA i AUG 2 12001 I A017 COMMUNICATIONS August 24, 2001 COMMUNITY DEVELOPPF��<� Ms. Whitney McIlvaine City of San Luis Obispo Community Development 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 RE: GPA/TA/ER 12-01 General Plan and Zoning Text Amendment to allow wireless telecommunications facilities in additional zoning districts within the City of San Luis Obispo Dear Whitney: I offer the following responses to your letter dated August 15, 2001: 1. I have clarified our request in the attached GPA text amendment. We are requesting that wireless communications facilities be allowed in all zone districts, including residential. However, we have made a caveat that such facilities only be allowed on residentially zoned property that is used for other purposes besides residential. In many other jurisdictions, there is property that is zoned residential, but used for a municipal purpose such as a water tank. Other neighborhoods include churches, which are usually willing to negotiate a lease deal, and maintain enough property that there are no land use incompatibilities which are created by a project on a church property. I am not sure if this is the case in the City of San Luis Obispo, but we would like to keep this option open at this time. You will see in the Zoning Text Amendment, that we have recommended that this type of permit receive full planning commission review. This allows full discretionary review to determine if there is in fact any impacts or incompatibilities that may be created by a proposed wireless communication facility. 2. 1 have reformatted the amendment proposal and modified Table 9 to include the proposal for other zone districts. The amendments, including the footnote, are highlighted in red. I met with Pam Ricci yesterday to discuss placement and format. This concept is what we agreed upon. Ultimately, it will be the City that determines the placement and format. However, this format is much more adaptable to the existing General Plan format. I hope this fits your request. Both are included as word document attachments (to the email) so that you can modify them as necessary. 3. 1 spoke with Pam Ricci regarding inclusion in the ARC guidelines. We did not come to the conclusion that they need necessarily be located in the ARC guidelines, but could be included in both if the City so desired. I have 510 Castillo Street • Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone 805.52 • FAX 805.560.7422 City of San Luis Obispo Page2 P _ Attachment 3 Page 2 reformatted the language into specific Siting Criteria and Development Standards so that they may easily be transferred into other documents. 4. Please see the reformatted document. The text does not necessarily fit into any one category of the General Plan. I have taken your suggestion and included it in Section 3.0 Commercial Siting, creating a whole new category, 3.8 Wireless Communications Facilities. I hope these changes meet with your approval and we can move forward with the Text Amendment process. If you have any other suggestions, please let me know and I will try to get the changes incorporated immediately. Sincerely, CIT CO ICATIONS I Wo Gordon Bell Planning Services Attch: General Plan Text Language Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment(Table 9) ' Attachment 3 PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT LANGUAGE LU 3.8: Wireless Communications Facilities LU 3.8.1: Purpose and Included Uses The City should provide adequate siting opportunities for wireless communications facilities to provide for the provision of adequate wireless communications coverage throughout the City while minimizing the environmental impacts of such facilities. Wireless communications facilities including cellular, PCS,paging, broadband, data transfer, and any other type of technology that fosters wireless communication through the use of portable electronic devices. To this end, the City should allow these facilities in all zone districts with the exception of residentially zoned property used for residential purposes. LU 3.8.2: Siting Criteria The following siting criteria are intended to guide the placement of wireless communications facilities within the City of San Luis Obispo: A) No facilities shall be allowed on residentially zoned property utilized for residential purposes. Facilities should be allowed onresidentially zoned property used for institutional or governmental purposes such as churches, water tanks,parks, substations,etc. B) Facilities should not be located on historically or architecturally significant structures unless visually and architecturally integrated with the structure. C) Facilities should not interfere with prominent vistas or significant public view corridors. D) In certain open space or hillside locations that would be generally viewed from a distance, it may be appropriate to design facilities to resemble a natural feature such as a tree or rock outcrop. E) Facilities should be sited and/or designed to avoid adverse impacts to existing views from surrounding residences or other sensitive receptors. F) Whenever possible, existing utility poles or towers shall be utilized as support structures for antennas. LU 3.83: Development Standards The following development standards are intended to guide the design and placement or wireless communications facilities: A) Building-mounted Facilities: To the extent feasible, all building-mounted wireless communications facilities shall be sited and designed to appear as an integral part of the structure or otherwise minimize their appearance. 3 a General Plan Text Amendtr' 8/24/01 Attachment 3 Page 2 B) Wall-mounted Facilities: Wall-mounted antennas shall be integrated architecturally with the style and character of the structure or otherwise made as unobtrusive as possible. If possible, antennas should be located entirely within an existing or newly created architectural feature so as to be completely screened from view. To the extent feasible, wall-mounted antennas should not be located on the front, or most prominent fagade of a structure, and should be located above the pedestrian line-of-sight. Q Roof-mounted Antennas: Roof-mounted antennas and associated equipment shall be located as far back from the edge of the roof as possible to minimize visibility from street level locations. Where appropriate,construction of a rooftop parapet wall to hide the facility may be required. D) Equipment Design: Whenever possible, base stations, equipment cabinets, back-up generators, and other equipment associated with building mounted antennas should be installed within the existing building envelope or underground. If this is not feasible,the equipment shall be painted, screened, fenced, landscaped or otherwise treated architecturally to minimize its appearance from off-site locations and to visually blend with the surrounding natural and built environments. Equipment buildings should be designed in an architectural style and constructed of exterior building materials that are consistent with surrounding development and/or land use setting. E) Antenna Placement: Whenever possible, antennas shall be placed in structures resembling those of the built environment, and shall replace or be located adjacent to, or inside of those structures (e.g., flagpoles, light standards, monument signs,commercial signage; etc.). F) Signage: No advertising signage or identifying logos shall be displayed on any personal wireless communications facility, except for small identification plates used for emergency notification. G) Painting: Antennas and associated structures and equipment shall be painted to blend with the structures, vegetation, sky, or landscape against which they will be primarily viewed. H) Nuisances: Proposed wireless communications facilities shall not create any nuisance impacts (noise, dust, odors) from proposed equipment(e.g., generators)on surrounding sensitive receptors. 3 Table 9-Text Amendmen' Attachment 3 8/24/01 Table 9-Uses Allowed by Zone R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 AG C/O 0" PF C-N C-C C- C-T C-S M S R Advertising and related.services A AID A A D (graphic design,writing,mailing, addressing,etc. Agriculture-grazing and outdoor A A A A crops Agriculture-greenhouse culture, PC PC livestock feeding Airports and related facilities PC PC PC Ambulance services PC PC A D Amusement arcades(video games, D D A A A see Chapter 5.52,Electronic Game Amusement Centers&17.08.060) Amusement parks,fairgrounds PC PC Antennas(municipal,commercial,and PC' PC- PC' PC' PC PC21 PC PC PC D D D D D public utiTdy broadcasting and wireless telecommunications) Athletic and health dubs, D D D PC A A gymnasiums,fitness centers, game Courts Auto dismantling,scrap dealers, A recycling centers Auto repair and related services(body, PC D A A brake,transmissions,muffler shops; painting.etc.) Auto sound system installation Dt2 D12 A A Banks and savings and loans A A' A A D1 Di Bars,taverns,etc.(see Nightclubs) D D D D D D Barbers,hairstylists,manicurists, A A A D D tanning centers Bed and breakfast inns PC PC D A A A Boardingtrooming houses,dormitories PC D D D (See also Chapter 17.20) Bowling alleys PC D D D D Broadcast studios A AID A A A Building and landscape maintenance AID A A A services Bus stations PC D A Cabinet and carpentry shops D A Caretakers'quarters A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Carwash-mechanical PC9 PC9 D D Carwash-self-service D D PC9 A A Catering services D D A D A A 3�a7 Table 9—Text Amendmer Attachment 3 8/24/01 approved only when the church will not likely cause unreasonable compatibility problems with existing or likely future service commercial uses in the vicinity. Use permit conditions may include measures to mitigate incompatibility. 16. In the PF zone, only non-profit theaters are permitted. 17. Allowed by right where accessory to a church or school,or where an employer provides on-site child care to 14 or fewer children for the exclusive benefit of employees,providing the primary use meets City parking standards. 18. Church uses may be allowed inside existing buildings only. 19. Dry cleaning plants in.the C-N zone shall be allowed subject to the following performance standards: less than 2,000 square feet in area; use APCDapproved low-emission equipment;and cleaning done on-site.shall be for customers coming to this location only(not serve as a regional plant). 20. Allowed in Open Space zones only if consistent with Land Use Element Policies 6.1.2 and 6.2.2 and Open Space Element policies regarding resource protection of hills and mountains and scenic resources. 21. In the CS zone,nightclubs must contain a minimum of 4,500 square feet of floor area. The required use permit process shall address parking, neighborhood compatibility and security issues. 22. Emergency medical facilities may be allowed in the C-N zone,with approval of an Administrative Use Permit, \ provided the gross floor area of such establishment shall not exceed 3,500 square feet. Allowed in residential zone districts only if located on institutional/governmental property such as churches,water tanks,substations,etc. 3-2� Attachment 4 I z': Lu 6. 3: Open Space Land Divisions I Parcels 'thin Open Space areas should not be further divided. LU 6.1.4: In Open Space Designation I The General Pla Land Use Element Map shows desired future uses for most land within the urban reserve ine. However, the City has not decided the best eventual use for some areas. Such are designated Interim Open Space, indicating that they will be suitable for urban deve pment when certain conditions are satisfied. Examples of such conditions include demo strated need for further urban development that cannot be satisfied on already urbaniz d land, provision of proper access and utility service, and ' .."i environmentally acceptable duction of flood hazards. The Interim Open Space designation is to be changed to a urban classification only when the conditions necessary for development can be satisfied d a certain type of development is approved. After further study, it may be found that pe anent Open Space is an appropriate classification for areas initially classified as Interim en Space. LU 6.1.5: Interim Open Space Uses and Sizes i Uses within Interim Open Space areas should a the same as in Open Space areas (LU Policies 6.1.1 and 6.1.2). Interim Open Space eas should not be further subdivided until a development plan or a specific plan is app ved (pursuant to LU Policy 1.13.3), except to separate land to be dedicated in fee to the ity, or other responsible public or nonprofit agency, for permanent open space. Y Lu 6.1.6: Eventual uses ( ,This element identifies intended uses for each area designa d Interim Open Space. Such areas are discussed under Optional Use and Special Des Areas, and Hillside Planning. One area not discussed under those headings is: About 11 acres be een Los Verdes Park and San Luis Obispo Creek, which may be used for residential deve pment if the flood hazard is mitigated without significant harm to the creek. LU -6.2 Hillside Policies W 6.2.0: hillsides As discussed in the open space section, San Luis Obispo wants to keep open its steeper, OS 2.0 9 higher,and most visible hillsides. Some of the lower and less steep hillside areas,however, are seen as suitable for development, particularly where development is coupled with permanent open space protection of the more sensitive areas. This section focuses on f where and how some hillsides may be developed. The City establishes comprehensive standards and policies for hillside development for the following reasons: LU-58 ceneizal plan Oiliest- city of san Luis osispo 3-A Attachment 4 Land Use El enE A) To protect and preserve scenic hillside Areas and natural features such as the volcanic Morros, ridge lines, plant communities, rock outcroppings and steep slope areas that function as landscape backdrops for the community. F B) To set the limits of commercial and residential development in hillside areas by establishing a permanent open space green belt at the edge of the community. C) To protect the health,safety and welfare of community residents by directing development away from areas with hazards such as landslides, wildland foes, flooding and erosion. LU 6.2.1: Development Limits Hillsides planning areas should have carefully chosen development limit lines,and special design standards for the areas which can be developed. The location of the development limit and the standards should cause development to avoid encroachment into sensitive habitats or unique resources as defined in the Open Space Element, and public health and safety problems related to utility service, access, wildland fire hazard, erosion, flooding, and landslides and other geologic hazards. Also, the development limit line and the standards should help protect the City's scenic setting. (Locations of hillside planning areas are shown in Figure 6. More precise locations of'the development limit line and the urban reserve line are shown on large-scale aerial photographs on file at the Community Development Department; these are part of the Land Use Element.) "s LU 6.2.2: Development Standards Development -including buildings, driveways, fences and graded yard areas- on hillside parcels shall: A) Be entirely within the urban reserve line or development limit line, whichever is more restrictive (though parcel boundaries may extend beyond these lines when necessary to meet minimum parcel-size standards), unless one of the following three exceptions applies. 1) A location outside the urban reserve line or development limit line is necessary to protect public health and safety. 2) New wireless telecommunication facilities may be appropriate on South Street Hills inside the three-acre leasehold already developed with commercial and municipal radio facilities, subject to use permit approval and architectural review and approval. Applicants shall comply with all other provisions of this section, and demonstrate that (a) new facilities will not individually or additively interfere with City radio equipment necessary for emergency response coordination, and (b) will Q not cause on-site radio frequency radiation levels to exceed exposure standards established for the general public by the city of un tuts osispo - geneml plan digest LU-59 3 Attachment 4 Land, ^us-e= -r-lement i American National Standards Institute. s 3) Where a legally built dwelling exists on a parcel which is entirely j outside the urban reserve line or development limit line, a replacement dwelling may be constructed subject to standards B through H below. B) Keep a low profile and conform to the natural slopes; C) Avoid large, continuous walls or roof surfaces, or prominent foundation walls, poles, or columns; D) Minimize grading of roads; E) Minimize grading on individual lots; generally, locate houses close to the street; minimize the grading of visible driveways; l F) Include planting which is compatible with native hillside vegetation and which provides a visual transition from developed to open areas; G) Use materials, colors,and textures which blend with the natural landscape and avoid high contrasts; 11 H) Minimize exterior lighting. LU $: Parcels Crossing the Limit Lines Before evelopment occurs on any parcel which crosses the urban reserve or p developm t limit lines, the pan outside the lines shall be protected as permanent open space. LU 6.2.4: ent CreditTransfer Any residential develo ent credit obtained from Open Space designations outside the urban reserve line or evelopment limit line should be transferred to land inside the lines. LU 6.2.5: Homesites outside th 't Lines Where homesites are to be develope utside the urban reserve or development limit lines, and beyond the City's jurisdiction, ey should: A) Be on land sloping less than 15 per nt; B) Have effective emergency vehicle access m a City street or County road; C) Be on a geologically stable site; LU-60 cgenetzal plan blgcst-city of-San lues OBIspo 3-31 Attachment 4 Land Use Eben-kent LU 2.2.2: Separation and Buffering - Residential areas should be separated or screened from incompatible, nonresidential activities, including most commercial and manufacturing businesses, traffic arteries, the freeway, and the railroad. Residential areas should be protected from encroachment by detrimental commercial and industrial activities. LU 2.2. . ousing and Aircraft New housing uld not be allowed in areas where aircraft noise exposure and the risk N 1'2'7 1 of aircraft accidents not acceptable. LU 2.2.4: Residential Next to Nonresidential ` In designing development at the boundary between residential and nonresidential uses, protection of a residential atmosphere is the first priority. LU 2.2. . treet Access New residents evelopments, or redevelopment involving large sites, should be designed to orient w-density housing to local access streets, and medium- or high-density housing to do ways accessible from collector streets.Major arterials through residential areas shall prov a only limited private access or controlled street intersections. LU 2.2.6: rhood Pattern All residential elopment should be integrated with existing neighborhoods. Where H 7.2.4 physical features ake this impossible, the new development should create new neighborhoods. LU 2.2.7: Housing and esses Where housing can be comps ' with offices or other businesses, mixed-use projects should be encouraged. LU 2.2.8: Natural Features Residential