CC SR 20171130 04 - Wireless Telecommunication Facility Permit ASG No. 69RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 11/30/2017
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Public Hearing
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action to grant an appeal and overturn the Planning
Commission's denial of Major Wireless Telecommunication Facility Permit ASG No. 69
to install a Wireless Telecommunication Facility on a replacement streetlight pole across
from 3486 Seaglen Drive.
Quasi -Judicial Decision
This item is a quasi-judicial decision in which the City Council is being asked to
affirm whether specific findings of fact can be made in order to overturn the denial
of the Planning Commission's decision. The specific findings of fact are listed in the
Resolution per Chapter 12.18 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code
(RPVMC).
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Adopt Resolution No. 2017-_, thereby granting an appeal and overturning the
Planning Commission's denial of Major Wireless Telecommunication Facility
Permit ASG No. 69 to allow the installation of two panel antennas encased in a
canister measuring 2' tall and 14.6" in diameter with a 2' tall tapered shroud
sleeve to a replacement streetlight pole measuring a total maximum height of
26.7' with underground vaulted accessory equipment (Option No. 1) across from
3486 Seaglen Drive.
FISCAL IMPACT: The Appellant has paid the applicable appeal fees, as established
by Resolution of the City Council. If the Appellant is successful in the appeal, and the
City Council overturns the Planning Commission's decision to deny the project, the
Appellant will receive a full refund of their appeal fee. Thus, all in-house Staff costs
associated with the processing of the appeal will come from the City's General Fund.
Costs for work conducted by the City's consultants, including the City's contract planner
and the City's RF engineer, are borne by the Appellant (Crown Castle) via trust deposit.
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: Art Bashmakian, AICP, Contract Planner
REVIEWED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, Director of Community Development
REVIEWED BY: Christy Marie Lopez, Special Legal Counsel
APPROVED BY: Doug Willmore, City Manager
55478.00001\30331095.1 1
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Draft Resolution No. 2017-_ (page A-1)
B. Revised Design Options (page B-1)
C. Appeal Letter to City Council dated October 20, 2017 (page C-1)
D. P.C. Resolution No. 2017-37 — denying without prejudice (page D-1)
E. October 10, 2017 P.C. Staff Report (page E-1)
1. P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -XX including Conditions of Approval
2. Project plans and photo simulations
3. Canister shroud alternative Project plans and photo simulations
4. City's View Assessment Memo
5. Technical information from the City's RF Engineer
6. Coverage Maps and Supporting Documents from the Applicant
7. Feasibility Analysis on Alternate Sites
8. September 5, 2017 Shot Clock Tolling Agreement
9. Public Comment
F. Public Comments (page F-1)
G. Tolling Agreement (page G-1)
Click on the link below to view the October 10, 2017 Planning Commission meeting on
ASG No. 69 - Agenda Item No. 6 (time stamp: 25:35):
http://rpv.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view id=5&clip id=2913
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
Crown Castle, the Appellant, is a tower company hired by wireless companies for the
purposes of acquiring sites for the construction and deployment of wireless
telecommunications antennas throughout local jurisdictions. Pursuant to Chapter 12.18
of the RPVMC, Crown Castle is proposing to install approximately 26 new antennas in
the City's public right-of-way (PROW), including the subject application, to provide
services to AT&T consumers throughout the City.
Original Project Description and Location
The wireless telecommunication facility considered by the Planning Commission
consisted of the replacement of the existing 24.5' tall concrete streetlight pole with a 24'
tall streetlight pole with mast arm and attached luminaire to accommodate the
installation of two 21.4" flush side -mounted panel antennas that would be affixed to the
side of the pole with accessory equipment to be vaulted in the public right-of-way
(PROW). The subject site is located entirely within the PROW, approximately 759 feet
west of Floweridge Drive on the northeast side of Seaglen Drive across from 3486
Seaglen Drive. The surrounding land uses are single family residences. The site is
adjacent to a large terraced slope to the northeast and south of the subject site. The
55478.00001\30331095.1 ^
photos below show the existing site and a photo simulation of the project considered by
the Planning Commission.
Existing Site Original Proposal
Planning Commission's Decision
On October 10, 2017, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider
the Appellant's request. At this meeting, after considering evidence introduced in the
record including public testimony from the Appellant, neighbors, Staff, and the City's RF
Consultant, the Planning Commission moved to deny, without prejudice, the project and
directed Staff to come back with a resolution memorializing the motion at its October 24,
2017. The denial resolution was adopted on October 24th on a vote of 5-1-1 (former
Chairman Cruikshank abstaining because he was absent from the October 10, 2017
meeting and Commissioner Leon absent at the October 24th meeting). The
Commission's denial was based on the following findings:
• The overall appearance of the antennas on the replacement street light pole at
the proposed location would be a dominant feature which would be out -of -
character with the surrounding neighborhood.
• The wireless telecommunication facility would be a dominant feature on the
residential street.
• The wireless telecommunication facility would not visually blend with the
surrounding environment and the "industrial -utility" looking style of the facility
would not be compatible with the style and quality of the surrounding residential
neighborhood.
• The wireless telecommunication facility would draw attention and would reduce
the desirability, including the potential to reduce property values, of the
surrounding residential neighborhood.
• The wireless telecommunication facility covers a relatively small portion of the
technical service objective and will not provide service to a significant number of
uses.
• There was no significant coverage deficiency in the area.
55478.00001\30331095.1
• The wireless facility was located on a cul-de-sac street that did not serve a high
volume of vehicle trips.
Basis for the Appeal
On October 20, 2017, the Appellant filed a timely appeal (Attachment B) of the Planning
Commission's denial of Major Wireless Telecommunication Facility Permit ASG No. 69
contending that the denial and the reasons for the denial effectively prohibits or has the
effect of prohibiting the provisions of personal wireless services. In summary, the
Appellant believes that the Commission's decision was not based on substantial
evidence and that the denial violates the Appellant's right to deploy its facilities in the
public rights-of-way in violation of Public Utilities Code section 7901, in that that the
Planning Commission's action exceeds the local control over the "time place and
manner" of access to the right-of-way.
Revised Project
In response to the Planning Commission's decision, the Appellant has reassessed its
proposal and is presenting, in addition to the original design, three new design options
for the Council's consideration as part of the appeal proceedings. Option Nos. 1 - 3
consist of two panel antennas encased in a canister shroud measuring 2' tall and 14.6"
in diameter with different pole dimensions, as described below:
Option No. 1 - Consists of a tapered streetlight pole similar in size (6" diameter at the
top of the pole) to a standard streetlight pole with the canister and a 2' tall sleeve
shrouds attached to the top of the pole at a maximum height of 26.7' to the top of the
canister.
Option No. 2 - Consists of a streetlight pole measuring 14.6" in diameter that seamlessly
blends in with the 2' tall canister shroud.
Option No. 3 - Consists of a streetlight pole measuring 16" diameter that seamlessly
blends in with the canister shroud. This wider pole accommodates the accessory
equipment within the interior of the pole eliminating the need to vault the mechanical
equipment in the ground.
Option No. 4 (Original Project) — Consists of two 21.4" tall side -mounted panel antennas
affixed to the side of a 6" in diameter at the bottom and 7" in diameter at the top of the
replacement streetlight pole measuring a total height of 24.5'.
Photo simulations of the four design options are shown on the next page (see B-1 for
larger images):
55478.00001\30331095.1
Option No. 1 Option No. 2 Option No. 3 Option No. 4
Based on the four options, Staff's preference is Option No. 1 because it results in a
facility that is least intrusive to the neighborhood by concealing the panel antennas and
associated wires within a canister shroud measuring 14.6" in diameter. The canister
shroud before the City Council has been reduced in diameter by approximately 10" than
the canister shroud considered by the Planning Commission resulting in a slimmer
profile. In comparison to Option Nos. 2 and 3, which both designs include a wider
streetlight pole that does not match the streetlight poles within the neighborhood, the
design of Option No. 1 aligns with the required findings cited in Section 12.18.090 of the
RPVMC, including the general guidelines stated in Section 12.18.080 of the RPVMC, as
summarized below:
• Employs screening with the canister shroud.
• Minimizes view and visual impacts with the panel antennas and related wires
encased in a shroud with underground vaulted mechanical equipment.
• Avoids adverse impacts to traffic patterns including pedestrians and vehicles.
• Incorporates blending design techniques.
• Matches the material, color, diameter, and height of streetlight poles within the
immediate neighborhood.
• Utilizes existing infrastructure thereby avoiding the installation of new poles.
• Represents the least intrusive design as compared to alternative designs and
locations.
• Meets the Appellant's coverage objective (see discussion below).
A detailed analysis of the required findings can be found in the attached resolution
(Attachment A). Exhibit A to the attached resolution includes the Conditions of Approval
regulating the installation, appearance, and maintenance of the wireless facility within
the public right-of-way mitigating potential adverse impacts to the immediate
neighborhood.
55478.00001\30331095.1
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
City Council Site Visit
The City Council is encouraged to visit the project site and the proposed installation for,
among other things, design assessment and location. The Council will be asked to
disclose whether they visited the project site before opening the public hearing.
Coverage Gap Analysis
Sections 12.18.050(B)(1 9)(a) and (b) of the RPVMC states that in the event an
applicant seeks to install a wireless telecommunication facility within the public right-of-
way to address service coverage concerns and/or service capacity concerns, the
applicant needs to submit propagation maps with objective units of signal strength
measurement regarding current service coverage and written explanation identifying the
existing facilities with service capacity issues. As part of the original application, the
Appellant's submitted maps and a written justification have been reviewed by the City's
RF Consultant who has concluded that the signal levels are lower than the levels
industry guidelines suggested to support modern 3G/4G customer needs. The City's RF
Consultant also concluded that the proposed installation will provide ample signal
intensity to support AT&T's 3G/4G wireless services (page E-1). The Planning
Commission concluded that the wireless facility was located on a cul-de-sac street that
did not serve a high volume of vehicle trips.
Pole Design Options Mockup:
The Appellant has installed a mockup of "replacement pole" design examples for
supporting the proposed telecommunication panel antennas. The mock-ups are located
adjacent to the City's maintenance yard at the City Hall site for City Council, Planning
Commission, and public viewing.
Mockua Notice Issued
On July 6, 2017, the Applicant (Crown Castle) received a Public Works Encroachment
Permit to install a Mockup of a proposed wireless telecommunications facility. The
temporary mock-up was installed on July 20, 2017. This is a required step in the
Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Application for all proposed wireless facility
installations. Pursuant to Chapter 12.18 of the RPVMC, the City Council is to review
this specific proposed installations for, among other things, design assessment and
location. The temporary mockup installation will remains in-place as a matter of public
notice up -to and during the appeal proceedings.
Public Notice
On November 15, 2017, a public hearing notice was published in the Daily Breeze
announcing tonight's special meeting on the project application. Similarly, public
55478.00001\30331095.1
notices were mailed to property owners within a 500' radius of the project site and to
list -serve subscribers announcing the public hearing and inviting public comments on
the appeal. An additional courtesy public notice was published in the Peninsula News
on Thursday, November 23, 2017.
Public Comments
Attached are the public comments received since the appeal notice was issued (page F-
1).
Planning Commission Chairman
Pursuant to City Council Policy No. 24, Planning Commission Vice -Chair James will be
attending the November 30th meeting in event the Council has any questions pertaining
to the Commission's decisions in this matter.
Shot Clock
State and federal laws, and a FCC ruling, provide that a local jurisdiction must act on an
application for certain wireless facilities antennas within the following certain strict
timeframes:
(1) a 150 -day shot clock for new facilities;
(2) a 90 -day shot clock for modifications resulting in a substantial change; or
(3) a 60 -day shot clock for modifications that do not result in a substantial change.
If a local government fails to approve or deny a facilities request within the applicable
time period, the request will be "deemed granted" upon written notification from the
applicant to the local government stating that the request is considered approved.
The Project application proposes a new facility subject to the 150 -day shot clock. The
application was submitted on July 14, 2016. The clock was "tolled" several times as a
result of incomplete application submittals. As such it was set to expire on October 23,
2017. A Shot Clock Tolling Agreement, dated September 5, 2017 established a new
Shot Clock Expiration date of October 31, 2017 (page G-1).
The Planning Commission's action on the Project was the final City decision, unless
appealed to the City Council. While the law is not clear, there is no binding legal
precedent in California requiring that the shot clock run pending an appeal period.
Accordingly, it is thought that the Commission's action on the Project may toll the shot
clock.
CONCLUSION:
Based on the forgoing discussion, Staff recommends that the City Council adopt
Resolution No. 2017- _, thereby granting the appeal and overturning the Planning
Commission's decision to deny Major Wireless Telecommunication Facility Permit ASG
55478.00001\30331095.1
No. 69 to allow the installation of two panel antennas encased in a canister measuring
2' tall and 14.6" in diameter with a 2' tall tapered shroud sleeve to a replacement
streetlight pole measuring a total maximum height of 26.7' with vaulted accessory
equipment (Option No. 1) across from 3486 Seaglen Drive.
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to Staff's recommendation, the following alternative is available for
consideration by the City Council:
1. Deny the appeal, thereby upholding the Planning Commission's denial of Major
Wireless Telecommunication Facility Permit ASG No. 69 and direct Staff to return
with a revised Resolution at the December 19, 2017 City Council Meeting.
2. Modify the appeal and direct Staff to return with a revised Resolution at the
December 19, 2017, City Council Meeting. This action would entitle the
Appellants to a refund of one-half of their appeal fee.
3. Identify any issues of concern with the proposed project, provide Staff and/or the
Appellant with direction in modifying the project, and continue the public hearing
to a date certain.
55478.00001\30331095.1
RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES GRANTING AN APPEAL AND
OVERTURNING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF
MAJOR WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY PERMIT
ASG NO. 69 TO ALLOW THE INSTALLATION OF TWO PANEL
ANTENNAS ENCASED IN A CANISTER MEASURING 2' TALL AND
14.6" IN DIAMETER WITH A 2' TALL TAPERED SHROUD SLEEVE
TO A REPLACEMENT STREETLIGHT POLE MEASURING A TOTAL
MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 26.7' WITH VAULTED ACCESSORY
EQUIPMENT (OPTION NO. 1) ACROSS FROM 3486 SEAGLEN
DRIVE.
WHEREAS, Chapter 12.18 of the Rancho Palo Verde Municipal Code (RPVMC
or Municipal Code) governs the permitting, development, siting, installation, design,
operation and maintenance of wireless telecommunications facilities ("WTFs") in the
City's public right-of-way ("PROW") (RPVMC § 12.18.010);
WHEREAS, beginning in May of 2016, Crown Castle (the "Applicant") applied to
the City for an Wireless Telecommunications Facility Permit ("WTFP"), pursuant to
Section 12.18.040(A) of the Municipal Code, to install 26 antennas in the public right-of-
way (PROW) to service AT&T customers throughout the City including ASG No. 69
("Project") located across from 3486 Seaglen Drive;
WHEREAS, the Project called for the replacement of the existing 24.5' tall
concrete streetlight pole with a 24' tall streetlight pole with mast arm and attached
luminaire to accommodate the installation of two 21.4" flush side -mounted panel
antennas that would be affixed to the side of the pole with accessory equipment to be
vaulted underground in the PROW;
WHEREAS, because the Project's location is within a residential zone and within
the PROW of local streets as identified in the General Plan, approval of a WTFP also
requires an exception under Section 12.18.190 of the Municipal Code;
WHEREAS, the Project is exempt from review under the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") because the Project constitutes a small scale
installation of new a new facility (14 CCR § 15303(d));
WHEREAS, on October 10, 2017, after considering testimony and evidence
presented at the public hearings, the information and findings included in the Staff
Report, and other records of proceedings, the Planning Commission of the City of
55478.00001\30331131.1
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 1 of 2U
A-1
Rancho Palos Verdes moved to deny, without prejudice, ASG No. 69 and directed Staff
to come back with a denial resolution for adoption at its October 24, 2017 meeting;
WHEREAS, on October 24, 2017, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution
denying without prejudice, ASG No. 69, on a vote of 5-1-1 with Chairman Cruikshank
abstaining because he was absent from the October 10, 2017 meeting and
Commissioner Leon absent at the October 24th meeting.
WHEREAS, on October 20, 2017, a timely appeal of the denial was filed by the
Applicant (before the denial resolution was adopted).
WHEREAS, on November 15, 2017, a public notice was mailed to property
owners within a 500 -foot radius of the subject site, to list -serve subscribers, and
published in the Daily Breeze, pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos
Verdes Municipal Code. A courtesy public notice was published in the Peninsula News
on November 23, 2017; and,
WHEREAS, on November 30, 2017, the City Council held a duly noticed public
hearing, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and
present evidence.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The City Council hereby grants the appeal and overturns the
Planning Commission's denial of Major Wireless Telecommunications Facility Permit
("WTFP") ASG No. 69 involving a project that called for the replacement of the existing
24.5' tall concrete streetlight pole with a 24' tall streetlight pole with mast arm and
luminaire to accommodate the installation of two 21.4" flush side -mounted panel
antennas that would be affixed to the side of the pole with accessory equipment to be
vaulted in the PROW and approves a Major Wireless Telecommunications Facility
Permit ("WTFP") involving a modified design consisting of two panel antennas encased
in a canister measuring 2' tall and 14.6" in diameter with a 2' tall tapered shroud sleeve
to a replacement streetlight pole measuring a total maximum height of 26.7' with
accessory equipment to be vaulted underground in the PROW (Option No. 1) based on
the following findings.
Section 2: Approval of a WTFP is warranted because the Project meets the
findings required by Section 12.18.090 of the Municipal Code:
A. All notices required for the proposed installation have been given.
Crown Castle and the City have provided all notices required by the RPVMC. On
July 6, 2017 property owners within 500' of the proposed facility were notified of
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 2 of 2U
55478.00001 \30331131.1
A-2
the WTF mock-up which occurred at least 30 days in advance of the public
hearing. Further, on September 21, 2017, a public notice announcing the October
10, 2017 public hearing was published in the Daily Breeze and provided to
property owners within 500' of the proposed WTF. On November 15, 2017 a
public notice announcing the November 30, 2017 public hearing on the appeal of
the Planning Commission's denial of ASG 69 was published in the Daily Breeze
and provided to property owners within 500' of the proposed facility and to list -
serve subscribers. An added courtesy public notice was published in the
Peninsula News on November 23, 2017.
B. The proposed facility has been designed and located in compliance with all
applicable provisions of this chapter.
12.18.080(A)(1)(a): The Applicant shall employ screening, undergrounding and
camouflage design techniques in the design and placement of wireless
telecommunications facilities in order to ensure that the facility is as visually
screened as possible, to prevent the facility from dominating the surrounding area
and to minimize significant view impacts from surrounding properties all in a
manner that achieves compatibility with the community and in compliance with
Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration) of this code.
The Project employs screening and a camouflage design as the panel antennas
will be encased in a 2' tall canister, measuring 14.6" in diameter that will be
mounted on top of the replacement streetlight pole at a total of 26.7' in height as
measured from grade to the top of the canister affixed to the pole. The slim
canister design minimizes the visual intrusion to the environment. The Project
presents a slim profile that blends cleanly with the verticality of the light pole. The
light standard is designed to match the light standard being replaced and other
light standards in the immediate area. The proposal places all of the related
mechanical equipment underground in a vault. The proposed installation will not
have any significant view impairment to surrounding properties pursuant to
Chapter 17.02.040 of the RPVMC. Further minimizing the visual impact, the
proposed location is on the slope side of the street and not on the same side of
the street as adjacent residents.
12.18.080(A)(1)(b): Screening shall be designed to be architecturally compatible
with surrounding structures using appropriate techniques to camouflage, disguise,
and/or blend into the environment, including landscaping, color, and other
techniques to minimize the facility's visual impact as well as be compatible with
the architectural character of the surrounding buildings or structures in terms of
color, size, proportion, style, and quality.
55478.00001\30331131.1
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 3 of 2U
A-3
The proposed WTF will be affixed to a replacement streetlight pole that matches
other streetlight poles in the area, and the replacement streetlight pole will utilize
similar color, size, proportion, style, and quality to other street poles in the area by
being limited to a height of 26.7' and at a similar diameter of 6" at the bottom of
the pole and 7" at the top of the pole. The 2' tall canister and the 2' tall canister
sleeve shroud will be professionally painted a concrete marbelite color to blend
with the existing pole and poles in the neighborhood. The mechanical equipment
will be vaulted within the parkway.
12.18.080(A)(1)(c): Facilities shall be located such that views from a residential
structure are not significantly impaired. Facilities shall also be located in a manner
that protects public views over city view corridors, as defined in the city's general
plan, so that no significant view impairment results in accordance with this code
including Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration). This provision
shall be applied consistent with local, state and federal law.
The Project does not result in a significant view impairment to surrounding
residences on Seaglen Drive as the pole is located on the opposite side of the
street that views are experienced from and adjacent to an upslope. This finding
remains unchanged with the replacement pole and with the slimmer canister
design. The proposed WTF is not located in a view corridor identified in the City's
General Plan or Coastal Specific Plan.
12.18.080(A)(3): Traffic Safety. All facilities shall be designed and located in such
a manner as to avoid adverse impacts to traffic safety.
The Project involves a replacement streetlight pole with the placement of
antennas within a canister mounted on top of the pole with a total height 26.7'.
Additionally, the related mechanical equipment will be vaulted underground
avoiding traffic safety impacts, and in compliance standards for undergrounding
equipment under a street.
12.18.080(A)(4): Blending Methods. All facilities shall have subdued colors and
non -reflective materials that blend with the materials and colors of the surrounding
area and structures.
The proposed streetlight pole and affixed equipment will consist of colors and
materials that are subdued, non -reflective and are the same as the other
streetlight poles in the immediate area.
12.18.080(A)(5): Equipment. The Applicant shall use the least visible equipment
possible. Antenna elements shall be flush mounted, to the extent feasible. All
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 4 of 2_G
55478.00001 \30331131.1
antenna mounts shall be designed so as not to preclude possible future
collocation by the same or other operators or carriers. Unless otherwise provided
in this section, antennas shall be situated as close to the ground as possible.
The Project consists of a replacement streetlight pole with the installation of
antennas encased in a 2' tall and 14.6" in diameter canister affixed to the top of the
pole with a 2' tall canister sleeve shroud connecting the canister to the pole at a
maximum height of 26.7' to the top of the canister. The Project proposes a slim
profile design that blends cleanly with the verticality of the light pole and is the
least visible of the options presented.
12.18.080(A)(6)(a): Facilities shall be located consistent with Section 12.18.200
(Location Restrictions) unless an exception pursuant to Section 12.18.190
(Exceptions) is granted.
The proposed location is within the PROW of local residential streets as identified
in the City's General Plan and the City Council finds that an Exception shall be
made (see Section 3 below).
12.18.080(A)(6)(d): Light Poles. The maximum height of any antenna shall not
exceed four feet above the existing height of a light pole. Any portion of the
antenna or equipment mounted on a pole shall be no less than 16% feet above
any drivable road surface.
No portion of the antenna or equipment is less than 16Y2 ' above the drivable road
surface and does not exceed 4' above the existing height of the pole.
12.18.080(A)(6)(e): Replacement Poles. If an Applicant proposes to replace a
pole in order to accommodate a proposed facility, the pole shall be designed to
resemble the appearance and dimensions of existing poles near the proposed
location, including size, height, color, materials and style to the maximum extent
feasible.
The replacement street light pole, as conditioned, will match the appearance, in
terms of color, height, size and dimensions of other light poles in the immediate
area.
12.18.080(A)(6)(i): All cables, including, but not limited to, electrical and utility
cables, shall be run within the interior of the pole and shall be camouflaged or
hidden to the fullest extent feasible.
55478.00001 \30331131.1
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 5 of 2U
A-5
All cables and wires will be encased within the canister and tapered sleeve shroud
and directly routed into the pole in order to be hidden from view with no loops,
exposed cables, splitters or unsightly wires.
12.18.080(A)(7): Space. Each facility shall be designed to occupy the least
amount of space in the right-of-way that is technically feasible.
The replacement streetlight pole is similar in dimension to the existing streetlight
pole. The placement of the antennas on the top of the pole at a similar height as
the existing pole will occupy limited air space above the right-of-way. The
accessory equipment will be undergrounded and the vault necessary to house the
equipment measures approximately 43 square feet in area. According to the
Application, this space is the least amount of space that is technically feasible for
vaulted equipment owned by AT&T. The space that will be occupied for the vault
is below the surface with exhaust vents that will be flush to the surrounding
parkway ground.
12.18.080(A)(8): Wind Loads. Each facility shall be properly engineered to
withstand wind loads as required by this code or any duly adopted or incorporated
code. An evaluation of high wind load capacity shall include the impact of
modification of an existing facility.
Based on the information submitted by the Applicant, the City Council finds that
the proposed installation complies with all building codes related to wind loads.
12.18.080(A)(9): Obstructions. Each component part of a facility shall be located
so as not to cause any physical or visual obstruction to pedestrian or vehicular
traffic, incommode the public's use of the right-of-way, or safety hazards to
pedestrians and motorists and in compliance with Section 17.48.070 (Intersection
Visibility) so as not to obstruct the intersection visibility triangle.
The Project design, height and size, including the undergrounding of the
mechanical equipment, will not cause an obstruction to the public's use of the
PROW, constitute a safety hazard and/or does not interfere with the City -defined
intersection visibility triangle. The replacement pole provides the same, height and
setback parameters applicable to the existing streetlights as well as other
streetlights in the vicinity. The proposed mechanical equipment will be vaulted
under the existing parkway, and conditions are proposed to ensure the vents do
not physically obstruct the safe use of the parkway.
12.18.080(A)(10): Public Facilities. A facility shall not be located within any
portion of the public right-of-way interfering with access to a fire hydrant, fire
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 6 of 2D
55478.00001\30331131.1
1 o
station, fire escape, water valve, underground vault, valve housing structure, or
any other public health or safety facility.
The proposed installation, including the undergrounding of the mechanical
equipment, will not interfere with fire hydrants, fire stations, water lines or any
other public health or safety facilities
C. If applicable, the Applicant has demonstrated its inability to locate on
existing infrastructure.
Not applicable as the proposed WTF antennas are proposed to be installed on a
replacement street light pole that's currently an existing infrastructure.
D. The Applicant has provided sufficient evidence supporting the Applicant's
claim that it has the right to enter the public right-of-way pursuant to state
or federal law, or the Applicant has entered into a franchise agreement with
the city permitting them to use the public right-of-way.
The Applicant has submitted to the City a Right of Way Use Agreement (RUA)
entered into with the City in 2011, which allows the Applicant to install wireless
antennas in the PROW. Further, the Applicant has submitted a Certificate of
Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) issued by the California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC) which provides that the Applicant has been
authorized to install wireless telecommunications infrastructure in the PROW.
E. The Applicant has demonstrated the proposed installation is designed such
that the proposed installation represents the least intrusive means possible
and supported by factual evidence and a meaningful comparative analysis
to show that all alternative locations and designs identified in the
application review process were technically infeasible or not available.
Alternative locations were identified in the application review process. The revised
design, which includes the installation of two antenna panels encased in a 2' tall
and 14.6" in diameter canister affixed to the top of the pole with a 2' tall tapered
sleeve shroud connecting the canister to the pole is the least intrusive means of
those alternatives. According to the Applicant, there is technology that is possible
to use but that would require a greater number of facilities throughout the
community to provide equal coverage and capacity. This may require the
introduction of new pole structures where there are no streetlights or utility poles
and may require associated accessory equipment at every location.
55478.00001 \30331131.1
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 7 of 26
A-7
Other locations and designs considered as part of the application process for
purposes of filling the coverage gap claimed by the Applicant were found to be
more intrusive then the proposed Project.
Section 3: Because the Project's location is within a residential zone and
within the PROW of local streets as identified in the General Plan, approval of a WTFP
also requires an exception under Section 12.18.190 of the Municipal Code. The Project
meets the findings for an exception as required by Section 12.18.190(B) of the
Municipal Code:
1. The proposed wireless facility qualifies as a "personal wireless services
facility" as defined in United States Code, Title 47, section
332(c)(7)(C)(ii).
The WTF meets the definition of "personal wireless services facility" as
defined by the United States Code.
2. The Applicant has provided the city with a clearly defined technical
service objective and a clearly defined potential site search area.
The "technical service objective" identified by the Applicant in all application
documents is the coverage of a "significant gap" in service along Seaglen
Drive. This application information was provided to the City's RF Engineer
who reviewed the information, as well as conducted both on-site walkouts of
the area and a computerized terrain study to determine if the proposed site
will address a coverage gap as identified in the application. Based on the
terrain profile characteristics and the field measurement data provided by
Crown Castle, the proposal as provided will address coverage deficiencies
within the target area. The Applicant has provided engineering details related to
the wireless bands that will be used for the DAS deployment, including
identifying transmitting equipment, power levels for each band and specifics
regarding the radiation patterns of the antennas to be installed.
Crown Castle has provided engineering measurement data defining gaps in
AT&T coverage in small pocketed areas. This has been independently
examined by the City's RF consultant who determined that the signal levels are
lower than industry recommended levels to support modern 3G/4G customer
needs. The engineering design provided by Crown Castle supports that, if
constructed, DAS site ASG No. 69 will provide ample signal intensity (signal
level in excess of -95 dBm) to support AT&T's 3G/4G wireless services.
55478.00001 \30331131.1
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 8 of 216
1 •
•
3. The Applicant has provided the City with a meaningful comparative
analysis that includes the factual reasons why any alternative location(s)
or design(s) suggested by the city or otherwise identified in the
administrative record, including but not limited to potential alternatives
identified at any public meeting or hearing, are not technically feasible
or potentially available.
The Applicant has provided comparative analysis for possible similar antennas
on at the following three locations:
• Alternative No. 1 (location D) - Replacement of an existing street light
pole 167 feet southwest of the primary along Seaglen Drive.
• Alternative No. 2 (location B) - Replacement of an existing street light
pole on the south side of Seaglen Drive approximately 530 -feet east of
the Primary.
• Alternative No. 3 (location C) — Replacement of an existing street light
pole on the south side of Seaglen Drive approximately 343 feet east of
the Primary.
According to the Applicant, Alternatives Nos 2 and 3 do not meet its RF
coverage objective, and even if they did, these locations are directly in front of
residences on the south side of Seaglen making them more noticeable for
residences adjacent to those sites. Only Alternative No. 1 meets the RF
coverage objective according to the Applicant. However, Alternative No. 1 is
directly in front of a residence which makes the site more visually intrusive
than the Primary site which is not adjacent to residences (albeit across the
street from residences) as it's located on the northeast side of Seaglen where
there are no residences. Other locations may result in public and residential
view impacts. In addition, by utilizing existing infrastructure in the area, no new
pole is required.
The proposed Project, with the canister encasing the two panel antennas at
the proposed location, is the least intrusive location for the wireless
telecommunications facility in the immediate area because of the
surrounding terrain. There are no major collector or arterial streets in the
immediate area wherein the WTF can be installed to meet the Applicant's
coverage needs.
4. The Applicant has provided the city with a meaningful comparative
analysis that includes the factual reasons why the proposed location and
design deviates is the least noncompliant location and design necessary
to reasonably achieve the Applicant's reasonable technical service
objectives.
55478.00001 \30331131.1
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 9 of 20
1 •
The Applicant has provided a meaningful alternative comparative analysis and
the proposed Project is found to be the preferred design.
Section 4: Conditions regarding any of the requirements listed above which
the City Council finds to be necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare,
have been imposed in the attached Exhibit A.
Section 5: The City Council hereby grants the appeal and reverses the
Planning Commission's denial of Wireless Telecommunications Facility Permit ASG69,
as revised, based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in this
resolution.
Section 6: The City Clerk shall certify to the passage, approval, and adoption
of this Resolution, and shall cause this Resolution and her certification to be entered in
the Book of Resolutions of the City Council.
Section 7: The time within which judicial review of the decision reflected in this
Resolution must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil
Procedure or other applicable short periods of limitation.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 30th day of November 2017.
ATTEST:
55478.00001 \30331131.1
Brian Campbell, Mayor
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 10 of 2JG
A-10
Emily Colborn, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES )
I, Emily Colborn, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby certify that
the above Resolution No. 2017-_, was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the
said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on November 30, 2017.
55478.00001\30331131.1
CITY CLERK
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 11 of 26
A-11
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
WTF ASG NO. 69
ACROSS FROM 3486 SEAGLEN DRIVE
General Conditions:
1. Prior to obtaining a permit from the Public Works Department to install the street
light pole, the Applicant and the property owner shall submit to the City a
statement, in writing, that they have read, understand, and agree to all conditions
of approval contained in this Resolution. Failure to provide said written
statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval shall render
this approval null and void.
2. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City,
and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies,
and instrumentalities thereof, from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of
mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether legal, equitable,
declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute
resolutions procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and
other such procedures) (collectively "Actions"), brought against the City, and/or
any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside,
void, or annul, the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and/or
any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City), for
or concerning the Project.
3. Prior to conducting any work in the public right of way (PROW), such as for curb
cuts, dumpsters, temporary improvements and/or permanent improvements, the
Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works.
4. Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and
appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws
and regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of
the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) shall apply.
5. The Public Works Director or Director of Community Development are authorized
to make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of
approval if such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as
would strict compliance with the approved plans and conditions. Otherwise, any
substantive change to the Project shall require approval of a revision by the final
body that approved the original Project, which may require new and separate
environmental review.
55478.00001 \30331131.1
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 12 of 2U
A-12
6. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be
cause to revoke the approval of the Project pursuant to the RPVMC.
7. If the Applicant has not obtained approvals from Public Works for the approved
Project or not commenced the approved Project within one year of the final
effective date of this Resolution, approval of the Project shall expire and be of no
further effect unless, prior to expiration, a written request for extension is filed
with the Public Works Department and approved by the Director.
8. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations
and/or requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter
standard shall apply.
9. The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall
be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that
material used for immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may
include, but not be limited to: the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap
metal, concrete asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or
discarded furniture, appliances or other household fixtures.
10. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM,
Monday through Friday, 9:OOAM to 5:OOPM on Saturday, with no construction
activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section
17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. During demolition,
construction and/or grading operations, trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at
the Project site or in the adjoining street rights-of-way before 7AM Monday
through Friday and before 9AM on Saturday, in accordance with the permitted
hours of construction stated in this condition. When feasible to do so, the
construction contractor shall provide staging areas on-site to minimize off-site
transportation of heavy construction equipment. These areas shall be located to
maximize the distance between staging activities and neighboring properties,
subject to approval by the building official.
11. All grading, landscaping and construction activities shall exercise effective dust
control techniques, either through screening and/or watering.
12. Prior to commencement work, the Applicant shall obtain approval of a haul route
from the Director of Public Works.
13. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly
manner, to the satisfaction of the City's Inspector. All construction waste and
debris resulting from a construction, alteration or repair Project shall be removed
on a daily basis by the contractor or property owner.
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 13 of 2D
55478.00001\30331131.1
A-13
14. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be
completed in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by
the City with the effective date of this Resolution.
Project -specific Conditions:
15. This approval allows for the following:
A. Install a Wireless Telecommunication Facility across from 3486 Seaglen
Drive.
B. Removal of an existing 24.5' tall streetlight pole to be decommissioned
and replaced with a 26.7' tali streetlight pole with the installation of
antennas encased in a canister measuring 2' tall and 14.6" in diameter
with a 2' tall tapered sleeve shroud connecting the canister to the pole at a
maximum height of 26.7' to the top of the canister.
C. The installation of vaulted accessory mechanical equipment in the PROW,
including vents and meter boxes that shall be flush to the ground and that
shall not exceed 43 square feet in total surface area.
16. The proposed Project is subject to the following Conditions to the satisfaction of
the Director of Public Works and the Director of Community Development:
o The proposed WTF shall be installed on a replacement light standard that
matches the other light standards in the area in terms of color, size,
proportion, style, and quality. The antenna panels and any related
exposed structures shall be professionally painted and maintained to
match the light pole.
o The Applicant shall install landscaping, consistent with existing
landscaping, near the proposed installation to soften the visual
appearance of the equipment.
o The facility shall be designed and located in such a manner as to avoid
adverse impacts on traffic safety; construction and operation of the facility
shall comport with a duly -approved traffic control plan as required.
o Colors and materials shall be subdued and non -reflective, and shall be the
same as the existing light standard and other lights standards in the
nearby area.
55478.00001\30331131.1
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 14 of 20
A-14
o The replacement streetlight pole shall match the appearance and
dimensions of the existing streetlight pole and all other light standards
near the location.
o All cables and wires shall be directly routed into the pole and encased
within the pole, and hidden from view. No loops, exposed cables, splitters
or unsightly wires shall be permitted.
o All ground -mounted facilities shall be installed at least 18 inches from the
curb and gutter flow line.
o The replacement streetlight pole shall be located in the same location as
the existing streetlight pole.
o All accessory equipment shall be located underground including meter
boxes and cabinets. All vents shall be flush with the ground.
o The facility shall be installed so as to maintain and enhance existing
landscaping on the site, including trees, foliage and shrubs. Additional
landscaping shall be planted, irrigated and maintained by Applicant where
such landscaping is feasible and deemed necessary by the City to provide
screening or to conceal the facility.
o The facility shall not bear any signs or advertising devices other than
certification, warning or other signage required by law or permitted by the
city.
o The facility shall not be illuminated except for the standard street -light
luminaire replacing the existing street light. All other illumination shall be
restricted pursuant to RPVMC § 12.18.080(A)(15).
o Noise:
■ Backup generators shall only be operated during periods of power
outages, and shall not be tested on weekends or holidays, or
between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
55478.00001 \30331131.1
■ At no time shall equipment noise from any facility exceed an
exterior noise level of 55 dBA three feet from the source of the
noise if the facility is located in the public right-of-way adjacent to a
business, commercial, manufacturing, utility or school zone;
provided, however, that for any such facility located within 500 feet
of any property zoned residential or improved with a residential use,
such equipment noise shall not exceed 45 dBA three feet from the
sources of the noise. The foregoing noise level limitations shall
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 15 of 2U
A-15
govern facilities subject to RPVMC Chapter 12.18.080(A)(16) until
such time that a specific noise regulation ordinance is adopted and
effective in this code, at which time such noise ordinance shall
govern.
o The facility shall be designed to be resistant to, and minimize opportunities
for, unauthorized access, climbing, vandalism, graffiti and other conditions
that would result in hazardous situations, visual blight or attractive
nuisances. The Public Works Director may require the provision of
warning signs, fencing, anti -climbing devices, or other techniques to
prevent unauthorized access and vandalism when, because of their
location and/or accessibility, a facility has the potential to become an
attractive nuisance. Additionally, no lethal devices or elements shall be
installed as a security device.
o Consistent with current state and federal laws and if permissible under the
same, at the time of modification of the facility, existing equipment shall, to
the extent feasible, be replaced with equipment that reduces visual, noise
and other impacts, including, but not limited to, undergrounding the
equipment and replacing larger, more visually intrusive facilities with
smaller, less visually intrusive facilities.
o The installation and construction of the facility shall begin within one year
after its approval or it will expire without further action by the City.
