Loading...
CC SR 20171130 03 - Wireless Telecommunication Facility Permit ASG No. 32RANCHO 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. 32 to install a Wireless Telecommunication Facility (WTF) on a replacement streetlight pole adjacent to 29504 Whitley Collins. 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) Direct the Appellant to relocate the proposed wireless facility to an existing streetlight pole located at the intersection of Crest Road and Whitley Collins Drive (adjacent to 29716 Whitley Collins Drive); (2) Direct the Appellant to encase the two panel antennas in a canister shroud measuring 2' tall and 14.6" in diameter with a 2' tall tapered sleeve shroud to a replacement streetlight pole with vaulted accessory equipment (Option No. 1); and, (3) Continue the public hearing to January 16, 2018 in order for the Appellant to install a mock-up at the new location and for the City to issue a new public notice pursuant to the provisions stated in Section 12.18 of the RPVMC, provided that the Appellant agrees, in writing, to toll the shot clock to January 31, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: The Appellant has paid the applicable appeal fees, as established by Resolution of the City Council. If the Appellant is successful in the appeal, and the City Council overturns the Planning Commission's decision to deny the project, the Appellant will receive a full refund of their appeal fee. Thus, all in-house Staff costs associated with the processing of the appeal will come from the City's General Fund. Costs for work conducted by the City's consultants, including the City's contract planner and the City's RF engineer, are borne by the Appellant (Crown Castle). Amount Budgeted: N/A Additional Appropriation: N/A Account Number(s): N/A 55478.00001\30325822.1 1 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 ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: A. Revised Design Options (page A-1) B. Appeal Letter to City Council dated October 20, 2017 (page B-1) C. P.C. Resolution No. 2017-27 - Denying without Prejudice (page C-1) D. August 30, 2017 P.C. Staff Report (page D-1) 1. P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -XX including Conditions of Approval 2. Revised project plans and photo simulations 3. City's View Assessment Memo 4. Technical information from the City's RF Engineer 5. Coverage Maps and Supporting Documents from the Applicant 6. Feasibility Analysis on Alternate Sites 7. August 7, 2017 Shot Clock Tolling Agreement 8. Public Comments E. Public Comments (page E-1) F. Tolling Agreement (page F-1) Click on the link below to view the August 30, 2017 Planning Commission meeting on ASG No. 32 - Agenda Item No. 4 (time stamp: 1:39:32): http://rpv.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view id=5&clip id=2881 BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: Crown Castle, the Appellant, is a tower company hired by wireless companies for the purposes of acquiring sites for the construction and deployment of wireless telecommunications antennas throughout local jurisdictions. Pursuant Chapter 12.18 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC), Crown Castle is proposing to install approximately 26 new antennas in the City's public right-of-way (PROW), including the subject application, to provide services to AT&T consumers throughout the City. Original Project Description and Location The proposed project, as originally submitted, was to remove an existing 25'-6" tall streetlight pole and replace it with a 25'-6" tall streetlight pole with two 21.4" panel antennas that would be side -mounted to the pole and the installation of above -ground mechanical equipment and meter box measuring 9.7 cubic feet in area within the public right-of-way (PROW). 55478.00001\30325822.1 ^ The wireless telecommunication facility considered by the Planning Commission consisted of the replacement of an existing 25'-6" streetlight pole with the installation of a new 28.1' tall streetlight pole (measured to the top of the canister shroud) with mast arm and luminaire to accommodate the installation of two panel antennas encased in a 2' tall and 2' diameter canister shroud with a 3' tall tapered shroud sleeve with vaulted accessory equipment located entirely within the PROW. All vents and meter boxes would be vaulted and flush with the ground. The original project site is located entirely within the PROW, approximately 55 -feet east of Whitley Collins Drive centerline on Scotwood Drive. The wireless facility is located on the south side of a gently sloping road, next to a corner lot. Existing streetlights line the road switching from one side of the road to the other at approximately 150 -foot intervals. Mature trees and shrubs (including a landscaped parkway) and a concrete wall on the adjacent property provide partial screening of the wireless facility. The three photos on below depict the existing site, and a photo simulation of the original submitted project (side -mounted antennas panels) and the project considered by the Planning Commission with the antennas panels encased in a canister shroud at the top of the streetlight pole. Existing Site Original Proposal Planning Commission's Decision Commission Denied Proposal On August 30, 2017, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider the Appellant's request. At this meeting, after considering evidence introduced in the record including public testimony from the Appellant, neighbors, Staff, and the City's RF consultant, moved to deny, without prejudice, on a vote of 4-0 (Commissioners Leon and Tomblin, and Vice -Chair James were absent). The Commission's denial was based on the following findings (see Page C-1): • The overall appearance of the antennas on the new streetlight replacement pole at the proposed location would be a dominant feature which would be out -of - character with the surrounding neighborhood. 55478.00001\30325822.1 • The antenna design is of a size and shape that would be a dominant feature on the residential street and would not blend with the surrounding environment particularly as the antenna shroud is much wider than the street light pole at the point of attachment. In particular, the replacement streetlight pole would be approximately 3' taller than the existing streetlight pole. • The wireless telecommunication facility would not visually blend with the surrounding environment and the "industrial -utility" looking style of the facility would not be compatible with the style and quality of the surrounding residential neighborhood. • The incremental changes to the improvements in the right-of-way will lead to the deterioration of the City's well-maintained streetscapes • 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 gap in coverage that would necessitate the proposed facility. Basis for the Appeal On September 14, 2017, the Appellant filed a timely appeal (Page B-1) of the Planning Commission's denial of Major Wireless Telecommunication Facility Permit ASG No. 32 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 the Planning Commission's action exceeds the local control over the "time place and manner" of access to the right-of-way. New Project Location During the August 30th meeting, the Planning Commission requested the Appellant to explore relocating the proposed wireless facility from an existing streetlight located on a residential street onto an existing streetlight pole on Crest Road, a defined arterial street in the City's General Plan. In response to the Commission's feedback, after filing the appeal of the Commission's denial, the Appellant explored relocating the wireless facility onto an existing pole on Crest Road. The Appellant reassessed the coverage objective within the intersection of Crest Road and Whitley Collins, and is now proposing to install the proposed wireless facility on an existing streetlight pole at the intersection of Crest Road and Whitley Collins. Specifically, the streetlight pole in question is located adjacent to 29716 Whitley Collins Drive. Albeit on a residential street, Staff supports relocating the facility to this streetlight pole because it is approximately 10' from Crest Road right-of-way and would not adversely impact the surrounding properties or 55478.00001\30325822.1 /� neighborhood because other similar wireless facilities are located within the same general area. If the Council supports relocating the wireless facility, Staff recommends that the public hearing be continued to January 16, 2018 to allow the Appellant to install a new mock- up and to allow the City to issue a new public notice to the property owners within a 500' radius of the new project location. Revised Project In addition to relocating the facility, in response to the Planning Commission's decision the Appellant has reassessed its proposal and is presenting, in addition to the original design submittal as Option No. 4 (exposed panel antennas side -mounted to the streetlight pole), three new design options for the Council's consideration as part of the appeal proceedings. Option Nos. 1 - 3 consist of two panel antennas encased in a canister shroud measuring 2' tall and 14.6" in diameter with different pole dimensions, as described below: Option No. 1 - Consists of a tapered streetlight pole similar in size to a standard streetlight pole (with a 6" diameter at the top of the pole) with the canister and 2' tall sleeve shrouds attached to the top of the pole at a maximum height of 28.1'. Option No. 2 - Consists of a streetlight pole measuring 14.6" in diameter that seamlessly blends in with the canister shroud at a maximum height of 29'. Option No. 3 - Consists of a streetlight pole measuring 16" in diameter that seamlessly blends in with the canister shroud at a maximum height of 29'. This wider pole accommodates the accessory equipment within the interior of the pole eliminating the need to vault the mechanical equipment in the ground. Option No. 4 (Original Proposal) — Consists of two 21.4" tall side -mounted panel antennas affixed to the side of a replacement streetlight pole measuring a total height of 25.6'. Below are the photo simulations of the four design options (see A-1 for larger images): Option No. 1 Option No. 2 Option No. 3 Option No. 4 55478.00001\30325822.1 C Based on the four options, Staff's preference is Option No. 1 because it results in a facility that is least intrusive to the neighborhood by concealing the panel antennas and associated wires within a canister shroud measuring 14.6" in diameter. The canister shroud before the City Council has been reduced in diameter by approximately 10" than the canister shroud considered by the Planning Commission resulting in a slimmer profile. In comparison, Option Nos. 2 and 3 include a wider streetlight pole that does not match the streetlight poles within the neighborhood making them appear out -of - character. Whereas the design of Option No. 1 aligns with the required findings cited in Section 12.18.090 of the RPVMC, including the general guidelines stated in Section 12.18.080 of the RPVMC, as summarized below: • Employs screening with the canister shroud. • Minimizes view and visual impacts with the panel antennas and related wires encased in a shroud with underground vaulted mechanical equipment. • Avoids adverse impacts to traffic patterns including pedestrians and vehicles. • Incorporates blending design techniques. • Matches the material, color, and height of streetlight poles within the immediate neighborhood. • 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) If Staff's recommendation is acceptable to the Council, Staff will prepare a detailed analysis of the required findings in the resolution for consideration at the January 16, 2018 meeting. The resolution will include Conditions of Approval regulating the installation, appearance, and maintenance of the wireless facility within the public right- of-way mitigating potential adverse impacts to the immediate neighborhood. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: City Council Site Visit The City Council is encouraged to visit the project site and the proposed installation for, among other things, design assessment and location. The Council will be asked to disclose whether they visited the project site before opening the public hearing. Coverage Gap Analysis Sections 12.18.050(B)(1 9)(a) and (b) of the 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. 55478.00001\30325822.1 G In light of relocating the wireless facility, Staff is requesting that the Appellant submit updated maps and a written justification for further review by the City's RF consultant to verify the coverage needs based on industry guidelines suggested to support modern 3G/4G customer needs. Pole Design Options Mock -Up The Appellant has installed a mockup of "replacement pole" design examples for supporting the proposed telecommunication panel antennas. The mockups are located adjacent to the City's maintenance yard at the City Hall site for City Council, Planning Commission, and public viewing. Mockup Notice Issued On May 25, 2017, the Appellant (Crown Castle) received a Public Works Encroachment Permit to install a mockup of a proposed wireless telecommunications facility. The temporary mockup was installed on June 2, 2017. This is a required step in the Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Application for all proposed wireless facility installations. The temporary mock-up installation will remains in-place as a matter of public notice up - to and during the appeal proceedings. Public Notice On November 15, 2017, a public hearing notice was published in the Daily Breeze announcing tonight's special City Council meeting on the appeal of the project application. Similarly, public notices were mailed to property owners within a 500' radius of the project site and a list -serve message issued 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 E-1). Planning Commission Chairman Pursuant to City Council Policy No. 24, the Planning Commission Vice -Chair James will be attending the November 30th meeting in event the Council has any questions pertaining to the Commission's decisions in this matter. 55478.00001\30325822.1 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 was set to expire on September 1, 2017. A new Shot Clock Tolling Agreement, dated August 7, 2017, established a new Shot Clock Expiration date of September 30, 2017 (page F-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. As recommended by Staff, because the Appellant proposes to relocate the wireless facility, in order for the Council to continue the public hearing to January 16, 2018, the Appellant must agree, in writing, to toll the shot clock to January 31, 2018. CONCLUSION: Based on the forgoing discussion, Staff recommends that the City Council continue the public hearing to January 16, 2018 to allow the Appellant to install a new mock-up at the intersection of Crest Road and Whitley Collins Drive, adjacent to 29716 Whitley Collins Drive, based on Design Option No. 1 and to have City Staff issue a new public notice provided the Appellant agrees, in writing, to toll the shot clock to January 31, 2018. ALTERNATIVES: In addition to Staff's recommendation, the following alternatives are available for consideration by the City Council: 1. Deny the appeal, thereby upholding the Planning Commission's denial of Major Wireless Telecommunication Facility Permit ASG No. 32 and direct Staff to return with a revised Resolution at the December 19, 2017 City Council Meeting. 55478.00001\30325822.1 Q 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 December 19, 2017. 55478.00001\30325822.1 DESIGN OPTION NO. 1 ASG NO. 32 A-1 A 1 ANTENNA DETAILS _ SCAI E:1:5 La INSTALL 25' V" CONCRETE TEXTURED STEEL INSTALL (1) AMPHENOL CUU8070XI36F.y 0 ANTENNA �OV L O Z 0° L90° STREET LIGHT #1613500E TOP OF EXISTING POLE: 25' 6" TOPOFNEWPOLE255' TOP OF ANTENNA: 25 1 - RAD CENTER: 27' V AZIMUTHS'. 170'.— EQUIPMENT 70'8330°EQUIPMENT AND ANTENNAS TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH POLE. INSTALL (1) AMPHENOL CUUW70X06FxWO r ANTENNA L TOP OF STEEL POLE —25' 6 (� INSTALL LUMINARE 8 MAST ARM OF ANTENNA SHROUD 26'I' SKIRT cRt 20 RAD CENTER INSTALL 25'6"CONCRETE TEXTURED STEEL POLE 27 ," INSTALL (1) AMPHENOL CUU0070X06FXyz0 ANTENNA INSTALL LUMINAREB MAST ARM L TOP OF STEELPOLE 25'6" TOP OF ANTENNA SHROUD 28' 1' —FT L96 2' 0" RAD CENTER INSTALL25.6" CONCRETE TEXTUREOSTEEL POLE 27 I" INSTALL VGR (BEHIND 4- X 6' VAULT) INSTALL (I) GROWN CASTLE 2' X 3' WFR VAULT or (2' SO. C.) STA. 100+56 GR--) LEVEL ::TA?;pREIT INSTALL (1) CROWN CASTLE 4' X 6' VAU IT WITH FLUSH MOUNT VENTS 8 (2) ML IONS INSIDE. (O 20 C)STA 100+76 ASG32 sE o 242727 CROWN CASTLE ®Communications n�niinua �ie��ro Nnlyu. ��Inp la,lluUa i)I�u DI 0 ASG32 29504 SCOTWOOD DR AT VNRITLEV COLLINE DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES. CA POLE. PROFILE P-3 W,A WIN 44 or lcot\µDodo.. -r' `� l � � � n !. _ '.`i I ■ � � AB .F O .f •CA, T i_N .,I .... ppC PO SEC r. . _ ... --. ... .• DESIGN OPTION NO. 2 ASG NO. 32 B 3 O'CLOCK VIEW SCALE: 1:8 12 O'CLOCK VIEW SCALE: t:8 A I ANTENNA DETAILS SCALE: 1:5 INSTALL (1)AMPHENOL CUVBO]OXO6Fxyz0 e,x. ANTENNA C' INSTALL 25' 6" CONCRETE TEXTURED ANTENNA �C STEEL POLE INSTALL LUMINARE 8 MAST ARM TOP OF STEEL POLE INSTALL (1) AMPHENOL CUUBO]0XWF,"0 TOP OF STEEL POLE 25'6' s^^ ANTENNA 25'6' TO O OF ANTENNA SHROUD 0O 29'{„ SKIRT 2' F OO� CSV INSTALL 25'6"CONCRETE TEXTURED 0 RAO STEEL POLE Z CENTER 26' } 0° INSTALL 25' 8" CONCRETE TEXTURED RAO CENTER STEEL POLE 90° 0l4" INSTALL (1) CROWN CASTLE 2' X 3' WfR VAULT STREET LIGHT #1613500E � (2'B4O.C)STA. 100 ♦56 TOP OF EXISTING POLE: 25' 6' (BEHIND 4' %6 VAULT) TOP OF NEW POLE: 25' S" VEL TOP OF ANTENNA: 29k I RAD CENTER: 28' It" (BEHIND 7N!.LLll, AZIMUTHS: 170' S 330' OWN CASTLE 4' X6 VAULT WITH FLUSH MOUNT VENTS & (2) ML IONS INSIDE. (0 B.O.C.) STA. 100 a ]6 EQUIPMENT AND ANTENNAS TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH POLE. B 3 O'CLOCK VIEW SCALE: 1:8 12 O'CLOCK VIEW SCALE: t:8 INSTALL (1)AMPHENOL CUVBO]OXO6Fxyz0 INSTALL (1)AMPHENOL CUVBO]0%OBFxyzO ANTENNA ANTENNA INSTALL LUMINARE 8 MAST ARM TOP OF STEEL POLE � TOP OF STEEL POLE 25'6' SHROUD 25'6' TO SKIRT OF ANTENNA SHROUD 2. 29'{„ SKIRT 2' TOP OF ANTENNA INSTALL 25'6"CONCRETE TEXTURED RAO STEEL POLE CENTER 26' } INSTALL 25' 8" CONCRETE TEXTURED RAO CENTER STEEL POLE 26' 0l4" INSTALL (1) CROWN CASTLE 2' X 3' WfR VAULT � (2'B4O.C)STA. 100 ♦56 (BEHIND 4' %6 VAULT) GROUND LEVEL <C6G . VEL I INSTALL V. (BEHIND 7N!.LLll, OWN CASTLE 4' X6 VAULT WITH FLUSH MOUNT VENTS & (2) ML IONS INSIDE. (0 B.O.C.) STA. 100 a ]6 ASG32 PRAs66 242727{ r N '% CROWN ..� CASTLE Commun cations PROYNINTARY IN'PYINMNIION DIGALERT TY RECLINE U9R6 A. PEU U9 o)/USltti VAULT HELUC111— ASG32 29504 SCOT WOOD DR AT WHITLEY COLLINS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDE$, CA POLE PROFILE P-4 A-5 �. jam/ . C I LOCATION - ••• PpUPOS6_ • r. r. DESIGN OPTION NO. 3 ASG NO. 32 A-7 NO POLE WITH (2) ML IONS INSIDE. 016" 016' I GRUUND LEVEL _ � , iCeG S GROUND LEVEL � r�iINSTALL VG . CBG INSTALL VGR INSTALL 11) CROWN CASTLE 2' %3' NRR VAULT (2'B.O.CJ STA. 100+56 (BEHIND POLE) AT—ANTENNA—DETAILS SCALE: 1:5 ASG32 „w 242727 , x„ CCROWN v CASTLE INSTALL 25' 6' CONCRETE TEXTURED STEEL POLE WITH (2) ML IONS INSIDE xYkLl huv www. tiwoJ:�.�m� INSTALL (1)AMPHEN0L CUU60]OXO6Fxyz0 S ANTENNA CpT�pp Communications F- b�� O5 xuMRE:Ou Z 0. �90o YIWYNIh.1AN1 INCUR\L\Ilury STREET LIGHT M61350GE TOP OF EXISTING POLE: 25' T DIUM TOP OF NEW POLE: 25' 6' rvwMn.Nuln TOP OF ANTENNA: 291' RAO CENTER: 26I' AZIMUTHS: 1]0'8330' EQUIPMENT AND ANTENNAS TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH POLE. LINE ADD PED SS OrlOpll6 oM2enr CUSTOMER RE DL INE— AS 32 29506 ECOTWOOD DR AT WHITLEV COLLINS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA POLE PROFILE' P-5 B 30'CLOCKVIEW SCALE: 1:8 120'CLOCKVIEW SCALE: 1:8 INSTALL (11 PMPHENOL CUUBOTO%OBFxyiO INSTALL (1)AMPHENOL CUUBO]OXO6Fxyz0 ANTENNA ANTENNA INSTALL LUMINARE S MAST ARM SHROUD _TOP OF STEEL POLE TOP OF STEEL POLE SKIRT 25'6" SHROUD 25'6' TOP 1'118 SKIRT OF ANTENNA INSTALL LUMINAREBMAST ARM tOP 111 tr' 29' �, OF ANTENNA 2S }' RAD CENTER INSTALL 25'6'CONCRETE TEXTURED RAD CENTER 28'= STEEL POLE WITH (2) ML IONS INSIDE. INSTALL 25' 6' CONCRETE TEXTURED STEEL x! s _RIle d lit i �-- k - lm MW LOCATION PROPOSED Am.. .... DESIGN OPTION NO. 4 ASG NO. 32 A-10 A ANTENNA DETAILS SCALE: 1:5 el '[ASG32 ]I �.°w2427270i"° #HPA-65F-BUU-H2 ANTENNAS AZIMUTH: 330° /� INSTALL NEW 25' 6" HIGH STEEL 1-�( CROWN CONCRETE TEXTURED aaa///J CASTLE STREETLIGHT. ,� G WEST LLC #HPA-65F-BUU-H2 ANTENNAS AZIMUTH: 170° 07" a,G INSTALL MAST ARM AND LUMINAIRE Communications O �)OOpOR Z SGO r«°ami° 0° non 90° tiE DFo9nov R TlT STREETUGHT#1613500E TOP OF EXISTING POLE: 25'6' T TOP OF NEW POLE: 25'6" 1 TOP OF ANTENNA: 23'0" RAD CENTER: 22'1-112 AZIMUTHS: 170° & 330°.ar nio UAY6BFFORE UUD10 EQUIPMENT AND ANTENNAS TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH POLE. .�vsFxh`�atieaT QTY REDLME ng9115 PW PED 09 WN5I16 ASG32 29500 SCOTWOOD DR AT WHITLEY COLLINS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA POLE PROFILE o RGe 70/07/15 rrnnv P-2 B 3 O'CLOCK VIEW SCALE: I:8 SCALE: 1:8 INSTALL MAST ARM AND LUMINAIRE -i INSTALL MAST ARM AND LUMINAIRE TOP OF POLE AT 25' 6" TOP OF POLE AT 25' 6" INSTALL (2) 24.1 -ANTENNA #HPA-65F-BUU-H2 INSTALL (2) 24.1" ANTENNA TOP OF WITH MOUNTING BRACKET #MBK -03 #Hpq-65F-BUU-H2 ANTENNA (SEE DETAILS 1 8 2 ON SHEET 0.2) TOP OF WITH MOUNTING BRACKET #MBK -03 �� 0" ANTENNA (SEE DETAILS 1 8 2 ON SHEET 0.2) RAD INSTALL NEW 25' 6" HIGH STEEL 23' 0" CENTER -CONCRETE TEXTURED STREETLIGHT. INSTALL NEW 25' 6"HIGH STEEL 22' 1 1!2" (SEE DETAILS 6 & 7 ON SHEET 0.3) CENTER 22'1-1/2" A-11 - CONCRETE TEXTURED STREETLIGHT. 