CC SR 20171130 02 - Wireless Telecommunication Facility Permit ASG No. 33RANCHO 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. 33
to install a Wireless Telecommunication Facility on a replacement stop sign pole at the
northeast corner of Chartres Drive and Cartier Drive.
Quasi -Judicial Decision
This item is a quasi-judicial decision in which the City Council is being asked to
affirm whether specific findings of fact can be made in order to overturn the denial
of the Planning Commission's decision. The specific findings of fact are listed in the
Resolution per Chapter 12.18 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code
(RPVMC).
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Adopt Resolution No. 2017-_, thereby granting an appeal and overturning the
Planning Commission's denial of Major Wireless Telecommunication Facility
Permit ASG No. 33 to allow the installation of two panel antennas encased in a
canister shroud measuring 2' tall and 14.6" in diameter on top of replacement
stop sign pole measuring a total maximum height of 14' with underground vaulted
accessory equipment (Option No. 3) at the northeast corner of Chartres Drive
and Cartier Drive.
FISCAL IMPACT: The Appellant has paid the applicable appeal fees, as established
by Resolution of the City Council. If the Appellant is successful in the appeal, and the
City Council overturns the Planning Commission's decision to deny the project, the
Appellant will receive a full refund of their appeal fee. Thus, all in-house Staff costs
associated with the processing of the appeal will come from the City's General Fund.
Costs for work conducted by the City's consultants, including the City's contract planner
and the City's RF consultant, 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 Developmen
REVIEWED BY: Christy Marie Lopez, Special Legal Counsel
APPROVED BY: Doug Willmore, City Manager
55478.00001\30326018.2 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 14, 2017 (page C-1)
D. P.C. Resolution No. 2017-25 - denying without prejudice (page D-1)
E. August 22, 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 (project plans to be submitted
under separate cover before the meeting)
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 August 22, 2017 Planning Commission meeting on
ASG No. 33 - Agenda Item No. 5 (time stamp: 1:43:17):
http://rpv.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view id=5&clip id=2872
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
Crown Castle, the Appellant, is a tower company hired by wireless companies for the
purposes of acquiring sites for the construction and deployment of wireless
telecommunications antennas throughout local jurisdictions. Pursuant to Chapter 12.18
of the RPVMC, Crown Castle is proposing to install approximately 26 new antennas in
the City's public right-of-way (PROW), including the subject application, to provide
services to AT&T consumers throughout the City.
Original Project Description and Location
The Project originally submitted and presented to the Planning Commission on July 25th
proposed to install a new 14' tall pole with two 21.4" side -mounted panel antennas that
would be affixed at the top of the pole (see photograph below) across from property
located at 6480 Chartres Drive. The related mechanical equipment was originally
proposed to be ground -mounded (adjacent to the street pole) consisting of 8.04 cubic
feet of equipment boxes in the PROW including a power meter. A concern with the
original project was raised by Staff and the Planning Commission because it introduced
a new pole in a neighborhood that does not have above -ground poles, such as
streetlight poles.
55478.00001\30326018.2 ^
In response to concerns raised at the July 25th Planning Commission meeting, Staff mei
with the Applicant and identified an alternative project and location consisting of
replacing an existing 11' tall stop sign pole at the northeast corner of Cartier Drive and
Chartres Drive with a 14' tall stop sign pole (to the top of the canister). The replacement
stop sign pole would support a 2' tall and 2' in diameter canister shroud encasing the
panel antennas and wires with a 3' tall tapered canister shroud. The mechanical
equipment was also proposed to be vaulted underground in the public right-of-way
(PROW). The Planning Commission considered this revised wireless
telecommunication facility at its August 22, 2017 meeting.
The photos below illustrate the existing site conditions, and photo simulations of the
original July 25th and revised August 22nd project designs considered by the Planning
Commission.
Original Existing Location
fope ".—
H'0' '
l
July 25th Project — new pole
Revised Site Location Proposal denied by the Commission
Planning Commission's Decision
On July 25, 2017, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, received
public testimony and continued the hearing to August 8, 2017 and subsequently to
August 22, 2017 to allow the Appellant additional time to explore an alternative design
55478.00001\30326018.2
and location. On August 22, 2017, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing
to consider the Appellant's revised request. At this meeting, after considering evidence
introduced in the record including public testimony from the Appellant, neighbors, Staff,
and the City's RF consultant, the Planning Commission moved to deny, without
prejudice, the project and directed Staff to come back with a resolution memorializing
the motion at its August 30, 2017 meeting. The denial resolution was adopted on
August 30th on a vote of 4-0 (Commissioners Leon and Tomblin and Vice Chairman
James were absent). The Commission's denial was based on the following findings
(page D-1):
• The overall appearance of the antennas on the taller replacement stop sign pole
at a height of 14' does not blend with the surrounding environment and would
visually impact the character of the neighborhood.
• 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 canister shroud on top of a stop sign pole, in its
proposed location, is a dominant feature that is out -of -character to the
surrounding neighborhood.
• The replacement stop sign pole, at a height of 14', is visually intrusive as there
are no similar vertical elements in the neighborhood, thus making the proposed
facility the dominant feature at this residential intersection. Additionally, the
canister shroud is much wider than the stop sign pole at the point of attachment
introducing a pole that appears greater in mass and bulk.
• The wireless telecommunication facility would draw attention and would reduce
the desirability, including the potential to reduce property values, of the
surrounding residential neighborhood.
• The wireless telecommunication facility covers a relatively small portion of the
technical service objective and will not provide service to a significant number of
uses.
• There was no significant coverage deficiency in the area.
Basis for the Appeal
On September 14, 2017, the Appellant filed a timely appeal (page C-1) of the Planning
Commission's denial of Major Wireless Telecommunication Facility Permit ASG No. 33
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.
55478.00001\30326018.2
Revised Project
In response to the Planning Commission's decision, the Appellant has reassessed its
proposal and is presenting, in addition to the original design, three new design options
and locations for the Council's consideration as part of the appeal proceedings. Option
Nos. 1 - 3 consist of two panel antennas encased in a canister shroud measuring 2' tall
and 14.6" in diameter, but in different locations, as described below:
Option No. 1 - Consists of a new 14' tall pole with above ground accessory equipment in
an above -ground pedestal. This proposed facility is located in its original location across
from property located at 6480 Chartres Drive.
Option No. 2 - Consists of a new 14' tall pole with the mechanical equipment vaulted in
the parkway of the public right-of-way.
Option No. 3 (Staff's preferred option) - Consists of a replacing the existing 11' tall stop
sign pole with a 14' tall stop sign pole measuring 7" in diameter with accessory
equipment vaulted in the parkway similar to Option No. 2. This option is similar to the
design considered by the Planning Commission except the revised design uses a
thinner replacement stop sign pole (7" in dimeter) instead of 12" and the canister
shroud, as stated earlier, measures 14.6" in diameter instead of 2 in diameter. Staff
recommends that the replacement pole be professionally painted brown and include the
installation of a stop sign and street name signs that will eliminate the need for a new
free standing pole in a neighborhood that does not have above ground vertical
infrastructure.
Option No. 4 (Original Project) — Consists of two 21.4" tall side -mounted panel antennas
affixed to the side of a new 14' tall pole at the same location as Options No. 1 and 2
(across from property located at 6480 Chartres Drive), with accessory equipment
vaulted in the parkway. Alternatively, the Council may also consider allowing the panel
antennas to be side -mounted to a replacement stop sign pole.
Option No. 1
55478.00001\30326018.2
Option No. 2
Option No. 3
Option No. 4
Based on the four design options described above, Staffs preference is Option No. 3
because it utilizes an existing stop sign pole as encouraged by the City's Wireless
Telecommunication Ordinance and does not introduce new vertical infrastructure in a
neighborhood that does not have vertical infrastructure such as streetlight poles.
Specifically, the project proposes a replacement stop sign pole with the panel antennas
and wires encased in 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 Nos. 1, 2 and 4, involve the installation of new vertical
infrastructure, which is discouraged and contrary to the City's General Plan and overall
aesthetic vision of the City, and the design of Option No. 3 aligns with the required
findings cited in Section 12.18.090 of the RPVMC, including the general guidelines
stated in Section 12.18.080 of the RPVMC, as summarized below:
• Employs screening with the canister shroud.
• Minimizes view and visual impacts with the panel antennas and related wires
encased in a shroud with underground vaulted mechanical equipment.
• Avoids adverse impacts to traffic patterns including pedestrians and vehicles.
• Eliminates the need for a new pole.
• Matches the material, color, and height of stop sign poles within the immediate
neighborhood and will be professionally painted brown to aid in camouflaging the
pole.
• 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
(Attachment A). Exhibit A to the attached resolution includes the Conditions of Approval
regulating the installation, appearance, and maintenance of the wireless facility within
55478.00001\30326018.2
the public right-of-way mitigating potential adverse impacts to the immediate
neighborhood.
Kinq Palm Tree Pole
In addition to the design and location options described above, the Appellant has
informed Staff that they are exploring using a pole that is designed as a king palm tree
that will house the panel antennas within the faux palm fronds. The palm fronds will vary
in length to resemble a true palm tree, and the overall height of the king palm tree pole
will be approximately 18' in height. The Appellant is proposing that this pole be installed
at the original location which is in the parkway across from 6480 Cartier Drive. At this
time, the Appellant does not have plans for this alternative design. In order to consider
this design option at the November 30th meeting, the Appellant will provide the Council
with plans and photo simulations in advance of the meeting as late correspondence.
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)(19)(a) and (b) of the RPVMC states that in the event an
applicant seeks to install a wireless telecommunication facility within the public right-of-
way to address service coverage concerns and/or service capacity concerns, the
applicant needs to submit propagation maps with objective units of signal strength
measurement regarding current service coverage and written explanation identifying the
existing facilities with service capacity issues. As part of the original application, the
Appellant's submitted maps and a written justification have been reviewed by the City's
RF Engineer who has concluded that the signal levels are lower than the levels industry
guidelines suggested to support modern 3G/4G customer needs. The City's RF
Engineer also concluded that the subject facility will provide ample signal intensity to
support AT&T's 3G/4G wireless services. (Page E-1)
Pole Design Options Mockup:
The Appellant has installed a mock-up of "replacement pole" design examples for
supporting the proposed telecommunication panel antennas. The mock-ups are located
adjacent to the City's maintenance yard at the City Hall site for City Council, Planning
Commission, and public viewing.
55478.00001\30326018.2
Mockua Notice Issued
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. 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 mock-up installation will remain in-place as a matter of public
notice up to and during the appeal proceedings.
Public Notice
On November 15, 2017, a public hearing notice was published in the Daily Breeze
announcing tonight's special meeting on the project application. Similarly, public
notices were mailed to property owners within a 500' radius of the project site and to
list -serve subscribers announcing the public hearing and inviting public comments on
the appeal. An additional courtesy public notice was published in the Peninsula News
on Thursday, November 23, 2017.
Public Comments
Attached are the public comments received since the appeal notice was issued (page F-
1).
Planning Commission Chairman
Pursuant to City Council Policy No. 24, Planning Commission Vice -Chair James will be
attending the November 30th meeting in event the Council has any questions pertaining
to the Commission's decisions in this matter.
Shot Clock
State and federal laws, and a FCC ruling, provide that a local jurisdiction must act on an
application for certain wireless facilities antennas within the following certain strict
timeframes:
(1) a 150 -day shot clock for new facilities;
(2) a 90 -day shot clock for modifications resulting in a substantial change; or
(3) a 60 -day shot clock for modifications that do not result in a substantial change.
If a local government fails to approve or deny a facilities request within the applicable
time period, the request will be "deemed granted" upon written notification from the
applicant to the local government stating that the request is considered approved.
The Project application proposes a new facility subject to the 150 -day shot clock. The
application was submitted on May 26, 2016. The clock was "tolled" several times as a
55478.00001\30326018.2
result of incomplete application submittals. As a result, the shot clock was set to expire
on September 1, 2017. A Shot Clock Tolling Agreement, dated August 7, 2017
established a new Shot Clock Expiration date of September 30, 2017 (page G-1).
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. 33 to allow the installation of two panel antennas encased in a canister shroud
measuring 2' tall and 14.6" in diameter affixed on top of a replacement stop sign pole
measuring 7" in diameter and measuring 14' to the top of the canister with vaulted
accessory equipment (Option No. 3) at the northeast corner of Chartres Drive and
Cartier Drive.
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to Staff's recommendation, the following alternative is available for
consideration by the City Council:
1. Deny the appeal, thereby upholding the Planning Commission's denial of Major
Wireless Telecommunication Facility Permit ASG No. 33 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\30326018.2
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. 33 TO ALLOW THE INSTALLATION OF TWO PANEL
ANTENNAS ENCASED IN A CANISTER MEASURING 2' TALL AND
14.6" IN DIAMETER TO A 7" DIAMETER REPLACEMENT STOP
SIGN POLE MEASURING A TOTAL MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 14'
WITH VAULTED ACCESSORY EQUIPMENT (OPTION NO. 3) AT
THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF CHARTRES DRIVE AND CARTIER
DRIVE.
WHEREAS, Chapter 12.18 of the Rancho Palo Verde Municipal Code (RPVMC
or Municipal Code) governs the permitting, development, siting, installation, design,
operation and maintenance of wireless telecommunications facilities ("WTFs") in the
City's public right-of-way ("PROW") (RPVMC § 12.18.010);
WHEREAS, beginning in May of 2016, Crown Castle (the "Applicant") applied to
the City for various Wireless Telecommunications Facility Permits ("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. 33
("Project") located across 6480 Chartres Drive,
WHEREAS, the original Project called for a new 14' tall steel pole with 21.4" side -
mounted panel antennas and ground -mounted mechanical equipment;
WHEREAS, the revised Project proposal considered by the Planning
Commission called for replacing an 11' stop sign pole with a replacement 14' tall stop
sign pole measuring 12" in diameter with a 3.5' tall and 2' in diameter canister shroud
encasing the antenna panels with accessory equipment to be vaulted in the PROW;
WHEREAS, because the Project's location is within a residential zone and within
the PROW of local streets as identified in the General Plan, approval of a WTFP also
requires an exception under Section 12.18.190 of the Municipal Code;
WHEREAS, the Project is exempt from review under the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") because the Project constitutes a small scale
installation of new a new facility (14 CCR § 15303(d));
WHEREAS, on July 25, 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;
55478.00001 \30326019.2
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 1 of 22
A-1
WHEREAS, on July 25, 2017, due to the breadth and scope of the public
comments and the limited information available at the meeting, the Planning
Commission continued the public hearing to August 8, 2017 and directed Staff to come
back with more information;
WHEREAS, on August 8, 2017, the Planning Commission, at the request of the
Applicant, continued the public hearing to August 22, 2017 to allow Staff additional time
to complete its analysis;
WHEREAS, on August 22, 2017, after considering testimony and evidence
presented at the public hearings, the information and findings included in the Staff
Report, and other records of proceedings, the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes moved to deny, without prejudice, ASG No. 33 and directed Staff
to come back with a denial resolution for adoption at its August 30, 2017 meeting;
WHEREAS, on August 30, 2017, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution
denying, without prejudice, ASG No. 33, on a vote of 4-0 (Commissioners Leon and
Tomblin and Vice Chairman James were absent);
WHEREAS, on September 14, 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, to list -serve subscribers, and
published in the Daily Breeze, pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos
Verdes Municipal Code. A courtesy public notice was published in the Peninsula News
on November 23, 2017; and,
WHEREAS, on November 30, 2017, the City Council held a duly noticed public
hearing, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and
present evidence.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The City Council hereby grants the appeal and overturns the
Planning Commission's denial of Major Telecommunications Facility Permit ("WTFP")
ASG No. 33 involving a project that called for the replacement of the existing 11' tall
stop sign pole with a 14' tall stop sign pole to allow the installation of two panel
antennas encased in a canister shroud measuring 2' tall and 14.6" in diameter affixed
55478.00001\30326019.2
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 2 of 22
A-2
on top of the pole measuring 7" in diameter and 14' in height to the top of the canister
with vaulted accessory in the PROW (Option No. 3) based on the following findings.
Section 2: Approval of a WTFP is warranted because the Project meets the
findings required by Section 12.18.090 of the Municipal Code:
A. All notices required for the proposed installation have been given.
Crown Castle and the City have provided all notices required by the RPVMC. On
June 16, 2017 property owners within 500 feet of the proposed facility were
notified of the WTF mock-up which occurred at least 30 days in advance of the
public hearing. On June 22, 2017, a public notice announcing the July 25, 2017
public hearing was provided to property owners within 500 feet of the proposed
WTF. On November 15, 2017 a public notice announcing the November 30,
2017 public hearing on the appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of ASG
No. 33 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 existing 11' tall stop sign (with the attached street name panels) pole will be
replaced with a new 14' tall stop sign pole integrating the stop sign and street
names with a 2' tall cylinder -shaped canister shroud encasing the antenna panels
and wires at the top of the replacement stop sign pole. The overall height of the
pole will measure 14' from adjacent grade to the top of the canister shroud. The
mechanical equipment will be vaulted underground including the radio and
auxiliary equipment, as well as the SCE meter box in a secondary vault measuring
approximately 43 square feet in surface area.
The design would not have any significant view impairment to the surrounding
55478.00001 \30326019.2
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 3 of 22
A-3
area. This design is preferred to avoid the installation of a new pole in a
neighborhood that does not have above ground utilities and is visually less -
intrusive compared to "side -mounted" panel antennas because the vertical shroud
presents a slim profile view. The replacement stop sign pole is in line with the
vision and policies set forth in the General Plan by minimizing the installation of
new above -ground infrastructure. Furthermore, the revised design involves a
thinner pole (7" in diameter compared to 12" diameter pole considered by the
Planning Commission) and a smaller canister (2' tall and 14.6" in diameter
compared to the canister considered by the Planning Commission which was 3.5'
tall and 2' in diameter), the proposed installation will not have any significant view
impairment to surrounding properties pursuant to Chapter 17.02.040 of the
RPVMC. This design is less dominate than the previous design considered by
the Planning Commission.
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 Project eliminates the need to install a new pole in the
neighborhood by replacing the existing stop sign pole with a new 14' tall pole
that will house the antenna panels and wires within a 2' tall cylinder -shaped
canister that measures 14.6' in diameter. The replacement pole will be
generally a similar size to other street sign poles in the neighborhood. The stop
sign pole will measure approximately 7" in diameter, and will be painted brown
to blend with the canister and the surrounding environment. A low retaining
wall within the PROW, measuring approximately 1.5' high at approximately 43
square feet in surface area will be constructed to accommodate the vaulted
equipment.
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.
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 4 of 22
55478.00001 \30326019.2
The Project does not result in a significant view impairment to surrounding
residences on Chartres Drive and Cartier Drive as determined by a view analysis
for the replacement stop sign pole. The proposed WTF is not located in a view
corridor identified in the City's General Plan or Coastal Specific Plan.
12.18.080(A)(3): Traffic Safety. All facilities shall be designed and located in such
a manner as to avoid adverse impacts to traffic safety.
The Project involves a replacement stop sign pole with the placement of antenna
panels within a canister shroud mounted on top of the pole with a total pole height
14'. Additionally, as conditioned, the related mechanical equipment will be vaulted
in the parkway avoiding traffic safety impacts, and in compliance standards for
undergrounding equipment.
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 replacement stop sign pole consists of colors and materials that are subdued
and non -reflective. The pole will be painted brown to visually blend with the
surrounding environment and include street signs (i.e. street names and stop
sign). The retaining wall that will be constructed to accommodate the vaulted
mechanical equipment within the parkway will utilize block material that will be
landscaped to soften and camouflage its appearance
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 proposes the installation of a new 14' tall stop sign pole that will
house the panel antennas in a cylinder shaped canister measuring approximately
2' tall and 14.6" in diameter. The height of the pole to the top of the canister will be
14'. The Project eliminates the introduction of a new pole structure in the
neighborhood and the proposed cylinder shroud design presents a slim side view
that blends with the verticality of the pole, and is the least visible of the options
presented.
55478.00001 \30326019.2
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 5 of 22
A-5
The height of the stop sign pole may have to be increased by up to 5' to
accommodate a collocation because of the size of the panel antennas combined
with there being a need to provide a separation of at least 1' between antenna
panels for functionality purposes. Future location of additional antennas on this
pole would detract from the overall appearance.
12.18.080(A)(6)(a): Facilities shall be located consistent with Section 12.18.200
(Location Restrictions) unless an exception pursuant to Section 12.18.190
(Exceptions) is granted.
The proposed location is within the PROW of local residential streets as identified
in the City's General Plan and the City Council finds that an Exception shall be
made (see Section 3 of this Resolution).
12.18.080(A)(6)(b) and (h): 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.
The project proposes a replacement stop sign pole.
12.18.080(A)(6)(e) Replacement Poles. If an Applicant proposes to replace a
pole in order to accommodate a proposed facility, the pole shall be designed to
resemble the appearance and dimensions of existing poles near the proposed
location, including size, height, color, materials and style to the maximum extent
feasible.
The replacement stop sign pole will be 3' taller than the existing pole and
approximately 7" wide in diameter, but the design, appearance and dimensions
resemble the existing pole to the maximum extent feasible and reflects a less
dominate appearance than the design considered by the Planning Commission.
According to the Appellant, this is the slimmest pole design available.
12.18.080(A)(6)(i): All cables, including, but not limited to, electrical and utility
cables, shall be run within the interior of the pole and shall be camouflaged or
hidden to the fullest extent feasible.
55478.00001 \30326019.2
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 6 of 22
1 o
All cables and wires will be encased within the canister and directly routed into the
pole in order to be hidden from view with no loops, exposed cables, splitters or
unsightly wires.
12.18.080(A)(7): Space. Each facility shall be designed to occupy the least
amount of space in the right-of-way that is technically feasible.
The replacement pole would not take up much more right-of-way space compared
to the existing street sign/stop sign pole. The placement of the antennas on top of
the pole will occupy limited air space above the right-of-way The mechanical
equipment will be undergrounded measuring approximately 43 square feet in total
surface area. According to the Appellant, this space is the least amount of space
that is technically feasible for 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. The SCE meter box will be vaulted underground.
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 proposed integrated stop sign pole design would not cause an obstruction to
the public's use of the PROW, constitute a safety hazard and/or does not interfere
with a City -defined intersection visibility triangle. The proposed project is not
located in a paved sidewalk or walking area established for regular pedestrian
use, and the replacement poles preserves the same/current signage purposes
and setback parameters applicable to other street signs
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
55478.00001 \30326019.2
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 7 of 22
A-7
station, fire escape, water valve, underground vault, valve housing structure, or
any other public health or safety facility.
The proposed installation, including the undergrounding of the mechanical
equipment, will not interfere with fire hydrants, fire stations, water lines or any
other public health or safety facilities
C. If applicable, the Applicant has demonstrated its inability to locate on
existing infrastructure.
Not applicable as the proposed WTF antennas are proposed to be installed on a
replacement street stop sign pole that's currently existing vertical infrastructure.
D. The Applicant has provided sufficient evidence supporting the Applicant's
claim that it has the right to enter the public right-of-way pursuant to state
or federal law, or the Applicant has entered into a franchise agreement with
the city permitting them to use the public right-of-way.
The Applicant has submitted to the City a Right of Way Use Agreement (RUA)
entered into with the City in 2011, which allows the Applicant to install wireless
antennas in the PROW. Further, the Applicant has submitted a Certificate of
Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) issued by the California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC) which provides that the Applicant has been
authorized to install wireless telecommunications infrastructure in the PROW.
E. The Applicant has demonstrated the proposed installation is designed such
that the proposed installation represents the least intrusive means possible
and supported by factual evidence and a meaningful comparative analysis
to show that all alternative locations and designs identified in the
application review process were technically infeasible or not available.
Alternative locations were identified in the application review process. The revised
design, which includes the installation of two antenna panels encased in a 2' tall
and 14.6" in diameter canister affixed to the top of a 7" diameter pole is the least
intrusive means of those alternatives. There is technology that is possible with a
slimmer design but that would require a greater number of facilities throughout the
community to provide equal coverage and capacity. This may require the
introduction of new pole structures where there are no streetlights or utility poles
and will likely require associated accessory equipment at every location. The
55478.00001 \30326019.2
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 8 of 22
1 •
•
supporting mechanical equipment, even if placed in vaults underground, requires
additional fans that may result in adverse cumulative noise impacts negating the
objective of installing the least intrusive systems.
The Applicant has provided comparative analysis of four other locations in the
area. One of the alternatives is the replace the existing stop sign pole. Out of the
four sites, one does not meet the RF coverage objective. But, the other three
sites, including the originally proposed site and the alternative integrated stop sign
design, do meet the RF objective. It should be noted that aside from the proposed
stop sign pole, the other sites would require a new pole installation which would
not be the least intrusive design. The City's RF consultant has also reviewed the
alternative locations and concludes that limited coverage areas of the DAS units
limit or confine site selection. 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. The alternatives would be selected based on aesthetic
considerations as the overall coverage areas is confined by the limited service
area of DAS technology and location of the specific signal gap areas that are to
be addressed.
In order to provide coverage to the residential areas of the City, it's necessary to
locate with the right-of-way of local streets. Other locations and designs that may
fill the coverage gap claimed by the Applicant and discussed by the City's RF
consultant presented the following intrusions, which is determined to be more
intrusive then the revised project.
Section 3: Because the Project's pole exceeds the height of the existing stop
sign pole by 3' and is located within the PROW of a local residential street 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.
55478.00001 \30326019.2
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 9 of 22
1 •
2. The Applicant has provided the city with a clearly defined technical
service objective and a clearly defined potential site search area.
The "technical service objective" identified by the Applicant in all application
documents is the coverage of a "significant gap" in service along Cartier Drive
and Chartres Drive. This application information was provided to the City's RF
Engineer who reviewed the information, as well as conducted both on-site
walkouts of the area and a computerized terrain study to determine if the
proposed site will address a coverage gap as identified in the application.
Based on the terrain profile characteristics and the field measurement data
provided by Crown Castle, the proposal as provided will address coverage
deficiencies within the target area. The Applicant has provided engineering
details related to the wireless bands that will be used for the DAS deployment,
including identifying transmitting equipment, power levels for each band and
specifics regarding the radiation patterns of the antennas to be installed.
Crown Castle has provided engineering measurement data defining gaps in
AT&T coverage in small pocketed areas. The subject service area is currently
experiencing insufficient signal. The Applicant also seeks 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. 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. 33 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 4 alternative locations:
55478.00001 \30326019.2
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 10 of 22
A-10
• Alternative 1 (Location B) 17 -foot tall replacement traffic/stop sign pole at the
northeast corner of Cartier Drive and Chartres Drive.
*Alternative 3 (Location C) 14 -foot tall free-standing pole 70 -feet from the
original proposed location on the south side of Chartres Drive adjacent to the
driveways for 30200 Cartier Drive and 6479 Chartres Drive.
• Alternative 4 (Location D) 14 -foot tall free-standing pole approximately 55 -feet
northwest of the original proposed location on the east side of Cartier Drive
adjacent to 30182 Cartier.
*Alternative 5 (Location E) 14 -foot tall free-standing pole approximately 660 -
feet east of the original proposed location on the north side of Chartres Drive
approximately 10-15 feet from the driveway of 6443 Chartres Drive.
The Applicant has provided comparative analysis of these locations. Alternative 5
(Location E) does not meet the RF coverage objective. The other three sites do
meet the Applicant's RF objective, but would require a new pole installation which
would not be the least intrusive design. The proposed Project, with the canister
encasing the two panel antennas at the proposed location, is the less dominate
location for the wireless telecommunications facility in the immediate area
because of the surrounding terrain. There are no major collector or arterial
streets in the immediate area.
4. The Applicant has provided the city with a meaningful comparative
analysis that includes the factual reasons why the proposed location and
design deviates is the least noncompliant location and design necessary
to reasonably achieve the Applicant's reasonable technical service
objectives.
The Applicant has 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 consists primarily of residential zones, it's
impossible to avoid residential zones in order to effectively deploy an effective
wireless network in the area. 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 of all associated equipment
Section 4: Conditions of Approval 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.
55478.00001 \30326019.2
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 11 of 22
A-11
Section 5: The City Council hereby grants the appeal and overturns the
Planning Commission's denial of Wireless Telecommunications Facility Permit ASG No.
33, as revised, based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in this
resolution.
Section 6: The City Clerk shall certify to the passage, approval, and adoption
of this Resolution, and shall cause this Resolution and her certification to be entered in
the Book of Resolutions of the City Council.
Section 7: The time within which judicial review of the decision reflected in this
Resolution must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil
Procedure or other applicable short periods of limitation.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 30th day of November 2017.
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\30326019.2
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 12 of 22
A-12
CITY CLERK
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
WTF ASG NO. 33
NORTHEAST CORNER OF CHARTRES DRIVE AND CARTIER DRIVE
General Conditions:
1. Prior to obtaining a permit from the Public Works Department to install the street
light pole, the Applicant and the property owner shall submit to the City a
statement, in writing, that they have read, understand, and agree to all conditions
of approval contained in this Resolution. Failure to provide said written
statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval shall render
this approval null and void.
2. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City,
and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies,
and instrumentalities thereof, from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of
mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether legal, equitable,
declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute
resolutions procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and
other such procedures) (collectively "Actions"), brought against the City, and/or
any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside,
void, or annul, the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and/or
any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City), for
or concerning the Project.
3. Prior to conducting any work in the public right of way (PROW), such as for curb
cuts, dumpsters, temporary improvements and/or permanent improvements, the
Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works.
4. Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and
appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 13 of 22
55478.00001 \30326019.2
A-13
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.
7. If the Applicant has not obtained approvals from Public Works for the approved
Project or not commenced the approved Project within one year of the final
effective date of this Resolution, approval of the Project shall expire and be of no
further effect unless, prior to expiration, a written request for extension is filed
with the Public Works Department and approved by the Director.
8. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations
and/or requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter
standard shall apply.
9. The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall
be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that
material used for immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may
include, but not be limited to: the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap
metal, concrete asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or
discarded furniture, appliances or other household fixtures.
10. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM,
Monday through Friday, 9:OOAM to 5:OOPM on Saturday, with no construction
activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section
17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. During demolition,
construction and/or grading operations, trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at
the Project site or in the adjoining street rights-of-way before 7AM Monday
through Friday and before 9AM on Saturday, in accordance with the permitted
hours of construction stated in this condition. When feasible to do so, the
construction contractor shall provide staging areas on-site to minimize off-site
transportation of heavy construction equipment. These areas shall be located to
55478.00001\30326019.2
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 14 of 22
A-14
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.
Project -specific Conditions:
15. This approval allows for the following:
A. Install a Wireless Telecommunication Facility WTF at the northeast corner
of Chartres Drive and Cartier Drive.
B. Allow the installation of two panel antennas and wires encased in a
canister shroud measuring 2' tall and 14.6" in diameter to a new 14' tall
replacement stop sign pole measuring 7" in diameter with vaulted
accessory equipment (Option no. 3).
C. Installation of a stop sign and street name sign on the replacement pole to
the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
D. The installation of vaulted accessory mechanical equipment in the PROW,
including vents and meter boxes that shall be 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:
55478.00001 \30326019.2
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 15 of 22
A-15
o The proposed WTF shall be installed on a new replacement stop sign pole
and shall be of a color, size, proportion, style, and quality deemed
acceptable by the Director of Public Works and the Director of Community
Development. The stop sign pole, antenna shroud and any related
exposed structures shall be professionally painted brown. 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 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
professionally painted.
o The replacement stop sign pole shall match the appearance and
dimensions of the existing pole and all other stop sign poles near the
location.
o All cables and wires shall be directly routed to the pole and encased within
the pole, and hidden from view. No loops, exposed cables, splitters or
unsightly wires shall be permitted.
o All ground -mounted and vaulted facilities shall be installed at least 18
inches from the curb and gutter flow line.
o All accessory equipment shall be located underground including meter
boxes and cabinets.
o The facility shall be installed so as to maintain and enhance existing
landscaping on the site, including trees, foliage and shrubs. Additional
landscaping shall be planted, irrigated and maintained by Applicant where
such landscaping is feasible and deemed necessary by the City to provide
screening or to conceal the facility.
o The facility shall not bear any signs or advertising devices other than
certification, warning or other signage required by law or permitted by the
city.
o The facility shall not be illuminated.
55478.00001\30326019.2
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 16 of 22
A-16
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 the RPVMC, 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:
55478.00001 \30326019.2
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 17 of 22
A-17
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.
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;
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 18 of 22
55478.00001 \30326019.2
f. Graffiti, bills, stickers, advertisements, litter and debris;
g. Broken and misshapen structural parts; and
h. Any damage from any cause.
22. Applicant shall install, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director or Director
of Community Development, landscaping near the proposed installation of the
vaulted accessory equipment (i.e. vents) to screen the equipment consistent with
existing landscaping prior to final inspection.
23. All trees, foliage or other landscaping elements approved as part of the facility
shall be maintained in good condition at all times, and the permittee, owner and
operator of the facility shall be responsible for replacing any damaged, dead or
decayed landscaping. No amendment to any approved landscaping plan may be
made until it is submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director or the
Director of Community Development.
24. The permittee shall replace its facilities, after obtaining all required permits, if
maintenance or repair is not sufficient to return the facility to the condition it was
in at the time of installation.
25. Each facility shall be operated and maintained to comply with all conditions of
approval. Each owner or operator of a facility shall routinely inspect each site to
ensure compliance with the same and the standards set forth in the RPVMC.
26. No person shall install, use or maintain any facility which in whole or in part rests
upon, in or over any public right-of-way, when such installation, use or
maintenance endangers or is reasonably likely to endanger the safety of persons
or property, or when such site or location is used for public utility purposes, public
transportation purposes or other governmental use, or when such facility
unreasonably interferes with or unreasonably impedes the flow of pedestrian or
vehicular traffic including any legally parked or stopped vehicle, the ingress into
or egress from any residence or place of business, the use of poles, posts, traffic
signs or signals, hydrants, mailboxes, permitted sidewalk dining, permitted street
furniture or other objects permitted at or near said location.
27. Unless California Government Code Section 65964, as may be amended,
authorizes the city to issue a permit with a shorter term, a permit for any wireless
telecommunications facility shall be valid for a period of ten years, unless
55478.00001 \30326019.2
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 19 of 22
A-19
pursuant to another provision of the RPVMC or these Conditions of Approval, it
lapses sooner or is revoked. At the end of ten years from the date of issuance,
such permit shall automatically expire.
28. A permittee may apply for a new permit within 180 days prior to expiration. Said
application and proposal shall comply with the City's current Code requirements
for WTF's.
29. A WTF is considered abandoned and shall be promptly removed as provided
herein if it ceases to provide wireless telecommunications services for 90 or more
consecutive days unless the permittee has obtained prior written approval from
the director which shall not be unreasonably denied. If there are two or more
users of a single facility, then this provision shall not become effective until all
users cease using the facility.
30. The operator of a facility shall notify the City in writing of its intent to abandon or
cease use of a permitted site or a nonconforming site (including unpermitted
sites) within ten days of ceasing or abandoning use. Notwithstanding any other
provision herein, the operator of the facility and/or permitee shall provide written
notice to the Director of Public Works any discontinuation of operations of 30
days or more.
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 security instrument or other assurance required by the
RPVMC or these Conditions of Approval of the permit,
d. Removal of the facilities by the city in accordance with the procedures
established under the RPVMC for abatement of a public nuisance at the
owner's expense; and/or
e. Any other remedies permitted by law.
32. Upon the expiration date of the permit, including any extensions, earlier
termination or revocation of the permit or abandonment of the facility, the
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 20 of 22
55478.00001\30326019.2
A-20
permittee, owner or operator shall remove its WTF and restore the site to its
natural condition except for retaining the landscaping improvements and any
other improvements at the discretion of the City. Removal shall be in accordance
with proper health and safety requirements and all ordinances, rules, and
regulations of the City. The facility shall be removed from the property, at no cost
or expense to the City.
33. Failure of the permittee, owner or operator to promptly remove its facility and
restore the property within 90 days after expiration, earlier termination or
revocation of the permit, or abandonment of the facility, shall be a violation of
these conditions of approval. Upon a showing of good cause, an extension may
be granted by the Public Works Director where circumstances are beyond the
control of the permittee after expiration. Further failure to abide by the timeline
provided in this section shall be grounds for:
a. Prosecution;
b. Acting on any security instrument required by the RPVMC or Conditions of
Approval of the 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
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 21 of 22
55478.00001 \30326019.2
A-21
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 security instrument posted
and to the extent such costs exceed the amount of the performance bond, collect
those excess costs in accordance with the RPVMC. Unless otherwise provided
herein, the City has no obligation to store such facility. Neither the permittee,
owner nor operator shall have any claim if the City destroys any such facility not
timely removed by the Applicant, owner or operator after notice, or removed by
the City due to exigent circumstances.
36. Consistent with current state and federal laws and if permissible under the same,
at the time of modification of a WTF, existing equipment shall, to the extent
feasible, be replaced with equipment that reduces visual, noise and other
impacts, including, but not limited to, undergrounding the equipment and
replacing larger, more visually intrusive facilities with smaller, less visually
intrusive facilities.
55478.00001 \30326019.2
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 22 of 22
A-22
DESIGN OPTION NO. 1
ASG NO. 33
d
iK ,1
�..�h
t *,, {� x
r:, -
^-` c ._.
DESIGN OPTION NO. 2
ASG NO. 33
ASG NO. 33
A ANTENNA DETAILS SCALE: 1:5 ASG33
HAVE II
242727tt�
'�� CROWN
v CASTLE
C' INSTALLIVICONCRETETEXTUREO irERl FT
STEEL
INSTALL (,) AMPHENOL CUUEN70X06F.W
ANTENNA rnw.l. x1
1. 9� Communications
� O
z
0° °y" v
I1j�\\ OPRIETARY INFORMATION
I -L. 90° THE INFORMMTON CONTAINED IN THIS
YET aF DRAWINGS IY PROPRIETARY AND
CONFlDENTML'R HA.ANY USEAT
DFYq.OSURE OTHER THAN AY IT REUTES
POLE #_NIT: TO AT&T IS STRICTl PROHIMTED
TOP OF POLE: 11'5"
TOP OF ANTENNA: 14'0"
RAD CENTER: 13' 0"
AZIMUTH: 130° & 330" -
EQUIPMENT AND ANTENNAS TO BE PAINTED TO nusnxw I Ai EK;
MATCH POLE.
