SR-402-010 (26)
~A
SEP 2 8 2004
PCD:S F :JT:AS :JL: TK: F :\PLAN\S HARE\CQUNCI L \STRPT\2004 \04APP-004 .doc
Council Mtg: September 28, 2004 Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Appeal 04APP004 of the Planning Commission's California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Determination Exempting the Construction of an
Unmanned Wireless Telecommunication Facility from Environmental
Review. Applicant: Infranext, for AT&T Wireless; Appellant: Matthew
Baird.
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning
Commission's determination of a Class 3, Section 15303, Categorical Exemption as
provided by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), for the construction of an
unmanned wireless communications facility on the roof of an existing commercial
building.
BACKGROUND
The applicant proposes to construct an unmanned wireless telecommunication facility
on the roof of an existing five-story commercial building. The equipment will consist of a
GPS antenna, a flat panel antenna, and three sectors of two antennas each on the roof,
with the associated mechanical equipment located within the building on the fifth floor.
The Zoning Administrator approved the subject Use Permit application on October 16,
2003. The approval was based on findings demonstrating the project's consistency with
the General Plan and compatibility with other uses in the general vicinity. In addition to
standard conditions of approval, three special conditions were added requiring the
1
SEP 2 8 2004
~A
applicant to demonstrate compliance with applicable Federal Communication
Commission regulations (FCC), removal of abandoned equipment, and modifications to
an existing fire exit. The last condition was in direct response to public testimony and to
ensure the security of the wireless facility.
An appeal of the Zoning Administrator's determination was filed on October 30, 2003.
The appellant believed that the project would result in a diminution of property values
and create a negative visual impact on the surrounding neighborhood. At its February
18, 2004, meeting, the Planning Commission denied the appeal and upheld the Zoning
Administrator's approval of the Use Permit with an additional condition that any replaced
portions of the parapet be designed to match the existing parapet and that the antenna
structures not exceed the height of the existing parapet.
On March 1, 2004, an appeal was filed challenging the Planning Commission's
determination exempting the project from further environmental review.
APPEAL ANALYSIS
Both the Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission determined that the project
was categorically exempt from CEQA. Projects exempt from CEQA are not subject to
further environmental review through the preparation of a (Mitigated) Negative
Declaration or Environmental Impact Report. Determination of the appropriate level of
environmental review is made by the lead agency, which is typically the reviewing body
that makes the final discretionary action on a project.
2
A recent amendment to Public Resources Code Section 21151 allows an individual to
appeal a project's CEQA determination when the final action is made by a non-elected,
decision-making body. In this case, the Planning Commission's CEQA determination
may be appealed to the City Council. However, the scope of review on the appeal is
limited only to the CEQA determination. The underlying Use Permit is not before the
City Council.
As stated, the Planning Commission relied on the Class 3, Categorical Exemption,
which includes exemptions for projects involving the construction and installation of
small new facilities and equipment. The full text of this exemption is provided in
Attachment G of this report. Reliance on this exemption was appropriate. The proposed
project involves the installation of a new wireless communication facility, including
antennas and associated mechanical equipment on the roof of an existing commercial
building. The proposed facility is small in area and location, is incidental to the existing
uses on the property, and has been conditioned to demonstrate compliance with
Federal Communication Commission regulations pertaining to radio frequency
electromagnetic fields. Moreover, the proposed facility is completely screened from the
public right of way behind a parapet wall designed to match the existing parapet, with
the exception of a two foot square, flush mounted antenna on the penthouse of the five
story building.
3
There are instances in which categorical exemptions cannot be utilized. The appellant
contends that the Planning Commission erred in its application of the environmental
exemption determination citing potential health-related impacts and cumulative impacts
upon the community. The appellant also states that the due process rights of area
residents was violated as a result of the City's public notification process.
As typical with wireless communication facilities, the Zoning Administrator and the
Planning Commission on appeal seek to balance a carrier's need for an expanded
wireless service with the potential negative visual impacts commonly associated with
this type of installation. Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TCA)
prohibits local government from denying an application to construct a cell site based
upon the environmental effects of radio frequency ("RF") emissions from the proposed
wireless site:
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 that such facilities comply with the [Federal Communication]
Commission's regulations concerning such emissions.
The FCC and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) verify compliance with
applicable regulations, and accepted health safety standards. Compliance with these
standards is required prior to facility operation. The City requires as a standard
condition of approval prior to the issuance of a building permit, documentation from the
wireless carriers noting approved compliance with FCC regulations.
4
While the appellant acknowledges the federal preemption, concern is expressed that
the Planning Commission should have required demonstration of FCC compliance prior
to rendering an environmental determination. This approach, however, is not necessary.
The Planning Commission conditioned project approval on demonstrating FCC
compliance prior to issuance of a building permit. As all wireless communication
facilities in the City have complied with the FCC regulations, it is anticipated that the
subject applicant will be able to achieve compliance. Indeed, the applicant has
submitted a copy of the FCC form that it intends to submit as part of the CPUC and
FCC approval process. That form is included with this report as Attachment F.
The appellant maintains however that the City's cultural landscape, character,
aesthetics, view shed, historic resources, and pedestrian/vehicle safety would be
compromised by this and other foreseeable projects. The appellant calls the City's
piecemeal approach to wireless communication facilities inconsistent with other City
policies that aim at protecting the environment, improving the quality of life, and
promoting sustainability.
This assertion, however, is unfounded. Each application evaluated by the Zoning
Administrator, or Planning Commission on appeal, is specifically analyzed for
conformance with applicable rules and regulations, including conformance with the
City's General Plan. Many of these applications are also reviewed by the City's
Architectural Review Board to ensure facility screening is compatible with existing site
improvements. Projects, in part, are conditionally approved or denied based on an
5
applicant's ability to design a project in compliance with the City's General Plan. There
is no evidence to support that pedestrian or vehicle safety has been compromised,
historic resources adversely altered or the cultural landscape changed as a result of any
wireless communication facility in the City. This is particularly the case for the subject
application, which is essentially entirely screened from view. The only visible element of
the facility would be a two foot square panel antenna on the penthouse wall atop a five
story building. This antenna would also be painted to match the color of the existing
building. No change in height, bulk, mass or character of existing structure will occur as
part of this project. Associated mechanical would be housed within the existing building.
Based on this design, the proposed project will not have any individual or cumulative
impact upon the City's physical or cultural environment. The contention of the Planning
Commission's environmental determination is not supported by substantial evidence
linking the project to any significant environmental impact, as required by CEQA.
Regarding the due process concerns expressed in the appeal statement, the project
was properly noticed pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.22.050.
Evidence of proper noticing is available in the administrative record. Moreover, this
challenge is actually directed at the underlying decision to grant the Use Permit, a
decision that is not before the City Council.
Conclusion
The Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission on appeal approved the subject
Use Permit application based on findings and subject to conditions. The Planning
6
Commission's determination that the project was categorically exempt from CEQA was
subsequently appealed based on concerns related to potential significant environmental
impacts. Analysis of the appeal statement, the project, and the information provided by
the applicant shows that the categorical exemption issued for this project is appropriate.
CEQA STATUS
The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3 of the State Implementation
Guidelines in that the project involves the installation of limited new commercial wireless
communication antennas and associated mechanical equipment on the roof of an
existing commercial building. The wireless facility is in compliance with FCC
requirements regarding wireless facilities. In addition, the proposed facility has been
designed to limit any visual impacts by being located behind the existing parapet walls.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.22.050, notice of the public hearing was
mailed to all owners and residential and commercial tenants of property located within a
300 foot radius of the project and published in the "California" Section of The Los
AnQeles Times at least ten consecutive calendar days prior to the hearing. A copy of
the notice is contained in Attachment A.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report does not have any budget or fiscal impact.
