To: Sonoma County Board of Supervisors
Department or Agency Name(s): Permit Sonoma
Staff Name and Phone Number: Tennis Wick (707) 565-1925
Vote Requirement: Majority
Supervisorial District(s): First
Title:
Title
9:35 A.M.- UPE22-0068: Appeal of approval of an intermediate freestanding telecommunications Facility located at 927 Los Alamos Road.
End
Recommended Action:
Recommended action
Conduct a public hearing and adopt a Resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Board of Zoning Adjustments’ decision to approve an intermediate freestanding telecommunication facility, 8-foot fence, and 5-foot encroachment of the front setback, subject to conditions for approval, and find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under CEQA Guidelines Section 15303.
end
Executive Summary:
This report presents an appeal to a Board of Zoning Adjustments (BZA) decision to approve a Use Permit to allow a new intermediate telecommunication facility located inside a 45-foot-tall faux water tank within a 625-square foot lease area enclosed by an 8-foot-tall wooden cedar fence on a 5.26-acre parcel zoned Agriculture and Residential located at 927 Los Alamos Road, Santa Rosa, CA, APN 030-141-005. The request includes a 5-foot encroachment into the required front yard setbacks to allow construction of a portion of the proposed 8-foot-tall wooden cedar fence and a PG&E mounted transformer. The BZA conducted public hearings on May 23, 2024, and July 11, 2024, where the BZA approved the Use Permit with a majority vote count (2-1-2-0 vote). An appeal of the BZA’s decision was filed by Don and Jennifer Graham, on July 19, 2024.
The appeal cites disagreement with staff’s findings and the BZA’s decision to approve UPE22-0068. The appeal also states disagreement regarding the applicant’s alternatives analysis, General Plan consistency, hearing procedure, and approval process.
Discussion:
Project Description
Sequoia Development Services, on behalf of Verizon Wireless, submitted a use permit application seeking authority to develop a new intermediate telecommunication facility located inside a 45-foot-tall faux water tank, build an 8-foot-tall wooden cedar fence enclosing the facility, and to encroach into the required front setback by 5-feet (“the Project”). The Project will be located within a 625-square foot lease area on a 5.26-acre parcel zoned Agriculture and Residential located at 927 Los Alamos Road, APN 030-141-005(see Attachment 2).
Construction activities for the Project will be minimal as all development will be contained within the 625-square foot lease area. Development will not involve modification of any existing structures on site or new landscaping.
Project Site
The project site is located on a 5.26-acre parcel at 927 Los Alamos Road, in an unincorporated, residential area of Sonoma County The parcel is maintained as pastureland and is developed with a single-family dwelling and barn located near the proposed 625-foot lease area. The existing paved driveway will be utilized to conduct maintenance on the telecommunication facility. The rest of the property is pastureland. No changes to the current site access are proposed.
General Plan Land Use and Zoning
The General Plan Land Use Designation on the parcel is Rural Residential (RR 20-acre density). The property’s access is provided off Los Alamos Road which is not a designated Scenic Corridor.
Zoning on the parcel is Agricultural and Residential (AR, allowed density: B8, Lot has been frozen) and combining zone for Accessory Dwelling Unit Exclusion. Section 26-88-130 of the Sonoma County Code sets forth the specific design and siting criteria for telecommunications facilities. Staff has determined the proposed project meets the criteria as defined in the Zoning Code.
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning
The surrounding area is predominantly residential, the project site borders the east periphery of the City of Santa Rosa boundary. Other adjacent properties include Agricultural and Residential zoning to the North and East, and Rural Residential zoning to the South (see Attachment 4 Aerial Map and Attachment 5 Land Use Map).
Encroachment of front yard setback
The Zoning Code requires a 30-foot front setback and 55-foot front street centerline setback for projects located in the AR zoning district. Therefore, the Use Permit application requests approval to encroach 5-feet into the required 30-foot front property line setback and 5-feet into the required 55-foot front street centerline setback from Los Alamos Road. This encroachment only applies to the proposed fence, and PG&E transformer. The telecommunication tower, and related equipment will meet AR zoning setback requirements. The proposed encroachment is necessary to achieve the necessary wireless coverage for the tower, and provide additional distance from existing residential uses on site. Staff recommends approval because the proposed encroachment will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood, nor be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the area.
Fence Height
The subject property is located in the AR zoning district, which limits heights of fences within the front yard setback to be a maximum of 3-feet in height. Restrictions on fence height within the setback areas may be exceeded with an approved Use Permit, per Sec. 26-88-030 of the Zoning Code. Therefore, the Use Permit application includes a request to allow an 8-foot-tall wooden cedar fence. Staff recommends approval of the proposed 8-foot-tall wooden cedar fence because the development will be located near the existing building complex, the proposed wooden fence material is compatible with the rural character of the neighborhood, and the fence will screen the telecommunication ground equipment from public view, thereby reducing visual impacts. In addition, there is no evidence or reason to suspect a fence of this height will impact public health or safety.