ASG33
ACROSSFROM
648D CHARTERS DR
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA
POLE PROFILE
° J.E er i1I1N1] vvnC,J nr
P-2
B 12 O'CLOCK VIEW SCALE: 1:6
INSTALL (11 AMPHENOL CUUBO]0X06Fxy20
ANTENNA
INSTALL (,)CROWN CASTLE 4'X6' VAULT WITH
FLUSH MOUNT VENTS R) ML IONS INSIDE.
R' B.O.C.) STA 99+%
(SEE DETAIL,.2 d 3 ON SHEET P2. DETAIL is ON QS) I � TOP OF STEEL POLE
2.D i
TOP INSTALL NEW STREET SIGN AT 9'3'
EXISTING RETAINING WALL � OF ANTENNA INSTALL NEW STREET SIGN AT 8' ]`
14 D HAD
CENTER INSTALL EXISTING STOP SIGN ATS 4'T0610'
MINSTINSTALL 14' 0' CONCRETE TE%TURED YTEEL POLE
�
mTGROUNDLEVEL
INSAlL(SEEDETAILBSHEET (i) RO L 1T X30'WTR VAULT
- Ta•fi.o.c.)srA,ao•sz
(SEE DETAIL 9810 ON SHEET P4)
B 30'CLOCKVIEW SCALE: 1:6
INSTALL (11 AMPNENOL CUUfiOTOXO6Fxyz0
ANTENNA
TOP OF STEEL POLE
EXISTING RETAINING WAIL T� INSTALL NEW STREET SIGN AT 9' 3'
(126UC1� OF ANTENNA � INSTALL NEW STREET SIGN ATST
t4'0' RAD
CENTER INSTALL EXISTING STOP SIGN AT 6' 4' TO 8' 10'
RSP
INSTALL 14' 0' CONCRETE TEXTURED STEEL POLE
INSTALL (1) CROWN CASTLE 1T %30' WFR VAULT
(3' B.O.C.) STA. 100 ♦ S2
O] (SEE DETAIL 9 B ICON
i •
SHEET D1)
GROUND LEVEL
G&G
INSTALL VGR
NSTALL (1) CROWN CASTLE 4' X B' VAULT WITH
(SEE DETAIL B ON SHEET 0.31
FLUSH MOUNT VENTS B R) ML IONS INSIDE,
(2' B.O.C.) STA. 99 * 35
(BEHIND 4' X 6' VAULT)
(SEE DETAIL 1,2830N SHEET D-2, DETAIL i50N D-5)
A ANTENNA DETAILS SCALE: 1:5 ASG33
HAVE II
242727tt�
'�� CROWN
v CASTLE
C' INSTALLIVICONCRETETEXTUREO irERl FT
STEEL
INSTALL (,) AMPHENOL CUUEN70X06F.W
ANTENNA rnw.l. x1
1. 9� Communications
� O
z
0° °y" v
I1j�\\ OPRIETARY INFORMATION
I -L. 90° THE INFORMMTON CONTAINED IN THIS
YET aF DRAWINGS IY PROPRIETARY AND
CONFlDENTML'R HA.ANY USEAT
DFYq.OSURE OTHER THAN AY IT REUTES
POLE #_NIT: TO AT&T IS STRICTl PROHIMTED
TOP OF POLE: 11'5"
TOP OF ANTENNA: 14'0"
RAD CENTER: 13' 0"
AZIMUTH: 130° & 330" -
EQUIPMENT AND ANTENNAS TO BE PAINTED TO nusnxw I Ai EK;
MATCH POLE.
ASG33
ACROSSFROM
648D CHARTERS DR
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA
POLE PROFILE
° J.E er i1I1N1] vvnC,J nr
P-2
B 12 O'CLOCK VIEW SCALE: 1:6
INSTALL (11 AMPHENOL CUUBO]0X06Fxy20
ANTENNA
INSTALL (,)CROWN CASTLE 4'X6' VAULT WITH
FLUSH MOUNT VENTS R) ML IONS INSIDE.
R' B.O.C.) STA 99+%
(SEE DETAIL,.2 d 3 ON SHEET P2. DETAIL is ON QS) I � TOP OF STEEL POLE
2.D i
TOP INSTALL NEW STREET SIGN AT 9'3'
EXISTING RETAINING WALL � OF ANTENNA INSTALL NEW STREET SIGN AT 8' ]`
14 D HAD
CENTER INSTALL EXISTING STOP SIGN ATS 4'T0610'
MINSTINSTALL 14' 0' CONCRETE TE%TURED YTEEL POLE
�
mTGROUNDLEVEL
INSAlL(SEEDETAILBSHEET (i) RO L 1T X30'WTR VAULT
- Ta•fi.o.c.)srA,ao•sz
(SEE DETAIL 9810 ON SHEET P4)
B 30'CLOCKVIEW SCALE: 1:6
INSTALL (11 AMPNENOL CUUfiOTOXO6Fxyz0
ANTENNA
TOP OF STEEL POLE
EXISTING RETAINING WAIL T� INSTALL NEW STREET SIGN AT 9' 3'
(126UC1� OF ANTENNA � INSTALL NEW STREET SIGN ATST
t4'0' RAD
CENTER INSTALL EXISTING STOP SIGN AT 6' 4' TO 8' 10'
RSP
INSTALL 14' 0' CONCRETE TEXTURED STEEL POLE
INSTALL (1) CROWN CASTLE 1T %30' WFR VAULT
(3' B.O.C.) STA. 100 ♦ S2
O] (SEE DETAIL 9 B ICON
i •
IL
€ \
VA~ 1
V4,.
r
EX 15 i I N G
ASG33
ACROSS FROM 6480 CHARTRES DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES. CA
m.squared
ENGINEERS
CROWN
CASTLE
!2016 C—* Mop
LOOKING SOUTHEAST FROM CARTER DR
I[s] :A ......
ASG NO. 33
POLE # Nfr:
TOP OF POLE: 14'0"
TOP OF ANTENNA: 14'0"
RAD CENTER: 13'1-1/2
AZIMUTH: 130° & 330°
EQUIPMENT AND ANTENNAS TO BE PAINTED TO
MATCH POLE.
EQUIPMENT TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH POLE.
B 1 12 O'CLOCK VIEW
SCALE: 1:5
ANTENNA #HPA-65F-BUU-H2
SCALE: 1:5
INSTALL (2) 21.4" ANTENNAS
AZIMUTH: 330"
INSTALL (2) 21.4" ANTENNAS
09"
CSC
#HPA-65F-BUU-H2 WITH MOUNTING
INSTALL 14' CONCRETE POLE
ANTENNA#HPA-65F-BUU-H2
C�
TOP OF
AZIMUTH: 130°
ASO
ANTENNA &
(SEE DETAILS 4 & 5 ON SHEET D-3)
c�
o
c
POLE
7
z
14-0"
0°
INSTALL 14' CONCRETE POLE
90^
(SEE DETAILS 7 & 8 ON SHEET D-2)
POLE # Nfr:
TOP OF POLE: 14'0"
TOP OF ANTENNA: 14'0"
RAD CENTER: 13'1-1/2
AZIMUTH: 130° & 330°
EQUIPMENT AND ANTENNAS TO BE PAINTED TO
MATCH POLE.
EQUIPMENT TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH POLE.
B 1 12 O'CLOCK VIEW
SCALE: 1:5
B 1 9 O'CLOCK VIEW
SCALE: 1:5
INSTALL (2) 21.4" ANTENNAS
INSTALL (2) 21.4" ANTENNAS
#HPA-65F-BUU-H2 WITH MOUNTING_
#HPA-65F-BUU-H2 WITH MOUNTING
BRACKET #MBK -03
TOP OF
BRACKET #MBK -03—
(SEE DETAILS 4 s 5 ON SHEET D-3)
ANTENNA &
(SEE DETAILS 4 & 5 ON SHEET D-3)
ANTENNA 8
POLE
POLE
7
14-0"
14' D"
INSTALL 14' CONCRETE POLE
INSTALL 14' CONCRETE POLE
(SEE DETAILS 7 & 8 ON SHEET D-2)
RAD CENTER
(SEE DETAILS 7 & 8 ON SHEET D-2)
RAD CENTER
13'1-1/2"
13'1-1/2"
09"
09"
GROUND LINE
ASPHALT
\
INSTALL VGR
(SEE DETAIL 2 ON SHEET D-2)
\
INSTALL VGR. j
(SEE DETAIL 2 ON SHEET D-2)
LA S!G 3 3
�p I'ITLE cTN1.
GrolICROWN
CASTLE
NG WEST LL
,00a _ Rua..rs i_oo
IR�]M1t.CA
Communications
PROPRIETARY INFORMATION
TI—FORMATIO' CON NED IN THIS
SFT OF D—NCS ISP RIETARY AND
f-NTIAL TO AT ANY USE OR
DISCLOSURE OTHER TH NAS IT RELATES
TO AT&T 1-11—Y PROHBITED.
DIG&M
immmcxocnr sexvl�-�. A1.EaT
ASG33
ACROSSFROM
6480 CHARTERS DR
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA
POLE PROFILE
D RG F 10/2611}6 1
v7 ev
�.o p-2
i
CROWN
CASTLE
v
_ 'Y -•..� it's
To of Antenna
K V
t r ry�'_ir
4r t q
!J � •H
M
Existing Site
a
Y S.
ASG33
e e
Proposed Site ASG33
Vicinity Map
LOOKING NORTHEAST
ASG33
PHg4E II
�R�242727�n�
CCROWN
CASTLE
NG WEST LL
3m SPECIRIRd �TT3'R 330.:TE. 3,OU
��,rJ6. cansln
acme] ,an.w.�w
Communications
ssJ m He3aa.sucrssa
caR3.seaD cn rxm
3'HOXNB f-W39S>vIU
(]W303N935
PROPRIETMYHFORk 0'
,HEIrcoRnwTaR carrtaHED rcJrws
'DISEf OF DRRWINGS I�PROPRIETNM M3D
mRncelJTw�ro air. urcusEOR
p5LLO5UtE OTHER A4IT REIA]ES
TO pTdT IBSTRICIty PROH9rED.
rven O
ASG33
ACROSSFROM
6480 CHARTERS DR
RANCHO PALOS VERDES. CA
PHOTOSIM
c RG Sr. td]6�t6 rev
B-11
CCROWN
CCASTLE
September 14, 2017
Emily Colboni, City Clerk
City Clerk's Office
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
200 Spectrum Center Drive
Suite #1800
Irvine, Ca. 92618
CrownCastle.com
Re: Crown Castle NG West LLC: Notice of Appeal of ASG -33 - Across from. 6480 Chartres
Drive
Dear Ms. Colborn,
Crown Castle NG West LLC ("Crown Castle") hereby appeals the Planning Commission's July 25, 2017, 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"),
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)(13)(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.
Very truly yours,
A� lyr�
Mws:111Ws Aaron Snyder, Crown Castle NG West LLC
7104273.1
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com
C-1
P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2017-25
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE,
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY ASG NO. 33 FOR
THE INSTALLATION OF 14 -FOOT TALL REPLACEMENT STOP SIGN
POLE TO ACCOMMODATE PANEL ANTENNA ENCASED IN A 2'
TALL CANISTER WITH A 3.5' TALL TAPERED CANISTER SHROUD
AT THE TOP OF THE POLE WITH RELATED VAULTED MECHANICAL
EQUIPMENT AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF CHARTRES DRIVE
AND CARTIER DRIVE.
WHEREAS, Chapter 12.18 of the Rancho Palo Verde Municipal Code (RPVMC or
Municipal Code) governs the permitting, development, siting, installation, design, operation and
maintenance of wireless telecommunications facilities ("WTFs") in the City's public right-of-way
("PROW") (RPVMC § 12.18.010);
WHEREAS, beginning in May of 2016, Crown Castle (the "Applicant") applied to the City
for an Wireless Telecommunications Facility Permit (11 TFP"), 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. 33 at the northeast corner of
Chartres Drive and Cartier Drive;
WHEREAS, the original proposal called for a new 14 -foot tall steel pole with 21.4 -inch
panel antennas;
WHEREAS, the alternative proposal calls for a replacement 14 -foot tall stop sign pole
measuring 12" in diameter with panel antennas encased in a 2' tall canister with a 3' tall tapered
canister shroud;
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 July 25, 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.
WHEREAS, on July 25, 2017, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to
August 8, 2017;
WHEREAS, on August 8, 2017, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing
to August 22, 2017;
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-25
Page 1 of 7
01203.0015/403998.2
D-1
WHEREAS, on August 22, 2017, after considering testimony and evidence presented
at the public hearings, the information and findings included in the Staff Report, and
other records of proceedings, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes moved to deny, without prejudice, ASG No. 33 and directed Staff to come back
with a denial resolution for adoption at its August 30, 2017 meeting;
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 northeast corner of Chartres Drive and Cartier Drive,
B. Replace an existing 11' tall stop sign pole with a 14' tall steel stop sign pole
measuring 12" in diameter to be painted brown to visually blend with the
surrounding environment. A 2' tall and 2' outside diameter cylinder -shaped
canister with a 3' tall tapered canister shroud that encases the panel antennas
and wires, will be placed at the top of the pole; 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 immediate neighborhood does not have above ground utilities, with the
exception of street regulation signs, and the proposed replacement pole with the
antennas affixed to the top of the pole albeit contained in a canister shroud, at a
height of 14', does not blend with the surrounding environment and would visually
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-25
Page 2 of 7
01203.0015/403998.2
D-2
impact the character of the neighborhood as experienced from the public right-of-
way.
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 on top of a stop sign, in its proposed location, is a dominant feature that is
out -of -character to the surrounding neighborhood as there are no other structures
or natural features in the immediate area with a similar size and shape that would
lend themselves to screening or blending the facility into the built environment.
The proposed antenna design is of a size and shape that the stop sign itself
would be dominated by said antenna, and there are no similar vertical elements in
the neighborhood, thus making the proposed facility the dominant feature at this
residential intersection. A preferred design would present equipment that is
seamlessly integrated into the sign pole or a "slim -line" design that does not
present the antenna nodes as the dominate feature on this stop sign.
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 steel color and materials of the proposed replacement stop sign will
not visually blend with the surrounding environment. The replacement stop sign
pole, at a height of 14', is visually intrusive as there are no similar vertical
elements in the neighborhood, thus making the proposed facility the dominant
feature at this residential intersection. The "industrial -utility" looking style of the
proposed facility is incompatible with the style and quality of the surrounding
residential neighborhood. Additionally, the antenna shroud is much wider than
the sign pole at the point of attachment. This has the effect of creating greater
mass and bulk than now exists and will have the negative effect of being more
visible. By drawing more attention, these facilities will reduce the desirability of
this residential neighborhood.
The proposed installation and support equipment is not compatible with the
surrounding environment. The overall size of the proposed antenna on top of a
stop sign, in its proposed location, is a dominant feature that is out -of -character to
the surrounding neighborhood as there are no other structures or natural features
in the immediate area with a similar size and shape that would lend themselves to
screening or blending the facility into the built environment. The City of Rancho
Palos Verdes' streets, parkway- and median- landscaping, and public utilities
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-25
Page 3 of 7
01203.0015/403998.2
D-3
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. In addition, the
introduction of the antenna and underground equipment necessary for this project
may lead to a proliferation of utility equipment that would otherwise not be located
in the right-of-way. Therefore, this project will detract from the visual appearance
of the streetscape. These incremental changes to the improvements in the right-
of-way will lead to the deterioration of the City's well-maintained streetscapes, and
will establish a precedent for additional facilities in the public right-of-way.
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 (discussed
below).
12.18.080(A)(5): Equipment. The applicant shall use the least visible equipment
possible. Antenna elements shall be flush mounted, to the extent feasible. All
antenna mounts shall be designed so as not to preclude possible future
collocation by the same or other operators or carriers. Unless otherwise provided
in this section, antennas shall be situated as close to the ground as possible.
The record presented no evidence of the proposed antennas being situated as
close to the ground as possible. The replacement stop sign pole will be 3' taller
than the existing pole and approximately 12" wide in diameter, and has not been
designed to resemble the existing pole to the maximum extent feasible. The
proposed 14' tall stop sign pole that will house the panel antennas in a cylinder
shaped canister measuring approximately 2' tall with a 3' tall tapered shroud
sleeve has not been designed to be slim to an extent that maximally blends with
the verticality of the pole, and is not the least intrusive design based on industry
standards found for other antenna poles.
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 immediate neighborhood does not have above ground utilities, with the
exception of street regulation signs, and the proposed replacement pole with the
panel antennas affixed to the top of the pole albeit encased within a canister, at a
height of 14', does not blend with the surrounding environment and would visually
impact the character of the neighborhood as experienced from the public right-of-
way.
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-25
Page 4 of 7
01203.00151403998.2
D-4
The proposed installation and support equipment does not meet the design
standard requiring a facility to be compatible with the surrounding environment.
The overall size of the proposed antenna on top of a stop sign, in its proposed
location, is a dominant feature that does not resemble in appearance or
dimension any other features in the surrounding neighborhood because there are
no other structures or natural features in the immediate area with a similar size
and shape that would lend themselves to screening or blending the facility into the
built environment. The proposed antenna design is of a size and shape that the
stop sign itself would be dominated by said antenna, the intersection at which the
pole is proposed would be dominated by the antenna, and there are no similar
vertical elements in the neighborhood, thus making the proposed facility a non-
conforming feature in appearance and dimension. A preferred design would
present equipment that is fully integrated into the sign pole or a "slim -line" design
that much more closely resembles an actual residential street sign, as opposed to
a sign topped with a utility transformer.
12.18.080(A)(7): Space. Each facility shall be designed to occupy the least
amount of space in the right-of-way that is technically feasible.
The replacement pole would take up much more right-of-way space compared to
the existing street sign/stop sign pole, with the antennas on top of the
replacement pole occupying much more air space above the right-of-way than
other feasible "slim -line" or pole -integrated designs found in the industry.
12.18.080(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 proposed stop sign pole design may 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. Specifically, the proposed antenna design is of a
size and shape that the stop sign itself would be dominated by said antenna,
detracting from the visibility and discernibility of the stop and directional signage,
thus making the proposed facility a potential distraction to drivers.
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
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-25
Page 5 of 7
01203.0015/403998.2
D-5
service area to be served by the proposed facility only encompasses about 20-30
homes and is not located upon a major highway or thoroughfare serving many in -
vehicle users. To the extent any dead zone or dropped -call area was found to
exist, such area was found to be very small, possibly no larger than the size of the
street intersection itself. 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.
C. The Project does not meet the Findings required by Section 12.18.090,
Subsection E, of the Municipal Code, which particularly requires that "[t]he
applicant has provided the city with a meaningful comparative analysis that
includes the factual reasons why the proposed location and design is the
least noncompliant location and design necessary to reasonably achieve the
applicant's reasonable technical service objectives," as follows:
The Applicant has not provided a meaningful alternative comparative analysis and
the proposed project is not found to be the preferred design. See above
discussions in regards to RPVMC §12.18.080 for further detail, which discussions
are incorporated here.
Furthermore, there is inadequate documentation to support a conclusion that no
other design alternative exists that might better conceal the proposed facilities
from public view and/or minimize the addition of vaulted equipment within the
PROW. Opportunities to locate wireless facilities in remote locations deserve
greater consideration as an alternative. This could result in the identification of
remote wireless installations that provide adequate coverage to homes in this
residential neighborhood.
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 Thursday, September 14, 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 Thursday, September 14, 2017.
Section 7: 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. 33 for the proposed
wireless telecommunication facility installation at the northeast corner of Chartres Drive
and Cartier Drive.
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-25
Page 6 of 7
01203.0015/403998.2
A e
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 30th day of AUGUST 2017, by the following
vote:
AYES: Commissioners Bradley, Nelson, Emenhiser, and Chairman Cruikshank
NOES: None
ABSTENTIONS: None
RECUSALS: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Leon and Tomblin, and Vice -Chair James
Ara a , AICP
Community Development Director; and,
Secretary of the Planning Commission
John M. Cruikshank
hairman
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-25
Page 7 of 7
01203.0015/403998.2
D-7
CITY OF tARANCHO PALOS VERDES
STAFF
REPORT
4' `y'• Monaco �nta
o N
a
N Q�
rd
Rancho Palos
Verdes
SITE LOCATION
TO:
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE
A1,rh.
PLANNING COMMISSION
Robert E
NICOLE JULES, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
Ryan
LLLL�T
Community
1 �
park
NITS -
TO:
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
NICOLE JULES, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
PUBLIC WORKS
ARA MIHRANIAN, DIRECTOR
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE:
AUGUST 22, 2017
SUBJECT:
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS
FACILITY PERMIT ASG NO. 33
PROJECT
ADDRESS: ACROSS 6480 CHARTRES DRIVE
APPLICANT: AARON SNYDER (CROWN CASTLE)
LANDOWNER: CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
STAFF ART BASHMAKIAN, CONTRACT
COORDINATOR: PLANNER
REQUESTED ACTION: A REQUEST TO INSTALL A NEW 14' TALL POLE TO ACCOMMODATE A WIRELESS
TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY WITH RELATED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT.
RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2017- APPROVING, WITH CONDITIONS,
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY ASG NO. 33 TO ALLOW THE
INSTALLATION OF A 14' TALL REPLACEMENT STOP SIGN POLE TO
ACCOMMODATE A 2' TALL MOUNTED ANTENNA ENCASED IN A 3.5' TALL
CANISTER AT THE TOP OF THE POLE WITH RELATED VAULTED MECHANICAL
EQUIPMENT.
LAND USE: PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
CODE SECTION: RPVMC CHAPTERS 12.18 AND 17.02
ACTION DEADLINE: SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 (SHOT CLOCK)
E-1
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 33)
AUGUST 22, 2017
PAGE 2
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS RESIDING WITHIN 500' OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: NONE
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), subject
to review by the Planning Commission, to provide services to AT&T consumers
throughout the City.
On May 26, 2016, Crown Castle submitted an application, proposing to install Wireless
Telecommunications Facility ASG No. 33 in the public right-of-way (PROW) across from
property located at 6480 Chartres Drive. The City notified Crown Castle that the
application documents were incomplete after three resubmittals. Notices were sent to
Crown Castle on June 27, 2016, December 7, 2016 and February 15, 2017. Ultimately,
Crown Castle submitted documentation to obtain a mock-up permit. The mock-up of the
proposed installation was constructed on June 1, 2017.
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. The temporary mock-up was installed on June 1, 2017. On May 25, 2017, a
notice was sent to property owners within a 500 -foot radius announcing the installation
of the mock-up. On July 6, 2017, a public notice was published in the Peninsula News
announcing that a public hearing on the proposed facility is scheduled to occur on July
25, 2017. Similarly, public notice letters were mailed to property owners within a 500'
radius of the proposed site inviting public comments on the proposed facility.
On July 25, 2017, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing and received
public testimony, including Staff's and the Applicant's presentations. The Planning
Commission is to review certain wireless telecommunication facilities proposed in the
public right-of-way based on, among other things, design assessment and location. Due
to breadth and scope of the public testimony and the limited information presented at
the meeting, the Commission continued the public hearing to its August 8t" meeting and
directed staff to come back with certain information for its consideration.
On August 8, 2017, as recommended by Staff, the Planning Commission continued,
without discussion, this item to its August 22, 2017 meeting to allow Staff additional time
to complete its analysis.
E-2
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 33)
AUGUST 22, 2017
PAGE 3
Since the July 25th meeting, Staff has been working with the Applicant to address the
concerns raised by the Planning Commission particularly seeking design alternatives
that suited the "least intrusive" Code requirement. Additionally, Staff has been working
with the City's RF Engineer, Lee Afflerbach, to complete the coverage gap analysis
requested by the Planning Commission. In response, Staff has reassessed and updated
its analysis, including the required Findings, in this Staff Report for the Planning
Commission's consideration.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The proposed site is located entirely within the PROW, near the Northeast corner of
Chartres Drive and Cartier Drive. The node is located on the inward side of a curving
hillside road. The area has some mature trees and shrubs on the slope between the
proposed WTF and houses up the slope. The location of the existing stop sign is
approximately 65 feet from the location of the original mock-up pole.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Original Proposed Project
The proposed Project as originally submitted and presented to the Planning
Commission on July 25th proposed to install a new 14' tall pole with two 21.4" panel
antennas that would be affixed at the top of the pole. The related mechanical equipment
was originally proposed to be ground -mounded (adjacent to the street pole) consisting
of 8.04 cubic feet of equipment boxes in the PROW, two ions and a power meter. Below
is a photograph of the existing site and a photo simulation, prepared by the Applicant, of
the site with the then -proposed installation:
Proposed Site
itop of Antenna
E-3
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 33)
AUGUST 22, 2017
PAGE 4
Proposed Alternative Locations
In addition to the original proposed project, the Applicant has proposed similar small cell
nodes (antennas) at the following 4 alternative locations (see attached site map):
• 17 -foot tall replacement traffic/stop sign pole at the northeast corner of Cartier
Drive and Chartres Drive.
• 14 -foot tall free-standing pole 70 -feet from the original proposed location on the
south side of Chartres Drive adjacent to the driveways for 30200 Cartier Drive
and 6479 Chartres Drive.
• 14 -foot tall free-standing pole approximately 55 -feet northwest of the original
proposed location on the east side of Cartier Drive adjacent to 30182 Cartier.
• 14 -foot tall free-standing pole approximately 660 -feet east of the original
proposed location on the north side of Chartres Drive approximately 10-15 feet
from the driveway of 6443 Chartres Drive.
Revised Project
In response to the Commission's discussion at the July 25th meeting, as well as Staff
input during a field visit, it was determined that in order to avoid the installation of a new
pole, which is contrary to the policies set forth in the General Plan to avoid the
installation of above -ground infrastructure, the proposed project was revised based on
the traffic/stop sign alternative described above.
As revised, the project now proposes to replace the existing 11' tall stop sign at the
northeast corner of Cartier Drive and Chartres Drive with a 14' tall stop sign that would
house the proposed two panel antennas and related wires in a 3.5' tall cylinder -shaped
shroud mounted canister that measures approximately 2' in outside diameter (O.D.).
The stop sign will be conditioned to be approximately 12" in diameter to seamlessly
blend in with the proposed 2' diameter canister and will be painted brown to blend with
the natural setting. Additionally, the pole will include a stop sign and the street name
signs for Cartier Drive and Chartres Drive. Additionally, the Applicant has agreed to
vault the related mechanical equipment including the radio and auxiliary equipment, as
well as the SCE meter box in a secondary vault. There will be a total of three vaults
measuring approximately 43 square feet. Below is a photo simulation, prepared by the
Applicant, of the site with the proposed installation (note that the simulations do not
exactly resemble the conditions Staff proposes):
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 33)
AUGUST 22, 2017
PAGE 5
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. Because the Applicant is proposing to install the facility
in PROW of a local street as identified in the General Plan and within a residential
zone, the subject application is also subject to Location Restrictions of Section
12.18.200. As such, the Planning Commission shall not grant any exception unless
the applicant "demonstrates with clear and convincing evidence" responses to
Findings 1 - 4 of Section 12.18.190(B). As reported earlier, Staff is providing the
Planning Commission with the following updated analysis of the required Findings.
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
June 16, 2017 property owners within 500 feet of the proposed facility were
notified of the WTF mock-up which occurred at least 30 days in advance of the
public hearing. Further, on June 22, 2017, a public notice announcing the July
25, 2017 public hearing was provided to property owners within 500 feet of the
proposed WTF. Additionally, the Applicant has notified the City 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
E-5
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 33)
AUGUST 22, 2017
PAGE 6
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.
When the Commission considered this application at its July 25th meeting, the
mechanical equipment was proposed to be above ground. And in response, Staff
had recommended a condition of approval requiring the undergrounding of the
equipment unless it could be demonstrated that it is infeasible. The Applicant has
now concluded that the accessory equipment could be placed underground.
The original proposed antennas were attached to a new steel pole as shown in
the photo simulations. The modified design will employ a less intrusive design as
a new pole will not be added in the area, and instead the existing 11' tall stop sign
(with the attached street name panels) pole will be replaced with a new pole
integrating the stop sign and street names with a 3.5' tall cylinder -shaped canister
housing the antenna panels and wires on top of the replacement stop sign pole.
The overall height will be 14'.
A new view analysis was conducted by City staff and it was determined that the
modified design would not have any significant view impairment to the
surrounding area. Staff had previously determined that the original proposal also
did not have any significant view impairment to surrounding properties. Staff
prefers this alternative to avoid the installation of a new pole in a neighborhood
that does not above ground poles aside from street signs. Further, the proposed
cylinder shroud design may be visually less -intrusive compared to the original
"side -mounted" panel design because the vertical shroud design presents a
slimmer side view that blends more cleanly with the verticality of the stop sign
pole. Additionally, as previously reported, Staff determined that the replacement
stop sign pole 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 original proposal involved the placement of WTF on a new 14 -foot steel pole
to be painted at the direction of City staff to blend compatibly with the immediate
surrounding. The antenna panels were required to be painted to match the pole.
It was also determined that the existing landscaping provided partial screening of
the new pole and mechanical equipment. However, the current proposal
E-6
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 33)
AUGUST 22, 2017
PAGE 7
eliminates the need to install a new pole in the neighborhood by replacing the
existing stop sign pole with a new 14' tall pole that will house the antenna panels
and wires within a 3.5' tall cylinder -shaped canister that measures 24" in diameter
on top of the replacement stop sign pole. Staff is recommending a condition that
would require the pole to be approximately 12" in diameter to seamlessly blend
with the canister and to be painted brown to visually blend with the surrounding
environment. Lastly, the Applicant has agreed to vault the related mechanical
equipment and the vents and SCE meter will be flush with the ground. A low
retaining wall, measuring approximately 1.5' high at approximately 43 square feet
in area will be needed to accommodate the vaulted equipment. This space is the
least amount of space that is technically feasible. Additionally, integrating the
antenna in a replacement pole structure within the existing stop sign and street
names, will be a less intrusive design than installing a new pole in the
neighborhood if the objective is to minimize the erection of new poles.
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 9 7.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration). This provision
shall be applied consistent with local, state and federal law.
In terms of views of the original proposal, on July 14, 2017, Staff conducted a view
analysis and based on a view assessment of the neighborhood, Staff determined
that the proposed 14 -foot tall pole with the antennas would not impair the public
view from the surrounding view areas including those views from Cartier Drive and
Chartres Drive, and would not result in a significant view impairment to surrounding
residences.
In response to the revised proposal, an additional view analysis was conducted on
August 10, 2017 from the neighboring property and concluded that the modified
design would not impair the public or private views from the surrounding viewing
areas and in particular from 30182 Cartier Drive. The proposed replacement pole
would be below views of the ocean from neighboring viewing areas, and remains
below grade from surrounding home views. Furthermore, the site is not located in
a view corridor identified in the City's General Plan or Coastal Specific Plan.
12.18.080(A)(4): Blending Methods. All facilities shall have subdued colors and
non -reflective materials that blend with the materials and colors of the surrounding
area and structures.
The proposed replacement stop sign pole and affixed equipment will consist of
colors and mater,als that are subdued and non_;ef!ective (see "hove photograph).
Further, Staff recommends that the pole be painted brown to visually blend with
the surrounding environment and include street signs (i.e. street names and stop
E-7
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 33)
AUGUST 22, 2017
PAGE 8
sign). Lastly, the retaining wall that will be constructed to accommodate the
vaulted mechanical equipment will utilize block material that will be landscaped to
soften and camouflage its appearance
12.18.080(A)(5): Equipment. The applicant shall use the least visible equipment
possible. Antenna elements shall be flush mounted, to the extent feasible. All
antenna mounts shall be designed so as not to preclude possible future
collocation by the same or other operators or carriers. Unless otherwise provided
in this section, antennas shall be situated as close to the ground as possible.
The Applicant's original project proposed the installation of a new 14' tall pole with
21.4" tall antennas. However, since the July 25th meeting, the proposal has been
revised so that the antennas will be housed in a cylinder shaped cover
approximately 3.5' tall at 2' diameter. The height of the pole to the top of the
antenna will be 14' as well (which is no taller than the original proposed design).
This modified design option eliminates the introduction of a new pole structure in
the neighborhood. Although both projects would be visible, the least visible would
be the cylinder designed antenna integrated with the stop sign, which presents a
slimmer side view that blends more cleanly with the verticality of the sign pole.
Furthermore, if the pole was shorter than 14', in order to meet the stated coverage
objective additional poles would need to be installed.
In regards to possible future collocations, in order to accommodate such
additional antennas, the height of the stop sign pole, or any pole for that matter,
will have to be increased since there needs to be a separation of at least 1'
between antenna panels for functionality purposes.
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 street as identified
in the City's General Plan. Therefore, the Planning Commission shall not grant an
exception unless the findings for an Exception can be demonstrated as detailed
further below.
12.18.080(A)(6)(b) and (h): 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.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 33)
AUGUST 22, 2017
PAGE 9
The proposed WTF is pole -mounted. Under RPVMC Section 12.18.080(6)(h), an
exception shall be required to place a new pole in the public right-of-way based
on the following:
i. Such new poles shall be designed to resemble existing poles in the right-
of-way near that location, including size, height, color, materials and style,
with the exception of any existing pole designs that are scheduled to be
removed and not replaced.
The proposal first considered by the Commission involved a WTF
installation on a new steel pole to be painted at the direction of City staff to
blend compatibly with surroundings. But the optional integrated stop sign
design eliminates the need for a new or additional pole as the existing
street sign with the stop sign can be replaced with an integrated pole that
with the street names, the stop sign and canister cylinder on top of the
pole. The replacement pole will be approximately 3' taller than the height
of the existing 11' tall stop sign pole.
ii. Such new poles that are not replacement poles shall be located at least 90
feet from any existing pole to the extent feasible.
Not applicable if the alternative stop sign integrated design is selected. But
it should be noted the absence of light poles and utility poles in the general
area.
iii. Such new poles shall not adversely impact public view corridors, as defined
in the general plan, and shall be located to the extent feasible in an area
where there is existing natural or other feature that obscures the view of
the pole. The applicant shall further employ concealment techniques to
blend the pole with said features including but not limited to the addition of
vegetation if appropriate.
Based on a view assessment of the neighborhood, Staff had determined that
the originally proposed 14 -foot tall pole with the WTF would not impair the
public view, as defined by the General Plan, from the surrounding viewing
areas including those views from Cartier Drive and Chartres Drive. The pole
is at a lower grade from the building pads of the neighboring residence and
will not adversely impact views. The originally proposed WTF location is
partially concealed by existing landscaping. Similarly, the replacement stop
sign pole design with the integrated stop sign and street name signs would
not impair the public view, as defined by the General Plan, from surrounding
viewing areas including those views from Cartier Drive and Chartres Drive.
Although this design eliminates the need for a new vertical structure in the
E-9
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 33)
AUGUST 22, 2017
PAGE 10
area, the stop sign location is more noticeable compared to the pole location
of the original proposal.
iv. A new pole justification analysis shall be submitted to demonstrate why
existing infrastructure cannot be utilized and demonstrating the new pole is
the least intrusive means possible including a demonstration that the new
pole is designed to be the minimum functional height and width required to
support the proposed facility.
The integrated stop sign option would not be considered a new pole.
Therefore, this finding is not applicable. However, with the absence of
street light poles and utility poles, and if the replacement stop sign pole is
not an option, than the only other option is the original proposal. The
Applicant's supporting documentation for the original proposal suggests
that the antennas are proposed to be installed at the lowest height
technically feasible to meet the wireless carriers coverage needs.
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.
Not applicable because the proposed facility does not entail a light pole.
12.18.080(A)(6)(e): Replacement Poles. If an applicant proposes to replace a pole
in order to accommodate a proposed facility, the pole shall be designed to
resemble the appearance and dimensions of existing poles near the proposed
location, including size, height, color, materials and style to the maximum extent
feasible.
The replacement stop sign pole will be 3' taller than the existing pole and
approximately 12" wide in diameter, but the design, appearance and dimensions
resemble the existing pole to the maximum extent feasible. A smaller antenna
technology is possible, but smaller antennas will require the installation of many
more poles in the neighborhood to achieve the same coverage and capacity.
Thus, smaller antennas could negate the objective of limiting the introduction of
new infrastructure including poles and accessory equipment (radios, fans, etc.).
The replacement stop sign pole will match the appearance, in terms of color,
finish, and signage style as other sign poles in the immediate area. Although the
proposed stop sign pole will be taller than other sign poles in the immediate area,
this consideration is greatly offset by a preference for using existing infrastructure
rather than cnngtrim inn of a whnlly new pole.
E-10
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 33)
AUGUST 22, 2017
PAGE 11
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.
According to the plans submitted by the Applicant, all cables will be encased
within the pole and proposed canister, thus hidden from views from the
neighboring properties and the PROW.
12.18.080(A)(7): Space. Each facility shall be designed to occupy the least
amount of space in the right-of-way that is technically feasible.
The replacement pole would not take up much more right-of-way space compared
to the existing street sign/stop sign pole. The placement of the antennas on top of
the pole will occupy limited air space above the right-of-way The mechanical
structure will be undergrounded and the three vaults necessary to house the
equipment measures approximately 43 square feet in total area. This space is the
least amount of space that is technically feasible for equipment owned by AT&T.
Furthermore, the space that will be occupied is below the surface with minimum
exhaust vents that will be flush to the surrounding ground. Additionally, the SCE
meter box will also be vaulted.
12.18.080(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.
12.18.080(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 originally
proposed WTF installation and the modified integrated stop sign pole design
would not cause an obstruction to the public's use of the PROW, constitute a
safety hazard and/or does not interfere with a City -defined intersection visibility
triangle. Specifically, the proposed project is not located in a paved sidewalk or
walking area established for regular pedestrian use, preserves the same/current
signage purposes and setback parameters applicable to other street signs.
