HomeMy WebLinkAboutPart 2- Item 2 - Reso 1970 - CUP 15-03
Attachment No. 11
Public Comments
Attachment No. 11
Attachment No. 3
September 27, 2016 Staff Report
Public Comments
September 23rd, 2016
To Arcadia Planning Commissioners:
Zi Lin, Chairman
Kenneth Chan, Vice Chairman
Ching Chiao, Commission Member
Deborah Lewis, Commission Member
Brad Thompson, Commission Member
RE: Resolution No. 1970 – CUP 1503, Architectural Design Review No. ADR 1506, and Wireless
Regulation Waiver Request No. W 1501
My name is Eli Tsou. I am an Arcadia homeowner. My extended family has lived in Arcadia for more than 30
years. I am a physician with a degree from Stanford University. I have background and experience in
physics, engineering, and public health. I have reviewed Verizon’s application and wanted to voice my
criticisms in opposition to their Waiver Request (9288.8 AMC).
APPROVAL OF THE CUP SETS A BAD PRECEDENT
Arcadia has not approved a tower in the R1 zone since the Waiver provision was adopted in 2009. Verizon
is the very first wireless company to apply for the Wireless Waiver since it was adopted, as confirmed by Jeff
Hamilton and Jim Kasama. The Commission is under no obligation to grant Verizon this Waiver. If this CUP
is approved, it erodes municipal authority in regulating development of future towers. It would allow for the
additional building of wireless facilities at sites that are not least intrusive. It is neither compatible with the
Municipal codes, nor the General Plan.
APPLICATION DOES NOT MEET WAIVER REQUIREMENTS
Denial of their application does not “prohibit their ability to provide wireless service”. Wireless service from
Verizon in this area, and in Arcadia at large, meets the federal requirements for provision of cell phone
service. I am a Verizon user who has walked, driven, and stayed in houses through the neighborhood
surrounding the proposed site for years without service issues.
There is no evidence of dropped calls in that service area to be able to claim a significant gap. Verizon has
not submitted any. Verizon’s submission of data from their text survey did not include any evidence of
dropped calls. Testimony from Verizon customers in the service area does not indicate any dropped calls. It
is unclear where they need to provide service to be in compliance with federal law.
Arcadia is not required to grant Conditional Use Permits based on capacity gaps, but even if Verizon was
allowed to make arguments on capacity, their claims of capacity gaps are grossly exaggerated. Not only
receive the phone service that is required by federal law, but the bandwidth and the capacity to stream HD
video from Netflix and make video calls, indoor and outdoors.
Verizon capacity through their current wireless service in many cases exceeds what is available through
some home Internet Service Providers (ISP) and their wifi routers. When indoors, many residents
preferentially use their ISP and wifi to minimize data charges from their wireless provider.
Their more than adequate capacity to serve their customers is demonstrated in ATTACHMENTS 14. These
show Verizon’s own customer coverage maps, which shows their nearest 4G LTE service gap as the
Angeles forest. They also demonstrate the lack of customer complaints about service, and show how current
download speeds from real user experience far exceed what the FCC defines as household broadband
needs.
Irregardless of significant gap arguments, there are already definitive existing means for Verizon and any
other carriers to deploy into the R1 Zone. Claims of "prohibition" by Verizon are exaggerated and
unfounded. Wireless carriers can already deploy into the public rightsofway as well as on City owned
property in the R1 zone. They can also deploy microcell units in individual homes. ATT years ago were
giving them to their Arcadia customers to help with signal strength, and I was one of them.
Denial also does not “unreasonably discriminate when compared to other providers within the City”. Verizon
is the very first wireless company to apply for the Wireless Waiver since it was adopted in 2009. As it has
not been granted to other providers, Verizon is not being discriminated against.
NOT COMPATIBLE WITH MUNICIPAL CODES, GENERAL PLAN / ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW
Development of a large, unsightly, 5+ story wireless facility in this residential neighborhood is not needed, or
wanted, by the residents living there. Commercial enterprises are not compatible in an R1 zone. Verizon’s
53’ cell tower would be a new nonconforming land use in the R1 zone, which is primarily a low density,
singlefamily residential zone. The church in the R1 zone is already a nonconforming use. Granting this
CUP would allow for another nonconforming land use on a land use that is already nonconforming.
The maximum height is 30 feet for the R1 zone (9252.2.1 AMC). The 5story cell tower will dwarf the
surrounding single story ranch homes. It will not be attractive to potential homebuyers. The proposed 53’
Verizon cell tower design does not meet the findings to obtain Architectural Design Review approval (SEE
ATTACHMENT #7).
Also, the proposed setbacks for the 53’ faux bell tower structure are not sufficient. Current plans will place it
7.7’ from the Church administrative building, 19’ from the property line, and 37’ from a classroom.
(ATTACHMENT #5). This creates aesthetic and safety issues that are not addressed by Verizon’s
application. There needs to be a more reasonable setback to better mitigate the risks associated with this
large structure. (ATTACHMENT #6).
