CC SR 20171130 01 - Wireless Telecommunication Facility Permit ASG No. 53RANCHO 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. 53
to install a Wireless Telecommunication Facility (WTF) on an existing utility pole at the
northwest intersection of Monero Drive and Granvia Altamira.
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. 53 to allow the installation of two panel antennas encased in a
canister measuring 2' tall and 14.6" in diameter mounted on a 4' mast arm,
extending from an existing 52' tall wood utility streetlight pole approximately 20.6'
from the ground with vaulted accessory equipment (Option No. 1) at the
northwest intersection of Montero Drive and Granvia Altamira
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\30324926.2 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 September 20, 2017 (page B-1)
D. P.C. Resolution No. 2017-28 - denying without prejudice (page D-1)
E. September 12, 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. City's View Assessment Memo
4. Technical information from the City's RF Engineer
5. Coverage Maps and Supporting Documents from the Applicant
6. Feasibility Analysis on Alternate Sites
7. August 7, 2017 Shot Clock Tolling Agreement
8. Public Comments
F. Public Comments (page F-1)
G. Tolling Agreement (page G-1)
Click on the link below to view the September 12, 2017 Planning Commission meeting
on ASG No. 53 - Agenda Item No. 3 (time stamp: 1:24:37):
W04107111161 pa s
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 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, to provide services to AT&T consumers throughout the
City.
Original Project Description and Location
The Project as originally submitted to the City was to install a wireless
telecommunication facility consisting of two 24" panel antennas mounted on a 4' mast
arm extending from the existing 52' tall wood utility streetlight pole. The radio equipment
and power meter box were to be placed on the ground adjacent to the street light pole,
consisting of 9.7 cubic feet of area in the PROW.
The wireless telecommunication facility considered by the Planning Commission
consisted of the placement of two panel antennas encased in a 2' tall and 2' in diameter
canister shroud mounted on a 4' mast arm, extending from the existing 52' tall wood
55478.00001\30324926.2
2
utility streetlight pole with the bottom of the antennas/canister 20'-6" from the ground
with related vaulted mechanical equipment.
The site is located entirely within the PROW, along the west side of Granvia Altamira.
This portion of Granvia Altamira does not have paved sidewalks. There are trees and
shrubs near the site (there is no landscaped parkway). The three photos on the next
page depict the existing site, and a photo simulation of the original submitted project
(side -mounted antennas panels affixed to a 4' mast arm) and the project considered by
the Planning Commission with the antennas panels encased in a canister shroud
attached to a 4' mast arm to an existing wood utility pole.
Existing Site
Original Design
lannina Commission's Decision
Commission Reviewed Design
On August 30, 2017, and at the Applicant's request, the Planning Commission
continued the public hearing, without discussion to September 12, 2017. On September
12, 2017, the 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 Engineer, the
Planning Commission moved to deny, without prejudice, the project on a vote of 5-1
with Commissioner Nelson dissenting, (Commissioner Leon was absent). The
Commission's denial was based on the following findings (see page D-1):
• The installation and support equipment does not meet the "non-dominant design"
standard requiring a facility to be compatible with the surrounding environment.
• That the antenna and canister shroud with a 4' arm on a wood utility streetlight
pole in its proposed location is out -of -character to the surrounding neighborhood.
55478.00001\30324926.2
• The canister affixed by a 4' arm to a wood utility streetlight pole exacerbates the
visual clutter in the surrounding environment and would be visually intrusive as
there are no similar vertical elements with similar facilities in the neighborhood.
• 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.
• The record presented no evidence of the proposed antennas being situated as
close to the ground as possible.
• The facility will be mounted to the 4' arm of an existing wood utility street light
pole and would take up more right-of-way space compared to the existing utility
streetlight pole.
• The wireless telecommunication facility covers a relatively small portion of the
technical service objective and will not provide service to a significant number of
users.
• There was no significant gap in coverage that would necessitate the proposed
facility.
• The proposed facility supports a majority of coverage to residents in the City of
Palos Verdes Estates.
• A proposed facility, once activated, in the City of Palos Verdes Estates will
address the coverage needs within the immediate neighborhood.
During the Commission's discussion regarding coverage needs within the immediate
neighborhood, questions arose whether a significant gap exists with the existing
wireless antennas affixed to the 7-11 Building at the intersection Hawthorne Blvd. and
Granvia Altamira. The antennas at this 7-11 building do not include antennas for AT&T
but rather Sprint, T -Mobile, and Verizon.
City Council Appeal
On September 20, 2017, the Appellant filed a timely appeal (see page C-1) of the
Planning Commission's denial of Major Wireless Telecommunication Facility Permit
ASG No. 53 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 two design options for the Council's consideration as part of
the appeal proceedings. Option No. 1 consists of two panel antennas encased in a
canister shroud measuring 2' tall and 14.6" in diameter canister, which is approximately
55478.00001\30324926.2
10" smaller in diameter than the canister shroud the Commission considered at its
September 12th meeting. Option No. 2, which is similar to the original proposal with
exposed panel antennas affixed to the utility pole, utilizes smaller 20.5" tall panel
antennas instead of 24" tall panel antennas. Both options utilize a 4' arm affixed to the
wood utility light pole.
Photo simulations of the two design options are shown below (see page B-1 for larger
images):
Option No. 1 Option No. 2
Based on the two 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, Option No. 2 includes exposed antennas and wires, while 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 vaulted mechanical equipment.
• Avoids adverse impacts to traffic patterns including pedestrians and vehicles.
• Incorporates blending design techniques.
• Matches the material, color, and height of utility streetlight poles within the
immediate neighborhood.
55478.00001\30324926.2
• Utilizes existing infrastructure thereby avoiding the installation of new above-
ground infrastructure.
• 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
(page A-1). 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.
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 Wireless Telecommunications Facilities in
the Public Right -of -Way Chapter of the Municipal Code states that in the event an
applicant seeks to install a WTF 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. The applicants
submitted maps and written explanations have been reviewed by the City's RF
Specialist who has concluded that the signal levels are lower than the levels industry
guidelines suggest to support modern 3G/4G customer needs. The City's specialist
concluded that there are gaps in coverage in small pocketed areas and the subject
facility will provide ample signal intensity to support AT&T's 3G/4G wireless services.
Pole Desmon Options Mockup
The Appellant has installed a mockup of "replacement pole" design examples for
supporting the proposed telecommunication panel antennas. The mockups are located
adjacent to the City's maintenance yard at the City Hall site for City Council, Planning
Commission, and public viewing.
Mockup Notice Issued
On May 23, 2017, the Applicant (Crown Castle) received a Public Works Encroachment
Permit to install a mockup of a proposed wireless telecommunications facility. The
temporary mockup was installed on June 1, 2017 with above ground mechanical
55478.00001\30324926.2
equipment. 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.
The above ground equipment is now proposed to be vaulted underground.
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
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, the 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 May 3, 2016. The clock was "tolled" several times as a
result of incomplete application submittals, and it was set to expire on August 25, 2017.
A new Shot Clock Tolling Agreement, dated August 7, 2017 established a new Shot
Clock Expiration date of September 30, 2017 (page G-1).
55478.00001\30324926.2
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.
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
No. 53 to allow the installation of two panel antennas encased in a canister measuring
2' tall and 14.6" in diameter mounted on a 4' mast arm, extending from an existing 52'
tall wood utility streetlight pole approximately 20.6' above the ground with underground
vaulted accessory equipment (Option No. 1) at the northwest intersection of Montero
Drive and Granvia Altamira.
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to Staff's recommendation, the following alternatives are 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. 53 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\30324926.2
8
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. 53 TO ALLOW THE INSTALLATION OF TWO PANEL
ANTENNAS, ENCASED IN A CANISTER MEASURING 2' TALL AND
14.6" IN DIAMETER MOUNTED ON A 4' MAST ARM, EXTENDING
FROM AN EXISTING 52' TALL WOOD UTILITY STREETLIGHT
POLE, APPROXIMATELY 20.6' FROM THE GROUND WITH
UNDERGROUND VAULTED ACCESSORY EQUIPMENT (OPTION
NO. 1) AT THE NORTHWEST INTERSECTION OF MONTERO
DRIVE AND GRANVIA ALTAMIRA
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. 53
("Project") at the northwest intersection of Montero Drive and Granvia Altamira;
WHEREAS, the Project (as proposed to the Planning Commission) called for the
installation of two panel antennas, encased in a canister measuring 2' tall and 2' in
diameter mounted on a 4' mast arm, extending from an existing 52' tall wood utility
streetlight pole, approximately 20.6' from the ground 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 ("CEQK) because the Project constitutes a small scale
installation of new a new facility (14 CCR § 15303(d)).
WHEREAS, on September 12, 2017, after considering testimony and evidence
presented at the public hearings, the information and findings included in the Staff
55478.00001\30324931.2
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 1 of 27
A-1
Report, and other records of proceedings, the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes moved to deny, without prejudice, ASG No. 53, on a vote of 5-1
with Commissioner Nelson dissenting, (Commissioner Leon was absent).
WHEREAS, on September 20, 2017, a timely appeal of the denial was filed by
the Applicant;
WHEREAS, on November 15, 2017, a public notice was mailed to property
owners within a 500 -foot radius of the subject site 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 a
notification was sent to list -serve subscribers;
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 Telecommunications Facility Permit ("WTFP")
ASG No. 53 involving a project that called for the placement of two panel antennas
encased in a 2' tall and 2' in diameter canister shroud mounted on a 4' mast arm,
extending from the existing 52' tall wood utility streetlight pole with the bottom of the
antennas/canister measuring 20'-6" from the ground with related vaulted mechanical
equipment in the PROW and approves a Major WTFP involving a modified design
consisting of two panel antennas, encased in a canister measuring 2' tall and 14.6" in
diameter mounted on a 4' mast arm, extending from an existing 52' tall wood utility
streetlight pole approximately 20.6' from the ground with accessory equipment to be
vaulted underground in the PROW (identified as Option No. 1 in the staff report) 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.
The Applicant and the City have provided all notices required by the RPVMC. On
May 25, 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 August 3, 2017, a public notice announcing the August 22,
2017 public hearing was provided to property owners within 500' of the proposed
55478.00001\30324931.2
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 2 of 2-T
A-2
WTF and was published in the Peninsula News. On August 22, 2017, at the
request of the Applicant, the Planning Commission continued this item to its
September 12, 2017 meeting. 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 53 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 WTF is proposed to be installed on an existing 52' tall utility streetlight pole,
with mast arm and luminaire and two service arms that carry power lines along
with cable lines. The panel antennas will be encased in a 2' tall canister,
measuring 14.6"' in diameter, minimizing its visual intrusion to the environment.
The canister shroud will blend into the environment that consist of utility light
poles, power lines, cable lines, mast arms and luminaries along Granvia Altamira.
The canister and mast arm will be the same color as the existing utility pole. The
area also has existing foliage that screen views of the proposed installation from
residences. The WTF will not dominate the surrounding area because of the
existing vertical infrastructure and limited size of the proposed canister. 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 architectural character of the surrounding buildings or structures in terms of
color, size, proportion, style, and quality.
55478.00001\30324931.2
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 3 of 2-T
A-3
The panel antennas are proposed to be installed on an existing 52 -foot tall utility
street light pole, with mast arm and luminaire and two service arms that carry
power lines along with cable lines. The canister shroud encasing the panel
antennas will be painted brown to match other streetlight utility poles in the area
and the existing condition and improvements on the utility pole. The cylinder
shaped shroud encasing the two antenna panels and wires affixed to the utility
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). According to the Applicant, the proposed canister is the slimmest design
available, as such, it minimizes the facility's visual impacts and is more
compatible with the surrounding environment in terms of size, proportion and
color.
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. 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 is designed to avoid adverse traffic impacts by affixing the panel
antennas within the canister shroud to an existing wood utility streetlight pole with
the bottom of the antenna canister shroud measuring approximately 20'-6" from the
ground. The related mechanical equipment will be vaulted underground avoiding
traffic safety impacts, including avoiding any impacts to the intersection visibility
triangle at the intersection of Monero Drive and Granvia Altamira.
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 canister shroud that will house the panel antennas and the associated mast
arm will be painted with non -reflective brown paint that will match and blend with
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 4 of 2T
55478.00001\30324931.2
the existing utility street light pole.
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 Project is proposed to be installed on a mast arm attached to an existing 52'
tall utility streetlight pole, with a luminaire and two service arms that carry power
lines along with cable lines. The two antennas would be mounted back-to-back
and encased in a 2' tall and 14.6" in diameter canister shroud on a 4' mast arm,
extending from the existing wood utility streetlight pole. The bottom of the
antennas/canister would measure approximately 20'-6" above the ground level
below. Locating the antennas on the mast arm will not preclude possible future
collocation by other operators or carriers.
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 as detailed in Section 3 of this Resolution.
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).) Sections 12.18.080(6)(c) through (f) are not applicable.
The proposed WTF will be located in the PROW and will be pole mounted to an
existing utility streetlight pole.
12.18.080(A)(6)(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 mounted on a pole be less than 24 feet above any
drivable road surface.
The proposed antennas will not exceed 48" above the existing height of the light
55478.00001 \30324931.2
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 5 of 2T
A-5
pole. The antennas are proposed below the maximum height of the 52' tall utility
light pole approximately 20'-6" above the ground level to the bottom of the
canister shroud housing the panel antennas. The proposed antenna and canister
shroud will not be above the drivable road surface.
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 project will be affixed to an existing wood streetlight utility pole, and the
existing pole will not be replaced.
12.18.080(A)(6)(f): Pole mounted equipment, exclusive of antennas, shall not
exceed six cubic feet in dimension.
The pole mounted equipment, excluding antennas, would be limited to cable
connecting the node to power and fiber optic backbone, connectors, brackets, and
GPS. The pole mounted equipment, excluding antennas, would therefore not
exceed six cubic feet in dimension. Furthermore, the related mechanical
equipment will be vaulted underground.
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.
Interior installation is infeasible as the WTF will utilize an existing wooden pole. All
cables and wires shall be installed within conduit and, flush mounted and painted
brown to match the pole.
55478.00001\30324931.2
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 6 of 2-T
WO
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 WTF will be mounted to an existing wood utility street light pole. The
placement of the antennas on the pole connected to a 4' arm 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. 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, 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, does not constitute a safety hazard and/or does not interfere with the
City -defined intersection visibility triangle because the bottom of the proposed
antennas will be located 20.5' above the ground level, not over the drivable
portion of the street, and the related mechanical equipment will be
undergrounded.
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.
55478.00001\30324931.2
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 7 of 2T
A-7
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
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.
This portion of Granvia Altamira is characterized by a line of 52' tall utility
streetlight poles strung along the west side of the road. The placement of a vault
would require the removal of one of the saplings along the west side of Granvia
Altamira. As a Condition of Approval, the Applicant must replace the tree at a
location to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development.
Additionally, the Applicant will be required as a Condition of Approval to provide
landscaping around the vault within the parkway to minimize its visual appearance
from pedestrians and motorists.
C. If applicable, the Applicant has demonstrated its inability to locate on
existing infrastructure.
Not applicable. The antennas will be located on an existing utility light pole and
the related mechanical equipment will be undergrounded.
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
55478.00001\30324931.2
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 8 of 2T
1 •
•
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 shroud mounted on a 4' mast arm, extending from
the existing 52' tall wood utility streetlight pole with the bottom of the
antennas/canister measuring 20'-6" from the ground is the least intrusive means of
those alternatives. There are alternative antennas available but, according to the
Applicant, and as confirmed by the City's RF Consultant 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 would likely require associated
accessory equipment at every location. The supporting mechanical equipment
would be vaulted underground resulting in meeting the objective of installing the
least intrusive facility.
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 in the general area
of the intersection of Monero Drive and Granvia Altamira. This application
55478.00001\30324931.2
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 9 of 2T
1 •
information was provided to the City's RF engineer who reviewed the
information, as well as conducted both on-site walkout of the area and a
computerized terrain study to determine 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. 53 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
identified at any public meeting or hearing, are not technically feasible
or potentially available.
The Applicant has provided comparative analysis for possible similar small cell
nodes (antennas) at the following 3 alternative locations:
• Alternative No. 1 (location B). Existing wood utility light pole with mast arm
and luminaire approximately 375 -feet south of the subject site located
across Monero Drive, on the same line of utility pole street lights that are
strung along the west side of Granvia Altamira.
• Alternative No. 2 (location C). Replacement of an existing traffic stop sign
pole with a larger pole approximately 84 -feet south of the subject site.
• Alternative No. 3 (location D). Diagonally across the intersection of Monero
Drive and Granvia Altamira on a replacement pole for an existing traffic
sign (stop sign) pole, approximately 140 -feet east of the subject site.
The Applicant has provided comparative analysis of these locations. All the
alternative sites meet the RF coverage objective as confirmed by the City's RF
consultant. The alternative site analysis demonstrates that the Project is likely
55478.00001\30324931.2
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 10 of 27
A-10
the least intrusive location for the wireless telecommunications facility in the
immediate area. 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 the other
locations are more visible from residences as they involve either higher terrain
that's more visible to from residences or replacement stop sign pole and
replacement streetlight pole both more noticeable than the utility pole which
allows the antennas/canister to blend with the existing mast arm, luminaire
and other service arms, power lines and cable lines.
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 established, and the City's RF consultant has confirmed,
that to meet its technical service objective, the proposed installation must be
installed in a residential zone. As the City is mostly zoned residential, many of
the WTF are likely to locate in residential zones. Notably, the Applicant has
provided a meaningful alternative comparative analysis and the proposed
Project is found to be the preferred design by being installed on existing
vertical infrastructure, a slim canister, and undergrounding all associated
equipment.
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 ASG No.
53, 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.
55478.00001\30324931.2
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 11 of 2'T
A-11
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 30th day of November 2017.
Brian Campbell, Mayor
ATTEST:
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\30324931.2
CITY CLERK
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 12 of 2T
A-12
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
WTF ASG NO. 53
NORTHWEST INTERSECTION OF
MONERO DRIVE AND GRANVIA ALTAMIRA
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
55478.00001\30324931.2
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 13 of 2-T
A-13
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.
7. If the Applicant has not obtained approvals and/or permits from the Departments
of Public Works and/or Community Development 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
Community Development Department and approved by the Director of
Community Development.
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.
55478.00001\30324931.2
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 14 of 27
A-14
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 of the Project shall be
removed on a daily 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 (Public Works and Community Development Departments) with the
effective date of this Resolution.
Project -specific Conditions:
15. This approval allows for the following:
A. Install a WTF at the northwest intersection of Monero Drive and Granvia
Altamira.
B. Install two panel antennas encased in a canister measuring 2' tall and
14.6" in diameter that will be mounted on a 4' mast arm, extending from an
existing 52' tall wood utility streetlight pole approximately 20.6' from the
ground level.
C. The installation of vaulted accessory mechanical equipment in the PROW,
including vents and meter boxes that shall be vaulted underground and
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 antenna shroud and any related exposed structures shall be painted
brown and maintained to match the utility light pole.
o The Applicant shall install drought tolerant landscaping near the proposed
installation to screen the equipment.
o The Applicant shall replace the tree that is to be removed to accommodate
the vaulted equipment with a tree in the same general location.
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.
55478.00001\30324931.2
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 15 of 2T
A-15
o Colors and materials shall be subdued and non -reflective, and shall be the
same as the existing utility streetlight pole. All paint shall be professionally
applied.
o All cables and wires attached to the exterior of the wooden pole shall be
mounted flush in a conduit that is painted to match the pole.
o No cable or wires shall be visible.
o All ground -mounted facilities including mechanical equipment, or walls,
fences, landscaping or other screening methods 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 existing streetlight
luminaire. 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\30324931.2
■ 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 16 of 2T
A-16
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\30324931.2
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 17 of ZT
A-17
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
(including removal 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 to screen the vaulted 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.
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 18 of 27
55478.00001\30324931.2
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 of Public Works, which shall not be unreasonably denied.
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 Public Works any discontinuation of operations of 30 days or more.
55478.00001\30324931.2
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 19 of 2-T
A-19
31. Failure to inform the Director of Public Works 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 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 or permitee'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 these
Conditions of Approval;
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 or permitee's expense; and/or
55478.00001\30324931.2
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 20 of 2-T
A-20
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 or
security instrument posted and to the extent such costs exceed the amount of the
security instrument, 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 permitee, 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 any equipment installed
above ground and replacing larger, more visually intrusive facilities with smaller,
less visually intrusive facilities.
55478.00001\30324931.2
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 21 of 27
A-21
4 `�Il ''i !A � L"o rf
1* 1 11, ,
ASG NO. 53
A I ANTENNA DETAILS SCALE 1:5
"ll 11)
014.6'
CVU070XOF%YZ06 ANTENNA
G±
INSTALL 4- CEA
Z
C
TREET LIGHT A 29' T
ST
y
PROPOSED V POWER FEED
PROPOSED CROWN CASTLE FIBER AT 2T 0'
PROPOSED 7 COMM RISER
I}
3
BIS
p
EXISTING SERVICE POLE
F—
CC
O
Z
I0.
L_L_90°
r
POLE ID; #1358367E
TOP OF EXISTING POLE: 52' 0"
TOP OF ANTENNA: 22'6"
RAD CENTER: 21'6"
AZIMUTH: 0° & 90°
EQUIPMENT AND ANTENNAS TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH POLE
B 1 12 O'CLOCK VIEW I SCALE 1:10 I B 13 O'CLOCK VIEW I SCALE 1:10 1
TOP OF POLE 52' 0' TOP OF POLE 52' 0'
11—� �_ :,PRIMARYARMAT52'0' y� PRIMARY ARM AT 52' 0'
X015"
015
-
- - -� SECONDARY SERVICE AT 34'S'
� SECONDARY SERVICE AT 30'6'
STREET LIGHT AT 29 7'
TREET LIGHT A 29' T
ST
ITT
PROPOSED CROWN CASTLE FIBER AT 2T 0'
1Z T PROPOSED CROWN CASTLE FIBER AT 11'1'
CAN AT 26'W
r 24 CATV AI 25'U"
i CAW DOWN GUY AT 25' W
1 CATV DOWN GUY AT 2Y U'
' VERIZON AT 2W10"
VERILON AT 24iP
2.4'
VERIZON DOWN GUY AT 24' S'
VERIZON DOWN GUY AT 21 u'
T
TOP OF
ANTENNA
PROPOSED DOUBLE 4'CEA AT 20'2'
TOP OF
22' 6"
WITH (1) C00070ADFXYZ06 ANTENNA
ANTENNA
PROPOS ED DOUBLE 4 -CEA AT 202"
WITH (1) C00070AOFXYZW ANTENNA
RAD
CENTER
RAD
21'6"
PROPOSED V SCHEDUL' E 60 POWER FEED
CENTER
211E PROPOSEDSCHEDULE 60 POWER FEED
RELE)
INSTALL (1) CROWN CASTLE P X 6 VAULT WITH FLUSH
MOUNT VENTS WITH (2) ML IONS INSIDE) EXISTING TREE
TO BE REMOVED AND REPLANTED PER PUBLIC WORKS
INSTALL VGR
(SEE DETAIL 2 ON SHEET D-2)
GROUND
ON SHEET D-2)
INSTALL (1) CROWN CASTLE 4' X 6- VAULT WITH FLUSH
MOUNT VENTS WITH (2) ML IONS INSIDE) EXISTING TREE
TO BE REMOVED AND REPLANTED PER PUBLIC WORKS
ASG53ml
242727,N„
CROWN
Jv CASTLE
®Communications
6A2�n„N,
WIFIIBON PLA C6. SUITE:W
CARLSBAO. CA �4W
PONE "-=. W19'A�991a
MA%......._YLY%
6RoexurAKE' L.EMReunan
THE INt'ORMATION OONTNNED W TRM
SEI'OM DRAN'INOF
TO ISlll AETARTANU
Cq.TIDEMLW NT USE OR
DISNUSUREIS SIRITHAN A"D.Y PRONiBIRE W TWJ
PHOTO SIM UPOCTED 1112511/
—OCATE NODE LOCATION 1L—
EL—TE NODE LOCATI 415116
CHANGED ANTENNA f11J111
ASG53ml
ADJACENT 706505 MONERO DR
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA
POLE PROFILE
P-2
M
IDS Vu errites is
r .
i IK
-I t
�;, Monero [)i Mone o D
PROPOSED
ASG NO. 53
Aw
VENTS WITH (2) ML IONS INSIDE) EXISTING TREE
TO BE REMOVED AND REPLANTED PER PUBLIC WORKS
GROUND LEVEL
�B .. .. _ 1..: . .CLG•S. T'.�
GROUND LEVEL
.. ASPHALTi
�
��INSTALL VGR
\DETAIL20N SHEET D3)
INSTALL VGR
(SEE DETAIL 20N SHEET Q2)
INSTALL (1) CROWN CASTLE 4' %B' VAULT WITH FLUSH
MOUNT VENTS WITH (2) ML IONS INSIDE) EXISTING TREE
TO BE REMOVED AND R EPLANI'ED PER PUBLIC WORKS
A ANTENNA DETAILS SCALE 1:5 ASG53ml
ANTENNA#HPA-65F-BU U. H2
A4MOUNT
242727
INSTALL DOUBLE L "'`r` C RO W N
ANTENCASTLE
PROPOSED V PPROPOSED 7 COMM EXISTING SERVICE POANTENNA
0_ AZIMUTH. BU' c Communications
O
Z
0' tlil tiO13nN Y ACF.. SUIttlW
CANI..BBA�. CA9
PNOh'E.I] 19:9aro�lb
90°
raopxlBTARI rN'tuxAunoN
T!N IN'POBAIATIONL'ONTAMBOIN TRIS
BBT UP DRAA'INOBIB 1-1 ANO
CONROBNTW. TDA'r8T AN'IUBBOR
POLE ID: #1356367E BCI.OMtRB—THHANAs IT..ATBB
TOP OF EXISTING POLE: 52'0" DI rDAT:ns srxlc xYRoxltllr6o
TOP OF ANTENNA: 22'3"
RAD CENTER: 21'3" T
AZIMUTH: 0" & 90" 1
EQUIPMENT AND ANTENNAS TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH POLE.