17. All wireless telecommunications facilities shall comply at all times with the
following operation and maintenance standards:
o Unless otherwise provided herein, all necessary repairs and restoration
shall be completed by the permittee, owner, operator or any designated
maintenance agent within 48 hours:
■ After discovery of the need by the permittee, owner, operator or any
designated maintenance agent; or
■ After permittee, owner, operator or any designated maintenance
agent receives notification from the city.
18. Each permittee of a wireless telecommunications facility shall provide the Public
Works Director with the name, address and 24-hour local or toll free contact
phone number of the permittee, the owner, the operator and the agent
responsible for the maintenance of the facility ("contact information"). Contact
information shall be updated within seven days of any change.
55478.00001 \30331131.1
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 16 of 2U
A-16
19. Prior to any construction activities, the permittee shall submit a security
instrument (bond or letter of credit as approved by the City Attorney) in an
amount determined by the City to be sufficient to cover all potential costs listed
herein or in the RPVMC.
20. Prior to permit issuance, the permittee shall provide additional information to
establish that the proposed accessory equipment is designed to be the smallest
equipment technologically feasible. The City may consider equipment installed or
proposed to be installed in other jurisdictions.
21. All facilities, including, but not limited to, telecommunication towers, poles,
accessory equipment, lighting, fences, walls, shields, cabinets, artificial foliage or
camouflage, and the facility site shall be maintained in good condition, including
ensuring the facilities are reasonably free of:
a. General dirt and grease;
b. Chipped, faded, peeling, and cracked paint;
C. Rust and corrosion;
d. Cracks, dents, and discoloration;
e. Missing, discolored or damaged artificial foliage or other camouflage;
Graffiti, bills, stickers, advertisements, litter and debris;
g. Broken and misshapen structural parts; and
h. Any damage from any cause.
22. Applicant shall install, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director or Director
of Community Development, landscaping near the proposed installation of the
vaulted accessory equipment (i.e. vents) to screen the equipment consistent with
existing landscaping prior to final inspection.
23. All trees, foliage or other landscaping elements approved as part of the facility
shall be maintained in good condition at all times, and the permittee, owner and
operator of the facility shall be responsible for replacing any damaged, dead or
decayed landscaping. No amendment to any approved landscaping plan may be
made until it is submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director or the
Director of Community Development.
55478.00001 \30331131.1
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 17 of 2U
A-17
24. The permittee shall replace its facilities, after obtaining all required permits, if
maintenance or repair is not sufficient to return the facility to the condition it was
in at the time of installation.
25. Each facility shall be operated and maintained to comply with all conditions of
approval. Each owner or operator of a facility shall routinely inspect each site to
ensure compliance with the same and the standards set forth in the RPVMC.
26. No person shall install, use or maintain any facility which in whole or in part rests
upon, in or over any public right-of-way, when such installation, use or
maintenance endangers or is reasonably likely to endanger the safety of persons
or property, or when such site or location is used for public utility purposes, public
transportation purposes or other governmental use, or when such facility
unreasonably interferes with or unreasonably impedes the flow of pedestrian or
vehicular traffic including any legally parked or stopped vehicle, the ingress into
or egress from any residence or place of business, the use of poles, posts, traffic
signs or signals, hydrants, mailboxes, permitted sidewalk dining, permitted street
furniture or other objects permitted at or near said location.
27. Unless California Government Code Section 65964, as may be amended,
authorizes the city to issue a permit with a shorter term, a permit for any wireless
telecommunications facility shall be valid for a period of ten years, unless
pursuant to another provision of the RPVMC or these Conditions of Approval, it
lapses sooner or is revoked. At the end of ten years from the date of issuance,
such permit shall automatically expire.
28. A permittee may apply for a new permit within 180 days prior to expiration. Said
application and proposal shall comply with the City's current Code requirements
for WTF's.
29. A WTF is considered abandoned and shall be promptly removed as provided
herein if it ceases to provide wireless telecommunications services for 90 or more
consecutive days unless the permittee has obtained prior written approval from
the director which shall not be unreasonably denied. If there are two or more
users of a single facility, then this provision shall not become effective until all
users cease using the facility.
30. The operator of a facility shall notify the City in writing of its intent to abandon or
cease use of a permitted site or a nonconforming site (including unpermitted
sites) within ten days of ceasing or abandoning use. Notwithstanding any other
provision herein, the operator of the facility shall provide written notice to the
director of any discontinuation of operations of 30 days or more.
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 18 of 2U
55478.00001\30331131.1
31. Failure to inform the director of cessation or discontinuation of operations of any
existing facility as required by this section shall constitute a violation of any
approvals and be grounds for:
a. Litigation;
b. Revocation or modification of the permit;
C. Acting on the security instrument or other assurance required by the
RPVMC or conditions of approval of the permit;
d. Removal of the facilities by the City in accordance with the procedures
established under the RPVMC for abatement of a public nuisance at the
owner's expense; and/or
e. Any other remedies permitted by law.
32. Upon the expiration date of the permit, including any extensions, earlier
termination or revocation of the permit or abandonment of the facility, the
permittee, owner or operator shall remove its WTF and restore the site to its
natural condition except for retaining the landscaping improvements and any
other improvements at the discretion of the City. Removal shall be in accordance
with proper health and safety requirements and all ordinances, rules, and
regulations of the City. The facility shall be removed from the property, at no cost
or expense to the City.
33. Failure of the permittee, owner or operator to promptly remove its facility and
restore the property within 90 days after expiration, earlier termination or
revocation of the permit, or abandonment of the facility, shall be a violation of
these conditions of approval. Upon a showing of good cause, an extension may
be granted by the Public Works Director where circumstances are beyond the
control of the permittee after expiration. Further failure to abide by the timeline
provided in this section shall be grounds for:
a. Prosecution;
b. Acting on any security instrument required by the RPVMC or conditions of
approval of permit;
C. Removal of the facilities by the City in accordance with the procedures
established under the RPVMC for abatement of a public nuisance at the
owner's expense; and/or
d. Any other remedies permitted by law.
55478.00001\30331131.1
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 19 of 2-0
A-19
34. In the event the Public Works Director or City Engineer determines that the
condition or placement of a WTF located in the public right-of-way constitutes a
dangerous condition, obstruction of the public right-of-way, or an imminent threat
to public safety, or determines other exigent circumstances require immediate
corrective action (collectively, "exigent circumstances"), the Director or City
Engineer may cause the facility to be removed summarily and immediately
without advance notice or a hearing. Written notice of the removal shall include
the basis for the removal and shall be served upon the permittee and person who
owns the facility within five business days of removal and all property removed
shall be preserved for the owner's pick-up as feasible. If the owner cannot be
identified following reasonable effort or if the owner fails to pick-up the property
within 60 days, the facility shall be treated as abandoned property.
35. In the event the City removes a facility in accordance with nuisance abatement
procedures or summary removal, any such removal shall be without any liability
to the city for any damage to such facility that may result from reasonable efforts
of removal. In addition to the procedures for recovering costs of nuisance
abatement, the city may collect such costs from the performance bond posted
and to the extent such costs exceed the amount of the performance bond, collect
those excess costs in accordance with the RPVMC. Unless otherwise provided
herein, the City has no obligation to store such facility. Neither the permittee,
owner nor operator shall have any claim if the City destroys any such facility not
timely removed by the Applicant, owner or operator after notice, or removed by
the city due to exigent circumstances.
36. Consistent with current state and federal laws and if permissible under the same,
at the time of modification of a WTF, existing equipment shall, to the extent
feasible, be replaced with equipment that reduces visual, noise and other
impacts, including, but not limited to, undergrounding the equipment and
replacing larger, more visually intrusive facilities with smaller, less visually
intrusive facilities.
55478.00001\30331131.1
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 20 of 2U
A-20
DESIGN OPTION NO. 1
U�olclulolql&sll
m
A ANTENNA DETAILS SCALE: 1:5 PASG69
727rtk°
SIJ CROWN
,.✓�.,, CASTLE
14.6" OT' �w aY L.I.o4
°�e rY,kH,ny
C INSTALL NEW 24' 0' HIGH Yz
S[. CONCRETE TEXTURED STEEL POLE
Communications
OQ ANTENNA #CUUBO]0%06Fx z0
AZIMUTH: 145`
INSTALL LUMINAIRE AND MAST ARM-F-24'We8ueweeARa lNbnR.au'noN
Zh elrvtunva'rloN cu
0° 1'u A Iki Is 51 Mc1 LY YRolll01lk0,
.... ...
�-90° IGART
STREETLIGHT#NtT ' nu
(REVISED)
TOP OF EXISTING POLE: 24' 6"
TOP OF NEW POLE: 24' 0' ll]I�
TOP OF ANTENNA: 2S ]"
RAD CENTER: 25' ]'
U YM:4 uw
PZIMUTH5: 145` & 270' ) t'I�II •I
ANTENNAS TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH POLE.
\)UI') \ k\ LI Y Flo
L� I�)kvik KI:) .I M1'F3
ASG69
ACROSS 3486 SEAGLEN DR
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA
POLE PROFILE
°w�„a� it vl ;rl� Ylx�u�o
p-2
B 12 O'CLOCK VIEW SCALE: 1:8 B 3 O'CLOCK VIEW SCALE: 1:8
INSTALL (t)AMPHENOL CUUBO]OXOBFxyzO
INSTALL (1)AMPHENOL CUVBO]0XO6Fxyz0 I ANTENNA
ANTENNA
INSTALL LUMINARE 8 MAST ARM
]
TOP OF STEEL POLE T
� TOP OF STEEL POLE
24' D”
TOP INSTALL LUMINARE& MAST ARM TOP
OFANTENNA SHROUD OF ANTENNA 9HR000
28']" SKIRT B6 2C T' SKIRT [46
RAD RAO
CENTER INSTALL 24'0'CONCRETE TEXTURED STEEL POLE CENTER INSTALL TEXTURED STEEL POLE
26']"
25' T'
_ PLACE `CHILDREN AT PLAY"SIGN
AT 4'; EXISTING HEIGHT AT ]' 4' PLACE'CHILDREN AT PLAY" SIGN
_- AT ]' 4'; EXISTING HEIGHT AT ]' 4"
INSTALL (1)CROWN CASTLE 2'X3' WTR VAULT
0] (2' B.G.C,) STA. 9B t SS
(BEHIND 4' X 8' VAULT)
0] s'SIDEINALIt
GRUUNU LE""VEL
GROUND LEVE
... T
` INSTALL VGR 'INSTALL V.
INSTALL (1) CROWRI CASTLE
4' X S VAULT WITH
FLUSH MOUNT VENTS B (2) ML IONS INSIDE.
(t'BOCJ STA. BB*95
NL
I xw-qft%�-
Google
LOCATION
PROPOSED
DESIGN OPTION NO. 2
G���iL0Z:"7
STREETLIGHT SWT
(REVISED)
TOP OF EXISTING POLE: 24' 6
TOP OF NEW POLE: 2P 0'
TOP OF ANTENNA: 27-k
RAD CENTER: 26' k
AZIMUTHS: 145' S 270'
ANTENNAS TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH POLE
B 1 12 O'CLOCK VIEW
14.6
CSG`
016
INSTALLNEW U'HIGH
CONCRETE ED STEEL POLE HATH
X
INSIDE
(2) ML IONS INSIDE
ANTENNA
O�
ANTENNA 7pXU6Fxyz0
AZIMUTH: 1,15' 145'
=
H
INSTALL LUMINAMEANOMASTARM
O_
O
TOP OF STEEL POLE
Z
TOP OF STEEL POLE
0e
34'9"
90°
24'0'
STREETLIGHT SWT
(REVISED)
TOP OF EXISTING POLE: 24' 6
TOP OF NEW POLE: 2P 0'
TOP OF ANTENNA: 27-k
RAD CENTER: 26' k
AZIMUTHS: 145' S 270'
ANTENNAS TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH POLE
B 1 12 O'CLOCK VIEW
SCALE: 1:8
B 3 O'CLOCK VIEW
I SCALE: 1:8
INSTALL (1) AMPHENOL CUIJW7DX06FxW
ANTENNA
INSTALL (1) AMPHENOL CUUBO70XOBFxy40
ANTENNA
INSTALL LUMINARE B MAST ARM
SHROUD
TOP OF STEEL POLE
SHROUD
TOP OF STEEL POLE
SKINT
34'9"
SKIRT
24'0'
IOP 1' 1111'
TOP I'llj"
OFANTENNA
-- INSTALL LUMINARE 6 MAST ARM
OF ANTEN NA
2T'g
27
RAD
RAD
CENTER
CENTER26;'
26 (+'
INSTALL 2M Ir CONCRETE TEXTURED STEEL POLE WITH
(21 ML IONS INSIDE.
INSTALL 2P 0' CONCRETE TEXTURED STEEL POLE WITH
(2) ML IONS INSIDE.
PLACE 'CHILDREN AT PLAY' SIGN
PLACE'CHILDREN AT PLAY' SIGN
AT T 4'; EXISTING HEIGHT AT TC
016
AT T 4'; EXISTING HEIGHT AT T 4'
016'
5' SIDEWALK
GROUNDLEVEL
GROUND LEv
t CEG
NSTALL VGR
INSTALL VGR
INSTALL (1) CROWN CASTLE Y X S' LAIR VAULT
(2'B.O.C.) STA.S9r85
(BEHIND POLE)
LASG69
A 242727 f e++
CCROWN
Cv CASTLE
.wa rkR Dx51x 1n+5
Communications
4A\eilem yv
Fxovxl6rnxv lnkvlNMAvvun
MneP w'nuY
UsA"ITk UK
HEX'(H+Ln A51TADw'R5
I
�U 5kN1 k 1. AI.I.
Lu\IIS\.iIHI:�11A\4ii 71t I!
AVUED
II+^
u)I
n+ .UN 11511�
S -I 1"ALL
Y:It RkUI.INFT
ASG69
ACROSS 3486 SEAGLEN DR
RANCHO PALOS VERDES. CA
POLE PROFILE
n )I,unl ill/13/17 mw�linu
p-3
IBJ
Sn,
77,
only C`
•n �
LOCATION
PROPOSED
DESIGN OPTION NO. 3
ASG NO. 69
14.6"
I SCALE: 1:8
B 3 O'CLOCK VIEW SCALE: 1:8
014"
C
S
INSTALL NEW24WHICH
CONCRETE TEXTURED STEEL POLE
ANTENNA
ANTENNA
I
ANTENNA#CUU8070X05Fzyz0
AZIMUTH: 145'
- INSTALL LUMINARE & MAST ARM
INSTALL LUMINAIRE AND MAST ARM
STREETLIGHT#NfT
(REVISED)
TOP OF EXISTING POLE: 24' E"
TOP OF NEW POLE: 240'
TOP OF ANTENNA: 28'
RAO CENTER: 27' i'
AZIMUTHS: 145' 8 270"
ANTENNAS TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH POLE.
B 1 12 O'CLOCK VIEW
I SCALE: 1:8
B 3 O'CLOCK VIEW SCALE: 1:8
INSTALL (1) AMPHENOL CUU8070XWFXy40
INSTALL (1) AMPHENOL CUU B070X05Fxy40
ANTENNA
ANTENNA
I
- INSTALL LUMINARE & MAST ARM
TOP OF STEEL POLE
TOP OF STEEL FOIE
_
24'0"
SHRO
JJ
24'0"
TOP
OF ANTENNA SHROUD
SKIRT
28
28'{r" SKIRT
TOP
2 6
OF ANTENNA
28' ¢"
RAD
INSTALL 24'0' CONCRETE TEXTURED
STEEL POLE
INSTALL 24'0" CONCRETE TEXTURED
CENTER
STEEL POLE
2T
RAD
CENTER
2Tp'
PLACE'CHILDREN AT PLAY` SIGN
PLACE'CHILOREN AT PLAY" SIGN
AT 7'4'; EXISTING HEIGHT AT T 1"
AT T 4"; EXISTING HEIGHT AT 7'4'
INSTALL (1) CROWN CASTLE 2' X3' WTR VAULT
0t 4'
014:' (2' B.O.C.) STA. 99 r W
(BEHIND 4' X 6' VAULT)
5' SIDEWALK
GNVUNO LEVEL
C&�
T
INSTALL VGR
INSTALL VGR
INSTALL (1) CROWN CASTLE 4' X 8' VAULT WITH
FLUSH MOUNT VENTS 114 ML IONS INSIDE.
(1' B.O.C.) STA.99 i 95
ASG69
PHASE II
242727 T
CROWN
v CASTLE
Communications
Eny:uaeei
lain rA s^_om
YNOYIUk.tnxt EVkU1LSLanuN
DI
n t'H.1NtiEU �
i ,11F.k Nl;IJI.I XES
ASG69
ACROSS 3486 SEAGLEN DR
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA
POLE PROFILE
�.a.1 j%n, X11/13,/17 C.J
P-4
Me]
,!4
t y
plei�� n B
f
Goo9�e
DESIGN OPTION NO. 4
ASG NO. 69
STREETLIGHT MT
(REVISED)
TOP OF EXISTING POLE: 24' S'
TOP OF NEW POLE'. 24'9'
TOP OF ANTENNA'. 23' T
RAD GENTER'. 22' 0'
AZIMUTHS: 145. 8 270"
ANTENNAS TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH POLE.
B I 12 O'CLOCK VIEW SCALE: 1:8
ANTENNA #CUUX045XO6F0000
I SCALE: 1:5
270"
CIO
IO1NSTALL
INSTALL MAST ARM WITH
NEW 24'0" HIGH STEEL
S
FCONCRETE
TEXTURED STREETLIGHT
*AZIMUTH:
ANTENNA #CUUX045XD6F0000
TOP OF POLE AT 24'0"
AZIMUTH: 145'
L
STREETLIGHT MT
(REVISED)
TOP OF EXISTING POLE: 24' S'
TOP OF NEW POLE'. 24'9'
TOP OF ANTENNA'. 23' T
RAD GENTER'. 22' 0'
AZIMUTHS: 145. 8 270"
ANTENNAS TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH POLE.
B I 12 O'CLOCK VIEW SCALE: 1:8
B I 3 O'CLOCK VIEW
I SCALE: 1:5
INSTALL MAST ARM WITH
LUMINAIRE
INSTALL MAST ARM & LUMINAIRE
TOP OF POLE AT 24'0"
TOP OF POLE AT 24'0"
INSTALL (2) 24.1" ANTENNAS
#CUUX045XO6F0000
WITH MOUNTING BRACKET #0900397/00
CNTENNAS
0 WITH MOUNTING
(SEE DETAILS 8 & 9 ON SHEET D-4)
7/009
ON SHEET D-4)
TOP OF
TOP OF
ANTENNA
23' 0"
ANTENNA
23, 0"
RAD
RAD
CENTER
CENTER
INSTALL NEW 24'0" HIGH STEEL 22'0"
22'0"
CONCRETE TEXTURED STREETLIGHT
INSTALL NEW 24'0" HIGH STEEL
CONCRETE TEXTURED STREETLIGHT
PLACE "CHILDREN AT PLAY" SIGN
PLACE "CHILDREN AT PLAY" SIGN
AT T4"; EXISTING HEIGHT AT T4"
AT T4"; EXISTING HEIGHT AT 7'4"
07"
07
GROUND LEVEL
GRO NO LEV L
ASPHALT
INSTALL
(SEEDETAI L3 ON SHEET D-2)
INSTALL VGR
(SEE DETAIL 3 ON SHEET D-2)
ASG69
..,•,� 242727
-'fo"' C
OWN
CASTLE STLE
v
NG WEST LLC
uRpq.TRlnl,.'IATFR UR a7t'. �'u
Communications
I
—AT„
LRArr nu.
uAr.Rwaar.
n a•uw
ASG69
ACROSS 3486 SEAGLEN DR
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA
POLE PROFILE
P_'
B-11
ASG69
PN,,xb
CROWN(3
z42727,r ,
CASTLE CASTLE
NG WEST LL
u,�srtvrxuai uxNnx!ux slr 1�+�
® Communications
veil wRR,INYI.A� 51T'rb b„
YWrPWRTAR\' 1.\WtItLIgT1u.Y
fHt INtuR1L\fx�Nta,N fAlNhll M'RII>'
5ktut'UM:\\\'INUf 11 Yxr,tkll•IART A\U
r+iNHUta'tIAI. n, Af
ulnu»��xx.,nmxnlh.', vvli xeiA�ix�
li:.\PAfI.4 �fW�'IL1'PR:911wftlu
- I
Existing Site
Ilt rL Rv„
"I'll,
'9.l o.� IaiumNk rvR arnvuti.v.taJ
�o ASG69
y .. LVAOe�VxR'm�A\'Uh.
�R kxVlvbrN
�4A 9\ AVrCNNA`,:R.INUxU
O` � F � W:aknr.0 PwJ w. .wR.:ub-sl i
p '►
SN -1
°o _
�. - RmUW Pa1oR -
Vrtles 'PeQ _
C,
Proposed Site ASG69
ASG69
ACROSS 3486 BEA LEN DR
Vicinity Map RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA
LOOKING NORTHWEST
PHOTOSIM
^ Rlip 11/II/IG -'1' b1
mr S-2
CCROWN
CCASTLE
October 20, 2017
Emily Colborn, City Clerk
City Clerk's Office
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Crown Castle
200 Spectrum Center Drive
Suite 1700
Irvine, CA 92618
Re: C
,rown Castle NG West LLC: Notice of Appeal of ASG -69— Across from 3486 Seaglen
Dr
Dear Ms. Colborn,
Crown Castle NG West LLC ("Crown Castle") hereby appeals the Planning Commission's
October 10, 2017, adoption of a resolution of denial of the above -referenced Major Wireless
Telecommunications Facilities Permit application ("Denial"), pursuant to City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Municipal Code ("RPVMC") section 12.18.060. D and 17.80.030.A ("Appeal"). This appeal is timely
under RPVMC section 17.80.030.
The Appeal rests on the following grounds, among others:
(1) The Denial prohibits, or has the effect of prohibiting, the provision of personal wireless
services in violation of 47 U.S.C. section 332 (c)(7)(B)(i)(11).
(2) The Denial is not supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record in
violation of 47 U.S.C. section 332 (c)(7)(B)(iii).
(3) The Denial is based, in part, on the perceived environmental effects of radio frequency
emissions in violation of 47 U.S.C. section 332 (c)(7)(B)(iv).
(4) The Denial is unlawful, since it violates Crown Castle's vested right to deploy its
facilities in the public rights-of-way, in violation of Public Utilities Code section 7901.
The Denial exceeds the limited time, place and manner controls set forth by Public
Utilities Code section 7901.1.
Crown Castle reserves the right to supplement its reasons for the Appeal, and otherwise supplement the
administrative record with its own evidence and points of law up to the date of the City Council hearing on this
Appeal.
MWS:mws
7125124.1
Very truly yours
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com
C-1
P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2017-37
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING, WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, MAJOR WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS
FACILITY PERMIT ASG NO. 69 TO ALLOW THE
REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING 24.5' TALL STREETLIGHT
WITH A 24' TALL STREETLIGHT WITH TWO 21.4" SIDE -
MOUNTED PANEL ANTENNAS FLUSH WITH THE POLE WITH
RELATED VAULTED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT ACROSS
FROM 3486 SEAGLEN DRIVE.
WHEREAS, Chapter 12.18 of the Rancho Palo Verde Municipal Code (RPVMC
or Municipal Code) governs the permitting, development, siting, installation, design,
operation and maintenance of wireless telecommunications facilities ("WTFs") in the
city's public right-of-way ("PROW") (RPVMC § 12.18.010);
WHEREAS, beginning in May of 2016, Crown Castle (the "Applicant") applied to
the City for an Wireless Telecommunications Facility Permit ("WTFP"), pursuant to
Section 12.18.040(A) of the Municipal Code, to install 26 antennas in the public right-of-
way (PROW) to service AT&T customers throughout the City including ASG No. 69
("Project") located across from 3486 Seaglen Drive;
WHEREAS, the Project calls for the replacement of the existing 24.5' tall
concrete streetlight with a 24' tall streetlight with mast arm and luminaire to
accommodate the installation of two 21.4" flush side -mounted panel antennas that
would be affixed to the side of the pole with accessory equipment to be vaulted in the
PROW;
WHEREAS, because the Project's location is within a residential zone and within
the PROW of a local street as identified in the General Plan, approval of a WTFP also
requires the Planning Commission make the appropriate findings for an Exception
under Section 12.18.190 of the Municipal Code;
WHEREAS, the Project is exempt from review under the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") because the Project constitutes a small scale
installation of new a new facility (14 CCR § 15303(d));
WHEREAS, on October 10, 2017, after considering testimony and evidence
presented at the public hearings, the information and findings included in the Staff
Report, and other records of proceedings, the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes moved to deny, without prejudice, ASG No. 69 and directed Staff
to come back with a denial resolution for adoption at its October 24, 2017 meeting.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
55478 00001\30235805 1
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-37
Page 1 of 6
D-1
Section 1: The proposed Project is a request to:
A. Install a WTF across from 3486 Seaglen Drive,
B. Removal of an existing 24.5' tall streetlight pole with a mast arm and luminaire
to be decommissioned and replaced with a 24' (total pole height) tall streetlight
pole with two 21.4" panel antennas that will be side -mounted to the new
streetlight pole.
C. Install vaulted mechanical equipment in the PROW.
Section 2: The findings required to be made by the Planning Commission for
the approval of a WTF permit, as set forth in Chapter 12.18 of the RPVMC, have not
been made as follows:
A. The Project does not meet the Findings required by Section 12.18.090,
Subsection B, of the Municipal Code, which particularly requires that "[t]he
proposed facility has been designed and located in compliance with all
applicable provisions of this chapter," as follows:
12.18.080(A)(1)(a): The applicant shall employ screening, undergrounding and
camouflage design techniques in the design and placement of wireless
telecommunications facilities in order to ensure that the facility is as visually
screened as possible, to prevent the facility from dominating the surrounding area
and to minimize significant view impacts from surrounding properties all in a
manner that achieves compatibility with the community and in compliance with
Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration) of this code.
The proposed replacement pole with two 21.4" panel antennas that will be side -
mounted to the new streetlight pole, at a height of 24' (total pole height), does not
blend with the surrounding environment and would visually impact the character
of the neighborhood as experienced from the PROW and private properties.
The proposed installation and support equipment does not meet the "non-
dominant design" standard requiring a facility to be compatible with the
surrounding environment. The overall appearance of the proposed side -mounted
antenna to the new streetlight replacement pole, in its proposed location, is a
dominant feature that is out -of -character to the surrounding neighborhood as
there are no other structures or natural features in the immediate area with a
similar size and shape that would lend themselves to screening or blending the
facility into the built and natural environment. The proposed antenna design is of
a size and shape that the streetlight would be dominated by said antenna, thus
making the proposed facility the dominant feature at this residential street area. A
55478.00001 \30235805.1
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-37
Page 2 of 6
D-2
preferred design would present equipment that is seamlessly integrated into the
street light pole or a "slim -line" design that does not present the antenna nodes as
the dominate feature on this street light pole.
12.18.080(A)(1)(b): Screening shall be designed to be architecturally compatible
with surrounding structures using appropriate techniques to camouflage, disguise,
and/or blend into the environment, including landscaping, color, and other
techniques to minimize the facility's visual impact as well as be compatible with
the architectural character of the surrounding buildings or structures in terms of
color, size, proportion, style, and quality.
The area in which this project is proposed consists of non -dense, upscale
residential structures with well-maintained manicured landscaping. Consistent
with this surrounding environment, all utilities in the neighborhood have be
undergrounded. As such, the proposed side -mounted panel antennas will not
visually blend with the surrounding environment. The antennas will be visually
intrusive as there are no similar vertical elements with similar facilities in the
neighborhood, thus making the proposed facility the dominant feature on this
residential street. The "industrial -utility" looking style of the proposed facility is
incompatible with the style and quality of the surrounding residential
neighborhood. Adequate screening and fairing measures were not taken to blend
the side -mounted panel antennas with the pole. This has the effect of creating
greater mass and bulk than now exists and will have the negative effect of being
more visible. This will draw more attention to this facility and will reduce the
desirability, including the potential to reduce property values, of this residential
neighborhood.
The proposed installation is not compatible with the surrounding environment. The
overall appearance of the proposed side -mounted panel antennas to the
streetlight pole, in its proposed location, is a dominant feature that is out -of -
character to the surrounding neighborhood or natural features in the immediate
area with a similar size and shape that would lend themselves to screening or
blending the facility into the built and natural environment. The City of Rancho
Palos Verdes' streets, parkway- and median- landscaping, and public utilities
within the rights-of-way have been planned and constructed to achieve an
attractive appearance that includes minimizing the number and appearance of
utilities and related equipment, particularly in residential areas, especially wherein
all utilities have been undergrounded. This proposed antennas will detract from
the visual appearance of the streetscape. These incremental changes to the
improvements in the right-of-way will lead to the deterioration of the City's well-
maintained streetscapes. The proposed facility is not sufficiently compatible with
matters of urban design and the long-term maturation of this residential
neighborhood—especially in light of the fact that the Applicant did not establish
the presence of a significant gap in coverage that would necessitate the proposed
facility (discussed below).
55478 00001\30235805.1
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-37
Page 3 of 6
D-3
12.18.080(A)(5): Equipment. The applicant shall use the least visible equipment
possible. Antenna elements shall be flush mounted, to the extent feasible. All
antenna mounts shall be designed so as not to preclude possible future
collocation by the same or other operators or carriers. Unless otherwise provided
in this section, antennas shall be situated as close to the ground as possible.
The record presented no evidence of the proposed antennas being situated as
close to the ground as possible. The replacement streetlight pole will be
approximately 24' in height and would support two side -mounted panel antennas
that are not adequately screened to blend with the pole nor does the project
utilize a slim design to an extent that maximally blends with the verticality of the
pole, and is not the least intrusive design based on industry standards found for
other antenna poles. This has the effect of creating greater mass and bulk than
now exists and will have the negative effect of being more visible. This will draw
more attention to this facility and will reduce the desirability of this residential
neighborhood.
12.18.080(A)(6)(e): Replacement Poles. If an applicant proposes to replace a pole
in order to accommodate a proposed facility, the pole shall be designed to
resemble the appearance and dimensions of existing poles near the proposed
location, including size, height, color, materials and style to the maximum extent
feasible.
The proposed replacement pole with the side -mounted panel antennas, at a
height of 24', does not blend with the surrounding environment and would visually
impact the character of the neighborhood as experienced from the PROW and
private property.
The proposed installation and support equipment does not meet the design
standard requiring a facility to be compatible with the surrounding environment.
The overall appearance of the side -mounted panel antennas to the streetlight
pole, in its proposed location, is a dominant feature that does not resemble in
appearance or dimension any other features in the surrounding neighborhood
because there are no other structures or natural features in the immediate area
with a similar size and shape that would lend themselves to screening or blending
the facility into the built and natural environment. The proposed antenna design is
of a size and shape that the streetlight pole itself would be dominated by said
antenna, and the street at which the installation is proposed would be dominated
by the antenna, thus making the proposed facility a non -conforming feature in
appearance and dimension. A preferred design would present equipment that is
fully integrated into the street light pole or a "slim -line" design that much more
closely resembles an actual residential street light pole, as opposed to the
proposed antenna installation.
55478.00001 \30235805.1
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-37
Page 4 of 6
MII
12.18.080(A)(7}: Space. Each facility shall be designed to occupy the least
amount of space in the right-of-way that is technically feasible.
The replacement pole would take up much more right-of-way space compared to
the existing streetlight pole occupying much more air space above the right-of-
way than other feasible "slim -line" or pole -integrated designs found in the
industry.
B. The Project does not meet the Findings required by Section 12.18.190,
Subsection B.2, of the Municipal Code, which particularly requires that
"[t]he applicant has provided the city with a clearly defined technical
service objective and a clearly defined potential site search area," as
follows:
The "technical service objective" identified by the Applicant in all application
documents alleges the need to address of a "significant gap" in coverage. The
wireless service area to be served by the proposed facility only encompasses
approximately 32 homes and is not located upon a major highway or thoroughfare
serving many in -vehicle users. Further, the proposed installation only covers a
relatively small portion of the technical service objective. In addition, the proposed
installation will only cover a small local street (Seaglen Drive) that ends with a cul-
de-sac, and thus will not be providing service to a significant number of in -vehicle
end users. To the extent any dead zone or dropped -call area was found to exist,
such area was not found to be significant. Even if the Applicant's allegations are
correct, the Applicant is not entitled to seamless or perfect coverage in every area it
serves. At most, the record reveals the existence of a small "dead spot" in coverage
is hereby found to be an insignificant deficiency in Applicant's existing coverage in
the area. It was found that the proposed installation would only service a small
number of potential residents.
C. The Project does not meet the Findings required by Section 12.18.090,
Subsection E, of the Municipal Code, which particularly requires that "[t]he
applicant has provided the city with a meaningful comparative analysis that
includes the factual reasons why the proposed location and design is the
least noncompliant location and design necessary to reasonably achieve the
applicant's reasonable technical service objectives," as follows:
The Applicant has not provided a meaningful alternative comparative analysis and
the proposed project is not found to be the preferred design. See above
discussions in regards to RPVMC §12.18.080 for further detail, which discussions
are incorporated here.
55478.00001 \30235805.1
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-37
Page 5 of 6
D-5
Furthermore, there is inadequate documentation to support a conclusion that no
other design alternative exists that might better conceal the proposed facilities
from public view Opportunities to locate wireless facilities in remote locations
deserve greater consideration as an alternative. This could result in the
identification of remote wireless installations that provide adequate coverage to
homes in this residential neighborhood. One such location raised at the hearing,
suggested locating the proposed installation up the hillside from its current
location such that it can be screened by the natural landscaping.
Section 3: Pursuant to Section 12.18.060 of the Municipal Code (referencing
Chapter 17.80 of the Municipal Code), any interested person aggrieved by this decision
or any portion of this decision may appeal to the City Council. The appeal shall set forth
the grounds for appeal and any specific action being requested by the appellant. Any
appeal letter must be filed within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of this decision,
or by 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, November 8, 2017. The Council -approved appeal fee
must accompany any appeal letter. If no appeal is filed timely, the Planning
Commission's decision will be final at 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, November 8, 2017.
Section 4: For the foregoing reasons and based on testimony and evidence
presented at the public hearings, the information and findings included in the Staff
Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the Planning Commission of the City
of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby denies, without prejudice, ASG No. 69 for the proposed
wireless telecommunication facility installation across from 3486 Seaglen Drive.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of October 2017, by the following
vote:
AYES: Commissioners Bradley, Emenhiser, Nelson, Tomblin, and Vice -Chair
James
NOES: None
ABSTENTIONS: Chairman Cruikshank
RECUSALS: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Leon
Ara Mih_rani3n AICP
Community Development Director; and,
Secretary of the Planning Commission
55478 00001 \30235805.1
William J. J es, 'ce-Chairman
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-37
Page 6 of 6
CITY OF 12
STAFF
REPORT
s4
Q
s�
Soon n, a �
� n
8
6
as
a
�44a a Uaciaae a
ACROSS 3486
SEAGLEN DRIVE
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: ARA MIHRANIAN, DIRECTOR OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
NICOLE JULES, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
PUBLIC WORKS
DATE: OCTOBER 10, 2017
SUBJECT: MAJOR WIRELESS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY
PERMIT ASG NO. 69
PROJECT ACROSS 3486 SEAGLEN DRIVE
ADDRESS:
APPLICANT: AARON SNYDER (CROWN CASTLE)
LANDOWNER: CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
STAFF ART BASHMAKIAN, CONTRACT
COORDINATOR: PLANNER
REQUESTED ACTION: A REQUEST TO REPLACE AN EXISTING 24.5' TALL OCTAGONAL CONCRETE
STREETLIGHT WITH MAST ARM AND LUMINAIRE WITH A 24' TALL STEEL
CONCRETE TEXTURED STREETLIGHT WITH MAST ARM AND LUMINAIRE WITH
TWO 21.4" PANEL ANTENNAS ON TOP OF THE STREETLIGHT FOR A WIRELESS
TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY WITH RELATED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT.
RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2017-_ APPROVING, WITH CONDITIONS, MAJOR
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY PERMIT ASG NO. 69 TO REPLACE AN
EXISTING 24.5' TALL STREETLIGHT POLE WITH A 24' TALL STREETLIGHT POLE
WITH TWO 21.4" FLUSH MOUNTED PANEL ANTENNAS AT THE TOP OF THE POLE
WITH RELATED VAULTED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT.
LAND USE
PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
55478.00001 \30208688.1 E-1
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 69)
OCTOBER 10, 2017
PAGE 2
CODE SECTION: RPVMC CHAPTERS 12.18 AND 17.02
ACTION DEADLINE: OCTOBER 31, 2017 (SHOT CLOCK)
PRE -COMMISSION DISCLOSURES: PRIOR TO THE TAKING OF PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM, ANY
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS THAT CONDUCTED ON-SITE INSPECTIONS OR ENGAGED IN EXTRA -HEARING
DISCUSSIONS RELATED TO THIS ITEM SHOULD DISCLOSE SUCH EXTRA -HEARING EVIDENCE AS PART OF
THE HEARING RECORD
BACKGROUND
Crown Castle, the Applicant, is a tower company hired by wireless companies for the
purposes of acquiring sites for the construction and deployment of wireless
telecommunications antennas throughout local jurisdictions. Pursuant Chapter 12.18 of
the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC), Crown Castle is proposing to install
approximately 26 new antennas in the City's public right-of-way (PROW), including the
subject application, subject to review by the Planning Commission, to provide services to
AT&T consumers throughout the City.
On July 14, 2016, Crown Castle submitted an application, proposing to install Wireless
Telecommunications Facility ASG No. 69 in the public right-of-way (PROW) across from
3486 Seaglen Drive. The City notified Crown Castle that the application documents were
incomplete after three resubmittals. Notices were sent to Crown Castle on August 10,
2016, January 12, 2017, and February 15, 2017. Ultimately, Crown Castle submitted the
requested documentation to process the application.
On July 6, 2017, the Applicant (Crown Castle) received a Public Works Encroachment
Permit to install a temporary mock-up of a proposed wireless telecommunications facility.
On July 6, 2017 a notice was sent to property owners within a 500 -foot radius announcing
the installation of the mock-up. The temporary mock-up was installed on July 20, 2017.
