The URL can be used to link to this page

07-11-2023 - PC Agenda Packet Planning Commission REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, July 11, 2023 | 7:30 PM City Hall Council Chamber – 70 N. First Street CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL This Planning Commission meeting will be conducted in person and virtually via video teleconferencing (Zoom) in compliance with the provisions of the Brown Act. Members of the public may attend this meeting in person at Campbell City Hall or virtually via Zoom at https://campbellca.gov/PCSignup. The meeting will also be live streamed on Channel 26, the City's website, and on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/@CityofCampbell. Written correspondence will be accepted via email at planning@campbellca.gov until 5:00 PM on the day of the meeting, and thereafter may be delivered in-person at the public hearing. Written correspondence will be posted to the City’s website and distributed to the Planning Commission. If you choose to email your comments, please indicate in the subject line “FOR PUBLIC COMMENT” and indicate the item number. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approval of Minutes of June 27, 2023 (Roll Call Vote) ➢ Meeting Minutes, 6/27/2023 (Regular Meeting) COMMUNICATIONS AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This portion of the meeting is reserved for individuals wishing to address the Planning Commission on matters of community concern that are not listed on the agenda. In the interest of time, the Chair may limit speakers to five minutes. Please be aware that State law prohibits the Commission from acting on non-agendized items, however, the Chair may refer matters to staff for follow-up. PUBLIC HEARING Note: Members of the public may be allotted up to two (2) minutes to comment on any public hearing item. Applicants/Appellants and their representatives may be allotted up to a total of five (5) minutes for opening statements and up to a total of three (3) minutes maximum for closing statements. Items requested/recommended for continuance are subject to Planning Commission’s consent at the meeting. Planning Commission Agenda for July 11, 2023 Pg. 2 2. PLN-2023-65 – 801 W. Hamilton Avenue Continued Public Hearing to conduct a compliance evaluation of an existing restaurant (Negeen Restaurant) with on-site alcohol sales and late-night hours in response to live events held on the property inconsistent with permit requirements, and to consider the modification or revocation of planning permit(s) in response on property located at 801 W. Hamilton Avenue. Staff is recommending that this item be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Planning Commission action is final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. Project Planner: Tracy Tam, Associate Planner Recommended Action: Adopt a Resolution (reference Attachment 1) approving a City- Initiated Modification (PLN-2023-65) to the Administrative Planned Development Permit (PLN-2009-167). 3. PLN-2021-43 – 910 S. McGlincy Lane Public Hearing to consider the application of Nicole Comach (Crown Castle) and Jake Hamilton (Virtual Site Walk, LLC) to allow for the establishment of a concealed wireless telecommunications facility (artificial tree pole) with a request for a limited exemption from standards to retain the existing height of the facility (45-feet permitted; 75-feet existing/requested) on property located at 910 S. McGlincy Lane in the M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District. The application under consideration is a Conditional Use Permit with Site and Architectural Review. File No.: PLN-2021-43. Staff is recommending that this item be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Planning Commission action is final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. Project Planner: Stephen Rose, Senior Planner Recommended Action: Adopt a Resolution (reference Attachment A), approving a Conditional Use Permit with Site and Architectural Review (PLN-2021-43) to allow for the establishment of a new concealed wireless facility (artificial tree pole) with a request for a limited exemption from standards to retain the existing height of the facility (45-feet permitted; 75-feet existing/requested) on property located at 910 S. McGlincy Lane in the M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District and finding the project Categorically Exempt under Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act. REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ADJOURNMENT Adjourn to the Planning Commission meeting of July 25, 2023, at 7:30 PM, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California and via telecommunication. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, listening assistance devices are available for meetings held in the Council Chambers. If you require accommodation to participate in the meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at ClerksOffice@campbellca.gov or 408-866-2117 in advance of the meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES Tuesday, June 27, 2023 I 7:30pm City Hall Council Chamber CALL TO ORDER The Regular Planning Commission meeting of June 27, 2023 was called to order at 7:30 pm by Chair Buchbinder, and the following proceedings were had to wit. ROLL CALL Members present: Rob Eastwood, Director Bill Seligmann, City Attorney Daniel Fama, Senior Planner Tracy Tam, Associate Planner Ken Ramirez, Administrative Analyst APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approval of Minutes of June 13, 2023 (Roll Call Vote) ➢ Meeting minutes approved by approved by Planning Commission. Commissioner Ostrowki Absent. COMMUNICATIONS Memo was received by the Department and distributed to the Planning Commission from the Attorney representing the applicant on Item 4. Planning Commissioners Present: Adam Buchbinder, Chair Alan Zisser, Vice Chair Davis Fields Stuart Ching Matt Kamkar Michael Krey Planning Commission Absent Maggie Ostrowski Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – June 27, 2023 Page 2 AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This portion of the meeting is reserved for individuals wishing to address the Planning Commission on matters of community concern that are not listed on the agenda. In the interest of time, the Chair may limit speakers to five minutes. Please be aware that State law prohibits the Commission from acting on non-agendized items, however, the Chair may refer matters to staff for follow-up. Opened and Closed Public Comment PUBLIC HEARING Note: Members of the public may be allotted up to two (2) minutes to comment on any public hearing item. Applicants/Appellants and their representatives may be allotted up to a total of five (5) minutes for opening statements and up to a total of three (3) minutes maximum for closing statements. Items requested/recommended for continuance are subject to Planning Commission’s consent at the meeting. Disclosures: Vice Chair Zisser and Commissioner Krey visited all the sites but did not speak to anyone at the sites. Commissioner Kamkar went past the site for Item 3. Chair Buchbinder spoke to applicant and visited the site for Item 4. Chair Buchbinder read the following public hearing items into record as follows: 2. Public Hearing to consider the request of MODULUS for property located at 1940 Hamilton Avenue to modify the site configuration of an approved 8,000 square-foot office building project to allow direct driveway access from Hamilton Avenue, a reduction to the required number parking stalls, removal of additional on-site protected trees, and retention of overhead frontage utility lines. The applications under consideration include Site and Architectural Review Permit Modification, Parking Modification Permit, Tree Removal Permit, and a (Utility) Variance. File No.: PLN-2022- 162. Staff is recommending that this item be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Planning Commission action is final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. Project Planner: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner Recommended Action: Adopt a Resolution (reference Attachment 1), approving a Site and Architectural Review Permit Modification, Parking Modification Permit, Tree Removal Permit, and a (Utility) Variance. Senior Planner Daniel Fama presented staff report to consider the request of MODULUS for property located at 1940 Hamilton Avenue to modify the site configuration of an approved 8,000 square-foot office building project to allow direct driveway access from Hamilton Avenue, a reduction to the required number parking stalls, removal of additional on-site protected trees, and retention of overhead frontage utility lines. Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – June 27, 2023 Page 3 Commissioners received clarification to their questions regarding parking, the number of trees impacted and how often utilities get undergrounded. Chair Buchbinder open the public hearing Applicant not present Commissioner discussed project details regarding the number of trees being lost and number of parking spots on site. Disappointed as expressed that the original application and agreement with the neighboring church was not being followed through. Do not see cause for objection if there was regression from the original application. David Fenster, applicant called in and provided some clarification as to what the original agreement entailed and that it was the church who reneged on the original agreement causing the owner to redesign project. Chair Buchbinder closed public hearing Commissioners were in support of the project. Motion: Upon motion by Commissioner Krey, seconded by Commissioner fields the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4682, approving a Site and Architectural Review Permit modification, Parking Modification Permit, Tree Removal Permit, and a (Utility) variance, to modify the site configuration of an approved 8,000 square-foot office building project to allow direct driveway access from Hamilton Avenue, a reduction to the required number parking stalls, removal of additional on-site protected trees, and retention of overhead frontage utility lines, on property located at 1940 Hamilton Avenue (PLN-2022-162), by the following roll call vote. AYES: Ching, Kamkar, Krey, Buchbinder, Zisser, Fields NOES: None ABSENT: Ostrowski ABSTAIN: None 3. PLN-2022-44 – 570 E. Hamilton Avenue Public Hearing to consider the request of AU Energy LLC for property located at 570 E. Hamilton Avenue to allow reconstruction of a Shell gasoline service station with an expanded convenience store including off-site alcohol beverage sales, a drive-through carwash, and 24-hour operational hours; associated site, lighting, parking, refuse collection, and landscaping improvements; and removal of on-site trees. The applications under consideration include a Conditional Use Permit with Site and Architectural Review and Tree Removal Permit. File No.: PLN-2022-44. Staff is recommending that this item be deemed Statutorily Exempt under CEQA. Planning Commission action is final unless appealed in Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – June 27, 2023 Page 4 writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. Project Planner: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner Recommended Action: Adopt a Resolution (reference Attachment 1), denying a Conditional Use Permit w/Site and Architectural Review and a Tree Removal Permit. Senior Planner Fama presented staff report to consider the request of AU Energy LLC for property located at 570 E. Hamilton Avenue to allow reconstruction of a Shell gasoline service station. Commissioners received clarification on the number of gateway projects in the pipeline for the city; that the recommendation would be the same even if there were EV charging stations; that feedback provided was not incorporated into project application; and that fundamentally the project is not consistent with the city’s General Plan. Commission was informed that denying the project would be done so with prejudice. Zisser- what does it mean to deny with prejudice. City attorney stated that any objections or appeal would be easily defensible as they would have no real solid ground in their appeal. Applicant’s architect stated there were benefits via additional tax dollars for the city and improve traffic for the next 20 years. Stated that they did not get feedback from city staff. Need better communication from the city. Applicant spoke and stated that they own and operate gas service station chains throughout the state. Looks to build sites to be resilient over time. No one solution is paying the bills. Project will offer a blended solution. Stated that this is the only site in the network that needs to be updated, if they take the tanks out then the company will move on. Stated that convenience stores are visited by a lot of residents and their employees will be there for the next 20 years. They are only in the business of gas stations. Commissioner received clarification and responses from applicant about their lease terms; the number of gas stations owned by the family; and the approximate dollar amount of tax received each year; and that the applicant did not really look at the General Plan from the City. Commissioner discussed their perspectives on the project. Believe that Campbell has a bright future and don’t see the gas station as a significant staple of Campbell’s future. Addressed the inconsistencies of project with the deliverables of the general plan. In support of staff recommendation to deny project with prejudice. Motion: Upon motion by Commissioner Ching, seconded by Commissioner Fields the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4683, denying with prejudice a Conditional Use Permit with Site and Architectural Review to allow reconstruction of a gasoline service station with an expanded convenience store including off-site Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – June 27, 2023 Page 5 alcohol beverage sales, a drive-through carwash, and 24-hour operation hours with associated site, lighting, parking, refuse collection, and landscaping improvements; and tree removal permit to allow removal of on-site trees, for property located at 570 E. Hamilton Avenue (PLN-2022-44), by the following roll call vote. AYES: Ching, Kamkar, Krey, Buchbinder, Zisser, Fields NOES: None ABSENT: Ostrowski ABSTAIN: None Chair closed paused public hearing for a 5 minute break for 5 minutes. Public Hearing resumed at 9:31pm 4. PLN-2023-65 – 801 W. Hamilton Avenue Public Hearing to conduct a compliance evaluation of an existing restaurant (Negeen Restaurant) with on-site alcohol sales and late-night hours in response to live events held on the property inconsistent with permit requirements, and to consider the modification or revocation of planning permit(s) in response on property located at 801 W. Hamilton Avenue. Staff is recommending that this item be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Planning Commission action is final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. Project Planner: Tracy Tam, Associate Planner Recommended Action: Adopt a Resolution (reference Attachment 1) approving a City- Initiated Modification (PLN-2023-65) to the Administrative Planned Development Permit (PLN-2009-167). Associate Planner Tam presented the staff report to conduct a compliance evaluation of an existing restaurant (Negeen Restaurant) with on-site alcohol sales and late-night hours in response to live events held on the property inconsistent with permit requirements, and to consider the modification or revocation of planning permit(s) in response on property located at 801 W. Hamilton Avenue. City Attorney, asking that everyone present and presenting evidence be sworn under oath that they will attest to telling the truth under penalty of perjury. Applicant’s Attorney, Nancy Weng, stated that they would like to request a continuance. Informed the planning commission that there would be no events occurring between now and July 11th, 2023. Motion: Upon motion by Commissioner Zisser, seconded by Commissioner Krey the Planning Commission approved to continue Public Hearing to conduct a compliance evaluation of an existing restaurant (Negeen Restaurant) with on-site Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – June 27, 2023 Page 6 alcohol sales and late-night hours in response to live events held on the property inconsistent with permit requirements, and to consider the modification or revocation of planning permit(s) in response on property located at 801 W. Hamilton Avenue, until the next Planning Commission regular meeting of July 11, 2023, by the following roll call vote. AYES: Ching, Kamkar, Krey, Zisser, Fields NOES: Buchbinder ABSENT: Ostrowski ABSTAIN: None NEW BUSINESS 5. Discussion of Community Development Fiscal Year 2024 Workplan Direct Eastwood presented Community Development Department workplan for FY 2024 to Planning Commission. Policy Development Workplan • Prepare a Citywide Climate Action Plan – Support will be provided by Environmental Programs Manager • Complete update to Zoning Ordinance/Standards for Single Family • Start preparation of Hamilton Avenue Precise Plan • Support preparation of Citywide Parks and recreation Master Plan • Support preparation of a Citywide Multimodal Plan – awaiting the outcome of grant submission for Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Housing Workplan • Implement BMR Housing Program Improvements • Prepare nexus studies – Inclusionary Housing Ordinance / Commercial linkage Fees • Prepare Affordable Housing Overlay Zone • Feasibility Study – Affordable Housing Development at City’s Corp Yard • Homelessness Programs – Support provided by hiring an Unhoused Specialist Economic Development Workplan • Complete Update to Economic Development Plan Workplan Timelines • Currently Under Development - Economic Development Plan • Starting Now - Affordable Housing Overlay Zone / Nexus Studies • Starting Late Summer / Fall – 1) Climate Action Plan; 2) Zoning Ordinance Updates – MFDDS (+SFR?); 3) Hamilton Avenue Precise Plan • Starting Fall / Winter – Parks and Recreation Plan • To Be Determined – Multimodal Transportation Plan Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – June 27, 2023 Page 7 Commission Engagement/ Support • Affordable Housing Overlay Zone / Nexus Studies – Research /City Program Options • Economic Development Plan – Fall Presentation - Land Use Recommendations Planning Commission received clarification about how they can be involved in efforts as stakeholders and how they may receive updated data in the future about single-family home construction and other projects. 6. Report of the Community Development Director None ADJOURNMENT Adjourned meeting at 10:08 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission Meeting on Tuesday, July 11, 2023, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California and via telecommunication. PREPARED BY: _______________________________ Ken Ramirez, Administrative Analyst APPROVED: ______________________________ Adam Buchbinder, Chair ATTEST: ________________________________ Rob Eastwood, Secretary ITEM NO. 2 CITY OF CAMPBELL ∙ PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report ∙ June 27, 2023 City-Initiated Compliance Evaluation and Revocation/ Modification of Negeen Restaurant PLN 2023-65 Public Hearing to conduct a compliance evaluation of an existing restaurant (Negeen Restaurant) with on-site alcohol sales and late-night hours in response to live events held on the property inconsistent with permit requirements, and to consider the modification or revocation of planning permit(s) in response on property located at 801 W. Hamilton Avenue. STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission take the following action: 1. Adopt a Resolution (reference Attachment 1), approving a City-Initiated Modification (PLN-2023-65) to the Administrative Planned Development Permit (PLN-2009-167). ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find this project Categorically Exempt under Section 15301, Class 1, of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pertaining to the operation and permitting of existing facilities, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency’s determination. PROJECT LOCATION The project site is located along West Hamilton Avenue, west of San Tomas Expressway. The site is surrounded by commercial uses to the east, west, and south, a residential apartment community (Park Town Place) to the north, and a residential condominium community (Alvin’s Corner at Penny Lane) to the northeast. The subject liquor establishment1 and restaurant, Negeen Restaurant ("Negeen"), is located within an existing shopping center (“The Redwoods Shopping Center”). Other tenants of the Redwoods Shopping Center include restaurants (Tapsilong Bistro and Sushi Zono), bank and 1 "Liquor establishments" means a retail activity that is primarily devoted to the selling of alcoholic beverages as a stand-alone bar or tavern, or in conjunction with a restaurant or nightclub facility, for consumption on the premises. A “Restaurant” is defined as establishments whose primary business is the sale of food and beverages to customers for their consumption within the restaurant or restaurant patio area. Customarily at least fifty percent of the total gross floor area is used for the seating of customers. The restaurant may be open for breakfast, lunch, and/or dinner. Alcoholic beverages and carryout food service are allowed if they are incidental to the primary purpose of consumption of food and beverages in the restaurant. The definition of a ‘liquor establishment’ and ‘restaurant or café’ may be seen to conflict with each other given that alcoholic beverages are allowed under the definition of restaurant when ‘incidental to the primary use’. CMC 21.02.020.E. (Conflicting requirements) provides that in the event of a conflict, the most restrictive requirement shall control. Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of June 27, 2023 Page 2 of 8 PLN-2023-65~ 801 W. Hamilton Avenue (“Negeen Restaurant”) financial services (Wells Fargo) and retail uses (Pets and More, Elona Foods). The establishment occupies the approximately 2,160 square foot corner tenant space and is accessed directly from a parking lot. Figure 1: Project Location BACKGROUND A Type 47 On-Sale General Eating Place liquor license was issued by the Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) on May 13, 1992 for the subject site. The alcohol sales is considered to be a non-conforming use due to lack of a Conditional Use Permit. Currently, the municipal code requires a Conditional Use Permit for alcohol sales. There has not been any disciplinary actions found by the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) or any calls for service to the Campbell Police Department related to the alcohol sales. On November 6, 2007, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2093 that required an Administrative Planned Development Permit issued by the Community Development Director for new and existing late-night activities pursuant to the Non-Conforming Uses section. On April 9, 2010, an Administrative Planned Development Permit was issued by the Community Development Director to allow a late night activity in conjunction with an existing restaurant use (Negeen Restaurant). The approved business hours were restricted to 11:30 AM to 11:00 PM Sunday through Thursday, and 11:30 PM to 2:00 AM Fridays and Saturdays. The operational hours (for staff) was restricted to 6:00 AM to 11:30 PM Sunday through Thursday and 6:00 AM to 2:30 AM Fridays and Saturdays. Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of June 27, 2023 Page 3 of 8 PLN-2023-65~ 801 W. Hamilton Avenue (“Negeen Restaurant”) The Administrative Planned Development Permit acknowledged the existing valid Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) license (Type 47) for alcohol sales. A Type 47 ABC license authorizes the sale of beer, wine, and distilled spirits for consumption at the business. The business must maintain suitable kitchen facilities and make actual and substantial sales of meals for consumption at the business. Generally, this requires cooking facilities beyond a microwave or ovens, in which food is merely warmed and served. The food generally must be prepared on the premises. The Administrative Planned Development Permit also included four relevant conditions of approval, provided below: Condition of approval #9: Littering: The owner/operator of the subject property shall have removed on a daily basis any debris or signs of litter associated with the subject business (discarded cigarettes, bottles, cans, wrappers, etc.) that is located on the subject property in front of the subject property. Condition of approval #11: Live Entertainment: No live entertainment is approved as part of the development application approved herein, including live music, disc jockey, karaoke, and dancing. Condition of approval #18: Outdoor Cooking: No outdoor cooking, including portable barbeques, is permitted on the subject property. Condition of approval # 19: Noise: a. Noise Standard: Any noises, sounds and/or voices, including but not limited to amplified sounds, loud speakers, sounds from audio sound systems, and/or music, generated by the subject use shall not be audible to a person of normal hearing capacity from any residential property. Public address systems of all types are strictly prohibited. b. Noise Management: In the event that verified complaints are received by the City regarding noise, the Community Development Director may initiate enforcement action, including but not limited to citations and/or finds against the business. Continued verified violations of noise may result in the suspension and/or revocation of the City issued business license. c. Front, Side and Rear Doors: The front and side doors to the business shall not remain in an open position during business hours. In March of 2022, city staff was informed of an upcoming special event planned for the subject property and determined that Negeen Restaurant did not obtain proper permits (e.g. a live entertainment permit issued by the Police Department) and the event activities would violate the conditions of approval of the previously issued Administrative Planned Development Permit. City staff contacted the owner of the business, Parvid Sahbaee, informing him of the notice of intent to cite should the event occur without the benefit of proper permits. Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of June 27, 2023 Page 4 of 8 PLN-2023-65~ 801 W. Hamilton Avenue (“Negeen Restaurant”) On March 15, 2022, the event proceeded without proper permits from both the City and the Santa Clara County Fire Department. The Police Department visited the property and documented the event. It was noted by the Police Department that the event included an outdoor barbeque and a disc jockey booth. Shortly after the event, a code enforcement citation of $1,000 was issued due to violating the conditions of approval. The code enforcement citation was paid and the code enforcement case was closed. In March of 2023, the Police Department received an anonymous phone call reporting loud music and a stage at the subject property. Officers responded to the call and spoke to the private security team who informed the officers that permits were not obtained, and the event would continue. Later that evening, officers drove by the subject property and noted approximately 200 people in the parking lot with a live band, and outdoor grill. In April of 2023, the Code Enforcement Division notified the business owner of the code enforcement violation, and a citation of $1,000 was issued. The code enforcement citation has been paid. In June of 2023, city staff emailed the business owner notice and sent a letter by USPS certified mail informing the business owner of the date, time, and purpose of this Planning Commission meeting. On June 16, 2023, an attorney representing Negeen Restaurant met with city staff to discuss the violations, possible resolution to the issues, and the Planning Commission public hearing. DISCUSSION The City is conducting a compliance evaluation to evaluate Negeen Restaurant’s compliance with the following conditions of approval, in response to unpermitted events occurring at the subject site: Condition of approval #9: “Littering: The owner/operator of the subject property shall have removed on a daily basis any debris or signs of litter associated with the subject business (discarded cigarettes, bottles, cans, wrappers, etc.) that is located on the subject property in front of the subject property.” Condition of Approval #11: “Live Entertainment: No live entertainment is approved as part of the development application approved herein, including live music, disc jockey, karaoke, and dancing.” Condition of Approval #18: “Outdoor Cooking: No outdoor cooking, including portable barbeques, is permitted on the subject property.” Condition of Approval #19: “Noise: a) Noise Standard: Any noises, sounds and/or voices, including but not limited to amplified sounds, loud speakers, sounds from audio sound systems, and/or music, generated by the subject use shall not be audible to a person of normal hearing capacity from any residential property. Public address systems of all types are strictly prohibited, b) Noise Management: In the event that verified complaints are received by the City regarding noise, the Community Development Director may initiate enforcement action, including but not limited to citations and/or Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of June 27, 2023 Page 5 of 8 PLN-2023-65~ 801 W. Hamilton Avenue (“Negeen Restaurant”) fines against the business. Continued verified violations of noise may result in the suspension and/or revocation of the City issued business license, c) Front, Side, and Rear Doors: The front and side doors to the business shall not remain in an open position during business hours.” Based on the information collected by the Police Department, summarized in the background section of this report, operations of the unpermitted live events has violated the above four conditions of approval. Although the city has used code enforcement actions to cite the business owner, this has not deterred the owner from conducting additional events in violation of the conditions of approval. The current Administrative Planned Development Permit does not contain conditions of approval that allow the Community Development Director to make modifications to the use permit conditions (such as a modification in the hours of operation) that address any documented violations. The City has applied conditions of this nature to other establishments in the city, such as bars and other liquor establishments. Therefore, staff is recommends the Planning Commission amend the conditions of approval through this city-initiated modification/revocation hearing to add a condition that authorizes the Community Development Director the ability to take immediate corrective action by reducing the hours of operation on a temporary basis in the instance there is a documented violation of the Administrative Planned Development Permit. This proposed condition of approval is provided below and in Attachment A (Draft Resolution and Conditions of Approval): “Revocation of Permit: Operation of the restaurant and liquor establishment pursuant to this Approval is subject to Sections 21.68.020, 21.68.030, and 21.68.040 of the Campbell Municipal Code authorizing the appropriate decision making body to modify or revoke an Administrative Planned Development Permit if it is determined that business operations has become a nuisance to the City’s public health, safety or welfare or for violation of the Administrative Planned Development Permit or any standards, codes, or ordinances of the City of Campbell. At the discretion of the Community Development Director, if the establishment generates two (2) verifiable complaint related to violations of conditions of approval (e.g., noise, litter, outdoor cooking, etc.) or has conducted any unpermitted entertainment / special event at the subject site within any twelve (12) month period, a public hearing before the Planning Commission may be scheduled to consider modifying conditions of approval or revoking the Administrative Planned Development Permit. The Community Development Director may commence proceedings for the revocation or modification of the Approval upon the occurrence of one (1) complaints if the Community Development Director determines that the alleged violation warrants such an action. The Director may also at such time immediately restrict the establishment’s closing time to 12:00 AM on Friday and Saturday to address noise complaints in a timely manner. In exercising this authority, the decision-making body may consider the following factors, among others: Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of June 27, 2023 Page 6 of 8 PLN-2023-65~ 801 W. Hamilton Avenue (“Negeen Restaurant”) a) The number and types of Police Department calls for service at or near the establishment that are reasonably determined to be a direct result of business owner actions; b) The number of complaints received from residents, business owners, and other citizens concerning the operation of the establishment; c) Unpermitted events occurring at the subject site; and d) Violation of conditions of approval. To legalize these unpermitted events, a Conditional Use Permit and a Temporary Use Permit (required on an annual basis) would be required. The Conditional Use Permit would be required to modify the conditions of approval in the Administrative Planned Development Permit to allow, in limited instances through issuance of a Temporary Use Permit, outdoor cooking and live entertainment for special events. The Conditional Use Permit could also address the non- conforming alcohol sales. The Temporary Use Permit is required for short and intermediate term activities, such as special events, occurring on private property. The Temporary Use Permit will allow staff the ability to set parameters in how these events shall operate. The Planning Commission may consider an alternative action other than allowing the Community Development Director to temporarily restrict the hours of operation. This includes – a) Modifying hours of operation to establish a closing time of 12:00 AM. If the Commission believes there is sufficient evidence to permanently reduce the hours of operation to 12:00 AM, the Commission may modify the Administrative Planned Development Permit at this hearing. b) Revoking the Administrative Planned Development Permit. If the Commission believes there is sufficient evidence to revoke the Administrative Planned Development Permit to remove the ability for late night activity2, the Commission may revoke the Administrative Planned Development Permit at this hearing. The business would still be allowed to operate but without the late night hours. ANALYSIS Findings Required for Permit Revocation / Modification: Pursuant to CMC Section 21.68.030 and 21.68.040 (Permit modification), a land use permit may be revoked or modified by the appropriate decision-making body, if any one of the following findings can be made: A. Circumstances under which the permit was granted have been changed by the applicant to a degree that one or more of the findings contained in the original permit can no 2 Pursuant to Section 21.72.020(L), a “late night activity” is defined as land use activities operating between the hours of 11:00 PM and 6:00 AM, including but not limited to, the provision of goods and services to the public and all ancillary activities such as property maintenance, janitorial services, street and parking lot sweeping, deliveries, and similar activities. “Late night activities” do not include the lawful, reasonable and customary use of residential uses or professional offices in a manner that does not interfere with the reasonable use and enjoyment of other properties. Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of June 27, 2023 Page 7 of 8 PLN-2023-65~ 801 W. Hamilton Avenue (“Negeen Restaurant”) longer be made in a positive manner, and the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or welfare require the revocation or modification. An Administrative Planned Development Permit was granted by the Community Development Director on April 9, 2010 to allow for the continuance of late night operations. As determined by the Campbell Police Department, Negeen Restaurant had held live events at the subject site which resulted in three noise complaints. These cases document that business operations affect the public convenience, health, interest, safety of welfare and require modification to the Administrative Planned Development Permit. B. The permit was issued, in whole or in part, on the basis of a misrepresentation or omission of a material statement in the application, or in the applicant's testimony presented during the public hearing, for the permit. This finding does not apply as there is no evidence that the permit issued in 2009 was issued on the basis of a misrepresentation in the application or the applicant’s testimony. C. One or more of the conditions of the permit have not been substantially fulfilled or have been violated. As discussed in the Background section of the report, condition of approval #9, 11, 18, and 19 have been violated in 2022 and 2023 by the hosting of live events outside the parameters of the Administrative Planned Development Permit and failure to obtain proper city approvals. D. The improvement authorized in compliance with the permit is in violation of a code, law, ordinance, regulation, or statute of the City, State, or Federal governments. This finding does not apply. E. The improvement or use allowed by the permit has become detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or the manner of operation constitutes or is creating a nuisance, as determined by the decision-making body. As documented in this report, the Campbell Police Department received calls for service for Negeen Restaurant related to noise during the unpermitted events. Allowing the Community Development Director to take immediate action in reducing the hours of operation may result in compliance with the Administrative Planned Development Permit. SUMMARY / STAFF RECOMMENDATION Due to past violations occurring at the subject site related to Negeen’s Restaurant involving unpermitted events, staff is bringing forth a compliance evaluation in response to live events held on the property inconsistent with permit requirements, and to consider the modification or revocation of planning permit(s) in response. Staff recommends an amendment to the conditions of approval through this city-initiated modification/revocation hearing to include a condition of approval allowing the Community Development Director to administratively reduce the hours of operation on a temporary basis. Staff Report – Planning Commission Meeting of June 27, 2023 Page 8 of 8 PLN-2023-65~ 801 W. Hamilton Avenue (“Negeen Restaurant”) Attachments: A. Draft Resolution and Conditions of Approval B. Administrative Planned Development Permit C. June 6, 2023 Letter to Parvid Sahbaee D. Code Enforcement Letters Prepared by: Tracy Tam, Associate Planner Approved by: Rob Eastwood, Community Development Director RESOLUTION NO. BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL APPROVING A CITY-INITIATED MODIFICATION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (PLN2009-167), AMENDING THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR AN EXISTING RESTAURANT/LIQUOR ESTABLISHMENT (NEGEEN RESTAURANT) WITH LATE-NIGHT ACTIVITIES ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 801 W. HAMILTON AVENUE. FILE NO.: PLN-2023-65 After notification and public hearing, as specified by law and after presentation by the Community Development Director, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed. After due consideration of all evidence presented, the Planning Commission did find as follows with respect to file numbers PLN-2023-65: 1.The subject property is located on the along West Hamilton Avenue, west of San TomasExpressway. The site is surrounded by commercial uses to the east, west, and south, aresidential apartment community (Park Town Place) to the north, and a residentialcondominium community (Alvin’s Corner at Penny Lane) to the northeast. 2. The existing restaurant (Negeen Restaurant) and liquor establishment is located withinan existing shopping center (The Redwoods Shopping Center). The establishmentoccupies a 2,160 square foot corner tenant space and is accessed directly from theparking lot. 3.The project site is zoned P-D (Planned Development) and is designated with a General Commercial land use designation by the General Plan. 4.On April 9, 2010, an Administrative Planned Development Permit was issued by the Community Development Director to allow a late night activity in conjunction with an existing restaurant use (Negeen Restaurant). The approved business hours wererestricted to 11:30 AM to 11:00 PM Sunday through Thursday, and 11:30 PM to 2:00 AMFridays and Saturdays. The operational hours (for staff) was restricted to 6:00 AM to11:30 PM Sunday through Thursday and 6:00 AM to 2:30 AM Fridays and Saturdays. 5. The Administrative Planned Development Permit included four relevant conditions ofapproval related to littering (condition of approval #9), live entertainment (condition ofapproval #11), outdoor cooking (condition of approval #18), and noise (condition ofapproval #19). 