developments should preserve incorporate as amenities natural site features, such as land forms, views, creeks, we s, wildlife habitats, and plants. LU 2.2.9: Parking Large parking lots should be avoided. Parking lots sho d be screened from street views. In general, parking should not be provided between ildings and the street. I.U-22 ceneizal plan asGEst-city of San lues OBISpo 3-3a Attachment 4 L t,.czn ' use, €en-ten". LU 3.0.2: Access Commercial and industrial uses should have access from arterial and collector streets, JN�LU 3.5.4 1, and should be designed and located to avoid increasing traffic on residential streets. LU 3.0.3: Residential Area Expansion of commercial and industrial uses into residential areas is prohibited. LU 3. . General Retail LXJ3.1.1: and Included Uses The City sho have areas for General Retail uses adequate to meet most demands of City and nearby ounty residents. General Retail includes specialty stores as well as department stores, warehouse stores, discount stores, restaurants, and services such as banks. Not all areas esignated General Retail are appropriate for the full range of uses (see LU Policies 3.1.2 d 3.1.5). LU 3-1.2- Locations for Aftractions i The City should focus its re g with regional draw in the locations of downtown, the area around the intersection o donna Road and Highway 101, and the area around Highway 101 and Los Osos Vall Road. 1 LU 3.1.3: Madonna Road Area Expansion No substantial additional land area s ould be added to the commercial centers at Madonna Road and Highway 101 until a etailed plan for the retail expansion has been approved by the City. The plan should cribe the limits of commercial expansion, acceptable uses, phasing,and circulation imp vements. Any permitted expansion should be aesthetically and functionally compatible wit existing development in the area. Before approving an expansion plan, the City should onsider an evaluation of how much it would transfer sales from existing retail areas in City and whether the proposed uses could be developed in existing retail areas. LLT 3.1.4: Mid-Ifiguera Enhancement The City shall consider the potential enhancement of derutilized commercial land W 8.5 along Higuera Street between Madonna Road and High S t. LU 3.1.5: SpecialtY Store Locations Most specialty retail stores should be downtown, in the Madonn Road area, or the Los Osos Valley Road area; some may be in neighborhood shopping c ters so long as they are a minor part of the centers and they primarily serve neighborhood rather than citywide or regional markets. LU•34 gensR61c lest plan aiest city of San Luis OBlspo 3 -33 Attachment 4 2.0 HILLS AND MOUNTAINS 2.1: GOALS OS 2.1.1: Geologic Features Preserve mountains and hills, ridgelines, scenic rock outcroppings, and other important geologic features as open space. (p13) f f 1 OS 2.1.2: Mountain and Hill Resources Preserve and enhance the aesthetic quality of mountain and hill resources. (p14) OS 2.1.3:Hazards andvews Protect hill and mountain properties from potentially hazardous or visually degrading I development conditions. (p14) t l �a 2.2: POLICIES OS 2.2.1: Open Space Areas The City shall preserve the following existing open space areas as open space: A) South Street Hills(see site# 1,Site Map)above the development limit line as defined by the Land Use Element and the South Street Hills Specific Plan. B) Terrace Hill (see site #2, Site Map) in compliance with existing open space easements. (p14, 1) OS-6 geneRal.plan bIrest-city o f San Luis OBISPO 3--3� �—� Attachment 4 ,sae ., pa e Eiemen::t OS 2.2.2: Annexation Mountains or Hills The City should annex moun . s or hills (such as Mine Hill, Islay Hill, Santa Lucias, the Irish Hills, the Davenport Hills, uesta Ridge, Cerro San Luis, or Bishop Peak) only when consistent with the Land Use ment. (p14,2a) z OS 2.2.3: Foothill Annexation g The northern portion of the Foothill property (see si #3, Site Map) and the creek area shall be annexed as open space. Development on this sit ould be clustered or located near Foothill Boulevard, with the northern portion of the sit d creek area preserved as open space. (p14,2b) a�S2.2.4: Public and Private Development A) Structures, accessory structures, paving, and grading will be LU 6.2.2 located at the base of a hill or mountain (generally that area below 20 percent slope) unless: (1) no practicable alternative is available, (2) the location on a greater slope or at a greater elevation provides more aesthetic quality, or (3) the location is necessary to protect public health and safety, or (4) otherwise provided for in the Land Use Element (see Figure 3). B) Design, construction,and maintenance techniques are to: (1) minimize disturbance of, and enhance, hill or mountain a resources; (2) ensure that development near or on portions of a hill or mountain do not cause, or make worse, natural hazards (such as erosion, sedimentation, fire, or water quality concerns); (3) include erosion and sediment control practices including temporary vegetation sufficient to stabilize disturbed 1 areas; (4) minimize risk to life and property from slope failure, landslides, and flooding; (5) maintain the character and visual quality of the adjacent hill or mountain resource; and (6) be consistent with Section 11 of this element. C) Recreation and public access are to be included on or near hills and mountains consistent with this Section 11 of this element. : ii crty of san Luis osispo - geneml plan bicest OS-7 �35 Attachment 4 Element CI 12.8: Space Evaluation The City will wor th the Business Improvement Association (BIA) to evaluate the use of curb space in the do own and identify opportunities for creating additional parking spaces. (p36,12.8) C112.9. DowntownTrolley The City should continue to operate the downto trolley as a parking management tool to reduce congestion. (p36,12.9) t A 13.0 NEIGHBORHOOD PARKING MANAGEMENT POLICIES CI 13.1: Off-Street Parking LU 2.2.9 Each residential property owner sponsible for complying with the City's standards that specify design p cify the number, desi and tion of off-street parking spaces. (p36,13.1) t CI 13.2: Neighborhood parking Permits Upon request from residents or other agencies, the ity will evaluate the need for neighborhood parking permit programs or other parkin management strategies in particular residential areas. (p36,13.2) SCENIC ROADWAYS s 14.0 SCENIC ROADWAYS POLICIES CI 14.1: Scenic Resources Views of important scenic resources from major streets should be preserved and improved to the maximum extent possible. (p37,14.1) CI 14.2: Scenic Roadways The route segments shown on Figure 6 are designated as scenic roadways. (p37,14.2) k CI-38 cjeneual plan a'Gest-city of san Luis o5ispo 3-34 - Attachment 4 1Ci tuan E erne,nt 3 a f 1 Figure 6 - Scenic Roadways Map i I I V f I I I Q N V Vista Roads of high scenic value city of San LUIS OBIS O Roads of moderate scenic value community development department • Roads of high or moderate scenic value outside the city limits I I icity of san Luis osispo - Gencizal plan alcest C1-39 3 -3 ; Whitney Mcilvaine GENERALIZED NEEDS ASSESSMENT.doc - Page 1 i Attachment 5 Generalized Needs Assessment Page 1 GENERALIZED NEEDS ASSESSMENT I' City of San Luis Obispo PROBLEM AREAS IDENTIFIED PROBLEM AREAS(ZONING,HEIGHT,LEASING): Problem Area One: This area is extremely limited in appropriate zoning under the current zoning ordinance. The only appropriate zone district in this area is the PF zone district. There are only two properties in this vicinity zoned PF. Current proposals are for a facility at the Laguna Lakes Golf Course. Even these proposals exceed current.height limits of the zone district,as a minimum of 50 feet seems to be the height necessary to cover the LOUR corridor in this area. If carriers are unable to negotiate a lease with the City, there are no other available zone districts in this vicinity for which to located a facility. City Proposal: Under the proposed ordinance amendment,as discussed by the City(no residential,no neighborhood commercial,no office),there will still be no opportunities in this area, as there is only residential,neighborhood commercial,and office zoning in this area. Applicant Proposal: The only potential solutions for this area would be to open up CN or Office zone districts,as there is no appropriate residential areas to locate a facility. Even these properties may be problematic,as there are no tall structures to build upon. Problem Area Two: This is area is extremely limited in appropriate zoning under the current zoning ordinance. The area is predominantly residential, with no C-S zoning. There is some C/OS zoning,but the City has made it clear that no facilities are to be located on this property. Sprint has a current proposal for a.site on Cal Poly property (KVEC Radio),outside the City's jurisdiction. However,should lease negotiations fall through,candidates within City boundaries may be necessary. Carriers need approximately 40-60 feet in this area depending upon location. City Proposal: Under the proposed ordinance amendment, as small pocket of C-R zoning may be opened up at the intersection of Santa Rosa Blvd. and Foothill.No other zoning opportunities would be available. Applicant Proposal: Opening up residential zone districts as suggested by the applicant, would allow for siting on churches or other suitable facilities within this area. There are a number of facilities in this area with adequate buffers from residential uses, that are zoned residential but not used for such purposes. Problem Area Three: This area is limited by zoning and height. The majority of this area l is zoned C-C-H,C-R, O,and some Residential. Under the current zoning ordinance, t none of these zone districts are available for permitting wireless communications facilities. Property zoned PF has been turned down for facilities of appropriate height due � -38 Whitney Mcilvaine GENERALIZED NEFri ASSESSMENT doc Page 2 -- - - - .. . Generalized Needs Assessment Attachment 5 Page 2 to leasing and visual concerns. Carriers are looking for approximately 40-60 feet in height on the highest elevations in this area. City Proposal: Under the City proposal,a majority of the property in this downtown core area would be opened up for additional siting opportunities. If the proposal limits opportunities in the Office zone districts,potential opportunities on appropriate facilities such as the ATT building would be lost. Applicant Proposal: This proposal would allow for facilities on appropriate buildings, such as the ATT&Verizon buildings, potentially eliminating the need for sites in other areas. € E R Problem Area Four: This area isnot limited by zoning,as the area has large proportion of property zoned C-S, and includes the South Street Hills. The area is primarily limited by the lack of tall structures upon which to integrate communications facilities. It is also limited by the City's concerns about the South Street Hills and further visual impacts. Carriers are looking for facilities approximately 50-65 feet in height AGL in this area on the flat areas around Higuera Street. Additional opportunities for stub-mounts may exist on the South Street Hills 3-acre area. 4 f City Proposal: Under the City proposal, additional property zoned C-R would be opened up,allowing for some additional siting opportunities. However, height limitations may still be a concern. The South Street Hills,outside the 3-acre area,and perhaps inside of r it, would be shut down for further proposals. F Applicant Proposal: This proposal would allow for additional, appropriately designed facilities on the South Street Hills. Height would still be a problem on C-S zoned property,but opportunities for stub-mounts on South Street Hills could overcome this obstacle. 4 f 3 39 WAeyMcilva ine- GENERALIZED NEEnS a s s MEN r kc . m98 A#achment 5 Generalized w�Assessment Page 3 ; . .... . ; & �� - � +1; \ ! .. \z ! \ f � > ./ R ! Sit) < ) aa�§ « § !{ ` f| 5 ,E 3 e ff ® v_> } \� `/ ..._. + ..: 6, 3- 41 Whitney MciIva ine SPRINT NEEDS ASSFSSMENT.doc Page 1 Attachment 5 Sprint PCS Needs Assessment Page 1 l SPRINT PCS NEEDS ASSESSMENT CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO Prepared by ! Tacit Communications III! Sprint PCS is a wireless communications carrier new to the area with no existing coverage in the San Luis Obispo market area. Sprint PCS is expected to launch its service in early to mid-2002. Sprint has a number of proposals in process with the City of San Luis Obispo. Only one of their proposals,Site SN45XCO91 (Sacramento Street),has been approved by the City. Sprint PCS is designing the network such that future E expansion would involve the addition of equipment to the proposed sites,instead of building new ones. However,there are certain areas that may need additional sites after further evaluation of the network after deployment. Proposed sites include the following (see attached map): SN45XCO85(La Cuesta Inn)—This project is located on the La Cuesta Inn and is i driving the GPA/Ordinance Amendment. It is a roof/wall-mount proposal,which should be consistent with the City's intended ordinance amendment. Zoning Issues:This project meets Sprint's RF requirements and is a prime candidate for a stealth project in the commercial zone district. There are no sensitive receptors in the project vicinity and the project should be indiscernible to average passersby. Y SN45XC086(Downtown SLO)—This project was previously proposed at the City's Downtown Parking Garage. Sprint had proposed a replacement of one of the light standards to try and achieve a total antenna height of approximately 70 feet AGL. The T City determined that a project on the parking garage is unacceptable. The project was withdrawn. Sprint is currently in the process of looking for alternate candidates. Zoning Issues:The previously proposed project was a proposal put forth by Sprint because it was one of the few sites in this area that had acceptable zoning and existing structures which could be used to stealth a facility. There are no other leasable sites within this area with acceptable zoning and height requirements to meet RF coverage objectives. The zoning ordinance amendment would open up other property in this downtown core area to other opportunities. At the present time,the Anderson Hotel seems like the only feasible alternative from a height perspective and stealth capability,although it has potentially significant t environmental issues. SN45XCO88(Wrona's Auto Repair)—Sprint originally proposed a 65 foot light standard at this location. The City found it inconsistent with its design standards even ll though it was proposed in the appropriate zone district. The pole would have been collocatable. The project has been withdrawn. 3--41 Whitney Mcilvaine-SPRINT NEEDS ASSESSMENT.doc _Page 2 Attachment 5 Sprint PCS Needs Assessment Page 2 Zoning Issues:This project area is difficult to find a suitable candidate for,as there is no structures in excess of 45 feet in this area. RF needs approximately 65-70 feet in this area to achieve appropriate coverage. Zoning in this area is favorable, generally C-S,but such a tall structure would stand out amongst less elevated structures. Height restrictions will severely limited potential sites in this area. i Other sites may be required to fulfill coverage objectives in this area.The applicant has proposed gateway structures and stealth trees to the City; however,the City has not expressed interest in any of these designs. 4 SN45XC089(Laguna Lakes Golf Course)—This project is a collocation project with Verizon at the City-owned Laguna Lakes Golf Course. The project involves replacing existing netting support poles with 50-foot tall stealth poles with antennas on the inside of the poles. Equipment shelter would house both carriers and be designed to look like the existing BBQ area Zoning Issues:The project exceeds the City's height requirements by 15 feet in this zone district. The area is surrounded by residential,but will indiscernible to ! surrounding residents as a telecom facility. Should this project fail, there are no suitable zone districts in this vicinity at all,as all surrounding zoning is either residential,neighborhood commercial or office. This area would be impossible to cover without the zoning ordinance amendment including CN and O zone districts if PF does not work(e.g.,a lease can't be worked out with the City). } i SN45XC091 (Sacramento Street)—This project is a collocation project with Alpine on an existing PG&E steel lattice tower. t Zoning Issues: The project has been approved by the City of SLO with an administrative permit as it met the requirements of the City's zoning ordinance. E PROBLEM AREAS: I Problem Area One: This area is extremely limited in appropriate zoning under the current 1 zoning ordinance. The only appropriate zone district in this area is the PF zone district. There are only two properties in this vicinity zoned PF. Current proposals are for a facility at the Laguna Lakes Golf Course. Even these proposals exceed current height limits of the zone district,as a minimum of 50 feet seems to be the height necessary to i cover the LOVR corridor in this area. If carriers are unable to negotiate a lease with the f City,there are no other available zone districts in this vicinity for which to located a facility. City Proposal: Under the proposed ordinance amendment,as discussed by the City(no residential,no neighborhood commercial, no office),there will still be no opportunities in { this area,as there is only residential, neighborhood commercial,and office zoning in this area. " VVhifney Mcilvame- SPRINT NEEDSASGESSMENT.doc Page 3 ,i Attachment 5 Sprint PCS Needs Assessment Page 3 Applicant Proposal: The only potential solutions for this area would be to open up CN or Office zone districts, as there is no appropriate residential areas to locate a facility. Even these properties may be problematic, as there are no tall structures to build upon. Problem Area Two: This is area is extremely limited in appropriate zoning under the current zoning ordinance. The area is predominantly residential, with no C-S zoning. There is some C/OS zoning, but the City has made it clear that no facilities are to be located on this property. Sprint has a current proposal for a site on Cal Poly property (KVEC Radio), outside the City's jurisdiction. However, should lease negotiations fall through,candidates within City boundaries may be necessary. Carriers need approximately 40-60 feet in this area depending upon location. City Proposal: Under the proposed ordinance amendment,as small pocket of C-R.zoning may be opened up at the intersection of Santa Rosa Blvd. and Foothill. No other zoning opportunities would be available. Applicant Proposal: Opening up residential zone districts as suggested by the applicant, would allow for siting on churches or other suitable facilities within this area. There are a number of facilities in this area with adequate buffers from residential uses,that are zoned residential but not used for such purposes. Problem Area Three: This area is limited by zoning and height. The majority of this area is zoned C-C-H,C-R,O,and some Residential. Under the current zoning ordinance, none of these zone districts are available for permitting wireless communications facilities. Property zoned PF has been turned down for facilities of appropriate height due to leasing and visual concerns. Carriers are looking for approximately 40-60 feet in height on the highest elevations in this area. City Proposal: Under the City proposal, a majority of the property in this downtown core area would be opened up for additional siting opportunities. If the proposal limits opportunities in the Office zone districts,potential opportunities on appropriate facilities such as the ATT building would be lost. Applicant Proposal:This proposal would allow for facilities on appropriate buildings, such as the ATT&Verizon buildings,potentially eliminating the need for sites in other areas. Problem Area Four:This area is not limited by zoning, as the area has large proportion of property zoned C-S,and includes the South Street Hills. The area is primarily limited by the lack of tall structures upon which to integrate communications facilities. It is also limited by the City's concerns about the South Street Hills and further visual impacts. Carriers are looking for facilities approximately 50-65 feet in height AGL in this area on the flat areas around Higuera Street. Additional opportunities for stub-mounts may exist on the South Street Hills 3-acre area. �3-yam Whitney Mcilvaine-SPRINT NEEDS ASSESSMENT.doc Page 4 -- — — - - Attachment 5 r Sprint PCS Needs Assessment P Page 4 City Proposal: Under the City proposal, additional property zoned C-R would be opened up,allowing for some additional siting opportunities. However,height limitations may still be a concern. The South Street Hills, outside the 3-acre area, and perhaps inside of it, would be shut down for further proposals. Applicant Proposal: This proposal would allow for additional,appropriately designed facilities on the South Street Hills. Height would still be.a problem on C-S zoned property,but opportunities for stub-mounts on South Street Hills could overcome this obstacle. r 'Y C r I P 4 k C Y Whitney Mcilvaine-SPRINT NEEDS ASSESSMENT.doc Page 5 I 5 Sprint PCS Needs Assessment Attachment Page 5 ` I Z. f a � d b ' 1 k I a: s od",�o I F Qig E �... P � road St a c QL I a �a 3oaa 0, g f a e o� o I [A .E $� [ a C) .,7i w b!;� e h ^�0? Faa b �; `C' a . c �b� rF g, 14 QG u }4� t m 5 c �6i _... �__.. _........ __ ---- -._.__..........__ emu Whitney Mcilvaine -SPRINT NEEDS AS.QESSMENT.doc Page 6 Sprint PCS Needs Assessment Attachment 5 11 Page 6 4k cn 41- RO O baa W co S� (D < g E j 2 -g -j Ed 9 -,�Nn 0jt u P8 CL �0 ,13 — U) Vwtld Ln Qi is; 8S G 6,> t ............ Ij Whitney Mcilvame-VERIZON NEEDS ASSESSMENT.doc _ Page 1 Attachment 5 Verizon Needs Assessment Page 1 VERIZON WIRELESS NEEDS ASSESSMENT " CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO Prepared by Tacit Communications Verizon Wireless is an existing wireless communications carrier with coverage f' throughout the City of San Luis Obispo at the present time. The City is covered from a i number of locations,only two of which currently exist in the City of San Luis Obispo. G These include a site at South Street Hills and another site located at the Verizon building on Mill Street. The other sites that cover the remainder of the City are located on Mt. Lowe and Cuesta Peak, and are both considered elevated sites. These elevated sites provide the City with reasonable coverage over most of the city, but are limited in capacity and in-building coverage. In other words,while there is signal within the City, callers may be unable to place or receive calls due to limited radio capacity. Verizon is currently undergoing an effort to bring additional capacity to the City of San Luis Obispo by developing a number of"lower" sites within the City(or on its fringes)that have a I smaller RF footprint than the existing"high" sites. Proposed sites include the following 3 (see attached map): CA1986(CDF Fire Station)—This project is just outside the City's boundaries at the near Highland Avenue and Santa Rosa Road,but will serve to cover areas in the City. This project(lease agreement) is unlikely to be approved by the State,and thus Verizon is ¢ looking for another alternative in this vicinity to meet coverage objectives. It was a proposal for antennas at the 50-foot height level on an existing CDF lattice tower. 1 i' Zoning Issues: As the project is unlikely to make it through the leasing process, Verizon is currently looking for alternatives to the project within the City's boundaries. This area is very difficult to find alternatives to the project,as all surrounding zoning is residential. The only PF-zoned property is two schools in the area. Other alternatives outside City boundaries include the KVEC property, also state-owned, making it difficult to negotiate a lease. Alternatives in the City were located on the C/OS-zoned property to the west. i f CA1987(Tank Farm Rd.-3740 Orcutt Rd)--This project is just outside the City's t boundaries at the intersection of Johnson and Orcutt Roads,but will serve to cover areas in the City. This project is a collocation with Alpine PCS and potentially other carriers at a PG&E substation on existing steel lattice towers, with antennas at 60 feet for Verizon and over 100 feet for Alpine PCS. Zoning Issues:The project is consistent with County zoning regulations in that it is a installation designed to minimize visual impacts and is collocated on an existing PG&E lattice tower. No City zoning regulations apply to the project, yet it would be } inconsistent with City proposals to prohibit projects in residential zones,and would greatly exceed height limitations. This area would be impossible to cover under the ; City's proposed ordinance, as the entire area is residential in nature,yet this facility 3 -�' Whitney Mcilvame -VERIZON NEEDS P�SESSMENT.doc Page 2 Attachment Verizon Needs Assessment Page 2 is a public utility type use (such as those proposed for consideration by Sprint's proposal). This area may be annexed in the future. CA1988(Santa Rosa Park)-This project is a collocation project with Cingular (Spectrasite)in the City-owned Santa Rosa Park. The site is to add a light standard to the park. Elevation of the antennas at the park is 58 feet AGL, with Cingular's antennas at 68 feet AGL. I i Zoning Issues:This project exceeds current City height limits by roughly 23 feet for the Verizon antennas and 33 feet for the Cingular antennas. This would not be ; possible without a stealth project and existing built elements in excess of City height limits. There are no other appropriately zoned features in this area. „ CA1990(Mitchell Park)—This project is a collocation project with Alpine in the City- owned Mitchell Park. This project involves the replacement of an existing flagpole with a new collocatable stealth flagpole. Antenna elevations are proposed for approximately 60-70 feet. Final design considerations have not been worked out. Zoning Issues: This project would exceed current City height limits by roughly_ feet for the Verizon and Alpine antennas. The area is surrounded by residential j zoning. There is an ongoing movement by the neighborhood to prevent any I modifications to the park,which would likely include installation of the antennas. The closest appropriate zoning other than the park is one block to the west,and it is zoned O,Office, and then further west itis C-C,Central Commercial. If either of b these zone districts is eliminated from the zoning ordinance amendment it will be extremely difficult to cover this area from both Verizon and Alpine's perspective. CA1994(Johnson Ave: King Property)—This project is just outside the City's boundaries,but will serve to cover areas in the City. It was originally proposed for the General Hospital,however, a lease deal could not be worked out with the County for collocation on the building. The project as currently proposed would involve 3 stub- mount structures(approx. 15'-high)on a residential piece of property just behind the { General Hospital. Antennas, support structures,and equipment shelter are designed to € blend with existing structures and backdrop vegetation. Zoning Issues: The project is consistent with County zoning regulations in that it is an installation designed to minimize visual impacts. It does not exceed height limits and is permitted in the residential zone district(RS, residential suburban). No City zoning regulations apply to the project, yet it would be inconsistent with City proposals to prohibit projects in residential zones. CA1995(Hwy 101/LOVR-Laguna Lakes)—This project is a collocation project with Sprint at the City-owned Laguna Lakes Golf Course. The project involves replacing existing netting support poles with 50-foot tall stealth poles with antennas on the inside of the poles. Equipment shelter would house both carriers and be designed to look like the 3--u� Whitney Wilvaine--VERIZO14NEEDS A-Q-S--E'-S—S-M--E-N'T-.d-o-,c----,---.-.,-,'',-- Page_3 Attachment 5 Verizon Needs Assessment Page 3 existing BBQ area. Zoning Issues: The project exceeds the City's height requirements by 15 feet in this zone district. The area is surrounded by residential, but will indiscernible to surrounding residents as a telecom facility. Should this project fail, there are no suitable zone districts in this vicinity at all,as all surrounding zoning is either residential, neighborhood commercial or office. This area would be impossible to cover without the zoning ordinance amendment including CN and 0 zone districts if PF does not work(e.g.,a lease can't be worked out with the City). PROBLEM AREAS: Problem Area One: This area is extremely limited in appropriate zoning under the current zoning ordinance. The only appropriate zone districts in this area is the PF zone district. There are only two properties in this vicinity zoned PF. Current proposals are for a facility at the Laguna Lakes Golf Course. Even these proposals exceed current height limits of the zone district,as a minimum of 50 feet seems to be the height necessary to cover the LOUR corridor in this area. If carriers are unable to negotiate a lease with the City,there are no other available zone districts in this vicinity for which to located a facility. City Proposal: Under the proposed ordinance amendment, as discussed by the City(no residential, no neighborhood commercial,no office),there will still be no opportunities in esi this area, as there is only residential,neighborhood commercial,and office zoning in this area. Applicant Proposal: The only potential solutions for this area would be to open up CN or Office zone districts, as there is no appropriate residential areas to locate a facility. Even these properties may be problematic, as there are no tall structures to build upon. Problem Area Two: This is area is extremely limited in appropriate zoning under the current zoning ordinance. The area is predominantly residential, with no C-S zoning. There is some C/OS zoning,but the City has made it clear that no facilities are to be located on this property. Carriers need approximately 40-60 feet in this area depending upon location. City Proposal: Under the proposed ordinance amendment, as small pocket of C-R zoning may be opened up at the intersection of Santa Rosa Blvd. and Foothill. No other zoning opportunities would be available. Applicant Proposal: Opening up residential zone districts as suggested by the applicant, would allow for siting on churches or other suitable facilities within this area. There are a number of facilities in this area with adequate buffers from residential uses,that are zoned residential but not used for such purposes. 3 Whitney Mcilvaine-VERIZON NEEDS A"SESSMENT.doc Page 4 Attachment 5 Verizon Needs Assessment Page 4 1: Problem Area Three: This area is a small search area designed to cover residential zones r and the southeastern downtown area. It is limited by existing zoning as it is comprised primarily of residential,office, and central commercial zone districts. There are no extremely tall structures in this area,and carriers are looking for a minimum height of approximately 50-60 feet. Current proposals are for a replacement flagpole in Mitchell Park. However, this proposal is unlikely to succeed due to neighborhood opposition. a City Proposal: Under the proposed ordinance amendment, areas of Central Commercial zone districts may be opened up to facilities. If the Office zone district is opened up, S additional opportunities may exist. Facilities may be limited due to the inability to get ti required height with complete stealthing, as there are few tall structures in this area. ! Applicant Proposal: Under the applicant proposal,the Office zone district would be opened up for proposals. However,the potential for facilities may also be limited due to (. the ability to stealth facilities and get the required height. h c 1 k f r 't i r, G i i F w b } I t y(�kF k �I Whitney Mcilvaine-VERVON NEEDS AQSESSMENT.doc Page 5 Verizon Needs Assessment Attachment Page 5 —--------- --- zi 47"0.,7 w a) CO M §Z E 10 -fo &u CL 0 C& g 0 Q- St M is PCOJB 0 Z M oc 0 E I; C R JS Z .t- 3: C 0 3W, d, CD 0 > 10- CY 7 4s ................. Whitney &a e-v R2oN NEEDS�5ESSMENT.doc p « B VefizonNeed,a mcm Attachment 5 Page [ = I . � § E ] f ` 31 ): - {� \ , ) b § . \ . >) \ 1 \ � !w { � §! V. . e , / / |/ � ! ; \ \. ... .... ............ . �`15IR Whdney Mcilvaine- Needs Assessment- . Page 1 ' i } From: "Putrino, Dino" <dputrino@c1-slo.com> Attachment 5 To: 'Whitney Mcilvaine' <wmcilvai@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>, 'Whitney Mcilvaine' <wmcilvai @ ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us> Date: 12/10/01 2:59PM Subject: Needs Assessment. . . DELIVERY VIA ELECTRONIC-MAIL December 10, 2001 Whitney Mcilvaine Planning Division Community Development Department 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, 93401-3249 wmcilvai@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us <mailto:wmcilvai@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us> RE: NEEDS ASSESSMENT Dear Ms. Mcilvaine: This is in response to your/the Planning Commission's request for CellularONE of San Luis Obispo's wireless communication needs assessment within the City of San Luis Obispo. It is understood that Mr. Gordon Bell has submitted to you a generalized needs assessment for the wireless carriers Verizon and Sprint outlining four (4)areas of the City that these carriers have a need to provide signal coverage for the City of San Luis Obispo customers (residents, business operators/employers, employees, and travelers). CellularONE of San Luis Obispo has the same subject need as well as the east area of the City near Johnson Avenue& Laurel Lane and the airport area. Furthermore,we would like to emphasize that there are several criteria to be considered which factor into the "locating a project site"formula as follows: 1) topography shadowing (terrain difficulties),2)flash-light line of sight technology, 3) a "not-just-anywhere" issue, 4) lack of vertical components, 5) cooperative landlord, and 6)the fact that"the need"changes per customer market circumstances (new vicinity development, increased customer population via the ever growing number of new users). Ms. Mcilvaine, it is hoped that the information above is satisfactory and helps you and the Planning Commission in making a well informed decision. Thank you for this opportunity to contribute to the City of San Luis Obispo zoning code amendment. Best Regards, Dino Putrino Project Manager/LandUse&Zoning 805/235-0065(PCS-VM-Pgr) 805/543-0100 x 2065 (LandLine) 805/547-9483 (Facsimile) E-Mail: DPutrino@cl-SLO.com - 'stin• q • 16i • yy.S� ,-.1*"� _ �'!� ..rTt}:'�'� ..c-�, ,yih� "4 ..,� .� �"�L .�..:w r e p 1111 1 `s` T�a"`"�,,,,j_s:' ai'".7-n".�y'b�.'%�x' � � Y�Ty^f,'•�„^W""S� s-':. ... RF Tra pa nY'RoCk Equip_ .me Buidings r6nn F&Stin' � ..�� " x Conaep(UpI De mornn �J y Whe i iL ITT, Attachment 6 a Ln U a _ Kroft Maid 541-3269 r i- F w w p _Q C O U J o00 -o = f Wl W :T•Y1>o _,O r, / KraftMaid 269 � �•� - R T: 1. ,i SAi:t � .• .o .M,`v. µhY�a�}y R`t Y �J ' r, SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Attachment T OCTOBER 24, 2001 CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:05 p.m. on Wednesday, October 24, 2001, in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. ROLL CALL: Present: Commrs. James Caruso, Orval Osborne, Jim Aiken, Allan Cooper, Alice Loh, Michael Boswell, and Chairperson Stephen Peterson Absent: None Staff: Assistant City Attorney Gil Trujillo, Deputy Community Development Directors Ronald Whisenand and Mike Draze, and Recording Secretary Irene Pierce ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The minutes were approved as corrected on page 10. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS There were no public comments made. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Citywide. GPA, TA and ER 12-01; Request to change the General Plan Land Use Element to include performance standards for wireless antenna sites; text amendment to allow telecommunications antennas in all zones; and environmental review, Sprint PCS, applicant. Community Development Deputy Director Ronald Whisenand gave staff report, explaining that staff was looking for some discussion and direction. He noted the City has received a proposal to amend the Zoning Regulations relating to the placement cellular antennas within the city. Commr. Aiken complimented staff on a great job of preparing the information. Vice-Chairwoman Loh noted the staff report indicates that the large properties are currently zoned C-N. She asked if it is possible to re-designate the larger parcels as a community commercial zone, but keep the smaller parcels as C-N. 3:S( Planning Commission Minutr __. October 24, 2001 Attachment 7 Page 2 Deputy Director Whisenand clarified that the present recommendation was to expand antennas into the retail commercial, central commercial, tourist commercial, and office zones. Vice-Chairwoman Loh asked if a designated community commercial would be a desirable place for the stealth installation. Development Director Whisenand replied that it would be a logical location if the Commission were comfortable with expanding the zoning districts, but noted the zoning matrix would need to be amended to add the various uses. Commr. Cooper noted the development standards that are in LU-59 are supposed to apply to the existing wireless facilities. He asked if the proposal is compatible with native hillside vegetation and if it is enforced on the existing facilities. Deputy Director Whisenand stated typically the development standards apply, but no changes are recommended at this time on the South Street Hills. Commr. Cooper asked if the landscaping could be enhanced. Deputy Director Whisenand replied this would be an excellent opportunity to use landscaping as a screening tool. Commr. Cooper asked if the potentially significant Air Quality issue noted on Page 5 of the initial study relates to the generators. Deputy Director Whisenand stated the generators would require Air Pollution Control District review from both from the noise as well as an odor standpoint. Commr. Osborne asked what the zoning is on the Cuesta Inn antenna proposal. Deputy Director Whisenand replied this property as well as the entire Monterey Street corridor is zoned C-T (tourist commercial). Commr. Caruso asked what the status of South Street Hills site is and asked if it is at capacity. Deputy Director Whisenand replied they are still receiving applications and are attempting to resolve some of the concerns of the surrounding neighborhoods. Commr. Caruso asked if they could co-locate more users for the towers. Deputy Director Whisenand replied they could put up another pole. Vice-Chairwoman Loh noted the access road needs improvement. '3 _S7 Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2001 Page Attachment 7 Deputy Director Whisenand stated there are two access roads, one is in good shape and one is in poor shape. He agreed there are access issues that need to be addressed. Chairperson Peterson stated when the general plan amendment was considered to allow antennas on the South Street Hills location, it was quite controversial. At that time, staff recommended against it, but it was approved. Since that time, they have had a proliferation of antennas at this location and people in the community do not like how it looks. He felt there are too many antennas and there is some visual blight and suggested strengthening the requirements for concealing the equipment. Deputy Director Whisenand stated there have been a number of ideas presented. He asked that if the Commission would like to modify the general plan and tighten the standards on the South Street Hill that prohibit future Monopoles, that they also consider some stealth technology. Chairperson Peterson stated the city is working towards a 100% stealth requirement and felt that the guidelines proposed by the applicant were at about 75% or 80% stealth. Chairperson Peterson asked if staff would be recommending that installations not be allowed in the mixed use overlay zone because of the residential uses that are included. Deputy Director Whisenand replied that this is an issue to consider. Assistant City Attorney Trujillo commented that the matter is subject to Federal Regulation under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. He stated the Act allows local government to retain complete zoning authority to determine the placement of wireless facilities, but once the zone is chosen, the City cannot unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services. Commr. Caruso asked if a change or circumstance means there could be a cumulative significant visual affect with more antennas on a particular location? Assistant City Attorney Trujillo replied at least one case has held that cumulative visual impacts are a sufficient basis to deny it. Commr. Aiken asked whether adding stealth technology standards to the South Street Hills site would be supported and not contrary to federal law. Assistant City Attorney Trujillo replied that these new requirements can be imposed, but once it is adopted as an official policy of the City, it cannot be discriminated against. There were no further comments or questions and the public hearing was opened. PUBLIC COMMENT: Gordon Bell, Bell & Associates, Sprint PCS and project applicant complimented staff on their diligent work on the ordinance amendment. He voiced his concern on the 100% 3�� Planning Commission Minus__• October 24, 2001 Attachment 7 Page 4 stealth issue. He asked for the Planning Commission's direction on how to define what , invisible means. He stated there will be some facilities that will be completely invisible, but they will be few and far between. Mr. Bell presented photographs on the different types of stealth facilities, which he felt would help define the objectives the staff was trying to achieve and the objectives he believed would be accomplished with the proposed development standards. Commr. Aiken asked Mr. Bell to point out on the photograph where the equipment is located on the Robinson's Building in Santa Barbara. Mr. Bell referred to the picture on where the equipment is located. Commr. Aiken asked if this included generators. Mr. Bell explained that none of the facilities they are currently building have generators on site, noting the facilities have backup batteries that last 4-8 hours in emergency situations. He commented that he would like to address the issue of expanding commercial or industrial uses and he would like staff to research whether or not they consider these facilities commercial or industrial. He stated the performance standards presented in their text amendment proposal are adequate to avoid the significant impacts in any zone districts. He supported staff's recommendations and urged the Commission to think about their ability to use structures such as the Mono Pines, Mono Palms, and Flag Poles. Commr. Boswell asked how transparent are real trees? Mr. Bell replied if there is a tree directly adjacent to another tree it is not transparent, and it will distort the signal. Commr. Boswell noted they were asking for a significant expansion of the zones in which these facilities would be allowed, but questioned if they really need to. Mr. Bell stated they do not need to put them everywhere and they're not looking at going in the heart of residentially zoned neighborhoods. Commr. Osborne asked if they could have a standard that would determine whether a particular installation would be appropriate. Mr. Bell replied the development standards that were proposed are very stringent. Commr. Osborne noted the staff report indicates there will be 20 to 40 more sites that will be needed, and asked the applicant if this is a reasonable number? Mr. Bell replied the number is reasonable. Commr. Caruso stated he supports these installations and that the stealth technologies are the types of things they are looking for. Planning Commission Minu! October 24, 2001 - Attachment 7 Page 5 John Merit, Empire Media Corporation, explained why the industry is here and what it needs as a whole. He stated that this project opens up a new array of services. He felt antenna sites are needed where the people are, and if approval is not obtained to put a site on commercial property, they would be unable to serve SLO residents with this plethora of new services that are becoming available. Larry Stabler, resident on South Street, said he would like to see some type of downsizing on South Street Hills as well as some type of enhancement to what has already been done. Steve Barrish, Past President of the Property Owners Association, stated they are dealing with aesthetic and visual compatibilities within the city and felt if the criterion is so strict that nobody can comply, then it may force some of these providers to go into areas that the City doesn't control. John Seaman, 245 Bridge Street, stated his home is located to the north of the South Street Hills communication site. He felt the site is appropriate for communications equipment, particularly with the new technologies that are available. He felt the City could significantly minimize the visual impacts and strongly encouraged further use of this site for communications, but only if these technologies are applied in such a manner to make these improvements stealth by nature. Mike Spangler, Property Owner, 0 Higuera Street, felt everyone is excided at understanding more about what stealth technologies could bring to the cellular business. He recommended that they adopt the staff's recommendation with the exception of Item 5,which requires that all installations be designed so that they are essentially invisible. He felt the cellular providers are being held to a higher standard than anyone else. Commr. Caruso stated there are issues with the existing facilities and people are concerned with any expansion. The amount of regulation that is decided will probably not be 100% successful unless the cooperation of the carriers and the property owners is obtained. Mr. Spangler stated he has his own ideas on how these problems should be addressed and solved. Gail Rosenberger, 2444 Sendero Court, expressed how pleased she is with the recommendation on mitigating the existing site on the South Street Hill. She noted she supports widening the zoning areas that this technology allowed, and that if anything new is permitted for this site, it must be 100% stealth. Commr. Osborne asked Mrs. Rosenberger if the City adopted a100% stealth standard and someone argued that a new fence post was not 100% stealth, would she then raise this kind of objection. Mrs. Rosenberger replied this would not be an issue for her, but she opposes addition of another pole. ,�62 Planning Commission Minu` l October 24,2001 Page 6 Attachment 7 Dino Patrino, Cellular One, offered another concept on the stealth issue, noting the City should be careful what they ask for in stealth because it sometimes causes a greater bulk and mass of a project design. He stated the industry would like the Commission to consider wireless communication facilities within residential districts, not on residential land uses, but other kinds such as churches ect. Landis Eberson, Villa Fontana, stated that in order to get to one of the access roads, one has to go through the Villa Fontana development. He stated the access road is no wider than a residential driveway and the original zoning for this hill was agricultural. The access road was never intended to be for commercial uses but rather for agricultural use. Commr. Aiken stated if an access easement has already been granted to the property owner for access to this property, and it is being leased, can access be granted to other users as well. Samantha Kim, Consulting Group Inc., Irvine, CA, noted concerns of residents in the area about having wireless telecommunication facilities within close proximity to residential neighborhoods. She stated some of the Conservation/Open Space areas in the city are located great distances from developed residential areas. There are large areas that should be explored for possibilities. She also felt the Planning Commission would want to review projects on a case by case basis on these parcels to determine if there might be appropriate designs in conservation open space zones. She stated she agrees with Mr.. Bell that the terminology of invisibile is not appropriate as a performance standard and felt these standards should be tied to something much more concrete, such as architectural style, color, and materials that they could follow to develop appropriate designs. Mary Whittlesey, SLO resident, stated she would participate with any solution on the South Street Hills that the commission suggests. She felt the Commission needs to pay particular attention to the balance of office to residential zones. Guy Hackman, General Manager & Owner of K-JEWEL Radio stated the Fontana easement and the access road existed long before the Villa Fontana project was built, and he has serviced that antenna since 1968. Seeing no further speakers come forward, the public comment session was closed. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Cooper made a motion to continue action with direction to staff and the applicant to; #1 eliminate the need for a general plan amendment. #2 that the Commissioners wish to strengthen standards for visual mitigation on South Street Hills by bringing South Street Hills into compliance with recommendation 5. #3 expand available sites for wireless facilities in the Central-Commercial (C-C). Retail-Commercial (C-R) Office (0) and Tourist-Commercial (C-T) zones #4 as written by staff, prohibit such facilities in all residential zones,--Neighborhood-Commercial (C-N) zone and in the Conservation/Open Space (C/OS) zone with the exception of those that previously �3�6 � Planning Commission Minu1 October 24, 2001 --, Attachment 7 Page 7 existed remain allowed on the South Street Hills, #5 require that all installations be designed so they blend in and are not readily apparent except to someone familiar with stealth techniques and #6 only allow cell sites in the Office (0) zone if the project is located in a predominantly commercial area. Seconded by Commr. Osborne. Commr: Aiken stated he could not support the motion as written, and his objection is to item 3; he would like to eliminate the Central-Commercial (C-C) zone from this area. Commr. Boswell asked if cell antennas could be distinguished from other types of antennas. Deputy Director Whisenand replied that any antennas within those facilities would need to comply with those performance standards. Commr. Boswell asked if they would be able to separate and distinguish between wireless telecommunication antennas and all other antennas. Deputy Director Whisenand replied that they intend on treating all antennas equally. Commr. Boswell stated they could upgrade South Street Hills by having the carriers and property owners initiate something on their own in cooperation with the City, feeling there is precedent for creating an amortization policy with regard to these facilities. Assistant City Attorney Trujillo stated that in order to amortize it, the property would have to be rezoned to prohibit these uses, so that everything out there that is existing would be a legal non-conforming use. To eliminate a legal non-conforming use, an amortization period can be adopted so the owners will recoup their initial investment over a period of time and then have them removed. Commr. Boswell stated he would like staff to look into the possibility of amortizing a performance standard. Assistant City Attorney Trujillo stated once a permit is issued it is difficult to change the rules. Commr. Boswell commented on the needs assessment and felt the cell companies need to tell the Commission where they really need to locate their cell facility. Commr. Cooper asked Commr. Boswell if he would like to add this to the motion. Commr. Cooper stated he would like to add that they are directing the applicant to undertake a needs assessment. Commr. Boswell stated the issue of the performance standards would ultimately be a discretionary review process through the ARC. He did not feel they could provide absolute guidance given the diversity and creativity of options. 3-�a Planning Commission Minut October 24, 2001 Page 8 Attachment 7 Commr. Boswell stated he does not support the motion because this needs to be accomplished incrementally. Vice-Chairwoman Loh noted her feeling that South Street Hills should be upgraded. Commr Cooper suggested adding to the motion that staff revisit the performance standards. All the Commissioners agreed to add this to the motion. Chairperson Peterson stated he is supportive of retaining the option for them to locate these facilities in the PF zone. Commr. Caruso stated he supports Commr. Cooper's motion and asked if it included direction to review the development standards. Commr. Cooper stated they could direct staff and the applicant to further revise the development standards. Commr. Osborne noted they are phasing in the increased zones where these facilities would be allowed, and that he does not support allowing structures in the residential zones. Chairperson Peterson asked to add to the motion that staff bring back some discussion regarding the Mixed-Use (MU) overlay zone, which has not been mentioned. Commrs Cooper and Osborne accepted this as the motion maker and the seconder. AYES: Commrs. Cooper, Osborne, Caruso, Loh, and Chairperson Peterson NOES: Commrs. Aiken and Boswell ABSENT: None The motion carried 5-2. 2. Staff A. Agenda Forecast: November 14: No agenda items. November 28: A new innovative condominium design. A request for a large office PD that was approved at South Higuera and Tank Farm; two county item; CEQA workshop set for Monday, November 5t' in the City County Library and a second CEQA workshop for concerned citizens, elected officials, and planning staff put on by the Conservation League Foundation offering an introductory workshop in the fundamentals of the California Environmental Quality Act, set for Saturday, November 3`d from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. in the Veterans Building. DRAFT Attachment 8 SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNINING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 19, 2001 CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was call to order at 7:05 p.m. on Wednesday, December 19, 2001, in the City Hall Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. ROLL CALL: Present: Commrs. James Caruso, Orval Osborne, Allan Cooper, Alice Loh, Jim Aiken, Michael Boswell and Chairperson Stephen Peterson Absent: None Staff: Associate Planner Whitney Mcllvaine, Deputy Community Development Director Ron Whisenand, Assistant City Attorney Gil Trujillo and Recording Secretary Irene Pierce ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. The video presentation was postponed until the first meeting in January 2002. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS There were no public comments made. .PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Citywide. TA and ER 12-01; Request to amend the Zoning Regulations to allow telecommunications antennas in all non-residential zones, and environmental review; Sprint PCS, applicant. Associate Planner Whitney Mcllvaine presented the staff report recommending approval of the text amendment, finding that a general plan amendment is not necessary, and recommending that City Council approve a text amendment to allow wireless telecommunication facilities in certain additional commercial zones only, subject to specific development standards. In response to a question by Commr. Cooper, Planner Mcllvaine noted the applicant submitted a Generalized Needs Assessment along with the original proposal for the General Plan Amendment and Zoning Text. Commr. Boswell asked if there is a height problem. Planner Mcllvaine replied that height would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. 