On September 21, 2017, a public notice was published in the Daily Breeze announcing
that a public hearing on the proposed facility is scheduled to occur on Tuesday, October
10, 2017. Similarly, public notices were mailed to property owners within a 500' radius of
the proposed site announcing the public hearing and inviting public comments on the
proposed facility.
Pursuant to federal law a decision on the Project application must be made within 150
calendar days from application submittal. According to the City's files, the shot clock for
ASG No. 69 was set to expire on October 23, 2017. However, the Applicant agreed to
toll the shot clock until October 31, 2017, which is the final date to render a decision on
the subject application. The City received the tolling agreement in writing, in a letter dated
September 5, 2017 (see attachment).
55478.00001 \30208688.1 E-2
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 69)
OCTOBER 10, 2017
PAGE 3
SITE DESCRIPTION
The proposed site is located entirely within the PROW, approximately 759 feet west of
Floweridge Drive on the northeast side of Seaglen Drive across from 3486 Seaglen Drive.
The surrounding land uses are single family residences. The site is adjacent to a large
terraced slope to the northeast and south of the subject site.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Proposed Project
The Project proposes to replace the existing 24.5' tall concrete streetlight with a 24' tall
streetlight with mast arm and luminaire to accommodate the installation of two 21.4" flush
mounted panel antennas that would be affixed to the side of the pole. Two ions and a
power meter were to be placed on the ground adjacent to the street light pole, consisting
of 9.7 cubic feet of equipment boxes in the PROW. Below is a photograph of the existing
site and the photo simulation for the proposed Project submitted by the Applicant:
Existing Site
Proposal
As a result of discussions with Staff, the Applicant has revised the Project so that the
related mechanical equipment including the radio and auxiliary equipment and the
overhead electrical feed will be undergrounded below the street with the vents located in
the landscaped parkway supported by a slough wall measuring less than 3' in height.
There will be a total of three vaults that will cover 43 sq. ft. of surface area, and all vents
and meter boxes will also be vaulted and flush with the ground. The Project plans and
photo simulations have been updated to reflect this change, and the conditions of
approval memorialize the vaulted equipment requirement.
Proposed Alternative Locations
In addition to the proposed Project, the Applicant has proposed similar antennas on street
light poles at the following 3 locations (see attachment):
55478.00001 \30208688.1 E-3
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 69)
OCTOBER 10, 2017
PAGE 4
• Alternative No. 1 (location D) - Replacement of an existing street light pole 167
feet southwest of the primary along Seaglen Drive.
• Alternative No. 2 (location B) - Replacement of an existing street light pole on the
south side of Seaglen Drive approximately 530 -feet east of the Primary.
• Alternative No. 3 (location C) — Replacement of an existing street light pole on the
south side of Seaglen Drive approximately 343 feet east of the Primary.
Discussion and analysis of the alternative locations is contained in Finding E below.
CODE CONSIDERATION AND ANALYSIS
In accordance with Chapter 12.18 of the RPVMC, the Planning Commission may
approve, or conditionally approve, an application only after it makes the findings required
in Section 12.18.090.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Pursuant to Section 12.18.090 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC),
no permit shall be granted for a Wireless Telecommunications Facility in the PROW
unless all of the following findings are made:
A. All notices required for the proposed installation have been given.
Crown Castle and the City have provided all notices required by the RPVMC. On
July 6, 2017 property owners within 500 feet of the proposed facility were notified
of the WTF mock-up which occurred at least 30 days in advance of the public
hearing. Further, on September 21, 2017, a public notice announcing the October
10, 2017 public hearing was provided to property owners within 500 feet of the
proposed WTF and published in the Daily Breeze. Additionally, the Applicant has
notified the City a minimum of 20 days prior to the expiration of the shot clock for
this application, which was October 23, 2017. However, on September 5, 2017,
the Applicant provided the City with a Shot Clock Tolling Agreement (see
attachment) establishing a new Shot Clock Expiration date of October 31, 2017.
Accordingly, all notice requirements have been met.
B. The proposed facility has been designed and located in compliance with all
applicable provisions of this chapter.
Chapter 12.18 of the RPVMC has detailed requirements for wireless
telecommunications facilities in the ROW. Specifically, Section 12.18.080 lists the
design and development standards for these installations. The applicable sections
relevant to the findings are listed and evaluated below (italics text is the code
requirement followed by Staff's analysis).
55478.00001 \30208688.1 E-4
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 69)
OCTOBER 10, 2017
PAGE 5
12.18.080(A)(1)(a): The applicant shall employ screening, undergrounding and
camouflage design techniques in the design and placement of wireless
telecommunications facilities in order to ensure that the facility is as visually
screened as possible, to prevent the facility from dominating the surrounding area
and to minimize significant view impacts from surrounding properties all in a manner
that achieves compatibility with the community and in compliance with Section
17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration) of this code.
As proposed, the revised Project employs screening and a camouflage design with
the use of a 21.4" panel antennas that will be flush mounted to the side of the
replacement streetlight pole. The replacement streetlight pole with the flush
mounted panel antennas will not exceed a height of 26' as measured from grade to
the top of the pole's luminaire (maximum total height of 23' to the top of the panel
antennas). Further, the site is conditioned such that all cabling will be obscured by
the use of clips or the like.
As proposed, the overall height of the streetlight pole, decreases by approximately
0.5' from the original streetlight pole. This height reduction, albeit compatible with
the character of the neighborhood and compliant with this finding of the Wireless
Ordinance, will be slightly lower than the other streetlight poles within the
neighborhood. If the reduced streetlight pole is found to be incompatible, the
Commission may direct the Applicant to increase the height of the streetlight pole
to 24.5'. Nonetheless, this design allows antennas on light poles when it does not
exceed 48" above the height of the existing pole. As the replacement pole is 24'
tall compared to the existing 24.5' tall streetlight pole, the reduction in height
minimizes potential view and visual impacts. Further, the proposed flush side -
mounted panel antenna is the aesthetically preferred design to the past proposed
cylinder shroud design because it presents a concealed and slimmer side view that
blends with the verticality of the light pole. The light standard is designed to match
the existing light standard being replaced and other light standards in the immediate
area. Furthermore, the proposal now places all of the related mechanical equipment
underground in three vaults measuring a total of 43 square feet of surface area
consisting of the following:
• Radio vault - 32 sq. ft.
• WTR vault - 5 sq. ft.
• Fiber vault - 6 sq. ft.
As further detailed below, a view analysis was conducted and City staff determined
that the proposed revised installation will not have any significant view impairment to
surrounding properties pursuant to Chapter 17.02.040 of the RPVMC.
12.18.080(A)(1)(b): Screening shall be designed to be architecturally compatible
with surrounding structures using appropriate techniques to camouflage, disguise,
and/or blend into the environment, including landscaping, color, and other
55478.00001 \30208688.1 E-5
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 69)
OCTOBER 10, 2017
PAGE 6
techniques to minimize the facility's visual impact as well as be compatible with the
architectural character of the surrounding .buildings or structures in terms of color,
size, proportion, style, and quality.
The proposed antennas will be flush and side -mounted to a replacement streetlight
pole that matches other streetlight poles in the area, and the replacement streetlight
pole will utilize similar color, size, proportion, style, and quality to other street poles
in the area. The antennas will be painted to match the light pole with a concrete color.
The proposal is conditioned so that the antenna panels are snug to the pole and does
not exceed 1" from the side of the pole, and is attached using a 90 -degree connector
bracket with no downtilt brackets. All cables and wires will be routed directly into the
pole with no loops or exposed cables. As discussed, the two flush mounted antenna
panels and wires on the side of the streetlight pole is an appropriate technique that
disguises and blends the facility into the environment (blending with the replacement
pole and other poles in the area).
12.18.080(A)(1)(c): Facilities shall be located such that views from a residential
structure are not significantly impaired. Facilities shall also be located in a manner
that protects public views over city view corridors, as defined in the city's general
plan, so that no significant view impairment results in accordance with this code
including Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration). This provision
shall be applied consistent with local, state and federal law.
In terms of views, on October 2, 2017, Staff conducted a view analysis (see
attachment). Based on a view assessment of the neighborhood, Staff determined
that the proposed replacement streetlight pole at a total height of 24' would not impair
the public view from the surrounding view areas as defined in Rancho Palos Verdes
Development Code Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration Code)
In terms of cumulative visual or view impacts, Staff does not believe that in this
location of the City, if other streetlight poles were replaced to accommodate a similar
WTF will adversely impact the area or views from residences in the area. This is
because the panel antennas will be flush side -mounted to the streetlight pole which
will not be directly visible to pedestrians and motorists, and that the topography and
mature vegetation within the area would inherently screen the facility.
Ordinance No. 580 in part, is charged to ensure that all wireless facilities are installed
using the least intrusive means possible. The Code requires that facilities be
designed in ways "to minimize visual, noise and other impacts..." The Code
recognizes that the community, over time, could eventually have a number of
facilities within its public right-of-ways. It's also recognized that facilities will not be
necessarily unnoticeable as the Code uses phrases like "minimize visual impacts",
"least intrusive means..." The Code recognizes the potential for many facilities within
the right-of-way over the coming years. And as long as each facility meets the
55478.00001 \30208688.1 E-6
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 69)
OCTOBER 10, 2017
PAGE 7
required findings, and is found to be designed in the least intrusive means possible,
the mere permitting of many such facilities would not constitute a cumulative visual
or aesthetic impact.
12.18.080(A)(3): Traffic Safety. All facilities shall be designed and located in such
a manner as to avoid adverse impacts to traffic safety.
The proposed Project involves a replacement streetlight pole with the installation of
two 21.4" panel antennas that will be flush to the side of the pole at 23 feet above
the drivable road. Additionally, the related mechanical equipment will be vaulted
avoiding traffic safety impacts, including an infringement on Seaglen Drive.
12.18.080(A)(4): Blending Methods. All facilities shall have subdued colors and
non -reflective materials that blend with the materials and colors of the surrounding
area and structures.
The proposed replacement streetlight pole will consist of a color and material that is
subdued and non -reflective (see above photograph). Further, it will be the same as
the existing streetlight pole and other streetlight poles in the immediate area.
12.18.080(A)(5): Equipment. The applicant shall use the least visible equipment
possible. Antenna elements shall be flush mounted, to the extent feasible. All
antenna mounts shall be designed so as not to preclude possible future collocation
by the same or other operators or carriers. Unless otherwise provided in this
section, antennas shall be situated as close to the ground as possible.
The Applicant's Project proposes the installation of two 21.4" tall panel antennas
measuring 23' above the ground to the top of the antenna on a 24' tall replacement
streetlight pole with mechanical equipment that will be vaulted within the street. As
proposed, the design would be visible, but it presents a slim side view with cables
obscured from view with the use of clips or the like. Recognizing the panel antenna
will be exposed, with the recommended conditions, the design meets the overarching
objective of the finding to use the least visible equipment.
In regards to collocation, in order to accommodate additional antennas, the height of
the streetlight pole would have to be increased by approximately 5' to accommodate
collocation because of the size of the panel antennas combined with there being a
need to provide a separation of at least 1' between antenna panels for functionality
purposes. The design does not preclude the possibility of collocation by the same or
other operators or carriers but it should be noted that collocation does not always
minimize visual impact. In fact, it will require the street pole to either be increased in
height or to support additional canisters or exposed antennas that will detract from
the overall appearance and the character of the neighborhood.
55478.00001 \30208688.1 E-7
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 69)
OCTOBER 10, 2017
PAGE 8
12.18.080(A)(6)(a): Poles - Facilities shall be located consistent with Section
12.18.200 (Location Restrictions) unless an exception pursuant to Section
12.18.190 (Exceptions) is granted.
The proposed location is within the PROW of local residential streets as identified in
the City's General Plan. Therefore, the Planning Commission shall not grant an
Exception unless the findings for an Exception can be demonstrated as detailed
further below.
12.18.080(A)(6)(b): Only pole -mounted antennas shall be permitted in the right-of-
way. All other telecommunications towers are prohibited, and no new poles are
permitted that are not replacing an existing pole. (For exceptions see subparagraph
(6)(h) below and sections 12.18.190 (Exceptions) and 12.18.220 (State or Federal
Law).)
The proposal meets this finding because it involves a replacement streetlight pole
with mounted antenna panels within the right-of-way. No new pole is proposed that
does not replace the existing pole.
12.18.080(A)(6)(d): Light Poles. The maximum height of any antenna shall not
exceed four feet above the existing height of a light pole. Any portion of the antenna
or equipment mounted on a pole shall be no less than 16% feet above any drivable
road surface.
The side -mounted panel antennas will not exceeds 2' above the height of the
replacement streetlight pole. No portion of the antenna or equipment is less than
16Y2' above the drivable road surface.
12.18.080(A)(6)(e): Replacement Poles. If an applicant proposes to replace a pole
in order to accommodate a proposed facility, the pole shall be designed to resemble
the appearance and dimensions of existing poles near the proposed location,
including size, height, color, materials and style to the maximum extent feasible.
The proposed replacement streetlight pole will match the appearance, in terms of
color, height, size and dimensions of the existing pole and all other streetlight poles
in the immediate area. The replacement streetlight pole and related equipment will
consist of a finish and painted in a concrete color to match the existing streetlight
poles in the area. A smaller antenna technology is possible, but smaller antennas
will require the installation of many more poles in the neighborhood to achieve the
same coverage and capacity.
55478.00001 \30208688.1 E-8
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 69)
OCTOBER 10, 2017
PAGE 9
12.18.080(A)(6)(f): Pole mounted equipment, exclusive of antennas, shall not
exceed six cubic feet in dimension.
There will not be pole mounted equipment, excluding antennas. The related
mechanical equipment will be vaulted.
12.18.080(A)(6)(i): All cables, including, but not limited to, electrical and utility
cables, shall be run within the interior of the pole and shall be camouflaged or hidden
to the fullest extent feasible.
All cables and wires are required to be short and directly routed to the pole in order
to be hidden from view with no loops, exposed cables, splitters or unsightly wires.
12.18.080(A)(7): Space. Each facility shall be designed to occupy the least amount
of space in the right-of-way that is technically feasible.
The replacement streetlight pole is similar in dimension to the existing streetlight
pole. The placement of the antennas on the side of the pole will occupy limited air
space above the right-of-way. The supporting mechanical equipment will be
undergrounded and the vault necessary to house the equipment measures
approximately 43 square feet of total surface area. This space is the least amount of
space that is technically feasible for equipment owned by AT&T. Furthermore, the
space that will be occupied is below the surface with minimum exhaust vents that will
be flush to the surrounding ground.
12.18.080(A)(8): Wind Loads. Each facility shall be properly engineered to
withstand wind loads as required by this code or any duly adopted or incorporated
code. An evaluation of high wind load capacity shall include the impact of
modification of an existing facility.
Based on the information submitted by the Applicant and as confirmed by the City's
consultants, Staff finds that the proposed installation complies with all building codes
related to wind loads.
12.18.080(A)(9): Obstructions. Each component part of a facility shall be located
so as not to cause any physical or visual obstruction to pedestrian or vehicular
traffic, incommode the public's use of the right-of-way, or safety hazards to
pedestrians and motorists and in compliance with Section 17.48.070 (Intersection
Visibility) so as not to obstruct the intersection visibility triangle.
Pursuant to the application documents submitted to the City including the design,
height and size, the proposed installation including the undergrounding of the
55478.00001 \30208688.1 E-9
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 69)
OCTOBER 10, 2017
PAGE 10
mechanical equipment will not cause an obstruction to the public's use of the PROW,
constitute a safety hazard and/or does not interfere with the City -defined intersection
visibility triangle. Specifically, the proposed replacement pole, provides the same
lighting, height and setback parameters applicable to other streetlights. The
proposed mechanical equipment will be vaulted under the existing sidewalk, and
conditions are proposed to ensure the vents do not physically obstruct the safe use
of the sidewalk.
12.18.080(A)(10): Public Facilities. A facility shall not be located within any portion
of the public right-of-way interfering with access to a fire hydrant, fire station, fire
escape, water valve, underground vault, valve housing structure, or any other public
health or safety facility.
Pursuant to the application documents submitted to the City, the proposed
installation, including the undergrounding of the mechanical equipment, will not
interfere with any public health or safety facilities including interfering with fire
hydrants, fire stations, water lines, or other infrastructure.
12.18.080(A)(11): Screening. All ground -mounted facility, pole -mounted
equipment, or walls, fences, landscaping or other screening methods shall be
installed at least 18 inches from the curb and gutter flow line.
The Project does not have pole -mounted equipment, excluding the antennas. The
related mechanical equipment will be undergrounded. Therefore, the Project will
be consistent with this finding.
12.18.080(A)(12): Accessory Equipment. Accessory Equipment. Not including the
electric meter, all accessory equipment shall be located underground, except as
provided below.
The related accessory equipment, including the meter, will be located underground.
12.18.080(A)(13): Landscaping. Where appropriate, each facility shall be installed
so as to maintain and enhance existing landscaping on the site, including trees,
foliage and shrubs. Additional landscaping shall be planted, irrigated and
maintained by applicant where such landscaping is deemed necessary by the city
to provide screening or to conceal the facility.
The proposed vents will be located under the existing sidewalk adjacent to the
streetlight pole. Conditions have been added requiring the installation of
landscaping within parkway to help soften the appearance of the Project.
55478.00001\30208688.1 E-1 0
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 69)
OCTOBER 10, 2017
PAGE 11
12.18.080(A)(14) Signage. No facility shall bear any signs or advertising devices
other than certification, warning or other signage required by law or permitted by
the city.
The facility does not include any signs or advertising devices other than
certification, warning or other signage required by law.
12.18.080(A)(1 5)(a -e) Lighting.
The facility does not include any such lighting other than the luminary on the light
pole.
C. If applicable, the applicant has demonstrated its inability to locate on
existing infrastructure.
Not applicable as the proposed WTF antenna is proposed to be installed on a
replacement streetlight pole that's currently an existing infrastructure.
D. The applicant has provided sufficient evidence supporting the applicant's
claim that it has the right to enter the public right-of-way pursuant to state
or federal law, or the applicant has entered into a franchise agreement with
the city permitting them to use the public right-of-way.
The Applicant has submitted to the City a Right of Way Use Agreement (RUA)
entered into with the City in 2011, which allows the Applicant to install wireless
antennas in the PROW. Further, the Applicant has submitted a Certificate of
Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) issued by the California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC) which provides that the Applicant has been
authorized to install wireless telecommunications infrastructure in the PROW.
E. The applicant has demonstrated the proposed installation is designed such
that the proposed installation represents the least intrusive means possible
and supported by factual evidence and a meaningful comparative analysis
to show that all alternative locations and designs identified in the
application review process were technically infeasible or not available.
In terms of utilizing smaller antennas, there is technology that is possible to use but
that would require a multiplicity of wireless facilities throughout the community to
provide equal coverage and capacity. This may require the introduction of new pole
structures where there are no streetlights or utility poles and would require associated
accessory equipment at every location. Furthermore, the supporting mechanical
equipment, even if placed in vaults underground, would require additional fans that
55478.00001 \30208688.1 E-1 1
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 69)
OCTOBER 10, 2017
PAGE 12
may result in adverse cumulative noise impacts negating the objective of installing
the least intrusive systems.
Other locations and designs considered for purposes of filling the coverage gap
claimed by the Applicant (attached) presented the following intrusions, which Staff
determined to be more intrusive then the proposed Project as revised:
• Staff finds locations that utilize an existing or replacement pole to be
preferable to a whole new pole.
• A smaller or lower pole could be utilized, but it would require a multiplicity
of wireless poles in the gap area claimed by the Applicant and discussed by
the City's RF Engineer (attached), as opposed to having one AT&T WTF in
this area.
• Alternate antenna designs, such as the encasement of the antenna panels
within a canister shroud, were found by Staff to be bulkier in appearance
and less streamlined than the flush side -mounted proposal.
• Staff looked at other design options from other (non -AT&T) carriers. While
some carriers offer antenna panels that may be smaller in overall size, such
designs from other carriers are not engineered to carry the bandwidths
owned by AT&T.
FINDINGS FOR EXCEPTIONS
Section 12.18.190 of the RPVMC states "Exceptions" provide:
"The City Council recognizes that federal law prohibits a permit denial when it would
effectively prohibit the provision of personal wireless services and the applicant
proposes the least intrusive means to provide such services. The City Council finds
that, due to wide variation among wireless facilities, technical service objectives and
changed circumstances over time, a limited exemption for proposals in which strict
compliance with this chapter would effectively prohibit personal wireless services
serves the public interest. The City Council further finds that circumstances in which
an effective prohibition may occur are extremely difficult to discern, and that specified
findings to guide the analysis promotes clarity and the city's legitimate interest in well-
planned wireless facilities deployment. Therefore, in the event that any applicant
asserts that strict compliance with any provision in this chapter, as applied to a
specific proposed personal wireless services facility, would effectively prohibit the
provision of personal wireless services, the Planning Commission may grant a
limited, one-time exemption from strict compliance subject to the provisions in this
section."
55478.00001 \30208688.1 E-1 2
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 69)
OCTOBER 10, 2017
PAGE 13
Section 12.18.190(B) states that the Planning Commission shall not grant any Exception
unless the applicant demonstrates with clear and convincing evidence in support of the
following findings: (Finding shown in bold text followed by Staff's analysis):
1. The proposed wireless facility qualifies as a "personal wireless services
facility" as defined in United States Code, Title 47, section 332(c)(7)(C)(ii).
The Applicant has provided sufficient information to establish that the wireless
telecommunication facility meets the definition of "personal wireless services
facility" as defined by the United States Code.
2. The applicant has provided the City with a clearly defined technical service
objective and a clearly defined potential site search area.
The "technical service objective" identified by the Applicant in all application
documents is the coverage of a "significant gap" in service. This application
information was provided to the City's RF Engineer who reviewed the information,
as well as conducted both on-site walkouts of the area and a computerized terrain
study to determine if the proposed site will address a coverage gap as identified in
the application. Based on the terrain profile characteristics and the field
measurement data provided by Crown Castle, the City's consultant concluded that
the proposal as provided will address coverage deficiencies within the target area.
Furthermore, according to the City's consultant, the Applicant has provided
engineering details related to the wireless bands that will be used for the DAS
deployment, including identifying transmitting equipment, power levels for each band
and specifics regarding the radiation patterns of the antennas to be installed.
However, information provided about existing and proposed coverage in the service
area for each of the three AT&T licensed wireless bands (700 MHz, PCS and AWS)
are less clearly defined; this is due to the extremely rugged and varied terrain
associated with the surrounding landscape.
More specifically, the consultant concluded signal levels are lower than the levels
industry guidelines suggested to support modern 3G/4G customer needs. Notably, if
constructed, ASG No. 69 will provide ample signal intensity to support AT&T's 3G/4G
wireless services in the target area.
While the City's RF Engineer found evidence of a gap in signal levels, the question
of whether such gap constitutes a "significant" gap lies within the discretionary
purview of the Planning Commission, subject to limitation that Applicant evidence
must be considered as "primae facie" evidence that can be rebutted with site-specific,
non -speculative, and non -generalized objective analyses. Courts have made clear
that this is a fact -based judgment. "[T]he existing case law amply demonstrates that
`significant gap' determinations are extremely fact -specific inquiries that defy any
bright -line legal rule." (MetroPCS, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco (9th Cir.
55478.00001 \30208688.1 E-1 3
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 69)
OCTOBER 10, 2017
PAGE 14
2005) 400 F.3d 715, 733.) There is a wide range of context -specific factors in
assessing the significance of alleged gaps. (See, e.g., Cellular Tel. Co. v. Zoning
Bd. of Adjustment of the Borough of Ho—Ho—Kus (3d Cir.1999) 197 F.3d 64, 70 n. 2
[whether gap affected significant commuter highway or railway]; Powertel/Atlanta,
Inc. v. City of Clarkston (N.D.Ga. Aug.3, 2007) No. 1:05—CV-3068, 2007 WL
2258720, at *6 [assessing the "nature and character of that area or the number of
potential users in that area who may be affected by the alleged lack of service"];
Voice Stream PCS 1, LLC v. City of Hillsboro (D.Or. 2004) 301 F.Supp.2d 1251, 1261
[whether facilities were needed to improve weak signals or to fill a complete void in
coverage]; Nextel Partners, Inc. v. Town of Amherst (W.D.N.Y.2003) 251 F.Supp.2d
1187, 1196 [gap covers well traveled roads on which customers lack roaming
capabilities]; Am. Cellular Network Co., LLC v. Upper Dublin Twp. (E.D.Pa.2002) 203
F.Supp.2d 383, 390-91 [considering "drive tests"]; Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Town of
Ogunquit (D.Me. 2001) 175 F.Supp.2d 77, 90 [whether gap affects commercial
district]; APT Minneapolis, Inc. v. Stillwater Twp. (D.Minn. June 22, 2001) No. 00-
2500, 2001 WL 1640069, at *2-3 [whether gap poses public safety risk].)
3. The applicant has provided the City with a meaningful comparative analysis
that includes the factual reasons why any alternative location(s) or design(s)
suggested by the city or otherwise identified in the administrative record,
including but not limited to potential alternatives identified at any public
meeting or hearing, are not technically feasible or potentially available.
As noted earlier, the Applicant has proposed similar antennas at the following three
alternative locations (see attachment):
• Alternative No. 1 (location D) - Replacement of an existing street light pole 167
feet southwest of the primary along Seaglen Drive.
• Alternative No. 2 (location B) - Replacement of an existing street light pole on
the south side of Seaglen Drive approximately 530 -feet east of the Primary.
• Alternative No. 3 (location C) — Replacement of an existing street light pole on
the south side of Seaglen Drive approximately 343 feet east of the Primary.
The alternative site analysis submitted by the Applicant demonstrates that the
proposed Project is likely the least intrusive location for the wireless
telecommunications facility in the immediate area because of the adjacent terraced
slope and lack of residences immediately adjacent to the site. The WTF is also being
proposed to be installed on a replacement street light pole that replaces existing
infrastructure. And while the proposed location is within a residential zone, the
proposed location does not interfere with any public or residential views.
Furthermore, because of the limited commercially zoned areas in the City and limited
collector or arterial streets, in order to provide coverage to the residential areas of
the City, it's necessary to locate within the right-of-way of local streets.
55478.00001 \30208688.1 E-14
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 69)
OCTOBER 10, 2017
PAGE 15
• As noted above, Staff finds locations that utilize an existing or replacement
pole to be preferable to a whole new pole.
• A smaller or lower pole could be utilized, but it would require a multiplicity
of wireless poles in the gap area claimed by the Applicant, as opposed to
having one AT&T pole in this area.
• Alternate antenna designs, such as the encasement of the antenna panels
within a canister shroud, were found by Staff to be bulkier in appearance
and less streamlined than the flush side -mounted proposal.
• Staff looked at other design options from other (non -AT&T) carriers. While
some carriers offer antenna panels that may be smaller in overall size, such
designs from other carriers are not engineered to carry the bandwidths
owned by AT&T.
4. The applicant has provided the city with a meaningful comparative analysis
that includes the factual reasons why the proposed location and design
deviates is the least noncompliant location and design necessary to
reasonably achieve the applicant's reasonable technical service objectives.
See discussion immediately above. Further, the proposed WTF installation will be
installed on a replacement streetlight pole that will match other streetlight poles in
the immediate area. The proposed 24' tall replacement streetlight pole will be
approximately 0.5' shorter than the existing streetlight pole when measured to the
top of the pole. According to the City's consultant, the proposed location will meet
the Applicant's service objective. As stated in the previous Finding, the limited
commercially zoned areas and limited number of collector or arterial streets require
the use of local residential streets in order to provide proper coverage and capacity
to various portions of the City. Thus, there are no commercial zones within the signal
reach of the identified gap.
It should be noted that the RPVMC Section 12.18.190(C) provides that the Commission
"shall limit its exemption to the extent to which the applicant demonstrates such
exemption is necessary to reasonably achieve its reasonable technical service
objectives. The Planning Commission may adopt Conditions of Approval as reasonably
necessary to promote the purposes in this chapter and protect the public health, safety
and welfare."
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Radio Frequency (RF) Emissions
In compliance with RPVMC Section 12.18.050, the Applicant provided the City with "an
RF exposure compliance report prepared and certified by an RF engineer acceptable to
the City that certifies that the proposed facility, as well as any facilities that contribute to
55478.00001\30208688.1 E-1 5
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 69)
OCTOBER 10, 2017
PAGE 16
the cumulative exposure in the subject area, will comply with applicable federal RF
exposure standards and exposure limits."
With regards to RF cumulative impact concerns, there is no additional impacts simply
from the installation of wireless facilities throughout the City as shown in the applicant's
plans. As long as the antennas are 13.9' or more above ground and the 8' public
exclusion zone directly in front and at the same elevation as the antenna is observed,
there is no cumulative impacts associated with RF exposure. Unlike cumulative traffic
impacts from additional urban development, there is no equivalent cumulative impacts.
In other words, the degree of RF does not increase in neighborhoods where it can impact
the general population just from having multiple wireless facilities in a neighborhood.
Importantly, beyond the fact that Applicant complied with this submittal requirement, any
consideration of RF Emissions by the Planning Commission, or the health effects thereof,
are beyond the Commission's authority to the extent the emissions conform to the
applicable FCC regulations. Under the Telecom Act, the FCC completely occupies the
field with respect to RF emissions regulation, and established comprehensive rules for
maximum permissible exposure levels (the "FCC Guidelines"). State and local
governments cannot (1) regulate wireless facilities based on environmental effects from
RF emissions when the emissions conform to the applicable FCC regulations or (2)
establish their own RF exposure standards—whether more strict, more lenient or even
the same. (47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv).). As the emissions conform to the FCC
regulations, the City cannot impose its own emission standards or ignore the FCC
standards.
Shot Clock
State and federal laws, and a FCC ruling, provide that a local jurisdiction must act on an
application for certain wireless facilities antennas within the following certain strict
timeframes:
(1) a 150 -day shot clock for new facilities;
(2) a 90 -day shot clock for modifications resulting in a substantial change; or
(3) a 60 -day shot clock for modifications that do not result in a substantial change.
If a local government fails to approve or deny a facilities request within the applicable time
period, the request will be "deemed granted" upon written notification from the applicant
to the local government stating that the request is considered approved.
The Project application proposes a new facility subject to the 150 -day shot clock. The
application was submitted on July 14, 2016. The clock was "tolled" several times as a
result of incomplete application submittals. As a result, the shot clock has not run, and it
was set to expire on October 23, 2017. But as stated earlier, a new Shot Clock Tolling
Agreement, dated September 5, 2017 (see attachment) established a new Shot Clock
Expiration date of October 31, 2017.
55478.00001 \30208688.1 E-1 6
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 69)
OCTOBER 10, 2017
PAGE 17
As a point of clarification, the Planning Commission's action on the Project is the final City
decision, unless appealed to the City Council. While the law is not clear, there is no
binding legal precedent in California requiring that the shot clock run pending an appeal
period. Accordingly, it is thought that the Commission's action on the Project may toll the
shot clock.
Public Comments
Attached are the public comments received (see attachment).
Mock -Up Notice Issues
On July 6, 2017, the Applicant (Crown Castle) received a Public Works Encroachment
Permit to install a Mock -Up of a proposed wireless telecommunications facility. The
temporary mock-up was installed on July 20, 2017. This is a required step in the Wireless
Telecommunications Facilities Application for all proposed wireless facility installations.
Chapter 12.18 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code states that the Planning
Commission is to review these specific proposed installations for, among other things,
design assessment and location.
The temporary mock-up installation remains in-place as a matter of public notice up -to
and during Planning Commission deliberations, and any appeal to the City Council if
applicable.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Staff recommends that the proposed WTF be conditionally
approved as provided in the attached P.C. Resolution conditionally approving the Project.
ALTERNATIVES
The following alternatives are available for the Planning Commission's consideration:
1) Deny, without prejudice, ASG No. 69; or,
2) Identify any issues of concern with the proposed Project, provide Staff and/or the
applicant with direction in modifying the Project and request that the applicant
agree to toll the shot clock to allow additional time to redesign for consideration at
the November 14, 2017 meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
• P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -XX including Conditions of Approval
• Project plans and photo simulations
• Canister shroud alternative Project plans and photo simulations
55478.00001\30208688.1 E-1 7
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 69)
OCTOBER 10, 2017
PAGE 18
• City's View Assessment Memo
• Technical information from the City's RF Engineer
• Coverage Maps and Supporting Documents from the Applicant
• Feasibility Analysis on Alternate Sites
• September 5, 2017 Shot Clock Tolling Agreement
• Public Comments
55478.00001 \30208688.1 E-1 8
P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2017 -XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING, WITH CONDITIONS,
MAJOR WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY PERMIT
ASG NO. 69 TO ALLOW THE REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING
24.5' TALL STREETLIGHT WITH A 24' TALL STREETLIGHT
WITH TWO 21.4" SIDE -MOUNTED PANEL ANTENNAS FLUSH
WITH THE POLE WITH RELATED VAULTED MECHANICAL
EQUIPMENT.
WHEREAS, Chapter 12.18 of the Rancho Palo Verde Municipal Code (RPVMC or
Municipal Code) governs the permitting, development, siting, installation, design,
operation and maintenance of wireless telecommunications facilities ("WTFs") in the city's
public right-of-way ("PROW") (RPVMC § 12.18.010);
WHEREAS, beginning in May of 2016, Crown Castle (the "Applicant") applied to
the City for an Wireless Telecommunications Facility Permit ("WTFP"), pursuant to
Section 12.18.040(A) of the Municipal Code, to install 26 antennas in the public right-of-
way (PROW) to service AT&T customers throughout the City including ASG No. 69
("Project") located across from 3486 Seaglen Drive;
WHEREAS, the Project calls for the replacement of the existing 24.5' tall concrete
streetlight with a 24' tall streetlight with mast arm and luminaire to accommodate the
installation of two 21.4" flush side -mounted panel antennas that would be affixed to the
side of the pole with accessory equipment to be vaulted in the PROW;
WHEREAS, because the Project's location is within a residential zone and within
the PROW of local streets as identified in the General Plan, approval of a WTFP also
requires an exception under Section 12.18.190 of the Municipal Code;
WHEREAS, the Project is exempt from review under the California Environmental
Quality Act ("CEQA") because the Project constitutes a small scale installation of new a
new facility (14 CCR § 15303(d)).
WHEREAS, on October 10, 2017, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed
public hearing, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard
and present evidence.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The proposed Project is a request to:
A. Install a WTF across from 3486 Seaglen Drive.
P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -XX
Pag1E 019
B. Removal of an existing 24.5' tall streetlight pole with a mast arm and luminaire to
be decommissioned and replaced with a 24' (total pole height) tall streetlight pole
with two 21.4" panel antennas that will be side -mounted to the new streetlight pole.
C. Install vaulted mechanical equipment in the PROW.
Section 2: Approval of a WTFP is warranted because the Project meets the
findings required by Section 12.18.090 of the Municipal Code:
A. All notices required for the proposed installation have been given.
Crown Castle and the City have provided all notices required by the RPVMC. On
July 6, 2017 property owners within 500' of the proposed facility were notified of
the WTF mock-up which occurred at least 30 days in advance of the public hearing.
Further, on September 21, 2017, a public notice announcing the October 10, 2017
public hearing was published in the Daily Breeze and provided to property owners
within 500' of the proposed WTF.
B. The proposed facility has been designed and located in compliance with all
applicable provisions of this chapter.
12.18.080(A)(1)(a): The applicant shall employ screening, undergrounding and
camouflage design techniques in the design and placement of wireless
telecommunications facilities in order to ensure that the facility is as visually
screened as possible, to prevent the facility from dominating the surrounding area
and to minimize significant view impacts from surrounding properties all in a manner
that achieves compatibility with the community and in compliance with Section
17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration) of this code.
The Project employs screening and a camouflage design with the use of a 21.4" tall
antenna panels that will be side -mounted to the replacement streetlight pole at a
total of 24' in height as measured from grade to the top of the pole and with the top
of the antennas 23' in height as measured from grade. The Project presents a slim
side view that blends cleanly with the verticality of the light pole. The light standard
is designed to match the light standard being replaced and other light standards in
the immediate area. The proposal places all of the related mechanical equipment
underground in a vault. The proposed installation will not have any significant view
impairment to surrounding properties pursuant to Chapter 17.02.040 of the
RPVMC.
12.18.080(A)(1)(b): Screening shall be designed to be architecturally compatible
with surrounding structures using appropriate techniques to camouflage, disguise,
and/or blend into the environment, including landscaping, color, and other
techniques to minimize the facility's visual impact as well as be compatible with the
P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -XX
PagEE-21(p
architectural character of the surrounding buildings or structures in terms of color,
size, proportion, style, and quality.
The proposed WTF will be affixed to a replacement streetlight pole that matches
other streetlight poles in the area, and the replacement streetlight pole will utilize
similar color, size, proportion, style, and quality to other street poles in the area.
The antenna panels will be painted a concrete color to blend with the pole. The
mechanical equipment will be vaulted within the street.
12.18.080(A)(1)(c): Facilities shall be located such that views from a residential
structure are not significantly impaired. Facilities shall also be located in a manner
that protects public views over city view corridors, as defined in the city's general
plan, so that no significant view impairment results in accordance with this code
including Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration). This provision
shall be applied consistent with local, state and federal law.
The Project does not result in a significant view impairment to surrounding
residences on Seaglen Drive. This finding remains unchanged with the replacement
pole. The proposed WTF is not located in a view corridor identified in the City's
General Plan or Coastal Specific Plan.
12.18.080(A)(3): Traffic Safety. All facilities shall be designed and located in such
a manner as to avoid adverse impacts to traffic safety.
The Project involves a replacement streetlight pole with the placement of antennas
that will be flush side -mounted to the pole. Additionally, the related mechanical
equipment will be vaulted avoiding traffic safety impacts, and in compliance
standards for undergrounding equipment under a street.
12.18.080(A)(4): Blending Methods. All facilities shall have subdued colors and
non -reflective materials that blend with the materials and colors of the surrounding
area and structures.
The proposed streetlight pole and affixed equipment will consist of colors and
materials that are subdued, non -reflective and are the same as the other streetlight
poles in the immediate area.
12.18.080(A)(5): Equipment. The applicant shall use the least visible equipment
possible. Antenna elements shall be flush mounted, to the extent feasible. All
antenna mounts shall be designed so as not to preclude possible future collocation
by the same or other operators or carriers. Unless otherwise provided in this
section, antennas shall be situated as close to the ground as possible.
P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -XX
Page-Q2'IT
The Project consists of a replacement streetlight pole with the installation of two
21.4" panel antennas that will be side -mounted to a pole which would result in an
overall height of 23' to the top of the antennas and 24' to the top of the pole. The
Project proposes a slim side view that blends cleanly with the verticality of the light
pole and is the least visible of the options presented.