6.In March of 2022, city staff was informed of an upcoming special event planned for thesubject property and determined that Negeen Restaurant did not obtain proper permits(e.g. a live entertainment permit issued by the Police Department) and the event activitieswould violate the conditions of approval of the previously issued Administrative Planned Development Permit. City staff contacted the owner of the business, Parvid Sahbaee, Attachment A Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 2 of 4 801 W. Hamilton Avenue PLN-2023-65 ~ Modified Administrative Planned Development Permit informing him of the notice of intent to cite should the event occur without the benefit of proper permits. 7. On March 15, 2022, the event proceeded without proper permits from both the City and the Santa Clara County Fire Department. The Police Department visited the property and documented the event. It was noted by the Police Department that the event included an outdoor barbeque and a disc jockey booth. Shortly after the event, a code enforcement citation of $1,000 was issued due to violating the conditions of approval. The code enforcement citation was paid and the code enforcement case was closed. 8. In March of 2023, the Police Department received an anonymous phone call reporting loud music and a stage at the subject property. Officers responded to the call and spoke to the private security team who informed the officers that permits were not obtained, and the event would continue. Later that evening, officers drove by the subject property and noted approximately 200 people in the parking lot with a live band, and outdoor grill. 9. In April of 2023, the Code Enforcement Division notified the business owner of the code enforcement violation, and a citation of $1,000 was issued. The code enforcement citation has been paid. 10. Based on the information collected by the Police Department, summarized in the background section of the staff report and contained within this resolution, operations of the unpermitted live events has violated the four conditions of approval. 11. Although the city has used code enforcement actions to cite the business owner, this has not deterred the owner from conducting additional events in violation of the conditions of approval. 12. The current Administrative Planned Development Permit does not contain conditions of approval that allow the Community Development Director to make modifications to the use permit conditions (such as a modification in the hours of operation) that address any documented violations. The City has applied conditions of this nature to other establishments in the city, such as bars and other liquor establishments. 13. The modified condition of approval will provide the Community Development Director to immediately and ministerially restrict the hours of operation to 12:00 AM. 14. In review the City-initiated modification, the Planning Commission considered the proposed project's traffic safety, traffic congestion, site circulation, landscaping, structure design, and site layout. 15. The Planning Commission's review of the City-initiated modification further encompassed zoning and General Plan land use conformance, noise impacts, parking, property maintenance, odors, security and enforcement, and neighborhood impacts. 16. The Planning Commission also weighed the public need for, and the benefit to be derived from, the City-initiated modification, against any impacts it may cause. Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 3 of 4 801 W. Hamilton Avenue PLN-2023-65 ~ Modified Administrative Planned Development Permit 17. No substantial evidence has been presented which shows that the City-initiated modification, as currently presented and subject to the required conditions of approval, will have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission further finds and concludes that: Modification Findings (CMC Sec. 21.68.040): 1. Circumstances under which the permit was granted have been changed by the applicant to a degree that one or more of the findings contained in the original permit can no longer be made in a positive manner, and the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or welfare require the modification; a. An Administrative Planned Development Permit was granted by the Community Development Director on April 9, 2010 to allow for the continuance of late night operations. As determined by the Campbell Police Department, Negeen Restaurant had held live events at the subject site which resulted in three noise complaints. These cases document that business operations affect the public convenience, health, interest, safety of welfare and require modification to the Administrative Planned Development Permit. 2. The permit was issued, in whole or in part, on the basis of a misrepresentation or omission of a material statement in the application, or in the applicant's testimony presented during the public hearing, for the permit; a. This finding does not apply as there is no evidence that the permit issued in 2009 was issued on the basis of a misrepresentation in the application or the applicant’s testimony. 3. One or more of the conditions of the permit have not been substantially fulfilled or have been violated; a. As discussed in the Background section of the report, condition of approval #9, 11, 18, and 19 have been violated in 2022 and 2023 by the hosting of live events outside the parameters of the Administrative Planned Development Permit and failure to obtain proper city approvals. 4. The improvement authorized in compliance with the permit is in violation of a code, law, ordinance, regulation, or statute of the city, State, or Federal governments; or a. This finding does not apply. 5. The improvement or use allowed by the permit has is no longer detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or the manner of operation constitutes or is creating a nuisance, as determined by the decision-making body. Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 4 of 4 801 W. Hamilton Avenue PLN-2023-65 ~ Modified Administrative Planned Development Permit a. As documented in this report, the Campbell Police Department received calls for service for Negeen Restaurant related to noise during the unpermitted events. Allowing the Community Development Director to take immediate action in reducing the hours of operation may result in compliance with the Administrative Planned Development Permit. Environmental Findings (CMC Sec. 21.38.050): 6. The project is Categorically Exempt under Section 15301 Class 1 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pertaining to minor alterations to an existing private structure, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency’s determination. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves a City-initiated Modification to a previously Modified Administrative Planned Development Permit (PLN- 2009-167) amending the conditions of approval for an existing restaurant/liquor establishment (Negeen Restaurant) with late-night activities on property located at 801 W. Hamilton Avenue, subject to the attached Revised Conditions of Approval (attached Exhibit A). PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of June, 2023, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: ABSTAIN: Commissioners: APPROVED: Adam Buchbinder, Chair ATTEST: Rob Eastwood, Secretary EXHIBIT A AMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL City-Initiated Modification (PLN-2023-65) Where approval by the Director of Community Development, City Engineer, Public Works Director, City Attorney or Fire Department is required, that review shall be for compliance with all applicable conditions of approval, adopted policies and guidelines, ordinances, laws and regulations and accepted engineering practices for the item under review. Additionally, the applicant is hereby notified that he/she is required to comply with all applicable Codes or Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of California that pertain to this development and are not herein specified. 1. Approved Project: Approval is granted for a City-initiated Modification to a previously approved Administrative Planned Development Permit (PLN-2009-167) amending the Conditions of Approval for an existing restaurant and liquor establishment with late-night activities. The configuration of the approved restaurant and liquor establishment shall continue to substantially conform to the revised project plans stamped on December 21, 2009, except as may be modified by the conditions of approval contained herein. 2. Approval Expiration: The Modified Administrative Planned Development approved herein (hereon "Approval") shall be valid in perpetuity on the property subject to continued exercise of this Approval and maintenance of a Type 47 (On-Sale General License for Bona Fide Public Eating Place) Liquor License issued by the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC), except upon revocation pursuant to Condition of Approval No. 23 (Revocation of Permit). Discontinuation of alcohol service for a continuous period of twelve months, as evidenced by surrender or revocation of the Type 47 License, shall void this Approval. 3. Previous Conditions of Approval: The previously approved Conditions of Approval provided in the Administrative Planned Development Permit (PLN2009-167) are hereby void and permanently superseded in their entirety by the Conditions of Approval specified herein. 4. Administrative Planned Development Permit Approval Expiration: The Administrative Planned Development Permit approval shall be valid in perpetuity with continued operation of the restaurant and liquor establishment. Abandonment, discontinuation, or ceasing of operations for a continuous period of twelve months shall void the Administrative Planned Development Permit approved herein. 5. Violations: Operation of the use in violation of the Administrative Planned Development Permit or any standards, codes, or ordinances of the City of Campbell shall be grounds for consideration of a fine, suspension or revocation of the City issued business license or Administrative Planned Development Permit. 6. Hours of Operation: Unless modified by Condition of Approval #23 (Modification or Revocation of Permit), the hours of operations are as follows: a. Business Hours: The business hours of operation shall be restricted to 11:30 AM to 11:00 PM Sunday through Thursday and 11:30 AM through 2:00 AM Fridays and Saturdays. Business hours are the hours the business is open to the public. Exhibit A – Conditions of Approval Page 2 PLN-2023-65 ~ Modification (Admin. P-D Permit) b. Operational Hours: The hours of operation shall be restricted to 6:00 AM to 11:30 PM Sunday through Thursday and 6:00 AM to 2:30 AM Fridays and Saturdays. The allowed hours of operation includes the time employees may be on site for preparation and clean up. At no time shall employees, other than the business owner during an emergency, arrive before 6:00 AM or remain on site after 2:30 AM. c. Restaurant Seating: As the City of Campbell’s record for the project site show only a 72 seat capacity since 1976, any increase in seating would require a modification of the previously approved Planned Development Permit (PD73-2). The maximum number of seats for the restaurant shall be limited to 72 seats. d. Property Maintenance: The owner/operator of the subject property shall maintain all exterior areas of the business free from graffiti, trash, rubbish, posters and stickers placed on the property. Exterior areas of the business shall include not only the parking lot and private landscape areas, but also includes the public right-of-way adjacent to the business. e. Littering: The owner/operator of the subject property shall have removed on a daily basis any debris or signs of litter associated with the subject business (discarded cigarettes, bottles, cans, wrappers, etc.) that is located on the subject property in front of the subject property. f. Signage: No signage is approved as part of the development application approved herein. All signage shall be installed and maintained consistent with the provision of the Sign Ordinance, Chapter 21.30 of the Campbell Municipal Code. g. Live Entertainment: No live entertainment is approved as part of the development application approved herein, including live music, disc jockey, karaoke, and dancing. h. Liquor License: The applicant shall maintain a Type 47 (On-Sale General License for Bona Fide Public Eating Place) license from the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control in order to continue serving alcoholic beverages. i. Food Service: Food service shall be required at all times alcoholic beverages are served. j. Loitering: There shall be no loitering allowed outside the business. The business owner is responsible for monitoring the premises to prevent loitering. k. Location of Mechanical Equipment: No roof-mounted mechanical equipment (i.e. air conditioning units, ventilation ducts or vents), shall be added to the existing building without providing screening of the mechanical equipment from public view and surrounding properties. The screening material and method shall be architecturally compatible with the building and requires review and approval by the Community Development Director and Building Division prior to installation of such screening. l. Outdoor Storage: No outdoor storage is permitted on the subject property. No equipment, materials or business vehicles shall be parked and/or stored outside the building or within the parking lot. Exhibit A – Conditions of Approval Page 3 PLN-2023-65 ~ Modification (Admin. P-D Permit) m. Outdoor Seating: No outdoor seating is approved with this development application. n. Outdoor Cooking: No outdoor cooking, including portable barbeques, is permitted on the subject property. o. Noise: a. Noise Standard: Any noises, sounds, and/or voices, including but not limited to amplified sounds, loud speakers, sounds from audio sound systems, and/or music, generated by the subject use shall not be audible to person of normal hearing capacity from any residential property. Public address system of all types are strictly prohibited. b. Noise Management: In the event that verified complaints are received by the City regarding noise, the Community Development Director may initiate enforcement action, including but not limited to citations and/or fines against the business. Continued verified violations of noise may result in the suspension and/or revocation of the City issued business license. c. Front, Side, and Rear Doors: The front and side doors to the business shall not remain in an open position during business hours. p. Trash & Clean Up: All trash, normal clean up, carpet cleaning, etc. shall be done between the hours of 11:00 AM and 11:00 PM. At no time shall noise generating cleanup, including the dumping of trash and/or recyclables occur between 11:00 PM and 11:00 AM. q. Parking and Driveways: All parking and driveway areas shall be maintained in compliance with the standards in Chapter 21.28 (Parking & Loading) of the Campbell Municipal Code. r. Modification or Revocation of Permit: Operation of the restaurant and liquor establishment pursuant to this Approval is subject to Sections 21.68.020, 21.68.030, and 21.68.040 of the Campbell Municipal Code authorizing the appropriate decision making body to modify or revoke an Administrative Planned Development Permit if it is determined that business operations has become a nuisance to the City’s public health, safety or welfare or for violation of the Administrative Planned Development Permit or any standards, codes, or ordinances of the City of Campbell. At the discretion of the Community Development Director, if the establishment generates two (2) verifiable complaint related to violations of conditions of approval (e.g., noise, litter, outdoor cooking, etc.) or has conducted any unpermitted entertainment / special event at the subject site within any twelve (12) month period, a public hearing before the Planning Commission may be scheduled to consider modifying conditions of approval or revoking the Administrative Planned Development Permit. The Community Development Director may commence proceedings for the revocation or modification of the Approval upon the occurrence of one (1) complaint if the Community Development Director determines that the alleged violation warrants such an action. The Director may also at such time immediately restrict the establishment’s closing time to 12:00 AM on Friday Exhibit A – Conditions of Approval Page 4 PLN-2023-65 ~ Modification (Admin. P-D Permit) and Saturday to address noise complaints in a timely manner. In exercising this authority, the decision-making body may consider the following factors, among others: a. The number and types of Police Department calls for service at or near the establishment that are reasonably determined to be a direct result of business owner actions; b. The number of complaints received from residents, business owners, and other citizens concerning the operation of the establishment, c. Unpermitted events occurring at the subject site; and d. Violation of conditions of approval. Attachment B CITY OF CAMPBELL Community Development Department 70 North First Street • Campbell, CA 95008-1423 • TEL (408) 866-2140 • E-MAIL planning@campbellca.gov via USPS certified mail June 6, 2023 Negeen Restaurant Parvid Sahbaee 801 W. Hamilton Avenue Campbell, CA 95008 Re: File No: PLN-2023-65 Address: 801 W. Hamilton Avenue Application: Revocation/ Modification of the Administrative Planned Development Permit Dear Parvid Sahbaee, Negeen Restaurant has been issued two citations (dated March 21, 2022 and April 10, 2023) for violating the conditions of approval for your Administrative Planned Development Permit (PLN2009-167) and failing to obtain proper city approvals for the entertainment events held at the subject property. Pursuant to Section 21.68.020 of the Campbell Municipal Code, the Community Development Director is scheduling a public hearing for noncompliance and to consider revocation / modification of your Permit. This letter is to inform you of an upcoming Planning Commission public hearing concerning the Administrative Planned Development Permit for Negeen Restaurant. Due to continued violations of the conditions of approval and continued unpermitted activity occurring at the property related to Negeen Restaurant, the City is scheduling a public hearing before the Planning Commission to consider modifying or revoking the previously approved Administrative Planned Development Permit. The Planning Commission meeting details are as follows: •Planning Commission: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 – 7:30 PM The meeting agenda, staff reports, and resolutions will be published online and available to you by Friday, June 23rd, 2023 at the following website: https://www.campbellca.gov/AgendaCenter. You are encouraged to read through the materials. It is highly recommended that you attend this meeting. Should you have any questions or would like to discuss this matter, please feel free to contact me at (408) 871-5103 or by email at tracyt@campbellca.gov. Sincerely, Tracy Tam Associate Planner Attachment C City of Campbell CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION SUBJECT: Municipal Code Violation LOCATION: 801 W HAMILTON AVE, CAMPBELL, CA 95008 CASE NUMBER: CE-2022-60 Dear Hamilton Square LLC, The Code Enforcement Division of the City of Campbell has received a complaint that the above referenced property is in violation of one or more Municipal Code regulations. The purpose of this notice is to inform you that the condition of your property is a public nuisance and to request your immediate action to resolve these conditions are required. The violation(s) to date are as follows: Hamilton Square LLC 1142 S Winchester Blvd San Jose, CA 95128 NOTICE OF INTENT TO CITE Declaration of Public Nuisance Date 03/15/2022 Violation: Business operations are in violation of Conditional Use Permit conditions of approval. Live entertainment is not permitted at this property. Codes: CMC § 21.03.020, Conditions of approval: the use of land and/or structure shall comply with any applicable conditions imposed by any granted land use permit or other approval. Required Correction: 1) Cease operating out of required conditions listed on the CUP; including but not limited to: PLN2009-167 Conditions of Approval 11. Live Entertainment: No live entertainment is approved as part of the development application approved herein, including live music, disc jockey, karaoke, and dancing. (Revised Conditions of Approval for File No. PLN2009-167 enclosed) Attachment D Randy Sweet - CEO-04 Code Enforcement Officer City of Campbell (408) 866-2760 randys@campbellca.gov encl: Additional Information on Procedures and Penalties Photos of violations Please be advised that fines and enforcement costs of a $1,000.00 a day for each violation(s) until they have been resolved may be assessed WITHOUT FURTHER WARNING if compliance with the above listed code violation is not achieved no later than 14 days from the date of this notice. Your prompt attention to this matter is appreciated. If you feel that this notice was sent in error or have information that indicates corrective action has been taken, please contact me at using the contact information listed below. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. Failure to respond to this notice may result in further actions, including but not limited to criminal prosecution, civil suits, administrative proceedings or filing of notice of special assessment lien on your property. See attached Additional Information on Procedures and Penalties for further explanation. ITEM NO. 3 CITY OF CAMPBELL ∙ PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report ∙ July 11, 2023 PLN-2021-43 Applicant(s): Nicole Comach Jake Hamilton Public Hearing to consider the application of Nicole Comach (Crown Castle) and Jake Hamilton (Virtual Site Walk, LLC) to allow for the establishment of a concealed wireless telecommunications facility (artificial tree pole) with a request for a limited exemption from standards to retain the existing height of the facility (45-feet permitted; 75-feet existing/requested) on property located at 910 S. McGlincy Lane in the M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District. The application under consideration is a Conditional Use Permit with Site and Architectural Review. STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission take the following action: 1. Adopt a Resolution (reference Attachment A), approving a Conditional Use Permit with Site and Architectural Review (PLN-2021-43) to allow for the establishment of a new concealed wireless facility (artificial tree pole) with a request for a limited exemption from standards to retain the existing height of the facility (45-feet permitted; 75-feet existing/requested) on property located at 910 S. McGlincy Lane in the M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District and finding the project Categorically Exempt under Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act. PROJECT DATA Zoning District: M-1 (Light Industrial) General Plan Designation: Light Industrial Existing/Proposed Tower Requirement/Standard Structure Height: 75-feet1 45-feet Proposed Facility Type: Concealed (Faux Tree Pole) with Ground Mounted Equipment Number of Wireless Carriers: Three (3) (i.e., Verizon, Sprint, & Dish Network) PROJECT SITE The project site is located on the east side of S. McGlincy Lane, north of Camden Avenue. The site has an existing 75-foot-tall wireless telecommunications facility which presently supports three carriers (Verizon, Dish, and T-Mobile) and includes a chain-link fenced ground mounted equipment area that includes cabinets and an emergency diesel generator. 1 Calculation does not include branches which are considered exempt. Further discussion of eligibility of the facility at the requested height shall be brought forward as part of the Planning Commission discussion. Staff Report ~ Planning Commission Meeting of July 11, 2023 Page 2 of 7 PLN-2021-43 ~ 910 S. McGlincy Lane Figures 1 & 2: Project Site & Existing Tower/Enclosure BACKGROUND The existing wireless telecommunications facility was established in 1989 for a single carrier (GTE Mobilenet; now Verizon), at which time the regulation of wireless facilities were under the exclusive jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). Under the authority of the CPUC, compliance with local development standards (i.e., setbacks, height) and land use permit requirements (i.e., Conditional Use Permit, expiration dates) were not required2. On June 18, 1998, the City of Campbell established a Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance (Ordinance No. 1965) which established site development, design, as well as permit time limitations (expiration period) for both new and existing facilities (including those established without a time limit by the CPUC). Under this provision, the facility’s approval expired in 2003. In 2010, the Planning Commission granted two Conditional Use Permits allowing for the continued operation of this wireless facility until 2020 as well as the installation of the equipment for a second carrier further down the pole (Clearwire; now T-Mobile). In 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4140 allowing a Conditional Use Permit allowing for the installation of additional antennas, serving Verizon, and extending operations until March 21, 2024. In 2017, the City Council repealed and replaced the City’s Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance establishing a new Ordinance (CMC Chapter 21.34) and associated Wireless Facility Design Requirements. The ordinance and requirements set a higher standard for the design and concealment of all facilities (including those seeking renewal), limited the maximum structure height to that allowed by the zoning district, and established permitting procedures for Eligible Facility Requests (EFR) which may allow for expansion of an existing facility, including the addition of additional carrier equipment without a public hearing or discretionary review when meeting certain requirements. In 2022, the city received and approved an EFR request for Dish Network on the subject property. 2 The facility did receive approval of a building permit in 1989 (#15263). Staff Report ~ Planning Commission Meeting of July 11, 2023 Page 3 of 7 PLN-2021-43 ~ 910 S. McGlincy Lane PROJECT DESCRIPTION Applicant’s Proposal: The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit with Site and Architectural Review to allow for the establishment of a new concealed wireless telecommunications facility (artificial tree pole) with a request for a “limited exemption from standards” to retain the height of an existing tower facility (45-feet permitted; 75-feet existing/requested). As the land use entitlement for the existing tower facility is set to expire in 2024, the applicant’s proposal would also serve to extend the operation of the facility for an additional ten (10) years. As proposed, the existing tower would be modified by adding new artificial branches, bark, and leaf socks to resemble the appearance of a eucalyptus tree. Figures 1 & 2: Existing Tower Facility vs. Photosimulation as an Artificial Eucalyptus Tree ANALYSIS Administrative Procedure: The applicant’s proposal to modify an existing telecommunications facility to mimic the appearance of an artificial eucalyptus tree constitutes a type of “concealed facility” that is allowed with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit in the M-1 (Light Industrial) zoning district. "Concealed facility" means any wireless communications facility which results in new site or architectural features being added to a property in a manner which complements, enhances, or seamlessly integrates into their surroundings. Examples of concealed facilities include, but are not limited to, the construction of new rooftop, louver, chimney, silo, pole, railing, sign, window, parapets, dormers, steeples, penthouses, water towers, bell towers, artificial trees, and flag poles. Review of the design and placement of a concealed facility is subject to the requirements of the city’s adopted Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance and Wireless Facility Design Requirements (see discussion related to “SARC Review”) Separately, as the applicant’s proposal seeks to retain the height of the existing tower facility, which exceeds the maximum height of the M-1 (Light Industrial) zoning district, approval of a “limited exemption from standards” (reference CMC 21.34.160 – Limited exemption from standards.) is also required. Staff Report ~ Planning Commission Meeting of July 11, 2023 Page 4 of 7 PLN-2021-43 ~ 910 S. McGlincy Lane Limited Exemption from Standards: While the height of the existing tower is not proposed to change, except for the addition of new artificial branches, the applicant’s proposal requires the approval of a new land use entitlement subject to current development standards and permit proceedures. In accordance with the city’s adopted Wireless Ordinance, the applicant bears the burden of demonstrating why the exemption to height should be granted. For the city to approve the height exemption, the applicant must demonstrate with clear and convincing evidence the following circumstances necessitate a taller facility: A. A significant gap in the applicant's service coverage exists; and B. All alternative sites identified in the application review process are either technically infeasible or not potentially available. In response, the applicant provides an analysis of the service coverage of two of the three carriers served by the existing tower facility (Verizon & T-Mobile) and resulting gap in coverage that would occur without the facility (reference Attachment C – Project Description). The applicant also provides an assessment of alternative locations considered, and why they were found to be infeasible. To support the Planning Commission in its assessment, a third-party consultant, CTC Telecommunications Network Consulting, was hired to determine the impact that reducing the tower height would have on wireless coverage in accordance with Section 21.34.170 (Independent consultant review) of the Campbell Municipal Code (reference Attachment D – Independent Consultant Report, January 2023). Broadly, the report concludes that the requested height may be supported on the basis that it would require multiple (as many as seven) towers in the nearby vicinity to provide equivalent service coverage for Verizon and T-Mobile, while also not accounting for the service needs of Dish Network. Staff believes that this report documents that a significant gap in coverage would occur without the granting of the subject facility at its proposed location, and that the alternative locations considered would be inadequate to meet the service needs of the carriers the existing facility serves at its present height, in accordance with the required findings. The justification for a limited exemption to maintain the existing facility height notwithstanding, conditions of approval have been included as part of the Draft Resolution (reference Attachment A) to limit further expansions of the facility (height or width) beyond what has been depicted on the plans. Wireless Communications Facilities: Pursuant to CMC Section 21.34.110 (Special findings for wireless communications facilities), prior to making the findings for a Conditional Use Permit and Site and Architectural Review Permit the following findings must be made: 1. The proposed facility, or modification to an existing facility, as conditioned will be a stealth or concealed facility as defined in Section 21.34.200; The proposed facility, as conditioned, meets the definition of a concealed wireless facility. 2. The proposed facility, or modification to an existing facility, as conditioned will comply with all requirements of Chapter 21.34 (Wireless Communications Facilities); Staff Report ~ Planning Commission Meeting of July 11, 2023 Page 5 of 7 PLN-2021-43 ~ 910 S. McGlincy Lane The proposed facility, as conditioned, will comply with all requirements of Chapter 21.34, including those related to the design, placement, and operation of the facility. 3. The proposed facility, or modification to an existing facility, as conditioned will comply with all applicable design guidelines; and The applicant’s proposal to modify the facility to resemble an artificial tree will meet all of the requirements of the Wireless Facility Design Requirements (reference Attachment E, SARC Memo, March 28, 2023). 4. The proposed facility, or modification to an existing facility, as conditioned will be consistent with the general plan. The use is considered a ‘concealed facility’ which is allowed within the M-1 zoning district with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit with Site and Architectural Review. Moreover, properties with an industrial land use designation are identified as a “more preferred area” in terms of placement in the city’s Wireless Ordinance which serves to effectuate the goals, policies, and programs of the General Plan. Conditional Use Permit Findings: Pursuant to CMC Section 21.46.040 (Findings and decision), prior to approving a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission must first affirmatively establish all six (6) of the findings described in italics below. An explanation of how the project meets each finding follows in plain text below. 1. The proposed use is allowed within the applicable zoning district with Conditional Use Permit approval, and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Zoning Code and the Campbell Municipal Code; See related discussion under ‘Administrative Procedure’. The use is considered a ‘concealed facility’ which is allowed within the M-1 zoning district with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit with Site and Architectural Review. 2. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan; Allowing a concealed wireless telecommunications facility will meet the purpose/intent of the Light Industrial General Plan land use designation which is intended to provide for a wide range of uses which include general service and service commercial uses. The applicant’s proposal may also be found to further the following General Plan policies and strategies: Policy LUT-9.31: Neighborhood Integrity: Minimize the visual impact of wireless telecommunication facilities by designing them as an integral architectural feature to a structure. Policy LUT-13.1: Variety of Uses: Attract and maintain a variety of uses that create an economic balance within the City while maintaining a balance with other community land use needs, such as housing and open space, and while providing high quality services to the community. 3. The proposed site is adequate in terms of size and shape to accommodate the fences and walls, landscaping, parking and loading facilities, yards, and other development features required in order to integrate the use with uses in the surrounding area; The proposed wireless telecommunications facility has been designed to integrate with the surrounding area by mimicking the appearance of a eucalyptus tree. No changes to Staff Report ~ Planning Commission Meeting of July 11, 2023 Page 6 of 7 PLN-2021-43 ~ 910 S. McGlincy Lane fences, walls, landscaping, parking and loading facilities, yards, or other development features are proposed or necessary to integrate the use with uses in the surrounding area. 4. The proposed site is adequately served by streets of sufficient capacity to carry the kind and quantity of traffic the use would be expected to generate; The facility would not be staffed. The project site is located along McGlincy Lane which is identified as Commercial / Industrial Collector in the General Plan’s Roadways Classifications Diagram (Figure LUT-3) which has sufficient capacity to carry the kind and quantity of traffic the use would be expected to generate. 5. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with the existing and future land uses on-site and in the vicinity of the subject property; and See response to ‘3’. 6. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the proposed use at the location proposed will not be detrimental to the comfort, health, morals, peace, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use, or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the city. See response to ‘3’. Further, no concerns with the operation or maintenance of the proposed use have been identified that will not be addressed by the Conditions of Approval included in the Draft Resolution (reference Attachment 1). Site and Architectural Review Findings: In addition to satisfying the findings for a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission must also affirmatively establish all three (3) of the findings related to Site and Architectural Review pursuant to CMC 21.46.050 (Site and Architectural Review) and CMC 21.42.060.B (Action by Planning Commission) captured in italics below. An explanation of how the project meets each finding follows in plain text below. 1. The project will be consistent with the General Plan; As previously stated, allowing a concealed wireless telecommunications facility will meet the purpose/intent of the Light Industrial land use designation. The applicant’s proposal may also be found to further the following General Plan policies and strategies: Policy LUT-9.31: Neighborhood Integrity: Minimize the visual impact of wireless telecommunication facilities by designing them as an integral architectural feature to a structure. Policy LUT-13.1: Variety of Uses: Attract and maintain a variety of uses that create an economic balance within the City while maintaining a balance with other community land use needs, such as housing and open space, and while providing high quality services to the community. 2. The project will aid in the harmonious development of the immediate area; The project as designed and conditioned, will aid in the harmonious development of the surrounding area by enhancing the appearance of an existing wireless telecommunications facility by concealing it as a faux eucalyptus tree. 3. The project is consistent with applicable adopted design guidelines, development agreement, overlay district, area plan, neighborhood plan, and specific plan(s). Staff Report ~ Planning Commission Meeting of July 11, 2023 Page 7 of 7 PLN-2021-43 ~ 910 S. McGlincy Lane The project has been reviewed for conformance with the City’s adopted Wireless Facility Design Requirements (see discussion related to ‘SARC Review’, and Attachment E - SARC Memo) and may be found consistent with its provisions as designed and conditioned. Environmental (CEQA) Determination: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that this project is Categorically Exempt under Section 15301 (Class 1) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pertaining to the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, and/or minor alteration of an existing private structure. SARC Review: The application was reviewed by the Site and Architectural Review Committee (SARC) at its meeting of March 28, 2023 (reference Attachment E – SARC Memo, March 28, 2023). While the SARC considered alternative tree species for concealment (i.e., deodar cedar), as well as different methods of concealment (e.g., bell tower), ultimately supported the project as a eucalyptus tree as presented. Continued Item: This item was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of April 25, 2023, in response to the request of the applicant which requested additional time to review and propose changes to staff to the Draft Resolution. In response to applicant requests, minor changes to the Draft Resolution were made to clarify the specific aspects of the facility (such as branches, leaves, and bark) which contribute to the concealment approach of the facility as an artificial eucalyptus tree (previously included language was broader, stipulating that all aspects of the facility contributed to the concealment approach). As the clarifying language did not change the design or appearance of the facility as previously presented, staff was supportive of the request and incorporated the requested changes into the Draft Resolution (reference Attachment A). Public Outreach: The project was noticed to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject property and publicized in the newspaper (Metro). While no formal public comments have been received, three members of the public have expressed support for the proposed concealment approach (two of which attended the SARC meeting in person). Prepared by: Stephen Rose, Senior Planner Approved by: Rob Eastwood, Community Development Director Attachments: A. Draft Resolution B. Project Plans C. Project Description D. Independent Consultant Report, January 2023 E. SARC Memo, March 28, 2023 Attachment A RESOLUTION NO. BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL GRANTING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW (PLN-2021-90) TO ALLOW THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NEW CONCEALED WIRELESS FACILITY (ARTIFICIAL TREE) ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 910 S. MCGLINCY LANE IN THE M-1 (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) ZONING DISTRICT. PROJECT FILE NO.: PLN-2021-43 After notification and public hearing, as specified by law and after presentation by the Community Development Director, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed. The Planning Commission did find as follows with regard to application PLN-2021-43: 1. The project site is zoned M-1 (Light Industrial) and designated Light Industrial by the General Plan. 2. The project site is located on the east side of S. McGlincy Lane, north of Camden Avenue. 