E-11
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 33)
AUGUST 22, 2017
PAGE 12
12.18.080(l 0): 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. originally
proposed installation and the modified integrated stop sign pole design would not
interfere with any public health or safety facilities.
C. If applicable, the applicant has demonstrated its inability to locate on
existing infrastructure.
The integrated stops sign pole design demonstrates the ability to locate on
existing infrastructure (replacement with new pole). With regards to the original
proposal, the Applicant's supporting documentation suggests that the antennas
are proposed to be installed at the lowest height technically feasible to meet the
wireless carriers coverage needs. Further, there are no existing street light or
utility poles in the immediate area to support a WTF in the PROW area of
Applicant's purported coverage gap.
D. The applicant has provided sufficient evidence supporting the applicant's
claim that it has the right to enter the public right-of-way pursuant to state
or federal law, or the applicant has entered into a franchise agreement
with the city permitting them to use the public right-of-way.
The Applicant has submitted to the City a Right of Way Use Agreement (RUA)
entered into with the City in 2011, which allows the Applicant to install wireless
antennas in the PROW. Further, the Applicant has submitted a Certificate of
Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) issued by the California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC) which provides that the Applicant has been
authorized to install wireless telecommunications infrastructure in the PROW.
E. The applicant has demonstrated the proposed installation is designed
such that the proposed installation represents the least intrusive means
possible and supported by factual evidence and a meaningful
comparative analysis to show that all alternative locations and designs
identified in the application review process were technically infeasible or
not available.
City's consulting RF Engineer has reviewed the Applicant's alternative site
analysis, and concurs that the originally proposed design and the integrated
stop sign design are the least intrusive means and the alternative locations and
E-12
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 33)
AUGUST 22, 2017
PAGE 13
designs were not technically feasible. As mentioned before, it's possible to use
smaller antennas but that would require tripling or quadrupling the number of
facilities throughout the community to provide equal coverage and capacity.
This would require the introduction of new pole structures where there are no
street lights or utility poles and would require the installation of associated
accessory equipment on poles or above ground (when undergrounding is not
possible). Such additional equipment and additional poles and antennas would
negate the objective of installing the least intrusive systems.
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:
• Staff finds locations that utilize an existing or replacement pole (in this
case, a sign 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.
• 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.
FINDINGS FOR EXCEPTIONS
Section 12.18.190 of the RPVMC states "Exceptions" provide:
"The city council recognizes that federal law prohibits a permit denial when it would
effectively prohibit the provision of personal wireless services and the applicant
proposes the least intrusive means to provide such services. The city council finds
that, due to wide variation among wireless facilities, technical service objectives and
changed circumstances over time, a limited exemption for proposals in which strict
compliance with this chapter would effectively prohibit personal wireless services
serves the public interest. The city council further finds that circumstances in which
an effective prohibition may occur are extremely difficult to discern, and that
specified findings to guide the analysis promotes clarity and the city's legitimate
interest in well-planned wireless facilities deployment. Therefore, in the event that
E-13
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 33)
AUGUST 22, 2017
PAGE 14
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(8) 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 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 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. 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 City's consultant concluded that
the proposal as provided will address coverage deficiencies within the target area.
Furthermore, according to the City's consultant, the Applicant has provided
engineering details related to the wireless bands that will be used for the DAS
deployment, including identifying transmitting equipment, power levels for each
band and specifics regarding the radiation patterns of the antennas to be installed.
However, information provided about existing and proposed coverage in the service
area for each of the three AT&T licensed wireless bands (700 MHz, PCS and AWS)
are less clearly defined; this is due to the extremely rugged and varied terrain
associated with the surrounding landscape.
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 I II I lel Ided levels to support modern loder 1 I JV%'Ai�V customer needs. Furt1 her , the
engineering design provided by Crown Castle supports that, if constructed, DAS
E-14
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 33)
AUGUST 22, 2017
PAGE 15
site ASG 33 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 the limitations 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 1, LLC v. City of Hillsboro (D.Or. 2004)
301 F.Supp.2d 1251, 1261 [whether facilities were needed to improve weak signals
or to fill a complete void in coverage]; Nextel Partners, Inc. v. Town of Amherst
(W.D.N.Y.2003) 251 F.Supp.2d 1187, 1196 [gap covers well traveled roads on
which customers lack roaming capabilities]; Am. Cellular Network Co., LLC v.
Upper Dublin Twp. (E.D.Pa.2002) 203 F.Supp.2d 383, 390-91 [considering "drive
tests"]; Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Town of Ogunquit (D.Me. 2001) 175 F.Supp.2d 77,
90 [whether gap affects commercial district]; APT Minneapolis, Inc. v. Stillwater
Twp. (D.Minn. June 22, 2001) No. 00-2500, 2001 WL 1640069, at *2-3 [whether
gap poses public safety risk].)
3. The applicant has provided the city with a meaningful comparative
analysis that includes the factual reasons why any alternative location(s) or
design(s) suggested by the city or otherwise identified in the administrative
record, including but not limited to potential alternatives identified at any
public meeting or hearing, are not technically feasible or potentially
available.
As noted earlier, the Applicant has proposed similar small cell nodes (antennas) at
the following 4 alternative locations (see attached site map):
17 -foot tall replacement traffic/stop sign pole at the northeast corner of Cartier
Drive and Chartres Drive.
14 -font tall free-StanrJinn pole 70 -feet from the nrininal prnpnSed location on. the
south side of Chartres Drive adjacent to the driveways for 30200 Cartier Drive
and 6479 Chartres Drive.
E-15
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 33)
AUGUST 22, 2017
PAGE 16
• 14 -foot tall free-standing pole approximately 55 -feet northwest of the original
proposed location on the east side of Cartier Drive adjacent to 30182 Cartier.
• 14 -foot tall free-standing pole approximately 660 -feet east of the original
proposed location on the north side of Chartres Drive approximately 10-15 feet
from the driveway of 6443 Chartres Drive.
An alternative location or design was discussed between Staff and the Applicant,
and in response to Commission comments (to consider various pole designs) and
discussions with the Applicant, the alternative antenna design - cylinder shaped
shrouded antenna integrated with the existing stop sign pole -was presented as
an alternative option to the original proposal (July 25th). The Applicant has
provided comparative analysis of four other locations in the area. One of the
alternatives is the replace the existing stop sign pole. Out of the four sites, one
does not meet the RF coverage objective. But, the other three sites, including the
originally proposed site and the alternative integrated stop sign design, do meet
the RF objective. It should be noted that aside from the proposed stop sign pole,
the other sites would require a new pole installation which would not be the least
intrusive design. The City's RF Engineer has also reviewed the alternative
locations and concludes that limited coverage areas of the DAS units limit or
confine site selection. 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. The alternatives would be selected based on aesthetic
considerations as the overall coverage areas is confined by the limited service
area of DAS technology and location of the specific signal gap areas that are to
be addressed.
Also, because of the limited commercially zoned areas in the City and limited
collector or arterial streets, in order to provide coverage and capacity to the
residential areas of the City, it's necessary to locate within the right-of-way of
local streets. 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 with 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) presented the
following intrusions, which Staff determined 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
E-16
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 33)
AUGUST 22, 2017
PAGE 17
by the City's RF Engineer (attached), as opposed to having one AT&T pole
in this area.
• 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.
As stated previously, existing street lights and utility poles are limited, if any, in
this area, thus limiting the opportunity to use existing infrastructure other than the
proposed, existing stop sign pole. And, for the reasons stated in finding Number 3
above, the integrated pole design is the least intrusive location and design
necessary to reasonably achieve the Applicant's technical service objectives as
evaluated by the City's RF Engineer who will be present at the August 22nd
meeting.
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."
Items Requested By the Commission for Further Consideration
At the July 25, 2017 meeting, the Commission directed Staff to come back with
responses to the following items:
• Additional technical information and analysis from the City's RF Engineer;
• Current and accurate coverage maps;
• Photo simulations of various pole design options (e.g. top mounted shroud or
integrated assembly);
• A feasibility analysis on alternate sites;
• Photo simulations (and plans);
• Underground all proposed support equipment; and,
• Possible cumulative impacts analysis.
E-17
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 33)
AUGUST 22, 2017
PAGE 18
The above items are listed below in bold with Staff's responses in regular font.
1. Additional technical information and analysis from the City's RF Engineer.
As described in the above Finding discussion, attached to this Staff Report is the
City's RF Engineer's report and findings on the proposed application, including
an analysis of the proposed Alternatives.
2. Current and accurate coverage maps.
Attached is coverage analysis for the subject site. As discussed in Item No. 1
above, City's RF Engineer has confirmed the coverage map information leading
to site selection by the Applicant reflects industry standards.
3. Photo simulations of various pole design options (e.g. top mounted shroud
or integrated assembly).
As mentioned in the Project Description section and as shown in the photo
simulation above, the top mounted cylinder shaped shrouded antenna integrated
with the existing stop sign (and street signs), is the design option Staff
recommends. The justification for this design is elaborated in the findings section
of the Staff Report
4. A feasibility analysis on alternate sites.
Attached is a detailed narrative submitted by the Applicant discussing alternate
sites. The analysis has also been reviewed and confirmed by the City's RF
Engineer (see Attachment). Staff believes the Applicant has fulfilled this
requirement and the analysis has reached reasonable conclusions that the
primary site is the better option.
5. Photo Simulations (and plans)
Attached for the Commission's review is the visual simulation for the revised
project, as well as the original proposed project presented to Commission on July
25th.
6. Underground all proposed support equipment.
As stated earlier, the applicant has agreed to underground the related
meVhalI1%., l equipment VVIMa IJ a1JV JIIVYYn Vn thV phVtV JlmUICALIW11J. In Vrder LV
accommodate the underground vault, a new 1.5' tall retaining wall that will be
screened with landscaping will be constructed.
E-18
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 33)
AUGUST 22, 2017
PAGE 19
7. Possible cumulative impacts analysis.
Cumulative impacts may relate to RF exposure concerns and visual impacts to
the community from the installation of 38 additional DAS nodes With regards to
RF concerns, there is no additional impacts simply from the installation of
wireless facilities throughout the City as shown in the applicants plans. As long
as the antennas are 13.9' or more above ground and the 8' public exclusion zone
directly in front and at the same elevation as the antenna is observed, there is no
cumulative impacts associated with RF exposure. Unlike cumulative traffic
impacts from additional urban development, there is no equivalent cumulative
impacts. In other words, the degree of RF does not increase in neighborhoods
where it can impact the general population.
In terms of cumulative visual or view impacts, Staff does not believe that in this
location of the City, if other stop sign poles were replaced to accommodate a
similar WTF encased within a cylinder -shaped canister will adversely impact the
area. This is because the canister will be placed at the top of the stop sign pole
which will not adversely impact pedestrians and motorists.
Ordinance No. 580 in part, is charged to ensure that all wireless facilities are
installed using the least intrusive means possible. The Code requires that
facilities be designed in ways "to minimize visual, noise and other impacts..."
The Code recognizes that the community, over time, could eventually have a
number of facilities within its public right-of-ways. It's also recognized that
facilities will not be necessarily unnoticeable as the Code uses phrases like
"minimize visual impacts", "least intrusive means...". The Code recognizes the
potential for many facilities within the right-of-way over the coming years. And as
long as each facility meets the required findings, and is found to be designed in
the least intrusive means possible, the mere permitting of many such facilities
would not constitute a cumulative visual or aesthetic impact.
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."
Importantly, beyond the fact that Applicant complied with this submittal requirement, any
consideration of RF Emissions by the Planning Commission, or the health effects
E-19
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 33)
AUGUST 22, 2017
PAGE 20
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 26, 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 September 1, 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
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
E-20
E-21
P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISISON OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING, WITH CONDITIONS,
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY ASG NO. 33 TO
ALLOW THE INSTALLATION OF 14 -FOOT TALL REPLACEMENT
STOP SIGN POLE TO ACCOMMODATE A 2' TALL MOUNTED
ANTENNA ENCASED IN A 3.5' TALL CANISTER AT THE TOP OF THE
POLE WITH RELATED VAULTED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT
ACROSS 6480 CHARTRES DRIVE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
CHARTRES DRIVE AND CARTIER DRIVE.
WHEREAS, Chapter 12.18 of the Rancho Palo Verde Municipal Code (RPVMC or
Municipal Code) governs the permitting, development, siting, installation, design, operation and
maintenance of wireless telecommunications facilities ("WTFs") in the City's public right-of-way
("PROW") (RPVMC § 12.18.010);
WHEREAS, beginning in May of 2016, Crown Castle (the "Applicant") applied to the City
for an Wireless Telecommunications Facility Permit ("WTFP"), pursuant to Section 12.18.040(A)
of the Municipal Code, to install 26 antennas in the public right-of-way (PROW) to service AT&T
customers throughout the City (the "Project");
WHEREAS, the original proposal called for a new 14 -foot tall steel pole with 21.4 -inch
panel antennas;
WHEREAS, the alternative proposal calls for a replacement 14 -foot tall stop sign pole
measuring 12" in diameter with a 3.5' tall and 2' outside diameter (O.D.) canister housing the
antenna panels;
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. 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
ROW 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 July 25, 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.
WHEREAS, on July 25, 2017, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to
August 8, 2017;
%A/I-IEREAS, on August 8, 2017 the Planning r r%mmisslon continued the public hearing
to August 22, 2017;
01203.0015/393604.1 P.C. Resolution No. 2017-
PagE'L223
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 northeast corner of Chartres Drive and Cartier Drive,
B. Replace a 14' tall stop sign pole steel pole measuring 12" in diameter to be
painted brown to visually blend with surrounding environment, integrated with a
3.5' tall and 2' outside diameter cylinder -shaped canister that encases the panel
antennas and wires affixed to the top of the pole, 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.
Section 2: Approval of a WTF permit 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
June 16, 2017 property owners within 500 feet of the proposed facility were
notified of the WTF mock-up which occurred at least 30 days in advance of the
public hearing. Further, on June 22, 2017, a public notice announcing the July
25, 2017 public hearing was provided to property owners within 500 feet of the
proposed WTF. The applicant had notified the City, 20 days prior to the expiration
of the shot clock which was September 1, 2017 but a Shot Clock Tolling
Agreement dated August 7, 2017 (Attachment X) has established 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(1)(a): The applicant shall employ screening, undergrounding and
camouflage design technigJes 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
01203.0015/393604.1 P.C. Resolution No. 2017-
Pag(E2-3
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.
When the Commission considered this application at its July 25th meeting, the
mechanical equipment was proposed to be above ground. And in response, Staff
had recommended a condition of approval requiring the undergrounding of the
equipment unless it could be demonstrated that it is infeasible. The Applicant has
now concluded that the accessory equipment could be placed underground.
The original proposed antennas were attached to a new steel pole as shown in
the photo simulations. The modified design will employ a less intrusive design as
a new pole will not be added in the area, and instead the existing 11' tall stop sign
(with the attached street name panels) pole will be replaced with a new pole
integrating the stop sign and street names with a 3.5' tall cylinder -shaped canister
housing the antenna panels and wires on top of the replacement stop sign pole.
The overall height will be 14'.
A new view analysis was conducted by City staff and it was determined that the
modified design would not have any significant view impairment to the
surrounding area. Staff had previously determined that the original proposal also
did not have any significant view impairment to surrounding properties. Staff
prefers this alternative to avoid the installation of a new pole in a neighborhood
that does not above ground poles aside from street signs. Further, the proposed
cylinder shroud design may be visually less -intrusive compared to the original
"side -mounted" panel design because the vertical shroud design presents a
slimmer side view that blends more cleanly with the verticality of the stop sign
pole. Additionally, as previously reported, Staff determined that the replacement
stop sign pole 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 original proposal involved the placement of WTF on a new 14 -foot steel pole
to be painted at the direction of City staff to blend compatibly with the immediate
surrounding. The antenna panels were required to be painted to match the pole.
It was also determined that the existing landscaping provided partial screening of
the new pole and mechanical equipment. However, the current proposal
eliminates the need to install a new pole in the neighborhood by replacing the
existing stop sign pole with a new 14' tall pole that will house the antenna panels
01203.0015/393604.1 P.C. Resolution No. 2017-
Pag,E 24
and wires within a 3.5' tall cylinder -shaped canister that measures 24" in diameter
on top of the replacement stop sign pole. Staff is recommending a condition that
would require the pole to be approximately 12" in diameter to seamlessly blend
with the canister and to be painted brown to visually blend with the surrounding
environment. Lastly, the Applicant has agreed to vault the related mechanical
equipment and the vents and SCE meter will be flush with the ground. A low
retaining wall, measuring approximately 1.5' high at approximately 43 square feet
in area will be needed to accommodate the vaulted equipment. This space is the
least amount of space that is technically feasible. Additionally, integrating the
antenna in a replacement pole structure within the existing stop sign and street
names, will be a less intrusive design than installing a new pole in the
neighborhood if the objective is to minimize the erection of new poles.
12.18.080(A)(1)(c): Facilities shall be located such that views from a residential
structure are not significantly impaired. Facilities shall also be located in a manner
that protects public views over city view corridors, as defined in the city's general
plan, so that no significant view impairment results in accordance with this code
including Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration). This provision
shall be applied consistent with local, state and federal law.
In terms of views of the original proposal, on July 14, 2017, Staff conducted a view
analysis and based on a view assessment of the neighborhood, Staff determined
that the proposed 14 -foot tall pole with the antennas would not impair the public
view from the surrounding view areas including those views from Cartier Drive and
Chartres Drive, and would not result in a significant view impairment to surrounding
residences.
In response to the revised proposal, an additional view analysis was conducted on
August 10, 2017 from the neighboring property and concluded that the modified
design would not impair the public or private views from the surrounding viewing
areas and in particular from 30182 Cartier Drive. The proposed replacement pole
would be below views of the ocean from neighboring viewing areas, and remains
below grade from surrounding home views. Furthermore, the site is not located in
a view corridor identified in the City's General Plan or Coastal Specific Plan.
12.18.080(A)(4): Blending Methods. All facilities shall have subdued colors and
non -reflective materials that blend with the materials and colors of the surrounding
area and structures.
The proposed replacement stop sign pole and affixed equipment will consist of
colors and materials that are subdued and non -reflective (see above photograph).
Further, Staff recommends that the pole be painted brown to visually blend with
the surrounding environment and include street signs (i.e. street names and stop
sign). Lastly, the retaining Wali t1hat Will be constructed to accommodate the
vaulted mechanical equipment will utilize block material that will be landscaped to
soften and camouflage its appearance
01203.0015/393604.1 P.C. Resolution No. 2017-
Pag&3
12.18.080(A)(5): Equipment. The applicant shall use the least visible equipment
possible. Antenna elements shall be flush mounted, to the extent feasible. All
antenna mounts shall be designed so as not to preclude possible future
collocation by the same or other operators or carriers. Unless otherwise provided
in this section, antennas shall be situated as close to the ground as possible.
The Applicant's original project proposed the installation of a new 14' tall pole with
21.4" tall antennas. However, since the July 25th meeting, the proposal has been
revised so that the antennas will be housed in a cylinder shaped cover
approximately 3.5' tall at 2' diameter. The height of the pole to the top of the
antenna will be 14' as well (which is no taller than the original proposed design).
This modified design option eliminates the introduction of a new pole structure in
the neighborhood. Although both projects would be visible, the least visible would
be the cylinder designed antenna integrated with the stop sign, which presents a
slimmer side view that blends more cleanly with the verticality of the sign pole.
Furthermore, if the pole was shorter than 14', in order to meet the stated coverage
objective additional poles would need to be installed.
In regards to possible future collocations, in order to accommodate such
additional antennas, the height of the stop sign pole, or any pole for that matter,
will have to be increased since there needs to be a separation of at least 1'
between antenna panels for functionality purposes.
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 street as identified
in the City's General Plan. Therefore, the Planning Commission shall not grant an
exception unless the findings for an Exception can be demonstrated as detailed
further below.
12.18.080(A)(6)(b) and (h): 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 is pole -mounted. Under RPVMC Section 12.18.080(6)(h), an
exception shall be required to place a new pole in the public right-of-way based
on the following:
01203.0015/393604.1 P.C. Resolution No. 2017-
PagE5,F63
i. Such new poles shall be designed to resemble existing poles in the right-
of-way near that location, including size, height, color, materials and style,
with the exception of any existing pole designs that are scheduled to be
removed and not replaced.
The proposal first considered by the Commission involved a WTF
installation on a new steel pole to be painted at the direction of City staff to
blend compatibly with surroundings. But the optional integrated stop sign
design eliminates the need for a new or additional pole as the existing
street sign with the stop sign can be replaced with an integrated pole that
with the street names, the stop sign and canister cylinder on top of the
pole. The replacement pole will be approximately 3' taller than the height
of the existing 11' tall stop sign pole.
ii. Such new poles that are not replacement poles shall be located at least 90
feet from any existing pole to the extent feasible.
Not applicable if the alternative stop sign integrated design is selected. But
it should be noted the absence of light poles and utility poles in the general
area.
iii. Such new poles shall not adversely impact public view corridors, as defined
in the general plan, and shall be located to the extent feasible in an area
where there is existing natural or other feature that obscures the view of
the pole. The applicant shall further employ concealment techniques to
blend the pole with said features including but not limited to the addition of
vegetation if appropriate.
Based on a view assessment of the neighborhood, Staff had determined that
the originally proposed 14 -foot tall pole with the WTF would not impair the
public view, as defined by the General Plan, from the surrounding viewing
areas including those views from Cartier Drive and Chartres Drive. The pole
is at a lower grade from the building pads of the neighboring residence and
will not adversely impact views. The originally proposed WTF location is
partially concealed by existing landscaping. Similarly, the replacement stop
sign pole design with the integrated stop sign and street name signs would
not impair the public view, as defined by the General Plan, from surrounding
viewing areas including those views from Cartier Drive and Chartres Drive.
Although this design eliminates the need for a new vertical structure in the
area, the stop sign location is more noticeable compared to the pole location
of the original proposal.
iv. I neve pole juoullUation analys/J shaii be submitted to demonstrate v'vh,
existing infrastructure cannot be utilized and demonstrating the new pole is
the least intrusive means possible including a demonstration that the new
01203.0015/393604.1 P.C. Resolution No' 2OF
pole is designed to be the minimum functional height and width required to
support the proposed facility.
The integrated stop sign option would not be considered a new pole.
Therefore, this finding is not applicable. However, with the absence of
street light poles and utility poles, and if the replacement stop sign pole is
not an option, than the only other option is the original proposal. The
Applicant's supporting documentation for the original proposal suggests
that the antennas are proposed to be installed at the lowest height
technically feasible to meet the wireless carriers coverage needs.
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.
Not applicable because the proposed facility does not entail a light pole.
12.18.080(A)L)(e): Replacement Poles. If an applicant proposes to replace a pole
in order to accommodate a proposed facility, the pole shall be designed to
resemble the appearance and dimensions of existing poles near the proposed
location, including size, height, color, materials and style to the maximum extent
feasible.
The replacement stop sign pole will be 3' taller than the existing pole and
approximately 12" wide in diameter, but the design, appearance and dimensions
resemble the existing pole to the maximum extent feasible. A smaller antenna
technology is possible, but smaller antennas will require the installation of many
more poles in the neighborhood to achieve the same coverage and capacity.
Thus, smaller antennas could negate the objective of limiting the introduction of
new infrastructure including poles and accessory equipment (radios, fans, etc.).
The replacement stop sign pole will match the appearance, in terms of color,
finish, and signage style as other sign poles in the immediate area. Although the
proposed stop sign pole will be taller than other sign poles in the immediate area,
this consideration is greatly offset by a preference for using existing infrastructure
rather than construction of a wholly new pole.
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.
According to the plans submitted by the Applicant, all cables will be encased
within the pole and proposed canister, thus hidden from views from the
neighboring properties and the PROW.
01203.0015/393604.1 P.C. Resolution No* 2g0 f
12.18.080(A)(7): Space. Each facility shall be designed to occupy the least
amount of space in the right-of-way that is technically feasible.
The replacement pole would not take up much more right-of-way space compared
to the existing street sign/stop sign pole. The placement of the antennas on top of
the pole will occupy limited air space above the right-of-way The mechanical
structure will be undergrounded and the three vaults necessary to house the
equipment measures approximately 43 square feet in total area. This space is the
least amount of space that is technically feasible for equipment owned by AT&T.
Furthermore, the space that will be occupied is below the surface with minimum
exhaust vents that will be flush to the surrounding ground. Additionally, the SCE
meter box will also be vaulted.
12.18.080(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.
12.18.080(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 97.48.070 (Intersection Visibility) so
as not to obstruct the intersection visibility triangle.
Pursuant to the application documents submitted to the City, the originally
proposed WTF installation and the modified integrated stop sign pole design
would not cause an obstruction to the public's use of the PROW, constitute a
safety hazard and/or does not interfere with a City -defined intersection visibility
triangle. Specifically, the proposed project is not located in a paved sidewalk or
walking area established for regular pedestrian use, preserves the same/current
signage purposes and setback parameters applicable to other street signs.
12.18.080(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.
01203.0015/393604.1 P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -
Page -1291
017 -
Page 1293
Pursuant to the application documents submitted to the City, the originally
proposed installation and the modified integrated stop sign pole design would not
interfere with any public health or safety facilities.
C. If applicable, the applicant has demonstrated its inability to locate on
existing infrastructure.
The integrated stops sign pole design demonstrates the ability to locate on
existing infrastructure (replacement with new pole). With regards to the original
proposal, the Applicant's supporting documentation suggests that the antennas
are proposed to be installed at the lowest height technically feasible to meet the
wireless carriers coverage needs. Further, there are no existing street light or
utility poles in the immediate area to support a WTF in the PROW area of
Applicant's purported coverage gap.
D. The applicant has provided sufficient evidence supporting the applicant's
claim that it has the right to enter the public right-of-way pursuant to state
or federal law, or the applicant has entered into a franchise agreement
with the city permitting them to use the public right-of-way.
The Applicant has submitted to the City a Right of Way Use Agreement (RUA)
entered into with the City in 2011, which allows the Applicant to install wireless
antennas in the PROW. Further, the Applicant has submitted a Certificate of
Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) issued by the California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC) which provides that the Applicant has been
authorized to install wireless telecommunications infrastructure in the PROW.
E. The applicant has demonstrated the proposed installation is designed
such that the proposed installation represents the least intrusive means
possible and supported by factual evidence and a meaningful
comparative analysis to show that all alternative locations and designs
identified in the application review process were technically infeasible or
not available.
City's consulting RF Engineer has reviewed the Applicant's alternative site
analysis, and concurs that the originally proposed design and the integrated
stop sign design are the least intrusive means and the alternative locations and
designs were not technically feasible. As mentioned before, it's possible to use
smaller antennas but that would require tripling or quadrupling the number of
facilities throughout the community to provide equal coverage and capacity.
This would require the introduction of new pole structures where there are no
street lights or utility poles and would require the installation of associated
accessory equipment on poles or above ground (when undergrounding is not
01203.00151393604.1 P.C. Resolution No. 2017-
PagE13T3
possible). Such additional equipment and additional poles and antennas would
negate the objective of installing the least intrusive systems.
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:
• Staff finds locations that utilize an existing or replacement pole (in this
case, a sign 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.
• 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.
Section 3: As discussed in the findings above, 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 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(6) 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 Applicant has provided sufficient information to establish that 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. 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
01203.0015/393604.1 P.C. Resolution No. 2017-
Page&3
in the application. Based on the terrain profile characteristics and the field
measurement data provided by Crown Castle, the City's consultant concluded that
the proposal as provided will address coverage deficiencies within the target area.
Furthermore, according to the City's consultant, the Applicant has provided
engineering details related to the wireless bands that will be used for the DAS
deployment, including identifying transmitting equipment, power levels for each
band and specifics regarding the radiation patterns of the antennas to be installed.
However, information provided about existing and proposed coverage in the service
area for each of the three AT&T licensed wireless bands (700 MHz, PCS and AWS)
are less clearly defined; this is due to the extremely rugged and varied terrain
associated with the surrounding landscape.
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 33 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 the limitations 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].)
01203.0015/393604.1 P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -
Page &UO
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 proposed similar small cell nodes (antennas) at the following 4
alternative locations (see attached site map):
• 17 -foot tall replacement traffic/stop sign pole at the northeast corner of Cartier
Drive and Chartres Drive.
• 14 -foot tall free-standing pole 70 -feet from the original proposed location on the
south side of Chartres Drive adjacent to the driveways for 30200 Cartier Drive
and 6479 Chartres Drive.
• 14 -foot tall free-standing pole approximately 55 -feet northwest of the original
proposed location on the east side of Cartier Drive adjacent to 30182 Cartier.
• 14 -foot tall free-standing pole approximately 660 -feet east of the original
proposed location on the north side of Chartres Drive approximately 10-15 feet
from the driveway of 6443 Chartres Drive.
An alternative location or design was discussed between Staff and the Applicant,
and in response to Commission comments (to consider various pole designs) and
discussions with the Applicant, the alternative antenna design - cylinder shaped
shrouded antenna integrated with the existing stop sign pole -was presented as
an alternative option to the original proposal (July 25th). The Applicant has
provided comparative analysis of four other locations in the area. One of the
alternatives is the replace the existing stop sign pole. Out of the four sites, one
does not meet the RF coverage objective. But, the other three sites, including the
originally proposed site and the alternative integrated stop sign design, do meet
the RF objective. It should be noted that aside from the proposed stop sign pole,
the other sites would require a new pole installation which would not be the least
intrusive design. The City's RF Engineer has also reviewed the alternative
locations and concludes that limited coverage areas of the DAS units limit or
confine site selection. 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. The alternatives would be selected based on aesthetic
considerations as the overall coverage areas is confined by the limited service
area of DAS technology and location of the specific signal gap areas that are to
be addressed.
Also, because of the limited commercially zoned areas in the City and limited
collector or arterial streets, in order to provide coverage and capacity to the
01203.0015/393604.1 P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -
Page LZ0,33
residential areas of the City, it's necessary to locate within the right-of-way of
local streets. 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 with 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) presented the
following intrusions, which Staff determined 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.
• 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.
As stated previously, existing street lights and utility poles are limited, if any, in
this area, thus limiting the opportunity to use existing infrastructure other than the
proposed, existing stop sign pole. And, for the reasons stated in finding Number 3
above, the integrated pole design is the least intrusive location and design
necessary to reasonably achieve the Applicant's technical service objectives as
evaluated by the City's RF Engineer who will be present at the August 22nd
meeting.
Section 4: Conditions regarding any of the requirements listed above which
the Planning Commission finds to be necessary to protect the health, safety and general
welfare, have been imposed in the attached Exhibit A.
Section 5: The Project is exempt from review under the California
01203.0015/393604.1 P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 3043
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") because the Project constitutes a small scale
installation of new 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
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 6, 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 6, 2017. If
no appeal is filed timely, the Planning Commission's decision will be final at 5:30 PM on
Wednesday, September 6, 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 WTF permit application and an exception or the proposed installation
across 3480 Chartres Drive and at the northeast corner of Chartres Drive and Cartier
Drive (WTF ASG NO. 33).
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of AUGUST 2017, by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
RECUSALS:
ABSENT:
John M. Cruikshank
Chairman
Ara Mihranian, AICP
Community Development Director; and,
S-r of the DI��,nir�rr (`�nrnrniecinn
eCl etary of t, , - , la ,, .,, .y ., , , , ,
01203.0015/393604.1 P.C. Resolution No. 2017-
PageE4&53
Exhibit "A"
Conditions of Approval
Wireless Telecommunication Facility Case ASG NO. 33
Northeast corner of Chartres Drive and Cartier Drive
General Conditions:
1. Prior to obtaining a permit from the Public Works Department to install the facility,
the applicant 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.
01203.0015/393604.1 P.C. Resolution No. 2017-
PageLSEa03
6. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be
cause to revoke the approval of the project pursuant to the RPVMC.
7. If the applicant has not obtained approvals from Public Works for the approved
project or not commenced the approved project within one year of the final
effective date of the Resolution, approval of the project shall expire and be of no
further effect unless, prior to expiration, a written request for extension is filed
with the Public Works Department and approved by the Director.
8. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations
and/or requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter
standard shall apply.
9. The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall
be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that
material used for immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may
include, but not be limited to: the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap
metal, concrete asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or
discarded furniture, appliances or other household fixtures.
10. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM,
Monday through Friday, 9:OOAM to 5:OOPM on Saturday, with no construction
activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section
17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. During demolition,
construction and/or grading operations, trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at
the project site or in the adjoining street rights-of-way before 7AM Monday
through Friday and before 9AM on Saturday, in accordance with the permitted
hours of construction stated in this condition. When feasible to do so, the
construction contractor shall provide staging areas on-site to minimize off-site
transportation of heavy construction equipment. These areas shall be located to
maximize the distance between staging activities and neighboring properties,
subject to approval by the building official.
11. All grading, landscaping and construction activities shall exercise effective dust
control techniques, either through screening and/or watering.
12. Prior to commencement work, the Applicant shall obtain approval of a haul route
from the Director of Public Works.
13. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly
manner, to the satisfaction of the City's Inspector. All construction waste and
debris resulting from a construction, alteration or repair project shall be removed
on a weekly basis by the contractor or property owner.
01203.0015/393604.1 P.C. Resolution No.
27- d ILS
14. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be
completed in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by
the City with the effective date of this Resolution.
Project -specific Conditions:
15. This approval allows for the following:
A. Install a WTF at the northeast corner of Chartres Drive and Cartier Drive,
B. Replace a 14' tall stop sign pole steel pole measuring 12" in diameter to
be painted brown to visually blend with surrounding environment,
integrated with a 3.5' tall and 2' outside diameter cylinder -shaped canister
that encases the panel antennas and wires affixed to the top of the pole,
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.
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:
• The proposed WTF shall be installed on a new light standard that matches
the other light standards in the area in terms of color, size, proportion,
style, and quality. The antenna shroud will be painted to match the light
pole.
• Applicant shall install drought tolerant landscaping near the proposed
installation to screen the equipment and proposed retaining wall
consistent with existing landscaping.
• 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.
• Colors and materials shall be subdued and non -reflective, and shall be the
same as the existing light standard and other lights standards in the
nearby area.
• The replacement pole shall match the appearance and dimensions of the
existing pole and all other light standards near the location.
• All cables shall be encased within the pole and/or canister, and hidden
from view.
01203.0015/393604.1 P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -
Page&
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.
All accessory equipment shall be located underground including meter
boxes and cabinets.
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.
• 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.
• The facility shall not be illuminated except for the standard street -light
luminaire replacing the existing street light. All other illumination shall be
restricted pursuant to RPVMC § 12.18.080(A)(15).
• 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 until such time
that a specific noise regulation ordinance is adopted and effective
in this code, at which time such noise ordinance shall govern.
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
01203.0015/393604.1 P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -
Page
attractive nuisance. Additionally, no lethal devices or elements shall be
installed as a security device.
• 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.
• 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 (WTFs) shall comply at all times with
the following operation and maintenance standards:
• 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 Applicant, owner, operator or any designated maintenance agent
receives notification from the city.
18. Each Applicant 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 Applicant 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:
01203.0015/393604.1 P.C. Resolution No. 2017-
PageLQg'@3
• General dirt and grease;
• Chipped, faded, peeling, and cracked paint;
Rust and corrosion;
• Cracks, dents, and discoloration;
Missing, discolored or damaged artificial foliage or other camouflage;
• Graffiti, bills, stickers, advertisements, litter and debris;
• Broken and misshapen structural parts; and
• Any damage from any cause.
22. Applicant shall install, to the satisfaction of the Director of Community
Development, drought tolerant landscaping near the area of the underground
vault along and the retaining wall to minimize visual impacts 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 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 at 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.
01203.0015/393604.1 P.C. Resolution No. 2017-
PageEI413
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 WTF
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 WTFs.
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 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:
• Litigation;
• Revocation or modification of the permit;
• Acting on any bond or other assurance required by this article or
conditions of approval of the permit;
• 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
• 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
01203.0015/393604.1 P.C. Resolution No. 2017-
Page[2l-3
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 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:
• Prosecution;
• Acting on any security instrument required by the RPVMC or conditions of
approval of permit;
• 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
• 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
01203.0015/393604.1 P.C. Resolution No. 2017-
PageE2423
timely removed by the Applicant, owner or operator after notice, or removed by
the city due to exigent circumstances.
36. Consistent with current state and federal laws and if permissible under the same,
at the time of modification of a WTF, existing equipment shall, to the extent
feasible, be replaced with equipment that reduces visual, noise and other
impacts, including, but not limited to, undergrounding the equipment and
replacing larger, more visually intrusive facilities with smaller, less visually
intrusive facilities.
01203.0015/393604.1 P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -
Page E3-4 3
� w
�.�'R•tira ! jet .�-{� � �M: �: `r
ST OP lox
VVI
��iY�' ter' .. - •.: i. 1�'?5�..
Y
\ • moi.. M
� �i,' i ' � 's u' �L�'� � 'N I 'rte ' .�j,• i�11,4i� r 4}�� J�' i�`+•� •�. .
ti ;� i��. a .i ° r.T y,,..'. { ••`1 r� f.1f'1-+•'i
i �y+� ( t lin t� dcr""!�• i Z s I 'dW' �� !
44Al
\.!`
STOP
.e
i - 1
_ 1
*•. _ -
ILL
ON
OATN
ZA.
,�� tit *�s 't r��•; "�� •�
�_ �
- ' `� • '
J �� � .... •'• -..
i
` / / �� �'�. `_: � �?�' ;� '"'�`1!�'. �� a:e- ��-- ''°�°'�! _ � 1. ,.
�,. ,,,.
` _ _ _ ---
. �..'"'
,. t � �;a
� • �.
\ -�
t.
qy J
n NN
,
`
droo--o�i
_�
. , �,�
_. j� .',.
,-,. �r , _
�' / rih _�
�� � - �;
C 1.
'tea by ,yu,=d'_,�jf 4.v,�; _ _ J �: - _ ,_
�\ ` _.fid �� 1 -
`. y, FI �• ♦ ^'C � t � � `'� '+`W.�: _ _ rye,,,;, � � � p,.� � \l. � ._ � _
f��J , '\
�� _..
