PETITION TO OPPOSE
Conditional Use Permit CUP25-04
Verizon Wireless Telecommunications Facility
725 5th Street – Hermosa Beach

To the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission and City Officials:

We, the undersigned residents and community members, respectfully petition the City of Hermosa Beach to deny Conditional Use Permit CUP25-04, which proposes installation of an approximately 588.5 square foot rooftop Verizon wireless telecommunications facility at 725 5th Street.

While reliable telecommunications infrastructure is important, the proposed project raises serious concerns regarding CEQA compliance, zoning compatibility, visual impacts, and compliance with the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code.

Families, including one with small children, are living just 7 feet away from the proposed cell tower installation. The Planning Commission may approve this project unless residents make their concerns known.

We are asking our community to stand together. Hermosa Beach residents support one another and value the safety and livability of our neighborhoods.

Please sign this petition to help prevent the installation of a large telecommunications tower immediately adjacent to homes where young children live.

 
KEY CONCERNS
1. Failure to Meet Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Guidelines
Four of the seven guidelines in Municipal Code Subsection 17.40.170(D) appear not to be satisfied.

Concerns include:

• Alternate sites were not adequately evaluated
• Alternate sites may exist in industrial areas, but Verizon has declined to fully disclose them
• Preference guidelines for facility placement are not satisfied
• The building is not a preferred facility type

 
2. RF Modeling Relies on Assumed Building Elevations
The RF compliance report relies entirely on predictive modeling based on assumed elevations of nearby buildings and site inputs.

Because RF exposure predictions depend on the vertical distance between antennas and surrounding structures, inaccurate elevation assumptions could alter predicted exposure contours and rooftop safety zones.

Before approving the project, the City should confirm that:

• RF modeling used surveyed roof elevations
• The model accurately reflects the geometry of surrounding buildings

At present, the roof heights of surrounding properties are not accurately recorded or depicted in relation to the antenna height.

 
3. Failure to Demonstrate a Significant Gap in Service or the Least Intrusive Means
Federal law does not require cities to approve every proposed wireless facility.

Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)), local governments retain authority to regulate wireless facility placement through zoning and land use decisions.

Courts within the Ninth Circuit require wireless providers to demonstrate:

• A significant gap in wireless service, and
• That the proposed facility is the least intrusive means of closing that gap

Relevant cases include:

• MetroPCS Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco
• T-Mobile USA Inc. v. City of Anacortes

The burden of proof rests on the applicant and typically requires technical evidence such as:

• Radiofrequency propagation maps
• Drive test data showing real world signal performance
• Dropped call or reliability data
• Engineering analysis demonstrating how the facility resolves the gap

Courts distinguish between true coverage gaps and projects that merely improve service quality or capacity.

In this case, the applicant has not demonstrated that:

• A significant service gap exists in the area, or
• A tower located 7 feet from homes represents the least intrusive means of addressing the gap

Without such evidence, the City may deny the application based on zoning compatibility, neighborhood impacts, and local planning standards.

 
4. Improper Reliance on a CEQA Categorical Exemption
The City proposes to approve the project using a CEQA categorical exemption.

However, CEQA prohibits categorical exemptions when unusual circumstances may create significant environmental effects.

This project includes several unusual circumstances:

• A large telecommunications compound (588.5 square feet)
• Tower height of approximately 35 feet or more
• Extreme proximity to residences (7 feet)
• Location within a mixed use residential coastal neighborhood

Under Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley, such circumstances may require full environmental review rather than a categorical exemption.

 
5. Land Use Compatibility Concerns
The proposed facility is located within a mixed use residential neighborhood with homes immediately adjacent to the site.

The project introduces:

• Antennas
• Rooftop equipment enclosures
• Mechanical infrastructure
• Screening structures
• Additional building mass

This type of infrastructure is typically located in commercial or industrial corridors, not immediately adjacent to residential homes.

Given the scale of the installation and its proximity to nearby residences, the project appears incompatible with surrounding residential land uses.

 
6. Visual Impacts and Neighborhood Character
Telecommunications towers and rooftop compounds can significantly affect:

• Skyline views
• Neighborhood character
• Building massing

These impacts are particularly important in coastal communities, where preservation of visual character is a central planning objective.

 
7. Property Value and Marketability Concerns
Visible telecommunications infrastructure located directly next to homes can affect buyer perception and property marketability.

While property value impacts alone may not determine approval, they are relevant when evaluating compatibility with surrounding land uses under Conditional Use Permit findings.

 
8. Violation of Zoning Height Limits
Hermosa Beach zoning generally limits building height to approximately 30 feet in residential zones.

The proposed facility includes antenna structures approximately 10 feet above the roofline, resulting in an effective structure height exceeding typical zoning limits.

