HomeMy WebLinkAboutPart 1 - Item 2 - CUP 15-03 ContinuanceDATE: September 27, 2016
TO: Honorable Chairman and Planning Commission
FROM: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator
By: Jeff Hamilton, Contract Planner
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 1970 - APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP
15-03, ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. ADR 15-06, AND WIRELESS
REGULATION WAIVER REQUEST NO. W 15-01 WITH A CATEGORICAL
EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
(CEQA) FOR THE REVISED PROPOSAL FOR A NEW WIRELESS
COMMUNICATION FACILITY HOUSED IN A 53’-0” TALL FAUX BELL TOWER
STRUCTURE IN THE SOUTHEASTERLY PORTION OF THE PARKING LOT AT
THE CHURCH OF THE TRANSFIGURATION PROPERTY AT 1881 S. FIRST
AVENUE - CONTINUED FROM THE AUGUST 23, 2016 MEETING
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 1970
SUMMARY
At the August 23, 2016, meeting, the Planning Commission opened a public hearing for
Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 15-03, Architectural Design Review No. ADR 15-06, and
Wireless Regulation Waiver Request No. W 15-01 for the revised proposal for a new wireless
communication facility housed in a 53’-0” tall faux bell tower structure in the southeasterly
portion of the parking lot at The Church of the Transfiguration property at 1881 S. First Avenue.
The hearing was continued at the request of the neighbors, and with the agreement of the
applicant to the September 27, 2016, meeting. At the August 23, 2016, meeting, the City
Attorney explained the process for the continuance, and after the public hearing was opened,
asked those in attendance if anyone wished to speak. The only person to speak was a
representative of the Church to explain the reason for continuing the hearing to the September
27, 2016, meeting.
Attached are a revised Resolution No. 1970 to reflect the continuance, the August 23, 2016,
staff report and attachments, and the additional Public Comment documents submitted after the
August 23, 2016, meeting.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve the proposal, subject to the
conditions listed in the August 23, 2016, staff report, and find that the project qualifies for a
Categorical Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and adopt the
attached Resolution No. 1970 that is revised to reflect the continuance.
Resolution No. 1970 Continuance
CUP 15-03, ADR 15-06, & W 15-01
Revised Proposal - Faux Bell Tower
1881 S. First Avenue
September 27, 2016 - Page 2 of 3
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
If, after considering the record and any additional information presented at the public hearing,
and closing the public hearing, the Planning Commission makes any of the following findings, it
may deny the revised application:
1. The applicant has not demonstrated there is a “significant gap” in its wireless service in the
R-1 residential area where it proposes to install its wireless facility; or
2. The applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed wireless facility is the least intrusive
means to address the gap considering the values that the restriction on wireless facilities in
the R-1 residential area sought to serve.
If, on the other hand, after considering the record and any additional information presented at
the public hearing, the Planning Commission determines that it cannot make either or both of
the above-noted findings, it must approve the revised application.
Approval
If the Planning Commission intends to approve this revised application, the Commission should
approve a motion to approve Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 15-03, Architectural Design
Review No. ADR 15-06 and Wireless Regulation Waiver Request No. W 15-01; state that the
revised proposal satisfies the requisite findings; and adopt the attached Resolution No. 1970
that incorporates the requisite environmental, Conditional Use Permit, and Wireless Regulation
Waiver findings and the conditions of approval as presented in this staff report, or as modified
by the Commission.
Denial
If the Planning Commission intends to deny this proposal, the Commission should make its
decision known by stating the finding(s) that the revised application does not satisfy along with
reasons based on the record; and direct staff to prepare a resolution to deny Conditional Use
Permit No. CUP 15-03, Architectural Design Review No. ADR 15-06 and/or Wireless Regulation
Waiver Request No. W 15-01 that incorporates the Commission’s decision and specific findings,
for adoption at the next meeting. No decision to deny the proposal will be final and subject to
appeal unless and until adopted by resolution.
If any Planning Commissioner or other interested party has any questions or comments
regarding this matter prior to the September 27, 2016, Planning Commission Meeting, please
contact Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator at (626) 574-5442, or
jkasama@ArcadiaCA.gov.
Approved:
Resolution No. 1970 Continuance
CUP 15-03, ADR 15-06, & W 15-01
Revised Proposal - Faux Bell Tower
1881 S. First Avenue
September 27, 2016 - Page 3 of 3
Attachments:
1. Resolution No. 1970 revised to reflect the continuance
2. August 23, 2016, staff report and attachments
3. The following additional Public Comment documents:
Email from AMak/Angela Mak in opposition
Verizon text message campaign in support from Emanuel Higgins
Letter from Sarah Slater in support
Letter from Gary Schwarz in opposition
Email from Kaitlin Mui in opposition
Article - The Impact of Communication Towers on Residential Property
Values
Petitions opposing Verizon’s proposal
Change.org survey in opposition
Additional petition forms in opposition
Article - The Interaction of TCA, Local Zoning Ordinances and the Courts:
Defining a “Significant Gap” in Wireless Service
Letter from Janny Yu in opposition
Memorandum in Opposition
Letter from Eli Tsou in opposition
Attachment No. 1
September 27, 2016 Staff Report
Resolution No. 1970
Revised to Reflect Continuance
Revised 9-27-2016
RESOLUTION NO. 1970
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.
CUP 15-03, ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. ADR 15-06, AND
WIRELESS REGULATION WAIVER REQUEST NO. W 15-01 WITH A
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) FOR THE REVISED PROPOSAL
FOR A NEW WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY HOUSED IN A 53’-0”
TALL, FAUX BELL TOWER STRUCTURE IN THE SOUTHEASTERLY
PORTION OF THE PARKING LOT AT THE CHURCH OF THE
TRANSFIGURATION PROPERTY AT 1881 SOUTH FIRST AVENUE
WHEREAS, on April 2, 2015, an application was filed by Mr. Ryan Birdseye of Los
Angeles SMSA Limited Partnership, dba Verizon Wireless, for a Conditional Use Permit for
a new wireless communication facility with a monopole antenna structure disguised as a
eucalyptus tree and an equipment shelter at 1881 S. First Avenue, Development Services
Department Case No. CUP 15-03; and
WHEREAS, on April 2, 2015, an application was filed by Mr. Ryan Birdseye of Los
Angeles SMSA Limited Partnership, dba Verizon Wireless, for Architectural Design Review
for the proposed new wireless communication facility at 1881 S. First Avenue, Development
Services Department Case No. ADR 15-06; and
WHEREAS, on April 2, 2015, an application was filed by Mr. Ryan Birdseye of Los
Angeles SMSA Limited Partnership, dba Verizon Wireless, for a Waiver Request for the
proposed new wireless communication facility to allow a new wireless communication
facility with a monopole antenna structure and an equipment shelter in the R-1 zone, where
such facilities are otherwise prohibited, at 1881 S. First Avenue, Development Services
Department Case No. W 15-01; and
WHEREAS, on November 18, 2015, Planning Services completed an environmental
assessment for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), and it was determined to recommend that the Planning Commission find that the
Revised 9-27-2016 -2- 1970
project is exempt under CEQA per Section 15303(d) of the CEQA Guidelines (Review for
Exemption) because the project has no potential to cause a significant effect on the
environment, and because it consists of the extension of a utility per CEQA Guidelines
Section 15303, Class 3; and
WHEREAS, duly-noticed public hearings were held on January 12, 2016 and March
22, 2016, at which times all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and
to present evidence; and
WHEREAS, following consideration of the staff reports and receiving public
testimony at both public hearings, and following discussion, the Planning Commission found
that the design of the proposed project did not satisfy various aesthetic and visual standards
for conditional use permit and architectural design review approvals in the R-1 zone and
that the applicant had not satisfied the conditions for a waiver request, and denied the
applications by Resolution No. 1952; and
WHEREAS, the applicant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision on
March 29, 2016; and
WHEREAS, the City and the applicant agreed to defer the hearing of the appeal by
the City Council to allow additional investigation by the applicant of alternative designs, with
the understanding that if, as a result of this further investigation, the application is
substantially revised in a manner that warrants further review by the Planning Commission,
the new proposal would be reviewed by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, on July 29, 2016, the applicant submitted a revised proposal to replace
the monopole disguised as a eucalyptus tree with a faux bell tower next to the church
administration building and the City and the applicant agreed that the revised application
warranted further review by the Planning Commission;
Revised 9-27-2016 -3- 1970
WHEREAS, a duly-noticed public hearing was opened by the Planning Commission
on August 23, 2016, at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity to be
heard and to present evidence;
WHEREAS, the public hearing was continued to the September 27, 2016, Planning
Commission meeting; and
WHEREAS, the continued public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on
September 27, 2016, at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity to be
heard and to present evidence.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA
RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the factual data submitted by the Development Services
Department in the staff reports dated August 23, 2016, and September 27, 2016, are true
and correct.
SECTION 2. This Commission finds and directs:
a. That the use applied for at the location indicated is properly one for which a
Conditional Use Permit could be authorized.
FACT: The zoning of The Church of the Transfiguration property is R-1, Second
One-Family Zone, where wireless facilities are normally prohibited by Arcadia Municipal
Code Section 9288.6. Only by satisfying the requirements for a Waiver, as provided by
Arcadia Municipal Code Section 9288.8, in addition to satisfying the requirements for the
Conditional Use Permit, would the facility be allowed. The Planning Commission has
determined that the applicant has demonstrated that the project meets the standards of the
Waiver request and the Conditional Use Permit.
b. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the
public health or welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or vicinity.
Revised 9-27-2016 -4- 1970
FACT: The applicant has prepared the required health and safety studies showing
that the proposed wireless facility complies with Federal Communications Commissions
(FCC) requirements for radio frequency emissions. The proposed wireless facility will be
camouflaged as a faux bell tower to blend into and be compatible with the existing church
structures on the property. The proportion of the height of the proposed 53’-0” tower to the
adjacent building is consistent with other bell towers and steeples at churches in the City. It
is not anticipated to detract from the “positive physical image and identity” of the
neighboring single-family neighborhood, it will not compromise the “visual character of the
community,” and it is well designed with effective camouflage to blend into “both the site
and its surroundings.” As such, the proposal will not be detrimental to the public health or
welfare or injurious to the other properties in the area.
c. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate said use, and all yards, spaces, walls, fences, parking, loading, landscaping,
and other features required to adjust said use with the land and uses in the neighborhood.