22' 1-1/2' (SEE DETAILS 6 & 7 ON SHEET 0.3) 07" 07" GROUND LEVEL •. "y�/ ,. INSTALL VGR �\\T\� (SEE DETAIL 9 ON SHEET 0.4) INSTALL VGR (SEE DETAIL 9 ON SHEET D-4) A-11 ns r A c _ \e, �w • 4 ^ S LOCATION �•' TI T 7 1 - "" r a •+ R� i a� `4MW CCROWN CASTLE September 14, 2017 Emily Colborn, 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 -32 - Across from 29504 Whitley Collins Drive Dear Ms. Colborn, Crown Castle NG West LLC ("Crown Castle") hereby appeals the Planning Commission's August 30, 2017, adoption of a resolution of denial of the above -referenced Major Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Permit application ("Denial"), pursuant to City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code ("RPVMC") section 12.18.060. D and 17.80.030.A ("Appeal"). This appeal is timely under RPVMC section 17.80.030. The Appeal rests on the following grounds, among others: ( I } 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)(13)(iii). (3) The Denial is based, in part, on the perceived environmental effects of radio fi•equency emissions in violation of 47 U.S.C. section 332 (c)(7)(B)(iv). (4) The Denial is unlawful, since it violates Crown Castle's vested right to deploy its facilities in the public rights-of-way, in violation of Public Utilities Code section 7901. The Denial exceeds the limited time, place and manner controls set forth by Public Utilities Code section 7901.1. Crown Castle reserves the right to supplement its reasons for the Appeal, and otherwise supplement the administrative record with its own evidence and points of law up to the date of the City Council hearing on this Appeal. Very truly yours, A,t,gW g_kA*C Mws:111ws Aaron Snyder, Crown Castle NG West LLC 7104273.1 The Foundation for a Wireless World. CrownCastle.com As P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2017-27 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY ASG NO. 32 FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING STREET LIGHT POLE WITH THE INSTALLATION OF A NEW 28.1 FOOT TALL STREET LIGHT WITH MAST ARM AND LUMINAIRE TO ACCOMMODATE A 21.4" TALL MOUNTED ANTENNA ENCASED IN A 2' TALL CANISTER WITH A 3' TALL TAPERED CANISTER SLEEVE AT THE TOP OF THE POLE WITH RELATED VAULTED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT ADJACENT TO 29504 WHITLEY COLLINS 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") including ASG No. 32 adjacent to 29504 Whitley Collins; WHEREAS, the original proposal called for removing an existing 25.6' tall steel octagonal street light pole with a mast arm and luminaire, and replace it with a 25.6' tall concrete, octagonal street light pole with mast arm and luminaire with two 21.4 -inch panel antennas that would be affixed below the mast arm with above -ground equipment; WHEREAS, the alternative proposal calls for a replacement of the 25.6 -foot tall street light pole with a 28.1' tall street light pole with panel antennas encased in a 2' tall canister shroud with a Stall tapered canister sleeve; WHEREAS, the Project also includes vaulted mechanical equipment including the radio and auxiliary equipment, as well as the SCE meter box in a secondary vault. The Project consists of a total of three vaults measuring approximately 43 square feet; WHEREAS, because the Project's location is within a residential zone and within the PROW of local streets as identified in the General Plan, approval of a WTFP also requires an Exception under Section 12.18.190 of the Municipal Code; WHEREAS, the Project is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") because the Project constitutes a small scale installation of a new facility (14 CCR § 15303(d)). WHEREAS, on August 8, 2017, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing, without discussion, to August 30, 2017 to allow the Applicant and Staff additional time to address concerns with the original Project submittal; P.C. Resolution No. 2017-27 Page 1 of 6 C-1 WHEREAS, on August 30, 2017, the Planning Commission considered testimony and evidence presented at the public hearings, the information and findings included in the Staff Report, and other records of proceedings; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The proposed Project is a request to: A. Install a WTF on Scotwood Drive adjacent to 29504 Whitley Collins Drive, B. Removal of an existing 25.6' tall marbelite street light with a mast arm and luminaire to be decommissioned and replaced with a 25.6' tall marbelite octagonal street light with a 2' tall canister with a 3' tall tapered sleeve mounted at the top of the new pole, resulting in a total pole height of 28.1', and C. Install vaulted mechanical equipment in the PROW. Section 2: The findings required to be made by the Planning Commission for the approval of a WTF permit, as set forth in Chapter 12.18 of the RPVMC, have not been made as follows: A. The Project does not meet the Findings required by Section 12.18.090, Subsection B, of the Municipal Code, which particularly requires that "[t]he proposed facility has been designed and located in compliance with all applicable provisions of this chapter," as follows: 12.18.080(A)(1)(a): The applicant shall employ screening, undergrounding and camouflage design techniques in the design and placement of wireless telecommunications facilities in order to ensure that the facility is as visually screened as possible, to prevent the facility from dominating the surrounding area and to minimize significant view impacts from surrounding properties all in a manner that achieves compatibility with the community and in compliance with Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration) of this code. The proposed replacement pole with the antennas affixed to the top of the pole albeit contained in a canister shroud, at a height of 28.1', does not blend with the surrounding environment and would visually impact the character of the neighborhood as experienced from the PROW. 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 the street light pole, in its proposed location, is a dominant feature that is out -of -character to the surrounding neighborhood as there are no P.C. Resolution No. 2017-27 Page 2 of 6 C-2 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 street light would be dominated by said antenna, thus making the proposed facility the dominant feature at this residential street area. A preferred design would present equipment that is seamlessly integrated into the street light pole or a "slim -line" design that does not present the antenna nodes as the dominate feature on this street light pole. 12.18.080(A)(1)(b): Screening shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with surrounding structures using appropriate techniques to camouflage, disguise, and/or blend into the environment, including landscaping, color, and other techniques to minimize the facility's visual impact as well as be compatible with the architectural character of the surrounding buildings or structures in terms of color, size, proportion, style, and quality. The area in which this Project is proposed consists of non -dense, upscale residential structures with well-maintained manicured landscaping and parkways The proposed marbelite street light pole will not visually blend with the surrounding environment. The replacement street light pole, at a height of 28.1', is visually intrusive as there are no similar vertical elements with similar facilities in the neighborhood, thus making the proposed facility the dominant feature on this residential street. The "industrial -utility" looking style of the proposed facility is incompatible with the style and quality of the surrounding residential neighborhood. Additionally, the antenna shroud is much wider than the street light pole at the point of attachment and adequate screening and fairing measures were not taken to blend with the pole. This has the effect of creating greater mass and bulk than now exists and will have the negative effect of being more visible. 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 street light pole, in its proposed location, is a dominant feature that is out -of - character to the surrounding neighborhood or natural features in the immediate area with a similar size and shape that would lend themselves to screening or blending the facility into the built environment. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes' streets, parkway- and median- landscaping, and public utilities within the rights-of- way have been planned and constructed to achieve an attractive appearance 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 P.C. Resolution No. 2017-27 Page 3 of 6 C-3 will lead to the deterioration of the City's well-maintained streetscapes, and will establish a precedent for additional facilities in the PROW. 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 street light pole will be approximately 3' taller than the existing pole at a proposed height of 28.1' 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 proposed replacement pole with the panel antennas affixed to the top of the pole albeit encased within a canister, at a height of 28.1', does not blend with the surrounding environment and would visually impact the character of the neighborhood as experienced from the public right-of-way. 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 street light pole, in its proposed location, is a dominant feature that does not resemble in appearance or dimension any other features in the surrounding neighborhood because there are no other structures or natural features in the immediate area with a similar size and shape that would lend themselves to screening or blending the facility into the built environment. The proposed antenna design is of a size and shape that the street light pole itself would be dominated by said antenna, and the street at which the pole is proposed would be dominated by the antenna, thus making the proposed facility a non -conforming feature in appearance and dimension. A preferred design would present equipment that is fully integrated into the street P.C. Resolution No. 2017-27 Page 4 of 6 C-4 light pole or a "slim -line" design that much more closely resembles an actual residential street light pole, as opposed to the proposed project. 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 light 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. B. The Project does not meet the Findings required by Section 12.18.190, Subsection B.2, of the Municipal Code, which particularly requires that "[t]he applicant has provided the city with a clearly defined technical service objective and a clearly defined potential site search area," as follows: The "technical service objective" identified by the Applicant in all application documents is the coverage of a "significant gap" in coverage. The wireless service area to be served by the proposed facility only encompasses approximately 40-55 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. 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. The Applicant should have explored locating the proposed facility along Crest Road outside the immediate residential neighborhood to minimize adverse impacts to residents. 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 P.C. Resolution No. 2017-27 Page 5 of 6 C-5 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. 32 for the proposed wireless telecommunication facility installation adjacent to 29504 Whitley Collins. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 30th day of AUGUST 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Bradley, Emenhiser, Nelson and Chairman Cruikshank NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None RECUSALS: None ABSENT: Commissioners Leon and Tomblin, and Vice -Chair James r -D,.,- % A ICP Community Development Director; and, Secretary of the Planning Commission t hn M. Cruikshank airman P.C. Resolution No. 2017-27 Page 6 of 6 C-6 STAFF REPORT span �� a Cr"Sfridg® Rd a �afr�y S$,�3r►crg+9�, �°�� k atc>'twood SITE LOCATION 4 c 5u.s Catalina T So N.T.S i RAj ICHO PALOS VERDES TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: NICOLE JULES, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS ARA MIHRANIAN, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: AUGUST 30, 2017 SUBJECT: WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY PERMIT ASG NO. 32 PROJECT SCOTWOOD DRIVE ADJACENT TO ADDRESS: 29504 WHITLEY COLLINS DRIVE APPLICANT: AARON SNYDER (CROWN CASTLE) LANDOWNER: CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES STAFF ART BASHMAKIAN, CONTRACT COORDINATOR: PLANNER REQUESTED ACTION: INSTALL A NEW 25'-6" TALL STREET LIGHT POLE THAT WILL REPLACE AN EXISTING STREET LIGHT 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. 32 TO ALLOW THE REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING STREET LIGHT POLE WITH THE INSTALLATION OF A NEW 28.1' TALL STREET LIGHT WITH MAST ARM AND LUMINAIRE TO ACCOMMODATE A 2' TALL MOUNTED ANTENNA ENCASED IN A 2' TALL CANISTER WITH A 3' TALL TAPERED CANISTER SLEEVE AT THE TOP OF THE POLE WITH RELATED VAULTED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT. LAND USE: PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY D-1 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE ASG NO. 32) AUGUST 30, 2017 PAGE 2 CODE SECTION: RPVMC CHAPTERS 12.18 AND 17.02 ACTION DEADLINE: SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 (SHOT CLOCK) 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 The Applicant, Crown Castle, has proposed to install 26 antennas to service AT&T consumers throughout the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Crown Castle is a tower company hired by wireless companies for the purposes of acquiring site for the construction and deployment of wireless telecommunications antennas throughout local jurisdictions. On July 7, 2016, Crown Castle submitted an application, proposing to install Wireless Telecommunications Facility ASG No. 32 in the public right-of-way (PROW) at Scotwood Drive adjacent to 29504 Whitley Collins Drive. The City notified Crown Castle that the application documents were incomplete after three resubmittals. Notices were sent to Crown Castle on August 5, 2016, January 3, 2017 and February 6, 2017. Crown Castle submitted documentation to obtain a mock-up permit. The mock-up of the proposed installation was constructed on June 2, 2017 and 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 20, 2017, a public notice was mailed to property owners within a 500' radius of the proposed site and published in the Peninsula News announcing that a public hearing on the proposed facility is scheduled to occur on August 8, 2017. On August 8, 2017, as recommended by Staff, the Planning Commission continued, without discussion, this item to its August 30, 2017 meeting to allow Staff additional time to complete its analysis. SITE DESCRIPTION The proposed site is located entirely within the PROW, approximately 55 -feet east of Whitley Collins Drive centerline on Scotwood Drive. The node is located on the south side of a gently sloping road, next to a corner lot. Existing street lights line the road switching from one side of the road to the other at approximately 150 -feet intervals. Mature trees and shrubs (including a landscaped parkway) and a concrete wall on the adjacent property provide partial screening of the facility. D-2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT — (CASE ASG NO. 32) AUGUST 30, 2017 PAGE 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project as originally submitted is to remove an existing 25.6' tall steel octagonal street light pole with a mast arm and luminaire, and replace it with a 25 -foot 6 -inch tall concrete, octagonal street light pole with mast arm and luminaire with two 21.4 -inch panel antennas that would be affixed below the mast arm. The center of the proposed antennas would be 22.5". Two ions and a power meter would be placed on the ground adjacent to the street light pole, which will consist of 9.7 cubic feet of equipment boxes in the PROW. Below is a photograph of the existing site and the photo simulations for the proposed installation submitted by the Applicant: Existing Site 11 Revised Project As a result of discussions with Staff, the Applicant has revised the project so that the proposed antennas are located above the top of the street light pole and are encased in a 2' tall cylinder -shaped shroud mounted canister that measures approximately 2' in outside diameter (0. D.) and a 3' tall tapered canister sleeve. The canister will house the two antenna panels (approximately 21.4" tall) and related wires. The street light pole and cylinder -shaped canister will measure a total height of 28.1' tall, from grade to the top of the canister, and will be painted to match the Marbelite light pole with a concrete color. Additionally, the Applicant has agreed to vault the related mechanical equipment including the radio and auxiliary equipment. There will be a total of three vaults that will occupy 43 sq. ft. of surface area as shown on the site plan and in the photo simulation below. All vents and meter boxes will be vaulted and flush with the ground. D-3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE ASG NO. 32) AUGUST 30, 2017 PAGE 4 Proposed Alternative Locations In addition to the revised project, the Applicant has proposed similar antennas on street light poles at the following 3 locations (see attachment): • Replacement of an existing street light pole on the west side of Whitley Collins, approximately 190 feet to the northwest of the Primary. • Street stop sign replacement located approximately 45 feet north of the Primary on the opposite side of Scotwood Dr. • Replacement of an existing street light pole approximately 100' west of Primary site on the west side of Whitley Collins. None of the alternative sites meet the RF coverage objective as confirmed by the City's RF Engineer. Thus, the primary location was found to be superior. This issue is fully discussed in the findings section of this staff report. CODE CONSIDERATION AND ANALYSIS In accordance with Chapter 12.18 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (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). FINDINGS OF FACT Pursuant to Section 12.18.090 of the RPVMC, no permit shall be granted for a Wireless Telecommunications Facility in the PROW unless all of the following Findings are made: A. All notices required for the proposed installation have been given. Crown Castle and the City have provided all notices required by the RPVMC. On May 25, 2017 property owners within 500 feet of the proposed facility were notified of the WTF mock-up which occurred at least 30 days in advance of the public hearing. Further, on July 20, 2017, a public notice announcing August 8, 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 August 22, 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. M11 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE ASG NO. 32) AUGUST 30, 2017 PAGE 5 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 PROW. Specifically, Section 12.18.080(A) lists the design and development standards for these installations. The applicable sections which have not been clearly or substantially complied with are listed and evaluated below (italics text is the code requirement followed by Staff's analysis). 12.18.080(A)(1)(a): The applicant shall employ screening, undergrounding and camouflage design techniques in the design and placement of wireless telecommunications facilities in order to ensure that the facility is as visually screened as possible, to prevent the facility from dominating the surrounding area and to minimize significant view impacts from surrounding properties all in a manner that achieves compatibility with the community and in compliance with Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration) of this code. As proposed, the revised project employs screening and a camouflage design with the use of a 2' high antenna encased in a 2' tall cylinder -shaped shroud canister measuring 2' in diameter with a 3' tall tapered canister sleeve placed on top of the replacement street light pole that will be a total of 28.1' in height as measured from grade to the top of the canister. Although the overall height of the street light pole, with the antenna, increases by 3.5' (42") above the original proposal, this design is found to comply with this Finding as the Wireless Ordinance allows antennas on light poles when it does not exceed 48 inches above the height of the pole. Further, the proposed cylinder shroud design may be aesthetically preferred to the original "side -mounted" panel design because, while taller, the vertical shroud design presents a slimmer side view that blends with the verticality of the light pole. The light standard is designed to match the existing light standard being replaced and other light standards in the immediate area. Furthermore, the proposal now places all of the related mechanical equipment underground in three vaults measuring a total of 43 square feet consisting of the following: Radio vault - 32 sq. ft. WTR vault - 5 sq. ft. Fiber vault - 6 sq. ft. As further detailed below, a view analysis was conducted and City staff determined that the proposed installation will not have any significant view impairment to surrounding properties pursuant to Chapter 17.02.040 of the RPVMC. D-5 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE ASG NO. 32) AUGUST 30, 2017 PAGE 6 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 WTF will be affixed to a replacement street light pole that matches other street light poles in the area, and the replacement street light pole will utilize similar color, size, proportion, style, and quality to other street poles in the area. The antenna encased in the cylinder -shaped canister shroud and the canister sleeve will be painted to match the Marbelite light pole with a concrete color. As discussed above, the cylinder shaped shroud encasing the two antenna panels and wires on top of the light pole is an appropriate technique that disguises and blends the facility into the environment (blending with the replacement pole and other poles in the area). 