Item 3 - Grover Beach

Transcription

STAFF REPORT
TO:
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
BRUCE BUCKINGHAM, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
JANET REESE, PLANNER II
SUBJECT:
APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION NON-ACTION FOR DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 10-023 (170 WEST GRAND AVENUE, APN 060206-026)
~
BACKGROUND
On November 8, 2011, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the proposed
cellular antenna facility (reference Attachment 4). The project would modify the existing cupola
by increasing the height by two feet and placing the antennas within the cupola. A motion to
approve the project failed on a 3-3 vote, Commissioners Laferriere, Roberson and Evans in
favor, Commissioners Long, Blum and Alex against, with Commissioner Coleman absent
(reference Attachment 5). The primary concern of the dissenting Commissioners was related to
human exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields.
The applicant was given the option to present the project before the full Planning Commission or
appeal to the City Council. The applicant chose to present the project before the full Planning
Commission and the hearing was scheduled for the January 10, 2012 meeting, however, two
Commissioners were absent, and therefore, the hearing was continued to the February 15,
2012 meeting.
Prior to the February meeting, Chair Roberson resigned from the Commission, leaving six
Commissioners to consider the project. At the public hearing on February 15, 2012, the
Commission again voted 3-3, Commissioners Laferriere, Coleman and Evans in favor,
Commissioners Long, Blum and Alex against (reference Attachments 6 and 7). Therefore, the
final Commission action was a non-action (i.e., neither an approval nor a denial). The primary
concerns of the dissenting Commissioners were the consistency of the proposed use in the
Coastal Visitor Serving zone and human exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields.
The applicant has appealed the Planning Commission's non-action on the proposed project to
the City Council. It is requested that the City Council review the project and adopt the
resolutions approving the project.
DISCUSSION
The applicant is proposing to increase the height of the existing cupola by two feet and install
APPROVED FOR FORWARDING
Please Review for the Possibility of a
Potential Conflict of Interest:
D None Identified by Staff D Bright
D Shoals
D Molnar
D Nicolls
liH"'eterson
ROBERT PERRAULT
CITY MANAGER
Meeting Date: May 7. 2012
Agenda Item No.-......"".....
)'--_
Staff Report: 170 West Grand Avenue
May 7,2012
Page 2
cellular antennas within the cupola. The cellular antennas would be located entirely within the
cupola and, therefore, not visible from the exterior of the building. Related equipment would be
located within the building and cooled by an air conditioning system with two ground mounted
condensers located on the west side of the building adjacent. A complete discussion of the
proposed project is contained in the November 8, 2011 Planning Commission staff report
(reference Attachment 4).
During discussion at both Planning Commission meetings, concerns were raised regarding
human exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic emissions. The applicant has submitted a
report prepared by Hammett & Edison, Inc. on compliance with the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) guidelines for human exposure to radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic
fields that would be generated by the proposed project (reference Attachment 8). The Report
concludes (reference Page 2, "Study Results") that based on the proposed location, setup of the
antennas, and calculations that include several worst-case assumptions, the general public will
not be exposed to radio frequency electromagnetic fields greater than the FCC established
limits. Specifically, at ground level the maximum calculated level is 0.60% of the public
exposure limit; at any nearby building the maximum calculated level is 1.4% of the public
exposure limit; and, inside the building the maximum calculated level is 0.12% of the public
exposure limit.
Therefore, based on the RF Report all of the exposure levels for radio frequency
electromagnetic emissions for the proposed project are significantly below the FCC established
maximum levels. The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 specifically preempts cities
from imposing stricter exposure levels of radio frequency electromagnetic emissions.
Therefore, denial of the project based on the exposure levels would expose the City to legal
liability.
The Planning Commissioners who voted against the project also indicated concerns about the
compatibility of the use in the Coastal Visitor Serving zone. The primary issue associated with
cellular facilities is typically related to aesthetics. The project has been integrated into an
existing architectural feature and would not be visible from the exterior of the building. The
proposed project is an unmanned facility and does not generate traffic and would not affect
surrounding businesses or properties by way of its use. The air conditioning condensers have
been designed and located to meet the City's maximum noise levels. Therefore, it does not
appear that the proposed use would be incompatible with the surrounding uses.
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council has the following alternatives to .consider:
1. Conduct the public hearing and receive testimony; adopt the Resolution granting the
appeal and approving the Coastal Development Permit; adopt the Resolution granting
the appeal and approving the Site and Architectural Plans; and, adopt the Resolution
granting the appeal and approving the Use Permit; or
2. Direct staff to prepare Resolutions to deny the project; or
3. Provide additional direction to staff.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
It is recommended that the City Council take the following actions:
Staff Report: 170 West Grand Avenue
May 7,2012
Page 3
1. Conduct the public hearing and receive testimony;
2. Adopt the Resolution granting the appeal and approving the Coastal Development
Permit;
3. Adopt the Resolution granting the appeal and approving the Site and Architectural Plans;
and
4. Adopt the Resolution granting the appeal and approving the Use Permit.
FISCAL IMPACT
None identified.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
On March 23, 2012, the public hearing notice was published in The Tribune, property owners
within 300 feet of the property and residents within 100 feet of the property were mailed a notice
of the public hearing and a public hearing notice was posted at the project site. On April 2,
2012, the City Council opened the public hearing and continued the item to the May 7,2012
Council meeting at the request of the applicant. There was no additional public noticing
required because the public hearing was continued to a date certain. The agenda was posted
in accordance with the Brown Act. The City has received two letters regarding the proposed
project (reference Attachments 11 and 12).
ATTACHMENTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Draft Resolution 12-_ - Approving a Coastal Development Permit
Draft Resolution 12-_ - Approving the Site and Architectural Plans
Draft Resolution 12-_ - Approving the Use Permit
Planning Commission Staff Report Dated November 8, 2011 (without attachments)
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes From November 8, 2011 (excerpt)
Planning Commission Staff Report Dated February 15, 2012 (without attachments)
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes From February 15, 2012 (excerpt)
Hammett & Edison, Inc. RF Study Dated March 14, 2011
Photo Simulations
Air Conditioner Condenser Specifications
Audrey Sewell Letter Dated December 6, 2011
John Koepf Letter Dated January 4, 2012
Conceptual Plans (full-Sized under separate cover)
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. 12-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GROVER BEACH
GRANTING THE APPEAL AND APPROVING A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 10-023 (170 WEST GRAND AVENUE)
WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Grover Beach has received for its review and
consideration a Staff Report and presentation in connection with Development Permit
Application No.1 0-023 to install cellular antennas within an existing commercial building by
increasing the height of the cupola two feet at 170 West Grand Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the application
on February 15, 2012 and voted 3-3, which is a non-action; and
WHEREAS, the notice of Public Hearing was sent to adjoining property owners and
advertised in the manner required by law; and
WHEREAS, the project has been found to be categorically exempt from the provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Class 1: Existing Facilities; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Grover Beach has reviewed and considered
Application No. 10-023 at Public Hearings on April 2 and May 7,2012; and
WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Grover Beach makes the following findings in
accordance with the Grover Beach Municipal Code, Part 45 Coastal Development Permit
Procedures:
1. The project is located in the Coastal Zone and is appealable to the Coastal Commission
because it is considered a "Major Public Works Project".
2. A public hearing has been conducted in accordance with the Grover Beach Municipal
Code (GBMC) Section 9145.7.
3. The project was noticed 10 days prior to the public hearing in The Tribune, notice was
given by first class mail to property owners within three hundred feet and occupants
within 100 feet, the notice was transmitted to the district office of the California Coastal
Commission, and the notice was posted in three places in the City as prescribed by
Section 9145.6.
4. The project is consistent with the City of Grover Beach Local Coastal Program because
the project would not further obstruct views of the dunes, consistent with policies for
Area 7.
5. The proposed project is in conformity with the public access and recreation policies of
Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. It has no adverse effect either individually or
cumulatively on coastal resources or public access to the shoreline or along the coast
because the project is not adjacent to the coast and will not inhibit access to the coastal
waters and recreation areas.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council for the City of Grover Beach
DOES HEREBY GRANT AN APPEAL APPROVING a Coastal Development Permit relating to
Development Permit Application No.1 0-023, subject to the following conditions:
Resolution 12170 West Grand Avenue
May 7, 2012
Page 2 of 13
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
GENERAL
G-1.
This Coastal Development Permit will not take effect until the Applicant and Property
Owner sign this Resolution agreeing to the terms and Conditions of Approval. Failure to
sign within thirty (30) days shall constitute non-compliance with said conditions resulting
in an automatic withdrawal of the approval.
G-2.
The Applicant agrees, as a condition of approval of this resolution, to indemnify, defend
and hold harmless, at Applicant's expense, City and City's agents, officers and
employees from and against any claim, action or proceeding commenced within the time
period provided in Government Code Section 66499.37 to attack, review, set aside, void
or annul the approval of this resolution or to determine the reasonableness, legality or
validity of any. condition attached hereto. City shall promptly notify Applicant of any such
claim, action or proceeding to which City receives notice, and City will cooperate fully
with Applicant in the defense thereof. Applicant shall reimburse the City for any court
costs and attorney's fees that the City may be required to pay as a result of any such
claim, action or proceeding. City may, in its sole discretion, participate in the defense of
any such claim, action or proceeding, but such participation shall not relieve Applicant of
the obligations of this condition. Applicant's acceptance of this resolution or
commencement of construction or operations under this resolution shall be deemed to
be acceptance of all conditions contained in this resolution.