�:. ~
/ ,, � �
�• { 4
•- �' �r
►. \• � f •� t .. r. 1. •, �j� `ti ' .tG .�" ..
Ak
--NMI
I
T a. v ti,
si
PRODOsfD
r► a -
e 1
EXISTING
PROP
AlT
*444
/ s b ♦w
02016 G-glo Mop: lOnk INf: WnPTWrACT FRhAA fHAPTRPC
_s
„�>
'♦ E t.
�` � .. .t
-e � ' � 1
��. , :� _ .
�� _ �-.
syr «• : . v ��+ "`� .�'� ?g. � 1!' � 1 ` � t....�g� .
� ��,`�{,I t R�, � � � Ihr�C.:- 1 ��� ��i` A
y ffPrRRyF,j �e Mi r�:.�. 1 '. Q'4v .
r. ,,,.
�_ :. ,..
_ _ _ .... _ .. __ .. .,, ,...___. _. ._ ,.. ._,.__... _._, _.t_�.. _.�
06
77
jowl
AIL A�
J// 4
n t 1
! dY '� •�F,'19���'Y2Y+ 1 , �, Ya �q-VIa �G .t 4
41X
�� ._. -. ..' .r _gyp>..-.... .'M'- � _
��- �"'� � y,,•�te.. ', - '� art+
yof
�a r f�/ ✓A f< 1 �wy�?
• ` � '. �► Fre r . *� ..
17_ r
PROPOSED
14
CITY OF L RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MEMORANDUM
TO: NICOLE JULES, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
CHARLES EDER, ASSOCIATE ENGINEER
CC: ARA MIHRANIAN, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
FROM: ROBERT NEMETH, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
DATE: AUGUST 11, 2017
SUBJECT: VIEW ANALYSIS FOR WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY-
ASG33 (across from 6480 Chartres Drive)
DISCUSSION
Based on a view analysis conducted on July 14, 2017, Staff determined that the
proposed wireless telecommunications facility (ASG33), across from 6480 Chartres
Drive does not create a view impairment from a residential viewing area, as defined in
Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and
Restoration Code) (see Photo 1). Generally, City defined viewing areas such as living
rooms, family rooms, dining rooms and outside rear patios are located on the ground
floor areas of a residence. From viewing areas in the vicinity of the WTF proposal,
particularly viewing areas from residences on Chartres Drive and Cartier Drive, the
proposed WTF is below the Ocean view and does not obstruct any view defined in
Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code Section 17.02.040. The proposed wireless
telecommunications facility is not located in a view corridor identified in the City's
General Plan or Coastal Specific Plan.
Z2
Photo No. 1 (Primary site location)
E-63
ALTERNATIVE SITE LOCATION
On August 10, 2017, Staff conducted a view assessment of a proposed alternate
location for the proposed wireless telecommunications facility (ASG33). The proposed
alternate site location proposal is to mount the WTF antenna on an existing stop sign
pole at the corner of Chartres Drive and Cartier Drive. The applicant is also proposing to
increase the height of the stop sign pole from 11 feet to 14 feet (see Photo No. 2). Based
on a view assessment of the alternate site location, View Restoration Staff determined
that a WTF, at a height of 14 feet, would not cause a significant view impairment from
surrounding residential viewing areas.
Photo No. 2 (Alternate site location)
CONCLUSION
View Restoration Staff has determined that the proposed WTF, whether located at the
primary site or alternate site locations, will not cause a significant view impairment from
residential viewing areas.
E-64
Columbia Telecommunications Corporation
Wireless Facility Application Evaluation
Applicant: Crown Castle
Site # ASG -33
Description: Application to install a new DAS access site
Site Location: 6480 CHARTRES DRIVE
Site survey findings:
The on-site survey of the above -referenced site (ASG -33) was conducted on August 8 and 9, 2017.
Exhibit 1 is a photograph of the mockup pole and equipment cabinet for the proposed Crown Castle
installation. The site location on Chartres Drive is near the point where it connects to Cartier Drive. It
is positioned in the center of the target area to serve residences along Cartier and Chartres.
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 33
measurements, I first made measurements at the City Hall parking lot to both calibrate the test
E-65
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 -74 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 the ASG -33 gap target area,
the same measurements were taken near the proposed antenna site. At the proposed ASG -33, the
signal level measurement was -113 dBm, and not 4G LTE technology as at the City Hall site, but rather
a mix of legacy 3G and enhanced 3G+ technology. The download test registered a throughput of 1.19
Mbs, and 90k bps for the upload. Generally, based on my experience, it 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 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
E-66
The exhibit also shows an overlay of the target area defined by Crown Castle, which is outlined in
blue. Signal level measurements were made throughout the area and recorded in a slowly moving
vehicle at five second intervals. The data was then plotted using the geographical coordinates onto a
Google Earth map. A complete listing of the 121 measurement 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 with which signals are communicated. It should be
noted that during the drive test the receiver attempted to connect to 9 individual tower sites that
provide some level of signal service in the drive area. Two of the 9 signal level test points were unable
to connect at all. Note that to the north of the proposed site (on Cartier Drive), AT&T service is
currently being served only with 3G technology; the lower section of the target area (on Chartres
Drive) is served with marginal 4G LTE service.
For additional information on the specific frequencies that AT&T operates in the RPV area, as well as
background technical information applicable to all these Crown Castle applications, please see
Appendix B of this document.
Based on our field measurements, it is our finding that within this small area there is a gap in reliable
AT&T broadband services.
Technical review: This new DAS wireless access facility is to be installed on a replacement street light
to provide additional capacity and service on all three AT&T bands (700 MHz, PCS and AWS) to
improve 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
E-67
Two separate antennas are mounted at a radiation center located 13' —1 %" above ground level
(AGL). The antennas simultaneously can support the AT&T 700, PCS and AWS bands. The site will
function to provided local coverage to the area within the blue rectangle. This site work in concert
with existing AT&T macro (traditional cell towers) sites.
Exhibit 4 is an illustration of the proposed DAS facility. The site includes two directional antennas each
targeting along the road focusing the signal beam into a target 60° arc, aimed at azimuths of 130' and
3300 respectively.
Exhibit 4 — Site ASG 33
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.
•i
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
Co -location options: Crown Castle has provided information on 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 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.
5 E-69
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 suggest to support modern 3G/4G
customer needs. Further, the engineering design provided by Crown Castle supports that, if
constructed, DAS site ASG -33 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 legacy 3G
service.
Signature:
Lee Afflerbach, P.E.
Date: 8/14/17
ctc technology & energy
engineering & business consulting
E-70
Crown Castle NG West LLC
Site Specific Alternative Site Analysis Narrative
for ASG33
Submitted to
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Submitted Pursuant to City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code Title 12
Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 12.18.080
Requirements For Facilities within the Public Right -of -Way
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com E-71
�J111 11: �: ::III• .
City's Design and Development Standards require that wireless telecommunications facilities
("WTF") located in the public right-of-way ("ROW") are designed to minimize visual, noise and
other impacts on the surrounding community.
Wgumallga"Ita
a) The Applicant shall employ screening, undergrounding and camouflage design
techniques in the placement of WTF in order to:
i) To ensure that the facility is as visually screened as possible...;
Crown Castle employs screening by taking advantage of existing foliage, natural
and man-made features in and around the public ROW, to the maximum extent
feasible. The small cell node ("SCN") is located on Chartres Drive, across the
street from the driveway for 30200 Cartier Drive (also located on Chartres Drive).
The SCN would be approximately 50 -feet east of T -intersection with Cartier
Drive. Immediately adjacent to the SCN, on north side of the Chartres Drive
ROW, is an approximately 25 -foot high landscape slope that separates the SCN
from the home at 30189 Cartier Drive, above.
Crown Castle's SCN consists of a new 14 -foot tall free-standing steel pole, with
two (2) 21.4 -inch long antennas, and a joint utility cabinet (22.5 -inches wide by
12.6 -inches -deep by 59.1 -inches tall) that would house both Crown Castle's
accessory equipment and Southern California Edison's ("SCE") meter pedestal.
The rationale for Crown Castle proposing an above -ground equipment enclosure,
contrary to the City's ordinance is:
1) SCE requires that its electric meter pedestal (typically 48 -inches tall) be place
above ground, by necessity, there will be above ground street furniture,
regardless of any undergrounding of other equipment;
2) If Crown Castle undergrounded its accessory equipment, it would result in
multiple above ground venting stacks, each approximately 22 -inches in
diameter, and approximately 40 -inches in height.
3) By proposing a joint utility cabinet there will be a reduction in the number of
new vertical elements being introduced into the ROW. A joint cabinet
removes the need for the venting stacks. The drawback is the joint utility
cabinet would be approximately 11 -inches taller than the standard 48 -inch tall
SCE's meter pedestal.
4) Although RPVMC Section 12.18.080 (A)(6)(b) calls for undergrounding of all
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com
E-72
equipment, other than antennas, the City needs to make the final
determination as to whether vaulting or Crown Castle's proposed joint utility
cabinet constitutes the least visible equipment possible.
The SCN would be visually screened because of its location:
1) At the base of a 25 -foot tall landscaped slope;
2) Relative to the nearest structure, the three car garage for 30200 Cartier
Drive, is more than 60 -feet away, across Chartres Drive;
3) Relative to the views from surrounding properties, which are to the south
and west.
ii) To prevent the facility from dominating the surrounding area,-
Crown
rea;
Crown Castle's 14 -foot tall SCN would not dominate the surrounding area
because:
1) It is located at the base of a 25 -foot tall landscaped slope on the
north side of Chartres Drive ROW;
2) Existing foliage and topographic features provide screening and a
backdrop for the SCN that reduces its visual impacts.
3) The facility qualifies for a Class Three CEQA exemption, which
confirms that the facility will have no significant aesthetic impacts.
To minimize significant view impacts from surrounding properties;
The surrounding properties with views are primarily looking to south and west,
over Chartres Drive and Crown Castle's SCN. Crown Castle's SCN minimizes
significant view impacts from surrounding properties by:
1) Being located at the base of the 25 -foot tall landscaped slope on the north
side of Chartres Drive.
2) Being placed near property lines, taking advantage of existing
landscaping, and away from driveways and primary views.
3) It is located approximately 50 -feet east of the intersection with Cartier
Drive, thus using existing foliage and topographic features to screen the
SCN from surrounding properties, and travelers going south on Cartier
Drive.
4) The two closest properties to the SCN are 30200 Cartier Drive and 6475
Chartres Drive, which views are to the south away from the SCN. The
orientation of 30200 Cartier Drive is to the west creates the situation
where the SCN would only be visible to these residents from their
driveway. The orientation of 6475 Chartres Drive, approximately 75 -feet
east of the SCN, is to the south. The views of the SCN from this property
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com E-73
are screened by mature 25-30 foot tall mature trees that delineate the
property line between 30200 Cartier Drive and 6475 Chartres Drive.
iv) That achieves compatibility with the community and in compliance with RPVMC
Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration).
RPVMC Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration) addresses impacts to
residential views created by proposed residential structures on surrounding residential parcels.
The preservation of views is to be accomplished primarily through the pruning and removal of
foliage. There are several reasons why RPVMC Section 17.02.040 is inapplicable to Crown
Castle's proposed facilities:
1) First, Crown Castle's facilities are exclusively located within the ROW. As such, this
ordinance is inapplicable because Crown Castle's facilities are not located in a
residential zone and do not otherwise involve residential properties, uses or parcels.
2) Crown Castle has a certificate of public convenience and necessary ("CPCN") which
grants it a statewide franchise to occupy and place its facilities within the ROW. Local
zoning requirements are therefore inapplicable. Local regulatory authority is limited to
the time, place and manner in which a wireless facility may be erected or attached. This
ordinance is inapplicable because residential design standards, on residential parcels,
and their visual impacts on surrounding residences does not easily, nor rationally,
translate into proper or meaningful regulation of wireless telecommunication utility uses
within the ROW.
3) Section 17.02.040(A)(12) of RPVMC defines "Structure" as anything joined together in a
definitive manner, which is located on or on top of the ground on a parcel of land
utilized for residential purposes, 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 form or fashion. Moreover, "antennas" are
specifically excluded from consideration under this ordinance.
To the extent that RPVMC Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration) can
be found to be applicable to the siting of wireless facilities in the ROW (it cannot),
Crown Castle's SCN achieve compatibility with the surrounding community by being
designed to minimize visual, noise and other impacts.
b) Screening shall be designed to be architectural compatible with surrounding structures,
using appropriate techniques to camouflage, disguise, and/or blend into the
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com E-74
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 uses screening from existing foliage as well as natural and man-made
features in the surrounding environment to minimize visual impacts. The SCN blends with the
existing environment because it is located at the base of a 25 -foot high landscaped slope. The
SCN will be painted a non -reflective dark green color, or any color of the City's choosing, in
order to blend the facility into the nearby slope. Crown Castle's SCN is located in the ROW —
an area in the City already impacted with roadway improvements, decorative driveway
columns, utilities and other uses and appurtenances typical of — and proper to — the ROW.
c) Facilities shall be located such that views from a residential structure are not
significantly impaired. Facilities shall also be located in a manner that protects public
views over city view corridors, as defined in the City's general plan, so that no
significant view impairment results in accordance with this Code including Section
17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration).
Section 17.02.040(A)(14) of RPVMC defines View as including both a "near view", meaning
views of a natural setting on the peninsula; and/or "far view" defined as a scene off the
peninsula, such as the ocean, city lights, etc. The ordinance intends to prevent the significant
impairment of views and the maintenance of privacy.
Both Chartres Drive and Cartier Drive are classified as local streets in the Rancho Palos
Verdes General Plan, Circulation Element. There are no RPV General Plan designated view
corridors along or across either street. The topography of the area creates views for many
residences in the area along Cartier Drive to the west and over Chartres Drive and the SCN,
tucked tight to the approximately 25 -foot landscaped slope.
Crown Castle's SCN would not significantly impair the views from surrounding residential
properties, nor would it significantly impair public views over city view corridors. Existing
foliage and topographic features reduce impacts from the SCN on the immediate
neighborhood. Finally, the proposed facility has received a Class Three CEQA exemption
which definitively establishes that the proposed facility will not give rise to significant
environmental impacts, including aesthetic impacts.
All facilities shall be designed and located in such a manner as to avoid adverse impacts on
traffic safety.
Crown Castle free-standing SCN is designed and located to be placed on the inside, northern
edge of Chartres Drive ROW, abutting a 25 -foot high landscaped slope. The SCN is not
located in the lanes of travel, nor does it extend in any way over the roadway. The SCN
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com E-75
therefore avoids adverse impacts on traffic safety.
All facilities shall have subdued colors and non -reflective materials that blend with the
materials, and colors of the surrounding area and structures.
Crown Castle's SCN blends into the surrounding area and structures because it uses a dark
green, subdued, non -reflective paint that blends the facility into the adjacent landscaped slope.
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.
Crown Castle's SCN consists of a new fourteen (14) foot tall free-standing steel pole
with two (2) 21.4 -inch long antennas, and a joint utility cabinet (22.5 -inches wide by
12.6 -inches -deep by 59.1 -inches tall) that would house both Crown Castle's accessory
equipment and Southern California Edison's ("SCE") meter pedestal. The rationale for
Crown Castle proposing an above -ground equipment enclosure, contrary to the City's
ordinance is:
1) SCE requires that its meter pedestal (typically 48 -inches tall) be place above
ground, so there will, by necessity, be above -ground street furniture,
regardless of any undergrounding of other equipment;
2) If Crown Castle undergrounded its accessory equipment, it would result in
multiple above ground venting stacks, each approximately 22 -inches in
diameter, and approximately 40 -inches in height. Accordingly,
undergrounding does not necessarily result in the best screening measure.
3) By proposing a joint utility cabinet there will be a reduction in the number of
new vertical elements being introduced into the ROW. A joint cabinet
removes the need for venting stacks. The drawback is the joint utility cabinet
will be approximately 11 -inches taller than the standard 48 -inch tall SCE's
meter pedestal.
4) Although RPVMC Section 12.18.080 (A)(6)(b) calls for undergrounding of all
equipment, other than antennas, the City needs to make the final
determination as to whether vaulting or Crown Castle's proposed joint utility
cabinet constitutes the least visible equipment possible.
The antenna elements will be flush mounted, and the antenna mounts are designed so as
not to preclude possible future collocation by the same or other carriers. The antennas on
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com
E-76
14 -foot tall steel pole are as close to the ground as possible while meeting RF coverage
objectives up and down Cartier Drive. All visible Crown Castle telecommunication equipment
is to be painted a subdued, non -reflective dark green or any other earth tone color preferred by
the City.
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.
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. Both Cartier Drive and Chartres Drive are classified as local streets in the RPV
General Plan, Circulation Element.
7
Crown Castle needs to request an exception pursuant to Section 12.18.190 of the RPVMC
because a new pole is required, and it is not replacing an existing pole in an otherwise
permitted location. Per Section 12.18.080 A(12)(a) Crown Castle needs an exception
because its accessory equipment is not being proposed underground.
Crown Castle has undergrounded to the extent feasible all accessory equipment including an
underground fiber vault. There are three alternatives (Alternative 1; 2; and 3) that also meet
the RF coverage objective. Alternative 1 is a replacement of an existing traffic sign (stop sign)
on the corner of Cartier Drive and Chartres Drive, while Alternatives 2 and 3 would require a
new free-standing poles. The Primary's location is considered superior to the other viable
candidates because it is tucked away at the base of a 25 -foot tall landscaped slope, some 50 -
feet east of the intersection of Cartier Drive and Chartres. Therefore, the Primary was
determined to be the most compliant with the City's wireless ordinance because it would have
the least amount of impacts on surrounding properties and the community.
Per Section 12.18°190, Exceptions, The Planning Commission shall not grant any exception
unless Crown Castle demonstrates with clear and convincing evidence that:
The proposed wireless facility qualifies as a "personal wireless services
facility" as defined in United States Code, Title 47, section 332(c)(7)(C)(ii);
Crown Castle holds a certificate of public convenience and necessity
("CPCN") from the California Public Utilities Commission ("CPUC") to expand
the availability of wireless networks throughout the State. Please see Exhibit
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com E-77
D1b. Crown Castle's SCN qualifies as "personal wireless services facility" as
defined in United States Code, Title 47, section 332(c)(7)(C)(ii);
2. The applicant has provided the city with a clearly defined technical service
objective and a clearly defined potential site search area,-
Crown
rea;
Crown Castle has provided clearly defined technical service objective and a
clearly defined potential site search area. Please See Exhibits C3a-e.
3. The applicant has provided the city with a meaningful comparative analysis
that includes the factual reasons why any alternative location(s) or design(s)
suggested by the city or otherwise identified in the administrative record,
including but not limited to potential alternatives identified at any public
meeting or hearing, are not technically feasible or potentially available; and
With this site specific comparative analysis, Crown Castle is providing the
City with meaningful comparative analysis that includes the factual reasons
why the Primary location is superior to the other Alternatives evaluated.
There are three alternatives (Alternative 1; 2; and 3) that also meet the RF
coverage objective. Two of these viable alternatives (Alternative 2; and 3)
would require a new free-standing pole. Alternative 1 would require the
replacement of an existing traffic sign pole (stop sign). Alternative 1 was
determined to be inferior because the traffic sign pole replacement is in a much
more visible location at the corner of Cartier Drive and Chartres Drive.
The Primary's location is considered superior to the other viable candidates
because of the physical and visual backdrop the 25 -foot landscaped slope
provides the SCN. The Primary candidate's location 50 -feet east of the
intersection of Cartier Drive and Chartres Drive makes it less visually
prominent to surrounding properties and users of the ROW than other viable
alternatives.
4. The applicant has provided the city with a meaningful comparative analysis
that includes the factual reasons why the proposed location and design
deviates is the least noncompliant location and design necessary to
reasonably achieve the applicant's reasonable technical service objectives
With this site specific comparative analysis, Crown Castle is providing the City with
meaningful comparative analysis that includes the factual reasons why the Primary
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com E-78
location is the least noncompliant location and design necessary to reasonably achieve
Crown Castle's reasonable technical service objectives.
Crown Castle is proposing an above -ground, joint equipment cabinet to house both Crown
Castle's accessory equipment and SCE's electric power meter pedestal. Although the
ordinance calls for undergrounding all accessory equipment, Crown Castle believes that its
joint equipment cabinet represents the least noncompliant location and design because it
would introduce the fewest number of new vertical elements into the ROW.
Crown Castle is proposing a new fourteen (14) foot tall, free-standing steel pole on the
northern edge of Chartres Drive ROW. The Primary candidate is superior to other viable
alternatives because it provides adequate RF coverage up and down Cartier Drive, and
because it is located adjacent to 25 -foot landscaped slope that provides a physical and visual
backdrop to the SCN thus reducing its impacts to the community.
Section 12.18.080 A (13), Landscaping, at present Crown Castle does not intend to propose
any additional landscaping to further screen the proposed facility or accessory equipment
cabinet. The rationale behind this decision is that there is existing foliage in the ROW, and on
private property such as the 12 -foot high landscaped slope immediately north and adjacent to
Crown Castle's SCN that provides screening from most surrounding properties. Crown Castle
is not opposed to providing additional landscape screening so long as the City's landscaping
requirements are reasonably related to the visual impacts created by the proposed facility.
Crown Castle is committed to working with the City's landscape architect if additional
landscaping is determined to be desirable.
b. Only pole -mounted antennas shall be permitted in the right-of-way. All other
telecommunications towers are prohibited, and no new poles are permitted that are not
replacing an existing pole. (For exceptions see subparagraph (6)(h) below and sections
12.18.190 (Exceptions) and 12.18.220 (State or Federal Law).
Crown Castle's SCN is located on a proposed new pole in the ROW. Crown Castle is
requesting an exception per RPVMC Section 12.18.190.
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. All installations
on utility poles shall fully comply with the California Public Utilities Commission general
orders, including, but not limited to, General Order 95, as may be revised or superseded.
This provision is inapplicable because Crown Castle's SCN is not attaching to a utility pole.
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com
E-79
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.
This provision is inapplicable because Crown Castle's SCN is not attaching to a light 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.
This provision is inapplicable because Crown Castle's SCN is not a replacement pole.
f. Pole mounted equipment, exclusive of antennas, shall not exceed six cubic feet in
dimension.
Excluding antennas, Crown Castle's pole mounted equipment would be limited to some
cabling connecting the antennas to power and fiber optic backbone, connectors, brackets,
and GPS. Crown Castle's pole mounted equipment, excluding antennas, would therefore
not exceed six cubic feet in dimension.
g. [Reserved.]
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:
In accordance with this code section, Crown Castle is applying for an exception to place a
new pole in the public right-of-way.
i. All cables, including, but not limited to, electrical and utility cables, shall be run
within the interior of the pole and shall be camouflaged or hidden to the fullest extent
feasible. For all wooden poles wherein interior installation is infeasible, conduit and cables
attached to the exterior of poles shall be mounted flush thereto and painted to match the
pole.
All cables for this SCN, including, but not limited to, electrical and utility cables, run within
the interior of the new proposed steel pole.
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com E_80
12.18.080 (AP) Space.
Each facility shall be designed to occupy the least amount of space in the right-of-way that
is technically feasible.
Crown Castle's SCN consists of a new 17 -foot free-standing pole and a joint utility cabinet
(22.5 -inches wide by 12.6 -inches -deep by 59.1 -inches tall) to house SCE electric meter
pedestal and Crown Castle's accessory equipment. This configuration would take up less
space in the ROW than complying with RPVMC Section 12.18.080 (A)(6)(b) that requires
undergrounding of all equipment, other than antennas. The City needs to make the final
determination as to whether Crown Castle's joint utility cabinet constitutes the least amount of
space in the ROW that is technically feasible.
12.18.080 (A)(8) Wind Loads
Each facility shall be properly engineered to withstand wind loads as required by this code
or any duly adopted or incorporated code. An evaluation of high wind load capacity shall
include the impact of modification of an existing facility.
For new free-standing poles, wind loading is incorporated into the pole structural calculations.
There are no separate wind loading calculations included with this application.
12.18.080 (A1(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.
RPVMC Section 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility) discusses restrictions on various structures
and landscaping (>30 -inches) on corner lots near intersections for sight visibility reasons. The
ordinance states that these items shall not be erected, placed, planted or allowed to grow
within the triangular space referred to as the "intersection visibility triangle." The intersection
visibility triangle being the area formed by the intersection of extended curblines and a line
joining points on the curb sixty feet (measured along the curblines) from the point of
intersection of the curbline extensions.
Crown Castle's SCN is located within 60 -feet of an intersection. Crown Castle's SCN would
need to comply with the "intersection visibility triangle". Given that there is a steep 25 -foot
tall landscaped slope located immediately north of the SCN, drivers heading west on
Chartres Drive toward the stop sign on the corner with Cartier Drive would not have their
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrovwnCastle.com E-81
views of impacted. The intersection of Chartres Drive and Cartier Drive is a T -intersection.
Consequently, drivers on Chartres Drive natural must come to a complete stop to turn on to
Cartier Drive. The SCN would have not significantly impair nor obstruct traffic safety, nor the
intersection visibility triangle.
12.18.080 (A)(10) Public Facilities.
A facility shall not be located within any portion of the public right-of-way interfering with
access to a fire hydrant, fire station, fire escape, water valve, underground vault, valve
housing structure, or any other public health or safety facility.
Crown Castle's SCN is not 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. Please see the
Site Plan.
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.
Crown Castle's SCN has no pole -mounted equipment, excluding antennas, cabling,
connectors and brackets. Crown Castle's accessory equipment cabinet (22.5 -inches wide
by 12.6 -inches -deep by 59.1 -inches tall) will be set back at least 18 -inches from the curb
and gutter flow line. Please see the Site Plan
12.18.080 (A)(12) Accessory Eguiprnent.
Accessory Equipment. Not including 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 right-of-way for
undergrounding, or that undergrounding is not feasible, an exception shall be required in
order to place accessory equipment above -ground and concealed with natural or
manmade features to the maximum extent possible.
If Crown Castle undergrounded its accessory equipment it would result in compliance with
this ordinance section but multiple above ground venting stacks, each approximately 22 -
inches in diameter and approximately 40 -inches in height, would be required. Instead of
three (3) new vertical elements in the ROW involved with vaulting [2 venting stacks and the
The Foundation for a Wireless world.
CrownCastle.com
E -82
_Q
SCE's electrical meter pedestal], Crown Castle's is proposing a joint utility cabinet would
eliminate the need for the venting stacks and would only require that the joint cabinet be
approximately 11 -inches taller than the standard 48 -inch tall SCE's electric meter pedestal.
b. When above -ground is the only feasible location for a particular type of accessory
equipment and will be ground -mounted, such accessory equipment shall be enclosed
within a structure, and shall not exceed a height of five feet and a total footprint of 15
square feet, and shall be fully screened and/or camouflaged, including the use of
landscaping, architectural treatment, or acceptable alternate screening. Required
electrical meter cabinets shall be screened and/or camouflaged. Also, while pole -mounted
equipment is generally the least favored installation, should pole -mounted equipment be
sought, it shall be installed as required in this chapter.
With dimensions of 22.5 -inches wide by 12.6 -inches -deep by 59.1 -inches tall, Crown
Castle's joint utility cabinet would be less than the 5 -foot height and a total footprint of 15
square feet allowable under this RPVMC Section 12.18.080 (A)(12)(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.
Chartres Drive is classified as a local street in the RPV General Plan Circulation Element.
There are homes along both sides of the street. Crown Castle's above -ground joint
equipment cabinet would be installed at the base of a 25 -foot landscaped slope, near the
northern edge of the Chartres Drive ROW. This location would ensure that the SCN would
not be located in front of a residence.
12.18.080 (A)(13) Landscap n_q.
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 Chartres
Drive is characterized by large single family homes with mature landscaping. If the City
desires landscaping around Crown Castle's proposed joint utility cabinet or pole, Crown
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com E-83
Castle would be 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.
Crown Castle's SCN does not include any signs or advertising devices other than
certification, warning or other signage required by law or permitted by the City.
12.18.080 (A)(15) Lighting.
a. No facility may be illuminated unless specifically required by the Federal Aviation
Administration or other government agency. Beacon lights are not permitted unless
required by the Federal Aviation Administration or other government agency.
Crown Castle's SCN does not include any such illumination.
b. Legally required lightning arresters and beacons shall be included when calculating
the height of facilities such as towers, lattice towers and monopoles.
Crown Castle's SCN does not include lightning arresters and beacons that would increase
its height.
C. Any required lighting shall be shielded to eliminate, to the maximum extent possible,
impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods.
Any Crown Castle SCN lighting would be shielded to the maximum extent possible, to
eliminate impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods.
d. Unless otherwise required under FAA or FCC regulations, applicants may install
only timed or motion -sensitive light controllers and lights, and must install such lights so
as to avoid illumination impacts to adjacent properties to the maximum extent feasible.
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.
CrownCastle.com E-84
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)(16) (Noise.
a. Backup generators shall only be operated during periods of power outages, and
shall not be tested on weekends or holidays, or between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and
7:00 a.m.
Crown Castle SCN would not operate any backup generators outside City prescribed time
restrictions.
b. At no time shall equipment noise from any facility exceed an exterior noise level of
55 dBA three feet from the source of the noise if the facility is located in the public
right-of-way adjacent to a business, commercial, manufacturing, utility or school
zone; provided, however, that for any such facility located within 500 feet of any
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 SCN would comply with City noise standards. See Exhibit
J1a.
12.16.060 (A)(17) Security
Each facility shall be designed to be resistant to, and minimize opportunities for,
unauthorized access, climbing, vandalism, graffiti and other conditions that would result in
hazardous situations, visual blight or attractive nuisances. The director may require the
provision of warning signs, fencing, anti -climbing devices, or other techniques to prevent
unauthorized access and vandalism when, because of their location and/or accessibility, a
facility has the potential to become an attractive nuisance. Additionally, no lethal devices or
elements shall be installed as a security device.
Crown Castle's SCN does not have pole mounted equipment that is reachable by the
general public, nor is that equipment readily available for climbing or vandalism. Crown
Castle's joint utility accessory equipment cabinet is 22.5 -inches wide by 12.6 -inches -deep
by 59.1 -inches tall. This cabinet is similar in size to countless other utility cabinet located in
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com E-85
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.
12.18.080 (A)(18) Modification.
Consistent with current state and federal laws and if permissible under the same, at the time
of modification of a wireless telecommunications facility, existing equipment shall, to the
extent feasible, be replaced with equipment that reduces visual, noise and other impacts,
including, but not limited to, undergrounding the equipment and replacing larger, more
visually intrusive facilities with smaller, less visually intrusive facilities.
Crown Castle's SCN represents the latest in small cell wireless technology. As such,
Crown Castle's SCN uses the smallest equipment feasible to reduce visual, noise and
other impacts. Currently, there is no wireless facility to modify.
No permit shall be granted for a wireless telecommunications facility unless all of the
following findings are made by the director.
A. All notices required for the proposed installation have been given.
Crown Castle has or will provide all required notices for its proposed node.
B. The proposed facility has been designed and located in compliance with all
applicable provisions of this chapter.
Crown Castle's SCN is designed and located to be in compliance with applicable
provisions of this chapter. Crown Castle's SCN is in compliance with all applicable
provisions of this chapter, with the exception of the new 14 -foot tall steel pole and joint
Crown Castle/SCE equipment cabinet. While RPVMC Section 12.18.080 (A)(6)(b)
calls for the undergrounding all accessory equipment, RPVMC Section 12.18.080
(A)(5) and RPVMC Section 12.18.080 (A)(7) call for using the least visible equipment
and the least amount of space within the ROW. The introduction of fewer new vertical
elements in the ROW is the less intrusive equipment configuration. Ultimately, it will
be up to the City to determine which equipment configuration is the most compliant.
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com E-86
C. If applicable, the applicant has demonstrated its inability to locate on existing
infrastructure.
Along this stretch of Chartres Drive there is only one viable, existing infrastructure
facility (an existing traffic sign pole/stop sign) that could host Crown Castle's SCN. This
location, Alternative 1, is significantly more visible to the surrounding properties and the
community than the other viable candidates. Consequently, Crown Castle believes that
the Primary is the most compliant location. Crown Castle would be willing to accept,
any of the viable candidates that the City determines to be most compliant with the
City's wireless ordinance.
D. The applicant has provided sufficient evidence supporting the applicant's claim that
it has the right to enter the public right-of-way pursuant to state or federal law, or the
applicant has entered into a franchise agreement with the City permitting them to
use the public right-of-way.
Crown Castle has provided a copy of its certificate of public convenience and necessity
("CPCN"). See Exhibit D1b. Crown Castle has entered into a franchise agreement
with the City, whereby the City grants Crown Castle use of the ROW and City
infrastructure in return for rents. See Exhibit D1 a. 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 show that all
alternative locations and designs identified in the application review process were
technically infeasible or not available.
Comparative Analyses
Crown Castle can demonstrate that the proposed wireless facility is the least intrusive means
possible. Supported by factual evidence and a meaningful comparative analysis Crown Castle
can show that all alternative locations and designs identified in the application review process
were technically infeasible, inferior to the Primary or unavailable. Moreover, federal
telecommunications case law unequivocally establishes that municipalities cannot regulate in
the area of RF broadcasting. (See, e.g., Freeman v. Burlington Broadcasters, Inc., (2d Cir.
2000) 204 F.3d 311.) They have done so in the context of reviewing ordinances like the City's
wireless ordinance, and found that that "Congress intended the FCC to possess exclusive
authority over technical matters related to radio broadcasting" and that "Congress's grant of
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com
E-87
authority to the FCC was intended to be exclusive and to preempt local regulation." (Id. at
320-21; accord Southwestern Bell Wireless Inc. v. Johnson County Bd. of County Commis
(10th Cir. 1999) 199 F.3d 1185, 1193 [same principle cited]; N.Y. SMSA Ltd. P'ship v. Town of
Clarkstown (2nd Cir. 2010) 612 F.3d 97 ["Congress intended federal regulation of [radio
frequency interference] issues to be so pervasive as to occupy the field."]; Bennett v. T -Mobile
United States, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2008) 597 F. Supp. 2d 1050, 1053 [same principle cited].).
Crown Castle reserves its rights to challenge those portions of the City's WTF ordinance and
application that purport to regulate Crown Castle's facilities on the basis of RF coverage
objectives.
Primary Candidate (Location A) Proposed 14 -foot Tall Free -Standing SCN
Meets RF Coverage Objective: Up and down Cartier Drive
The proposed Primary Candidate is located entirely within the public ROW. Chartres Drive is
classified as a local roadway in the RPV Circulation Element. The Primary Candidate is
located on the north side of Chartres Drive, approximately 50 -feet east of the centerline of
Cartier Drive. Surrounding land uses include single-family residential in all directions.
The ROW parkway in this area is improved with turf, ground cover and maturing trees.
Numerous properties in the area have large driveway columns within the parkway. The SCN
would be located adjacent to the base of an approximately 25 -foot landscaped slope, covered
with ground cover and mature bushes. The proposed ROW Project location is sloping, with an
average slope less than 15%. Topography in the area is generally sloping north to south.
Crown Castle's SCN consists of attaching two (2) 21.4 -inch long antennas, mounted back to
back at the top of a proposed fourteen (14) foot tall free-standing steel pole. Crown Castle's
remaining accessory wireless equipment including two (2) ions would be located in an above-
ground enclosure, collocated within a joint utility cabinet with SCE's above ground power
meter pedestal. All visible Crown Castle telecommunication equipment would be painted dark
green or any other earth tone color preferred by the City. The proposed 14 -foot tall SCN
would be located near a 12 -foot landscaped slope, just north of the Chartres Drive ROW.
The nearest residence, 30200 Cartier Drive, is more than 60 -feet away and across Chartres
Drive. The placement of Crown Castle's SCN in the Primary location is driven by a multitude
of factors. Those factors include, but are not limited to, achieving the RF objective with as few
nodes a possible, the non-proliferation of wireless facilities and the placement of wireless
facilities within the public Rights -of -Way ("ROW") on non -local streets, whenever possible.
Alternative 1 (Location B) Proposed 17 -foot Tall Replacement Traffic/Stop Sign Pole
Meets RF Coverage Objective: Up and down Cartier Drive
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com E_88
This Alternative is located on the northeast corner of Cartier Drive and Chartres Drive, a T -
intersection. This Alternative is approximately 25 -feet west of the Primary, along Chartres
Drive. The nearest structure to the SCN is the three car garage for 30200 Cartier Drive
which is approximately 70 -feet away, across Chartres Drive. The next nearest structure,
30189 Cartier Drive, is more than 70 -feet away to the north, atop the 25 -foot landscaped
slope immediately adjacent to the SCN.
This Alternative meets the RF coverage objective and is located near foliage, natural and
man-made features that partially screen the SCN from surrounding properties. This location
may be more compliant with the letter of the City's wireless ordinance than the Primary
candidate because it proposes to use existing infrastructure within the ROW. This location,
however, is significantly more visually prominent for a SCN because it is located on the
corner. Consequently, Crown Castle believes the Primary is most compliant with the spirit of
the City's wireless ordinance. Crown Castle is open to relocating to this Alternative or any
other Alternative that achieves the SCN's RF coverage objective.
Alternative 3 (Location C) Proposed 14 --foot Tall Free -Standing SCN
Meets RF Coverage Objective: Up and down Cartier Drive
This Alternative is located approximately 70 -feet southeast of the Primary on the south side
of Chartres Drive, adjacent to the driveway entries for 30200 Cartier Drive and 6479Chartres
Drive. The Chartres Drive ROW parkway on this side of the street is improved with turf, a
mailbox and a few mature trees on private property. The nearest structure to the SCN is the
three car garage for 30200 Cartier Drive which is approximately 25 -feet away to the
southwest on Chartres Drive. The next nearest structure to the SCN is the three car garage
for 6479 Chartres Drive which is approximately 25 -feet away to the southeast.
Although this Alternative does not achieve the RF coverage, it was deemed inferior to the
Primary. This Alternative is closer to single family residential homes than any other viable
candidate. This Alternative's location between two driveway entries is typically the location
of last resort for siting a SCN. Given that there are other viable candidates from an RF
perspective, this location is considered inferior from an aesthetic and visual impact stand
point. Crown Castle is open to relocating to this Alternative or any other Alternative that
achieves the SCN's RF coverage objective.