Visual Analysis
Using the County’s Visual Assessment Guidelines, the project site’s sensitivity is characterized as Moderate, as it is not located within a scenic resource designation but is within a rural agricultural area and would be visible from a public road (Los Alamos Rd). The project’s visual dominance can be characterized as Co-Dominant as the proposed design can be considered prominent within the setting but attract attention equally with other structures in the area, including the existing two-story barn onsite. The proposed faux water tower design is intended to blend with the rural agricultural character of the area and will be painted to match the adjacent existing barn which is a deep red as depicted in the photo-simulations and application materials. The roof and bands will be painted the same color as the existing steel support structure and the house on the property. The combination of Moderate and Co-Dominant characteristics determines that the project’s visual impact on public views is considered to be less than significant. A photo simulation of the faux water tower design has been included as Attachment 5.
The requested siting of the 8-foot-tall fence and PG&E transformer would allow for greater distance between the proposed telecommunication tower and the existing single-family dwelling, and existing barn. Additionally, the proposed siting within the front yard setbacks would not likely result in any adverse visual impacts because the development will be located near the existing building complex and the fence will screen the telecommunication ground equipment from public view. Despite the wooden fence and PG&E transformer being located 5-feet within the required front setbacks, a distance of 25-feet would still be maintained to the front property line and 50-feet to the centerline of Los Alamos Road. This request is exclusive to the southern portion of the proposed 8-foot-tall fence and PG&E transformer and does not allow the proposed faux water tank telecommunication tower to be located within either of the mentioned setbacks.
Federal Law regarding Telecommunications Facilities
Federal law preserves local authority over land use decisions for wireless facilities but sets forth specific limitations on that authority.
If a proposed telecommunications facility complies with the radio frequency standards set by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the County cannot deny or modify a proposed project based on concerns related to radiofrequency emissions (47 U.S.C. Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv)). The Radio Frequency report submitted by the applicant indicates the Project, if approved, would result in radio frequency exposure levels below the FCC’s most stringent General Population Maximum Permissible Exposure Limits.
In addition, local governments "shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.” (See 47 U.S.C. Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)) This means the County may not prevent a carrier from closing a significant gap in service coverage within that carrier’s service area. The determination of whether a significant gap in service coverage exists is a factual inquiry left to the discretion of local jurisdictions. The application and supporting materials indicate that as the Verizon Wireless network matures, the network must be supplemented with more sites closer to customers, in large measure due to the increase in usage of the network. New wireless technology requires facilities closer to customers, and this service cannot be provided adequately by existing Verizon Wireless facilities, which provide insufficient signal to the gap area. If the Board disagrees with the applicant’s representations regarding service gap, the applicant must be given opportunity to reply.
If a significant gap in service exists, the Board can only deny the Project if there is evidence in the record of technologically feasible and available alternatives to the proposed tower. The applicant submitted an alternative site analysis that complies with the requirements of County Code. The analysis considered seven alternative sites for this project, meeting the minimum requirement to provide two, and includes a map of the property, height of a potential tower, type of tower, and the feasibility of each alternative. Existing coverage maps were also submitted for three alternatives visually demonstrating the coverage each alternative site would service.
As long as a decision will not prohibit a carrier from closing a significant gap in service, local jurisdictions may regulate aesthetics, setbacks, height, and other zoning considerations. The Project complies with the Zoning Code’s design criteria for telecommunications facilities including the proposed water tower design that blends with the existing built surroundings to minimize visual impacts and achieve neighborhood compatibility. In addition, Staff has determined the Project will have less than significant visual impacts on public views, per the Visual Assessment Guidelines. The only setback not met is minimal and will not result in detrimental impacts to neighboring properties.
ISSUES RAISED IN THE APPEAL LETTER
The appeal letter is provided as Attachment 6. The issues are addressed in chronological order as much as practicable, as some topics overlap.
1. July 11, 2024, Public Hearing
The appellant states they were not given an opportunity to be heard after the applicant and BZA further discussed the Project.
Staff Analysis
The July 11, 2024 BZA public hearing began with staff presenting new information submitted by the applicant since the initial BZA public hearing on May 23, 2024. The Chair allowed time for commissioners to review this new material, and thereafter reopened the hearing to receive public comment on the new material. The appellant spoke during the public comment period. Once the public comment period closed, the BZA did not hear any additional public comments, and therefore allowing the appellant to speak a second time would not be appropriate. Members of the public, including the appellant, provided public comment during the May 23, 2024, on the material discussed during that hearing. To the extent public comments prompted the commissioners to discuss or seek clarification regarding the project with the applicant as part of their deliberations, that is within the scope of the commission’s authority and did not require giving an opportunity to commenters to comment again.