G-3.
All notes and specifications as shown on the plans shall be considered Conditions of
Approval.
G-4.
The approval granted by this Resolution shall be valid for twenty-four (24) months of the
final approval date, and shall expire unless a valid building permit is issued and
construction commenced.
G-5.
All Conditions of Approval shall be provided on a full size drawing sheet as part of the
drawing sets. A statement shall also be placed on the above sheet as follows: "The
undersigned have read and understand the above conditions, and agree to abide by any
and all conditions which it is their usual and customary responsibility to perform, and
which are within their authority to perform."
Signed:
Property Owner
Date
Contractor
Date
License No.
Architect
Date
License No.
Engineer
Date
License No.
May 7. 2012
Page 3 of 13
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CDD-1.
The project shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the approved plans
(reference Exhibit A) and signed by a person qualified under the California Business
and Professions Code.
CDD-2.
All construction traffic shall access the site utilizing the truck route(s) closest to the
site as defined in the City Circulation Element and as approved by the City's Police
Department. Violations are subject to citation and fines.
CDD-3.
Necessary permits shall be obtained prior to construction commencing.
CDD-4.
The proposed cupola, constructed from fiberglass reinforced plastic (FRP), shall
have an exterior appearance that is similar to the existing cupola, matching the
existing building in texture' and color.
CDD-5.
To prevent occupational exposures in excess of the FCC guidelines, no access
within two feet directly in front of the antennas themselves shall occur while the
station is in operation, unless other measures can be demonstrated to ensure that
occupational protection requirements are met. Prior to operations, explanatory
warning signs shall be posted in locations visible from any angle of approach to
persons who might need to work within two feet of the antennas. Sample signage
from Hammett & Edison, Inc is included in Exhibit A.
On motion by _ _" seconded by _ _ , and on the following roll-call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
the foregoing RESOLUTION NO. 12- was PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a
Regular Meeting of the City of Grover Beach City Council on this 7th day of May, 2012.
Attest:
DONNA L. McMAHON, CITY CLERK
May 7, 2012
Page 4 of 13
ACCEPTANCE OF CONDITIONS
This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have
no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant and Property Owner or
Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions
and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the
recommended time frames approved by the City Council.
Applicant
Date
Property Owner or Authorized Agent.
Date
May 7. 2012
Page 5 of 13
Exhibit A
Fl!?ROOF'PMrA'iD~=====~~~li~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~;1==f--1
'IUllftlE TO U~TCH (E)
(P)
(El Mf
Tf)
bE
~t
fBl{;iE(1
(E) QK'Cl.I. TO fIE Rw:ttED A"(1 PEI'I.ACEll 11"1111fRP Ct>l'Cl.A. P.<INF -ow 1[".m>lI£ TO N~TCH (f)..4
~
'-!-___ (I') f1<~ ~S, HIt,l RIl
-1--:----=--"-"-""--'(0'--------------"1
.~
~
g
! *
~~
J > ,
{@
\0,
~£
".
~
~
~
'.
!@
~i
J\
•
~
(P) T-MPSILE' "Aha ------t---t-ll'§gJI!~§jJ
illrENNAS MOUNlE()
INSIDE C\lPOLA. T'fP. OF 9
TO DE REMOVED ",ND
WITH All' CUl'1JL4. P~I>IJ
;ND 1EX1\JRE ro !.lATCH IE)
; . - - - t - - - - - ( p ) FR? LOU,;£R5. PAlm ANP
TO VATCH (E)
-:-
-
.---: -:-: -:-;- .-;- -
-;-
': '--::G.F\ AfJO' ':',:,
.
, .. '
"
'
'" :'~'JljNCTI.O"N'::
.
:;.
'".
..
"
'.
BVIUlNG
I
' a
!;
~
May 7, 2012
Page 6 of 13
T·Mobile West Corp, • Rooftop RF Exposure Conditions and Control Program
Site No. $V12304D -170 West Grand Avenue· Grover Beach, California
Operation summary:
9 antennas, 3 per sootor
effective height 8 ft ARL
maximum ERP 2,000 watts
Control Procedures
rnI Post informalion signs at roof access location(s)
IJ!J and at antennas as shown.
Install barrlcade(s) as shown to preclude easy
accass by general public Into yellow areas.
rnI Provide copy of this plan to persons with access
l!!!1 to building rooftop. Such persons should signify
their understanding of its instructions.
O
Signage Plan
All signs shOuld provide T·Mobile site number and
24·hour telephone contact for access Information.
Choice of language(s) may require guidance from
landlord or permitting Jurisdiction.
should be placed at
roof access localion(s).
"Caution" signs
should be marked with distance of yellow area listed above and placed at each transmitting antenna to be visible from any angle of approach for persons who need to work wfthin thai distance, Use "ON THIS STRUCTURE" sign
when antenna Is visible: use 'BEHIND THIS SURFACE" sign when Ills hidden within radome or olher enclosure,
,~.'.:~~.,','I~•.".~..
~
:,~!t'. '-;r,.;J
HAMMETT &; EDISON, INC
CONSULTll':C JiNGINTmRf;
5,-\N
n~ \NC'I~CO
March (4,201 (
May 7,2012
Page 7 of 13
COflltM:t;Q~.·l?~
;C1,t')eOOiA~_
~''"'''-'''''''''''7'~t~~_~W\'~''''·
May 7, 2012
Page 8 of 13
,...
t-
•
Cl)
®
4
»
•,
t
..c
•
•
,
i
,
i
•
'"
May 7, 2012
Page 9 of 13
I
~
~;u
('.:i'V": 1-<100II..£'
-.
~
'6/t:t:xi""IiSiCiCCSS:U
"~$o). fT.
'"
.... . ,
0
~-
"
--~
~
:,;.'---
I
O• •
1m WESI"~ 'M)f..r
o;:RO'.~~~~~JJ
$0'.'<
ISP¢::«I>.'IY
=
~~
""".,., ~~'''~-/ ~~
%i
""
A
;\>,.';!l.
A
f'
k
i1.
L(E1~7
I~J'-"
,~~
~~-"
~EI'ISO
~2::1-"
~tlJ&:l !,"'"
('.}-\1_11
... t.= w.
:os
1"0
()~T1-"
,~=
l!-1?-',C
RE"'1SC ~1llJ!"
1.;:;
.::><
·!-o\I-1C
"~1SE!J
'~-1C
<iE:lJlSD !();
MBA
\
\
-~~~1IrZ7III
\
~
_
'I).
\
~<),
\
'--~
o.
"'~
\,,;-
\
\
Ltcf'IWJr.G7
"'" ","=1110
."=ttooo·;'P/cIolooo
0fiSIJI)';:.\=
§ Svnergv
...
MECHANICAL EQUlPfl£liT AREA PLAN
SCAlE:
",_--
~~~",.""'" ~~'.
"""',...
,1:-,,'"_0"
...
6'1
,,
...""-"",,,",
''''''''-''
~K:
1""lS
'~t'/S!.~.
;i¥.~
Iws
I
=:J
\
\,
\,
,=
,
SITE PtA!\;
\~WA~~~
-"-------.
PLAN
'"
'I..4>IS~Al>f:D
\8\
\
." srre:
~
'""
1=.="ZON1::_=~
'.0 '. ~ 'r-IIN}< - - - - ,
,-1\
'
'ISSOE:)F:)ft
&,
&,
_ _ _ __
"a.
C
II
~W;_~;~_;1
Wj~
VL4-'....u-.L.:a
(Ei~lXl,.,,"'ll'ilE.-
",,,
'~~~
\~
[;;{(Z.~
(~1-lIQIlAE~ "-"',,.
wo:MlI;l)l'/SI;)£~ew.;
{f~...,Fl.:1CI'
~o'
ORAND .u<cI1ON
SV123040
s,-c<'~~ ;r
''''''!II' ~:m.
"".-
Gl"
~~
............
,~
\\ t:....
",5-
."",~"."'111:'"
0.
.•
-Mobile
Stick Toge:her
~L~A~UL_4_
'{t ~
~Q.
~.
"s·-~
"' 1
I
1Ir'A1 El
"U
"'S:
CO'"
"''<
....
0_
~
0"
-0
~~
"'''
May 7, 2012
Page 110113
[],:'>
I]?
May 7,2012
Page 12 of 13
~
"l
~
"
,.0 ,~
~
~. <C
('I)
"
May 7, 2012
Page 13 of 13
Attachment 2
RESOLUTION NO. 12-
GRANTING THE APPEAL AND APPROVING SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 10-023 (170 WEST GRAND AVENUE)
increasing the height of the cupola two feet at 170 West Grand Avenue; and
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Class 1: Existing Facilities; and
WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Grover Beach rnakes the following findings,
in accordance with Municipal Code Section 9144.3 Architectural Approval, Subsection (B),
subject to the conditions of approval contained herein:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
That the architectural and general appearance of such buildings or structures
and grounds are in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. The.
increased height of the cupola is rninimal while keeping the cupola in scale with
the existing building.
That the proposed design is not detrimental to the orderly and harmonious
development of the City because the proposed project is within an area that is
served by adequate infrastructure.