 
9. Failure to Meet Municipal Code Limits on Antenna Height Variances
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.46.210 allows antennas to exceed height limits only when:

• The surface area exceeding the height limit does not exceed 12 square feet, and
• The device does not exceed 15 feet above the building height limit

The proposed telecommunications compound is approximately 588.5 square feet, far exceeding the 12 square foot variance allowance.

 
10. Failure to Evaluate Less Intrusive Alternatives
Before approving a telecommunications facility immediately adjacent to homes, the applicant should demonstrate that less intrusive alternatives were evaluated, including:

• Co- location on existing telecommunications infrastructure
• Placement within commercial zones
• Placement within nearby industrial areas

Approval without evaluating feasible alternatives could expose the permit to legal challenge.

 
11. Precautionary Planning
Although federal law limits denial based solely on RF emissions, the extreme proximity of the proposed installation (7 feet from residences) highlights the importance of prudent siting decisions to protect residential quality of life.

 
CONCLUSION
Before approving a large rooftop telecommunications facility immediately adjacent to residential homes, the City should require the applicant to demonstrate, with competent technical evidence, that:

• A significant gap in wireless service exists, and
• The proposed installation represents the least intrusive means of closing that gap
• A full CEQA environmental review and analysis of alternative sites is completed prior to approval

Without this evidence, approval of the proposed facility would be inconsistent with federal telecommunications law and the land use authority preserved to local governments.

 
REQUEST
For the reasons stated above, we respectfully request that the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission:

• Deny Conditional Use Permit CUP25-04 as currently proposed

Or require the following before any approval:

• Full CEQA environmental review and analysis of alternative sites
• A complete two prong analysis demonstrating a significant gap and least intrusive means
• Compliance with municipal code height limits
• A residential compatibility evaluation
• Re evaluation of Municipal Code Subsection 17.40.170(D) guidelines
• Formal review of the concerns presented in this petition

 
Hermosa Beach residents value the livability, visual character, and residential quality of our coastal community, and telecommunications infrastructure should be deployed in a manner consistent with those values.

Respectfully submitted,

Residents of
Hermosa Beach, California

 

 

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 

 

LEGAL AUTHORITY SUPPORTING OPPOSITION
Proposed Verizon Wireless Facility – 725 5th Street
Conditional Use Permit CUP25-04
This document outlines the legal authority supporting opposition to the proposed Verizon wireless telecommunications facility at 725 5th Street in Hermosa Beach.

 
1. Failure to Demonstrate a Significant Gap in Service and Failure to Demonstrate the Least Intrusive Means
Two Part Legal Test
The Ninth Circuit requires wireless providers to demonstrate two things before a facility may be approved:

A significant gap in wireless service exists
The proposed facility is the least intrusive means of closing that gap
This legal standard comes from:

• MetroPCS Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco (9th Cir. 2005)
• T-Mobile USA Inc. v. City of Anacortes (9th Cir. 2009)

In this CUP case the proposal involves:

• A cell tower 7 feet from homes
• A 588 square foot rooftop compound
• A 40 foot total height structure
• Location in a mixed use residential neighborhood
• Possible commercial and industrial alternatives nearby

These facts strongly support the conclusion that less intrusive alternatives likely exist.

Examples courts expect wireless providers to evaluate include:

• Co location on existing towers
• Mounting antennas on commercial buildings
• Placement in industrial areas
• Use of smaller distributed antennas
• Multiple micro cells instead of a tower

The applicant has not demonstrated that a significant gap in wireless service exists or that the proposed facility represents the least intrusive means of addressing such a gap.

Under Ninth Circuit precedent, telecommunications providers must demonstrate both the existence of a significant coverage gap and that the proposed site is the least intrusive means of closing that gap.

The record does not demonstrate that less intrusive alternatives such as:

• Co location on existing facilities
• Placement in commercial or industrial areas
• Use of distributed antenna systems

have been fully evaluated.

 
Burden of Proof Lies With the Applicant
The burden of proof rests on the telecommunications provider, not the City or the public.

 
Technical Evidence Typically Required to Demonstrate a Significant Gap
Courts expect wireless providers to submit technical evidence demonstrating the existence of a significant gap in service.

Typical evidence includes:

• Propagation maps showing existing and predicted signal strength
• Drive test data measuring real world signal performance
• Dropped call data or network reliability metrics
• Coverage modeling reports prepared by radiofrequency engineers
• Comparisons of signal strength before and after installation

Courts have rejected wireless facility approvals when this evidence is incomplete or insufficient.

In MetroPCS v. City and County of San Francisco, the Ninth Circuit emphasized that generalized claims of improved service are not enough. Providers must present specific technical evidence demonstrating a true coverage gap.

 
Application to the Proposed Facility at 725 5th Street
Before such a facility can be approved so close to residential homes, federal telecommunications law requires the applicant to demonstrate:

A significant gap in wireless service exists, and
The proposed facility represents the least intrusive means of closing that gap.
It remains unclear whether the applicant has provided sufficient technical evidence demonstrating:

• The existence of a significant coverage gap in the surrounding area
• That co location on existing infrastructure has been fully evaluated
• That placement in nearby commercial or industrial areas is infeasible
• That smaller distributed antenna systems could address the alleged service needs

Without such evidence, approval of the proposed facility would be inconsistent with Ninth Circuit legal standards.