2. General Plan Consistency
The appellant states the proposed Telecommunication Facility is not consistent with the Sonoma County General Plan.
Staff Analysis
The Project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of Agricultural and Residential, and General Plan Policies including, Policy PF-2u: “Review proposals for public and private telecommunication facilities for consistency with General Plan policies and adopted siting and design criteria. In order for a public telecommunication facility to be found consistent with this plan, it must meet the standards and siting and design criteria of the applicable zoning district.” The proposed tower meets the siting and design criteria set forth in the Zoning Code. The tower design of a faux water tower at 45-feet in height is compatible with the existing barn, pastureland, and overall rural character of the property. The project site is not located within a designated Scenic Resource (SR) Combining District.
3. Coverage Need Justification
The appellant states that the information provided by the applicant, to the County, does not justify meeting the coverage needs or closing gaps as stated.
Staff Analysis
The applicant identified an existing service gap in the proposed local service area, and the proposed telecommunication facility will meet this service gap.
Verizon Wireless is experiencing a Significant Gap in 4G service in the east Santa Rosa area. To the west of the Proposed Facility, there is a gap in reliable Advanced Wireless Services in-building coverage, including residential neighborhoods, to the north and south of Sunhawk Drive and Owls Nest Drive. To the southeast, there is a gap in reliable Advanced Wireless Services in-building coverage in City residential areas south of Highway 12, including the Stone Bridge Road area, as well as unincorporated areas north of Highway 12. There are also gaps in in-vehicle coverage along Highway 12 east of Los Alamos Road, with 49,600 vehicle trips per day per CalTrans 2022 Traffic Volumes.
There is also a gap in 5G service, which is not enabled on nearby small cell facilities, leaving a broad gap in the areas described above as well as in the Skyhawk Community southwest of the Proposed Facility, and long gaps in in-vehicle service along Highway 12.
To remedy the Significant Gap, Verizon Wireless must place a new facility to ensure reliable network service. Located at a high elevation with broad line-of-sight, the Proposed Facility will provide new, reliable in-building coverage to a wide area with just one new facility, including the residential areas described above. In total, the Proposed Facility will provide new reliable 5G in-building coverage to an area of 1.9 square miles and a population of 1,525. This will include new, reliable in-vehicle service previously lacking along Highway 12 and in Trione-Annadel State Park.
4. Proposed Fencing
The appellant states an 8-foot-tall wooden fence is not consistent with the County General Plan and other regulations.
Staff Analysis
The subject property is zoned Agricultural and Residential (AR), where fences are limited to a maximum of 3-feet in height when constructed within the front setbacks. However, Section 26-88-030 - General Height Regulation and Exceptions allows fences to be constructed greater than 3-feet through means of an approved Use Permit. The Use Permit Application before the Board includes a request for an 8-foot-tall fence intended to visually shield all telecommunicate from public sight.
The proposed encroachment includes only a small portion of the fence as seen in Attachment 8. In addition, a distance of 50-feet would still be maintained between the fence and road centerline setback, and 25-feet to the front property line. The BZA found the encroachment would not be detrimental to the health or safety of the public.
5. Use Permit Findings
The appellant states this telecommunication tower will be detrimental to the peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing and working in the area, as well as to the neighborhood.
Staff Analysis
The appeal does not provide any evidence of how the Project will have detrimental impacts. The facility will operate without disruption and enhance public safety by providing improved telecommunications service, including during times of power outages. Exterior lighting will consist of three downward facing service lights. Lighting will not wash out structures or any portions of the site. In addition, the facility will operate below the maximum allowed exterior noise exposures to the nearest sensitive receptor, operating at or below 45 dBA during daytime and nighttime hours. The facility will be operated in compliance with the most current standard governing the limitation of human exposure to nonionizing electromagnetic radiation (NIER) used by the Federal Communications Commission applicable to the facility.
6. Public Safety
The appellant states the information submitted to the County does not prove that this Telecommunication Facility will enhance public safety.
Staff Analysis
The main function of this telecommunication tower is to service the existing coverage gap. Although the purpose for this tower is to close a coverage gap, the facility will operate without disruption and enhance public safety during emergencies by providing improved telecommunications service for first responders and the public, including during times of power outages through use of a backup diesel generator.
7. Noise
The appellant states that the emergency generator, not limited to the weekly testing, will significantly disrupt the appellant’s bees, radio, and business needs, as well as the surrounding neighborhoods, peace, and welfare.