3 4� Draft Planning Commission Minutes December 19, 2001 Page 2 Attachment 8 Vice-Chair Loh complimented the staff for their work. She asked for a clarification as to whether or not Terrace Hill was ever a consideration. Planner Mcllvaine replied yes, but that location would not be opened for telecommunication facilities with the proposed text amendment. Vice-Chair Loh asked who would be monitoring the equipment. She expressed concern with the time limits for removing obsolete equipment. She also felt the noise level should not exceed 55 decibels, and questioned what would happen if an antenna is next to Highway 101 where the decibel level is allowed to be higher. Deputy Community Development Director Ronald Whisenand replied the ambient noise level would not be increased as a result of'a facility. Deputy Director Whisenand suggested they look at some language to clarify this. Planner Mcllvaine stated that along Los Osos Valley Road, there are both C-S (Service- Commercial) and PF (Public Facility) zoned sites, which would allow for consideration of new cell sites. She noted the South Street Hills area site would be available, but would be held to a higher standard of development than in the past. Gordon Bell, Sprint PCS, stated he had met with a number of the carriers including Alpine, Cellular One, Sprint, and Verizon. He stated they were all in concurrence with the language in Exhibit A. He noted a concern that the language does not allow for the ability to place facilities on the South Street Hills outside the three-acre leasehold area because of the Land Use Element language. He stated they would be able to submit proposals on the South Street Hills that would meet the new development standards. Mr. Bell suggested adding in some language to #7 that states "at a specific site" so one location is being discussed. Commr.. Boswell asked if there are topography issues, and if the applicant had difficulty getting leases from the State. Mr. Bell replied that at the State level, the CDF Fire Station has denied any telecommunications leases on their property, but KEVC is allowing them a lease on their property. Commr. Cooper suggested a rewrite of the General Plan Text Amendment and asked if the word "feasible" could be substituted with the word "possible'. Mr. Bell replied there would be no problem with this. He felt staff presented good development standards that they could work with. Chairperson Peterson asked if there are other situations, besides at the top of a mountain, where a ground-mounted antenna would be used. Mr. Bell replied no. Draft Planning Commission Minutes December 19, 2001 AttaChment 8 Page 3 PUBLIC COMMENTS: Scott Shannon, Alpine PCS, 3220 South Higuera, commented that the changes to the Zoning Text are workable and that in San Luis Obispo City, each request must be approved individually and at that time, commissions can review all aspects of the request. Mike Spangler, property owner of South Street Hill, stated he would like the Commission to consider allowing cellular facilities in open space areas. He felt it is very easy to stealth antenna sites behind fiberglass rocks and berms. He presented photographs to the Commissioners. Commr: Aiken asked if the berming would reduce the amount of noise coming from the equipment and asked if there is some provision for controlling the noise of vehicles accessing these sites. Mr. Spangler replied no, but the temporary solution would be to move the gate on the road from Villa Fontana up the hill 100 to 200 yards. Commr. Aiken asked if the bermed sites would visually screen the equipment and asked if it would also reduce the sound emanating from the equipment. Mr. Spangler replied the view issue was less of a problem than the vehicles going through the gate. Commr. Boswell asked how the amendment would prohibit the modification of the South Street Hill site. Mr. Spangler replied there is nothing to prohibit modifications, but if a new carrier wanted access to the hill, they would need to embrace this type of viewshed protection and technology. He felt there are few carriers that have incentive to come off of the monopoles. Commr. Boswell asked if there should be a regulatory or fiscal incentive. Mr. Spangler replied they could establish a program. Deputy Director Whisenand clarified that Mr. Spangler had offered to work on a Master Plan, which is encouraging to staff. He stated the City would help facilitate the plan and get involved with the review it, but the property owner and the carriers must initiate it. Mary Whittlesey, SLO, commented that there are no incentives for someone that is up on South Street Hills to make improvements to the site. She suggested that the word "should" be turned into the word "shall", in Exhibits A & B. The public comment was closed. 3-�d Draft Planning Commission Minutes December 19, 2001 Attachment 8 Page 4 COMMISSION COMMENTS: Vice-Chair Loh suggested language regarding electronic magnetic exposure be added to Exhibit A, on page 4. Assistant City Attorney Gil Trujillo noted that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 specifically prohibits the City from delving into this area. He suggested they require that the applicant provide proof that they are in compliance with FCC regulations and permits. Planner Mcllvaine stated that the City has the right to ask for evidence of compliance with the FCC's standards for single sites and for multiple carrier sites, noting they could ask for a cumulative exposure report. Vice-Chair Loh moved to adopt a resolution finding that the General Plan Amendment is not necessary and recommend to the City Council approval of the Text Amendment to allow wireless telecommunication facilities in certain additional commercial zones only subiect to specific development standards. Seconded by Commr. Cooper. Commr. Cooper added some amendments to the resolution, that the word " should" will be changed to "shall" throughout and to change "if feasible" to "if possible" in the Text Amendments In addition add a clarification to Exhibit A, as to who is monitoring the equipment upgrades aesthetics and visibility, and add " The facility shall be creatively designed to minimize the visual impact" Modification to Exhibit A to clarify the 55 decibel level at the property line; and clarification as to whether or not this applies in certain locations where the ambient noise from freeways that exceeds this. Vice-Chair Loh accepted the amendments. Commr. Aiken asked what the normal allowed construction hours would be. Planner Mcllvaine replied 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Commr. Aiken asked why the hours should be more restricted with these somewhat remote sites. Deputy Director Whisenand replied this is an option and the Commission could leave the language as is or modify it to be consistent with the other construction regulations.. Commr. Aiken asked the motion maker and seconder to consider expanding these hours from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. during weekdays and to include Saturdays, as an amendment. The amendment was not accepted from the motion maker and the seconder. Commr. Boswell suggested an amendment be added that some flexibility should be left for accessing sites on the "should to shall" issue. He suggested at the end of #4 they strike "readily' and say "not apparent to the casual observer". Draft Planning Commission Minutes December 19, 2001 Page 5 Attachment 8 The motion maker and the seconder accepted this amendment. Commr. Cooper noted there was inconsistency on f-7 . equipment upgrades regarding 30 days and (g) which deals with abandonment that they be brought into consistency, and would like to have this as an amendment to the motion. Vice-Chair Loh as the motion maker agreed. Chairperson Peterson suggested they prohibit having antennas pole structure equipment or other parts of the telecommunication facilities that extend above the ridgeline. Commr. Cooper felt that in the photograph the rock cropping does protrude above the ridgeline, but felt it does conceal the Popsicle Antenna. Chairperson Peterson suggested an amendment be added that states "ground-mounted _antennas poles structures equipment or other parts of a telecommunications facility that extend above a ridgeline shall be discouraged Where facilities of this type are allowed they shall be designed to be indistinguishable from the natural surroundings." The motion maker and seconder agreed to the amendment. AYES: Commrs. Loh, Cooper, Caruso, Osborne, Aiken, Boswell, and Peterson NOES: None ABSENT: None The motion carried 7-0. Vice-Chair Loh asked if this would come back as an amortization item. Chairperson Peterson felt it would be a good idea to bring it back before the Commission to discuss ways to encourage the improvement of existing facilities. A motion was made by Commr. Peterson to have the amortization item come back to the Commission. AYES: Commrs. Loh, Cooper, Caruso, Osborne, Aiken, Boswell, and Peterson NOES: None ABSENT: None 2. 1144 Walnut Street. TR and ER 130-01; Request for a 17-unit condominium project with attached 2- and 3-bedroom units and site improvements, and environmental review; R-4 zone; JM Wilson Development Corp., applicant. Associate Planner Whitney Mcllvaine presented the staff report, recommending acceptance of the mitigated negative declaration and approval of the tentative map, based on findings and subject to conditions as noted in the staff report. 346 ��►►�►��ni►IIIIIIIIIillllln1°►"""� IIIIII ` " �— y . of sAn luts ONSPO INK 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 Attachment g INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM For ER 12-01 1. Project Title: General Plan Amendment and Zoning Text amendment to allow telecommunication facilities in all zoning districts 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Whitney McIlvaine (805) 781-7170 4. Project Location: Citywide 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Gordon Bell, Bell + Associates, 234 Reef Court, Santa Barbara. CA 93109, as representative for Sprint PCS 6. General Plan Designation: N/A 7. Zoning: N/A 8. Description of the Project: Request to allow wireless communication facilities in all zoning districts subject to siting criteria and development standards. A copy of the proposed amendment language is attached. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: Varies 10. Project Entitlements Requested: General Plan text amendment and "Zoning Ordinance text amendment. 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: Airport Land Use Commission OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. 3-69 Attachment 9 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. X Aesthetics Geology/Soils X Public Services Agricultural Resources X Hazards& Hazardous Recreation Materials X Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality X Transportation&Traffic X Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service Systems X Cultural Resources X Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance b S Energy and Mineral Population and Housing Resources FISH AND GAME FEES There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish X and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees. The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE The project requires review by one or more State agencies such as Cal Trans or the California Department of Fish and Game and is to be.sent to the State Clearinghouse for routing. Ali CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 3-21 Attachment 9 DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and X agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" impact(s) or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,. because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. % October 12, 2001 nature Date Ron.Whisenand, Deputy Community Development Director Community Development Director Printed Name for CITY OF SAN Lues Om$PO 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CNECKusT 2001 ,3- 7/ _ Attachment 9 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except 'No Impact' answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact' answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. The explanation of each issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made,an EIR is required. 4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D) of the California Administrators Code. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate,include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached,and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. In this case,a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are-available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. CRY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 4 INMAL STudy ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 3-7a Issues, Discussion and Support ,formation Sources Sources Pot \ Potentially L.essThan No Sil, ,nI Significant fcat}� lent ER # 12-01 Issues Mitigation r1 Telecom amendments Incorporated 1. AESTHETICS. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 13 X b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited X to, trees,rock outcroppings,open space, and historic buildings within a local or state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of X the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would X adverselyeffect da of nighttime views in the area? T I Increasing the potential number of sites in which an antenna and associated equipment could be located, increases the potential for adverse visual impacts. This is especially critical in and along scenic view corridors as identified in the City's Circulation Element. It is anticipated that mitigation will be necessary in all cases to ensure that an installation will have little or no adverse visual impact. Mitigation: Any general plan or zoning amendment for this project shall include provisions to ensure adequate review of wireless telecommunication installations and shall establish performance standards for avoiding adverse visual impacts. Each installation should be designed to completely blend into its surroundings so that the antenna(s) and equipment are not readily apparent. Proposed installations which do not meet this criteria should be denied. 2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of 4 X Statewide Importance(Familand),as shown on the maps pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a X Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to X their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? While some of the underlying soils within the city limits are capable of supporting farming and, therefore, capable of being designated as farmland, none of these sites is currently under cultivation. Wireless telecommunication facilities typically occupy a very small area relative to the area required for production agriculture, and so would not likely have a significant impact on a farming operation. Vehicles traveling to a facility in an open space area where grazing is permitted could pose a conflict with a grazing operation. See additional discussion under Land Use. Conclusion: Less than significant. 3. AIR QUALITY. Would theproject: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an 5 X existing or projected air quality violation? b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air X quality plan? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of X people? e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria X pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative "IM�/ CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 3 -7- Issues, Discussion and Supportformation Sources Sources Pa Potentially Less Than No Sit .at Significant Significant Impact ER # 12 Ol Issues Unless Impact D Mitigation Telecom amendments Incorporated 3 thresholds for ozoneprecursors)? (D Some wireless installations will install a generator as a back up power source. With few exceptions, generator installation requires a permit from the Air Pollution Control District. To ensure that projects comply with Air Pollution Control District standards, the following mitigation is recommended: Mitigation: The City shall require information regarding use of generators as part of an application checklist for telecommunication projects. Any amendment to the zoning regulations for this project shall establish development standards for telecommunication ro ects to ensure compliance with Air Pollution Control District requirements. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or indirectly or 1,4 X through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect,on any riparian habitat or X other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting X biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance(e.g.Heritage Trees)? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident X or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation X Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? f) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected X wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including,but not limited to,marshes,vernal pools,etc.) through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or other means? By increasing the potential sites for wireless telecommunication facilities, the potential for impacts on biological resources may also increase. Each site will be subject to an environmental determination under the California Environmental Quality Act,and will be evaluated on a case by case basis for potential impacts to biological and botanical resources. Mitigation: Any amendment to the zoning regulations for this project shall include performance standards to ensure there will be no adverse impact on biological and botanical resources. 5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 6 X historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an X archeological resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource X CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 &,7y Issues, Discussion and Support [formation Sources Sources Po• Potentially Less Than No D Sit .n( Significant Significant Impact ER # 12 01 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation 0 Telecom amendments Incorporated CD or site or unique geologic feature? '* d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of X tD formal cemeteries? The proposed amendments will increase the likelihood of potential impacts to cultural and historic resources. Of particular concern would be the location of new facilities on historic structures, many of which are located in the C-C and C-R zones. For instance, several carriers have expressed an interest in establishing facilities on the Anderson Hotel building at the corner of Morro and Monterey Streets. Each proposed site will be subject to further environmental review. Mitigation: Where a project may affect a historic resource, the City shall require a cultural resources survey consistent with adopted City guidelines for historical and archaeological preservation as part of an application. Any general plan or zoning amendment for this project shall include provisions to ensure that telecommunication installations will not have an adverse impact on cultural resources, and to ensure that any alteration to historic structures will be consistent with the Secretary of Interior standards. Proposed installations for which this finding cannot be made should be denied. 6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 1 X b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient X manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource X that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? Conclusion: Less than significant. Discussions with carriers and their engineers indicate that energy usage at most cell sites is not significant. 