That the development does not impair the desirability of investment or occupation
in the neighborhood. The project is compatible with the neighborhood and will
not have an adverse affect on surrounding properties.
That the proposal is consistent with any architectural guidelines or standards
prepared for the area in which the project is located. The proposed cupola will
appear to be similar to the existing cupola in materials and treatment.
That the project is consistent with the text and maps of the Grover Beach
General Plan and the Zoning Code. Except for the cupola's height, the project
meets all development standards for the Coastal Visitor Serving zone. The
Zoning Code allows cupolas to exceed a zoning district's height requirement with
approval of a Use Permit.
Resolution No. 12170 West Grand Avenue
May 7, 2012
Page 2
GENERAL
G-1.
All conditions of approval contained in the Coastal Development Permit Resolution,
Resolution No. 12-_, are incorporated herein as part of this resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council for the City of Grover Beach
DOES HEREBY GRANT AN APPEAL APPROVING Site and Architectural Plans relating to
Application No. 10-023.
On motion by _ _ , seconded by _ _ , and on the following roll-call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Attest:
Applicant
Date
Property Owner or Authorized Agent
Date
Attachment 3
RESOLUTION NO. 12-
GRANTING THE APPEAL AND APPROVING A USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
APPLICATION NO. 10-023
(170 WEST GRAND AVENUE)
increasing the height of the cupola two feet at 170 West Grand Avenue; and; and
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Class 1: Existing Facilities; and
WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Grover Beach makes the following findings,
in accordance with Grover Beach Municipal Code, Section 9144.5 Use Permits, Subsection (B),
subject to the conditions of approval contained herein:
1. As referenced in the staff report and as conditioned, the proposed project is found to be
consistent with applicable provisions of the Planning and Zoning regulations of the City
of Grover Beach. The proposed cupola height of 42-feet 6-inches, which exceeds the
maximum height of 40 feet for the Zoning District, is allowed with the granting of a Use
Permit. The cupola will remain in scale and character of the existing development. The
proposed use of the site as a cellular antenna site is compatible with surrounding
development and other tenants in the existing building.
2. As referenced in the staff report and conditioned, the proposed project will not be
detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the persons located in the
neighborhood and the City of Grover Beach. The cupola will remain in scale and
character with the existing building. Regarding the operation of cellular antennas on the
site, the proposed operation will not expose the public to excessive radio frequency
electromagnetic fields. As determined by Hammett and Edison, Inc., the public
exposure level will be significantly less than the Federal Communications Commission
established limits as follows: at ground level the maximum calculated level is 0.60% of
the public exposure limit; at any nearby building the maximum calculated level is 1.4% of
the public exposure limit; and, inside the building the maximum calculated level is 0.12%
of the public exposure limit.
GENERAL
G-1.
All conditions of approval contained in the Coastal Development Permit Resolution,
Resolution No. 12-_, are incorporated herein as part of this resolution.
May 7, 2012
Page 2
Resolution No. 12170 West Grand Avenue
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council for the City of Grover
Beach DOES HEREBY GRANT AN APPEAL APPROVING a Use Permit relating to Application
No. 10-023.
On motion by _ _ , seconded by _ _ , and on the following roll-call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Attest:
Applicant
Date
Property Owner or Authorized Agent
Date
Attachment 4
CITY OF GROVER BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
DATE: NOVEMBER 8,2011
ITEM #: L{
TO:
PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
APPLICATION:
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION NUMBER 10-23
LOCATION:
170 WEST GRAND AVENUE (060-206-026)
SUBJECT: Consideration of a request for a Coastal Development Permit, Site and Architectural
Plans, and Use Permit to modify an existing commercial building by increasing the height of the
cupola from 40-feet 6-inches to 42-feet 6-inches and installing a cellular antenna within the
cupola. Electrical and other related equipment is proposed to be located within the interior and
exterior of the building.
.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the resolutions approving the Coastal
Development Permit, Site and Architectural Plans, and Use Permit.
BACKGROUND
Existing Site Conditions:
The site is developed with a 7,187 square foot commercial building that was approved by the
Planning Commission in 1999. A restaurant and office uses currently occupy the building.
Data Summary:
Applicant Name: T-Mobile West Corporation
Representative Name: Charles Dunn, Synergy Development Services
Owner Name: Forde Family Trust
General Plan Designation: Visitor Serving - Mixed Use
Zoning: Coastal Visitor Services (C-C-V)
Surrounding Zoning & Existing Uses:
North: C-C-V Zoning District, ATV rentals
South: C-C-V Zoning District, City parking lot
East: C-C-V Zoning District, Beach Place mixed use development
West: C-C-V Zoning District, train tracks and station
DISCUSSION
The applicant is proposing to increase the height of the existing cupola by two feet and install
cellular antennas within the cupola. The cellular antennas would be located entirely within the
cupola and, therefore, not visible from the exterior of the building. Related equipment would be
Please Review for the Possibility of a Potential Conflict of Interest:
Il!I None Identified by Staff
D Coleman
D Roberson
D Alex
D Evans
D Laferriere
D Blum
D Long
Development Permit Application 10-23
170 West Grand Avenue
Page 2
November 8,2011
located ina room on the ground floor and kept at the required temperature by an air
conditioning system with two ground mounted condensers located on the west side of the
building adjacent to the existing electrical panels. The condensers would operate 24 hours a
day at 48 decibels (reference Attachment 7), which is below the City's maximum noise level of
65 decibels during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and 60 decibels during the hours of
10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. The condensers were originally placed adjacent to the outdoor dining
area for Station Grill. However, based on staff concerns regarding noise from the condensers,
the applicant agreed to relocate the condensers approximately 16 feet to the south. In addition,
a 42-inch high decorative block wall has been added to further mitigate noise and screen the
condensers.
The current height of the cupola is 40-feet 6-inches. Although the maximum height limit is 40
feet in the Coastal Visitor Services Zoning District, cupolas may exceed the height limit with
approval of a Use Permit (GBMC 9137.16). To accommodate the proposed antennas, the
existing cupola would be removed and replaced with a fiberglass reinforced plastic (FRP)
cupola that is two feet taller than the existing cupola. The cupola would be textured and painted
to match the existing building. The FRP material would not block the cellular signals like
conventional building materials.
Site and Architectural Approval
The Zoning Code requires the Planning Commission approve all new construction for
commercial buildings to ensure the project is compatible with the site and surrounding area.
The antennas would be located within the proposed cupola. As proposed and conditioned, the
cupola would appear to be of the same material as the rest of the building and in scale with the
building. Related equipment would be located primarily within the building, with condensers
being the only exterior equipment. The condensers would be located adjacent to existing
electrical panel cabinets and screened from public view by a 42-inch high decorative block wall
and landscaping.
Use Permit
Although "Cellular Antenna Site" is currently not listed in the Zoning Code as a use category, the
City has consistently required a Use Permit for all cellular sites. The purpose of the Use Permit
application is to ensure that the proposed use is compatible with surrounding uses.
Cupolas may exceed the maximum height limit if a Use Permit is granted. It is proposed that
the existing 40 feet 6 inches cupola be increased in height by 2 feet, or 5% of the existing
height. Based on the elevation renderings, the cupola appears to remain in scale and
proportion with the rest of the building. Therefore, staff believes the Use Permit can be granted
for the increased height.
Aside from the condensers, which are located on the exterior of the building, all of the site and
related equipment would be located within the building. The applicant has submitted a report
prepared by Hammett & Edison, Inc. on the exposure to radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic
fields that would be generated by the proposed project (reference Attachment 6). The Report
concludes that based on the proposed location and setup of the antennas, the general public
will not be exposed excessively to radio frequency electromagnetic fields. As noted on page 2
of the Report, under "Study Results", the maximum calculated cumulative level at the ground,
with some "worse-case" assumptions, is 0.60% of the public exposure limit. The maximum
calculated level at any nearby building is 1.4% of the public exposure limit. The calculated
maximum exposure level for persons inside the building is 0.12% of the public exposure limit.
Page 3
November 8, 2011
However, should someone be working on the roof or within the cupola, they would be exposed
to levels of radio frequencies that exceed the legal limit if the antennas were not turned off
before accessing the area. Therefore, as recommended by Hammett & Edison, Inc., a condition
of approval has been added requiring warning signs be posted.
Coastal Development Permit
A Coastal Development Permit is also required for the proposed project since the site is within
the Coastal Zone. Although located outside of the appeals jurisdiction, which is west of
Highway 1, this project is appealable to the Coastal Commission because it is considered a
"major public works project". A "major public works project" is defined as any public works that
is owned or operated by a public agency or by any utility regulated by the Public Utilities
Commission and exceeds a valuation of $100,000.
The project site is located in Area 7 of the City's Local Coastal Plan, an area in which views of
the dunes are obstructed by trees and existing developments (e.g., RV parks and structures).
Policies specifically for Area 7 state that projects shall not further obstruct views of the dunes.
By increasing the height of the cupola by two feet, the proposed development would not further
obstruct views. The Coastal Commission has been notified of the proposed project and no
comments have been received to date.
Conclusion
Staff believes that the proposed modifications to the cupola are architecturally compatible with
the existing building and the findings can be made to approve the Site and Architectural Plans.
Further, based on the conclusions of the RF Report and the air conditioner condensers
complying with the Noise Ordinance, staff believes the findings for the Use Permit can be made.
