Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPart I - Feb. 7, 2017 City Council Staff Report with Attachments DATE: February 7, 2017 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director By: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF 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 SOUTH FIRST AVENUE (CONTINUED FROM THE NOVEMBER 15, 2016, AND JANUARY 17, 2017, MEETINGS) RESOLUTION NO. 7154 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 Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 7154 Granting the Appeal and Approving the Applications SUMMARY The applicant, Verizon Wireless, is proposing to construct a new, unmanned, wireless communication facility housed in a 53’-0” tall, faux bell tower in the southeasterly portion of the parking lot at 1881 S. First Avenue, The Church of the Transfiguration. 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 small utility facility is exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). Verizon Appeal of Planning Commission Denial (CUP 15-03, ADR 15-06, W 15-01) 1881 S. First Avenue February 7, 2017 Page 2 of 15 After conducting public hearings on August 23, and September 27, 2016, to consider the proposal and take testimony from the applicant and the public, on October 11, 2016, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1970 for the denial of Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 15-03, Architectural Design Review No. ADR 15-06, and Wireless Regulation Waiver Request No. W 15-01 (see Attachments No. 2, No. 3, No. 4 and No. 5 for Resolution No. 1970, the Minutes, the staff reports, and the material presented at the hearing). Verizon Wireless has appealed the Planning Commission’s denial to the City Council (see Attachment No. 6 for the appeal letter). Based on the existing record, it is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 7154 (Attachment No. 1) to grant the appeal and approve the applications, subject to the conditions and findings listed in this staff report, including that the project qualifies for a Categorical Exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). The application is subject to a federal timeline for action which the applicant and the City have mutually agreed several times to extend. Under the current agreement, the City must issue a final written decision by February 21, 2017. 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. 7 for an Aerial Photo with Zoning Information and Photos of the Subject Property. Section 9288.61 of the Arcadia Municipal Code prohibits new wireless facilities in the R-1 zone; however, Section 9288.8 allows wireless communication facilities at this property if the City makes the necessary findings in support of a waiver of the prohibition. All new wireless facilities are subject to a Conditional Use Permit with the necessary findings in support of the application. The project is also subject to Architectural Design Review. Initially, the design for the proposed wireless facility was to be camouflaged as a 53’-0” tall, faux eucalyptus tree with a concrete block equipment enclosure. The proposal was 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 approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Architectural Design Review, and that the applicant had not satisfied the two requirements for a Waiver. The applicant subsequently filed an appeal to the City Council, but the appeal hearing was deferred by mutual agreement to allow the applicant time to investigate alternatives, with the understanding that if, as a result of this further investigation, the application is substantially revised, it may warrant further review by the Planning Commission. On July 29, 2016, the applicant submitted a revised proposal for a new design that encloses the wireless communication facility in a new 53’-0” tall, faux bell tower, and with updated information in support of the Waiver Request, including an alternatives 1 The Code Section numbers referenced in this staff report are from the old Chapter 2, Article IX, Zoning Regulations. A new Development Code became effective in December 2016, but this project is being processed under the Code provisions in place when the applications were first submitted. Verizon Appeal of Planning Commission Denial (CUP 15-03, ADR 15-06, W 15-01) 1881 S. First Avenue February 7, 2017 Page 3 of 15 analysis that reviewed a small cell network alternative. The submittal concludes that there is a significant gap in the applicant’s service and the least intrusive alternative to fill the significant gap is a standalone facility with a stealth bell tower design. The submittal also includes a report on the maximum radio frequency, power density from the proposed facility. This report concludes that the proposed facility will be in full compliance with Federal Communications Commission radio frequency standards. It was determined that the revised proposal with the faux bell tower design should be reviewed by the Planning Commission, and the applicant agreed to this process - see Attachment Nos. 8a, 8b, 9, 10a, 10b, and 11. At the August 23, 2016, Planning Commission meeting, the 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 Church parking lot. The hearing was continued with the mutual agreement of the neighbors and the applicant to the September 27, 2016, meeting. At the conclusion of the September 27, 2016 hearing, the Commission voted 3-1, with Chairman Lin absent, to direct staff to prepare a resolution for denial of the applications to be presented for the Planning Commission’s consideration and adoption at its October 11, 2016, meeting. At the regular meeting of October 11, 2016, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1970 (see Attachment No. 2) by a 3-1 vote with Commissioner Chiao absent, denying the applications. To summarize, the Planning Commission found that: • The applicant failed to meet the standards for granting a Waiver because the applicant failed to demonstrate that there is a significant gap in service and that the proposed faux bell tower is the least intrusive means of filling the alleged gap in service; • Because the revised application did not meet the standards for granting a Waiver, the Conditional Use Permit and Architectural Design Review applications could not be approved; and • Had the applicant met the standards for granting a Waiver, the Planning Commission would have also approved the Conditional Use Permit and Architectural Design Review for the revised proposal for a wireless communication facility enclosed in a new 53’-0” tall, faux bell tower. Verizon’s appeal of the Planning Commission denial of the initial applications for a wireless facility designed as a faux eucalyptus tree was held in abeyance by mutual agreement between the applicant and the City, pending the outcome of the Planning Commission hearing on the revised bell tower proposal. On October 18, 2016, Verizon Wireless filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of the revised bell tower proposal, and on November 7, 2016, Verizon filed a second appeal letter to supplement its July 29, 2016 submittal (Attachment No. 12). Since the Planning Commission has denied the revised proposal, and Verizon Wireless has appealed that decision, the City Council is now hearing the appeal of Resolution No. 1970. Verizon Appeal of Planning Commission Denial (CUP 15-03, ADR 15-06, W 15-01) 1881 S. First Avenue February 7, 2017 Page 4 of 15 The City Council hearing of the appeal was initially opened at the November 15, 2016, regular meeting, and was continued at the request of the applicant to provide time to have their supplemental waiver request material (filed since the first Planning Commission denial) reviewed by an independent, qualified, third-party consultant retained by the City. The hearing was continued to the January 17, 2017, regular meeting, but the consultant’s review report was not ready in time for the meeting, and a further continuance to the February 7, 2017 regular meeting was granted to allow time for the consultant to complete the report. The consultant’s report was submitted on January 20, 2017 - see Attachment No. 13. The applicant’s attorney submitted a letter dated January 31, 2017, in support of the appeal (Attachment No. 20). Page 4 of the letter refers to staff’s conclusion in a November 15, 2016, staff report. That report was a draft. This report dated February 7, 2017, is the final report. DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT’S CURRENT PROPOSAL The applicant proposes to house the wireless communication facility in a 53’-0” tall, faux bell tower to be constructed in the southeastern portion of the Church parking lot (see Attachments No. 8a for the Proposed Architectural Plans and No. 19 for the Photosimulations). The tower will be approximately 20’-0” on each side, with a 400 square-foot footprint. The antennae, mechanical and electronic equipment, and an emergency backup generator 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 communication facilities such as this proposal are subject to Architectural Design Review to ensure that the facility blends in with its surroundings. Although wireless communication 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. ANALYSIS In addition to the Waiver Request, the applicant has provided all of the required plans and supplemental documents required by the City’s Wireless Communication Facilities Ordinance. See Attachment Nos. 8a, 9, 10a, 11, 12, and 19, which include the following: Verizon Appeal of Planning Commission Denial (CUP 15-03, ADR 15-06, W 15-01) 1881 S. First Avenue February 7, 2017 Page 5 of 15 • Proposed architectural plans of the project; • A Visual Impact Analysis/Photosimulations of the proposal; • 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 stating that emissions from the proposed facility will not exceed standards set by the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”); 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. Conditional Use Permit Wireless communication facilities are subject to a Conditional Use Permit to ensure that the proposed installation is compatible with the site and surrounding neighborhood. 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. 2. That the use applied for at the location indicated is properly one for which a Conditional Use Permit is authorized. 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. 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. 5. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan. The proposed location in the southeasterly portion of the parking lot of the Church minimizes the visibility of the facility from neighboring streets (see Attachment Nos. 8a for the Proposed Architectural Plans, and 8b for the Photosimulations of July 29, 2016. In reviewing the Waiver Request material, the third-party consultant pointed out that, Verizon Appeal of Planning Commission Denial (CUP 15-03, ADR 15-06, W 15-01) 1881 S. First Avenue February 7, 2017 Page 6 of 15 “the photo rendering provided by Verizon does not appear to represent the full height impact of the proposed Bell Tower structure.” See Attachment No. 13: Consultants Review dated January 20, 2017. The applicant was asked about this, and revised photosimulations are provided (Attachment No. 19). The proposed faux bell tower will conceal the antennae, and the accessory 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 antenna and equipment are to be housed in a faux bell tower to 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 backup generator will operate to provide electricity during the outage. Data provided by the applicant (Attachment No. 14) shows that the generator will operate at a noise level of approximately 66 dBA, at a distance of seven meters (23 feet). The City’s noise regulations require that equipment noise not exceed 55 dBA at an adjacent residentially-zoned property. The nearest residential property is 130 feet to the west. There is, however, an exemption for emergency operations. The generator will operate automatically during power outages, and would be tested twice a month during daytime hours for durations not exceeding 15 minutes per test. Compliance with the City’s noise regulations will be verified prior to a final inspection signoff. When the emergency backup generator is operating, the noise will not exceed what is allowed by the noise regulations, so as not to 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 structure 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 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 Verizon Appeal of Planning Commission Denial (CUP 15-03, ADR 15-06, W 15-01) 1881 S. First Avenue February 7, 2017 Page 7 of 15 view. In addition, there is a storage container situated to the south of the southerly building on the property, next to the parking area. As conditions of approval, a trash enclosure meeting City standards needs to be constructed on the property, and the storage container must be removed if its use conflicts with the 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. The full list of conditions is found in Resolution No. 7154 (Attachment No. 1). 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 No. 15 for Photos of Other Churches). In each of the examples, the towers are taller than the adjacent church buildings. The tower at Holy Angels Roman Catholic Church is over two times the height of the adjacent building (approximately 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, a little over twice as tall as the adjacent administrative building that is approximately 23’-0” tall; therefore, the proportion of the height of the new tower to the adjacent building (as shown in the revised photosimulations - Attachment No. 19) 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 faux bell tower appears to be a significant aesthetic improvement over the previously proposed faux eucalyptus tree. The tower is well designed and incorporates the necessary finishes and detailing to be compatible with the adjacent Church buildings and the neighborhood. Verizon Appeal of Planning Commission Denial (CUP 15-03, ADR 15-06, W 15-01) 1881 S. First Avenue February 7, 2017 Page 8 of 15 Waiver Request Although Section 9288.6(a)(2) of the Arcadia Municipal Code prohibits the installation of all wireless communication 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 applies, the presumption is that a waiver will be approved. The applicant’s initial waiver request submitted in 2015 (Attachment No. 10a) was based on finding no. 1, and as required by Section 9288.8(b) of the Arcadia Municipal Code, an independent, qualified consultant reviewed the initial waiver request (Attachment No. 10b). The review 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 that was part of the applications for the wireless facility disguised as a faux eucalyptus tree 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 tower disguised as a faux 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. With the revised proposal utilizing the bell tower design, the applicant also filed a supplement to the Waiver Request – refer to Attachment No. 9: Wireless Waiver Request dated July 29, 2016. The supplement includes a statement by a Radio Frequency Design Engineer, which describes coverage and capacity gaps as being significant as it affects fourth-generation, long-term evolution (“LTE”) in-building coverage of the 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. This area includes the residential areas surrounding Santa Anita Avenue. The supplement also includes an analysis of a small cell network alternative which concluded that the coverage by such a network would be inferior to the proposed bell tower facility, and that the network of small cell sites could not be considered less intrusive than the single facility disguised as bell tower. Verizon Appeal of Planning Commission Denial (CUP 15-03, ADR 15-06, W 15-01) 1881 S. First Avenue February 7, 2017 Page 9 of 15 Along with the appeal of the Planning Commission denial, the applicant further supplemented the waiver request material - see Attachment No. 12 for the November 7, 2016, appeal letter and supplemental information. This information includes a supplemental statement by a different Radio Frequency Design Engineer, and a revised alternatives analysis. This supplemental statement determined that the population that would potentially benefit from the proposed facility is approximately 8,000 residents, and includes discussion of a new drive test that was performed to confirm the coverage gap described in the July 27, 2016, statement. The supplemental statement concludes that the area is experiencing unacceptably weak LTE signal. The revised alternatives analysis includes an expanded discussion of the small cell network alternative. The discussion explains that small cells do not use the same technology as macro towers, and provide limited coverage due to smaller antennas, lower-wattage radios, and limited height. The discussion also explains that at least ten small cell facilities mounted on existing utility poles or new poles would be necessary, and that the subject residential areas have yards that abut the curb with no sidewalk or visibly public space for ground-mounted equipment - see Attachment No. 16 for photos of existing small cell facilities. The analysis concludes that a small cell network is not the proper technology to resolve the significant service gap, and would not be less intrusive than the proposed bell tower facility because of the potential impacts of multiple locations in residential areas. The waiver requests and supplemental documents have been evaluated by an independent, qualified, third-party consultant - see Attachment No. 13: Consultants Review dated January 20, 2017. The consultant agreed with the applicant’s analysis and concludes that, “The need for this additional cell site is proven . . .” and, “[t]he proposed bell tower . . . is likely the least intrusive type of construction to deliver the height and size necessary . . .” From a purely aesthetic perspective, staff concludes that at ten small cell sites, this alternative would be more intrusive than the proposed faux bell tower because the antennae and equipment cabinets would be placed on utility poles and on the ground in residential parkways. This would be aesthetically unpleasing with little opportunity for effective concealment, would add clutter to the streetscape and the parkways, and could hinder accessibility in some cases. Additionally, there is concern that once installed, these multiple wireless facilities may be expanded in the future.2 Many of the streets do not have sidewalks, so the poles would essentially be in the front yards of some homes. For all of these reasons, the small cell network alternative should be rejected. 