7
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council deny the appeal (04APP004) and uphold the
Planning Commission's CEQA determination exempting the proposed project from
further environmental review, based upon the following finding:
FINDING(S)
1. The project is categorically exempt from the provIsions of California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3 of the
State Implementation Guidelines in that the project involves the installation of
limited new commercial wireless communication antennas and associated
mechanical equipment on the roof of an existing commercial building. In
addition, the proposed facility has been designed to limit any visual impacts by
being located behind the existing parapet walls. Portions of the existing parapet
will be removed and replaced with a fiberglass screen, textured, painted, and
sized to match the existing building condition. As a result, the only visible
antenna from the public right-of-way, will be the flush mounted panel antenna on
the penthouse, also painted to match the building, which will not be easily seen
by motorists or pedestrians. The mechanical equipment associated with the
antennas will be located within the building and will not be visible. The wireless
facility must be installed in compliance with FCC regulations concerning radio
frequency emissions.
Prepared by:
Attachments:
Suzanne Frick, Director
Amanda Schachter, Planning Manager
Jonathan Lait, AICP, Acting Principal Planner
Tony Kim, Associate Planner
City Planning Division
Planning and Community Development Department
A. Public Notice
B. Appeal Statement
C. Planning Commission Staff Report and Statement of Official
Action dated February 18, 2004
D. Zoning Administrator Determination approved October 16, 2003
E. Project Plans
F. Applicant-Prepared FCC Compliance Information
G. CEQA Class 3 Exemption
8
ATTACHMENT A
Public Notice
10
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT:
Appeal 04APP004
3010 Wilshire Boulevard
APPLICANT: Infranext, for AT&T Wireless
PROPERTY OWNER: Public Storage, Inc.
APPELLANT: Matthew Baird
A public hearing will be held by the City Council to consider the following request:
Appeal 04APP004 of the Planning . Commission's California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
determination exempting the construction of an unmanned wireless telecommunication facility from
environmental review.
DATEITIME: TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28,2004, AT 6:45 p.m.
LOCATION: City Council Chambers, Second Floor, Santa Monica City Hall
1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California
HOW TO COMMENT
The City of Santa Monica encourages public comment. You may comment at the City Council public
hearing, or by writing a letter. Written information will be given to the City Council at the meeting.
Address your letters to:
City Clerk
Re: 04APP004
1685 Main Street, Room 102
Santa Monica, CA 90401
MORE INFORMATION
If you want more information about this project or wish to review the project file, please contact Tony Kim
at (310) 458-8341, or bye-mail at tony-kim@santa-monica.org. The Zoning Ordinance is available at the
Planning Counter during business hours and on the City's web site at www.santa-monica.orQ.
The meeting facility is wheelchair accessible. For disability-related accommodations, please contact (310)
458-8341 or (310) 458-8696 TTY at least 72 hours in advance. All written materials are available in
alternate format upon request. Santa Monica Big Blue Bus Lines numbered 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10
serve City Hall.
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65009(b), if this matter is subsequently challenged in
Court, the challenge may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this
notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Monica at, or prior to, the public
hearing.
ESPANOL
Esto es una noticia de una audiencia publica para revisar applicaciones proponiendo desarrollo en Santa
Monica. Si deseas mas informacion, favor de lIamar a Carmen Gutierrez en la Division de Planificacion
al numero (310) 458-8341.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
11
ATTACHMENT B
Appeal Statement
12
'04 MAR -1 P 3 :14
City of
Santa Monica
Department of Planning and Community Development
Planning and Zoning Division
(310) 458-8341
~~Y
;><-;yv\ toSDA
:JD,.J
APPEAL FORM
'~)!t If vr
D~teFiled ~~ j
Received By p,. .
Receipt No.
QOOY
Name ?Yk~ ~~~
, .LJ . /I#"-i
Address .:lOo 9' /"7// 2c:,./t/~ /,/r/e- ~ ~~ GL /?1~'""'-; r-'C..... / L."7 .-:"7"'v~c;u;/
Contact Person Phone(Yd) ~L 8-Sa,~c:;J
Please describe the project and decision to be appealed .../'J.P J?,/ r;t g c ~ #~ ;;t:-
Case Number 25 - Il
Address
Applicant
Original Hearing Date
Original Action
Please state the specific re-ason(s) for the appeal r ~ e,/ ~ L-"\;;!:;
A~f)p_r;// Q3~O/C a/' 03VAP-O//
/ r ,;
Please provide two self-addressed, stamped, letter-sized envelopes.
Signature _.~~
Date 3-- /-0 7/
lwisn to an appeal to the City Council regarding the
Planning Commission's approval of Article 8-B Appeal 03-
016 of 03V AR-O 11 the Construction of a cell-phone wireless
telecommunication facifity at 3010 Witshire Boulevard based on
a categorical exemption from CEQA.
Under the Public Resources code 211 51; a categorical
exemption must be allowed to be appealed to"the City's
Elected Decision Making Body."
This Categorical Exemption is unlawful because this project may
have a significant environmental impact.
The A T@T representative did not inform the public or present
evidence as to what the power output of these antennas will be,
and has also not provided an accurate project representation,
rendering, or description of the wireless facility.
CC: Carl HiUiard Attorney at Law,
Susan ~Brandt-Hawley, Brandt-Hawley Law Group
March 1, 2004
Santa Monica City Council
Santa Monica City Hall
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, California 90401
Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Article 8-B Appeal 03-016 of 03 V AR-Oll
Dear Mayor Bloom and Members of the City Council:
On February 18, 2004, the Santa Monica Planning Commission approved
AT&T Wireless Minor Use Permit 03VAR-Oll for construction of a new cellular
facility at 3010 Wilshire Boulevard. I am appealing this approval on behalf of _
and myself and _[ #]_ residents pursuant to California Public Resources Code 9
21151. This appeal is based on the California Environmental Quality Act, which
was violated when the Planning Commission improperly upheld the adoption of a
Categorical Exemption for the purported minor use, and declined to require an
Environmental Impact Report for this facility.
We recognize that Congress has preempted consideration of health issues by state
and local governments. However, 47 C.F.R 9 1.1307(b) requires an
environmental evaluation if the proposed transmitters may cause human
exposure to RF radiation in excess of FCC guidelines. The proposed cellular
facility is located just two feet away from the apartment building at 3020
Wilshire Blvd. It is generally acknowledged that adverse health effects may occur
when humaqs are in such close proximity to cell site antennas. (See attached
exhibits). Despite the presumptive adverse health effect to people living next to
this facility, AT&T did not disclose any of the operating parameters of the
proposed facility that would have triggered an environmental evaluation based on
FCC exposure limits. At a minimum, the Planning Commission should have
required AT&T Wireless to do more than blithely say that the proposed facility
would be in compliance. Citizens living in close proximity to the transmitter
antennas should not be required to rely on such bland assurances and an
environmental study is required.
"The City of Santa Monica has a commitment to protecting the environment,
improving quality of life, and promoting sustainability." "Preservation of historic
resources has been important to the City of Santa Monica qnd its residents for
decades."1 The piecemeal approval of wireless cellular facilities is inconsistent
with these goals. While 03V AR-Oll is just one application, it is part of a proposed
system, and the environmental impacts of the system must be considered in its
entirety for cumulative impacts. This facility is not a "stand-alone" site; by its
very nature cellular service is part of a network and the selection of anyone site
I Quotes from www.santa-monica.org
e
e
affects the placement of the next site. The cumulative impacts of this and other
pending and reasonably foreseeable cellular sites in Santa Monica include
potential significant effects on community character, aesthetics, view shed,
vehicle and pedestrian safety, historic resources, and the cultural landscape.
The adoption of a Categorical Exemption is unlawful when there is evidence in
the record that supports a fair argument that a project - alone or considered
cumulatively with other pending or reasonably foreseeable projects - may have a
significant environmental impact, regardless of opposing expert opinions from
the applicant or City staff. The Planning Commission ignored this evidence in
refusing to require an Environmental Impact Report.
Finally, as a matter of due process, residents living in the apartment complex and
within 300 feet of this proposed facility were not given notice of this application
as required by Municipal Code ~ 9.04.20.22.050. The January 14-20 issue of the
Santa Monica Mirror quotes the City's Director of Planning and Community
Development as saying "There may have been a problem with the Post Office."