CONCLUSION: VERIZON HAS NOT MET ALL THE FINDINGS REQUIRED TO GRANT A WAIVER. THE
COMMISSION IS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO APPROVE THIS APPLICATION THAT IS INCONSISTENT
WITH OUR MUNICIPAL CODE AND OUR GENERAL PLAN. IT WILL REQUIRE THE CHILDREN,
TEACHERS, AND FAMILIES WHO OCCUPY THE SURROUNDING AREA WHO DO NOT BENEFIT FROM
THIS TOWER TO BE THE MOST TO BE MOST NEGATIVELY AFFECTED. REPRESENT THE WILL OF
OVER 1000 OTHER PETITION SIGNERS AND DENY VERIZON’S CUP AND ALL OF ITS
APPLICATIONS.
Regards,
Eli Tsou
1614 Melanie Lane, Arcadia, CA 91007
ATTACHMENT #1
https://vzwmap.verizonwireless.com/dotcom/coveragelocator/
ATTACHMENT #2
http://www.deadcellzones.com/verizon.html#.V-VcsWVenkU
ATTACHMENT #3
https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/guides/broadband-speed-guide
ATTACHMENT #4
Screenshot from March 11, 2016 at 5:45 pm at 1881 S. First Ave showing enough capacity for 10 HD
videoconferences
ATTACHMENT #5
Setbacks for 53’ structure are not sufficient
ATTACHMENT #6
Verizon’s Planned Signage for site for disclosure of public safety risks. 27’ exceeds FCC public exposure
limits. Administrative building will be about 40’ from face of antenna, and about 54’ from classroom.
ATTACHMENT #7
The proposed 53’ Verizon cell tower design does not meet the findings to obtain
Architectural Design Review approval.
I would like the Commission to know that they can legally base their denial of
Verizon’s CUP on the basis of aesthetics because of the 9th Circuit court case,
Sprint vs. Palos Verdes Estates in 2009. I have selected the ADR guidelines that
are applicable for a cell tower and given a response for each question.
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW:
9295. PURPOSE.
The purpose of the Architectural Design Review Guidelines and Process (the
"Design Guidelines") is to promote a desired level of quality residential,
commercial and industrial development in Arcadia that will:
A. Contribute to a positive physical image and identity of single-family and
multiplefamily development.
RESPONSE: A 53’ cell tower is incongruous in a single-family
residential neighbor and would destroy its postwar bedroom
community identity.
The large fake tower will be an inescapable looming presence in this
neighborhood. It will dwarf the single story homes nearby and
negatively affect the physical image and identity of this community.
D. Maintain and protect the property values by encouraging excellence in
architectural design that:
a. Will enhance the visual environment and character of the community;
RESPONSE: Verizon and the Staff have said that the 53’ tower
will have “no visual impact.” Verizon’s photo simulations of the
bell tower are not to scale, and make it appear smaller than the
proposed plans suggest.
If approved Verizon’s CUP will set a precedent in the R1 zone
and open up the residential zone for all the other wireless
carriers to have their own 53’ tower.
The Cell Tower Can Grow: Section 6409(a) of The Middle Class
Tax Relief and Jobs Creation Act of 2012 (Also known as the
Spectrum Act), would enable the cell tower to grow 20 feet in
height and width without being considered a substantial
change by law. So the City really needs to be careful in where
they place these WTFs.
b. Will preserve and protect property values;
RESPONSE: In a 2014 Realtor Mag article it said, “An
overwhelming 94 percent of home buyers and renters surveyed
by the National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy
(NISLAPP) say they are less interested and would pay less for a
property located near a cell tower or antenna.”
“What's more, of the 1,000 survey respondents, 79 percent said
that under no circumstances would they ever purchase or rent
a property within a few blocks of a cell tower or antennas,
"’The Impact of Cell Phone Towers on House Prices in
Residential Neighborhoods,’ which was published in The
Appraisal Journal in 2006, found that buyers would pay as
much as 20 percent less for a property near a cell tower or
antenna.” (ATTACHED)
A 5 story tall cell tower is a commercial structure that is a
nonconforming use in an R1 Zone. It would be a visual blight
that would stigmatize the nearby homes making it less
attractive for potential homebuyers for that neighborhood.
c. Is sensitive to both the site and its surroundings;
RESPONSE: The presence of a 5 story cell tower is
incompatible with the church property and the surrounding
single story residential homes. It is a nonconforming land use
that requires a Wireless Waiver to make it exempt from the
current Wireless codes that prohibit cell towers in the R1 zone
(9288.6 AMC). The Wireless codes were established to protect
and preserve our residential neighborhoods from the visual
blight of commercial infrastructure. I ask that you please deny
Verizon’s CUP application and deny its ADR application
because it does not meet the findings for approval.
ATTACHMENT: Cell Towers, Antennas Problematic for Buyers
RealtorMag / Daily Real Estate News | Friday, July 25, 2014
http://realtormag.realtor.org/daily-news/2014/07/25/cell-towers-antennas-problem
atic-for-buyers