FACT: The proposed location is an approximately 400 square foot portion of an
existing developed parking lot serving the church. The site is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate the proposed wireless facility. The design of the proposed faux tower looks
well integrated into the site and compatible in scale with the neighboring buildings. Some or
all of the parking spaces lost by adding the facility to the site will be replaced through
restriping the lot as a condition of approval. The facility itself will generate no new parking
demand and only occasional visits to service the facility. No other adjustments of the use or
site are necessary.
d. That the site abuts streets and highways adequate in width and pavement type to
carry the kind of traffic generated by the proposed use.
Revised 9-27-2016 -5- 1970
FACT: The Church of the Transfiguration property is accessed from First and Lemon
Avenues. These streets are adequate in width and pavement type to carry the traffic
generated by the current and proposed uses. The proposed project, as an unmanned
wireless facility, will require only occasional access for maintenance after construction, and
will have no impact on the surrounding streets and highways.
e. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the
comprehensive General Plan.
FACT: The General Plan Land Use Designation of the subject site is Low Density
Residential. Approval of the new unmanned wireless facility will not adversely affect the
religious activities at the location, or create visual impacts since the proposed facility will be
effectively camouflaged as a faux bell tower and will be compatible with and blend in with
the existing structures on the property.
The project is consistent with Policy LU-1.5 of the Land Use Element of the General
Plan:
“Require that effective buffer areas be created between land uses that are of
significantly different character or that have operating characteristics which could create
nuisances along a common boundary.”
The project will not be visually intrusive upon the residential neighborhood. The
proposed 53’-0” tall faux bell tower is similar in proportion to towers at other churches in the
City. As such, it is reasonable for the church to have such a structure. Churches with bell
towers are commonly found in residential neighborhoods. The proposed facility will be at
least 130 feet from the closest residence to the west and over 200 feet from the residences
to the north. Therefore, the property is large enough, and the proposed tower designed well
enough, so that the facility will not be visually intrusive on the neighborhood.
Revised 9-27-2016 -6- 1970
The project is consistent with Policy LU-3.5 of the Land Use Element of the General
Plan:
“Require that new construction, additions, renovations, and infill developments be
sensitive to neighborhood context, building forms, scale and colors.”
The proposed tower is attractively designed and will be compatible in style with the
existing structures on the property. The tower incorporates materials, finishes and detailing,
such as the plastered walls and Spanish tile style roof, that demonstrate the design is
sensitive to the neighborhood context, building forms on the site, and the scale and colors
of the buildings.
Based on these factors, the proposal will not adversely affect the comprehensive
General Plan.
f. That a waiver from wireless communication facility regulations, as provided in
Arcadia Municipal Code Section 9288.8, is justified in order to avoid having the effect of
prohibiting the provision of wireless communications services pursuant to the United States
Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II)).
FACT: As required by Section 9288.8(b) of the Arcadia Municipal Code, an
independent, qualified consultant reviewed the initial Waiver Request. The reviewer’s report
evaluated the alternate site information and the proposed coverage improvement. The
reviewer expressed the opinion that the applicant exercised due diligence in seeking
alternative locations, and that the proposed site will fill an existing gap in coverage. The
applicant’s initial waiver request was denied by the Planning Commission in part because it
was not clear that the gap in personal wireless services was significant and during the
public hearing of March 22, 2016, the applicant’s representative stated that an alternative to
the proposed antenna structure camouflaged as a eucalyptus tree could be the installation
Revised 9-27-2016 -7- 1970
of a series of small facilities on poles in the public rights-of-way, but that alternative had not
been addressed in the applicant’s alternatives analysis.
The applicant has filed a revised waiver request again asserting that the waiver is
justified to avoid the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless communications services
pursuant to the United States Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C.
§332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II)). In support of the request, the revised application includes existing and
proposed radio frequency propagation maps that the applicant claims show a significant
gap in service. It also includes a written statement by a Radio Frequency Design Engineer
employed by the applicant which describes the gap as being significant as it affects long-
term evolution (LTE) in-building coverage in an area roughly bounded by La Sierra Drive to
the north, Fourth Avenue to the northeast, Sixth Avenue to the southeast, the Longden
Avenue area to the south, and El Monte Avenue to the west, and including residential areas
along Santa Anita Avenue. The statement further indicates the subject site will provide new
reliable LTE service to an area of approximately 1.3 square miles and a population of
31,000 residents.
The revised waiver request also describes the effort to find locations to address the
significant gap, including a new analysis of a small cell facilities network alternative, and
purports to demonstrate that the subject site is the means of addressing the gap that is least
intrusive on the values that the restriction sought to serve.
With respect to the small cell network alternative, according to the applicant, multiple
facilities would be required to provide similar coverage as a tower at the church site. The
applicant indicated that at least ten small cell facilities comprised of two- to four-foot
antennas mounted on utility poles as well as equipment cabinets mounted on the pole and
on the ground adjacent to the pole would be required in residential areas with yards abutting
the curb with no sidewalk or visibly public space for ground-mounted equipment.
Revised 9-27-2016 -8- 1970
The applicant evaluated a network of ten locations in the rights-of-way for installation
on streetlight or power poles and concluded that such a network would provide inferior
coverage compared to the proposed tower at the church site and could not be considered a
less intrusive and feasible alternative to the proposed tower due to the number of sites
needed and their locations.
Without further technical analysis, it is impossible to confirm how extensive a small
cell network would need to be to achieve comparable coverage. However, even at ten small
cell sites, this alternative is more intrusive than the subject bell tower design because the
antennae and equipment cabinets placed on utility poles and on the ground in parkways
would be aesthetically unpleasing (with little opportunity for effective concealment), add
clutter to the streetscape and the parkways, and may hinder sidewalk access in some
cases. Additionally, there is concern that once installed, the wireless facilities at these
multiple sites may need to be expanded in the future. Furthermore, to expand the network
with more sites on more streets (if that were required to achieve comparable coverage) may
require putting equipment on streets that currently do not have streetlight or power poles in
the rights-of-way, so new poles may have to be installed. Many of the streets also have no
sidewalks so the poles would essentially be in the front yards of homes. For all of these
reasons, the small cell network alternative is inferior to the proposed tower on the church
property.
Based on all the evidence, including that provided by the applicant and the
independent reviewer, the applicant has demonstrated that there is a significant gap in
service and that the proposed faux bell tower will fill this gap using the least intrusive
means, and as a result, the project meets the Municipal Code standards for approval of the
Waiver Request from the R-1 zoning prohibition on wireless facilities.
Revised 9-27-2016 -9- 1970
g. Provided a project has no potential to cause a significant effect on the
environment, it is eligible to be exempt from further CEQA review under Section 15303(d) of
the CEQA Guidelines (Review for Exemption).
FACT: Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), an environmental assessment was completed and it was determined that the
Project has no potential to cause a significant effect on the environment and is exempt
pursuant to Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines, Class 3, which exempts construction of
small new utility facilities.
SECTION 3. For the foregoing reasons the Planning Commission determines that
the Project is Categorically Exempt per Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines, and
approves Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 15-03, Architectural Design Review No. ADR 15-
06, and Wireless Regulation Waiver Request No. W 15-01 for a new wireless
communication facility with a 53’-0” tall faux bell tower at 1881 S. First Avenue, subject to the
conditions of approval attached hereto.
SECTION 4. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
Passed, approved and adopted this ______ day of ____________, 2016.
Chairman, Planning Commission
ATTEST:
______________________
Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________
Stephen P. Deitsch
City Attorney
Revised 9-27-2016 -10- 1970
RESOLUTION NO. 1970
Conditions of Approval
1. Approval of Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 15-03, Architectural Design Review No.
ADR 15-06 and Wireless Regulation Waiver Request No. W 15-01 is limited to the
subject unmanned wireless facility, which shall be operated and maintained in a
manner that is consistent with the revised proposal and plans submitted and approved
for these applications, and shall be subject to periodic inspections, after which the
provisions of this Conditional Use Permit may be adjusted after due notice to address
any adverse impacts to the adjacent streets, rights-of-way, and/or the neighboring
properties.
2. Noncompliance with the plans, provisions and conditions of approval for CUP 15-03,
ADR 15-06 and/or W 15-01 shall be grounds for immediate suspension or revocation of
any approvals for the wireless facility.
3. All City requirements regarding disabled access and facilities, occupancy limits,
building safety, health code compliance, emergency equipment, environmental
regulation compliance, and parking and site design shall be complied with by the
property owner/applicant to the satisfaction of the Building Official, City Engineer,
Community Development Administrator, Fire Marshal, and Public Works Services
Director, or their respective designees. Any changes to the proposed facility may be
subject to building permits after having fully detailed plans submitted for plan check
review and approval by the aforementioned City officials and employees, or designees.
4. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Arcadia and its
officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or
Revised 9-27-2016 -11- 1970
proceeding against the City of Arcadia, its officials, officers, employees or agents to
attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval or conditional approval of the City of
Arcadia concerning this project and/or land use decision, including but not limited to
any approval or conditional approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, or City
Staff, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government Code
Section 66499.37 or other provision of law applicable to this project or decision. The
City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding concerning
the project and/or land use decision and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense of
the matter. The City reserves the right, at its own option, to choose its own attorney to
represent the City, its officials, officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the
matter.
5. Approval of CUP 15-03, ADR 15-06 and W 15-01 to allow construction and operation of
a new, unmanned, standalone, wireless communication facility shall not be of effect
unless on or before 30 calendar days after Planning Commission adoption of the
Resolution, the property owner and applicant have executed and filed with the
Community Development Administrator or designee an Acceptance Form available
from the Development Services Department to indicate awareness and acceptance of
these conditions of approval.
6. The applicant/property owner shall construct a trash and recycling enclosure, sized to
comply with City requirements, including NPDES standards, on the property prior to the
final inspection of any building permits issued for the wireless communications facility.
Said enclosure shall be designed to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Administrator or designee.
Revised 9-27-2016 -12- 1970
7. The wireless tower shall be located as close as feasible to the church building without
harming the large oak trees near the southwest corner of the church. Prior to the
issuance of building permits for the facility, the applicant shall provide a report from a
certified arborist that evaluates the proposed location to determine whether or not the
facility will harm the oaks, and the applicant shall implement mitigation measures if
necessary to protect the oaks.
8. The applicant shall submit a parking lot restriping plan that provides as many
replacement parking spaces as possible, subject to the approval of the Community
Development Administrator or designee, and the parking lot shall be restriped
accordingly prior to the final inspection of any building permits issued for the wireless
communication facility.
9. If the location of the facility blocks access to the storage container, the container shall
be removed.