The height of the street pole may have to be increased by up to 5' to accommodate
collocation because of the size of the panel antennas combined with there being a
need to provide a separation of at least 1' between antenna panels for functionality
purposes. Future location of additional antennas on this street light pole would
detract from the overall appearance and character of the neighborhood.
12.18.080(A)(6)(a): Facilities shall be located consistent with Section 12.18.200
(Location Restrictions) unless an exception pursuant to Section 12.18.190
(Exceptions) is granted.
The proposed location is within the PROW of local residential streets as identified
in the City's General Plan and the Planning Commission finds that an Exception
shall be made.
12.18.080(A)(6)(d): Light Poles. The maximum height of any antenna shall not
exceed four feet above the existing height of a light pole. Any portion of the antenna
or equipment mounted on a pole shall be no less than 16% feet above any drivable
road surface.
The side -mounted panel antennas will
replacement streetlight pole. No portion
16Y2 ' above the drivable road surface.
not exceeds 2' above the height of the
of the antenna or equipment is less than
12.18.080(A)(6)(e): Replacement Poles. If an applicant proposes to replace a pole
in order to accommodate a proposed facility, the pole shall be designed to resemble
the appearance and dimensions of existing poles near the proposed location,
including size, height, color, materials and style to the maximum extent feasible.
The replacement street light pole will match the appearance, in terms of color,
height, size and dimensions of other light poles in the immediate area.
12.18.080(A)(6)(i): All cables, including, but not limited to, electrical and utility
cables, shall be run within the interior of the pole and shall be camouflaged or
hidden to the fullest extent feasible.
All cables and wires are required to be short and directly routed to the pole in order
to be hidden from view with no loops, exposed cables, splitters or unsightly wires.
P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -XX
PagEE-228
12.18.080(A)(7): Space. Each facility shall be designed to occupy the least amount
of space in the right-of-way that is technically feasible.
The replacement streetlight pole is similar in dimension to the existing streetlight
pole. The placement of the antennas on the side of the pole will occupy limited air
space above the right-of-way. The accessory structure will be undergrounded and
the vault necessary to house the equipment measures approximately 43 square
feet in area and consists of three separate vaults. This space is the least amount
of space that is technically feasible for vaulted equipment owned by AT&T. The
space that will be occupied is below the surface with minimum exhaust vents that
will be flush to the surrounding ground.
12.18.080(A)(8): Wind Loads. Each facility shall be properly engineered to
withstand wind loads as required by this code or any duly adopted or incorporated
code. An evaluation of high wind load capacity shall include the impact of
modification of an existing facility.
Based on the information submitted by the Applicant and as confirmed by the City's
consultants, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed installation complies
with all building codes related to wind loads.
12.18.080(A)(9): Obstructions. Each component part of a facility shall be located
so as not to cause any physical or visual obstruction to pedestrian or vehicular
traffic, incommode the public's use of the right-of-way, or safety hazards to
pedestrians and motorists and in compliance with Section 17.48.070 (Intersection
Visibility) so as not to obstruct the intersection visibility triangle.
The Project design, height and size, including the undergrounding of the
mechanical equipment, will not cause an obstruction to the public's use of the
PROW, constitute a safety hazard and/or does not interfere with the City -defined
intersection visibility triangle. The replacement pole provides the same lighting,
height and setback parameters applicable to other streetlights. The proposed
mechanical equipment will be vaulted under the existing sidewalk, and conditions
are proposed to ensure the vents do not physically obstruct the safe use of the
sidewalk.
12.18.080(A)(10): Public Facilities. A facility shall not be located within any portion
of the public right-of-way interfering with access to a fire hydrant, fire station, fire
escape, water valve, underground vault, valve housing structure, or any other public
health or safety facility.
P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -XX
PagEE-02t3
The proposed installation, including the undergrounding of the mechanical
equipment, will not interfere with fire hydrants, fire stations, water lines or any other
public health or safety facilities
C. If applicable, the applicant has demonstrated its inability to locate on existing
infrastructure.
Not applicable as the proposed WTF antennas are proposed to be installed on a
replacement street light pole that's currently an existing infrastructure.
D. The applicant has provided sufficient evidence supporting the applicant's
claim that it has the right to enter the public right-of-way pursuant to state or
federal law, or the applicant has entered into a franchise agreement with the
city permitting them to use the public right-of-way.
The Applicant has submitted to the City a Right of Way Use Agreement (RUA)
entered into with the City in 2011, which allows the Applicant to install wireless
antennas in the PROW. Further, the Applicant has submitted a Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) issued by the California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC) which provides that the Applicant has been authorized to
install wireless telecommunications infrastructure in the PROW.
E. The applicant has demonstrated the proposed installation is designed such
that the proposed installation represents the least intrusive means possible
and supported by factual evidence and a meaningful comparative analysis to
show that all alternative locations and designs identified in the application
review process were technically infeasible or not available.
Alternative locations were identified in the application review process. The present
design, which includes the installation of two antenna panels to the side of the
streetlight pole is the least intrusive means of those alternatives. There is
technology that is possible to use but that would require a greater number of
facilities throughout the community to provide equal coverage and capacity. This
may require the introduction of new pole structures where there are no streetlights
or utility poles and may require associated accessory equipment at every location.
Alternate antenna designs, such as the encasement of the antenna panels within a
canister shroud, were found to be bulkier in appearance and less streamlined than
the flush side -mounted proposal. The supporting mechanical equipment, even if
placed in vaults underground, requires additional fans that may result in adverse
cumulative noise impacts negating the objective of installing the least intrusive
systems.
P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -XX
Pag,E-24
Other locations and designs considered as part of the application process for
purposes of filling the coverage gap claimed by the Applicant were found to be more
intrusive then the proposed Project.
Section 3: Because the Project's location is within a residential zone and within
the PROW of local streets as identified in the General Plan, approval of a WTFP also
requires an exception under Section 12.18.190 of the Municipal Code. The Project meets
the findings for an exception as required by Section 12.18.190(B) of the Municipal Code:
1. The proposed wireless facility qualifies as a "personal wireless services
facility" as defined in United States Code, Title 47, section 332(c)(7)(C)(ii).
The WTF meets the definition of "personal wireless services facility" as defined
by the United States Code.
2. The applicant has provided the city with a clearly defined technical service
objective and a clearly defined potential site search area.
The "technical service objective" identified by the Applicant in all application
documents is the coverage of a "significant gap" in service along Seaglen Drive.
This application information was provided to the City's RF Engineer who
reviewed the information, as well as conducted both on-site walkouts of the
area and a computerized terrain study to determine if the proposed site will
address a coverage gap as identified in the application. Based on the terrain
profile characteristics and the field measurement data provided by Crown Castle,
the proposal as provided will address coverage deficiencies within the target
area. The Applicant has provided engineering details related to the wireless
bands that will be used for the DAS deployment, including identifying transmitting
equipment, power levels for each band and specifics regarding the radiation
patterns of the antennas to be installed.
Crown Castle has provided engineering measurement data defining gaps in
AT&T coverage in small pocketed areas. This has been independently examined
by the City's consultant who determined that the signal levels are lower than
industry recommended levels to support modern 3G/4G customer needs. The
engineering design provided by Crown Castle supports that, if constructed, DAS
site ASG No. 69 will provide ample signal intensity (signal level in excess of -95
dBm) to support AT&T's 3G/4G wireless services.
3. The applicant has provided the City with a meaningful comparative analysis
that includes the factual reasons why any alternative location(s) or
design(s) suggested by the city or otherwise identified in the
administrative record, including but not limited to potential alternatives
P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -XX
PagEE-02,9
identified at any public meeting or hearing, are not technically feasible or
potentially available.
The Applicant has provided comparative analysis for possible similar antennas
on at the following three locations:
Alternative No. 1 (location D) - Replacement of an existing street light pole
167 feet southwest of the primary along Seaglen Drive.
Alternative No. 2 (location B) - Replacement of an existing street light pole
on the south side of Seaglen Drive approximately 530 -feet east of the
Primary.
Alternative No. 3 (location C) — Replacement of an existing street light pole
on the south side of Seaglen Drive approximately 343 feet east of the
Primary.
Only Alternative No. 1 meets RF coverage objective according to the Applicant.
Even if Alternatives Nos 2 and 3 met RF coverage objective, these locations are
directly in front of residences on the south side of Seaglen making them more
noticeable for residences adjacent to those sites. Similarly, Alternative No. 1 is
directly in front of a residence which makes the site more visually impacting than
the Primary site which is not adjacent to residences (albeit across the street
from residences) as it's located on the northeast side of Seaglen where there
are no residences. Other locations may result in public and residential view
impacts.
The proposed Project is the least intrusive location for the wireless
telecommunications facility in the immediate area because of the surrounding
terrain. There are no major collector or arterial streets in the immediate area.
4. The applicant has provided the city with a meaningful comparative analysis
that includes the factual reasons why the proposed location and design
deviates is the least noncompliant location and design necessary to
reasonably achieve the applicant's reasonable technical service
objectives.
The Applicant has provided a meaningful alternative comparative analysis and
the proposed Project is found to be the preferred design.
Section 4: Conditions regarding any of the requirements listed above which the
Planning Commission finds to be necessary to protect the health, safety and general
welfare, have been imposed in the attached Exhibit A.
Section 5: The Project is exempt from review under the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") because the Project constitutes a small scale
installation of new a new facility (14 CCR § 15303(d)).
P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -XX
PagEE-263
Section 6: Pursuant to Section 12.18.060 of the Municipal Code (referencing
Chapter 17.80 of the Municipal Code), any interested person aggrieved by this decision
or any portion of this decision may appeal to the City Council. The appeal shall set forth
the grounds for appeal and any specific action being requested by the appellant. Any
appeal letter must be filed within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of this decision, or
by 5:30 PM on Wednesday, October 25, 2017. The Council -approved appeal fee must
accompany any appeal letter. If no appeal is filed timely, the Planning Commission's
decision will be final at 5:30 PM on Wednesday, October 25, 2017.
Section 7: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings
included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby conditionally approves, a WTFP
application and an exception for the proposed installation across from 3486 Seaglen Drive
(ASG NO. 69).
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of October 10, 2017, by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
RECUSALS:
ABSENT:
Ara Mihranian, AICP
Community Development Director; and,
Secretary of the Planning Commission
John M. Cruikshank
Chairman
P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -XX
PagV -1:27
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
WTF ASG NO. 69
ACROSS FROM 3486 SEAGLEN DRIVE
General Conditions:
Prior to obtaining a permit from the Public Works Department to install the street
light pole, the applicant and the property owner shall submit to the City a statement,
in writing, that they have read, understand, and agree to all conditions of approval
contained in this Resolution. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety
(90) days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and
void.
2. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City, and/or
any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof, from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of
mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether legal, equitable,
declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute
resolutions procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and
other such procedures) (collectively "Actions"), brought against the City, and/or
any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void,
or annul, the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and/or any of
its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City), for
or concerning the Project.
3. Prior to conducting any work in the public right of way (PROW), such as for curb
cuts, dumpsters, temporary improvements and/or permanent improvements, the
applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works.
4. Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and
appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws and
regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of the
City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) shall apply.
5. The Public Works Director or Director of Community Development are authorized
to make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of
approval if such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as would
strict compliance with the approved plans and conditions. Otherwise, any
substantive change to the Project shall require approval of a revision by the final
body that approved the original Project, which may require new and separate
environmental review.
6. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be
cause to revoke the approval of the Project pursuant to the RPVMC.
P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -XX
Page LT -0283
7. If the applicant has not obtained approvals from Public Works for the approved
Project or not commenced the approved Project within one year of the final
effective date of this Resolution, approval of the Project shall expire and be of no
further effect unless, prior to expiration, a written request for extension is filed with
the Public Works Department and approved by the Director.
8. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations and/or
requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter standard
shall apply.
9. The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall
be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that
material used for immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may
include, but not be limited to: the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap
metal, concrete asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or discarded
furniture, appliances or other household fixtures.
10. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday
through Friday, 9:OOAM to 5:OOPM on Saturday, with no construction activity
permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section 17.96.920 of
the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. During demolition, construction
and/or grading operations, trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at the Project
site or in the adjoining street rights-of-way before 7AM Monday through Friday and
before 9AM on Saturday, in accordance with the permitted hours of construction
stated in this condition. When feasible to do so, the construction contractor shall
provide staging areas on-site to minimize off-site transportation of heavy
construction equipment. These areas shall be located to maximize the distance
between staging activities and neighboring properties, subject to approval by the
building official.
11. All grading, landscaping and construction activities shall exercise effective dust
control techniques, either through screening and/or watering.
12. Prior to commencement work, the Applicant shall obtain approval of a haul route
from the Director of Public Works.
13. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly
manner, to the satisfaction of the City's Inspector. All construction waste and
debris resulting from a construction, alteration or repair Project shall be removed
on a weekly basis by the contractor or property owner.
14. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be
completed in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the
City with the effective date of this Resolution.
P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -XX
Page E029
Project -specific Conditions:
15. This approval allows for the following:
A. Install a Wireless Telecommunication Facility WTF across from 3486
Seaglen Drive
B. Removal of an existing 24.5' tall streetlight pole with a mast arm and
luminaire to be decommissioned and replaced with a 24' tall (total height of
pole) streetlight pole with the installation of two 24.1" panel antennas flush
side -mounted to the pole with the top of the antennas 23' from grade.
C. The panel antennas shall not exceed 1" from the side of the pole and shall
be mounted to the pole using a 90 -degree connector bracket. Down -tilt
brackets shall be prohibited.
D. The installation of three separate vaults to house the required accessory
equipment in the PROW, including vents and meter boxes that shall be flush
to the ground and that shall not exceed 43 square feet in total surface area.
16. The proposed Project is subject to the following Conditions to the satisfaction of
the Director of Public Works and the Director of Community Development:
o The proposed WTF shall be installed on a new light standard that matches
the other light standards in the area in terms of color, size, proportion, style,
and quality. The antenna panels and any related exposed structures shall
be professionally painted and maintained to match the light pole.
o The Applicant shall install landscaping, consistent with existing
landscaping, near the proposed installation to soften the visual appearance
of the equipment.
o The facility shall be designed and located in such a manner as to avoid
adverse impacts on traffic safety; construction and operation of the facility
shall comport with a duly -approved traffic control plan as required.
o Colors and materials shall be subdued and non -reflective, and shall be the
same as the existing light standard and other lights standards in the nearby
area.
o The replacement streetlight pole shall match the appearance and
dimensions of the existing streetlight pole and all other light standards near
the location.
o All cables and wires shall be directly routed to the pole and encased within
the pole, and hidden from view. No loops, exposed cables, splitters or
unsightly wires shall be permitted.
P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -XX
Page `'3t 6
o All ground -mounted facilities shall be installed at least 18 inches from the
curb and gutter flow line.
o All accessory equipment shall be located underground including meter
boxes and cabinets.
o The facility shall be installed so as to maintain and enhance existing
landscaping on the site, including trees, foliage and shrubs. Additional
landscaping shall be planted, irrigated and maintained by Applicant where
such landscaping is feasible and deemed necessary by the City to provide
screening or to conceal the facility.
o The facility shall not bear any signs or advertising devices other than
certification, warning or other signage required by law or permitted by the
city.
o The facility shall not be illuminated except for the standard street -light
luminaire replacing the existing street light. All other illumination shall be
restricted pursuant to RPVMC § 12.18.080(A)(15).
o Noise:
Backup generators shall only be operated during periods of power
outages, and shall not be tested on weekends or holidays, or
between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
At no time shall equipment noise from any facility exceed an exterior
noise level of 55 dBA three feet from the source of the noise if the
facility is located in the public right-of-way adjacent to a business,
commercial, manufacturing, utility or school zone; provided,
however, that for any such facility located within 500 feet of any
property zoned residential or improved with a residential use, such
equipment noise shall not exceed 45 dBA three feet from the sources
of the noise. The foregoing noise level limitations shall govern
facilities subject to RPVMC Chapter 12.18.080(A)(16) until such time
that a specific noise regulation ordinance is adopted and effective in
this code, at which time such noise ordinance shall govern.
o The facility shall be designed to be resistant to, and minimize opportunities
for, unauthorized access, climbing, vandalism, graffiti and other conditions
that would result in hazardous situations, visual blight or attractive
nuisances. The Public Works Director may require the provision of warning
signs, fencing, anti -climbing devices, or other techniques to prevent
unauthorized access and vandalism when, because of their location and/or
accessibility, a facility has the potential to become an attractive nuisance.
Additionally, no lethal devices or elements shall be installed as a security
device.
P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -XX
Page E3 03 18
o Consistent with current state and federal laws and if permissible under the
same, at the time of modification of the facility, existing equipment shall, to
the extent feasible, be replaced with equipment that reduces visual, noise
and other impacts, including, but not limited to, undergrounding the
equipment and replacing larger, more visually intrusive facilities with
smaller, less visually intrusive facilities.
o The installation and construction of the facility shall begin within one year
after its approval or it will expire without further action by the city.
17. All wireless telecommunications facilities shall comply at all times with the following
operation and maintenance standards:
o Unless otherwise provided herein, all necessary repairs and restoration
shall be completed by the permittee, owner, operator or any designated
maintenance agent within 48 hours:
o After discovery of the need by the permittee, owner, operator or any
designated maintenance agent; or
o After permittee, owner, operator or any designated maintenance agent
receives notification from the city.
18. Each permittee of a wireless telecommunications facility shall provide the Public
Works Director with the name, address and 24-hour local or toll free contact phone
number of the permittee, the owner, the operator and the agent responsible for the
maintenance of the facility ("contact information"). Contact information shall be
updated within seven days of any change.
19. Prior to any construction activities, the permittee shall submit a security instrument
(bond or letter of credit as approved by the City Attorney) in an amount determined
by the City to be sufficient to cover all potential costs listed herein or in the RPVMC.
20. The permittee shall provide additional information to establish that the proposed
accessory equipment is designed to be the smallest equipment technologically
feasible. The City may consider equipment installed or proposed to be installed in
other jurisdictions.
21. All facilities, including, but not limited to, telecommunication towers, poles,
accessory equipment, lighting, fences, walls, shields, cabinets, artificial foliage or
camouflage, and the facility site shall be maintained in good condition, including
ensuring the facilities are reasonably free of:
a. General dirt and grease;
b. Chipped, faded, peeling, and cracked paint;
P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -XX
Page 32
C. Rust and corrosion;
d. Cracks, dents, and discoloration;
e. Missing, discolored or damaged artificial foliage or other camouflage;
f. Graffiti, bills, stickers, advertisements, litter and debris;
g. Broken and misshapen structural parts; and
h. Any damage from any cause.
22. Applicant shall install, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director or Director of
Community Development, landscaping near the proposed installation of the
vaulted accessory equipment (i.e. vents) to screen the equipment consistent with
existing landscaping prior to final inspection.
23. All trees, foliage or other landscaping elements approved as part of the facility shall
be maintained in good condition at all times, and the permittee, owner and operator
of the facility shall be responsible for replacing any damaged, dead or decayed
landscaping. No amendment to any approved landscaping plan may be made until
it is submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director or the Director of
Community Development.
24. The permittee shall replace its facilities, after obtaining all required permits, if
maintenance or repair is not sufficient to return the facility to the condition it was in
at the time of installation.
25. Each facility shall be operated and maintained to comply with all conditions of
approval. Each owner or operator of a facility shall routinely inspect each site to
ensure compliance with the same and the standards set forth in the RPVMC.
26. No person shall install, use or maintain any facility which in whole or in part rests
upon, in or over any public right-of-way, when such installation, use or
maintenance endangers or is reasonably likely to endanger the safety of persons
or property, or when such site or location is used for public utility purposes, public
transportation purposes or other governmental use, or when such facility
unreasonably interferes with or unreasonably impedes the flow of pedestrian or
vehicular traffic including any legally parked or stopped vehicle, the ingress into or
egress from any residence or place of business, the use of poles, posts, traffic
signs or signals, hydrants, mailboxes, permitted sidewalk dining, permitted street
furniture or other objects permitted at or near said location.
27. Unless California Government Code Section 65964, as may be amended,
authorizes the city to issue a permit with a shorter term, a permit for any wireless
P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -XX
Page L5-03 'I
telecommunications facility shall be valid for a period of ten years, unless pursuant
to another provision of the RPVMC or these Conditions of Approval, it lapses
sooner or is revoked. At the end of ten years from the date of issuance, such permit
shall automatically expire.
28. A permittee may apply for a new permit within 180 days prior to expiration. Said
application and proposal shall comply with the city's current Code requirements for
WTF's.
29. A WTF is considered abandoned and shall be promptly removed as provided
herein if it ceases to provide wireless telecommunications services for 90 or more
consecutive days unless the permittee has obtained prior written approval from the
director which shall not be unreasonably denied. If there are two or more users of
a single facility, then this provision shall not become effective until all users cease
using the facility.
30. The operator of a facility shall notify the City in writing of its intent to abandon or
cease use of a permitted site or a nonconforming site (including unpermitted sites)
within ten days of ceasing or abandoning use. Notwithstanding any other provision
herein, the operator of the facility shall provide written notice to the director of any
discontinuation of operations of 30 days or more.
31. Failure to inform the director of cessation or discontinuation of operations of any
existing facility as required by this section shall constitute a violation of any
approvals and be grounds for:
a. Litigation;
b. Revocation or modification of the permit;
C. Acting on any bond or other assurance required by this article or conditions
of approval of the permit;
d. Removal of the facilities by the city in accordance with the procedures
established under this code for abatement of a public nuisance at the
owner's expense; and/or
e. Any other remedies permitted by law.
32. Upon the expiration date of the permit, including any extensions, earlier termination
or revocation of the permit or abandonment of the facility, the permittee, owner or
operator shall remove its WTF and restore the site to its natural condition except
for retaining the landscaping improvements and any other improvements at the
discretion of the city. Removal shall be in accordance with proper health and safety
requirements and all ordinances, rules, and regulations of the City. The facility shall
be removed from the property, at no cost or expense to the City.
P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -XX
Page B-cs*
33. Failure of the permittee, owner or operator to promptly remove its facility and
restore the property within 90 days after expiration, earlier termination or
revocation of the permit, or abandonment of the facility, shall be a violation of these
conditions of approval. Upon a showing of good cause, an extension may be
granted by the Public Works Director where circumstances are beyond the control
of the permittee after expiration. Further failure to abide by the timeline provided in
this section shall be grounds for:
a. Prosecution;
b. Acting on any security instrument required by the RPVMC or conditions of
approval of permit;
C. Removal of the facilities by the city in accordance with the procedures
established under the RPVMC for abatement of a public nuisance at the
owner's expense; and/or
d. Any other remedies permitted by law.
34. In the event the Public Works Director or City Engineer determines that the
condition or placement of a WTF located in the public right-of-way constitutes a
dangerous condition, obstruction of the public right-of-way, or an imminent threat
to public safety, or determines other exigent circumstances require immediate
corrective action (collectively, "exigent circumstances"), the Director or City
Engineer may cause the facility to be removed summarily and immediately without
advance notice or a hearing. Written notice of the removal shall include the basis
for the removal and shall be served upon the permittee and person who owns the
facility within five business days of removal and all property removed shall be
preserved for the owner's pick-up as feasible. If the owner cannot be identified
following reasonable effort or if the owner fails to pick-up the property within 60
days, the facility shall be treated as abandoned property.
35. In the event the City removes a facility in accordance with nuisance abatement
procedures or summary removal, any such removal shall be without any liability to
the city for any damage to such facility that may result from reasonable efforts of
removal. In addition to the procedures for recovering costs of nuisance abatement,
the city may collect such costs from the performance bond posted and to the extent
such costs exceed the amount of the performance bond, collect those excess costs
in accordance with the RPVMC. Unless otherwise provided herein, the city has no
obligation to store such facility. Neither the permittee, owner nor operator shall
have any claim if the city destroys any such facility not timely removed by the
Applicant, owner or operator after notice, or removed by the city due to exigent
circumstances.
P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -XX
Page F7_09
36. Consistent with current state and federal laws and if permissible under the same,
at the time of modification of a WTF, existing equipment shall, to the extent
feasible, be replaced with equipment that reduces visual, noise and other impacts,
including, but not limited to, undergrounding the equipment and replacing larger,
more visually intrusive facilities with smaller, less visually intrusive facilities.
P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -XX
Page LZ -03 61
CON '1'RAC loll SD.AI.I. A fRl1'1Al.l.
II. -1 ANDI\ISt1N(i DIMENSIONS
.AND CONDITIONS )N'1'111r, )013 SI'li:
:\ND SHALL ININIEWAI'ISI.1' NOI'IE1'
illi ISNI INi'ER IN AI'RHINI 01 AN)'
01iCRI11NCII.S Ii i.l ORI' 1, &OC I,E )l NG
\l ill] I'HE. R'Oltl: OR RESI O\Silil.l!
I OR SAME,
ASG69
ACROSS 3486 SEAGLEN DR
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA
PROIEC 1 \i\N\(.ERS:
C'ROII'N C AS 11 i
2(l SPI C I RI Al CI. NTIIK I)K S I'I:. 18111 FLOOR
IR\'IN[:. CA 1121,5
JON CO\YE1, 1.
(949).i44 -784(l
JONCOIA'IIIn'CRII%tWAS II IA ONI
C O\S'I'ROC ZION AIANA(.FRS
CHOI 1i CAS T: I:
111 SI'EC I Rt NI Ci N i EK DR S'I'P.. 1 N 1'll FLOOR
Hi INE. CA
R1 NNE 11 HODIis
(711)251 Jb "9
EI.NNI:II I.I IORI3l, r CRM NCAS I'L LCONI
NODI: E—INEPIR:
COASIAl. CoNIN1t N1c.%I'IONS
95241'1PANO:N CAM ON IIIA 1)
CII AISNI OR l'il CA 11)II
Cl IZ'I 15 JO11N ON
CI RISlIll CO\S I'AIXONINI INC. CONI
PROJECT TEAM
ASG69
24272
� CROWN
f ,CASTLE
Communications
DIGN M
i-111 1,11 Hill 11111 A1111 1 11 11 It
ASG69
ACROSS 3486 SEAGLEN DR
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA
TITLE SHEET
Nle(" 111110 �,I)�J
T-1
E-37
SIGN OFF
TITLE
SIGNATURE DATE
NE I-RK REAL ESIN I'8
ru(wa-r NlaNnchrs
('l IN'SIRI1' III)N NIAN-iii
x:11)111:01,11-1)
Il311tH Sfi'll.( I- RI: Ili
PROIEC 1 \i\N\(.ERS:
C'ROII'N C AS 11 i
2(l SPI C I RI Al CI. NTIIK I)K S I'I:. 18111 FLOOR
IR\'IN[:. CA 1121,5
JON CO\YE1, 1.
(949).i44 -784(l
JONCOIA'IIIn'CRII%tWAS II IA ONI
C O\S'I'ROC ZION AIANA(.FRS
CHOI 1i CAS T: I:
111 SI'EC I Rt NI Ci N i EK DR S'I'P.. 1 N 1'll FLOOR
Hi INE. CA
R1 NNE 11 HODIis
(711)251 Jb "9
EI.NNI:II I.I IORI3l, r CRM NCAS I'L LCONI
NODI: E—INEPIR:
COASIAl. CoNIN1t N1c.%I'IONS
95241'1PANO:N CAM ON IIIA 1)
CII AISNI OR l'il CA 11)II
Cl IZ'I 15 JO11N ON
CI RISlIll CO\S I'AIXONINI INC. CONI
PROJECT TEAM
ASG69
24272
� CROWN
f ,CASTLE
Communications
DIGN M
i-111 1,11 Hill 11111 A1111 1 11 11 It
ASG69
ACROSS 3486 SEAGLEN DR
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA
TITLE SHEET
Nle(" 111110 �,I)�J
T-1
E-37
Di( ONIMISSIONi V 'n N( 24- 6- OC IAOINA N(RI. IF, s I REE IL ,llI
`T
Il311tH Sfi'll.( I- RI: Ili
1P:3'f1IRRD N'fRET:I'IAGII'I' \PIl'll NL\%'i':\xNl :\NO 11 �AIIN:\IItP:.
�J@IUYq t%f
INSI'\111 )_J.I'AN tRNA 1S t'1. 1.\ JS\ fiI IN)11) At'ITHMOt NIINORRA('%1'f
Al
• 1'I \l l IIII DRIN A I PLAY' MON A'I T4': I:X191INO Ill l 0111' Al i J"
�C
INS'i ll-0)1'x011N1:\.SII1-6' \I1.1\'P.N'il12)\II.
n,
11)NS INIIDI,
'%n
INIIAI.I.O)CROWN(.,SILE2'A,'VAocf,l'I„ul)\\ IR IUSP: no.0 R (I)
N
Ol"'ONNECI 130N INSIDE.
INSI'AIA, \'OR.
SITE
LOCATION
Npsa
QP
Ri.cbQ
Valu Vwd-
�
n
C
T✓ia
�v�ag
p`
`�O
�vGi
Or
Q
S(aac2a”
V%
N�.
S:
N.T.S
VICINITY MAP
PROJECT SUMMARY
PROIEC 1 \i\N\(.ERS:
C'ROII'N C AS 11 i
2(l SPI C I RI Al CI. NTIIK I)K S I'I:. 18111 FLOOR
IR\'IN[:. CA 1121,5
JON CO\YE1, 1.
(949).i44 -784(l
JONCOIA'IIIn'CRII%tWAS II IA ONI
C O\S'I'ROC ZION AIANA(.FRS
CHOI 1i CAS T: I:
111 SI'EC I Rt NI Ci N i EK DR S'I'P.. 1 N 1'll FLOOR
Hi INE. CA
R1 NNE 11 HODIis
(711)251 Jb "9
EI.NNI:II I.I IORI3l, r CRM NCAS I'L LCONI
NODI: E—INEPIR:
COASIAl. CoNIN1t N1c.%I'IONS
95241'1PANO:N CAM ON IIIA 1)
CII AISNI OR l'il CA 11)II
Cl IZ'I 15 JO11N ON
CI RISlIll CO\S I'AIXONINI INC. CONI
PROJECT TEAM
ASG69
24272
� CROWN
f ,CASTLE
Communications
DIGN M
i-111 1,11 Hill 11111 A1111 1 11 11 It
ASG69
ACROSS 3486 SEAGLEN DR
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA
TITLE SHEET
Nle(" 111110 �,I)�J
T-1
E-37
LEGEND
SYMBOL DESCRIPTION
E3
�� NAx„ptLItr..l
1...1Ul xntl
ABBREVIATIONS
AA' ASPHALT -Ill
a Ax. 1 L LAH A OITTFR
It CENIFELINF
EX RXNR RAO
FILL, K."l-I F -RANT
Pi. PROPRRTI'LHE
PAW RIUII'1 UYN'AY
SI!IIDIVISIUN tlUUNUARI'
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES:
IRAII.OkAHt' FhUSION>fiDIAIENT' a'ANfx111.. PNIUE 1111 VIAII'LEI' ION OF PINAI. IAIYNU\'HAIHNI' S. RIIAIA. RE
1txlAtAIEIBI AI ION OR UI +\IAIFUYFI' EAI"Ell xt111W
ALI. NEQI-NYAIBNTS OF THE 111) OF RINI El PAI.,.111k T4Rr
L. .LOPNkNI AIANOAI.. AT E.
WAI'BR T'ANUANUs All" UE INCORIIIIIAi'ED IN 111 TIIF UFNIIIN AN11 a'ONHIROL' (ION OF'1111.
PNIE'll-AN HER HIIPHOVFMF,NTS I'ONSIRTFNT N'11'It THE EROSION I ONI RGI. PIAN ANN OR WATER
1111,13-1 - I -RID. PLAN I W W P.. 11 AFFAIR AID.'.
Fill DRAIN INLETSYROVIPF. naiRAVAI. UAU SILI'NARIN IAIAINUTAfEl.l lrYRI RE.AG OF INLET
AF ININ: At1:UUN UTAILI
I 111'1 IlvtxnLTUe OR VII.AI.IFiFU PRNc+N.VIIAI.I. N} RF.NW INSIMI.t MUM 1'IknNl'PUY BILI AND }IOU W
AIHACFNT TRRTIHIAND TARN MAIN NYM EM DOE '101 OxSI'P.IrLTIRAN Aa 11111
I TIIt I"IV1xn1TUft NIAI.I.T:NO\"E SII.I AND DEBRIS AF-fFk hA. If AIA)LIN NAINFnI.I.
EVI!IYAIF.N'I:\NPWORI:ErtS HIR EAIY.RVFNI'1N'URA SIIAI.I.Iid LIAI)H AVAl1.AIN.Y. AI "1".11"118
DORIFI. DIE I Alx1'sEAsrN
IIIELU'I RAC TOLL"ALI 11111"' 1 ALL 11, ' dl IAIM T ITR 11 \I P'1 NYINKINU URDIR
1'u i11NAA IS AI'l IIIN Uh'1 HE I TI' FNU IN11 111 NEAIDtNI' NNOINP:EN ANI'E,N RAI'11 RI N -III F'
YNOIPICWu FIRTIALI.
'TIIX CONI RAI T11 HIIAI.I.INFT'AL1. APDI'I'IUNAI. ENOHIUN'HF."DIAIFN'I I'ON'fItO1. AIFAHH1111 Al 111 11
IINNu1NJ,D NIIHE RFSINEN'I HNGIN FAN III 'it tO DEfIDESREN LINL'UAISI'ANCEe. LI` INC11 AI+\\ ALINE
"I I.IIO. ON.HNUIMAN'(r'ONTkOI. HEASIBER PROVIDED PER THA APPROVE]) IAIYROV'F.AIHNT PLAN
. 1.111. INI VAI.I.ERNON
URNDIAIFN"1' CUNTH,-Ox IN'IERILI I UNUITIUNAR
InTUTVTli6 SATI9'AITION USTIIH RHRIUHNI' dNUINY.EH
I AI.I.NY.AIO\'"91.1 PR18EITIVC UA\'ICYV TION'N RIIAI.I. DF IN YI.ACb AT 1114 F.NI)uF RAIN IttNIKINu
-' .ADIU111I IUEexIKvx IN ST>IN HAD CONTxOL AfEnAT.SAA ANU 1111111 xhLA1111
I ONRix111T11IN 11-VGIFT
STORMDRAIN INLET PROTECTION
INLF:I' 111811'01' PAVI')M11NT
III VIA, FLOWSPILLWAY. 1-IIAG 111(111 SANDBAG
2 -BAGS 111110111'
TYPICAL PROTECTION FOR INLET WITH OPPOSING FLOW DIRECTIONS
EIBB? 01'
I)AVEMI:N'I' INI.1:1
FLOW
i 1.ow
SPILLWAY. [-BAG 111(111 SANDBAG
2 -BAGS IIFIUII'I'
TYPICAL PROTECTION FOR INLET WITH SINGLE FLOW DIRECTION
NOTES:
I. IN'I'IS HAD FOR SIIORI'-IEXAI ADE,
I'Nli 1 O INIIDSI l' NON -STORM WAI EAT ELILV.
At.].( rl\• F'I IR I•kOPER MAIN THIANt'H. AND ('LEANOY
I3hti5 Alltel 131: kh'RIO\'EU AF'TL'k ADIA('I:N'f IN'I(NATILIN I] 1:OMi'1.E'INP.
5� N18.4I'YI.H'AlfI.E IN AkEAR 1Y 11'll tlxill RII:IH ANU('I.:\I'S \VI111O111' FILILKFANRIC
NOTES:
t'UNUAt'1'OR'PO POI'H11LR ALd I! I ILITY I'NORNNIIR
U TFAAI'TUR TO PI -BRA NDIIAIIH ARID- AN I'IA I.I. ALI'MAI DRAIN INLET'S TO N'EVHNT
CONl'AMINA'i'ED WA THIN
3 SPOILF FILE WILI.HEI'LIVEREN AND I IINI'AIRED AND TREEf\ ITA. HE -11T AN I) 1'LHAN9U
I CONTRAI WR TU REPAIR DAMAGNN YVRI.II'ILIFBUIRAENTNTU TIIE RATI,NPAITON OP 111,
ITT' Y.F.DitiER
I "All GUTTER TUBE FRar1k1TEU IN II.AL'A SIRAWALK'TO HERNPLAMIA, FOTER
NATIN"AITWN OFTNF. I'411' BERIINEER
A THE 1'UNTRAITGR HIIALL NET ORR THE RUAIH' 11-PSURBIIN.A ADITION
YATAF IN'TV1X110i ENGINEER INVIX-DINII,PIIT NOT LINITHUTOPAVINILRI'RIFIT;
HIRE LANES. FVVNRENT LINT NIAV,SKIN\ AND TRAFFIC LOOPHT617TORR
T ARDOWALK SHALL BE RETORNIPREPI.ACED PER 111 1' OF xANL'l1U FALUR VERDEF HIANNARU
R
IU.1II111. 'IT
TIARA
PEUYN.VT0.IAN RAAIYN'1.. TIT bh SI'IIRHEU
ROW GROUND CONSTRUCTION NOTES:
I DAIIII!NU CI INATROI'I'IAll TU RHAIIIII,LE'AN AI.I.DE'PRIK NAL.N. ITAFLINI. UN HLIN-t INN)
I ..v OFF IIIX WILE
ALL, tiONFlxI!i'TIUN RMAI.L PX IN ACCUkpANCF N'I'lll AIIiNIt'IPnI.. L'ONNtI'. STATE.