Al
PHOT—IIOPOATED t1l'pll<
kELOCATE NDOE LOCATION 121b11!
HFLOGATE NODE LOCATI 411—
TOP
CHANOEDANTENNA 1111
ASG53m1
ADJACENT 706505 MONERO DR
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA
POLE PROFILE
P3
B 12 O'CLOCK VIEW SCALE 1:10 B 3 O'CLOCK VIEW SCALE 1:10
TOPOF POLE 52 0' TOP OF POLE 52' 0'
-�PRIMAflY ARM Ai 520' � PRIMARY ARM Pi 520'
--- � SECONDARY SERVICE AT 94'B` gECONDARYSERVICE AT 39'B`
\V/STREET LIGHT AT 28'7
STREET LIGHT AT 17 7
172 PROPOSED CROWN CASTLE FIBER AT 2TP PROPOSED CROWN CASTLE FIBER AT 2TP
r CATV AT 260'
CATV AT 2g 0" l CATV DOWN GUY AT 25'6'
CATV DOWN GUY AT 25' 8` 111 VERIZON AT 24' llT
i VERIZON AT 24' IV vERIZON DOWN GUY AT 24'B"
VERI20N DOWN GUY AT 21'8' f
,t TOP OF -IIIIT—
ANTENNA PROPOSED DOUBLE I- CEA AT 20'S'
22 6 RAD WITH (2) #HPA65F-BUU�H2 ANTENNA
TO7.'
CENTEF
ANTPROPOSED DOUBLE 4'CEA AT 20'S" 21'6•
2WITH (2) #HPA�65F-BUU�H2 ANTENNA
RAZ
CENTER
21'6" PROPOSE01'SCHEDULE BO POWER FEED PROPOSED 1" SCHEDULE 80 POWER FEED
(BEHIND POLE)
INSTALL (1) CROWN CASTLE 4' X 6 VAULT WITH FLUSH
MQ NT
ASG53ml
ADJACENT TO 6505 MONERO DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275
CROWN
CASTLE
P?2ot6 C-91. Map;
LOOKING NORTHWEST FROM GRANVIA ALTAMIRA
we
CROWN Crown Castle
200 Spectrum Center Drive
CASTLE Suite 1800
Irvine, CA 92618
9/20/201'7
Emily Colborn, City Clerk
City Clerk's Office
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
RECEIVED
SEP 2 12017
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
Re: Crown Castle NG West LLC: Notice of Appeal of ASG -53— Adjacent to 6505 Monero
Drive
Dear Ms. Colborn,
Crown Castle NG West LLC ("Crown Castle") hereby appeals the Planning Commission's
August 30, 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)(II).
(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,
�O� 2&9�e�
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com
C-1
P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2017-28
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE,
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY ASG NO. 53 FOR
THE INSTALLATION OF TWO 21.4" PANEL ANTENNAS
ENCASED IN A 2' TALL CANISTER SHROUD ON AN EXISTING
52' TALL WOOD UTILITY STREETLIGHT POLE WITH RELATED
VAULTED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AT THE NORTHWEST
INTERSECTION OF MONERO DRIVE AND GRANVIA
ALTAMIRA.
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 (the "Project") including
ASG No. 53 at the intersection of Monero Drive and Granvia Altamira;
WHEREAS, the original proposal called for the installation of two 21.4" panel
antennas mounted on a 4' mast arm, extending from the existing 52' tall wood utility
streetlight pole. The radio equipment and power meter were to be placed on the ground
adjacent to the streetlight pole, consisting of 9.7 cubic feet of equipment boxes in the
PROW;
WHEREAS, the revised project calls for the installation of two 21.4" panel
antennas, encased in a 24" tall canister shroud on an existing 52' tall utility streetlight
pole;
WHEREAS, the Project also includes vaulted mechanical equipment including
the radio and auxiliary equipment, as well as the SCE meter box in a secondary vault.
The Project consists of a total of three vaults measuring approximately 43 square feet;
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 a new facility (14 CCR § 15303(d)).
WHEREAS, on August 22, 2017, the Planning Commission continued the public
hearing, without discussion, to September 12, 2017; and
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-28
Page 1 of 5
55478.00001 \30149997.1
D-1
WHEREAS, on September 12, 2017, the Planning Commission considered
testimony and evidence presented at the public hearings, the information and findings
included in the Staff Report, and other records of proceedings.
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 at the northwest intersection of Monero Drive and Granvia
Altamira,
B. Install two 21.4" panel antennas, encased in a 2' tall canister shroud measuring
2' in diameter that will be mounted on a 4' mast arm, extending from an existing
52' tall wood utility streetlight pole approximately 20.6' from the ground level, and
C. Install vaulted mechanical equipment including the radio and auxiliary equipment,
as well as the SCE meter box in a secondary vault for a total of three vaults
measuring approximately 43 square feet in surface area.
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 installation of panel antennas encased in a 2' tall canister shroud,
at a height of 20.6' from the ground level, that would be affixed to a 52' tall wood
utility streetlight pole, does not blend with the surrounding environment and would
visually impact the character of the neighborhood as experienced from the
PROW.
55478.00001 \30149997.1
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-28
Page 2 of 5
D-2
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 size of the proposed antenna and canister
shroud that is attached to a 4' arm of a wood utility streetlight pole, in its proposed
location, is a feature that is out -of -character to the surrounding neighborhood as
there are no other structures or natural features in the immediate area that would
lend themselves to screening or blending the facility into the built environment. A
more compliant design would present equipment that is seamlessly integrated into
the utility streetlight pole or a "slim -line" design that does not present the antenna
nodes as the dominate feature on this wood utility streetlight 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 and parkways.
The proposed panel antennas encased in a canister shroud that would be affixed
by a 4' arm to a wood utility streetlight pole exacerbates the visual clutter in the
surrounding environment and would be visually intrusive as there are no similar
vertical elements with similar facilities in the neighborhood.
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 which includes minimizing the number and
appearance of utilities and related equipment, particularly in residential areas.
Consequently, 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.
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 panel proposed panel antennas encased in a
canister shroud measuring approximately 2' tall that would be affixed to a wood
utility streetlight pole on a 4' arm and as such has not been designed to be flush
55478.00001 \30149997.1
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-28
Page 3 of 5
D-3
mounted 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.
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 proposed WTF will be mounted to the 4' arm of an existing wood utility street
light pole and would take up more right-of-way space compared to the existing
utility streetlight pole and does not use 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 is the coverage of a "significant gap" in coverage. The wireless service
area to be served by the proposed facility only encompasses approximately 20
homes in City of Rancho Palos Verdes and is not located upon a major highway or
thoroughfare serving many in -vehicle users. Notably, and according to the
Applicant's testimony, the proposed installation will only serve an area within 1000
feet. The evidence provided did not support a finding of a significant gap. The
Applicant is not entitled to seamless or perfect coverage in every area it serves,
and 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. Moreover, the
record established that the service area covered by the proposed installation mostly
covers property located in another jurisdiction. The Planning Commission's
preference is to see collaboration amongst adjacent jurisdiction such that the
communities can share the burden of these installations.
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. The Applicant should
have explored locating the proposed facility along Hawthorne Blvd. outside the
immediate residential neighborhood to minimize adverse impacts to residents, to
the commercial building located at 28041 Hawthorne Blvd, or the monopole in
55478.00001 \30149997.1
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-28
Page 4 of 5
ME
Palos Verdes Estates. See above discussions in regards to RPVMC §12.18.080
for further detail, which discussions are incorporated here.
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 PM on Wednesday, September 27, 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, September 27, 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. 53 for the proposed
wireless telecommunication facility installation at the northwest intersection of Monero
Drive and Granvia Altamira.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of SEPTEMBER 2017, by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Emenhiser, Tomblin, Bradley, Vice -Chairman James, and
Chairman Cruikshank
NOES: Commissioner Nelson
RECUSALS: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Leon
C(:- -
Ara Mihranian, AICP
Community Development Director; and,
Secretary of the Planning Commission
55478.00001 \30149997.1
ANt
n M. Cruikshank
airman
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-28
Page 5 of 5
M
liCITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
STAFF
REPORT
� Q
S s
Via Cerritos U Via Cerritos Via WOO
2 ADJACENT TO
E„ 6505 MONERO
DRIVE
Monero Dr Monero Dr Monero Dr Monero Dr
n
o m
3 '
O d'
Q
1
Santona Dr 1 Rio Linda Dr
C
� 74.
o a
a
w
s
TO:
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
ARA MIHRANIAN, DIRECTOR O
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
NICOLE JULES, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
PUBLIC WORKS
DATE:
SEPTEMBER 12, 2017
SUBJECT:
MAJOR WIRELESS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY
PERMIT ASG NO. 53
PROJECT
NORTHWEST INTERSECTION OF
ADDRESS:
MONERO DR AND GRANVIA
ALTAMI RA
APPLICANT:
AARON SNYDER (CROWN CASTLE)
LANDOWNER: CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
STAFF ART BASHMAKIAN, CONTRACT
COORDINATOR: PLANNER
REQUESTED ACTION: A REQUEST TO INSTALL TWO 21.4" PANEL ANTENNAS TO AN EXISTING UTILITY
POLE FOR A WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY WITH RELATED
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT.
RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2017- APPROVING, WITH CONDITIONS, MAJOR
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY ASG NO. 53 TO ALLOW THE
INSTALLATION OF TWO 21.4" PANEL ANTENNAS ENCASED IN A 2' TALL
CANISTER SHROUD ON AN EXISTING 52' TALL UTILITY STREETLIGHT POLE WITH
RELATED VAULTED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT.
LAND USE:
CODE SECTION
55478.00001 \30127228.1
PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
RPVMC CHAPTERS 12.18 AND 17.02
E-1
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 53)
SEPTEMBER 12, 2017
PAGE 2
ACTION DEADLINE: SEPTEMBER 30, 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 RELATING 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 May 3, 2016, Crown Castle submitted an application, proposing to install Wireless
Telecommunications Facility ASG No. 53 in the public right-of-way (PROW) at the
northwest intersection of Monero Drive and Granvia Altamira, adjacent to 6505 Monero
Drive. The City notified Crown Castle that the application documents were incomplete
after three resubmittals. Notices were sent to Crown Castle on June 3, 2016, November
23, 2016 and February 10, 2017. Ultimately, Crown Castle submitted requested
documentation to process the application.
On May 23, 2017, the Applicant (Crown Castle) received a Public Works Encroachment
Permit to install a temporary mock-up of a proposed wireless telecommunications
facility. On May 25, 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
June 1, 2017.
On August 3, 2017, a public notice was published in the Peninsula News announcing
that a public hearing on the proposed facility is scheduled to occur on Tuesday, August
22, 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.
On August 22, 2017, the Planning Commission continued this item to the September
12, 2017 meeting.
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. 53 expired on August 25, 2017. However, the Applicant agreed to stop (toll)
the shot clock during this period until September 30, 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 August 7, 2017.
E-2
55478.00001 \30127228.1
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 53)
SEPTEMBER 12, 2017
PAGE 3
SITE DESCRIPTION
The proposed site is located entirely within the PROW, near the northwest intersection
of Granvia Altamira and Monero Drive, along the west side of Granvia Altamira. This
portion of Granvia Altamira does not have paved sidewalks.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Project as originally submitted was to install a Small Cell Node (SCN)
consisting of two 24" panel antennas mounted on a 4' mast arm, extending from the
existing 52' tall wood utility streetlight pole. The radio equipment and 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 simulations for the proposed project as originally submitted by the Applicant:
Existing Site
Revised Project
Original Proposal
As a result of discussions with Staff, the Applicant has revised the Project so that the
proposed panel antennas would be encased in a 2' tall canister shroud that would be
mounted on a 4' mast arm, extending from the existing 52' tall wood utility street light
pole. The bottom of the antennas/canister would be 20'-6" from the ground. Additionally,
the Applicant has agreed to vault the related mechanical equipment including the radio
and auxiliary equipment. There will be a total of three vaults that will cover 43 sq. ft. of
surface area as shown on the site plan and in the photo simulation below. All vents and
meter boxes will be vaulted and flush with the ground. On the next page is a photograph
of the existing site and a photo simulation, prepared by the Applicant, of the site with the
proposed revised installation:
E-3
55478.00001\30127228.1
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 53)
SEPTEMBER 12, 2017
PAGE 4
Revised Proposal
Proposed Alternative Locations
In addition to the proposed project, the Applicant has proposed similar SCN (antennas)
at the following three alternative locations (see attached site map):
• Alternative No. 1 (location B). Existing wood utility light pole with mast arm and
luminaire approximately 375 -feet south of the Primary located across Monero
Drive, on the same line of utility pole street lights that are strung along the west
side of Granvia Altamira.
• Alternative No. 2 (location C). Replacement of an existing traffic stop sign pole
with a larger pole approximately 84 -feet south of the Primary.
• Alternative No. 3 (location D). Diagonally across the intersection of Monero Drive
and Granvia Altamira on a replacement pole for an existing traffic sign (stop sign)
pole, approximately 140 -feet east of the Primary.
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
May 25, 2017 property owners within 500 feet of the proposed facility were
E-4
55478.00001\30127228.1
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 53)
SEPTEMBER 12, 2017
PAGE 5
notified of the WTF mock-up which occurred at least 30 days in advance of the
public hearing. Further, on August 3, 2017, a public notice announcing the
August 22, 2017 public hearing was provided to property owners within 500 feet
of the proposed WTF and published in the Peninsula News. 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 September 1, 2017. However, on
August 7, 2017, the Applicant provided the City with a Shot Clock Tolling
Agreement (See Attachment) establishing a new Shot Clock Expiration date of
September 30, 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).
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 panel antennas consists of a collocation on an existing 52 -foot tall
utility streetlight pole, with mast arm and luminaire and two service arms that carry
power lines along with cable lines. As revised, the panel antennas will be encased
in a 2' tall canister, measuring 2' in diameter, on the existing utility streetlight pole
minimizing its visual intrusion to the environment. Although the antennas will not
be visible, the canister will be, but it will blend into the environment that consist of
utility light poles, power lines, cable lines, mast arms and luminaries along
Granvia Altamira. The area also contains mature foliage that screen the views of
the poles from residences. 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.
E-5
55478.00001 \30127228.1
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 53)
SEPTEMBER 12, 2017
PAGE 6
As further detailed below, a view analysis was conducted and City staff
determined that 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 architectural character of the surrounding buildings or structures in terms of
color, size, proportion, style, and quality.
The proposed panel antennas will be a collocation on an existing 52' tall utility
street light pole, with mast arm and luminaire and two service arms that carry
power lines along with cable lines. The proposed canister shroud encasing the
panel antennas will be painted brown to match other streetlight utility poles in the
area and the existing condition and improvements on the utility pole. As discussed
above, the cylinder shaped shroud encasing the two antenna panels and wires
affixed to the utility 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.
There are no designated City view corridors in the area, as defined in the City's
General Plan. Monero Drive is classified as a local street while Granvia Altamira is
designated as a non -local, collector street within the Circulation Element of the
General Plan. By locating on an existing utility streetlight pole, the Project
minimizes significant view impacts from surrounding areas. The height of the
existing pole will not increase, nor would the installation of the two 2' panel
antennas encased in a 2' tall canister shroud significantly impair any existing
views. An existing 6 -foot tall privacy, masonry wall adjacent to the Project and
mature foliage on all four corners of the intersection of Moreno Drive and Granvia
Altamira provides screening from visual impacts to surrounding properties.
Furthermore based on a view analysis conducted on August 3, 2017, it was
determined that the proposed wireless telecommunications facility does not create
a significant view impairment from a residential viewing area, as defined in Rancho
Palos Verdes Development Code Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and
Restoration Code).
55478.00001 \30127228.1 E-6
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 53)
SEPTEMBER 12, 2017
PAGE 7
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 has been designed to avoid adverse traffic impacts by
affixing the panel antennas and the canister shroud to an existing wood utility
street light pole with the bottom of the antenna canister shroud measuring
approximately 20'-6" from the ground. Additionally, the related mechanical
equipment will be vaulted avoiding traffic safety impacts, including an infringement
on the intersection visibility triangle, at the intersection of Monero Drive and
Granvia Altamira.
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 canister shroud that will house the panel antennas and the associated mast
arm will be painted with non -reflective brown paint that will match and blend with
the existing utility street light pole.
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 proposed panel antennas will be a collocation on an existing 52' tall utility
street light pole, with mast arm and luminaire and two service arms that carry
power lines along with cable lines The two antennas would be mounted back-to-
back and encased in a 2' tall canister shroud on a 4' mast arm, extending from the
existing wood utility street light pole. The bottom of the antennas/canister would
measure approximately 20'-6" above the ground level below. Locating the
antennas on the mast arm will not preclude possible future collocation by the
same or other operators or carriers.
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.
E-7
55478.00001\30127228.1
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 53)
SEPTEMBER 12, 2017
PAGE 8
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).) Sections 12.18.080(6)(c) through (f) are not applicable.
The proposed wireless telecommunication facility will be located in the PROW
and will be pole mounted to an existing utility street light pole.
12.18.080(A)(6)(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 mounted on a pole be less than 24 feet above any
drivable road surface.
The proposed antennas will not exceed 48" above the existing utility pole.
Furthermore, the antennas are proposed below the maximum height of the 52' tall
utility light pole approximately 20.5' above the ground level to the bottom of the
canister shroud housing the panel antennas. The proposed antenna and canister
shroud will not be above the drivable road surface.
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 proposed antennas will not exceed 4' above the existing height of the light
pole. Furthermore, the antennas are proposed below the maximum height of the
52' tall utility street light pole approximately 20.5' above the ground level. The
antenna and the mast are not 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 project will be affixed to an existing wood street light utility pole, and the
existing pole will not be replaced.
12.18.080(A)(6)(f): Pole mounted equipment, exclusive of antennas, shall not
exceed six cubic feet in dimension.
AR•
55478.00001 \30127228.1
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 53)
SEPTEMBER 12, 2017
PAGE 9
The pole mounted equipment, excluding antennas, would be limited to cable
connecting the node to power and fiber optic backbone, connectors, brackets, and
GPS. Crown Castle's pole mounted equipment, excluding antennas, would
therefore not exceed six cubic feet in dimension. Furthermore, the related
mechanical equipment will be vaulted.
12.18.080(A)(6)(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.
The project utilizes an existing wood street light utility pole. Therefore no
exception is required.
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. 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.
Interior installation is infeasible as the WTF will utilize an existing wooden pole. All
conduit and cabling is to be flush mounted and painted brown to match the 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.
The SCN is proposed to be mounted to an existing wood utility street light pole.
The related mechanical equipment (radio units and meter) 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.
Pursuant to the application documents submitted to the City, the proposed
installation complies with all building codes related to wind loads as confirmed by
the City Engineer and City consultants.
E-9
55478.00001\30127228.1
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 53)
SEPTEMBER 12, 2017
PAGE 10
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, the proposed
wireless telecommunication facility installation would not cause an obstruction to
the public's use of the PROW, constitute a safety hazard and/or interfere with a
City -defined intersection visibility triangle because the bottom of the proposed
antennas will be located 20.5 feet above the ground level, not over the drivable
portion of the street, and the related mechanical equipment will be
undergrounded.
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 would not interfere with any public health or safety facilities. The
wireless telecommunication facility is proposed on an existing utility light pole.
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 and
the support mast arms. 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
E-10
55478.00001 \30127228.1
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 53)
SEPTEMBER 12, 2017
PAGE 11
maintained by applicant where such landscaping is deemed necessary by the city
to provide screening or to conceal the facility.
This portion of Granvia Altamira is characterized by a line of 52' tall utility street
light poles strung along the west side of the road. The placement of a vault would
require the removal of one of the saplings along the west side of Granvia
Altamira. As a condition of approval, the applicant must replace the tree at a
location to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development.
Additionally, the Applicant will be required as a condition of approval to provide
landscaping around the vault within the parkway to minimize its visual appearance
from pedestrians and motorists.
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)(15)(a-e) Lighting.
The facility does not include any such lighting other than the existing luminary on
the light pole.
C. If applicable, the applicant has demonstrated its inability to locate on
existing infrastructure.
Not applicable. The antennas will be located on an existing utility light pole and
the related mechanical equipment will be undergrounded.
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-11
55478.00001\30127228.1
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 53)
SEPTEMBER 12, 2017
PAGE 12
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.
City's consulting RF Engineer has reviewed the Applicant's alternative site
analysis, and concurs that the proposed design and location are the least
intrusive means and the alternative locations and designs were not technically
feasible.
Other locations and designs considered for purposes of filling the coverage gap
claimed by the Applicant and discussed by the City's RF Engineer (attached)
presented the following intrusions, which Staff determined to be more intrusive
then the proposed project as revised:
• Alternative No. 1 (location B). Existing wood utility light pole with mast arm and
luminaire approximately 375 -feet south of the Primary located across Monero
Drive, on the same line of utility pole street lights that are strung along the west
side of Granvia Altamira.
This site is on a slope which may make the site more visible from residences
situated above Granvia Altamira to the east.
• Alternative No. 2 (location C). Replacement of an existing traffic stop sign pole
with a larger pole approximately 84 -feet south of the Primary.
Replacing a stop sign pole will require a larger pole and the antennas will be
more noticeable, compared to the existing utility light pole which allows the
antennas to blend with the existing mast arm, luminaire, other service arms,
power lines and cable lines.
• Alternative No. 3 (location D). Diagonally across the intersection of Monero
Drive and Granvia Altamira on a replacement pole for an existing traffic sign
(stop sign) pole, approximately 140 -feet east of the Primary.
Same as the findings for Alternative No. 2 above.
FINDINGS FOR EXCEPTIONS
Section 12.18.190 of the RPVMC states "Exceptions" provide:
E-12
55478.00001 \30127228.1
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 53)
SEPTEMBER 12, 2017
PAGE 13
"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."
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
E-13
55478.00001 \30127228.1
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 53)
SEPTEMBER 12, 2017
PAGE 14
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.
The City's consultant also concluded that from an engineering perspective, 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. Further, the
engineering design provided by Crown Castle supports that, if constructed, DAS
site ASG No. 53 will provide ample signal intensity (signal level in excess of -95
dBm) to support AT&T's 3G/4G wireless services.
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. 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 I, 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.
E-14
55478.00001 \30127228.1
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 53)
SEPTEMBER 12, 2017
PAGE 15
As noted earlier, the Applicant has proposed similar antennas at the following
three alternative locations (see attachment):
• Alternative No. 1 (location B). Existing wood utility light pole with mast arm
and luminaire approximately 375 -feet south of the Primary located across
Monero Drive, on the same line of utility pole street lights that are strung
along the west side of Granvia Altamira..
• Alternative No. 2 (location C). Replacement of an existing traffic stop sign
pole with a larger pole approximately 84 -feet south of the Primary.
• Alternative No. 3 (location D). Diagonally across the intersection of Monero
Drive and Granvia Altamira on a replacement pole for an existing traffic sign
(stop sign) pole, approximately 140 -feet east of the Primary.
All the alternative sites meet the RF coverage objective as confirmed by the City's
RF Engineer. 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 Alternative
No. 2 is on a slope which may make the site more visible from residences situated
above Granvia Altamira to the east and Alternative Nos. 2 and 3 utilize
replacement pole for stop signs which will make the facility more noticeable than
the primary location which will better disguise and blend the antennas, encased in
a canister) with the existing utility pole and the existing equipment (luminaire, two
service arms, power lines, and cable lines).
While the proposed location is adjacent to 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. The City's
technical consultants have reviewed the Applicant's documents and support this
conclusion.
Further, other locations and designs that may fill the coverage gap claimed by the
Applicant and discussed by the City's RF Engineer (attached) were found to be
more intrusive then the proposed project as revised:
• 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 and discussed
by the City's RF Engineer (attached), as opposed to having one AT&T pole
in this area.
E-15
55478.00001 \30127228.1
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 53)
SEPTEMBER 12, 2017
PAGE 16
• Alternate antenna designs, such as the side -mounted open panels
originally proposed, were found by Staff to be bulkier in appearance and
less streamlined than the vertical shroud design now proposed.
• 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 installation will be
installed on an existing wood utility street light pole that will match other utility
street light poles in the immediate area. The proposed canister housing the panel
antennas will be painted brown to match the existing pole. The location is
necessary to cover a gap in service, as affirmed by the City's RF Engineer who
will be present at the September 12th meeting. And, 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
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
E-16
55478.00001 \30127228.1
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 53)
SEPTEMBER 12, 2017
PAGE 17
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 May 3, 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 August 25, 2017. But as stated earlier, a new Shot Clock Tolling
Agreement, dated August 7, 2017 (see attachment) established a new Shot Clock
Expiration date of September 30, 2017.
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
E-17
55478.00001 \30127228.1
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 53)
SEPTEMBER 12, 2017
PAGE 18
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 May 23, 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 June 1, 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. 53; 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
redesign and resubmit for consideration at the September 26, 2017 meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
• P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -XX including Conditions of Approval
• Project plans and photo simulations
• 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
E-18
55478.00001 \30127228.1
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 53)
SEPTEMBER 12, 2017
PAGE 19
• August 7, 2017 Shot Clock Tolling Agreement
• Public Comments
E-19
55478.00001 \30127228.1
P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING, WITH
CONDITIONS, MAJOR WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS
FACILITY PERMIT ASG NO. 53 TO ALLOW THE INSTALLATION
OF TWO 21.4" PANEL ANTENNAS ENCASED IN A 2' TALL
CANISTER SHROUD ON AN EXISTING 52' TALL WOOD
UTILITY STREETLIGHT POLE WITH RELATED VAULTED
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AT THE NORTHWEST
INTERSECTION OF MONERO DRIVE AND GRANVIA
ALTAMIRA.
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 (the "Project") including
ASG No. 53 located at the northwest intersection of Monero Drive and Granvia Altamira;
WHEREAS, the original proposal called for the installation of two 21.4" panel
antennas mounted on a 4' mast arm, extending from the existing 52' tall wood utility
street light pole. The radio equipment and 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;
WHEREAS, the revised project calls for the installation of two 21.4" panel
antennas, encased in a 24" tall canister shroud on an existing 52' tall utility streetlight
pole;
WHEREAS, the Project also includes vaulted mechanical equipment including
the radio and auxiliary equipment, as well as the SCE meter box in a secondary vault
within the PROW. There will be a total of three vaults measuring approximately 43
square feet;
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 Major 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)).