- - -
Attachment No. 2
August 23, 2016 Staff Report and
Attachments
DATE: August 23, 2016
TO: Honorable Chairman and Planning Commission
FROM: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator
By: Jeff Hamilton, Contract Planner
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 1970 – APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. CUP 15-03, ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. ADR 15-06,
AND WIRELESS REGULATION WAIVER REQUEST NO. W 15-01 WITH
A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) FOR THE REVISED
PROPOSAL FOR A NEW WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY
HOUSED IN A 53’-0” TALL FAUX BELL TOWER STRUCTURE IN THE
SOUTHEASTERLY PORTION OF THE PARKING LOT AT THE CHURCH
OF THE TRANSFIGURATION PROPERTY AT 1881 S. FIRST AVENUE
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 1970
SUMMARY
The applicant, Verizon Wireless, is proposing to construct a new, unmanned, wireless
communications facility on an R-1 zoned church property. The proposed project is
subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Architectural Design Review for a
new standalone wireless facility, and a Wireless Regulation Waiver to allow the facility
on an R-1 zoned property. Construction of a new utility facility is exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Initially, the design for the wireless facility was to be camouflaged as a 53’-0” tall faux
eucalyptus tree and a concrete block equipment enclosure. The application and waiver
request were denied by the Planning Commission on March 22, 2016. The grounds for
denial included findings that the design of the proposed project did not satisfy various
aesthetic and visual standards for conditional use permit and architectural design review
approvals in the R-1 zone and that the applicant had not satisfied the conditions for a
waiver request. The applicant subsequently filed an appeal to City Council, the hearing
of which was deferred by mutual agreement to allow the applicant additional time to
investigate alternatives. On July 29, 2016, the applicant submitted a revised application
with a new design for the proposed facility on the church property, enclosing it within a
new 53’-0” tall, faux bell tower, and with updated information to support the waiver
request, including an analysis of a small cell network alternative. It was determined that
the revised application should be reviewed by the Planning Commission rather than the
City Council, and the applicant agreed to this process. It is recommended that the
Planning Commission approve the proposed project, subject to the conditions listed in
this staff report, and adopt Resolution No. 1970 (Attachment No. 1).
Resolution No. 1970 - CUP 15-03, ADR 15-06, & W 15-01
Revised Proposal - Faux Bell Tower
1881 S. First Avenue
August 23, 2016 - Page 2 of 14
BACKGROUND
The Church of the Transfiguration owns the three-acre site at the intersection of First
and Lemon Avenues. The property is zoned R-1, Second One-Family Residential – see
Attachment No. 4 for an Aerial Photo with Zoning Information. The General Plan Land
Use Designation of the site is Low-Density Residential. Sections 9288.6 and 9288.8 of
the Arcadia Municipal Code allow wireless communication facilities at this property with
a Waiver.
The proposed project was initially for a facility camouflaged as a eucalyptus tree, and
was considered by the Planning Commission at public hearings on January 12, and
March 22, 2016. At those hearings, testimony was received from the public, including
expressions of support and opposition. Following discussion, the Commission voted 4-0
with one Commissioner absent, to adopt Resolution No. 1952 (Attachment No. 2) to
deny Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 15-03, Waiver Request No. 15-01, and
Architectural Design Review No. 15-06 for the proposed eucalyptus facility at the
hearing of March 22, 2016. In summary, the Planning Commission found that:
• the project would not blend into the environment;
• the project was not effectively camouflaged as a tree;
• the site was not adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use;
• the facility would not contribute to a positive physical image or identity of the
single-family area surrounding the site;
• the facility would not enhance the visual environment or character of the
community;
• the project was inconsistent with Policy LU-1.5 and LU-3.5 of the General Plan;
and
• denying the Waiver would not have the effect of prohibiting the provision of
wireless communications services as defined in the United States
Telecommunications Act of 1996 and as referenced in Arcadia Municipal Code
Section 9288.8.
The applicant filed an appeal on March 29, 2016. After that filing, the applicant sought
additional time to investigate alternative designs for the proposed facility at the church
site and to investigate the alternative of installing a small cell network in the area. The
City and the applicant agreed to defer the hearing of the appeal to allow this additional
investigation, with the understanding that if, as a result of this further investigation, the
application is substantially revised in a manner that warrants further review by the
Planning Commission, the new proposal would be reviewed by the Planning
Commission. On July 29, 2016, the applicant submitted a revised proposal to replace
the monopole disguised as a eucalyptus tree with a faux bell tower next to the church
Resolution No. 1970 - CUP 15-03, ADR 15-06, & W 15-01
Revised Proposal - Faux Bell Tower
1881 S. First Avenue
August 23, 2016 - Page 3 of 14
administration building. The City and the applicant agreed that the revised application
warranted further review by the Planning Commission.
REVISED PROPOSAL
In response to comments
expressed by the public and
the Planning Commission
that the faux eucalyptus tree
would not blend into the
existing environment and
would not enhance the
visual environment, the
applicant has revised the
proposal to house the
wireless communications
facility in a faux bell tower. The new tower will be 53’-0” tall; the faux eucalyptus tree
would also have been 53’-0” in height. The applicant proposes to construct the tower in
the southeastern portion of the Church parking lot – see Attachment No. 5 for the
proposed design plans. The tower will be approximately 20’-0” on each side, with a 400
square-foot footprint. The antennae, mechanical and electronic equipment will be inside
the tower. The proposed facility will result in the loss of three parking spaces adjacent to
the church administration building, leaving 48 spaces. New wireless communications
facilities such as this proposal are subject to Architectural Design Review to ensure that
the facility blends in with its surroundings.
Although wireless communications facilities
are prohibited in the R-1 zone, the applicant
has filed for a Waiver of the prohibition as
provided for by Section 9288.8 of the Arcadia
Municipal Code.
Resolution No. 1970 - CUP 15-03, ADR 15-06, & W 15-01
Revised Proposal - Faux Bell Tower
1881 S. First Avenue
August 23, 2016 - Page 4 of 14
ANALYSIS
The applicant has provided all of the required plans and supplemental documents
required by the City’s Wireless Communication Facilities Ordinance, including an
updated wireless regulation waiver request - see Attachment Nos. 6, 7 and 8, which
include the following:
• A Visual Impact Analysis of the proposal, and photos of existing small right-of-
way antenna installations;
• A map identifying the applicant’s existing wireless facilities in the vicinity;
• A coverage assessment showing current wireless coverage in the vicinity, and
anticipated wireless coverage following construction of the proposed project;
• An FCC/Signal Standards Report certified by a licensed radio frequency engineer
stating that electromagnetic (EM) emissions from the proposed facility will neither
exceed standards set by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), nor
interfere with any fire, police or other emergency communications system; and
• A written assessment of potential available alternatives to co-locate at an existing
facility within the vicinity of the project location, and an explanation of why these
options are infeasible.
The proposed location in the southerly portion of the parking lot of the Church minimizes
the visibility of the facility from neighboring streets – refer to Attachment No. 6: Visual
Impact Analysis. The proposed faux bell tower will hide the antennae, and the
accessory electrical and mechanical equipment.
The 53’-0” tall faux bell tower will be approximately 20 feet from the Arcadia Christian
School property to the south, 130 feet from the closest residence to the west, and
approximately 210 feet from the closest residence to the north. The proposed
communications equipment is to be camouflaged in a faux bell tower to help it blend in
with the existing church buildings on the property. The applicant is also proposing to
plant a new Crape Myrtle street tree on Lemon Avenue just north of the parking lot, near
an existing Crape Myrtle, to enhance the site.
The equipment will generate essentially no noise during normal operations. Should
power to the site fail, an emergency generator will operate to provide electricity during
the outage. Data provided by the applicant show that the generator will create an
average noise level of approximately 71 dB(A) which, according to the City’s Noise
Element, is comparable to the noise of a vacuum cleaner. The generator will only
operate during temporary power outages. At the closest house to the tower, the
estimated noise level would be approximately 36 dB(A), which, according to the City’s
Noise Element, would be well below the ambient noise level in a suburban area and
similar to the noise level inside a library. Even when the emergency generator is
operating, staff does not believe that the noise generated would exceed what is allowed
Resolution No. 1970 - CUP 15-03, ADR 15-06, & W 15-01
Revised Proposal - Faux Bell Tower
1881 S. First Avenue
August 23, 2016 - Page 5 of 14
by the Noise Element of the General Plan or cause significant harm to the health, safety
or general welfare of the neighborhood.
Concerns were expressed at the previous public hearings about the safety of the faux
eucalyptus during earthquakes or high winds. Construction of the faux bell tower will
have to comply with the California Building Code (CBC), which uses a 110 m.p.h. wind
speed to establish wind loads. Compliance with the CBC will ensure that the tower can
withstand high winds as well as earthquake shaking. The City’s Safety Element shows
that the site is not located in an area subject to liquefaction, nor is it within a known
earthquake fault zone. The applicant has also submitted a geotechnical study which
determined the project is not within either a fault or liquefaction zone. The City’s
Building Official reviewed the study and determined that exceptional or unusual
construction techniques are not required to meet the CBC.
The proposed location of the tower would require review by an arborist, at the
applicant’s expense, to confirm that the tower will not harm the oaks located along the
southerly property line.
The Church has been placing trash bins on the parking lot unscreened from view. In
addition, there is a large storage container situated to the south of the southerly building
on the property, next to the parking area. As conditions of approval, it will be required
that a trash enclosure meeting City standards be constructed on the property, and that
the storage container be removed if its use conflicts with the new location of the tower
near the church administration building.
Because the proposed location of the tower will result in the loss of three parking
spaces, staff recommends a condition of approval requiring the applicant to prepare a
revised parking lot plan that provides three replacement parking spaces if possible. It
appears that there is room in the large paved lot to provide additional parking spaces.
Since the project is not anticipated to add to the parking demand, no additional parking
spaces are required.
Architectural Review
The proposed faux bell tower is designed in a Mediterranean style to match the style of
the existing buildings on the property. The tower will have plastered walls painted to
match the color of the existing buildings. The proposed roof will be Spanish tile in
appearance to match the tile roof of the existing buildings. Additional detailing such as
pilasters on the east and west elevations, simulated wood panels, wrought iron fencing
at the base, openings styled to look like the windows on the existing structures, and the
vents under the eaves all combine to enhance the overall appearance and design
compatibility of the structure.