12.18.080(A)(1)(c): Facilities shall be located such that views from a residential structure are not significantly impaired. Facilities shall also be located in a manner that protects public views over city view corridors, as defined in the city's general plan, so that no significant view impairment results in accordance with this code including Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration). This provision shall be applied consistent with local, state and federal law. In terms of views, on July 24, 2017, Staff conducted a view analysis for the Project. As described above, the Project does not result in a significant view impairment to surrounding residences. Based on a view assessment of the neighborhood, Staff also determined that the proposed street light pole with attached panel antenna does not impair the public view from the surrounding view areas including those views from Scotwood Drive adjacent to Whitley Collins Drive. Further, the proposed WTF is not located in a view corridor identified in the City's General Plan or Coastal Specific Plan. City defined viewing areas such as living rooms, family rooms, dining rooms and outside rear patios are typically located on the ground floor areas of a residence. Many, if not all, of the defined viewing areas for residences within the vicinity of the proposed WTF are located on the ground floor. The proposed WTF appears to impair a view from the second floor of the adjacent property, which is not a protected view area pursuant to Section 17.02.040. This finding remains unchanged even with the additional height of the pole to accommodate the cylinder -shaped canister on top of the pole measuring a total height of 29'. Further, the proposed WTF is not located in a view corridor identified in the City's General Plan or Coastal Specific Plan. Thus, City Staff has determined that there will be no negative impacts to residential views. me PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE ASG NO. 32) AUGUST 30, 2017 PAGE 7 In terms of cumulative visual or view impacts, Staff does not believe that in this location of the City, if other street light 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 street light pole which will not be directly visible to pedestrians and motorists, and that the topography of the area would inherently screen the facility. Ordinance No. 580 in part, is charged to ensure that all wireless facilities are installed using the least intrusive means possible. The Code requires that facilities be designed in ways "to minimize visual, noise and other impacts..." The Code recognizes that the community, over time, could eventually have a number of facilities within its public right-of-ways. It's also recognized that facilities will not be necessarily unnoticeable as the Code uses phrases like "minimize visual impacts", "least intrusive means..." The Code recognizes the potential for many facilities within the right-of-way over the coming years. And as long as each facility meets the required findings, and is found to be designed in the least intrusive means possible, the mere permitting of many such facilities would not constitute a cumulative visual or aesthetic impact. 12.18.080(A)(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 street light pole will consist of colors and materials that are subdued and non -reflective. Further, they are the same as the existing light pole and other light poles in the immediate area. 12.18.080(A)(5): Equipment. The applicant shall use the least visible equipment possible. Antenna elements shall be flush mounted, to the extent feasible. All antenna mounts shall be designed so as not to preclude possible future collocation by the same or other operators or carriers. Unless otherwise provided in this section, antennas shall be situated as close to the ground as possible. The Applicant's original project proposed the placement of two 21.4 inch tall antennas with the top of the antennas 23' above ground on a 25.5' tall replacement street light pole. However, the proposal has been revised consisting of a replacement street light pole with a 2' tall canister by a 2' in diameter cylinder shaped shrouded with a 3' tall tapered shroud sleeve that will house the antenna panels and wires on top of the replacement pole which would result in an overall height of 28.1'. Although both designs would be visible, the least visible would be the cylinder designed antenna that screen the antenna panels and related wires, and the proposed cylinder shroud design, while taller, presents a slimmer side view that blends more cleanly with the verticality of the light pole. Recognizing the exposed D-7 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE ASG NO. 32) AUGUST 30, 2017 PAGE 8 panel antenna design is lower in height, the overarching objective of the Finding is to use the least visible equipment. In regards to collocation, in order to accommodate additional antennas, the height of the street pole would have to be increased by approximately 5' to accommodate collocation because of the size of the panel antennas combined with there being a need to provide a separation of at least 1' between antenna panels for functionality purposes. The design does not preclude the possibility of collocation by the same or other operators or carriers but it should be noted that collection is does not always minimize visual impact. In fact, it will require the street pole to either be increased in height or to support additional canisters that will 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 street as identified in the City's General Plan. As such, an exception must be approved by the Planning Commission. The findings necessary to grant an Exception are detailed further below. 12.18.080(A)(6)(d): Light Poles. The maximum height of any antenna shall not exceed four feet above the existing height of a light pole. Any portion of the antenna or equipment mounted on a pole shall be no less than 16% feet above any drivable road surface. The cylinder shaped antenna shroud exceeds 2' above the height of the replacement pole. No portion of the antenna or equipment is less than 16Y2' above the drivable road surface. 12.18.080(A)(6)(e): Replacement Poles. If an applicant proposes to replace a pole in order to accommodate a proposed facility, the pole shall be designed to resemble the appearance and dimensions of existing poles near the proposed location, including size, height, color, materials and style to the maximum extent feasible. The proposed replacement street light pole will match the appearance, in terms of color, height, size and dimensions of the existing pole and all other light poles in the immediate area. The replacement street light pole and related equipment, including the canister, will consist of a Marbelite finish and painted in a concrete color to match the existing street light poles in the area. A smaller antenna w PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE ASG NO. 32) AUGUST 30, 2017 PAGE 9 technology is possible, but smaller antennas will require the installation of many more poles in the neighborhood to achieve the same coverage and capacity. 12.18.080(A)(6)(i): All cables, including, but not limited to, electrical and utility cables, shall be run within the interior of the pole and shall be camouflaged or hidden to the fullest extent feasible. All cables and wires will be encased within the pole and the canister, thus hidden from view. 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 street light pole is similar in dimension to the existing street light pole. The placement of the antennas on top of the pole will occupy limited air space above the right-of-way. The supporting mechanical equipment will be undergrounded and the vault necessary to house the equipment measures approximately, 43 square feet of total surface area. This space is the least amount of space that is technically feasible for equipment owned by AT&T. Furthermore, the space that will be occupied is below the surface with minimum exhaust vents that will be flush to the surrounding ground. 12.18.080(A)(8): Wind Loads. Each facility shall be properly engineered to withstand wind loads as required by this code or any duly adopted or incorporated code. An evaluation of high wind load capacity shall include the impact of modification of an existing facility. Based on the information submitted by the Applicant and as confirmed by the City's consultants, Staff finds that the proposed installation complies with all building codes related to wind loads. 12.18.080(A)(9): Obstructions. Each component part of a facility shall be located so as not to cause any physical or visual obstruction to pedestrian or vehicular traffic, incommode the public's use of the right-of-way, or safety hazards to pedestrians and motorists and in compliance with Section 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility) so as not to obstruct the intersection visibility triangle. Pursuant to the application documents submitted to the City, the proposed WTF installation does not cause an obstruction to the public's use of the PROW, constitute a safety hazard and/or does not interfere with the City -defined intersection visibility triangle. m • PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE ASG NO. 32) AUGUST 30, 2017 PAGE 10 12.18.080(A)(10): Public Facilities. A facility shall not be located within any portion of the public right-of-way interfering with access to a fire hydrant, fire station, fire escape, water valve, underground vault, valve housing structure, or any other public health or safety facility. Pursuant to the application documents submitted to the City including the design, height and size, the proposed installation including the undergrounding of the mechanical equipment will not cause an obstruction to the public's use of the PROW, constitute a safety hazard and/or does not interfere with the City - defined intersection visibility triangle. Specifically, the proposed pole is not located in a sidewalk or walking area established for regular pedestrian use, provides the same lighting, height and setback parameters applicable to other streetlights. The proposed mechanical equipment will be vaulted under the existing sidewalk and conditions are proposed to ensure the vents do not physically obstruct the safe use of the sidewalk. 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 existing infrastructure. D. The applicant has provided sufficient evidence supporting the applicant's claim that it has the right to enter the public right-of-way pursuant to state or federal law, or the applicant has entered into a franchise agreement with the city permitting them to use the public right-of-way. The Applicant has submitted to the City a Right of Way Use Agreement (RUA) entered into with the City in 2011, which allows the Applicant to install wireless antennas in the PROW. Further, the Applicant has submitted a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) issued by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) which provides that the Applicant has been authorized to install wireless telecommunications infrastructure in the PROW. E. The applicant has demonstrated the proposed installation is designed such that the proposed installation represents the least intrusive means possible and supported by factual evidence and a meaningful comparative analysis to show that all alternative locations and designs identified in the application review process were technically infeasible or not available. The City's consulting technical engineer has reviewed the Applicant's alternative site analysis for the three alternative locations, and concurs that the original D-10 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE ASG NO. 32) AUGUST 30, 2017 PAGE 11 proposed design and the modified design that includes the encasing of the two antenna panels within a cylinder -shaped canister proposed to be placed on top of the street light pole are the least intrusive means. In terms of utilizing smaller antennas, there is technology that is possible to use but that would require a multiplicity of wireless facilities throughout the community to provide equal coverage and capacity. This may require the introduction of new pole structures where