Alternative 4 (Location ®) Proposed 14 -foot Tall Free -Standing SCN
Meets RF Coverage Objective: Up and down Cartier Drive
This Alternative is located approximately 55 -feet northwest of the Primary on the east side of
Cartier Drive, and approximately 35 -feet north of the northeast corner of Cartier Drive and
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com E_89
Chartres Drive. The Cartier Drive ROW parkway on this side of the street is below and
adjacent to 30182 Cartier Drive. It is improved with turf and an approximately 3 -foot tall
retaining wall, topped by a steep12-15 foot high slope with ground cover. Atop of this slope
is the driveway and turn around for 30182 Cartier Drive. The nearest structure to the SCN is
30182 Cartier Drive which is more than 50 -feet away, atop the retaining wall and landscaped
slope.
This Alternative does achieve the RF coverage objective for this SCN. This Alternative was
considered inferior to the Primary because it is located on Cartier Drive, a much busier
roadway than Chartres Drive. This Alternative is more visible to surrounding properties and
the community than other viable candidates. Consequently, Crown Castle believes the
Primary candidate or Alternative 1 (the stop sign replacement pole) are superior candidates.
Crown Castle is open to relocating to this Alternative or any other Alternative that achieves
the SCN's RF coverage objective.
Alternative 5 (Location E) Proposed 14 -foot Tall Free -Standing SCN
Does Not Meet RF Coverage Objective: Up and down Crestridge Road
This Alternative is located more than 660 -feet east of the Primary on the north side of
Chartres Drive, as it turns to the north. This Alternative is 10-15 feet north of the driveway
entry for 6443 Chartres Drive. The Chartres Drive ROW parkway in this location is
characterized by 15-20 foot tall landscaped slope that backs up to the rear of 6403 Chartres
Drive, the nearest structure to the SCN. Mature trees that line the northern edge of 6443
Chartres Drive's driveway provides some screening for the proposed SCN.
This Alternative does not meet the RF coverage objective for this SCN. Given that this
Alternative does not achieve the RF coverage objective, no further discussion is required of
this candidate.
Crown Castle has presented a comparative analysis between the Primary and the
Alternatives that were evaluated. While Crown Castle searched for existing wireless facilities
and infrastructure within the public ROW to attach to, only Alternative 1 (the traffic/stop sign
replacement pole) provided such an option in the area. Crown Castle's analysis
demonstrates it is using the "least intrusive means" to achieve its RF objective by using
minimally sized small cell technology and equipment, minimum antenna heights in order to
conform to the maximum extent possible with community values expressed in the City's design
and development standards. Crown Castle would be willing to accept any one of the viable
locations (the Primary; or Alternative 1; 2; 3 or 4) that satisfies the RF coverage objective, after
the City determines which candidate most conforms to the surrounding community's values.
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com
E-90
NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
Crown Castle
Ground -Mounted Two Remote Configuration
Site Name: ASG33
Across From 6480 Chartres Dr
Rancho Palos Verdes, California
Prepared For
Crown Castle
Attention: Aaron Snyder
300 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 1200
Irvine, California 92618
Phone: 949-344-7834
Prepared By
Eilar Associates, Inc.
Acoustical & Environmental Consulting
210 South Juniper Street, Suite 100
Escondido, California 92025
www.eilarassociates.com
Phone: 760-738-5570
Fax: 760-738-5227
10/12/2016
E-91
EILAR ASSOCIATES, INC.
Acoustical and Environmental Consulting
2.10 South Juniper Street, Suite 100, Escondido, CA 92025
Phone: 760-738-5570 or 800-439-8205 • Fax: 760-738-5227
www.eilarassociates.com • info@eilarassociates.com
August 11, 2016
Job #B60622N1
Crown Castle
Attention: Aaron Snyder
300 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 1200
Irvine, California 92618
Subject: Equipment Noise Measurements for Crown Castle (Ground -Mounted Two
Remote Configuration)
Eilar Associates has conducted equipment noise measurements of the ground -mounted cabinet
at an existing Crown Castle node location known as AHW11. These equipment noise
measurements were conducted to determine compliance with City of Rancho Palos Verdes
noise regulations for future similar installations.
Equipment Noise Sources
Noise measurements were taken of the existing equipment cabinet located at 691 Paseo de Playa
in the City of Torrance, California. The equipment is located within the public right-of-way. The
equipment consists of two Andrew IONS 1) M17HP/9HP unit and 1) M7HP/85HP-EU unit
installed inside of a CISH51 equipment pedestal that was ground -mounted at the site. The entire
installation will hereafter be referred to as "cabinet' in this report. The cabinet is the only source
of noise associated with Crown Castle at this location and likewise is expected to be the only
source of noise at future similar installations.
Noise and Sound Level Descriptors
All noise level or sound level values presented herein are expressed in terms of decibels (dB), with
A -weighting, abbreviated "dBA," to approximate the hearing sensitivity of humans. Time -averaged
noise levels are expressed by the symbol "LEQ." Unless a different time period is specified, "LEQ" is
implied to mean a period of one hour.
Methodology
Attenuation due to distance is calculated by the equation:
SPL, = SPL, — 20 log( D2 )
D,
where SPL, = Known sound pressure level at known distance,
SPL2 = Calculated sound pressure level at distance,
D, = Distance from source to location of known sound pressure level, and
D2= Distance from source to location of calculated sound pressure level.
E-92
Equipment Noise Measurements for Crown Castle (Ground -Mounted Two Remote Configuration) August 11, 2016
Job #B60622N1 Page 2 of 4
This is identical to the more commonly used reference of 6 dB reduction for every doubling of
distance. This equation does not take into account reduction in noise due to atmospheric
absorption.
Applicable Noise Standards
The noise regulations applicable to installations in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes are contained
within the City Municipal Code, which specifies noise limits for wireless telecommunications
facilities located within the public right-of-way. Section 12.18.080, Item A16b of the municipal code
states the following:
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.
As installations located within 500 feet of residential property will be subject to meeting the more
stringent 45 dBA noise limit, this noise limit has been considered the appropriate threshold for all
future installations in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Measurement Equipment
The following equipment was used at the existing equipment site to measure noise levels:
• Larson Davis Model LxT Type 1 Integrating Sound Level Meter, Serial #4084
• Larson Davis Model CA250 Type 1 Calibrator, Serial #2625
• Tripods, microphones with windscreens
The sound level meter was field -calibrated immediately prior to all noise level measurements and
checked afterwards, to ensure accuracy. All sound level measurements conducted and presented
in this report were made with sound level meters that conform to the American National Standards
Institute specifications for sound level meters (ANSI S1.4). All instruments are maintained with
National Bureau of Standards traceable calibration, per the manufacturers' standards.
On -Site Noise Level Measurements
A site visit at the AHW11 site was conducted during the late night hours of Monday, August 8, 2016
and early morning hours of Tuesday, August 9, 2016 to perform noise level measurements while
the cabinet was in operation and to determine ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the cabinet.
During the ambient noise measurement, the microphone position was placed approximately five
feet above grade, while the microphone was placed at a height of three feet, ten inches for all
measurements taken of the cabinet itself.
An ambient noise measurement was performed approximately 20 feet south of the cabinet location.
As equipment noise was inaudible at this location, this measurement was able to effectively
determine the ambient noise environment without the influence of the equipment. The primary
contributors to the ambient noise environment were traffic on nearby roadways, and rooftop
mechanical equipment from a nearby property. The ambient noise level was measured to be 40.0
dBA at 12:00 a.m. As cabinet noise measurements were paused for extraneous noise sources, this
Eilar Associates, Inc. • 210 South Juniper Street, Suite 100, Escondido, CA 92025- 760-738-5570 • Fax 760-738-5227
E-93
Equipment Noise Measurements for Crown Castle (Ground -Mounted Two Remote Configuration) August 11, 2016
Job #1360622N1 Page 3 of 4
noise measurement is considered to be representative of the ambient noise at the cabinet noise
measurement locations during the measurements detailed herein.
Noise level measurements of the cabinet were performed at one foot from the front side of the
cabinet, and were then adjusted to determine the noise level at three feet using the distance
attenuation calculation detailed herein. Noise levels were observed to be quieter at all other sides
of the cabinet, and therefore, noise measurement results from the front of the cabinet can be
considered worst-case. The cabinet operates continuously at a single speed, and for this reason,
the short duration measurements detailed below are considered to be representative of the noise
levels generated by the cabinet at all times. Please refer to Table 1 for the noise measurement
data and adjusted noise levels of the cabinet. A graphical representation of noise measurement
locations is shown in Figure 1.
Table 1. Noise Measurements and Adjusted Noise Levels at AHW11 Equipment Site
Noise Level (dBA)
j Start Time
Position
Duration
Noise Limit
Compliance
(sec)
At 1' from
At 3' from
(dBA)
I
Cabinet
Cabinet
11:53 p.m.
Front
90
51.3
41.8
45 at 3'
Yes
As shown above, cabinet noise levels are shown to be approximately 41 to 42 dBA at three feet
from the cabinet, falling below the 45 dBA noise limit of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. These
noise levels do not account for any adjustment due to the ambient noise environment at the AHW11
site, which would demonstrate noise levels that are further reduced from what is shown herein.
As noise levels at three feet from the cabinet in its current installation at AHW11 are shown to be
less than the most stringent noise limit of 45 dBA at three feet from the equipment, and as
equipment within the cabinet operates constantly, it can be concluded that future similar
installations will also comply with the applicable residential noise regulations of the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes, provided the identical shroud and two ION units are used. As sites located within
nonresidential areas would be subject to meeting higher noise limits (55 dBA at three feet from
equipment), noise levels at installations located in nonresidential areas would also be expected to
comply with applicable noise limits. Based on the noise measurements documented herein, no
mitigation is deemed necessary for attenuating exterior noise levels from wireless equipment
operation at future similar installations.
Conclusion
Noise levels generated by the ground -mounted two remote configuration equipment at the AHW11
node were determined to be in compliance with City of Rancho Palos Verdes noise regulations,
which require noise levels that do not exceed 45 dBA at three feet from wireless equipment in the
right-of-way near residential properties. Based on these noise measurements, it can be concluded
that future similar installations will also comply with the applicable noise regulations of the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes in both residential and nonresidential areas, provided the identical shroud
and two ION units are used. Based on the noise measurements documented herein, no mitigation
is deemed necessary for attenuating exterior noise levels from wireless equipment operation at
future similar installations.
Eilar Associates, Inc. • 210 South Juniper Street, Suite 100, Escondido, CA 92025. 760-738-5570 • Fax 760-738-5227
E-94
Equipment Noise Measurements for Crown Castle (Ground -Mounted Two Remote Configuration) August 11, 2016
Job #860622N1 Page 4 of 4
This report is based on project information received and measured noise levels, and represents a
true and factual analysis of the acoustical impact issues associated with Crown Castle Ground -
Mounted Two Remote Configuration installations in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California.
This report was prepared by Jonathan Brothers, Dan Gershun, and Amy Hool.
EILAR ASSOCIATES, INC.
J11WL11U'_;
1 2
Amy Hoo �. rincip` 1 Acoustical Consultant
Figures
Jona Brothers, Senior Acoustical Consultant
Satellite Aerial Photograph Showing Noise Source and Noise Measurement Locations at
AHW11 Site
Eilar Associates, Inc. • 210 South Juniper Street, Suite 100, Escondido, CA 92025 0 760-738-5570 • Fax 760-738-5227
E-95
FIGURES
E-96
E-97
STATE OF CAUFORNIA Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
506 VAR NESS AVENUE
SAN FRANUSGO, GA 94'02-1795
November 12, 2014
Mary Chiodo
Crown Castle.
2000 Corporate Drive
Canonsburg, PA 15317
Dear Ms. Chiodo:
NextG Networks of California/Crown Castle submitted a Notice of Proposed Construction for
the installation of (1) new micro -antenna; (2) new underground/aerial fiber optic cable; (3) new
and replacement utility poles in Rancho Palos Verdes, California. The NPC reqtlests the Energy
Division to act upon NextGs request for a determination that the proposed project is consistent
writh the activities identified as categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) by the California Public Utilities Commission (Commission).
In January 2003, the Commission granted NextG the authority to operate as limited Iflacilities-
based (LFB' carrier in California. In May 2006, NextG submitted A.06-05-031 seeking
expansion of its LFB authority to include the installation of Distributed Antenna Systern (DAS)
micro -antennae and other related equipment in California. In the application, NextG stated that
its projects may include the installation of a limited number of new poles, small scale Or micro -
trenching, conduit installation, and the installation of laterals. Under D.07-04-045- the
Commission determined that the projects planned by NextG would fall within one of several
categorical exemptions identified under CEQA, and that further environmental review would not
be required
The Energy Division has reviewed the Next(_-T/Crown Castle proposal to install DAS equipment
in Rancho Palos Verdes and has determined that the proposed project is consistent with the
actions identified by the Commission as categorically exempt from CEQ.A. The Energy
Division hereby grants NextG with the authority to proceed with the construction of the proJect
as described in the b; PC.
Sincerely,
ti
�—ensen Uchida
California Public Utilities Commission
Regulatory Analyst
7/14/2016
ULS License - Cellular License- KNKA351 -AT&T Mobility Spectrum LLC
AT&TULS License
Cellular License - KNKA351 - #Spectrum
Call Sign
KNKA351
Status
Active
Market
11/06/2007 Expiration
Market
CMA002 - Los Angeles -Long
Five Year Buildout Bate
Beach/Anaheim
Radio Service CL - Cellular
Auth Type Regular
Channel Block A
Submarket
0 Phase
Oates
Grant
11/06/2007 Expiration
Effective
12/05/2014 Cancellation
Five Year Buildout Bate
11/22/1998
Control Points
1
6045 EAST SLAUSON AVENUE, COMMERCE, CA
2
301 NORTH CRESCENT WAY, ANAHEIM, CA
3
15215 SOUTH BROADWAY, GARDENA, CA
All Control Points
(4)
FRN 0014980726 Type
Licensee
N
10/01/2017
Limited Liability Company
AT&T Mobility Spectrum LLC P:(855)699-7073
3300 E. Renner Road, 83132 F:(972)907-1131
Richardson, TX 75082 E:FCCMW@att.com
ATTN Reginald Youngblood
Contact
AT&T Mobility LLC P:(202)457-2055
F:(202)457-3073
1120 20th Street, NW - Suite 1000 E:michael,p.goggin@att.com
Washington, DC 20036
ATTN Michael P. Goggin
Radio Service Type Fined
Regulatory Status Common Carrier Interconnected Yes
Alien Ownership
The Applicant answered "No" to each of the Alien Ownership questions.
Basic Qualifications
The Applicant answered "No" to each of the Basic Qualification questions.
Race
hUp://\,Niireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/U I sSearch/l i cense.j sp?I i cKey=12514&printable E-99 1/2
7/14/2016
ULS License- PCS Broadband License- KNLF205- NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC
ULS License
PCS Broadband License - KNLF205 - NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS,
LLC
Call Sign
KNLF205
Status
Active
Market
Market
MTA002 - Los Angeles -San Diego
Submarket
37
Dates
Grant 06/05/2015
Effective 06/05/2015
Buildout Deadlines
1st 06/23/2000
Notification Dates
1st 05/05/2000
FRN 0003291192
Licensee
NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC
3300 E. Renner Road, 83132
Richardson, TX 75.082
ATTN Reginald Youngblood
Contact
AT&T MOBILITY LLC
Michael P Goggin
1120 20th Street, NW - Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20036
ATTN Michael P. Goggin
Radio Service Type Mobile
Radio Service CW - PCS Broadband
Auth Type Regular
Channel Block B
Associated 001870.00000000 -
Frequencies 001885.00000000
(MHz) 001950.00000000-
001965.00000000
Expiration 06/23/2025
Cancellation
2nd 06/23/2005
2nd 03/14/2003
Type Limited Liability Company
P:(855)699-7073
F:(972)907-1131
E:FCCMW@att.com
P:(202)457-2055
F:(202)457-3073
E:michael.p.goggin@att.com
Regulatory Status Common Carrier Interconnected Yes
Alien Ownership
The Applicant answered "No" to each of the Alien Ownership questions.
Basic Qualifications
The Applicant answered "No" to each of the Basic Qualification questions.
Tribal Land Bidding Credits
This license did not have tribal land bidding credits.
http://\Aiireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UisSearch/license.jsp?iicKey=8882&has Lease=Y&printable E-100 1/2
7/14/2016 ULS License- 700 MHz Lower Band (Blocks A, B & E) License- WQJQ721 -AT&T Mobility Spectrum LLC
ULS License
700 MHz Lower Band (Blocks A, B & E) License - WQJQ721 - AT&T
Mobility Spectrum LLC
Call Sign WQJQ721
Status Active
Market
Market CMA002 - Los Angeles -Long
Beach/Anaheim
Submarket 0
Dates
Grant
11/26/2008
Effective
02/12/2014
Buildout Deadlines
1st
12/13/2016
Notification
Dates
1st
06/28/2013
FRN 0014980726
Licensee
AT&T Mobility Spectrum LLC
3300 E. Renner Road, B3132
Richardson, TX 75082
ATTN Reginald Youngblood
Contact
AT&T Mobility LLC
Michael P Goggin
1120 20th Street, NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20036
Radio Service Type Mobile
Radio Service WY - 700 MHz Lower Band (Blocks
A,B&E)
Auth Type Regular
Channel Block B
Associated 000704.00000000 -
Frequencies 000710.00000000
(MHz) 000734.00000000-
000740.00000000
Expiration 06/13/2019
Cancellation
2nd 06/13/2019
2nd
Type Limited Liability Company
P:(855)699-7073
F:(972)907-1131
E:FCCMW@att.com
P:(202)457-2055
F:(202)457-3073
E:michael.p.goggin@att.com
Regulatory Status Common Carrier Interconnected Yes
Alien Ownership
The Applicant answered "No" to each of the Alien Ownership questions.
Basic Qualifications
The Applicant answered "No" to each of the Basic Qualification questions.
Tribal Land Bidding Credits
This license did not have tribal land bidding credits.
http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UIsSearch/license.jsp?licKey=3060348&printable E-101 1/2
7/14/2016
ULS License
PCS Broadband Li
ULS License - PCS Broadband License - WQHT993- AT&T Mobility Spectrum LLC
Cali Sign WQHT993
Radio Service
CW - PCS Broadband
Status Active
Auth Type
Regular
Market
Market MTA002 - Los Angeles -San Diego
Channel Block
B
Submarket 14
Associated
001870.00000000 -
Frequencies
001885.00000000
(MHz)
001950.00000000-
001965.00000000
Dates
Grant 06/10/2015
Expiration
06/23/2025
Effective 06/10/2015
Cancellation
Buildout Deadlines
1st
2nd
(notification Dates
1st
2nd
FRN 0014980726
Type
Limited Liability Company
Licensee
AT&T Mobility Spectrum LLC
P:(855)699-7073
3300 E. Renner Road, B3132
F:(972)907-1131
Richardson, TX 75082
E:FCCMW@att.com
ATTN Reginald Youngblood
Contact
AT&T Mobility LLC P: (202)457-2055
F:(202)457-3073
1120 20th Street, NW - Suite 1000 E:michael.p.goggin@att.com
Washington, DC 20036
ATTN Michael P. Goggin
Radio Service Type Mobile
Regulatory Status Common Carrier Interconnected Yes
Alien ownership
The Applicant answered "No" to each of the Alien Ownership questions.
Basic Qualifications
The Applicant answered "No" to each of the Basic Qualification questions.
Tribal Land Bidding Credits
This license did not have tribal land bidding credits..
hbp:Hwireless2.fcc.gov/UIsApp/UIsSearch/iicense.jsp?iicKey=2957918&printable E-102 1/2
7/14/2016
ULS License - AWS (1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz) License-WQGA742- AT&T Mobility Spectrum LLC
ULS License
AWS (1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz) License - WQGA742 - AT&T
Mobility Spectrum LLC
Call Sign WQGA742
Status Active
Market
Market CMA002 - Los Angeles -Long
Beach/Anaheim
Submarket 1
Dates
Grant 11/29/2006
Effective 02/12/2014
Buildout Deadlines
1st
Notification Dates
1st
FRN 0014980726
Licensee
AT&T Mobility Spectrum LLC
3300 E. Renner Road, B3132
Richardson, TX 75082
ATTN Reginald Youngblood
Contact
AT&T Mobility LLC
Michael P Goggin
1120 20th Street, NW - Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20036
ATTN Michael P. Goggin
Radio Service Type Mobile
Radio Service AW - AWS (1710-1755 MHz and
2110-2155 MHz)
Auth Type Regular
Channel Block A
Associated 001710.00000000 -
Frequencies 001720.00000000
(MHz) 002110.00000000-
002120.00000000
Expiration 11/29/2021
Cancellation
2nd
2nd
Type Limited Liability Company
P:(855)699-7073
F:(972)907-1131
E:FCCMW@att.com
P:(202)457-2055
F:(202)457-3073
E:michael.p.goggin@att.com
Regulatory Status Common Carrier Interconnected Yes
Alien Ownership
The Applicant answered "No" to each of the Alien Ownership questions.
Basic Qualifications
The Applicant answered "No" to each of the Basic Qualification questions.
Tribal Land Bidding Credits
This license did not have tribal land bidding credits.
hUp://wi reless2.fcc.gov/U I sApp/U I sSearch/li cense.j sp?I i cl/ey=2862653&printable 1 /2
E-103
7/14/20'16
ULS License- PCS Broadband License- KNLG4.72-AT&T Mobility Spectrum LLC
ULS License
PCS Broadband License - KNLG472 - AT&T Mobility Spectrum LLC
Call Sign KNLG472
Radio Service
CW - PCS Broadband
Status Active
Auth Type
Regular
Market
Market BTA262 - Los Angeles, CA
Channel Block
D
Submarket 0
Associated
001865.00000000 -
Frequencies
001870.00000000
(MHz)
001945.00000000-
001950.00000000
Dates
Grant 06/21/2007
Expiration
04/28/2017
Effective 12/05/2014
Cancellation
Buildout Deadlines
1st 04/28/2002
2nd
Notification Dates
1st 01/14/2002
2nd
FRN 0014980726
Type
Limited Liability Company
Licensee
AT&T Mobility Spectrum LLC
P:(855)699-7073
3300 E. Renner Road, B3132
F:(972)907-1131
Richardson, TX 75082
E:FCCMW@att.com
ATTN Reginald Youngblood
Contact
AT&T Mobility LLC P:(202)457-2055
F:(202)457-3073
1120 20th Street, NW - Suite 1000 E:michael.p.goggin@att.com
Washington, DC 20036
ATTN Michael P. Goggin
Radio Service Type Mobile
Regulatory Status Common Carrier Interconnected Yes
Alien Ownership
The Applicant answered "No" to each of the Alien Ownership questions.
Basic Qualifications
The Applicant answered "No" to each of the Basic Qualification questions.
Tribal Land Bidding Credits
This license did not have tribal land bidding credits:
htip://vvireless2.fcc.gov/UIsApp/UIsSearch/license.jsp;JSESSIONID_ULSSEARCH=:GK\yXnhVROC6p1rr101<VJ5snJRT16ybLNWIR9slzpnlP��Qp12129... 1/2
7/14/2016 ULS License- 700 MHz Lower Band (Blocks C, D) License - WPWU990- AT&T Mobility Spectrum LLC
ULS License
700 MHz Lower Band (Blocks C, D) License - WPWU990 - AT&T Mobility
Spectrum LLC
Call Sign WPWU990
Status Active
Market
Market CMA002 - Los Angeles -Long
Beach/Anaheim
Submarket 0
Dates
Grant 01/24/2003
Effective 12/05/2014
Buildout Deadlines
1st 06/13/2019
Notification Dates
1st
FRN 0014980726
Licensee
AT&T Mobility Spectrum LLC
3300 E. Renner Road, B3132
Richardson, TX 75082
ATTN Reginald Youngblood
Contact
AT&T Mobility LLC
1120 20th Street, NW - Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20036
ATTN Michael P. Goggin
Radio Service WZ - 700 MHz Lower Band (Blocks
C, D)
Auth Type Regular
Channel Block C
Associated 000710.00000000 -
Frequencies 000716.00000000
(MHz) 000740.00000000-
000746.00000000
Expiration 06/13/2019
Cancellation
2nd
2nd
Type Limited Liability Company
P:(855)699-7073
F:(972)907-1131
E:FCCMW@att.com
P:(202)457-2055
F:(202)457-3073
E:michael.p.goggin@att.com
Radio Service Type Fixed, Mobile, Radio Location
Regulatory Status Common Carrier Interconnected Yes
Alien Ownership
The Applicant answered "No" to each of the Alien Ownership questions.
Basic Qualifications
The Applicant answered "No" to each of the Basic Qualification questions.
Tribal Land Bidding Credits
This license did not have tribal land bidding credits.
http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UIsApp/UIsSearclVIicense.jsp?i1cKey=2479929&printable E-105 1/2
Map of all existing and proposed facilities
ar
ard 140cles
P
so 0
iIC4 tic 0
RON jig
-Ii Ils
No
10 E M- at e
0
I'D m 0
PA L 0 S ---:kZVD L
N. .7.4 401-
Send 370 ft
Barkentine Jk
P
s5n
-19
L! rel R'li PeCII o
T. -
'Qi d£3s
—Z— L'iii iii t
Fren ah1p cI
CROWN Proprietary &
CASTLE Confidential
38
E-106
LTE Coverage Analysis
Market Dame: Los Angeles
•:* Rancho Palos Verdes Area oDAS
❖ Plots Completion Date: August 15, 2016
E-107
LTE Existing Macro/oDAS (PCS 1900MHz) - Coverage
E-108
LTE Coverage from Proposed New oDAS (PCS 1900MHz)
E-109
LTE Coverage (Existing Macro/oDAS and Proposed New oDAS) — PCS 1900MHz
E-110
LTE Existing Macro/oDAS (700MHz) - Coverage
E-111
LTE Coverage from Proposed New oDAS (700MHz)
E-112
• Pa- 1a1.-.. • - .1 LEGEND:
Indoor Signal -75d6m
��. , ti
Outdoor Signal -98dl3m
_3G Marginal to Poor
` 44
y� �r
now
fe
41
sJ k
I '*
} `
r
k _ w
• r
2014 AT&T Intellectual Property. All rights reserved AT&T and the AT&T Togo are trademarks of AT&T Intellectual Property
r
August 15, 2016 aW
CROWN
CASTLE
Crown Castle NG West LLC
Site Justification Narrative
Submitted to
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Crown Castle
500 Spectrum Center Drive
Suite '1200
Irvine, CA 92618
Submitted Pursuant to City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code Title 12
Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 12.18.080
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com E-114
CnJvvn Castle NG West LLC ("Crown Castle") provides Vxin8|8ss carriers with the infrastructure they
need tOkeep people connected and business running. With approximately 4O.000towers and l8,OQO
small cell nodes supported byapproximately l7,0OQmiles gffiber, Crown Castle iSthe nation's largest
provider of shared wireless infrastructure, with 8 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 SVSteDl capable ofdelivering wireless
services tOcustomers Ofmultiple carriers such asVerizon, AT&J�Sprint, Metro PCS aDdT-Mobile. The
elements of Crown Castle's SCN are grnGll-SC8le 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 Cast|eSCN therefore
allows one aesthetically unobtrusive system to take the place of multiple antennas or macro -sites
constructed by individual carriers — a single, streamlined solution that avoids the prospect of multiple
carrier -constructed antenna facilities servicing a given area. Put another way, Crown Castle SCNisthe
equivalent of a collocation system, as it permits many carriers to provide their services over one
system with only a single series of vertical elements.
2. THE PROJECT.
A. The Network.
Crown Castle proposes to develop a SCN network with thirty nine (39) small cell nodes (SCN)' in the
ROW in the City ofRancho Palos Verdes ("Network"). These nodes are described below. This is an
application for one Ofthose SCNsubmitted t0the City OfRancho Palos Verdes /"RPV°\for review by
the Department ofPublic Works. This particular location will provide needed wireless broadband and
telecommunications services and the addition ofcritical network and capacity /"ServiceA[ea"\. (Fora
1 A SCN "node," as used herein, is a small -format antenna facility mounted to a streetlight, traffic signalpo|e.
utility pole orstreet sign pole.
The Foundation for aWireless World.
8456717.1 CrovvnCaut|e.com
E_1 15
more detailed discussion of the significant gap in the Service Area, see Section 7A, infra; see also
Network Map.) Each of the 39 nodes comprising the Network will utilize existing streetlight poles,
traffic sign poles, utility poles and street sign poles located in the ROW, whenever possible. In some
instances, however, a new pole is being proposed in the ROW because there are no existing viable
alternative from an RF perspective to achieve the coverage objective.
Each SCN receives an optical signal from a central hub and distributes the signal to the SCN via fiber
optic cable. The optical signal is then propagated from the SCN in the form of radio frequency (RF)
transmissions. Distribution of signal from the hub to the low-power, low -profile SCN, allows carriers to
provide wireless telecommunications and data services to areas otherwise difficult to reach with
conventional wireless telecommunications facilities. The SCN locations are:
CCI
Node
ID
Street Address/Cross Street
Site Type
ASGO8
Across from 30505 Calle de Suenos
S/L REPL
ASG09
30461 Camino Porvenir
S/L REPL
ASG 10
Across from Los Verdes Golf Club
S/L REPL
ASG11
NE Corner of Gingerroot/Narcissa
Ex Wood Util
ASG12
24 Narcissa Rd
Ex Wood Util
ASG 13
72 Narcissa Dr
Ex Wood Util
ASG15
28151 Highridge
New Pole/Repl
Street sign
ASG21
Basswood/Silverspur
S/L REPL
ASG25
27665 Longhill
S/L REPL
ASG31
28809 Crestridge
New Pole
ASG32
corner of Whitley/Scottwood
Streetlight pole
Replacement
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
6456717.1 CrownCastle.com
E-116
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
6456717.1 CrownCastle.com E-117
("S/L REPL")
ASG33
Across 6480 Chartres Drive
New Pole
(concrete)
ASG34
6960 Verde Ridge
S/L REPL
ASG35
6722 Abbottswood
S/L REPL
ASG36
Across from 28825 Doverridge
New Pole
(concrete)
ASG37
Along Ridgegate Drive near Southridge
S/L REPL
ASG38
7025 Maycroft
S/L REPL
ASG39
26804 Grayslake Rd
Existing Wood
Utility Pole ("Ex
Wood Util") or
S/L REPL
ASG41
Palos Verdes Drive South near Seacliff
New Pole
ASG42
5207 Valley View
S/L REPL
ASG43
5721 Crestridge
New Pole
ASG44
Armaga Spring @ Meadow Mist
S/L REPL
ASG45
Adjacent to 28403 San Nicholas Dr
S/L REPL
ASG47
Across from 3087 Crownview/Highpoint
New Pole
ASG48
Basswood @ Mossbank
S/L REPL
ASG49
Crest Rd
Ex Wood Util or
S/L
ASG53
Adjacent to 6505 Monero
Ex Wood Util or
S/L
ASG55
30001 Via Rivera, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
S/L REPL
ASG64
South of 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West
New Pole
ASG69
Across 3486 Seaglen Dr.
S/L REPL
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
6456717.1 CrownCastle.com E-117
ASG70
Across from 5828 Montemalaga
New Pole
ASG72
Palos Verdes Drive (Abalone Cove) S of Narcissa
New Pole
ASG73
Hawthorne at Vallon Drive
Traffic Signal
Replacement
ASG74
31297 1/2 Palos Verdes Dr E @ Ganado
(LA0362)
S/L REPL—ExAtt
LA0194
approx 5127 Palos Verdes Drive S
Existing AT&T
("Ex AT&T")
LA0196
Palos Verdes Drive S @ Boundary Trail
Ex AT&T
LA0351
Schooner Drive
Ex AT&T
LA0358
approx 9522 Palos Drive E
Ex AT&T
LAR069
Silver Spur Rd @ Monternalaga
Ex AT&T POLE
Replacement
By using existing vertical infrastructure within the ROW whenever possible, the project seeks to reduce
the addition of new vertical elements, thereby minimizing intrusions into the ROW.
B. The Features of the Network Facilities.
A majority of the nodes will consist of two (2) 24 -inch long antennas mounted back-to-back on existing
streetlights, utility poles, traffic sign poles or street sign poles, two (2) fiber converters collocated with
the Southern California Edison ("SCE") electric meter pedestals that would power the nodes. The total
height of the facility, measured from grade level, is typically 13'-6" for traffic sign poles, street sign
poles and free-standing poles, and up to 33-6" for streetlight poles and utility poles. (See 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).
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
6456717.1 CrownCastle.com
E-118
3. THE APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL.
Crown Castle presents this analysis pursuant to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code Title
12 ® Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 12.18.080. (Requirements for Facilities within Public Rights -of -Way).
Specifically, this narrative demonstrates the demands and rationale that led to the selection of a
particular location and design for the wireless telecommunication facilities proposed herein.
A. Applicable State Law.
Crown Castle is a "competitive local exchange carrier" ("CLEC"). CLECs qualify as a "public utility" and
therefore have a special status under state law. By virtue of California Public Utilities Commission
("CPUC") issuance of a "certificate of public convenience and necessity" ("CPCN"), CLECs have
authority under state law to "erect poles, posts, piers, or abutments" in the ROW subject only to local
municipal control over the "time, place and manner" of access to the ROW. (Pub. Util. Code, §§ 1001,
7901; 7901.1; see Williams Communication v. City of Riverside (2003) 114 Cal.App. 4th 642, 648 [upon
obtaining a CPCN, a telephone corporation has "the right to use the public highways to install [its]
facilities."].)
The CPUC has issued a CPCN (attached as Exhibit D1b) which authorizes Crown Castle to construct the
Network pursuant to its regulatory status under state law. Crown Castle's special regulatory status as a
CLEC gives rise to a vested right to use the ROW in the City to "construct ... telephone lines along and
upon any public road or highway, along or across any of the waters or lands within this State" and to
Iterect poles, posts, piers, or abutments for supporting the insulators, wires, and other necessary
fixtures of their lines, in such manner and at such points as not to incommode the public use of the
road or highway[.]" (Pub. Util. Code, § 790.1.) The nature of the vested right was described by one
court as follows:
... "[I]t has been uniformly held that [section 7901] is a continuing offer
extended to telephone and telegraph companies to use the highways,
which offer when accepted by the construction and maintenance of lines
constitutes a binding contract based on adequate consideration, and that
the vested right established thereby cannot be impaired by subsequent
acts of the Legislature. [Citations.]" ... Thus, telephone companies have
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
6456717.1 CrownCastle.com
E-119
the right to use the public highways to install their facilities.
(Williams Communications KCity of Riverside, supra, 1l4C@[App.4th atp.G48quoting County nfLA.
While Public Utility Code section 7901.1 grants local municipalities the limited "right to exercise
reasonable control 8stothe time, place, and manner in which roads, highways, and waterways are
aCce3sed[l"such controls cannot have the effect Offoreclosing use h«Crown Castle Ofthe 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 @ matter of state concern and not G municipal affair.° (Williams
O]nnnnUn/COtiOO V. City nfRiverside, supra, 114Cal.App.4th at p. 653.\
On the basis of Crown Castle's status as a CLEC, and its concomitant rights to the ROW, the Network is
designed GsanROW system. With respect tothe siting and configuration ofthe Network, the rights
afforded under Public Utilities Code section 79O1and 79Dl.1apply. Crown Castle reserves its rights
under section 79O1and 79O1.1,including, but not limited to, its right tochallenge any approval
process, that impedes orinfringes omCrown Castle's rights asaCLEC.
B. Applicable Federal Law.
The approval of the Network also is governed by the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L.
NO1O4-lO4.11OStat. 56(codified 8samend inscattered sections mfU.S.C,Tabs lS,18,47)("TalecOnl
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 ofnew telecommunications
technologies." (llOStat. 3tS6.) Asone court noted:
Congress enacted the TCA tOpromote competition and higher quality in
telecommunications services and toencourage the rapid deployment of
new telecommunications technologies. Congress intended topromote B
national cellular network and tOsecure lower prices and better service
The Foundation for Wireless World,
6456717.1 CrownCast|ecom
- / ���x 1 ���
�-
for consumers hvopening all telecommunications markets tO
/7-MQb/leCentrO�LLC V.Unif7edGovernment nfWyandotte, 528F.3Upp.2dl1281l46-47/D.Kan.
2007\. One way inwhich the Telecom Act accomplishes these goals iS6«reducing impediments
imposed by local governments upon the iDS18ilatiOD of wireless communications facilities, such as
antenna facilities. /47U.S.C.§332/C\(7)(A\.\ Section 332(c)(7VB\provides the limitations Oothe
general authority reserved tOstate and local governments. Those limitations are set forth 8sfollows:
/G\ State and local governments may not unreasonably discriminate among providers of
functionally equivalent services (§332(r)[7)(B)(i\(U\.
/b\ State and lOC8i goV8rnrnGDtS may not regulate the placement, construction or
modification of wireless service facilities in 8 manner that prohibits, or has the effect Of
prohibiting, the provision Of personal VVi[8l8s5 services (better known as the "effective
p[Ohibitioncl8Us2") (§33I/C\(7)/BVi\(U)\.
(c) State and local governments must act on requests for authorization to construct or
modify wireless service facilities within 8 reasonable period of time (§ 332(c)/7VB)/ii0.
(d) Any decision by a state or local government to deny request for construction or
modification ofpersonal wireless service facilities must be in writing and supported by
substantial evidence contained in8written record (§33Z(C)(7VBViii8.
(e) Finally, oostate orlocal government O[instrumentality thereof may regulate the
placement, construction or modification of personal vVi[e|8sS service facilities onthe
basis of the perceived environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent
that such f3Ci|hi8S comply with federal CODlrnWnicatiOOs commission's regulations
In addition to the above, other federal enactments and policies also guide local governmental actions,
including the following:
(a) The Shot Clock Rule: On November 18, 2009, the Federal Communications Commission
("FCC") adopted the "Shot Clock" Rule, placing strict time limits on local governments to
act on applications for the siting ofwireless telecommunications facilities. The Shot
Clock Rule was intended tO°prOrDDt8Odeployment 0fbroadband and other wireless
The Foundation for aWireless World.