The evidence that a large number of affected residents did not receive this notice
and did not have an opportunity to present their concerns to the Planning
Commission overcomes the presumption that notice was mailed.
Thank you for your consideration of this important appeal.
Sincerely,
~':-Y;7~"7
Matt Baird
3009 Arizona Avenue
Santa Monica, California
Tel: (310) 828-5030
e
e
Consulting Group, Inc.
November 3,2000
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
John Barlow
Office of Deputy Mayor Mathis
City Council Offices
City of San Diego
202 C Street, MS lOA
San Diego, CA 92101
RE: Sprint PCS site at Cliff ridge Park, Cliffridge Drive, La Jolla
Dear Mr. Barlow:
Thank you for taking the time to meet with me on September 21, 2000. I
apologize for taking this much time to get back to you in response to the questions you
had regarding Electromagn(:tic.Emissions (EME} for the proposed facility. I have
reviewed the site design with Sprint and reported the concerns of Mr. Mathis'
constituents. Sprint does acknowledge that someone could get on top of the equipment
building and sit in front Oftp.Q~~d;\lltennason,:~hecuP91a. If this did happen, potential
health effect may occur dependIng art 'how-long the person were to sit there. In no way
does Sprint want to subject anyone to any potential danger.
With this in mind, Sprint has decided to alter the design of this structure so that
the walls of the cupola extend further and are flush with the edge of the building. This
will prevent anyone from climbing onto the equipment building to be positioned directly
in front of antennas. In addition, Sprint is going to recess the antennas into the building
and place a fiberglass panel over the antennas to keep them hidden from view. Since the
antennas will not be visible, children will not be encouraged to climb onto the building ~o
investigate.
If you or Deputy Mayor Mathis have any further questions or concerns please do
not hesitate to call me at 858-573-7356. Thank you for your time and assistance with this
proj ct.
"J (\ 7 '\
Si~ er4Y: I ) 1,1/
J. ,^~WU)j/'
'J 9C."l,..J y.
rad Werdick
JM Consulting Group
Cc: Robin Shifflet, City of San Diego, 202 CSt., MS 35, San Diego, CA 92101-3860
Mac Strobl, Public Affairs, 9710 Caminito Joven, San Diego, CA 92131
7747 Opportunity Rd, · Siln Diego, CA 92111-22l3
Telephone: (858) 573.7300 · Fax: (858) 573.8993
e
Page 1 of 2
e
TileHawaiiChannel- KITV 4 News - Angry Residents Ticked Over T-Mobile Tower
Contact the Station
Sign up for E-News
Search I
Nlfi1j~~!MJl'f1 11II
ri~~~JLCOM,& J, ";~f!',,.I.~ i~' ~~ -.~
KnV mtf'WEVlfH1U:, ~;nmy .. JI &}if&~ ~
; Central Padne Bank
.. HOME I KITV 4 NEWS
~ Email This Story ~ Print This Story
Angry Residents Ticked
Over T -Mobile Tower
Health Concerns Spur Call For
Federal Action
POSTED: 7:13 AM HST September 28,2003
HONOLULU -- Residents of a state housing
project say Hawaii is making money at the
expense of their health, and they're asking the
federal government to step in.
Residents at the Puu Wai Momi housing project
near Aloha Stadium were upset two years ago
when a T-Mobile cellular phone relay went up
without warning.
They got even more concerned as th~y saw
people getting sick.
"People were saying tha,t their daughters were
miscarrying," said Dorene Ako, who lives under
the tower. "There is just one incident after
another. "
Ako points out the apartments where people
have been ill -- all ill a IIdrrow concrete canyon
under the transmitter. The health department
says the antenna should not be causing any
health problems, although someone standing
within 10 feet of the transmitter for more than a
few minutes or so could get tissue damage.
"We are all getting sick, and they need to get
those antennas down and out of here," said
Heather Kahawai of the Puu Wai Momi Tenants
Association.
DISCOVER UH
More Headlines From
TheHawaiiChannel.co m
News
Judge Orders Lindsey To Prison
Islamic Jihad Behind Bombing That Killed
19
Kuaklnl Medical Center Faces Litigation
Once Again
Sports
Bryant's HawaII Arrival Delaved
Entertainment
Courtney Love Arrested For Alleged DruQ
Use
Health
ICE: Hawaii's Crvstal Meth Epidemic
Money
What Do You Pay For Gas?
TechnologV
Web Links From Computer Talk
Desktop Alert
http://www.thehawaiichannel.com/newsI2S1620S/detail.html
10/4/2003
It
-
iawaiiChannel - KITV 4 News - Angry Residents Ticked Over T -Mobile Tower
Page 2 of2
T-Mobile pays the state about $1,000 each
month to use the rooftop. Tenants were not told
the antenna was going In, or even what It was at
first.
After they were sued, the state hosted a meeting
supposedly to reassure tenants. But the tenants
weren't satisfied, with some saying the state
ignored their concerns.
So Friday, tenants marched downtown to the
federal Housing and Urban Development. HUD
oversees the state housing program.
After the protest march, the state said it's
learned a lesson from Its experience at Puu Wai
Mom!.
It now promi:se:s to con:sult with tendnl:> befort: il
installs any more antennas, but the state makes
a lot of money on them and it's certainly not
promising that no more will.
Copyright 2003 by The Associated Press. All
rights reserved. This material may not be
published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
S Emili! This Story 8 Print This Story
Win A Trip To Mexico: Download Desktop
Alert!
. 9 Register To Win A Trip For 2 To
Mexicol
.'~. '.' .
* Breaking News Alerts
,,', * Severe Weather Alerts
Click here to download Desktop Alert!
---
KAMA'A1NA
INSURANCE
PP.OfESSIONALS
808..531..5221
@ 2003, Internet Broadcasting Systems, Inc.
Click he re for the priv"cy policy, terms of use.
Oick here for advertising information.
Site Map
httpl/www.thehawaiichannel.com/news/2516208/detail.html
10/4/2003
ATTACHMENT C
Planning Commission Staff Report and Statement of Official Action dated
February 18, 2004
CP:AS: KC: PB: F :\PLAN\S HARE\PC\STRPT\03\03APP-0 16.30 1 OWilshire .doc
Planning Commission Mtg: February 18, 2004 Santa Monica, California
TO:
The Honorable Planning Commission
FROM:
Planning Staff
SUBJECT: Appeal 03-016 of a Zoning Administrator Determination approving a Wireless
Communication Facility and Associated Mechanical Equipment (Use Permit
03-011 )
Address:
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Appellant:
3010 Wilshire Boulevard
Infranext, for AT&T Wireless
Public Storage, Inc.
Matthew Baird
INTRODUCTION
Action: Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval of a Use Permit to construct an
unmanned wireless communication facility on the roof of an existing five-story building.
Recommendation: Deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator's determination
based on revised findings and conditions.
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The subject property is a 25,387 square foot parcel located on the southeast corner of
Wilshire Boulevard and Stanford Street. An existing five-story building is located on the
parcel and contains several general retail establishments adjacent to Wilshire Boulevard
and a public storage facility that is accessed from a parking lot on the south side of the
parcel. The storage facility occupies floor levels two through five. Surrounding uses to the
north and west are similarly zoned Boulevard Commercial (C6) and include retail, office
and an apartment. To the south and east are residential uses, which are located in the Low
Density Multiple Family Residential (R2) district.
Zoning District:
C-6, Boulevard Commercial
Land Use District:
General Commercial
Parcel Area:
170' x 149.3' = 25,387 square feet
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant proposes an unmanned wireless communication facility on the roof of an
existing five-story building. The building extends 54 feet in height to the parapet wall and
approximately 62 feet to the top of the existing penthouse. The facility includes six panel
antennas measuring approximately four feet tall by six inches wide, attached to the building
parapet; a two foot square-shaped flat panel antenna, attached to the penthouse wall; a
1
small GPS antenna; and, mechanical equipment. Associated mechanical equipment is
housed on the fifth floor within the existing building and occupies approximately 200 square
feet in area. An air conditioning unit for the mechanical room will be located on the roof.