2Due 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. Verizon Appeal of Planning Commission Denial (CUP 15-03, ADR 15-06, W 15-01) 1881 S. First Avenue February 7, 2017 Page 10 of 15 Based on all the material, 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. Therefore, the proposed project meets the Municipal Code standards for approval of the Waiver Request from the R-1 zoning prohibition of wireless facilities. However, recognizing that this wireless communications facility use is not one that would be allowed in the R-1 zone absent a waiver, and that the finding that the proposal is the least intrusive means depends on the facility being housed in a stealth structure that is visually compatible with the existing church buildings on the site, the applicant will be required as a condition of approval to ensure that the wireless facility remains concealed in a structure that is visually compatible with the existing church buildings on the property, and should the church buildings be modified, or removed and replaced with any new buildings and land use(s), that the concealment elements of the wireless facility also be modified to be compatible with any new buildings and use(s), or that the facility be removed. APPLICABLE STANDARDS FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW Waiver Requests Alleging Effective Prohibition Under Section 9288.8(a)(1) of the Arcadia Municipal Code, the applicant for a waiver request has the burden of demonstrating that the Code restriction, “prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless communication services pursuant to the United States Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II)).” This prohibition language in federal law has been interpreted by the courts in California, such that the "effective prohibition" inquiry "involves a two-pronged analysis requiring (1) the showing of a 'significant gap' in service coverage and (2) some inquiry into the feasibility of alternative facilities or site locations." MetroPCS v. City & County of San Francisco, 400 F.3d 715 (9th Cir. Cal. 2005) at 731. As to the existence of a significant gap, the availability of wireless service from other providers in the area is irrelevant for purposes of this analysis. The analysis only considers the wireless service of the applicant. However, "'significant gap' determinations are extremely fact-specific inquiries that defy any bright-line legal rule.” MetroPCS v. City & County of San Francisco, 400 F.3d at 733. Federal law, “does not guarantee wireless service providers coverage free of small ‘dead spots’.” Id. See also, MetroPCS Inc. v. City & County of San Francisco, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43985, 28-34 (N.D. Cal. June 16, 2006)(“…the court is mindful that the TCA does not guarantee MetroPCS seamless coverage in every location within the Richmond district. Indeed, courts have expressly recognized that the presence of ‘dead zones,’ or pockets in which coverage does not exist, are not actionable for purposes of arguing effective prohibition claims under the TCA….”). Thus the applicant must not merely demonstrate there is a gap, but must also show that the gap is “significant” due to, for example, the location or the number or type of users affected. Sprint PCS Assets, L.L.C. v. City of Palos Verdes Estates, 583 F.3d 716 (9th Cir. Cal. 2009) at 727. Verizon Appeal of Planning Commission Denial (CUP 15-03, ADR 15-06, W 15-01) 1881 S. First Avenue February 7, 2017 Page 11 of 15 As to the proposed wireless communications facility which is intended to fill the significant gap, California courts have held that, “…the provider [must] show that the manner in which it proposes to fill the significant gap in services is the least intrusive on the values that the denial sought to serve.” See Am. Tower Corp. v. City of San Diego, 763 F.3d 1035, 1056 (9th Cir. 2014) (emphasis in original). In doing so, the provider must identify and meaningfully evaluate alternative sites, and the City is, “not required to take [the provider’s] word that these were the best options.” Id. at 1057. Appeal Hearing and Final Action Pursuant to Section 9275.2.10 of the Arcadia Municipal Code, at the hearing of the applicant’s appeal, the Council shall review the minutes and files of the Planning Commission concerning the matter, and the Council may in its discretion hear arguments from any interested party concerning the evidence and the inferences and decisions to be made therefrom. Pursuant to Section 9275.2.11, at the conclusion of the hearing on appeal the City Council may: 1. Approve the decision of the Planning Commission; 2. Approve the decision of the Planning Commission with additional conditions; 3. Modify the decision of the Planning Commission; 4. Reverse the decision of the Planning Commission; 5. Refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for further study, hearing or recommendations. The Code also states that the decision of the City Council shall be final. If after considering the record and any additional information presented at the public hearing of the appeal, the City Council makes either of the following findings, it may deny the appeal and the revised proposal: 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 communications facility; or 2. The applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed wireless communications facility is the least intrusive on the values that the restriction on wireless communications 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 City Council determines that it cannot make either Verizon Appeal of Planning Commission Denial (CUP 15-03, ADR 15-06, W 15-01) 1881 S. First Avenue February 7, 2017 Page 12 of 15 or both of the above-noted findings, it must reverse the denial decision of the Planning Commission and approve the applications. Approval If the City Council intends to grant the appeal and approve the revised proposal, the Council should adopt the attached Resolution No. 7154 (Attachment No. 1) for approval that incorporates the requisite environmental, Conditional Use Permit, Architectural Design, and Wireless Regulation Waiver findings, and the conditions of approval as presented in the draft resolution, or as may be modified by the City Council. Denial If the City Council intends to deny the appeal, the Council should make its decision known and state the finding(s) along with reasons for denial based on the record and direct staff to prepare a resolution to deny the appeal that incorporates the Council’s decision and specific findings, for adoption at the February 21, 2017, meeting. No decision to deny the appeal will be a final action unless and until adopted by resolution. Referral Back To Planning Commission If the City Council intends to refer the applications back to the Planning Commission, it should give specific direction (e.g., to review evidence presented on appeal that was not before the Planning Commission when it made its decision). However, the City would still have to meet the agreed deadline for action (February 21, 2017) as the applicant may not be willing to agree to a further extension. Timing for Appeal Hearing and Final Action On March 29, 2016, the applicant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of its initial application for a wireless facility disguised as a faux eucalyptus tree. 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). Subsequent agreements between the applicant and the City revised and extended the Verizon Appeal of Planning Commission Denial (CUP 15-03, ADR 15-06, W 15-01) 1881 S. First Avenue February 7, 2017 Page 13 of 15 dates to allow the applicant to consider alternatives, and for the Planning Commission to review the revised proposal. The parties had 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) was the earlier to occur of: a) the date five days after the Planning Commission decision (if no appeal filed), b) the date the City Council issues a written decision on any appeal if applicable, or c) December 15, 2016. This meant the appeal to the City Council and the issuance of a final written decision on the appeal was to be completed by December 15, 2016. However, on November 9, 2016, this deadline was extended to January 31, 2017, to allow time for an independent, third-party consultant to review the additional material submitted by the applicant, and for the City Council to conclude its hearing at the January 17, 2017, meeting. The review was not able to be completed in time for the January 17, 2017, meeting, and the deadline was extended to February 21, 2017, with the appeal hearing to be concluded at the February 7, 2017, meeting. Provided there are no further extensions, the City must issue a final written decision by February 21, 2017. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) it is determined that the construction of a new small utility facility is Categorically Exempt per Section 15303 (Class 3) of the CEQA Guidelines. A Preliminary Exemption Assessment is attached to this staff report (Attachment No. 17). PUBLIC COMMENTS/NOTICE Public hearing notices for this appeal were mailed on November 3, 2016, to the property owners and tenants of those properties that are located within 300 feet of the subject property and the additional commenters for whom addresses were provided. Numerous public comments have been received (Attachment No. 18: Public Comments). The comments in opposition express concerns about the impacts and incompatibility of the tower to the neighborhood, the potential collapse of the tower due to high winds or fire, and the lack of evidence of a ‘significant gap’ in service. These comments include more than 140 pages of petitions, several emails and/or letters, and a Memorandum in Opposition from the Arcadians Against Residential Towers (“AART”). Comments in support include several letters, and a text message campaign by the applicant that claims 446 responses in support. The supportive statements focus on the benefits of mobile service and public safety. FISCAL IMPACT The proposed project will have no significant fiscal impact on the City. Verizon Appeal of Planning Commission Denial (CUP 15-03, ADR 15-06, W 15-01) 1881 S. First Avenue February 7, 2017 Page 14 of 15 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 7154 to grant the appeal and approve the applications based on the findings and conditions contained in the Resolution, including the finding that the project qualifies for a Categorical Exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). Attachments: 1: City Council Resolution No. 7154 2: Planning Commission Resolution No. 1970 3: Minutes of the Planning Commission Meetings of August 23, September 27, and October 11, 2016 4: Planning Commission Staff Reports for the August 23, September 27, and October 11, 2016, Meetings 5: Material Presented at the September 27, 2016, Planning Commission Hearing 6: Appeal Letter - October 18, 2016 7: Aerial Photo with Zoning Information, and Photos of the Subject Property 8a: Proposed Architectural Plans 8b: Photosimulations of July 29, 2016 9: July 29, 2016, Waiver Request Supplement with Report by Radio Frequency Design Engineer, Marco Mata; and an Alternatives Analysis dated July 28, 2016 10a: Initial Waiver Request - August 26, 2015/Revised December 9, 2015 10b: Evaluation Report on Initial Waiver Request - January 5, 2016 11: Report on Maximum Radio Frequency, Power Density by Jerrold T. Bushberg Ph.D. - July 25, 2016 12: November 7, 2016, Appeal Supplement with a Report by Radio Frequency Design Engineer, Minh Nguyen; and a Revised Alternatives Analysis 13: Consultants Review - January 20, 2017 14: Emergency Backup Generator Information Verizon Appeal of Planning Commission Denial (CUP 15-03, ADR 15-06, W 15-01) 1881 S. First Avenue February 7, 2017 Page 15 of 15 15: Photos of Other Churches 16: Photos of Existing Small Cell Facilities 17: Preliminary Exemption Assessment 18: Public Comments 19: Revised Photosimulations - January 26, 2017 20: Letter from Verizon’s Attorney - January 31, 2017 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 DATE: 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 DATE: October 11, 2016 TO: Honorable Chairman and Planning Commission FROM: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 1970 - 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 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 Recommended Action: Adopt SUMMARY At the regular meeting of the Planning Commission on September 27, 2016, the Commission concluded a public hearing and on a 3-1 vote, with Chairman Lin absent, directed staff to prepare the attached Resolution No. 1970 for the denial of Conditional Use Permit Application 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 South First Avenue. Attached are Resolution No. 1970; the additional material presented at the September 27, 2016 meeting; and the September 27, 2016 staff report. RECOMMENDED ACTION It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 1970 to deny CUP 15-03, ADR 15-06, and W 15-01. Attachments: A) Resolution No. 1970 B) Material Presented at the September 27, 2016 Meeting C) September 27, 2016 Staff Report X Site Plan Vicinity Map Subject Property Photosimulation 1 Photosimulation 2 Existing Coverage Proposed Coverage 10 Small Cell Facilities in Right-of-Ways Project Summary Verizon requests the Planning Commission’s Approval of: •Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 15-03 •Architectural Design Review No. ADR 15-06 •Wireless Regulation Waiver No. W 15-0 Verizon’s proposal involves: •Construction of a new 53’ tall stealth antenna and ground equipment structure (bell tower) on the south side of the Church of The Transfiguration property. •The stealth structure will conceal all antennas, radio cabinets, diesel generator and ancillary equipment from public view. •April 2015 -Verizon submitted land use application •July 2015 –Verizon meeting with planning staff about CUP/Waiver •August 2015 –City planning staff issued RFP for 3rd Party RF consultant •November 2015 –3rd Party RF consultant, Commvergent,retained by the City planning department •January 2016 –First Planning Commission Hearing •February -March 2016 –Community Meeting / Text Message Campaign •March 22, 2016 -2nd Planning Commission Hearing •March 29, 2016 -Appeal filed •April –August 2016 -Site Redesign •August 23, 2016 –3rd Planning Commission Hearing Project Timeline Site Location •Coverage gap -Demand for robust coverage in residential areas. •Communication facilities can be found anywhere from hospitals and schools to single family lots. Health & Safety •Verizon complies with all Federal, state, and local requirements. •Communication sites are operated at a small percentage of FCC emission requirements. •Facilities are inspected by internal and third party entities at regular intervals to insure proper operation and compliance. Structural Integrity •Pole is designed to meet building code. March 8th Community Meeting –Highlights Health and Safety FCC enforces compliance with published guidelines. •FCC RF Safety Program: http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/ •FDA “Cell phone facts” : http://www.fda.gov/cellphones/qa.html •World Health Organization: http://www.who.int/peh-emf/en/ Campaign initiated February 22, 2016 Customers in ZIP codes 91006 and 91007 Results as of March 7, 2016 Total Respondents: 458 Support: 446 Oppose: 12 Text Message Campaign Support New Cell Site Yes No More than 75% of prospective home buyers prefer strong cellular connections (Rootmetrics, June 2015) The number of wireless only American households has grown from roughly 16% in 2007 to 44% today. (CTIA, Super Mobility Week Conference, 2015) The demand for wireless data services is expected to grow 650% between 2013 and 2018 (CTIA, June 2015) 35% of Americans reach for their smartphone first in the morning (CTIA, July 2015) 70% of 911 calls originate from a cell phone (FCC, March 2015) Verizon’s Existing / Proposed Facilities Map Existing Sites Proposed Site Existing Coverage Wistaria Proposed Coverage Alternative Analysis Map Small Cell Network Alternative (Ten Small Cell Facilities in Right-of-Way) Verizon Proposed Site Site Location Site Layout Elevations Verizon Proposed Site 7’ 19’ Site Distance Analysis Before Installation Looking southeast from the intersection of East Lemon Avenue / Louise Avenue toward the proposed bell tower After Installation ( Photo Simulation ) Looking southeast from the intersection of East Lemon Avenue / Louise Avenue toward the proposed bell tower Before Installation Looking East from church parking lot toward the proposed bell tower After Installation ( Photo Simulation ) Looking East from church parking lot toward the proposed bell tower Before Installation Looking South from Grace Avenue toward the proposed bell tower After Installation ( Photo Simulation ) Looking South from Grace Avenue toward the proposed bell tower 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. 