3. McGlincy Lane is a Commercial/Industrial Collector in the General Plan’s Roadways Classifications Diagram (Figure LUT-3). 4. The project site has an existing 75-foot-tall wireless telecommunications facility which presently supports three carriers (Verizon, Dish, and T-Mobile) and includes a chain-link fenced ground mounted equipment area that includes cabinets and an emergency diesel generator. 5. The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit with Site and Architectural Review to allow for the establishment of a new concealed wireless facility (artificial tree pole) with a request for a limited exemption from standards to retain the existing height of the facility. 6. The facility would be designed to resemble a eucalyptus tree which, as designed and conditioned, may be found to satisfy the requirements of the city’s adopted Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance and Wireless Facility Design Requirements. 7. Select aspects of the design of the facility, including the size and width of the tower, as surrounded by a canopy of artificial branches, contribute to the concealment of the facility by mimicking the natural shape and size of a eucalyptus tree. Further, the color, size, shape, and finish of materials used to simulate eucalyptus bark and leaves also contribute to the concealment of the facility. 8. Any increase to the height and/or width of the facility as measured to the edge of the exterior branches as depicted on the project plans, will result in a substantial change and would defeat the concealment approach of the facility as an artificial tree. Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 2 of 4 910 S. McGlincy Lane Conditional Use Permit w/Site and Arch. | Concealed Facility (Artificial Tree) (PLN-2021-43) 9. The maximum allowable height of a structure in the M-1 zoning district is 45-feet, where the existing/proposed facility would be 75-feet, not including the addition of new artificial branches that will be used conceal the facility as a eucalyptus tree. 10. The applicant bears the burden of demonstrating why a limited exemption to standards (height) should be granted. 11. For the city to approve a limited exemption, the applicant must demonstrate with clear and convincing evidence that a significant gap in the applicant’s service coverage exists (or in this case, would occur without the requested height) and that all alternative sites identified in the application review process are either technically infeasible or not potentially available. 12. The applicant has provided an analysis of the service coverage of two of the three carriers served by the existing tower facility (Verizon & T-Mobile) and resulting gap in coverage that would occur without the facility at the proposed height. 13. The applicant also provided an assessment of alternative locations considered, and why they were found to be infeasible. 14. To assist the Planning Commission in its assessment, a third-party consultant was hired to determine the impact that reducing the tower height would have on wireless coverage. 15. The third-party consultant report concludes that the requested height may be supported on the basis that it would require multiple (as many as seven) towers in the nearby vicinity to provide equivalent service coverage for Verizon and T-Mobile, while also not accounting for the service needs of Dish Network. 16. As the requested height and placement of the facility may be found necessary to avoid a significant gap in coverage, and in consideration that all alternative sites identified in the review process are either technically infeasible or not potentially available, the Planning Commission may approve a limited exemption to standards to allow an increase in height at the proposed location. 17. Although the project includes development plans, it does not require a separate architectural review permit application but is subject to site and architectural review in accordance with CMC 21.46.050 (Site and architectural review). 18. Applicable General Plan Policies considered by the Planning Commission included, but were not limited to, the following: Policy LUT-9.31: Neighborhood Integrity: Minimize the visual impact of wireless telecommunication facilities by designing them as an integral architectural feature to a structure. Policy LUT-13.1: Variety of Uses: Attract and maintain a variety of uses that create an economic balance within the City while maintaining a balance with other community land use needs, such as housing and open space, and while providing high quality services to the community. Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 3 of 4 910 S. McGlincy Lane Conditional Use Permit w/Site and Arch. | Concealed Facility (Artificial Tree) (PLN-2021-43) 19. No substantial evidence has been presented which shows that the project, as currently presented and subject to the required conditions of approval, will have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, and in consideration of the entire administrative record, the Planning Commission further finds and concludes that: Wireless Communications Facilities Findings (CMC Sec. 21.34.110): 20. The proposed facility, or modification to an existing facility, as conditioned will be a stealth or concealed facility as defined in Section 21.34.200; 21. The proposed facility, or modification to an existing facility, as conditioned will comply with all requirements of Chapter 21.34 (Wireless Communications Facilities); 22. The proposed facility, or modification to an existing facility, as conditioned will comply with all applicable design guidelines; 23. The proposed facility, or modification to an existing facility, as conditioned will be consistent with the general plan; Limited Exemption from Standards Finding (CMC Sec. 21.34.160): 24. The applicant has demonstrated with clear and convincing evidence that without the proposed facility at the requested height that a significant gap in the applicant’s service coverage would occur and that all alternative sites identified in the application review process are either technically infeasible or not potentially available; Conditional Use Permit Findings (CMC Sec. 21.46.040): 25. The proposed use is allowed within the applicable zoning district with Conditional Use Permit approval, and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Zoning Code and the Campbell Municipal Code; 26. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan; 27. The proposed site is adequate in terms of size and shape to accommodate the fences and walls, landscaping, parking and loading facilities, yards, and other development features required in order to integrate the use with uses in the surrounding area; 28. The proposed site is adequately served by streets of sufficient capacity to carry the kind and quantity of traffic the use would be expected to generate; 29. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with the existing and future land uses on-site and in the vicinity of the subject property; Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 4 of 4 910 S. McGlincy Lane Conditional Use Permit w/Site and Arch. | Concealed Facility (Artificial Tree) (PLN-2021-43) 30. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the proposed use at the location proposed will not be detrimental to the comfort, health, morals, peace, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use, or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the city; Site and Architectural Review Permit Findings (CMC Sec. 21.42.060.B): 31. The project will be consistent with the General Plan; 32. The project will aid in the harmonious development of the immediate area; 33. The project is consistent with applicable adopted design guidelines, development agreement, overlay district, area plan, neighborhood plan, and specific plan(s); Environmental Finding(s) (CMC Sec. 21.38.050): 34. The project is Categorically Exempt under Section 15301 (Class 1) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pertaining to the operation and leasing, and/or minor alteration of an existing private structure; and 35. No substantial evidence has been presented which shows that the project, as currently presented and subject to the required conditions of approval, will have a significant adverse impact on the environment. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission grants approval of a Conditional Use Permit with Site and Architectural Review (PLN-2021-43) to allow the establishment of a new concealed wireless telecommunications facility (artificial tree pole) on property located at 910 S. McGlincy Lane subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (attached Exhibit A). PASSED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of July, 2023, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: ABSTAIN: Commissioners: APPROVED: Adam Buchbinder, Chair ATTEST: Rob Eastwood, Secretary EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Conditional Use Permit with Site and Architectural Review (PLN-2021-43) Where approval by the Director of Community Development, City Engineer, Public Works Director, City Attorney or Fire Department is required, that review shall be for compliance with all applicable conditions of approval, adopted policies and guidelines, ordinances, laws and regulations and accepted engineering practices for the item under review. Additionally, the applicant is hereby notified that he/she is required to comply with all applicable Codes or Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of California that pertain to this development and are not herein specified. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION 1. Approved Project: Approval is granted for a Conditional Use Permit with Site and Architectural Review (PLN-2021-43) to allow the establishment of a new concealed wireless telecommunications facility (artificial tree pole) on property located at 910 S. McGlincy Lane. The project shall substantially conform to the Project Plans included as Attachment B in the July 11, 2023, Planning Commission Staff Report, except as may be modified by the Conditions of Approval contained herein. 2. Permit Approval Expiration: The Conditional Use Permit with Site and Architectural Review (PLN-2021-43) shall be valid for one year from the date of final approval (expiring July 22, 2023). Within this one-year period, an application for the Building Permit must be submitted. Failure to meet this deadline or expiration of the Building Permit plan check or issued Building Permit will result in the Conditional Use Permit with Site and Architectural Review being rendered void. 3. Plan Revisions: Upon prior approval by the Community Development Director, all Minor Modifications to the approved project plans shall be included in the construction drawings submitted for Building Permit. Any modifications to the Building Permit plan set during construction shall require submittal of a Building Permit Revision and approval by the Community Development Director and Building Official prior to Final Inspection. 4. Contractor Contact Information Posting: The project site shall be posted with the name and contact number of the lead contractor in a location visible from the public street prior to the issuance of building permits. The contractor contact information posting shall be removed upon project completion (building permit final). 5. Construction Activities: The applicant shall abide by the following requirements during construction: a. The project site shall be posted with the name and contact number of the lead contractor in a location visible from the public street prior to the issuance of building permits. Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 2 of 7 910 S. McGlincy Lane Conditional Use Permit with Site and Architectural Review (PLN-2021-43) b. Construction activities shall be limited to weekdays between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. and Saturdays between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. No construction shall take place on Sundays or holidays unless an exception is granted by the Building Official. c. All construction equipment with internal combustion engines used on the project site shall be properly muffled and maintained in good working condition. d. Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be strictly prohibited. e. All stationary noise-generating construction equipment, such as air compressors and portable power generators, shall be located as far as possible from noise-sensitive receptors such as existing residences and businesses. f. Use standard dust and erosion control measures that comply with the adopted Best Management Practices for the City of Campbell. 6. Construction Hours/Fines/Stop Work Notice: Failure to comply with permitted working hours that result in verified complaints may result in the issuance of a Stop Work Notice issued to the project with cessation of work for a minimum of seven (7) days from the date of issuance and an Administrative fine of up to $1,000.00. 7. Timely Completion: Once under construction it shall be the obligation of the property owner and contractor to demonstrate continued progress on the project. In the event the building permit expires, the City may impose fines or exercise administrative remedies to compel timely completion of work. 8. No Expansion of Ground Mounted Equipment Enclosure: The facility is not approved for any expansion of the ground mounted equipment enclosure. Any expansion of the ground mounted equipment enclosure shall require further review and approval. 9. Cessation of Operations: The service provider shall provide written notification to the community development director upon cessation of operations on the site exceeding a ninety-calendar day period. The service provider, permittee and/or property owner shall remove all obsolete or unused facilities from the site within one hundred eighty calendar days of termination of the lease with the property owner or cessation of operations, whichever comes earlier. a. New Permit Required. If a consecutive period of one hundred eighty calendar days has lapsed since cessation of operations, a new permit shall be required prior to use or reuse of the site. 10. Supersede: The subject permit shall supersede all prior land use entitlements related to the subject facility. 11. Height: The height of the artificial tree pole (tower facility) may not be increased. 12. Length of Approval: The subject permit shall be valid for a period of ten years from the effective date of the approval (expiring August 15, 2033) but may be reduced for public Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 3 of 7 910 S. McGlincy Lane Conditional Use Permit with Site and Architectural Review (PLN-2021-43) safety reasons or substantial land use reasons pursuant to Government Code Section 65964(b). Use permits and site and architectural review permits approved prior to the effective date of the Wireless Ordinance shall expire pursuant to the previously approved permit term. Nothing contained in this permit is intended to revive or extend any permit or use that expired on or prior to the effective date of the Wireless Ordinance. a. The permit may be renewed for subsequent time periods, subject to the following: i. The renewal application is filed with the community development department prior to expiration, but no earlier than twenty-four months prior to expiration. ii. The subject permit approval may be administratively extended by the community development director from the initial approval date for a subsequent ten years and may be extended by the community development director every ten years thereafter upon verification that the facility continues to comply with the Wireless Ordinance (as may be amended from time to time) and all conditions of approval under which the facility was approved. All costs associated with the review process shall be borne by the service provider, permittee and/or property owner. b. If a request for renewal of the required permit(s) is not timely received and the permit expires, the City may declare the facility(ies) abandoned or discontinued in accordance with Section 21.34.070(A)(16) (Abandonment). 13. Business License Required: Each service provider with a wireless communications facility in the City shall obtain and maintain a City business license. 14. Impact on Parking: The installation of wireless communication facilities shall not reduce required parking on the site. For the purposes of this requirement, routine maintenance activities shall not be considered to result in a measurable impact on parking. Applications for eligible facilities requests shall be exempt from this condition provided that any reduction in onsite parking spaces does not violate a prior condition of approval or applicable building or safety code. 15. Implementation and Monitoring Costs: The wireless communications permittee, service provider or its/their successor shall be responsible for the payment of all reasonable costs associated with the monitoring of the conditions of approval, including, but not limited to, costs incurred by the community development department, the office of the city attorney or any other appropriate City department or agency, to the full extent such costs are recoverable or collectible under applicable state and/or federal law. The community development department shall collect costs on behalf of the City. 16. Development and Operational Standards: All facilities shall satisfy the development standards of the district in which they are proposed, as well as the Development and Operational Standards outlined in CMC 21.16 (e.g. Electrical Interference, Light and Glare, Noise, Odor, Vibration, Maintenance) and the Site Development Standards (e.g. Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 4 of 7 910 S. McGlincy Lane Conditional Use Permit with Site and Architectural Review (PLN-2021-43) as specified in CMC 21.18). Exceptions to development and operational standards shall only be permitted for (A) an eligible facility request to the extent required by law, (B) a subsequent collocation facility to the extent required by California Government Code section 65850.6(a), or (C) for a stealth facility when such exception is limited to maximum allowable heights, or minimum setbacks, and when such exception would not result in a perceivable visual impact. 17. Permits: All permits required for the installation of the facility and associated improvements, shall be completed prior to operation of the facility (or component of that facility). 18. Concealment: Any modification to the facility shall be consistent with the design as expressly provided below: a. Adding or Enlarging Antennas: Antennas may be added to, or enlarged in size, within the canopy of the artificial tree tower when they are covered with leaf “socks” that match the color of the foliage and do not encroach within 18- inches of the outer edge of the artificial branches. Branches may not be removed, added, or extended, to provide for the addition or enlargement of antennas on the facility. b. Ground-Mounted Equipment: Equipment may be added to, or enlarged in size, within the existing building, but may not be added within the existing ground- mounted equipment enclosure unless the following conditions are met: i. The existing chain link fencing is removed and replaced with a solid, opaque wooden fence, or masonry wall, approved by the community development director. Note: Fences or walls exceeding the maximum height permitted by the Campbell Municipal Code shall require review and approval of a fence exception. ii. Any equipment added, or enlarged in size, do not exceed the height of the opaque wooden fence, or masonry wall, once established. 19. Compliance with Applicable Laws: The permittee and service provider shall at all times comply with all applicable provisions of the CMC including, but not limited to, Title 21 (Zoning), any permit or approval issued under the CMC including, but not limited to, Title 21 (Zoning), and all other applicable federal, state and local laws, rules and regulations. Failure by the City to enforce compliance with applicable laws, rules or regulations shall not relieve any permittee of its obligations under the CMC including, but not limited to, Title 21 (Zoning), any permit or approval issued under the CMC, or any other applicable laws, rules and regulations. 20. Compliance with Approved Plans: The facility shall be built in compliance with the approved plans on file with the Community Development Department. Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 5 of 7 910 S. McGlincy Lane Conditional Use Permit with Site and Architectural Review (PLN-2021-43) 21. Inspections; Emergencies: The City or its designee may enter onto the facility area to inspect the facility upon reasonable notice to the permittee in times of emergency. The permittee shall cooperate with all inspections. The City reserves the right to enter (or direct its designee to enter) the facility and support, repair, disable or remove any elements of the facility in emergencies or when the facility threatens imminent harm to persons or property. 22. Contact Information for Responsible Parties: The permittee shall at all times maintain accurate contact information for all parties responsible for the facility, which shall include a phone number, street mailing address and email address for at least one natural person. All such contact information for responsible parties shall be provided to the community development director upon request. 23. General Maintenance: The site and the facility, including but not limited to all landscaping, fencing, concealment features, and related transmission equipment, must be maintained in a neat and clean manner and in accordance with all approved plans and conditions of approval. 24. Graffiti Removal: All graffiti on facilities must be removed at the sole expense of the permittee within forty-eight hours after notification from the City. 25. FCC (including, but not limited to, RF Exposure) Compliance: All facilities must comply with all standards and regulations of the FCC and any other state or federal government agency with the authority to regulate such facilities. 26. Abandonment: a. To promote the public health, safety and welfare, the community development director may declare a facility (or component of a facility) abandoned or discontinued when: (a) The permittee or service provider abandoned or discontinued the use of a facility (or component of a facility) for a continuous period of ninety calendar days; or (b) The permittee or service provider fails to respond within thirty calendar days to a written notice from the community development director that states the basis for the community development director's belief that the facility (or component of the facility) has been abandoned or discontinued for a continuous period of ninety calendar days; or (c) The permit expires and the permittee has failed to file a timely application for renewal. b. After the community development director declares a facility (or component of a facility) abandoned or discontinued, the permittee shall have sixty calendar days from the date of the declaration (or longer time as the community development director may approve in writing as reasonably necessary) to: (a) reactivate the use of the abandoned or discontinued facility (or component thereof) subject to the provisions of this chapter and all conditions of approval; or (b) remove the facility (or component of that facility) and all improvements installed in connection with the facility (or component of that facility), unless directed otherwise by the Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 6 of 7 910 S. McGlincy Lane Conditional Use Permit with Site and Architectural Review (PLN-2021-43) community development director, and restore the site to a condition in compliance with all applicable codes and consistent with the then-existing surrounding area. c. If the permittee fails to act as required in Section 21.34.070(A)(16)(b) within the prescribed time period, the City may (but shall not be obligated to) remove the abandoned facility (or abandoned component of the facility), restore the site to a condition in compliance with all applicable codes and consistent with the then-existing surrounding area, and repair any and all damages that occurred in connection with such removal and restoration work. The City may, but shall not be obligated to, store the removed facility (or component of the facility) or any part thereof, and may use, sell or otherwise dispose of it in any manner the City deems appropriate. The last-known permittee or its successor-in-interest and, if on private property, the real property owner shall be jointly liable for all costs and expenses incurred by the City in connection with such removal, restoration, repair and storage, and shall promptly reimburse the City upon receipt of a written demand, including, without limitation, any interest on the balance owing at the maximum lawful rate. The City may, but shall not be obligated to, use any financial security required in connection with the granting of the facility permit to recover its costs and interest. Until the costs are paid in full, a lien shall be placed on the facility, all related personal property in connection with the facility and, if applicable, the real private property on which the facility was located for the full amount of all costs for removal, restoration, repair and storage (plus applicable interest). The City Clerk shall cause the lien to be recorded with the County of Santa Clara Recorder's Office. Within sixty calendar days after the lien amount is fully satisfied including costs and interest, the City Clerk shall cause the lien to be released with the County of Santa Clara Recorder's Office. d. After a permittee fails to comply with any provisions of this Section 21.34.070(A)(16) (Abandonment), the City may elect to treat the facility as a nuisance to be abated as provided in the CMC (including, but not limited to, Chapter 6.10). 27. Indemnities: The permittee, service provider, and, if applicable, the non-government owner of the private property upon which the tower and/or base station is installed (or is to be installed) shall defend (with counsel reasonably satisfactory to the City), indemnify and hold harmless the City of Campbell its officers, officials, directors, agents, representatives, and employees (i) from and against any and all damages, liabilities, injuries, losses, costs and expenses and from and against any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, judgments, writs of mandamus and other actions or proceedings brought against the City or its officers, officials, directors, agents, representatives, or employees to challenge, attack, seek to modify, set aside, void or annul the City's approval of the permit, and (ii) from and against any and all damages, liabilities, injuries, losses, costs and expenses and any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, judgments, or causes of action and other actions or proceedings of any kind or form, whether for personal injury, death or property damage, arising out of, in connection with or relating to the acts, omissions, negligence, or performance of the permittee, the service provider, and/or, if applicable, Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 7 of 7 910 S. McGlincy Lane Conditional Use Permit with Site and Architectural Review (PLN-2021-43) the private property owner, or any of each one's agents, representatives, employees, officers, directors, licensees, contractors, subcontractors or independent contractors. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve (which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld) the legal counsel providing the City's defense, and the property owner, service provider, and/or permittee (as applicable) shall reimburse City for any and all costs and expenses incurred by the City in the course of the defense. Building Division 28. Permit Required: A Building Permit application shall be required for the proposed project. The Building Permit shall include Electrical/Plumbing/Mechanical fees when such work is part of the permit. 29. Conditions of Approval: The Conditions of Approval shall be stated in full on the cover sheet of construction plans submitted for building permit. FIRE DEPARTMENT 30. Formal Plan Review: Review of this development proposal is limited to accessibility of site access and water supply as they pertain to fire department operations, and shall not be construed as a substitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with adopted model codes. Prior to performing any work the applicant shall make application to, and receive from, the Building Division all applicable construction permits. 31. No Violation: This review shall not be construed to be an approval of a violation of the provisions of the California Fire Code or of other laws or regulations of the jurisdiction. A permit presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of the Fire Code or other such laws or regulations shall not be valid. Any addition to or alteration of approved construction documents shall be approved in advance. [CFC, Ch.1, 105.3.6]. Attachment B SCALE:ELEVATION VIEWNONE2CAMPBELL#814277RF-1SCALE:PLAN VIEWNONE1 SCALE:PERSPECTIVE VIEWNONE2CAMPBELL#814277RF-2SCALE:ISOMETRIC VIEWNONE1 1SCALE:EUCALYPTUS ANTENNA COVERS 3' X 10'NONE10.694 PIECES OF FOLIAGE PER SQ INCH10.0 PIECES OF FOLIAGE PER SQ FTFOLIAGE DENSITYSCALE:EUCALYPTUS ANTENNA COVER FOLIAGE NONE2[300 PIECES]HIGH DENSITY FOLIAGE EUDQFK 47< 5HFHS+HLJKW 7RSFDS 7RS&DS 7RSFDS 7RS&DS ' & % $ ) ( ' & % $ ) ( ' & % $ ) ( ' & % $ ) ( ' & % $ ) ( ' & % $ ) ( ' & % $ ) ( ' & % $ ) ( ' & % $ 727$/ 1(:5(&(37$&/(6 1(:%5$1&+(6 %UDQFKHV 7RSKDWIRU>@0:DQWHQQDDW UDGFHQWHUZLWK>@ EUDQFKHV %UDQFKHV 7RSKDWIRU>@SDQHODQWHQQDVDW UDGFHQWHUZLWK>@ EUDQFKHV&$03%(//5(9$6&,%UDQFK5HFHSWDFOH)DE6KHHW&ORFN6HWWLQJV>@PRXQWIRU EUDQFKDWGHJUHHV>@PRXQWVIRU EUDQFKHVDWGHJUHHV %UDQFKHV 7RSKDWIRU>@SDQHODQWHQQDVDW UDGFHQWHUZLWK>@ EUDQFKHV June 21, 2022 FINAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION SITE NAME/# 814277 Campbell CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: PLN2009-80 CARRIERS: VERIZON & SPRINT SITE ADDRESS: 910 S. McGlincy Lane, Campbell, CA 95008 Dear City of Campbell Planning Department, We have been asked to summarize our final application material based on our last year of working with The City of Campbell on an appropriate design for our existing cellular communication facility. We made an original submittal in March of 2021 and have subsequently received 2 formal incomplete letters and various email requests. The below narrative and attached documentation are a summary of that process and our final product. Crown Castle GT Company, LLC ("Crown Castle"), herein referenced as the Applicant and Tower Owner, requests the renewal of the Conditional Use Permit (PLN2009-80). The facility is currently constructed as an unmanned monopole. This department approved the project as currently constructed. We have been asked by your department to disguise the monopole and submit the proposed changes along with the permit renewal application. The following scope of work is proposed: •Install new faux Eucalyptus branches on the existing monopole •Install new faux Eucalyptus socks on existing antennas •NO new electrical work or batteries are to be installed from this project. The tower is currently 75 feet in height. With the addition of the faux Eucalyptus branches, the branches will add 4’ to the overall height due to the branches attached to the top of the monopole for stealthing. Please see the attached branching plan for reference. There are 2 carriers on this tower, Verizon and Sprint. The equipment areas are located on the ground directly next to the wireless facility. The tower and equipment are all behind a locked enclosure and a chain linked fence. Please see the submitted photo simulations and site plans for a view of what the facility looks like as existing and what it will look like with the proposed changes. The drawings and sims have been revised based on feedback from our various vendors and The City of Campbell over the last year. Attachment C The City of Campbell Development Standards for Siting of Telecommunication Facilities encourage co-location of new antennas on an existing telecommunication facility. We are currently hosting 2 wireless carriers (Verizon & Sprint) with room for at least one more based on our current design. We are not proposing a tower height increase or any new wireless equipment as part of this project. The Applicant agrees to continue complying with all cosmetic and other maintenance requirements required in the existing Conditions of Approval. Along with the Application for renewing the Conditional Use Permit for this facility, the applicant is submitting an updated Radio Frequency Report (FCC), as well as existing site plans with proposed changes, photo simulations, Noise Study and other required documentation. The applicant is not proposing any change in the use or technology with this application. We are only submitting changes to make the tower more aesthetically pleasing. This site provides continued telecommunications coverage to the community, including enhanced emergency response, better reception quality and higher security and privacy for telephone users. The project continues to fit the intended goals because it would reduce risk of injury or death through enhanced cellular phone service, would promote efficiency of public services through enhanced cellular phone service, and does not generate a large amount of traffic, noise, congestion, or odors. The use will not be contrary to the character or performance standards established for the City of Campbell, in which it is located. The subsequent Incomplete letters from 04/20/2021 and 09/24/2021 focus on the height of the facility and the need to justify our height in relation to the current M-1 (Light Industrial) height limit of 45’. The comment from Campbell is below from the 09/24/2021 Incomplete Letter: We responded to each of these requests with the attached ASA & Height Narrative (2022-2-22). The original tower was legally permitted in The City of Campbell at the current height of 75’6”. Replacing this tower with a code compliant 45’ high tower would significantly degrade the coverage and capacity of our tenants (Verizon & Sprint). Furthermore, the M-1 zone is the 2nd most preferred location for siting a wireless facility as noted in the attached ASA & Height Narrative response. There is no “more preferred” zone near this facility, so moving the tower does not further the City’s goals of siting wireless facilities in more preferred zones. We also detail other potential locations near our existing site as recommended by The City of Campbell in the attached ASA. Those potential rooftop locations are much too low and will not work for other reasons mentioned in the analysis. Thank you for your consideration. Jake Hamilton Virtual Site Walk LLC www.virtualsitewalk.com Jake@virtualsitewalk.com Mobile: (619) 341-9208 June 10, 2022 MAXIMUM HEIGHT & LIMITED EXEMPTION FROM STANDARDS RE: FILE # PLN-2021-43 ADDRESS: 910 S. McGLINCY LANE As noted and requested in the review letter from your department, received on September 24, 2021, below is a response for item #2: “The materials provided do not support the conclusion that a significant gap in coverage would occur as the alternative sites analysis fails to conclude that multiple sites of a lower, code compliant, height would not resolve the gap in coverage.” Here is a response for each of the address proposed as examples: • The roof of the office buildings at 675 Campbell Technology Parkway: The office buildings appear to be around 30’ tall. Our rad center is shown at 43’ in the attached coverage maps. The coverage in green is already significantly suffering at a 43’ rad center. There are large gaps in coverage on all sides of our facility from moving the rad center lower. The gaps are shown in red. We start to lose the connection with the network as indicated by the red areas between our proposed site and the rest of the network in green. Furthermore, by moving the site north, the southern gap in coverage would be more prominent than shown on the coverage map. We get too close to the site on Civic Center Drive to the north of our existing site. • Carlyle Hotel at 1300 Camden Avenue: This potential site has the same issues as the building above, but to the south. It’s too short (around 30’ tall) and there would be a large gap to the north. This building is literally adjacent to residential also. • Extra Space storage building at 50 Curtner Avenue: This building is more centrally located than the other 2, so it would likely fit into the network with enough height, but it’s too low just like the other 2 buildings above. We need to be much higher than the building rooftop. There’s also a large existing solar system that would be difficult to work around with our lines and equipment. There’s a tall parapet around the rooftop that we need to clear. We would need to build from the rooftop, but place our antennas well above the parapet roofline to clear the roof with our signal. With windloading and seismic requirements, we would need a substantial structure that would likely need structural upgrades to the building making this a bad candidate. • A-1 Self Storage building at 3260 S. Bascom Avenue: This building suffers from all the problems of the potential sites above. It’s too short, too far south, and not buildable due to the rooftop structure and parapet. It’s also adjacent to residential. There’s 2 existing sites to the east and west of this building. A site is needed between the 3 existing sites shown on the coverage map. That’s why our current site is placed where it’s currently at. ALTERNATIVE SITE ANALYSIS The section below is taken from our last submission with a few edits to reflect the current propagation maps. The existing WCF is an integral part of Verizon and Sprint’s existing network. Without the site, the network will be significantly impacted and result in a gap in coverage and disruption of service for the community and travelers in the area. The gap would be especially pronounced considering there’s 2 wireless carriers located on this tower. Propagation modeling systems are meant to assess coverage and capacity gaps. They haven’t been required to reverse engineer an existing site that’s already firmly built into the network. However, we’ve done the best we can with the attached maps from each carrier. Since the code compliant height is 45’, we modeled Verizon with a 38’ antenna center line. That gives Verizon a 4’ to 6’ antenna with room for branches extending from the top of the pole up to 45’. With a required 10’ vertical separation between carriers, that puts T-Mobile with an antenna centerline height of approximately 24’. That could move slightly up or down depending on Verizon’s center line and T- Mobile’s antennas. Verizon: Verizon’s modeling software system can only propagate a signal at the current center line height of 71’ and 33’ or lower. The software won’t show much difference between 38’ and 33’. That’s why we’re showing a centerline of 33’ on the propagation map. Again, their modeling software doesn’t have the detail to show exactly what is being requested by Campbell. Verizon is adamant about maintaining the current rad center of 71’ and local topographical interference would significantly degrade the signal at a center line of 38’. T-Mobile: T-Mobile provided the attached propagation map showing the current rad center and a 24’ rad center. Their modeling software also isn’t built to show the differences in rad centers for a site that’s existing. The level of detail provided is meant to show coverage and capacity gaps, not different rad centers for an existing site. T-Mobile also can’t move down the pole from their existing centerline due to local interference and topography. The amount of “Outdoor” poor coverage significantly increases when removing the site or lowering the rad center by 40’. There would be a major gap in coverage by removing the site or lowering it to a code compliant height as requested in the Incomplete Letters. When removing or significantly lowering a site already integrated into the network, it severely limits the coverage in that area and in the surrounding areas. The entire network becomes compromised due to the removal or serious degradation of one site. Almost the entire search area for this site is in Residential zoning to the West or Planned Development zoning to the west. With our existing site there is a buffer of industrial use between us and the Residential units to the east. Per Campbell’s Wireless Code Section 21.34.090 A(2) (Location of wireless communications facilities): the most preferred zone for a wireless communication facility is 1) City owned or controlled parcels; then 2) Industrial, research and development & institutional designated parcels Edith Morley Park is owned by The City of Campbell and is .75 mile north. The Park does not look like a suitable place for a cellular facility based on it being a pristine park and community garden. It’s too far north from the search ring also. We didn’t find any other City owned properties that have enough space within a half mile of our site. The 2nd most preferred zones are Industrial zoned parcels. The only Industrial zoned parcels within the search ring are in