The panel antennas mounted to the fagade of the building at the parapet are grouped into
three sets of two antennas each. The groups, or sectors, face to the north, west and east
and are located at the building corners. The flat square shaped antenna on the penthouse
will face Wilshire Boulevard to the north.
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
The proposed project does not comply with regulation and design standards set forth in
Santa Monica Municipal Code section 9.04.10.06.110 (a)(3), pertaining to nonparabolic
commercial antennas. The section establishes the location, placement and quantity of
antenna limitations on the parcel or building. As with most wireless communication
facilities, contemporary construction and mounting techniques are typically different from
code-mandated standards. However, with approval of a Use Permit, the Zoning
Administrator, or Planning Commission on appeal, may grant modifications to the design
standards. The subject application requests relief from the above cited section.
CEQA STATUS
The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3 of the State Implementation Guidelines in
that the project involves the installation of small new commercial wireless communication
antennas on the roof of an existing commercial building.
RENT CONTROL STATUS
Commercial property exemption.
FEES
The project is not subject to any special City Planning related fees.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.22.050, notice of the public hearing was
mailed to all owners and residential and commercial tenants of property located within a
300 foot radius of the project and published in the "California" Section of The Los Anqeles
Times at least ten consecutive calendar days prior to the hearing. A copy of the notice is
contained in Attachment C.
On December 17, 2003, the applicant and appellant were notified by phone of the subject
hearing date.
2
ANAL YSIS
Backqround
The Zoning Administrator approved the subject Use Permit application on October 16,
2003. The approval was based on findings demonstrating the project's consistency with
the General Plan and compatibility with other uses in the general vicinity. In addition to
standard conditions of approval, three special conditions were added requiring the
applicant to demonstrate compliance with applicable Federal Communication Commission
regulations, removal of abandoned equipment, and modifications to an existing fire exit.
The last condition was in direct response to public testimony and to ensure security of the
wireless facility.
There are no outstanding code compliance issues associated with this property.
On February 5, 2004, the applicant submitted revised plans, which are included in the
packet. The revisions result in aesthetic changes to the building but do not reduce the
number, type or location of antennas.
Appeal Analvsis
An appeal to the Zoning Administrator's determination was filed on October 30, 2003. The
appellant believes that the project would result in a diminution of property values and
create a negative visual impact to the surrounding neighborhood, but provides no
additional information to further this argument.
These two issues were also raised at the September 9,2003 Zoning Administrator hearing.
As typical with wireless communication facilities, the Zoning Administrator seeks to balance
a carrier's need for an expanded wireless service with the potential negative visual impacts
commonly associated with this type of installation. Often changes are required that reduce
antenna height, placement or require mechanical equipment to be located within a building
or underground. Concerns regarding health and safety are usually expressed at these
hearings, but there is little that a local agency can do to address these concerns. Local
governments are preempted by federal regulation to issue a determination on wireless
communication facilities based on health or safety concerns, unless it can be clearly
demonstrated that there is a significant health threat. However, the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) and the California Public Utilities Commission verify
compliance with applicable regulations, and accepted health safety standards. Compliance
with these standards is required prior to facility operation and is not expected to create a
public health and safety problem. The City requires as a standard condition of approval,
documentation from the wireless carriers noting approved compliance with FCC
regulations.
Reduced property value arguments are often expressed by opponents of wireless
communication facilities. While this represents a real concern for area residents, evidence
showing a clear link between reduced property values and a specific wireless
communication facility has never been submitted to the Zoning Administrator. In response
to concerns regarding the subject application, residents were offered an opportunity to
3
submit an impartial property assessment report, however, none was submitted. In the
absence of this information, it is difficult to conclude that in fact these facilities impact
property values, and more specifically, property values in Santa Monica. Therefore, while
the appellant asserts that the facility would impact property values, without credible
evidentiary evidence, staff is unable to support this argument.
Subsequent to the filing of the appeal, the applicant redesigned the project. The revised
plans further address the appellant's aesthetic concerns and locate the antennas behind
the existing parapet. As redesigned, portions of the existing parapet will be removed and
replaced with a fiberglass screen, textured, painted and sized to match the existing building
condition. As a result, the only visible antenna from the public right-of-way, would be the
flush mounted panel antenna on the penthouse, also painted to match the building, which
will not be easily seen by motorists or pedestrians. As a result, staff supports this revised
alternative.
Conclusion
The project includes the installation of a new wireless communication facility atop a five
story building in the Boulevard Commercial district. Associated antennas will be screened
by the building's existing parapet and mechanical equipment will be housed within the
existing building. The appellant is concerned that the facility will result in unwanted visual
impacts and reduce property values in the vicinity. Staff has analyzed the appeal
statements and Zoning Administrator determination and recommends that the Planning
Commission deny the appeal.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning
Administrator's approval of Use Permit 03-011 based on the following findings and
conditions:
USE PERMIT FINDINGS
(a) The proposed use is subject to approval of a Use Permit within the subject district
and complies with all of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Code. Specifically,
Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) section 9.04.10.06.110 (a) permits wireless
communication facilities in the C6 commercial district. However, the proposed
project does not comply with the regulation and design standards of the section.
Pursuant to SMMC section 9.04.10.06.110 (b), the Zoning Administrator, or
Planning Commission on appeal, may approve modifications to the regulation and
design standards subject to approval of a Use Permit. In accordance with the
Antenna chapter, a Use Permit was filed.
(b) The subject parcel is physically suitable for the type of land use being proposed.
The property is a 170' wide and 150' deep (25,387 square feet) parcel located on
the southeasterly side of Wilshire Boulevard in the C-6 (Boulevard Commercial)
District. The parcel's topography is relatively level and contains a five-story public
storage building with ground floor retail tenant spaces. The proposal will not
4
increase parcel coverage, building height, mass, or bulk. The technology associated
with the proposed use has specific location requirements in terms of height,
placement and positioning. The subject parcel contains attributes that are consistent
with these requirements that renders the parcel suitable for the proposed land use.
(c) The proposed use is compatible with existing land uses presently on the subject
parcel in that the site is developed with commercial storage and retail sales uses.
The proposed wireless communication facility is an ancillary commercial activity that
does not have the potential to disrupt or otherwise conflict with existing land uses on
the subject parcel. Proposed antennas will be located on the roof of the building,
while associated mechanical equipment will be housed within the existing storage
facility.
(d) The proposed use is compatible with existing and permissible land uses within the
district and the general area in which the proposed use is to be located in that this
zone district is intended to provide for general retail and office uses and serve
regional, community, and local needs. The proposed wireless facility is an ancillary
use that supports the area residents and businesses with wireless service and, as
such, is compatible with existing and permissible land uses in the district.
(e) The physical location or placement of the use on the site is compatible with and
relates harmoniously to the surrounding neighborhood. Specifically, the antennas
will be painted to match the existing structure and mounted below the height of the
existing parapet. Associated mechanical equipment will be located within the
building and as such will have a minimal visual impact on surrounding properties
and residents.
(f) The proposed use is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the
General Plan. Specifically, Objective 1.1 aims to improve the quality of life for all
residents by providing a balance of land uses. The installation of the proposed
telecommunications facility will contribute to the quality of life for residents by
efficiently linking telecommunications so that they may better serve the needs of the
public.
'(g) The proposed use would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, or
general welfare in that the antenna must operate in compliance with all applicable
Federal Communication Commission (FCC) guidelines and regulations which
safeguard public health, safety, or general welfare from Radio Frequency Radiation
(RFR).