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would theproject: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse X effects,including risk of loss,injury or death involving: I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated in the X most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area,or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? II. Strong seismic ground shaking? X Ill. Seismic related ground-failure,including liquefaction? X IV. Landslides or mudflows? X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that X would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on or off site landslides,lateral spreading,subsidence, liquefaction,or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the X Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life or property? FT All installations will require a building permit and will be subject to compliance with adopted grading and construction standards. Each proposed site will be evaluated for potential geologic impacts on a case by case basis. In some cases, a soils and/or geotechnical engineering report may be required. Compliance with building code standards and recommendations in any required structural, soils, or geotechnical reports should ensure no significant adverse impacts related to geology and soils. No further mitgation is recommended. Conclusion: Less than significant. �� CITY of SAN Luis Oetsao 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 Issues, Discussion and Support formation Sources Sources Pc i Potentially t.rss Than No Si .nt Significant Significant Impact ER # 72-01 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Telecom amendments Incorporated 0 3 CID 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the pro'ect: M a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment I X though the routine use,transport or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment X through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely X hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Expose people or structures to existing sources of hazardous X emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances,or waste? e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous X materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result,it would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? f) Fora project located within an airport land use plan,or within X two miles of a public airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for the people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of,or physically interfere with,the X adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose,injury, X or death,involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are intermixed with wildlands? Potentially hazardous conditions associated with wireless telecommunications facilities include interference with emergency broadcasting or airport operations, radio frequency radiation,and disposal of batteries. Emergency Interference Mitigation: The general plan and zoning amendment shall include provisions to ensure against interference with municipal radio operations and emergency broadcasting. Airport Operations Conclusion: Less than significant. All applications for projects within the County Airport Land Use boundary are subject to review and approval by the Airport Land Use Commission,consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan. This procedure should ensure against interference with airport operations. Radio Frequency Exposure The Federal Communications Commissions has set standards for maximum levels of radio frequency exposure. The City will continue to require radio frequency exposure reports for all installations and to condition projects to meet FCC standards. Local jurisdictions are prohibited by law from requiring exposure standards which are more stringent than those established by the FCC. A sample radio frequency exposure report is attached for further information. CITY OF SAN Luis OwspO 8 1NrnAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 3—Z Issues, Discussion and Support; iformation Sources Sources Pots i Potentially Less Than No D Sit at Significant Significant Impact Is,__s Unless Impact ER # 12-01 Mitigation In Telecom amendments Incorporated 3 CD Mitigation: .�•r Explanatory warning signs shall be posted at all access points to cellular telecommunication facilities in compliance with the W American National Standards Institute(ANSI)C95.2 color, symbol,and content conventions. Any zoning text amendment for this project shall include performance standards requiring cellular telecommunications facilities to meet FFC standards for maximum radio frequency and electromagnetic exposure at all times while in operation. Batteries Typically wireless telecommunication facilities use batteries as a way to evenly meter power to equipment and to ensure continued operation in the event of a power outage. Batteries are considered "hazardous waste" due to their lead and sulfuric acid content. Most recyclers will collect batteries and send them to another facility for the actual component recycling. The lead is melted down and reused. The sulfuric acid is either disposed of properly as "hazardous waste" or it may by treated for reuse. Conclusion: Less than significant. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the ro'ect: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere X substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(cg.The production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the X capacity of existing or planned storm-water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite? e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X area in a manner which would result in substantial flooding onsite or offsite? f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on X a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which X would impede or redirect flood flows? h) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? I I X This category typically would not apply to wireless facilities since they generally would not include plumbing and are usually not large enough to significantly alter a drainage pattern. Furthermore, cell sites are not usually located in low lying areas where flooding may be a concern. As part of the building permit review process, all installations will be evaluated for potential flooding concerns based on their flood zone location. Standard construction practices consistent with the City's Flood Dantage Prevention Guidelines should ensure that such installations will have little or no impact on hydrology and water quality. Conclusion: Less than significant. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 3-27 Issues, Discussion and Suppor' iformation Sources Sources Pc 9 Potentially Less Than No D Si .nt Significant Significant Impact .> ER # 12-01 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation 0 Telecom amendments Incorporated ? 3 (D 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING- Would theproject: F"► a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of 1 X 0 an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? b) Physically divide an established community? X c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural X community conservationplans? Open Space The Land Use and Open Space Elements contain policies for protecting open space lands and limiting both commercial and residential development in areas designated for open space. Currently, telecommunication facilities are allowed in only one area designated Open Space—a 3-acre leasehold on top of South Street Hills. Because of the difficulty of mitigating impacts on visual and botanical resources as well as conflicts related to access and grazing operations in this location, staff is not recommending that additional areas in Open Space lands be come available for telecommunication sites. In reviewing the proposed amendments, the Planning Commission and City Council could revisit and modify the Land Use Element policies specifically related to the South Street Hills site to better ensure against significant impacts. The applicant's processing of the amendments to the general plan and the zoning ordinance is the appropriate way to request that wireless telecommunication facilities be allowed in additional areas subject to consistency with policies related to environmental protection as well as land use compatibility. The Planning Commission and City Council will review proposed amendments for consistency with general plan policies related to environmental protection. The Commission and Council may determine that only a zoning text amendment is appropriate if there is not support for enabling wireless facilities in residential and other open space areas. No further mitigation is recommended. Conclusion: Less than significant. 11.NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of people to or generation of"unacceptable"noise X levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise Element,or general noise levels in excess of standards established in the Noise Ordinance? b) A substantial temporary,periodic,or permanent increase in X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne X vibration or groundbome noise levels? d) Fora project located within an airport land use plan,or within X two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Noise associated with wireless facilities would be related to construction, generator use, and mechanical equipment needed for cooling. Noise related to these aspects of any installation will be evaluated for compliance with the City's Noise Element and the Municipal noise ordinance. Approval will be subject to compliance. To ensure compliance, the following mitigation is recommended: Mitigation: Any zoning amendment for this project shall include performance standards to ensure compliance with the City's noise ordinance and Noise Element. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include decibel information for any proposed generators and mechanical cooling equipment. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject: i� CITY of SAN LUIS OBISPO 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 3--29 Issues, Discussion and Support formation Sources Sources Pot, ` • Potentially Less Than No D Sil M Significant Significant Impact > ER # 12 O1 Is.,.cs Unless ImpactSD Mitigation 0 Telecom amendments incorporated =r 3 CD a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly X .=3. (for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Not applicable. 13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision,or need,of new or physically altered government facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times,or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? X b) Police protection? X c) Schools? X d) Parks? X e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? X f) Other public facilities? X Unmanned wireless telecommunication facilities would not typically increase the need for services. To ensure that these facilities do not interfere with park operations or limit public use of park facilities,the following mitigation is recommended: Mitigation: Any zoning text amendment for this project shall include performance standards to ensure that wireless telecommunication facilities within public parks do not interfere with park operations or limit public use of park facilities. 14.RECREATION. Would theproject: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or X other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or X expansion of recreational facilities,which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? See discussion above in Section 13. 15. TRANSPORTATIONfrRAFFIC. Would theproject: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the 1 X existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service X standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads and highways? c) Substantially increase hazards due to design features(e.g.sharp X curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g. farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative X transportation(e.g.bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? g) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land X Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards, noise, or a chane in air traffic atterns? Conclusion: Potentially significant. Antennas could interfere with air traffic by posing obstacles to flight paths and by radio �r CITY OF SAN LUIS CBISPO 11 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 3 -�5 Issues, Discussion and Suppor+' iformation Sources Sources Pot- y Potentially Less Than No D Si .nt Significant Significant Impact , Ia....as Unless hnpact ER # 12-01 Mitigation 0 Telecom amendments Incorporated 3 (D interference. See recommended mitigation under the topic of Hazards above. 'rt (O 16.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the ro'ect: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable X Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water X treatment,wasterwater treatment,or storm drainage facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project X from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and expanded water resources needed? d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider X which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand and addition to the provider's existing commitment? e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to X accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? f) Comply with federal, state,and local statutes and regulations X related to solid waste? Most unmanned telecommunication facilities use batteries which are periodically recycled. Facilities would not typically create a significant amount of solid waste. Conclusion: Less than significant. 17.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the X environment,substantially reduce the habitat of 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? Without mitigation recommended for all environmental factors checked in the table on page 2 of this initial study, the project could have the potential to degrade the environment. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but X cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable futureprojects) In the case of unmanned wireless telecommunication facilities, the most significant potential cumulative impact is visual. Mitigation is recommended to reduce that cumulative impact to a less than si nificant level. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause X substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? The Federal Communications Commission has established standards for maximum allowable radio frequency electromagnetic field exposure. CITY OF SAN Luis 0sispo 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 3-8'Z ER # 12-01 Telecom amendments > J 18. EARLIER ANALYSES.Not Applicable 0 Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have 3 been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion. cD should identify the following items: .�. a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. N/A b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. N/A c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions of the project. N/A 19. SOURCE REFERENCES I. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan 2. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Ordinance 3. ARC Guidelines 4. Information Map Atlas 5. 1998 Clean Air Plan,SLO APCD 6. City of San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines Attachments: Proposed general plan and zoning text amendment Circulation Element Scenic Roadways Map Sample EMF exposure report CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 -g/ ER # 12-01 Telecom amendments D SU n REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAMS ::r 3 CD Aesthetics V-+ co Any general plan or zoning amendment for this project shall include provisions to ensure adequate review of telecommunication installations and shall establish performance standards for avoiding adverse visual impacts. Each installation should be designed to completely blend into its surroundings so that the antenna(s) and equipment are not readily apparent. Proposed installations which do not meet this criteria should be denied. Air Quality The City shall require information regarding use of generators as part of an application checklist for telecommunication projects. Any amendment to the zoning regulations for this project shall establish development standards for telecommunication projects to ensure compliance with Air Pollution Control District requirements. Biological Resources Any amendment to the zoning regulations for this project shall include performance standards to ensure there will be no adverse impact on biological and botanical resources. Cultural Resources Where a project may affect a historic resource, the City shall require a cultural resources survey consistent with adopted City guidelines for historical and archaeological preservation as part of an application. Any general plan or zoning amendment for this project shall include provisions to ensure that telecommunications installations will not have an adverse impact on cultural resources, and to ensure that any alteration to historic structures will be consistent with the Secretary of Interior standards. Proposed installations for which this finding cannot be made should be denied. Hazards The general plan and zoning amendment shall include provisions to ensure against interference with municipal radio operations and emergency broadcasting. Any zoning text amendment for this project shall include performance standards requiring that explanatory warning signs be posted at all access points to cellular telecommunication facilities in compliance with the American national Standards Institute (ANSI) C95.2 color, symbol, and content conventions. CIT'OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 14 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 <3-ga ER # 12-01 Telecom amendments Any zoning text amendment for this projectshall include performance standards requiring cellular n telecommunications facilities to meet FFC standards for maximum radio frequency and electromagnetic =r exposure at all times while in operation. 