FN DHRALL, UUUF AND III 2F SI'AN IANPE ANP RLIHILA (ROL'
AI.1. U%+l "N'LAND $PRION l'tlM%I'AVAI'INO AI'l'"2212,11UR111
AI.I. I.AND',API-TI HA RRT'URRU I" LIBIDINAL' ONDITION OR. BETTER
£ LL EVIIIILAREI OIIF HONRFD
MET IiRINU I ABINET REW NEH,16' 'L& kANI'E Af IMOR OPENING
I I ADI.K CAbINT BARE AT FAU
NORMAL LOCATION OF
UNDERGROUND UTILITIES NOTES:
IIATIIOF'NXINtiNIANI)PU .vEDtM'.MESNUTRF. NUVIDEIIXI' 1'NB
FIIRDIVIDERNNUSHOWNINIANI PLANSHUHMITTXDTOTIIEDEFT OPFUHLF N'UNKNFOR
a ANUXNINAI HE PERA1111'M1N ITT I HE DEPT OF WIR1.11- IOMKI IN 11RHN OF'I'ONF1.11 ANO
.!A, 11
3 .OxFLL 1AUET WFXN U111,1111 U
'MPANIER F'ArHH
.1Ex PXINTTu Ali'YRUN>NAD. AA HE
LII!1'UAI.... Al
11,1111.V BI THE 1811.111' t UMPANIIiR
1 "AN,.UAIAINN, AL"`
A' IRA FINE Ii VDRAN I' AHALI. BE PI. AR,WI'I'Fi1N'TIO
lHARLAI.K V' 6- I1tl111NU YACN OF t'L'NII
F LIANIAIIIAI2' UTAAIIA FNOAH MAINS AIAI 9F. PLACED IN)OINT R'1'IEITIES TRIRIVE Ub1NL"I
CALIFORNIA STATE CODE COMPLIANCE:
AL1. W'ORL AND HII II.RIAI.1 EIIALL BN ?AEFONAIF:D AND IBI I AI.I.1.11 IN A.'COrIlJn
L'URNENThUI IONAUFTIIh"' I' I'll. 1OFFllh II'Il NIF 4.v
NOI'IIINOIN I HHH.11 ANIFIO NF I OIIINl I1F1 aIF1A NIYF NI I VVION.IN11I O IDEAR,
rw)Ks
• ,ITOEARA AUMITATRATIVE3'UDEHN,LILINO TPI.kR!Ik!RI!RIU
• :UID I'.\I.IFLARNIA JAOILII1NU }'DHFR WHltll A-FI'R THE !AAW Illll'.:BIU I'All".3UIRI!IN :\NHTIIE
:oIUNEL'
•FUU.DT\I AA1NA LS A 1.11. ADNINIATIMAL IHLA'AI
•
III AT I ALIFORNIA NIAL11ANICAl,1I'VE
•Ii.]!.F LIFE SAFFTI I lb NEPA-IN
• . . A1.DORNIA PLLI}IHINU CUBE
• 3.1U 1 ALIFYIID IA XLPA111I'AL ITTE
• :UID 4rCAL PIIII.DIxGI T.Pt
• a1T1' CULINI'1URHII'AAh'.
111 F.VRII311.111'NfylrlRFAIxNTS
ACN.IT1' IR UNAInNNFD ANU NUT h'ON IIUAIAN NAMI1'A'1'xrl HAN I)la APPED A, I I,lN NFVI:INIPEN IR
HO NOT AINA IN Al"L.". LCF, \e1TR AIR 2mU I ILPONTA HF11JAHNII A -
FII' NOTE
11115 \1•IRNI.hRB COAAR I"' AT I'll 11'II.RI' 1'OV YI.Ife ILL 11ADERAL NTAIIIANDS YON 1AIIF1
PkMW!NNI'1' IN ACt'ONUANI'F N'ITII I'HM1 TFI.EI'l1AlAl1 rNll'A'ION Aa "I' OF I- ANN SI ")SEVI RN'1
ANENHAIFNFR AND ANI'Uflltk kPVI11kAAl Y.N1R1AlYORF:D H1 SI':\'1'14 ON I'RDI:NAI.IO:UI!I.AIOHI
AORNL'IRS
PUNCH THRU CROSS SECTION
(TYPICAL SECTION: N.T.S.)
EX. CURB B GUTTER12'MIN.
VARIES
VARIES -�
RdR SIDEWALK FLAG
I
I
VAULT
PAVEMENT
ROPOSEDIEXISTING VAULT
I
j
Ali Mi.. TO
6' MAI
}t 1/9" CONDUITS 'I
ANDIOR I.3"CONDUIT
RIW
�'
TRENCH
1 �A
ASG69
242727
"'' CROWN
BEEBEFFEACASTLE
�. Commumcauons
H.ANR .IN3Y INELNAMf1VN
ORNA DON I III'
fl:X
Pa' I��f dee
1'lll'II1.
RAEI PLAINS 1 1.11
"ILNNA I'IIANGEU 1. V�'D
D.11 UAV
HEIR"I't PFDUAA AUU 111 11 li,
ASG69
ACROSS 3486 SEAGLEN DR
RANCHO PALOS VERDE$, CA
DETAILS & NOTES
1pRG ILII 1l+ 'IYI
"... D- I
All
E-38
Electrical
Power Supply
Mnins Power, Vac. BS to 264
15 0r 230
Power rnnaumption, wotls 1150
Coanecl0rs
xt
E290NAP0 B'
OplicalIi— losa, IS
pe. mm
Input ICP3, tlBm
45
Sall;1imum
Si ngln made E9I125
OPI-1 budgal, dB
Opa,
-12
.16
O 1010
ll. Input power
1,
ICP3op,a,r d
NOL4a figura opllmi=ed
]
max.
4b.5r�
OTRx master side, tlBm
@ OTR.
1900121
+fi conrpoatn
cdannel and per -band
basis (.pii0nag
1]0012100MHe
+6 ovmpgste
Interlace
Numbedr
811,2 5 x 21B
of Certkra 1 2
11-1eci.rs
1902 MHz
4
CDMA 45 a_
17002100 MHz
a
System opam .6 for BTS
power, tlBm
.13 tlBm 11 MHz
DL output tolal.—over kaluaney, d8
33
Input ICP3, tlBm
a3
Anlamra P.ri
for
'2
tl
N01se figura, tlB
o,tp,t
ICP3 optimized
pond specAlpnon
&P b -d
R 1— s ed5
max
4.5
6_z
s
1100al ia) MHz (AWS)
Frequency range, MH:
Uplink
Downlink
1]10101]55
211-2115
Output paver par carr et, tlBm'
Number of Gartlan
1 2
4 8
GSM
15 12
39 36
CDMA
UMTS
45 a2
45 42
39 30
39 36
LTE
15 a2^
39 38
Spuraus alnissicn
� -13 tlBm 11 MH:
AaIacenl cH I power, a.
DL oulp.t tolelanvv over frequency. dS
xt
DL o,tp,t 1,4aa: over temperature, dB
II $'^
Input ICP3, tlBm
Errer_'rml conttd pane
ICP3opl Cad
Nola. figure oP-i-
-12
.16
Norse figure, d8
Po Supply
ICP3op,a,r d
NOL4a figura opllmi=ed
]
max.
4b.5r�
1909 MHz (AWS)
Op1pu1 Power One pBP
Frequency range, MHz
cdannel and per -band
basis (.pii0nag
Upnk
Davnlnk
1850101915
19301.1995
Output power per carrier dBm'
811,2 5 x 21B
of Certkra 1 2
d 8
GSMWla a5 42
39 36
CDMA 45 a_
39 36
UMTS 45`2
ITS 45 42••
39 30
39 3G
Spurious —aaa.n
.13 tlBm 11 MHz
DL output tolal.—over kaluaney, d8
DL oulpul liliall eovor lempamture, dB
Input ICP3, tlBm
ICP3opa-ad
Noise fig moplimized
'2
tl
N01se figura, tlB
ICP3 optimized
]
11
Nola, figura opa—ld
max
4.5
6_z
Syelam Supervlslpn antl Cpdtml
TYPICAL SECTION: N,T.S.
Gammends
RFo
TEEL POLE
Errer_'rml conttd pane
Alarms
Summery
Po Supply
OPli.ai UL and OL failure
iemverewre
Snpervkgn
Op1pu1 Power One pBP
cdannel and per -band
basis (.pii0nag
MeeMM.al^'•
05 (Ste• X 4') COPPER
Hegdl, wH,. d.plb mm (in)
811,2 5 x 21B
_01 k9 (Ib)
132.2 x 9.61 x8.6)
40188.2)
Opemlan I—para—range 43-CI.—C
Ingress poleclon RF Part IP6]
Ferpan IP55
APPicable to -ale --ma mode Pnly
3d0 power retludgn @ - SMHz —'al pandwak
S-
.diva co011ng
.... w'eba ec .0 —ft 59 i>,ar.p ra adt
rem. ar um wmama•ao•c
All lili—a ere iypkaly .z
"" -------- "" " " :I- ` � � ' 4' X 6 X 4' GROUND VAULT RADIO ENCLOSU E
1 (TYPICAL SECTION: N .T.S)
„kIR
All 7-
F
I
I -
I K j p 3 `' e e •'I — 110, 6 �R �, ^-¢+... r,la ..
♦ e
----
IP T YP.
TYR. I �.-
ELEVATION VIEW
L1�
N
PLAA B'
L;gLV.t� TYP,
2 SCAL
N.T,S,
ANDREW I0N-M17HP/19HP
MULTI -BAND, MULTI -OPERATOR
REMOTE OPTICAL SYSTEM
I;j
TDA
GROUND ROD INSTALLATION FOR STEEL POLE
TYPICAL SECTION: N,T.S.
TEEL POLE
FINISHGRADE
BAREN CU GROUND
CONWC OR
,
CU GR -ND C -MP
PCI NO. GBL3-TB.
IYCO No, 83]49-1,
OR EgUAL
05 (Ste• X 4') COPPER
CLAD GROUND ELECTRODE
CONCRE E
'. a
FOUNDATION
1 SCALE
J BCALE
ASG69
242727
CROWN
CASTLE
CDt rnu icatlons
I T
Ia;13dIIN
4N"I'IMN.4 r't1AU)m1
H) I'P.Ir we
AS069
AOR058 3486 SEAGLEN DR
RANCHO PALOS VERGES, CA
DETAILS & NOTES
D-2
E-39
ASG69
242727
CROWN
..i CASTLE
Communications
1
0
I'
u
INI LINA I IIA -FAD
11DIN
P1111-11 I.S1111111 -N I IaH..I
AIINIDIVIP rAul.1'
ASG68
ACROSS 3486SEAGLEN DR
RANCHO PALOS VERGES, CA
DETAILS & NOTES
iRG.T .ILI11 {16 TU
D-3
E-40
SCE UNDERGROUND
SQUARE D BY SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC
GROUND ROD'
LOAD CENTER, TSA
WTR BOX
G1 ROD SHALL BEMINIMUMPERCL
NEW POLE FOUNDATION
(MODEL 4GO24LTIN BI
U5DI O
G2 MIN MUM W EXPOSUREO T TOP OF
ISIR.-IT2WOs
vA aftsP los
FOUNDATION WITHIN BOLT CIRCLE.
NOT TO SCALE
ANCHOR BOOS
AlIALILICI ANCHOR
OR BOLTS SHALL BE 4-1• DIAMETER
0
ipP
LTrq2
ROUIIU D�� LI IIiAS
SPECIFICANONSASTMA44s.
BOLI CI CLE DIAMETER iO MAlCH POLE
TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICSvAnr
psi +BnPL
GROUTIO:.EVE..
BASEPLATE
AJ ANCHOR BOL78 SHAD HAVE HEADS. OR
NUTS WITH THE N EADS STAXED
.l
AT
TWO LACES BELOW THE NUT ,
SaIGIE POLE CIRCUliS
APDL c0114ilOry
-L
AES OENi AL cOMMERcwL ANO
ILSE.
vAaip%LK6
®
qqqqq _ _e
p,r
ANCHEMS OR OIN OUNDATON
A4M
AN HOM BOLTS S LLBE EMBEDDED 3J'
All
yWs tttEMEN c
iOPLE
(III p
: p
MU BELOWSTREF ERAOE 163'
GRADE(
EMBEOMENTINCONCRE
sP
oM nWGIA�M �Na iODSAWGICVIE
.....,...
6p
O4000NNE�TR
I i
4
AS CO
ONA MMENDEO
vO
m NOEMCRcui BREARERS
v0
pl+!
v:BrvO
RT4
Rn 00
A- B_
B HEM NUf Ct RER
Rai Ory
SPARF
FUSE -OUR
STOKE
POLF
i
I'llCt
OFPTl
HE Oni
IFAS
. w NCHFS
5.30
PARi90TPH
auftNO LVG
••`••••^•••^`
_
G. ` rvuFamOREA
+tpl
COD RIGID STEEL
TE SIDE inE FOUNDAi pN
BUS MATERAL
COVERT"'
NUMBER
TMlLATEOA LUM NUM
LATE.
HFACF
aLCT
-- -
PAROUNO
PARTp RJ,254
+.1
INS.
IF' .. M SIU CU
36 MINIMUM BURIAL E V E EEO Wt SHALL
4"MAXIMUM BURIAL O Z
ENCLOSURE
BqT rvG
A
OP
vNUORm
NEvuEN EPAft
AATELYF
cRPu
, ` (C)
J
BE RGS OR SCH BOP EO ED
CJ STUB UP TOWITHM ROM ND
'L'SIEDG%`TO.1
HOLE
r 11-ALLEOMAINLUDS
_ �
A cul+N-:OH
3�i
EIN R EMENT
SHIPPINGANDORDERING
II
X p
R1 VERTICAL EBAR SIDE OITI96O
IS
SPACEDEQUALLY OE n0 AC
O
cniE aar
5
EEONOTER iPnASE
NEMAI43A..6
EOUIPMENi BLOCR
PANS -S10
IF IP3+
II. 'Y00';
R O B E CEO
3 OIC OMOPOFFOUDiONTO
N OE
1 PO NG
d G.,
1
E- F COR BO TS
PAC%AGE OU -1 it
i�,P1111
GROUND WIRE
! N.h' Ji•.5_L
RJ S EW%15'10 PCEO
YMN OM BHEANCHOR BOLTS TO
BOITONFOf FOUNDATWMIN'T'LlY
CODE
REiUNNABIUCY
I LIPSN
r
=gip 4-30"ROUND GJ OPETt IO
R4 CO eR�eAic eNALL NAVE J- MINIMUM
POUND PIER BE 3:•3u M>
13 I DEPTH
SCALE
4 N.TS.
SCALE
S N.TS.
14 1'UE11. SCALE
6 N.T,S.
NEW CONCRETE POLE DETAIL
TYPICAL ASPHALT TRENCH DETAIL
}
(N.T.S.)
2" ASPHALT CONCRETE
(MINIMUM) ISP'N iS"�I
EXISTING A.C.
AND BASE
i
ELEVATION
SLOTTED
BASE
SHAFT CROSS
SEE RECOMMENDED
PLATE
SECTION DETAIL
"CAPPING DETAILS'
6" MN.
,A-
l
f
�
AIMUM
18° (MIN)
CATALOG POLE
"K'
BASE ANCHOR
BOLT BASE
ULTIMATE
WEIGHT
EPA/MMPXH (SO.PT,7
NUMBER HEIGHT
O.D. BOLT
CIRCLE PLATE (S0) G.L.
MOMENT LFT.
LBS.( (LBS.)
soso10036"
(MAX)
CEMENT SLURRY BACKFILL
1C1-16 153"
7-314" 1"X36"X4"
12-12" 12"
17,000
560
14.0 10.0 7.5
1Ci-17 1T 9"
7-718" 1"X36" X 4"
12-1/2" 12"
18,400
530
74.0 10.0 7.5
-01
ici-19 1919,
8" 1" x 36" X 4"
12-112" 12"
20,000
720
13.0 9.0 7,0
iCi-20 20'9"
B-14" t"%36"X4"
12 -12" 12"
211200
800
13.0 9.0 7.0
(1) 3" PVC CONDUIT
1Ci-23 23' 3"
a Ww i" X 38' X 4"
12 -112" 12"
22,200
940
13.0 9.0 6.0
6"
1C1 -2S 259-
6.314• i"X US, x
12-11F 12"
25,400
1,o3o
12.5 8.5 5,5
(MAX.)
ICl-28 2B' 3"
9" 1" X 36" X 4"
12 -7/2" 12"
27,400
1,240
105 6.5 3.5
101-29 29'3"
9-1/B" 1"X36"X 4"
12-1/2" 12"
28,100
1,290
10.0 6.5 3.0
IC140 40'3"
10.1/4" 1-1/4•'Xa'X 4"
14" 14"
38,200
2,090
So 1,0 -
7N.T.S.
8 I.S.
ASG69
242727
CROWN
..i CASTLE
Communications
1
0
I'
u
INI LINA I IIA -FAD
11DIN
P1111-11 I.S1111111 -N I IaH..I
AIINIDIVIP rAul.1'
ASG68
ACROSS 3486SEAGLEN DR
RANCHO PALOS VERGES, CA
DETAILS & NOTES
iRG.T .ILI11 {16 TU
D-3
E-40
VAULT DETAIL
(FLUSH MOUNT)
(PRIVATE)
LOVER FEATURES:
M. 10.400 LSS. WHEEL LOAD ON IT X IV PLATE
APPROX. WT. = 72 LBS.
POLYMER CONCRETE
' ONE PIECE COVER
UR
LT DOWN
'. WR: ONCRET luowry cnsTLE� _–
• COLOR: ID SURETE GREY ,
'
No O HAVE M-20 TR TGR �-'
' LID FI HAVE O B TRAFFIC LOAD FRICTION �-
COEFFICIENT i0 BE 0.5 0R MORE
HANOHOLE FEATURES: ucilxG EVE –
POLYMER CONCRETE RING AND
FIBERGLASS REINFORCED POLYMER '
BODY
•COLOR . .e 123 LES. GREY
'APRRO%. WT.=123 LES.
.orvGgETE
NG
GROUND ROD INSTALLATION
^-----_
TOP VIEW ) f
1 #S COPPER CLAD IIA
1 1
GROUND ROD (SIB' X B")
1
1 1 BAREN Cu GROUND rRP Boor
1 1
SIDE VIEW CONDUCTOR 1
LL.. CUGROUND BCLAMPFCI
p'MIN. 1 No.1.-T.TYCO Na.
-1.
OR
1 4&1.OR EQUAL
GRAVEL
1
1
i 1 1111 PER CLAD
GROUND ROD (SIB' X 8')
MOUNTING BRACKET
#0900397/00
�F mItkIn bo11
p l It— pole — in9 kit
1 1 I Wim -
III l
TORQUE SETTING FOR MR. 25 Nm
/I
G!
TWO POINTS TILT POLE MOUNTING INSTAUATION
=Vea with II
p0101ilcunting
BE CAREFUL WITH THE
ORIENIARON Oh THE
HEDGES OF I HE
I WO SQUARES
be tepk Ccd by (9)
' UMou,ImlG q-,
PP.Pi�ua'�NbeMpnp149TG�
NOTICE DE MONTAGE
MOUNTING INSTRUCTIONS
' �s "iswr Inountuig brgc:ket
Of the Ontenno m concoct
a
ITEM PART NO.
NO.
DRAWING NO
OBCRInTX;1N ,
Ory
i 4413163768
/
Hot GtvOmm q„nidwl 6.8
2 83539
/
_
x squortl neck ew w
H.ol c;owgr.zea„�d steel es .
2
7 39DD/
!
Hot GGlvan n6+ud tiael 6.8
6
4 6]]3503/68
PnaxardW
12
/
H.I G. Ic01IS. S
5 H3122
H3122-fiD.'i-02
COnnec VV bra
Mot y]GlvGnimtl
2
b M17591W
3/9252759
.ziltl1.n. anuetl51xir:m{j 9nr
3
1 H31za
N31241M13-0I
Itioty S�.s xry
reG
I
e 3YY2n21e8
2/9252772
SIWrISGc nc
yn1 Nc �d
1
4 H3416
H3416003.W
O1R Hol ggnnn4seG
2
PART No: 0900397/00 ..wo”
04i. -01
ASG69
242727
CROWN
CASTLE
x ox art: I nn.
ft Communications
R
.t!xIINAI1tF t'HnvGN
xErlslt,Nx
\lu\'xn lIiU uw �\ II'Illi.
ASGGS
ACROSS 3486 SEAGLEN DR
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA
DETAll S &NOTES
r,RG I 16 tt,'ro
D-4
E-41
ION-M7HP/85HP EU - Product Specification
M•-1 Powe, Var Inpv11u63' dm
mrnilPl
apwxlR
M.- y--' Vds
Iw6d
Power--Plien, w
i�� Irl,, nom. kxara
100"740
BS Ie 164
IBroW
]Ara 77
0
Noiw fig—.. dB•"
1(P3 'M Il ran.
Nw Frvw pllnud IB IiSn.
IfP]�pmr;,d IO rah.
Nm. hymn gbnsud 6.0 n.v
i.O I'rYnal
700 MN.
Fruyum.y — , MM.
UldirA 69Bm716076 m 181
D. /2810157
P.Rmt power w reals, dBm•
N.6—M— 12 a R
LH 45.5 42.5" 395 Ks
DL mOwl*An�n�.—f w—Y dS wl
DL molal bivwce one lsnPerabrn, JB AS PARISdBY'21L
Spurmsamw.m ..13 am/I.98s 2d8 paw l00O *, 5 wh-im W.Wh
Spuriwu emusm ran NW.SolelyN—b-d hwxn6—poral B1.A
x466Un/US k0s Al fig— a n lypw•.al ralun unlml lh—iw AW
ION M7HP/85HP EU
Product Specification
M MMR
OpHol klnM
XI onxoll
Fmgvm<y mg,. *L udmk
U4 60
Cmnecbrs
nOW/AR B'
OOMIXk
R69a M
II
7693966•
C4ugwl Pavy torr n, dBm'
Pur
RI UI ".1 19 hlklx
Cplicd nNrn t-, dB
15
Plom6nd Comm 1
l A
Fib,. hdse
Skgkmxd4 E9./125 ym
Mr68 O.S 4759
N.S 3 85
Optiml link lwdgn. d8
Oro 10
GSM 15.5 43.5
IDM 45.S 42s
39.5 365
N.S MS
Cnrlpmil.myl l�m^'�s 49 OTR. -xda dB,
Mah9r4hd•
ITE 455 425'
39.5 MS
700 MHz
.165
U6]R 45 /!
W k
—0
ss
Ot auput Adaanre a hmTlm ry, dB
:l
850 MHz Allmm
16.5
DLmhw bkvaMeo '-Pwwo dB
-0.5
ramal
85
Spurious nnrurarr
'Al dRm/IMe
Mpo ICP3, dB,• -
Rf k*.#—
ILf3a .ua
.II0,
BTS Lr415MA1
ode 6" gxmmd
-IBrdn
Numbs dmmxx:rnn nMlard
Nilofigura, dB"'
In Wk
1
I(P3 "'—dIOnas
BfO NM
4
Ude liym. glem4d
6—
Sys— aptim..d h. BTS Penn, dem
SrMttl
33
R—W Un l unW- Iwrl
Cx.rnedors
1.'16 F.m4k
Rahn bcs dS
15
700 MN.
Fruyum.y — , MM.
UldirA 69Bm716076 m 181
D. /2810157
P.Rmt power w reals, dBm•
N.6—M— 12 a R
LH 45.5 42.5" 395 Ks
DL mOwl*An�n�.—f w—Y dS wl
DL molal bivwce one lsnPerabrn, JB AS PARISdBY'21L
Spurmsamw.m ..13 am/I.98s 2d8 paw l00O *, 5 wh-im W.Wh
Spuriwu emusm ran NW.SolelyN—b-d hwxn6—poral B1.A
x466Un/US k0s Al fig— a n lypw•.al ralun unlml lh—iw AW
ION M7HP/85HP EU
Product Specification
(4wlromm�.lal
:yslem Svpervlvian arzd Cantrvl
lammun:l+
XI onxoll
Irrgnos P,uecfim
U rat
j
I
®Ian
A4um,
Snmmt
WnI )gPly
II
7693966•
UrW 9v.6-deP'Ius od 16. mnlyrrden tbb mdmlrp
RI UI ".1 19 hlklx
ux dmdy'rne—lAfw
C«nsP-6.9 Muln U.0
ION-MIMP/19HP
10411'
C—ponding AW— U,41 MR.
Suymrvixian
Iulrycxs uvrim
I
I
Mah9r4hd•
Poxa:
i
�
:
i
Haphl, width, dopih, mm DO
9*—
RN.N5.718
171.71186x261
u
Ti p
�r
KY.-
!067 s'lOS r 7`6
Cubi.. of JQNM7HP/85HP kxlnruiva
04, IAC V—ioj
wvighr, k0 (161
40 (98.7)
(4wlromm�.lal
Op—in, lmnPaama tango `t
33M 69
Irrgnos P,uecfim
U rat
W61
®Ian
0,55
Ord.d.y Infer fl..
ION M7HP/85HP EU
7693966•
UrW 9v.6-deP'Ius od 16. mnlyrrden tbb mdmlrp
vwmrul mm�61 roeloM
ux dmdy'rne—lAfw
C«nsP-6.9 Muln U.0
ION-MIMP/19HP
10411'
C—ponding AW— U,41 MR.
OTR.70-05/90/17-21
16043041A
5Ywtr9 , q6,d 40111, 11.50 Int omni ah
• suhwnakwmpowN.
NI f'Igurm era typiml .aloe., .6,.16-ima 4..d.
I
I
I i
m R6
j
Cobh,l of IONM7HP/BSMP E—,iw. Wil SDC Verson)
ASG69
242727
-cc
CROWN
CASTLE
urns eaA VM axIP. I>x,
®Communications
]uli rrvrnxx �'rlury rr u4w
ails
TOATannxlu, IL) I.oliinlru
I
Wu
IxU xkMr rt 6 AI.PRT
N 9ilx
A DIDT)uur
.IiNa4'CIl PCI) Om Ann
,un)en III. VAn1:r
a:.l>
AS0i8
ACROSS 3486 SEAGLEN DR
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA
DETAILS & NOTES
noR(7 e. II.Ixr11 �I6 rlr.,l,",„
D-5
E-42
ASG69
242727
'CROWN
r
CASTLE
Communications
.11:1 A.1
�T
DIGAMIRT
ASG69
ACROSS 3486 SEAGLEN DR
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA
SITE PHOTOS
R(l 11 1116 1
S-1
E-43
SITE LOCATION
A KEY MAP
—WT12 —O'CLOCK VIEW- FROM THE SOUTHWEST
C 3 O'CLOCK VIEW- FROM THE NORTHEAST
D=0 O'CLOCK VIEW- FROM THE SOUTHEAST
ASG69
242727
'CROWN
r
CASTLE
Communications
.11:1 A.1
�T
DIGAMIRT
ASG69
ACROSS 3486 SEAGLEN DR
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA
SITE PHOTOS
R(l 11 1116 1
S-1
E-43
NEW CONSTRUCTION
Hli('t�\IAIIStlR IN RXItillNG 2J'li IIRiH tI("1':O(WALCONCREM S'1'RY.Ii'I)AH 1'IWITH F1.0811 NIOVNT V EN'1'S(2) KIL iONS INSIDE.
(IIOLX ID •NT) AND REPLAUK 1\'1'111 A Nl;W 24' (I• IIIUII S'I'I:EL t'ON('Rli'I'F:'I')i\'1'VRr:D INSTAIJAI) CROB N t'ASl'I.E 2' \ 3' VAULT Willi (1) W I'R FUSE BOX & (1) DISCONNECT BOX
STRKE'1'LIUH1W'11'HSI.- TAMIANDLL'h11NAIRE. INSIDE.
1NS'I'A1.1.1212J.1' ANt'ENNAS uCI'lIXW3X001'lNNg1 13 n u hiOVN'ITNO BRAt'KE'I' IN.ST:U.1. VOR.
NNUID9],Ixr
PI.A1T—(-BIORFNAI'PI.,\l SIGN AT TJ'.FXISTINOIIRI(:Iff AT ]'J"
NODE COORDINATE
LATITUDE: 33.735261
LONGITUDE: -118.340374
CONTRACTOR TO REPLACE ANY DAMAGED
LANDSCAPE IN KIND
3" 1}'
8' DIRT TRENCH
18' 18'
FOOTAGE TOTALS
ASPHALTTRENCH 27
PUNCH THRU 4'
DIRT TRENCH 212'
BORE B
TOTAL 253'
RSR TOTAL SWP 82 SO. FT.
BILL OF MATERIALS
DESCRIPTION QUANTITY
VAULTS
(PVT)
q• X S.1
X 3'
CONDUIT
1-tla' PVC 105
(FVTI
3 PVC 2TY
FOOTAGE TOTALS
ASPHALTTRENCH 27
PUNCH THRU 4'
DIRT TRENCH 212'
BORE B
TOTAL 253'
RSR TOTAL SWP 82 SO. FT.
NORTH
SCALE: I" = 40'
I's: 0,6 ,EVVE,
:6' a
F U�. I.A 95
2'GREENBEL'
2' PUNCH THRI
(SEE DETAIL 13, SHEET D-1
EXISTING FRONTIER FIBER VAULT
14 BOC
TSTA 98+15
EXISTING EDISON HANDHOLE
IS B.O.C.) STA. 98 + 14
T DIRT TRENCH
REMOVE AND REPLACE 4'X 4'
SIDEWALK PANEL
190' DIRT TRENCH
\ 237'
30' ASPHALT TRENCH
.\ (SEE DETAIL 8, SHEET D-3)
\ EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT
11' B.OA.) STA. 98 + 21
REMOVE & REPLACE TX 10'
\ •` SIDEWALK PANEL
\ 2' PUNCH THRU
7' (SEE DETAIL 13, SHEET D-1)
ATV VAULT
rBOC{STA 98+12 `%kcl-
ASG69
348'
'SIDEWALK
1
, .x aNnxl:ll. x
242727
.CROWN
CASTLE
Ioo rcu ;xu:x ox xu'�,x
�_ ..
Communications,
nsii iryin Ie.,
n, q rxns.erxu ue vxanmlrxn
'IDVT'
LI'AIIKnIx!{'N.iN,iM lil<
nrrlslons xrvnx
nuu veu w,•
Duero reu ax+ qnu lsusi i
ASG69
ACROSS 3486 SEAGLEN DR
RANCHO PALOS VERDE$, CA
SITE PLAN
I RG III PIG ��'10
P-1
E-44
REMOVE & REPLACE 6' X 20'
PROPOSED SITE LOCATION
SIDEWALK PANEL
INSTALL NEW 24'0" HIGH STEEL CONCRETE
_---------_ _ TEXTURED STREETLIGHT (2' B.O.C.)
STA. 100+02
ACROSS 3486 SEAGLEN ORIDECOMMISSION
TDIRT TRENCH
17' 17'PROPOSED
CROWN CASTLE 2'X 3'WTR VAULT
(2'B.O.C.) STA.99 + 85
8. 34'
(SEE DETAILS 4 & 5, SHEET D-3, DETAIL 10, SHEET D-4)
00
'=INSTALL
(1) CROWN CASTLE 4' X 6' VAULT
_2:
'�`
WITH FLUSH MOUNT VENTS (2) ML IONS INSIDE
(1'B.O.C.)STA. 99+95
(SEE DETAILS 1 & 2, SHEET D-2, DETAIL 12, SHEET D-5)
EXISTING OCTAGONAL
TE STREETLIGHT
Y
STA. 100 + 00
NORTH
SCALE: I" = 40'
I's: 0,6 ,EVVE,
:6' a
F U�. I.A 95
2'GREENBEL'
2' PUNCH THRI
(SEE DETAIL 13, SHEET D-1
EXISTING FRONTIER FIBER VAULT
14 BOC
TSTA 98+15
EXISTING EDISON HANDHOLE
IS B.O.C.) STA. 98 + 14
T DIRT TRENCH
REMOVE AND REPLACE 4'X 4'
SIDEWALK PANEL
190' DIRT TRENCH
\ 237'
30' ASPHALT TRENCH
.\ (SEE DETAIL 8, SHEET D-3)
\ EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT
11' B.OA.) STA. 98 + 21
REMOVE & REPLACE TX 10'
\ •` SIDEWALK PANEL
\ 2' PUNCH THRU
7' (SEE DETAIL 13, SHEET D-1)
ATV VAULT
rBOC{STA 98+12 `%kcl-
ASG69
348'
'SIDEWALK
1
, .x aNnxl:ll. x
242727
.CROWN
CASTLE
Ioo rcu ;xu:x ox xu'�,x
�_ ..
Communications,
nsii iryin Ie.,
n, q rxns.erxu ue vxanmlrxn
'IDVT'
LI'AIIKnIx!{'N.iN,iM lil<
nrrlslons xrvnx
nuu veu w,•
Duero reu ax+ qnu lsusi i
ASG69
ACROSS 3486 SEAGLEN DR
RANCHO PALOS VERDE$, CA
SITE PLAN
I RG III PIG ��'10
P-1
E-44
A ANTENNA DETAILS SCALE: 1:5 B I 12 O'CLOCK VIEW SCALE: 1:5 B 3 O'CLOCK VIEW SCALE: 1:5
INSTALL MAST ARM WITH LUMINAIRE
INSTALL MAST ARM & LUMINAIRE
TOP OF POLE AT 24 W
ANTENNA #CU UX04SX06FOODO
TOP OF POLE AT za•m
AZIMUTH; 270'
INSTALL (2) 24.1 -ANTENNAS SCUUX04SXMFOM
CA QT'
NTH MWNTING BRACKET /08p038T100
INSTALL 24.1' ANTENNAS
G\
SEE DETAILS 9 & 11 ON SHEET Oi)
2)
INC DSFOW WITH MOUNTING
X&090039
V INSTALL NEW 24' 0" HIGH STEEL
BRACKET =
S'FR CONCRETE TEXTURED STREETLIGHT
(SEE DETAILS 9& 11 ON SHEET D4)
�O
ANTENNA#CUUX045X06F0000
TOP OF
R AZIMUTR 145°
ANTENNA
23.10
TOP OF
ANTENNA
n3 tu'
HAD
=
CENTER
HAD
Y
INSTALL NEW 24'W HIOH STEEL 22' 10'
CONCRETE TEXTURED STREETLIGHT
CENTER
22 10'
0
(SEE DETAIL 6 & 7 ON SHEET OJ)
Z
INSTALL NEW 24' O' HIGH STEEL
0.ONCRETE
TEXTURED STREETLIGHT
t\
90,
(SEE DETAIL 6 & T ON SHEET 0.i)
-- -- --
PLACE "CHILDREN AT PLAY SIGN
51R66TIJGHT /NR
ATT 4': EXISTING HEIGHT AT T 4•
EX
AT 7- E : EXISTING AT PLAY SIGN
ATT 4': EXISTING HEIGHT AT 7' 4'
(REVISED)
TOP OF EXISTING POLE: 24'6*
O
O
TOP OF NEW POLE: 24' 0 -
TOP OF ANTENNA: 271V
RAD CENTER: 22'10'
AZIMUTHS: 145' & 2T0'
INSTALL (1) CROWN CASTLE 2' X 3' VAULT WITH (1) WTR FUSE
BOX & (1) DISCONNECT BOX INSIDE (SEE DETAIL 4 & 5 ON
ANTENNAS TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH POLE.
INSTALL VOR
SHEET 03. DETAIL 10 ON SHEET D4)
(BEHIND 4' XVVAULT)
(SEE DETAIL 3 ON SHEET 0.2)
GHUUNO LEVEL �_
..vw Ni: LE c
•�
7' �/ ��
/
�� ASPHALT
.URB
\�
DETIN TALL AIL 30N
SHEET D-2)
INSTALL(1) CROWN CASTLE 4' X 6' VAULT
WITH FLUSH MOUNT VENTS (2) ML IONS INSIDE
(SEE DETAIL 1 & 2 ON SHEET D-2. DETAIL l2 ON D -S)
ASG69
..,,242727
rCROWN
CASTLE
Communications
I
IxeT''.xu uO u.xlHLnl.xxi
ASG69
ACROSS 3486 SEAGLEN DR
RANCHO PALOS VERDES. CA
POLE PROFILE
�1W 11,1116 '1'0
P-2
E-45
At#bt
o0ow
LOCATION Ism,
E X I S T ING
- C
A a �•
ooly
s -
LOCATION EXISTING
-�c
ASG69
ACROSS 3486 SEAGLEN DR
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA
CROWN
CASTLE
e:2016 G.91c Maps
Lvv ISI INV JVU I ri tfiZ>l rKUM Z, CAV Lr IN L)K
E-49
t
I e7_
s9� ra A g ..
2, kf
too
• a
Google
LOCATION f ••• - E%I STI NG
m
CITY OF � RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MEMORANDUM
TO: ART BASHMAKIAN, CONTRACT PLANNER
CHARLES EDER, ASSOCIATE ENGINEER
CC: NICOLE JULES, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
ARA MIHRANIAN, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
FROM: ROBERT NEMETH, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
DATE: OCTOBER 2, 2017
SUBJECT: VIEW ANALYSIS FOR WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY-
ASG69 (within the public right-of-way of Seaglen Drive, across from
3486 Seaglen Drive)
DISCUSSION
Based on a view analysis conducted on October 2, 2017, Staff has determined that the
proposed Wireless Telecommunications Facility (WTF) No. ASG69, within the public
right-of-way of Seaglen Drive, across from 3486 Seaglen Drive will not create a view
impairment from surrounding residential viewing areas as defined in Rancho Palos
Verdes Development Code Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration
Code).
The proposed wireless telecommunications facility is not located in a view corridor
identified in the City's General Plan or Coastal Specific Plan.
E-52
Columbia Telecommunications Corporation
Wireless Facility Application Evaluation
Applicant: Crown Castle
Site # ASG -69
Description: Application to install a new DAS access site
Site Location: ACROSS 3486 SEAGLEN DRIVE
Site survey findings:
The on-site survey of the above referenced site was conducted on September 13, 2017. Exhibit 1 is a
photograph of the mockup pole and equipment cabinet for the proposed Crown Castle installation. The
site location is on Seaglen Drive, near the point where it loops around. It is positioned near the northern
point of the target area to serve residences along Seaglen Drive.
Exhibit 1— Site with Mocked Up pole with Antenna
ate'_...-_ `�
As a part of this assignment. I conducted signal measurements of the AT&T service in the target area
identified by Crown Castle to be served from the site. Before conducting the ASG Site 69
measurements, I first made measurements at the City Hall parking lot to both calibrate the test
equipment and also to establish a reference sample of the network throughput and signal level (signal
power relative to 1 milliwatt of the LTE information signal power RSRP f Reference Signal Received
Power} an industry standard metric) near the macro tower. Measurements were made with the
spectrum analyzer for all three licensed AT&T bands. The measurements confirmed that tower signals
were active on all three bands. A signal level of -64 dBm RSRP was recorded at the site along with
E-53
data throughput download measurement of 130.15 Mbps and upload of 45.98 Mbps. This was fully
consistent with my expectations for a properly functioning, lightly loaded 4G LTE network.
I then conducted a drive test along the route shown in Exhibit 2 below. At ASG Site 69 Gap target
area, the same measurements were taken near the proposed antenna site. At the proposed ASG Site
69, the signal level measurement was -114 dBm and 4G LTE technology. The throughput tests
registered download speeds of 15.72 Mbps, and 3.21 Mbps for the upload. Generally, my experience
indicates that is desirable to have a minimum signal level of at least -100 to -95 dBm to support
reliable connections for both upload and download and data speeds consistent with the 3G
technology. I note that Crown Castle in the application has specified a target signal goal of -95 dBm or
greater for LTE technology.