NON-PARABOLIC ANTENNA FINDINGS
(h) There are topographical conditions, nearby tall structures or other factors that
unreasonably obstruct or otherwise unreasonably interfere with the effective
transmission or reception of the type of antenna desired and the cause of such
obstruction or interference was not created by the applicant. Specifically, the
general vicinity west of the project site is an area where the wireless carrier's
network has poor or weak signal propagation. Locating the subject antennas further
5
east of the proposed sight would overlap existing good coverage areas and would
not meet the applicant's objective to enhance the existing wireless network along
Wilshire Boulevard. Similarly antenna locations further north or south would not
provide sufficient coverage for the targeted commercial corridor (Wilshire
Boulevard). The subject building satisfies the technical criteria for the wireless
communication facility and ensures the effective transmission and reception of
wireless coverage in the area. Signal propagation maps showing existing and
anticipated signal strength demonstrates the enhancement to the wireless network.
The subject building facilitates this improved coverage because of its location and
height, and because there is a willing property owner to permit the proposed
equipment on the building. Moreover, the proposed antennas and associated
mechanical equipment are screened from view, hidden behind existing parapets,
flush mounted to the fa<;ade of an existing parapet, or housed within the existing
building. Therefore, there are no aesthetic impacts associated with the proposed
facility. .
Standard Conditions
1. This approval applies only to the request to construct an unmanned wireless
telecommunication facility as shown on the plans dated February 5, 2004, and
subject to any special conditions. Minor amendments to the plans shall be subject
to approval by the Zoning Administrator.
2. Except for allowances granted by this entitlement, the applicant shall comply with all
other applicable provisions of Article IX, Chapter 9 of the Santa Monica Municipal
Code and all other pertinent ordinances and General Plan policies of the City of
Santa Monica.
3. This approval shall expire twelve (12) months from the effective date, unless, in the
case of a new development, a building permit has been obtained, or in the case of a
change of use, a business license has been issued and the use is in operation prior
to the expiration date. This approval shall also expire if the building permit expires
or if the rights granted under this approval are not exercised within one year of the
earliest to occur of the following: issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or, if no
Certificate of Occupancy is required, the last required final inspection for new
construction. Upon the written request from the applicant, prior to expiration, the
Zoning Administrator may extend this period up to an additional one (1) year.
Applicant is on notice that extensions may not be granted if development standards,
the development process, or other requirements relevant to the project have
changed since project approval.
4. Within ten (10) days of transmittal of this Statement of Official Action, the project
applicant shall sign a copy of the determination and return the document to the City
Planning Division. The applicant's signature constitutes acceptance of the
conditions of approval and understanding that failure to comply with such conditions
shall constitute grounds for potential revocation.
6
Special Conditions
5. Installation and operation of the wireless communication facility shall be designed to
comply with all applicable local, state and federal regulations. Prior to issuance of a
building permit, the applicant shall submit evidence demonstrating compliance with
applicable the Federal Communication Commission regulations.
6. If operation of the wireless communication facility is abandoned for a continuous
period of one year or more, all components of the facility shall be removed. Portions
of the building damaged or discolored by removal of the equipment shall be repaired
in a manner that restores the building to its prior condition. Re-installation of a new
wireless communication facility shall necessitate the filing of a new Use Permit
application.
7. Prior to submitting for Architectural Review, the applicant shall redesign the
emergency fire exit such that no person could reasonably gain access to the upper
floor level to disrupt the antennas or associated mechanical equipment. This
redesign shall comply with all applicable building and fire codes and shall be subject
to approval by the Zoning Administrator.
8. Antenna screening that replaces portions of the existing parapet shall provide a
seamless transition between the screening material and the building. The screening
shall have the same height, size, color and texture as the existing parapet. No
portion of the antenna structure shall exceed the existing parapet height.
Prepared by: Peter J. Blied, Associate Planner
Attachments:
A. Appeal Statement, dated October 30,2003
B. Zoning Administrator Determination 03UP-011
C. Notice of Public Hearing
D. Radius and Location Map
E. Photo Simulations
F. Architectural Plans
7
City of Santa Monica
City Planning Division
C i t Y of
Santa Monica'.
PLANNING COMMISSION
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION
PROJECT
CASE NUMBER: APPEAL 03-016 of Use Permit 03-011
LOCATION: 3010 Wilshire Boulevard
APPELLANT: Matthew Baird
APPLICANT: Infranext, for A.T.&T. Wireless
PROPERTY
OWNER: Public Storage, Inc.
CASE PLANNER: Peter Blied, Associate Planner
REQUEST: Appeal of a Zoning Administrator Determination
approving a Wireless Communication Facility and
Associated Mechanical Equipment (Use Permit 03-011).
CEQA STATUS: The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
Section 15303, Class 3 of the State Implementation
Guidelines in that the project involves the installation of
small new commercial wireless communication antennas
and associated mechanical equipment on the roof of an
existing commercial building.
RELEVANT
PERMITS: None.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
February 18, 2004 Date.
Approved based on the following findings and subject to the
conditions below.
X Appeal Denied. Zoning Administrator's Determination (03-UP-
011) Upheld.
Other.
EFFECTIVE DATE OF ACTION:
February 18. 2004
EXPIRATION DATE OF ANY PERMITS GRANTED:
February 18, 2005
LENGTH OF ANY POSSIBLE EXTENSION OF EXPIRATION DATES:
Twelve (12) months per Use Permit 03-011
Any request for an extension of the expiration date must be received in the City
Planning Division prior to expiration of this permit.
Each and all of the findings and determinations are based on the competent and
substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the
Project. All summaries of information contained herein or in the findings are based on
the substantial evidence in the record. The absence of any particular fact from any
such summary is not an indication that a particular finding is not based in part on that
fact.
FINDINGS:
USE PERMIT FINDINGS
(a) The proposed use is subject to approval of a Use Permit within the subject
district and complies with all of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Code.
Specifically, Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) section 9.04.10.06.110 (a)
permits wireless communication facilities in the C6 commercial district. However,
the proposed project does not comply with the regulation and design standards
of the section. Pursuant to SMMC section 9.04.10.06.110 (b), the Zoning
Administrator, or Planning Commission on appeal, may approve modifications to
the regulation and design standards subject to approval of a Use Permit. In
accordance with the Antenna chapter, a Use Permit was filed.
(b) The subject parcel is physically suitable for the type of land use being proposed.
The property is a 170' wide and 150' deep (25,387 square feet) parcel located on
the southeasterly side of Wilshire Boulevard in the C-6 (Boulevard Commercial)
District. The parcel's topography is relatively level and contains a five-story
public storage building with ground floor retail tenant spaces. The proposal will
not increase parcel coverage, building height, mass, or bulk. The technology
associated with the proposed use has specific location requirements in terms of
height, placement and positioning. The subject parcel contains attributes that are
consistent with these requirements that renders the parcel suitable for the
proposed land use.
(c) The proposed use is compatible with existing land uses presently on the subject
parcel in that the site is developed with commercial storage and retail sales uses.
The proposed wireless communication facility is an ancillary commercial activity
that does not have the potential to disrupt or otherwise conflict with existing land
uses on the subject parcel. Proposed antennas will be located on the roof of the
building, while associated mechanical equipment will be housed within the
existing storage facility.
(d) The proposed use is compatible with existing and permissible land uses within
the district and the general area in which the proposed use is to be located in that
this zone district is intended to provide for general retail and office uses and
serve regional, community, and local needs. The proposed wireless facility is an
ancillary use that supports the area residents and businesses with wireless
service and, as such, is compatible with existing and permissible land uses in the
district.
(e) The physical location or placement of the use on the site .is compatible with and
relates harmoniously to the surrounding neighborhood. Specifically, the antennas
will be painted to match the existing structure and mounted below the height of
the existing parapet. Associated mechanical equipment will be located within the
building and as such will have a minimal visual impact on surrounding properties
and residents.
(f) The proposed use is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the
General Plan. Specifically, Objective 1.1 aims to improve the quality of life for all
residents by providing a balance of land uses. The installation of the proposed
telecommunications facility will contribute to the quality of life for residents by
efficiently linking telecommunications so that they may better serve the needs of
the public.
(g) The proposed use would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety,
or general welfare in that the antenna must operate in compliance with all
applicable Federal Communication Commission (FCC) guidelines and
regulations which safeguard public health, safety, or general welfare from Radio
Frequency Radiation (RFR).