Lastly, the proposed project appears to be consistent with the Local Coastal Plan. Therefore,
staff recommends approval of the proposed project, subject to the conditions contained in the
attached resolutions.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project qualifies for a Class 1 Categorically Exempt in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Class 1 exemption (Section 15301) consists of projects
involving negligible or no expansion of the existing facilities.
ALTERNATIVES
The Planning Commission has the following alternatives to consider:
1. Adopt the resolutions approving the Coastal Development Permit, Site and Architectural
Plans, and Use Permit; or
2. Provide alternative direction to staff; or
3. Direct staff to prepare a resolution denying the project with findings.
RECOMMENDATION
Page 4
November 8, 2011
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
On October 27, 2011, the public hearing notice was mailed to all property owners within 300
feet of the property, all occupants within 100 feet of the property and posted as required by City
code. On October 28, 2011 the public hearing notice was published in the Times Press
Recorder. In addition, the agenda was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
ATTACHMENTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Draft Coastal Development Permit Resolution
Draft Site and Architectural Plans Resolution
Draft Use Permit Resolution
Conceptual Plans
Photo Simulations
Hammett & Edison, Inc. RF Study
Air Conditioner Condenser Specifications
Development Permit Application No.1 0-023
Applicant - T-Mobile West Corporation
Planning Commission Excerpt Minutes from November 8, 2011
Page 1
Attachment 5
Planner Reese presented the staff report, describing the project and existing site. She indicated
that the applicant is proposing to increase the height of cupola by 2 feet, and that the antenna
would be completely enclosed. The equipment would be on ground floor. There is a report
regarding radio frequency that was submitted which concludes that the general public would not
be excessively exposed to harmful radio frequency waves. People working in the cupola would
be exposed while in the cupola. The report recommends warning signs to be installed indicating
this fact. Staff believes that findings can be made to approve the project, and recommends
approval.
Chair Roberson opened the Public Hearing.
Charles Dunn, T-Mobile representative, stated that they have been working on the project for
over a year, and hope they have come up with functional and aesthetically innocuous. The
paneling texture and color should remain exactly as it appears now except the additional two
feet in height. They didn't consider a monopine because they didn't know how it would be
received. They feel that they've come up with a good design.
Commissioner Alex asked what type of fire protection is proposed and how it is powered.
Mr. Dunn stated that they are going to run power from the tenant space, and will have their own
meter. They are not installing a sprinkler system, but the plans will be approved through the Five
Cities Fire Authority.
Chris Rivas, owner of the Station Grill, which is located on the bottom floor of the project site,
stated that they have the most square footage at this location. He expressed concem about
possible harm from the radio frequency, due to the proximity tCl the antenna. He stated that for
someone in the building frequently, the damage could be substantial. He expressed concern
about risks to him, his employees and customers, due to the proximity to the antenna. He stated
that the fact that there is a maximum allowable limit shows that there is some concern and it is
possible that the hazards are not known. He does not want to be adversely impacted by the
antenna. He stated that instead of putting the antenna at the top of the building, they could
move it 100 yards onto City property, which would give more distance from the general
population.
Mr. Dunn indicated that the FCC closely monitors the output and sets a limit that is
approximately 1/50 of where effects can be registered in human cells. For the site in question,
the worst case scenario would be 1.7% of the allowable limit. The federal government regulates
the radio frequency levels and local jurisdictions cannot deny projects based on the radio
waves. The warning signs are intended for access within 3-5 feet in front of the antennas,
mainly for telecommunication workers. Members of the public could not have access to that
area. In terms of the alternate location, initially, they were told that the City's preference was to
integrate within existing area. They think they came up with a good solution. If the City has
changed their direction, they would entertain alternatives.
Development Permit Application No. 10-023
Page 2
Commissioner Alex asked if there would be warning signs on the ground floor. ML Dunn
indicated that the signs would be directly adjacent to the antennas, not on the ground floor.
Chair Roberson asked if her assumption that being directly below the antenna would be less
exposure than within line of sight is correct. Mr. Dunn agreed.
Chair Roberson closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Evans indicated that he didn't think that the two foot increase in height would
make a big difference.
Commissioner Blum stated that it was a good design, but likes the idea of possibly moving this
further away on City property.
Commissioner Long likes the creativity of the proposal, but expressed concern about the
antennas. He stated that looking at all the proposals for antennas, this may be a time to slow
down and identify an area that would be appropriate for these antennas on a large scale rather
than each individual proposal.
Chair Roberson stated that she shares some of those concerns. She asked if Grover Beach
residents would benefit from these antennas. She expressed concern about polluting the air
with the radiation to support the tourists at the beach. She indicated that she still things it is a
good project.
City Attorney Koczanowicz reiterated that the exposure levels are regulated by the Federal
government, and the Commission cannot deny based on those exposure level concerns unless
the exposures were above the accepted levels. These proposals do not come near the levels
regulated by the Federal government. If the applicant voluntarily wishes to withdraw the project
and look at another area, he can do that. The actions available to the Commission at this
meeting are to approve or deny the project.
Commissioner Evans stated that it would seem that people in the building would have less
exposure with the antenna above them than if it were across the parking lot.
Commissioner Alex stated that they are adding a lot of radio waves. He expressed concern that
if something goes wrong with the equipment, the whole building could be damaged by fire. He
asked if there was a risk of lightning strike and indicated that this seems unusual to put an
antenna in a building.
Commissioner Long asked if staff had directed the applicant to look for a building to locate the
antenna. Director Buckingham stated that he didn't make that comment. He stated that T-Mobile
came in with this application, and they have worked to make this aesthetically acceptable. He
stated that if this application had come in later, staff may have suggested that they collocate at
another location.
Page 3
Vice Chair Laferriere made motion to approve the project; Commissioner Evans seconded the
motion. Commissioner Evans, Vice Chair Laferriere and Chair Roberson voted yes and
Commissioners Blum, Long and Evans voted no, making it a 3-3 vote.
City Attorney Koczanowicz stated that the tied vote constitutes a non-action. The applicant can
either come back to another hearing before the full commission or they can appeal the nonaction
to the City Council within five business days.
Attachment 6
DATE: FEBRUARY 15, 2012
ITEM#:
2
TO:
PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
APPLICATION:
LOCATION:
This item was continued from the January 10, 2012 meeting due to the absence of a
commissioner. The staff report and attachments are attached.
ATTACHMENTS
January 10, 2012 Planning Commission Staff Report
1. Draft Coastal Development Permit Resolution
2. Draft Site and Architectural Plans Resolution
3. Draft Use Permit Resolution
4. November 8, 2011 Staff Report, without attachments
5. Photo Simulations
6. Hammett & Edison, Inc. RF Study
7. Air Conditioner Condenser Specifications
8. November 8, 2011 draft Planning Commission meeting minutes (excerpt)
9. Audrey Sewell Letter dated December 6, 2011
10. Conceptual Plans (full-sized under separate cover)
Ii9 None Identified by Staff
D Coleman
D Roberson
D Alex
D Evans
D Laferriere
D Blum
D Long
DATE: JANUARY 10, 2012
ITEM#:, _ _
TO:
PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
APPLICATION:
LOCATION:
RECOMMENDATION
BACKGROUND
On November 8, 2011, the Planning Commission was presented the staff report (reference
Attachment 4) and received public testimony regarding a proposed cellular antenna site. The
proposal would replace the existing cupola with a cupola that would be Iwofeet taller. The
cellular antennas would be located within the new cupola. Related eqUipment would be located
both within the interior and exterior of the building.
After discussion, the Planning Commission, with Commissioner Coleman absent, considered a
motion to approve the project. The motion failed on a 3-3 vote with Commissioners Alex, Blum,
and Long dissenting (reference Attachment 8). The applicant was given the option to present
the proposal before the full Commission or the City Council. The applicant decided to present
the project before the full Planning Commission.
The hearing was originally scheduled for December 13, 2011, however, due to a possible error
in noticing, the meeting was cancelled and re-noticed for January 10, 2012.
DISCUSSION
During discussion at the November 8th Planning Commission hearing, concerns were raised
regarding exposure to radio frequency emissions and fire/building safety.
Il!l None Identified by Staff
D Coleman
D Roberson
D Alex
D Evans
D Laferriere
D Blum
D Long
January 10, 2012
Page 2
. In regards to radio frequencies, concerns were raised about exposure to the building occupants
by radio frequencies from the proposed cellular antennas. The Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) has established regulations for levels of radio frequency emissions. As
noted in the previous staff report, the applicant submitted a report prepared by Hammett &
Edison, Inc. on the exposure to radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic fields that would be
generated by the proposed project to determine compliance with the FCC regl,llations (reference
Attachment 6).
The Report concludes that the proposed project will comply with the standards for limiting the
public's exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields. As noted on page 2 of the Report,
under "Study Results", the maximum calculated cumulative level at the ground, with some
"worse-case" assumptions, is 0.60% of the public exposure limit, or approximately 166 times
below the maximum exposure. The calculated maximum exposure level for persons inside the
building is 0.12% of the public exposure limit or approximately 800 times below the maximum
. exposure level. The maximum calculated level at any nearby building is 1.4% of the public
exposure limit, or approXimately 71 times below the maximum exposure level. All. of the·
exposure levels calculated are significantly below the FCC established maximum levels. The
Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 specifically preempts cities from imposing stricter
exposure levels of radio frequency emissions. Therefore, a project denial based on this criterion
would expose the City to legal liability.