 
Compatibility With Local Land Use Authority
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 expressly preserves local authority to regulate the placement and appearance of wireless facilities.

Courts consistently affirm that local governments may deny wireless facilities based on legitimate land use concerns when the applicant fails to satisfy the two part legal test.

See:

• Sprint PCS Assets LLC v. City of Palos Verdes Estates (9th Cir. 2009)

If the applicant cannot demonstrate both a significant service gap and the least intrusive means, the City may lawfully deny the application based on:

• Zoning compatibility
• Aesthetic impacts
• Neighborhood character

 
2. CEQA Prohibits Use of a Categorical Exemption When Unusual Circumstances Exist
The City proposes to rely on a categorical exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

However, CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(c) prohibits categorical exemptions when:

“Unusual circumstances create a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment.”
The California Supreme Court held in:

• Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015)

that when substantial evidence shows unusual circumstances may cause environmental impacts, a categorical exemption cannot be used and environmental review is required.

The proposed project includes several unusual circumstances:

• A 588.5 square foot telecommunications compound
• Placement 7 feet from residential dwellings
• A tower approximately 40 feet above ground level
• Location in a mixed use residential coastal neighborhood

These factors create a reasonable possibility of significant visual and land use impacts, requiring CEQA review.

 
3. Aesthetic and Visual Impacts Are Recognized Environmental Effects
CEQA specifically recognizes aesthetic impacts as environmental impacts.

CEQA requires analysis of impacts on:

• Scenic vistas
• Visual character
• Neighborhood aesthetics

See:

• CEQA Guidelines Section 15125
• CEQA Appendix G

California courts have repeatedly held that visual impacts alone can trigger CEQA review.

See:

• Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004)
• Ocean View Estates Homeowners Assn. v. Montecito Water District (2004)

A 40 foot telecommunications tower in a coastal residential neighborhood presents exactly the type of visual impact CEQA requires agencies to analyze.

 
4. Local Governments Retain Authority Over Wireless Facility Location and Aesthetics
Federal law preserves local zoning authority over wireless facilities.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. Section 332(c)(7)) states that local governments retain authority over:

• Placement
• Construction
• Zoning compatibility
• Aesthetic impacts

Courts consistently uphold local denials based on visual and neighborhood compatibility concerns.

Example:

• Sprint PCS Assets v. City of Palos Verdes Estates (9th Cir. 2009)

Thus, the City retains discretion to deny facilities that conflict with neighborhood character.

 
5. Local Zoning Height Limits Must Be Enforced
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code generally limits building height to approximately 30 feet in residential and mixed use zones.

If the proposed wireless facility extends 10 feet above the roofline, the structure would effectively exceed the permitted height limits.

Courts consistently uphold enforcement of local zoning standards against telecommunications providers.

See:

• MetroPCS v. City and County of San Francisco (9th Cir. 2005)

Local governments may enforce:

• Height limits
• Zoning compatibility
• Development standards

when reviewing wireless facility permits.

 
6. Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Limits Height Variances for Antenna Equipment
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.46.210 allows limited exceptions for antennas.

Height increases above zoning limits are allowed only when:

• The surface area exceeding the height limit does not exceed 12 square feet, and
• The device does not exceed 15 feet above the building height limit

The proposed telecommunications compound is approximately 588.5 square feet, vastly exceeding the 12 square foot allowance.

Therefore the proposed installation does not qualify for the antenna height variance allowed under the code.

 
7. Accessory Equipment Must Comply With Zoning Development Standards
Under Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.40.170, wireless communications equipment must:

• Be located within a building, enclosure, or underground vault
• Comply with development standards of the zoning district

Wireless equipment cannot bypass:

• Height limits
• Development standards
• Compatibility requirements

The proposed rooftop telecommunications compound appears inconsistent with these standards.

 
8. Cities May Require Evaluation of Less Intrusive Alternatives
Courts allow cities to require telecommunications providers to demonstrate that less intrusive alternatives are not feasible.

See:

• T-Mobile USA v. City of Anacortes (9th Cir. 2009)

Cities may require evaluation of:

• Co location on existing towers
• Placement in commercial or industrial zones
• Alternative designs

If feasible alternatives exist, denial of the proposed site is lawful.

 
9. Coastal Communities Have Additional Visual Protection Obligations
Hermosa Beach lies within the California Coastal Zone.

The California Coastal Act (Public Resources Code Section 30251) requires development to:

• Protect coastal visual resources
• Preserve scenic character
• Minimize visual impacts

A highly visible telecommunications tower in a residential coastal neighborhood raises legitimate Coastal Act concerns.