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-
PagE9
55478.00001\30127231.1
WHEREAS, on August 22, 2017, the Planning Commission continued the public
hearing to September 12, 2017;
WHEREAS, on September 12, 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 at the northwest intersection of Monero Drive and Granvia
Altamira,
B. Install two 21.4" panel antennas, encased in a 2' tall canister shroud measuring
2' in diameter that will be mounted on a 4' mast arm, extending from an existing
52' tall wood utility streetlight pole approximately 20.6' from the ground level, and
C. Install vaulted mechanical equipment including the radio and auxiliary equipment,
as well as the SCE meter box in a secondary vault for a total of three vaults
measuring approximately 43 square feet in surface area.
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
May 25, 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 August 3, 2017, a public notice announcing the August 22,
2017 public hearing was provided to property owners within 500' of the proposed
WTF and was published in the Peninsula News. On August 22, 2017, the
Planning Commission continued this item to its September 12, 2017 meeting.
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
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-
PagER
55478.00001\30127231.1
manner that achieves compatibility with the community and in compliance with
Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration) of this code.
The proposed WTF is a collocation on an existing 52' tall utility streetlight pole,
with mast arm and luminaire and two service arms that carry power lines along
with cable lines. The panel antennas will be encased in a 2' tall canister,
measuring 2' in diameter, minimizing its visual intrusion to the environment. The
canister shroud will blend into the environment that consist of utility light poles,
power lines, cable lines, mast arms and luminaries along Granvia Altamira. The
area also contains foliage that screen views towards poles from residences. The
WTF will not dominate the surrounding area because of the existing vertical
infrastructure. The mechanical equipment will be vaulted including the radio and
auxiliary equipment, as well as the SCE meter box in a secondary vault for a total
of three vaults measuring approximately 43 square feet in surface area.
The design would not have any significant view impairment to the surrounding
area. This design is preferred to avoid the installation of a new pole and is
visually less -intrusive compared to "side -mounted" panel antennas because the
vertical shroud presents a slim side view that blends with the verticality of the
utility pole. The Project is in line with the vision and policies set forth in the General
Plan by minimizing the installation of new above -ground infrastructure.
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 proposed panel antennas will be a collocation on an existing 52 -foot tall utility
street light pole, with mast arm and luminaire and two service arms that carry
power lines along with cable lines. The canister shroud encasing the panel
antennas will be painted brown to match other streetlight utility poles in the area
and the existing condition and improvements on the utility pole. The cylinder
shaped shroud encasing the two antenna panels and wires affixed to the utility
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.
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-
PagE3
55478.00001 \30127231.1
The Commission finds that the design would not significantly impair any public or
private views. The site 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 is designed to avoid adverse traffic impacts by affixing the panel
antennas and the canister shroud to an existing wood utility streetlight pole with
the bottom of the antenna canister shroud measuring approximately 20'-6" from the
ground. The related mechanical equipment will be vaulted avoiding traffic safety
impacts, including impacting the intersection visibility triangle at the intersection of
Monero Drive and Granvia Altamira.
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 canister shroud that will house the panel antennas and the associated mast
arm will be painted with non -reflective brown paint that will match and blend with
the existing utility street light pole.
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 Project will collocate on an existing 52' tall utility streetlight pole, with mast
arm and luminaire and two service arms that carry power lines along with cable
lines. The two antennas would be mounted back-to-back and encased in a 2' tall
canister shroud on a 4' mast arm, extending from the existing wood utility
streetlight pole. The bottom of the antennas/canister would measure
approximately 20'-6" above the ground level below. Locating the antennas on the
mast arm will not preclude possible future collocation by the same or other
operators or carriers.
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. Therefore, the Planning Commission shall not grant an
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-
Pagki�2Z
55478.00001\30127231.1
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).) Sections 12.18.080(6)(c) through (f) are not applicable.
The proposed WTF will be located in the PROW and will be pole mounted to an
existing utility streetlight pole.
12.18.080(A)(6)(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 mounted on a pole be less than 24 feet above any
drivable road surface.
The proposed antennas will not exceed 48" above the existing height of the light
pole. The antennas are proposed below the maximum height of the 52' tall utility
light pole approximately 20.5' above the ground level to the bottom of the canister
shroud housing the panel antennas. The proposed antenna and canister shroud
will not be above the drivable road surface.
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 proposed antennas will not exceed 4' above the existing height of the light
pole. The antennas are proposed below the maximum height of the 52' tall utility
light pole approximately 20.5' above the ground level. The antenna and the mast
are not 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 project will be affixed to an existing wood streetlight utility pole, and the
existing pole will not be replaced.
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-
Pag4O
55478.00001\30127231.1
12.18.080(A)(6)(f): Pole mounted equipment, exclusive of antennas, shall not
exceed six cubic feet in dimension.
The pole mounted equipment, excluding antennas, would be limited to cable
connecting the node to power and fiber optic backbone, connectors, brackets, and
GPS. The pole mounted equipment, excluding antennas, would therefore not
exceed six cubic feet in dimension. Furthermore, the related mechanical
equipment will be vaulted.
12.18.080(A)(6)(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.
The project utilizes an existing wood streetlight utility pole. Therefore no
exception is required.
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. 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.
Interior installation is infeasible as the WTF will utilize an existing wooden pole. All
conduit and cabling is to be flush mounted and painted brown to match the 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.
The WTF will be mounted to an existing wood utility street light pole. The related
mechanical equipment (radio units and meter) will be vaulted measuring
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 installation complies with all building codes related to wind
loads.
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-
Pag&250
55478.00001\30127231.1
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, the proposed
wireless telecommunication facility installation would not cause an obstruction to
the public's use of the PROW, constitute a safety hazard and/or interfere with a
City -defined intersection visibility triangle because the bottom of the proposed
antennas will be located 20.5' above the ground level, not over the drivable
portion of the street, and the related mechanical equipment will be
undergrounded.
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 would not interfere with any public health or safety facilities. The
wireless telecommunication facility is proposed on an existing utility light pole.
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 and
the support mast arms. The related mechanical equipment will be vaulted.
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 vaulted.
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.
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-
PagEE46)
55478.00001\30127231.1
This portion of Granvia Altamira is characterized by a line of 52' tall utility
streetlight poles strung along the west side of the road. The placement of a vault
would require the removal of one of the saplings along the west side of Granvia
Altamira. As a Condition of Approval, the Applicant must replace the tree at a
location to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development.
Additionally, the Applicant will be required as a Condition of Approval to provide
landscaping around the vault within the parkway to minimize its visual appearance
from pedestrians and motorists.
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)(15)(a-e) Lighting.
The facility does not include any such lighting other than the existing luminary on
the light pole.
C. If applicable, the applicant has demonstrated its inability to locate on
existing infrastructure.
Not applicable. The antennas will be located on an existing utility light pole and
the related mechanical equipment will be undergrounded.
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
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-
PagEB4,T
55478.00001\30127231.1
to show that all alternative locations and designs identified in the
application review process were technically infeasible or not available.
The proposed project is the least intrusive of the alternative locations
considered. Other locations and designs considered as part of the application
process for purposes of filling the coverage gap claimed by the Applicant and
discussed by the City's RF Engineer 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 ROW of local streets as identified in the General Plan, approval of a Major
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 in the general area of
the intersection of Monero Drive and Granvia Altamira. This application
information was provided to the City's RF engineer who reviewed the information,
as well as conducted both on-site walkout of the area and a computerized terrain
study to determine of 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.
53 will provide ample signal intensity (signal level in excess of -95 dBm) to support
AT&T's 3G/4G wireless services.
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-
PagE949
55478.00001\30127231.1
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 small cell
nodes (antennas) at the following 3 alternative locations:
• Alternative No. 1 (location B). Existing wood utility light pole with mast arm
and luminaire approximately 375 -feet south of the Primary located across
Monero Drive, on the same line of utility pole street lights that are strung
along the west side of Granvia Aitamira..
• Alternative No. 2 (location C). Replacement of an existing traffic stop sign
pole with a larger pole approximately 84 -feet south of the Primary.
• Alternative No. 3 (location D). Diagonally across the intersection of Monero
Drive and Granvia Altamira on a replacement pole for an existing traffic sign
(stop sign) pole, approximately 140 -feet east of the Primary.
The Applicant has provided comparative analysis of these locations. All the
alternative sites meet the RF coverage objective as confirmed by the City's RF
Engineer. The alternative site analysis demonstrates that the Project is likely the
least intrusive location for the wireless telecommunications facility in the
immediate area. 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 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 stated herein are
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 a new facility (14 CCR § 15303(d)).
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
P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -
Page &29)
55478.00001 \30127231.1
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, 27, 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, September 27, 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 at the
northwest intersection of Monero Drive and Granvia Altamira (ASG NO. 53).
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of September 2017, by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
RECUSALS:
ABSENT:
John M. Cruikshank
Chairman
Ara Mihranian, AICP
Director of Community Development; and,
Secretary of the Planning Commission
P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -
Page &W
55478.00001 \30127231.1
Exhibit "A"
Conditions of Approval
WTF ASG NO. 53
ADJACENT TO 6505 Monero Drive
General Conditions:
1. Prior to obtaining a permit from the Public Works Department to install the WTF,
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 -
Page LA0
55478.00001\30127231.1
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, 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM 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 7:00 AM Monday
through Friday and before 9:00 AM 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 -
Page BZZ
55478.00001 \30127231.1
Project -specific Conditions:
15. This approval allows for the following:
A. Install a WTF at the northwest intersection of Monero Drive and Granvia
Altamira,
B. Install two 21.4" panel antennas, encased in a 2' tall canister shroud
measuring 2' in diameter that will be mounted on a 4' mast arm, extending
from an existing 52' tall wood utility streetlight pole approximately 20.6' from
the ground level,
C. Install vaulted mechanical equipment including the radio and auxiliary
equipment, as well as the SCE meter box in a secondary vault for a total of
three vaults measuring approximately 43 square feet in 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 antenna shroud and any related exposed structures shall be painted
brown and maintained to match the utility light pole.
o The Applicant shall install drought tolerant landscaping near the proposed
installation to screen the equipment and proposed retaining wall
consistent with existing landscaping.
o The Applicant shall replace the tree that is to be removed to accommodate
the vaulted equipment with a tree in the same general location.
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 utility streetlight pole.
o All cables and wires attached to the exterior of the wooden pole shall be
mounted flush in a conduit that is painted to match the pole.
o All ground -mounted facilities including mechanical equipment, or walls,
fences, landscaping or other screening methods 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
P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -
Page E-4-3 30
55478.00001\30127231.1
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 streetlight
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.
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.
P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -
Page
55478.00001\30127231.1
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;
C. Rust and corrosion;
d. Cracks, dents, and discoloration;
e. Missing, discolored or damaged artificial foliage or other camouflage;
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-
Page E6
55478.00001\30127231.1
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, drought tolerant landscaping near the proposed
installation of the vaulted accessory equipment 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
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.
P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -
Page E -au
55478.00001\30127231.1
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.
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
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-
PageE&070
55478.00001\30127231.1
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.
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
P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -
Page [49
55478.00001\30127231.1
replacing larger, more visually intrusive facilities with smaller, less visually
intrusive facilities.
P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 24:8D
55478.00001\30127231.1
ASG53ml
ADJACENT TO 6505 MONERO DR
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA
FI
ILI M11RN 10,Al, I%S I A'I F..
PROJF:C'I SL\NAOi.R
LON.SIRt'C'HON NIANAOER
Il:\I Ilt: I' IIE:UI:I: NC'1'
SIGN OFF
SIGNATURE DATE
ASG53ml
242727
'CROWN
CASTLE
Communi. canons
RT
DIGS
10 SIM �vOniEG
anE 11)1:1.1
ASG53ml
ADJACENT TO 6505 MONERO OR
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA
TITLE SHEET
eco uN2z�u: �..
T-1
E-40
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CONTIG\ CI'OR SHAH 1I'RII:I \Ii.
N \NS INDI:.\ISII\( DIMENSIONS
I'i\Ct Cktl\lNl \SII I'1114FR 1'1'2]'11'.
PltOkCI'\I NACElt:
\ND CONDI I'RIN1 ON 1'111: Oil Sl 1'1:
� _�c�0
• A. 1'.SCIlh Nl l f Fill \\I R FEED RISF".k.
CRDN%N C IS I 1
2111)sU C l RI NI a N l I OR 181111 EOOR
\\D SII \I -I IU NII Di \III 1' N(11111"
DIS('1(1Nl:l.k l\\t It l'I'IN(IO4:\N\'
3� ps Ol
fD' Oi0mAt- -'
:NSW
• INS I'AI.I. 2'.10tIDIIF. Fn COMM RISER.
IR\I\I C:1 ')?DIF
DIS(.It]IIINCI: M 1.S (,it(1RE Elt(ICEE.DIN'l.
'\\'1'I'lll'll1 \\'()ItA 1112 R1:11'(INSlhl.l!
Palter Vs+tl•t.
• I`I.:\CIi D<Il�lii.li4'Cli:\:\I'211'N"1\'1'1'11121 :1,1':'111',\-NSE-Illll�-ID AN'1'R.S'N,\S
Il1N C(1\11.57
(`125)21111pNi]
I (Ik S;\i\11..
_8\ E �
\\'1'1'IINIl111N'i'111(ACKI1QI)0ll.l`)7i1WANDCONC1.:11.E:\I1 SIIIt 11111.
IIIV.C(1\V'I:I.I.,1'I:NDlllt :Kitt)\1'Nl'A}I'I.I:.CI)11
_ Cy
• INSI'AI, I,O)CR1AINC'ASI'LI-,4'.X6\111:1\tl'Ill 121 NII. MINS INSIDi:ANDEI.IINII
CONS I' IUC"41ON E:NUIN1:ER
NRIl'N I' VE.N'I S.
CROWN CAN 11.1:
21111 SI'I.CI'RIA CE:N'I'EK OR 18111 FLOOR
• INSI`A1.I.CROWNCASI'I.I.\rR2'\.l•VAITIW11'11141Xt'Ell OINcONNI.criltl.\.
Ilt\'INE. C':9208
S
Ai:\V4.II1 DORIIS
p VIa: CeLdi05
Otey SITE LOCATION
. E.CIB'IINOIREE IDIII'.Rl;NVAEDAND REI'I.AN'I'ED AI 1111DIBCRIIloNur
'Ll 11.1c WORKS.
(714)251.'1839
N1:NNI':1'lIJ IOBBNeCNO\\' N'CAS'I' L F...CONI
NOW: I:N(ilNl!ER:
N .m. p,
CO;\S'1'Al. CONINIVNICA PIONS
9524'1 WANT i:\ CANTON BlA I),
CII:\ I:S\\'OR 1*11. CA 91311
o
C'II It'1ISN JOIINSON
E filo Linda Dr
(7011)'9;2.4112
IIt
9
Cl TISSvrCD;\S I':\I.Cl1NlNI INC.['ONI
'K
RanchoP a
6 � vetdaa R oxer Dr
RWGaPelh Cl
VICINITY MAP
PROJECT SUMMARY
PROJECT TEAM
ASG53ml
242727
'CROWN
CASTLE
Communi. canons
RT
DIGS
10 SIM �vOniEG
anE 11)1:1.1
ASG53ml
ADJACENT TO 6505 MONERO OR
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA
TITLE SHEET
eco uN2z�u: �..
T-1
E-40
'LEGEND
SYMBOL DESCRIPTION
■ nn rl.nn. F))t.
ABBREVIATIONS
AA ASPNN.T CURIE
:'6c .-FIR C GO'I'TER
L 1F.IIERI.FIE
FS li\IS'I'"'I
IA'1 INICE, IN: PAIRS— I
Ill, .IPF.R'I'YI,-
I11 RICE I'OF NI A)'
S.R SUNISI\ISN IN IIUUNTARI'
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES:
11.11 IIIIAIII1"N 'I11 11111111FEE IF I LE rN,N , I WAI.IAII I"AIEN1'S:1IIALL BE
PER N V IS I Ell I'
I All, C 1 N I 11 IEVEL,PMR1,11 SiANIIAA, IIIRAt
E
t NI, I 1 Hl "BE
+1 t "IN II nI .N' S .SSS SNI N'll'I IIIL 4HISt Nil WI EtI t.AN.ANN UN. 11' ER
Ftt.
.1.1.11111.1: I)N I R,!1. I LAN IN'YI'IT It AI"PI.I'.'ANI.t.
IFAIN III -M1 FRIII 1111 AITRAAF. NA SEA BASIN IM1MFTA ILII ISIBFd IIF ENKEr
As nl .AI III aN KE I AILS
RiL I OINIFAII IN OR Cl-A.i-1E) PLIEN1 -N. , i-N:sit NSEB.Io FOR II EANIPI' SILT AND AIITuN
A4V1 ENISI NE115 ANIS -11 IIRAIN 11'S':II IIILI i I I I.NSI RItTIVN A, I' IV l' 1
i 11111 oN IRA1l OH.SII:AI.I.RF.AIIIVI:Fill ANT I ISIBRIS AFTER LAI H AIAll RAINFAI:i.
+4
BI.kKn
Ill FA1 It IN!, SNA. AK MAI)T A4 LA
TIE AT All. IML
II
I' IMS
) 1111 II H\
1111 . I VIt i 11B NEALL F11i AI Ali FEI BRIE1.1.111—II;NI'ROi. D' I. BEIU v,,-EII ,ENR
v S. I +, I - 1111{EI'11t11 INFER -R NESTkN r HEITIFFAR AFTER FAIL 0 -TIFF
(t. A. t 1NIINVPALI.
I I 1IIAlL IN11 AIJ I 111AI,FR sl I 11ElI I'.N I NIA1111111111
I OL IR.UNI uIE Hl
I.Bhll'+t NILER DIMI It'- IIIIIES,til, UiEl ANIES. AHBI '11 NAY ARLF.
S t. tn�F I11'Nl 11111, III1 PIR IIF 11111, 1111,11 11111111111FIT II AN
v I. tkAlh'O INI,nA t:I..S .. II.E IN -111 t A.N 1111SS
ICES SIE x IhEr.N
V ALI. FFAI11\III!I.I;P-1kIN!,, IFIF 11 STAN. IIF IN FI-AI1.. AT I' HR F:NII OF EACH WIIREINI{
11.\1 ABLE RAIN IS TAI AI IN FN I'
Iv i111, 1-'t 'FI H I E11I1. 111-11NO11 111111B 11 li. APER.EIIII
I IR 4" 1 N I IR 1 V IIII Yt N
10 1 H r II :F 1 kl ISIR 4 IE i'Y 1. 1
I.
IIF. 4 1111+ H11 I 111.11 'Ni Kill. h.
\LASIRA 111111 RFI.AIEll
t.."I
Ns Fl.,
i'It -N A'I111IS
STOIRMDRAIN INLET PROTECTION
INI...I' I.DGI. ()F I'A VIiMP:N'I'
FI.(1W FLOWSPILLWAY, I-HAU 111611 SANDBAG
2 -HAGS IIE10IIT
TYPICAL PROTEC71ON FOR INLET WITH OPPOSING FLOW DIRECTIONS
I':DG E OF
PAVE MMI' MlilN
FLOW
FI,UW
SPILLWAY, I-BA6 HIGH SANDBAG
2 -HAGS II11 (iIl'I'
TYPICAL PROTECTION FOR INLET WITH SINGLE FLOW DIRECTION
NOTES:
I. IN'1'ENTIiI: I"It SIIURT - i I?RSI 11 SE.
IISii'I'U INilllll'I NIIN-SIIIRSI IAI'EE FI.tIN'
AI.LOIt' [,;R ITI )P:N \LAIN i' li NANt' F: ANI) "I, EANIT'
I NAILS MIISI'III :Nt:A111A'1:11 AtlI:R Al-, EN IS (IIAd 1'1.1111; 11
5 N"rAI'I'i.lt':\NE!IN ARHASIII 'I'I1 IIFM ii AN CI,AIAII I'tH-)UI' Fh.TF..R 4:AIIRII'
lU/1TSQ.
1 11EA PURI P"II-I l -sil '
'R N
t UNTRALIOR 'PI. NNIAU.AR. NI ANY AI.I S'VNAf I)RAIN INIFis TV 1•REVENI'
11INIFAMINAtEDWATUX
I NP111LEIII.F.1111 iF V R4ANBILI—AINIMI ANDEIRELT1'\ II NG -11 ANNI IF 41
N FRINEII
J IONIRA' I't IR 0FFIAIIL TA IIAIHENPIR.l AI Ni \I AI FN, IU rL,.1 SF\i1111N 1�1 TIE
\ NN INFER
5 l k11IE i ITE IF,.11 11.1) IN PIA R IF 1 .1. HEP- "FI 'I' IIII'
ilff II DIF 11 I'
0 11 'N'1 . IF '.AI Rr I.NII CN
SAIiSFA\iVN lltl 4t1'F. NFEE INt"I NINI�.1lI'RTIIM1IIi'111 t. IA\Int. 11EII'IN'tl.
IAAFIA\ES. PATH : v, ANN I"<AIFt 1.11,.IP IEI'A'I I N.
I SHIN" AI.E SI All f4 11 IIIL\CEI I'll II I I BAII 1111 FAI11\FH14S 11 ASNANN
DE TE' S
E PETESINIAN RAMP W'ILI. NUT RE OISPRIfEI)
ROW GROUND CONSTRUCTION NOTES:
I IBSIAIID I'.151 I'1 NI'I REAP \4111:\N AI.. IHR+ NAILS, SlA11", Hn(N--SEI)
I'll
".I.' NS1LA11 BE IN All tt.\ AIt NIt.-PAI, I ILMI'. SI'A I' t'.
Il HNA t 45 AND UO!e 11—ARDS' ANN H,La6HA I ONS
I AI.I. NSA IS IN NHS PRIM II- Ell AIA IIII. I ISNO IDdyUO OR el l
All. LAIKIDE, A1111,11i ...1,1 BE REST 1111l T.il I.EIRUIA1,I II'ION 4R 11111 EK
I A.I. Not IAIFS' NL 111u1)ll
I -111 EU' .e .'LEANANII. AT [IUNRt1YENINO
I 1ATIl: iIANINH'I'NASEA'I'PAN I
NORMAL LOCATION OF
UNDERGROUND UTILITIES NOTES
I. rt'AIkIN AY 11SPIB'. '-1 AIBPEIItISIFIN li I f 1F 1 F.
"II
SINIRVITERAN IIINN IN ANY FLANNEL—"1ET T,,EE TFFT. U1111t 111 11—
t. , ,.. .411E PERAIITI'EU IEi'TIIE UEYI V4IUNI.H \VONRS IN IASESt:1CUNFI.N'i'INV
A111.1III:.S11
I t�'OM1'1:1.Ir"ISNE'1'N'E%NUI'll.11'YCl1MPANINSFACII.IT1ES. liSISI'ING ANTI PH�IPII)NII. AII'S'r lfl:.
AIIITIl A1.1.1' RESu1.VF.lI Nl"I'llE UI'i1.i'i'1' LVAII'ANIF.S
AtI : „NEWAI.ES.I'BE1:111111'INAYI'SIIAI.I. Hk PLAT' EII \VIrII1N'1111
SIDE\A,,AI.E 11'Nn'1SIR, n'N FAIR -1, NES
! AI,\SIAII!M !" BAAlkrl'IItIRS AIAINSINA1' BE PI.,\I'11) 11 tHVI 11TILTIES'i' RENt'II SUNIEti
r11APFIIAN:U.„F III ENGINEEN � IN'rRAI'1RI
CALIFORNIA STATE CODE COMPLIANCE:
Ali AI'I:It \ISS REPRRI:-'Kllk IAI.L ITT N, , IRT \nrF A'1"I'll1'111!
IC-N1FIBI-l-I IfE1111.1,1-11- L IIT4S11 Ail -111 RT 111'1' HILINAIt 11.LE IAL i'll ttll'E'
I'IINt IN rHEII1\n_I: tt IIFItN+TRIL EI T. PERVIIIAV lA 1101",A v.R111n""�"'BE11..
It1-
t...w11511IT1'III
IiVI'IREAi I;N'I'S
F '1"11 ilI -ANI A Ili A l i l I I An II '\ P'1 I I At v ISS REM IREAI EN' IS
1111 II APII.) IN A, I ORDANI IN I 111,'201111 AILI I.IIENIA NINI.0 Nt Lt lF
IIIISW N4.FS1 11111111111AI'"u FAI 11.111 1 t 1II1Il:w VIII t. ..%I. H I ANI— ISF III
thIIURNt 1' 1I n't' 1 11 'll 'I 111K� I-tl Itl nl \ n -L't 111
NIIA RN I'S\NII AN)' IIFL< V'II'll%,SIt w1Ti11'111 x1IIhE\I. Nltl'LAI: INN
AIIINI' x
ASG53ml
SE II
242727
III ET
`CROWN
yCASTLE
WN.v'F.t"I'ItIST, III Vil
CODIHIDDIL-2SIODS
51F II
YRtn Nu:r.ARr 1NtaxAl.A IN
B11-11-11 INI,
DIGMALtRT
Ul
PHOTO SIAL UPOA— 114 "/IN
RELOCATE NODE LOCATION 14/15
SELICITE NOfEE LOCATION —11.
ASG63m1
ADJACENT TO 5505 MONERO DR
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA
DETAILS & NOTES
JI
D-1
E-41
Pnwer supply
Atllacantdmna Pwa.. I.
•4b
Mems Pow... van
BE 1p 364
115 w 3]0
UL ompul lolwa„cn oval lrequa.my. IS
t1
Power nonwmplmn. walla
1150
IXoulpw tmarencoovm tempemlure. d6
G.5^
opera,
7/16— W
see bend
lupin ICP3. IS.
sp.c410ullun
i5
Connaclom
E3000/APC B'
ICP3IWI—Id
.13
Oplmat ml ,.Ions. IS
45 mm.mum
No -(19... opt—Id
•itl
Fiber type. mm
01,1a1 Ilnk I.dgel, IS
Sm I.—I. E91125
0 to tU
Nurse li9wn. tlB
39 3fi
Comp— mpul power
39 3G
39 36
ICP3 op -1116
1
® OTP. most., ane. dBm
e.13 d8m / 1 MHt
•'•• W Ih panNMe poplblg mgcil... I lemparal.m
All Igaras ere ryp¢al v.luac.