NON-PARABOLIC ANTENNA FINDINGS
(h) There are topographical conditions, nearby tall structures or other factors that
unreasonably obstruct or otherwise unreasonably interfere with the effective
transmission or reception of the type of antenna desired and the cause of such
obstruction or interference was not created by the applicant. Specifically, the
general vicinity west of the project site is an area where the wireless carrier's
network has poor or weak signal propagation. Locating the subject antennas
further east of the proposed sight would overlap existing good coverage areas
and would not meet the applicant's objective to enhance the existing wireless
network along Wilshire Boulevard. Similarly antenna locations further north or
south would not provide sufficient coverage for the targeted commercial corridor
(Wilshire Boulevard). The subject building satisfies the technical criteria for the
wireless communication facility and ensures the effective transmission and
reception of wireless coverage in the area. Signal propagation maps showing
existing and anticipated signal strength demonstrates the enhancement to the
wireless network. The subject building facilitates this improved coverage because
of its location and height, and because there is a willing property owner to permit
the proposed equipment on the building. Moreover, the proposed antennas and
associated mechanical equipment are screened from view, hidden behind
existing parapets, flush mounted to the fagade of an existing parapet, or housed
within the existing building. Therefore, there are no aesthetic impacts associated
with the proposed facility.
CONDITIONS:
1. This approval applies only to the request to construct an unmanned wireless
telecommunication facility as shown on the plans dated February 5, 2004, and
subject to any special conditions. Minor amendments to the plans shall be
subject to approval by the Zoning Administrator.
2. Except for allowances granted by this entitlement, the applicant shall comply with
all other applicable provisions of Article IX, Chapter 9 of the Santa Monica
Municipal Code and all other pertinent ordinances and General Plan policies of
the City of Santa Monica.
3. This approval shall expire twelve (12) months from the effective date, unless, in
the case of a new development, a building permit has been obtained, or in the
case of a change of use, a business license has been issued and the use is in
operation prior to the expiration date. This approval shall also expire if the
building permit expires or if the rights granted under this approval are not
exercised within one year of the earliest to occur of the following: issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy or, if no Certificate of Occupancy is required, the last
required final inspection for new construction. Upon the written request from the
applicant, prior to expiration, the Zoning Administrator may extend this period up
to an additional one (1) year. Applicant is on notice that extensions may not be
granted if development standards, the development process, or other
requirements relevant to the project have changed since project approval.
4. Within ten (10) days of transmittal of this Statement of Official Action, the project
applicant shall sign a copy of the determination and return the document to the
City Planning Division. The applicant's signature constitutes acceptance of the
conditions of approval and understanding that failure to comply with such
conditions shall constitute grounds for potential revocation.
Special Conditions
5. Installation and operation of the wireless communication facility shall be designed
to comply with all applicable local, state and federal regulations. Prior to issuance
of a building permit, the applicant shall submit evidence demonstrating
compliance with applicable the Federal Communication Commission regulations.
6. If operation of the wireless communication facility is abandoned for a continuous
period of one year or more, all components of the facility shall be removed.
Portions of the building damaged or discolored by removal of the equipment shall
be repaired in a manner that restores the building to its prior condition. Re-
installation of a new wireless communication facility shall necessitate the filing of
a new Use Permit application.
7. Prior to submitting for Architectural Review, the applicant shall redesign the
emergency fire exit such that no person could reasonably gain access to the
upper floor level to disrupt the antennas or associated mechanical equipment.
This redesign shall comply with all applicable building and fire codes and shall be
subject to approval by the Zoning Administrator.
8. Antenna screening that replaces portions of the existing parapet shall provide a
seamless transition between the screening material and the building. The
screening shall have the same height, size, color and texture as the existing
parapet. No portion of the antenna structure shall exceed the existing parapet
height.
VOTE
Ayes:
Nays:
Abstain:
Absent:
Brown, Clarke, Dad, Pugh
Hopkins, Johnson
None
O'Day
NOTICE
If this is a final decision not subject to further appeal under the City of Santa Monica
Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning Ordinance, the time within which judicial review
of this decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6,
which provision has been adopted by the City pursuant to Municipal Code Section
1.16.010.
I hereby certify that this Statement of Official Action accurately reflects the final
determination of the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Monica.
Darrell Clarke, Chairperson
Date
F:\PLAN\SHARE\PC\STOAS\2003\03APPO 16.STOA.doc
ATTACHMENT D
Zoning Administrator Determination approved October 16, 2003
e~
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
CITY PLANNING DIVISION
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION
FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION OF THE
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
City of
Santa ~Ioniea~
PROJECT INFORMATION
CASE NUMBER:
03UP-011
ADDRESS:
3010 Wilshire Boulevard
LEGAL
DESCRI PTI ON:
Lot 1, Block 11, Artesian Tract
ZONING DISTRICT: C-6, Boulevard Commercial
LOT AREA /
DIMENSIONS: 25,387 square feet /170' wide X 149.34' deep
RENT CONTROL
STATUS: Exempt
APPLICANT: Infranext, for A.T.& T. Wireless
PROPERTY
OWNER: Public Storage, Inc.
CASE PLANNER: Peter J. Blied
RELEVANT
PRIOR PERMITS: None
REQUEST: The applicant requests a Use Permit to construct an
unmanned wireless telecommunication facility on the roof
of an existing five-story building. The equipment will
consist of a GPS antenna, a flat panel antenna, and three
sectors of two antennas each, which will be painted to
match the building and mounted to the parapet below the
roofline. Pursuant to SMMC Section 9.04.10.06.11 O(b),
this request is subject to review and approval of the
Zoninq Administrator.
Statement of Official Action
Zoning Administrator Determination
Page 1 of 5
CEQA STATUS:
The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
Section 15303, Class 3 of the State Implementation
Guidelines in that the project involves the installation of
small new commercial wireless communication antennas
and associated mechanical equipment on the roof of an
existing commercial building.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION
September 9,2003
October 16, 2003
Public Hearing Date.
Approved based on findings and subject to conditions.
Denied based on findings.
Effective Date Of Action If Not Appealed:
Expiration Date:
Length Of Any Possible Extension:
October 31 , 2003
October 16, 2004
Twelve (12) months
USE PERMIT FINDINGS
(a) The proposed use is subject to approval of a Use Permit within the subject
district and complies with all of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Code.
Specifically, non-parabolic antennas are permitted in the C-6 District subject to
Use Permit approval and conformance with applicable development standards
set forth in SMMC Section 9.04.10.06.110.
(b) The subject parcel is physically suitable for the type of land use being proposed.
The property is a 170' wide and 150' deep (25,387 square feet) parcel located on
the southeasterly side of Wilshire Boulevard in the C-6 (Boulevard Commercial)
District. The parcel's topography is relatively level and contains a five-story
public storage building with ground floor retail tenant spaces. The proposal will
not increase parcel coverage, building height, mass, or bulk. The technology
associated with the proposed use has specific location requirements in terms of
height, placement and positioning. The subject parcel contains attributes that are
consistent with these requirements that renders the parcel suitable for the
proposed land use.
(c) The proposed use is compatible with existing land uses presently on the subject
parcel in that the site is developed with commercial storage and retail sales uses.
The proposed wireless communication facility is an ancillary commercial activity
that does not have the potential to disrupt or otherwise conflict with existing land
uses on the subject parcel. Proposed antennas will be located on the roof of the
building, while associated mechanical equipment will be housed within the
existing storage facility.
Statement of Official Action
Zoning Administrator Determination
Page 2 of 5
(d) The proposed use is compatible with existing and permissible land uses within
the district and the general area in which the proposed use is to be located in that
this zone district is intended to provide for general retail and office uses and
serve regional, community, and local needs. The proposed wireless facility is an
ancillary use that supports the area residents and businesses with wireless
service and, as such, is compatible with existing and permissible land uses in the
district.