54567171 CmwnCast|ecom
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 8V8i|ab|8 high-speed wireless services to at least 98
percent of Americans. The initiative would free up spectrum through incentive auctions,
spurring innovation, and Create @ 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
32Stcentury eCOnOnny'°
(47 U.S.C. § 1455(a)(1), emphasis added.) An "eligible facilities request "Modifications"
includes G request to "collocate" 8 facility. (Id. at § 1455/mV2\(A).\ AS discussed further
b2lOVV 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 tOthe
Spectrum Act inarecently published order. The FCC noted inits order:
We take important steps inthis Report and Order topromote the deployment of
wireless infrastructure, recognizing that itisthe physical foundation that
supports all wireless communications. \A/e dJthis 6«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:
w
Clarifies key terms inthe Act such asBase Station, Eligible Facility Request,
�
What constitutes Substantial Change - For Towers and Base Stations sited
VVithinth8pUb|icrightOfVv8y,3ChangetoanexistingfJCilitviSleSsth8n
substantial, and must b8approved ifthe height increase isless than 1O96
increase or 10 -feet, whichever is greater, Or has 3 protrusion Ofless than G-
feetfrom the edge Ofthe structure, Orifthe 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;
The Foundation for aWireless World.
64567171 CrownCast|e.com
- / ��u� 1 ���
�-
0 Governing authority may not require submission 0fany other
documentation, including proof of need.
1. Visual Compatibility (RPVMC Title 12, Chapter 12.18.080, Sec. A Design and Development
Standards for wireless telecommunication facilities in the public right-of-way).
A3discussed more fully below, the Service Area described above currently experiences 8significant gap
inwireless telecommunications coverage. To fill that gap, Crown Castle proposes the "least intrusive
means," as articulated by the Ninth Circuit in 7 -Mobile U.S.A., Inc. u City nfAnQGOrtes, 572 F.3d 987,
995 (9th Ci[ 2009) and as required by RPV's Wireless Telecommunications Facility Permit Application
/"VVTFPA"\SeCtiOn |V/Z\(c) Description OfProject COverGg2aOd Purpose [Exhibit C2]. The standard, 86
the court noted in that case, "requires that the provider 'show that the manner in which itproposes t8
fill the significant gap in service is the least intrusive on the values that the denial sought t0s2rve.~"
(Ibid.) This allows
[F]mrameaningful comparison ofalternative sites before the siting
application process is needlessly repeated. It also gives providers an
incentive to choose the least intrusive site in their first siting applications,
and it promises to ultimately identify the best solution for the
community, not merely the least one remaining after a series of
application denials.
(Id.at 995.)
|nthis case, because Crown Castle isaCLEC entitled toconstruct its systems inthe ROW, its SCN
networks are inherently ROW systems. Onthat basis, Crown Castle examined those alternatives
theoretically available toitinthe ROW. The analysis below demonstrates why the Project qU8lifies8S
the "least intrusive means" Offilling -the significant gap inservice described above.
A. Height of the Proposed Facilities
GeDe[8|k/ speaking, the higher the antenna, the wider the radius of signal propagation. CmnVerseky,
lower the antenna height, the smaller the radius ofpropagation. The antenna heights and locations of
the SCN were chosen to provide the minimum signal level needed to meet critical coverage and
capacity needs in the Service Area. Despite the technical limitations of a low -profile system, Crown
Castle seeks to maximize the coverage of each node location while maintaining a lower antenna height,
The Foundation for aWireless World,
6456717.1 CrownCastle.com
- / ��^� 1 ���
�-
if feasible, since maximization of the SCN 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.
B. Location of the Proposed Facilities.
The selected SCN locations maximize the RF coverage of the SCN and minimize interference/overlap
with the other SCN of the system, resulting in a lower overall number of facilities for the Network and a
less intrusive system. Each SCN provides an effective relay of signal from the adjacent SCN, so that
ubiquitous coverage is provided throughout the Service Area. Because each SCN is locationally
dependent on the other SCN of the Network, moving a SCN too far from its proposed location will
result in an inability meet coverage objectives and thereby impair the Network. In selecting SCN
locations, Crown Castle also sought out existing utility poles, streetlight poles and street sign pole sites
that could serve as a potential host site for alternative locations.
C. Small Cells as Least Intrusive Means Technology.
Even apart from the siting of the SCN, the Network itself is inherently minimally intrusive by design.
SCN was developed as a smaller -scale solution to the larger macro -site or cell tower. It therefore
represents a significant technological advance in the development of smaller profile wireless
transmission devices. As devices shrink in size, they also, by definition, shrink in power. Accordingly,
more facilities are needed and such facilities must be located closer to the user. The SCN are designed
to be smaller in scale and lower power to allow them to integrate more easily into their surroundings
and thereby render them less aesthetically intrusive.
The SCN 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 SCN 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:
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
6456717• CrownCastle.com
E-124
(1) Crown Castle SCN utilizes the latest in wireless infrastructure technology, incorporating
smaller, low-power facilities instead of using larger -- and sometimes more obtrusive --
cell towers;
(2) Crown Castle SCN utilizes the ROW, thereby avoiding intrusions into private property or
undeveloped sensitive resource areas;
(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 signs, thereby minimizing the net number of vertical intrusions in the
ROW.
2. Health and Safety/FCC Compliance.
The FCC has preempted the field 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 E.
3. Safety and Monitoring Standards (IMC § 3-8-2(D)).
The FCC has preempted the field 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. Nevertheless, the
Network, and all equipment associated with the Network, complies with all applicable FCC RF emission
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
6456717.1 CrownCastle.com
E-125
standards. A demonstration of the Network's compliance with applicable FCC RF emission standards is
4. Design and Development Standards /RPVK4C12.I8.O8O\.
A. Selection Criteria for Each SCN Site.
Given the low profile of the SCN, and the resultant limitations of such a low -profile system, Crown
Castle seeks to Ql8xi[niz2 the COV9r8ge of each SCN location, Since rn8uinniz@tiOn of the SCP4 coverage
equates toalower overall number Offacilities for the network and @ less intrusive system.
Accordingly, each location was chosen to provide an effective relay of signal from the adjacent SCN, so
that ubiquitous coverage isprovided throughout the Service Area with the least number ofSCN.
Each SCyJis|ocationaUydependent onthe other SCNofthe Network. Tomove aSCNtoo far from its
proposed location will result inaninability meet coverage objectives. Moving outside that proposed
location will preclude the ability of the SCN to properly propagate its signal to the other SCN in the
larger Network. Crown Castle also sought out existing utility pole, streetlight pole and traffic sign pole
sites that could serve aaapotential host site for alternative locations.
The further a SCN is moved from its proposed location, the more the signal from that SCN will
attenuate. In determining other viable locations for a 5CO3 moving more than 5Ofeet from the
proposed location may materially impair the coverage objectives for the facility. While Crown Castle i9
able to install new poles to achieve its RF coverage objectives, Crown Castle made a strategic decision
to minimize the installation of new poles -where possible -- and locate the Network SCN at the site of
existing vertical elements, such as street signs and wood utility poles. Bvapproaching 8network
design inthis matter, Crown 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" ofproviding service tO
the Service Area.
|Omany cases, Crown Castle identified alternative locations that are technically feasible. Yet in each
instance, Crown Castle selected the proposed site onthe basis Cf
(3) Technical feasibility;
/b\ Ability to utilize existing vertical elements;
The Foundation for aWireless World.
64567171 Crown{ast|eoom
- / ���� 1 ��
�-
(c) Ability tmmeet RFobjectives; and
/d\ Minimization ofvisibility/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.
B. Node Locations and the "Significant Gap" in Coverage.
Each SCNOfthe Network i3necessary tOfill 3significant gap iDservice inthe City. The significant gap is
graphically demonstrated as required by RPVK8CWTFPA Section |V(3) Description Of Project Coverage
and Purpose [Exhibit [3l,which depicts existing service for the anchor carrier for the Network, AT&J'.
(See "Existing Service Map".) The Existing Service Map describes six levels OFservice: /1\ In -Building
(Dark Green); /2\ In -Building (Light Green); /3\ in -Vehicle (Yellow) and (4) In -Vehicle (Red); /5\ Poor to
Non-existent (Blue) and (6) Poor to Non -Existent (Black).
Each level ischaracterized hmaminimum signal level. The key tocoverage bhaving osignal level
strong enough toallow multiple customers tomaintain contact with the network sothey can make and
maintain contact with the network. There isadirect correlation between the height ofthe antenna
and the strength Ofthe service. iDthis case, Crown Castle's design seeks 8minimum ofRFpropagation
level, which provides asufficient level ofservice toaddress growing capacity demands and 1oreach
indoor users, while avoiding poles that may botoo obtrusive. The courts have upheld the use ofin-
building rninimnUrO standards as 8 proper benchmark for determining whether a significant gap in
coverage exists. /See, e.g., MetroPCS Inc. v. City and County of Son Francisco /N.D.Ca|. 2006\ 2006 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 43985 ["careful reading ofexisting cases that contain a significant gap analysis persuades
the court that any analysis should include consideration of wireless carrier's in -building coverage."].)
In this case, existing service levels in the Service Area fall below the minimum standard for adequate
in -building coverage. (See Existing Service K4ap.)
The need to fill the existing significant coverage gap to a level that allows adequate in -building
coverage and tDaddress growing capacity demands iSunderscored by the greater numbers of
customers dropping their land|ineGand 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
The Foundation for aWireless World.
645*717.1 CrownCasL|ecom
E-1 27
broadband penetration, well behind South Korea, Japan, the Netherlands and France. z
/2\ 40percent Ofall American homes are now wireless On|v.y
(3) More and more civic leaders and emergency response personnel cite lack Ofarobust
wireless network asa growing public safety risk. The number Of8l1calls placed by
people using wireless phones has significantly increased in recent years. |tiSestimated
that about 70 percent of 911 calls are placed from wireless phones, and that percentage
is growing.'
/4\ Data demand from new 5rngrtphOn83 and tablets is leading to 8 critical deficit in
spectrum, requiring more vVi[2l233 antennas and infrastructure. According to 8 2011
report, wireless data traffic was 1lOpercent higher than inthe last half Of2OlO.
Similarly, AT&T reports that its xVire|8S5 data volumes have increased 30 -fold SiDC8 the
introduction of the iPhone.s
(5) Six -fold projected increase in mobile data traffic growth from 2Ol5tO 2020.1
Asmore Americans depend onwireless communications technologies andSmoartphone,reUable
network capacity and in -building coverage will becritical. These are some ofthe reasons courts now
recognize that a"significant gap" can exist onthe basis ofinadequate in -building coverage. (See, e.g.,
MetnoP[S/nc u City and County ofSon Francisco, supra, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43985; 7 -Mobile Central, LL[
v.Unified Government «fWyandotte County (D.Kans.ZOO7)528F.Supp.2dIl28.)
Applying these principles tothe Service Area, Exhibit [3, reveals that Service Area iscurrently
experiencing insufficient signal. Users inthe Service Area therefore would experience anintolerably
high percentage Ofblocked and dropped calls for outside use, with 8commensurate decline insignal
strength 8Sone moves toward the inside 0fexisting buildings and homes. Crown Castle seeks 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 tOaddress new data demands from srnartphOnes and tablets. Wireless
customers must be able to count on a level of service commensurate with that provided by their
zOrganizotkonforEoononoicCo-operationandDeve|opnoent(]EC0}0rectorateforScience Techno|ogy, and
Industry, "Broadband Stabstios,"(June ZO1O\: <vvwvwoecdoro/sti/irKbroadbandx.
' Federal Communications Commission (April 2O13).
4 Federal Communications Commission (2013) http://www.fcc.gov/guides/wireless-911-services.
' Executive Office of the President Council ufEconomic Advisors (White House, Feb. 2012\ at 2-6.
The Foundation for aWireless World.
6456717.1 CrownCastle.com
- / ���� 1 ���
�-
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) 675 F. Supp. 2d 721 [considering failure rate of 911
emergency calls.])
By contrast, installation of the proposed SCN comprising the project would result in adequate outdoor
and in -building coverage. (See Exhibit Exhibit C3(e) [predicted coverage map with SCN (...not macros];
Exhibit C3(a) and (d) [predicted coverage map without SCN (...not macros].)
Crown Castle has developed a number of SCN designs, some of which are depicted in Exhibit A of the
existing and enforce Rights -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 F1- 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 SCN 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).
ECOIDMF
RW
Crown Castle respectfully presents its application for a Major Wireless Telecommunications Facilities
Permit/conditional use permit for the SCN and Network. Crown Castle's representatives are on hand
to answer any questions.
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
6456717.1 CrownCastle.com
E-129
CROWN
CASTLE
10/13/2016
ASG33
Coverage Analysis
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
E-130
ASG33 Agenda
• 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 &
o CASTLE Confidential
E-131
co
U
co
E-132
Exhibit C3 a. —Geographical significant gap in coverage.
i
CROWN Proprietary &
C
CASTLE Confidential
RSA
• ^.+.1#ki.R9ni
• x•95 ht-iu5�r:.
♦ - Ub W 41,
:4
5 Ea A5 h3m
i -ES to -YS 63M
e �>fi5 a&n
PropoHd Node
0 r*t
A1kim�lw (on;Imm
Fn
z
E-133
Exhibit C3 (b) - Proposed site and surrounding existing WIT owned and
operated by the applicant
Los Vq"* a
004
Cow,"
■
CROWN Proprietary &
CASTLE Confidential
C afty0ev
PfYMNS
ux) (I
so&. r.
Csw u,.;
I5
E-134
Exhibit C3 (e) — Proposed facility relative to all existing and planned facilities
LDwV*Kfta
Cion
0mur"
CROWN Proprietary &
CASTLE Confidential
on.
Canyon
Foe laRr!
fir,i, (I
b"antine
4: amn r,
6
E-135
Exhibit C3 d. — Existing RF coverage.
a
LLS + `
•
?ad,
Ib
r
•
CROWN Proprietary &
CASTLE Confidential
+r-IR4:kim
f �-GS Ir.-1d5:.£ptt
• - �v 4G -B=
:.r5te 13o�3m
. --ES GC?S tl3m
+ .;fi3 tlEm
Proposad Node
0 rs3iY
F.4�1
4P-.,aO-,�
�
17
E-136
Exhibit C3 e. —Proposed RF coverage.
•
•
� .•.+•..��+IMS
+ s
r • •
CROWN Proprietary &
CASTLE Confidential
• a_.Ilt .Fiat
. �.950a.7�Yi rEiem.
. -.H;. bC •B°,
m i5 to -86 !IBM
• -�-us 6a Js GYRI
. x arldsm
Prapccad Mode
40n'i
Wt9rmmmn I'maminm
'Fa9al
.'r4A71a
fm
E-137
t r
AS 10
Of
kS33,x-4.
4• _
Goois earth
E-139
The objective of the node, ASG33, is to provide coverage on the intersection of Cartier Drive and Charities
Drive from Cartier and Rhone Dr, to handoff to the existing coverage just west of Charities and Martisse
Drve.
e All
lb
!! 4
�
trl
(-,;(){Nlc eai
�
low
ty� ry
ASG33`LbcauonA
ASG33 Lmhon G+�,
#141a , k.k
All
-,SG33 LocalAlt ' .n
TiiGna,t�ee�=i)o(�!l' r
+J
w
co
E-142
Power output and operating frequency
EIRP 700 MHz
Watts
EIRP 850 MHz (composite,
Watts)
EIRP 1900 MHz
(Watts
EIRP 2100 MHz
Watts
141
158
269
324
CROWN Proprietary &
CASTLE Confidential 114
E-143
E-144
z W
00
Ma
UU
a
List of All Existing Facilities
Carrier
Site ID
Latitude
Longitude
rrier
Site ID
Latitude Lon
Itude
trier
Site ID
latitude
Longitude
rrier
Site ID
Latitude
Longitude
AT&T
HWO1
33.78431
-118.36835
rint
LA36XC534
33.79089
-118.38329
HAW12
33.77588
-118.40315
rint
LA36XC659
33.77366
-118.36987
AT&T
HW02
33.759
-118.3
rint
LA36XC535
33.78654
-118.37279
HAW14ml
33.759883
-118.405233
US
NO2m2
33.77881
-118.371
AT&T
HWO4
33.76809
-118.39135
rint
LA36XC540
33.74165
-118.3739
rint
LA34XD015
33.78752
-118.3761
US
N06
33.7627
-118.37
AT&T
HWO8
33.7562
-118.41017
rint
LA36XC548
33.74334
-118.40946
rint
LA34XD027
33.77401667
-118.395
US
N15
33.78063
-118.388
AT&T
HW13
33.751972
-118.39547
rint
LA36XC564
33.74338
-118.31879
rint
LA34XD031
33.742141
-118.40161
rim
NCA5054R:13
33.76267
-118.36983
AT&T
HW55
33.77283
-118.4032
print
LA36XC565
33.75779
-118.36746
rint
LA34XD036
33.78098
-118.39723
print
NCA5054R:14
33.7741
-118.39303
MUS
N18
33.759
-118.3
rint
LA36XC566
33.75541
-118.40821
rint
LA34XD043
33.773162
-118.403179
rint
NCA5054R : 15
33.78028
-118.38791
AT&T
P06
33.76225
-118.3654
riot
LA36XC568
33.75005
-118.40501
print
LA34XD046
33.75817
-118.413
rim
NCA5054R:17
33.78238
-118.36944
AT&T
P10
33.74821
-118.33322
riot
LA36XC570
33.76195
-118.4107
riot
LA34XD047
33.7453
-118.400786
rint
NCA50545:12
33.77181
-118.36197
AT&T
SP12
33.74841
-118.32487
riot
LA36XC591
33.76263
-118.33513
tint
LA34XD050
33.75232
-118.39593
MUS
PV02m2
33.77621
-118.375
AT&T
SP13
33.74212
-118.332
Drint
LA36XC610
33.745028
-118.384
rint
LA34XD095
33.748459
-118.32485
US
PV07m6
33.7722
-118.361
AT&T
ASP14
33.76265
-118.33082
rint
LA36XC611
33.76868
-118.40277
rint
LA34XD099
33.74218
-118.33322
US
IPV13
33.7764
-118.393
AT&T
ASP32
33.76554
-118.32261
print
LA36XC622
33.76267
-118.36983
rint
LA34XD111
33.72728
-118.33468
MUS
PV18
33.768
-118.39
AT&T
ASP33
33.7471
-118.3181
rint
LA36XC623
33.77411
-118.39303
rint
LA36XC212
33.74801
-118.31278
MUS
PV19
33.76075
-118.39
AT&T
ASP42
33.744397
-118.324822
rint
LA36XC635
33.73869
-118.35788
rint
LA36XC216
33.75954
-118.33021
MUS
PV49
33.77899
-118.381
AT&T
ASP52
33.76236
-118.36987
rint
LA36XC639
33.7458333
-118.337222
print
LA36XC219
33.73721
-118.3302
SPOT
33.731395
-118.3429
AT&T
ASP59ml
33.73286
-118.33469
rint
LA36XC640
33.73798
-118.33618
rint
LA36XC453
33.791709
-118.3685
SPOS
33.73684
-118.3297
AT&T
ASP62
33.76321
-118.32737
print
LA36XC641
33.7384
-118.3444
rint
LA36XC454
33.76589
-118.31092
SP06
33.74163
-118.32621
AT&T
ASP63
33.758167
-118.32975
rint
LA36XC646
33.77544
-118.40283
rint
LA36XC516
33.77096
-118.39619JEDU
SP07ml
33.738929
-118.336364
vzw
HAW02
33.78012
-118.4005
print
ILA36XC647
33.78898
-118.38521
rint
LA36XC521
33.77181
-118.361942m-SP21
33.7481
-118.31293
ZW
HAW04
33.78543
-118.3857
nrint
LA36XC648
33.78238
-118.369
rint
LA36XC522
33.73738
-118.332
W
SP22
33.75471
-118.31486
vzw
HAW05
33.78908
-118.38528
rint
LA36XC649
33.78785
-118.3820
print
ILA36XC523
33.75335
-118.32667rw
P23ml
33.73823
-118.34436
W
HAW06
33.78766
-118.3763
rint
LA36XC651
33.79048
-118.37287
rint
LA36XC524
33.76407
-118.33115
P24
33.73403
-118.3383
VZW
HAW07ml
33.790795
-118.38286
rint
LA36XC652
33.78028
-118.3879
rint
LA36XC526
33.73561
-118.34777
SP25ml
33.735186
-118.354187
HAW10
33.77128
-118.39648
riot
LA36XC530
33.7809444
-118.400277S
MB1008-0009m2
33.74063
-118.3370
HAW11
33.76837
-118.40327
print
LA36XC653
1 33.780-1
-118.37651
MUS
MB1008-OC19
33.77589
-118.40319
CROWN Proprietary &
CASTLE Confidential 16
E-145
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
50 SCL PALOS VERDES 14
33.746148
-118.329719
AT&T
ASG38
33.77995
-118.40271
VZW
SO SCL PALOS VERDES 15
33.743179
-118.31898
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 PAL05 VERDES 18
33.767905
-118.314171
AT&T
ASG44
33.771255
-118.385665
VZW
50 SCL PALOS VERDES 19
33.771618
-118.309292
AT&T
ASG45
33.77618
-118.39398
VZW
SO SCL PALOS VERDES 20
33.761589
-118.315284
AT&T
ASG47
33.74959
-118.33013
VZW
SO 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
IASG49B
33.74169
-118.336646
VZW
SO 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
ASG33
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
CCCROWN Proprietary &
CASTLE Confidential 1 17
E-146
Map of all existing and proposed facilities
Verdes
Proposed Nodes C: j s Harb
Existing Wireless Faclilities RAY Park ( �"
„",'� ■ ■ Rolling or
c i Hi lls
,` m' l • `'� -'mow 0 z �"'- ,��'- S.
Estates
V- �, • • �golliitg Hills
°c td ■ i • ` <' den l ifl';"
�i = %� lalemonal Naval
v =!OS
Ver . dr.
�� • • � � i � 3 Park Reservation
sy -
rr
Q'
.30' ft a
poi, • ■
PIP
ID / , ■ ■
■ y 1° LOS~` -u D& H/ L L -~�
Portugu� 1
`Ur lend -{ 137tlR
4� Nature Preserve' •w�
■�at—
Terranea.
Pa�C • �' 9473■PednD'
I�>! fill os.U@, I �'' % j F W 1st St
~s
Verdes .�j%' _1 ■, t VII 7thst S
r s,a i213 W -filth -St
6 '
■ �■ l?eane N
■ Dana elf 13th St W 1.
\ Trump N n Fria Ip 0'1/
Gna CIufP k ®^y Vq 17th St
s J,W19th St
__*CCROWN Proprietary &
CASTLE Confidential
E-147
Exhibit I
Exhibit Alternative Locations
Lat
Long
Property Owner Owner phone number Zoning Designation General Plan Designation
ASG33 A (Primary)
33.75564968
-118.393454
N/A
Public ROW
Exhibit 11 ASG33 B (Alternative 1)
33.75570388
-118.3934897
N/A
Public ROW
Exhibit 12 ASG33 C (Alternative 3)
33.7554662
-118.3934042
N/A
Public ROW
Exhibit 13 ASG33 D (Alternative 3)
33.75580195
-118.3934526
N/A
Public ROW
Exhibit 14 ASG33 E (Alternative 4)
33.75483279
-118.3916795
N/A
Public ROW
Exhibit 15 ASG33 F
33.75232
-118.39593
Sprint
Public ROW
CROWN Proprietary &
CASTLE Confidential
Why it is worse than primary?
See alternative analysis
See alternative analysis
See alternative analysis
Did not meet coverage objective
Too far from objective
WE
E-148
Alternative Analysis — (ASG33 Location C)
J: CROWN
CASTLE
33 D Z•
133 G�ti A
:
•
•
•
00
••a
r •.iEnrt r_.��,,
. o•tvr,unR, •
� arA •
Proprietary &
Confidential
zz
u
1.••600}•.•1.••
4r -
7
�,e Citi•'
Possible Locations
• Faded
. Passed
RSRP
• <_ -105 dBm
• -105 to -95 dBm
• -95 to -85 dBm
-65 to -75 dBm
• -75 to -65 dBm
• --65 dBm
Wireless Telecommunications Facility
Node
AT&T Node
* On -Air
20
E-149
Alternative Analysis — (ASG33 Location D)
oma
JCROWN
: CASTLE
Do* •••••-••r_•r•
RApha
•
• _SS
• S
•
•
33 D
v ASG33
Y.�
•. >
••.• Q
�• U i
•• 10,
• •
\ •. •9t=S=i•• .060
__�A�Mj A �y
••
'
• • S•••Rl.�••✓�At�
l��•••p•�••••N••�•�•
%
Proprietary &
Confidential
Possible Locations
` "` •
Failed
O Passed
RSRP
• --105 d8m
• -105 to -95 dBm
• -95 to -85 dBm
-65 to -75 dBm
• -75 to -65 dBm
• --65 dBm
Wireless Telecommunications Facility
Node
AT&T Node
*on -Air
21
E-150
Alternative Analysis — (ASG33 Location E)
F\�
t.o>i Vedes
Goa
coursa
33 D\lI Gh�•�
333 X 3 A
•
•
• Mif
i
s •
•
•'� �•
rdotx•r: E
f
Ryan •
communa • •
Park 0.
CROWN Proprietary &
CASTLE Confidential
old
•
• �!
•'�-•••iii__•• ••
Possible Locations
• Failed
• Passed
RSRP
• �. -105 d8m
•
'105 to -95 dBm
• -95 to -85 dBm
-85 to -75 dBm
• -75 to -65 dBm
• = -65 d8m
Wireless Telecommunications Facility
Node
AT&T Node
00n -14r
22
E-151
t�
a
�C•
U
n {�
c
h
`rte
r�
old
•
• �!
•'�-•••iii__•• ••
Possible Locations
• Failed
• Passed
RSRP
• �. -105 d8m
•
'105 to -95 dBm
• -95 to -85 dBm
-85 to -75 dBm
• -75 to -65 dBm
• = -65 d8m
Wireless Telecommunications Facility
Node
AT&T Node
00n -14r
22
E-151
a
U
m
w
old
•
• �!
•'�-•••iii__•• ••
Possible Locations
• Failed
• Passed
RSRP
• �. -105 d8m
•
'105 to -95 dBm
• -95 to -85 dBm
-85 to -75 dBm
• -75 to -65 dBm
• = -65 d8m
Wireless Telecommunications Facility
Node
AT&T Node
00n -14r
22
E-151
CCROWN
v 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
Irvine, CA 92618
RE; Shot Clock Tolritis..Asneement and Notice of Shot Clod ESDI t,) i Per RP%iM , Section
12.i,8.o6o (0(3) for Crown Castle Wireless Communication FacilitySite ASGga - New Shot
Clock Expiration Date: September .1o, 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, 2014), a local government is required
not just to take some action within the: application titnefrarne, but to take a final action on the application within the
time period. See New C` ngntar Wireless 11CS, LLC v. Town of Stoddard, 2012 11.8. Dist. LEXIS 19453 «13-15 (D.N.H.
Feb. 16, 2012). Accordingly, the City must complete all of its review within they Shot Clock period. Belt Atlantic. Mobilo
of Rrx-hester, L.P. v. Town of Iron dequoit, 2012 U.S. Dist. Lexis 11420 (W.D.N.l'. Jat1. ;I1, 2012). This means that the
City must issue all permits required for construction to commence within the: applicad►le. Shot Clock time period,
absent lie
rmitted tolling. Expinition of the 11CC Shot Clock time periods means the project is shovel ready, not merely
poised for another round o€ 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.
:1) 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 Nicole Jules
CROWN CASTLF NG WnsT LLC CITY or, RANCHO PALcis VERDEs
The Foundation for a Wireless Worid.
CrownCastle.com
E-152
From: Melitta Chen [mailto:melitta0723@gmail.coml
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2017 4:00 PM
To: Charles Eder <CharlesE@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: Cell Site Mock-up across 6480 Chartres Dr.
Mr. Eder,
This is Melitta Chen, the owner of 6477 Chartres Dr. R.P.V. CA 90275
As a concerned homeowner of Monaco in R.P.V., I would like to ask City Hall to make the
RIGHT decision.
Please don't destroy the precious neighborhood we have. You can't find another place like this.
Whenever I looked at the million -dollar ocean view from my house, I felt lucky and blessed.
Please help us to keep our community a safe, healthy paradise.
Thank you for your attention.
Best Regards,
Melitta Chen
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Charles Eder <CharlesE,rr !pvca.Pov> wrote:
Hello Ms. Chen,
Thank you for sharing your concerns with the City. All correspondence the City receives regarding the
proposed installation will be part of the public record and submitted to the Planning Commission for
consideration prior to making a decision on the wireless telecommunications permit application. Please
note, to the extent your opposition or comments relate to radio frequency (RF) emissions or health
effects, federal law does not allow the Planning Commission to consider such concerns.
Answers to your question are below.
Thank you,
Charles Eder, PE
Department of Public Works
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
E-153
From: Melitta Chen [mailto:melitta0723@gmail.com1
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2017 3:49 PM
To: PublicWorks <PublicWorks@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Cell Site Mock-up across 6480 Chartres Dr.
Hi Mr. Eder,
This is Melitta Chen the owner of 6477 Chartres Dr. R.P.V. Ca 90275.
Being a worried home owner, I would like to take the chance to ask some
questions.
1) What is the cell site for? The proposed cell site is for AT&T coverage in the area.
2) Who has the right to build such an ugly thing in front of my house? The Federal Government
has granted certain rights to telecommunications facilities to construct these facilities.
3) Who will be responsible for our health? The Federal Government gave strict guidelines for
radio frequency emissions, and the applicant has, so far, followed these guidelines.
4) Who will be responsible for the deduction of the value of my property? This is a topic that
cannot be determined by the City, as the City is following Federal guidelines.
5) Isn't City Hall supposed to work with the residents for our safety and happiness? The City is
doing everything in its LEGAL power to reduce the proliferation and impact of these facilities.
Truly sorry for my rudeness. We are so upset for what we saw now.
Thank you for your attention.
Regards,
Melitta Chen (owner of 6477 Chartres Dr. R.P.V. Ca 90275)
E-154
FRANCIS J. O'BRIEN
30085 AVENIDA ELEGANTE
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
CALIFORNIA 90275-4510
June 27, 2017
Charles Eder
Associate Engineer
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Dear Sir:
PHONE: 310 541 3042
FAX: 310 541 3728
6obrien@aol.com
Received
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
JUN 2 8 2017
Public Works Department
This letter concerns three proposed Wireless Communication Facilities proposed
applied for by Crown Castle, and located at ASG 33 — 6840 Chartes Drive, ASG
10 — Los Verdes Drive west of Avenida Classica, and ASG 08 — Calle de Suenos
south of Avenida de Calma.
Our City takes much pride in its appearance. One of the enhancements when the
neighborhoods south of Crest Road were built was underground wiring, which
eliminated the need for utility poles, which are generally unsightly. I oppose the
proposed facilities because they introduce utility poles and they are unsightly and
depreciate the beauty of the neighborhood. Aggravating this is that they are at
curbside in residential neighborhoods, adversely and directly affecting nearby
homeowners. They should not be built as proposed.
I recognize the need for improvement in wireless service. Alternative sites which
are less visible, such as the backs of the lots or nearby canyons, would likely
achieve substantially the same service objectives without imposing unsightly
utility poles on the neighborhood.
I respectfully request and demand that Crown Castle's proposed facilities be
rejected.
Very truly yours,
Francis J. 'Brien
E-155
From: Melitta Chen [mailto:melitta0723@gmail.com1
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2017 4:00 PM
To: Charles Eder <CharlesE@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: Cell Site Mock-up across 6480 Chartres Dr.
Mr. Eder,
This is Melitta Chen, the owner of 6477 Chartres Dr. R.P.V. CA 90275
As a concerned homeowner of Monaco in R.P.V., I would like to ask City Hall to make the
RIGHT decision.
Please don't destroy the precious neighborhood we have. You can't find another place like this.
Whenever I looked at the million -dollar ocean view from my house, I felt lucky and blessed.
Please help us to keep our community a safe, healthy paradise.
Thank you for your attention.
Best Regards,
Melitta Chen
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Charles Eder <CharlesErpvca.gov> wrote:
Hello Ms. Chen,
Thank you for sharing your concerns with the City. All correspondence the City receives regarding the
proposed installation will be part of the public record and submitted to the Planning Commission for
consideration prior to making a decision on the wireless telecommunications permit application. Please
note, to the extent your opposition or comments relate to radio frequency (RF) emissions or health
effects, federal law does not allow the Planning Commission to consider such concerns.
Answers to your question are below.
Thank you,
Charles Eder, PE
Department of Public Works
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
E-156
From: Melitta Chen [mailto:melitta0723@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2017 3:49 PM
To: PublicWorks <PublicWorks@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Cell Site Mock-up across 6480 Chartres Dr.
Hi Mr. Eder,
This is Melitta Chen the owner of 6477 Chartres Dr. R.P.V. Ca 90275.
Being a worried home owner, I would like to take the chance to ask some
questions.
1) What is the cell site for? The proposed cell site is for AT&T coverage in the area.
2) Who has the right to build such an ugly thing in front of my house? The Federal Government
has granted certain rights to telecommunications facilities to construct these facilities.
3) Who will be responsible for our health? The Federal Government gave strict guidelines for
radio frequency emissions, and the applicant has, so far, followed these guidelines.
4) Who will be responsible for the deduction of the value of my property? This is a topic that
cannot be determined by the City, as the City is following Federal guidelines.
5) Isn't City Hall supposed to work with the residents for our safety and happiness? The City is
doing everything in its LEGAL power to reduce the proliferation and impact of these facilities.
Truly sorry for my rudeness. We are so upset for what we saw now.
Thank you for your attention.
Regards,
Melitta Chen (owner of 6477 Chartres Dr. R.P.V. Ca 90275)
E-157
Ara Mihranian
From: Nancy Penate
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2017 3:49 PM
To: Charles Eder
Subject: FW: Cell Site Mock-up across 6480 Chartres Dr.
Another to add to records...
From: Melitta Chen [mailto:melitta0723@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2017 3:49 PM
To: PublicWorks <PublicWorks@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Cell Site Mock-up across 6480 Chartres Dr.
Hi Mr. Eder,
This is Melitta Chen the owner of 6477 Chartres Dr. R.P.V. Ca 90275.
Being a worried home owner, I would like to take the chance to ask some
questions.
1) What is the cell site for?
2) Who has the right to build such an ugly thing in front of my house?
3) Who will be responsible for our health?
4) Who will be responsible for the deduction of the value of my property?
5) Isn't City Hall supposed to work with the residents for our safety and
happiness?
Truly sorry for my rudeness. We are so upset for what we saw now.
Thank you for your attention.
Regards,
Melitta Chen (owner of 6477 Chartres Dr. R.P.V. Ca 90275)
E-158
Ara Mihranian
From: Melitta Chen <melitta0723@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2017 4:00 PM
To: Charles Eder
Subject: Re: Cell Site Mock-up across 6480 Chartres Dr.
Mr. Eder,
This is Melitta Chen, the owner of 6477 Chartres Dr. R.P.V. CA 90275
As a concerned homeowner of Monaco in R.P.V., I would like to ask City Hall to make the RIGHT decision.
Please don't destroy the precious neighborhood we have. You can't find another place like this.
Whenever I looked at the million -dollar ocean view from my house, I felt lucky and blessed.
Please help us to keep our community a safe, healthy paradise.
Thank you for your attention.
Best Regards,
Melitta Chen
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Charles Eder <CharlesE(c�r�,rpvca.gov> wrote:
Hello Ms. Chen,
Thank you for sharing your concerns with the City. All correspondence the City receives regarding the proposed
installation will be part of the public record and submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration prior to
making a decision on the wireless telecommunications permit application. Please note, to the extent your opposition
or comments relate to radio frequency (RF) emissions or health effects, federal law does not allow the Planning
Commission to consider such concerns.
Answers to your question are below.
Thank you,
Charles Eder, PE
Department of Public Works
E-159
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
From: Melitta Chen [mailto:melitta0723@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2017 3:49 PM
To: PublicWorks <PublicWorks@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Cell Site Mock-up across 6480 Chartres Dr.
Hi Mr. Eder,
This is Melitta Chen the owner of 6477 Chartres Dr. R.P.V. Ca 90275.
Being a worried home owner, I would like to take the chance to ask some
questions.
1) What is the cell site for? The proposed cell site is for AT&T coverage in the area.
2) Who has the right to build such an ugly thing in front of my house? The Federal Government has granted
certain rights to telecommunications facilities to construct these facilities.
3) Who will be responsible for our health? The Federal Government gave strict guidelines for radio
frequency emissions, and the applicant has, so far, followed these guidelines.
4) Who will be responsible for the deduction of the value of my property? This is a topic that cannot be
determined by the City, as the City is following Federal guidelines.
5) Isn't City Hall supposed to work with the residents for our safety and happiness? The City is doing
everything in its LEGAL power to reduce the proliferation and impact of these facilities.
Truly sorry for my rudeness. We are so upset for what we saw now.
Thank you for your attention.
Regards,
E-160
Melitta Chen (owner of 6477 Chartres Dr. R.P.V. Ca 90275)
E-161
Ara Mihranian
From: Margaret Wang <mtzutzuw@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 9:11 AM
To: PC; Ara Mihranian
Subject: Public hearing for cell tower in regarding to ASG33 on Chartres Drive
Dear Sir,
My husband and I live in 30182 Cartier Drive, which is just the corner house around Chartres Drive. The
proposed cell Transmitter ASG33 is set to be right in front of our front lawn. We find this proposed cell
transmitter to incommode my use of the street in the proper senses that it will casue inconvenience, distress
and/or worry us when passing even near the transmitter pole. The pole will also destroy the view from our
house and greatly decrease our house value. We are also against the transmitter on aesthetic grounds and
possibly other grounds as well.