-11
1900 MH:
2100/3200 MHL
�5 romp0
r5 compost.
I4ol.n k9u.. optuntzgd
4.5
6,nnc
Bts Stln
Humber al ronnecbrs
1900 MHz
DownLnk
17pM-100 MHz
4
SysMm 0p11mtzetl for BTS pawn., d8m
33
43
Antenna Port
8
Cbnnewm
Owput
7/16— W
see bend
power
Ralu.n lois. tl8
sp.c410ullun
i5
/700Rt00 MHz TAWS)
3G
F,agneanv,anen. MHc
Uplink
111010 2155
Downlink
2110 1 2255
Owput pow., per carne.. dBm'
<.13 db,I 11 MHL
Number o/Cartels 1 3
4 8
GSM 45 42
39 3fi
COMA 45 43
UMTS 45 42
39 3G
39 36
LTE 45 4,..39
3G
so---..
e.13 d8m / 1 MHt
F,eque,my renBa. Mill
Uplink
1850/01915
DownLnk
18301. 1996
p.powa. pal nw.m,. I.m•
Summmy
Pp Supply
Number of C...... 1 2
d
8
GSM 45 42
39
3G
CDMA Y5 43
UMTS 45 J2
111*
.
3G
LIE 45 -
39
36
SWriouc emlcaian
Enylmn 01
<.13 db,I 11 MHL
GL aulDul Ialerenne over Iraquency. tl8
-03'C M a50'C
:1
a pulpal lolaronce over tempamture.IS
Fan purl
0.5'^
Inyw ICP3. dB.
" 3tlbp0we,.aduolkn®'SMML __ b.1 -11h
•'• w optive cooling
'••' spNDln9,equlmd 40 mm (1.58In)
ICP3 oM,,Med
•'•• W Ih panNMe poplblg mgcil... I lemparal.m
All Igaras ere ryp¢al v.luac.
-11
Notre lI,."ep.m..d
-16
N.-119ure. tlB
ICP3. Irmo
1
11 mn..
NOMI kgw. p.,m d
1.5
G mu.
SYMam 42parvHlon Intl Control
DommI I.
RF mdpll
e,lmnw conl.ol Wna
Alo—
Summmy
Pp Supply
Opt -I UL'9nn DL Ie4um
Ibmpbinlwn
Supervtwon
UwpuI puwn. one Wr-
'hwlnnl wtd pal -Gaud
Mechenicll""
bgeln IpPImn01)
He19M1l, witllM1. tleplh mm Ile)
.17 c 345 � 318
(3:3 n 9.81 a8.G)
Wn19al. kg (Int
4U 188.1)
Enylmn 01
OWmbon I.Mpemmm m.pe
-03'C M a50'C
Inpmss D.olroli0n RF pen
IPG)
Fan purl
IP66
• ApplknbII to amgle mpduMtkn motlp only
" 3tlbp0we,.aduolkn®'SMML __ b.1 -11h
•'• w optive cooling
'••' spNDln9,equlmd 40 mm (1.58In)
ar and one
•'•• W Ih panNMe poplblg mgcil... I lemparal.m
All Igaras ere ryp¢al v.luac.
140' C
GROUND ROD INSTALLATION FOR WOOD POLES
TYPICAL SECTION: N.T.S.
_ NEW WOOD POLE
WOOD MOULDING
BAREN Cu GROUND
CONDUCTOR
FINISH GRADE j
Cu GROUND CLAMP FCI No. 381.3 -TS.
116 WIRE BONGING TYCO No. 83749.1, OR EQUAL
JUMPER
#6 (5/8- X 8) COPPER
CLAD GROUND ELECTRODE
GROUND ROD INSTALLATION FOR UTILITY POLES ND1
NOTE:
UTILITY POLE GROUND SHALL COMPLY WITH PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA GENERAL ORDER Na. 95 (SECTION 59.4, BEA)
2 SCALE
N.T.S.
ANDREW ION-M11HP119HP
MULTI -BAND, MULTI -OPERATOR
REMOTE OPTICAL SYSTEM
L
slap Front Side
ASG53ml
242727
CCROWN
CASTLE
.up 6rr.�rut al-, : lou lk YN rl.,nth
Communications
ells h.3uu
.Al
nlntl..t:,.Illq
H..�Ihl I+nikl,'I I.y vlgnl1n11 hUl h.
ll�pF
EnW
I.xuU'i.�,ll
unynu6r.mx
gal uk2
txnnkN2'bt. nI.NNI
Ph SIM IWDATED I2lLSH4
RELOCATE NUDE LOCATION 1N 5
RE—AIE NUDE LOCATION 4.tb116
ASG53ml
ADJACENT TO 6505 MONERO DR
RANCHO PALOS VERDES. CA
DETAILS & NOTES
Mnt R(i Y UR sn IG � JI
D-2
E-42
ASG53ml
242727
CROWN
JvCASTLE
.ul, SPE+'( XL�JI t' FPY EH DN le'I II N.IA�Y.
®Lo,,,,.,,. ,,.,cations
mmunl I x
�lFU6IIPUNVI.11.l AXIN R`
L'.\RI-1.111^I.s A +`.PUP
I xUI x1EI'.LxY t�ttlN\Ini NNA
IAINS
INNt 6)
11 111 I55l x1 '11.Y 111.1 ININI. EU
DIG�RT tvxl �noE
t,n ul+;
FlUTO SIAL UPDATED
31111 ALE DUCE LOUATI
unIE DUDE -All-
ASG63mi
ADJACENT TO 6505 MONERO DR
RANCHO PALOS VERDES. CA
DETAILS & NOTES
IIK I( 1
R(Li
D-3
E-43
WTR FUSE BOX
SQUARE D BY SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC
4' DOUBLE CROSS
(FOR NEW POLES & STREET LIGHTS
LOAD CENTER, 70A
EXTENSION ARM
STAHLIN 6P ENCLOSURE
SSLLATCH
(MDOFL wOOx4l]GPBI
O
KTX OR MILK OLATION SWITCH
16A FUSE ®
O
TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS
ARPENERA INS NEA
A
% A
1ML.OIMMEHLMLAND
APPLICATION INDUSNEOTO REQUIREMENTS
)EMS.EREOMREMENT5IG PXOtECt ELECTRICAL
6YSLEMS.EOMIPMENI ANO PEOPLE
PACES
WaLEN ME 2 i0 JAWGAI) RI9 109 AV.OTLU1
tATING CIRCUIT BPFAKEXS 2
VOLTAGE
/
D
G
SSL LATCH
RAZING —REYAL
WIRING CONHGURa110N iWIRE
VACEEAp'V
ICO ER S.>BpWCHES
BMSMAIRRUI N-B.ALUMInUM
IE
S1000TM1G1
r EYS SEALING FITTING
CATALOG REFERENCE NUMBER
ENCLOSURE TYPE OUTDOORIHAINPROOF
U
eox stA: I
Uo� Dual
X°
ENCLOSURE RATING I. JR
OROUNOING BAR ORDER SEPARATELY
RAN CIRC UXAiSFEO
TVPEUIT CURRENT RAI END
FIUXE. FACTORY INSTALLED I,IAIN
E
to Frs etnL
rtFC (cox Pvctaxnl
.UU5
SHIPPING AND ORDERING
GAiEGORY DDtol LOAD CEN1EPs,tPHASt. NEMAIEJR.Ze
PAXIULIS '' NOTES: IU awn
Qui QTY CRIPTION CE MAY VARY W LENGTH AND
s Rsouvtn Mll I
iMEAslu mxawx..IN. I
�Or to xurs. nlnfo+aoEP
LIPCUI}. TYPE DO
DISCOUNT SCHEDULED
ACPALGE GUANIlURDER BSSOI)SEGS
tv
5 4I Z NNE BILIS WALL VARY DUE TO POLE
A HANDWAME TO v
4�u� xN y BE OVPFOGK AnIZED
BLI CA - ALL
rnnxas+xo caxxscroxFl ` to rPlxoaM I
wEIGHiEOUANI
RECUR'ABILITY OE SIB.R
Y
5 SCALE
N.T.S.
R.
9 (BRACE MAY BE REVERSED DUE TO POTS CONDITIONS
NA 6 SCALE
Ew9tER I
L -nexe usma mmr ePY.om+P r°xx wnTTm - I 4 SCALE
J N,T.S.
DOUBLE ARM MOUNTING BRACKET
VAULT DETAIL
MOUNTING PLATE DETAIL
(FLUSH MOUNT)
COVER FEATURES
10900 LMS. WHEEL LUAUON t0" X f O" PLATE.
' PW.1D _
' APP OR VJT =Tt LER.
.POLYMER CONCHEIE IDENTIFICATION
•ONE PIECE COVER (CRONMCASTLE)
•FOU R MOLT DOWN
•COLOR CGSNCREIE GREY
• NUN -SKID SURFACE
' LID TO HAVE H -2U TRAFFIC LOAD FRICTION
COEFFICIENT TO DE D.6 OR MORE y
�^
zzz—
LIFTINGEYE -
HPHUHOLEFEATUREG
'POLY MERCONIREIERMANO FIMEPGLASSREINFORCED
POLYMER MDOY
' OCE.OR OF RBd3 tXXA:RETE OXEY
• APPROX. VJT. = 11J LMS.
GROUND ROD INSTALLATIO_
CTOPVIEW
GLAREN
POLYMER
GONGREIIEGCOPPER OAOROIAA) ROD ISIS"X B'7
em
CM GROUND
UAQUG_'uURL
NOTE'.
TS CLAMPFCI
NoLISLJ-TBTYCO No.PARTUST
BJl41t, OR EQUAL
HAND
CALL Olv DESCRIPT1011 ALLMWNTING MARDWME TO BE MOT DIPPED
OUT GALVARILEU IRON
MUUI ITII IG PLA
L 1
MAUALt HCALE
I 7 N.T.S.
B"GRAVEL FRC BODY
A6 COPPER CLPD
GROUNDRODISIS'XS')
ASG53ml
242727
CROWN
JvCASTLE
.ul, SPE+'( XL�JI t' FPY EH DN le'I II N.IA�Y.
®Lo,,,,.,,. ,,.,cations
mmunl I x
�lFU6IIPUNVI.11.l AXIN R`
L'.\RI-1.111^I.s A +`.PUP
I xUI x1EI'.LxY t�ttlN\Ini NNA
IAINS
INNt 6)
11 111 I55l x1 '11.Y 111.1 ININI. EU
DIG�RT tvxl �noE
t,n ul+;
FlUTO SIAL UPDATED
31111 ALE DUCE LOUATI
unIE DUDE -All-
ASG63mi
ADJACENT TO 6505 MONERO DR
RANCHO PALOS VERDES. CA
DETAILS & NOTES
IIK I( 1
R(Li
D-3
E-43
HPA-65F-BUU-H2
9
SCALE
CONCEAL FAB & SHROUD
(FOR HPA-65F-BUU-H2 ANTENNA)
024" RF TRASPARENT
THERMOPLASTIC
ANTENNA SHROUD
21"
11 SCALE
3U blII
J
;I i
ji
; : � TORQUE ETIING FOR ME: 25 Nl,,
ALI!
TWO POINTS TILI POLE MOUNTING INSTALLATION
#0900397/00
NOTICE DE MONTAGE
MOUNTING INSTRUCTIONS
NO. PART NO. DRAWING NO
DESCRIPTION
a,,
.1. H,P,, Hd Bo
2 abBy-k
2
..I Gd i�
3 6273400/681
Hf �ZMB Z' ,id,,t.el 3.8
6
4 67735MI68
MB Vlainwal-
H,PI IS UZI,, 8.8
12
5 H3172
H312202-022
. 38O17VIIOO 3/9252759
71 1p,=
H.,
3
7 H3124-00-01
K3124
Long 5�issvr da
?/995277?
sw s,P.. All
......... d
F97 ;3-416 1
H3416 -003 -OD
I - ,I_ u % ,k.,
2
PART No: 0900397/00 0"IM�wn H3452-104-01
ASG53ml
242727
CROWN
CASTLE
Comin—Li . nicati,on,S
A
I RT
......... ...
1111DE L-ATIll
R—GATE NUDE LUCAi
ASG63ml
ADJACENT TO 6505 MONERO DR
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA
DETAILS & NOTES)
x6i 11 11 I6 rl'
D-
4
E-44
ASG53ml
242727
CCROWN
✓CASTLE
Comm..
umcations
DIGAMRT
HELllCA1E Nl'lOE I -ATI
HELccA'IE Nc�E LUCAYI
ASG53m7
ADJACENT TO 6505 MON ERC DR
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA
DETAILS & NOTES
D-5
E-45
ION-M7HP/85HP EU - Product Specification
ION-M7HP/85HP EU - Product Specification
I14dr64d
Sys" sulawlsbn and Coolrol
Mwnt pv.er, Vac
Input 1CP3, dem•'•
Commands
AI oA"
�
—I1001.190
I(P3 epumri
Igwr
II Inn.
Ism
A(—
Sm mpry
.prollp
8511164
Nose apllMnd
P.np S.NPty
Mons pwvrr. Vdc
_I
411.6/
Noise figure, A...
03.0-6
to..,
AlnN and UI Nim
wr.Im9
361017
Rmvlip.. gnmm4
6.0 moa
la 9malnN
1
icansumPrbn.W
5'Olnbl
st,P-ieiwl
i.=' -1m,
I
i
-A, dd7lmd.d
966
ml
w
'mvlry,,, ldle
316
gs0 MH:
M.dhanlwl'
i �
I ',,
Fmq—y range, MHz
Height, width. d.plh, mm lint
Opdwl Unk
dpdnl
174roN9
AL Y.Mm
317.745271/
137.70.6rt61
F
•Iryp
a Tom'
Connrcbn
UMIAK 8`
Ou1p�'I Vaxar Par caviar,
Bmmlik
dB.'
16YroW1
BI. V,i-
1053 2 245 2718
2'+6inw ellON M7HP/NSHP Exrelniun
llnil (AC Vn.rirnll
Opk.l relum lots, d8
OS
N—b. ni— 1
2 4
8
HI Sr 9,6 x3.61
Fibre) Ype
9/175
fbdr rak U/125'
Nm
It 455
415395
36.5
Weight. kg 1161
4013171
Ophml lmk 6urlgo, dB
01.10
ON 455
NMA d5,5
475 39.5
425 39.5
36.S
36.5
Enelr.—W
Cmml.silrmpul Power 0 QIR. mmttw ide,dBmOMIT
Lit
425"
395 161
Opwmlmg
tanprrmNr. rang.,<
33101,50
700 MHz mh'Mum
d
I65
5.5
455
42
geapoa han
i
E.'
DlopvIbane— qncy,d
sl
KF ;An
IP61
I
Mow. 'mlmm
-16.5
DL wpul Idwance we' Iempmalure
dB
.0.5
1.o pmt
IPSS
1 1�
runnel
5.5
Slwnart emlvnn
:-13 dBmj IMk
Ordoting ln—ifl—
Input I03, dB,"'
ION-M7HP/#SHP EV
1693966"
lP Inwdf
In qn—d
Nobs llpvr aplinbtlIBnin
OoPody on dmsekld.pbn.nd 16n'alq.rolbn dw .damp mmnbl numb. monlm
i
BTS
®d.nlNybO wlfa
1
n5ideoSMAI
I Lr 6.r f connecbn Slandord
100 M1h
1
Noise figura, d8"'
ICP3 splinksd
IO nae-
Lomnpwnding Mn+ln Unit
1
ESO MIh
4
Nate PI., Rdi—A
5"'aICNI
M37HP/19HP
7631417'
1
System Wit—d Far BTS power, dam
37
Nrnsp.nding Me4Nr Uldf Oi4
t
47
OTRm70-85/90/17-21
16B43MM
1
Remote Lkdl wsbnnu pwl
C—
Pild hn'.h
r II
-'
Red6
turn oss,
., I
IS
lil�
fpubp'nW6vd 40 nn111.511n1 mound wN
.
.. Ab.rvbw'ePwN4
..
700 MH[
All N.- yplwl v.I—, nl.. oth—m
tlalad.
C:mbnmr of I0NM7HP/SSHP E—i—
OW (0C V—iwl)
Fragv.ncy —ge, MHz
Uplirk
6901.716/776 ro 781
0-1114
77N 1.151
O.J.t power w miner, dem•
N.mbnr.f Cbrd- 1 0 4
t
LIE 455 QS– 3'15
36,5
DL p.0.1 blman — fiesrym y, dB
e1
DL
.0.5
P97.5000.1%
SPrnovt emits'Im
43,111m /I M42
28p—nd.d'm'd<SM -., 6ondn6h
Spun,—,,ion'nb Public 5a6y Narraw6.nd
1'. nh—pad B1.A
A dBm/625III,
All Fig.—are l,—I valvae urdett oIh—i. sMd
ASG53ml
242727
CCROWN
✓CASTLE
Comm..
umcations
DIGAMRT
HELllCA1E Nl'lOE I -ATI
HELccA'IE Nc�E LUCAYI
ASG53m7
ADJACENT TO 6505 MON ERC DR
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA
DETAILS & NOTES
D-5
E-45
__ a Mauertoart
242727
CCROWN
�� Coastal
M '
A � L
Q O 1 I'r�
SITE PHOTOS
p •. . p LOOKING
E-46
ASG53ml
242727
-XCRCVVN
CASTLE
comm.U- n ica.tio ns
... .......
I DIG&ERT
KEIOCAIEWIDEL-7101
ASG53ml
ADJACENT T0650 MON ERODR
RANCHO PALO$ VERDES. CA
I
SITE LOCATION
E-47
ASG53ml
242727
CROWNO
n
CASTLE
•.
Co, nmu,,.,ication
y.
DIGMERT
LOOKING NORTHWEST „'
iuir,um
u.m in.,....
FEL—TE IIDL)E LICIT— F-111.11
Vicinity Map
ASG53m1
ADJACENT TO 6505 MONERO DR
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA
Existing Site
SITE LOCATION
Blip• 08 22 1" JT
S-3
I •
•
ASG53ml
YIL,NM. II
CROWN "242'2'
v CASTLE �°''lo'*CROWN
c,.,CASTLE
_ _ .VU SYFt X91'P:N 1111 INIII N.uull
mmri.catiuns
Y
Euln.m ILLI. mlr. eft
sxnu:
I.
PR,IPWET.\Rl'INP\rRelATl,rx
1`I�cX IiN
TI!
xeLOOKINSOUTH �unn�
u, „xl ool
In.UXN,IN,Nrvlr XXN\ X Y. n1.hX I
1:rr:,
PNoroau uPwreo +iRN+a
RELOCATENDDELDD n1 1-1W
' RELDC:ITENWElOC4ilON UNIX
Vicinity Map
ASG63m7
ADJACENT TO 6505 MONERO OR
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA
Existing Site SITE LOCATION
,•R[i 118 .I IG :.".'I�rr
S-4
E-49
PLACE CROWN CASTLE FIBER AT 27' 0'
INSTALL I' SCHEDULE 80 POWER FEED RISER.
• INSTALL 2' SCHEDULE 80 COMM RISER.
PLACE DOUBLE 4' CEA AT 20 6- WITH (2) 21.V roHPA-65F.BUU.H2 ANTENNAS WITH MOUNT
BRACKET #0 900 39 7100 AND CONCEALFAB SHROUD.
• INSTALL (1) CROWN CASTLE 4' X 6' VAULT WITH (2) ML IONS INSIDE AND FLUSH MOUNT VENTS
INSTALL CROWN CASTLE WTR V X T VAULT WITH POKER DISCONNECT BOX.
. EXISTING TREE WILL BE REMOVED AND REPLANTED AT THE DISCRETION OF PUBLIC WORKS.
W
PROPOSED CROWN CASTLE WTR 2'X T VAULT
WITH POWER DISCONNECT INSIDE
(3' B.O.C.) STA. 100 * 76 �
(SEE DETAILS 4, 5 8 8 ON SHEET D-3) p
I t
5'DIRT TRENCH
INSTALL (1; CROWN CASTLE 4' X 6' VAULT WITH FLUSH MOUNT VENTS WITH
(2) ML IONS INSIDE) (1' B.0 C,) STA. 100 + 70
(SEE DETAILS 1 8 3 ON SHEET D-2,
DETAIL 11 ON SHEET D-5)
W DIRT TRENCH
SITE LOCATION
EXISTING UTILITY POLE #1358367E (3' B.O.C.)
ADJACENT TO 6505 MONERO DR
STA. 100 + 61
#6505
RIW – — —
12 ,'L:NEI-NHFI.I
It 60'.36._
99
�G
;'GREENBELT
12'
#6504
NODE COORDINATE
IA 1111F 1!.710-'
K
1 1 LaNtiIIIIUE -11 #.J925U
FOOTAGE TOTALS
ASPHALT TRENCH 0'
PUNCH THRU 0'
IRT TRENCH 9'
1 I BORE 0'
TOTAL 9'
OI
Z R&R TOTAL SWP 1 0 SO. FT.
31
MONERO DR
1 i I 1
tK
� ——36'S6''Y
EENBELT CI
RI
R STA 100 * 00
L7gMIRA STA 700+00
�
rF`
NORTH
4
SCALE: I" = 40'
ASG53ml
242727
XCROWN
CASTLE
Communications
IG.ALZRT
1EU
RELOCATE -LE LOCATIol 11 El't
RELOCATE NODE OICAIION
ASG53m1
ADJACENT TO 6508 MONERO DR
RANCHO PALOS VERDES. CA
SITE PLAN
RG. H 22 11+ 11
P-1
E-50
A ANTENNA DETAILS SCALE 1:5 ASG53m1
ANTENNA FHPA-65F-BUU-H]
AZIMUTH, D° 242727
CONCEALFAB SHROUD �03dv.
INSTALL
N'(E NA MOUNT UBLE CEA YYY< IT -A_ CROWN
CASTLE
PROPOSED I"POWER FEED jy
PROPOSED Y' COMM RISER
015 -
EXISTING SERVICE POLE Y52'0"
= ANTENNA #HPA-65F.BUU-H2
AZIMUTH: 9D° Communications
Z T
0.
�90°
— — vxol xu. L1x1 INruxuuTua
POLE ID: #1358367E
TOP OF EXISTING POLE: 52'0" DIG�ERT����
TOP OF ANTENNA: 22'6"
RAD CENTER: 21'6"
AZIMUTH: 0° 8 90°
EQUIPMENT AND ANTENNAS TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH POLE.24'10"Iintvux' ,xr.
uurx,.x.n ausu#1Tor. m.Exr
PNOTD SIM.—TED
NEl—TE NODE LOC --
RELOCATE NUDE LOCATI
ASG53m1
ADJACENT TO 6505 MONERO DR
RANCHO PALOS VERDES. CA
POLE PROFILE
R(i Nx 2211, II
P-2
B l2 O'CLOCK VIEW SCALE 1:10 B 3 O'CLOCK VIEW SCALE 1:10
TOP OF POLE 52' 0"
PRIMARY ARM AT S2' 0" PRIMARY ARM AT
!
I
I .
—' �--015" 015 �•I F—
—�' SECONDARY SERVICE AT 34' 8" - - --- SECONDARY SERVICE AT 34' 8"
f —-.-x�yy STREET LIGHT AT 29' 7"
STREET LIGHT AT 29' 7" j �--
12 PROPOSED CROWN CASTLE FIBER AT 27' 0" 12 PROPOSED CROWN CASTLE FIBER AT 27' 0"
CATV AT 26'0'* 2 CATV AT 26' 0"
i CAN DOWN GUY AT 25' 8" ' CATV DO WN GUY AT 25' 6"
VERIZON AT 24"10" VERIZON AT
2' `\ •�
VERIZON DOWN GUY AT VERIZON DOWN GUY AT 24' 6"
PROPOSED DOUBLE 4' CEA AT 20' 6" PROPOSED DOUBLE 4' CEA AT 20' 6"
N WITH (2) 21.4" ANTENNAS TOP OF WITH (2) 21.4" ANTENNAS
#HPAESF-BUV-H2 WITH ANTENNA #HPA-65F-BUU-H2 WITH
TOP OF MOUNT BRACKET #0900397/00 22' 6" ' MOUNT BRACKET #0900397/00
ANTENN AND CONCEALFAB SHROUD (SEE AND CONCEALFAB SHROUD
22' 6" DETAILS 6 & 7 ON SHEET D-3 &DETAILS
(SEE DETAILS 6 8 7 ON SHEET D-3 8
9,10, & 11 ON SHEET D-4) RAO I DETAILS 9,10, & 11 ON SHEET D-4)
PROPOSED i"SGHEDUCE 80 POWER FEED CENTER
INSTALL (i) CROWN CASTLE 4' X 6' VAULT 21' 6" ! . PROPOSED 1"SCHEDULE 80 POWER FEED
RAD WITH FLUSH MOUNT VENTS WITH (2) ML I. i
CENTER IONS INSIDE) EXISTING TREE TO BE
21' 6" REMOVED AND REPLANTED PER PUBLIC
WORKS
I
I
GROUND LEVEL
E-51
EXISTING
„.. :.
'a '•.:.'
�\
�\/\��\ I PAVEMENT
\ \8 0 �
�'
�\/\/\ I /��/• INSTALL VGR
%(SEE DETAIL 2 ON SHEET D-2)
INSTALL VGR
(SEE DETAIL 2 ON SHEET D-2)
A ANTENNA DETAILS SCALE 1:5 ASG53m1
ANTENNA FHPA-65F-BUU-H]
AZIMUTH, D° 242727
CONCEALFAB SHROUD �03dv.
INSTALL
N'(E NA MOUNT UBLE CEA YYY< IT -A_ CROWN
CASTLE
PROPOSED I"POWER FEED jy
PROPOSED Y' COMM RISER
015 -
EXISTING SERVICE POLE Y52'0"
= ANTENNA #HPA-65F.BUU-H2
AZIMUTH: 9D° Communications
Z T
0.