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 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) MACKENZIE & ALBRITTON LLP 220 SANSOME STREET, 14TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 TELEPHONE 415 / 288-4000 FACSIMILE 415 / 288-4010 July 29, 2016 VIA EMAIL AND FEDEX Chair Zi Lin and Members Planning Commission City of Arcadia City Hall 240 W Huntington Dr, Arcadia, California 91066 Re: Verizon Wireless Waiver Request CUP 15-03 Telecommunications Facility, 1881 South First Avenue, Arcadia. Dear Chair Lin and members of the Arcadia Planning Commission: This letter constitutes and supplements the waiver request of Verizon Wireless for the above-captioned application (“the Application”), under Arcadia Municipal Code §§ 9288.4 (q) and 9288.8. 1 Arcadia Municipal Code section 9288.8 provides in relevant part: “Waiver. A waiver of any of the location, design or other requirements and restrictions set forth in this Division, may be granted by the Planning Commission or Development Services Director, whichever is applicable, upon the request of the applicant, where the applicant demonstrates that such restriction or requirement…[p]rohibits or has the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless communication services pursuant to the United States Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II)).” As set forth below, approval of the Application is required in order to avoid unlawful prohibition of service under the federal Telecommunications Act (the “TCA”), and this waiver request must be granted. A waiver request must be granted under the Arcadia Municipal Code where the applicant demonstrates that denial of an application would constitute a prohibition of service under 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(1)(ii). Arcadia’s denial of the Application violates the “effective prohibition” clause of the TCA if Verizon Wireless can show two things: (1) that there is a “significant gap” in Verizon Wireless service; and (2) that the proposed facility is the “least intrusive means,” in relation to the land use values 1 A Waiver Request has previously been submitted for the application that included acquiescence and deposit by Verizon Wireless for 3rd party engineering review that has already been initiated. Arcadia Planning Commission July 29, 2016 Page 2 of 3 embodied in local regulations, to address the gap.; See T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. City of Anacortes, 572 F.3d 987 (9th Cir. 2009). If Verizon Wireless proves both elements, Arcadia must approve the proposed facility, even if there is substantial evidence to deny the Application under location, design, or other requirements of the Arcadia Municipal Code. This is because Verizon Wireless has met the requirements for federal preemption; i.e., denial of the permit would “have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.” 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(1)(ii); T-Mobile v. Anacortes, 572 F.3d at 999. In turn, under these circumstances, a waiver under Arcadia Municipal Code §§ 9288.4 and 9288.8 must be granted in order to avoid violation of federal law. Verizon Wireless Has Demonstrated a Significant Gap in Service. Verizon Wireless has identified a significant gap in service in Arcadia. The significant gap is described in the Statement of Verizon Wireless Radio Frequency Engineer Marco Mata dated July 28, 2016, which is the first attachment to this waiver request (the “RF Engineer’s Statement”). As shown through coverage maps and capacity graphics included in the RF Engineer’s Statement, the significant gap in Arcadia includes an area of approximately1.3 square miles and will effect a population of 31,000 residents. The Proposed Facility is the Least Intrusive Means to Fill the Significant Gap in Service. In an effort to address the significant gap, Verizon Wireless evaluated 13 locations as well as the feasibility of a small cell network as shown in the comprehensive Alternatives Analysis, which is the second attachment to this waiver request. Verizon Wireless discounted locations that were infeasible, unable to serve the significant gap, or more intrusive. The Alternatives Analysis confirms that the proposed facility is the least intrusive means of providing wireless service to the significant gap. In short, through the attached RF Engineer’s Statement and Alternatives Analysis, Verizon Wireless has identified a significant gap in coverage and has shown that the proposed facility is the least intrusive means to address that gap, based on the values expressed in the Arcadia Municipal Code. Under these circumstances, Verizon Wireless has established that denial of the Application would constitute an unlawful prohibition of service under federal law, and that this waiver request must be granted. Conclusion Verizon Wireless has worked diligently to identify the ideal location and design for a camouflaged wireless facility to serve Arcadia. The Application represents the least intrusive means to address a significant gap in Verizon Wireless coverage in Arcadia. Accordingly, a denial of the application would constitute of a prohibition of service under the Telecommunications Act and a waiver under Arcadia Municipal Code §§ 9288.4 (q) Arcadia Planning Commission July 29, 2016 Page 3 of 3 and 9288.8 must be granted. We strongly encourage you to grant Verizon Wireless’s waiver request and approve the proposed facility. Very truly yours, Paul B. Albritton cc: Attachments RF Engineer’s Statement Alternatives Analysis 15505 Sand Canyon Ave. Irvine, CA 92618 July 27, 2016 To: Arcadia City Council From: Marco Mata, Radio Frequency Design Engineer, Verizon Wireless Network Engineering Department Subject: Statement in Support of Verizon Wireless’s Proposed Telecommunications Facility, 1881 South First Avenue Executive Summary Verizon Wireless has identified a significant gap in its fourth-generation long-term evolution (“LTE”) service in the south Arcadia area, notably in residential areas surrounding Santa Anita Avenue south of Duarte Road. This area currently receives inadequate service coverage from the existing Verizon Wireless Fairgreen facility located 0.75 miles northwest of the proposed facility, the Live Oak facility 0.75 miles to the south, the Amada Arcadia Medical facility 1.5 miles to the northwest and the Patricia facility one mile to the north. As a result of the distance of existing facilities and demands on the existing network, there is an absence of LTE in-building service coverage in the south Arcadia area as well as areas lacking LTE in-vehicle coverage. Further, accelerated growth in voice and data usage by Verizon Wireless customers has increased the demand on the existing Verizon Wireless network in a manner that compromises network accessibility and reliability. This accelerating growth in demand has led to capacity exhaustion of nearby Verizon Wireless facilities serving much of the gap area. Verizon Wireless is expanding its fourth- generation LTE service in Arcaida. To meet demand, Verizon Wireless’s existing 3G network will be replaced with the more efficient and higher-speed fourth- generation technology. The majority of Verizon Wireless’s new 4G service must be provided using AWS Spectrum, which requires facilities closer together and closer to the end user in order to provide adequate LTE service. The coverage gap and capacity gap described below constitute the “significant gap” Verizon Wireless seeks to serve (the “Significant Gap”). To provide adequate LTE coverage and avoid further degradation of Verizon Wireless service in the south Arcadia area, the Significant Gap must be remedied through construction of new infrastructure, in this case, a camouflaged facility at 1881 South First Avenue (the “Proposed Facility”). Coverage Gap Verizon Wireless is experiencing a gap in LTE in-building coverage roughly bounded by La Sierra Drive to the north, 4th Avenue to the northeast, 6th Avenue to the southeast, the Longden Avenue area to the south, and El Monte Avenue to the west. The gap includes residential areas surrounding Santa Anita Avenue. (Collectively, the “Coverage Gap.”) A graphic description of the current Coverage Gap is shown in the map below. The Proposed Facility will provide new reliable LTE service to an area of approximately 1.3 square miles and a population of 31,000 residents. Coverage plot maps like that below provide important information regarding the anticipated level of LTE signal, and therefore the projected coverage provided by a site at a given location. The areas in green reflect good coverage that meets or exceed thresholds to provide consistent and reliable network coverage in vehicles and in homes. The areas in yellow and purple depict decreasing levels of coverage, respectively, with yellow areas generally representing reliable in- vehicle coverage, and purple areas depicting poor service areas with marginal coverage unsuitable for in-vehicle use. Current LTE Coverage Map Capacity Gap The identified gap area is served by the existing Fairgreen, Live Oak, Amada Arcadia Medical and Patricia facilities. This is apparent in the following best server plot. Best server plots depict the dominant signal provided by each nearby Verizon Wireless facility. Signal from each antenna sector of these facilities is depicted in a different color. In the following best server plot, the dominant signal of the Fairgreen facility west-facing antenna sector is shown in blue, the Live Oak facility north-facing antenna sector is shown in light brown, the Amada Arcadia Medical facility east-facing antenna sector is shown in yellow and the Patrica facility south-facing antenna sector is shown in purple. The Amada Arcaida Medical facility east-facing antenna sector serves a particularly large area of the Significant Gap. The Proposed Facility is located such that all three of its antenna sectors will provide coverage to this gap area, substantially relieving the Amada Arcadia Medical facility east-facing antenna sector as well as sectors of the other nearby facilities serving the gap area. Current Best Server Plot At times of high traffic volume, the coverage area of the surrounding Verizon Wireless facilities shrinks to accommodate an increasing number of mobile devices closer to that facility. As a result, the Coverage Gap area is actually enlarged during times of high customer usage. In addition, the volume of voice and data services used by Verizon Wireless customers has been increasing rapidly over time, nearly doubling every year.1 Verizon Wireless has modified its existing facilities in an effort to maximize the capacity available by adding AWS service; however, as shown in the graph below, increased demand for voice and data services is projected to oustrip the capacity of the existing Verizon Amada Arcadia Medical facility east-facing antenna sector which serves a particularly large area of the gap. The below graph show the increased usage over the last year as well as predicted usage through mid-2018 for existing Amada Arcadia Medical facility east-facing antenna sector. FDV (Forward Data Volume) is the total volume of data the sector is carrying. By comparing the trend line of increasing usage (orange line) with the absolute maximum capacity throughput and spectrum availability of this existing facility (red line), Verizon Wireless RF engineering demonstrates that this antenna sector serving much of the gap area is projected to reach capacity exhaustion in mid-2018. Achieving capacity exhaustion severely compromises the Verizon Wireless network serving the south Arcadia area, leading to call failures and slow data speeds (the “Capacity Gap”). Capacity Graph Existing Amada Arcadia Medical Center Facility East-Facing (Alpha) Antenna Sector In addition to relieving the antenna sector nearing capacity exhaustion, the Proposed Facility will provide a dominant signal to a portion of the south Arcadia area currently experiencing unreliable Verizon Wireless LTE service due to interference and noise. This unreliable service is demonstrated in the below map depicting SINR (signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio), in which the broad area shown in dark blue and white receives poor LTE signal from multiple surrounding Verizon Wireless antenna sectors. In this area, a customer handset alternates between weak signals from too many Verizon Wireless antenna sectors, resulting in poor connection speeds and dropped connections. The Proposed Facility will 1 Federal Communications Commission Report & Order 14-153, October 17, 2014, ¶ 7. Verizon Wireless Alternatives Analysis Wistaria 1881 South First Avenue, Arcadia July 28, 2016 Summary of Site Evaluations Conducted by Tectonic Engineering Compiled by Mackenzie & Albritton LLP 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Executive Summary .............................................................................................. 3 II. Significant Gap ...................................................................................................... 3 III. Methodology .......................................................................................................... 4 IV. Analysis .................................................................................................................. 5 Collocation Review ................................................................................................. 5 1. Existing Facilities at Richard Henry Dana Middle School ........................... 5 Review of Locations with Favorable Zoning ........................................................ 6 2. Santa Anita Park ........................................................................................... 6 3. Arcadia Christian School .............................................................................. 7 4. Tierra Verde Park .......................................................................................... 8 Locations in R-1 Zone Not in Residential Use ..................................................... 9 5.A Proposed Facility – Church of the Transfiguration .................................... 9 5.B Denied Facility – Eucalyptus Design ....................................................... 11 6. Water Tank .................................................................................................. 12 7. Arcadia Montessori School ......................................................................... 13 Locations Outside Gap Area Discounted Due to Lack of Landlord Interest .... 13 8. Little Harvard Academy, 62 Las Tunas Drive ............................................ 13 9. Arcadia High School, 180 Campus Drive ................................................... 13 10. Arcadia Library, 20 West Duarte Road .................................................... 13 11. Arcadia Masonic Lodge, 50 West Duarte Road ....................................... 13 12. Church of the Nazarene, 225 East Santa Clara Street ............................... 13 13. First Baptist Church, 6090 Baldwin Avenue ............................................ 13 Small Cell Network Alternative ........................................................................... 14 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 15 Map of Alternatives 3 I. Executive Summary Verizon Wireless seeks to fill a significant gap in its coverage and network capacity in the southern Arcadia area. Based on a review of 13 locations and a small cell network alternative as set forth in the following analysis, Verizon Wireless believes that concealing antennas in a standalone facility with a stealth church tower design (the “Proposed Facility”) constitutes the least intrusive alternative to provide service to the identified gap based on the values expressed in Arcadia Municipal Code (the “Code”). II. Significant Gap There is a significant gap in Verizon Wireless coverage and network capacity in the southern Arcadia area. In-building service coverage is lacking in the vicinity, which is composed primarily of residential areas. Further, the Verizon Wireless facility serving much of the gap area area is nearing capacity exhaustion, and Verizon Wireless must place an additional facility in the vicinity of the Proposed Facility to provide new coverage and relieve existing antenna sectors to ensure the reliability of the network. The identified “significant gap” in network coverage is more fully described in the Statement of Verizon Wireless RF Engineer Marco Mata. 4 III. Methodology Once a significant gap has been determined, Verizon Wireless seeks to identify a location and design that will provide required coverage through the “least intrusive means” based upon the values expressed by local regulations. In addition to seeking the “least intrusive” alternative, sites proposed by Verizon Wireless must be feasible. In this regard, Verizon Wireless reviews the radio frequency propagation, elevation, grading requirements, height of any existing structures, available electrical and telephone utilities, access, available ground space, zoning and other critical factors such as a willing landlord in completing its site analysis. Under the Code, all wireless facilities are prohibited on private property in R-M, R-O, R-1, R-2, PR-0, PR-1 and PR-2 zones; City-owned property is excepted. Code §9288.6(a)(2). Various structure-mounted facilities and certain co-locations are allowed with an architectural design review approval by the Development Services Director in R- 3, C-O, CPD-1, D, CBD and PR-3 zones. Code §§9288.3(b), 9288.6(a)(1). Standalone facilities require a conditional use permit and architectural design review approval by the Planning Commission, but are prohibited in all aforementioned zones unless a waiver of location requirements is granted by the City. Code §§9288.3(c), 9288.8. Only certain collocations on existing facilities approved with an environmental document qualify for administrative architectural design review by the Director. Code §9288.3(d). Wireless facilities are allowed in all zones not referenced above, in public rights-of-way and on City-owned property. Code §9288.6(a)(3). Right-of-way facilities require an encroachment permit issued by the Development Services Director. Code §9288.3(a). Carriers must employ stealthing techniques to camouflage wireless facilities and achieve architectural compatibility. Code §9288.7(c) 5 IV. Analysis Collocation Review Verizon Wireless first sought to identify existing wireless facilities in the gap area that could potentially serve as collocation facilities. The only existing wireless facilities in the gap area are located on a school property as follows. 