SR-402-010 (27)
PCD:SF:JT:AS:JL:TK:F:\PLAN\SHARE\COUNCIL\STRPT\2004\04APP-004continued.doc
Council Mtg: March 22, 2005 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
On September 28, 2004, the City Council continued the subject application after
receiving testimony and documenting evidence from the applicant, appellant and
members of the public who preferred to place testimony on the record that evening
rather than returning at a later date. The item was continued in order for the applicant to
address an apparent calculation discrepancy on a form that is used by the Federal
Communication Commission (FCC) to determine compliance with applicable standards
related to wireless communication facilities and radio frequency emissions. The
applicant had submitted this form to the City prior to the September hearing. On
1
November 3, 2004, the applicant submitted a Radio Frequency Power Density
Emissions Study, included with this report as Attachment A, to demonstrate compliance
with FCC regulations. This study was forwarded to an independent consultant to
evaluate the accuracy of the document and to provide a recommendation as to whether
the facility would comply with applicable FCC regulations (Attachment B).
DISCUSSION
The attached reports explain the applicant’s compliance with FCC regulations in
technical detail. The independent evaluation concludes that the report detailing the
planned operation of the proposed wireless communication facility was prepared
properly and the facility would comply with applicable FCC regulations.
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 effect of radio
frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the
[Federal Communication] Commission’s regulations concerning such
emissions.
Since the applicant has demonstrated compliance with FCC regulations, as verified by
the City’s consultant, the City cannot require additional environmental review to address
the claimed environmental effects of radio frequency emissions. Consequently, the
City’s determination that the project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 3 of the
2
CEQA Guidelines was appropriate. Moreover, claims by the appellant that certain
exceptions to the Class 3 exemption apply are unavailing since these claims are also
premised on the perceived effects of radio frequency emissions. The federal
government has simply preempted this area of state and local regulation.
A concern identified in a letter (Attachment C) subsequent to the hearing and
communicated to the applicant was that the before and after photo simulations of the
wireless facility were in fact the same photograph. The applicant asserts that the post
construction appearance will look the same as the existing conditions. If the project
moves forward and is constructed, staff will use the applicant’s photo simulation to
evaluate the installation to ensure that the facility looks the same as the existing built
condition.
Additional background information and project analysis is contained in the prior staff
report, which is included as Attachment D. Because the City does not have the authority
to deny the application based solely on environmental effects, and given the minimal
visual impacts associated with the facility, as well as the improved wireless coverage
provided to residents, businesses, and visitors, the Zoning Administrator and Planning
Commission approved the requested Use Permit application. In doing so, both decision-
making bodies relied on the Class 3, Section 15303 Categorical Exemption provided in
the California Environmental Quality, which was appropriate and consistent with state
law as detailed in this and the attached report.
3
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, as detailed herein, 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
Angeles Times at least ten consecutive calendar days prior to the hearing. A copy of
the notice is contained in Attachment E.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report does not have any budget or fiscal impact.
RECOMMENDATION
4
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 will be installed in compliance with FCC regulations concerning radio
frequency emissions.
Prepared by: Suzanne Frick, Director
Amanda Schachter, Planning Manager
Jonathan Lait, AICP, Acting Principal Planner
City Planning Division
Planning and Community Development Department
Attachments: A. AT&T Wireless Cover Letter and Radio Frequency Power
Density Emissions Study, dated November 3, 2004 (includes
project plans)
B. Independent FCC Compliance Report of AT&T Wireless Study,
Prepared by Kramer.Firm, Inc., dated December 23, 2004
C. Correspondence, dated October 1, 2004
D. City Council Staff Report, dated September 28, 2004, with
attachments
E. Public Notice
F. CEQA Class 3 Exemption – Excerpt from the CEQA State
Guidelines
5
ATTACHMENT A
AT&T Wireless Cover Letter & Radio Frequency Power Density Emissions Study,
Dated November 3, 2004
Electronic version of attachment is not available for review. Document is
available for review at the City Clerk’s Office.