there are no street lights or utility poles and would require associated accessory equipment at every location. Furthermore, the supporting mechanical equipment, even if placed in vaults underground, would require additional fans that may result in adverse cumulative noise impacts negating the objective of installing the least intrusive systems. Other locations and designs considered for purposes of filling the coverage gap claimed by the Applicant 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 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 D-11 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE ASG NO. 32) AUGUST 30, 2017 PAGE 12 interest in well-planned wireless facilities deployment. Therefore, in the event that any applicant asserts that strict compliance with any provision in this chapter, as applied to a specific proposed personal wireless services facility, would effectively prohibit the provision of personal wireless services, the planning commission may grant a limited, one-time exemption from strict compliance subject to the provisions in this section." Section 12.18.190(8) requires that the following "exception' findings be made by the Commission and be supported by clear and convincing evidence (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 walkouts of the area and a computerized terrain study to determine if the proposed site will address a coverage gap as identified in the application. Based on the terrain profile characteristics and the field measurement data provided by Crown Castle, the City's consultant concluded that the proposal as provided will address coverage deficiencies within the target area. Furthermore, according to the City's consultant, the Applicant has provided engineering details related to the wireless bands that will be used for the DAS deployment, including identifying transmitting equipment, power levels for each band and specifics regarding the radiation patterns of the antennas to be installed. However, information provided about existing and proposed coverage in the service area for each of the three AT&T licensed wireless bands (700 MHz, PCS and AWS) are less clearly defined; this is due to the extremely rugged and varied terrain associated with the surrounding landscape. 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 D-12 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE ASG NO. 32) AUGUST 30, 2017 PAGE 13 site ASG 09 will provide ample signal intensity (signal level in excess of -95 dBm) to support AT&T's 3G/4G wireless services. While the City's RF Engineer found evidence of a gap in signal levels, the question of whether such gap constitutes a "significant" gap lies within the discretionary purview of the Planning Commission, subject to limitation that Applicant evidence must be considered as "primae facie" evidence that can be rebutted with site- specific, non -speculative, and non -generalized objective analyses. Courts have made clear that this is a fact -based judgment. "[T]he existing case law amply demonstrates that `significant gap' determinations are extremely fact -specific inquiries that defy any bright -line legal rule." (MetroPCS, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco (9th Cir. 2005) 400 F.3d 715, 733.) There is a wide range of context -specific factors in assessing the significance of alleged gaps. (See, e.g., Cellular Tel. Co. v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of the Borough of Ho—Ho—Kus (3d Cir.1999) 197 F.3d 64, 70 n. 2 [whether gap affected significant commuter highway or railway]; Powertel/Atlanta, Inc. v. City of Clarkston (N.D.Ga. Aug.3, 2007) No. 1:05—CV-3068, 2007 WL 2258720, at *6 [assessing the "nature and character of that area or the number of potential users in that area who may be affected by the alleged lack of service"]; Voice Stream PCS I, LLC v. City of Hillsboro (D.Or. 2004) 301 F.Supp.2d 1251, 1261 [whether facilities were needed to improve weak signals or to fill a complete void in coverage]; Nextel Partners, Inc. v. Town of Amherst (W.D.N.Y.2003) 251 F.Supp.2d 1187, 1196 [gap covers well traveled roads on which customers lack roaming capabilities]; Am. Cellular Network Co., LLC v. Upper Dublin Twp. (E.D.Pa.2002) 203 F.Supp.2d 383, 390-91 [considering "drive tests"]; Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Town of Ogunquit (D.Me. 2001) 175 F.Supp.2d 77, 90 [whether gap affects commercial district]; APT Minneapolis, Inc. v. Stillwater Twp. (D.Minn. June 22, 2001) No. 00-2500, 2001 WL 1640069, at *2-3 [whether gap poses public safety risk].) 3. The applicant has provided the city with a meaningful comparative analysis that includes the factual reasons why any alternative location(s) or design(s) suggested by the city or otherwise identified in the administrative record, including but not limited to potential alternatives identified at any public meeting or hearing, are not technically feasible or potentially available. As noted earlier, the Applicant has proposed similar antennas on street light poles at the following 3 locations (see attachment): • Replacement of an existing street light pole on the west side of Whitley Collins, approximately 190 feet to the northwest of the Primary. • Street stop sign replacement located approximately 45 feet north of the Primary on the opposite side of Scotwood Dr. • Replacement of an existing street light pole approximately 100' west of Primary site on the west side of Whitley Collins. D-13 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE ASG NO. 32) AUGUST 30, 2017 PAGE 14 None of the alternative sites meet the RF coverage objective as confirmed by the City's RF The alternative site analysis submitted by the Applicant demonstrates that the proposed project is likely the least intrusive location for the wireless telecommunications facility in the immediate area because of the surrounding slopes and vegetation. The WTF is also being proposed to be installed on a replacement street light pole that replaces existing infrastructure. And while the proposed location is adjacent to a residential zone, the proposed location does not interfere with any public or residential views. Furthermore, because of the limited commercially zoned areas in the City and limited collector or arterial streets, in order to provide coverage to the residential areas of the City, it's necessary to locate within the right-of-way of local streets. The City's technical consultants have reviewed the Applicant's documents and support this conclusion. Further, other locations and designs were found to be more intrusive then the proposed project as revised: • As noted above, Staff finds locations that utilize an existing or replacement pole to be preferable to a whole new pole. • A smaller or lower pole could be utilized, but it would require a multiplicity of wireless poles in the gap area claimed by the Applicant and discussed by the City's RF Engineer (attached), as opposed to having one AT&T pole in this area. • Alternate antenna designs, such as the side -mounted open panels originally proposed, were found by Staff to be bulkier in appearance and less streamlined than the vertical shroud design now proposed. Staff looked at other design options from other (non -AT&T) carriers. While some carriers offer antenna panels that may be smaller in overall size, such designs from other carriers are not engineered to carry the bandwidths owned by AT&T. 4. The applicant has provided the city with a meaningful comparative analysis that includes the factual reasons why the proposed location and design deviates is the least noncompliant location and design necessary to reasonably achieve the applicant's reasonable technical service objectives. See discussion immediately above. Further, the proposed WTF installation will be installed on a replacement street light pole that will match other street light poles in the immediate area. The 28.1' tall light pole will match the height of the existing light pole. The location is necessary to meet the Applicant's service objective, as affirmed by the City's RF Engineer who will be present at the August 30th meeting. D-14 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE ASG NO. 32) AUGUST 30, 2017 PAGE 15 And, as stated in the previous Finding, the limited commercially zoned areas and limited number of collector or arterial streets require the use of local residential streets in order to provide proper coverage and capacity to various portions of the City. Thus, there are no commercial zones within the signal reach of the identified gap. It should be noted that RPVMC Section 12.18.190(C) provides that the Commission "shall limit its exemption to the extent to which the Applicant demonstrates such exemption is necessary to reasonably achieve its reasonable technical service objectives. The Planning Commission may adopt Conditions of Approval as reasonably necessary to promote the purposes in this chapter and protect the public health, safety and welfare." ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Radio Frequency (RF) Emissions In compliance with RPVMC Section 12.18.050, the Applicant provided the City with "an RF exposure compliance report prepared and certified by an RF engineer acceptable to the City that certifies that the proposed facility, as well as any facilities that contribute to the cumulative exposure in the subject area, will comply with applicable federal RF exposure standards and exposure limits." With regards to RF cumulative impact concerns, there is no additional impacts simply from the installation of wireless facilities throughout the City as shown in the applicant's plans. As long as the antennas are 13.9' or more above ground and the 8' public exclusion zone directly in front and at the same elevation as the antenna is observed, there is no cumulative impacts associated with RF exposure. Unlike cumulative traffic impacts from additional urban development, there is no equivalent cumulative impacts. In other words, the degree of RF does not increase in neighborhoods where it can impact the general population just from having multiple wireless facilities in a neighborhood. Importantly, beyond the fact that Applicant complied with this submittal requirement, any consideration of RF Emissions by the Planning Commission, or the health effects thereof, are beyond the Commission's authority to the extent the emissions conform to the applicable FCC regulations. Under the Telecom Act, the FCC completely occupies the field with respect to RF emissions regulation, and established comprehensive rules for maximum permissible exposure levels (the "FCC Guidelines"). State and local governments cannot (1) regulate wireless facilities based on environmental effects from RF emissions when the emissions conform to the applicable FCC regulations or (2) establish their own RF exposure standards—whether more strict, more lenient or even the same. (47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv).). As the emissions conform to the FCC regulations, the City cannot impose its own emission standards or ignore the FCC standards. D-15 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE ASG NO. 32) AUGUST 30, 2017 PAGE 16 Shot Clock State and federal laws, and a FCC ruling, provide that a