1. Existing Facilities at Richard Henry Dana Middle School Address: 1401 South First Avenue Elevation: 410 feet Zoning: S-2 Public Purpose Several wireless carriers host facilities on field lights at this public school located 0.45 miles north of the Proposed Facility and 25 feet greater in elevation. Verizon Wireless RF engineers re-evaluated this location and determined that a facility at this location is too close to Verizon Wireless’ existing Patricia facility located at First Avenue and Alice Street approximately 0.5 miles to the north of this school. As a result, a new facility at this location would result in interference and a lack of dominant signal for wireless devices between it and the existing Patricia facility. In addition, a site at this location would not provide new dominant signal to the identified significant gap. Due to interference with Verizon Wireless’s existing network and an inability to serve the Significant Gap, this is not a feasible alternative to the Proposed Facility. 6 Review of Locations with Favorable Zoning Lacking a feasible collocation opportunity, Verizon Wireless reviewed the gap area for zoning districts that allow new wireless facilities on private property. Nearly the entire gap area is zoned R-1, and in the R-1 zone, new wireless facilities are prohibited unless a waiver is granted by the City. The only other zoning districts in the gap area are S-2, special purpose districts, comprising four locations. Richard Henry Dana Middle School is reviewed as Alternative 1, and three other S-2 zoned locations were reviewed, as follows. 2. Santa Anita Park Address: South First Avenue Elevation: 385 feet Zoning: S-2 Public Purpose Verizon Wireless reviewed this small park on Arcadia School District property located due south of the Proposed Facility at a similar elevation. Verizon Wireless placed calls to School District representative Mike Brewers regarding placement of a new wireless facility at this park, but failed to generate any interest on the part of the School District to enter into lease negotiations. Lacking a willing landlord, this is not a feasible alternative to the Proposed Facility. 7 3. Arcadia Christian School Address: 1900 South Santa Anita Avenue Elevation: 385 feet Zoning: S-2 Public Purpose Verizon Wireless reviewed this privately-operated school located on Arcadia Unified School District property directly south of the Proposed Facility property at a similar elevation. Verizon Wireless placed calls to School District representative Mike Brewers regarding placement of a new wireless facility at the park, but failed to generate any interest on the part of the School District to enter into lease negotiations. Lacking a willing landlord, this is not a feasible alternative to the Proposed Facility. 8 4. Tierra Verde Park Address: 200 East El Camino Real Avenue Elevation: 400 feet Zoning: S-2 Public Purpose Verizon Wireless reviewed this small public park located 0.4 miles northeast of the Proposed Facility and 15 feet greater in elevation. Verizon Wireless RF engineers evaluated this location and determined that a facility at this park is too close to Verizon Wireless’ existing Fairgreen facility located adjacent to Camino Grove Park approximately 0.4 miles east of Tierra Verde Park. As a result, a new facility at this location would result in interference and a lack of dominant signal for wireless devices between it and the existing Fairgreen facility. In addition, a site at this location would not provide new dominant signal to the identified significant gap. Due to interference with Verizon Wireless’s existing network and an inability to serve the Significant Gap, this is not a feasible alternative to the Proposed Facility. 9 Locations in R-1 Zone Not in Residential Use Lacking any feasible alternatives in zones which allow wireless facilities, Verizon Wireless next sought locations in the R-1 zone where a new wireless facility can be placed upon granting of a waiver from location requirements by the City. Verizon Wireless sought properties not in residential use, identifying the following three locations, one of which provides excellent radio frequency propagation to serve the gap with a stealth facility that minimizes visual impacts. 5.A Proposed Facility – Church of the Transfiguration Address: 1881 South First Avenue Elevation: 385 feet Zoning: R-1 Verizon Wireless proposes to fully conceal panel antennas within a 53 foot church tower structure placed in a 400 square foot lease area adjacent to a church administrative building at the rear of the subject parcel. The tower structure is designed to complement the architecture of existing church buildings, including plaster walls painted to match, a pitched roof edged with terra cotta tiles and arched panels complementing the shape of chapel windows. Additional decorative elements include a wrought iron fence at the base of the tower. Verizon Wireless will place its equipment cabinets within the base of the tower along with a standby diesel generator to provide continued service in case of emergency. The church tower design allows Verizon Wireless to mount its antennas at a centerline of 45 feet, the minimum height necessary to serve the Significant Gap. As shown in the following coverage maps, the Proposed Facility is placed in an ideal 10 location such that all three of its antenna sectors will provide new in-building coverage and offload network traffic from the exhausted antenna sector serving much of the gap area, providing required coverage and network capacity to serve the Significant Gap. This is Verizon Wireless’s preferred location for the Proposed Facility. Coverage Provided by Proposed Facility 1881 South First Avenue 11 5.B Denied Facility – Eucalyptus Design Address: 1881 South First Avenue Elevation: 385 feet Zoning: R-1 Verizon Wireless originally proposed to conceal its antennas in a 52 foot tower designed to resemble a eucalyptus tree placed at the rear of the church parking lot. This was the proposed design that was denied by the Planning Commission on March 22, 2016. As a result of this denial, Verizon Wireless has revised its application and proposes the church tower design referenced in Alternative 5.A above. 12 6. Water Tank Address: El Camino Real Avenue at Wesley Lane Elevation: 405 feet Zoning: R-1 Verizon Wireless reviewed this public property supporting a water tank located 0.35 miles north of the Proposed Facility and 20 feet greater in elevation. Verizon Wireless RF engineers evaluated this location and determined that a facility at this location is too close to Verizon Wireless’s existing Fairgreen facility located adjacent to Caminio Grove Park approximately 0.45 miles to the east of this water tank property. As a result, a new facility at this location would result in interference and a lack of dominant signal for wireless devices between it and the existing Fairgreen facility. In addition, a site at this location would not provide new dominant signal to the identified significant gap. Due to interference with Verizon Wireless’s existing network and an inability to serve the Significant Gap, this is not a feasible alternative to the Proposed Facility. 13 7. Arcadia Montessori School Address: 1406 South Santa Anita Avenue Elevation: 410 feet Zoning: R-1 Verizon Wireless reviewed this private school property located 0.4 miles north of the Proposed Facility and 25 feet greater in elevation. Verizon Wireless contacted school administration regarding placement of a wireless facility on the property, but school administration declined to enter into lease negotiations with Verizon Wireless. Lacking a willing landlord, this is not a feasible alternative to the Proposed Facility. Locations Outside Gap Area Discounted Due to Lack of Landlord Interest In its initial fielding of locations for a new wireless facility to serve the southern Arcadia area, Verizon Wireless contacted additional property owners in areas that lie outside the gap area to the north and south, notwithstanding the inability of a facility at these distant locations to serve the Significant Gap. One property owner responded that they were not interested in entering into a lease agreement for a wireless facility, as follows: 8. Little Harvard Academy, 62 Las Tunas Drive Five property owners did not respond to Verizon Wireless’s inquiry, as follows: 9. Arcadia High School, 180 Campus Drive 10. Arcadia Library, 20 West Duarte Road 11. Arcadia Masonic Lodge, 50 West Duarte Road 12. Church of the Nazarene, 225 East Santa Clara Street 13. First Baptist Church, 6090 Baldwin Avenue Lacking landlord interest, these are not feasible alternatives to the Proposed Facility. 14 Small Cell Network Alternative Verizon Wireless evaluated development of a network of small wireless facilities placed on utility poles in the right-of-way within the Significant Gap. Verizon Wireless RF engineers concluded that a minimum of ten such small cells in residential areas would be required to serve the gap, as depicted in the following map. As shown in the coverage map below, the long blocks in the south Arcadia area would lead to in-building coverage gaps within the small cell network. As a result, coverage from a small cell network would be inferior to the more ubiquitous in-building coverage provided by the Proposed Facility. Small cells would require installation of two- to four- foot antennas on utility poles as well as equipment cabinets mounted on the pole and on the ground adjacent to the pole. The gap area is comprised almost entirely of residentially-used properties with yards abutting the curb with no sidewalk or visibly public space for ground mounted equipment. The individual aesthetic and environmental impact of each of the ten small cells would be likely more intrusive on immediate neighbors than the minimal impacts of the Proposed Facility. Given the inferior coverage and potential increased impacts due to multiple locations, a small cell network cannot be considered a less intrusive and feasible alternative to the Proposed Facility. Small Cell Network Alternative (Ten Small Cell Facilities in Right-of-Way) 15 Conclusion Verizon Wireless has reviewed 13 locations and a small cell network alternative to serve a Significant Gap in the southern Arcadia area. Based upon the standards identified in the Arcadia Municipal Code, the Proposed Facility – with antennas concealed in a standalone facility with a stealth church tower design – clearly constitutes the least intrusive location for Verizon Wireless’s facility under the values expressed by Arcadia regulations. 1 Waiver Request Verizon Wireless Conditional Use Permit Application for Stealth Cellular Tower Installation 1881 South 1st Avenue, Arcadia, CA 91006-4618 August 26, 2015 Revised December 9, 2015 Prepared by: Tectonic Engineering & Surveying For Applicant: Los Angeles SMSA Limited Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless 2 Site Overview Verizon Wireless (VZW) having identified a gap in coverage at the intersection of South Santa Anita Avenue and West Longden Avenue, proposes the Wireless Telecommunications Facility referred to as “Wistaria” to support service requirements and fulfill a coverage commitment to its customers. Within the Wistaria search ring (bounded to the north by Camino Real Ave.- to the south by Longden Ave.- to the west by El Monte Ave.- and to the East by 2nd Ave.) the preferred site selected by VZW, is located on the Church of the Transfiguration property at the southwest corner of Lemon Street and 1st Avenue at 1881 South 1st Avenue, Arcadia, CA 91006 (see Figure 1-1 Google Earth Site Map). Generally, VZW has a gap in coverage in the residential land use dominated neighborhoods of South Arcadia (see Figure 1-3 RF Propagation Map & Figure 1-4 RF Hypothetical Propagation Map). Providing effective and reliable service coverage to fill this gap is complicated by development that is primarily single family residential, current zoning prohibits wireless facilities in Residential (R-1) zoning districts and there are no feasible alternatives for new wireless telecommunication facilities within the search ring (see Figure 1-2 Arcadia Zoning Map). Figure 1-1 Google Earth Site Map Legend (Below) Figure 1-2 Arcadia Zoning Map Legend (Above) Figure 1-3 RF Propagation Map Figure 1-4 RF Hypothetical Propagation Map R-1 Second One Family S-2 Public Purpose VZW Site 1881 S. 1st Ave. Arcadia VZW Search Ring 3 Site Introduction The proposed project would allow construction and operation of a 53’ high stealth mono-eucalyptus wireless telecommunication facility. The project would be constructed in a 400 square foot section near the southern boundary of the Church of the Transfiguration parking lot. The project would provide radio frequency capacity within the City of Arcadia to better serve residents and visitors and address existing deficiencies identified by VZW. The project has been designed to blend into the existing mature vegetation within the surrounding area to minimize aesthetic effects and would be constructed consistent with all applicable standards and building codes. The project would not generate noise, air emissions or otherwise cause adverse environmental effects that could be detrimental to the public health or welfare or injurious to the property or surrounding uses. Revenue from the site lease would help fund Church of the Transfiguration preschool and community projects. The 400 square foot lease area is located generally along the southern border and near the back of the existing parking lot which fronts Lemon Street to the north. The project has been sited to meet applicable setback requirements and is scaled to match existing mature vegetation within the surrounding area. One non-dedicated parking space would be provided on-site for a technician to use when servicing the facility. A landscape plan has been prepared to identify the size, scale, plant palette and orientation needed to minimize aesthetic changes. The project site is accessible via Lemon Street. The project would require periodic (3-4 per month) visits by the technician to monitor and service the facility. Adequate parking is provided to accommodate temporary construction vehicles. One non-dedicated parking space is provided for the technician vehicle. Lemon Street has sufficient capacity to accommodate traffic. The proposed project would not impact land use or otherwise conflict with policies in the City of Arcadia General Plan, specifically Goal LU-3 and Policies LU-3.1 through LU-3.7 that pertain to low density residential uses. The project is setback from Lemon Avenue and is screened from view by intervening structures and vegetation. It would be most visible by residences to the west; however, as a stealth mono-eucalyptus, the project would blend into the visual environment. The existing scale and massing of the residential neighborhood would not be affected nor as noted above, would the project conflict with applicable General Plan policies related to low density residential areas. The site contains a church building, related structures and outdoor landscaped areas. The site would adequately provide coverage without the need to erect multiple small cell development throughout the neighborhood. This would also provide for less disruption of existing soils and environmental conditions. Given existing development in the area, the soils are presumed to be stable; however, a site specific geotechnical review would be conducted as part of the design process. Trees and other vegetation on the site are ornamental species; with the exception of a few common bird species, no other animals were observed on the site. The project site is not known to be historic or contain any culturally significant resources. Single-family residential uses are located to the north, east and west. Santa Anita Park and elementary school are located to the south. The residences in the area are primarily single-story ranch style structures. Setbacks are consistent with larger single family residential lots. Topography in the surrounding area is flat. Given existing development in the area, the soils are presumed to be stable. Trees and other vegetation are ornamental species; with the exception of a few common bird species, no other animals were observed in the area. The surrounding area is not known to be historic or contain any culturally significant resources. 