Exhibit 2 — Map Showing Existing AT&T Coverage Measured During Site Visit
On the exhibit, there is an overlay is an of the target area defined by Crown Castle which is outlined in
blue. Signal level measurements were made throughout the area and recorded in a slowly moving
vehicle at five second intervals. The data was then plotted using the geographical coordinates onto a
Google Earth map. A complete listing of the 121 measurements points used to create this coverage
map can be found in Appendix A of this document. The listing includes the measured signal level, the
geographical coordinates and the AT&T tower site communicated with. It should be noted that during
the drive test the receiver attempted to connect to 4 individual tower access points that provide some
level of signal service in the drive area. Service throughout the target area was observed to be fairly
poor with every test location show signal less than -105 dBm, most signal measurements were less than
-110 dBm. The proposed antenna patterns are to cover the target area to the west and southeast of
the proposed site.
E-54
For additional information on the specifics frequencies that AT&T operates on the RPV area as well as
background technical information which is applicable to all these Crown Castle applications, please see
Appendix B of this document.
Based on our field measurements It is our finding that within this small area there is a gap in reliable
AT&T broadband services.
Technical review: This new DAS wireless access facility is to be installed on a replacement street light
to provide additional capacity and service on all three AT&T bands (700 MHz, PCS and AWS) to
improved digital network services to customers in vehicles and buildings. Exhibit 3 is a Google map
photo submitted by the applicant defining the primary service area for this site. This is the same area
in which we conducted the signal level measurements for existing AT&T coverage.
Exhibit 3 — Target Area Overview
Two separate antennas are mounted on a replacement street lamp pole at a radiation center located
22'0" above ground level (AGL). The antennas simultaneously can support the AT&T 700, PCS and
AWS bands. The site will function to provided local coverage to the area within the blue rectangle.
This site work in concert with existing AT&T macro (traditional cell towers) sites.
Exhibit 4 is an illustration of the proposed DAS facility. The site includes two directional antennas each
targeting along the road focusing the signal beam into a target 600 arc, aimed at azimuths of 2700 and
145° respectively.
E-55
Exhibit 4 — Site ASG 69
Proposed Site ASG69
To support the application, Crown Castle provided field measurements made with a temporary
antenna to substantiate coverage in the target area. We have reviewed the information and also
conducted both an on-site walkout of the area as well as a computerized terrain study to determine if
the proposed site will address the coverage gap identified in the Crown Castle application. For the
terrain profile study, we examined a series of individual path profiles from the proposed site to a
sampling of locations within the gap. Exhibit 5 below shows the locations (within the gap) which were
chosen for examination of the path profiles. Complete path profile information for the 4 sample sites
are available in Appendix B.
Based on our review of the terrain profile characteristics and the field measurement data provided by
Crown Castle, we conclude that the proposal as provided will address the coverage deficiencies within
the target area.
E-56
Exhibit 5 — Sample Path Profile Locations
Ar
��- i � • f > � ori �
rff +0
do
aw •
Co -location options: Crown Castle has provided information on the various options that have been
reviewed for the site deployment. It should be noted that the alternatives involve minor changes in the
siting of the facility. In most cases the limited coverage areas of the DAS units limit or confine site
selection. Generally, alternatives are selected based on aesthetic considerations since the overall
coverage area is confined by the limited service area of DAS technology and location of the specific
signal gap areas that are to be addressed.
Findings and conclusions: The applicant (Crown Castle) has provided engineering details related to
the wireless bands that will be used for the DAS deployment, including identifying transmitting
equipment, power levels for each band and specifics regarding the radiation patterns of the antennas
to be installed. However, information provided about existing and proposed coverage in the service
area for each of the three AT&T licensed wireless bands (700 MHz, PCS and AWS) are less clearly
defined; this is due to the extremely rugged and varied terrain associated with the RPV landscape.
From an engineering perspective, Crown Castle has provided engineering measurement data defining
gaps in AT&T coverage in small pocketed areas. I have independently examined these areas and find
that the signal levels are lower than the levels industry guidelines suggested to support modern
3G/4G customer needs. Further, the engineering design provided by Crown Castle supports that, if
constructed, DAS site ASG 69 will provide ample signal intensity (signal level in excess of -95 dBm) to
support AT&T's 3G/4G wireless services. From the information obtained in the drive tests, I found
that the signal level to be less than -105 dBm throughout the proposed target area.
5 E-57
Signature:
Y�• r
Michael Afflerbach, RF Specialist
Lee Afflerbach, P.E.
Date:9/29/17
dc technology & energy
engineering & business cansuiting
E-58
f7A.ZIP
MAMIE
WAIMEI
E-59
Appendix B — Technical Considerations for Small Cell Wireless Networks
Introdurtinn
This Small Cell Wireless Network is designed to augment and supplement existing AT&T
wireless communications in Rancho Palos Verdes. On the whole, Crown Castle seeks to install
dozens of these small cell antenna sites throughout the City in the public right of way. On the
whole, these antenna sites will typically be no higher than 17 feet (based on other City
ordinances) with two directional antennas to optimize coverage in a several hundred foot area
radius.
Antenna
Crown Castle proposes a tri band Amphenol CUUX045X06F0000 antenna which has the
following pattern of RF radiation in the horizontal plane (Azimuth) (see Exhibit 1 below). Each
color represents the radiation for the various bands with the 0 direction pointing directly to the
highest radiation level. Thus, in these directional antennas, while it is represented as a 65
degree beamwidth (30 degrees on either side of the 0, from 330 to 30 degrees), there is still
plenty of signal (almost half as much) nearby in the fields even 60 degrees on either side of the
0.
Exhibit I- RF Pattern Radiation Strength for Amphenol CUUX04SX06F0000
696960 MHz (RS)
Hor;zomai ( 656.740 MHz
Hw;zonza' 17`0-E80MHz
1695.2700 MHz (Y1 & Y2)
t-wizowa 880.960 MHi
�C)
E-60
Specific RF Use and FCC License Information
In Rancho Palos Verdes (and throughout Southern California) AT&T operates on three major
frequency bands: 700 MHz, broadband PCS (Personal Communications Service), and AWS
(Advanced Wireless Services). Specifically, in the 700 MHz band they are using 704 MHz -710
MHz and 734 MHz -740 MHz (FCC License callsign WQ1Q721) and 710-716 MHz and 740-746
MHz (FCC License callsign WPWU990). In the PCS band, AT&T uses 1865-1870 MHz and 1945-
1950 MHz (FCC License callsign KNLG472) and 1870-1885 MHz and 1950-1965 MHz (FCC
callsigns KNLF205 and WQHT993). For the AWS broadband service, AT&T operates at 1710-
1720 MHz and 2110-2120 MHz (FCC callsign WQGA742).
Signal Strength Information and Measurement
Typically, radio service is measured by Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP). It is measured
in dBm (which is a negative number so that -75 dBm is a very strong signal and -110 dBm is a
very weak signal). AT&T's target for acceptable signal is -95 dBm and that signal strength should
provide good coverage including some acceptable in -building connectivity. Our expectation for
reliable coverage in outdoor environment is to measure a RSRP of >_ -105 dBm.
E-61
Appendix C — Path Profiles from Proposed Antenna Site to
Various Test Point Locations within the Gap
E-62
725
720
715
710
705
4
700
> 695
690
685
i 680
675
710
700
690
680
> 670
0 660
650
640
a 630
r 620
C 610
= 600
590
From Proposed Antenna Site to TP 1
Range on path (kilometers)
From Proposed Antenna Site to TP 2
[�I�jY�YiYI�IFx��I�� itl�l'��i�T.'�il�flii�ia�i�L•i+tfi�fit��Yi�f [c��iL•i�lif.��i4i�l
Range on path (kilometers)
725
720
715 ,
710
705 '
a
700,N
695 >
690 �¢
685 rn
680 =
675
710
700
690 u
680
670 >
660.N
650
640
630 a
620 s
610 v
600 =
590
E-63
From Proposed Antenna Site to TP 3
745 745
740
v 735
730
725
720
715
710
0 705
a 700
z 695
u 690
= 685
680
Range on path (kilometers)
740
735 v
730
725 7@
720.5
715 ^'
710
705 0
7001
69515
690 u
685 =
680
From Proposed Antenna Site to TP 4
710 710
705
700
695
> 690
v
A 685
680
675
a 670
s 665
660
= 655
650
Range on path (kilometers)
705
700
695 w
690 >
685
680
675 >
670 a
665 s
660 v
655 =
650
E-64
LTE Coverage Analysis
Market Name: los Angeles
❖ Rancho Palos Verdes Area oDAS
❖ Plots Completion Date: August 15, 2016
LTE Existing Macro/oDAS (PCS 1900MHz) - Coverage
LTE Coverage from Proposed New oDAS (PCS 190OMHz)
bNr 1) h LEGENI);
Via Visafria WlndoorSignal -75d5m,
Sman 0 sv�p• In-Vehidt Siu,tiai -85d8m
CuTdoor S final -98d6m.
3G Marginal to Poor Coverage
069
263rd S, q,
e
N
G38
V
00 tpt
b 10:r -
Lu
G IV" tea
344W
64 9 0-rit.,
s Verdes
X;
0 Existing Macro Sites
0 Proposed oDAS
* Existing oDAS I
04 , -
t Cir San
Wagon Ln J we,
Rolkng HIM it i
I Rodanghoise
S00,74
Q1
Cl -e
IV
-W -jr(
9 W
A 'Ina
*
74
Gr P .,,cLAh Ln
Cir Or
LTE Coverage (Existing Macro/oDAS and Proposed New oDAS) — PCS 1900MHz
7 G natOr �( , LEGEND
Via Vl5alla y tlndoor`zgnal -15c®m
Ar 70 fdL In-VaruElt, Bipai -8506m7Vis Am 9 Outdwr B+gnai -980Bm
{)69•1k, 3G Marginal to Poor Coverage
w , E �'' V ZU r1 r_
$
rG38 NY
casing
fire ` , Fi'� �' �p� f ,.•
Wagon Ln
• Com` t W G42 �' Rolling Hills tr Dlt t e
• q f��
6 t
Ca 0358
�� anCho Palos Verdes LL N ar
+ter- a Y G16
N.
; G74 W II. -Vu
• Existing Macro Sites '.�
• Proposed oDAS p,
• Existing oDAS a Dr
-8
LTE Existing Macro/oDAS (700MHz) - Coverage
LTE Coverage from Proposed New oDAS (700MHz)
y \ >7 LEGEND,
13 r1 :yug �' �r % ' . 0Indoor Signal -75d5m
AA
in -Vehicle Signai -85d5m 1115
.�•�ye p. Outdoor Segnal -98d8m
3G Marginal to Poor Coverage
E z
t
� �r . euriy ! � 26310 in _�,*l
i
wt6' ! t >w !1
G38 VIA
- 'i
S:
S@4 X+` \
�C ✓JaGN ♦
Ar
Nagon Ln
y AGO` t 2 Rolling Hills AP Rockinghoise
'geffRa lot/
G�+ C, RA" � 0358
Mi!
r
S
r no t
A
• Existing Macro Sites
• Proposed oDAS ,O,tn L^
• o� w
Existing oDAS 2L_-1
LTE Coverage (Existing Macro/oDAS and Proposed New oDAS) — 700MHz
CCCROWN
CASTLE
Crown Castle NG West LLC
Site Justification Narrative
Submitted to
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Crown Castle
300 Spectrum Center Drive
Suite 1200
Irvine, CA 92618
Submitted Pursuant to City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code Title 12
Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 12.18.080
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com
E-72
INTRODUCTION
1. CROWN CASTLE.
Crown Castle NG West LLC ("Crown Castle") provides wireless carriers with the infrastructure they
need to keep people connected and business running. With approximately 40,000 towers and 18,000
small cell nodes supported by approximately 17,000 miles of fiber, Crown Castle is the nation's largest
provider of shared wireless infrastructure, with a significant presence in the top 100 US markets.
Crown Castle's small cell network (SCN) represents the state-of-the-art in wireless telecommunications
network technology. It is a low -profile telecommunications system capable of delivering wireless
services to customers of multiple carriers such as Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, Metro PCS and T -Mobile. The
elements of Crown Castle's SCN are small-scale and can be attached to standard streetlight sign poles
that take up little space in the public rights-of-way ("ROW") or, where feasible, onto existing elements
in the ROW such as streetlights, traffic signals, and wooden utility poles. Crown Castle SCN therefore
allows one aesthetically unobtrusive system to take the place of multiple antennas or macro -sites
constructed by individual carriers -- a single, streamlined solution that avoids the prospect of multiple
carrier -constructed antenna facilities servicing a given area. Put another way, Crown Castle SCN is the
equivalent of a collocation system, as it permits many carriers to provide their services over one
system with only a single series of vertical elements.
2. THE PROJECT.
A. The Network.
Crown Castle proposes to develop a SCN network with thirty nine (39) small cell nodes (SCN)l in the
ROW in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("Network"). These nodes are described below. This is an
application for one of those SCN (ASG70) submitted to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("RPV") for
review by the Department of Public Works. This particular location will provide needed wireless
broadband and telecommunications services and the addition of critical network and capacity along
' A SCN "node," as used herein, is a small -format antenna facility mounted to a streetlight, traffic signal pole,
utility pole or street sign pole.
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com
E-73
Montemalga Drive from roughly Basswood Avenue to the East and Via Panorama to the West; and
adjacent neighborhoods to the North and South of Montemalga Drive ("Service Area"). Each of the 39
nodes comprising the Network will utilize existing streetlight poles, traffic sign poles, utility poles and
street sign poles located in the ROW, whenever possible. In some instances, however, a new pole is
being proposed in the ROW because there are no existing viable alternative from an RF perspective to
achieve the coverage objective.
Each SCN receives an optical signal from a central hub and distributes the signal to the SCN via fiber
optic cable. The optical signal is then propagated from the SCN in the form of radio frequency (RF)
transmissions. Distribution of signal from the hub to the low-power, low -profile SCN, allows carriers to
provide wireless telecommunications and data services to areas otherwise difficult to reach with
conventional wireless telecommunications facilities. The SCN locations are:
j Ca Street Address/Cross Street ?
Node
ID
Site Type Y
AS608
Across from 30505 Calle de Suenos
S/L REPL
ASG09
30461 Camino Porvenir �~
S/L REPL
ASG10
Across from Los Verdes Golf Club
NE Corner of Gingerroot/Narcissa
24 Narcissa Rd
72 Narcissa Dr
28151 Highridge
S/L REPL
ASG11
Ex Wood Utii
Ex Wood Util
Ex Wood Util
New Pole
S/L REPL
ASG12
ASG13
ASG15
ASG21
Basswood/Silverspur
ASG25
27665 Longhill
S/L REPL
ASG31
28809 Crestridge
corner of Whitley/Scottwood
New Pole
S/L REPL
ASG32
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com
E-74
f1JVJJ
r%-!vaaU-ewL1iajcaviIVU ]
l
"'U"rvIc
e
i }
(concrete)
ASG34
6960 Verde Ridge
S/L REPL
ASG3S j
6722 Abbottswood
S/L REPL
ASG36
Across from 28825 Doverridge
New Pole
(concrete)
ASG37
Along Ridgegate Drive near Southridge
S/L REPL
ASG38
7025 Maycroft
S/L REPL
AG39
26804 Grayslake Rd
Ex Wood Util or
S/L
ASG41
Palos Verdes Drive South near Seacliff
New Pole
ASG42
5207 Valley View
S/L REPL
ASG43 ;
5721 Crestridge
New Pole I
ASG44
Armaga Spring @ Meadow Mist
S/L REPL
ASG45 I
E
Adjacent to 28403 San Nicholas Dr
S/L REPL
i
ASG47 I
Across from 3087 Crownview/Highpoint
New Pole
ASG48
Basswood @�Mossbank
S/L REPL
ASG49"
Crest Rd
Ex Wood Util or
S/L
ASG53�
_ Adjacent to 6505 Monero;
Ex Wood Util or
i
!
I
S/L
ASG55 30001 Via Rivera, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
S/L REPL
ASG64
South of 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West
New Pole
ASG69
Across 3486 Sea len Dr.
S/L REPL
ASG70
Across from 5828 Montemalaga
Ex Wood Utility
ASG72 Palos Verdes Drive (Abalone Cove) S of Narcissa
New Pole
ASG73 3
i
Hawthorne at Vallon Drive Jl
Traffic l
The FoundatFon for a Wi"treless World.
CrownCastle.com
E-75
By using existing vertical infrastructure within the ROW whenever possible, the project seeks to reduce
the addition of new vertical elements, thereby minimizing intrusions into the ROW.
B. The Features of the Network Facilities.
A majority of the nodes will consist of two (2) 24 -inch long antennas mounted back-to-back on existing
streetlights, utility poles, traffic sign poles or street sign poles, two (2) fiber converters collocated with
the Southern California Edison ("SCE") electric meter pedestals that would power the nodes. The total
height of the facility, measured from grade level, is typically up to 13'-6" for traffic sign poles, street
sign poles and free-standing poles, and up to 33'-6" for streetlight poles and utility poles. (See Exhibit _
[(Drawings: Streetlights, traffic signal poles, street sign poles, free-standing poles, and utility poles.)] In
addition to the antennas, the nodes feature an underground fiber pull box containing fiber. The fiber
converters convert digitalized spectrum received from the hub into RF signals emitted from the
antenna array to the Service Area. (See Drawings).
3. THE APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL.
Crown Castle presents this analysis pursuant to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code Title
12 — Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 12.18.080. (Requirements for Facilities within Public Rights -of -Way).
The Foundation for a wireless World.
CrownCastle.corn
E-76
Signai_REPL
ASG74
' _ 31297 1/2 Palos Verdes Dr E @ GanadoS/L REPL_ExAtt
(LA0362)
g LA0194
approx 5127 Palos Verdes Drive S
Ex AT&T I
LA0196
Palos Verdes Drive S @ Boundary Trail
�Ex AT&T
Ex AT&T
LA0351
Schooner Drive
LA03S8
approx 9522 Palos Drive E
Ex AT&T
LAR069
Silver Spur Rd @ Montemalaga
�Ex AT&T POLE
REPL
By using existing vertical infrastructure within the ROW whenever possible, the project seeks to reduce
the addition of new vertical elements, thereby minimizing intrusions into the ROW.
B. The Features of the Network Facilities.
A majority of the nodes will consist of two (2) 24 -inch long antennas mounted back-to-back on existing
streetlights, utility poles, traffic sign poles or street sign poles, two (2) fiber converters collocated with
the Southern California Edison ("SCE") electric meter pedestals that would power the nodes. The total
height of the facility, measured from grade level, is typically up to 13'-6" for traffic sign poles, street
sign poles and free-standing poles, and up to 33'-6" for streetlight poles and utility poles. (See Exhibit _
[(Drawings: Streetlights, traffic signal poles, street sign poles, free-standing poles, and utility poles.)] In
addition to the antennas, the nodes feature an underground fiber pull box containing fiber. The fiber
converters convert digitalized spectrum received from the hub into RF signals emitted from the
antenna array to the Service Area. (See Drawings).
3. THE APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL.
Crown Castle presents this analysis pursuant to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code Title
12 — Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 12.18.080. (Requirements for Facilities within Public Rights -of -Way).
The Foundation for a wireless World.
CrownCastle.corn
E-76
Specifically, this narrative demonstrates the demands and rationale that led to the selection of a
particular location and design for the wireless telecommunication facilities proposed herein.
A. Applicable State Law.
Crown Castle is a "competitive local exchange carrier" ("CLEC"), CLECs qualify as a "public utility" and
therefore have a special status under state law. By virtue of California Public Utilities Commission
("CPUC") issuance of a "certificate of public convenience and necessity" ("CPCN"), CLECs have
authority under state law to "erect poles, posts, piers, or abutments" in the ROW subject only to local
municipal control over the "time, place and manner" of access to the ROW. (Pub. Util. Code, §§ 1001,
7901; 7901.1; see Williams Communication v. City of Riverside (2003) 114 Cal.App. 4th 642, 648 [upon
obtaining a CPCN, a telephone corporation has "the right to use the public highways to install [its]
facilities."].)
The CPUC has issued a CPCN (attached as Exhibit D1b) which authorizes Crown Castle to construct the
Network pursuant to its regulatory status under state law. Crown Castle's special regulatory status as a
CLEC gives rise to a vested right to use the ROW in the City to "construct ... telephone lines along and
upon any public road or highway, along or across any of the waters or lands within this State" and to
"erect poles, posts, piers, or abutments for supporting the insulators, wires, and other necessary
fixtures of their lines, in such manner and at such points as not to incommode the public use of the
road or highway[.]" (Pub. Util. Code, § 7901.) The nature of the vested right was described by one
court as follows:
... "[I]t has been uniformly held that [section 7901] is a continuing offer
extended to telephone and telegraph companies to use the highways,
which offer when accepted by the construction and maintenance of lines
constitutes a binding contract based on adequate consideration, and that
the vested right established thereby cannot be impaired by subsequent
acts of the Legislature. [Citations.]" ... Thus, telephone companies have
the right to use the public highways to install their facilities.
(Williams Communications v. City of Riverside, supra, 114 Cal.App.4th at p. 648 quoting County of L. A.
v. Southern Cal. Tel. Co. (1948) 32 Cal.2d 378, 384 [196 P.2d 773].)
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com
E-77
While Public Utility Code section 7901.1 grants local municipalities the limited "right to exercise
reasonable control as to the time, place, and manner in which roads, highways, and waterways are
accessedf,]" such controls cannot have the effect of foreclosing use by Crown Castle of the ROW or
otherwise prevent Crown Castle from exercising its right under state law to "erect poles" in the ROW.
That is because "the construction and maintenance of telephone lines in the streets and other public
places within the City is today a matter of state concern and not a municipal affair." (Williams
Communication v. City of Riverside, supra, 114 Cal.App.4th at p. 653.)
On the basis of Crown Castle's status as a CLEC, and its concomitant rights to the ROW, the Network is
designed as an ROW system. With respect to the siting and configuration of the Network, the rights
afforded under Public Utilities Code section 7901 and 7901.1 apply. Crown Castle reserves its rights
under section 7901 and 7901.1, including, but not limited to, its right to challenge any approval
process, that impedes or infringes on Crown Castle's rights as a CLEC.
B. Applicable Federal Law.
The approval of the Network also is governed by the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L.
No 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (codified as amend in scattered sections of U.S.C., Tabs 15, 18, 47) ("Telecom
Act"). When enacting the Telecom Act, Congress expressed its intent "to promote competition and
reduce regulation in order to secure lower prices and higher quality services for American
telecommunications consumers and encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications
technologies." (110 Stat. at 56.) As one court noted:
Congress enacted the TCA to promote competition and higher quality in
telecommunications services and to encourage the rapid deployment of
new telecommunications technologies. Congress intended to promote a
national cellular network and to secure lower prices and better service
for consumers by opening all telecommunications markets to
competition.
(T -Mobile Central, LLC v. Unified Government of Wyandotte, 528 F.Supp. 2d 1128, 1146-47 (D. Kan.
2007). One way in which the Telecom Act accomplishes these goals is by reducing impediments
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com
E-78
imposed by local governments upon the installation of wireless communications facilities, such as
antenna facilities. (47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(A).) Section 332(c)(7)(B) provides the limitations on the
general authority reserved to state and local governments. Those limitations are set forth as follows:
(a) State and local governments may not unreasonably discriminate among providers of
functionally equivalent services (§ 332(c)(7)(13)(i)(1)).
(b) State and local governments may not regulate the placement, construction or
modification of wireless service facilities in a manner that prohibits, or has the effect of
prohibiting, the provision of personal wireless services (better known as the "effective
prohibition clause") (§ 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II)).
(c) State and local governments must act on requests for authorization to construct or
modify wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time (§ 332(c)(7)(B)(ii)).
(d) Any decision by a state or local government to deny a request for construction or
modification of personal wireless service facilities must be in writing and supported by
substantial evidence contained in a written record (§ 332(c)(7)(B)(iii)).
(e) Finally, no state or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the
placement, construction or modification of personal wireless service facilities on the
basis of the perceived environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent
that such facilities comply with federal communications commission's regulations
concerning such emissions (§ 332(c)(7)(B)(iv)).
In addition to the above, other federal enactments and policies also guide local governmental actions,
including the following:
(a) The Shot Clock Rule: On November 18, 2009, the Federal Communications Commission
("FCC") adopted the "Shot Clock" Rule, placing strict time limits on local governments to
act on applications for the siting of wireless telecommunications facilities. The Shot
Clock Rule was intended to "promote[] deployment of broadband and other wireless
services" by "reducing delays in construction and improvement of wireless networks."
M White House Broadband Initiative: On February 10, 2011, the White House called for a
National Wireless Initiative to make available high-speed wireless services to at least 98
percent of Americans. The initiative would free up spectrum through incentive auctions,
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com
E-79
spurring innovation, and create a nationwide, interoperable wireless network for public
safety with a fiscal goal of catalyzing private investment and innovation and reducing
the deficit by $9.6 billion, "help the United States win the future and compete in the
21st century economy."
(47 U.S.C. § 1455(a)(1), emphasis added.) An "eligible facilities request "Modifications"
includes a request to "collocate" a facility. (Id. at § 1455(a)(2)(A).) As discussed further
below, because it is a qualifying collocation facility, an argument may be made that the
Project qualifies for ministerial approval under the Spectrum Act.
Further, the Federal Communications Commission recently provided clarification to the
Spectrum Act in a recently published order. The FCC noted in its order:
We take important steps in this Report and Order to promote the deployment of
wireless infrastructure, recognizing that it is the physical foundation that
supports all wireless communications. We do this by eliminating unnecessary
reviews, thus reducing the costs and delays associated with facility siting and
construction.
Specifically, the order (dated October 17, 2014), makes provisions for the following:
• Clarifies key terms in the Act such as Base Station, Eligible Facility Request,
what is deemed Existing, and Tower;
• What constitutes Substantial Change - For Towers and Base Stations sited
within the public right-of-way, a change to an existing facility is less than
substantial, and must be approved if the height increase is less than 10%
increase or 10 -feet, whichever is greater, or has a protrusion of less than 6 -
feet from the edge of the structure, or if the change would defeat
concealment elements of the structure.
• Governing authority may only require documentation that is reasonably
related to whether the request is covered under the rules;
a Governing authority may not require submission of any other
documentation, including proof of need.
The f=oundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com
• ,
•
FINDINGS
1. Visual Compatibility (RPVMC Title 12, Chapter 12.18.080, Sec. A Design and Development
Standards for wireless telecommunication facilities in the public right-of-way).
As discussed more fully below, the Service Area described above currently experiences a significant gap
in wireless telecommunications coverage. To fill that gap, Crown Castle proposes the "least intrusive
means," as articulated by the Ninth Circuit in T -Mobile U.S.A., Inc. v. City of Anacortes, 572 F.3d 987,
995 (9th Cir. 2009) and as required by RPV's Wireless Telecommunications Facility Permit Application
("WTFPA") Section IV(2)(c) Description of Project Coverage and Purpose [Exhibit C21. The standard, as
the court noted in that case, "requires that the provider'show that the manner in which it proposes to
fill the significant gap in service is the least intrusive on the values that the denial sought to serve."'
(ibid.) This allows
[F]or a meaningful comparison of alternative sites before the siting
application process is needlessly repeated. It also gives providers an
incentive to choose the least intrusive site in their first siting applications,
and it promises to ultimately identify the best solution for the
community, not merely the least one remaining after a series of
application denials.
(Id. at 995.)
In this case, because Crown Castle is a CLEC entitled to construct its systems in the ROW, its DAS
networks are inherently ROW systems. On that basis, Crown Castle examined those alternatives
theoretically available to it in the ROW. The analysis below demonstrates why the Project qualifies as
the "least intrusive means" of filling the significant gap in service described above.
A. Height of the Proposed Facilities.
The antenna heights and locations of the SCN were chosen to provide the minimum signal level needed
to meet critical coverage and capacity needs in the Service Area. Despite the technical limitations of a
low -profile system, Crown Castle seeks to maximize the coverage of each node location, since
maximization of the node performance equates to a lower overall number of facilities for the Network
and a less intrusive system. Accordingly, each location was chosen to provide an effective relay of
signal from the adjacent node, so that ubiquitous coverage of the minimum signal level is provided
throughout the Service Area with the minimum number of nodes.
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com
E-81
B. Location of the Proposed Facilities.
The selected node locations maximize the RF coverage of the node and minimize interference/overlap
with the other nodes of the system, resulting in a lower overall number of facilities for the Network
and a less intrusive system. Each node provides an effective relay of signal from the adjacent node, so
that ubiquitous coverage is provided throughout the Service Area. Because each node is locationally
dependent on the other nodes of the Network, moving a node too far from its proposed location will
result in an inability meet coverage objectives and thereby impair the Network. In selecting node
locations, Crown Castle also sought out existing utility poles, streetlight poles and street sign pole sites
that could serve as a potential host site for alternative locations.
C. Small Cells as Least Intrusive Means Technology.
Even apart from the siting of the nodes, SCN itself is inherently minimally intrusive by design. SCN was
developed as a smaller -scale solution to the larger macro -site or cell tower. It therefore represents a
significant technological advance in the development of smaller profile wireless transmission devices.
As devices shrink in size, they also, by definition, shrink in power. Accordingly, more facilities are
needed and such facilities must be located closer to the user. The nodes are designed to be smaller in
scale and lower power to allow them to integrate more easily into their surroundings and thereby
render them less aesthetically intrusive.
The small cell node facilities proposed by Crown Castle combine a smaller scale product with state-of-
the-art technology that allows for multiple carriers to provide service from the node. The nodes are
designed to blend into the existing elements of the ROW. They feature narrow -profile poles and
minimal equipment. Each facility also will be designed to blend with existing features in the road.
Crown Castle's SCN network qualifies as the "least intrusive means" of filling the identified significant
gap in coverage for the following reasons, among others:
(1) Crown Castle SCN utilizes the latest in wireless infrastructure technology, incorporating
smaller, low-power facilities instead of using larger -- and sometimes more obtrusive --
cell towers;
(2� Crown Castle SCN utilizes the ROW, thereby avoiding intrusions into private property or
undeveloped sensitive resource areas;
rhe Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com
E-82
CROWN
CASTLE
01/03/2017
Node ASG69
Coverage Analysis
The Foundation for a Wireless World,.
E-83
ASG69 Exhibits
• Exhibit C(3) — Geographic and propagation maps
• Exhibit C(4) — Geographic service area for the subject installation
• Exhibit F(4) — Power output and operating frequency for the proposed
antenna
• Exhibit H(1)(b) — Master plan of all existing and proposed facilities
• Exhibit I — Alternative sites
CROWN Proprietary &
,.0 CASTLE Confidential
•
m
a
E-85
Exhibit C3 a. — Geographical significant gap in coverage.
jam• 1
'=s
it ••i• !•M
A D r ASG69 A 4
f•� 4 S
•• •M r • Obi
•••• •moi A
••t 1 ~
ASG69 C A •
•
• A = N
•• •;i•• ASG69�
CROWN Proprietary &
CASTLE Confidential
ie
Exhibit C3 (b) - Proposed site and surrounding existing WTF owned and
CROWN Proprietary &
CASTLE Confidential
E-87
Exhibit C3 (c) — Proposed facility relative to all existing and planned facilities
CROWN Proprietary &
CASTLE Confidential
ftSG69
T
owem, Objective
Proposed AT&T
40 Node
Existing WTF
Node
A••
Exhibit C3 d. — Existing RF coverage.
:ff
•'••• :s .
jp
jP
•
G SOASG69A •
• : ;
• 1
• • r
-�,• � ASG69 C-00 %
�• a .
•. • • j� 41
•. .S=•• a ASG69&
�y • s �
•
CROWN Proprietary &
CASTLE Confidential
• :
Locations
• •
• Failed
• '
Mable,
Existing WTF
• •
Node
••
•
•
Exhibit C3 e. — Proposed RF coverage.
- 0%
• t
4i I* •:
+ s
1 =.
t• .r
b • ASGlY A
• r
'r ; ti
• .` 4 3j
•
j •
w
ft •
e % ASGU Com.
r I •
•r• i� % i• ASG69IV6
• • i
•
000
• tf • r� i
• • •�
• r
CROWN Proprietary &
CASTLE Confidential
•
E-90
Wim. �� i� V � � •;'� ' •; Y � ` i �•�ti
A.SG4
\�� �- ♦ � .! fes,.-.� �-
Le
nend• •' 2 _ ./
` // ✓..
Proposed Nodes
009
Existing AT&T Sites
C i 1
X19
%I
ad
Z LJ
0 (A
Ix <
u u
a
E-92
timv`
{ a
JO� � � `r •�- i` , ' \.e �'� ir.. '.. ,. , s y�• .`• ..yam
At
.96
ASC -69 C,
vp
7" � \ UL `'
a
E-95
Power output and operating frequency
EIRP 700 MHz
(Watts
EIRP 850 MHz (composite,
Watts(Watts)
EIRP 1900 MHz
EIRP 2100 MHz
Watts
347
347
339
363
CROWN Proprietary &
CASTLE Confidential
E-96
.1-j
i r..j
rm
i
i�.2
cd M
Cl
•� "Cl
qz
R,
N O
P. u
z
J
QN
aQ
u
a
E-97
List of All Existing Facilities
CROWN Proprietary&
CASTLE Confidential
A me •
List of All Proposed Facilities
Carrier)Site
ID
Latitude
Lon itude
arrier
Site ID
Latitude
ade
Longitude
VZW
W
0 SCL PALOS VERDES 3
O SCL PALOS VERDES 8
33.761353
33.739781
-118.41035
-118.369334
T&T
T&T
ASG32
ASG33
_ _ 33.7629510
33.75566
--1183750931
-11839344
`SO SCL PALOS VERDES 9
33.75878
-118.36448
T&T
ASG34
33.76607
-118.401094
WZW
ISO SCL PALOS VERDES 11
33.775391
-118.368853
T&T
JASG35
33.77069
-118.397060
WIWO
SCL PALOS VERDES 12
33.784143
-118.36758
T&T
ASG36
33.7708985
118.3893824
!VZW
ISO SCL PALOS VERDES 13
33.749477
-118.332934
T&T
ASG37
33.77656
-118.38741
VZW
!SO SCL PALOS VERDES 14
33.746148 -118.329719
T&T
ASG38
33.7799
-118.4027
'VZW
SCL PALOS VERDES 15
33.743179
-118.31898
T&T
G39
33.7854183
-118.383413
!�V-2-W� SCL PALOS VERDES 16
LO
?VZW_�SO SCL PALOS VERDES 17
33.764385
33.760177
-118.33119
-118.32499
AT&T
T&T
ASG41
JASG43 _
_ 33.73169
33.76786
-118.3447
-118.37682
SCL PALOS VERDES 18
33.767905
-118.314171
T
G44
33.77125
-118.38566
tSO
W
O SCL PALOS VERDES 19
O SCL PALOS VERDES 20
O SCL ROLLING HILLS
ESTATES1
33.771618 -118.309292
33.761589 -118.31528
33.773894 -118.38782
T&T
T
T
ASG45
JASG47 V
ASCAS
33.7761
33.74959
33.7827
-118.39398
-118.33013
-118.37828
VZW
O SCL ROLLING HILLS
ESTATES 2
33.781481
-118.38453
T
_
ASG49B
33.7416
-118.33664
W
O SCL ROLLING HILLS
ESTATES 3
33.783917
-118.378903
T
ASGS3
33.78152
-118.392501
AT&T
ASGOI
33.795275
-118.37827
T&T
ASGSS
33.76329
-118.410407
AT&T
ASGO8
33.75672
-118.405011
T&T
ASG64
33.7594
-118.41442
AT&T
AT&T
ASG09
ASG10
33.7566961
33.757
-118.4019
-118.39885
T&T
T&T
ASG69
ASG70
33.735261
33.790093
-118.34037
-118.38121
AT&T
ASG11
33.74647
-118.37530
T&T
JASG72
33.7399
-118.372
AT&T
MG12
33.744
-118.37641MAT&T
ASG73
33.74852
-118.39366
AT&T
ASG13
33.7486
-118.37003MAT&T
ASG74
33.732849
-118.33468
AT&T
ASGIS
33.775529
-118.3830
T&T
LA0194
33.74082
-118.3643
AT&T
ASG21
33.779702
-118,374277&T&T
1A0351
33.73672
-118.35279
AT&T
ASG69
33.77338093
-118.370326MAT&T
IA0358
33.7536
-118.32711
AT&T
ASG31
33.765484
-118.36783
T&T
ILAR069
1 33.78711
-118.372384
CROWN Proprietary &
_.o CASTLE Confidential
E-99
Map of all existing and proposed facilities
_-
erdes `n t ll.trl�
Penia-
- •bw Im t =21
aclili6es -n
Park Z "
3c, tic
Rollins
Hi lis
. Jam^ .:3� _ ��`l�l!1 • 1 �r ~ �
♦ .- G • ■ � iii �
• rev1 4
_f • Rolling Hilts
■ • ��' •' #,temonat Naval
•.. �. '!`�•: 't•erj• - Pa& Reservation
,q_j7�+
INrA
i
S i ,4 v PAL'J� iifl` HJLLS
■ • a y
• `.� ■ ° �-* ;\:`.gel
j Ft«ndtti�
f h,+ntMW
Mxlury Pte set
-Chu ■ p"oa,y� % ~ `i■L,�■ J ,v im St
Verdes �.` t� � f ■ ■ eta rth St S
IL
� Crena to � :if 13th St
Golf Club `l! l 7th St
19th St
CROWN Proprietary &
CASTLE Confidential
E-100
Exhibit Alternative Locations
ASG69 A (Primary)
Exhibit ASG69 B (Alternative 1)
It
Exhibit ASG69 C (Alternative 3)
f2
Exhibit ASG69 D (Alternative 3)
13
Exhibit ASG69 E
14
Exhibit I
Property Owner phone
Lat Long Owner number
33.73526065 -118.3403736
33.73399835 -118.3395636
33.734425 -118.339848
33.735303 -118.340913
33.73403 -118.33834
V'ZW
CROWN Proprietary &
CASTLE Confidential
Zoning
General Plan
Why it is worse than
Designation
Designation
primary?
N/A
Public ROW
N/A
Public ROW
See alternative analysis
NIA
Public ROW
See alternative analysis
NIA
Public ROW
See alternative analysis
WA
Public ROW
Too far from the objective
E-101
Alternative Analysis — (ASG69 Location B)
•• • ASG69C-6• • • •i •W ••'•••
,go
y •� ! ! • t ASG69 '• _
•• Zrr`M i • • •
vs 1 •� • 10• ••,•
k. • 10• • • •
• • 1G:
'•'• • •• ai ••.%%♦ i ! •• •!•
• M
1
CROWN Proprietary&
CASTLE Confidential
E-102
:.
'• �•• • f
"•• !