(e) The physical location or placement of the use on the site is compatible with and
relates harmoniously to the surrounding neighborhood. Specifically, the antennas
will be painted to match the existing structure and mounted below the height of
the existing parapet. Associated mechanical equipment will be located within the
building and as such will have a minimal visual impact on surrounding properties
and residents.
(f) The proposed use is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the
General Plan. Specifically, Objective 1.1 aims to improve the quality of life for all
residents by providing a balance of land uses. The installation of the proposed
telecommunications facility will contribute to the quality of life for residents by
efficiently linking telecommunications so that they may better serve the needs of
the public.
(g) The proposed use would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety,
or general welfare in that the antenna must operate in compliance with all
applicable Federal Communication Commission (FCC) guidelines and
regulations which safeguard public health, safety, or general welfare from Radio
Frequency Radiation (RFR).
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Standard Conditions
1. This determination shall not become effective for a period of fourteen days from
the determination date or, if appealed, until a final determination has been made
on the appeal.
2. This approval applies only to the request to construct an unmanned wireless
telecommunication facility as shown on the plans dated 08/28/2003, and subject
to any special conditions. Minor amendments to the plans shall be subject to
approval by the Zoning Administrator.
3. Except for allowances granted by this entitlement, the applicant shall comply with
all other applicable provisions of Article IX, Chapter 9 of the Santa Monica
Municipal Code and all other pertinent ordinances and General Plan policies of
the City of Santa Monica.
Statement of Official Action
Zoning Administrator Determination
Page 3 of 5
4. This approval shall expire twelve (12) months from the effective date, unless, in
the case of a new development, a building permit has been obtained, or in the
case of a change of use, a business license has been issued and the use is in
operation prior to the expiration date. This approval shall also expire if the
building permit expires or if the rights granted under this approval are not
exercised within one year of the earliest to occur of the following: issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy or, if no Certificate of Occupancy is required, the last
required final inspection for new construction. Upon the written request from the
applicant, prior to expiration, the Zoning Administrator may extend this period up
to an additional one (1) year. Applicant is on notice that extensions may not be
granted if development standards, the development process, or other
requirements relevant to the project have changed since project approval.
5. Within ten (10) days of transmittal of this Statement of Official Action, the project
applicant shall sign a copy of the determination and return the document to the
City Planning Division. The applicant's signature constitutes acceptance of the
conditions of approval and understanding that failure to comply with such
conditions shall constitute grounds for potential revocation.
Special Conditions
6. Installation and operation of the wireless communication facility shall be designed
to comply with all applicable local, state and federal regulations. Prior to issuance
of a building permit, the applicant shall submit evidence demonstrating
compliance with applicable the Federal Communication Commission regulations.
7. If operation of the wireless communication facility is abandoned for a continuous
period of one year or more, all components of the facility shall be removed.
Portions of the building damaged or discolored by removal of the equipment shall
be repaired in a manner that restores the building to its prior condition. Re-
installation of a new wireless communication facility shall necessitate the filing of
a new Use Permit application.
8. Prior to submitting for Architectural Review, the applicant shall redesign the
emergency fire exit such that no person could reasonably gain access to the
upper floor level to disrupt the antennas or associated mechanical equipment.
This redesign shall comply with all applicable building and fire codes and shall be
subject to approval by the Zoning Administrator.
Statement of Official Action
Zoning Administrator Determination
Page 4 of 5
APPLICANT NOTICE
This decision of the Zoning Administrator may be appealed to the Planning Commission
during a 14-calendar day appeal period following the decision date. Such an appeal
may be made by filing an official appeal form with the City Planning Division, 1685 Main
Street, Room 212, Santa Monica, CA 90401, accompanied by a filing fee of $207.00.
I hereby certify that this Statement of Official Action accurately reflects the final
determination of the Zoning Administrator of the City of Santa Monica.
Applicant
Date
Jay M. Trevino, AICP
Zoning Administrator
Date
F:\PLAN\SHARE\ZONE\USE\UP2003\03UP011.doc
Statement of Official Action
Zoning Administrator Determination
Page 5 of 5
ATTACHMENT E
Project Plans
Electronic version of attachment is not available for review. Document is available for
review at the City Clerk's Office and the Libraries.
Proposed AT& T \Yireless Telecol1l111unications Facilit~,
3010 Santa -'Ionica BI\'d. (Public Storage)
Looking Southeast from Wilshire Blvd.
Photographic simulation prepared by InfraNext;~': 2927 De la Vina Street. Santa Barbara, California 93105' (805) 898-0567 . www.inrranexl.com
INfRA NEXT
Proposed .\T& T \Yireless Telecolllnlunications Facility
3010 Santa 'Ionica Blyd. (Public Storage)
Looking Southwest from Wilshire Blvd.
Photographic simulation prepared hy InfraNext .~ 2927 De la Vina Street. Santa Rarhara, California 93105. (805) 898-0567 . www-infumext.com
rNFRANExT
Proposed AT&T \Vireless Teleconllnunications Facility
3010 Santa !\1ollica BI\'d. (Public Storage)
Looking Northeast from Stanford St.
Photographic simulation prepared by InfraNext "$j: 2927 De la Vina Street. Santa Barbara, California 93105' (805) 898-0567. www_infranext.com
INFn-^ N"E~T
ATTACHMENT F
FCC Compliance Information
(ATTACHMENT I)
BA~KGROUND INFORMATION
1. FACILITY OPERATOR'S LEGAL NAME: AB Cellular LA. LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company. d/b/a AT&T Wireless
2. FACILITY OPERATOR'S MAILING ADDRESS: 12900 Park Plaza Drive -3rd Floor. Cerritos.
CA 90703
3. FACILITY OPERATOR'S CONTACT NAME/TITLE: Anissa S. Youngblood. Site
Development Specialist. - Infranext. Inc.
4. FACILITY OPERATOR'S OFFICE TELEPHONE: (909) 231-4045
5. FACILITY OPERATOR'S FAX: (714) 739-2486
6. FACILITY NAME: AT&T Wireless LSANCA0606 950023008B
7. FACILITY ADDRESS: 3010 Wilshire Blvd
8. FACILITY CITY/COMMUNITY: Santa Monica
9. FACILITY STATE AND ZIP CODE: CA 90403
10. LATITUDE: 34.02' 21.8" N
11. LONGITUDE: 118.28' 23.2 W
EVALUATION OF CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
12. LICENSED RADIO SERVICE: (See attached Table 1): Wireless Communication Service
13. STRUCTURE TYPE: (free-standing or building/roof-mounted): roof mounted
14. ANTENNA TYPE [omni directional or directional (includes sectored)]: Panel antennas. 2 per
sector. total of 3 sectors
15. HEIGHT ABOVE GROUND OF THE LOWEST POINT OF THE ANTENNA (in meters):
10.0584 meters
16. CHECK IF ALL OF THE FOLLOWING ARE TRUE:
(a) This facility will be operated in the Multipoint Distribution Service, Paging and
Radiotelephone Service, Cellular Radiotelephone Service, Narrowband or Broadband
Personal Communications Service, Private Land Mobile Radio Services Paging
Operations, Private Land Mobile Radio Service Specialized Mobile Radio, Local
Multipoint Distribution Service, or service regulated under Part 74, Subpart I (see
question 12)
(b) This facility will not bee mounted on a building (see question 13)
(c) The lowest point of the antenna will be at least 10 meters above the ground (see
question 15).
If box 16 is checked, this facility is categorically excluded and is unlikely to cause exposure in excess
of the FCC's guidelines. The remainder of the checklist need not be completed. If box 16 is not
checked, continue to question 17.