We are currently out of state right now, so we won't be able to attend the hearing tonight. But we want our
voices to be heard about this matter. Please stop this cell tower installation. We have been living in PV since
1982, it's always been the protective preserved environment we loved. Please don't destroy our
neighborhood with these cell towers.
Thank you for your attention,
Best regards
Margaret Wang
Yi Hsun Lee
30182 Cartier Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes
CA 90275
1.'t' Windows 10 0,J04OLT,
E-162
Ara Mihranian
From:
Jeff Calvagna <jcalvagna@netzero.com>
Sent:
Friday, July 28, 2017 6:46 AM
To:
Ara Mihranian; PC
Cc:
Christy.Lopez@bbklaw.com
Subject:
Full AT&T Propagation Map Sets
Attachments:
RPV PVE ATT Prop map full sets.pdf
Director Mihranian and Planning Commission members,
I previously submitted a short package demonstrating that the AT&T coverage maps submitted by
Crown Castle were directly contradicted by previous submissions to Palos Verdes Estates. In
comparison, the RPV maps showed much worse existing coverage than that shown in PVE. There is
no valid technical rationale for this discrepancy. I presented this material at the 7/25/17 public
hearing.
Commissioner Tomlin requested full copies of the propagation maps during the hearing. I've
prepared the attached PDF that includes the complete map sets for all four submissions. I've also
included a short section at the beginning that explains the provenance of the maps and some of the
differences between the sets. This is important as the sets have configurations that are common
among the sets and some that aren't common. This can be confusing so hopefully this introduction
helps in reviewing the maps.
Please don't hesitate to contact me if I can be of assistance.
Best Regards,
Jeff Calvagna
E-163
City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission
Discrepancies in AT&T's Existing Service Coverage Claims and
Complete Propagation Map Sets
Jeff Calvagna
7/is/Zos7
E-164
1
Summary of Key Points
• On AT&T's behalf, Crown Castle has alleged a "significant gap" exists in
AT&T's service coverage over much of Rancho Palos Verdes
0 Under federal law, if a "significant gap" does truly exist it has important
implications regarding the City's abilty to deny proposed sites
As required by RPV, Crown Castle submitted propagation maps prepared
by AT&T as evidence of their significant gap claims
0 The coverage shown in these maps is directly contradicted by previous
submissions to Palos Verdes Estates. These are public records and have
been included in this report
0 In common comparisons between these map sets, the more recent RPV
maps show significantly reduced coverage than the earlier PVE maps
As these maps are alleged as depicting identical scenarios, there is no
valid technical explanation for this discrepancy
• This discrepancy raises serious questions about the legitimacy of Crown
Castle's significant gap claims
E-165
z
Four AT&T propagation map sets were submitted to Palos Verdes Estates and Rancho Palos
Verdes. These maps depict various scenarios and configurations:
• Existing coverage —these should be identical among the sets for a common configuration
• New Site coverage — these are different among the map sets as the proposed sites are different
• Combined coverage — Existing and new site coverage combined together. These are also different
among the sets as they include different proposed sites
"X" denotes map was submitted, number in parenthesis is the page number in this report. Red box
indicates the common configuration (existing coverage, 4G service type, and 700 MHz frequency
band) among all data sets. These maps should show identical existing coverage.
UMTS 850 — See last page of this report for notes regarding the older protocol 2G/3G UMTS maps
e�
E-166
UMTS 850
LTE 700
LTE 1900
850 MHz band
700 MHz band
1900 MHz band
(2G/3G — obsolete, see note)
(4G — current service type)
(4G - current service type)
Propagation Map
Receiving
existing
new site
combined
existing
new site
combined
existing
new site
combined
Submitter
Set
Jurisdiction
coverage
coverage
coverage
coverage
coverage
coverage
coverage
coverage
coverage
AT&T coverage
X
X
X
X
Palos Verdes
maps dated
p
AT&T
(16 )
( 17 )
(7,14)
(15)
Estates
/24/15
(20 -zoom)
(21 -zoom)
(18 -zoom)
(19 -zoom)
AT&T coverage
Crown
Palos Verdes
X
X
X
X
X
X
maps dated
Castle
Estates
(24)
(25)
(26)
(8,27)
(28)
(29)
10/2/2015
AT&T coverage
Crown
Palos Verdes
X
X
X
X
X
X
maps dated
Castle
Estates
(32)
(33)
(34)
(9,35)
(36)
(37)
10/20/15
AT&T coverage
Crown
Rancho Palos
X
X
X
X
X
X
maps dated
Castle
Verdes
(10,43)
(44)
(45)
(40)
(41)
(42)
9/15/2016
"X" denotes map was submitted, number in parenthesis is the page number in this report. Red box
indicates the common configuration (existing coverage, 4G service type, and 700 MHz frequency
band) among all data sets. These maps should show identical existing coverage.
UMTS 850 — See last page of this report for notes regarding the older protocol 2G/3G UMTS maps
e�
E-166
Example: Comparison of common existing coverage configurations (same
LTE/4G service type and frequency band). RPV maps show significantly
reduced coverage despite depicting identical areas and coverage targets
Submitted to Palos Verdes Estates
October 2015 (dated 10/20/15)
Submitted to Rancho Palos Verdes
February 2017 (dated 8/15/16)
LTE 700 Macro -Coverage
1 LEGEND: 75 darn
Indoor Signal
In.vehicle Signal 85 dBm October
Outdoor Signal •9$ dBm
LTE Existing Macro/oDAS (700MHz) - Coverage
�ECI:No:
0 Indoor S+final -7K Br .
In -Vehicle Siq•at 5c, am. August 15, 2016•
Gutdvor Signal 481 BIT,
'sG Mary+na;to :�acrCo�,erage
PVE 10/20/15 map is shown full size, RPV 8/15/16 map cropped to show the
same region as the PVE map for a direct comparison. All original full size maps
are included in this report for reference.
E-167
4
The balance of this report contains all the submitted AT&T propagation maps as
submitted in Palos Verdes Estates and Rancho Palos Verdes.
• Section 1: Full-size maps showing common configurations as submitted of
the existing service coverage (red box in page 3 table)
0 700 MHz LTE (4G) existing service maps (pages 6 to 10)
o These maps may be directly compared to each other as they are
alleged as depicting the same thing with the same coverage targets
• Section 2: Complete map sets for reference (pages 11 to 45)
o All AT&T propagation maps submitted for each set
o These include many configurations that are not common between the
sets. They are included as full disclosure though the reader should use
caution if making comparisons
o Maps that are common across the sets have been marked with a blue
star in the upper right hand corner
61
E-168
Section 1: Common existing service propagation maps between the four
map sets
• Palos Verdes Estates map dated 9/24/15 (page 7)
• Palos Verdes Estates map dated 10/2/15 (page 8)
• Palos Verdes Estates map dated 10/20/15 (page 9)
• Rancho Palos Verdes map dated 9/15/16 (page 10)
E-169
0
IQ
E-170
00
r -A
E-172
P-11
WT•
ui
w W, oe-
A
'Role
Section 2: Complete AT&T map sets submitted
• Palos Verdes Estates map set dated 9/24/15 (pages 12-21)
• Palos Verdes Estates map set dated 10/2/15 (pages 22-29)
• Palos Verdes Estates map set dated 10/20/15 (pages 30-37)
• Rancho Palos Verdes map set dated 9/15/16 (pages 38-45)
11
E-174
AT&T Propagation Maps
Submitted by AT&T
Received by Palos Verdes Estates
Maps dated 9/24/15
Submitted for a replacement AT&T cell tower (PV -11)
Includes RPV coverage to just south of Crest Road
Existing coverage: marked "Existing sites"
Proposed new coverage: not submitted
Combined existing and proposed: marked "Existing sites with
proposed DAS node"
E-175
12
LTE Coverage Analysis
13
E-176
E -177
O
Z
V1
Q
D
O
O
CL
O
I-
CL d
Z
i�
�3
v�
c
w
41
0
CL
W
of
m
a�
0
0
0
N
w
F-
E -178
Lo
r.
N
.A
D1
iA
�X
W
O
a
Ch
m
a�
0
V
O
Ln
d0
H
E-179
IS "M
_ •e o�/!Q j_ � X343 �� S
i
O
Alp
Z
(A
V) / a
O
CL
CIL
Y7
1 .
C •i � {� a tQ
,4A �••
ui
_O
�
Co v
n
O-
ofjfj
= W
E-180
E-181
00
4L
E-182
0)
-4
s <
E-183
0
N
N
E-184
AT&T Propagation Maps
Submitted by Crown Castle on behalf of AT&T
Received by Palos Verdes Estates
Maps dated 10/2/15
Submitted for the first half of Crown Castle's AT&T deployment
Includes only the north extreme of RPV
Existing coverage: marked "Macro"
Proposed new coverage: marked with the small cell ID (ASG01...)
Combined existing and proposed: marked "Macro and oDAS"
22
E-185
23
E-186
E E
CO
jj
E-187
0
Ln
co
,tv"'C' � 4
Sven*
WD'Al'o IV WA
LP
CPO
16
AL
M
LO
N
�-
E -189
kD
N
44
•
E-190
I.I.%
Ln
0
Ln
%D
Q
LA
ci
CD
m
0
C
LAj
t;
.2
r
E-191
00
cli
rn
11
e 3t
0
AT&T Propagation Maps
Submitted by Crown Castle on behalf of AT&T
Received by Palos Verdes Estates
Maps dated 10/20/15
Submitted for the second half of Crown Castle's AT&T deployment
Includes RPV coverage to just north of Crest Road
Existing coverage: marked "Macro"
Proposed new coverage: marked with the small cell ID (ASG02...)
Combined existing and proposed: marked "Macro and oDAS"
30
E-193
LTE Coverage Analysis
M.irket dame: Las Angeles
❖ Palos Verdes Estates oDAS
ASG02,ASGO4,ASGO6,ASG07,ASGSOfASGS 11ASGS41ASGS7
ASGS9,ASG6I,ASG62,ASG63 & ASG67
Plats Completion
October 20, 2015
31
E-194
N
M
M
m
E-196
W
cri
m
L
W
0
u
a
0
0
off!
0
L
u
0
LA
co
i
E-197
�T
co
T
0..A
E-198
Ln
m
W
M
1,
t7 r
E-199
E-200
AT&T Propagation Maps
Submitted by Crown Castle on behalf of AT&T
Received by Rancho Palos Verdes
Maps dated 8/15/16
Submitted for Crown Castle's AT&T deployment
Includes coverage of all RPV
Existing coverage: marked "Existing macro/oDAS"
Proposed new coverage: marked "proposed new oDAS"
Combined existing and proposed: marked "Existing Macro/oDAS and
proposed new oDAS"
38
E-201
39
E-202
LTE Existing Macro/oDAS (PCS 1900MHz) - Coverage
[A to]
E-203
oy
I
E-204
N
d'
a
D�
C%
'� army gag L r
.l%
z� o
m
Cb
0 $�
Au
IC `ib13 ' tlCy�^ Cu
W t S E ��
ff
Ln
�.Ctn
V
ui ( 'o o
1.
E-205
� i f
i
E \
a
D
Jz
_tZ
"i CL LJ
� � t
E-207
Notes on Palos Verdes Estates UMTS 850 maps: The propagation maps submitted to Palos Verdes Estates
in 2015 included UMTS coverage for the 850 MHz band. UMTS is an older protocol used in AT&T's 2G
and 3G implementation and is being retained on one frequency band for the time being to provide
backward compatibility with older devices. No UMTS maps have been submitted to Rancho Palos Verdes
as all coverage targets have focused exclusively on the newer LTE 4G protocol.
Although it does not affect comparisons to the Rancho Palos Verde submission, it should be noted that
the UMTS maps have a methodological flaw. The Palos Verdes Estates UMTS 850 maps show
significantly smaller coverage than the LTE maps for the same transmitter location, with coverage levels
approximately 10 dB lower. This in and of itself is not credible as the different protocols don't
significantly influence coverage range.
When asked about this during a meeting in Palos Verdes Estates, Crown Castle's senior engineer stated
that the UMTS maps portrayed the Reference Signal Code Power (RSCP) metric rather than the
Reference Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI) metric. As RSCP is roughly 10 dB lower than RSSI, the target
signal levels should have been adjusted accordingly (e.g. -85 dBm for indoor service rather than -75
dBm). Had this appropriate correction been applied, the coverage footprints for LTE and UMTS would
closely match. This is entirely consistent with the expected coverage of the two protocols.
This finding has no bearing on the main conclusions of this report regarding the discrepancy in existing
LTE coverage between maps submitted in Palos Verdes Estates versus those in Rancho Palos Verdes. It is
noted for completeness and in the event the reader has questions regarding the UMTS 850 maps.
46
E-209
Ara Mihranian
From: Jeff Calvagna <jcalvagna@netzero.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2017 8:27 AM
To: Ara Mihranian; PC; Christy.Lopez@bbklaw.com
Subject: Additional errors in ATT coverage maps
Attachments: Errors in RPV ATT Prop Maps Calvagna.pdf
Director Mihranian and Planning Commission members,
I previously submitted documentation showing that Crown Castle's claims of existing AT&T coverage
within the City were directly contradicted by earlier submissions to Palos Verdes Estates. The PVE
maps showed much better existing coverage. This is of great concern as these maps are supposed
to be an accurate representation of existing coverage.
After a more detailed review of the maps submitted to RPV, it is now clear that within these maps
themselves there are very troubling discrepancies. The coverage from existing sites is consistently
depicted as having lower signal levels and much shorter range than the new proposed sites despite
being of comparable composition. There is no reasonable technical explanation for this difference.
This finding is consistent with the discrepancy between existing coverage submitted to RPV versus
that submitted to PVE.
Our municipal code requires an exception to place new poles or cell towers on local (residential)
streets. Crown Castle chose not to comply with our ordinance but instead submit non-compliant sites
justified through claims of a "significant gap" in existing service. This makes these coverage map
discrepancies highly significant.
I've documented these findings in the attached submission. Best regards and thank you for
considering these important points.
Jeff Calvagna
E-210
City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission
Significant discrepancies in the AT&T propagation map set
submitted to Rancho Palos Verdes — existing coverage
substantially understated
Comments by Jeff Calvagna
8/1/2017
E-211
Summary of Key Points
• As previously noted, AT&T coverage maps submitted to RPV show
existing signal levels at least 10 dB lower than those submitted to Palos
Verdes Estates. There is no valid technical rationale for this.
0 Further review shows there is a large discepancy between coverage of
existing sites versus that of proposed sites within the RPV map set
• Existing "small cell" sites should have comparable coverage to the new,
proposed small cell sites. Yet in virtually every case, the existing sites are
depicted as having far less coverage. This just isn't credible
• There appears to be systemic error in the coverage of all existing sites
that is not present in the proposed sites. The error is estimated to be 10-
15 dB, comparable to the PVE "existing" map discrepancy.
• As Crown Castle is attempting to compel RPV to approve non-compliant
cell towers with these maps, these descrepancies are unacceptable
E-212
Existing vs. Proposed Coverage (1900 MHz) submitted to RPV
(ZOOMED IN from full size map)
�G34
EXISTING COVERAGE
Pink Dots — Existing small cells
Purple Dots — Existing macro
(large, high power) sites
PROPOSED COVERAGE
Red Dots — New, proposed small cells
Coverage from the existing sites (left chart — pink dots) should
be comparable to the proposed sites (right chart — red dots).
Instead it is much smaller without any credible explanation.
-213
Existing and Proposed Coverage (1900 MHz) Shown Together
LTE Coverage (Existing Macro/oDAS and Proposed New oDAS) — PCS 1900MHz
In virtually every case, the existing small cells sites (pink dots) have dramatically
smaller coverage than the proposed sites (red dots). This is obviously wrong.
CASE STUDY — Existing Small Cell (pink dot) vs.
Proposed Small Cell (red dot)
i Ad
1900 MHz .
IASG
EXISTING
Hawthorne Blvd.
30 feet tall
48 in antenna
Compare
sa
t;&�' -s
Same RF equipment, similar antenna,
similar height and terrain —This can't
possibly be accurate
PROPOSED
Doverridge Dr.
26 ft tall
22 in antenna
E-215
700 MHz Maps Also Show Existing Site Coverage too Small
LTE Coverage (Existing MacrojoDAS and Proposed New oDAS) — 700MHz
Not as clear here as cells run together, but compare existing (pink) to proposed (red)
CASE STUDY —Existing High Power Macro Cell (purple dot)
vs. New Proposed Small Cells (red dots)
PR()P(1tIFn
ASG53
Monero Drive
IT 79
PROPOSED
ASG37
Ridgegate Drive
Gam.
011
81Edffi
.4
14
The claim that these new small cells
have greater or even comparable
coverage to an existing high-power
macro site is absurd.
There is obviously something
significantly wrong with the existing
coverage depicted in these maps.
E-217
CONCLUSIONS
• 'These maps can't be accurate. Existing sites appear to show coverage 10-15 dB lower
than actuality while the proposed sites look approximately correct. The existing
coverage being too low is also shown when compared to maps submitted to PVE
• Regardless of how this happened, these errors raise serious questions regarding Crown
Castle's alleged "significant gap" claims on AM's behalf
• Crown Castle has an interest in existing coverage appearing poor. They are trying to use
these maps to compel RPV to approve cell towers that violate RPV's local street and
new pole location restrictions (RPV MC 12.18.200)
• The intent of RPV's location restrictions is to protect aesthetics, neighborhood
compatibility, and property values. Exemptions should not be granted lightly
• In the event Crown Castle claims existing coverage is accurately depicted, then why are
they not upgrading existing sites to improve coverage prior to requesting new sites?
• Crown Castle owes the City a full accounting of how these maps were generated
including a detailed description of all assumptions. A full independent assessment is
warranted to understand how this discrepancy happened and the true existing coverage
E-218
• About the author —Jeff Calvagna is Rancho Palos Verdes resident and a Radio Frequency Systems Engineer with over 25
years' experience in antenna design, propagation analysis, and developing link budgets. The author has access to
specialized test equipment allowing field measurements and has extensively characterized AM's wireless network
and service on the peninsula. The author has no competing interests and has received no compensation for any effort
regarding Crown Castle's proposed deployment.
E-219
BACKUP — FULL RPV AT&T MAP SET FOR REFERENCE
AT&T Propagation Maps
Submitted by Crown Castle on behalf of AT&T
Received by Rancho Palos Verdes
Maps dated 8/15/16
Submitted for Crown Castle's AT&T deployment
Includes coverage of all RPV
Existing coverage: marked "Existing macro/oDAS"
Proposed new coverage: marked "proposed new oDAS"
Combined existing and proposed: marked "Existing Macro/oDAS and
proposed new oDAS"
E-220
LTE Caverage Analysis
Market Name: los Angeles
+ Rancho Palos Verdes Area oDAS
❖ Plots Completion Date: August 15, 2016
E-221
LTE Existing Macro/oDAS (PCS 1900MHz) - Coverage
E-222
E.
E-223
Y
i
August 1S, 2016 aw
L -
E-226
WWI C
th Oki,
.r4.^^^""ftvw=~-,vww°=~v�°�~=".".Ir W, .
August 15, 2016
Ara Mihranian
From: Jeff Calvagna <jcalvagna@netzero.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 5, 2017 11:02 AM
To: Ara Mihranian; Nicole Jules; PC
Cc: Christy Lopez; Lona Laymon
Subject: Required undergrounding of cell tower equipment
Attachments: RPV cell tower undergrounding Calvagna.pdf, SCE_3547E_wireless_technology_rate.pdf
(Note: In the event this email formatting is lost, this memo is attached as a PDF file)
Director Mihranian, Assistant Director Jules, and Planning Commission members,
As was discussed at the 7/25/2017 Planning Commission hearing, RPV Municipal Code 12.18.080(A)(12) requires that all
wireless facility accessory equipment be located underground unless deemed infeasible by the City. This was an
important and key aspect of our wireless ordinance in protecting our City's aesthetics and neighborhood character and
must be enforced. It is no different that RPV's four decade old requirement of undergrounding new utility
infrastructure.
None of Crown Castle's proposed AT&T cell towers comply with this requirement.
Crown Castle's rationale for an ordinance exception is extremely superficial, and is based on two rather flimsy
arguments:
• Underground vaults require intrusive ventilation stacks (large above ground air vent pipes) thus an above
ground cabinet is comparable, or even less, intrusive than an underground vault
• An above ground electric meter is required so the City may as well allow an above ground cabinet with the
meter attached to the side
Neither of these arguments is persuasive. My belief is that Crown Castle is proposing above ground cabinets as they are
inexpensive and convenient rather than any substantive technical or engineering rationale. Further, important changes
to Southern California Edison's "Wireless Technology Rate" program will soon remove the electric meter requirement.
No Need for Above Ground Ventilation Stacks
The first point is easily debunked. There are numerous examples of existing cell tower equipment throughout the City
that use ground -flush ventilation grates rather than intrusive above ground ventilation stacks. The notion that the
minimal heat dissipated by the proposed equipment requires some sort of industrially -sized ventilation towers is
completely unsupported and frankly ridiculous. Using the ground -flush vent grate method is not unusual and is a
reasonable installation requirement.
In addition, Crown Castle has previously proposed small underground vaults using ground -flush vents in Santa Barbara
County (Montecito). During the 7/25/2017 hearing, I displayed an engineering drawing from this deployment depicting
the vault (below).
E-228
S' Ga?A1 W
{rtOV51 rM
(3y dYORr v,.�tarrttb '�NFd9J �. �± ¢fix aFA rev A 4A+lAN rb
av54eR aawr;�tx tctw,tr,�s ma - rte sa,n ----� �
. 12?2V e.+tv?r*rr'o LRA(f CAM + W xrs' 4" WU
twats9 } y.
r,70 V;er r v ( �
lJ
�Ti+M� it J e*r• r «any
r .-M owa'U wscr
WMI p a• ctwz07
44r rm /- f** CAAAQ
Ulu
�s
"'—,•.–'+xwa ar+sr air
4'
WOO$
b �y
y-
f�aff
x . �4R4 ire? ro
AND
1`M
(Embedded photo) Drawing excerpt of the Crown Castle's minimally intrusive underground vault used in Montecito.
The City can access the full engineering package at this link:
http://sbcou ntypla nning.org/PDF/boa rds/M PC/07-24-2014/13CUP-00000-00009/Plans. pdf
In response to my public hearing comments, Aaron Snyder from Crown Castle stated that these were large subterranean
vaults enabling full personnel access. There was an implication that this type of installation would be physically large
and imposing. While that may be true in some existing macro site installations, it is certainly not the case in Crown
Castle's proposed Montecito small cell Deployment. A review of the drawings at the link will show the proposed vaults
are less than six feet long, approximately three feet deep, and are minimally intrusive. There is no reason some sort of
comparable installation can't be used in RPV.
Need for an Above—Ground Electric M
When these applications were originally filed in 2016, Southern California Edison did require an above ground electric
meter for many of these sites; however this is not sufficient rationale to allow an even more intrusive equipment
cabinet. Importantly, dedicated electric meters will soon not be required.
Effective February 23, 2017, Southern California Edison filed an advice letter with the California Public Utilities
Commission (Advice Letter 3547-E, see attachment) that revises the electric meter requirement for virtually all "small
cell" installations. This revision changes important aspects of SCE's "wireless technology rate" (WTR) to encompass
these proposed sites and thus allow flat rate, unmetered installations.
The previous WTR limited applicability to sites consuming no more than 500 kiloWatt-hours (kWh) per month, thus
Crown Castle's proposed sites did exceed this level. The new WTR includes a tiered system that extends up to 2700 kWh
E-229
•:
w -x 4'*VWD 4CVX
WOU W€16r K
x 3" 9e'r'+ltta !
(3y dYORr v,.�tarrttb '�NFd9J �. �± ¢fix aFA rev A 4A+lAN rb
av54eR aawr;�tx tctw,tr,�s ma - rte sa,n ----� �
. 12?2V e.+tv?r*rr'o LRA(f CAM + W xrs' 4" WU
twats9 } y.
r,70 V;er r v ( �
lJ
�Ti+M� it J e*r• r «any
r .-M owa'U wscr
WMI p a• ctwz07
44r rm /- f** CAAAQ
Ulu
�s
"'—,•.–'+xwa ar+sr air
4'
WOO$
b �y
y-
f�aff
x . �4R4 ire? ro
AND
1`M
(Embedded photo) Drawing excerpt of the Crown Castle's minimally intrusive underground vault used in Montecito.
The City can access the full engineering package at this link:
http://sbcou ntypla nning.org/PDF/boa rds/M PC/07-24-2014/13CUP-00000-00009/Plans. pdf
In response to my public hearing comments, Aaron Snyder from Crown Castle stated that these were large subterranean
vaults enabling full personnel access. There was an implication that this type of installation would be physically large
and imposing. While that may be true in some existing macro site installations, it is certainly not the case in Crown
Castle's proposed Montecito small cell Deployment. A review of the drawings at the link will show the proposed vaults
are less than six feet long, approximately three feet deep, and are minimally intrusive. There is no reason some sort of
comparable installation can't be used in RPV.
Need for an Above—Ground Electric M
When these applications were originally filed in 2016, Southern California Edison did require an above ground electric
meter for many of these sites; however this is not sufficient rationale to allow an even more intrusive equipment
cabinet. Importantly, dedicated electric meters will soon not be required.
Effective February 23, 2017, Southern California Edison filed an advice letter with the California Public Utilities
Commission (Advice Letter 3547-E, see attachment) that revises the electric meter requirement for virtually all "small
cell" installations. This revision changes important aspects of SCE's "wireless technology rate" (WTR) to encompass
these proposed sites and thus allow flat rate, unmetered installations.
The previous WTR limited applicability to sites consuming no more than 500 kiloWatt-hours (kWh) per month, thus
Crown Castle's proposed sites did exceed this level. The new WTR includes a tiered system that extends up to 2700 kWh
E-229
per month, easily encompassing the power consumption of the proposed sites. Adoption of this new WTR is currently
underway. (Please see the attached file for the advice letter and WTR background). Once this plan is formalized and in
place, there will no longer be a dedicated electric meter requirement for any of these sites.
The City must not be persuaded to accept above ground equipment cabinets based on the electric meter rationale.
Even without changes to SCE's WTR program, an above ground electric meter is far less intrusive than what Crown
Castle proposes. Please consider these facts:
• Crown Castle is proposing to attach a large exposed and unsightly "bubble meter" to the side of their above
ground equipment cabinet, something not evident in the mock-ups. (Please see the photo below of an existing
Crown Castle installation.)
• A dedicated electric meter is less intrusive than the cabinet proposed by Crown Castle for their equipment,
being only 16 inches wide and 48 inches tall and fully self contained.
• Unlike the equipment cabinet which should be within around 50 feet of the antenna location for technical
reasons, an electric meter can be located hundreds of feet distant. It can be located in a relatively unintrusive
location and screened from view.
• If an existing City -owned electric meter is in the vicinity, power can be accessed from it without requiring a new
meter.
(Embedded photo) Photo of an existing Crown Castle ATT Equipment Cabinet with side mounted electric meter
(location on east side of Crenshaw, south of Crest Road)
3 E-230
Coupling these facts with changes to SCE's WTR program, there is no compelling rationale to allow above ground
equipment cabinets.
Even if time constraints require site installation prior to full adoption of SCE's new WTR program, the City must require
undergrounding of equipment with a separate electric meter pedestal if needed. Then, as a condition of approval, the
City can require removal of the electric meter pedestal once the new SCE WTR plan is fully in place. If the City allows
above ground equipment cabinets now (whatever the rationale) it is all but certain that the accessory equipment will
never moved underground. To protect our City's aesthetics, RPV must clearly bifurcate the electric meter issue from
that of the location of the accessory equipment itself. They are two separate and distinct concerns.
I urge staff to familiarize themselves with the points raised in this memo and carefully study the attached SCE document
regarding changes to the WTR program. Crown Castle's arguments for allowing the above ground equipment cabinet
are superficial and self-serving. The City is under no obligation to approve intrusive, non -complaint installations to
further Crown Castle's financial interests.
Best regards and please contact me if I can be off assistance.
Jeff Calvagna
Attachments: PDF of this memo, SCE Wireless Technology Rate advice letter and background
E-231
Comments regarding required undergrounding of wireless facility accessory equipment
Jeff Calvagna
August 5, 2017
Director Mihranian, Assistant Director Jules, and Planning Commission members,
As was discussed at the 7/25/2017 Planning Commission hearing, RPV Municipal Code 12.18.080(A)(12)
requires that all wireless facility accessory equipment be located underground unless deemed infeasible
by the City. This was an important and key aspect of our wireless ordinance in protecting our City's
aesthetics and neighborhood character and must be enforced. it is no different that RPV's four decade
old requirement of undergrounding new utility infrastructure.
None of Crown Castle's proposed AT&T cell towers comply with this requirement.
Crown Castle's rationale for an ordinance exception is extremely superficial, and is based on two rather
flimsy arguments:
• Underground vaults require intrusive ventilation stacks (large above ground air vent pipes) thus
an above ground cabinet is comparable, or even less, intrusive than an underground vault
• An above ground electric meter is required so the City may as well allow an above ground
cabinet with the meter attached to the side
Neither of these arguments is persuasive. My belief is that Crown Castle is proposing above ground
cabinets as they are inexpensive and convenient rather than any substantive technical or engineering
rationale. Further, important changes to Southern California Edison's "Wireless Technology Rate"
program will soon remove the electric meter requirement.
No Need for Above Ground Ventilation Stacks
The first point is easily debunked. There are numerous examples of existing cell tower equipment
throughout the City that use ground -flush ventilation grates rather than intrusive above ground
ventilation stacks. The notion that the minimal heat dissipated by the proposed equipment requires
some sort of industrially -sized ventilation towers is completely unsupported and frankly ridiculous.
Using the ground -flush vent grate method is not unusual and is a reasonable installation requirement.
In addition, Crown Castle has previously proposed small underground vaults using ground -flush vents in
Santa Barbara County (Montecito). During the 7/25/2017 hearing, I displayed an engineering drawing
from this deployment depicting the vault (below).
E-232
PTC) � wr. wp w
(2) RUSH ITOtRTTEO LfNr(S) _riu BE COCA MD N A NANMR TO
WE
&V PROPER ARANCES AV ACCORDANCE TO C.YTY
-WCVfOAr MVS i
(Og1212P PARKWAY ORATE CAST IRON 19" x191 ST LBS)
010M+O tim 7 RN k Ow s
I -CM COO
CRUSHCO ROM
LEM MUST BE
MOVE D*AWAOE
MOUS
91 wur Ps1E
(MYN r Notts V
A 2' SEPARAMY)
11
SUMP P(W i j
PT W TOP SECT fN SCALY -RJ
amt -N Arom Rr=
V-91
INTERNAL VAULT CONFIGURA17ON
ouncT p S* CON"t
JST FAR f (AMU EXHAUST
40 PVC
V- POW
OT
TnJssr or
AOOK ORAWAOE
HOLES
Y YENr PP$
(MTH 1- HOLtfS tl' • VED
X J1 WARAflON) TO 1
AND
Th
Drawing excerpt of the Crown Castle's minimally intrusive underground vault used in Montecito.
The City can access the full engineering package at this link:
http://sbcountVplan ning.org/PDF/boa rds/M PC/07-24-2014/`13CU P-00000-00009/Plans. pdf
In response to my public hearing comments, Aaron Snyder from Crown Castle stated that these were
large subterranean vaults enabling full personnel access. There was an implication that this type of
installation would be physically large and imposing. While that may be true in some existing macro site
installations, it is certainly not the case in Crown Castle's proposed Montecito small cell Deployment. A
review of the drawings at the link will show the proposed vaults are less than six feet long,
approximately three feet deep, and are minimally intrusive. There is no reason some sort of comparable
installation can't be used in RPV.
Need for an Above—Ground Electric Meter
When these applications were originally filed in 2016, Southern California Edison did require an above
ground electric meter for many of these sites; however this is not sufficient rationale to allow an even
more intrusive equipment cabinet. Importantly, dedicated electric meters will soon not be required.
Effective February 23, 2017, Southern California Edison filed an advice letter with the California Public
Utilities Commission (Advice Letter 3547-E) that revises the electric meter requirement for virtually all
"small cell" installations. This revision changes important aspects of SCE's "wireless technology rate"
(WTR) to encompass these proposed sites and thus allow flat rate, unmetered installations.
The previous WTR limited applicability to sites consuming no more than 500 kiloWatt-hours (kWh) per
month, thus Crown Castle's proposed sites did exceed this level. The new WTR includes a tiered system
that extends up to 2700 kWh per month, easily encompassing the power consumption of the proposed
2
E-233
sites. Adoption of this new WTR is currently underway. (Please see the attached file for the advice
letter and WTR background). Once this lan is formalized and in place, there will no longer be a
dedicated electric meter requirement for any of these sites.
The City must not be persuaded to accept above ground equipment cabinets based on the electric
meter rationale. Even without changes to SCE's WTR program, an above ground electric meter is far less
intrusive than what Crown Castle proposes. Please consider these facts:
• Crown Castle is proposing to attach a large exposed and unsightly "bubble meter" to the side of
their above ground equipment cabinet, something not evident in the mock-ups. (Please see the
photo below of an existing Crown Castle installation.)
• A dedicated electric meter is less intrusive than the cabinet proposed by Crown Castle for their
equipment, being only 16 inches wide and 48 inches tall and fully self contained.
• Unlike the equipment cabinet which should be within around 50 feet of the antenna location for
technical reasons, an electric meter can be located hundreds of feet distant. It can be located in
a relatively unintrusive location and screened from view.
• If an existing City -owned electric meter is in the vicinity, power can be accessed from it without
requiring a new meter.
Photo of an existing Crown Castle ATT Equipment Cabinet with side mounted electric meter (location
on east side of Crenshaw, south of Crest Road)
E-234
Coupling these facts with changes to SCE's WTR program, there is no compelling rationale to allow
above ground equipment cabinets.
Even if time constraints require site installation prior to full adoption of SCE's new WTR program, the
City must require undergrounding of equipment with a separate electric meter pedestal if needed.
Then, as a condition of approval, the City can require removal of the electric meter pedestal once the
new SCE WTR plan is fully in place. If the City allows above ground equipment cabinets now (whatever
the rationale) it is all but certain that the accessory equipment will never moved underground. To
protect our City's aesthetics, RPV must clearly bifurcate the electric meter issue from that of the location
of the accessory equipment itself. They are two separate and distinct concerns.
I urge staff to familiarize themselves with the points raised in this memo and carefully study the
attached SCE document regarding changes to the WTR program. Crown Castle's arguments for allowing
the above ground equipment cabinet are superficial and self-serving. The City is under no obligation to
approve intrusive, non -complaint installations to further Crown Castle's financial interests.
Best regards and please contact me if I can be off assistance.
Jeff Calvagna
Attachments: PDF of this memo, SCE Wireless Technology Rate advice letter and background
4
E-235
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION pp
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298
May 4, 2017
Russell G. Worden
Director, Regulatory Operations
Southern California Edison Company
8631 Rush Street
Rosemead, CA 91770
Advice Letter 3547-E
Subject: Revisions to Schedule Wireless Technology Rate (WTR)
Dear Mr. Worden:
Advice Letter 3547-E is effective as of February 23, 2017
Sincerely,
Edward Randolph
Director, Energy Division
E-236
sourrirrtr CALIFORNIA
EDISON
%;,I WMII, tkrt:a,,r MCIVA I. company
January 24, 2017
ADVICE 3547-E
(U 338-E)
Russell G. Worden
Managing Director, State Regulatory Operations
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ENERGY DIVISION
SUBJECT: Revisions to Schedule WTR, Wireless Technology Rate
Southern California Edison Company (SCE) hereby submits for filing the following
changes to its tariffs. The revised tariff sheets are listed on Attachment A and are
attached hereto.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this advice letter is to modify Schedule WTR, Wireless Technology
Rate, by adding service levels (i.e., tiers) to the existing tariff. Each tier is associated
with a unique level of service requiring incrementally greater levels of usage
(kWh/month) and fuse size (amps).
BACKGROUND
On November 18, 1999, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC or
Commission) issued Decision (D.) 99-11-054, which approved SCE's request to offer a
new rate schedule for wireless communication service providers. Accordingly, SCE
filed Advice 1422-E on December 8, 1999 to implement and establish the Experimental
Schedule WTR, which became effective on January 24, 2000. This experimental or
"pilot" program offered wireless communication service providers with a fixed-rate, non -
metered electrical service tariff for their micro -cell facilities in areas where jurisdictional
agencies have a code, ordinance, formal policy statement, or other requirement which
prohibits the wireless service provider from installing electrical metering facilities in the
public right-of-way. The electrical facilities are required by wireless service providers to
serve wireless telecommunication equipment, and to deploy a communications
infrastructure. Experimental Schedule WTR was subsequently closed to new
customers on March 31, 2002.
On July 19, 2002, SCE filed Advice 1638-E, which became effective on August 28,
2002, to reopen and extend the pilot program until September 1, 2004. The advice filing
P.O. Box 800 8631 Rush Street Rosemead, California 91770 (626) 302-4177 Fax (626) 302-6396
E-237
ADVICE 3547-E
(U 338-E) - 2 - January 24, 2017
also expanded the device charge tiers from 4 tiers to 10 tiers. The original Experimental
Schedule WTR provided fixed-rate, non -metered electrical service for kWh usage
between 0 and 200 kWh per device per month. The increase to 10 tiers expanded
service to include units having monthly kWh usage between 201 and 500 kWh. This
change was made to accommodate the current generation of wireless communication
devices at that time.
On July 22, 2004, SCE filed Advice 1809-E and proposed to: (1) make Experimental
Schedule WTR permanent; (2) increase the Customer Charge; (3) include an inspection
charge, in place of the existing monitoring charge, which is included in the Distribution
rate component of Schedule WTR, to recover costs associated with inspecting devices;
(4) remove the limitation of the number of devices a customer can install per year, and
(5) add language throughout the tariff that further clarifies the customer's responsibility
in obtaining and retaining service. Advice 1809-E was approved on September 28.
2004 with an effective date of September 1, 2004.