•
•
• •
% • 6 f �{�
RSRP
• -105 dam or worse
•
••••
"9• •
•
•
••
• •
•i
• -95 to -145 dam
• • r
• 4
�•
t
• +
• -85 to 95 dam
-75 to -85 dam
%'ti
•
•
• :
♦
•
• -65 to 75 dam
%
• i
• -65 darn or beiter
so
0 Tr
••
• :
•
ii CoveraGe Objectiva
•
i
4
'• •
•
t
•
••
' '
Locations
0 Failed
• •
•40 r
•• •
:
f
do •
•
. •
Existing V TF
• • �� ti
_
9 G ASG69 A
• ASG69
i
••
••
• •
0 Node
'1
��
♦ %
• •
•••••
%
%
r
%
••
•'r
♦
•
••
ap
•• • ASG69C-6• • • •i •W ••'•••
,go
y •� ! ! • t ASG69 '• _
•• Zrr`M i • • •
vs 1 •� • 10• ••,•
k. • 10• • • •
• • 1G:
'•'• • •• ai ••.%%♦ i ! •• •!•
• M
1
CROWN Proprietary&
CASTLE Confidential
E-102
Alternative Analysis — (ASG69 Location C)
• .•
•',fit
:
; •
RSRP
•
r ��f: �••�
• -im dam orworse
•.� •• • •
• -95 to -165 dam
% i
• 35 to -95 dam
r ••.•
.
-75 to -35 dam
1- w,
• -S5 to -75 dam
•
..•
♦• t•
• -65 darn or Nater
•
ww.
• ~•i
•
60
+i iCoverage
Objective
..
• j
• •
Locations
•
• •
Failed
• •
• •
• •
� 47etale
• • •
• •
Existing WTF
p ASGOO A
t s i
••
N Node
• �ISG69
•
%
•
r
s!
r
•
• • ASG69 C • moi. •• ' • •
• •� ti • ASG69 �. • • •
•
•' • • •' •• d •iiaa��iN.0 •L • '%
••y
•',fit
k.•
f �'�'rli:wy�•� �
•
r0CROWN Proprietary &
'.CASTLE Confidential
E-103
Alternative Analysis — (ASG69 Location D)
CROWN Proprietary &
CASTLE Confidential
i
•
•• i
•
••1
E-104
•
RSRP
16.04%♦ 6 •4
• -165 d5m or worse
*
• .95 to .105 dBm
w -85 to -95 dam
-75 to -16 dam
i •
• -65 to -75 dam
•
• -65 darn or batter
' •
® Coverage Objective
A
• »
Locations
` •
! Fades!
• i
• lriabk
,�
• •
„ w
Existing WrF
•
• .
. Mode
tIA'
•
♦
•
•
•
•
i
•
\V
t
w
• .• .. •�r_!�t:+rw;rr,•
• it
• *
s •.
i
•
•• i
•
••1
E-104
Map of all existing and proposed facilities
propned Nodes
Existing UVirEles3 Fadi;ifies
(-4 at e s
4
g
0 dl
0 is
0
I It to
t IL
Verdes
'51
CROWN Proprietary &
CASTLE Confidential
E-105
List of MI Existing Facilities
CROWN Proprietary u�
y; CASTLE Confidential
E-106
List of All Proposed Facilities
Carrier
Site ID
Latitude Longitude
artier
Ite ID^�
Latitude
Longitude
ZW
50 SCL PALOS VERDES 3
33.761353 -118.41035
T
jASG32
33.76295102
-118,375093
ZW
SO SCL PALOS VERDES 8
33.739781 -118.36933
T&T
ASG33
33.755661 -118.39344
ZW
SO SCL PALOS VERDES 9
33.758782 -118.36448
T
ASG34
33.766074
-118.401094;
VZW
SO SCL PALOS VERDES 11
33.775391 -118.36885
T&T
ASG3533.770696
-_110.39706
ZW
VZW
SO SCL PALOS VERDES 12
SO SCL PALOS VERDES 13
33.784143 -1.18.36758
33.749477 -118.33293
T&T
ASG36- -
33.77089056 -118.3893824
T&T G37 _ 33.776566 -118.387413
ZW
50 SCL PALOS VERDES 14
33.746148 -118.32971
T&T
JASG38
33.77995
-118.40271
ZW
O SCL PALOS VERDES 15
33.743179 -118.318986
T&T
G39
33.78541831) -118.3834136
O SCL PALOS VERDES 16
33.764385 -118.33119
T&T
ASG41
33.731_69
-118.34472
O SCL PALOS VERDES 17 -
33.760177 -118.32499
T&T
ASG43
33.767863
-118.3768
O SCL PALOS VERDES 18
33.767905 -118.314171
T&T
ASG44
33.771255
-118.38566
0 SCL PALOS VERDES 19
33.771618 -118.30929
T&T
ASG45
33.77618
-113.39398
VZAI
SO SCL PALOS VERDES 20
33.761589 -118.31528
T
ASG47
33.74959
-118..33013
VZW
O SCL ROLLING HILLS
ESTATES 1
33.773894 -118.38782
T&T33.7827
-118.37828
VZW
O SCL ROLLING HILLS
ESTATES 2
33.781481 -118.384533
T&T
JASG49B
_ _.
_ 33.74169
-118.33664
VZW
O SCL ROLLING HILLS
ESTATES 3
I
33.783917 -118.378903
T
I
ASGS3
33.731524
-118.39250
T&T
ASGOI
33.795275 -118.378278
T&T
ASG55
33.763295
-118.41040
_
T&T
ASGO833.756725
-118.40501
TBT
ASG64
33.75943
-118.41442
T&T
ASG31 _
33.75669619 -118.401964
T&T
ASG69
33.735261
-118.34037
AT&T
SG10 _ _
33.75744 -118.39885
T
ASG70
33.79009
-118.38121
TRU
ASGII
33.746478 -113.37530
IASG72
33.7399
-118.372
AT&T
ASG12
33.74448 -118.3764
TBT
AS673
33.7485
-118.39366
AT&T
ASG13
33.74865 -118.3700
T&T
ASG74
33.73204 -118.334681
T&T
G31
33.775529 -118,3830
TV
LA0194
33.7403
-118.36438
JAT&T
'ASG21
33.779702 -118.37427
T
LA0351
33.73672
-113.352793
AT&T
ASG31
33.77338093 -118.37032
AT&T
IA0358
33.7536
-118.327114
T&T
G31�
33.765484 -118.367833
T&t
ILAR069
33.78711
-118.372394
~ CROWN Proprietary&
CASTLE Confidential
E-107
Map of all existing and proposed facilities
Harl,
R o 111 it Q;
rolling Hills
N
Trio na, No�ol
pal* ireserratier
CIO
FA L Dd HIt L,-
11 rd4p
-,on
dr Preser-.0
79 �—
Verde%
L—,__W_q th_S I
3z -
Trump Nwnji�
Got, Club I -t,
CROWN Proprietary &
Y ,.,,CASTLE Confidential
E-108
List of All Existing Facilities
CROWN Proprietary&
.,CASTLE Confidential
E-109
List of All Proposed Facilities
Carrier
SiteID
LatitudeCarrier
Site ID
Latitude
Longitude
VZVv
-0 SCL PALOS VERDES 3
33.761353
-118,41035
T&T
ASG32
33.76295102
-118.375093
VZW
ISO SCL PALOS VERDES 8
33.739781
-118.36933
T T
ASG33
33.755661
-118.393449
V_ZW ___i6"SCL PALOS VERDES 9
33.758782
-118.36448
T&T
SG34
33.766074
-118.401094
SO SCL PALOS VERDES 11 n
33.775391
-118,36885
T&T
ASG35
33.770696
-118.397066
VZW
bO SCL PALOS VERDES 12
33.784143
-118.36758
T&_T
A_SG36
33.7708985
-118.3893824
VZW
YZW
150 SCL PALOS VERDES 13 33,749477
)SO SCL PALOS VERDES 14 33.746148
-118.33293
-118.32971
T&T
T&T
ASG37-
ASG38
33.7765661
-118,387413
-118.40271
�O SCL PALOS VERDES 15
33.743179
-118.31898
T&T
ASG39
_tl33.77995
33.78541831
-1183834136
�
SO SCL PALOS VERDES 16
33.764385
-118.33119
T&T_ASq4i
33.73169
-118.34472
ZW
�O SCL PALOS VERDES 17
33.760177
-118.32499
T&T
JASG43
33.767863
-118.3768281
ZW
50 SCL PALOS VERDES 18
33.767905
---
-118.314171
T&T
IASG44
317712551
-1
118 38566
SO SCL PALOS VERDES 19
33,771618
-118.309292
T&T
�SG45
33.77618
-118.3939
_SO
rT&T
SCL PALOS VERDES 20
SO SCL ROLLING HILLS
ESTATES
33.761.589
33.773894
-118.3152
i
-118,38782
T&T
T&T
JASG47
JASW
33.74959
33.78279
-118.330
-118.37828
VZW
SO SCL ROLLING HILLS
JESTATES 2
33381481
-118.38453
7
ASG49B
33.74169
-118.336646
T_JESTATFS
ISO SCL ROLLING HILLS
3
33.783917
-118.37890
T&T
ASGS3
33.781524
-118.392501
AT&T
JASGO1
33.795275
-118.37827
T&T
ASG55
33.763295
-118.410407
SG08
33.756725
-118.40501
T&T
ASG64
33.75943
-118.41442
AT&T
T&T
jLSG31
tASGIO
33.75669619
33.75744
-118.401964
-118.39885
T&T
T&T
SG69
ASG70
33.735261
33.790093
-118.340374
118381213
1AT&T
_
ASGII
33.746478
-118.37530
T&T
ASG72
33.7399�
118.3725
AT&T
AT&T
ASG12
ASG13
33.74448
33.74865
-118.37641
-118.37003
AT&T
&T
ASG73
ASG74
33.748521
33.732844
-118.39366
-118.334681
AT&T
SG31
31775529
-118.38307
T&T
LA0194
33.740821
-118.36438
�4TASG21
33.779704
-118.374277
-118.370326
AT&T
LA0351
33.73672d -118,35279'
AD&L_
SG31 33,773380931
T T LA0358 _33.7536d -118.32711
AT&T
~ G31
1 33.7654841
-119.367833
AT&T
LAR069
33.787110
-118.372384
r -'CROWN Proprietary &
�f CASTLE Confidential
E-110
Map of all existing and proposed facilities
Ix
.' t t t t i
� ■ l{-ta�z��t� •_ -
dip
■
R Itli v
S - � � � ,, �,` �..,` ;.� , �f' , r - ' r- .•r>•. s'�ie �A rV ati.Sn
Jam `, -� ■ t t 1 Y AL --i
PAL
■very }. � '.� - -]■r� � ■ �'■-.
t•t all' `_' � �✓ Z'^�.t "...-"� � � ■ � � � (t '.
'■- - ! -- .
t'
CROWN Proprietary &
CASTLE Confidential
E-111
List of All Existing Facilities
CROWN Proprietary
CASTLE Confidential
E-112
List of All Proposed Facilities
Carrier
Site ID
Latitude Longitude
trier
to ID
Latitude
Longitude
VZW
SO SCL PALOS VERDES 3
33.761353 -118.41035
T&T
ASG32
33.7_6_295102
-118.375093
LV7-W
SO SCL PALOS VERDES 8
33.739781 -118.36933
T&T
ASG33
33.755661
-118.39_344
LaW
O SCL PALOS VERDES 9
33.758782 -118.36448
T&T
ASG34
-118.40109
VZW
„SCLPAL
O_ OS VERDES 11
! 33.775391 -118.36885
_
-33.784143
T&T
ASG35
_33.766074
�_-� 33.770696
-118.39706�
W
SO SCL PALOS VERDES 12
-118.36758
7&T
ASG36
33..77089856
-118.389382
ZW
SO SCL PALOS VERDES 13
33.749477 -118.3329
AT&T
JASG37
-
I 33.776566
-118.38741
VZW
SO SCL PALOS VERDES 14
33.746148 -118.329719
T&T
SG38
_
33.7799_5
-118.4027
V7_W
SO SCL PALOS VERDES 15
33.743179 -118.318986
T&T
ASG39
33.78541831 -118.3834_13
V7 -W
50 SCL PALOS VERDES 16
33.764385 -118.33119
SG41
33.731691
-1_18.34472
VZW
O SCL PALOS VERDES 17
33.760177= 118.32499
_T&T
T&T
SG43 _
33.767863
7682
-118.376829
ZW
0 SCL PALOS VERDES 18
33.767905 -118.31417
T&T
G44
33.771255
-118.38566
ZW
SO SCL PALOS VERDES 19
33.771618 -118.30929
T
ASG45
33.77618
-118.39398
U
150 SCL PALOS VERDES 20
33.761589 -118.3152
T&T
ASG47
33.74959
-118.33013_
VZW
-O SCL ROLLING HILLS
ESTATES 1
I 33.773894 -118.3$782
T&T
ASG48
33.78279
-118.37828
_
O SCL ROLLING HILLS
ESTATES 2
E 33.781481 -118.38453
T
XG49B
33.74169
-118.33664
LUV
SO SCL ROLLING HILLS
ESTATES 3
33.783917 -118.378903
T&T
�SG53
33.78152
-118.39250
AT&T
ASGO1
33.795275 -118.37827
T&T
ASG55
33.76329
-118.41040
AT&T_
ASG08
-118.405011
T&T
IASG64
33.7594
-118.4144
AT&T
ASG31
_3_3.756725
33.75669619 118.401964
T&T
ASG69
33.73526
-118.34037
AT&T
ASG10
33.75744 -118.39885
T&T
ASG70
33.79009
-118-381213
AT&T
ASG11
33.746478 -118.37530
T&T
ASG72
33.73996
-118.3725
F&F
G12
33.74448 -118.37641
T&T
ASG73
33.74852
-118.39366
T&T VSG13
AT&T kSG31
33.74865 -113.3700
33.775529 -118.3830
T&T
T&T
ASG74
LA0194
33.73284
33.74082
-118.33468
-118.36438
AT&T
ASG21
33.779702 -118.3742
T&T
LA0351
33.73672
-110.35279'
AT&T
Sta31
77338093 -118.37032
3'3.765484
T&7
A0358
33.7536
1 18'37238
T&T
ASG31
3 - 118.367833
T&T
LAR069
33.78711
18.372384,
CROWN Proprietary &
CASTLE Confidential
E-113
Crown Castle NG West LLC
Site Specific Alternative Site Analysis Narrative
for ASG69
Submitted to
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Submitted Pursuant to City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code Title 12
Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 12.18.080
Requirements for Facilities within the Public Right -of -Way
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com
E-114
12.18.080 (A) Design and Development Standards'
City's Design and Development Standards require that wireless teiecommun1cations facilities
("WTF") located in the public right-of-way ("ROW") are designed to minimize visual, noise and
other impacts on the surrounding community.
12.18.080 (A)(1) General Guidelines
a) The Applicant shall employ screening, undergrounding and camouflage design
techniques in the placement of WTF in order to:
i) To ensure that the facility is as visually screened as possible;
Crown Castle employs screening by taking advantage of existing foliage, natural
and man-made elements in and around the public ROW, to the maximum extent
feasible. The small cell node ("SCN") will replace existing 24 -foot 6 -inch -tall
octagonal concrete streetlight with mast arm and luminaire, and replace it with a
24 -foot tall steel concrete textured streetlight with mast arm and luminaire
capable of supporting Crown Castle's antennas.
The SCN is more specifically located on the north side of Seaglen Dr,
approximately 759 feet west of Floweridge Dr. This stretch of Seaglen Dr has
both one and two story single-family residential units; as well as multi -family
residential units predominately along the south side of the street. These
residences have mature landscaping including shrubs and mature trees in
excess of 25 -feet in height. The residences on the south side of Seaglen Dr, front
on Seaglen Dr, however their primary view orientation is out their backdoors
looking to the south, out over the community below. The residences on the north
side of Seaglen Dr, are a top a large hillside. These residences have views out
and above the proposed SCN due to the large elevated landscape that separates
the location from the residences along Hightide Rd. The hillside has large mature
bushes, trees and shrubs, further creating a visual barrier between the
residences atop the hill and the proposed SCN along Seaglen Dr.
1 Notwithstanding the presentation of this site-specific alternatives analysis pursuant to Chapter 12.18
of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, Crown Castle reserves its rights to challenge any
portion of the City's requirements under Chapter 12.18 to the extent that such requirements violate
state and/or federal law, including, but not limited to, Public Utilities Code sections 7901 and 7901.1
and section 253 of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996.
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com
E-115
While Crown Castle is proposing to add a wireless facility to an existing
streetlight, Crown Castle is swapping out the existing 24 -foot 6 -inch -tall street
light with a 24 -foot tail street light. Crown Castle is able to reduce the overall bulk
and scale of the existing street light infrastructure. There is an existing row of
streetlights along the north side of Seaglen Dr. Crown Castle's SCN would be
attached to one of these existing street lights. The visual impacts that Crown
Castle's SCN would have on the community would be analogous to the visual
impacts created by the existing street lights. Crown Castle's SCN is visually
screened by existing foliage, natural and manmade features to the maximum
extent feasible.
ii) To prevent the facility from dominating the surrounding area;
Crown Castle's 24 -foot tall SCN would not dominate the surrounding area
because:
1) The replacement streetlight pole is the smaller in size than the existing 24 -
foot 6 -inch -tall streetlight pole. Therefore, reducing the bulk and scale of
the existing vertical infrastructure.
2) The nearest structures are the single-family residences located
approximately 64 -feet south of the SCN. Mature landscaping visually
screens the SCN.
3) Views for residences along the south side of the ROW are primarily out
their backdoors, out over the hillside below.
4) Mature foliage in the ROW and on adjacent properties ensure that the
SCN would not dominate the surrounding area
5) The facility qualifies for a Class Three CEQA exemption, which
confirms that the facility will have no significant aesthetic impacts.
iii) To minimize significant view impacts from surrounding properties;
Crown Castle's SCN uses existing infrastructure in the ROW (a streetlight),
foliage and topographic features to minimize significant view impacts from
surrounding properties. The SCN is located on north side of Seaglen Dr amongst
large 25 -foot trees and mature landscaping. The SCN does not significantly
impact views because surrounding properties on the north side of Seaglen Dr, sit
atop a large hillside and front on Hightide Dr, The views from these residences is
out and over the proposed SCN due to the large increase in elevation.
Furthermore, mature landscaping and large trees in excess of 25 feet in height
separate the SCN from those residences. Residences on the south side of
Seaglen Dr front on Seaglen, but have predominant views facing south out their
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com
E-116
backdoors. These residences views north are blocked by mature landscaping
that borders that stretch of the ROW. Views of the proposed SCN is mitigated by
the fact that its backdrop is a large landscaped hill, thus allowing the SCN to
blend in with the surrounding environment. Crown Castle has sited the SCN so
that it minimizes significant view impacts from surrounding properties. Crown
Castle's SCN qualifies for a Class Three CEQA exemption, which confirms that
the facility will have no significant aesthetic impacts.
iv) That achieves compatibility with the community and in compliance with RPVMC
Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration).
RPVMC Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration) addresses impacts to
residential views created by proposed residential structures on surrounding residential
parcels. The preservation of views is to be accomplished primarily through the pruning
and removal of foliage. There are several reasons why RPVMC Section 17.02.040 is
inapplicable to Crown Castle's proposed facilities:
1) First, Crown Castle's facilities are exclusively located within the ROW. As such, this
ordinance is inapplicable because Crown Castle's facilities are not located in a
residential zone and do not otherwise involve residential properties, uses or parcels.
2) Crown Castle has a certificate of public convenience and necessary ("CPCN") which
grants it a Statewide franchise to occupy and place its facilities within the ROW. Local
zoning requirements are therefore inapplicable. Local regulatory authority is limited to
the time, place and manner in which a wireless facility may be erected or attached. This
ordinance is inapplicable because residential design standards, on residential parcels,
and their visual impacts on surrounding residences does not easily, nor rationally,
translate into proper or meaningful regulation of wireless telecommunication utility uses
within the ROW.
3) Section 17.02.040(A)(12) of RPVMC defines "Structure" as anything joined together in a
definitive manner, which is located on or on top of the ground on a parcel of land
utilized for residential purposes, excludinantennas... and similar structures not
involving the construction of habitable area. This ordinance is inapplicable because
Crown Castle's facilities are not habitable, they are not located on residential parcels,
and they are not used for residential purposes. Crown Castle's ROW based facilities do
not involve residential land in any form or fashion. Moreover, "Antennas" are
specifically excluded from consideration under this ordinance.
To the extent that RPVMC Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration) can be
found to be applicable to the siting of wireless facilities in the ROW (it cannot), Crown Castle's
SCN achieve compatibility with the surrounding community by being designed to minimize
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com
E-117
visual, noise and other impacts.
b) Screening shall be designed to be architectural compatible with surrounding structures,
using appropriate techniques to camouflage; disguise, and/or blend into the
environment, including landscaping, color, and other techniques to minimize the
facilities visual impact as well as be compatible with the architectural character of the
surrounding buildings or structures in terms of color, size, proportion, style and quality
The SCN is architectural compatible with surrounding structures because it uses existing
infrastructure within the ROW. The SCN is screened by existing foliage, natural and man-
made features that minimize visual impacts. The SCN would replace an existing 24 -foot 6 -
inch -tall streetlight with mast arm and luminaire with a 24 -foot tall concrete textured streetlight
with mast arm and luminaire. The SCN will be painted to match the existing streetlights that
line the north side of Seaglen Dr.
Crown Castle's SCN is compatible with the character of surrounding structures in terms of
color, size, proportion, style and quality. Moreover, the proposed SCN is located in the ROW -
in an area in the City already impacted with roadway improvements, utilities and other uses
and appurtenances typical of- and proper to — the ROW.
c) Facilities shall be located such that views from a residential structure are not
significantly impaired. Facilities shall also be located in a manner that protects public
views over city view corridors, as defined in the City's general plan, so that no
significant view impairment results in accordance with this Code including Section
17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration).
Section 17.02.040(A)(14) of RPVMC defines View as including both a "near view", meaning
views of a natural setting on the peninsula; and/or "far view" defined as a scene off the
peninsula, such as the ocean, city lights, etc. The ordinance intends to prevent the significant
impairment of views and the maintenance of privacy.
Crown Castle's SCN would be located on a replacement streetlight that is 6 -inches shorter
than the existing street light, therefore reducing the bulk and scale of the existing street light
infrastructure. Residences to the north of the proposed SCN, atop a large, elevated hillside,
have views facing south, out and over the proposed location. Mature landscaping, trees and
fencing further screen the SCN from those homes. The residences located to the south of the
proposed location have views facing south, away from the proposed SCN. Views from the
single-family residences on the south side of Seaglen Dr are limited because of the mature
landscaping that fronts those structures. The SCN would not significantly impair the adjacent
single-family residences views because of the multiple 25 feet tall trees that run along both
sides of Seaglen Dr. The SCN would have view impacts analogous to the view impacts
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com
E-118
created by the existing streetlight. The SCN also has any potential view impacts mitigated by
the large landscaped hillside that serves as a visual barrier and backdrop along that portion of
the ROW.
Finally, the proposed facility has received a Class Three CEQA exemption which definitively
establishes that the proposed facility will not give rise to significant environmental impacts,
including aesthetic impacts.
12.18.080 (A)(3) Traffic Safejy
All facilities shall be designed and located in such a manner as to avoid adverse impacts on
traffic safety.
The SCN is not located in the lanes of travel, nor does it extend in any way over the roadway_
The replacement streetlight would continue to provide lighting along Seaglen Dr. The SCN
would therefore not have adverse impacts on traffic safety.
12.1 .080 (A)(41 Blendin Methods
All facilities shall have subdued colors and non -reflective materials that blend with the
materials, and colors of the surrounding area and structures.
Crown Castle's SCN blends into the surrounding area and structures because it replaces an
existing streetlight pole. The SCN would match in color the existing streetlights along the north
side of Seaglen Dr.
12.18.080 (AIM Equipment
The applicant shall use the least visible equipment possible. Antenna elements shall be flush
mounted, to the extent feasible. All antenna mounts shall be designed so as not to preclude
possible future collocation by the same or other operators or carriers. Unless otherwise
provided in this section, antennas shall be situated as close to the ground as possible.
Crown Castle's SCN consists of replacing an existing 24 -foot 6 -inch -tall streetlight with
mast arm and luminaire with a 24 -foot tall steel concrete textured streetlight with mast arm
and luminaire. This represents an a 6 inch reduction in the size of the existing street light
infrastructure. The SCN also includes two (2) 24.1 -inch long antennas, and a joint utility
cabinet (22.5 -inches wide by 12.6 -inches -deep by 59.1 -inches tall) that would house both
Crown Castle's accessory equipment and Southern California Edison's ("SCE") meter
pedestal. Crown Castle proposes to place its accessory equipment adjacent to the
The Foundation for a wireless world.
CrownCastlexom
E-119
replacement streetlight in the ROW, behind the sidewalk, adjacent to existing shrubs. The
rationale for Crown Castle proposing an above -ground equipment enclosure, contrary to the
City's ordinance is:
1) SCE requires that its meter pedestal (typically 48 -inches tall) be place above
ground, so there will, by necessity, be above -ground street furniture,
regardless of any undergrounding of other equipment;
2) If Crown Castle undergrounded its accessory equipment, it would result in
multiple above ground venting stacks, each approximately 22 -inches in
diameter, and approximately 40 -inches in height. Accordingly,
undergrounding does not necessarily result in the best screening measure.
3) By proposing a joint utility cabinet there will be a reduction in the number of
new vertical elements being introduced into the ROW. A joint cabinet
removes the need for venting stacks. Crown Castle's proposal would
introduce only one new above -ground element, the joint utility equipment
cabinet. The drawback is the joint utility cabinet will be 11 -inches taller than
the standard 48 -inch tall SCE meter pedestal.
4) Although RPVMC Section 12.18.080 (A)(6)(b) calls for undergrounding of all
equipment, other than antennas, the City needs to make the final
determination as to whether vaulting or Crown Castle's proposed joint utility
cabinet constitutes the least visible equipment possible.
The antenna mounts are designed so as not to preclude possible future collocation by the
same or other carriers. The antennas on 24 -foot tall replacement streetlight pole are as close
to the ground as possible while meeting RF coverage objectives up and down Seaglen Dr. All
visible Crown Castle telecommunication equipment is to be painted to match the existing
streetlights along the north side of Seaglen Dr.
12.18.080 (A)(6) Poles
a. Facilities shall be located consistent with Section 12. 16. 200(Location Restrictions)
unless an exception pursuant to Section 12.18.190 (Exceptions) is granted.
RPVMC Section 12.18.200 (Location Restrictions) strongly disfavors wireless facilities in A)
ROW local streets as identified in the general plan if within the residential zones; and B)
ROW if mounted to a new pole that is not replacing an existing pole in an otherwise permitted
location. Crown Castle's SCN is inconsistent with this.
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com
E-120
Request For Exception
Crown Castle needs to request an exception pursuant to Section 12.18.190 of the RPVMC
because the replacement streetlight is located on a local street, Seaglen Dr. Per Section
12.18.080 A(11 2)(a) Crown Castle needs an exception because its accessory equipment is not
being proposed underground.
Crown Castle has undergrounded to the extent feasible all accessory equipment including an
underground fiber vault. Although Crown Castle investigated multiple alternatives, the Primary
and one alternative that achieve the RF coverage objective for this SCN:
Alternative 1 is a proposed street light replacement 167 feet south west of the primary along
Seaglen Dr. The Primary location is superior to Alternative 1 because it is not as visually
prominent, Alternative 1 is proposed in front of a residence with minimal landscaping in the
area. The proposed location is also located at a large bend in the road. So, vehicles coming
west on Seaglen Dr will have a greater chance of noticing the SCN as they proceed through
the turn in the road. It is because of this increased visibility that Alternative 1 is inferior to the
Primary.
Per Section 12.18.080(A)(12)(a) Crown Castle needs an exception because its accessory
equipment is not being proposed underground. Crown Castle has undergrounded to the extent
feasible all accessory equipment, with the exception of the joint utility equipment cabinet that
would house Crown Castle's accessory equipment and SCE's electric meter pedestal.
Per Section 12.18.190, Exceptions, The Planning Commission shall not grant any exception
unless Crown Castle demonstrates with clear and convincing evidence that:
The proposed wireless facility qualifies as a "personal wireless services
facility" as defined in United States Code, Title 47, section 332(c)(7)(C)(ii);
Crown Castle holds a certificate of public convenience and necessity
("CPCN") from the California Public Utilities Commission ("CPUC") to expand
the availability of wireless networks throughout the State. Please see Exhibit
D1b. Crown Castle's SCN qualifies as "personal wireless services facility" as
defined in United States Code, Title 47, section 332(c)(7)(C)(ii);
The applicant has provided the city with a clearly defined technical service
objective and a clearly defined potential site search area,-
Crown
rea;
Crown Castle has provided clearly defined technical service objective and a
clearly defined potential site search area. Please See Exhibits C3a-e.
3 The applicant has provided the city with a meaningful comparative analysis
that includes the factual reasons why any alternative location(s) or design(s)
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com
E-121
suggested by the city or otherwise identified in the administrative record,
including but not limited to potential alternatives identified at any public
meeting or hearing, are not technically feasible or potentially available; and
With this site specific comparative analysis, Crown Castle is providing the
City with meaningful comparative analysis that includes the factual reasons
why the Primary location is superior to the other Alternatives evaluated. The
Primary is superior to 3 Alternatives because it would be less visually
prominent than the other locations to the surrounding properties and the
community. The visual impacts created from the proposed SCN would be
analogous to the visual impacts currently created by the existing streetlight.
4 The applicant has provided the city with a meaningful comparative analysis
that includes the factual reasons why the proposed location and design
deviates is the least noncompliant location and design necessary to
reasonably achieve the applicant's reasonable technical service objectives
With this site specific comparative analysis, Crown Castle is providing the
City with meaningful comparative analysis that includes the factual reasons
why the Primary location is the least noncompliant location and design
necessary to reasonably achieve Crown Castle's reasonable technical
service objectives.
Crown Castle is proposing an above -ground, joint equipment cabinet to house
both Crown Castle's accessory equipment and SCE's electric power meter
pedestal. Although the ordinance calls for undergrounding all accessory
equipment, Crown Castle believes that its joint equipment cabinet represents the
least noncompliant location and design because it would introduce the fewest
number of new vertical elements into the ROW,
b. Only pole -mounted antennas shall be permitted in the right-of-way. All other
telecommunications towers are prohibited, and no new poles are permitted that are not
replacing an existing pole. (For exceptions see subparagraph (6)(h) below and sections
12.18.190 (Exceptions) and 12.18.220 (State or Federal Law).
Crown Castle's SCN would be attached to a 24 -foot tall replacement streetlight. No new
pole is needed nor requested.
C. Utility Poles. The maximum height of any antenna shall not exceed 48 inches above
the height of an existing utility pole, nor shall any portion of the antenna or equipment
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com
E-122
mounted on a pole be less than 24 feet above any drivable road surface. All installations
on utility poles shall fully comply with the California Public Utilities Commission general
orders, including, but not limited to, General Order 95, as may be revised or superseded.
This provision is inapplicable because Crown Castle's SCN primary location is not attaching
to a utility pole.
d. Light Poles. The maximum height of any antenna shall not exceed four feet above
the existing height of a light pole. Any portion of the antenna or equipment mounted on a
pole shall be no less than 16% feet above any drivable road surface.
Crown Castle's SCN would not have any pole mounted equipment lower than 16'/2 -feet.
This provision is also inapplicable because Crown Castle's SCN antennas do not extend
over any drivable road surface.
e. Replacement Poles. If an applicant proposes to replace a pole in order to
accommodate a proposed facility, the pole shall be designed to resemble the appearance
and dimensions of existing poles near the proposed location, including size, height, color,
materials and style to the maximum extent feasible.
Crown Castle's SCN would replace an existing 24 -foot 6 -inch -tall streetlight with mast arm
and luminaire with a 24 -foot tall steel concrete textured streetlight with mast arm and
luminaire. See Drawings for replacement pole details. The replacement streetlight pole was
designed to resemble the existing streetlights and to have the lowest antennas to the
ground possible in accordance with RPVMC Section 12.18.080(A)(7), Space. The SCN
conforms to the maximum extent feasible with the color and style of existing streetlight
poles along Seaglen Dr.
f. Pole mounted equipment, exclusive of antennas, shall not exceed six cubic feet in
dimension.
Excluding antennas, Crown Castle's pole mounted equipment would be limited to some
cabling connecting the antennas to power and the fiber optic backbone, connectors,
brackets, and GPS. Crown Castle's pole mounted equipment, excluding antennas, would
therefore not exceed six cubic feet in dimension.
g. (Reserved.)
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com
E-123
h. An exception shall be required to place a new pole in the public right-of-way. If an
exception is granted for placement of new poles in the right-of-way:
Crown Castle is not placing a new pole in the public right-of-way.
I . All cables, including, but not limited to, electrical and utility cables, shall be run
within the interior of the pole and shall be camouflaged or hidden to the fullest extent
feasible. For all wooden poles wherein interior installation is infeasible, conduit and cables
attached to the exterior of poles shall be mounted flush thereto and painted to match the
pole.
All cables for this SCN, including, but not limited to, electrical and utility cables, will run
within the interior of the replacement streetlight pole.
12.18.080 (A)(7) Space.
Each facility shall be designed to occupy the least amount of space in the right-of-way that
is technically feasible.
Crown Castle's SCN is a 24 -foot replacement streetlight pole. A joint utility cabinet (22.5 -
inches wide by 12.6 -inches -deep by 59.1 -inches tall) is being proposed to house SCE power
meter pedestal and Crown Castle's accessory equipment. This configuration would take up
less space in the ROW than complying with RPVMC Section 12.18.080 (A)(6)(b) that requires
undergrounding of all equipment, other than antennas. The City needs to make the final
determination as to whether Crown Castle's joint utility cabinet constitutes the least amount of
space in the ROW that is technically feasible.
12.18.080 (A)(8) Wind Loads
Each facility shall be properly engineered to withstand wind loads as required by this code
or any duly adopted or incorporated code. An evaluation of high wind load capacity shall
include the impact of modification of an existing facility.
For replacement poles, wind loading is incorporated into the pole structural calculations.
There are no separate wind loading calculations included with this application.
12.18.080 (A)(9) Obstructions.
Each component part of a facility shall be located so as not to cause any physical or visual
obstruction to pedestrian or vehicular traffic, incommode the public's use of the right-of-way,
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com
E-124
or safety hazards to pedestrians and motorists and in compliance with Section
17.48.070(lntersection Visibility) so as not to obstruct the intersection visibility triangle.
RPVMC Section 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility) discusses restrictions on various structures
and landscaping (>30 -inches) on corner lots near intersections for sight visibility reasons. The
ordinance states that these items shall not be erected, placed, planted or allowed to grow
within the triangular space referred to as the "intersection visibility triangle." The intersection
visibility triangle being the area formed by the intersection of extended curblines and a line
joining points on the curb sixty feet (measured along the curblines) from the point of
intersection of the curbline extensions.
Crown Castle's SCN is not be located within 60 -feet of an intersection. Therefore, the
"intersection visibility triangle' is inapplicable.
12.18.080 (A)(10) Public Facilities.
A facility shall not be located within any portion of the public right-of-way interfering with
access to a fire hydrant, fire station, fire escape, water valve, underground vault, valve
housing structure, or any other public health or safety facility.
Crown Castle's SCN is not located within any portion of the public right-of-way that would
interfere with access to a fire hydrant, fire station, fire escape, water valve, underground
vault, valve housing structure, or any other public health or safety facility.
12.18.080 (A)(112 Screening .
All ground -mounted facility, pole -mounted equipment, or walls, fences, landscaping or other
screening methods shall be installed at least 18 inches from the curb and gutter flow line.
Crown Castle's SCN has no pole -mounted equipment, excluding antennas, cabling,
connectors and brackets. Crown Castle's accessory equipment cabinet (22.5 -inches wide
by 12.6 -inches -deep by 59.1 -inches tall) will be set back at least 18 -inches from the gutter
flow line.
12.18.080 (A)(12) Accessory Equipment.
Accessory Equipment. Not including the electric meter, all accessory equipment shall be
located underground, except as provided below:
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com
E-125
a. Unless city staff determines that there is no room in the public right-of-way for
undergrounding, or that undergrounding is not feasible, an exception shall be required in
order to place accessory equipment above -ground and concealed with natural or
manmade features to the maximum extent possible.
If Crown Castle undergrounded its accessory equipment that would result in compliance
with this ordinance section but would result in multiple above ground venting stacks, each
approximately 22 -inches in diameter and approximately 40 -inches in height would be
required. Crown Castle is requesting an exception per RPVMC Section 12.18.190 to place
its accessory equipment in an above -ground joint utility cabinet with SCE's electric meter
pedestal.
Crown Castle has not proposed any additional screening because there is amble foliage,
natural and man-made features that screen the SCN from surrounding properties. Crown
Castle is not opposed to providing additional screening so long as the City's requirements
are reasonably related to the impacts created by the proposed facility. Crown Castle
submits that a joint utility cabinet would be less intrusive, physically and visually, than a
configuration featuring a subterranean equipment vault.
b. When above -ground is the only feasible location for a particular type of accessory
equipment and will be ground -mounted, such accessory equipment shall be enclosed
within a structure, and shall not exceed a height of five feet and a total footprint of 15
square feet, and shall be fully screened and/or camouflaged, including the use of
landscaping, architectural treatment, or acceptable alternate screening. Required
electrical meter cabinets shall be screened andlor camouflaged. Also, while pole -mounted
equipment is generally the least favored installation, should pole -mounted equipment be
sought, it shall be installed as required in this chapter.
With dimensions of 22.5 -inches wide by 12.6 -inches -deep by 59.1 -inches tall, Crown
Castle's joint utility cabinet would be less than the five-foot height and a total footprint of 15
square -feet allowable under this RPVMC Section 12.18.080 (A)(12)(b). SCE's electric
meter would be housed in the joint utility cabinet. The SCN would be camouflaged by
being painted to match the existing street lights and utility cabinets along Seaglen Dr.
C. In locations where homes are only along one side of a street, above -ground
accessory equipment shall not be installed directly in front of a residence. Such above-
ground accessory equipment shall be installed along the side of the street with no homes.
Unless said location is located within the coastal setback or the landslide moratorium
area, then such locations shall be referred to the city's geotechnical staff for review and
recommendations.
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com
E-126
Crown Castle's SCN would not be installed directly in front of any residences along
Seaglen Dr. Although the proposed SCN is located on the same side of the street near
existing single-family residences, the Primary location is screened by mature landscaping.