4 Based on the facts presented in the sections that follow, the Church of the Transfiguration site would allow Verizon to meet coverage objectives and accommodate the project with no adverse effect on surrounding residential uses located in the R-1 zoning district. Site Justification: Infrastructural Capacity to Meet Increasing Data Demand As recent trends have reshaped the market and shifted the way cellular phones are utilized VZW has made it a top priority to provide competitive mobile data coverage. Specifically, this means more than coverage for calls but coverage for online content i.e. newsfeeds, radio feeds, social media content and all of the associated movies-videos-and music related to these sites. Consequently, Verizon Wireless relies on local jurisdictions who provide meaningful and productive input on site selection and development standards for the roll out of their ever expanding network. Verizon Wireless responding to the high demand for data coverage in service limited areas such as low density residential neighborhoods and responding to the ever increasing market demand for competitive internet/web data speeds for its customers feels that the proposed site selected at the Church of the Transfiguration is justified. Given the dominance of R-1 zoned properties in the Verizon “Wistaria” search ring it is the opinion of Verizon Wireless that there are no other viable candidates in meeting this coverage objective. The following sections will specify key obstacles to candidates identified but not selected based upon the criteria of property owner interest, geography, and logistics/operational functionality of the proposed wireless telecommunication facility “Wistaria”. The Site Selection Process Verizon Wireless initiated an extensive site acquisition process within the Wistaria search ring (bounded to the north by Camino Real Ave.- to the south by Longden Ave.- to the west by El Monte Ave.- and to the East by 2nd Ave.) with the understanding that wireless facilities are prohibited in R-1 zones by the Arcadia Municipal code. The search ring is centered on the proposed site (1881 S. 1st Ave.) at the intersection of West Lemon Avenue and 1st Street making it the preferred candidate for all of the above mentioned criteria. The search ring being almost entirely single-family residential with the exception of schools, parks, and churches presented Verizon with few candidates. Of the candidate list provided below potential Right Of Way sites were largely deemed infeasible for logistical/operational reasons. Also, VZW felt that a more centralized approach to providing coverage is an advantageous and less intrusive trend in low density single family residential neighborhoods like Arcadia. (Refer to Pic 1 below) Candidate Search: Interest letters and phone inquiries were sent to the following. Candidate 1 Arcadia Christian School (AUSD) Contact: (626) 574-8229 Joanne Address/Coordinates: 1900 S Santa Anita Ave Arcadia, CA 91006, 34 07 02.68 N 118 01 45.48 W Candidate 2 Santa Anita Park (AUSD) Contact: (626) 821-1435 ext.1 Mike Brewer Address/Coordinates: 1900 S Santa Anita Ave Arcadia, CA 91006, 34 07 02.68 N 118 01 45.48 W Candidate 3 Henry Dana Middle School Contact: (626) 821-8361 Address/Coordinates: 1401 S. 1st Ave Arcadia CA 91006, 34 07 29.40 N 118 01 43.86 W Candidate 4 City of Arcadia Right of Way Contact: (626) 256-6554 5 Site Candidates Pursued: Of the Institutional or S-2 zoned properties schools, parks, and churches were contacted and subsequently deemed infeasible due to either property owner interest, geography meeting coverage objectives, and or logistics/operational functionality. (see Fig. 1-5) Top reasons institutional land uses were not feasible: The use of a school facility was ideal however no interest was demonstrated by the neighboring schools. Interest letters received no response and calls fielded turned out no interest in establishing a wireless telecommunications site. Pic 1 Arcadia Christian School Santa Anita Ave. Santa Anita Park. This site is located adjacent to and south of the proposed site. The City of Arcadia was contacted about use of the park site to accommodate the facility. Because the park is adjacent to and used by the Arcadia Christian School, this alternative was rejected by both the City of Arcadia and Arcadia School District officials. Top reasons parks were not feasible: After several inquiries interest was not demonstrated by the City of Arcadia who controls the park nor the Arcadian Christian School who maintains regular use of the facility. At the same time the parks neighbor to the north, (The Church of the Transfiguration) was demonstrating extreme interest in the telecommunications facility and negotiations ensued. Pic 2 Santa Anita Park 6 The second school facility Henry Dana Middle School was another candidate which for geographical purposes was less than ideal due to the lack of intended coverage. Top reasons co-located sites were not feasible:  The only co-locatable site in the search ring is located in the northeast section of the drive test search ring and is not an ideal candidate in meeting the overall coverage objective.  This site has three existing wireless carriers on light standards located in the rear of the athletic field.  Also, the site is in such close proximity to Verizon Wireless’ adjacent tower site it would be an ineffective development in covering the service area gap identified. Pic 3 Henry Dana Middle School Right of Way Sites: Top reasons ROW sites were not feasible:  Parcels surrounding the proposed site extend out to the curb rendering the ROW limited to the street.  Sidewalk style small cell development necessitates multiple locations with very complex underground designs.  ROW sites are considered low in height, low RAD center will not meet coverage required for this project.  Large antennas (8ft) are required to achieve -15Dbd of gain desired, large antennas are not allowed on ROW sites. Pic 4 ROW (Lemon Ave. Looking East towards S. First Ave) 7 Figure 1-5 ROW Coverage with Neighboring Sites In conclusion and of the candidates identified the only geographically, operationally, and logistically feasible site to meet the coverage objective is the Church of the Transfiguration site. All other identified candidates were either non-responsive or supportive of siting a wireless telecommunication facility. It is for this purpose that the following statement of prohibition of wireless telecommunications facilities in this South Arcadia neighborhood is being submitted. 8 Waiver Criteria 1: Prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting the provision of Wireless Communications Services pursuant to the United States Telecommunications Act of 1996 It is the opinion of Verizon Wireless that the Arcadia Municipal code has the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless communications services pursuant to the telecommunications act of 1996 by refusing the CUP 15-03 application on the basis of the information provided in the CUP packet. Finding that the preferred candidate, the church of the Transfiguration property being zoned Second One Family (R-1) and the Municipal Code prohibits the siting of Wireless Telecommunication Facilities in the R-1 zone, the church being not strictly a residential use operation of the wireless facility would not adversely affect operation of the church or surrounding residential properties. As referenced above, church properties in zoning districts other than R-1 were pursued as part of the siting selection process however for geographic or logistical limitations these sites were not further pursued. Therefore, due to its ideal geographic location to meet coverage objectives, the subject property was selected as the preferred site. Set-back Relief Request Further, as required through the process of siting the Tower between the City of Arcadia Planning Department and representatives from the Church of the Transfiguration a rear yard set-back relief is being formally requested by the applicant to meet City and Property Owner preference. This relief of the rear yard set-back makes logistical sense from a circulation stand point for the Church of the Transfiguration as well as ideal stealthing for the City of Arcadia Planning Department from an aesthetic point as siting the tower close to the rear property line will cluster the faux tree into the existing live trees at the back of the property. 9 Appendix: RF Drive Test Search Ring Identified 10 11 12 13 Propagation Maps Without Wistaria Wistaria Isolated 14 With Neighboring Sites and Wistaria ROW Option 15 ROW Site Option Depicting Lack of Coverage 16 EME Report (refer to attached) Appendix: Wistaria RF Justification 17 18 19 Drive Test Conclusion Appendix: RF Justification Continued RF Candidate Options 20 Collocatable Site Richard Henry Dana Middle School Middle School Lack of Intended Coverage 21 Wistaria Intended Gap Coverage 22 23 Appendix: Full Sized Site Photos Arcadia Christian School 24 Santa Anita Park 25 Henry Dana Middle School 26 ROW Example Wireless Facility Engineering Review Regarding Verizon Application for a New Site at Church of the Transfiguration 1881 South 1st Avenue – Arcadia, CA Seattle Area Office - 42104 SE 133rd St, North Bend, WA 98045 - (425) 268-6132 • Introduction Commvergent has been engaged by the City of Arcadia, CA to conduct a peer review, consistent with recognized industry standard practices, of a proposal from Verizon Wireless, to construct a wireless base station facility (cell site) located at 1881 South 1st Avenue, Arcadia, CA. COMMVERGENT has performed many similar peer reviews for municipal clients throughout the US. For purposes of this report, the site owner is Verizon Wireless and may include other corporate entities, named or unnamed, that are part of Verizon Wireless or contractors to Verizon Wireless. The wireless carrier is, for this project proposal, Verizon Wireless. These names may be referenced interchangeably, and collectively are “the applicant” or “Verizon”. • Methodology In conducting a peer review, Commvergent reviews and analyzes site application documents against wireless industry standards and best practices. In this case, Commvergent considered the application and supplemental materials as well as model calculations to verify results. Information gained from drawings and supporting documents is then used to verify data supplied in these reports and an assessment is performed of accuracy in these reports related to site placement, safety and radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic energy (EME) exposure. • Background and Scope Verizon is proposing to erect a wireless site in a residential neighborhood. The proposed compound is fenced and will contain the Verizon support equipment, power supplies, batteries, a generator, and other equipment cabinets that support the Verizon operation at this site. Also inside the containment is the base of the monopole/tree configuration that will support the antennas. This peer review report will address siting of the wireless facility. • Site Location Description and Environment The proposed facility is located at 1881 South 1st Avenue, Arcadia, California. The immediate vicinity of the site is a parking lot, a school facility, a daycare and a church building. Beyond the immediate surrounding area is residential with some distant school campus and commercial usage. The roadways nearby are residential and local streets that mostly transport people to/from activities. No major roads or expressways are noted in the vicinity of this wireless site. Seattle Area Office - 42104 SE 133rd St, North Bend, WA 98045 - (425) 268-6132 Photo above is the view of the general location with the proposed wireless site marked near the center. • Justification for the placement of the Site In a typical cell site, the target usage is often a roadway, a commercial area, a residential area, etc. This location performs as the site for residential use almost exclusively as devices migrate from a primarily business use to the personal device use we see today. Many homes rely on wireless services for primary telephone usage as well as internet access. This wireless site in a residential area will provide service primarily to residences in the area. A cell site typically will utilize the highest structure within the coverage area (within reason) in order to provide an unobstructed “view” of the coverage target area. This installation will utilize a monopole structure disguised as a tree common to the area. The current location fits well into a network design using the current best practices for cellular network design. Utilization of a different site could impact other adjacent cells precipitating other changes to the network. The proposed site will provide service in several ways, including voice, data and texting services that consumers often use. The several different radio frequency bands proposed and the types of RF emissions shown in their applications further demonstrate the varied services that will be provided by this site, including Long Term Evolution (LTE) high-speed wireless capability. Seattle Area Office - 42104 SE 133rd St, North Bend, WA 98045 - (425) 268-6132 By the nature of how radio signals propagate, or travel through the air, LTE requires a stronger signal to give the many benefits it can provide. In order to achieve stronger signals to support LTE, addition of cells (such as this one) and modification of current cells is necessary. The proposed cell site has been identified by the applicant as an LTE site, and therefore the engineering aspect of the site defaults to the most critical aspect of the service the site provides, or LTE. Coverage map projections for this site before and after installation are included in the application and demonstrate how this particular site will improve coverage. In addition, Verizon has performed a drive test of the area to verify the modeled projections of signal coverage from existing sites to confirm the data. (A drive test is a test where specialized test equipment is installed in a vehicle which is then driven through the areas in question to measure coverage or lack thereof, and is considered the most reliable of measurements of network performance). A discussion of comparative effectiveness of the sites submitted for consideration follows. Also included in this site detail is a microwave dish type antenna that will be located within the disguised area of the monopole and is planned to provide connectivity to the rest of the Verizon network. • Site Design, Height, Impacting Factors – the site proposed is a typical carrier design that mixes basic requirements to be met, and the overall impact of the site to network quality. Cost is a consideration for any business and this is no different. The proposed site will have antennas located 48 feet in the air on a monopole structure disguised as a eucalyptus tree with an overall height of 52 feet. Three antennas are planned for each of three sectors or “faces” of the antenna structure. These will be largely hidden by the tree disguise. If this site were to be reduced in height by any amount, some coverage will be sacrificed. In doing so, a new additional site will be required at a later time. Reducing this height will drive the timeline of additional sites as reduced coverage will affect the metric of additional sites proportionately. To more directly answer a question about height vs coverage – every foot in antenna height reduction will reduce coverage. Any reduction in coverage will affect the network design and impact other sites. Other Potential Sites – Engineering Discussion Four other sites were considered for the proposed wireless site. These were assessed by Verizon and two were not available per the location owners (lack of) response. An engineering assessment was not performed for these sites. Seattle Area Office - 42104 SE 133rd St, North Bend, WA 98045 - (425) 268-6132 The remaining two sites were available and were assessed from an engineering standpoint for suitability in meeting design criteria and coverage for the proposed site. The first site for discussion is the Henry Dana Middle School at 1401 S 1st Ave, Arcadia. This possible site is a middle school campus roughly 4 to 5 blocks north of the site under primary consideration. This site was evaluated for coverage and this was detailed by Verizon as requested. The coverage from this site using roughly equal parameters would leave a large area to the south uncovered, which would require an additional site in the vicinity of 10 blocks south of this location to approximate the same level of coverage. An additional technique to obtain coverage –increasing the height of the equipment tower and using an increased gain antenna to obtain better coverage—was also evaluated. A model was created for coverage at an antenna height of 75 feet. This study showed that, while the coverage was better than or equal-to the 1881 S. First Avenue site, it did not provide the complete coverage that the 1881 S 1st Avenue site provides. This antenna and tower configuration would still require an additional “fill” site in the south area of the target coverage area. Using either approach – the same design as 1881 S 1st Avenue, or a redesign at greater height-- still leaves an area of unsatisfactory coverage that would ultimately require an additional site. This would also require a higher antenna elevation which would be more visually noticeable. Following is an aerial photo of the Dana Middle School campus area. Seattle Area Office - 42104 SE 