the cluster of properties where we are located. Furthermore, we are proposing a broadleaf tree stealth design (referred to as “concealed” in Campbell wireless code). Thus, the only properties we would contact would be other M-1 zoned properties next to our current location. This would not satisfy the goal of finding a more preferred zone to locate a wireless facility as we would be proposing the same stealth design in the same zone at the same height. The environmental disturbance and community disruption of taking down a tower and excavating a new one would be more detrimental than beneficial. Please let us know if you have additional questions or comments. Sincerely, Jake Hamilton Virtual Site Walk LLC www.virtualsitewalk.com Jake@virtualsitewalk.com Mobile: (619) 341-9208 910 McGlincey Lane Campbell CA 95008 814277 Campbell Accuracy of photo simulation based upon information provided by project applicant. Looking north from adjacent propertyProposed View 1 Existing proposed replacement monoeucalyptus with relocated existing and new replacement antennas proposed equipment xxxxxxxxxxx ©2021 Google Maps Accuracy of photo simulation based upon information provided by project applicant. Looking east from McGlincey LaneProposed View 2 Existing proposed replacement monoeucalyptus with relocated existing and new replacement antennas proposed equipment xxxxxxxxxxx 910 McGlincey Lane Campbell CA 95008 814277 Campbell ©2021 Google Maps CAMPBELL CELL SITE Surrounding Coverage with and without Campbell Topographical Map LTE CAMPBELL BEST SERVER PLOT @ 700 MHz LTE RSRP WITH CAMPBELL DEACTIVATED @ 700 MHz In-building => -80 dBm In-vehicle => -90 dBm On_street => -100 dBm Marginal < -100 dBm LTE RSRP WITH CAMPBELL ACTIVATED @ 700 MHz In-building => -80 dBm In-vehicle => -90 dBm On_street => -100 dBm Marginal < -100 dBm LTE RSRP WITH CAMPBELL ACTIVATED @ 700 MHz In-building => - 80 dBm In-vehicle => -90 dBm On_street => -100 dBm Marginal < -100 dBm LTE CAMPBELL BEST SERVER PLOT @ 2100 MHz LTE RSRP WITH CAMPBELL DEACTIVATED @ 2100 MHz In-building => -80 dBm In-vehicle => -90 dBm On_street => -100 dBm Marginal < -100 dBm LTE RSRP WITH CAMPBELL ACTIVATED @ 2100 MHz In-building => -80 dBm In-vehicle => -90 dBm On_street => -100 dBm Marginal < -100 dBm LTE RSRP WITH CAMPBELL ACTIVATED @ 2100 MHz In-building => - 80 dBm In-vehicle => -90 dBm On_street => -100 dBm Marginal < -100 dBm Supplemental Verizon has plan to address coverage and capacity with Small Cell Densification Program but unable to move forward without MLA with City of Campbell (planned small cell not shown) Seen on the map are macro and small cell (San Jose) plan for the next 2 years CTC Telecommunications Network Consulting Wholly owned subsidiary of CTC Media Group, Inc. 1202 Pollock Street • New Bern, NC 28560 • Tel: 252-633-1490 • www.ctctnc.com Review of the Application of Crown Castle to Modify an Existing Wireless Facility Prepared for City of Campbell, California January 2023 Draft Findings Report for Client Preliminary Review Attachment D Review of Wireless Applications – Campbell City of Campbell – January 2023 ii Contents 1 Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Overview of Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Summary of Findings .................................................................................................................................... 2 2 Background on Cellular Antenna Siting Issues .............................................................................................. 4 2.1 Wireless Coverage ........................................................................................................................................ 4 2.2 Wireless Coverage and Target Signal Levels ................................................................................................ 4 2.3 Wireless Network Capacity .......................................................................................................................... 5 3 Overview of Verizon’s & T-Mobile Wireless Spectrum .................................................................................. 6 4 Analysis of Existing Verizon Coverage ........................................................................................................... 7 4.1 CTC'S Independent Coverage Modeling Results ........................................................................................... 8 5 Analysis of Existing T-Mobile Coverage ....................................................................................................... 11 5.1 CTC's Independent T-Mobile Coverage Modeling Results .......................................................................... 13 6 Impact lowering tower height with Respect to Radio Frequency Exposure ................................................. 16 7 Appendix – Technical Reference Documentation ........................................................................................ 20 Tables Table 1: Verizon & T-Mobile Wireless Band ........................................................................................................... 6 Figures Figure 1: Calculated Reliable 700 MHz Wireless Coverage Area ............................................................................. 7 Figure 2: Verizon 700 MHz Without McGlincy Lane Site ......................................................................................... 8 Figure 3: ITU Propagation Model 700 MHz Coverage Map at 73.5' ........................................................................ 9 Figure 4: ITU Propagation Model 700 MHz Coverage Map reduced to 43.5' ......................................................... 10 Figure 5: Applicant Calculated 2,500 MHz Wireless Coverage Area at 40.75' AGL ................................................ 11 Figure 6: Applicant Calculated 2,500 MHz Wireless Coverage Area at 40.75' AGL without site SF64242S ............ 12 Figure 7: ITU Propagation Model T-Mobile 2,500 MHz Coverage Map at 40.75' ................................................... 14 Figure 8: ITU Propagation Model T-Mobile 2,500 MHz Coverage Map reduced to 33.5' ....................................... 15 Figure 9: FCC Limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure ..................................................................................... 16 Figure 10: Area above the Tower RF Exposure Exceeds FCC Guidelines at Antenna Height .................................. 17 Figure 11: Existing RF Exposure Level with 75' Monopole (bearing 0 degrees) ..................................................... 18 Figure 12: Existing RF exposure level with 45' Monopole (Bearing 0 degrees) ..................................................... 19 Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 1 1 Executive Summary The City of Campbell, California, received an application from Crown Castle GT Company to modify an existing wireless facility at 910 S. McGlincy Lane. The application includes upgrading the monopole design to a stealth design (mono-eucalyptus). The following scope of work is proposed: • Install new faux eucalyptus branches on existing monopole • Install new faux eucalyptus socks on existing antennas • No change to the monopole structure, wireless radio equipment or backup powering is proposed The existing 75-foot monopole tower was constructed to accommodate co-location for three wireless carriers; currently there are two carriers on this tower, Verizon, and T-Mobile. The City has retained the engineering services of CTC Telecommunications Network Consultants, an independent telecommunications consulting firm, to provide a third-party review of Crown Castle's application. 1.1 Overview of Analysis CTC performed a technical review and analysis of the application concerning the applicant’s communications engineering materials and justification for modification of site. This report describes the documents we examined and the technical analysis we performed to reach conclusions about the application. Our analysis is confined to the technical aspects of the application and includes: • The are no technical changes proposed in the application to the existing wireless technical equipment; instead, the applicant is proposing to extend the overall height of the existing monopole tower by 4 feet to accommodate the faux eucalyptus branches and their mounting brackets. • The existing tower has a height of 75 feet, which exceeded the City's zoning code standards for wireless towers to a maximum height of 45 feet. • At the City's direction, CTC has prepared an independent examination of existing Verizon & T-Mobile coverage within the City of Campbell to determine the impact that reducing the antenna height will have on the coverage of wireless for both T-Mobile and Verizon. Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 2 1.2 Summary of Findings We examined current coverage provide by both T-Mobile and Verizon from this site using site specific technical information provided by Crown Castle (the tower owner), coverage maps provided by both carriers (T-Mobile & Verizon) and independently prepared computer modeling software coverage maps to develop our findings. Our analysis covers the multiple wireless radio bands used by the wireless carriers. We also rely on information we have received from the wireless carriers on other similar Bay area wireless sites. Our report provides significant technical details on our findings and the methodology employed. In summary, reducing the existing tower from the current 75 feet to a total height of 45 feet-- including the adding the faux eucalyptus branches-- will have the following impact: • The Verizon antennas (currently mounted at 72.5' elevation) will be repositioned to 43.5'. Doing this will reduce Verizon's in-building coverage (this comparison is using the low- band 750 MHz which has the greatest reach) from 4.4 mi² to 3.4 mi² reduction of in- building coverage of 22.73%. For in-vehicle service, the coverage would decrease from 33.1 mi2 to 28.4 mi2 or by 14.2%. Likewise, for on-street service, the coverage would decrease from 94.7 mi2 to 83.5 mi2 or by 11.82%. • The existing tower is currently configured to support three wireless carriers (potential candidates include Dish and AT&T Wireless). Lowering the tower height will preclude adding any additional wireless carrier. Unfortunately, we have been advised by City staff that there is already an approved Dish Network deployment for this tower at a 53-foot RAD center elevation. While it may not have been constructed as of this report, the building permits have already been issued by the City. • The T-Mobile antennas which are currently mounted at 43.5' elevation would be repositioned to 38'. This will reduce T-Mobile's in-building coverage (this comparison is using the mid-band 2400 MHz band) from 0.5 mi² to 0.4 mi², a reduction of in-building coverage of 20%. For in-vehicle service, the coverage would decrease from 2.2 mi2 to 1.6 mi2 or by 27.3%. Likewise, for on-street service, the coverage would decrease from 9.3 mi2 to 7.4 mi2 or by 20.43%. • If there were to be another location acceptable for a new 75’ tower, it would have to be in close vicinity to the existing tower in order to satisfy the carriers’ coverage requirements, no more than 800 feet from the current location. If only 45-foot towers were available, we estimate that you would need a minimum of 4 45-foot towers (one at the original site to accommodate T-Mobile and 3 more for Verizon scattered nearby) to provide similar coverage. This does not account for the aforementioned newly approved Dish Network antennas and whatever their service coverage is expected to be. Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 3 • Lowering the T-Mobile antennas will also increase the RF exposure level to persons working/traversing the area at ground level and on nearby rooftops. The increase will not exceed FCC guidelines for public safety; however, it may limit upgrades on T-Mobile radio equipment or buildings on adjacent lots. Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 4 2 Background on Cellular Antenna Siting Issues This following brief discussion presents a framework for understanding our analysis of current wireless service provided by both Verizon and T-Mobile from the existing 75-foot monopole tower along with the methodology we employed to develop our findings. 2.1 Wireless Coverage Wireless coverage signal levels for modern 4G and 5G broadband services are determined by a carrier’s RF signal amplitude and signal quality within a desired service area. Signals need to be at a minimum amplitude to override radio frequency noise and interference other wireless radio towers (i.e., interference from other wireless sites). Signal levels also need to be maintained at a power intensity such that user devices are not constantly connecting and reconnecting (either because of a loss of signal or because an existing connection is receiving interference from an adjacent wireless access point). Handing off a user from one access site to another is part of the mechanics of dealing with users who are in motion. Verizon and T-Mobile use sophisticated encoding technology which permits higher transmission speeds in areas where signal levels are higher than those required for minimum data rate transfers. 2.2 Wireless Coverage and Target Signal Levels The FCC has not set blanket technical standards for RF signal amplitude/quality for the networks that support commercial wireless services. Guidelines and target signal levels for the three recognized primary commercial services environments—outdoor coverage, in-vehicle coverage, and in-building coverage—have instead been generally established by the individual wireless service providers and wireless equipment manufacturers. For 4G technology—the wireless technology proposed by the carriers in this case—target signal power levels are specified in terms of logarithmic power ratios expressed in decibels (dB), with a reference level of 0 dBm being equal to 1 milliwatt of signal power. Signal power levels increase with positive dBm numbers and decrease with negative dBm numbers. A larger negative number correlates with a lower signal amplitude (e.g., -95 dBm is a weaker signal than -85 dBm) and a decreased ability to receive a signal and use the wireless service. Typically, in order to provide reliable in-building coverage, network engineers specify signal power levels of -85 dBm or greater, which is more than adequate to compensate for the attenuation of signal power caused by the absorption of signals through structural walls and internal wall partitions. Network designers target a lower signal power level (i.e., -95 dBm or greater) for in-vehicle service. Based on field tests we have conducted for numerous communities, our experience indicates that voice communications, texting, and email transmittal can often be reliably Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 5 conducted in vehicles at even lower signal power levels of -105 dBm. Adequate service in open- air, outdoor areas are typically achieved at even lower levels than in-vehicle settings. Wireless signal power intensity is graphically depicted on wireless coverage maps employing different color bands to indicate a range of signal powers. Typically, a color band covers a range of 5 to 10 dBm. For example, in the figures in this report, a yellow band corresponds to a signal power in the range from -95 dBm to -86 dBm to denote target in-vehicle levels. 2.3 Wireless Network Capacity Network capacity is a parameter associated with the ability of the network to address user requirements to wirelessly transfer voice, data, and video through radio signals. While signal amplitude (power) represents a key parameter for establishing a high-quality and stable signal, network capacity represents the volume of data the network can transport to concurrent users over a given time, often expressed as megabits per second. Wireless network capacity is determined by the complex interrelationship of factors such as the number and location of antennas, the number of concurrent users, and the number of wireless bands deployed in the service area. Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 6 3 Overview of Verizon’s & T-Mobile Wireless Spectrum Verizon and T-Mobile currently deliver commercial wireless service in the City of Campbell via antennas mounted on buildings and towers. These traditional wireless facilities, which are designed to serve users in a 1- to 1.5 -mile radius or less in urban environments, are often referred to as “macro” sites. Both T-Mobile and Verizon provide commercial wireless service in six wireless bands in which FCC licenses (Table 1). The lower-bandwidth (data transmission capacity) 600 – 850 MHz bands can serve users that are located at greater distances from the antenna, absent any other factors that interfere with transmission/reception. The actual availability and quality of service surrounding the existing tower can vary based on ground topography and the signal attenuation caused by the clutter of buildings; this significantly affects coverage with radio spectrum in the 1,900 – 2,400 MHz mid-band. While each carrier has their own exclusive frequencies licensed by the FCC, all active subscribers to the carrier in the vicinity are actually sharing the same frequencies. So, it is possible (depending on the number of users served by the same antenna, as well as other factors) that users whose phones indicate that a signal is available will still have trouble connecting to the network or may experience a dropped call. Both T-Mobile and Verizon’s national wireless spectrum licenses give the companies substantially greater network bandwidth/capacity resources in the higher-frequency PCS, AWS, C-band, and millimeter wave bands (Table 1). Table 1: Verizon & T-Mobile Wireless Band1 Licensed FCC Spectrum Service Frequency UHF (low-band) 600/700 MHz Legacy voice cellular spectrum (low-band) 850 MHz Personal Communications Service (PCS) (mid-band) 1,900 MHz Advanced Wireless Service (AWS) (mid-band) 2,100 MHz Broadband Radio – T-Mobile (mid-band) 2,400 MHz C-band -Verizon (mid-band) 3,700 MHz 1 Source: Universal Licensing System (ULS), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/searchLicense.jsp. Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 7 4 Analysis of Existing Verizon Coverage The existing wireless tower supports Verizon antennas at a radiation center 72.5 feet above ground level. Verizon delivers wireless service to customers in their FCC licensed 700 MHz, 850 MHz, 1,900 MHz, and 2,100 MHz bands. Figure 1 is a computer-generated coverage map prepared by Verizon that depicts the coverage provided by McGlincy Lane (labeled Campbell on the map) along with the service areas of neighboring Verizon sites surrounding the McGlincy site in the 700 MHz band. The color of the coverage plot corresponds to the signal power intensity. The green areas define signal power intensity required to provide reliable in-building coverage. The yellow areas correspond to sign level adequate to serve in-vehicle communications. Red areas are the lowest signal threshold, adequate outdoor coverage. Figure 1: Calculated Reliable 700 MHz Wireless Coverage Area Figure 2 is a computer-generated plot of the Verizon service without the coverage provided by the McGlincy site. Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 8 Figure 2: Verizon 700 MHz Without McGlincy Lane Site Without the McGlincy Lane activated, there would be no reliable in-building Verizon coverage within a radius of approximately 1 mile of the McGlincy site. In fact, would not be adequate Verizon coverage from adjacent sites to support reliable in-vehicle coverage in substantial portions of the McGlincy site coverage area. It should be noted that 700 MHz wireless provides the greatest coverage range of the FCC wireless radio bands. The higher frequency mid-band spectrum (See Table 1) supplements the 700 MHz service by increasing network capacity nearer the tower site. 4.1 CTC'S Independent Coverage Modeling Results CTC performed an independent analysis of existing Verizon coverage employing radio frequency propagation algorithms developed by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU). The computer modeling software we use in our analysis employs satellite mapping databases that integrate terrain topology and clutter losses that impact radio coverage in the Ultra High Frequency (UHF) wireless radio bands. Figure 3 is a coverage map in Verizon's 700 MHz wireless band generated by the ITU-based software. For this model we specified a minimum signal intensity of -85 dBm for in building coverage at 90% of the locations 95% of the time (Green contour). For in-vehicle, a signal power of 1/10 the in-building level (-95 dBm) and a minimum signal power of -105 dBm in open areas. Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 9 Under the assumed performance parameters, the calculated in-building service area for the existing Verizon site is 4.4 square miles. Figure 4 is a coverage map illustrating the existing tower location maintaining the same performance criteria used for Figure 3. The only difference is the reduction of the Verizon antenna height. The lowering of the antenna reduces the net in-building coverage area from the current 4.4 mi² to 3.4 mi², a reduction of 1.0 square mile or 22.7% less. The Appendix contains details two pairs of similar coverage map plots for both 700 MHz low- band and the 2150 MHz mid-band, along with assumptions made in preparing the Verizon coverage exhibit. The lowering of the antenna reduces the net in-building coverage area in the Verizon 2150 MHz band from the current 0.7 mi² to 0.5 mi², a reduction of 0.1 square mile or 28.6% less. Figure 3: ITU Propagation Model 700 MHz Coverage Map at 73.5' Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 10 Figure 4: ITU Propagation Model 700 MHz Coverage Map reduced to 43.5' Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 11 5 Analysis of Existing T-Mobile Coverage The existing wireless tower supports Verizon antennas at a radiation center 40.75 feet above ground level. T-Mobile delivers wireless service to customers in their FCC licensed 600/700 MHz, 850 MHz, 1,900 MHz, and 2,500 MHz bands. The applicant has submitted an analysis of the coverage area impact imposed by a height limitation of 45' for this wireless facility. Figure 5 is a computer-generated coverage map prepared by the applicant that depicts the coverage provided by McGlincy Lane (labeled SF64242S) along with the service areas of neighboring T-Mobile sites surrounding the McGlincy site in the 2,500 MHz band. The red shaded color code of the coverage plot corresponds to the signal power intensity. The darkest red areas define signal power intensity required to provide reliable in-building coverage. The lighter red areas correspond to sign level adequate to serve in-vehicle communications. The white areas indicate no reliable coverage from the sites depicted in the exhibit. Figure 5: Applicant Calculated 2,500 MHz Wireless Coverage Area at 40.75' AGL Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 12 Figure 6 is a computer-generated plot of the applicant coverage without any service provided by the McGlincy site, here depicted as tower “SF642425”. Figure 6: Applicant Calculated 2,500 MHz Wireless Coverage Area at 40.75' AGL without site SF64242S As with the Verizon example, without the McGlincy Lane activated, there would be no reliable in-building Verizon coverage in the 2,500 MHz band within a radius of approximately 1 mile of the McGlincy site. Other exhibits provided by the applicant indicate that the adjacent sites operating in the T-Mobile 600 MHz band would address in-vehicle coverage in most areas currently served by the McGlincy site. Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 13 5.1 CTC's Independent T-Mobile Coverage Modeling Results As with our Verizon Coverage analysis, CTC performed an independent analysis of existing T- Mobile coverage using radio frequency propagation algorithms developed by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU). The computer modeling software we use in our analysis employs satellite mapping databases that integrate terrain topology and clutter losses that impact radio coverage in the Ultra High Frequency (UHF) wireless radio bands. Figure 7 is a coverage map in T-Mobile 2,500 MHz wireless band generated by the ITU-based software. For this model we specified a minimum signal intensity of -85 dBm for in building coverage at 90% of the locations 95% of the time (Green contour). For in-vehicle, a signal power of 1/10 the in-building level (-95 dBm) and a minimum signal power of -105 dBm in open areas. Under the assumed performance parameters, the calculated in-building service area for the existing T-Mobile site is 0.5 square miles. Figure 8 is a coverage map illustrating the existing tower location, maintaining the same performance criteria used for Figure 7. The only difference is the reduction of the T-Mobile antenna height. The lowering of the antenna reduces the net in-building coverage area from the current 0.5 mi² to 0.4 mi², a reduction of 0.1 square mile or 20%. Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 14 Figure 7: ITU Propagation Model T-Mobile 2,500 MHz Coverage Map at 40.75' Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 15 Figure 8: ITU Propagation Model T-Mobile 2,500 MHz Coverage Map reduced to 33.5' Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 16 6 Impact lowering tower height with Respect to Radio Frequency Exposure The FCC’s guidelines for evaluating human exposure to RF signals were first established in 1985. The current guidelines were adopted in August 1997 in FCC OET Bulletin 65.2 The guidelines are expressed in terms of Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) to electric and magnetic field strength and power density. The guidelines, which cover the frequency range of 300 kHz to 100 GHz, address two separate tiers of exposure: 1. Occupational/controlled exposure limits apply to situations in which persons are exposed as a consequence of their employment and in which those persons who are exposed have been made fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over their exposure. 2. General population/uncontrolled exposure limits apply to situations in which the general public may be exposed or in which persons who are exposed as a consequence of their employment may not be made fully aware of the potential for exposure or cannot exercise control over their exposure. Figure 9 is a plot of MPE as a function of radiofrequency (RF) human exposure as a function of the frequency spectrum. Note that the spectrum between 30 and 300 MHz is the most restrictive. All commercial wireless networks operate in spectrum above 600 MHz. Figure 9: FCC Limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure 2 “Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields,” OET Bulletin 65, edition 97-01. https://www.fcc.gov/general/oet-bulletins-line#65 Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 17 We received specifications for the radio equipment that are currently in use and are planned for this site. This information has been used to examine the radiation levels compliant with the FCC’s guidelines for evaluating human exposure to RF signals as adopted in August 1997 in FCC OET Bulletin 65. We concur that the proposal is fully compliant with FCC’s limits of radiofrequency exposure. Figure 10 is a Google Earth map depicting the maximum distance radio frequency radiation in the vicinity of the antenna at the individual antenna. Figure 11 is a graph depicting the maximum distance (in meters) radio frequency radiation in the vicinity of the antenna at the individual antenna mounted on a 75' tower at a bearing of 0 degrees. Figure 12 is a graph depicting the maximum distance (in meters) radio frequency radiation in the vicinity of the antenna at the individual antenna mounted on a 45' tower at a bearing of 0 degrees. Figure 10: Area above the Tower RF Exposure Exceeds FCC Guidelines at Antenna Height Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 18 Figure 11: Existing RF Exposure Level with 75' Monopole (bearing 0 degrees) Distances in meters Verizon Antenna T-Mobile Antenna Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 19 Figure 12: Existing RF exposure level with 45' Monopole (Bearing 0 degrees) Verizon Antenna T-Mobile Antenna Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 20 7 Appendix – Technical Reference Documentation Appendix A- 1: Verizon RadioPlanner Report – 700 MHz – 75’ ............................................................................. 21 Appendix A- 2: Coverage Map Verizon 75' ........................................................................................................... 22 Appendix A- 3: Verizon RadioPlanner Report – 700 MHZ – 43.5' .......................................................................... 23 Appendix A- 4: Coverage Map Verizon 43.5' ........................................................................................................ 24 Appendix A- 5: Verizon RadioPlanner Report – 2150 MHZ – 75' ........................................................................... 25 Appendix A- 6: Coverage Map Verizon 75' ........................................................................................................... 26 Appendix A- 7: Verizon RadioPlanner – 2150 MHZ – 43.5' ................................................................................... 27 Appendix A- 8: Coverage Map Verizon 43.5' ........................................................................................................ 28 Appendix A- 9: T-Mobile RadioPlanner Report –2400 MHZ – 40.75' .................................................................... 29 Appendix A- 10: Coverage Map T-Mobile 40.75' .................................................................................................. 30 Appendix A- 11: T-Mobile RadioPlanner Report –2400 MHZ – 33.5'..................................................................... 31 Appendix A- 12: Coverage Map T-Mobile 33.5' .................................................................................................... 32 Appendix A- 13: Clutter Map of Study.................................................................................................................. 33 Appendix A- 14: Clutter Map Key ......................................................................................................................... 33 Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 21 Appendix A- 1: Verizon RadioPlanner Report – 700 MHz – 75’ Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 22 Appendix A- 2: Coverage Map Verizon 75' Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 23 Appendix A- 3: Verizon RadioPlanner Report – 700 MHZ – 43.5' Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 24 Appendix A- 4: Coverage Map Verizon 43.5' Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 25 Appendix A- 5: Verizon RadioPlanner Report – 2150 MHZ – 75' Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 26 Appendix A- 6: Coverage Map Verizon 75' Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 27 Appendix A- 7: Verizon RadioPlanner – 2150 MHZ – 43.5' Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 28 Appendix A- 8: Coverage Map Verizon 43.5' Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 29 Appendix A- 9: T-Mobile RadioPlanner Report –2400 MHZ – 40.75' Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 30 Appendix A- 10: Coverage Map T-Mobile 40.75' Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 31 Appendix A- 11: T-Mobile RadioPlanner Report –2400 MHZ – 33.5' Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 32 Appendix A- 12: Coverage Map T-Mobile 33.5' Review of Wireless Applications – City of Campbell – January 2023 33 Appendix A- 13: Clutter Map of Study Appendix A- 14: Clutter Map Key To: Site and Architectural Review Committee Date: March 28, 2023 From: Stephen Rose, Senior Planner Via: Rob Eastwood, Community Development Director Subject: Wireless Telecommunications Facility Address: 910 S. McGlincy Lane File No.: PLN-2021-43 (Conditional Use Permit with Site and Architectural Review) PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit with Site and Architectural Review to allow for the establishment of a concealed wireless telecommunications facility (faux tree pole) with a request for a limited exemption from standards to allow for an increase in height (45-feet permitted, 75-feet requested) on property located at 910 S. McGlincy Lane. PROJECT SITE The project site is located on the east side of S. McGlincy Lane, north of Camden Avenue. The site has an existing 75-foot-tall wireless telecommunications facility which presently supports three carriers (Verizon, Dish, and T-Mobile) and includes a chain-link fenced ground mounted equipment area that includes cabinets and an emergency diesel generator. Figures 1 & 2: Project Site & Existing Tower/Enclosure BACKGROUND The existing wireless telecommunications facility was established in 1989 for a single carrier (GTE Mobilenet; now Verizon), at which time the regulation of wireless facilities were under the exclusive jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). Under the authority of the CPUC, compliance with local development standards (i.e., setbacks, height) and land use permit requirements (i.e., Conditional Use Permit, expiration dates) were not required1. 1 The facility did receive approval of a building permit in 1989 (#15263). MEMORANDUM Community Development Department Planning Division Attachment E SARC Memorandum – March 28, 2023 Page 2 of 5 PLN-2021-43 ~ 910 S. McGlincy Lane On June 18, 1998, the City of Campbell established a Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance (Ordinance No. 1965) which established site development, design, as well as permit time limitations (expiration period) for both new and existing facilities (including those established without a time limit by the CPUC). Under this provision, the facility’s approval expired in 2003. In 2010, the Planning Commission granted two Conditional Use Permits allowing for the continued operation of this wireless facility until 2020 as well as the installation of the equipment for a second carrier further down the pole (Clearwire; now T-Mobile). In 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4140 allowing a Conditional Use Permit allowing for the installation of additional antennas, serving Verizon, and extending operations until March 21, 2024. In 2017, the City Council repealed and replaced the City’s Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance establishing a new Ordinance (CMC Chapter 21.34) and associated Wireless Facility Design Requirements. The standards set a higher standard for the design and concealment of all facilities (including those seeking renewal), limited the maximum structure height to that allowed by the zoning district, and established permitting procedures for Eligible Facility Requests (EFR) which may allow for expansion of an existing facility, including the addition of additional carrier equipment without a public hearing or discretionary review when meeting certain requirements. In 2022, the city received and approved an EFR request for Dish Network on the subject property. PROJECT DATA Zoning District: M-1 (Light Industrial) General Plan Designation: Light Industrial Existing/Proposed Tower Requirement/Standard Structure Height: 75-feet2 45-feet DISCUSSION The purpose of the Site and Architectural Review Committee's (SARC) review is to provide feedback on site design, circulation, architectural form, materials, colors, and landscaping. To aid in the SARC review, staff has provided an analysis of key project details and raised points as appropriate to facilitate discussion of the subject Wireless Telecommunications Facility. Architectural Design: The design of any new wireless communications facility is largely governed by the City’s Wireless Facility Design Requirements (hereinafter “WFDR”). As the applicant is proposing a faux Eucalyptus tree pole (a type of concealed tower facility), the design requirements specify that the review should include “an assessment of the appropriate tree species, shape, and size, as well as the quality and longevity of materials (branches & bark), color, and finish in consideration of the facilities’ surroundings”. In addition to the general review criteria, all faux tree facilities are required to comply with the following standards, which substantively overlap with the assessment criteria (responses from staff below each point in italics): a. The tree species shall be selected based on its proposed surroundings and ideally placed in an established grove of trees of comparable size, height, species and shape as the proposed. 2 Calculation does not include branches which are considered exempt. Further discussion of eligibility of the facility at the requested height shall be brought forward as part of the Planning Commission discussion. SARC Memorandum – March 28, 2023 Page 3 of 5 PLN-2021-43 ~ 910 S. McGlincy Lane While a ‘faux’ eucalyptus tree is generally a preferred tree species by the WFDR (as they offer the greatest screening where the antennas are mounted), in consideration of the project site and surrounding area there are no other observed eucalyptus trees. The nearest trees of a comparable size are deodar cedars located approximately 150-feet to the north, and southeast of the existing tower. Figures 3 & 4 – Surrounding Trees (Views from the North and South) Given the presence of existing deodar cedar trees in the area, staff would recommend revising the tree species to mimic a deodar cedar and requiring additional deodar trees to be planted onsite (preferred). Alternatively, the SARC may consider maintaining the eucalyptus tree or reconsidering the selection of a tree design entirely in favor of an alternative concealment approach – such as a bell tower, art feature, or similar concealment approach. While not recommended by staff, two examples of such an approach from the WFDR are presented below for reference: Figures 5 & 6 – Alternative Tower Concealment Methods b. Utilize faux trees that replicate the shape, structure, height, and color of live trees. Depending on the species selected, the faux tree should be designed to mimic the design of the tree it is intended to represent. While examples of deodar cedar trees were previously provided (see Figures 3 & 4) examples of eucalyptus trees (while recognizing there are many species) in comparison to the applicant’s proposal have been provided for reference as follows: SARC Memorandum – March 28, 2023 Page 4 of 5 PLN-2021-43 ~ 910 S. McGlincy Lane Figures 7 to 9 – Photosimilation vs. Real Eucalyptus Trees In consideration of the shape/color staff finds the applicants proposal fairly representative of a eucalyptus tree given the location and constraints of trying to retrofit an existing tower. c. The canopy shall completely envelop all tower-mounted equipment and extend beyond the tower-mounted equipment at least 18 inches. Compliance with this requirement is noted on Sheet RF-3 of the project plans. d. The canopy shall be naturally tapered to mimic the particular tree species. See related discussion under ‘b’ above. e. All faux trees must incorporate a sufficient number of branches (no less than 3 branches per foot) and design materials so that the structure is as natural in appearance as possible. Compliance with this requirement is noted on Sheet RF-1 of the project plans. f. Where branches are connected to the pole, the branches shall make a seamless connection with the faux bark cladding. Compliance with this requirement is noted on Sheet RF-1 of the project plans. g. All tower-mounted equipment, including, without limitation, antennas, equipment cabinets, cables, mounts and brackets, shall be painted flat, natural colors to mimic the bark or branches of the particular tree species based on the predominant backdrop. Compliance with this requirement is noted on Sheet RF-1 of the project plans. h. All antennas and other tower-mounted equipment cabinets shall be covered with leaf or needle “socks” to blend in with the faux foliage. Compliance with this requirement is noted on Sheet RF-1 of the project plans. i. The entire vertical structure shall be covered with permanently-affixed three- dimensional faux bark cladding to mimic the particular tree species. SARC Memorandum – March 28, 2023 Page 5 of 5 PLN-2021-43 ~ 910 S. McGlincy Lane Compliance with this requirement is noted on Sheet RF-1 of the project plans. j. All coaxial cables must be routed directly from the ground up through the pole. Compliance with this requirement is noted on Sheet RF-1 of the project plans. CONSIDERATIONS The SARC should discuss the proposed project's design, with a specific emphasis on the following discussion points: • Should the facility be designed as a eucalyptus tree, alternative tree species, or a different concealed facility type (i.e., bell tower)?  Staff Recommendation: The facility should be designed to mimic a deodar cedar tree in consideration of the site context; additional deodar cedar trees should be required to be planted onsite to meet the intent of the WFDR. • Should the shape of the tree be altered in any way to better mimic the desired species?  Staff Recommendation: The facility should be redesigned as a deodar cedar tree. • Should a non-tree stealth option be considered (e.g., bell tower)?  Staff Recommendation: See above; staff recommends redesign of the facility as a deodar cedar tree. Attachments: A. Project Plans