local jurisdiction must act on an application for certain wireless facilities antennas within the following certain strict timeframes: (1) a 150 -day shot clock for new facilities; (2) a 90 -day shot clock for modifications resulting in a substantial change; or (3) a 60 -day shot clock for modifications that do not result in a substantial change. If a local government fails to approve or deny a facilities request within the applicable time period, the request will be "deemed granted" upon written notification from the Applicant to the local government stating that the request is considered approved. The Project application proposes a new facility subject to the 150 -day shot clock. The application was submitted on July 7, 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 until August 22, 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. Mock -Up Notice Issues On May 25, 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 2, 2017. This is a required step in the Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Application for all proposed wireless facility installations. Chapter 12.18 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code states that the Planning Commission is to review these specific proposed installations for, among other things, design assessment and location. The temporary mock-up installation remains in-place as a matter of public notice up -to and during Planning Commission deliberations, and any appeal to the City Council if applicable. D-16 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE ASG NO. 32) AUGUST 30, 2017 PAGE 17 CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Staff recommends that the proposed WTF be conditionally approved as provided in the attached P.C. Resolution conditionally approving the project. ALTERNATIVES The following alternatives are available for the Planning Commission's consideration: 1. Deny, without prejudice, ASG No. 32 and direct Staff to come back with a resolution at the September 12, 2017 meeting; or, 2. Approve the originally proposed design that replaces the existing 25.5 -foot light pole with the installation of a new 25.5 -foot tall streetlight with two 21.4 -inch panel antennas that would be affixed below the mast arm. 3. Identify any issues of concern with the proposed project, provide Staff and/or the applicant with direction in modifying the project and request that the applicant redesign and resubmit for consideration at the September 12, 2017 meeting. ATTACHMENTS • P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -XX including Conditions of Approval • Revised project plans and photo simulations • City's View Assessment Memo • Technical information from the City's RF Engineer • Coverage Maps and Supporting Documents from the Applicant • Feasibility Analysis on Alternate Sites • August 7, 2017 Shot Clock Tolling Agreement • Public Comments D-17 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2017- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING, WITH CONDITIONS, WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY ASG NO. 32 TO ALLOW THE REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING STREET LIGHT POLE WITH THE INSTALLATION OF A NEW 28.1 FOOT TALL STREET LIGHT WITH MAST ARM AND LUMINAIRE TO ACCOMMODATE A 2' TALL MOUNTED ANTENNA ENCASED IN A 2' TALL CANISTER WITH A 3' TALL TAPERED CANSITER SLEEVE AT THE TOP OF THE POLE WITH RELATED VAULTED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT ADJACENT TO 29504 WHITLEY COLLINS 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 July of 2016, Crown Castle (the "Applicant") applied to the City for an Wireless Telecommunications Facility Permit ("WTFP"), pursuant to Section 12.18.040(A) of the Municipal Code, to install 26 antennas in the public right-of- way (PROW) to service AT&T customers throughout the City (the "Project") including ASG No. 32 adjacent to 29504 Whitley Collins Drive; WHEREAS, the Project calls for an existing 25.6 -foot tall marbelite octagonal street light with a mast arm and luminaire to be decommissioned and replaced with a 29 -foot tall marbelite octagonal street light with panel antennas encased in a 2 -foot tall canister with a 3' tall tapered canister sleeve mounted at the top of the new pole with accessory equipment to be vaulted in the PROW; WHEREAS, because the Project's location is within a residential zone and within the PROW of local streets as identified in the General Plan, approval of a WTFP also requires an exception under Section 12.18.190 of the Municipal Code; WHEREAS, the Project is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") because the Project constitutes a small scale installation of new a new facility (14 CCR § 15303(d)). WHEREAS, on August 8, 2017, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to August 30, 2017; WHEREAS, on August 30, 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. P.C. Resolution No. 20 -I Pag of �9 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 on Scotwood Drive adjacent to 29504 Whitley Collins Drive, B. Removal of an existing 25.6' tall marbelite street light with a mast arm and luminaire to be decommissioned and replaced with a 25.6 tall marbelite octagonal street light with a 2' tall canister with a 3' tall tapered sleeve mounted at the top of the new pole, resulting in a total pole height of 28.1 feet, and C. Install vaulted mechanical equipment in the PROW. Section 2: Approval of a WTFP is warranted because the Project meets the findings required by Section 12.18.090 of the Municipal Code: A. All notices required for the proposed installation have been given. Crown Castle and the City have provided all notices required by the RPVMC. On May 25, 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 July 20, 2017, a public notice announcing the August 8, 2017 public hearing was provided to property owners within 500 feet of the proposed WTF. B. The proposed facility has been designed and located in compliance with all applicable provisions of this chapter. 12.18.080(A)()(a): The applicant shall employ screening, undergrounding and camouflage design techniques in the design and placement of wireless telecommunications facilities in order to ensure that the facility is as visually screened as possible, to prevent the facility from dominating the surrounding area and to minimize significant view impacts from surrounding properties all in a manner that achieves compatibility with the community and in compliance with Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration) of this code. The project employs screening and a camouflage design with the use of a 2' high antenna encased in a 2' tall cylinder -shaped shroud canister measuring 2' in diameter with a 3' tall tapered canister sleeve placed on top of the replacement street light pole that will be a total of 28.1' in height as measured from grade to the top of the canister. The vertical shroud design includes a transition piece between the canister and the pole that presents a slim side view that blends cleanly with the verticality of the light pole. The light standard is designed to match the light standard being replaced and other light standards in the P.C. Resolution No. 20 Pag of 't9 immediate area. The proposal places all of the related mechanical equipment underground in a vault. The proposed installation will not have any significant view impairment to surrounding properties pursuant to Chapter 17.02.040 of the RPVMC. 12.18.080(A)(1)(b): Screening shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with surrounding structures using appropriate techniques to camouflage, disguise, and/or blend into the environment, including landscaping, color, and other techniques to minimize the facility's visual impact as well as be compatible with the architectural character of the surrounding buildings or structures in terms of color, size, proportion, style, and quality. The proposed WTF will be affixed to a replacement street light pole that matches other street light poles in the area, and the replacement street light pole will utilize similar color, size, proportion, style, and quality to other street poles in the area. The antenna encased in the cylinder -shaped canister shroud will be painted to match the Marbelite light pole with a concrete color and the canister will blend into the pole with a tapered transition sleeve. The mechanical equipment will be vaulted under the existing sidewalk. 12.18.080(A)(1)(c): Facilities shall be located such that views from a residential structure are not significantly impaired. Facilities shall also be located in a manner that protects public views over city view corridors, as defined in the city's general plan, so that no significant view impairment results in accordance with this code including Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration). This provision shall be applied consistent with local, state and federal law. The Project does not result in a significant view impairment to surrounding residences on Scotwood Drive or Whitley Collins Drive. This finding remains unchanged even with the additional height of the pole to accommodate the cylinder -shaped canister on top of the 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)(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 street light pole and affixed equipment will consist of colors and materials that are subdued, non -reflective and are the same as the other light poles in the immediate area. 12.18.080(A)(5): Equipment. The applicant shall use the least visible equipment possible. Antenna elements shall be flush mounted, to the extent feasible. All antenna mounts shall be designed so as not to preclude possible future P.C. Resolution No. 2017- PagED collocation by the same or other operators or carriers. Unless otherwise provided in this section, antennas shall be situated as close to the ground as possible. The project consists of a replacement street light pole with a 2' tall canister shroud with a 3' tall tapered canister sleeve that will house the antenna panels and wires on top of the replacement pole which would result in an overall height of 28.1'. The proposed cylinder shroud design presents a slim side view that blends cleanly with the verticality of the light pole, particularly with the transition piece between the pole and the canister, and is the least visible of the options presented. The height of the street pole may have to be increased by up to 5' to accommodate collocation because of the size of the panel antennas combined with there being a need to provide a separation of at least 1' between antenna panels for functionality purposes. Future location of additional antennas on this street light pole would detract from the overall appearance. 12.18.080(A)(6)(a): Facilities shall be located consistent with Section 12.18.200 (Location Restrictions) unless an exception pursuant to Section 12.18.190 (Exceptions) is granted. The proposed location is within the PROW of local residential streets as identified in the City's General Plan and the Planning Commission finds that an Exception shall be made. 12.18.080(A)(6)(d): Light Poles. The maximum height of any antenna shall not exceed four feet above the existing height of a light pole. Any portion of the antenna or equipment mounted on a pole shall be no less than 16% feet above any drivable road surface. The cylinder shaped antenna shroud exceeds 2' above the height of the replacement pole. No portion of the antenna or equipment is less than 16Y2' above the drivable road surface. 