12.18.080 (A)(13) Landscaping.
Where appropriate, each facility shall be installed so as to maintain and enhance existing
landscaping on the site, including trees, foliage and shrubs. Additional landscaping shall be
planted, irrigated and maintained by applicant where such landscaping is deemed
necessary by the city to provide screening or to conceal the facility.
At present Crown Castle does not intend to propose any additional landscaping to further
screen the proposed facility or accessory equipment cabinet. The rationale behind this
decision is that this portion of the ROW has amble existing foliage that provides screening
and concealment to the SCN from surrounding properties. Crown Castle is not opposed to
providing additional landscaping so long as the City's requirements are reasonably related
to the visual impacts created by the proposed facility. Crown Castle is committed to working
with the City's landscape architect if landscaping is determined to be required for this SCN.
12.18.080 (A)(141 Signage.
No facility shall bear any signs or advertising devices other than certification, warning or
other signage required by law or permitted by the city.
Crown Castle's SCN does not include any signs or advertising devices other than
certification, warning or other signage required by law or permitted by the City
12.18.080 (A)(15) Lighting.
a. No facility may be illuminated unless specifically required by the Federal Aviation
Administration or other government agency. Beacon lights are not permitted unless
required by the Federal Aviation Administration or other government agency.
Crown Castle's SCN does not include any such illumination.
b. Legally required lightning arresters and beacons shall be included when calculating
the height of facilities such as towers, lattice towers and monopoles.
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com
E-127
Crown Castle's SCN does not include lightning arresters and beacons that would increase
its height.
C. Any required lighting shall be shielded to eliminate, to the maximum extent possible,
impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods.
Crown Castle's SCN lighting would be shielded by existing foliage and topographic
features to the extent that any potential impacts on surrounding neighborhood would be
eliminated to the maximum extent possible.
d. Unless otherwise required under FAA or FCC regulations, applicants may install
only timed or motion -sensitive light controllers and lights, and must install such lights so
as to avoid illumination impacts to adjacent properties to the maximum extent feasible.
Crown Castle's SCN lighting would only include timed or motion -sensitive light controllers
and lights, so as to avoid illumination impacts to adjacent properties to the maximum
extent feasible.
e. The applicant shall submit a lighting study which shall be prepared by a qualified
lighting professional to evaluate potential impacts to adjacent properties. Should no
lighting be proposed, no lighting study shall be required.
Crown Castle is not proposing any permanent lighting.
12.18.080 (A)(16) Noise.
a. Backup generators shall only be operated during periods of power outages, and
shall not be tested on weekends or holidays, or between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and
7:00 a.m.
Crown Castle SCN would not operate any backup generators outside City prescribed time
restrictions.
b. At no time shall equipment noise from any facility exceed an exterior noise level of
55 dBA three feet from the source of the noise if the facility is located in the public
right-of-way adjacent to a business, commercial, manufacturing, utility or school
zone; provided, however, that for any such facility located within 500 feet of any
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com
E-128
property zoned residential or improved with a residential use, such equipment noise
shall not exceed 45 d8A three feet from the sources of the noise.
Crown Castle has submitted a Noise Study that confirms the SCN's complies with the
City's Noise ordinance. See Exhibit J1a.
12.18.080 (A)(17) Security
Each facility shall be designed to be resistant to, and minimize opportunities for,
unauthorized access, climbing, vandalism, graffiti and other conditions that would result in
hazardous situations, visual blight or attractive nuisances. The director may require the
provision of warning signs, fencing, anti -climbing devices, or other techniques to prevent
unauthorized access and vandalism when, because of their location and/or accessibility, a
facility has the potential to become an attractive nuisance. Additionally, no lethal devices or
elements shall be installed as a security device.
Crown Castle's SCN does not have pole mounted equipment that is reachable by the
general public, nor is that equipment readily available for climbing or vandalism. Crown
Castle's joint utility accessory equipment cabinet is 22.5 -inches wide by 12.6 -inches -deep
by 59.1 -inches tall. This cabinet is similar in size to countless other utility cabinets located
in the ROW. There is no reason to believe that the proposed joint utility cabinet would
attract more vandalism than any other utility cabinet. Crown Castle will use anti -vandalism
techniques such as anti -graffiti paint to discourage tagging and other nuisance property
crimes.
12.18.080 (A)(18) Modification.
Consistent with current state and federal laws and if permissible under the same, at the time
of modification of a wireless telecommunications facility, existing equipment shall, to the
extent feasible, be replaced with equipment that reduces visual, noise and other impacts,
including, but not limited to, undergrounding the equipment and replacing larger, more
visually intrusive facilities with smaller, less visually intrusive facilities.
Crown Castle's SCN represents the latest in small cell wireless technology. As such,
Crown Castle's SCN uses the smallest equipment feasible to reduce visual, noise and
other impacts. Currently, there is no wireless facility to modify.
12.18.090 Findinas
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com
E-129
No permit shall be granted for a wireless telecommunications facility unless all of the
following findings are made by the director.
A. All notices required for the proposed installation have been given.
Crown Castle has or will provide all required notices for its proposed SCN.
B. The proposed facility has been designed and located in compliance with all
applicable provisions of this chapter.
Crown Castle's SCN is designed and located to be in compliance with applicable
provisions of this chapter. Crown Castle's SCN is in compliance with all applicable
provisions of this chapter, with the exception of proposing to locate on a local street
and to place Crown Castle' accessory equipment in a joint utility cabinet with SCE's
electric meter pedestal. While RPVMC Section 12.18.080 (A)(6)(b) calls for the
undergrounding all accessory equipment, RPVMC Section 12.18.080 (A)(5) and
RPVMC Section 12.18.080 (A)(7) call for using the least visible equipment and the
least amount of space within the ROW and least intrusive. The introduction of fewer
new vertical elements in the ROW is the most compliant equipment configuration.
Ultimately, it will be up to the City to determine which accessory equipment
configuration is the most compliant.
C. If applicable, the applicant has demonstrated its inability to locate on existing
infrastructure.
Crown Castle is proposing to attach to existing infrastructure (a streetlight pole) in the
ROW. This provision is inapplicable.
D. The applicant has provided sufficient evidence supporting the applicant's claim that
it has the right to enter the public right-of-way pursuant to state or federal law, or the
applicant has entered into a franchise agreement with the City permitting them to
use the public right-of-way.
Crown Castle has provided a copy of its certificate of public convenience and necessity
("CPCN"). See Exhibit D1 b. Crown Castle has entered into a franchise agreement
with the City permitting use of the ROW and City infrastructure. See Exhibit D1a.
Crown Castle has provided sufficient evidence that it has the right to enter the ROW
pursuant to state and federal law, as well as by contract with the City.
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com
E-130
E. The applicant has demonstrated the proposed installation is designed such that the
proposed installation represents the least intrusive means possible and supported
by factual evidence and a meaningful comparative analysis to show that all
alternative locations and designs identified in the application review process were
technically infeasible or not available.
Comparative Analysis
Crown Castle can demonstrate that the proposed wireless facility is the least intrusive means
possible. Supported by factual evidence and a meaningful comparative analysis Crown Castle
can show that all alternative locations and designs identified in the application review process
were technically infeasible, inferior to the Primary or unavailable. Moreover, federal
telecommunications case law unequivocally establishes that municipalities cannot regulate in
the area of RF broadcasting. (See, e.g., Freeman v. Burlington Broadcasters, Inc., (2d Cir.
2000) 204 F.3d 311.) They have done so in the context of reviewing ordinances like the City's
WTF ordinance, and found that that "Congress intended the FCC to possess exclusive
authority over technical matters related to radio broadcasting" and that "Congress's grant of
authority to the FCC was intended to be exclusive and to preempt local regulation." (Id. at
320-21; accord Southwestern Bell Wireless Inc. v. Johnson County Bd. of County Commis
(10th Cir. 1999) 199 F.3d 1185, 1193 [same principle cited]; N.Y. SMSA Ltd. P'ship v. Town of
Clarkstown (2nd Cir. 2010) 612 F.3d 97 ["Congress intended federal regulation of [radio
frequency interference] issues to be so pervasive as to occupy the field."]; Bennett v. T-Mobile
United States, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2008) 597 F. Supp. 2d 1050, 1053 [same principle cited].).
Crown Castle reserves its rights to challenge those portions of the City's WTF ordinance and
application that purport to regulate Crown Castle's facilities on the basis of RF coverage
objectives.
Primary (Location A) 26-foot Tall Octagonal Concrete Replacement Streetlight
Meets RF Coverage Objective: Up and Down Seaglen Dr.
The proposed Primary candidate is located entirely within the public ROW. Seaglen Dr is
classified as a local street in the RPV Circulation Element. There are no City designated views
on, across or over this portion of Seaglen Dr. The Primary Candidate is located on the north
side of Seaglen Dr, approximately 759-feet West of Floweridge Dr.Topography in the ROW is
elevated, with large trees and landscaping running along both sides of Seaglen Dr.
Crown Castle's SCN consists of attaching two (2) 24.1-inch long antennas, mounted back to
back at the top of a proposed twenty-four (24) foot tall, steel replacement streetlight. Crown
Castle's accessory wireless equipment including two (2) ions would be located in an above-
ground enclosure, collocated within a joint utility cabinet with SCE's power meter pedestal. All
visible Crown Castle telecommunication equipment would be painted to match the existing
streetlights and utility cabinet long the north side of Seaglen Dr.
This stretch of Seaglen Dr has both single-family and multi -family developments on both sides
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com
E-131
of the road. The residences on the north side of Seaglen Dr have views facing south, out and
over the proposed location. These residences sit atop a massive hillside and are separated
from the SCN by large trees and mature landscaping. The single-family residences on both the
north and south sides of Seaglen Dr are located behind mature landscaping that includes large
shrubs and trees in excessive of 25 -feet in height; as well as large privacy fences. There are
no views, or limited views, from these properties on the south side of Seaglen Dr because of
existing foliage. The predominant views from these homes are facing south, away from the
proposed location. The proposed SCN blends in with the large landscaped hill immediately
behind it. The SCN would be attached to an existing street light, mid -block thus reducing the
amount of time a passerby may have to observe and register the existence of the SCN.
The 24 -foot tall street light that Crown Castle proposes to replace is just one in a series of 24 -
foot plus tall street lights located along the north side of Seaglen Dr. The large 20-25 foot trees
running along the north and south sides of the ROW separates the SCN from surrounding
properties and minimizes impacts by blending the SCN into the existing environment. The
Primary ensures that the proposed wireless facility achieves RF coverage objectives, while not
unreasonably infringing on the views and privacy of surrounding properties.
Alternative 1 (Location D) Street Light Replacement
Meets RF Coverage Objective
Alternative 1 is a proposed street light replacement 167 feet south west of the primary along
Seaglen Dr. The Primary location is superior to Alternative 1 because it is not as visually
prominent. Alternative 1 is proposed in front of a residence with minimal landscaping in the
area. The proposed location is also located at a large bend in the road. So, vehicles coming
west on Seaglen Dr will have a greater chance of noticing the SCN as they proceed through
the turn in the road. It is because of this increased visibility that Alternative 1 is inferior to the
Primary.
Alternative 2 (Location B) Street Light Replacement
Does Not Meet RF Coverage Objective
Alternative 2 is located approximately 530 feet east of the Primary on the south side of
Seaglen Dr, The alternative is located in front of a residence with minimal landscaping in the
area. The Primary, being screened by large bushes and trees will have fewer users of Seaglen
Dr likely to notice the SCN. Therefore, the Primary is a superior location when compared to
Alternative 2. This Alternative does not meet the RF coverage objective; therefore, it should
not be considered a viable option for this proposed SCN.
Alternative 3 (Location C) Propose Installation on an existing utility pole
Does Not Meet RF Coverage Objective
Alternative 3 is located 343 feet east of the Primary on the south side of Seaglen Dr.
Alternative 3 does not have mature landscaping around the location while the Primary does.
The Foundation for a Wireless world.
CrownCastle.com
E-132
Therefore, many more users of the ROW will pass by Alternative 3 and possibly take notice of
the SCN. The Primary, being screened by large bushes and trees will have fewer users of
Seaglen Dr likely notice the SCN. Therefore, the Primary is a superior location when
compared to Alternative 3. This Alternate does not meet the RF coverage objective;
therefore, it should not be considered a viable option for this proposed SCN.
CONCLUSION
Crown Castle has presented a comparative analysis between the Primary and the
Alternatives that were evaluated. Crown Castle's analysis demonstrates it is using the "least
intrusive means" to achieve its RF objective by using minimally sized small cell technology and
equipment, and minimum antenna heights in order to conform to the maximum extent possible
with community values expressed in the City's design and development standards.
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com
E-133
CROWN Crown Castle
C CASTLE 200 Spectrum Center Drive
Suite 1700
Irvine, CA 92618
September 5, 2017
Mr. Ara Mihranian, Director of Community Development
Community Development Department
3094o Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
RE: Shot Clock Tolling Agreement and Notice of Shot Clock Expiration Per RPVMC Section
12.18.o6o (C)(a) for Crown Castle Wireless Communication Facility Site ASG6o - New Shot
Clock Expiration Date: October i1, 2017
Dear Mr. Mihranian:
Crown Castle NG West LLC ("Crown Castle") has agreed to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes' (the "City")
request to extend the Shot Clock for this site until October 31, 2017. The purpose of extending the Shot Clock is to
allow City Staff additional time to get organized so that more meaningful presentations can be developed to better
inform City decision makers.
Under the FCC's Wireless Infrastructure Order (FCC 14-153, October 14, 2014), a local government is required
not just to take some action within the application timeframe, but to take a final action on the application within the
time period. See New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC v. Town of Stoddard, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19453 *13-15 (D.N.H.
Feb. 16, 2012). Accordingly, the City must complete all of its review within the Shot Clock period. Bell Atlantic Mobile
of Rochester, L.P. v. Town of Irondequoit, 2012 U.S. Dist. Lexis 11420 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2012). This means that the
City must issue all permits required for construction to commence within the applicable Shot Clock time period,
absent permitted tolling. Expiration of the FCC Shot Clock time periods means the project is shovel ready, not merely
poised for another round of bureaucratic inertia such as an encroachment permit or appeals processes or negotiation
of a franchise or other similar agreement.
Further, pursuant to California Government Code section 65964.1, an application for a new wireless facility
"shall be deemed approved" if: (a) the city --including a charter city -- or county fails to approve or disapprove the
application within the time periods established in the Shot Clock Order and (b) all public notices regarding the
application have been provided. (Gov. Code, § 65964.1, subd. (a).) Section 65964.1 also contains an express legislative
finding that wireless telecommunications facilities are a matter of statewide concern, not a "municipal affair" as that
term is used in section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. (id., § 65964.1, subd. (c).).
In consideration of Crown Castle's agreement to Toll the Shot Clock, the City has agreed that:
1) This document satisfies Crown Castle's noticing requirement of Shot Clock expiration per RPVMC Section
12.18.o6o (C)(3).
2) The City will attest to and not challenge that Crown Castle's application is compliant with any and all Shot
Clock requirements (federal, state and local) as of the date of this Tolling Agreement and Notice of Shot
Clock Expiration.
3) That the Shot Clock for this site will expire on: October 31, 2017, unless mutually extended in a written
agreement by the Parties. Any and all applicable statutes of limitation will commence from the date of
the Shot Clock's expiration.
Aaron Snyder
CROWN CASTLE NG WEST LLC
Qom=
Ara Mihranian
Crry OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com
E-134
Ara Whranian
From: Steve Katz <stevekatz74@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 1, 2017 4:54 PM
To: WirelessTF; PC; icavagna@netzero.com
Subject: Proposed cell tower on Seaglen Drive
1 October 2017
I have resided on Seaglen Drive since returning from the Vietnam war in
1975. It is a quiet neighborhood on a cul de sac. I join the majority of my neighbors,
taxpayers & voters all, in voicing our strong objection to the proposed cell tower to be
placed across from 3486 Seaglen Drive.
It is a small street, quiet and out of the way, but those of us who have the good fortune
to live on this beautiful block love its peaceful aura. This ugly cell tower does nothing to
benefit the majority of my neighbors. Rather, it will be an unsightly and obtrusive
intrusion on an otherwise lovely and charming neighborhood and may negatively affect
property values.
I urge you to carefully assess the decision to adversely impact the ambiance of our
beautiful, peaceful & quiet street. There is no reason why it has to be located here,
except for the convenience of a utility, who, realistically, has no reason to care about the
impact on us - the majority of whom either is not AT&T subscribers or who will drop this
inconsiderate utility. Please rethink this unreasonable intrusion on our beautiful, quiet
street. Thank you!
Col. Stephen E. Katz
USAF retired & living
on Seaglen Drive in
RPV for 45 years
1 E-135
Ara Mihranian
From: Jeff Calvagna <jcalvagna@netzero.com>
Sent: Monday, October 2, 2017 12:34 PM
To: PC; WirelessTF
Cc: Jeffrey Thompson; babich5@cox.net
Subject: Request to Deny Cell Site ASG69 (Seaglen Drive)
Planning Commission members,
(Staff - please include in correspondence regarding Wireless facility ASG69 - Seaglen Drive scheduled for public hearing
on Oct 10, 2017)
We respectfully request that you DENY wireless facility ASG69, located across from 3486 Seaglen Drive. As fifteen year
residents of Seaglen, we strongly believe this site will be a prominent eyesore and will harm our neighborhood's
character. The proposed site is in a highly visible location on Seaglen, directly across from two homes, along a pastoral
hillside setting, and conspicuously out of place in our underground utility neighborhood. Further, Crown Castle's own
documentation shows this site will only serve the 32 homes on Seaglen Drive due to the site's poor location and
topography. Such an intrusive site just can't be justified to serve so few homes.
Our home is two doors west of the proposed cell site and we strongly object to this intrusion on our pleasant residential
street. The site is prominently visible from our front balcony and living room windows, and intrudes on our hillside vista.
The cell tower is also an eyesore as we drive down Seaglen and approach our home. More importantly, this site will be
located directly across from the homes of our neighbors and friends, the Thompson family (3474 Seaglen) and Babich
family (3486 Seaglen). Neither of these homes have ocean vistas thus the hillside is their view. Our friends will have this
cell tower prominently visible from the living room, front bedroom windows, and front patios, lying directly in front of
the hillside. Both families strongly object to the site and have written to you separately.
Like many others, we specifically chose the Mediterrania tract (of which Seaglen is a part) due to the aesthetics provided
by underground utilities. The proposed cell tower will place two obvious and out -of -place antenna panels on a resident
streetlight, unlike any other such installation in our neighborhood. Locating such an obvious commercial
telecommunication facility will undoubtedly harm property values. Few home shoppers want a cell tower in front of
their house, thus home prices must drop accordingly to attract buyers. This will cause financial harm to nearby
homeowners, including the Thompsons, Babichs, and ourselves. When we bought our homes here, we never thought
we would someday have a commercial cell tower and its accompanying visual clutter and equipment noise on our
picturesque street.
Seaglen's terrain forms a topographic depression (a "bowl") that makes the site a terrible location for any such facility.
Crown Castle's own documentation shows the site will only serve a few dozen homes and will not extend beyond
Seaglen itself. The site's location in the bottom of the "bowl" prevents the signals from extending beyond our street.
E-136
Even if Crown Castle wanted to serve more homes, it's precluded by the site's location and topography. As an RF
engineer, I've extensively modeled propagation from this site and have demonstrated this conclusively. This is readily
apparent in Crown Castle's own "Proposed RF coverage" map which only includes 32 homes within the rectangular
"cake pan" objective (below) and extremely short range in their drive test data.
Exhibit L:3 e. -- Proposed RF coverage.
�., •.'fie. *r.. - - �-
r•Se
L•r ••++tti.t '.
t
'err +♦■ 'r+�• a
It � a •
r �
•a
»a sa
a ••.•r •i
•• Pr
CROWN Mr-Mmatyk
10 _,CASTLE 0WIdeaual
+I t.ti � • • rr•w+�►•L � +r•a ~ •.r
Such an intrusive site can't be justified for so few homes for only one wireless carrier. At most, this site will serve 29
people assuming every resident on Seaglen owns a cell phone.
32 homes * 2.6 residents/home (RPV avg) * 35% AT&T market share = 29.1 people
Only 29 people cannot be considered a "significant gap" in AM's service coverage thus the City is under no obligation
to approve this intrusive residential neighborhood site. Further, this cell tower's location on a local (residential) street
violates the location restrictions of RPV's wireless ordinance (Section 12.18.200) and requires an exception for approval.
I would respectfully submit to the Planning Commission that this site's intrusive location and design, opposition from
nearby residents, and extremely limited coverage do not warrant an exception. We ask that you DENY this site. If
Crown Castle would like to supplement service in our neighborhood, it must find a far less intrusive method, particularly
when the site will only serve 29 people based on Crown Castle's own data.
E-137
h Yea
• tii •A'.4 rN
• o av a►.
'�oM4t•
a.o zy
'
O,.a.••ipv �wh■
x r,c+•
`
� •rr
r
E.wr.p tYl F
rf
to
y.•
r
rr
+I t.ti � • • rr•w+�►•L � +r•a ~ •.r
Such an intrusive site can't be justified for so few homes for only one wireless carrier. At most, this site will serve 29
people assuming every resident on Seaglen owns a cell phone.
32 homes * 2.6 residents/home (RPV avg) * 35% AT&T market share = 29.1 people
Only 29 people cannot be considered a "significant gap" in AM's service coverage thus the City is under no obligation
to approve this intrusive residential neighborhood site. Further, this cell tower's location on a local (residential) street
violates the location restrictions of RPV's wireless ordinance (Section 12.18.200) and requires an exception for approval.
I would respectfully submit to the Planning Commission that this site's intrusive location and design, opposition from
nearby residents, and extremely limited coverage do not warrant an exception. We ask that you DENY this site. If
Crown Castle would like to supplement service in our neighborhood, it must find a far less intrusive method, particularly
when the site will only serve 29 people based on Crown Castle's own data.
E-137
We have AT&T service ourselves and have no problems with calls or data connections at our home, but we recognize we
cannot speak for everyone on our street. If there are Seaglen residents that are unhappy with their AT&T service, we
offer to purchase for them a signal extender from the AT&T Store at our own cost. These devices are specifically
marketed by AT&T to supplement coverage in small "dead spots". Jeff is a Radio Frequency Engineer and can perform
the installation to ensure any affected Seaglen resident receives sufficient signal. We've not heard any complaints but
extend this invitation in any case. Even so, a few homes does not constitute a "significant gap" and therefore does not
entitle Crown Castle/AT&T to place such an intrusive facility on our street. Nor do we believe it warrants or justifies the
RPV ordinance exception required to approve this non-compliant cell tower in our quiet residential neighborhood.
Thank you for consideration of this matter and we look forward to addressing you at the hearing. We recognize these
hearings have been tedious and time-consuming and we appreciate your service to our community.
Best regards,
Jeff and Annie Calvagna
3497 Seaglen Drive
Neighbors of proposed Crown Castle site ASG69
3 E-138
Mr. Art Bashmakian
City Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
RPV,Ca 90275
Re: ASG -69- 3486 Seaglen Drive
Mr. Bashmakian:
RECEIVED
SEP 2 8 2017 September 22, 2017
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
This letter serves as our written opposition to the installation of a wireless telecommunication facility
with related mechanical equipment (ASG -69) across from 3474 and 3486 Seaglen Drive, RPV
We are residents at this location for approx. 30 years. We raised our family to live in a clean, quiet and
well controlled community with CC&R's to enhance our standard of living. Our property has good views
along with a pleasing aesthetics which include underground utilities, sidewalks, curbs and a mature
landscape.
We feel the addition and approval of this wireless communication will create noise 24/7 as well as the
above ground control box both visual from all angles of our property will destroy the integrity of the
neighborhood.
We enjoy a quiet and pleasing environment and the addition of this Green whale will deteriorate what
we enjoy. Additionally, we feel our property value will decrease with this above ground, unsightly
visual addition.
We also believe that you have been given scientific evidence that this is a poor choice of location with
minimal value in the middle of a mature beautiful residential community.
Please convey our comments, concerns and displeasure for this proposal.
We respectfully request that you pass along our concerns and deny this wireless telecommunication
facility
�herimpson L. Thompson
3474 Seaglen Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca 90275
Cc: Planning commission( pc@rpvca.gov)
E-139
E-140
RECEIVED
SEP 2 5 2017
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 21 September, 2017
DEPARTMEN%rireless Telecommunication Facility on Seaglen Drive
Dear Mr. Bashmakian,
I am writing to provide my comments on the mock up and planned installation of the
telecommunication pole on Seaglen Drive. I had shared my comments with the Department of
Public Works and Crown Castle when first notified of this installation. Seaglen Drive is a
neighborhood that has its utilities underground. Placing these poles with the boxes attached to
the top is not aesthetically pleasing to the neighborhood. Also, the constant hum would be
disturbing to nearby neighbors. I think the cities of the Peninsula have gone overboard with these
poles.
The communications of this matter often mention using existing infrastructure, but that is not
how they are "mocked up".
I vote no for this proposed facility and hope my neighbors voice their concerns as well.
Thank you,
Theresa Mohaddes
3432 Seaglen Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca. 90275
E-141
Ara Mihranian
From:
MELISSA BABICH <babich5@cox.net>
Sent:
Monday, November 20, 2017 7:25 PM
To:
WirelessTF
Subject:
Appeal of telecommunication facility permit ASG69 across from 3486 SEAGLEN DRIVE
Dear Art Bashmakian,
My name is Danny Babich. I am the home owner at 3486 Seaglen Dr. I live across from the proposed site. I
am in opposition to this location because this site, in my opinion, is too close to my property. It is 42 feet from
my property. I have lived in my house for 24 years, enjoying the view and peace and quiet of this hillside. I
sleep with my bedroom window open. It is so quiet you can some times hear the ocean, I don't want to look at
this ugly unit and listen to a vault with cooling fans in it that runs 24-7. We have AT&T cell service and it is
fine. I have visited other sites and they are noisy. Research data given to the city indicates this is not a efficient
site, so why move forward on this site? Shouldn't you move this to a more efficient location and not so close to
single family homes?
Sincerely,
Melissa and Danny Babich
F-1
Ara Mihranian
From:
Jeff Calvagna <jcalvagna@netzero.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, November 21, 2017 12:31 PM
To:
CC; WirelessTF
Cc:
Jeffrey Thompson; babich5@cox.net
Subject:
Request to Affirm Denial of Cell Site ASG69 (Seaglen Drive)
Members of the City Council,
On October 10th, the Planning Commission denied wireless facility ASG69 (Across from 3486 Seaglen Drive)
by unanimous vote. This site is near our home and directly in front of two of our neighbors' homes. The
Commission denied this cell tower based on it's intrusiveness and aesthetics, finding the proposed facility
inappropriate for a quiet residential cul-de-sac street. The Commission also considered that there is already
adequate AT&T service on the street, in addition to the fact that Crown Castle's own data showed the site would
only serve 29 AT&T customers. All of these factors led to the clear conclusion that the intrusiveness of this
facility just couldn't be justified, particularly in light of RPV's wireless ordinance location restrictions for local,
residential streets (RPV MC 12.18. 200).
We urge you to affirm the Commission's denial of this cell tower at the special November 30th City Council
hearing.
Our Planning Commission did the right thing in denying this site. The Commission engaged in thoughtful
deliberation after lengthy public testimony from the applicant, residents of Seaglen Drive, and other concerned
community members. Rather than accept this fact, Crown Castle has chosen to disregard the Commission's
decision and appeal to you. While it is their right, there is no valid basis for the appeal. The Commission
interpreted the law correctly, did not make procedural errors, nor were they rash in their decision. Crown Castle
simply did not like the decision and believes they're entitled to a "do over".
We've included below the original correspondence sent to the Planning Commission as part of the October 10th
hearing. None of the facts have changed, the site will be an intrusive eyesore in our pleasant neighborhood and
isn't warranted. We look forward to addressing you at the appeal and again request you affirm the Commission's
thoughtful denial of this ugly and inappropriate cell tower.
Best Regards,
Jeff and Annie Calvagna
3497 Seaglen Drive
On 10/2/2017 12:34 PM, Jeff Calvagna wrote:
Planning Commission members,
F-2
(Staff - please include in correspondence regarding Wireless facility ASG69 - Seaglen Drive scheduled for
public hearing on Oct 10, 2017)
We respectfully request that you DENY wireless facility ASG69, located across from 3486 Seaglen Drive.
As fifteen year residents of Seaglen, we strongly believe this site will be a prominent eyesore and will
harm our neighborhood's character. The proposed site is in a highly visible location on Seaglen, directly
across from two homes, along a pastoral hillside setting, and conspicuously out of place in our
underground utility neighborhood. Further, Crown Castle's own documentation shows this site will only
serve the 32 homes on Seaglen Drive due to the site's poor location and topography. Such an intrusive
site just can't be justified to serve so few homes.
Our home is two doors west of the proposed cell site and we strongly object to this intrusion on our
pleasant residential street. The site is prominently visible from our front balcony and living room
windows, and intrudes on our hillside vista. The cell tower is also an eyesore as we drive down Seaglen
and approach our home. More importantly, this site will be located directly across from the homes of
our neighbors and friends, the Thompson family (3474 Seaglen) and Babich family (3486 Seaglen).
Neither of these homes have ocean vistas thus the hillside is their view. Our friends will have this cell
tower prominently visible from the living room, front bedroom windows, and front patios, lying directly
in front of the hillside. Both families strongly object to the site and have written to you separately.
Like many others, we specifically chose the Mediterrania tract (of which Seaglen is a part) due to the
aesthetics provided by underground utilities. The proposed cell tower will place two obvious and out -
of -place antenna panels on a resident streetlight, unlike any other such installation in our neighborhood.
Locating such an obvious commercial telecommunication facility will undoubtedly harm property values.
Few home shoppers want a cell tower in front of their house, thus home prices must drop accordingly to
attract buyers. This will cause financial harm to nearby homeowners, including the Thompsons, Babichs,
and ourselves. When we bought our homes here, we never thought we would someday have a
commercial cell tower and its accompanying visual clutter and equipment noise on our picturesque
street.
Seaglen's terrain forms a topographic depression (a "bowl") that makes the site a terrible location for
any such facility. Crown Castle's own documentation shows the site will only serve a few dozen homes
and will not extend beyond Seaglen itself. The site's location in the bottom of the "bowl" prevents the
signals from extending beyond our street. Even if Crown Castle wanted to serve more homes, it's
precluded by the site's location and topography. As an RF engineer, I've extensively modeled
propagation from this site and have demonstrated this conclusively. This is readily apparent in Crown
Castle's own "Proposed RF coverage" map which only includes 32 homes within the rectangular "cake
pan" objective (below) and extremely short range in their drive test data.
F-3
Exhibit C3 e. — Proposed RF coverage.
A CROWN VnipA1P9i ytr
_,CASTLE contidentia!
t" F,
,93 10,
¢ raew
Es~q W"
■ �
�! o
a
4
I.�
•
f�
Such an intrusive site can't be justified for so few homes for only one wireless carrier. At most, this site
will serve 29 people assuming every resident on Seaglen owns a cell phone.
32 homes * 2.6 residents/home (RPV avg) * 35% AT&T market share = 29.1 people
Only 29 people cannot be considered a "significant gap" in AT&T's service coverage thus the City is
under no obligation to approve this intrusive residential neighborhood site. Further, this cell tower's
location on a local (residential) street violates the location restrictions of RPV's wireless ordinance
(Section 12.18.200) and requires an exception for approval. I would respectfully submit to the Planning
Commission that this site's intrusive location and design, opposition from nearby residents, and
extremely limited coverage do not warrant an exception. We ask that you DENY this site. If Crown
Castle would like to supplement service in our neighborhood, it must find a far less intrusive method,
particularly when the site will only serve 29 people based on Crown Castle's own data.
We have AT&T service ourselves and have no problems with calls or data connections at our home, but
we recognize we cannot speak for everyone on our street. If there are Seaglen residents that are
unhappy with their AT&T service, we offer to purchase for them a signal extender from the AT&T Store
at our own cost. These devices are specifically marketed by AT&T to supplement coverage in small
"dead spots". Jeff is a Radio Frequency Engineer and can perform the installation to ensure any affected
Seaglen resident receives sufficient signal. We've not heard any complaints but extend this invitation in
F-4
any case. Even so, a few homes does not constitute a "significant gap" and therefore does not entitle
Crown Castle/AT&T to place such an intrusive facility on our street. Nor do we believe it warrants or
justifies the RPV ordinance exception required to approve this non-compliant cell tower in our quiet
residential neighborhood.
Thank you for consideration of this matter and we look forward to addressing you at the hearing. We
recognize these hearings have been tedious and time-consuming and we appreciate your service to our
community.
Best regards,
Jeff and Annie Calvagna
3497 Seaglen Drive
Neighbors of proposed Crown Castle site ASG69
F-5
Ara Mihranian
From:
Samson Munn <02467@earthlink.net>
Sent:
Friday, November 10, 2017 1:16 PM
To:
WirelessTF
Subject:
My Views of the Appeal Application
Dear Mr. Bashmakian:
As per the e-mailed request from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, here are my "thoughts" "in writing"
regarding the appeal of the denied facility permits ASG #s 09,32,33,53 and 69.
I object to the appeal(s) on the following grounds, jointly and severally:
1. Reception in Rancho Palos Verdes is already sufficient. That is, there are areas of strong reception and areas
of no reception at all, and that is -- is -- sufficient, even more than sufficient.
2. When I bought my house at 7021 Calle del Pajarito, RPV, one of the real estate values I perceived was the
absence of reception. That is, reception to me is a negative, while absence of reception has added value.
3. I am a Professor at UCLA's and an Adjunct Associate Professor at Tufts University's Schools of
Medicine. My field is radiology. I know something about all kinds of rays.
4. There is a petition via NextDoor that your office has already received with over 100 signatories. That
petition was with regard to ASG # 08. However, I received the dozens of comments added by all
signatories. Many of these comments were with regard more generally to added cell emission/transmission
towers. They were uniformly negative (none positive).
5. Via NextDoor, there have also been dozens of comments written generally about additional
emission/transmission towers (apart from those related to the signatories against ASG # 08). Some of those
additional comments were positive, while others were negative. Those that were negative outnumbered the
positive ones by more than ten -to -one.
6. Proper process was engaged by the Planning Commission in its denials of those permits named at the outset
of this message. If proper process yields denial, the appeal had better contain new and truly extraordinary and
exceptional grounds in order to be re -considered. Substantiation of ordinary grounds for the permit applications
at this time should be considered insufficient, since being late to circumvent proper process should not now be
supported. In other words, Crown Castle had its "day in court," one might say, including proper opportunity to
submit grounds for approval, and and simply lost. Unless the grounds now presented are extraordinary and
exceptional, PLUS are combined with substantiation for why the grounds had not been submitted in due course
(rather than now), PLUS are altogether new, Crown Castle's appeal(s) should be summarily dismissed without
further consideration on the grounds of due process. That is, unless the new grounds are as I have described,
satisfying all three categories of the preceding sentence, Crown Castle should -- properly -- not be afforded
another "day in court," so to speak. THAT would compose due process, respecting the due process already
behind us.
Thank you, kindly!
Samson
Samson Munn, M.D., FACR
F-6
Ara Mihranian
From:
Ara Mihranian
Sent:
Thursday, November 16, 2017 12:48 PM
To:
'hashamal@hotmail.com'
Cc:
CC; WirelessTF
Subject:
Wireless Telecommunication Facilities
Mr. Hasham,
The City is in receipt of your email and will provide it to the City Council as part of the November 30th
Staff Reports.
Thank you,
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
Community Development Director
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
ADo you really need to print this e-mail?
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from
disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If
you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
From: Al Hasham [mailto:hashamal@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 12:33 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Al Hasham <hashamal@hotmail.com>
Subject:
F-7
Dear Sir or Madam,
Please do not support the building of Cell Towers in our area (RPV). As you know, it is not safe for our families
and especially our children.
Thanks!
F
CROWN Crown Castle
v CASTLE 200 Spectrum Center Drive
Suite 1700
Irvine, CA 92618
September 5, 2017
Mr. Ara Mihranian, Director of Community Development
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
RE: Shot Clock Tolling Agreement and Notice of Shot Clock Expiration Per RPVMC Section
12.18.o6o (C)(3) for Crown Castle Wireless Communication Facility Site ASG6g - New Shot
Clock Expiration Date: October 31, 2017
Dear Mr. Mihranian:
Crown Castle NG West LLC ("Crown Castle") has agreed to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes' (the "City")
request to extend the Shot Clock for this site until October 31, 2017. The purpose of extending the Shot Clock is to
allow City Staff additional time to get organized so that more meaningful presentations can be developed to better
inform City decision makers.
Under the FCC's Wireless Infrastructure Order (FCC 14-153, October 14, 2014), a local government is required
not just to take some action within the application timeframe, but to take a final action on the application within the
time period. See New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC v. Town of Stoddard, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19453 *13-15 (D.N.H.
Feb. 16, 2012). Accordingly, the City must complete all of its review within the Shot Clock period. Bell Atlantic Mobile
of Rochester, L.P. v. Town of Irondequoit, 2012 U.S. Dist. Lexis 11420 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2012). This means that the
City must issue all permits required for construction to commence within the applicable Shot Clock time period,
absent permitted tolling. Expiration of the FCC Shot Clock time periods means the project is shovel ready, not merely
poised for another round of bureaucratic inertia such as an encroachment permit or appeals processes or negotiation
of a franchise or other similar agreement.
Further, pursuant to California Government Code section 65964.1, an application for a new wireless facility
"shall be deemed approved" if: (a) the city --including a charter city -- or county fails to approve or disapprove the
application within the time periods established in the Shot Clock Order and (b) all public notices regarding the
application have been provided. (Gov. Code, § 65964.1, subd. (a).) Section 65964A also contains an express legislative
finding that wireless telecommunications facilities are a matter of statewide concern, not a "municipal affair" as that
term is used in section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. (id., § 65964.1, subd. (c).).
In consideration of Crown Castle's agreement to Toll the Shot Clock, the City has agreed that:
1) This document satisfies Crown Castle's noticing requirement of Shot Clock expiration per RPVMC Section
12.18.o6o (C)(3).
2) The City will attest to and not challenge that Crown Castle's application is compliant with any and all Shot
Clock requirements (federal, state and local) as of the date of this Tolling Agreement and Notice of Shot
Clock Expiration.
3) That the Shot Clock for this site will expire on: October 31, 2017, unless mutually extended in a written
agreement by the Parties. Any and all applicable statutes of limitation will commence from the date of
the Shot Clock's expiration.
Aaron Snyder
CROWN CASTLE NG WEST LLC
( K )�_
Ara Mihranian
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com
G-1