A concern was also raised about the increased risk for an electrical fire due to the increased
amount of electrical equipment. As noted at the meeting, the Five Cities Fire Authority reviewed
the project and did not raise any issues. In addition, the property owner states that the building
has an existing fire sprinkler system.
Conclusion
The Planning Commission must determine if the findings drafted in the resolutions prepared for
the proposed project can be made in order to approve the project. If the Commission cannot
make the necessary findings for granting the Use Permit, the Commission should provide staff
with the reasons for the denial and staff would return with the resolutions of denial at the next
meeting.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project qualifies for a Class 1 Categorically Exempt in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Class 1 exemption (Section 15301) consists of projects
involving negligible or no expansion of the existing facilities.
ALTERNATIVES
The Planning Commission has the following alternatives to consider:
1. Adopt the resolutions approving the Coastal Development Permit, Site and Architectural
Plans, and Use Permit; or
2. Provide alternative direction to staff; or
3. Direct staff to prepare a resolution denying the project with findings.
January 10, 2012
Page 3
RECOMMENDATION
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
On December 30, 2011, the public hearing notice was published in the Times Press Recorder,
mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the property, all occupants within 100 feet of the
property and posted as required by City code. In addition, the agenda was posted in
accordance with the Brown Act.
The City received a letter from Audrey Sewell, dated December 6, 2011, indicating concern
about the radio frequency emissions (reference Attachment 9).
ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Coastal Development Permit Resolution
2. Draft Site and Architectural Plans Resolution
3. Draft Use Permit Resolution
4. November 8, 2011 Staff Report, without attachments
5. Photo Simulations
6. Hammett & Edison, Inc. RF Study
7. Air Conditioner Condenser Specifications
8. November 8,2011 draft Planning Commission meeting minutes (excerpt)
9. Audrey Sewell Letter dated December 6, 2011
10. Conceptual Plans (full-sized, under separate cover)
Planning Commission Excerpt Minutes from February 15, 2012
Page 1
Attachment 7
This Development Permit Application is a request for approval of a Coastal Development
Permit, Site and Architectural Plans, and Use Permit to modify an existing commercial
building by increasing the height of the cupola from 40'6" feet to 42'6" feet and installing a
cellular antenna within the cupola. Electrical and other related equipment is proposed to be
located within the interior and exterior of the building. The project is located in the Coastal
Zone at 170 West Grand Avenue (APN 060-206-026) in the Coastal Visitor Services (C-C-V)
Zoning District. This project is appealable to the Coastal Commission.
Director Bruce Buckingham presented the staff report. He described the background of the
project and the existing conditions of the site. He described the design and building materials
proposed. He stated that the proposed height is greater than allowed in the Zoning Code, but
that architectural features can exceed that height with a Use Permit; he stated that a Coastal
Development Permit is also required.
He described the report submitted related to radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic fields levels
and stated that the conclusion of the report was that the exposure levels are below the
standards set by the FCC. The FCC preempts cities from imposing stricter limits than for
frequency emissions. If the City imposed stricter limits, it could be exposed to legal action.
Finding no grounds for denial, staff is recommending approval. If the Commission can't make
the findings of approval, the Planning Commission must make findings for denial and staff would
bring back a denial resolution for adoption.
City Attomey Martin Koczanowicz stated that the consideration of RF electromagnetic field
exposure levels is not within the Commission's purview. The City does not have the ability to
control or override the federal maximum exposure levels. If there were evidence in front of the
Commission disputing the report presented, that could be discussed. But, whether the exposure
levels in the report are acceptable is not in their purview.
Commissioner Long stated that they have received a lot of requests for cell towers. At the last
meeting where this project was considered, they talked about possibly consolidating cell towers
in one area.
Director Buckingham stated that at that meeting, the Commission approved a Verizon faux pine
cell tower at 3,d Street and Longbranch Avenue. He stated that the approval allowed for
collocation for up to two additional carriers. There has also been interest from AT&T to establish
a tower, and the City Council authorized the application to move forward on the City owned
parking lot adjacent to the proposed project. Director Buckingham indicated that the City cannot
require collocation. If this project site were denied, T-Mobile could look at another site or look
into collocation.
Commissioner Long asked if there had been any discussion at the staff level about managing
the siting of these antennas. Director Buckingham stated that T-Mobile was the first of the three
recent cell tower projects to submit, but in order to address aesthetic concems; it took several
months to design.
Commissioner Alex asked for the zone of the 3,d and Longbranch site. Director Buckingham
stated that it is currently Coastal Industrial, but it is proposed to be changed to Visitor Serving as
part of the Zoning Code update.
Page 2
Anita Shower, Grover Beach resident, spoke in opposition to the project, citing RF
electromagnetic field exposure concerns. She expressed that cell towers should be located
together and away from people.
Chris Rivas, owner of Station Grill located in the building where the tower is proposed, spoke in
opposition to the project, expressing concerns about customer safety related to the RF
electromagnetic field exposure levels and structural safety. He expressed that there could be
other more appropriate locations for the tower.
Charles Dunn, from Synergy services was present representing T-Mobile. He spoke in support
of the project. He stated that they worked closely with staff to address aesthetic concerns, which
is how they came up with the subject proposal. He stated that they are below the FCC allowable
RF electromagnetic field exposure limits and stated that emission levels cannot be used for or
against the project.
Brad Forde, property owner, spoke in support of the project. His office will be right underneath
this equipment, and feels very comfortable with what is proposed. He likes this beUer than the
faux pine trees.
Vice Chair Laferriere closed the public hearing.
Vice Chair Laferriere asked what would happen in the event the cooling system failed.
Mr. Dunn indicated that this is the only project they are proposing at this time. He stated that
everything is structurally sound and will be reviewed by their engineers and will go through the
City's plan check process. All of the equipment is stored at ground level and is secured, with the
exception of the antennas which are 30-40 pounds. Regarding the air conditioners, one is a
back up, in case one fails. If they both fail, the damage is to the equipment, not to the structure.
The building is sprinklered. He stated that safety concerns have been addressed.
Regarding finding an alternate site, he stated that after working with staff, they felt that the
cupola was preferable to a monopine structure.
Vice Chair Laferriere stated that if the Commission is going to approve the project, it is simple. If
the Commission is going to deny the project, they will have to make findings. Issues related to
RF electromagnetic field levels and fire safety were brought up the last time the project was
before them. With the additional information provided, he asked if they are satisfied with the
answers.
Commissioner Alex stated that his concerns related to fire protection had been addressed.
Vice Chair Laferriere asked if the Commissioners understood the limits of what they could do
related to the emissions.
Commissioner Long stated that he doesn't agree with it, just because the FCC says it's so. He
doesn't feel that it is that convincing.
Vice Chair Laferriere stated that he didn't know how they, as a Commission, would address that
issue. He stated that the applicant is aware that they can propose a project elsewhere, but the
Page 3
project at the proposed location is what is before them. He didn't know how they could make a
finding requiring collocation.
Commissioner Coleman acknowledged that the building owner is willing to comply with the
emission requirements of the FCC, and hoped that the reported emissions were factual. She
stated that there would likely be an issue no matter where this was constructed. She stated that
this is better than a monopine.
Commissioner Alex stated that he does not support the project and feels that it belongs in a
commercial/industrial area, not Coastal Visitor Serving. He stated that he doesn't like the fact
that they are regulating cities regarding exposure limits. He stated that the long term effects
can't be proven. This would be no different than putting a power plant in the building.
Commissioner Blum stated that he is not comfortable with this use going into the proposed
building and doesn't feel that it is appropriate for the Visitor Serving district
Commissioner Evans stated that he thinks the project is great because it is camouflaging what's
going on. He indicated that he believes the FCC is operating in good faith and thinks that it's a
great project and the emissions are so low, he would have it in his own building.
Vice Chair Laferriere expressed support of the project. He stated that wireless is here to stay.
He stated that collocation sounds good, but he didn't know how the Commission could make the
. finding to favor one business owner over another. He stated that if they do deny it, they need to
make findings to support the denial.
Commissioner Alex made a motion to deny the project because the Use Permit doesn't comply
with the zoning, and should be in the Coastal Industrial zone. Commissioner Blum seconded the
motion. City Attorney Koczanowicz asked if there were specific reasons. He stated that the
proposed use is permitted with aUse Permit in any zone in the City. If there is a specific reason
or issue, it should be stated. Commissioner Alex read the definition of the Coastal Industrial
Zone and the Coastal Visitor Serving (CCV). He stated that the use is nonconforming for the
CCV zone. Commissioner Blum referenced a previous cell tower that had been proposed near
Grover Heights Elementary School, and stated that it was denied by the Planning Commission
due to possible long term effects of the emissions. City Attorney Koczanowicz stated that the
emissions were not the issue in that case.
Director Buckingham stated that if the Commission votes for denial of the project, a denial
resolution would be brought back with the finding that the cell tower is an industrial use that isn't
compatible with the CCV zone. Commissioner Long suggested looking at the findings of the
previously mentioned project.
City Attorney Koczanowicz stated that each project has to be evaluated on its own merits.
Commissioner Coleman stated that the Zoning Code is intended to be a guide. She stated that
this proposal is invisible to the public.