133rd St, North Bend, WA 98045 - (425) 268-6132 (1401 S 1st Ave) The other site consideration is a right-of-way (ROW) site located in the right-of-way at the 1881 S. 1st Avenue primary site. This type of site is not practical in a residential area owing to the typical site configuration and the amount of equipment needed to support each site. The lower height of the antennas would require at least 4 well placed (meaning without regard to other factors) sites in the area to duplicate coverage from the proposed site at 1881 S 1st Avenue. The difficulty in placing 4 sites in ROW locations is the sheer size of the site needed for a Verizon site. The applicant, Verizon, utilizes three different radio systems at a site to provide voice and data services. Because of this need, plus batteries and a backup generator, a compound, either above or below ground, would be a sizable undertaking. Deleting the generator would provide some benefit, however this is not a recommended configuration as wireless services are used to call 911 for emergency needs. The Verizon network uses generators at most sites to support operation in power failure for extended periods of time. • Radio Frequency (RF) Exposure Potential Safety of a potential cell site in various forms, particularly RF safety, is taken into consideration in this analysis to assure the design elements comprise a safe installation that will not promote unsafe conditions for workers or for the general public. Seattle Area Office - 42104 SE 133rd St, North Bend, WA 98045 - (425) 268-6132 The Federal Communications Commission has stated a Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) level for Radio Frequency (RF) energy through a scientific process to provide us with a threshold level for comparison of RF exposures. Verizon, as part of their application to the City has provided a study of potential for exposure of the general population, the so-called Uncontrolled Exposure, to persons that may be near the enclosure (walled in area). The report indicates all findings in relationship to the Controlled environment, which is acceptable as the Uncontrolled environment MPE is always 1/5 or 20% of the Controlled environment MPE, providing a reliable scale to the measurement. By Verizon’s calculation, the composite MPE will not be exceeded in areas outside the enclosure, and in fact, are far below the MPE threshold. The levels indicated are below the 20% of Controlled MPE exposure, or in other words, the Maximum level of exposure that is permitted for the general population. Independent modeling by Commvergent has confirmed these calculations are accurate. Levels at 6 feet above ground level range from 2 to 3 percent of the MPE levels for the a controlled environment, which translates to 10% to 15% of the maximum level of exposure (MPE) to the general public – still far below threshold levels. The safety of the entire installation was considered for compliance with FCC requirements and the only area inside or outside the enclosure where any signal levels are expected to exceed ANY MPE level is directly in front of the antennas and within 3 feet using the most liberal modeling methodology permitted by the FCC in their publication OET65 - Method 2. This would require someone to be suspended in mid-air in front of an antenna for several minutes – a near impossible scenario. Even so, the FCC requires that all potential exposures be marked and common safety practice enforces this practice. The general public is not allowed inside the enclosure, so only professionals that have received appropriate training will be inside the enclosure. For this reason, signage is not required outside of the enclosure. In good safety practice, the following signage should be placed inside the enclosure on the bottom section of the monopole to warn potential workers that the areas above ground (in this case, in front of antennas) may exceed MPE levels. In order to demonstrate the highest levels of safety, consistent with industry practice, the approval for this proposed cell site may contain a requirement that the access to the compound is required to be locked when not attended. In addition, the bottom 10 feet of the monopole should be “non-scalable” or not contain climbing pegs or a unprotected ladder to discourage climbing by trespassers in the compound. Seattle Area Office - 42104 SE 133rd St, North Bend, WA 98045 - (425) 268-6132 Signage outside the enclosure should contain site identification nomenclature and an emergency phone number to call for emergencies. This is also a requirement that all cell carriers are familiar with, and may be noted to avoid misunderstanding. No warning sign outside the enclosure is needed. •General Safety General site safety is important to the community and to the workers servicing equipment in the enclosure. Review of the preliminary plans for this installation indicate that the primary safety features have been incorporated. To provide a community-safe installation, the City may require that the walls and gate be of non-scalable construction. This will inhibit trespassers in the compound and around equipment. • Conclusions and Recommendations The proposed site at 1881 South 1st Avenue, Arcadia, CA has been designed to be the least practical intrusion consistent with sound engineering practices. The location of the site is consistent with good network design and location elsewhere would ultimately require both a taller site, and likely an additional cell site in the near future to fill coverage lost through use of another site. Safety at this site is essential to a community site and the general design of the site includes all basic safety requirements with the following recommendations for inclusion in any approval: 1)The yellow caution sign should be mounted on the lower section of the monopole 2)An information sign should be installed on the gate with identifying information and an emergency phone number for Verizon 3)The gate and walls of the enclosure should be non-scalable in design and construction 4)The gate to the enclosure must be kept locked when not attended. Respectfully Submitted Douglas R Dickinson Managing Consultant, COMMVERGENT Consultants January 5, 2016 Seattle Area Office - 42104 SE 133rd St, North Bend, WA 98045 - (425) 268-6132 Douglas R Dickinson Managing Consultant/Regulatory/Safety Compliance Specialist Technical Expertise Regulatory Compliance with FCC, NEPA and OSHA regulations FCC Licensing and spectrum management Cell site development, permitting and zoning P-25 P16, and GSM large Systems Procurement and Implementation E9-1-1 system development and implementation Fiber Optic Video and surveillance systems design and implementation Voice/Data Networks •Needs Analysis •Design •Procurement •Implementation •Operations Support Microwave Networking Education Seminole Community College, general studies Florida Technological University – Engineering Studies Awards, Affiliations and Certifications Registered Lobbyist, State of Florida Past Member, Lower Nazareth PA Zoning Board APCO Presidents Award Local Frequency Advisor to APCO Northampton County E911 Mr. Dickinson has been actively involved with the development of radio systems and cell sites for over 35 years. He has served on various State and Federal level committees on spectrum issues and has worked with Canadian officials on cross-border applications. He has led the development effort for 3 major markets in cellular network launch, and is considered a subject matter expert on RF EME exposures and compliance. He has led development and launch of over 1000 cell sites and hundreds of Public Safety sites. Selected Professional & Regulatory/Compliance Experience •T-Mobile USA – Bellevue, WA – In addition to regular duties, worked with the Regulatory Department legal staff in developing FCC filings on matters such as compliance with RF EME exposure, tower safety and NEPA compliance and merger of several smaller carriers under the single T-Mobile banner. Developed regulatory compliance database and trained all markets in use. •T-Mobile USA/Omnipoint Communications – as Launch manager, was primary project manager for network build and launch in Eastern Pennsylvania, Philadelphia Region, and St Louis Region markets. Led teams of site engineers, designers, and acquisition/zoning agents through development process to market launch. •St Louis Metropolitan Area /RCC – St Louis, Worked with two FCC Regional 800MHz committees to reallocate 80 channels to the St Louis, Jefferson and St Charles counties in Missouri. Worked to find common ground between 2 state committees to forge mutually acceptable criteria for assignments that met both regional plans. •New Jersey Transit – as Director of Radio System Support, participated in development of the original NPSPAC committee which grew to incorporate all of US Public Safety. Served as NPSPAC Chair of Interoperability Sub-Committee and served as member of Regions 8 and 28 800MHz NPSPAC Committees. •Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials – as a Volunteer, worked with Director of Frequency Coordination assisting 30 NPSPAC regions develop their first frequency allotment plans to foster filing initial Regional Committee plans with the FCC. Developed software package that provided the allotment strategy. •Association of Public-Safety Communications – At various times have served as Primary FCC Frequency Advisor for Pennsylvania, Washington State, and Alaska and Alternate Advisor for New Jersey. Seattle Area Office - 42104 SE 133rd St, North Bend, WA 98045 - (425) 268-6132 MACKENZIE & ALBRITTON LLP 220 SANSOME STREET, 14TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 TELEPHONE 415 / 288-4000 FACSIMILE 415 / 288-4010 November 7, 2016 VIA EMAIL Mayor Tom Beck Mayor Pro Tem Peter Amundson Council Members Roger Chandler, Sho Tay and April Verlato City Council City of Arcadia 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, California 91066 Re: Verizon Wireless Appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No. 1970, 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 the proposed Verizon Wireless facility at 1881 South First Avenue City Council Agenda, November 15, 2016 Dear Mayor Beck, Mayor Pro Tem Amundson and Council Members: We write on behalf of Verizon Wireless to ask that you grant its appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of a camouflaged wireless telecommunication facility located at 1881 South First Avenue (the “Proposed Facility”). At its meeting of October 11, 2016, the Planning Commission adopted findings that Verizon Wireless failed to justify a waiver required to locate the Proposed Facility on a parcel zoned R-1 where a wireless facility is otherwise prohibited. The Planning Commission’s findings are contrary to the recommendation of staff and are not supported by substantial evidence. There is ample evidence already in the record to confirm a significant gap in Verizon Wireless service in Arcadia and that the Proposed Facility is the least intrusive means of filling that gap. This evidence includes the Verizon Wireless alternatives analysis, the statement of its RF Engineer, Marco Mata (the “Mata Statement”), the report of the City’s third-party engineer, and the detailed staff report to the Planning Commission recommending approval. To supplement that information, we are enclosing the following additional documentation: a November 7, 2016, statement from Minh Nguyen, RF Design Engineer (the “Nguyen Statement”) (attached as Exhibit A); and a revised alternatives analysis (attached as Exhibit B) providing further detail on the reasons that a small-cell network would be neither feasible nor less intrusive. The Nguyen Statement clarifies and corrects certain information provided in the Mata Statement, in response to questions raised by the Planning Commission, and also provides a drive test that confirms the significant gap identified in the Mata Statement. A drive test measures actual signal strength in the field, Arcadia City Council November 7, 2016 Page 2 of 2 and is thus very reliable evidence of the existing coverage of the Verizon Wireless network in the affected area. As set forth in the revised alternatives analysis, a small-cell network, by itself, would not provide adequate coverage to the significant gap and would be more intrusive than the proposed facility since it would require at least 10 separate small-cell facilities. In addition, small-cell networks represent a different supplemental technology that is only appropriate in certain circumstances that are not present in the area to be served by the proposed facility. Denying the application on the basis of this supposed alternative would thus dictate a change in technology, which exceeds the City’s authority. It is well- established that local governments may not “interfere with the federal government’s regulation of technical and operational aspects of wireless telecommunications technology, a field that is occupied by federal law.” New York SMSA Ltd. v. Town of Clarkstown, 612 F.3d 97, 105 (2d Cir. 2010) (town’s stated preference for DAS network on utility poles preempted by FCC’s exclusive authority over technical and operational aspects of wireless technology). In sum, the enclose evidence further confirms that Verizon Wireless qualifies for a waiver and also establishes that denial would prohibit Verizon Wireless service in violation of the Telecommunications Act. We urge you to reverse the Planning Commission’s unjustified denial and approve the Proposed Facility. Very truly yours, Paul B. Albritton cc: Gail Karish, Esq. Jim Kasama Jeff Hamilton Schedule of Exhibits Exhibit A: Supplemental Statement of Verizon Wireless RF Engineer Minh Nguyen Exhibit B: Revised Alternatives Analysis 15505 Sand Canyon Ave. Irvine, CA 92618 November 7, 2016 To: Arcadia City Council From: Minh Nguyen, Radio Frequency Design Engineer, Verizon Wireless Network Engineering Department Subject: Supplemental Statement in Support of Verizon Wireless’s Proposed Telecommunications Facility, 1881 South First Avenue Executive Summary This statement addresses inquiries of the City of Arcadia with respect to Verizon Wireless’s proposed stealth wireless facility at 1881 South First Avenue (the “Proposed Facility”). The Proposed Facility will serve a significant gap in Verizon Wireless long-term evolution (“LTE”) service coverage and network capacity as described in the Statement in Support of Verizon Wireless’s Proposed Telecommunications Facility prepared by RF Design Engineer Marco Mata, dated July 27, 2016 (the “Mata Statement”). At a hearing on September 27, 2016, members of the Planning Commission addressed depiction of projected service levels on Verizon Wireless propogation maps in the Mata Statement as well as the area and population to be served by the Proposed Facility. This statement responds to those inquiries and provides results of a drive test that confirms the Significant Gap. Coverage Maps In the Mata Statement, service levels were described with reference to colors on the coverage map included in the statement and shown below. Coverage maps provide important information regarding the anticipated level of LTE signal measured in terms of reference signal received power (RSRP), and therefore the projected coverage provided by a site for a customer at a given location. The service level thresholds on coverage maps reflect the loss of signal power as distance from the Proposed Facility increases, measured in decibels. • Green indicates RSRP above -85 dBm, reflecting good coverage that meets or exceed thresholds to provide consistent and reliable network coverage in vehicles and in homes • Yellow indicates RSRP between -85 and -95 dBm, generally representing reliable service in vehicles, but not in buildings • Purple indicates RSRP between -95 and -105 dBm, indicating poor service areas with marginal coverage unsuitable for in-vehicle use. Current LTE Coverage Map Area and Population The Mata Statement describes the area to receive new reliable LTE service from the Proposed Facility as 1.3 square miles. This was determined by evaluating the area that will receive dominant signal from the three Proposed Facility antenna sectors as shown on the proposed best server plot included in the Verizon Wireless Alternatives Analysis dated July 28, 2016. The proposed best server plot is also shown below with the area receiving dominant signal from the Proposed Facility outlined in green. Proposed Best Server Plot The Mata Statement described the population to receive new reliable LTE service as 31,000 residents. This population figure was determined by evaluating the total coverage area of the Proposed Facility at all service levels, even where service duplicates that of existing Verizon Wireless facilities. The Verizon Wireless network relies on multiple facilities to provide reliable LTE service, including E911 location services and service for customers in transit whose calls may hand off to different facilities as they traverse Arcadia roadways. The population to receive new Verizon Wireless service within the area receiving dominant signal from the Proposed Facility is approximately 8,000 residents, including Verizon Wireless customers. This figure more accurately represents the affected population within the significant gap who will receive improved voice and data services directly from the Proposed Facility. Drive Test Verizon Wireless conducted a drive test to confirm the coverage gap described in the Mata Statement. On May 20, 2015, a test truck was driven through select streets in Arcadia to measure and analyze existing Verizon Wireless service in the area. The results of the Verizon Wireless drive test are depicted on the following plot, Drive Test Reference Signal Receive Power. This plot shows the average LTE signal power received from existing Verizon Wireless facilities serving the area as measured along the drive test route. Strong, usable LTE signal is available in areas with signal above -80 dBm, shown as blue, green and light yellow shades in only a few outlying areas on the plot. These are generally the ranges where calls can be made in a building or vehicle or on the street. Weaker signal (less than -80 dBm) is shown dark yellow, orange, red and black on the plot. These are areas where Verizon Wireless customers will experience poor service indoors. These areas lack a “dominant” LTE signal from a nearby facility, and as a result, are subject to signal interference and capacity exhaustion. Signal levels in this low range are typical of those found at the edge of coverage from a distant cell site and in areas served by an overloaded antenna sector. The drive test demonstrates that the south Arcadia area is experiencing unacceptably weak LTE signal. Drive Test Reference Signal Receive Power Verizon Wireless Alternatives Analysis Wistaria 1881 South First Avenue, Arcadia November 7, 2016 Revised Summary of Site Evaluations Conducted by Tectonic Engineering Compiled by Mackenzie & Albritton LLP 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Executive Summary .............................................................................................. 