�90°
— — vxol xu. L1x1 INruxuuTua
POLE ID: #1358367E
TOP OF EXISTING POLE: 52'0" DIG�ERT����
TOP OF ANTENNA: 22'6"
RAD CENTER: 21'6"
AZIMUTH: 0° 8 90°
EQUIPMENT AND ANTENNAS TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH POLE.24'10"Iintvux' ,xr.
uurx,.x.n ausu#1Tor. m.Exr
PNOTD SIM.—TED
NEl—TE NODE LOC --
RELOCATE NUDE LOCATI
ASG53m1
ADJACENT TO 6505 MONERO DR
RANCHO PALOS VERDES. CA
POLE PROFILE
R(i Nx 2211, II
P-2
B l2 O'CLOCK VIEW SCALE 1:10 B 3 O'CLOCK VIEW SCALE 1:10
TOP OF POLE 52' 0"
PRIMARY ARM AT S2' 0" PRIMARY ARM AT
!
I
I .
—' �--015" 015 �•I F—
—�' SECONDARY SERVICE AT 34' 8" - - --- SECONDARY SERVICE AT 34' 8"
f —-.-x�yy STREET LIGHT AT 29' 7"
STREET LIGHT AT 29' 7" j �--
12 PROPOSED CROWN CASTLE FIBER AT 27' 0" 12 PROPOSED CROWN CASTLE FIBER AT 27' 0"
CATV AT 26'0'* 2 CATV AT 26' 0"
i CAN DOWN GUY AT 25' 8" ' CATV DO WN GUY AT 25' 6"
VERIZON AT 24"10" VERIZON AT
2' `\ •�
VERIZON DOWN GUY AT VERIZON DOWN GUY AT 24' 6"
PROPOSED DOUBLE 4' CEA AT 20' 6" PROPOSED DOUBLE 4' CEA AT 20' 6"
N WITH (2) 21.4" ANTENNAS TOP OF WITH (2) 21.4" ANTENNAS
#HPAESF-BUV-H2 WITH ANTENNA #HPA-65F-BUU-H2 WITH
TOP OF MOUNT BRACKET #0900397/00 22' 6" ' MOUNT BRACKET #0900397/00
ANTENN AND CONCEALFAB SHROUD (SEE AND CONCEALFAB SHROUD
22' 6" DETAILS 6 & 7 ON SHEET D-3 &DETAILS
(SEE DETAILS 6 8 7 ON SHEET D-3 8
9,10, & 11 ON SHEET D-4) RAO I DETAILS 9,10, & 11 ON SHEET D-4)
PROPOSED i"SGHEDUCE 80 POWER FEED CENTER
INSTALL (i) CROWN CASTLE 4' X 6' VAULT 21' 6" ! . PROPOSED 1"SCHEDULE 80 POWER FEED
RAD WITH FLUSH MOUNT VENTS WITH (2) ML I. i
CENTER IONS INSIDE) EXISTING TREE TO BE
21' 6" REMOVED AND REPLANTED PER PUBLIC
WORKS
I
I
GROUND LEVEL
E-51
a " -
77
g .
�neror Monera
I,
fir �
if
joy
SAMIRMW
W7
F -
i n
r .
ilia (5 rrt -S Via GPS=. -y' .'•= Ce' tm It
s.
i
M<ycerni(a D.4�nPrnu ► ~-f,-•• __
d0 U10y�e ril05 i8 cemto" bib CP' to, n
D?!i t ni
A `
Jr r' , 4• PA�rern+�9r PAnnrm'�r � ,. �'� ��_
wOOT
71Y
EXISTING .. . _ ...
l �-
I, tis Vvia Gerrltos :ia Cell,r c,
� ' r
onero tr. vip—v 4nnern Rr � s R y J
4 O
it675 i2�r, Ito Vie C@T'1105
ab
Y
v y c
E%ISTING
• �,iU t�,
IV-
P, t
�►4
i rW
A a+
APO
Dy+ M?�nerOaln Mon�e:�n,�i �
TAw
— *(�• I
Ite, f
'• .104; 4
r
PROPOSED .. . _ ...
CITY OF
MEMORANDUM
PALOS VERDES
TO: NICOLE JULES, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
CHARLES EDER, ASSOCIATE ENGINEER
CC: ARA MIHRANIAN, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
FROM: JOHN ALVAREZ, SENIOR PLANNER
DATE: AUGUST 4, 2017
SUBJECT: VIEW ANALYSIS FOR WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY-
ASG53 (adjacent to 6505 Monero Drive)
DISCUSSION
Based on a view analysis conducted on August 3, 2017, Staff has determined that the
proposed wireless telecommunications facility (ASG53), adjacent to 6505 Monero Drive
(on Granvia Altamira), does not create a significant view impairment from a residential
viewing area, as defined in Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code Section 17.02.040
(View Preservation and Restoration Code).
On August 3rd, City Staff reached out by letter to nearby residents whose views are likely
affected by the proposed WTF. Subsequently, Staff received an email from the resident
at 6411 Monero Drive stating that a site visit from the City was not necessary. At this
time of writing, no additional property owners have contacted Staff requesting a site visit.
Still, based on a street side view assessment, it likely that 2-3 properties on Monero
Drive have their Ocean views impaired by the proposed WTF. However, given the far
distance from those identified residences to the proposed WTF and given that the view
from Monero Drive is largely an expansive Ocean view, the WTF would not cause a
significant view impairment from any viewing area on Monero Drive nor from other
nearby properties.
The proposed wireless telecommunications facility is not located in a view corridor
identified in the City's General Plan or Coastal Specific Plan.
E-58
Columbia Telecommunications Corporation
Wireless Facility Application Evaluation
Applicant: Crown Castle
Site # ASG -53
Description: Application to install a new DAS access site
Site Location: 6505 MONERO DRIVE
Site survey findings:
The on-site survey of the above referenced site was conducted on August 22, 2017. Exhibit 1 is a
photograph of the mockup pole and equipment cabinet for the proposed Crown Castle installation. The
site location on Monero Drive is near the point where it connects to Granvia Altamira. It is positioned
in the center of the target area to serve residences along Granvia Altamira, Monero Drive and Via
Cerritos.
Exhibit 1— Site with Mocked Up Pole with Antenna
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 53E-59
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 {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 -70 dBm RSRP was recorded at the site along with
data throughput download measurements exceeding 100 Mb and uploads in the range of 45 Mb. 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 53 Gap target
area, the same measurements were taken near the proposed antenna site. At the proposed ASG Site
53, the signal level measurement was -88 dBm and 4G LTE technology. The throughput tests
registered download speeds of between 49.27-54.35 Mbps, and 47.09-51.27 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 100 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
2 E-60
the drive test the receiver attempted to connect to 9 individual tower sites that provide some level of
signal service in the drive area. Three signal level test points were unable to connect at all. Note that
the best AT&T coverage in the ASG #53 Gap is the immediate vicinity of the proposed tower site (at the
intersection of Granvia Altamira and Monero Drive); elsewhere the service is largely marginal LTE
coverage. The proposed antenna patterns are designed specifically to cover the Gap to the North and
East of the proposed site.
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 an existing utility pole
(with existing 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 at a radiation center located 21'6" above ground level (AGL).
The antennas simultaneously can support the AT&T 700, PCS and AWS bands. The site will function to
E-61
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 60° arc, aimed at azimuths of 0° and 90°
respectively.
Exhibit 4 — Site ASG 53
Proposed Site ASG53ml
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.
4 E-62
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.
Exhibit 5 — Sample Path Profile Locations
lop L
t yy
T f
«i
ra �
tt ,M
t
� , Y
• V'
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
J
constructed, DAS site ASG 53 will provide ample signal intensity (signal level in excess of -95 dBm) to
support AT&T's 3G/4G wireless services. Currently from the information obtained in the drive tests, it
appears that approximately half of the proposed service area currently is served with marginal 4G LTE
service.
Signature:
Lee Afflerbach, P.E.
Date: 9/5/17
dc technology & energy
engineering & business consulting
E-64
C
i�CROWN
v CASTLE
IN 71 a
Site Justification Narrative
Submitted
to
Crown Castle
300 Spectrum Center Drive
Suite 1200
Irvine, CA 92618
Submitted Pursuant to City of Rancho Rebs Verdes Municipal Code Title 12
Zoning Ordinance
The Foundation for a Wireless World. E_65
CrownCastle.com
"a�t�•,li r�
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 lamest
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 Kastle SCN is the
equivalent of a collocation system, as it permits many carriers to provide their services over one
systema with only a single series of vertical elements,
20 THE PROJECT.
A. The Network.
Crown Castle proposes to develop a SCN network with thirty nine (39) small cell nodes (SCOOT 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 Forks. This particular location will provide needed wireless
broadband and telecommunications services and the addition of critical network and capacity along
1 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.
E'66
CrownCastle.com
Montemalga Drive from, roughly Basswood Avenue to the Last 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 aro 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 (RP)
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 telecommounications facilities, The SCN locations are:
CCI
Node
I®
Street Address/Cross Street
Site Type
ASGO8
Across from 30505 Calle de Suenos
S/L RLPL
ASG09
30461 Camino Porvenir
S/L RLPL
ASG 10
Across from Los Verdes Golf Club
S/L RLPL
ASG11
DSL Corner of Gingerroot/Narcissa
Lx Wood Util
ASG 12
24 Narcissa Rd
Ex Wood Util
ASG13
72 Narcissa Dr
Ex Food Util
ASG 15
28151 Highridge
New Pole
ASG21
Basswood/Shcverspur
S/L RLPL
ASG25
27665 Longhill
S/L RPPL
ASG31
28809 Crestrsdge
New Pole
ASG32
coarser of Whitley/Scottwood
S/L RLPL
The Foundation for a wireless world,
-67
CrownCastle.com
ASG33
Across 6480 Chartres Drive
New Pole
(concrete)
ASG34
6960 Verde Ridge
S/L REPL
ASG35
6722 Albbottswood
S/L REPL
ASG36
Across Fromm, 28825 Doverridge
New Pole
(concrete)
ASG37
Along Rid,gegate Drive neer Southridge
S/L REPL
ASG38
7025 Maycroft
S/L REPL
ASG39
26804 Grayslake Rd
Ex Wood Utii or
S/L
ASG41
(Palos Verdes Drive South near Seacliff
New Pole
ASG42
5207 /alley View
S/L REPL
ASG43
572. Crestridge
New Pole
ASG44
Armnaga Springy, @ Meadow
S/L REPL
ASG45
Adjacent to 28403 San Nicholas Dr
S/L REPL
ASG47
Across from 3087 Crownview/Highpoint
New Pole
ASG48
Basswood @ Moss'bank
S/L REPL
ASG40
Crest Rd
Ex Wood Util or
S/L
ASG53
Adjacent to 5505 Monero
Ex Wood Dtil or
S/L
ASG55
3000. Via :Rivera, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
S/L REPL
ASG64
South of 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West
New Pole
ASG60
Across 3486 Seaglen Dr,
S/L REPL
ASG70
Across from 5828 Monternalaga
Ex Wood Utility
ASG72
Paios Verdes Drive (Abalone Cove) S of Narcissa
New Pole
ASG73
Hawthorne at Vallon Drive
Traffic
The Foundation for a Wireless World. -
E68
CrownCastle.com G VC7
By using existing vertical infrastructure within the ROVE whenever possible, the project seeks to reduce
the addition of new vertical elements, thereby minimzing intrusions into the ROW.
C. 5 1 7 t� f'GUI INS ;" i '
A majority of the nodes will consist of two (2) 24 -inch long antennas mounted back-to-back on existing
streetfights, utility poles, traffic sign poles or street sign poles, two (2) fiber converters collocated with
the Southern California Edison ("SCE") electricmeter pedestals that would power the nodes. The total
height of the facility, measured from grade level, is typically up to 13°-0°° for traffic sign poles, street
sign poles and free-standing poles, and Lip 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).
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.
E-69
Crowncastle.com
Signal—RFPL
ASG74
31207 1/2 Palos Verdes Or F @ Ganado
(LA0302)
5/L REPL_ExAtt
LA0194
approx 5127 Palos Verdes ®rive S
Ex AT&T
LA0100
Palos Verdes ®rive S @ Boundary Trail
Ex AT&T
LA0351
Schooner ®rive
ExAT&T
LA0358
approx 9522 Palos ®rive F
Fx AT T
LAR060
Silver Spur Rd @ Montemalaga
Ex AT&T POLE
RFPL
By using existing vertical infrastructure within the ROVE whenever possible, the project seeks to reduce
the addition of new vertical elements, thereby minimzing intrusions into the ROW.
C. 5 1 7 t� f'GUI INS ;" i '
A majority of the nodes will consist of two (2) 24 -inch long antennas mounted back-to-back on existing
streetfights, utility poles, traffic sign poles or street sign poles, two (2) fiber converters collocated with
the Southern California Edison ("SCE") electricmeter pedestals that would power the nodes. The total
height of the facility, measured from grade level, is typically up to 13°-0°° for traffic sign poles, street
sign poles and free-standing poles, and Lip 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).
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.
E-69
Crowncastle.com
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 popes, 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. Dail. Code, §§ 1001,
79010 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 Jots]
facilities."].]
The CPUC has issued a CPCN (attached as Exhibit ®1b) 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 rose to a vested right to use the ROW in the City to "construct ... telephone lines aloe and
upon any public road or highway, aloe or across any of the waters or lands within this State" and to
"erect popes, 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,D the nature of the vested right was described by one
court as follows:
... "Jl]t has been uniformly held that [section 79011 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 P2d 773].]
The Foundation for a Wireless World. E-70
-70
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
accessed[,]" 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, 663,)
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.
The approval of the Network also is governed by the federal Telecommunications Act of 1906, 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 State 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.
2607). One way in which the Telecom Act accomplishes these goals is by reducing impediments
The Foundation for a Wireless World. E-71
CrownCastle.com C
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 un, reasonably discriminate among providers of
functionally equivalent services (§ 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(i)).
(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)(Il)).
1c) State and local governments rest act on requests for authorization to construct or
modify wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time Q§ 332(c)(7)( )(li)D.
(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)(IB)(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 move, 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 "prornotef j deployment: of broadband and other wireless
services" by "reducing delays in construction and improvement of wireless networks."
(b) 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. 72
-
E
CrownCastle.com C L
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,
0 Governing authority may only require documentation that is reasonably
related to whether the request is covered under the rules;
® Governing authority may not require submission of any other
documentation, including proof of need,
The Foundation for a wireless world. E-73
CrownCastle.com C
1. Visual Compatibility (RPVMC Title 12, Chapter 12.18.080, Seco 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. vo City, of Anacortes, 572 Fad 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 C2]e The standard, as
the court noted in that case, "requires that the provider 'show that the wanner in which it proposes to
fill the significant gap in service is the least intrusive on the values that the denial sought to serve."'
(abide) This allows
(Flor 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 995o)
In this case, because Crown Castle is a CLEC entitled to construct its systems in the RDW, 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, respite 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. E-74
CrownCastle.com C
Ba Location of the Proposed Facilities.
The selected node locations maximize the RF coverage of the node and minimize interference/overiap
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 moles, streetlight poles and street sign pole sites
that could sense as a potential Dost site for alternative locations.
Ca Small Cells os 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 mist be located closer to the user. The nodes are designed to be smaller in
scale and lower power to allow there to integrate more easily into their surroundings and thereby
render there 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 lamer -- and sometimes more obtrusive --
cell towers;
(2) Crown Castle SCSI utilizes the ROW, thereby avoiding intrusions into private property or
undeveloped sensitive resource areas;
The Foundation for a wireless World, E-75
CrownCastle.com J
(3) Crown Castle SCN allows for collocation by multiple carriers, thereby avoiding
proliferation of nodes;
(4) Crown Castle SCN strikes a balance between antenna height and coverage in order to
minimize visual impacts,
(5) Crown Castle SCN carefully spaces the nodes to effectively relay signal with a minimum
of node locations; and
(6) Crown Castle SCN seeks to utilize existing vertical elements in the ROW, such as utility
poles and street suras, thereby minimizing the net !number of vertical intrusions in the
R®,
20 Health and Safety/FCC Compliance.
The FCC has preempted the fief of compliance with RF emission standards. Moreover, section 47
U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) preempts local and state governments from regulating the siting of wireless
telecommunications facilities on the basis of the perceived health effects of 'RF emissions,
Nevertheless, the Network, and all equipment associated with the Network, complies with all
applicable FCC RF emission standards. A demonstration of the Network's compliance with applicable
FCC RF emission standards is attached as Exhibit Fe
3. Safety and Monitoring Standards (IMC § 3-8-2(D)),
The FCC has preempted the field of compliance with RF emission standards. Moreover, section 447
U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) preempts local and state governments from regulating the siting of wireless
telecommunications facilities on the basis of the perceived health effects of RF. Nevertheless, the
Network, and all equipment associated with the Network, complies with all applicable FCC RF emission
standards. A demonstration of the Network's compliance with applicable FCC RF emission standards is
attached as Exhibit E.
Given the low profile of the nodes, and the resultant limitations of such a low -profile system, Crown
The Foundation for a Wireless world. E-76
CrownCast(e.corn C p
Castle seeks to maximize the coverage of each node location, since maximization of the node coverage
equates to a lower overall number of facilities for the network and a less intrusive systema
Accordingly, each location was chosen to provide an effective relay of signal from the adjacent node,
so that ubiquitous coverage is provided throughout the Service Area with the least number of nodes.
Each node is locationally dependent on the other nodes of the Network. To move a node too far from
its proposed location will result in an inability meet coverage objectives. Moving outside that
proposed location will preclude the ability of the node to properly propagate its signal to the other
nodes in the larger Network. Crown castle also sought out existing utility pole, streetlight pole and
traffic sign pole sites that could serve as a potential host site for alternative locations.
The farther a node is moved from its proposed location, the more the signal from that node will
attenuate. In determining other viable locations for a node, moving more than S® feet from the
proposed location may materially impair the coverage objectives for the facility. While gown castle is
able to install new poles to achieve its RF coverage objectives, gown castle made a strategic decision
to minimize the installation of new poles — where possible -- and locate the Network nodes at the site
of existing vertical elements, such as street signs and wood utility poles. By approaching a network
design in this matter, gown castle sought to avoid the risk of proliferation of verticality in the ROW.
Crown Castle's approach ensures that it has chosen the "least intrusive means" of providing service to
the Service Area,
In many cases, gown castle identified alternative locations that are technically feasible. Yet, in each
instance, gown castle selected the proposed site on the basis of
(a) Technical feasibility;
(b) Ability to utilize existing vertical elements;
(c) Ability to meet RF objectives; and
(d) minimization of visibility/aesthetic impacts.
Since 29 of the 39 proposed sites use or replace existing poles, the proposed network .results in ten
new vertical elements in the ROW.
Bo Node Locations and the "'Significant Gap" in Coverage.
The Foundation for a Wireless World. E-77
CrownCastle.com C
Each node of the network is necessary to fill a significant gap in service in the City. The significant gap
is graphically demonstrated as required by RPVMC WTFPA Section IV(3) Description of Project
Coverage and Purpose [Exhibit C3], which depicts existing service for the anchor carrier for the
Network, AT&T. (See "Existing Service flap".) The Existing Service Map describes six levels of service:
(1) In -Building (®ark Green); (2) In -Building (Light Green); (3) ln-Vehicle (yellow) and (4) In -Vehicle
(Red); (5) Poor to Non-existent (Blue) and (6) Poor to Ikon -Existent (Black).
Each level is characterized by a minimum signal level. The key to coverage is having a signal level
strong enough to allow multiple customers to maintain contact with the network so they can make and
maintain contact with the network. There is a direct correlation between the height of the antenna
and the strength of the service. In this case, Crown Castle's design seeks a minimum of RE propagation
level, which provides a sufficient level of service to address growing capacity demands and to reach
indoor users, while avoiding poles that may be too obtrusive. The courts have upheld the use of in -
building minimum standards as a proper benchmark for determining whether a significant gap in
coverage exists. (See, e.g., MetroPCS Inc, v. City anof County of Son Francisco (N.®.Cal. 2006) 2005 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 43985 ["careful reading of existing cases that contain a significant gap analysis persuades
the court that any analysis should include consideration of a wireless carrier's in -building coverage."].)
In this case, existing service levels in the Service Area fall below the minimum standard for adequate
in-builftg coverage. (See Existing Service Map.)
The need to fill the existing significant coverage gap to a level that allows adequate in -building
coverage and to address growing capacity demands is underscored by the greater numbers of
customers dropping their landlines and relying solely on wireless telecommunications for their phone
service. Additionally:
(1) In a recent international study, the United States dropped to fifteenth in the world in
broadband penetration, well behind South Korea, Japan, the Netherlands and France.'
(2) 48 percent of all American homes are now wireless only.'
(3) More and more civic leaders and emergency response personnel cite lack of a robust
wireless network as a growing public safety risk. The number of 911 calls placed by
Z Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Directorate for Science, Technology, and
Industry, "Broadband statistics," (June 2010): <www.oecd.org/sti/ict/broadband>.
3 Federal Communications Commission (April 2013).
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
C-78
CrownCastle.com
people using wireless phones has significantly increased in recent years. It is estimated
that about 70 percent of 911 calls are placed from Wireless phones, and that percentage
is growing,'
(4) Data demand from new smartphones and tablets is leading to a critical deficit in
spectrum, requiring more Wireless antennas and infrastructure, According to a 2011
report, Wireless data traffic Was 110 percent higher than in the last half of 2010,
Similarly, AT&T reports that its wireless data volumes have increased 30 -fold since the
introduction of the Phone ,5
5) 0x projected mobile data traffic growth from 2015 to 2020,6
As more Americans depend on wireless communications technologies and smartphone, reliable
network capacity and in -building coverage Will be critical. These are some of the reasons courts now
recognize that a "significant gap" can exist on the basis of inadequate in-buil&ng coverage, (See, e.g.,
MetroPCS Inc. v, City and County of Son Francisco, supro, U.S. Mste LEMS 43085➢ T-MoMe Central, LLC
v, Unified Government of Wyandotte County (D,Kans. 2007) 528 F,Supp,2d 1128,)
Applying these principles to the Service Area, Exhibit C3, reveals that Service Area is currently
experiencing insufficient signal. Users in the Service Area therefore would experience an intolerably
high percentage of blocked and dropped calls for outside use, with a commensurate decline in signal
strength as one moves toward the inside of existing buildings and homes, Crown Castle seeps to
provide sufficient signal strength to ensure not only adequate signal for mobile and outdoor users, but
reliable in -building coverage for all those customers Who may seek to abandon their home landlines
and sufficient capacity to address new data demands from smartphones and tablets. Wireless
customers must be able to count on a level of service commensurate with that provided by their
landlines. Such considerations are relevant to a determination of significant gap. (See, e.g., T -Mobile
Central LLC v, City of Fraser (E.D. Mich. 2009) 575 F. Supp, 2d 721 [considering failure rate of 911
emergency calls,])
4 Federal Communications Commission (20 3) http://www.fcc.gov/guides/wireless-911-services.
5 Executive Office of the President Council of Economic Advisors (White House, Feb. 2012) at 2-5.
6 !d
The Foundation for a Wireless World,
C-79
CrownCastle.com
By contrast, installation of the proposed nodes comprising the project would result in adequate
outdoor and ire -building coverage. (See Exhibit Exhibit C3(e) [predicted coverage map with node ]...snot
macros],- Exhibit C3(a) and (d) [predicted coverage map without node (...not macros].]
Crown Castle has developed a number of node designs, some of which aro depicted in Exhibit A of the
existing and enforce lights -of Way Use Agreement ("RUA") between the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
and Crown Castle. Further Crown Castle has provided the engineering specifications for the proposed
facility. (See Exhibit E1 - Engineering Plans). The proposed designs represent the latest achievement in
reducing the profile of the facilities. A smaller antenna configuration would impede larger aesthetic
objectives of facilitating collocation and minimizing the need for additional network facilities as
demands on the Network grow. Put simply, the smaller the antenna result in a less robust the
network. That equates to diminished capacity and coverage -- and a resultant need for more nodes in
the future as more customers ,use the network. By contrast, the panel antennas proposed in the
Network provide ample capacity for increased user demand (e.g., increased data needs).
Crown Castle respectfully presents its application for a Major Wireless Telecommunications Facilities
Permit/conditional use permit for the Network. Crown Castle's representatives are on hand to answer
any questions.
The f=oundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com E-80
� ,,,,� CROWN
CASTLE
ii/og/2oi6
Node ASG53
Coverage Analysis
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
E-81
ASG53 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 &
*,00 CASTLE Confidential
E-82
co
U
E-83
Exhibit C3 a. — Geographical significant gap in coverage.
,a Lofty Glove, Eli
DI
a
66004106
CROWN Proprietary &
CASTLE Confidential
0 — W5 darr,
Q15 if. -M cc"
• A5:r,-B ciBm
ML'm
-7-5 iri AR r_,-ni
•
0 —hi. diii.
prqposEd location
A I te m a t c i. P.. at o n s
Examig.AT&T site
'ee
a Val:,
•
j
:ASG531.oca�ti C ASG53 cation A •
lob
�2
0-20
•
rde s
'S
If
59
•
•
•
•
,a Lofty Glove, Eli
DI
a
66004106
CROWN Proprietary &
CASTLE Confidential
0 — W5 darr,
Q15 if. -M cc"
• A5:r,-B ciBm
ML'm
-7-5 iri AR r_,-ni
•
0 —hi. diii.
prqposEd location
A I te m a t c i. P.. at o n s
Examig.AT&T site
'ee
a Val:,
•
j
:ASG531.oca�ti C ASG53 cation A •
lob
�2
0-20
•
Exhibit C3 (b) - Proposed site and surrounding existing WTF owned and
'111 .11 '1.
U-PefaLeU Dy Med
llC dIIL
WS004.
at Flwdioaal
;- 7,chool
A
Ic
&SG06
4rygl
y"
.1001 rf
Vla "?Ofife!