The motion failed on a 3-3-0-0, with Commissioners Alex, Blum, and Long voting yes, and
Commissioners Coleman, Evans and Vice Chair Laferriere voting no.
Development Permit Application No.1 0-023
Planning Commission Excerpt Minutes from February 15,2012
Page 4
City Attorney stated that an affirmative motion could be made; if not, this is the final action of the
Planning Commission, and it could be appealed to the City Council.
Director Buckingham stated that if the decision is appealed to the City Council, the Planning
Commission comments would be forwarded to the Council in the minutes.
Commissioner Coleman made motion to accept staff's recommendation to approve the project;
Commissioner Evans seconded the motion. The motion failed on a 3-3-0-0 vote, with
Commissioners Coleman, Evans, and Vice Chair Laferriere voting yes and Commissioners
Alex, Blum; and Long voting no.
Attachment 8
"
T-Mobile West Corp,· Proposed Base Station (Site No. SV12304D)
170 West Grand Avenue· Grover Beach, California
Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers
The firm of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, has been retained by T-Mobile West
Corp., a personal wireless telecommunications carder, to evaluate the base station (Site No.
SV12304D) proposed to be located at 170 West Grand Avenue in Grovel' Beach, California, for
compliance with appropriate guidelines limiting human exposure to radio frequency ("RF")
electl'Omagnetic fields.
Executive Summary
T-Mobile proposes to install directional panel antennas above the roof of the two-story
commercial building located at 170 West Grand Avenue in Grover Beach. The proposed
operation will comply with the FCC guidelines limiting public exposure to RF energy.
Prevailing Exposure Standards
The U.S. Congress requires that the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") evaluate its
actions for possible significant impact on the environment. A summary of the FCC's exposure limits
is shown in Figure 1. These limits apply for continuous exposures and are intended to provide a
prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, 01' health. The most restdctive
FCC limit for exposures of unlimited duration to radio frequency energy for several personal wireless
services are as follows:
Wireless Service
Frequency Band
Microwave (Point-to-Point)
5,000-80,000 MHz
2,600
BRS (Broadband Radio)
AWS (Advanced Wireless)
2,100
1,950
PCS (Personal Communication)
Cellular
870
SMR (Specialized Mobile Radio)
855
700 MHz
700
[most restrictive frequency range]
30-300
occupational Limit
Public Limit
5.00mW/cm2
5.00
5.00
5.00
2.90
2.85
2.35
1.00
1.00 mW/cm2
1.00
1.00
l.00
0.58
0.57
0.47
0.20
General Facility Requirements
Base stations typically consist of two distinct parts: the electronic transceivers (also called "radios" 01'
"channels") that are connected to the traditional wired telephone lines, and the passive antennas that
send the wireless signals created by the radios out to be received by individual subscriber units. The
transceivers are often located at ground level and are connected to the antennas by coaxial cables. A
small antenna for reception of GPS signals is also required, mounted with a clear view of the sky.
Because of the short wavelength of the frequencies assigned by the FCC for wireless services, the
HE
HAMMETI &. EDISON, INC.
CONSUL'I1NC IINGINllERS
SANlllV\NCrsto
U9KN
Page I of4
"
T-MobiJe West Corp.' Proposed Base Station (Site No. SV12304D)
170 West Grand Avenue' Grover Beach, California
antennas require line-of-sight paths for their signals to propagate well and so are installed at some
height above ground. The antennas are designed to concentrate their energy toward the horizon, with
very little energy wasted toward the sky or the ground. Along with the low power of such facilities,
this means that it is generally not possible for exposure conditions to approach the maximum
permissible exposure limits without being physically very near the antennas.
Computer Modeling Method
The FCC provides direction for determining compliance in its Office of Engineering and Technology
Bulletin No. 65, "Evaluating Compliance with FCC-Specified Guidelines for Human Exposure to
Radio Frequency Radiation," dated August 1997. Figure 2 attached describes the calculation
methodologies, reflecting the facts that a directional antenna's radiation pattern is not fully formed at
locations very close by (the "near-field" effect) and that at greater distances the power level from an
energy source decreases with the square of the distance from it. (the "inverse square law"). The
conservative nature of this method for evaluating exposure conditions has been verified by numerous
field tests.
Site and Facility Description
Based upon information provided by T -Mobile, including zoning drawings by MSA Architecture &
Planning, dated November 17, 2010, it is proposed to install nine Andrew Model TMBX-6517-R2M
directional panel antennas within a proposed extension of the existing cupola above the roof of the
two-story commercial building located at 170 West Grand Avenue in Grover Beach. The antennas
would be mounted with 2° downtilt at an effective height of about 39Yz feet above ground, 8 feet
above the roof, and would be oriented in groups of three toward 600 T, 1600 T, and 3300 T. The
maximum effective radiated power in any direction would be 2,000 watts, representing simultaneous
operation at 1,000 watts each for AWS and for PCS. There are reported no other wireless
telecommunications base stations nearby.
Study Results
For a person anywhere at ground, the maximum ambient RP exposure level due to the proposed
T-Mobile operation is calculated to be 0.0060 mW/cm2, which is 0.60% of the applicable public
exposure limit. The maximum calculated level at any nearby building is 1.4% of the public exposure
limit. It should be noted that these results include several "worst-case" assumptions and therefore are
expected to overstate actual power density levels from the proposed operation.
Exposure levels for tenants inside the building would be well below the allowed limits, due to the
directional nature of the antennas (which send the RF signals in a narrow beam toward the horizon,
like a lighthouse), due to the blockage from the roof and other building materials (the signals do not
HE
HAMMHIT & EDISON, INC.
CONSUL'i'JNG nNGlNmmS
SAN.PRANCISC<>
U9KN
Page 2 of4
T-Mobile West Corp .• Proposed Base Station (Site No. SV12304D)
pass through such material well), and due to the distance from the antennas (the inverse square law
means the energy drops exponentially with increasing distance). The highest calculated level inside
the building, taking these factors into account, is 0.12% of the standard, that is, ovel' 800 times below.
Recommended Mitigation Measures
Due to their mounting locations, the T-Mobile antennas would not be accessible to the general public,
and so no mitigation measures are necessary to comply with the FCC public exposure guidelines. To
prevent occupational exposures in excess of the FCC guidelines, no access within 2 feet directly in
front of the antennas themselves, such as might occur during maintenance work above the roof, should
be allowed while the base station is in operation, unless other measures can be demonstrated to ensure
that occupational protection requirements are met. Posting explanatory warning signs' on the cupola
in front of the antennas, such that the signs would be readily visible from any angle of approach to.
persons who might need to work within that distance, would be sufficient to meet FCC-adopted
guidelines.
Conclusion
Based on the information and analysis above, it is the undersigned's professional opInIOn that
operation of the base station proposed by T-Mobile West Corp. at 170 West Grand Avenue in Grover
Beach, California, will comply with the prevailing standards for limiting public exposure to radio
frequency energy and, therefore, will not for this reason cause a significant impact on the environment.
The highest calculated level in publicly accessible areas is much less than the prevailing standards
allow for exposures of unlimited duration. This finding is consistent with measurements of actual
exposure conditions taken at othel' operating base stations. Posting explanatory signs is recommended
to establish compliance with occupational exposure limitations.
• Warning signs should comply with OET·65 color, symbol, and content recommendatIons. Contact information
should be provided (e.g., a telephone number) to arrange for access to reslricted areas. The selection of language(s)
is not an engineering matter, and guidance from the landlord, local zoning or heallh authority, or appropriate
professionals may be required.
HE
HAMMI!1T & EDISON, INC.
OONSUI,TINGnNCINHBRS
SAN FRANCISCO
U9KN
Page 3 of4
T -Mobile West Corp.• Proposed Base Station (Site No. SV12304D)
Authorship
The undersigned author of this statement is a qualified Professional Engineer, holding California
Registration Nos. E-13026 and M-20676, which expire on June 30, 20 II. This work has been carried
out under his direction, and all statements are true and correct of his own knowledge except, where
noted, when data has been supplied by others, which data he believes to be correct.
March 14,2011
HE
HAMMBIT &: EDISON, INC.
CONSUL.'J'lNG nNGINEliR9
SAN I1ltANCISCO
U9KN
Page 4 of4
FCC Radio Frequency Protection Guide
The U.S. Congress required (1996 Telecom Act) the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC")
to adopt a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumulatively, have
a significant impact on the environment. The FCC adopted the limits f!'Om Report No. 86, "Biological
Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Elect!'Omagnetic Fields," published in 1986 by the
Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation P!'Otection and Measurements ("NCRP").
Separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions, with the latter limits generally
five times more restrictive. The more recent standard, developed by the Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers and approved as American National Standard ANSllIEEE C95.1-2006, "Safety
Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to
.300 GHz," includes similar limits. These limits apply for continuous exposures f!'Om all sources and
are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or
health.