3 II. Significant Gap ...................................................................................................... 3 III. Methodology .......................................................................................................... 4 IV. Analysis .................................................................................................................. 5 Collocation Review ................................................................................................. 5 1. Existing Facilities at Richard Henry Dana Middle School ........................... 5 Review of Locations with Favorable Zoning ........................................................ 6 2. Santa Anita Park ........................................................................................... 6 3. Arcadia Christian School .............................................................................. 7 4. Tierra Verde Park .......................................................................................... 8 Locations in R-1 Zone Not in Residential Use ..................................................... 9 5.A Proposed Facility – Church of the Transfiguration .................................... 9 5.B Denied Facility – Eucalyptus Design ....................................................... 12 6. Water Tank .................................................................................................. 13 7. Arcadia Montessori School ......................................................................... 14 Locations Outside Gap Area Discounted Due to Lack of Landlord Interest .... 14 8. Little Harvard Academy, 62 Las Tunas Drive ............................................ 14 9. Arcadia High School, 180 Campus Drive ................................................... 14 10. Arcadia Library, 20 West Duarte Road .................................................... 14 11. Arcadia Masonic Lodge, 50 West Duarte Road ....................................... 14 12. Church of the Nazarene, 225 East Santa Clara Street ............................... 14 13. First Baptist Church, 6090 Baldwin Avenue ............................................ 14 Small Cell Network Alternative ........................................................................... 15 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 17 Map of Alternatives 3 I.Executive Summary Verizon Wireless seeks to fill a significant gap in its coverage and network capacity in the southern Arcadia area. Based on a review of 13 locations and a small cell network alternative as set forth in the following analysis, Verizon Wireless believes that concealing antennas in a standalone facility with a stealth church tower design (the “Proposed Facility”) constitutes the least intrusive alternative to provide service to the identified gap based on the values expressed in the Arcadia Municipal Code (the “Code”). II.Significant Gap There is a significant gap in Verizon Wireless coverage and network capacity in the southern Arcadia area. In-building service coverage is lacking in the vicinity, which is composed primarily of residential areas. Further, the Verizon Wireless facility serving much of the gap area area is nearing capacity exhaustion, and Verizon Wireless must place an additional facility in the vicinity of the Proposed Facility to provide new coverage and relieve existing antenna sectors to ensure the reliability of the network. The identified “significant gap” in network coverage is more fully described in the Statement of Verizon Wireless RF Engineer Marco Mata and the Supplemental Statement of Verizon Wireless RF Engineer Minh Nguyen. 4 III. Methodology Once a significant gap has been determined, Verizon Wireless seeks to identify a location and design that will provide required coverage through the “least intrusive means” based upon the values expressed by local regulations. In addition to seeking the “least intrusive” alternative, sites proposed by Verizon Wireless must be feasible. In this regard, Verizon Wireless reviews the radio frequency propagation, elevation, grading requirements, height of any existing structures, available electrical and telephone utilities, access, available ground space, zoning and other critical factors such as a willing landlord in completing its site analysis. Under the Code, all wireless facilities are prohibited on private property in R-M, R-O, R-1, R-2, PR-0, PR-1 and PR-2 zones; City-owned property is excepted. Code §9288.6(a)(2). Various structure-mounted facilities and certain co-locations are allowed with an architectural design review approval by the Development Services Director in R- 3, C-O, CPD-1, D, CBD and PR-3 zones. Code §§9288.3(b), 9288.6(a)(1). Standalone facilities require a conditional use permit and architectural design review approval by the Planning Commission, but are prohibited in all aforementioned zones unless a waiver of location requirements is granted by the City. Code §§9288.3(c), 9288.8. Only certain collocations on existing facilities approved with an environmental document qualify for administrative architectural design review by the Director. Code §9288.3(d). Wireless facilities are allowed in all zones not referenced above, in public rights-of-way and on City-owned property. Code §9288.6(a)(3). Right-of-way facilities require an encroachment permit issued by the Development Services Director. Code §9288.3(a). Carriers must employ stealthing techniques to camouflage wireless facilities and achieve architectural compatibility. Code §9288.7(c) 5 IV. Analysis Collocation Review Verizon Wireless first sought to identify existing wireless facilities in the gap area that could potentially serve as collocation facilities. The only existing wireless facilities in the gap area are located on a school property as follows. 1. Existing Facilities at Richard Henry Dana Middle School Address: 1401 South First Avenue Elevation: 410 feet Zoning: S-2 Public Purpose Several wireless carriers host facilities on field lights at this public school located 0.45 miles north of the Proposed Facility and 25 feet greater in elevation. Verizon Wireless RF engineers re-evaluated this location and determined that a facility at this location is too close to Verizon Wireless’ existing Patricia facility located at First Avenue and Alice Street approximately 0.5 miles to the north of this school. As a result, a new facility at this location would result in interference and a lack of dominant signal for wireless devices between it and the existing Patricia facility. In addition, a site at this location would not provide new dominant signal to the identified significant gap. Due to interference with Verizon Wireless’s existing network and an inability to serve the Significant Gap, this is not a feasible alternative to the Proposed Facility. 6 Review of Locations with Favorable Zoning Lacking a feasible collocation opportunity, Verizon Wireless reviewed the gap area for zoning districts that allow new wireless facilities on private property. Nearly the entire gap area is zoned R-1, and in the R-1 zone, new wireless facilities are prohibited unless a waiver is granted by the City. The only other zoning districts in the gap area are S-2, special purpose districts, comprising four locations. Richard Henry Dana Middle School is reviewed as Alternative 1, and three other S-2 zoned locations were reviewed, as follows. 2. Santa Anita Park Address: South First Avenue Elevation: 385 feet Zoning: S-2 Public Purpose Verizon Wireless reviewed this small park on Arcadia School District property located due south of the Proposed Facility at a similar elevation. Verizon Wireless placed calls to School District representative Mike Brewers regarding placement of a new wireless facility at this park, but failed to generate any interest on the part of the School District to enter into lease negotiations. Lacking a willing landlord, this is not a feasible alternative to the Proposed Facility. 7 3. Arcadia Christian School Address: 1900 South Santa Anita Avenue Elevation: 385 feet Zoning: S-2 Public Purpose Verizon Wireless reviewed this privately-operated school located on Arcadia Unified School District property directly south of the Proposed Facility property at a similar elevation. Verizon Wireless placed calls to School District representative Mike Brewers regarding placement of a new wireless facility at the park, but failed to generate any interest on the part of the School District to enter into lease negotiations. Lacking a willing landlord, this is not a feasible alternative to the Proposed Facility. 8 4. Tierra Verde Park Address: 200 East El Camino Real Avenue Elevation: 400 feet Zoning: S-2 Public Purpose Verizon Wireless reviewed this small public park located 0.4 miles northeast of the Proposed Facility and 15 feet greater in elevation. Verizon Wireless RF engineers evaluated this location and determined that a facility at this park is too close to Verizon Wireless’ existing Fairgreen facility located adjacent to Camino Grove Park approximately 0.4 miles east of Tierra Verde Park. As a result, a new facility at this location would result in interference and a lack of dominant signal for wireless devices between it and the existing Fairgreen facility. In addition, a site at this location would not provide new dominant signal to the identified significant gap. Due to interference with Verizon Wireless’s existing network and an inability to serve the Significant Gap, this is not a feasible alternative to the Proposed Facility. 9 Locations in R-1 Zone Not in Residential Use Lacking any feasible alternatives in zones which allow wireless facilities, Verizon Wireless next sought locations in the R-1 zone where a new wireless facility can be placed upon granting of a waiver from location requirements by the City. Verizon Wireless sought properties not in residential use, identifying the following three locations, one of which provides excellent radio frequency propagation to serve the gap with a stealth facility that minimizes visual impacts. 5.A Proposed Facility – Church of the Transfiguration Address: 1881 South First Avenue Elevation: 385 feet Zoning: R-1 Verizon Wireless proposes to fully conceal panel antennas within a 53 foot church tower structure placed in a 400 square foot lease area adjacent to a church administrative building at the rear of the subject parcel. The tower structure is designed to complement the architecture of existing church buildings, including plaster walls painted to match, a pitched roof edged with terra cotta tiles and arched panels complementing the shape of chapel windows. Additional decorative elements include a wrought iron fence at the base of the tower. Verizon Wireless will place its equipment cabinets within the base of the tower along with a standby diesel generator to provide continued service in case of emergency. 10 The church tower design allows Verizon Wireless to mount its antennas at a centerline of 45 feet, the minimum height necessary to serve the Significant Gap. As shown in the following coverage maps, the Proposed Facility is placed in an ideal location such that all three of its antenna sectors will provide new in-building coverage and offload network traffic from the exhausted antenna sector serving much of the gap area, providing required coverage and network capacity to serve the Significant Gap. This is Verizon Wireless’s preferred location for the Proposed Facility. 11 Coverage Provided by Proposed Facility 1881 South First Avenue 12 5.B Denied Facility – Eucalyptus Design Address: 1881 South First Avenue Elevation: 385 feet Zoning: R-1 Verizon Wireless originally proposed to conceal its antennas in a 52 foot tower designed to resemble a eucalyptus tree placed at the rear of the church parking lot. This was the proposed design that was denied by the Planning Commission on March 22, 2016. As a result of this denial, Verizon Wireless has revised its application and proposes the church tower design referenced in Alternative 5.A above. 13 6. Water Tank Address: El Camino Real Avenue at Wesley Lane Elevation: 405 feet Zoning: R-1 Verizon Wireless reviewed this public property supporting a water tank located 0.35 miles north of the Proposed Facility and 20 feet greater in elevation. Verizon Wireless RF engineers evaluated this location and determined that a facility at this location is too close to Verizon Wireless’s existing Fairgreen facility located adjacent to Caminio Grove Park approximately 0.45 miles to the east of this water tank property. As a result, a new facility at this location would result in interference and a lack of dominant signal for wireless devices between it and the existing Fairgreen facility. In addition, a site at this location would not provide new dominant signal to the identified significant gap. Due to interference with Verizon Wireless’s existing network and an inability to serve the Significant Gap, this is not a feasible alternative to the Proposed Facility. 14 7. Arcadia Montessori School Address: 1406 South Santa Anita Avenue Elevation: 410 feet Zoning: R-1 Verizon Wireless reviewed this private school property located 0.4 miles north of the Proposed Facility and 25 feet greater in elevation. Verizon Wireless contacted school administration regarding placement of a wireless facility on the property, but school administration declined to enter into lease negotiations with Verizon Wireless. Lacking a willing landlord, this is not a feasible alternative to the Proposed Facility. Locations Outside Gap Area Discounted Due to Lack of Landlord Interest In its initial fielding of locations for a new wireless facility to serve the southern Arcadia area, Verizon Wireless contacted additional property owners in areas that lie outside the gap area to the north and south, notwithstanding the inability of a facility at these distant locations to serve the Significant Gap. One property owner responded that they were not interested in entering into a lease agreement for a wireless facility, as follows: 8. Little Harvard Academy, 62 Las Tunas Drive Five property owners did not respond to Verizon Wireless’s inquiry, as follows: 9. Arcadia High School, 180 Campus Drive 10. Arcadia Library, 20 West Duarte Road 11. Arcadia Masonic Lodge, 50 West Duarte Road 12. Church of the Nazarene, 225 East Santa Clara Street 13. First Baptist Church, 6090 Baldwin Avenue Lacking landlord interest, these are not feasible alternatives to the Proposed Facility. 15 Small Cell Network Alternative Verizon Wireless evaluated development of a network of small wireless facilities placed on utility poles in the right-of-way within the Significant Gap. Verizon Wireless RF engineers concluded that a minimum of ten such small cells in residential areas would be required to serve the gap, as depicted in the following map. As shown in the coverage map, the long blocks in the south Arcadia area would lead to in-building coverage gaps within the small cell network. Coverage from small cells is further limited by the available height of utility poles that may not exceed the height of adjacent tree and buildings. This limited coverage from small cells due to building and tree “clutter” is not accurately reflected in computer-generated propagation maps like that shown below. Generally, small cells employ an alternative technology specifically designed to provide high-capacity service targeting specific areas with high demand or pockets created by topography. In a well-designed network, small cells supplement a macro wireless facility network that provides seamless coverage to the broader area. Small cell facilities have a limited coverage area due to smaller antennas, lower-wattage radios and generally limited available pole height. As a result, networks relying solely on small cells may experience dead spots where street layout and setbacks dictate excess distance between small cell facilities and the coverage from each small cell is impacted by tree and building “clutter.” Coverage from a small cell network in the area of the Significant Gap would be inferior to the more ubiquitous in-building coverage provided by the Proposed Facility. Lacking a macro facility to provide seamless coverage to the gap area, a small cell network would provide limited service absent a large number of small cell nodes. Each small cell would present visual impacts due to new antennas and equipment boxes attached to utility poles or streetlights. Small cells would require installation of two- to four- foot antennas on utility poles as well as equipment cabinets mounted on the pole and on the ground adjacent to the pole. The gap area is comprised almost entirely of residentially-used properties with yards abutting the curb with no sidewalk or visible public space for ground mounted equipment. The individual aesthetic and environmental impact of each of the ten small cells would be likely more intrusive on immediate neighbors than the minimal impacts of the Proposed Facility. Given the lack of a Verizon Wireless macro facility in the vicinity, the inferior coverage of small cells and the potential increased impacts due to multiple locations, a small cell network is not the proper technology to serve the broader Significant Gap absent a macro facility such as the Proposed Facility. A small cell network cannot be considered a feasible or less intrusive alternative to the Proposed Facility. 