.-&SG39
rda S
all
IV
*%SC.05
VI a &.4 at
13i IT,
Ile,
D -
21
IIIIN,
lJ
*%SG53
H-,,,crh1wid Di
fvloncfo Di
Lofty Grove Dr ca
14
Proposed Node
Existing Crown Castle Facility
7
Coverage Objectivec.
t
X
'Z
Existing AT&T F ac ility
J,
■*4PC33713tk:
@ASG45
A
CROWN Proprietary &
CASTLE Confidential
E-85
Exhibit C3 (c) — Proposed facility relative to all existing and planned facilities
CROWN proprietary &
,,/ ,� CASTLE Confidential
'
�13G04,
v
�.�EiFrtrif'oCo fl"•3 „�
dl riadrvgeF
L
Lj_
tc
Si2nW!lIQfV '-�C li�.ol
��
.. cffd7ltlici
n
i,i
C:OrGttr•r
� ��S � i
i7
`v
1Ct0or
`��tr7
. 4'U, 1f3�irnel .:
�zTw
OASG39 t.
r t�
all
n ,,�
�•,
[�
- - G4SG05
a:
Y
>
c�
a
` r :
c:
Via K.i v
PI rf
..__..
_ .t;c
lJ
*kSri53
Li �'£ChUela N
Moni o DI
Lofty. Grave Ur
Linda lir
4 �
L
�4SG38. CION Cjf
.i
-
nsn br
a.
"F
7. r..Rdrt.ax:c% Fftvcf
Proposed Node
-
rte"` �
;
L3"c
Krt:gep<IFtt r;t
'
ris
Existing Crown Castle
Facility
a*t3,,
—
Coverage Objective
s L d? P
N
y
Rem
C
b_
r
4
M
x
r
Existing AT&T Facility
O
■
v
aT•:Fat ' 10"
v;
OkSG45
- -
"F..
CROWN proprietary &
,,/ ,� CASTLE Confidential
Exhibit C3 d. — Existing RF coverage.
see see "Goes -
0••
'i
a
•
Is
_..Polo
..00
•
ASG53 I Dcation A
Lofty'GmNa Di
4 1weation I
1•.byerc4t Di ot
%
.,sea s seem
ww Go's
* de else
• as ••7
X ell
oft's
0 see
060IN•68
st
CROWN Proprietary &
CASTLE Confidential
E-87
k8RP
— .1'Is z1fitm
•
A
: - 1,35 1 C, -,r- d5wl
-1.45 IG -k5 a6m
-as la -.?S m n
M
• -75 to -a5opm
•
Proposed Ineston
Alternate zriratiams
•
•
Existing AT&T site
•
..00
•
ASG53 I Dcation A
Lofty'GmNa Di
4 1weation I
1•.byerc4t Di ot
%
.,sea s seem
ww Go's
* de else
• as ••7
X ell
oft's
0 see
060IN•68
st
CROWN Proprietary &
CASTLE Confidential
E-87
k8RP
— .1'Is z1fitm
: - 1,35 1 C, -,r- d5wl
-1.45 IG -k5 a6m
-as la -.?S m n
• -75 to -a5opm
•
Proposed Ineston
Alternate zriratiams
Existing AT&T site
..00
•
ASG53 I Dcation A
Lofty'GmNa Di
4 1weation I
1•.byerc4t Di ot
%
.,sea s seem
ww Go's
* de else
• as ••7
X ell
oft's
0 see
060IN•68
st
CROWN Proprietary &
CASTLE Confidential
E-87
Exhibit C3 e. — Proposed RF coverage.
•
IP
A5G53LocaUmCjL---S
•
V 06 rol as
Leo 0 i %
%
CROWN Proprietary &
CASTLE Confidential
Pj7L�'PQE,ELJ IriCBti'Z.n
MpTn'twr
Alfefll2te�.'malions
ExmfinqAT&T site
ff
•
•
r.
•
•
•
IP
A5G53LocaUmCjL---S
•
V 06 rol as
Leo 0 i %
%
CROWN Proprietary &
CASTLE Confidential
Pj7L�'PQE,ELJ IriCBti'Z.n
MpTn'twr
Alfefll2te�.'malions
ExmfinqAT&T site
ff
U
•
The objective of the node, ASG53, is to provide coverage along Granvia Altamira from
Coronel Plaza to just north or Hawthorne Blvd.
Ile
_ � / •1,. � �. � . � tom• ' .. \/�
AC
IWO
11 .. �� i � .1. •r• •..`��' i t feel ..
�.
n
'`....................
d
,� ASG,53
i� �?—.:� . � � . � ntl.w�'..'�...7 �,•.. •._ . _�r"Y/�7�"� v fTi'tl.�ir: -.r�
M
ASG53 Cr-
,�
` ASG53'
ooSlc earth
� \ "p
m
- Am"
A S 38
Legend
0- Proposed Nodes
0- Existing AT&T Sites
kt-'c I : 4
'Co6qlc -Jarch
ZW
O cn
c4
u
E-93
Power output and operating frequency
ERP 700 MHz
f
ERP 1900 MHz
ERP 2100 MHz
(Watts)
ERP 850 MHz (composite, Watts)
(Watts)
(Watts)
171.8
254.1
240.01
266.07
CROWN P oprietary &
CASTLE Confidential
E-94
Zw
OU)
m Q
u
E-95
List of All Existing Facilities
Carrier
Site ID
Latitude
Longitude
arrier
Site ID
Latitude
Longitude
arrier
Site ID
Latitude
Longitude
Site ID
Latitude
Longitude
AT&T
HWOl
33.78431
-118.36835
print
LA36XC534
33.79089
-118.38329
W
HAW12
33.77588
-118.4031LA36XC659
33.77366
-118.36987
AT&T
AHW02
33.759
-118.38
riot
LA36XC535
33.78654
-118.37279
ZW
HAW14m1
33.759883
-118.40523NO2m2
33.77881
-118.371
AT&T
HW04
33.76809
-118.39135
riot
LA36XC540
33.74165
-118.37394
riot
LA34XD015
33.78752
-118.3761N06
EMUS
33.76271
-118.37
AT&T
HW08
33.7562
-118.41017
rint
LA36XC548
33.74334
-118.40946
rint
LA34XD027
33.77401667
-118.395N15
33.78063
-118.388
AT&T
HW13
33.751972
-118.395472
rint
LA36XC564
33.74338
-118.31879
rint
LA34XD031
33.742141
-118.40161NCAS054R:
13
33.76267
-118.36983
AT&T
HW55
33.77283
-118.40324
rint
LA36XC565
33.75779
-118.36746
rint
LA34XD036
33.78098
-118.39723NCA5054R:14
33.77411
-118.39303
MUS
AN18
33.759
-118.38
Print
ILA36XC566
33.75541
-118.40821
print
LA34XD043
33.773162
-118.403179
print
NCA5054R:15
33.78028
-118,38791
AT&T
ASP06
33.76225
-118.36546
rint
LA36XC568
33.75005
-118.40501
rint
LA34XD046
33.75817
-118,41334
Sprint
NCA5054R
: 17
33.78238
-118.36944
AT&T
ASPIO
33.74821
-118.33322
rint
LA36XC570
33.76195
-118.41071
rint
LA34XD047
33.745354
-118.400786
print
NCA50545:12
33.77181
-118.36197
AT&T
ASP12
33.74841
-118.32487
rint
LA36XC591
33.76263
-118.33513
rint
LA34XD050
33.75232
-118.39593
MUS
PV02m2
33.77621
-118.375
AT&T
ASP13
33.74212
-118.33277
rint
LA36XC610
33.745028
-118.3849
rint
LA34XD095
33.748459
-118.32485
MUS
PV07m6
33.7722
-118.361
AT&T
ASP14
33.76265
-118.33082
rint
LA36XC611
33.76868
-118.40277
rint
LA34XD099
33.74218
-118.33322
MUS
PV13
33.7764
-118.393
AT&T
ASP32
33.76554
-118.32261
rint
LA36XC622
33.76267
-118.36983
print
LA34XD111
33.72728
-118.33468
MUS
PV18
33.768
-118.391
AT&T
ASP33
33.7471
-118.3181
print
ILA36XC623
33.77411
-118.39303
rint
LA36XC212
33.74801
-118.31278
MUS
PV19
33.76075
-118.39
AT&T
ASP42
33.744397
-118.324822
print
ILA36XC635
33.73869
-118.357
rint
LA36XC216
33.75954
-118.33021
MUS
PV49
33.77899
-118.381
AT&T
ASP52
33.76236
-118.3698
print
ILA36XC639
33.7458333
-118.3372222
rint
LA36XC219
33.73721
-118.33022
ZW
SPOl
33.731395
-118.34294
AT&T
SP59m1
33.732861
-118.33469
print
LA36XC640
33.73798
-118.33618
print
LA36XC453
33.791709
-118.368509
ZW
SPO5
33.73684
-118.32976
AT&T
ASP62
33.76321
-118.32737
rint
LA36XC641
33.7384
-118.34449
print
LA36XC454
33.76589
-118.31092
ZW
SP06
33.74163
-118.32621
AT&T
ASP63
33.758167
-118.32975
rint
LA36XC646
33.77544
-118.40283
print
LA36XC516
33.77096
-118.39619
ZW
SP07ml
33.738929
-118.336364
VZW
HAW02
33.78012
-118.4005
rint
LA36XC647
33.78895
-118.38521
rint
LA36XC521
33.77181
-118..36197
W
SP21
33.7481
-118.31293
VZW
HAW04
33.78543
-118.38576
rint
LA36XC648
33.78238
-118.369
rint
LA36XC522
33.73738
-118.33244
ZW
SP22
33.75471
-118.31486
VZW
HAW05
33.78908
-118.38528
S rint
LA36XC649
33.75785
-118.38201
rint
LA36XC523
33.75335
-118.32667
W
ISP23ml
33.73823
-118.34436
VZW
HAW06
33,78766
-118.37637
rint
LA36XC651
33.79048
-118.37287
rint
LA36XC524
33.76407
-118.33115
ZW
SP24
3403
-118.33834
VZW
HAW07ml
33.790795
-118.382867
rint
LA36XC652
33.78028
-118.38791
rint
LA36XC526
33.73561
-118.34777
ZW
SP25m1
E33.735186
-118.354187
ZW
HAW10
33.77128
-118.39648
print
LA36XC530
33.7809444
-118.4002778
MU5
TMB1008-0009m2
4063
-118.33702
ZW
HAW11
33.76837
-118.40327
rint
LA36XC653
33.75042
-118.37651
MU5
TMB1008-OC19
7589
-118.40319
CROWN Proprietary &
CASTLE Confidential
E-96
List of All Proposed Facilities
Carrier
Site ID
Latitude
Longitude
Carrier
Site ID
Latitude
Longitude
VZW
SO SCL PALOS VERDES 3
33.761353
-118.410358
AT&T
ASG32
33.76295102
-118.375093
VZW
SO SCL PALOS VERDES 8
33.739781
-118.369334
AT&T
ASG33
33.755661
-118.393449
VZW
SO SCL PALOS VERDES 9
33.758782
-118.364486
AT&T
ASG34
33.766074
-118.401094
VZW
SO SCL PALOS VERDES 11
33.775391
-118.368853
AT&T
ASG35
33.770696
-118.397066
VZW
SO SCL PALOS VERDES 12
33.784143
-118.367588
AT&T
ASG36
33.77089856
-118.3893824
VZW
SO SCL PALOS VERDES 13
33.749477
-118.332934
AT&T
ASG37
33.776566
-118.387413
VZW
SO SCL PALOS VERDES 14
33.746148
-118.329719
AT&T
ASG38
33.77995
-118.40271
VZW
SO SCL PALOS VERDES 15
33.743179
-118.318986
AT&T
ASG39
33.78541831
-118.3834136
VZW
SO SCL PALOS VERDES 16
33.764385
-118.331199
AT&T
ASG41
33.73169
-118.34472
VZW
SO SCL PALOS VERDES 17
33.760177
-118.32499
AT&T
ASG43
33.767863
-118.376828
VZW
SO SCL PALOS VERDES 18
33.767905
-118.314171
AT&T
ASG44
33.771255
-118.385665
VZW
SO SCL PALOS VERDES 19
33.771618
-118.309292
AT&T
ASG45
33.77618
-118.39398
VZW
50 SCL PALOS VERDES 20
33.761589
-118.315284
AT&T
ASG47
33.74959
-118.33013
VZW
50 SCL ROLLING HILLS
ESTATES 1
33.773894
-118.387828
AT&T
ASG48
33.78279
-118.37828
VZW
SO SCL ROLLING HILLS
IESTATES 2
33.781481
-118.384533
AT&T
ASG49B
33.74169
-118.336646
VZW
50 SCL ROLLING HILLS
ESTATES 3
33.783917
-118.378903
AT&T
ASG53
33.781524
-118.392501
AT&T
ASG01
33.795275
-118.378278
AT&T
ASG55
33.763295
-118.410407
AT&T
ASG08
33.756725
-118.405011
AT&T
ASG64
33.75943
-118.41442
AT&T
ASG09
33.75669619
-118.401964
AT&T
ASG69
33.735261
-118.340374
AT&T
ASG10
33.75744
-118.39885
AT&T
ASG70
33.790093
-118.381213
AT&T
ASG11
33.746478
-118.375309
AT&T
ASG72
33.73996
-118.3725
AT&T
ASG12
33.74448
-118.37641
AT&T
ASG73
33.74852
-118.39366
AT&T
ASG13
33.74865
-118.37003
AT&T
ASG74
33.732849
-118.334681
AT&T
SG15
33.775529
-118.38307
AT&T
LA0194
33.74082
-118.36438
AT&T
ASG21
33.779702
-118.374277
AT&T
LA0351
33.736726
-118.352793
AT&T
ASG25
33.77338093
-118.370326AT&T
LA0358
33.75366
-118.327114
AT&T
ASG31
33.765484
-118.367833
AT&T
LAR069
33.787116
-118.372384
JCROWN Proprietary &
: CASTLE Confidential
E-97
Map of all existing and proposed facilities
-;�
Airport
Verdes � IIc1r
Proposed Nodes '1 _ Y ?— x. 1
Existing Wireless Faclilities Cts Fetk
ct a. �• ■ Pacttic.c
,?� ; h �.lsia ■ It0 11g
•
Hi IIs
y Gi �� ■ i -V 47 �
Q ti Q fX„ y
• �., ' • G +� -17Wling IIiIIs,
s,� • ` ? A i't hi•m srfal Naval
• • �• w �, f � W''drk Reservation
Y
?� z PALO -:v p`,. MILLI ��--
vH rde 5Tttsg tial so �•'' �'.f
%u fit)ff �1i5 a
arkent
cousss Naluie.Pleae ve
1 ■ anyon
7",
•
�5
� 1ti�t*'Or reserve 430 it • u`'3 r 1 S� ■ � �
! an..,�
Pt, dro
clt o 'tv 1st St''
Fbrnst ■
- rtk 6 at
T•rreRea
Verdes r
Y+'
�," ..� � 8 � ■ �1 !". 'Al;J r'th tit
• �.: �l:. W,91h•st13 1 h SI�
Trump t 11 t`� Fr~op ea
GO" Cluia `g _ � � ; .. k �e•� 'C: .17th St
. ■ 'Ai 191 St
CROWN Proprietary &
�► CASTLE Confidential
A me •
Address
CROWN Proprietary &
` CASTLE Confidential
��_��K�
�� ��
Property
Zoning
General Plan
Why itinworse than
Exhibit Alternative Locations
Lat
Long Owner Owner phone number
Designation
Designation
primary?
AS653A(Phmoqy)
337U1532&2-118.3925232
N/A
Public ROW
ASG53B(Alternative
33.78054911
118.3022485
Exhibit 11 1)
N64
Public ROW
AS853C(Alternative
33.78120834
118.3925537
Exhibit |22)
N/A
Public ROW
ASG53D(Alternative
3378121893
118.3922403
See comparative analysis
Exhibit |33)
N/A
Public ROW
Exhibit |4ASG53E
33.78063
-118.388l-K8obi|*USA
N/A
Public ROW
Too far from the objective
CROWN Proprietary &
` CASTLE Confidential
��_��K�
�� ��
Alternative Analysis — (ASG53 Location B)
RSRP
-105 d6m
C'.
, to -95 d6m
• 95 to -85 d6m
• \
-%
-85 to -7,- dBm•so E
kwnw5
enl� chooi
• -75 to -65 d6m
dBm
Wireless Telecommunications Facility6
so
06 0000000
so
•
•
AT&T Nocle
*40
•
00
0
0
0
..
0
or
I'm 00 00
0•:
GOO
Moo I Ij
ftm000*oO*)
ASG
ASG53 LocatiA i C ASGS31 nation A
go VA
Oo AN o"Ca a
0%
Loft,, Giova Dr 0 0
a on
•
0*040
Dt 0 C\
0
,goo Ogg 609 . . . Ogg
IMI-
•
OF*
004,
00 t
a 0
0 0 00
0
No. 00 Possible Locations
0 0
0 0
0.00.09 Fe"d
CROWN Proprietary &
CASTLE Confidential
E-100
Alternative Analysis — (ASG53 Location Q
RSRP
• — 105 dam fte-q
• -10 t -95 dam .."6064
-95 too 85 dam •".04
5 6•• .
• am
65 to 7 d in
-76 to -65 d
o =>-65 dam
Wireless Telecommunications Facility
Node 00
AT&T Node
'Of
X""i
00
*0000. VI:i "!x,
Of-gi *so 08666
ASG53 Locatf C ASG53 I xation A
L
w"a"M 6�ftw SG% Loc 0
0 00
r 1 9% 1t.
F
JS
0 % 06
***so
40•
614'a Oo --
16041M.
*0 000 0,
0 *1
00
1"41-P !9iA
0
/01
r
A-G!i3l
'ASCN
0
0 0 t
0
0
00000
•
•
•
4w
Possible Locations
.00"00
% 00
Passed
Al� % %
CROWN Proprietary &
CASTLE Confidential
E-101
Alternative Analysis — (ASG53 Location D)
RSRP
• c= -105 d6m
A5G53
• -1G5to-9od6m
o -35 dBm
• -95 to:
$5 to -?5 dB ii
• ?5. to -65 oBm
• �
• =j-65 dBm
•
Wireless Telecommunications
Facility
.Node
AT&T Node
�
*On -Air
-Frlaycrolt DI
••
Ides s
i
• t S
LL
• S
�,••6•• w�•• a/ •,
• • • • • •• �E�� CQ roe r4to;
at Wuw4al ucti�
..go
•! _ •v � ELamentery 4&oul
�r�tq
•••••••••••
�••••••• _. .1 `
r fi
So
•00• • •' `
•• • • •.
• 1445 tt a, • �" ""�_
v
roe
w CROWN Proprietary &
�► CASTLE Confidential
6666.••
A
m i
•
•
•
•6666*'• I", Rossible Lea�aiions
�'�• � Failed
E-102
A5G53
Lofty E+ErrJL•Gf
:
• �
� i
1
•
a
�
-Frlaycrolt DI
� -
_ � i
• ti
• t S
• S
r
%
: N
w CROWN Proprietary &
�► CASTLE Confidential
6666.••
A
m i
•
•
•
•6666*'• I", Rossible Lea�aiions
�'�• � Failed
E-102
LTA Coverage Analysis
Market Name: Los Angeles
❖ Rancho Palos Verdes Area oDAS
❖ Plots Completion Date: August 15, 2016
E-103
LTE Existing Macro/oDAS (PCS 1900MHz) - Coverage
E-104
LTE Coverage from Proposed New oDAS (PCS 1900MHz)
E-105
... ,r---And 4- In-Vehicle Sig al - 85dBnp
Or M ..
Outdoor Signal -age -98cBm
7 3G Marginal to Poor Covei
AO
,c �� •►,
Ilb
46
*y
r` ....
•
• ;' ; To
g Macro Sites
ed ToDAS
:1014AIF.! InrclF,,tu:;IP, •.. 6,1 �i�r-.�..�._.. :.i ,,... .,..-,.�_. •,:..1 i.,. �. ... ..i - 'dL,l I„�..i',...t August 15, 2016 a`OCl
i
LTE Coverage from Proposed New oDAS (700MHz)
LEGEND:
m Indoor Signal -75dBm
ti Ie' In -Vehicle Signal -85dBrn
VS Fa Outdoor Signal -913d6m
3G Marginal to Poor, Coverage
E lie r, 04 51-
%
A
0 Existing Macro Sites
0 Proposed oDAS
* Existing oDAS
Sa
-Wagon Ln
Soo
crest 2 Roiling Hills Rownghotse
4%
'Roo
St
St
"
) na 1V
Pi AO
Or
M
;:4 44L 7.
NA,
In -Vehicle Signal -85d6m
Outdoor Signal -98di3m
3G Marginal to Poor Coverage
0
ti.
2014 Xrm i',I-F,7 on.ithtliT I ". q,
August 15, 2016
aw
,0,
Counter Date:
Info
Network lyp.
dam Data state: TP W4 i-latkude TP(oration ion lode Tomer Ce111D-short
T-0010-1on Tower LAC
IWea Code
--_.-- WH date: 8!12/17
L t IT 10 7.52
.Logi ttlr4L5secpnds.
--
�
- r:-
�
-�.
T
,
Ph "type GaM
_ -
Device ID: 359775081757436
_ . .__.
_
_ 18/22/71 10:7.2
_ . ____-_ -_
HAVE M091LECO19NECSION
._�-.._-.
�_-_-.
TE
92 C. �_
33.79(02435
..
_ HAVE
55616
_ _..
_
L "122/17' 10:6:2
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
LTE
--d
A$ Connected
33.78181435
1283924887
-138.392486]
55818
141S"M2
191548042.
34628
_ -.. _. -___
�Bl12/t7•IOS:]_
HAVE _
_(HAVE MOBHfi CdlLNEt71071
-. _
_f�TE _ _- -..-. �. _
_'��Ct1nOaL-A _,_
- 31_761001851.
-.
_ ti834Z/411_ _-___STHtB�
-
_ _
U1548N2_ _- __
_ 346]8'
d 3 2 /1] L03:12
5!8/22/11 Ill -A
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
rN0.VE M0BIIE CONNECTION _
LTE
1 .__
-BBC Ned
"-T,eneGM _� -
33.78189985
_.--3J.i67U5[i__
_ 118.3923495
55819
L4154BU42- _
14628
- �'.
68/22/17"10:622_
HAVE M_OBILECON_NECTIDN_
LTE
--104 Connetted
33.78240431__
-118.3923544
55818_
141548042
_ - 718/22/17 • ID827 _
_JfaV MOBILECIaNNEC710N _ -
____
LTE _ _. .�-
_
lll�Eametd40. _ _ A
AA A 33.78369 0 1
_ L16 3921" ._
_55626]
_
1425/8012 ,_ _
_ _34628
___ 346281
3:4/22/17 10:832
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
LTE
-LOS.0 nerved
33.78302822
113.3921441
55818
1.41548042
34628
_ - HAVE_
B/22j17.108:37
_._
(NAVE M081/E CONNEGT/_ON _
__ _- -_
.�.._. _ _HAVE_ ._
_-_ _
- tDerCmtn"cte0
_ -_
23.76136311_ ___
.. __.
118.39395 __. ___._ SSIItI___-
-
_.UtSi�4�.-
10 3/22/17 • 10 8'42
HAVE MOBILE ONNECTION
LTE
-108 C "tted
33.78367769
-1183917612
818'
141548042
34628
ItLB/22/l7•I08:48
HAVE M0811E Tf1HNEC710N-
-. _- __.._-_t .._
---___,
•t Cv192Q.ed
_ 33.78390666.
-u6.3---5-
_
55818,
Uf518042 _
_ 4w!
12 6/22/1] • 10:6:53
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
LTE
-109.Connened
33.78403261
-118 3911859
SSB38
141548062
34620
.HAVE
_._13enan•1d63s.
xavEY4p61cmw91:cTIw- _..-�-
_-
HAVE_--
_-ttfirannctea--`AAAA
__T_
- u.Ts4ord2�
_._.----`
--- -F18390-
------1--------AAAA..
SSS1B,
_.
L4L56M42
.� - --- --
_
366
--- - �8
I4.8/22/]7' 10:93
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
LTE
ConneRed
33.7840]256.
-116.3903938.
SSB38.
1415413042.
34628
_ ___
I5 8/22/17 • [039_ ..-
lfAYr MO81/f OONYECOON
_Iib
. _ '3112 -_
_ _ _
_ 1
- 32_aH608B7dJ_-_-
_ _
_- R$791/f57d _ _ -
_ 536381 _...
_ .. 1]15130/ _ _---
16 8(22/1]' 10:9:13
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
117 Convened
33.]84243]6_
118.3899533
25869
141518088
34585
--_ 1)8/75211.709_t0
]!10.42000611E tOnYYECiMN-
�LTE-
ILVE -�-
[O2 LieoeCed
.781E61r1I __
-
_--/ta-Wr15 _.._
_.-_-
-__-_,-.
_
_-
188/22/17'109:23_
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
LTE
L03. Connected
33.79470028
-1183899458.
25871,
L41SIB095.
34565
-,...113'8/72/tT.•IP9:18-_-_.LYE
MO BI SECONMECTIQN_._.
rr__
-a-__- -L_
_
� iGcoN-
_
-. _--__
.
20'8/22/17 109:33
HAVE MOBILECONNECTION_
106C tted
33.]85168]9
118.3900923
25871
161518095,
_ __ 2ti6' 7...[09:38 _�t�VE NaH1LE 117N1Yfii'ttON -.-
_LTE _ _ _ T_
LZE._ __ 1
_
I
_ _ '! ___L -_
_ _
_3.705161261.
__ _ _
_ 12839019951. -
_
__ ISbn
_
L41SI8LIB5
_ _34585
228/22/17 10.9:43
..__.-.�2IlT 109#0 _
_ HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
-�INIIItE M001LE C�L71ECMiM
�LYE
•tc _ .-__ .S_-'�C�'°tec®d...�
-106 Connected_ _
33.78525428
- 33.795_�6�---_
-118.390_3371
2567L
141518095
_ 34585
dtB39059'I3�__-_�_-.__
24 8/22/1] • 10:9:53
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
LTE
-106 ConneRed
-118.3906865
142931479'x.