17. ENTER THE POWER THRESHOLD FOR CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION FOR THIS
SERVICE FROM THE ATTACHED TABLE 1 IN WATTS ERP or EIRP (note: EIRP =
(1.64) X ERP): Total power of all channels>1640 W EIRP
18. ENTER THE TOTAL NUMBER OF CHANNELS IF THIS WILL BE AN OMNI
DIRECTIONAL ANTENNA, OR THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF CHANNELS IN ANY
SECTOR IF THIS WILL BE A SECTORED ANTENNA: 1-
19. ENTER THE ERP OR EIRP PER CHANNEL (using the same units as in question 17): EIRP =
57dbm or 501 W.. ERP = 50111.64= 306W
20. MULTIPLY ANSWER 18 BY ANSWER 19: 4 X 306 = 1224
21. IS THE ANSWER IN QUESTION 20 LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO THE VALUE FROM
QUESTION 17 (Yes or No)? YES
)>
::l.
f/l
'<
!II.
lD
3
o
Z
~f/l~
g !l ~
~~~
)>)>
-g:~
III --I
g,~
arm.
0'"
c.;~
III
3
3
III
)>
::l.
f/l
'<
'"
;;r
3
~
~ 0
_.~O
3 " ~
So;
=r:"!:""!
)>)>
-g:~
III --I
Co~
*~
o '"
Q~
III
3
3
III
~
;;rf/l
r-;:;:
g~~
g:3S'
::!!'! !;i
,....
o
(Jl
)>
::J
<0
'"
CD
(Jl
~
~
ill
0-
:!
3:
"U
m
:I:
t::J
C1\
o
o
III
~
o
....
o
(J)
~
o
00" :I::
~ i ~
~;t>Q,~
:E~3.~g
offfi~~
~~~tb?=
~tt~a)'a.lc.
~~m~[D~~
...
~ ~~~~
'"
o
~r I s::
~ ~~.
o 3: ~
~ ~ a ~
~ ~ 3.@ g
~fffi~~
.." ~ :;;: a; '"
0. 0.
~m~(1)f~~(1)'~
..,,) ..... ~.... 3l a..
...
?>cn~o
:::J ()) W j..J <:>
"" '" 0
'"
<0
'"
o
o
'"
'"
o
o
co
i-
f/l
)>
Z
()
)>
o
(J)
o
(J)
'"
""
'"
'"
o
3
m
Q ~ ~
3 ~ )(
l ~~.
m ~ ~
;jJ (I) ~
~ ~ ~
m ~ ~
AI 2. $
7. a; fZ
~~-
"
o
fg",~
r;~~~-u
o g: N ~
< (1)
:;;: gf--~
~~ *~
-Eg,'<
~ ~
"tI
."
:!.
o
3
lD
Q.
III
':';
~
)>
CiJ
m.
:;'
f--
@
'" I
~ CD' g.
(:) ~ !'l
o 0
~
~
"
x
05'
~ -
" Gl
'"
:i"
;p.
."
f
::::;
o ~ cO
<0 g;
I
o
'"
m
o
-<
~
"
x
o;p.
o "
~ -
" Gl
-"
~ :5"
;p.
."
~
""
O~tO
(0 ~
I'~
-<
5'
~ ~
:::J ..., ~
" 0 (1)
s:::9.{O
~ ~ g
z ~ 5-
9 ~ Q
10 ~
&'~ -c
o~ ~
!:..o 0
g~~~
::l a.. Ie
~ ~i~
(i)'(i)'
~~
"'~
~~~~s
~ fii N;;
~~~~~
o 0'1 c..n CD
;p.
" m
~ g
~~~
8. ~ g
~g5.
9 CD Q
~
() ~
()~ "'0
~~~:70"
5.. 0 0;::0,
g~~~~Q~
:::lo.IO~3~
~~i~Q~~
z
o
"T1
I:
;:+
::r
~
;C
"T1
m
)>
::J
III
-<
'"
iii'
;C
lD
.c
I:
~.
?-
<D'CD'
~ 5!t
'" ~
;;:
lD
lD
it
Ul
;f1.
So
"T1
o
o
C
::J
"
o
::l.
2-
CD
Q.
,....
3'
;=
Q'
III
o
--I
:I:
)>
::J
;;r
::J
::J
III
f/l
'<
'"
c;
3
!"
~~~~5
;:g Nit
~gsNg;:~
~ 0'1 0 m
~ ~
~ a J;1
~ ~ z
~ ~ ~
:::T (i).$?
;;:
lD
lD
it
"T1
o
o
C
::J
"
o
::l.
2-
CD
Q.
,....
~:
it
Q'
III
o
--I
:I:
)>
::J
c;
::J
::J
III
f/l
'<
'"
c;
3
!"
;;:
lD
lD
it
"T1
o
o
()
o
::l.
2-
CD
Q.
r-
~:
it
~
III
o
--I
:I:
)>
::l.
lD
::J
::J
III
'"
f/l
'<
'"
c;
3
'"
)>
::l.
'"
::J
::J
OJ
~
'"
c;
3
o
::J
lD
~
;;r
::J
::J
OJ
f/l
'<
'"
;;r
3
--I
~
o
Z
I:
3
r:r
~
So
)>
::J
c;
::J
::J
OJ
f/l
'<
'"
;;r
3
!'!
.,
Power DenSily,J.!w/cm2
o
~
"
o
o
o
o
o
o
!='
"
"
o
!='
I
Q
N'
o
::J
e!:
lr"
0;
::J
(")
'"
a
3 "
)>0
::J
ro
::J
::J
~
;:l!8
o
l>
::I
it
::I
" :! ~
"'1JNO'\........... CD
~~*gg 3
10"39..** 0
II~i~2~ ;
~;3.g~
I~ Q.;?. g
I~ ~g~
~ "T1~C:
"" g~~
c{)
3r
""[
o
o
o
o
Power DensitY,J.!w/cm2
o
~
8
o
o
!='
"
o
o
o
o
o
!='
l>
::I
it
::I
::I
III
III
'<
~
..
3
't
o
:I:
Q
N'
o
::J
e!:
~o
0;
::J
(")
'"
-
(3
3 g
)>
::J
ro
::J
::J
.flJ 0
;:l! 0
o
o
o
o
o
% Uncontrolled MPE
o
~
8 ~
o 0
o
:...
"
o
o
!='
I
Q
N'
o
::J
e!:
~ 0
0;
g
"
(3
3 "
)> 0
::J
ro
::J
::J
.Ill
;:l! 0
o
o
II: !
"'1JJ\)0'1..........
2.~~gg
(:;-3 0 ~~
mo2s.a
0..0,:::::1 C{)!
6'~~2=ig
~aa~;[
; g:g~
~. ~~c:
,-<< ;i:~~
m ,
I
~_J
c:
::I
"
o
;l.
~
CD
Q,
;;:
-g
m
;a
..
..
~
o
o
o
o
~
ATTACHMENT G
CEQA Class 3 Exemption
ATTACHMENT G
CEQA Class 3 Exemption
Title 14. California Code of Regulations
Chapter 3. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act
Article 19. Categorical Exemptions
15303. New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures
Class 3 consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures;
installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and the conversion of existing small
structures from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the
structure. The numbers of structures described in this section are the maximum allowable on any legal
parcel. Examples of this exemption include, but are not limited to:
(a) One single-family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. In urbanized areas, up to
three single-family residences may be constructed or converted under this exemption.
(b) A duplex or similar multi-family residential structure, totaling no more than four dwelling units. In
urbanized areas, this exemption applies to apartments, duplexes and similar structures designed for not
more than six dwelling units.
(c) A store, motel, office, restaurant or similar structure not involving the use of significant amounts of
hazardous substances, and not exceeding 2500 square feet in floor area. In urbanized areas, the
exemption also applies to up to four such commercial buildings not exceeding 10,000 square feet in floor
area on sites zoned for such use if not involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances
where all necessary public services and facilities are available and the surrounding area is not
environmentally sensitive.
(d) Water main, sewage, electrical, gas, and other utility extensions, including street improvements, of
reasonable length to serve such construction.
(e) Accessory (appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools, and fences.
(f) An accessory steam sterilization unit for the treatment of medical waste at a facility occupied by a
medical waste generator, provided that the unit is installed and operated in accordance with the Medical
Waste Management Act (Section 117600, et seq., of the Health and Safety Code) and accepts no offsite
waste.