Bell towers and steeples are a common feature of churches. Examples can be found at
other locations in the city, such as Holy Angels Roman Catholic Church, Our Lady of the
Angels Church, and Hope International Church (see Attachment 4: Aerial Photo with
Zoning Information, Photos of the Subject Property and Photos of Other Churches). In
each of the examples, the towers are taller than the adjacent church buildings. The
Resolution No. 1970 - CUP 15-03, ADR 15-06, & W 15-01
Revised Proposal - Faux Bell Tower
1881 S. First Avenue
August 23, 2016 - Page 6 of 14
tower at Holy Angels Roman Catholic Church is less than three times the height of the
adjacent building (92’ vs. 33’). The tower at Hope International Church is approximately
twice as tall as the adjacent building (66’ vs. 33’). The proposed faux bell tower will be
53’-0” tall, just over twice as tall as the adjacent administrative building that is
approximately 23’ tall; therefore the proportion of the height of the new tower to the
adjacent building is consistent with other churches in the City. The height and size of
the proposed tower, along with the design, color and features of the structure, are an
integral part of the concealment elements of the wireless facility.
The proposed tower appears to be well designed and incorporates necessary finishes
and detailing to be compatible with the adjacent church buildings. As such, it appears to
be a significant aesthetic improvement over the previously proposed faux eucalyptus
tree.
Waiver
Although Section 9288.6(a)(2) of the Arcadia Municipal Code prohibits the installation of
all wireless communications facilities in R-1 zones, Section 9288.8 allows for waiver of
the prohibition, if the applicant demonstrates that such restriction or requirement either:
1) Prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless
communications services pursuant to the United States Telecommunications
Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II)); or
2) Unreasonably discriminates against the applicant when compared to other
providers within the City who are providing functionally equivalent wireless
communication services pursuant to the United States Telecommunications
Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II)).
If the applicant provides information that demonstrates either of these provisions should
apply, the presumption is that a waiver will be approved.
The applicant’s initial waiver request was based on finding no. 1. As required by Section
9288.8(b) of the Arcadia Municipal Code, an independent, qualified consultant reviewed
the initial Waiver Request. The reviewer’s report (Attachment No. 9: Waiver Request
Evaluation Report) evaluated the alternate site information and the proposed coverage
improvement. The reviewer expressed the opinion that the applicant exercised due
diligence in seeking alternative locations, and that the proposed site will fill an existing
gap in coverage. The applicant’s initial waiver request was denied by the Planning
Commission in part because it was not clear that the gap in personal wireless services
was significant and during the public hearing of March 22, 2016, the applicant’s
representative stated that an alternative to the proposed eucalyptus tree was the
installation of a series of small antenna facilities on poles in the public rights-of-way, but
that alternative had not been addressed in the applicant’s alternatives analysis.
The applicant has filed a revised waiver request, again based on finding no. 1 – refer to
Attachment No. 8: Wireless Regulation Waiver Request. In support of the request, the
application includes existing and proposed radio frequency propagation maps that the
Resolution No. 1970 - CUP 15-03, ADR 15-06, & W 15-01
Revised Proposal - Faux Bell Tower
1881 S. First Avenue
August 23, 2016 - Page 7 of 14
applicant claims show a significant gap in service. It also includes a written statement by
a Radio Frequency Design Engineer employed by the applicant which describes the
gap as being significant as it affects fourth-generation, long-term evolution (LTE) in-
building coverage in an area roughly bounded by La Sierra Drive to the north, Fourth
Avenue to the northeast, Sixth Avenue to the southeast, the Longden Avenue area to
the south, and El Monte Avenue to the west, and including residential areas along
Santa Anita Avenue. The statement further indicates the subject site will provide new
reliable LTE service to an area of approximately 1.3 square miles and a population of
31,000 residents.
The revised waiver request also describes the effort to find locations to address the
significant gap, including a new analysis of a small cell facilities network alternative (see
Attachment No. 8 for discussion of this alternative), and purports to demonstrate that
the subject site is the means of addressing the gap that is least intrusive on the values
that the restriction sought to serve.
With respect to the small cell network alternative, according to the applicant, multiple
facilities would be required to provide similar coverage as a tower at the church site.
The applicant indicated that at least ten small cell facilities comprised of two- to four-
foot antennas mounted on utility poles as well as equipment cabinets mounted on the
pole and on the ground adjacent to the pole would be required in residential areas with
yards abutting the curb with no sidewalk or visibly public space for ground-mounted
equipment. See Attachment No. 6 for sample photos of existing small cell installations.
The applicant evaluated a network of ten locations in the rights-of-way for installation on
streetlight or power poles and concluded that such a network would provide inferior
coverage compared to the proposed bell tower design at the church site and could not
be considered a less intrusive and feasible alternative to the proposed tower due to the
number of sites needed and their locations.
Without further technical analysis, it is impossible for staff to confirm how extensive a
small cell network would need to be to achieve comparable coverage. However, even at
ten small cell sites, this alternative would be more intrusive than subject bell tower
because the antennae and equipment cabinets placed on utility poles and on the
ground in parkways would be aesthetically unpleasing (with little opportunity for effective
concealment), add clutter to the streetscape and the parkways, and may hinder
sidewalk access in some cases. Additionally, there is concern that once installed, the
wireless facilities at these multiple sites may need to be expanded in the future.1
Furthermore, to expand the network to more sites on more streets (if that were required
to achieve comparable coverage) may require putting equipment on streets that
currently do not have streetlight or power poles in the rights-of-way, so new poles may
have to be installed. Many of the streets also do not have sidewalks, so the poles would
1 Due to recent developments in federal law and FCC regulations, local approval of certain types of
expansions is mandatory. For example, FCC rules implementing 47 USC §1455 mandate approval of
“eligible facilities requests” which in the public right-of-way can include an increase in height of up to 10
feet or 10% (whichever is greater) and an increase in width of up to 6 feet from the edge of the structure,
as well as up to 10% larger ground cabinets.
Resolution No. 1970 - CUP 15-03, ADR 15-06, & W 15-01
Revised Proposal - Faux Bell Tower
1881 S. First Avenue
August 23, 2016 - Page 8 of 14
essentially be in the front yards of homes. For all of these reasons, staff agrees that
the small cell network alternative should be rejected in this instance.
Based on all the evidence, including that provided by the applicant and the independent
reviewer, staff believes the applicant has demonstrated that there is a significant gap in
service and that the proposed faux bell tower will fill this gap using the least intrusive
means, and as a result, the project meets the Municipal Code standards for approval of
the Waiver Request from the R-1 zoning prohibition of wireless facilities.
Federal and State Rules for Timely Processing of Wireless Applications
On March 29, 2016, the applicant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial
of its initial application. Arcadia Municipal Code Section 9295.16(B) requires that an
appeal hearing be scheduled not more than 40 calendar days after filing of the appeal.
In addition, federal and state law and FCC orders have established certain time limits
for processing applications for wireless telecommunications facilities, appeal rights, and
remedies for failures to act within the time periods. Federal law (47 USC §
332(c)(7)(B)(v)) permits any person adversely affected by any “final action” or “failure to
act” on a wireless application, to commence an action in any court of competent
jurisdiction within 30 days after such action or failure to act.
The applicant requested additional time to prepare for the appeal hearing, and without
waiving any claims or making any admissions, the City and the applicant entered into a
letter agreement dated May 5, 2016, which established by mutual written agreement
July 19, 2016 as the date to hold an appeal hearing before the City Council and August
16, 2016 as the earliest date to commence the applicable 30 day limitations period for
any action brought by the applicant under 47 USC § 332(c)(7)(B)(v). By letter
agreement dated July 15, 2016, the dates were further revised and extended to allow
the Planning Commission to review the revised application. The parties have agreed
that the earliest date to commence the applicable 30 day limitations period for any
action brought by the applicant under 47 USC § 332(c)(7)(B)(v) is the earlier to occur of:
a) the date 5 days after Planning Commission decision (if no appeal filed), b) the date
City Council issues a written decision on any appeal if applicable, or c) October 4, 2016.
This means the Planning Commission decision on the revised application, any appeal to
the City Council, and the issuance of a final written decision on any appeal must be
completed by October 4, 2016.
Federal Preemption Related to Health Effects
There are significant federal limitations on local authority to regulate siting of wireless
communications facilities based on concerns about environmental effects of radio
frequency emissions. Federal law provides:
No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the
placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on
the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent
Resolution No. 1970 - CUP 15-03, ADR 15-06, & W 15-01
Revised Proposal - Faux Bell Tower
1881 S. First Avenue
August 23, 2016 - Page 9 of 14
that such facilities comply with the [Federal Communication] Commission's
regulations concerning such emissions (47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv))
The revised application contains a satisfactory demonstration that the proposed facilities
will comply with FCC standards – see Attachment 7.
FINDINGS
A. Section 9275.1.2 of the Arcadia Municipal Code requires that for a Conditional Use
Permit to be granted, it must be found that all of the following prerequisite conditions
can be satisfied:
1. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to
the public health or welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in
such zone or vicinity.
The applicant has prepared the required health and safety studies showing that
the proposed wireless facility will not be detrimental to the public health. The
facility is located on private property and is approximately 130 feet from the
nearest residence. The 53’-0” faux bell tower will be compatible with the overall
design and site planning of the church. The wireless communications facility will
be camouflaged as a faux bell tower to blend into the environment. As such, the
proposal will not be detrimental to the public health or welfare or injurious to the
other properties in the area.
2. That the use applied for at the location indicated is properly one for which
a Conditional Use Permit is authorized.
The zoning of The Church of the Transfiguration property is R-1, Second One-
Family Zone. Arcadia Municipal Code Sections 9288.6 and 9288.8 authorize a
standalone wireless facility at the proposed location, subject to approval of a
Conditional Use Permit, Architectural Design Review, and a Wireless Regulation
Waiver.
3. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate said use, and all yards, spaces, walls, fences, parking,
loading, landscaping, and other features required to adjust said use with
the land and uses in the neighborhood.
The proposed location is an approximately 400 square-foot portion of an existing
parking lot serving the Church. The site is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate the proposed wireless facility, and only minor adjustments to the
site are necessary to improve the aesthetics of the site. The applicant will be
required as conditions of approval to provide a trash enclosure, and restripe the
parking lot to provide as many replacement parking spaces as possible.
4. That the site abuts streets and highways adequate in width and pavement
type to carry the kind of traffic generated by the proposed use.