_
- 26 8(2,73] • 10938.-_
_
[IInLI gTLmg_m7B�.eTexN
_ _ _ _
_- H w -m _ _
__
_ -I 0wmrNr- e6
_33.7850545
_33 �-. -
__ _ _ __
_
_52999 __
� -
`i4�' _ _HAVE
X558(
Z6,8/22/17 10:10:3
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
Unknown
-120. Dismn -d
33.78478917
-118.3911L31
4352
54857984
55558
_ - l 8371/17 • W:tAB
_ -_
HAKYt7IftE W70ELSi4�._.__
Ut�ttawN ._ _•[90�-09mlta eeQed,'
__
_. _ 33.7q_46T8U
_EU:Ya94it1-_ .__ -
_
Ha -_r _
_ _
_ -- 918579!81-__. _ __.
_
18 8/22/17 1010:14
HAVE MOB11E CONNECTION
HSUPA' up 1A5-3.0 Mbps
-9J Connected
33.]8444132
-1183918106'
40183
56794359
15516
__ M 9/72(!7 - LO.HI:Ld
fLtAVE.61O0t(f. 117MIE[lOOt{-.-_-rp)[Q6pM
• 4L2lA6A4
'nl4wmeLte4 r
. _ .. _�---.-__-
3i-'1648%87
- _
_ .//0.292271
_ _
_
_
_ Sb794399�_AAAA
_ __._ 55516.
_ 30 8/22/17 10-10:24
- ____-
�4/ILtT_ 10:10_29
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION _
_
N0.9E MOHrlG Cl7N9FCTHM4�t¢PM'4TS�
_
DCIHSPA ' 42.2 Mbps
-10] Connetted
_ 33.78410236 -_-
_ �L.7&{�7821
4183924758
.-__- --.-
rt0.9Y317�'
_ _
_ 56794359 _ _
_
_ _ 55516
555W�
-_
;._..--u+�"'
_.r.
c�1ac-�
HAVE-
AWN 10'10:34
_ A9✓�7•t0:tP39
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
_ _ ___.
JHAtlE 0978116 D010.tlHCLL016._.
IDC�HSPA • 422 Mbps T
_1nw9A.VP fAs3de1ItG6'
97- _Connected
-9�mlteC[et -.
33.78376809
118.3931005
40183
_.60161
56794359-
_-_
wis"A ---- ---
55516
.15161
_
- _. 30.70$A1411--._
___278.m-rT _
11
_-311/2217•
HAVE MOBI�LONNERION
-...
DCHSPA. __. _�7
-_. 93�Connetted
_- 33.78333445 _
_-1183935698 _
29223
56]83399
55516
_�
368/32[IJ • 10:10:56
-
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTIONDC
HSPM • 42.2 Mbps
-87 Connected
33.]8276549
-118393]023
29123
5083399
55515
--
- n rtn i�rarasa
_ctu9LEOLne.__
_ _
:__---
_.
_
SSW
39 8/22/17 • 10.11.4
Lsl • 1B, -AAAA--
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
--
IIR89E 0971acs3a9 .
OC HSPA• • 42.2 Mbps
- --
� � w 1.459.o4A0ps :
-79 Convened
- -
� _ _
33.7823]574
. w.7�
1183937259
-_ -era.2o_ra1
29223
--_
_ narsl
56783399
55516
- _moi- _
-,
z�sa;
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
LTE__
-101 Convened
33.78225281
-118.3936574
SSB1B
Ld1548042
34628
_40.8/22/17.10:11:15 _
_. 41 •1111220
_
1HANE61QtHE �A911@CEfTN -
_ _
_ 1.1E _ _ -`_
_ - 40r a47tre3ed _
i9.761S010A
_ _
_
_ _
- _
_ 42 8/22/17' 10:11:25
-- - ----_T--
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION _
LTE
_•-_.-..
-Loo C. --d
33.]622190]-
-LI83929502
55818
141548042,
34628
_ CD �BI22L17. 102630
1[4tYEN9BQf f019'QL1W�
-T--__
_ ;LTE _-. -_ _ .._
CwuRued_. _
-__._--_.
_ 19.783217 .-
_ - _
-.- _-. _#th ISQL7. _.
_
_ _
_ �. _ _
._ _-- _
L418�042�_ _ _-
-_
_ __ 61GI8.
44 8/22/17. 10:11:35
HAVE MD&LE CONNECTION
LTE
-95.Connened
33.]8215273
-1183924793
55818
141568042
_
34628
9618 7•LO't3AQ _-
--L-�--= -
.____
lNA1tE9L7l9fF. �E6:N714
- - -
- _ �
AVE-
-' - - - --' --
-..____ _
- -
H.1tF8l995{ -
AVE.
__--t1Y.8tIt411
-- - -
-
96 8 22/1]' 10:11:45
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
_TE
-95 ConneRed
33.78166193
-11&.3924366
55818.
141548042
34628
r•tU27_SQ
- 22 � -
HA0E 00811E 177!4[[!1001
(TE
- _ _ __ _ �
_
_. _ ®
---r_.--r-___.____
- 38-10/4901M:
_ __ 1861/86143
4B 8/22/17 • 10:1155
NAVE M084LE CONNECTION
LTE
-69 ConneRed
33.78140288
-1183923694
55818
141548042
34628
- ---1 �_--_
AH'81 RZ/ti tol"
..�._-_ _-.--_
'HAW Allimm9ANlEC:6N
r_-. - . _- -. _.
.Lir __
HAVE_
Qnt�e6 _
__._..
39.78230718
-
..--11139U 8.
- TAT- --'
661549NZI _ _..
316751
50 8/22/17 • 10:12:6
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
LTE
-300 Lonnenetl
33.]6134639
-118391%14
55818
361548042_
34628
- .57,:6[IEIST•tO:FZ:t! _
.____- -.
i(fAYE /{009C(16pg,CFItll1
- --.- _.
.LTE
-._ HAVE.
__._
-IM'Cymb4Ry ___
__-_
gfl77y�7j ._-
_--_ _ ___--..-••
.118.39IS392
,•T-___..-
_
52 8/22/1]' 10:12:16
HAVEMDBILE CONNECTION
LTE
-LO] Connettetl
33.]8135071
-11839]5392.
55818
161568062
34638
. _13HlE2{f.T HI:t22A
_38{132 MOBI[6LSE33-78216033]1
__...'S70dBtlfif3 _ _..
_54414 _-.
__-.
_ IJi548M2.1 _ __
_ _ _ 30878
__
548/22/11'10:1226
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
LTE
106 Co-ed
33,]8134643
-1183%9501
55616
X528
_HAVE
s5;afz3�'re31't3T.
_.Lrallesower961L[aL4r
_ ____... _
L-- - -- _-',
-
-re..�eu _ _;-
_ -_
-- is.m340®i
_
_ - _ewlaanl.
_. �_ _�...
_141548042
_� _
-_ --
14m..
10:12:3b
. HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
LTE
-103:annened
33.76134647
-1183%31&9
40456
143236616
3468
..__--.
sa uulnr ld:u�r.
_--
r._.
L__OLOBLLECON69�Tp14
_ 11A6E u
•-_._ _... _--�._
fT! ___._
-T -
-141F..CDmrestrl _
- - - --
__.II.7/27013t,
- --
_ _ -!103!83:25_
_ !6G
tQ736Gt6L
--
1961&
58 8/22117 • 10:12:46
HAVE M081IE CONNECTION
LTE
-104 Connettetl
33.781L0633
-US-3901297
40456
_.___
163236616
___
34628
- _ AFF
59 T•fA:8258
rK
_.___-_- _..
t HA9e 180818E 009�CTpN
-___
C18 _ _�-_-
--_.. _.._- _._
_....__
�lbelNydO
_
__ _
_ 3!.1404 4
-__
_ _ •f�ffi.i812368
•"`6�1
- HAVE_
ttl23H8tG3
_
3187➢
60 8/23/17 • 10:1236
.HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
LTE
100 C4nnenetl
33.7806851
-118.3901583
40456
1/3236616
34628
611 IIiT•IC13'1 ..
Of141,ff 01@8142 C0111g9.TtOf4
Ilk -
R62
528/22/17 • 10:13:6
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
LTE
100.Connened
33.78056188
-118.390%24
40656
143236616
34628
-yHA4IE11089p NN08t:T19N
_ -IDBftaunertNd
•/13.11'61111
40rti...___
L6235i06y
84b20
66 8/22/1]' IU:13:16
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
ITE
100 Convened
33.]8069524
-1183901045
40656
143236616
34628
_. _. __
66 8 [ 1.1083:21
,Home AlOBttE COII14RRCtiW 1
_ _ _..
�LtB _ _ _ _
._- -._
IOFfMwOca•0
____
Williams:
_ t&.780(18N8.
•Ofd.
_ _ AE61
__-__.___-__-
1]836614: _ -. ...
HAVE
..14626
66 8/22/1]' 10:1326
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
LTE
-LDO Conn -ed
33.78135993
-119.3901397
40456_
143236616
U628
6T'LQLlJt7•IP.1331
:HANE MLIB4E C17191FCftlN
Lt TE _ ._ _ .. -
_1811!Cotmeee! --
73.761121741.
-- _-7t1.YfD[IgI _
_..281461 _
_
1]3336616;- _.. .__
-__
- 36678:
682/17' 301336 _
_-
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
.-__ --_
LTE -
:10 C nerved -_...
33.7813]082
-
_ 118.389983
40656
1x3236616
3462&
696 7'101134!2
_l�T
'..H[V[N�MLE �
.__
117E
�201_C4nnstea
,-
- 13.781379541_-
_-__ _-
_.- 21a,3B9079Tj_ - -
- 40KG
-.
f43135616.
3&78.
70 8/22[17 _ 10:13:47
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
'HAVE ._-__-. _..
LTE _109
...- -..
Connected
___ HAVE. __.
_ 33.7813505
__ .__
-118.3893218 _
-X016.388/326.
40456
143236616
34628
71,6(2217.103332
IN GIF O(OQH,4C0t8 ecrmoN
,LTE __
t093ComtA6hd' _
33.7822961,
a_0�6
_ _ -_
1_49_236616 _ _ _
_.
3419*
72 8/22/17 •_10:13:57
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
LTE
L10 Connetted
3336109221
-L18.3B87909
40456
143236616
34626
NAY" MG19tE CENNECFION
LIE
di5lCdtmle6teM -
_ 33.78081618
478-SI8l6 J
vtw`
143236616'
74 8/22/17' 10:14:7
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
LTE
-112 Connetted
33.78089683.
-118.3884505
40456
143236616
34628
_._.
79_�iT•f@14:12
-__-.___
IN0.v8 M081fY CONNI!GfmN
_...
_LTE ._
_HAVE__
-�G6-mtatleA
-._..-___-_,.
3118090336-
-.-._..-._
118JQB4556,
-
/3332ifi616 - -
-- 30628
76 8/22/17' 10:14:17
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
LTE
-112 Convened
33.78090688
-116.368406
40456
143236616
34628
-
_ n16L22J2T 30:14,22
_.___.
HAVF MOBIEE C&NE&iM
-_-
-._LTE
_._.
•L161ConMefeO _.
HAVE-_.
1176090607;
_-. .HAVE..
41628BST6d.
_
= _
____- .. -
!63236616
-
34628:
78 8/22/1] • 30:16:2]
HAVE MOBILE CONNELTION
1TE
413 Connettetl
-118.3888232
40956
143236616
14
34626
-T-.
fl ,[tr !0:1432
_HAVE NO811E W9NECTION
__ _
ILTE -
- ._- -_
-tl2 CanneT4ea _-
_ _33.78.1.16366 _
-• _-
33.78A94388j
_ - -_._
-U9389[Oi4
`-'
40864
U32366t6,
'-
3460
90 8/22/17 ` 10:16:37
HAVEMOBILE
MOBILE CONNECTION
LTE
413 Connettetl
33.78140552
-118.3895197
]0456
143236616
36628
B3 B�'t2A17 • IU:14:d1
.HAVE
HAVE M081tE CONNERI0M
__. _ .. -_ __.
LTE
HAVE__-
111 ed
_
33.78139383
_
-11834006! ,5
B -_---
_ _
[432366161 _
34620
82 8/22/1]' 10:14:47
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
LTE
L07 Connettetl
33.78139333
X118.3907405
40456
143236616.
36628
_ B3j6 2/17 • LO:I4.42
- 1 _ --
HAVE MQHHE Ct11 WC310N
..._
:LTE
_-I10SCO!1rr4taee -_ -
..____-__ _.
i3.76L4pQs3j
_ ._ __..
�LtA362187t: _
ALASBi
_ .-_..
IJ323BW�lvr__.. _.--
.36628
84 3122/17' 10:14:57
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
LTE
110 Cannetted
33.78138993
-1183917828
611456
143736616
34628
-. .._
NJ8(2t/tT•E0t£82
__. _____--_
NAVE W&tE l'0IgIFCI[011 _
_..
LTE
.__-
603'fAnttRteA
33_76
_ -
E783810TOZI
..
_55816..
_
UL $ ___
31628.
e6 8/22/17 •10:158
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
LTE
108 3nnected
33.78141864
-118.392L31]
5581&
161548062
34628
018/23/1T•M:tf:ti.-(N0.m6NiMILE
CMWCTDM
,Ll-v
-
-__�Mp�
#.
-7816117. _
_
'138.fl213�5I
__..
55818!
__._.�
1l}SIWIt71
36623
88 8/22/17' 10:15:18
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
LTE
110 Connected
33.7814147
-118.3921315
55818
14154&042
34628
._ -_
_ 89617-IZ 1]•IPdS:Z3
- _
,H�E00NBILE CON_NERION
..
11t _ _
_- _
:105 Conoemd. --
_..
_ -33.7814143
11039113151 _
558181
HAVE•
1_4 /59 60 421 ____
34628
908/22/17' 10:1528
.._ 9128/7217•10: _
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
H 1fi741td CONO@LNON
LTE
_LTE _ _
M_0,nned d
_- 95 Ctrnened
_ 33.78140661
33.75147308-
-118.3922054 _
•tI81921923.
55818_
55828
141548042. _ _ _
101548082.7 -_.
_ _ 34628
92 8/2217 30.15:38
_. _-
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
-� _
LTE
100 [ tted
_-. __ -
33.78154445
118 3923875
HAVE-
_
558M
_
141548042
-_.�fl
34628
_ - 9318(I2117 LO.15:41
yHAi/H M0911E fANNEETION
LITE - _.
_7111 CmoTeRee_
_...
33.7&101]2'_
3193923�B4! ._
___ _
SB6U�
__. 7- -.- -
14154 GQ2{, ._._
_.
.14620_
94 8/22/17' 10:15:48
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
LTE
-110 Connettetl
33.78230478
-118.3923321
55818
141548042
34628
.r __.
96;t2�Z/17•HI[533_
.. _HAVE
:NAV6My791LE COHI@f71014
_. _ --
LTE
_._ -. _.._._
_
-
968/22/17 . 1UA1.58
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
LTE
.114 Cannened
33.78296992
-118.3921484
55818
141548042
34628
.-- -_ _
97jq/22/l7 • 10:16:3
_ _________
NAY" MOBIIE CONN6CtION
_ _TI
tTE _
-119-Cp.W.D d
_._.___
38.78328803
_. _ - ,-
•USJSL063!-- - -
..
.55816
- .___._.
- UI54804z;
HAVE_
34628
98 8/22/17' LO:L5:3
HAW N1001lE CONNECTION
LTE
119 ConneRed
33'/8338]09
-118.391892
55818
141548042
34628
_ _._ _.. _-
99 8 X7.1(626:1!
HAVE. _ _-_.�
_ .H0.V0 NUBIIt CUNN_EC_7IO_N
'ttr _ -
-__
-119ymlmeaer
__
33 1B2997_�
_ _-_..
_ •11839t8t174..
_ _-�
566Li'
LA35480MY._- _- _
_36628.
100 8/22/1]' 10:16:18
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
LITE
-113 Connened
33,78333328
118.3918777
55825
141548069
3x628
E-110
Appendix B — Technical Considerations for Small Cell Wireless Networks
Introduction
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
Horizontal 1 699!-790 MF+z
HodzonW 1 1904*0 MHz
t696-2700 MHz (Yt k Y2!
F®•aorrta= P NO -%O MHz
E-111
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 WQJQ721) 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-112
�.S 1irr. - �.~dS,,���x!yh •. s 1 J ^i ) '�{. �� F .'Ai � •�.��t , :e` ��/•
Itp, r
i •t, e
dp
/6 .cam •, ti=y . �'� -- * '' l ,
tri "��4'• 4, a4 F ' � • `' ~3rd s r �'' ' 40 t� F
c .� - .� i f 'h iii• �^r S,
,,p ✓ w m
elf - l' • ' J 4 r
v tea'• �•` � .... _
V* 16
1070
10675
:. 1065
u 1062.5
Y 1060
y 1057.5
1055
0 1052.5
1050
> 1047.5
1045
1042.5
1040
a 1037.5
z 1035
1032.5
1030
1070
1067.5
:. 1065
1062.5
1060
1057.5
1055
1052.5
1050
1047.5
1045
1042.5
1040
a 1037.5
1035
1032.5
1030
From Proposed Antenna Site to TP 1
Range on path (kilometers)
From Proposed Antenna Site to TP 2
Range on path (kilometers)
1070
1067.5
1065
1062.5
1060
1057.5
1055
1052.5
1050
1047.5
1045
1042.5
1040
1037.5
1035
1032.5
1030
1070
1067.5
1065
1062.5
1060
1057.5
1055
1052.5
1050
1047.5
1045
1042.5
1040
1037.5
1035
1032.5
1030
E-114
1120
1115
1110
W 1105
" 1100
> 1095
5 1090
'° 1085
L% 1080
1075
1070
1065
V 1060
1055
1050
1045
1150
AO
1140
1130
> 1120
1110
UN 1100
1090
1080
1070
v 1060
1050
1040
From Proposed Antenna Site to TP 3
Range on path (Won-wters)
r; '
i i• a 1 .i � t 1 • T i 'i f .1 9 i !.si � 1 ti .i: f. ,.i. 'i :i } -a � A, ' i
1120
1115
1110Z
1105
11011
1095
10905
1985
1080
1075
1070
1065 4E
1060 �
1055
1050
1045
1160
1150
1140 fu
11.30
1121E >
1110
1100
1090
1080
1070
10600
1050 z
1040
E-115
t;rown uastle NG West LLC
Site-Specific Altemative Site Analysis Narrative
for
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
6456803.1 CrownCastle.com E-116
City's Design and Development Standards require that wireless telecommunications facilities
(" TH") located in the public right-of-way ("ROW") are designed to minimize visual, noise and
other impacts on the surrounding community.
4 TV
a) The Applicant email employ screening, a �nderground%ng and camouflage design
techniques in the placement of WTIF in order to.-
J)
o.
i) To ensnare that the facility is as visually screened as possible ...
Crown Castle employs screening by taping advantage of existing foliage, natural
and man-made elements in and around the public ROW, to the maximum extent
feasible. The Small Cell lode ("SCN") is a collocation on an existing utility
streetlight pole, with roast arm and luminaire. There is an existing 6 -foot tail
masonry wall and foliage that screen the SCN from the nearest adjacent
property, 6504 Monero ®rive. Foliage to the north in the fora of saplings will
eventually grow to screen the SCN, and the other existing utility streetlight poles
that run along the west side of Granvia Altamira. All four properties, on all four
corners of the intersection of Dorene ®rive and tranvia Altamira, have large
mature foliage that visually screens the SCN.
At present, Crown Castle is proposing 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.
The rationale for this is:
3) SCE requires that its pedestal 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
1 Notwithstanding the presentation of this site-specific alternatives analysis pursuant to Chapter 12.18
of the City of Manche 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 3901 and 7901.1
and section 253 of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996.
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
6456803.1 CrownCastle.com E-117
multiple above ground venting stacks, each, approximately 22 inches in
diameter, and approximately 40 inches off the ground. Accordingly,
undergrounding does not necessarily result in the hest screening measure.
3) Instead of three (3) new vertical elements in the ROW involved with vaulting,
Crown Castle's proposal would introduce only one new above -greed
element.
4) Although RPWC Section 12.16.060 (A)(6)(b) calls for 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 visible equipment "possible."
ai) To prevent the facility from dominating the surrounding arca ...
Crown Castle's SCN does not dominate the surrounding area because it is
attached to an existing vertical element (an existing 53 -foot tall utility streetlight
pole) in the ROW. The top of Crown Castle's antennas would be at a height of
22 -feet 6 -inches. Crown Castle is proposing to attach to one of the many
existing utility streetlight poles that line the west side of tranvia Altamira.
Crown Castle's node does not dominate the surrounding area because it is
attached to an existing vertical element (an existing utility streetlight pole) in the
ROW. Crown Castle is proposing to attach to one of the many existing utility
streetlight poles that line the north side of Montemalaga Drive. By utilizing an
existing streetlight pole, Crown Castle's facility minimizes the potential for
additional visual intrusion.
Sao) To minim, ize significant view impacts from surroundmg properties...
The location of Crown Castle's facility, on an existing utility streetlight pole,
minimizes significant view impacts from surrounding areas. Crown Castle's SCN
would not increase the height of the existing pole, nor would it significantly impair
any existing dews. An existing 6 -foot tall privacy, masonry wall adjacent to the
SCN and mature foliage on all four corners of the intersection of Moreno Drive
and tranvia Altamira provides screening from view impacts to surrounding
properties. Notably, the facility 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).
i i '�'.' i�.. C N v' R,.
The Foundation for a wireless World,
6456803.1 CrownCastie.com E-118
surrounding residential parcels. The preservation of views is to be accomplished
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 ) f=irst, 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 ordnance 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, excluding antennas... 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 fora or fashion. Moreover, 66antennas" 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 s�fing of wireless facilities in the ROW (it cannot),
Crown Castle'so`fil' he compatibility with the surrounding community by being
designed to minimize vis l noise and other mpa
b) Screening shah be designed to :be architectural compatible with surrounding structure,
using appropriate techniques to camouflage, disguise, andlor 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.
Crown Castle's SCN is architecturally compatible with surrounding structures because it
is attached to one of many existing utility streetlight poles,along the west side o
Granvia Altamira. The proposed Crown Castle node is small in size, especially when
compared to the scale of the 52 -foot tall existing utility infrastructure on which it is
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
6456803.1 CrownCastle.com E-119
attached. Crown Castle's SCN blends into the environment with Y N i i 9 1um visual
impacts because it will use non -reflective paint that will match the utility street light pole
and thus camouflage it. Mature foliage on all four corners of Moreno ®rive and granvia
Ntamira screen the SCN from nearby residential uses. Moreover, the proposed facility
is located in the ROW — an area in the City already impacted with roadway
improvements, sidewalks, 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 (pity's general plan, so that no
significant viewimpairment 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 66near 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.
There are no designated city view corridors in the area, as defined in the City's general
plan. Monero ®rive is classified as a local street, while granvia Altamira is designated
as a non -local, collector street within the Circulation Element of the RPV general Plan.
granvia Altamira is characterized by a line of existing Futility street light poles along the
west side of the road, with foliage in various stages of maturing. Crown Castle's SCN
does not significantly impair views because it is located on existing utility infrastructure,
and is visually screened by foliage from residential structures. A 6 -foot tall privacy
fence immediately adjacent to the west and foliage on all fewer corners of Moreno Drive
and granvia Altamira screen the SCN.
"`�` ��`' c:,,l�ijc,i :� � �!'�'. ���� �i••, i j-ifl�' i-. '�;1' i�: '� 1,lil 'i,
All facilities shall be designed and located in such a manner as to avoid adverse impacts on
traffic safety.
The Crown Castle SCN is designed to attach to an existing utility streetlight pole. The
bottom of Crown Castle's antenna would eighteen feet eight inches. The SCN meets
the minimum height clearance requirements for street lights (16 feet, six inches) as
defined in RPVMC Section 12.18.080 (A,)(6)(d). Crown Castle's SCN therefore should
not adversely impact traffic safety.
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
6456803.1 CrownCastle.com E-120
All facilities shall have subdued colors and non -reflective materials that blend 011th the
materials, and colors of the surrounding area and structures.
Crown Castle's SCN blends into the surrounding area and structures because it uses existing
vertical infrastructure in the ROW, an existing utility streetlight pole. The SCN will use
subdued, non -reflective paint that will match the utility street light pole thus further blending
and camouflaging the facility.
12,180080 (A)O Eguip int
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 two (2) 24 -inch antennas would be mounted back-to-back on a four -foot mast
arm, extending from the existing wood utility street light pole. The antennas would be placed
at a maximum height of 22 feet, 0 inches, meaning the bottom of the antennas would be at
20 feet, 6 inches. This configuration complies with Public Utilities Commission ("PUC")
health and safety regulations, such as General Order 95. The SCN height was determined
by evaluating the amount of available space in the common area of the telecommunication
zone on this Joint Pole Authority ("JPA") pole, and compliance with 'RPVMC Section
12.18.080 (A)(6)y(dp)ryggpt^phat requires a minimum height of 10 feet, 6 inches for street light poles.
Crown Castle's SCN is therefore situated as cloys to the ground as possible.
a. Facilities shall be located consistent with Section 12.1 .200(Locatlon 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 consistent with this ordinance because it is proposed to be
located on an existing utility street light pole on a non -local street, Granvia Altamira.
Crown
M ( 1`i o io
Restrictions).
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
6456803.1 CrownCastle.com E-121
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. (Por exceptions see subparagraph (6)(h) below and sections
12.18.190 (Exceptions) and 12.18.22®,(State or Federal Law).)
Crown Castle's SCN is located in the ROW and is pole -mounted to an existing utility street
light pole.
C. Utility Poles. The maximum height of any antenna shall not exceed 48 inches above
the height of an existing utility polo, nor shall any portion of the antenna or equipment
mounted on a pole be loss than 24 foot above any drivable road surface. All installations
on utility polos 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.
Crown Castle's SCN is located in the ROW and is pole mounted to ars existing utility street
light 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 is located in the ROW and is pole mounted to as existing utility street
light pole at a minimum height of 20 feet, 6 inches. The facility does not extend above the
existing pole.
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 is mounted to an existing utility street 'light pole. No replacement pole
is required.
f. Pole mounted equipment, exclusive of antennas, shall not exceed six cubic feet in
dimension.