On March 25, 2013, SCE filed Advice 2869-E to establish two new agreements (Forms
14-915 and 14-916) and accommodate the billing of unmetered devices. These
agreements call for a monthly fixed charge that is based on the equipment's level of
usage. Advice 2869-E also included, among other things:
1. Expanded the applicability of Schedule WTR to include utility customers
deploying AMI devices; and
2. Revisions to the Rates section of Schedule WTR to indicate the rate components
that will be charged to qualified utility customers receiving unmetered service
with AMI -related devices.
Advice 2869-E was approved on May 29, 2013 with an effective date of April 24, 2013.
The installation and use of Distributed Antenna Systems has led to usage beyond the
500 kWh level permitted under Schedule WTR. Installation of meters to measure usage
is not a viable option, particularly in jurisdictions with code or zoning ordinances that
prohibit the installation of pedestals in right-of-ways. Installed meters occupy real estate
on utility -owned assets that could be leased for revenue. They also require additional
review and inspection, which increase the costs of operating and maintaining these
assets for the load -serving entity.
For the reasons stated above, SCE proposes to modify Schedule WTR by providing
additional tiers to the existing tariff to accommodate usage up to 2,700 kWh/month.
This change is consistent with the tiers currently offered by San Diego Gas & Electric
Company (SDG&E) to its wireless -service -provider customers under Schedule UM,
Unmetered Electric Service. The change proposed in this advice filing will allow SCE to
accommodate the growing needs of its customers.
E-238
ADVICE 3547-E
(U 338-E) - 3 - January 24, 2017
PROPOSED TARIFF CHANGES
SCE proposes to increase the number of tiers under the Rates section of Schedule
WTR from 10 to 15. The level of usage accommodated at each tier will increase from
roughly 50 kWh to 500 kWh. This will accommodate growing customer usage, while
limiting the number of tiers in Schedule WTR.
Proposed Increase in Tiers and Rates under Schedule WTR
Fixed Energy Charge - $/ Device/ M ont h
Monthly Usage Fuse Size
[amps]
Maximum Watt/Connected
Load Name Plate
1
0 - 50 kWh KTK-3/4
75 watts
2
51 - 100 kWh KTK-1
149 watts
Tiers
101 - 150 kWh KTK-1-1/2
224 watts
4
151 - 200 kWh KTK-2
298 watts
5
201 - 250 kWh KTK-2-1/2
373 watts
6
1
0-50 kWh/month
0.43
2.18 (R)
0.32(l)
0.00 (1)
0.67(1)
0.27
0.02
3.89(l)
2
51- 100 kWh/month
0.86(1)
4.35 (R)
0.65(l)
0.00(f)
1,35(1)
0.55(l)
0.04(l)
7.80(l)
3
101- 150 kWh/month
1.29(1)
6.53 (R)
0.97(1)
0.00(f)
2.02(1)
0.82(l)
0.06(l)
11.69(l)
4
151-200 kWh/month
1.72(1)
8.70 (R)
1,30(1)
0.00(j)
2.69(l)
1.10(1)
0.09(1)
15.60(l)
5
201-250kWh/month
2.15(1)
10.89(R)
1.62(1)
0.00(1)
3.37(1)
1.37(1)
0.11(1)
19.51(1)
6
251- 300 kWh/month
2,58(l)
13.06 (R)
1.94(l)
0.00 (1)
4.04(l)
1.65(l)
0.13(l)
23.40(l)
7
301- 350 kWh/month
3.01(1)
15.23(R)
2.27(1)
0.00(1)
4.71(1)
1.92(1)
0.15(1)
27.29(1)
8
351- 400 kWh/month
3.44(1)
17.41(R)
2.59(1)
0.00(1)
5.38(1)
2.20(l)
0.17(1)
31.19(t)
9
401-450 kWh/month
3.87(1)
19.58 (R)
2.92(l)
0.00(1)
6.06(l)
2.47(1)
0.19(l)
35.09(l)
10
451- 500 kWh/month
4.30(l)
21.76 (R)
3.24(l)
0.01(1)
6.74(l)
2.75(1)
0.22(l)
39.02(l)
11
501- 900 kWh/month
7.74 (N)
39.17(N)
5.83 (N)
0.01(N)
12.12 (N)
4.94 (N)
0.39 (N)
70.20 (N)
12
901- 1350 kWh/month
11.61(N)
58.75 (N)
8.75 (N)
0.01(N)
18.18 (N)
7.41(N)
0.58 (N)
105.29 (N)
13
1351- 1800 kWh/month
15.48 (N)
78.34 (N)
11.66 (N)
0.02 (N)
24.25(N)
9.88 (N)
0.77(N)
140.40 (N)
14
1801- 2250 kWh/month
19.35 (N)
97.93 (N)
14.58 (N)
0.02 (N)
30.31(N)
12.35 (N)
0.97 (N)
175.51(N)
15
2251-2700 kWh/month
23.22 (N)
117.50 (N)
17.50 (N)
0.03 (N)
36.37(N)
14.82 (N)
1.16 (N)
210.60 (N)
2.86(l) 0.00(i)
5.72(f) 0.00(i)
8.57 (I) 0.00(1)
11.43(l) 0.00(i)
14.29(1) 0.00(1)
17.15(l) 0.00(j)
20.00(1) 0.00(1)
22,86(l) 0.00(i)
25.72(l) 0.00(i)
28.58 (1) 0.00(1)
51.44 (N) 0.00 (N)
77.15(N) 0.00(N)
10 2.8 7 (N) 0.00 (N)
128.59 (N) 0.00 (N)
154.31(N) 0.00 (N)
Furthermore, SCE proposes to increase the fuse sizes that are eligible for service under
Schedule WTR from 6 amps to 30 amps.
Proposed Fuse Sizes Eligible for Service under Schedule WTR
Tiers
Monthly Usage Fuse Size
[amps]
Maximum Watt/Connected
Load Name Plate
1
0 - 50 kWh KTK-3/4
75 watts
2
51 - 100 kWh KTK-1
149 watts
3
101 - 150 kWh KTK-1-1/2
224 watts
4
151 - 200 kWh KTK-2
298 watts
5
201 - 250 kWh KTK-2-1/2
373 watts
6
251 - 300 kWh KTK-3
448 watts
7
301 - 350 kWh KTK-3-1/2
522 watts
8
351 - 400 kWh KTK-4
597 watts
9
401 - 450 kWh KTK-5
671 watts
10
451 - 500 kWh KTK-6
746 watts
11
501 - 900 kWh KTK-10
1343 watts
12
901 - 1350 kWh KTK-15
2014 watts
13
1351 - 1800 kWh KTK-20
2686 watts
E-239
ADVICE 3547-E
(U 338-E) - 4 - January 24, 2017
14 1 1801 - 2250 kWh KTK-25 1 3357 watts
15 1 2251 - 2700 kWh KTK-30 1 4028 watts
No cost information is required for this advice filing.
TIER DESIGNATION
Pursuant to General Order (GO) 96-13, Energy Industry Rule 5.2, this advice letter is
submitted with a Tier 2 designation.
EFFECTIVE DATE
This advice filing will become effective on February 23, 2017, the 30th calendar day after
the date filed.
NOTICE
Anyone wishing to protest this advice filing may do so by letter via U.S. Mail, facsimile,
or electronically, any of which must be received no later than 20 days after the date of
this advice filing. Protests should be submitted to:
CPUC, Energy Division
Attention: Tariff Unit
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, California 94102
E-mail: EDTariffUnitCa?_cpuc_ca.gov
Copies should also be mailed to the attention of the Director, Energy Division,
Room 4004 (same address above).
In addition, protests and all other correspondence regarding this advice letter should
also be sent by letter and transmitted via facsimile or electronically to the attention of:
Russell G. Worden
Managing Director, State Regulatory Operations
Southern California Edison Company
8631 Rush Street
Rosemead, California 91770
Telephone: (626) 302-4177
Facsimile: (626) 302-6396
E-mail: AdviceTariffManagera-sce.com
E-240
ADVICE 3547-E
(U 338-E) - 5 - January 24, 2017
Laura Genao
Managing Director, State Regulatory Affairs
c/o Karyn Gansecki
Southern California Edison Company
601 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 2030
San Francisco, California 94102
Facsimile: (415) 929-5544
E-mail: Karyn.GanseckiO-sce_com
There are no restrictions on who may file a protest, but the protest shall set forth
specifically the grounds upon which it is based and must be received by the deadline
shown above.
In accordance with General Rule 4 of GO 96-13, SCE is serving copies of this advice
filing to the interested parties shown on the attached GO 96-B service list. Address
change requests to the GO 96-B service list should be directed by electronic mail to
AdviceTariffManager(aD-sce.com or at (626) 302-4039. For changes to all other service
lists, please contact the Commission's Process Office at (415) 703-2021 or by electronic
mail at Process OfficeCcbcpuc.ca.gov.
Further, in accordance with Public Utilities Code Section 491, notice to the public is
hereby given by filing and keeping the advice filing at SCE's corporate headquarters.
To view other SCE advice letters filed with the Commission, log on to SCE's web site at
hftps://www.sce.com/wps/portal/home/regulatory/advice-letters.
For questions, please contact Jenny Chen at (626) 302-8823 or by electronic mail at
JennyChienYi.Chen (d)-sce.com.
Southern California Edison Company
/s/ Russell G. Worden
Russell G. Worden
RGW:jc:jm
Enclosures
E-241
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
ADVICE LETTER FILING SUMMARY
ENERGY UTILITY
MUST :131 CMPLETEE 13 UTlLI, , =' Attachl�ltionai a ess needed .
Company name/CPUC Utility No.: Southern California Edison Company U 338-E
Utility type:
Contact Person: Darrah Morgan
R ELC ❑ GAS
Phone #: (626) 302-2086
❑ PLC ❑ HEAT ❑ WATER
E-mail: Darrah.MorganCa)sce.com
E-mail Disposition Notice to: AdviceTariffMana er sce.com
EXPLANATION OF UTILITY TYPE
(Date Filed/ Received Stamp by CPUC)
ELC = Electric GAS = Gas
PLC = Pipeline HEAT = Heat WATER = Water
Advice Letter (AL) #: 3547-E Tier Designation: 2
Subject of AL: Revisions to Schedule WTR, Wireless Technology Rate
Keywords (choose from CPUC listing): Compliance
AL filing type: ❑ Monthly ❑ Quarterly ❑ Annual 0 One -Time ❑ Other
If AL filed in compliance with a Commission order, indicate relevant Decision/Resolution #:
Does AL replace a withdrawn or rejected AL? If so, identify the prior AL:
Summarize differences between the AL and the prior withdrawn or rejected AL:
Confidential treatment requested? ❑ Yes RI No
If yes, specification of confidential information:
Confidential information will be made available to appropriate parties who execute a nondisclosure agreement.
Name and contact information to request nondisclosure agreement/access to confidential information:
Resolution Required? ❑ Yes Q No
Requested effective date: 2/23/17 No. of tariff sheets: -7-
Estimated system annual revenue effect: (%):
Estimated system average rate effect (%):
When rates are affected by AL, include attachment in AL showing average rate effects on customer classes
(residential, small commercial, large C/I, agricultural, lighting).
Tariff schedules affected: Schedule WTR, Form 14-687, and Table of Contents
Service affected and changes proposed':
Pending advice letters that revise the same tariff sheets: None
' Discuss in AL if more space is needed.
E-242
Protests and all other correspondence regarding this AL are due no later than 20 days after the date of
this filing, unless otherwise authorized by the Commission, and shall be sent to:
CPUC, Energy Division
Attention: Tariff Unit
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, California 94102
E-mail: EDTariffUnitQcpuc.ca.gov
Russell G. Worden
Managing Director, State Regulatory Operations
Southern California Edison Company
8631 Rush Street
Rosemead, California 91770
Telephone: (626) 302-4177
Facsimile: (626) 302-6396
E-mail: AdviceTariffManager@sce.com
Laura Genao
Managing Director, State Regulatory Affairs
c/o Karyn Gansecki
Southern California Edison Company
601 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 2030
San Francisco, California 94102
Facsimile: (415) 929-5544
E-mail: Karyn.Gansecki@sce.com
E-243
Public Utilities Commission WTR Attachment A
Cal. P.U.C.
Sheet No.
Revised 61146-E Schedule WTR
Revised 61147-E Schedule WTR
Revised 61148-E Schedule WTR
Revised 61149-E Form 14-687
Revised 61150-E Table of Contents
Revised 61151-E Table of Contents
Revised 61152-E Table of Contents
Title of Sheet
Cancelling Cal.
P.U.C. Sheet No.
Revised 61080-E
Revised 61081-E
Revised 51996-E
Revised 55517-E
Revised 60836-E
Revised 60837-E
Revised 59608-E
E-244
sourHenry cnutonnra
' EDISON
Southern California Edison Revised Cal. PUC Sheet No. 61146-E
Rosemead, California (U 338-E) Cancelling Revised Cal. PUC Sheet No. 61080-E
Schedule WTR Sheet 1
WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY RATE
APPLICABILITY
Applicable to single-phase service for wireless technology industries and utility customers deploying
advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) that require electric service to operate radio repeaters or
similar devices (wireless communication devices) that are mounted on existing SCE facilities, or other
facilities approved by SCE and are unmetered. This Schedule excludes Wi-Fi devices on "looped"
(served by 120/240 volts) streetlight facilities owned by SCE. Customers must execute an
application/contract with SCE for service under this Schedule, and must execute an applicable
agreement when devices are attached to SCE -owned facilities. The monthly kilowatt-hour (kWh)
usage of each device shall not exceed 2,700 kWh. Effective with the date the customer becomes
(C)
ineligible for service under this Schedule, the customer's account shall be transferred to Schedule
GS -1 or another applicable rate schedule. If the customer's account cannot be transferred to another
applicable rate schedule, the account will be closed, SCE's service will be removed and the customer
must remove its device and equipment from the applicable SCE -owned facility.
TERRITORY
Within the entire territory served.
RATES
Delivery Service enera ion
vans is FUM11 N6= I NUG- I PPP(;' jDVVRt3(;1jPU(;Kl-1j I o a
Fixed Energy Charge- $/Device/M oath
Tiers
1 0 - 50 kWh/month 0.43 2.16 0.32 0.00 0.67 0.27 0.02 3.89 2.86 0.00
2 51- 100 kWh/month 0.86 4.35 0.65 0.00 1.35 0.55 0.04 7.80 5.72 0.00
3 101- 150 kWWmonth 1.29 6.53 0.97 0.00 2.02 0.82 0.06 11.69 8.57 0.00
4 151-200 kWh/month 1.72 8.70 1.30 0.00 2.69 1.10 0.09 15.60 11.43 0.00
5 201- 2250 kWtVmonth 2.15 1D.89 1.62 0.00 3.37 1.37 0.11 19.51 14.29 0.00
6 251-300 kWh/month 2.58 13.06 1.94 0.00 4.04 1.65 0.13 23.40 17.15 0.00
7 301- 350 kWFVmonth 3.01 15.23 2.27 0.00 4.71 1.92 0.15 27.29 20.00 0.00
8 351- 400 kWh/month 3.44 17.41 2.59 0.00 5.38 2.20 0.17 31.19 22.86 0.00
9 401-450 kWh/month 3.87 19.58 2.92 0.00 6.06 2.47 0.19 35.09 25.72 0.00
10 451-500 kWh/month 4.30 21.76 3.24 0.01 6.74 2.75 0.22 39.02 28.58 0.00
11 501- 900 kWlVmonth 7.74 39.17 5.83 0.01 12.12 4.94 0.39 70.20 51.44 0.00
(N)
12 901- 1350 kWh/month 11.61 58.75 8.75 0.01 18.13 7.41 0.58 105.29 77.15 0.00
13 1351- 1800 kWtVmonth 15.48 78.34 11.66 0.02 24.25 9.88 0.77 140.40 102.87 0.00
14 1801- 2250 kWh/month 19.35 97.93 14.58 0.02 30.31 12.35 0.97 175.51 128.59 0.00
2251- 2700 23.22 17.50 0.03 36.37 14.82 0.00
1
(N)
15 kWh/month 117.50 1.16 210.60 154.31
Customer Charge- $/M onth 26.70 26.70
Three -Phase Service - $/Day 0.03 0.03
Inspection Charge- $/Device/M onth 15.23 15.23
Initialization of Service Charge 7.31 7.31
One-time charge
(Continued)
(To be inserted by utility)
Advice 3547-E
Decision
1H9
Issued by (To be inserted by Cal. PUC)
Caroline Choi Date Filed Jan 24, 2017
Senior Vice President Effective Feb 23, 2017
Resolution
E-245
f"'
'soomeieH <suroanm
EDISON
Southern California Edison
Rosemead, California (U 338-E)
RATES (Continued)
AMI Devices
Energy Charge - $/Device/Month
Customer Charge -$/month
Inspection Charge - $/ Device/ Month
Initialization of Service Charge -
One -time charge
Revised Cal. PUC Sheet No. 61147-E
Cancelling Revised Cal. PUC Sheet No. 61081-E
Schedule WTR Sheet 2
WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY RATE
(Continued)
The ongoing Competition Transition Charge (CTC) of $(0.00015) per kWh is recovered in the UG component of Generation.
1 Trans = Transmission and the Transmission Owners Tariff Charge Adjustments (TOTCA) which are FERC approved. The
TOTCA represents the Transmission Revenue Balancing Account Adjustment (TRBAA) of $(0.00129) per kWh, Reliability
Services Balancing Account Adjustment (RSBAA) of $0.00012 per kWh, and Transmission Access Charge Balancing Account
Adjustment (TACBAA) of $(0.00012) per kWh.
2 Distrbtn = Distribution
3 NSGC = New System Generation Charge
4 NDC = Nuclear Decommissioning Charge
5 PPPC = Public Purpose Programs Charge (includes California Alternate Rates for Energy Charge where applicable.)
6 DWRBC = Department of Water Resources (DWR) Bond Charge. The DWR Bond Charge is not applicable to exempt Bundled
Service and Direct Access Customers, as defined in and pursuant to D.02-10-063, D.02-02-051, and D.02-12-082.
7 PUCRF = The PUC Reimbursement Fee is described in Schedule RF -E.
8 Total = Total Delivery Service rates that are applicable to both Bundled Service, Direct Access (DA) and Community Choice
Aggregation Service (CCA Service) customers, except DA and CCA Service customers are not subject to the DWRBC rate
component of this Schedule but instead pay the DWRBC as provided by Schedule DA -CRS or Schedule CCA -CRS.
9 Generation = The Generation rates are applicable only to Bundled Service Customers.
10 DWREC = Department of Water Resources (DWR) Energy Credit — For more information on the DWR Energy Credit, see the
Billing Calculation Special Condition of this Schedule.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
1. Contract: A contract, Form 14-687, is required for service under this Schedule. Utility customers
taking service for AMI -related devices must sign Form 14-915 or 14-916, as applicable.
2. Voltage: Service will be supplied at 120 volts (one fuse per 120 volt leg).
3. Three -Phase Service: Where SCE determines, it is impractical to provide single-phase service
under this Schedule, three-phase service will be provided.
4. Limited Availability: This Schedule is available only where SCE determines that an applicable
agency having jurisdiction has an existing code, ordinance, formal policy statement or
requirement that prohibits above ground electrical meter facilities in the public right-of-way.
(To be inserted by utility)
Advice 3547-E
Decision
2H9
(Continued)
Issued by
Caroline Choi
Senior Vice President
(To be inserted by Cal. PUC)
Date Filed Jan 24, 2017
Effective Feb 23, 2017
Resolution
(T)
EUDISON
Southern California Edison
Rosemead, California (U 338-E)
SPECIAL CONDITIONS (Continued)
Revised Cal. PUC Sheet No. 61148-E
Cancelling Revised Cal. PUC Sheet No. 51996-E
Schedule WTR Sheet 3
WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY RATE
(Continued)
Determination of Monthly usage: The customer must provide SCE information from which
SCE can determine the level of kWh usage to be consumed and/or level of service to be
provided, such as the manufacturers' equipment specifications, data sheets, etc., and the
number of devices to be installed. SCE will place the customer in the appropriate usage tier
and charge according to the maximum value of that tier. SCE retains the right to perform on-
site inspections to verify the energy consumption of the device(s).
6. Maximum Wattage: The rate tiers must coincide with the maximum wattage ratings listed
below. The wattage information shall be provided by the customer in order to assist SCE in
determining the appropriate tier.
Tiers
Monthly
Usage Fuse Size
Maximum Watts/Connected Load
Name Plate
1
0-50 kWh
KTK-3/4
75 watts
2
51-100 kWh
KTK-1
149 watts
3
101-150 kWh
KTK-1-1/2
224 watts
4
151-200 kWh
KTK-2
298 watts
5
201-250 kWh
KTK-2-1/2
373 watts
6
251-300 kWh
KTK-3
448 watts
7
301-350 kWh
KTK-3-1/2
522 watts
8
351-400 kWh
KTK-4
597 watts
9
401-450 kWh
KTK 5
672 watts
10
451-500 kWh
KTK-6
746 watts
11
501 — 900 kWh
KTK-10
1,343 watts (N)
12
901 — 1,350 kWh
KTK-15
2,014 watts
13
1,351 — 1,800 kWh
KTK-20
2,686 watts
14
1,801 — 2,250 kWh
KTK-25
3,357 watts
15
2,251 — 2,700 kWh
KTK-30
4,028 watts (N)
7. Installation: The device(s) shall be installed on SCE facilities, or other facilities approved by
SCE. Utility customers taking service for AMI -related devices attached to SCE -owned
facilities may attach only to underground -fed concrete streetlight poles as described in Form
14-916. When the devices are installed on SCE facilities, the installation and removal of such
device(s) will be performed by the customer, and at the customer's expense. Device
installation shall not be performed under this Schedule where location, mounting height,
and/or other considerations are not acceptable to SCE. Unless approved by SCE, all wireless
communication devices must be visible to SCE.
(To be inserted by utility)
Advice 3547-E
Decision
3C8
(Continued)
Issued by (To be inserted by Cal. PUC)
Caroline Choi Date Filed Jan 24, 2017
Senior Vice President Effective Feb 23, 2017
Resolution
E-247
"vN SOUt NFIiN GALIFOIih1A
EDISON
Southern California Edison Revised Cal. PUC Sheet No. 61149-E
Rosemead, California (U 338-E) Cancelling Revised Cal. PUC Sheet No. 55517-E
APPLICATION AND CONTRACT FOR ELECTRIC SERVICE
FOR SCHEDULE WTR
Wireless Technology Rate
(To be inserted by utility)
Advice 3547-E
Decision
ics
Form 14-687
Issued by
Caroline Choi
Senior Vice President
Sheet 1
(To be inserted by Cal. PUC)
Date Filed Jan 24, 2017
Effective Feb 23, 2017
Resolution
E-248
APPLICATION AND CONTRACT FOR ELECTRIC SERVICE
FOR SCHEDULE WTR
Wireless Technology Rate
CUSTOMER ACCOUNT NO.
SERVICE ACCOUNT NO.
TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (SCE):
The undersigned Applicant hereby requests SCE to supply electric service and to deliver electric energy to and for the equipment hereinafter described in accordance
with the applicable rates and rules of SCE including the tariff set forth herein.
Applicant hereby agrees to the following:
1. SCE has made available for inspection its applicable rates and rules. Applicant agrees to comply therewith, and with any changes or modifications thereof which may be
authorized from time to time by the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California (Commission).
2. Applicant's attention has been directed to the rate schedules applicable to the service herein described, and Applicant has elected to take and pay for unmetered service
under Schedule WTR based on fixed usage categories of 0-50, 51-100, 101-150, 151-200, 201-250, 251-300, 301-350, 351-400, 401-450, 451-500, 501-900, 901-1350, (T)
1351-1800, 1801-2250, and 2251-2700 kWh per month per device. Further, Applicant will pay a Customer Charge in accordance with the Rates section of Schedule WTR. (T)
3. Applicant hereby grants to SCE a right-of-way for any electric lines that may be necessary to build in, on, under, or over Applicant's premises for the purposes of making
delivery hereunder.
4. Applicant shall pay for and install per SCE's construction standards and subject to SCE's inspection a load control device (fused splice box) acceptable to SCE that will
ensure the Applicant's service will not exceed the fixed usage category elected by the Applicant.
5. Applicant understands that: a) the fused splice box will act as the point of service/connection between the customer and SCE and will be installed per SCE's and local
government agency requirements; b) the fused splice box will be locked with an SCE lock and made accessible only by SCE; c) the applicant shall provide all SCE approved
fuses to be installed by SCE; d) if the service exceeds the maximum tier or the Commission closes this Schedule the customer must remove their pole mounted
equipment, including the fused splice box, and install a metered service under the applicable tariff per SCE's electrical service requirements and applicable governmental
agency requirements; e) once the maximum kWh of a tier has been exceeded, SCE will automatically move the applicant to the next available tier, the applicant shall
provide the appropriate size fuses for that tier, and SCE will bill accordingly; f) service shall be provided per the provisions of Rule 15 and/or 16, g) SCE will not approve an
application for service under this rate schedule until all the required documentation has been submitted to SCE, and h) installation of service and customer apparatus must
abide by General Order 95, Cal-Osha 98, and the National Electric Code.
6. Within 36 months of commencement of service under this contract, when a change is made to SCE's facilities, settlement shall be made for the installation and removal
cost of the facilities removed. A new contract shall be entered into providing for the modified service required by Applicant.
7. This contract shall at all times be subject to such changes or modifications by the Commission as said Commission may, from time to time, direct in the exercise of its
jurisdiction.
8. Where applicable — Contract Demand (kW).
SERVICE
ADDRESS
CONNECTED
LOAD
CORPORATE OR
INDIVIDUAL'S NA
DEVICE MODEL NUMBER WATTAGE RATING FIXED ENERGY USAGE TIER
EST. MAX.
DEMAND
DATED _ D.B.A.
Customer Signature Customer Printed Named
DATED
SCE Printed Name
SCE Signature
SCE POLE
NUMBER
APPROVED AND ACCEPTED FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
PROGRAM/PROJECT MANAGER
01/2017
Form 14-687
E-249
r1, cauroeniw
'3 EDISON
Southern California Edison
Rosemead, California (U 338-E)
Revised Cal. PUC Sheet No. 61150-E
Cancelling Revised Cal. PUC Sheet No. 60836-E
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sheet 1
Cal. P.U.C.
Sheet No.
TITLEPAGE ... ...................................................... ............................................................. ....... 11431-E
TABLE OF CONTENTS - RATE SCHEDULES ....61150-61083-60615-61084-61085-61086-61087-E (T)
............. ..................................... ................. I .................................................. 61088-61151-E (T)
TABLE OF CONTENTS - LIST OF CONTRACTS AND DEVIATIONS ................................... 61151-E (T)
TABLE OF CONTENTS - RULES............................................................................................ 60710-E
TABLE OF CONTENTS -INDEX OF COMMUNITIES, MAPS, BOUNDARY DESCRIPTIONS 58961-E
TABLE OF CONTENTS - SAMPLE FORMS ............................... 61152-58962-59554-59014-58965-E (T)
........................................................................................................... 59904-59905-59472-E
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
A. Territory Served......................................................................................................... 22909-E
B. Description of Service................................................................................................ 22909-E
C. Procedure to Obtain Service..................................................................................... 22909-E
D. Establishment of Credit and Deposits....................................................................... 22909-E
E. General..........................................................................45178-45179-45180-53818-45182-E
F. Symbols.....................................................................................................................45182-E
G. Gross Revenue Sharing Mechanism ....... 26584-26585-26586-26587-27195-27196-54092-E
.................................................................................................. 51717-53819-27200-27201-E
H. Baseline Service........................................................... 52027-52028-52029-52030-52031-E
I. Charge Ready Program Balancing Account ................................................... 58633-58634-E
J. Not In Use........................................................................................................................... -E
K. Nuclear Decommissi..oning Adjustment Mechanism ........................................ 36582-57779-E
L. Purchase Agreement Administrative Costs Balancing Account ........... 55207-51922-55208-E
M. Income Tax Component of Contributions....................................................... 58419-58420-E
N. Memorandum Accounts .... 21344-56089-56393-58221-49492-56090-45585-45586-53821 -E
........ 50418 -42841 -42842-44948-44949-44950-44951-44952-44953-42849-42850-42851-E
........ 41717 -47876 -55623-42855-42856-44341-45252-52033-50419-55048-42862-42863-E
........ 42864 -56204 -56205-51235-45920-51236-42870-50209-42872-42873-50421-46539-E
........ 42876 -42877 -42878-42879-42880-42881-42882-54534-53371-56253-44959-42887-E
........ 53321 -53322 -47098-52551-52552-49928-56235-56236-56237-55144-55145-44029-E
........ 53016 -57156 -57157-51163-51164-51165-51166-51167-51168-51169-51170-51171-E
........... I .................... 51244-55806-56393-56394-56395-56396-56397-56398-56399-58978E
0. California Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE) Adjustment Clause.................34705-41902-E
.................................................................................................. 36472-38847-56788-59025-E
P. Optional Pricing Adjustment Clause (OPAC) ........................... 27670-27671-27673-27674-E
(To be inserted by utility)
Advice 3547-E
Decision
1H9
ntin
Issued by (To be inserted by Cal. PUC)
Caroline Choi Date Filed Jan 24, 2017
Senior Vice President Effective Feb 23, 2017
Resolution
E-250
i j� SOl11HH2N CnLIF()krvin
EDISON
Southern California Edison Revised Cal. PUC Sheet No. 61151-E
Rosemead, California (U 338-E) Cancelling Revised Cal. PUC Sheet No. 60837-E
TABLE OF CONTENTS Sheet 9
(Continued)
RATE SCHEDULES
(Continued)
Schedule
Cal. P.U.C.
No.
Title of Sheet Sheet No.
OTHER (Continued)
GTSR-CR-PDT Green Tariff Shared Renewables Community Renewables Project Development
Tariff ........... 57684-57685-57686-57687-57688-57689-57690-57691-57692-57693-E
......................... I .......................... 57694-57695-57696-57697-57698-57699-57700-E
GTSR-GR
Green Tariff Shared Renewables Green Rate... 56750 -56751 -56752-56753-56754-E
..................................... 56755-56756-56757-E
GSN
Enve.stscE Equipment Service ...................................... 17880-17881-17882-17883-E
ME
Maritime Entities At The Port Of Long Beach .... 54406-54407-54408-54409-54410-E
........................................................................................................................ 54411-E
NEM
Net Energy Metering ........ 55662-55663-55420-56094-55422-55423-55665-55666-E
................... 55667-55668-55669-55429-55670-55671-55672-55673-55674-55675-E
............................................................................................................. 55436-55437-E
NEM -V
Virtual Net Energy Metering for Multi -Tenant and Multi -Meter Properties ....................
....... 55676 -49801 -49802 -50930 -50931 -56095 -50933 -50934 -50935 -55677 -50937-E
.................................................. 53583-54298-E
NMDL
New Municipal Departing Load ... 43778-61074-49954-52450-54678-61075-52453-E
(T)
.................................................... 52454-52455-52456-52457-52458-52459-52460-E
OBF
On -Bill Financing Program...................................................................41743-41744-E
OBF-2
On -Bill Financing Program 2................................................................51597-51598-E
OBMC
Optional Binding Mandatory Curtailment ...................... 47446-47974-47975-47976-E
OBR
On -Bill Repayment Pilot Program 53933-53944-53935-53936-53937-53938-53939-E
............................................................................................................. 56928-56929-E
PC -TBS
Procurement Charge Transitional Bundled Service ..... 57621-49964-49965-38146-E
PCT
Programmable Communicating Thermostat ................. 45826-44278-50143-45287-E
PVS
Experimental Photovoltaic Service .......................................................47451 -47452-E
PVS-2
On -Grid Photovoltaic Service..............................................................19518-19519-E
RES -BCT
Renewable Energy Self -Generation Bill Credit Transfer51843-52461-51008-51009-E
............................................................................................................. 51844-51011-E
Re -MAT
Renewable Market Adjusting Tariff......... 52964 -52965 -52966 -52967 -52968 -52969-E
.................................................... 52970-52971-52972-52973-55678-52975-52976-E
RF -E
Surcharge to Fund Public Utilities Commission Reimbursement Fee ............ 60835-E
S
Standby — 500 kW and Below .... 57623-52463-61076-52465-52466-52468-52469-E
(T)
57624-E
SC
Service Connection Charge............................................................................ 51303-E
SLRP
Scheduled Load Reduction Program ......53895-47456-47977-47978-47979-53896-E
...................................................................................... 47980-47981-47982-47983-E
SPSS
Station Power Self -Supply ................................. 53897-55488-57625-55490-44851-E
TMDL
Transferred Municipal Departing Load ...57626-56051-61077-61078-49968-49969-E
(T)
.......................... 49970-49971-49972-49973-49974-49975-49976-49977-49978-E
UCLT
Utility -Controlled Load Tests.......................................................................... 57627-E
V2G PILOT
SCE Vehicle To Grid Experimental Pilot...................................60384-60385-60386-E
WATER
Water Agency Tariff for Eligible Renewables ................ 57628-44061-52978-52979-E
WI -FI -1
Schedule WI -FI Pilot Wireless Fidelity Rate ................. 61079-43036-43037-43038-E
(T)
WTR
Wireless Technology Rate .................................61146 -61147-61148-51997-51998-E
(T)(T)
LIST OF CONTRACTS AND DEVIATIONS
LIST OF CONTRACTS AND DEVIATIONS .........55503-51856-55016-51858-56775-51860-52948-E
.............................. 53971-51863-51864-51865-51866-51867-51868-51869-51870-E
.................................................................................................. 54426-58676-54428-E
(To be inserted by utility) Issued by (To be inserted by Cal. PUC)
Advice 3547-E Caroline Choi Date Filed Jan 24, 2017
Decision _ Senior Vice President Effective Feb 23, 2017
9H19 Resolution
E-251
ErlEDISON
Southern California Edison
Rosemead, California (U 338-E)
Revised Cal. PUC Sheet No. 61152-E
Cancelling Revised Cal. PUC Sheet No. 59608-E
TABLE OF CONTENTS Sheet 12
(Continued)
SAMPLE FORMS
(Continued)
Form Cal. P.U.C.
No. Applications and Agreements for Service Sheet No.
14-642
Environmental Pricing Credit Agreement.................................................................. 24151-E
14-654
Multifamily Affordable Solar Housing — Virtual Net Metering Allocation Request Form .........
..................................................................................................................................
55701-E
14-685
Agreement For Parking Lot Lighting Service SCE Owned System Schedule LS -1
.27760-E
14-687
Application And Contract For Electric Service For Schedule WTR ..........................
61149-E
14-697
Proposal to Purchase and Agreement for Transfer of Ownership of Distribution Systems....
..................................................................................................................................
27761-E
14-749
Customer Physical Assurance Agreement...............................................................
53906-E
14-752
Technical Assistance Incentive Application..............................................................
35208-E
14-763
Agricultural Water Pumping Conversion of Internal Combustion Engines to Electric Motors
Distribution Line and/or Service Extension Exceptional Case Agreement ...............
38884-E
14-764
WI -FI Agreement For Unmetered Electric Service ...................................................
43042-E
14-774
Bill Calculation Service Agreement...........................................................................
50474-E
14-778
On -Bill Financing Program Loan Agreement............................................................
51364-E
14-900-1
Interim Economic Development Rate -Attraction Agreement (post D.10-06-015).....
55472-E
14-901-1
Interim Economic Development Rate -Expansion Agreement (post D.10-06-015)...
55473-E
14-902-1
Interim Economic Development Rate -Retention Agreement (post D.10-06-015) ....
55474-E
14-958
Economic Development Rate -Attraction Agreement (post D.15-04-006) .................
56651-E
14-959
Economic Development Rate -Expansion Agreement (post D. 15-04-006) ..............
56652-E
14-9601
Economic Development Rate -Retention Agreement (post D.15-04-006) ................
56653-E
14-904
Micro -Business Self -Certification Affidavit................................................................47775-E
14-915
Agreement for Unmetered Electric Service to Advanced Metering Infrastructure Devices
Connected to Customer -Owned Street Light Facilities............................................51999-E
14-916
Agreement for Unmetered Electric Service to CPUC -Approved Advanced
Metering
Infrastructure Devices Connected to SCE's Street Light Facilities ...........................
52000-E
14-927
Affidavit Regarding Eligibility for Agricultural Power Service ....................................
59342-E
14-938
Authorization to Add Loan Charges to SCE Bill (Non -Residential) ..........................
57251-E
14-945
Maritime Entity Election Form...................................................................................
54412-E
14-946
Affidavit Regarding Eligibility for General Water and Sewerage Pumping Service..
59343-E
14-948
EV Submeter Pilot Phase 1 Submeter Meter Data Management Agent .................
56570-E
14-949
Customer Enrollment Agreement — Electric Vehicle Submetering Pilot (Phase 1) ..
56571-E
14-965
Schedule LS -1 Option E, Energy Efficiency LED Fixture Replacement Agreement 57074-E
14-976
Plug-in Electric Vehicle Submetering Pilot Phase 2 Submeter MDMA
Registration Agreement............................................................................................
59603-E
14-977
Single Customer of Record Enrollment Agreement Plug-in Electric Vehicle
Submetering Pilot Phase 2.......................................................................................
59604-E
14-978
Multiple Customer -of -Record Enrollment Agreement Plug-in Electric Vehicle
Submetering Pilot Phase 2.......................................................................................
59605-E
16-323
Service Adjustment Agreement (Military Base Closures) .........................................
18753-E
(To be inserted by utility)
Advice 3547-E
Decision
12H10
("Continued)
Issued by
Caroline Choi
Senior Vice President
(T)
(To be inserted by Cal. PUC)
Date Filed Jan 24, 2017
Effective Feb 23, 2017
Resolution
Attachment F
No Public Comments
F-1
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
Irvine, CA 92618
RE: Shot Clock Tolling Agreement and Notice of Shot Clock Expiration Per RPVMC Section
12.18.o6o (0(3) for Crown Castle Wireless Communication Facility Site ASG33 - New Shot
Clock Expiration Date: September 30, 201
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 Cinguiar 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.
AOW Itp
Aaron Snyder
CROWN CASTLE NG WEST LLC
Nicole Jules
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com G-1