Resolution No. 1970 - CUP 15-03, ADR 15-06, & W 15-01
Revised Proposal - Faux Bell Tower
1881 S. First Avenue
August 23, 2016 - Page 10 of 14
The Church of the Transfiguration property is accessed from First and Lemon
Avenues. These streets are adequate in width and pavement type to carry the
traffic generated by the current and proposed uses. The proposed project, as an
unmanned wireless facility, will require only occasional access for maintenance
after construction, and will have no impact on the surrounding streets.
5. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect
the comprehensive General Plan.
The General Plan Land Use Designation of the subject site is Low-Density
Residential. Approval of the new, unmanned, wireless communications facility
will not adversely affect the religious activities at the location, or create visual
impacts since the proposed facility will be camouflaged as a bell tower and will
be compatible in design and scale with the existing buildings on the property. In
particular, the height and size of the tower, as proposed, are designed to be
proportionate in size and scale to the adjacent building, and along with the
design, color and features of the structure, serve to enhance the compatibility of
the tower with the adjacent buildings. As such, the proposal will not adversely
affect the comprehensive General Plan.
B. Arcadia Municipal Code section 9288.8 allows for waiver of the prohibition of new
wireless communication facilities in the R-1 zone, if the applicant demonstrates that
such restriction or requirement either:
1. Prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless
communications services pursuant to the United States
Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II)); or
2. Unreasonably discriminates against the applicant when compared to other
providers within the City who are providing functionally equivalent wireless
communication services pursuant to the United States
Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II)).
The applicant has filed a Waiver Request based on Finding No. B.1. In support of
the request, the application includes the existing and proposed radio frequency
propagation maps that show the gap in service being filled by the proposed
facility at the subject location. The application also describes the effort to find
alternative locations to the site, and that this is the least intrusive, feasible site.
Based on the information provided, and as confirmed by a review by an
independent, third party consultant hired by the City, the evidence shows that the
applicant has demonstrated that there is a significant gap in the applicant’s
service, the proposed faux bell tower facility is the least intrusive means to
address that gap in the R-1 residential area, and that denying the waiver would
have the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless communications services
as defined in the United States Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C.
§332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II)).
Resolution No. 1970 - CUP 15-03, ADR 15-06, & W 15-01
Revised Proposal - Faux Bell Tower
1881 S. First Avenue
August 23, 2016 - Page 11 of 14
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
If it is determined that no significant physical alterations to the site are necessary, then
this project, as new construction of a small utility facility, qualifies as a Class 3
Categorical Exemption per the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines for new construction of
small utility facilities. A Preliminary Exemption Assessment is attached to this staff
report (Attachment No. 3).
PUBLIC COMMENTS/NOTICE
Public hearing notices for this continued item
were mailed on August 11, 2016, to the property
owners and tenants of those properties that are
located within 300 feet of the subject property. As
of August 18, 2016, numerous public comments
had been received - see Attachment No. 11 for
the Public Comments.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve the proposal, subject to the
following conditions, and find that the project qualifies for a Categorical Exemption from
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and adopt Resolution No. 1970:
1. Approval of Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 15-03, Architectural Design Review
No. ADR 15-06 and Wireless Regulation Waiver Request No. W 15-01 is limited to
the subject, unmanned, wireless communications facility, which shall be operated
and maintained in a manner that is consistent with the revised proposal and plans
submitted and approved for these applications, and shall be subject to periodic
inspections, after which the provisions of this Conditional Use Permit may be
adjusted after due notice to address any adverse impacts to the adjacent streets,
rights-of-way, and/or the neighboring properties.
2. Noncompliance with the plans, provisions and conditions of approval for CUP 15-03,
ADR 15-06 and/or W 15-01 shall be grounds for immediate suspension or revocation
of any approvals for the wireless facility.
3. All City requirements regarding disabled access and facilities, occupancy limits,
building safety, health code compliance, emergency equipment, environmental
regulation compliance, and parking and site design shall be complied with by the
property owner/applicant to the satisfaction of the Building Official, City Engineer,
Community Development Administrator, Fire Marshal, and Public Works Services
Director, or their respective designees. Any changes to the proposed facility may be
subject to building permits after having fully detailed plans submitted for plan check
review and approval by the aforementioned City officials and employees, or
designees.
Resolution No. 1970 - CUP 15-03, ADR 15-06, & W 15-01
Revised Proposal - Faux Bell Tower
1881 S. First Avenue
August 23, 2016 - Page 12 of 14
4. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Arcadia and its
officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or
proceeding against the City of Arcadia, its officials, officers, employees or agents to
attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval or conditional approval of the City of
Arcadia concerning this project and/or land use decision, including but not limited to
any approval or conditional approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, or
City Staff, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government
Code Section 66499.37 or other provision of law applicable to this project or
decision. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or
proceeding concerning the project and/or land use decision and the City shall
cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City reserves the right, at its own
option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officials, officers,
employees, and agents in the defense of the matter.
5. Approval of CUP 15-03, ADR 15-06 and W 15-01 to allow construction and
operation of a new, unmanned, standalone, wireless communications facility shall
not be of effect unless on or before 30 calendar days after Planning Commission
adoption of the Resolution, the property owner and applicant have executed and
filed with the Community Development Administrator or designee an Acceptance
Form available from the Development Services Department to indicate awareness
and acceptance of these conditions of approval.
6. The applicant/property owner shall construct a trash and recycling enclosure, sized
to comply with City requirements, including NPDES standards, on the property prior
to the final inspection of any building permits issued for the wireless communications
facility. Said enclosure shall be designed to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Administrator or designee.
7. The wireless tower shall be located as close as feasible to the church building
without harming the large oak trees near the southwest corner of the church. Prior to
the issuance of building permits for the facility, the applicant shall provide a report
from a certified arborist that evaluates the proposed location to determine whether or
not the facility will harm the oaks, and the applicant shall implement mitigation
measures if necessary to protect the oaks.
8. The applicant shall submit a parking lot restriping plan that provides as many
replacement parking spaces as possible, subject to the approval of the Community
Development Administrator or designee, and the parking lot shall be restriped
accordingly prior to the final inspection for any building permits issued for the
wireless communication facility.
9. If the location of the facility blocks access to the storage container, the container
shall be removed.
Resolution No. 1970 - CUP 15-03, ADR 15-06, & W 15-01
Revised Proposal - Faux Bell Tower
1881 S. First Avenue
August 23, 2016 - Page 13 of 14
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
If, after considering the record and any additional information presented at the public
hearing, the Planning Commission makes any of the following findings, it may deny the
revised application:
1. The applicant has not demonstrated there is a “significant gap” in its wireless
service in the R-1 residential area where it proposes to install its wireless facility; or
2. The applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed wireless facility is the least
intrusive means to address the gap considering the values that the restriction on
wireless facilities in the R-1 residential area sought to serve.
If, on the other hand, after considering the record and any additional information
presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission determines that it cannot
make either or both of the above-noted findings, it must approve the revised application.
Approval
If the Planning Commission intends to approve this revised application, the Commission
should approve a motion to approve Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 15-03,
Architectural Design Review No. ADR 15-06 and Wireless Regulation Waiver Request
No. W 15-01; state that the revised proposal satisfies the requisite findings; and adopt
the attached Resolution No. 1970 that incorporates the requisite environmental,
Conditional Use Permit, and Wireless Regulation Waiver findings and the conditions of
approval as presented in this staff report, or as modified by the Commission.
Denial
If the Planning Commission intends to deny this proposal, the Commission should close
the public hearing; make its decision known by stating the finding(s) that the revised
application does not satisfy along with reasons based on the record; and direct staff to
prepare a resolution to deny Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 15-03, Architectural
Design Review No. ADR 15-06 and/or Wireless Regulation Waiver Request No. W 15-
01 that incorporates the Commission’s decision and specific findings, for adoption at the
next meeting. No decision to deny the proposal will be final and subject to appeal unless
and until adopted by resolution.
If any Planning Commissioner or other interested party has any questions or comments
regarding this matter prior to the August 23, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting,
please contact Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator at (626) 574-5442,
or jkasama@ArcadiaCA.gov.
Approved:
Resolution No. 1970 - CUP 15-03, ADR 15-06, & W 15-01
Revised Proposal - Faux Bell Tower
1881 S. First Avenue
August 23, 2016 - Page 14 of 14
Attachments:
1. Resolution No. 1970
2. Resolution No. 1952 for Denial of Eucalyptus Facility
3. Preliminary Exemption Assessment Information
4. Aerial Photo with Zoning Information, Photos of the Subject Property and
Photos of Other Churches
5. Proposed Architectural Plans
6. Visual Impact Analysis and Photos of Existing Small ROW Installations
7. Documents from Verizon in Support of the Application
8. Wireless Regulation Waiver Request
9. Waiver Request Evaluation Report
10. Documents Related to Federal Oversight
11. Public Comments
Attachment No. 1
Resolution No. 1970
Attachment No. 1
Attachment No. 2
Resolution No. 1952 for Denial of
Eucalyptus Facility
Attachment No. 2
RESOLUTION NO. 1952
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP
15-03, ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. ADR 15-06, AND
WIRELESS REGULATION WAIVER REQUEST NO. W 15-01 FOR A NEW
WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY WITH A 53’-0” TALL MONOPOLE
ANTENNA STRUCTURE CAMOUFLAGED AS A EUCALYPTUS TREE IN A
200 SQUARE-FOOT, 8’-0” TALL EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE IN THE
SOUTHERLY PORTION OF THE CHURCH OF THE TRANSFIGURATION
PROPERTY AT 1881 SOUTH FIRST AVENUE
WHEREAS, on April 2, 2015, an application was filed by Mr. Ryan Birdseye of Los
Angeles SMSA Limited Partnership on behalf of Verizon Wireless for a Conditional Use
Permit for a new wireless communication facility with a monopole antenna structure and an
equipment shelter at 1881 S. First Avenue, Development Services Department Case No.
CUP 15-03; and
WHEREAS, on April 2, 2015, an application was filed by Mr. Ryan Birdseye of Los
Angeles SMSA Limited Partnership on behalf of Verizon Wireless for Architectural Design
Review for the proposed new wireless communication facility at 1881 S. First Avenue,
Development Services Department Case No. ADR 15-06; and
WHEREAS, on April 2, 2015, an application was filed by Mr. Ryan Birdseye of Los
Angeles SMSA Limited Partnership on behalf of Verizon Wireless for a Waiver Request for
the proposed new wireless communication facility to allow a new wireless communication
facility with a monopole antenna structure and an equipment shelter in the R-1 zone, where
such facilities are otherwise prohibited, at 1881 S. First Avenue, Development Services
Department Case No. W 15-01; and
WHEREAS, on November 18, 2015, Planning Services completed an environmental
assessment for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), and it was determined to recommend that the Planning Commission find that the
project is exempt under CEQA per Section 15303(d) of the CEQA Guidelines (Review for
Exemption) because the project has no potential to cause a significant effect on the
environment, and because it consists of extension of a utility per CEQA Guidelines Section
15303, Class 3; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on January 12,
2016, and March 22, 2016, at which times all interested persons were given full opportunity
to be heard and to present evidence.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA
RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the Planning Commission considered the staff reports and all
attachments dated January 12, 2016, and March 22, 2016, and all testimony and evidence
submitted at both hearings, but did not consider any evidence or testimony related to health
impacts from radio-frequency (RF) emissions.