6
ATTACHMENT B
Independent FCC Compliance Report of AT&T Wireless Study, Prepared by
Kramer.Firm, Inc., dated December 23, 2004
Electronic version of attachment is not available for review. Document is
available for review at the City Clerk’s Office.
7
ATTACHMENT C
Correspondence, Dated October 1, 2004
8
October 1, 2004
During the presentation by Infranext I studied the two Photographs that they presented
as before and after the project.From my seat in the city hall I believe the two
photographs were in fact the same photograph.In other words they used the after
photograph as evidence but was in reality the before photograph.I would believe the city
attorney should look at these two photograph to determine if this is true.
Secondly, I heard considerable talk about the city NOT having authority in this matter
because the authority was vested with the FCC.After spending my life working in the
construction business, I wondered why and how a "facility" could be built, I believe on
top of a building, without it falling into the authority of Building and Safety? If only
this"wireless communication facility" were plugged into a standard 110 volt plug maybe
then this would make this project exempt.
Never the less I heard no discussion of this aspect of item 6-A.In conclusion if this
"facility weighted only 6 Oz's and was in fact plugged into a standard 110 volt plug; I still
believe that because of the nature of this advanced unstudied technology ; Building and
safety should have some authority in this project.
I would appreciate your reply to these questions and concerns.
Sincerely,
Dennis Stankie
Diamond Red Painting
9
ATTACHMENT D
City Council Staff Report, dated September 28, 2004, with attachments
10
PCD:SF:JT:AS:JL:TK:F:\PLAN\SHARE\COUNCIL\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
11
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.
12
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.
13
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.
14
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
15
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
16
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
Angeles 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.
17
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: 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
Attachments: 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
18
ATTACHMENT A
Public Notice
19
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.
DATE/TIME: 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 by e-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.org.
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.
ESPAÑOL
Esto es una noticia de una audiencia pública para revisar applicaciónes proponiendo desarrollo en Santa
Monica. Si deseas más información, favor de llamar a Carmen Gutierrez en la División de Planificación
al número (310) 458-8341.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
AMANDA SCHACHTER
Planning Manager
20
ATTACHMENT B
Appeal Statement
Electronic version of attachment is not available for review. Document is available for
review at the City Clerk’s Office.
21
ATTACHMENT C
Planning Commission Staff Report and Statement of Official Action dated
February 18, 2004
Electronic version of attachment is not available for review. Document is available for
review at the City Clerk’s Office.
22
ATTACHMENT D
Zoning Administrator Determination approved October 16, 2003
Electronic version of attachment is not available for review. Document is available for
review at the City Clerk’s Office.
23
ATTACHMENT E
Project Plans
Electronic version of attachment is not available for review. Document is available for
review at the City Clerk’s Office.
24
ATTACHMENT F
FCC Compliance Information
Electronic version of attachment is not available for review. Document is available for
review at the City Clerk’s Office.
25
ATTACHMENT G
CEQA Class 3 Exemption
Electronic version of attachment is not available for review. Document is available for
review at the City Clerk’s Office.
26
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.
27
ATTACHMENT E
Public Notice
28
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. This item was previously considered at the City Council’s December 14, 2004
meeting.
DATE/TIME: TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 2005, 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 Jonathan
Lait at (310) 458-8341, or by e-mail at jon.lait@smgov.net. The Zoning Ordinance is available at the
Planning Counter during business hours and on the City’s web site at www.santa-monica.org.
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.
ESPAÑOL
Esto es una noticia de una audiencia pública para revisar applicaciónes proponiendo desarrollo en Santa
Monica. Si deseas más información, favor de llamar a Carmen Gutierrez en la División de Planificación
al número (310) 458-8341.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
AMANDA SCHACHTER
Planning Manager
29
ATTACHMENT F
CEQA Class 3 Exemption – Excerpt from the CEQA State Guidelines
30
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.
31