3 CD Noise CD The City shall require information regarding use of generators as part of an application checklist for telecommunication projects. Any amendment to the zoning regulations for this project shall establish development standards for telecommunication projects to ensure compliance with Air Pollution Control District requirements. Public Services Any zoning text amendment for this project shall include performance standards to ensure that unmanned telecommunication facilities within public parks do not interfere with park operations or limit public use of park facilities. Monitoring Program: Planning Commission and City Council review, and preparation of application checklist by Community Development Department staff mai CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 15 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKusT.2001 3-S� \45 Attachment 9 I I ' 12 39 L `\0\e321 18 -- 2 J I J I 41 I � ' 48 i 25, ' \ NO SCALE r 50 _ ti \. I 2 �*-eD 32 r-- 135 . ' 42 49 30 = L- J 3839 / o ' o • �41 o / :, X44 29 SO�� 40 X5ol 54 �� Ns0•s•• • ` /• 55 Tank Fa,m Road \ ' / 1 I i 52 53 41 I SwCkI.1 FaaO � 40 42 APPENDIX B: SCENIC ROADWAYS MAP �� O� VISTA ..I ROADS OF HIGH OR MOO ERA ATE SCENIC VLUt A- 000000• OUTSISan LUIS OBISPO 22-42 •• o ROADS DOF MODEnATTHE SAN IE SCENICUIS VALUE VALUETM L1MI " °ARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Palm SL/ P.O. Boa 371.San Luis Ooiaoo. CA 97406 43-6' NEWS ROADS OF HIGH SCENIC VALUE S) 541.1000 - 3-��i Edge Wi ss • Proposed Collocation Site CA-547-A) South Street Hill A77 South Higuera Street • Sai As Obispo, California Attachment 9 Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers The firm of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, has been retained on behalf of Edge Wireless, a personal wireless telecommunications carrier, to evaluate the proposed collocated facilities at South Street Hill, 2877 South Higuera Street, in San Luis Obispo, California (Edge Site No. CA-547-A), for compliance with appropriate guidelines limiting human exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields. ��' Prevailing Exposure Standards The U.S. Congress requires that the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") evaluate its actions for possible significant impact on the environment. In Docket 93-62, effective October 15, 1997, the FCC adopted the human exposure limits for field strength and power density recommended in Report No. 86, `Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields," published in 1986 by the Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements ("NCRP"). A summary of the exposure limits contained in NCRP-86 is shown in Figure 1. Separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions, with the latter limits generally five times more restrictive. The more recent Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ("IEEE") Standard C95.1-1999, "Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz," includes nearly identical exposure limits. These limits apply for continuous exposures and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. The most restrictive thresholds for exposures of unlimited duration to radio frequency ("RF") energy for several personal wireless services are as follows: Wireless Telecommunications Service Annrox Frequency Occupational Limit Public Limit Personal Communication ("PCS") 1,950 MHz 5.00 mW/cm2 1.00 mW/cm2 Paging Services 900 3.00 0.60 Cellular Telephone 870 2.90 0.58 Specialized Mobile Radio 855 2.85 0.57 [most restrictive frequency range] 30-300 1.00 0.20 General Facility Requirements Base stations typically consist of two distinct parts: the electronic transceivers (also called "radios" or "cabinets") that are connected to the traditional wired telephone lines, and the passive antennas that send the wireless signals created by the radios out to be received by individual subscriber units. The transceivers are often located at ground level and are connected to the antennas by coaxial cables about 1 inch thick. Because of the short wavelength of the KEHAMM=&EDISON,INC. 010629-547A CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 1 of 4 SAN FRANCBCO 3-e,' Edge W ss • Proposed Collocation Sites CA-547-A) South Street Hill - 2877 South Higuera Street • Sc -uis Obispo, California Attachment 9 frequencies assigned by the FCC for wireless services, the antennas require line-of-sight paths for their signals to propagate well and so are installed at some height above ground. The antennas are designed to concentrate their energy toward the horizon, with very little energy wasted toward the sky or the ground. Along with the low power of such facilities, this means that it is generally not possible for exposure conditions to approach the maximum permissible exposure limits without being physically very near the antennas. Site and Facility Description The site was visited by the undersigned engineer on July 10, 2001. The site is on a hilltop and is accessed via an access road at the end of Calle Jazmin in San Luis Obispo. The access road is gated and locked at the bottom. Existing at the site are transmitting facilities for AM Station KKJL, 1400 kHz, San Luis Obispo, AT&T Fixed, CellularOne, Cingular Wireless, Nextel Communications, Verizon Wireless, and various local, state, federal, and private entities. The existing facilities are divided among four discrete zones: AM Station KKJL is located about 250 feet west of the other facilities; while the base of its guyed tower is surrounded by a 6-foot fence, no warning signs have been posted. Most of the "government" facilities have transmitting antennas located on or adjacent to buildings inside a 7-foot fenced compound; RF exposure warning signs are posted on the fence. Just outside the fenced "government" compound, the U.S. Geological Survey has installed a transmitting antenna associated with a seismograph sensor. Two 6-foot poles support the transmitting antennas for the various cellular, PCS, and SMR carriers. The specific technical details of these existing facilities are not known. Based upon information provided by Edge Wireless, including drawings by Omni Design Group, Inc., dated May 15, 2001, Edge proposes to mount three EMS Model RR6519-00 directional panel antennas at the 25-foot level on the existing 60-foot pole used by Cingular, AT&T Fixed, and Nextel. The antennas would be arranged at 1200 spacing, to provide service in all directions, and the maximum effective radiated power in any direction would be 7,500 watts, representing 15 channels operating simultaneously at 500 watts each. Measurement Results The measurement equipment used was a Wandel & Goltermann Model EMR-300 Radiation Meter (Serial No. P-0008) with a Type 8 Isotropic Electric Field Probe (Serial No. P-0036). Both meter and probe were under current calibration by the manufacturer. The maximum ambient RF power density anywhere at ground level due to the simultaneous operation of the existing RF sources was found to exceed the applicable public limit only near the U.S.G.S. transmitting antenna, which is installed 7 feet above ground, but can be touched while HEHAMMETT&EDISON,INC. 010629-547A CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 2 of 4 MAN ANCISCO 3—g� Edge V ss • Proposed Collocation Sity . , :). CA-547-.A)- South Street Hill 1877 South Higuera Street • So. .uis Obispd California Attachment 9 standing on the ground. Except for that location, the highest exposure level measured was at the fence surrounding the KKJL tower base, which approached 9% of the applicable public limit. Computer Modeling Method The FCC provides direction for determining compliance in its Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65, "Evaluating Compliance with FCC-Specified Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Radiation," dated August 1997. Figure 2 attached describes the calculation methodologies, reflecting the facts that a directional antenna's radiation pattern is not fully formed at locations very close by (the "near-field" effect) and that the power level from an energy source decreases with the square of the distance from it (the "inverse square law"). The conservative nature of this method for evaluating expected exposure conditions has been verified by numerous field tests. Computer Study Results The highest calculated power density at any ground-level location due to the Edge operation by itself is 6.2% of the applicable public limit. Except near the U.S.G.S. antenna, the highest measured power density was less than 9% of the public limit, so the additive power density, considering all facilities at the site, would be less than 15.2% of the public limit. Due to the physical separation of the Edge antennas from those of the other carriers, and due to the antenna directivities employed, the additive effect of the proposed Edge operation on those of the other carriers, and vice versa, is negligible. Recommended Mitigation Measures Due to their mounting location at 25 feet above ground, the proposed Edge antennas are not accessible to the general public, so no mitigation measures are necessary to comply with the FCC public exposure guidelines. To prevent occupational exposures in excess of the FCC guidelines, no access within 7 feet in front of the Edge antennas themselves should be allowed while the site is in operation, unless other measures can be demonstrated to ensure that occupational protection requirements are met. The existing U.S.G.S. transmitting facility does not comply with FCC guidelines limiting human exposure to RF energy. The site is publicly accessible, there are no warning signs posted, and areas exceeding the maximum permissible limits are not identified. The following recommendations are made to bring the existing operations into compliance and to ensure that the proposed operations will be in compliance. It .is noted that Edge Wireless cannot relocate antennas belonging to other entities or post warning signs on behalf of others. HEHAMMI=&EDISON,INC. 010629-547A CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 3 of 4 SAN txnNasco 3 -S Edge W' ss • Proposed Collocation Sit, o. CA-547-A) South Street Hill 1877 South Higuera Street • SG.___uis Obispo, California 1. The U.S.G.S. transmitting antenna should be relocated so that access is not possible from the ground. Relocation might involve raising the antenna by' of least 2 "feet or moving it inside the fenced compound. Attachment 9 2. Explanatory warning signs" should be-posted on all gates controlling access to the site, . including that at the end of Calle Jazmin. 3. Warning signs should also be posted at the bases of the two poles, and on the fence surrounding the base of KKJL tower. Taken together, these measures would be sufficient to meet FCC-adopted guidelines. Conclusion Based on the information and analysis above, it is the undersigned's professional opinion that the existing and proposed telecommunications facilities at South Street Hill, 2877 South Higuera Street in San Luis Obispo, California, can comply with the prevailing standards for limiting human exposure to radio frequency energy and, therefore, need not for this reason cause a significant impact on the environment. Authorship The undersigned author of this statement is a qualified Professional Engineer, holding California Registration No. E-12627, which expires on September 30, 2003. This work has been carried out by him or under his direction, and all statements are true and correct of his own knowledge except, where noted, when data has been supplied by others, which data he believes to be correct. pppFESS/0r D W 2 Robert D. Weller, P.E. August 3, 2001 s No. E-12627 Exp. 9-3 J'p �ECTfR�CP\.��P 9� OFC Warning signs should comply with ANSI C95.2 color, symbol, and content conventions. In addition, contact information should be provided (e.g., a telephone number) to arrange for access to restricted areas. The selection of language(s) is not an engineering matter, and guidance from the landlord, local zoning or health authority, or appropriate professionals may be required. HEHAMM=&EDISON,INC. 010629-547A CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 4 of 4 SAN FRANCISCO 3-8g Nation, )uncil on Radiation Protection Measurements Report No. 86 (Published 1986) "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria Attachment 9 for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields" Radio Frequency Protection Guide Frequency Electromagnetic Fields Contact Currents Applicable Electric Magnetic Equivalent Far-Field (mA) Range Field Strength Field Strength Power Density (MHz) (V/m) (Alm) (mW/cm2) 0.3– 1.34 614 614 1.63 1.63 . 100 100 200 1.34- 3.0 614 823.8/f 1.63 2.19/f 100 180/8 200 3.0-30 1842/f 823.8/f 4.89/f 2.19/f 900/f'- 1801P 200 30–300 61.4 27.5 0.163 0.0729 1.0 0.2 no limit 300– 1,500 3.54JT 1.59,9- ✓i7106 g7238 f/300 f/1500 no limit 1,500– 100,000 137 61.4 0.364 0.163 5.0 1.0 no limit Note: f is frequency of emission, in MHz. Occupational Exposure Public Exposure — — — 1000 Power 100 Density 10 \ (mW/cm 2) \ 0.1 Contact 1000 Current (mA) , 100 - 0.1 1 10 100 103 104 105 Frequency (MHz) HEHAMMETT& EDISON,INC. NCRP-86 Standard CONSULTING ENGINEERS Figure I SAN FRANCISCO 3 -� 9 RCALCTM Calculation Meth,��'� 3gy Assessment by Calculation Attachment 9 of Compliance with Human Exposure Limitations The U.S. Congress requires that the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") evaluate its actions for possible significant impact on the environment. In Docket 93-62, effective October 15, 1997, the FCC adopted the human exposure limits for field strength and power density recommended in Report No. 86, "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields," published in 1986 by the Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements ("NCRP"). Separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions, with the latter limits generally five times more restrictive. The more recent Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ("IEEE") Standard C95.1-1999, "Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz," includes nearly identical exposure limits. These limits apply for continuous exposures from all sources and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. Higher levels are allowed for short periods of time, such that total exposure levels averaged over six or thirty minutes, for occupational or public settings, respectively, do not exceed the limits. Near Field. Prediction methods have been developed for the near field zone of panel (directional) and whip (omnidirectional) antennas, typical at wireless telecommunications cell sites. The near field zone is the distance from an antenna before which the manufacturer's published, far field antenna patterns have formed; the near field is assumed to be in effect for increasing D until three conditions have been met: 1) D > 2h2 2) D > 5h 3) D > 1.6;. where h = aperture height of the antenna, in meters, and X = wavelength of the transmitted signal, in meters. OET-65 gives this formula for calculating power density in the near field zone about an individual RF source: 180 0.1 x Pnet power density S = e13W X x D x h ' to mW/cm2, where 6BW = half-power beamwidth of antenna, in degrees, and Pnet = net power input to the antenna, in watts. The factor of 0.1 in the numerator converts to the desired units of power density. This formula has been built into a proprietary program that calculates the distances to the FCC public and occupational limits. Far Field. The FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 (August 1997) gives this formula for calculating power density in the far field of an individual RF source: 2:56 x 1.64 x 100 x RFF2 x ERP power density S = 4 x n x D2 to mW/cm2, where ERP = total ERP (all polarizations), in kilowatts, RFF = relative field factor at the direction to the actual point of calculation, and D = distance from the center of radiation to the point of calculation, in meters. The factor of 2.56 accounts for the increase in power density due to ground reflection, assuming a reflection coefficient of 1.6 (1.6 x 1.6 = 2.56). The factor of 1.64 is the gain of a half-wave dipole relative to an isotropic radiator. The factor of 100 in the numerator converts to the desired units of power density. This formula has been built into a proprietary program that calculates, at each location on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total expected power density from any number of individual radiation sources.. The program also allows for the description of uneven terrain at the site, to obtain more accurate projections. HEHAMMETT&EDISON,INC. Methodology CONSULTING ENGINEERS Figure 2 SAN FRANCLKO 3 -7 Attachment 10 ORDINANCE NO. ...... (2002 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO EXPAND THE ZONES IN WHICH WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES MAY LOCATE SUBJECT TO CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (GPA/R/ER 12-01) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted public hearings in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on October 24, and December 19, 2001, for the purpose of considering Application GPA/TA/ER 12-01, a proposed general plan amendment and zoning text amendment to enable wireless telecommunication facilities to locate in all zoning districts; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing on March 5, 2002 to consider amendments to the zoning ordinance to enable wireless telecommunication facilities to locate in the Central-Commercial, Retail-Commercial, Tourist-Commercial, and Office zones, and establish site development criteria for such facilities in all zones where they are conditionally allowed. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council have considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearings. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following findings: 1. A general plan amendment is not necessary since the amendment will not enable telecommunication facilities to locate in residential zones or any other areas of the Open Space zone beyond the South Street Hills site. General plan policies in the Land Use, Open Space, and Circulation Elements related to hillside development, preservation of scenic corridors, and protection of residential neighborhoods all contain statements that do not support enabling wireless cell sites in these areas. 2. Environmental determination. An environmental initial study was prepared for the proposed amendments as described in the application file GPA/TA/ER. The City Council finds and determines that the project's mitigated Negative Declaration (ER 12-01) adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project, and hereby adopts said mitigated Negative Declaration and incorporates the mitigation measures and monitoring program as outlined in Exhibit B, into the project. Section 2. Amendment. The zoning ordinance is amended as outlined in Exhibit A, to conditionally allow wireless telecommunication facilities to locate in the C-R, C-C, C-T, and O zones, in addition to zones where such facilities are already conditionally allowed, and to establish certain site development standards. 3-91 Ordinance No. (2002 Senta) _ GPA/TA/ER 12-01 Attachment 1 Page 2 SECTION 3. Summary. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in The Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage. INTRODUCED on the 5t' day of March, 2002, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the day of , 2002, on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Allen K. Settle,Mayor ATTEST: Lee Price, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: �JWWG.Aige ,en, ty Attorney 3-9a Ordinance No. (2002 J,tes) GPAPage 3 3 /ER 12-01 Page Attachment 10 EXHIBIT A zoning text amendment to allow telecommunication facilities in additional commercial zones GPA/TA/ER 12-01 Table 9-Uses R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 AG C/OS 0" PF C-N C-C C-R C-T C-S M Allowed by Zone EXISTING: PC PC20 PC D D Antennas (municipal, commercial,and public utility broadcasting and wireless telecommunications) PROPOSED: PC10 PC20 pC2 PC20 pe PCm PCZ0 .D20 D1 0 Antennas (municipal, commercial,and public utility broadcasting and wireless telecommunications) Footnote 20 — Allowed subject to compliance with development standards stipulated in Section 17.16.120. In Open Space and Agriculture zones, allowed if also consistent with Land Use Element Policy 6.1.2 and 6.2.2 and Open Space and Circulation Element policies regarding resource protection of hills and mountains and scenic resources. In order to approve a use permit for wireless telecommunication facilities in the Office zone, the hearing body must find that the project site is in a predominantly non-residential area. Section 17.16.120 Wireless telecommunication facilities. A. Purpose. To establish standards for the development, siting and installation of wireless telecommunications facilities; to protect and promote public health, safety, and welfare; and to preserve view corridors and avoiding adverse visual and environmental impacts. These standards are not intended to be all-inclusive. Projects may be subject to additional standards deemed appropriate through architectural review and use permit processing to address site- specific conditions. 3 �9 Ordinance No. (2002 S...,es) GPA/TA/ER 12-01 Page 4 Attachment 10 B. Definitions. 1. Wireless telecommunications facilities consist of commercial wireless communications systems, including but not limited to: cellular, PCS, paging, broadband, data transfer, and any other type of technology that fosters wireless communication through the use of portable electronic devices. A facility includes all supporting structures and associated equipment. 2. Co-location is the practice of two or more wireless telecommunication service providers sharing one support structure or building for the location of their antennas and equipment. 3. Stealthing means improvements or treatments added to a wireless telecommunications facility which mask or blend the proposed facility into the existing structure or visual backdrop in such a manner as to render it effectively unnoticeable to the casual observer. C. Exempt facilities. The following wireless telecommunication facilities are exempt from the requirements of this section: 1. Government-owned communications facilities used primarily to protect public health, welfare, and safety. 