SECTION 2. This Commission finds:
a. That the use applied for at the location indicated is properly one for which a
Conditional Use Permit could be authorized.
FACT: The zoning of The Church of the Transfiguration property is R-1, Second
One-Family Zone, where wireless facilities are normally prohibited by Arcadia Municipal
Code Section 9288.6. Only by satisfying the requirements for a Waiver, as provided by
Arcadia Municipal Code Section 9288.8, in addition to satisfying the requirements for the
Conditional Use Permit, would the facility be allowed. However, the Planning Commission
has determined that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the project meets the
standards of the Waiver request and the Conditional Use Permit.
b. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will be detrimental to the public
health or welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or vicinity.
FACT: The applicant has prepared the required health and safety studies showing
that the proposed wireless facility complies with Federal Communications Commissions
(FCC) requirements for radio frequency emissions, however, the project will be detrimental
-2- 1952
to the public welfare because the existing and proposed trees will not substantially screen
the facility from view, and the monopole, camouflaged as a eucalyptus tree, will not blend
into the environment. The proposed facility is inconsistent with City of Arcadia Residential
Architectural Design Review standards in that it would not “contribute to a positive physical
image and identity” of the neighboring single family neighborhood, it will not “enhance the
visual character of the community”, and it is insensitive “to both the site and its
surroundings”, because the tower will not be effectively camouflaged as a eucalyptus tree,
and it will not blend into the environment due to its design and tall 53-foot height.
c. That the site for the proposed use is not adequate in size and shape to
accommodate said use.
FACT: As described in Section 2.a. above, the proposed facility is inconsistent with
the Residential Architectural Design Review Guidelines. The site is not large enough, nor
does it have sufficient landscaping or improvements, to effectively screen the proposed
facility from view.
d. That the facility would not contribute to a positive physical image or identity of the
single family area where it is located.
FACT: As described in Section 2.a. above, the proposed facility is inconsistent with
the Residential Architectural Design Review Guidelines. It will not be compatible with the
surrounding single family area in terms of height and visual impact.
e. That the facility would not enhance the visual environment or character of the
community.
FACT: As described in Section 2.a. above, the proposed facility is inconsistent with
the Residential Architectural Design Review Guidelines. It will not be compatible with the
surrounding single family area in terms of height and visual impact and would tend to look
industrial or commercial in nature which would be out of character with the surrounding
-3- 1952
area. There are no other eucalyptus trees on or near the proposed tower, making it unlikely
to blend into the environment.
f. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will adversely affect the
comprehensive General Plan.
FACT: The General Plan Land Use Designation of the subject site is Low Density
Residential. The proposed new unmanned wireless facility will not adversely affect the
religious activities at the location, but there are not effective buffer areas between the site
and the surrounding residential uses to avoid the visual impacts of the proposed tower even
if camouflaged as a eucalyptus tree. The design will not blend in with the existing mature
and proposed trees on the property.
The project is inconsistent with Policy LU-1.5 of the Land Use Element of the
General Plan:
“Require that effective buffer areas be created between land uses that are of
significantly different character or that have operating characteristics which could
create nuisances along a common boundary.”
The project will be visually intrusive into the residential neighborhood. The site is too
small to adequately screen the 53-foot tall tower and block enclosure, and the proposed
design is insufficiently attractive or realistic to be compatible with the existing trees.
The project is inconsistent with Policy LU-3.5 of the Land Use Element of the
General Plan:
“Require that new construction, additions, renovations, and infill developments be
sensitive to neighborhood context, building forms, scale and colors.”
The design of the 53-foot tall tower and block enclosure is insufficiently compatible
with the neighborhood context. It is much taller than the 1 and 2-story structures nearby that
are roughly 16 to 30 feet in height and taller than most trees in the vicinity. In addition,
Verizon representatives stated at the March 22 hearing that if co-location of additional
-4- 1952
antennas from other providers was proposed in the future, the tower would have to be made
many feet taller, making it more visually more obtrusive and further defeating efforts at
concealment and camouflage. The proposed tower is not realistic enough to blend with the
existing trees.
Based on these facts, the proposal will adversely affect the comprehensive General
Plan.
f.That a waiver of certain provisions of the wireless communication facility
regulations in order to avoid having the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless
communications services pursuant to the United States Telecommunications Act of 1996
(47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II)), as provided in Arcadia Municipal Code Section 9288.8, is
not justified.
FACT: Denying the waiver would not have the effect of prohibiting the provision of
wireless communications services as defined in the United States Telecommunications Act
of 1996 (47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II)). The application includes existing and proposed
radio frequency propagation maps that show a small area of reduced service being filled by
the proposed monopole location. It is not clear there is a gap in personal wireless services
as Verizon also states in their application that the purpose of the infrastructure is to
enhance the quality of the service and meet increasing data demands of its users. The
application also describes the effort to find alternative locations to the site at the church and
suggests that this is the only feasible site that agreed to host the monopole facility.
However, the applicant’s representative stated at the March 22 hearing that multiple
locations on the public rights-of-way could also provide an equal level of service. The
applicant also suggested at the March 22 hearing that the least intrusive means of filling the
alleged service gap was to install the proposed tower near the church. However, it is
arguable that the applicant’s alternative of multiple small antennas in the public rights-of-
-5- 1952
Attachment No. 3
Preliminary Exemption Assessment
Information
Attachment No. 3
CITY OF ARCADIA
240 W. HUNTINGTON DRIVE
ARCADIA, CA 91007
PRELIMINARY EXEMPTION ASSESSMENT
(Certificate of Determination
When Attached to Notice of Exemption)
1.Name or description of project:Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 15-03, Waiver Request
Application No. W 15-1, & Architectural Design Review Application
No. 15-06, for a new standalone wireless facility
2.Project Location – Identify street
address and cross streets or attach a
map showing project site (preferably a
USGS 15’ or 7 1/2’ topographical map
identified by quadrangle name):
1881 S. First Ave., Arcadia, CA
(cross streets: Lemon Ave. & 1st Ave.)
3.Entity or person undertaking project:A.
B. Other (Private)
(1) Name Verizon Wireless
(2) Address
4.Staff Determination:
The Lead Agency’s Staff, having undertaken and completed a preliminary review of this project in accordance with
the Lead Agency's "Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)" has
concluded that this project does not require further environmental assessment because:
a. The proposed action does not constitute a project under CEQA.
b. The project is a Ministerial Project.
c. The project is an Emergency Project.
d. The project constitutes a feasibility or planning study.
e. The project is categorically exempt.
Applicable Exemption Class: Class 3 (15303(d) ) Utility extensions
f. The project is statutorily exempt.
Applicable Exemption:
g. The project is otherwise exempt on
the following basis:
h. The project involves another public agency which constitutes the Lead Agency.
Name of Lead Agency:
Date: November 18, 2015 Staff: Jeff Hamilton, Contract Planner
Preliminary Exemption Assessment\2011 FORM “A”
Attachment No. 4
Aerial Photo with Zoning Information &
Photos of the Subject Property & Photos of
Other Churches
Attachment No. 4
Overlays
Selected parcel highlighted
Parcel location within City of Arcadian/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Property Owner(s):
Architectural Design Overlay:
Downtown Overlay:
Special Height Overlay:
Parking Overlay:
Lot Area (sq ft):
Year Built:
Main Structure / Unit (sq. ft.):
General Plan:
R-1 (7,500)
Number of Units:
LDR
Zoning:
Property Characteristics
1971
3,550
0
CHURCH OF THE TRANSFIGURATION
Site Address:
1881 S 1ST AVE
This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for
reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current,
or otherwise reliable.
Report generated20-Nov-2015
Page 1 of 1
2.8 ac
View of the southerly portion of the parking lot where the tower will be located.
View of the property from the intersection of First and Lemon Avenues.
Rear of the church building facing the parking lot.
Small oak trees along southerly property line.
Holy Angels Roman Catholic Church—370 Campus Dr.
Our Lady of the Angels Church—1100 W. Duarte Rd.
Arcadia Community Church—121 Alice St.
Hope International Church—1735 S. Baldwin Ave.