Staff Analysis
The Sonoma County General Plan 2020 Noise Element provides for a threshold of maximum allowable exterior noise exposure to be 45 dBA at nighttime and 50 dBA during the daytime for no more than 30-minutes of every hour. The facility will operate below the maximum allowed exterior noise exposures to the nearest sensitive receptor, operating at or below 45 dBA during daytime and nighttime hours. As stated in the noise study prepared by Generac, the maximum noise level from the generator is 63 dBA, measured at a reference distance of 23 feet. During operation of the generator, the calculated noise level at the nearest noise sensitive property reaches only 43.8 dBA, accounting for 3 dBA attenuation from the fence and blanketing, still meeting the County limit (see Attachment 9).
8. Alternatives Analysis
The appellant states, specifically in addendum #2, that Federal and State regulations require the applicant to show and investigate multiple alternative sites. The appellant believes the submitted alternatives analysis was a misrepresentation of the selected sites. The appellant references the original alternatives analysis and provides statements of concerns for the following. The appellant disagrees with the analysis for sites 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Staff Analysis
The applicant submitted an Alternatives Analysis that met County Code requirements (see Attachment 10). The alternatives discussed either did not have a willing property owner or did not meet the project’s coverage needs (see Attachment 11).
The alternatives analysis concludes that the 45-foot tall faux water tower proposed for the subject property is the least intrusive means to address the significant gap in coverage, capacity, and to address the community’s wireless needs. The subject property is the only studied location where there is both a willing property owner to lease space and a location that can serve the objective, being located far from a major residential area. The applicant provided staff with a statement from Verizon’s Wireless Network Engineering Department which discussed in greater detail the existing coverage gap Verizon Wireless is experiencing in east Santa Rosa. (see Attachment 7).
9. Procedural Concerns
The appellant contends the Board of Zoning Adjustment’s public hearing on May 23, 2024 should have been canceled due to the landowner’s statement that they were opposed to the project.
The appellant contends the Board of Zoning Adjustment’s public hearing on July 11, 2024 had three sitting commissioners, one of whom was not in attendance during the May 23, 2024 meeting, and therefore was not familiar with the project.
Staff Analysis
The property owner of 927 Los Alamos Road contacted Planning Staff on May 22, 2024, stating they were opposed to the project; however, they did not formally rescind their authorization for the application. During the May 23, 2024 hearing, the property owner stated they were not rescinding their authorization and requested a continuance to allow the property owner to discuss design concerns with the applicant. On July 3, 2024, the property owner submitted a written statement reinstating their support for the project, rescinding their May 22nd statement.
One of the Commissioners at the July 11, 2024 continued hearing, was not present at the May 23, 2024 hearing. However, all project materials and recordings were made available to the Commissioner for review in advance. During the July 11, 2024 hearing, this Commissioner confirmed on the record that they reviewed all project materials prior to the public hearing, as required to be able to vote on the project.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Per Staff’s recommendation, the Board of Zoning Adjustments determined the Project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) as development will be limited to within a 625 -square foot lease area. There are no facts or circumstances specific to this project that would support an exception to the categorical exemption.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Conduct a public hearing and adopt a Resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Board of Zoning Adjustments’ decision to approve an intermediate freestanding telecommunication facility, 8-foot fence, and 5-foot encroachment of the front setback, subject to conditions for approval, and find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under CEQA Guidelines Section 15303.
Was this item identified as an opportunity to apply the Racial Equity Toolkit?
No
Prior Board Actions:
None
Fiscal Summary
Narrative Explanation of Fiscal Impacts:
N/A
Narrative Explanation of Staffing Impacts (If Required):
N/A
Attachments:
UPE22-0068 ATT 1 Board of Supervisors Resolution
UPE22-0068 ATT 1A Conditions of Approval
UPE22-0068 ATT 2 Site Plan
UPE22-0068 ATT 3 Vicinity Map
UPE22-0068 ATT 4 Aerial Map
UPE22-0068 ATT 5 Land Use Map
UPE22-0068 ATT 6 Appellant Appeal
UPE22-0068 ATT 7 Wireless Network Engineering Statement
UPE22-0068 ATT 8 Setback Request
UPE22-0068 ATT 9 Noise Study prepared by Hammett & Eddison, Inc
UPE22-0068 ATT 10 Revised Alternatives Analysis
UPE22-0068 ATT 11 Board of Zoning Adjustments Memo dated July 11, 2024
UPE22-0068 ATT 12 Public Comments
UPE22-0068 ATT 13 Board of Zoning Adjustments Resolution No. 24-08 with Exhibit A Conditions of Approval
UPE22-0068 BOS Presentation
Related Items “On File” with the Clerk of the Board:
N/A