2. Facilities operated by providers of emergency medical services, including hospital, ambulance, and medical air transportation services, for use in the provision of those services. 3. Satellite dish antennas for residential and commercial use, solely for the use of the occupants of the site, subject to compliance with development standards set forth in Section 17.16.100 et al of the zoning ordinance. 4. Any facility specifically exempted under federal or state law. D. Applications and approvals required. Installation of a new wireless telecommunication or modification of an existing installation shall require use permit approval and architectural review. The applicant shall submit application materials and fees as required by the Community Development Department. E. Building permit required. Wireless communications facilities shall not be constructed, installed or modified prior to obtaining a City building permit. F. Site development and performance standards. 1. Setbacks. All facility towers and accessory structures shall comply with the setback requirements of the applicable zoning district. 1 I Ordinance No. (200215.-.,es) GPA/TA/ER 12-01 Attachment 10 Page 5 2. Height. The height of any antenna or support equipment shall be determined as part of the use permit on a case by case basis. All facilities shall be designed to the minimum necessary functional height. 3. Site Access. Telecommunication facilities should use existing roads and parking whenever possible. New and existing access roads and parking shall be improved and surfaced where necessary to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 4. Aesthetics and Visibility. Facilities shall be creatively designed to minimize the visual impact to the greatest extent possible by means of placement, screening and camouflage. The applicant shall use the smallest and least visible antennas possible to accomplish the coverage objectives. Each installation shall be designed to blend into its surroundings so that the antenna(s) and equipment are not apparent to the casual observer. a. Building mounted facilities shall appear as an integral part of the structure. Equipment and antennas shall be compatible and in scale with existing architectural elements, building materials and site characteristics. Wall mounted antennas shall be integrated architecturally with the style and character of the structure. If possible, antennas and equipment shall be located entirely within an existing or newly created architectural feature so as to be effectively unnoticeable. b. Ground mounted support equipment shall be undergrounded or otherwise screened from view so as to be effectively unnoticeable. c. All connections and conduits between the base of the antenna(s) and support equipment shall be undergrounded. Connections and conduit above ground shall be fully enclosed to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Electrical and telephone service to the support equipment shall be undergrounded. d. Ground mounted antennas, poles, structures, equipment, or other parts of a telecommunications facility which would extend above a ridgeline so as to silhouette against the sky shall be discouraged. Where allowed, they shall be designed to be indistinguishable from the natural surroundings. 5. Lighting. All telecommunication facilities, not otherwise required to have lighting pursuant to Federal Aviation Administration rules, shall be unlit, except when authorized personnel are actually present at night, and except for exempt facilities. 6. Historic Buildings. Any wireless facility located on or adjacent to a historic building or site shall be designed to ensure consistency with the Secretary of Interior standards for remodeling and rehabilitation. 7. Equipment Upgrades. It shall be the responsibility of the owner/operator of a telecommunications facility to provide the City with a notice of intent to modify site equipment in any way. At the time of modification, co-location, or upgrade of facilities, existing equipment shall be replaced with equipment of equal or greater technical capacity and modified to reduce aesthetic impacts by reducing the size of the facility or introducing camouflaging techniques to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Unused or obsolete equipment or towers shall be removed from the site within 90 days after their use has ceased. 3�9� Ordinance No. (20021S`..els) _ Attachment 10 GPA/TA/ER 12-01 Page 6 8. Number of facilities per site. The City shall retain the authority to limit the number of antennas with related equipment and providers to be located at any site and adjacent sites in order to prevent negative visual impacts associated with multiple facilities. 9. Noise. Each facility shall be operated in a manner that minimizes any possible disruption caused by noise to people working and living in the vicinity. At no time shall equipment noise from any source exceed an exterior noise level of 55 dB at the property line or within 20 feet of such equipment, whichever is less. This requirement may be modified at the discretion of the Community Development Director where typical ambient noise levels exceed 55 dB. Outdoor noise producing construction activities shall take place only on weekdays between the hours of 8:00 am and 5:00 pm unless a different schedule is approved as part of the use permit. 10. Backup Generators. Any facility utilizing temporary backup generators shall be required to meet or exceed Air Pollution Control District Standards. All generators shall be fitted with approved air pollution control devices. Projects that propose to include backup generators shall require review and approval from the Air Pollution Control district. Project plans shall indicate location, size, horsepower, and type of fuel used for any proposed generator. Generators shall only be operated during power outages and for testing and maintenance purposes. Testing and maintenance shall only take place on weekdays between the hours of 8:00 am and 5:00 pm. 11. Biological Impacts. Wireless telecommunication facility shall minimize potential impacts to biological resources to the greatest extent possible. 12. Radio Interference. Interference with municipal radio communication is prohibited. Any telecommunication facility that the City has reason to believe is interfering with municipal radio communication shall cease operation immediately upon notice from the City, and shall be subject to use permit review and possible revocation. Testing shall be done prior to any permanent installation and frequencies shall be monitored at regular intervals after installation established by the use permit, at the expense of the facility owner/operator. 13. Airport Operations. Wireless communications facilities shall not be sited in locations where they will interfere with the operation of the San Luis Obispo Airport. Wireless towers and related facilities within the Airport Planning Area shall be referred to the Airport Manager or the Airport Land Use Commission for a determination of consistency with airport area standards. 14. Radio Frequency and Electromagnetic Exposure. a. Wireless telecommunications facilities operating alone or in conjunction with other telecommunications facilities shall not produce radio frequency radiation in excess of the standards for permissible human exposure as adopted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Applications for facilities shall include a radio frequency radiation (RFR) report that measures the predicted levels of RF radiation emitted by the proposed facility. The radio frequency radiation report shall compare proposed project levels to levels allowed by the FCC and shall show output of the proposed facility in combination with other facilities located or proposed in the vicinity. Ordinance No. (2002�_'es) GPA/TA/ER 12-01 Attachment 10 Page 7 b. The City may require one or more post-construction RFR reports as a condition of project approval, to verify that the actual levels of RFR emitted by the approved facilities, operating alone or in combination with other approved facilities, substantially conform to the pre-approval RFR report and do not exceed current standards for permissible human exposure to RFR as adopted by the FCC. 15. Signs. Explanatory warning signs shall be posted at all access points to cellular telecommunication facilities in compliance with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) C95.2 color, symbol, and content conventions. 16. Nuisance. Facility generators, mechanical equipment, construction, testing and maintenance shall be operated or performed in such a manner that no nuisance results. At the discretion of the Director, upon receipt of written complaints, the use permit allowing a telecommunications facility may be scheduled for public review. At the hearing, conditions of approval may be added, deleted, or modified, or the use permit may be revoked. 17. Interference with Public Services and Facilities. Telecommunication facilities within public parks shall not interfere with park operations or limit public use of park facilities. Installations in conjunction with other public facilities shall be held to a similar standard. 18. City inspection. The City shall have the right to access facilities after 24 hours written or verbal notice. G. Abandonment. It shall be the responsibility of the owner/operator of a telecommunications facility to provide the City with a notice of intent to vacate the site a minimum of thirty (30) days prior to ceasing operation. Any wireless telecommunication facility that is not operated for a continuous period of ninety (90) days shall be removed within ninety (90) days of the date upon which the operation ceased. H. Revocation of a Permit. Wireless telecommunication service providers shall fully comply with all conditions related to any permit or approval granted under this section. Failure to comply with any condition shall constitute grounds for revocation. If a condition is not remedied within a reasonable period, the Community Development Director may schedule a public hearing before the Planning Commission to consider revocation of the permit. Ordinance No. (2002';,- es) GPA/TA/ER 12-01 Attachment 10 Page 8 EXHIBIT B GPA/TA/ER 12-01 REQUIRED MffIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAM Aesthetics Any general plan or zoning amendment for this project shall include provisions to ensure adequate review of telecommunication installations and shall establish performance standards for avoiding adverse visual impacts. Each installation should be designed to completely blend into its surroundings so that the antennas) and equipment are not readily apparent. Proposed installations which do not meet this criteria should be denied. Air Quality The City shall require information regarding use of generators as part of an application checklist for telecommunication projects. Any amendment to the zoning regulations for this project shall establish development standards for telecommunication projects to ensure compliance with Air Pollution Control District requirements. Biological Resources Any amendment to the zoning regulations for this project shall include performance standards to ensure there will be no significant adverse impact on biological and botanical resources. Cultural Resources Where a project may affect a historic resource, the City shall require a cultural resources survey consistent with adopted City guidelines for historical and archaeological preservation as part of an application. Any general plan or zoning amendment for this project shall include provisions to ensure that telecommunications installations will not have an adverse impact on cultural resources, and to ensure that any alteration to historic structures will be consistent with the Secretary of Interior standards. Proposed installations for which this finding cannot be made should be denied. Hazards The general plan and zoning amendment shall include provisions to ensure against interference with municipal radio operations and emergency broadcasting. Any zoning text amendment for this project shall include performance standards requiring that explanatory warning signs be posted at all access points to cellular telecommunication facilities 3 -9� Ordinance No. (2002 GPA/TA/ER 12-01 Attachment 10 Page 9 in compliance with the American national Standards Institute (ANSI) C95.2 color, symbol, and content conventions. Any zoning text amendment for this project shall include performance standards requiring cellular telecommunications facilities to meet FFC standards for maximum radio frequency and electromagnetic exposure at all times while in operation. Noise The City shall require information regarding use of generators as part of an application checklist for telecommunication projects. Any amendment to the zoning regulations for this project shall establish development standards for telecommunication projects to ensure compliance with Air Pollution Control District requirements. Public Services Any zoning text amendment for this project shall include performance standards to ensure that unmanned telecommunication facilities within public parks do not interfere with park operations or limit public use of park facilities. Monitoring Program: Planning Commission and City Council review, and preparation of application checklist by Community Development Department staff. 3-99 Attachment 11 RESOLUTION NO. (2002 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING THE REQUEST TO AMEND THE LAND USE ELEMENT AND THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO EXPAND THE ZONES IN WHICH WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES MAY LOCATE GPA/TA/ER 12-01 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted public hearings on October 24 and December 19, 2001 and recommended approval of an amendment to the zoning ordinance to expand the zones in which telecommunications facilities may locate; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on March 5, 2002 and has considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Negative Declaration of environmental impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission; and BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. 1. The proposed general plan amendment and zoning text amendment (GPA/TA/ER 12- 01) are inconsistent with General Plan policies because: [Council to specify reasons]. 2. Adequate wireless communication coverage and capacity can be provided in the City without expanding the zones in which telecommunications facilities are allowable. SECTION 2. Denial. The request (GPA/TA/ER 12-01) for a general plan amendment and zoning text amendment is hereby denied. On motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this_day of , 2002 Attachment 11 Resolution No. (2002 Series) Denial of GPA/TA/12-01 Page 2 Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: City Clerk Lee Price APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Jeff Jorgensen 3 /�I IWIL.L NCIL CDD DIR S b ITEM rO ❑ FIN DIR RNEY 13 FIRE CHIEF L� PW DIR ❑ PTHEA 0 POLICECHFC YONE Y HOL COMB F°"" r7 /Yid - '7/' e 0 UTILDIR FAX# 805-594-0365 F, RQN HR DIM °"°W FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL To: QTY COUNCIL, CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FAx mvmu 781-7109 DATE- MARCH 5, 2002 PAGES INCLUDING THIS PAGE: 2 Re: Council Agenda Item PH-3 . March 5, 2002 Proposed General Plan and Zoning Text Amendments to Allow Wireless Telecommunication Facilities in ALL Zoning Districts (GPA(TA 12-01)Sprint PCS,Applicant Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: Attached is a copy of RQN's letter to the Planning Commission, dated October 24, 2001, suing our position on this item. In regards to the hearing this evening RQN supports the Planning Commission recommendation to adopt a resolution approving a mitigated negative declaration,finding that a general plan amendment is not necessary, and approving a zoning text amendment to allow wireless telecommunication facilities in certain additional commercial zones,subject to specific development standards. We do apologize for the late hour of this correspondence. RECEIVED Sincerety, 0n" 2Qt2 Cydney Holcomb, RQN $LD CITY COIAVCI! 2076 HAYS STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA. 93405 (805)544-8594 Residents for Quality Neighborhoods P.O. Box 12604•San Luis Obispo,CA 93406 October 24, 2001 Planning Commission City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401 Faxed to: 781-7173 Re: Citywide, GPA, TA and ER 12-01 Meeting Date: October 24, 2001, Item #1 Dear Chairman Peterson and Planning Commission Members, RQN opposes the request of Sprint PCS to amend the General Plan Land Use Element to allow telecommunication antennas in all zoning districts of the City of San Luis Obispo. It is our opinion that these facilities should not be installed in residential districts, nor should they be sited so as to cause adverse visual impacts on surrounding residential neighborhoods. Pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TCA), local municipalities have the authority to restrict installations to specific zoning districts, such as commercial or industrial. Likewise, they may also adopt standards regarding the placement, construction, and modification of wireless facilities. Before considering any amendment to the General Plan, or any applications for installations, the City should develop and have in place comprehensive zoning regulations that address the siting of these facilities. In addition, consideration should be given to: impacts that these facilities might have on aesthetics and property values, alternatives, and the cumulative effects of subsequent facilities on the City, the City's open space and the surrounding hillsides. Therefore, we urge the Planning Commission to deny the applicant's request for a general plan amendment allowing wireless facilities in all zoning districts in the City and continue this matter with the appropriate direction to staff. Sincerely, Cydney Holcomb Chairperson, RQN N'7NG AGENDA mm 'I�II�Ia�aii��lll�lll�"�u�lllllll communication JCity of San Luis Obispo DATE: March 5, 2002 TO: Mayor&Members of the City C cil VIA: Ken Hampian, ACAO FROM: Lee Price, City Clerk SUBJECT: Special Meetings in April RECOMMENDATION: Approve Special Meetings on April 9`h at Noon and April 30`h at 7:00 p.m. as recommended by Staff 1. Staff is recommending that the Council meet on April 9h for a noon-time study session to discuss the proposed boundary for an expanded CC zone, explore anticipated(and unanticipated)impacts and to provide input and direction to staff. The Council would be asked to come in at 11:30 a.m. for lunch. The meeting will be held in the Council Hearing Room, begin at noon and conclude not later than 1:30 p.m. 2. On February 5`h, the Council gave staff direction to coordinate a joint meeting with the Planning Commission to discuss alternatives to form a parking and access advisory committee. Staff is recommending that the joint meeting be conducted on Tuesday, April 30`h at 7:00 p.m. in the Chamber. C}UNCIL DD DIR ®•(� ❑ FIN DIR R-I [3FI HIEF -0 !'ff7��RNEY DIR M ERIQCRI© M POLICE CHF 00 T ®® C7 AEC DIR XUTl6 DIR. 4�"gr.®:MR DIR- Communication-Schcduhng