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
6456803.1 crowncastle.com E-122
Crown Castle's pole mounted equipment, excluding antennas, would be limited to cabling
connecting the node to power and fiber optic backbone, connectors, brackets, and GPS.
Crown Castle's pole mounted egOpment, excluding antennas, would therefore not exceed
six cubic feet in dimension.
g. [Reserved.]
h. An exception shall he required to place a new pole in the public fight -of -way. If an
exception is granted for placement of new poles in the fight -of -way:
Crown Castle's SCN is mounted to an existing utility street light pole on a non -local,
collector street, tranvia Altamira. leo exception is required
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.
Crown Castle's SCN is mounted to an existing wood pole therefore interior installation of
cabling is infeasible. Crown Castle's conduit and cabling is to be flush mounted and
painted to match the pole.
12.1&080 IA)(7) Space.
Each facility shall be designed to occupy the least amount of space in the fight -of -way that
is technically feasible.
Crown Castle's SCN is mounted to ars existing utility street light 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 egOpment. TNs configuration would
take up less space in the ROW than complying with RPVMC Section 12.18.080 (A)(5)(b) that
requires undergrou.unding of all equipment, other than antennas. The City reeds 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.
The Foundation for a Wireless World,
6456903.1 CrownCastle.corn E-123
12.18.080 (A)(9) Wind Loads
Each facility shall be properly engineered to withstand vilin 7 loads as required by this code
or any daily adopted or incorporated code. An evaluation of high wind load capacity shall
include the impact of modification of an existing facility.
Crown Castle has submitted wind loading capacity calculations as required by code. Please
see Exhibit F7.
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, in, corrumode 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.
RPVMC Section 17.48.070 (intersection Visibility) discusses restrictions on various structures
and landscaping (>30 inches) on corner lots rear 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 located within 60 -feet of an intersection of Monero give and tranvia
Altamira. gown Castle's joint utility cabinet (59.1 -inches tall) would be located approximately
50 -feet from the northwest corner of the intersection of Monero give and tranvia Altamira but
would be screened by intervening utility infrastructure (poles and guy wires) and foliage.
12.18.080 (A10) 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, fare escape, hater valve, underground vault, valve
housing structure, or any other public health or safety facility.
Crown Castle's node is located on an existing utility street light pole. Crown Castle's
accessory equipment cabinet (22.5 inches wide by 12.6 inches deep by 59.1 inches tall)
Would not interfere With any fire, water facilities or any other public health or safety facility
including underground vaults.
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
6456803.1 CrownCastle.com E-1 24
12A 8.080 1 )IJ 1) Screening
AiU ground -mounted facility, pole -mounted equipment, or wails, fences, landscaping or other
screening methods shall be installed at least 18 inches from the curb and gutter flow lime.
Crown Castle's, node 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 incises tall) Will be set back at least 18 inches from the curb
and gutter flow line.
Accessory Equipment. Not in, cluding the electric meter, all accessory equipment shall be
located underground, except as provided below:
a. Unless city staff determines that there is no room in the public fight -of -way for
u ndergrou ndirng, or that undergrounding is not feasible, an exception shall be requiredin
order to place accessory equipment above -ground and concealed with natural or
manmade features to the maximum extent possible.
Per Section 1 2.1 8.080(A)(1 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, With the exception of the joint utility equipment cabinet
that Would house Crown Castle's accessory equ, prnent and SCE electric meter pedestal.
Per Section 12.18. 90, Exceptions, The Planning Commission shall not grant any
exception sinless Crown Castle demonstrates with clear and convincing evidence teat:
The propose' wireless facility qualifies as a "personal wireless senlices
facility" as definedin United States Cole, 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 qual=Mies as "personal wireless services facility" as
defined in 'United Mates Code, Title 47, section 332(c){7)(C)�ii);
The Foundation for o Wireless World.
6456803.1 CrownCastle.com E-125
2, The applicant has provided the city with a clearly defined technical service
objective and a clearly defined potentia/site search area-,
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) ordesign(s)
suggested by the city or otherwise identified in the administrative recorid,
including but not limited to potential alternatives identified at any public
meeting or hearing, are net technically feasible or potentially available; and
With this site specific comparative analysis, Crown Castle is providing the
City Wth meaningful comparative analysis that includes the factual reasons
why the Primary location is superior to the other Alternatives evaluated, The
Primary is superior to other Alternatives because it provides better RF
coverage and capacity, and because it is less visually impactful to
surrounding properties and the community.
4. The applicant has provided the city with a meaningful comparative analysis
that inch ides 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
6456803.1
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 most compliant 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 with a joint utility cabinet there 'would
only be one new vertical -element. if vaulting is required, there will be two vents,
each approximately 22 -inches in diameter, and 40 -inches in height, in addition to
the SCE's 48 -inch tall electric meter pedestal.
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com E-126
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 andlor 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 ta9l, Crown
Castle's joint utility cabinet would be less than the flwo-foot height and a total footprint of 15
square -feet ai owable under this RPVMC Section 12.18.080 (A)(1 2)(b).
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.
Crown Castle's SC Y is installed on a non -local, collector street, Grabtl la Altamira. There
aro no homes in the area with direct access to Granvia Altamira; therefore, the SCBE would
not be installed directly in front of a residence. Nearby homes are screened from viewing
Crown Castle's utility cabinet by a 6 -foot tall masonry, privacy wall and by foliage. Placing
the joint utility cabinet on the west side of Granvia Altamira Drive is consistent with the utility
character of that side of the street, and the cabinet would not significantly impact views from
surrounding properties.
12.18.080 JA)J13) 'Landsca�i
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.
Crown Castle's SCN does not presently include landscaping. This portion of Granvia
Altamira is characterized by a line of 52 -foot tall utility street light poles string along the
west side of the road. The placement of a vault or a joint utility cabinet would require the
removal of one of the saplings along the west side of Granvia Altamira. if the City desires
landscaping around Crown Castle's proposed joint utility cabinet, Crown Castle would be
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
6456803.1 CrownCastle.com E-127
willing to work with the City's landscape architect or other knowledgeable staff or
consultant.
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.
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.
Crown Castle's SCN does not include lightning arresters and beacons that would increase
the height of the .utility street light pole to which it is attached.
C. Argy required lighting shall be shielded to eliminate, to the maximum extent possible,
impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods.
,any Crown Castle SCN lighting would be shielded by existing foliage. The adjacent 6 -foot
tall masonry privacy wall would assist in minimizing any potential impacts on the
surrounding neighborhood to the maximum extent possible.
d. Unless otherwise required under FAA or FCC regulations, applicants may install
onlytimed 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.
Any 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.
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
6456803.1 crowncastle.com E-128
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.
12.16.060 (A)(1) 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 :> ,N would not operate any backup it Tea!or outside City prescribed tinj
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
fight -of -way adjacent to e 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.
Crown Castle's SCN is within 500 -feet of residential uses. Crown Castle has supplied a
Noise Study verifying that the node would comply with City noise standards. See Exhibit
J1a.
12.16°060 (A)(17) Securi°
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 andlor 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
The Foundation for a wireless world.
6456803.1 CrownCastle.com E-129
by 59. t inches tall. This cabinet is similar in size to countless other utility cabinet located in
the ROW. There is no reason to believe that the proposed joint utility cabinet would attract
any 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
crime.
12018.080 [A)118) 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 SCIS represents the latest in small cell wireless technology. As such,
Crown Castle's SCIS apses the smallest equipment feasible to reduce visual, noise and
other impacts. Currently, there is no wireless equipment on the existing utility street light
pole that needs modification.
No permit shall be granted for a fireless 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 node.
B. The proposed facility has been designed and located in compliance with all
applicable provisions of this chapter:
Crown _ SCN is designed to use existing utility infrastructure and is located on
a collector street, Granvia Altamira. Crown Castle's SCN is in compliance with all
applicable provisions of this chapter, with the exception of the Crown Castle/SCE joint
utility cabinet. While RPVMC Section 12.18.080 (A)(6)(b) calls for the undergrounding
all oequipment,RPVMC Section 12.18.080 A d RP
`( Section
12.18.080 (A)(7) call for using the least visible equipment and the least amount of
space withinO1_ Crown Castle believes one new vertical element is better
three new vertical -elements
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
6456803.1 C•rownCastle.com E-130
visual impacts. The determination is ultimately up to the City to decide which of the
two configurations is preferred.
C. if applicable, the applicant has demonstrated its inability to locate on existing
infrastructure.
Crown Castle's SCN is legated on existing infrastructure, an existing utility street light
pole.
D. The applicant has provided sufficient evidence supporting the applicant's claim that
it has the right to enter .the public fight -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 fight -of -way.
Crown Castle has provided a copy of its certificate of public convenience and necessity
("CPCN"). See Exhibit ®1b. Crown Castle has entered into a franchise agreement
with the City permitting use of the ROW and infrastructure therein. See Exhibit ®la.
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 executed agreement with the City.
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 shover that all
alternative locations and designs identified in the application review process were
technically infeasible or not available.
Crown Castle can demonstrate that the proposed 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.
Fortunately for Crown Castle and the City all of thecandidates (Primary and Alternative
legations), with the exception of collocating on the nearest existing wireless telecommunication
facility, would satisfy the lel= coverage objective. Consequently, the foes is not be on whether
a particular Alternative Location would technically provide coverage, but instead on what
legation and design makes the most sense given the values of this community. Moreover,
federal telecommunications case law unequivocally establishes that municipalities gannet
regulate in the area of RF broadcasting. (See, e.g., Freeman v. Burlington Broadcasters, Inc.,
The Foundation for a wireless world.
6456803.1 CrownCastle.com E-131
(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 rented 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 320-215 accord Southwestem Beit Wireless Inc. v. Johnson County Bd. of County
Commis (1 Oth Cir. 1999) 199 F.3d 1135, 1193 [same principle cited]; N. Y SMSA Ltd. ,P°shio
v. Toole of Ciarkstown (2nd Cir. 2019) 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-
obiie United States, Inc., (C.®. Cal. 2003) 597 F. Copp. 2d 1050, 1953 [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 Castles facilities on the basis of RF
coverage objectives.
•. �( F;,I� ll. 6' , %mI! I r�i,�
Meets RF Coverage Objective
Crown Castle believes the existing built environment along tranvia Altamira which includes a
row of wood utility light poles with mast arms loaded with primary power lues,
telecommunication and cable equipment. The Primary benefits from existing foliage, such as
mature trees in the front yards of adjacent residential lots that ensure that the facility is as
visually screened as practicable. These existing screening features, plus the use of an
existing vertical element, prevent the Primary from dominating the surrounding area, while
minimizing any significant impacts that the proposed facility would have on surrounding
properties.
—overage a:rte Ob
This alternative is located approximately 375 -feet south of the Primary on a wood utility street
light pole. This pole is located across Monero Drive, on -the same line of utility pole street
lights that are strung along the west side of tranvia Altarnira. This location has many of the
same pros and cons as the Primary. Both enjoy placement on a non -local street, adjacent to
6 -foot tall privacy walls and fences. Alternative 1 could be considered a superior location
from a visibility perspective because it is further from the intersection of Monero Drive and
Granvia Altamira. The Primary provides better coverage along Monero Drive. Alternative 1
is screened by foliage, man -rade and natural features. It does not have significant view
impacts on surrounding properties
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
6456803.1 CrownCastle.com
E-132
Meets RF Coverage Objective
This alternative is located within the Monero Drive ROW, on a replacement pole for ars
existing tragic/stop sign pole, approximately 84 -feet so=uth of the Primary. This location is
inferior to the Primary because it is located on a local street, Monero Drive. This location
would require the replacement of the existing traffic sign (stop sign) pole with a larger pole.
/-Although Alternative 2 Would achieve the 'RF coverage objective, the location of the SCN in
front of nearby residences makes it .an inferior location.
Alternative 3 is located Within the tranvia Altarnira ROW, diagonally across the intersection
of Monero Drive and tranvia Altarnira, on a replacement pole for an existing traffic sign (stop
sign) pole. This location, approximately 140 -feet east of the 'Primary, is inferior to the
Primary because it would require the replacement of the existing traffic sign (stop sign) pole
With a larger pole. although Alternative would achieve the RF coverage objective, the
location of the SCN in front of nearby residences makes it an inferior location.
Crown Ca has presented c% Primary
aiy three
e _ ) Alternatives that would <.. ,I satisfy the
,
screeningF coverage objective. Crown Castle has provided analysis that demonstrates it is using the"least intrusive means" to achieve its RF objective by using minimally sized small cell
technology and equipment, minimum antenna heights, use of existing vertical infrastructure
and
community l aexpressed in the City's design an e o p m t standards. Crown
Castle would be willing to accept whicheverone o the four(L viable that they
determines to be the most conforming to the surrounding community's values.
The f=oundation for a Wireless World.
65568003.1 CrownCastle.com E-133
�IJ
m
U
El
E-134
b
N
..
m
-4
_I_- CD
co
Ile-
-4
�� .
_ �� e
� � ,�
•�! ' � E.�
�Y �
� _
`� r
1
!�
•,/
'`
F�
n '
• �' .
r � l
� r Ii
0
J t. uuy:u
Goo8le artl
,� •air, .etr'.a i,. n ;� �„ v! �,-. ;uqu, <ff..� un�:r, Q.
p
a
',,,A\ `►
RPV ASG53 Alternative Location 2 Looking
South Toward Site (from Primary Candidate)
E-143
�.
�,�
. �,
/ � `J
-� � j
�.i '' s
_� � � , �
�t�� �� ►�
,:
� * to _ - � -
'►'� �e '
r 1 �,
�. � ' �
'r .. �- � —
t
M� �
�571�., ��•`. � cam' ._
,d.` 1) ��
fir, tl�s� �-. 1 `
.y ��]' �
,� - tit-�` �jz
+�.�,
if �1�Ihl'::-
_.
�_�
.•
it'" %
.� �
�,
'�',
� �;
_. ,-
� a
'*'
Goo
I cS i c 7e rctqt
RPV ASG53 Alternative Location 3 Looking North
(Primary Candidate Diagonally Across Intersection)
E-147
LOLA
��; 0 Exit Street View
C"Oo3i le earth
b
NA
�! Ar
f a
�► - ..._ Goo8le earth
CCROWN
%40 C CASTLE
Collocation Analysis-ASG53
Proposed Project Address ---Adjacent to 6505 Monero
Crown Castle has already submitted an extensive alternate analysis reviewing three (3) alternative locations
identified in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project address. Explanation was given as to the validity of the
alternative as well as expected issues Crown Castle may encounter during the design, construction and
implementation of the proposed alternatives.
Crown Castle is submitting an additional alternative for review in accordance with the city's application process;
specifically examining the nearest known existing structure currently supporting wireless equipment in the public
right of way (PROW). This alternate would be proposed as a collocation between Crown Castle and the existing
carrier at that location.
For ASG53, the nearest known wireless facility is located at approximately 6146 Monero Dr. The location is
roughly 1500 feet southeast of the proposed primary, separated by single and multi -family residences and
extensive mature landscaping, including large trees in excess Of 25-30 feet in height.
Collocation of the wireless facility located on Monero Dr is not a viable alternate for the proposed facility, ASG53,
near 6505 Monero Dr. The existing facility is outside of the coverage objective for the proposed facility. Also, there
are challenges regarding design and construction of the proposed facility, due to G095 regulations enforced via
the joint pole committee (JPA) and California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). There are constructability
challenges at the location due to the existing equipment installed and technologies involved. Because of the above
challenges, Crown Castle has determined that collocation of the existing facility would be inferior to the proposed
primary, as such, that location does not warrant any additional consideration.
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.corn E-150
CCCROWN
CASTLE
August 7, 2017
Nicole Jules, Deputy Director, Acting Director
Public Works Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Crown Castle
200 Spectrum Center Drive
Suite 1700
Ervine, CA 92618
RE: Shot Clock Tolling Agreement and Notice of Shot Clock Expiration Per R.PVMC Section
12.18.o6o (C)(14) for Crown Castle Wireless Communication Facility Site ASGrll - New Shot
Clock Expiration Date: September'10, 2011
Dear Ms. Jules:
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 September 30, 2017. The purpose of extending the Shot Clock is to
allow City Staff additional time to get better 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: September 30, 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
i
Nicole Jules
CITY OF RANcHo PAL®S VERDES
The Foundation for a Wireless World. CC_151
CrownCastle.com
Art Bashmakian
From: Nancy Penate on behalf of Phone -PW -Main
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 1:14 PM
To: Charles Eder
Subject: FW: Proposed Cell Tower Site - ASG53 - Adjacent to 6505 Monero Dr - Resident
Objection
1of3
From: Robert Tun [mailto:rctun@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 10:59 AM
To: PublicWorks <PublicWorks@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Proposed Cell Tower Site - ASG53 - Adjacent to 6505 Monero Dr - Resident Objection
Dear Charles Eder and City Council Members of Rancho Palos Verdes,
Please be informed that my spouse has had symptoms of chronic fatigue and insomnia caused by exposure to
radio frequency and microwave radiation. Proximity of such a proposed installation of cell site located
within 600 feet site of our house in Palos Verdes Estates will cause harmful health effects on my spouse, who
has high sensitivity to "non -thermal' effects of RF and microwave radiation. If Rancho Palos Verdes City
proceeds with such cell site installation adjacent to our property in Palos Verdes Estates without regards
to health of concerned residents, is City of Rancho Palos and its Council Members fully aware of the potential
joint and several liability arising from residents development of acute and chronic health conditions and
diseases (i.e. childhood leukemia, cancer, etc.) known to be associated with exposure to these harmful radio
frequency EM fields in the vicinity of this subject cell site.
Therefore, I sincerely ask that Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members and Planners find an alternative cell
site which does not adversely impact the health of residents of Rancho Palos Verdes and Palos Verdes Estates.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
P.S. - Please make sure that this email is forwarded to the Council Members of RPV for their review.
E-152
Art Bashmakian
From: Nancy Penate on behalf of Phone -PW -Main
Sento Friday, August 11, 2017 1:14 PM
To: Charles Eder
Subjects FW: Cell Site - ASG 53 - Adjacent to 6505 Monera Drive - Resident Objections Against
SB649 - Urgent Message
2of3
From. Robert Tun [mailto:rctun@yahoo.corn]
Seat. Friday, August 11, 2017 11:26 AM
Too PublicWorks <PublicWorks@rpvca.gov>
Subject. Cell Site - ASG 53 - Adjacent to 650.5 Monera Drive - Resident Objections Against SB649 - Urgent Message
Dear I_PV Planning Commission and City Council Members:
Please stop cell towers on emery block. -
SD 649 would force installation of cell towers in neighborhoods and countrysides throughout California. How many? Likely
one every 1000 feet.
Sly 649 would eliminate local control and public input.
® S13 649 would allow unlimited access to deploy refrigerator -size equipment on utility and light poles and sidewalks with no
safety oversight.
® Cities would have no recourse to remove a tower even if every resident complained.
® SB 649 would harm Californians. Children are especially vulnerable. Peer-reviewed published science shows harmful
effects include: increased cancer risk, cellular stress, headaches, sleep problems, learning and memory disorders and more.
See www.bioinitiative.org
SB 649 would harm nature. Peer reviewed published studies found radiation harms trees, birds, bees and insects. Studies
of radiation impacts on wild birds documented nest abandonment, plumage deterioration and death.
https: 'www.ntia.doc.gov, files ntia us doi comments.pdf
® SE 649 would lay the groundwork for 5G millimeter wave technology. Peer reviewed published science shows millimeter
waves adversely affect health. his_: gyoo.i&gbDKHL
® 216 cities, 34 counties, the SF Public Utilities Commission and 45 health, environment and consumer justice
organizations representing millions of Californians oppose SB 649. Environmental Working Group, Sierra Club
California, California League of Conservation Voters, AARP American association of Retired Persons, Association of
Environmental Professionals, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, Center for Environmental Health, Citizens for
Health, The Utility Deform Network, Teens Turning Green, As You Sow, Daily Acts, and many more"
E-153
Art Bashmakian
From: Taney Penate on behalf of Phone -PW -Main
Suet: Friday, August 11, 2017 1:15 PM
To* Charles Eder
Subject, FW: Proposed Cell Site - ASG 53 - Adjacent to 6505 MonerO Drive - Resident
Objections Against SB 649- Urgent Message
3 of 3
From. Robert Tun [rnailto:rctun@yahoo.com]
Sento Friday, August 11, 2017 11:30 AM
To* PublicWorks <PublicWorks@rpvca.gov>
Subject. Proposed Cell Site - ASG 53 - Adjacent to 6505 MonerO Drive - Resident Objections Against SB 649- Urgent
Message
Dear Charles Elder, RPV Planning Commission, and City Council Members:
Please stop cell towers on every block, -
® S13 649 would force installation of cell towers in neighborhoods and countrysides throughout California. How many? Likely
one every 1000 feet.
® SB 649 woulldl eliminate local control and public input.
® SD 649 would allow unlimited access to deploy refrigerator -size equipment on utility and light poles and sidewalks with no
safety oversight.
® Cities .wound have no recourse to remove a tower even if every resident complained.
® SB 649 would harm Californians. Children are especially vulnerable. Peer-reviewed published science shoves harmful
effects include: increased cancer risk, cellular stress, headaches, sleep problems, learning and memory disorders and more.
See www.bioinitiative.or4
® SB 649 would harm nature. Peer reviewed published studies found radiation harms trees, birds, bees and insects. Studies
of radiation impacts on wild birds documented nest abandonment, plumage deterioration and death.
[[mss: www.ntia.doc.gov, files'ntia us doi comments.Rdf
® S13 649 would lay the groundwork for 5G millimeter wave technology. Peer reviewed published science shows millimeter
waves adversely affect health. https:,' goo.gl, gbBKHL
• 226 cities, 34 counties, the SF Public Utilities Commission and 45 health, environment and consumer justice
organizations representing millions of Callifornians oppose SB 649° Environmental Working Group, Sierra Club
California, California League of Conservation Voters, AARP American Association of Retired Persons, Association of
Environmental Professionals, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, Center for Environmental i ealth, Citizens for
Health, The Utility Reform Network, Teens Turning Green, As You Sow, Daily facts, and mane morel
E-154
Art Bashmakian
Subject: FW: Ugly Cell Towers
Attachments: RPV CC re Crown Castle - Letter .pdf; RPV CC re Crown Castle .pdf
Importance: High
From: Connie Semos [mailto:bconmast@msn.com]
Sent: Monday, May 29, 2017 10:23 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca,gov>
Subject: Ugly Cell Towers
To the Mayor and City Councilmembers,
The following attachments were hand delivered to me by my neighbor, Herschel Owen. Notice for the
attached project is defective. The photograph is of poor quality and merely shows a third line crossing Monero
Drive all along Granvia Altamira. The photo is incorrect for 6504 Monero Drive. Neither my next-
door neighbor at 6504 Monero Drive nor I received this notice. There is no Public Notice posted on or near
the corner of 6504 Monero Drive.
Further, and more importantly, the plan makes an already over -burdened corner even more of an eyesore.
The attached letter is dated May 25, 2017 and arrived on Saturday, May 27, 2017. It is telling that
whenever contentious work is to be done and is authorized by the Public Works Department, the notices are
sent out to arrive on a 3 -day holiday or before the Christmas Holiday. This behavior works against improving
the relationship between residents and Public Works.
My cell phone carrier is AT&T. My family has excellent reception on the corner and anywhere near the corner
including all over our house. Has anyone complained to the city about poor cell reception with AT&T on or
near this corner?
I hope you address my concerns before they start erecting the mock up.
Sincerely,
Connie Semos
E-155
Art Bashmakian
From: Becky Martin
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 2:49 PM
To: Charles Eder
Subject: FW: CELL SITE MOCK-UP at 6504 Monero Drive (adjacent to PVE)
CONCERNS NOTIFICATION
From: Robert Tun [mailto:rctun@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 2:47 PM
To: PublicWorks
RESIDENT HEALTH
Subject: CELL SITE MOCK-UP at 6504 Monero Drive (adjacent to PVE) - RESIDENT HEALTH CONCERNS NOTIFICATION
Dear Charles Eder and City Council Members of Rancho Palos Verdes,
Please be informed that my spouse has had symptoms of chronic fatigue and insomnia caused by exposure to
radio frequency and microwave radiation. Proximity of such a proposed installation of cell site located within
600 feet site of our house in Palos Verdes Estates will cause harmful health effects on my spouse, who has
high sensitivity to "non -thermal" effects of RF and microwave radiation. If Rancho Palos Verdes City proceeds
with such cell site installation adjacent to our property in Palos Verdes Estates without regards to health of
concerned residents, is City of Rancho Palos and its Council Members fully aware of the potential joint and
several liability arising from residents development of acute and chronic health conditions and diseases (i.e.
childhood leukemia, cancer, etc.) known to be associated with exposure to these harmful radio frequency EM
fields in the vicinity of this subject cell site.
Therefore, I sincerely ask that Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members and Planners find an alternative cell
site which does not adversely impact the health of residents of Rancho Palos Verdes and Palos Verdes Estates.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
P.S. - Please make sure that this email is forwarded to the Council Members of RPV for their review.
Robert Tun
Resident, 1628 Via Margarita, PVE
E-156
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
GlTVOF I�4NCkIoP,41D6\8RDEs
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aramC@_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-1
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!
Q
F-2
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 severallX:
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. 1 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-3
CCCROWN
CASTLE
August 7, 2017
Nicole Jules, Deputy Director, Acting Director
Public Works Department
3094o Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Crown Castle
200 Spectrum Center Drive
Suite 1700
lmline; CA 92518
IRE: Shot Clock TollingAgreement and Notice of Shot Clock Ex.P iration Per RPVMC Section
12.18.o6o (OW for Crown Castle Wireless Communication Faeility Site ASG,a - New Shot
Clock Expiration Bate: September J0, 2017
Dear Ms. Jules:
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 September 30, 2017. The purpose of extending the Shot Clock is to
allow City Staff additional time to get better 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, 2o14), 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, 2o12). 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: September 30, 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 SnyderNicole James
CROWN CASTLE NG WEST LLC Crry DE RANCHO PALLS VERDES
The Foundation for a Wireless World. G-1
CrownCastle.com