As shown in the table and chart below, separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure
conditions, with the latter limits (in italics and/or dashed) up to five times more restrictive:
Frequency
Electromagnetic Fields (f is frequency of emission in MHz)
Applicable
Range
(MHz)
Electric
Field Strength
(VIm)
0.3 - J.34
614
1.34 - 3.0
3.0- 30
614
1842/ f
30 - 300
6J.4
300 - 1,500
1,500 - 100,000
3.54Vr
137
614
823.81J
823.81J
27.5
1.59{j
61.4
1000
""
10
P-AS
1
~. ~ ~
'-"
1.63
1.63
4.89/ f
0.163
Vrll06
0.364
Equivalent Far-Field
Power Density
(mWfcm2)
f.63
2.191J
2.I9IJ
0.0729
ff1238
0.163
100
100
900ft"
J.O
fl300
5.0
100
1801/
1801/
0.2
jlJ500
1.0
. / Occupational Exposure
100
.J? §
Il
Magnetic
Field Strength
(AIm)
- - -.... /
"
,
PCS
FM
~
/'-
0.1
Public Ex osure
0.1
CejlI~.,..j._ _ __
____ I
-
10
100
Frequency (MHz)
Higher levels are allowed for short periods of time, such that total exposure levels averaged over six or
thitty minutes, for occupational or public settings, respectively, do not exceed the limits, and higher
levels also are allowed for exposures to small areas, such that the spatially averaged levels do not
exceed the limits. However, neither ofthese allowances is incorpomted in the conservative calculation
formulas in the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 (August 1997) for
projecting field levels. Hammett & Edison has built those formulas into a proprietary program that
calculates, at each location on an arbitmry rectangular grid, the total expected power density from any
number of individual radio sources. The program allows for the description of buildings and uneven
termin, if required to obtain more accurate projections.
HAMME'IT & EDISON, INC.
CONSULTfNG ENGINfiERS
SAN II]MNC1S('O
1
FCC Guidelines
Figure 1
RFR.CALC ™ Calculation Methodology
Assessment by Calculation of Compliance with FCC Exposure Guidelines
The U.S. Congt'ess required (1996 Telecom Act) the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") to
adopt a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumulatively, have a
significant impact on the environment. The maximum permissible exposure limits adopted by the FCC
(see Figure 1) apply fol' continuous exposures from all sources and are intended to pl'Ovide a prudent
margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. Higher levels are allowed for
short periods of time, such that total exposure levels averaged over six 01' thirty minutes, for
occupational or public settings, respectively, do not exceed the limits.
Near Field•
. Prediction methods have been developed for the near field zone of panel (directional) and whip
(omnidirectional) antennas, typical at wireless telecommunications base stations, as well as dish
(aperture) antennas, typically used for microwave links. The antenna patterns are not fully formed in
the near field at these antennas,and the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65
(August 1997) gives suitable formulas for calculating power density within such zones.
For a panel or whip antenna, power density
S
180
~ rtr1
't$w
.
d .
an dfior an aperture antenna, maxtmum power enstty
where
X
0.1 x p." . mW/ 2
D h,m
em,
;n;x
x
Smax
-
O.lxI6xDxp
..",m
. mWIcm 2 ,
:n; x h
2
Oaw = half-power beam width of the antenna, in degrees, and
Pnet
D
h
'1/
= net power input to the antenna, in watts,
= distance from antenna, in meters,
= aperture height of the antenna, in meters, and
=
apeliure efficiency (unitless, typically 0.5-0.8).
The factor of 0.1 in the numerators converts to the desired units of power density.
Far Field.
OET-65 gives this formula for calculating power density in the far field of an individual RF source:
.
power denslty
S=
2
2.56D1.64DlOODRpp DERP. mW, 2
0
2
• In
,cm ,
4 ;n;DD
where ERP = total ERP (all polarizations), in kilowatts,
RFF = relative field factor at the direction to the actual point of calculation, and
D = distance from the center of radiation to the point of calculation, in meters.
The factor of 2.56 accounts for the increase in power density due to ground reflection, assuming a
reflection coefficient of 1.6 (1.6 x 1.6 = 2.56). The factor of 1.64 is the gain of a half-wave dipole
relative to an isotropic radiator. The factor of 100 in the numerator converts to the desired units of
power density. This formula has been built into a proprietary program that calculates, at each location
on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total expected power density from any number of individual
radiation sources. The program also allows for the description of uneven terrain in the vicinity, to
obtain more accurate projections.
HAMMETT & EDISON, INC.
CONSULTING ENG1NElmS
SAN IlRI\I\'CISCO
Methodology
Figure 2
·
I
\C.
T·Moblle West Corp.• Rooftop RF Exposure Conditions and Control Program
Site No. SV12304D -170 West Grand Avenue - Grover Beach, California
Operati0n summalY:
9 /lnteilnas, 3 per sector
effective height 8 ft ARL
maximum ERP 2,000 watts
Control Procedures
Itt Post Information signs at roof access locatlon(s)
and at antennas as shown.
Inslall barrlcade(s) as shown 10 preclude easy
O access by general public Into yellow areas•
.." Provid~ copy of this plan to persons wHh access
lJ!I.to building rooftop. Such persons should signify
their understanding of Its lnstruollons.
SignagePlan
All signssl'lou)d provide T'Moblle slle number and
24-hour telephone contact for a<)ceBs Information.
Choice of language(s) may require guidance from
landlor<l or peimlUlngjurlsdlction.
should be placed at
a·ocess looation(s).
II~~~~lHj~~~~Jj
'Caution" signs
should be marked with distance of yellow area listed above and pia oed at each transmitting antenna to be visible from any angle of approach for persons who need to work wllhln that distance. Use "ON THIS STRUCTURE" sign
when antenna Is visible; use "BEHIND THIS SURFACE" sign when It Is hidden within radome or other enclosure.
HAMMBTT & EDISON, INC.
CONSULTING nNGINllllRS
SAN f:RANCISOO
March 14, 2011
Attachment 9
Photosimulations
Attachment 10
I
\
•
MITSUBISHI
' " ELECTRrC
COO II N G &
HEAT U\I G
SUBMIlf"ITAL DATA: PRA:·A36KA4 8i PUYc''"A36NHA4..............36.ooosrUIH WAlL·i\lOUNTEDAIR·CONDITIONING SYST.M
Job Name:
LO'cation:
Purchaser:
Engineer:
Submitted to:
For
System Designation:
Schedule No.:
GENERAL FEATURES
• Wall-mounted Indbor unit for residential and commercial
applications
• Shlny-whlte-exterJQr plastic; compact design
• Quiet operation-both indoor and outdoor uMs
• Self-check !unctlon-Integrateddlagnostics
• Umrred warranty: five yea", on pans ahd cie!ectsahdseven yea",
Date:
OReference OApproval OConstruction
Indoor Unit PKA-A36i<A4
on compressots
OPTIONAL ACCESSORIES
Indoor Unit
:J
:J
Mini Condensate Pump (511730-230, 230V)
L-Connactor Pipe (PAC-SC84PI;·for le!tside unrr piping
installation)
Outdoor Unit
:J
:J
::J
:J
:J
:::J
:J
:::J
Drain Pan (pAC-SQ;S3DP)
Drain SockOt(PAC-$G61DS)
Thre~~pol_eDJsc~rme~t SWItch (TAZ-MS303)
Wind Baffle (WB,PA2)
Air Outlet Gulde.(PilG·SG(i~SG)
Mounting BJ:i~e_(D_SQ-400N\
~ounjln!l P;jd (ULTflILlrS2
Walknounting Brackets (CWMB1)
ControjlQr·Op,toJ)s
:J Wireless Remo~~ ControJIE;H Kjt(MHK.1 }-V'ith Rem6J~, Gol'ltrQller
;J
:::J
:::J
(MRGHI );WIr.J~$s R~.ce;Yer (MIFH1). ~nd cable (~RQ!)'
Setback doWn to-50°F_Wh~n used wfth MRQH1 Remote'Controlier
Portable Controll~.r (MGCH1: for uae-whh-Wireless ~ernote
Control~r Kit MHKJ)'
Outdoor Air Sens,or (MO~1; fqr Lise with R$.mo,e'Comroll~r
(~RCH1), Wireles. Ramote Controller Krr(~HK1) ~nd Portable
ControJIe(MCCH1 ).
'SooSubmitlal for infonnallonon -aa'eh optJoO.
o Watl-mounjed Wi~ep R~m,o,t~,Controller(PAR-21MM)
:J
:J
:J
:::I
:J
:::I
:J
:J
:J
M-NET Mapter (PAC.'8F61~)
ON5i Conoectorfor M'-Iltlple Rel)'lote,C~mtrolter Ademters/Duct'Fan
Controller(PAC'725AD)
CN32cConnect6rfor Reinote QnIOff(PAC-715AD)
Remo1,e Temperature Sensor, {PAC-SE4iT?}
Remote OperatioC\Adapter - Di.playandOnlOff (pilC,SF40RM)
H~nd-herd Wire_~_~$ Rambta C9ntrol~t'
(PAR-FL32MA;'eq: F'AR,l'IA9FA-E) .
Wirele_ss Signal Re'ceiver Modula,(PAR-SA9FA-E) "
Lockdown Sra,*et for. Hand-held Controll.r(RCMKP1 CS)
Controlll'lervice Tool (PAC-l'IK52ST)
Cooling·
Rated CapaeilY. . . . ......................... 3'4,200 BtUlh
Minimum Capacity
. .. .. . .. .
. ......1.2,000 BtUlh
SEER ....... '" .
. .. .. . .. .
. ......14.0 B!ulhfW
EER ... .. . .. . .. . . .
. .... '" .