Attachment No. 5
Proposed Architectural Plans
Attachment No. 5
ISSUE STATUSPROPRIETARY INFORMATIONTHE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF
DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY & CONFIDENTIAL TOVERIZON WIRELESS
ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATESTO VERIZON WIRELESS IS STRICTLY PROHIBITEDDESCRIPTION
DATEBY12/16/14
TRR
REV.0
FOR COMMENT
TECTONIC W.O. NUMBER: 7288.1812/22/14
TRR
1
PER COMMENTS
7/31/15
TRR
2
PER COMMENTS
11/2/15
TRR
3
CITY COMMENTS
12/21/15
TRR
4
90% ZONING
3/15/16
TRR
5
CITY COMMENTS
7/21/16
TRR
6
REDESIGNED SITE
7/28/16
7
FOR ZONINGTJBT-1
TITLE SHEET
WISTARIA
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A&E VENDOR:A&E COORDINATOR:VERIZON WIRELESS SIGNATURE BLOCKDISCIPLINE:
SIGNATURE:
DATE:
RE:RE VENDOR:UTILITY VENDOR:RF:EE:CE:
CODE COMPLIANCE
THIS PROJECT IS A VERIZON WIRELESS UNMANNED TELECOMMUNICATION WIRELESSFACILITY. IT WILL CONSIST OF THE FOLLOWING:x
NEW BELL TOWER
x
(2) NEW VERIZON WIRELESS EQUIPMENT CABINETS (MCE DESIGN)
x
(1) NEW VERIZON WIRELESS GPS ANTENNAS
x
(1) NEW VERIZON WIRELESS STANDBY DIESEL DC GENERATOR WITH 54 GALLON UL142BASETANK
x
(12) NEW VERIZON WIRELESS 8' TALL PANEL ANTENNAS
x
(12) NEW VERIZON WIRELESS RRUS
x
(2) NEW VERIZON WIRELESS RAYCAPS
x
CONNECTION TO THE EXISTING ELECTRICAL AND TELEPHONE UTILITIES AS REQUIRED TOSERVICE THE SITE
x
NEW 5'X14' COVERED TRASH ENCLOSUREDRIVING DIRECTIONS
PROPERTY INFORMATION:SITE NAME:WISTARIASITE ADDRESS:1881 SOUTH 1ST AVENUEARCADIA, CA 91006JURISDICTION:CITY OF ARCADIA
TO:1881 SOUTH 1ST AVENUEARCADIA, CA 91006
1. MERGE ONTO I-405 NORTH2. MERGE ONTO I-605 NORTH
3. TAKE THE LOWER AZUSA RD/LOS ANGELES ST EXIT4. TURN LEFT ONTO LOWER AZUSA RD
5. TURN RIGHT ONTO SANTA ANITA AVE6. TURN RIGHT ONTO EAST LEMON AVE7. SITE ACCESS IS LOCATED ON RIGHT.VICINITY MAP
FROM: VERIZON OFFICE
SHEETDESCRIPTION
REV
GENERAL CONTRACTOR NOTES
ZONING DRAWINGS
DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGSCONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL PLANS AND EXISTING DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS ON THE JOBSITE AND SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT IN WRITING OF ANY DISCREPANCIES BEFOREPROCEEDING WITH THE WORK OR BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SAME.ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER
CURRENT ZONING:TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION:AREA OF CONSTRUCTION:
TYPE V-B
20'x20' (400 SQ FT)
APN: 5789-013-008R-1 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL)CONSTRUCTION INFORMATIONOCCUPANCY:
U
APPLICANT/LESSEE
15505 SAND CANYON AVENUE, D1IRVINE, CA 92618OFFICE: (949) 286-7000APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVEPROPERTY OWNER:OWNER: CHURCH OF THE TRANSFIGURATION ADDRESS: 1881 SOUTH 1ST AVE, ARCADIA, CA 91006CONTACT: REV JULIE BRYANT TELEPHONE: (626) 445-3340 PROJECT SUMMARY
x
2013 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE
x
2013 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE
x
2013 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE
x
2013 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE
x
2013 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING CODE
x
2013 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE
x
2013 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE
x
SHELTER IS STATE OF CALIFORNIAAPPROVED AND INSPECTED, NOT FORLOCAL INSPECTION.
PROJECT TEAM
ARCHITECT:
SURVEYOR:
UTILITY COORDINATOR:
PLANNING
SITE ACQUISITION
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER:
SITE
VINCULUMS
10 PASTEUR, SUITE 100IRVINE, CA 92618(949) 783-3550
AMBIT CONSULTING
428 MAIN ST, SUITE 200
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648(602) 463-0472
TECTONIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS2081 BUSINESS CENTER DR, SUITE 219IRVINE, CA 92612(949) 502-8555
TECTONIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS2081 BUSINESS CENTER DR, SUITE 219IRVINE, CA 92612(949) 502-8555
TECTONIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS2081 BUSINESS CENTER DR, SUITE 219IRVINE, CA 92612(949) 502-8555
OVERALL HEIGHT = 53'-0" AGL
MTX49 / BSC29MCEADA COMPLIANCE:
FACILITY IS UNMANNED AND NOT FOR HUMAN HABITATION.MACHINERY SPACES ARE EXEMPT FROM ACCESSIBILITYREQUIREMENTS PER THE CBC SECTION 11B-203.5.
TRANSPORT:
Know what's
R
TO OBTAIN LOCATION OF PARTICIPANTSUNDERGROUND FACILITIES BEFORE
YOU DIG IN CALIFORNIA (SOUTH), CALLDIG ALERT
TOLL FREE: 1-800-227-2600 ORwww.digalert.org
CALIFORNIA STATUTEREQUIRES MIN OF 2
WORKING DAYS NOTICE
BEFORE YOU EXCAVATE
T-1TITLE SHEET
7
A-1SITE PLAN
7
A-2ANTENNA ORIENTATION AND DETAILED SITE PLANS
7
A-3ELEVATIONS
7
TECTONIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS2081 BUSINESS CENTER DR, SUITE 219IRVINE, CA 92612(949) 502-8555
TECTONIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS2081 BUSINESS CENTER DR, SUITE 219IRVINE, CA 92612(949) 502-8555ZONING:
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER:
TECTONIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS2081 BUSINESS CENTER DR, SUITE 219IRVINE, CA 92612(949) 502-8555
TECTONIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS2081 BUSINESS CENTER DR, SUITE 219IRVINE, CA 92612(949) 502-8555
C-1SITE SURVEY5A-4ELEVATIONS7
ISSUE STATUSPROPRIETARY INFORMATIONTHE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF
DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY & CONFIDENTIAL TOVERIZON WIRELESS
ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATESTO VERIZON WIRELESS IS STRICTLY PROHIBITEDDESCRIPTION
DATEBY12/16/14
TRR
REV.0
FOR COMMENT
TECTONIC W.O. NUMBER: 7288.1812/22/14
TRR
1
PER COMMENTS
7/31/15
TRR
2
PER COMMENTS
11/2/15
TRR
3
CITY COMMENTS
12/21/15
TRR
4
90% ZONING
3/15/16
TRR
5
CITY COMMENTS
7/21/16
TRR
6
REDESIGNED SITE
7/28/16
7
FOR ZONINGTJBA-1
SITE PLAN
ISSUE STATUSPROPRIETARY INFORMATIONTHE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF
DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY & CONFIDENTIAL TOVERIZON WIRELESS
ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATESTO VERIZON WIRELESS IS STRICTLY PROHIBITEDDESCRIPTION
DATEBY12/16/14
TRR
REV.0
FOR COMMENT
TECTONIC W.O. NUMBER: 7288.1812/22/14
TRR
1
PER COMMENTS
7/31/15
TRR
2PER COMMENTS11/2/15
TRR
3
CITY COMMENTS
12/21/15
TRR
4
90% ZONING
3/15/16
TRR
5
CITY COMMENTS
7/21/16
TRR
6
REDESIGNED SITE
7/28/16
7
FOR ZONINGTJBA-2
ANTENNA ORIENTATION& DETAILED SITE PLANS
ISSUE STATUSPROPRIETARY INFORMATIONTHE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF
DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY & CONFIDENTIAL TOVERIZON WIRELESS
ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATESTO VERIZON WIRELESS IS STRICTLY PROHIBITEDDESCRIPTION
DATEBY12/16/14
TRR
REV.0
FOR COMMENT
TECTONIC W.O. NUMBER: 7288.1812/22/14
TRR
1
PER COMMENTS
7/31/15
TRR
2
PER COMMENTS
11/2/15
TRR
3
CITY COMMENTS
12/21/15
TRR
4
90% ZONING
3/15/16
TRR
5
CITY COMMENTS
7/21/16
TRR
6
REDESIGNED SITE
7/28/16
7
FOR ZONINGTJBA-3
ELEVATIONS
ISSUE STATUSPROPRIETARY INFORMATIONTHE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF
DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY & CONFIDENTIAL TOVERIZON WIRELESS
ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATESTO VERIZON WIRELESS IS STRICTLY PROHIBITEDDESCRIPTION
DATEBY12/16/14
TRR
REV.0
FOR COMMENT
TECTONIC W.O. NUMBER: 7288.1812/22/14
TRR
1
PER COMMENTS
7/31/15
TRR
2
PER COMMENTS
11/2/15
TRR
3
CITY COMMENTS
12/21/15
TRR
4
90% ZONING
3/15/16
TRR
5
CITY COMMENTS
7/21/16
TRR
6
REDESIGNED SITE
7/28/16
7
FOR ZONINGTJBA-4
ELEVATIONS
Attachment No. 6
Visual Impact Analysis & Photos of Existing
Small Right-of-Way Installations
Attachment No. 6
Photo simulation accuracy is based on information provided to Blue Water Design by the applicant.
PROPOSED
1881 South 1st Avenue
Arcadia, CA 91006
EXISTING
CONTACT BLUEWATERDESIGN
bluewater-design.net
michelle@ bluewater-design.net
p 425.615.0944
VIEW1
Wistaria
Completed July 29, 2016
p 949.502.8555
Tectonic
2081 Business Center Dr. Suite 219
Irvine, CA 92612
LOCATION
X
APPLICANT
Verizon Wireless
15505 Sand Canyon Avenue
Irvine, CA 92618
Building “D” 1st Floor
E Lemon Ave
S 1st Ave
E Las Flores Ave
S Santa Anita AveLouise AveGrace Ave
PROPOSED
ANTENNA LOCATION
(Inside (N) Bell Tower)
Photo simulation accuracy is based on information provided to Blue Water Design by the applicant.
PROPOSED
1881 South 1st Avenue
Arcadia, CA 91006
EXISTING
CONTACT BLUEWATERDESIGN
bluewater-design.net
michelle@ bluewater-design.net
p 425.615.0944
VIEW2
Wistaria
Completed July 29, 2016
p 949.502.8555
Tectonic
2081 Business Center Dr. Suite 219
Irvine, CA 92612
LOCATION
X
APPLICANT
Verizon Wireless
15505 Sand Canyon Avenue
Irvine, CA 92618
Building “D” 1st Floor
E Lemon Ave
S 1st Ave
E Las Flores Ave
S Santa Anita AveLouise AveGrace Ave
PROPOSED
ANTENNA LOCATION
(Inside (N) Bell Tower)
Photo simulation accuracy is based on information provided to Blue Water Design by the applicant.
PROPOSED
1881 South 1st Avenue
Arcadia, CA 91006
EXISTING
CONTACT BLUEWATERDESIGN
bluewater-design.net
michelle@ bluewater-design.net
p 425.615.0944
VIEW3
Wistaria
Completed July 29, 2016
p 949.502.8555
Tectonic
2081 Business Center Dr. Suite 219
Irvine, CA 92612
LOCATION
X
APPLICANT
Verizon Wireless
15505 Sand Canyon Avenue
Irvine, CA 92618
Building “D” 1st Floor
E Lemon Ave
S 1st Ave
E Las Flores Ave
S Santa Anita AveLouise AveGrace Ave
PROPOSED
ANTENNA LOCATION
(Inside (N) Bell Tower)
Photo simulation accuracy is based on information provided to Blue Water Design by the applicant.