16 Small Cell Network Alternative (Ten Small Cell Facilities in Right-of-Way) 17 Conclusion Verizon Wireless has reviewed 13 locations and a small cell network alternative to serve a Significant Gap in the southern Arcadia area. Based upon the standards identified in the Arcadia Municipal Code, the Proposed Facility – with antennas concealed in a standalone facility with a stealth church tower design – clearly constitutes the least intrusive location for Verizon Wireless’s facility under the values expressed by Arcadia regulations. 1. Richard Henry Dana Middle School 2. Santa Anita Park 5. Proposed Facility 4. Tierra Verde Park 6. Water Tank7. Montessori School 8. Little Harvard Academy 9. Arcadia High School 10. Arcadia Library 11. Masonic Lodge 12. Church of the Nazarene 13. First Baptist Church Existing Robin Hood Facility Existing Amada Arcadia Medical Facility Existing Patricia Facility Existing Live Oak Facility Existing Fairgreen Facility Proposed Facility Alternatives Existing Verizon Wireless Facilities 3. Arcadia Christian School Wistaria Arcadia Alternative Site Locations 1 | Page Consultants Review of Verizon Wireless Waiver Request CUP 15-03 January 20, 2017 (Photo simulation of proposed site taken from Verizon application, for clarity) 2 | Page Summary Commvergent Technologies has been retained by the City of Arcadia (City) to analyze and provide expert advice to the City on supplemental information that was supplied to the City by Verizon Wireless (Verizon). The information provided conclusively demonstrates the need for additional facilities in the area of the site and comprising an area of approximately 1.3 square miles in area. In addition to the need for the additional wireless site proposed at the 1881 South First Ave site, the specifics of the installation are provided which demonstrate that this revision to the application is the least intrusive method of constructing a site for coverage as noted above. Discussion Commvergent Technologies has been contracted by the City of Arcadia, California (City) for further review of an application by Verizon Wireless for a Conditional Use Permit to erect a wireless communications facility at 1881 South First Avenue, Arcadia, CA (Church of the Transfiguration) referred to in this report as “Site” or “the Site”. The specific questions and actions that the City specifies in respect to the additional materials supplied by Verizon Wireless are: 1) Review and analyze the supplemental materials and information provided to the City by the applicant. 2) Prepare an update to the January 5, 2016 report to the City by Commvergent, focusing in particular on evaluating information related to applicants request, including: a) Applicants significant gap analysis b) Analysis of the alternatives/least intrusive means proposed by applicant 3) Specifically noted is that Commvergent need not address FCC Compliance, interference, or health and safety as these aspects have not changed from the original application. 3 | Page Commvergent received the supplemental information from Verizon Wireless via the City of Arcadia containing a further discussion of the need for the applicants proposed facility and design changes that are proposed to the Site. The applicant has provided detailed coverage plots accompanied by design criteria used in developing this data including the predicted signal levels in areas both inside the gap area and nearby, including surrounding cell sites that are relied on for coverage (primary donor cells). There are several aspects to consider in what constitutes coverage, what area is lacking coverage, and solutions to this question of providing coverage. The description of the structure proposed by Verizon and the photo rendering provided by Verizon does not appear to represent the full height impact of the proposed Bell Tower structure. The page 9 photo simulation shows a bell tower that appears to be about 45 feet in height overall. The proposed structure is 53 feet in height. This should be revised to reflect accurate data. In the Verizon application, the housing of equipment is proposed for the ground floor level to be enclosed by an iron decorative barrier or fence. This reviewer suggests that the equipment (except the generator) be housed in the upper areas of the structure and not on the ground level to further hide any hint of a cell site. The equipment installation ordinarily appears very industrial and out of place in view. Elevating the equipment floor can be accomplished easily through the use of a platform within the structure. By elevating the equipment, the objective of hiding the cell site is further accomplished as even equipment is not visible in ordinary view. The supplemental information provided by Verizon Wireless regarding coverage of this proposed cell site, addresses coverage questions to the satisfaction of this reviewer. The area of poor coverage which requires additional signal levels to provide satisfactory coverage is well defined through the coverage analysis presented. The area comprises about 1.3 square miles. Verizon claims that the population served is about 8,000 residents which is consistent with the population density described by the US Bureau of Census. This is representative of the type of buildings to be provided inside-building coverage in the mostly suburban area depicted on the Verizon maps. 4 | Page In a technical representation such as provided by Verizon, some assumptions are used which represent good coverage, poor coverage, etc. The signal levels used in the coverage maps provided by Verizon are reasonable given the types of service this cell site will be providing. The gap is service as depicted in the several coverage maps (plots) demonstrates several points of interest in this discussion: 1) There is a significant gap in reliable coverage of Verizon’s LTE signal centered roughly in and around the site proposed by applicant. 2) The proposed site will provide sufficient coverage to remedy the coverage gap in the central part of the coverage gap. 3) LTE service, being the most limiting aspect of the gap and the design to remedy the gap is appropriate to use in this cell site design. 4) Coverage to replace the need for this cell site cannot be reasonably provided through expansion of other nearby service sites due to technological reasons. Coverage as defined by Verizon is LTE in-building coverage. LTE service requires the highest level of signal to achieve satisfactory service (highest data rates) which drives construction of cell sites. LTE is now used by all of the major cell carriers as the most efficient way of providing cell data services to customers. It is the current technology and is considered the most efficient way to provide needed bandwidth. The radio frequency bands used by Verizon (and others) to provide LTE service is subject to greater free- space attenuation than other service or frequency bands involved in this site design. Designing for the most difficult coverage is a sound engineering practice as once the design objective is achieved for the most difficult to provide signal, the others can be adjusted to work in harmony with their coverage objectives. The LTE signal relies on two factors to determine how fast traffic can occur (data speed) and how many subscribers can be active within a particular cell. With LTE, the more distant a user is from a cell site, the slower data transmission will be to that user. In addition, with more of the slower (and more distant) subscribers on a cell, the less data speed can be supported in that cell. To overcome this 5 | Page technical reality, reducing the space between cell sites makes for a faster data transmission system, which supports more customers with satisfactory signal. LTE service is the latest technology for over-the-air provision of data services. While voice traffic (telephone calls) can be handled by an LTE network, the primary focus of LTE is transmission of data in the form of internet video streaming. In fact, the internet is the source of a growing percentage of video for in-home viewing and is expected to overtake most wired services in the next several years. People (cellular subscribers) are moving toward viewing services formerly limited to television through various handheld devices and in a highly mobile environment. Using LTE service as the primary design criteria, Verizon further demonstrates the characteristics of LTE that drive the need for additional cell sites, such as the Site proposed. With increased usage, the apparent cell site coverage shrinks with increased through-put. Those areas of marginal coverage at the edge of a given cell site see reduced coverage at higher usage times because of this phenomena, further driving the need for additional cell sites in a given area. Growth in LTE provided services and the technological drivers of LTE service provision require additional cell sites to work. There is no alternative cell service signal that can be provided to replace the function of LTE and the overall quality of service LTE provides. Coverage in the gap area cannot reasonably be provided by surrounding sites. One of the limitations of LTE service is that distance from a given cell site by a user decreases both through-put speed and the number of subscribers that can be simultaneously served. Relying on coverage from surrounding cell sites could never reach the throughput the proposed site would provide in the defined gap area, given the technological limitations of LTE. After thorough review of the information provided, this reviewer is of the opinion that the cell site proposed is necessary to provide coverage in the gap area as defined by applicant. The gap area is that depicted in the diagram on page 11 of the Verizon petition (labeled page 3 on the Verizon Wireless Alternatives Analysis section) and centered on the proposed site. A coverage gap is best described as an area that is not adequately covered with usable signal. The second question asked by the City is that of analysis of alternatives and least intrusive means. This question has some subjectivity to it, but this discussion provides reasoning used in drawing conclusions. 6 | Page There are several ways to provide coverage in a given area. Use of distributed micro-cells is one way that works with a single technology deployment. Further, the degree of subjectivity is limited by those factors already addressed in the design and alternative methods of providing service. The site labeled Church of the Transfiguration is near the center of the underserved (the gap) area and is a good place for a cell site from a design and use standpoint. As described earlier, LTE signals need to be close to the user, and placement of a multi-sectored cell site in the center of the weak area does exactly that – places the cell site closer to the user. A DAS system, or Distributed Antenna System is not feasible in a wide-spaced suburban neighborhood. A DAS system relies on using several antennas in a defined area to provide coverage from a single cell site or donor site. This technology would not provide an advantage in this particular area as the amount of land area to be covered (per subscriber) creates an infeasible situation. DAS systems typically are used in dense population environments such as apartment buildings, malls and other denser-use areas and are not feasible in this coverage design. In considering a small-cell system, Verizon has three radio signals, or “carriers” per sector for deployment which negates the “small” appearance of a micro-cell design. Each site would require either additional height or girth to provide space for the antennas. For small-cell systems, the construction of underground equipment containment would be intrusive to multiple property owners. It is not feasible to truly hide the underground structures as entrance-ways are still at or slightly above ground level. In the enclosure would be more than radio equipment, but also batteries to power equipment in a short- term utility outage. A generator to provide longer term utility backup would be near impossible – not to mention closer proximity to households where generator noise would be apparent. A generator type power supply is important to provide essential 9-1-1 services via cell sites during periods of sustained power loss. A variation on the DAS technology using a type of microcell would be difficult to achieve, given the several signal types and frequency bands used by Verizon in the LA area in general, and in this proposed site in particular. The next alternative for discussion is a macro-site solution requiring a traditional or disguised antenna support structure with required equipment enclosure. A traditional cell site has already been dismissed 7 | Page as inappropriate for a residential neighborhood. This leaves disguised cell site design as the next approach to discuss. There are 3 primary ways to disguise a cell site structure. First would be to conceal it as part of a natural form such as a tree or vegetation. This has been proposed in the first application for this site. There are several concerns with this approach – mostly centered around the fact that an artificial tree doesn’t look natural. In the right application, it may be the best alternative though. A second approach is to construct a structure that would blend in with a surrounding, such as a flag pole at a civic facility or lighting stations at an athletic field. While these types of structures are not always blending, they are visually accepted as part of the surroundings and most people are unaware of the purpose. They blend in as something expected in the view of the area. The third and most concealed of methods is to install a cell site within an existing structure or construct a structure that fully blends with the function and appearance of the host facility. A bell tower for a church, constructed in a matching architectural style is a very effective way of concealment. This proposed cell site fits into this most effective way of hiding a site. To summarize, those areas addressed and the conclusions drawn are: 1) The use of a unified “macro” cell site (a single site covering greater area) is the least intrusive method of proving reliable LTE service to the identified coverage gap area. 2) The site identified appears to be the only reasonably available site based on the information provided by the applicant and the situation encountered at each site (either landlord limitation or technology limitations) 3) Of the various solutions to blend this cell site into the surrounding area, the proposed “bell tower” design is likely the least intrusive. 8 | Page Conclusions The conclusions drawn from a thorough review of the information provided by Verizon through the City are that this cell site will provide good coverage in an underserved area within the Verizon network in the City of Arcadia. In addition, the design of the cell site represents the highest degree of concealment of a cell site that is available for this particular location, given the impact of other alternatives. The need for this additional cell site is proven through technical representations contained in the Verizon CUP application package. This coverage “gap” is clearly shown on coverage plots (maps) indicating the need for an additional cell site centered on the Church of the Transfiguration site. The Verizon proposal is to construct a cell site which resolves this gap in reliable coverage using minimal height to accomplish the coverage resolution. The technical parameters of the proposed site are within reasonable design parameters. The proposed bell tower cell site is likely the least intrusive type of construction to deliver the height and size necessary to hide both the antennas and the cell site equipment near the ground as well as a generator to provide necessary back-up power. In addition, the equipment should be housed above the ground in what would be considered the 2nd floor level of the structure to better hide it from view. 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. Small Cellular Antenna Facility on Preexisting Streetlight - S. Baldwin Ave. just south of Gate 9 Small Cellular Antenna Facility on Preexisting Utility Pole - Monte Vista just south of Monte Verde Small Cellular Antenna Facility on New Streetlight - E. Foothill Blvd. at Wigwam Ave. Meter box is located to the south of E. Foothill Blvd. on the east side of Wigwam Ave. 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”