. .... 6.8 BtulhfW
Total Input .................................. , ... 5,030 W
* Rating Gpndi\loj)s (GOO.liogl-lnd. oor. 80°F. (27°G) DB'! 67°F (19"C) WB.
Outdoor: !}5°F (35°C) OB /70°1'" (24"C) WB.
Electrical Requirements
Power Supply. . .. . . .
. ........ 208f230V, 1-Phase. SO Hz
Recamrnendeid FlIse/Breaker Size. . . . .
. .............30 A
Voltage
Indoor ~ Outdoor S1 ~S2 . . . . .
. .... AC 20BI230V
Indoor - Outdoor S2~S3 .. , . . . .
. ; .... DC 24V
Outc!OOr Unil: PUY-A3SNHA4
Indoor Unit
M~.............
. .................... 1A
Fan Motor ........ , .. , ... , ............... , ... 0.57 I=.LA.
f~n_MoJor Output ..................... : ....... ,-,,- .... 56 W
AIrflow (Lo - Mid - HI) ................ 795 - 810 - 920 Dry CFM
~35 - 7;l0 - 830 WetcFM
Air Fitter
..
....... Polypropylene ~pn~Y!XJtnb
Souhd PrassureLevel(Lo- M~ - Hi) .....................43 - 46 - 4~ <i6(A)
SHF ...........................•.......•......... 0.70
Moisture Removal.
..... ....
9;-2 pt.lh
DIMENSIONS
W
D
H
UNIT INCHES I MM
46-111611170
·11-518125
14.'ZIS 1.365
Welght...
. · ................. .46 lb.•. I 21 kg
External Finish ......... . · ........ Munsell No. LOy 9.2 I 0.2
Field Drainpipe Size O.D .. . · ............ , ..... . 5/8"/ 1S-mm
Outdpor Unit
Compressar ........ , ......... DC
Inverter~drjven Twin Rotary
MCA ............................................ 25A
~OCP.............
.......... . ....... 40 A
Fan Motor. . . . . . . . . .
. ..................... 0.75 F.LA.
Sound Pressure Level
Cooling ..... .
· ..................... .48 dB(A)
DIMENSIONS
W
D
H
INCHESIMM
37· 181950
3 + 1-31161.330+30
37,1181943
Weight.. . .. . . . . .• . .. .. . ................. 163 .lbs.174 kg
External FinIsh ...................... Munsell No. -qV 7.a , 1.1
RefrlgerantType.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. R410A
Refrigerant Pipe Size 0,0.
Gas Side ...........•.
. ... 516" 115.86 mm
Liquid Side ........... .
.3/8" 19.52 mm
Max. Refrigerant Pipe length ....... .
. .... 165'150m
Max. Refrigerant Pipe Height Difference ..
.... . 100'IMm
Connectfon Method. .
. ........ .
. ...... Flared
DPERATING CONDITIONS
•• With optional wind baffla accessory installed. If not installa(:l, the minimum
temperature will be 23°F (_BOG) DB.
© 2011 MITSUBISI-fI ELECTRIC & ELECTRONICS, INC.
I~R
"
"
"
"
" DIMENSIONS: PKA-A:36KA4
"
Unit Inch (111m)
Right sl(1&
t.1runtboalEl
Kno~kOlJhCle
rorlen' it
KfJO~vtm!e-tcr
~.
n
Pil:1ing coonectioll
RofiiYBrlinIJipB'3Al 0,0. -((l9:fi2)
VquWprpe
'Ii
~a~_plpe
TlJrougn h~e
'I!
Drairt ~ose
~2"'6116~T6)
"
Kl1ocl(out hole rOf pIping
C
8
Required spac.e Qr1tloor unll)
~ifl2-21132(11:~)
flared clJo/ln&clI0n: 3{9F
Reiligetanl pipa.:SfiI 0.0. ((115-00)
Flared comlectiOn: IilBF
'~(.,~)
0"0
DIMENSIONS: PUYrA36NHA4
Unll: mm (I""hl
J.~lDM~HI
COOLING" HEATING
- - - - Live Better
Intertek
FORM# PKA-A36KA4
© 2011 MITSUBISHI Ei.~gt~~~NHA4
• 201108
& ELECTRONICS,
INC.
3400 Lawmnceviie SlNIanee Rd
Suwanee. GA 30024
Tela: 678-376-2900' Fax' 800-8
Ton Free: 800-433-4822 (#3) 89-9904www.melw3c.com
Specifications are subJett t o change without notice.
Attachment 11
December 6,2011
Attn: Planning Commission of the City of Grover Beach
To Whom It May Concern:
Speaking on behalf of myself Audrey Sewell, and my fellow employees of Station Grill
we urge you to deny the Development Permit Application No. 10-023. Not only do we as
employees feel that it is unsafe to our work environment we are also concerned for our
costumers who frequent our establishment.
Cell towers like the one requesting permission to be installed at the top or our building
has potential to have harmful affects on the health of the employees of the building as
well as the hundreds of costumers who enjoy our business.
As a society we are aware of the risks that we are collecting everyday we make an
advance in the technological world. Although there is no conclusive evidence that cell
towers are truly damaging to the human mind, there is also no conclusive evidence to
prove otherwise; and I for one am not willing to be subject to potentially harmful
radiation levels for the convenience of a cell tower. The radio waves emitted by a tower
will bombard our establishment increasing our already high exposure to radio waves on a
daily bases.
Our costumers are not all adults either. One of the largest concerns I behold as a
community member is the potential harm we could be inflecting on the future minds of
our community. These children are already exposed to more radio waves than any other
previous generation, and I do not support the idea that we are to dictate what is safe and
what is not. Their youthful minds should not be exposed to potentially harmful radio
waves in such a high dosage. I feel it is our duty as a community to protect and preserve
the health of our future; after all we may rely on them to save our earth.
Cell towers are fundamental to the operation of many people's most valued item, their
cell phones. It is evident that our society is constantly exposed to different levels of
radiation through microwaves and radio waves, which are said to be tolerable for a
human. I feel that our culture is becoming dependent on technology, radios, music
players, cell phones, computers, internet, and more. We rely on these items to make it
through our days and granted some of them make life easier, but should our health be
victim to our needs for convenience? Please as a council take time to consider the
potential health risks involved with installing a cell tower such as this in such public
location.
I urge you as a local college student and worker to consider the fact that not only are we
increasing the exposure of radio waves in our own building but also in those that are in
close proximity to ours. According to a local Union Foreman Electrician who has had
previous experience with installing cell towers from Paso to Santa Ynez, "Radio waves
emitted off of a cell tower can have a radius of two hundred to five hundred feet, easily.
They claim there is no real damage but I don't believe it because there is a lot of
speculation." His thirty plus years as a local construction worker certify him to speak on
the subject.
I feel that my right to protect my health was also hindered by the fact that our bosses
were unable to properly inform us of the situation. They have yet to receive any
information via mail as promised by the clerk. I am truly frustrated with the fact that the
community is so cut off from viable information. I was informed ofthe issue by my boss
who noted that there is an eight by eleven paper in the planter in regards to the meeting.
Although in reality we were given the proper ten day notice I feel we are not well enough
informed, and that the people of the establishment should be allowed to have some
weight in the fmal outcome of the decision. Our health is ultimately what is at stake, and
I feel it is my duty to help protect my own health as well as the hundreds of conununity
residents who vary in age that frequent our establishment, along with the many tourists
who enjoy our food after enjoying our beaches.
I appreciate your time and thoughtfulness. I hope that tonight while you contemplate your
decision you think of the health risks that are involved with allowing technology to
invade our public. On behalf of my co-workers thank you for your consideration on this
very controversial permit request.
Sincerely,
Audrey Sewell
Station Grill Employee
Age 19, Allan Hancock College Sophomore
I
Attachment 12
Beach Place Enterprises, LLC
2041 Carriage Lane
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
805-489-4592 Office
805-489-0134 Fax
January 4, 2012
Grover Beach Community Development Department
154 South Eighth Street
Grover Beach, CA 93433
Re:
Cellular Antenna
Plarming Commission,
I am opposed to the installation of a cellular antenna at 170 West Grand A venue, Grover Beach. The
technology of cellular antennas is relatively new, and much is unknown about the dangers thereof.
Many studies have been done concerning the dangers of cellular radiation. There have been studies,
conducted in Germany and Israel, that suggested that living with in a quarter of a mile can cause
people serious health problems, including a variety of cancers.
All of my residential and commercial units are with in this zone. Furthermore the proposed
convention centerlhotel will also be in this zone. Many communities have barmed cellular antennas
in residential areas.
x,
Let us not take a chance on cellular antennas until more is known.
Thank Yo . '--""'. .....
John Koepf

Item 3 - Grover Beach

Transcription

Similar documents

1-7 - Grover Beach

Burglar Alarm Permit Form - Palm Beach County Sheriff`s Office

college official`s report curry college

Minor Development Permit Detached Garage

beach lawn and garden, inc. george leitz

home on the dunes - Gulfview Construction

Subway Directions to Medgar Evers College Mathematics Department

Operation Identification - Palm Beach County Sheriff`s Office

Mrs. House and Mrs. Huba`s STEM Challenge Day

Lifetime Resident Hunting and Fishing Sportsman`s Permit

Palm Beach - Blue Ocean Apartment