PROPOSED
1881 South 1st Avenue
Arcadia, CA 91006
EXISTING
CONTACT BLUEWATERDESIGN
bluewater-design.net
michelle@ bluewater-design.net
p 425.615.0944
VIEW4
Wistaria
Completed July 29, 2016
p 949.502.8555
Tectonic
2081 Business Center Dr. Suite 219
Irvine, CA 92612
LOCATION
X
APPLICANT
Verizon Wireless
15505 Sand Canyon Avenue
Irvine, CA 92618
Building “D” 1st Floor
E Lemon Ave
S 1st Ave
E Las Flores Ave
S Santa Anita AveLouise AveGrace Ave
PROPOSED
ANTENNA LOCATION
(Inside (N) Bell Tower)
Attachment No. 7
Documents From Verizon in
Support Of the Application
Attachment No. 7
JERROLD T. BUSHBERG Ph.D., DABMP, DABSNM, FAAPM, FHPS
HEALTH AND MEDICAL PHYSICS CONSULTING
7784 Oak Bay Circle Sacramento, CA 95831
(800) 760-8414–jbushberg@hampc.com
Emanuel Higgins July 25, 2016
Project Manager
TECTONIC
2081 Business Center Drive, Suite 219
Irvine, CA 92612
Introduction
At your request, I have reviewed the technical specifications and calculated the maximum radiofrequency,
(RF), power density from the proposed Verizon Wireless facility to be located at 1881 South 1st Street
Arcadia, CA, 91006. This facility will be used for wireless telecommunications transmission and reception
utilizing 12 CommScope panel antenna model # SBNHH-1D65C, mounted to a bell-tower. The antennae
used are directional and designed to transmit with a maximum input power of up to 103.1 watts, with a gain
of up to 13.7 dBd at approximately 746 MHz; 173.4 watts, with a gain of up to 15.7 dBd at approximately
1900 MHz; and 157.8 watts with a gain of up to 16.1 dBd at approximately 2,100 MHz. The distance from
the antenna center to the ground for all nodes will be at least 45.0 feet. The site configurations is shown in
attachment one. The antenna specification details are depicted in attachment two. This analysis represent
the worst case potential public exposure utilizing these transmission and antennae specifications.
Calculation Methodology
Calculations at the level of the antenna were made in accordance with the cylindrical model
recommendations for near-field analysis contained in the Federal Communications Commission, Office of
Engineering and Technology Bulletin 65 (OET 65) entitled "Evaluating Compliance with FCC-Guidelines
for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields.” RF exposure calculations at ground level
were made using equation 10 from the same OET document. Several assumptions were made in order to
provide the most conservative or "worse case" projections of power densities. Calculations were made
assuming that all channels were operating simultaneously at their maximum design effective radiated power.
Attenuation (weakening) of the signal that would result from surrounding foliage or buildings was ignored.
Buildings or other structures can reduce the signal strength by a factor of 10 (i.e., 10 dB) or more depending
upon the construction material. In addition, for ground level calculations, the ground or other surfaces were
considered to be perfect reflectors (which they are not) and the RF energy was assumed to overlap and
interact constructively at all locations (which they would not) thereby resulting in the calculation of the
maximum potential exposure. In fact, the accumulations of all these very conservative assumptions, will
significantly overestimate the actual exposures that would typically be expected from such a facility.
However, this method is a prudent approach that errs on the side of safety.
1
RF Safety Standards
The two most widely recognized standards for protection against RF field exposure are those published by
the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) C95.1 and the National Council on Radiation Protection
and measurement (NCRP) report #86.
The NCRP is a private, congressionally chartered institution with the charge to provide expert analysis of
a variety of issues (especially health and safety recommendations) on radiations of all forms. The scientific
analyses of the NCRP are held in high esteem in the scientific and regulatory community both nationally and
internationally. In fact, the vast majority of the radiological health regulations currently in existence can
trace their origin, in some way, to the recommendations of the NCRP.
All RF exposure standards are frequency-specific, in recognition of the differential absorption of RF energy
as a function of frequency. The most restrictive exposure levels in the standards are associated with those
frequencies that are most readily absorbed in humans. Maximum absorption occurs at approximately 80
MHz in adults. The NCRP maximum allowable continuous occupational exposure at this frequency is 1,000
ìW/cm2. This compares to 5,000 ìW/cm2 at the most restrictive of the PCS frequencies (~1,800 MHz) that
are absorbed much less efficiently than exposures in the VHF TV band.
The traditional NCRP philosophy of providing a higher standard of protection for members of the general
population compared to occupationally exposed individuals, prompted a two-tiered safety standard by which
levels of allowable exposure were substantially reduced for "uncontrolled " (e.g., public) and continuous
exposures. This measure was taken to account for the fact that workers in an industrial environment are
typically exposed no more than eight hours a day while members of the general population in proximity to
a source of RF radiation may be exposed continuously. This additional protection factor also provides a
greater margin of safety for children, the infirmed, aged, or others who might be more sensitive to RF
exposure. After several years of evaluating the national and international scientific and biomedical literature,
the members of the NCRP scientific committee selected 931 publications in the peer-reviewed scientific
literature on which to base their recommendations. The current NCRP recommendations limit continuous
public exposure at PCS frequencies to 1,000 ìW/cm2 .
The 1992 ANSI standard was developed by Scientific Coordinating Committee 28 (SCC 28) under the
auspices of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE). This standard, entitled "IEEE
Standards for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields,
3 kHz to 300 GHz" (IEEE C95.1-1991), was issued in April 1992 and subsequently adopted by ANSI. A
complete revision of this standard (C95.1-2005) was completed in October 2005 by SCC 39 the IEEE
International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety. The current version, including minor revisions, was
published in March 2010. Their recommendations are similar to the NCRP recommendation for the
maximum permissible exposure (MPE) to the public PCS frequencies (950 ìW/cm2 for continuous exposure
at 1,900 MHz) and incorporates the convention of providing for a greater margin of safety for public as
compared with occupational exposure. Higher whole body exposures are allowed for brief periods provided
that no 30 minute time-weighted average exposure exceeds these aforementioned limits.
On August 9, 1996, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) established a RF exposure standard
that is a hybrid of the current ANSI and NCRP standards. The maximum permissible exposure values used
to assess environmental exposures are those of the NCRP (i.e., maximum public continuous exposure at PCS
frequencies of 1,000 ìW/cm2 ). The FCC issued these standards in order to address its responsibilities under
2
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to consider whether its actions will "significantly affect the
quality of the human environment.” In as far as there was no other standard issued by a federal agency such
as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the FCC utilized their rulemaking procedure to consider
which standards should be adopted. The FCC received thousands of pages of comments over a three-year
review period from a variety of sources including the public, academia, federal health and safety agencies
(e.g., EPA & FDA) and the telecommunications industry. The FCC gave special consideration to the
recommendations by the federal health agencies because of their special responsibility for protecting the
public health and safety. In fact, the maximum permissible exposure (MPE) values in the FCC standard are
those recommended by EPA and FDA. The FCC standard incorporates various elements of the 1992 ANSI
and NCRP standards which were chosen because they are widely accepted and technically supportable. There
are a variety of other exposure guidelines and standards set by other national and international organizations
and governments, most of which are similar to the current ANSI/IEEE or NCRP standard, figure one.
The FCC standards “Guidelines for Evaluating the Environmental Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation”
(Report and Order FCC 96-326) adopted the ANSI/IEEE definitions for controlled and uncontrolled
environments. In order to use the higher exposure levels associated with a controlled environment, RF
exposures must be occupationally related (e.g., PCS company RF technicians) and they must be aware of and
have sufficient knowledge to control their exposure. All other environmental areas are considered
uncontrolled (e.g., public) for which the stricter (i.e., lower) environmental exposure limits apply. All
carriers were required to be in compliance with the new FCC RF exposure standards for new
telecommunications facilities by October 15, 1997. These standards applied retroactively for existing
telecommunications facilities on September 1, 2000.
The task for the physical, biological, and medical scientists that evaluate health implications of the RF data
base has been to identify those RF field conditions that can produce harmful biological effects. No panel
of experts can guarantee safe levels of exposure because safety is a null concept, and negatives are not
susceptible to proof. What a dispassionate scientific assessment can offer is the presumption of safety when
RF-field conditions do not give rise to a demonstrable harmful effect.
Summary & Conclusions
This proposed Verizon Wireless telecommunication systems operating with the maximal exposure conditions
characteristics as specified above and observing a 27 foot (public) and 14 foot (occupational) exclusion zone
directly in front of and at the same elevation as the antenna, will be in full compliance with FCC RF public
and occupational safety exposure standards (see appendix A-1). These transmitters, by design and operation,
are low-power devices (see attachment 2). An RF safety caution sign, as depicted in appendix A-2 should
be placed near the antenna. This sign should contain appropriate contact information and indicate that RF
exposures at 14 and 27 feet or closer to the face of the antenna may exceed the FCC occupational and public
exposure standards respectively. Thus only qualified RF workers may work within the 27 foot exclusion
zone. The maximum RF exposure at ground level and on the roof of surrounding structures from this site will
not be in excess of 7.3% and 3.5% of the FCC public safety standard respectively, (see appendix A-3). A
chart of the electromagnetic spectrum and a comparison of RF power densities from various common sources
is presented in figures two and three respectively in order to place exposures from wireless
telecommunications systems in perspective.
Given the low levels of radiofrequency fields that would be generated from this Verizon directional antenna
installation, there is no scientific basis to conclude that harmful effects will attend the utilization of this
proposed wireless telecommunications facility. This conclusion is supported by a large numbers of scientists
that have participated in standard-setting activities in the United States who are overwhelmingly agreed that
3
RF radiation exposure below the FCC exposure limits has no demonstrably harmful effects on humans.
These findings are based on my professional evaluation of the scientific issues related to the health and safety
of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation and my analysis of the technical specification as provided by
Verizon Wireless. The opinions expressed herein are based on my professional judgement and are not
intended to necessarily represent the views of any other organization or institution. Please contact me if you
require any additional information.
Sincerely,
Jerrold T. Bushberg Ph.D., DABMP, DABSNM, FAAPM
Diplomate, American Board of Medical Physics (DABMP)
Diplomate, American Board of Science in Nuclear Medicine (DABSNM)
Fellow, American Association of Physicists in Medicine (FAAPM)
Fellow, Health Physics Society (FHPS)
Enclosures: Figures 1-3; Attachment 1,2; Appendix A-0, A-1, A-2, A-3 and Statement of Experience.
4