12.18.080(A)(6)(e): Replacement Poles. If an applicant proposes to replace a pole in order to accommodate a proposed facility, the pole shall be designed to resemble the appearance and dimensions of existing poles near the proposed location, including size, height, color, materials and style to the maximum extent feasible. The proposed replacement street light pole will match the appearance, in terms of color, height, size and dimensions of other light poles in the immediate area. P.C. Resolution No. Page 12.18.080(A)(6)(i): All cables, including, but not limited to, electrical and utility cables, shall be run within the interior of the pole and shall be camouflaged or hidden to the fullest extent feasible. All cables and wires will be encased within the pole and the canister, thus hidden from view. 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 street light pole is similar in dimension to the existing street light pole. The placement of the antennas on top of the pole will occupy limited air space above the right-of-way. The accessory structure will be undergrounded and the vault necessary to house the equipment measures approximately 43 square feet in area and consists of three separate vaults. This space is the least amount of space that is technically feasible for vaulted equipment owned by AT&T. The space that will be occupied is below the surface with minimum exhaust vents that will be flush to the surrounding ground. The SCE meter box will also be vaulted. 12.18.080(A)(8): Wind Loads. Each facility shall be properly engineered to withstand wind loads as required by this code or any duly adopted or incorporated code. An evaluation of high wind load capacity shall include the impact of modification of an existing facility. Based on the information submitted by the Applicant and as confirmed by the City's consultants, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed installation complies with all building codes related to wind loads. 12.18.080(A)(9): Obstructions. Each component part of a facility shall be located so as not to cause any physical or visual obstruction to pedestrian or vehicular traffic, incommode the public's use of the right-of-way, or safety hazards to pedestrians and motorists and in compliance with Section 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility) so as not to obstruct the intersection visibility triangle. The proposed installation will not cause an obstruction to the public's use of the PROW, constitute a safety hazard and/or does not interfere with the City -defined intersection visibility triangle. The proposed location is not located in a sidewalk or walking area established for regular pedestrian use, and the replacement pole provides the same lighting, height and setback parameters applicable to other streetlights. 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 P.C. Resolution No. 20 Page orT9 station, fire escape, water valve, underground vault, valve housing structure, or any other public health or safety facility. The proposed installation, including the undergrounding of the mechanical equipment, will not interfere with fire hydrants, fire stations, water lines or any other public health or safety facilities C. If applicable, the applicant has demonstrated its inability to locate on existing infrastructure. Not applicable as the proposed WTF antennas are proposed to be installed on a replacement street light pole that's currently an existing infrastructure. D. The applicant has provided sufficient evidence supporting the applicant's claim that it has the right to enter the public right-of-way pursuant to state or federal law, or the applicant has entered into a franchise agreement with the city permitting them to use the public right-of-way. The Applicant has submitted to the City a Right of Way Use Agreement (RUA) entered into with the City in 2011, which allows the Applicant to install wireless antennas in the PROW. Further, the Applicant has submitted a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) issued by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) which provides that the Applicant has been authorized to install wireless telecommunications infrastructure in the PROW. E. The applicant has demonstrated the proposed installation is designed such that the proposed installation represents the least intrusive means possible and supported by factual evidence and a meaningful comparative analysis to show that all alternative locations and designs identified in the application review process were technically infeasible or not available. Alternative locations were identified in the application review process. The present design, which includes encasing the two antenna panels within a cylinder -shaped canister proposed to be placed on top of the light pole, is the least intrusive means of those alternatives. There is technology that is possible to use but that would require a greater number of facilities throughout the community to provide equal coverage and capacity. This may require the introduction of new pole structures where there are no street lights or utility poles and may require associated accessory equipment at every location. The supporting mechanical equipment, even if placed in vaults underground, would require additional fans that may result in adverse cumulative noise impacts negating the objective of installing the least intrusive systems. P.C. Resolution No. 2011 Page 6 oT V Other locations and designs considered as part of the application process for purposes of filling the coverage gap claimed by the Applicant and discussed by the City's RF Engineer were found to be more intrusive then the proposed project. Section 3: As discussed in the findings above, because the Project's location is within a residential zone and within the PROW of local streets as identified in the General Plan, approval of a WTFP also requires an exception under Section 12.18.190 of the Municipal Code. The Project meets the findings for an exception as required by Section 12.18.190(8) of the Municipal Code: 1. The proposed wireless facility qualifies as a "personal wireless services facility" as defined in United States Code, Title 47, section 332(c)(7)(C)(ii). The WTF meets the definition of "personal wireless services facility" as defined by the United States Code. 2. The applicant has provided the city with a clearly defined technical service objective and a clearly defined potential site search area. The "technical service objective" identified by the Applicant in all application documents is the coverage of a "significant gap" in service near the intersection of Whitley Collins Drive and Scotwood Drive. This application information was provided to the City's RF Engineer who reviewed the information, as well as conducted both on-site walkouts of the area and a computerized terrain study to determine if the proposed site will address a coverage gap as identified in the application. Based on the terrain profile characteristics and the field measurement data provided by Crown Castle, the proposal as provided will address coverage deficiencies within the target area. The Applicant has provided engineering details related to the wireless bands that will be used for the DAS deployment, including identifying transmitting equipment, power levels for each band and specifics regarding the radiation patterns of the antennas to be installed. Crown Castle has provided engineering measurement data defining gaps in AT&T coverage in small pocketed areas. This has been independently examined by the City's consultant who determined that the signal levels are lower than industry recommended levels to support modern 3G/4G customer needs. The engineering design provided by Crown Castle supports that, if constructed, DAS site ASG 10 will provide ample signal intensity (signal level in excess of -95 dBm) to support AT&T's 3G/4G wireless services. 3. The applicant has provided the City with a meaningful comparative analysis that includes the factual reasons why any alternative location(s) or design(s) suggested by the city or otherwise identified in the administrative record, including but not limited to potential alternatives P.C. Resolution No. Pag identified at any public meeting or hearing, are not technically feasible or potentially available. As noted earlier, the Applicant has proposed similar antennas on street light poles at the following 4 locations (see attachment): • Replacement of an existing street light pole approximately 457' to the north of the proposed location on the same side of the street. • Replacement of an existing street light pole approximately 171' to the north of the proposed location on the same side of the street. • A new concrete pole approximately 77' to the north of the proposed location on the same side of the street. • Replacement of an existing street light pole approximately 158' south (downhill) from the proposed location on the same side of the street. All but one of the alternative sites did not meet the RF coverage objective as confirmed by the City's RF Engineer. The one alternative location that met the Applicant's RF coverage objective is not desired because there is minimal landscaping in the area for screening purposes. Furthermore, this alternative is at the top of the hill making for noticeable than the primary location. Thus, the primary location was found to be superior. The alternative site analysis submitted by the Applicant demonstrates that the proposed project is likely the least intrusive location for the wireless telecommunications facility in the immediate area because of the surrounding slopes and vegetation. The WTF is also being proposed to be installed on a replacement street light pole that replaces existing infrastructure. And while the proposed location is adjacent to a residential zone, the proposed location does not interfere with any public or residential views. Furthermore, because of the limited commercially zoned areas in the City and limited collector or arterial streets, in order to provide coverage to the residential areas of the City, it's necessary to locate within the right-of- way of local streets. The City's technical consultants have reviewed the Applicant's documents and support this conclusion. The proposed project is the least intrusive location for the wireless telecommunications facility in the immediate area because of the surrounding terrain. There are no major collector or arterial streets in the immediate area. 4. The applicant has provided the city with a meaningful comparative analysis that includes the factual reasons why the proposed location and design deviates is the least noncompliant location and design necessary P.C. Resolution No g�� to reasonably achieve the applicant's reasonable technical service objectives. The Applicant has provided a meaningful alternative comparative analysis and the proposed project is found to be the preferred design. Section 4: Conditions regarding any of the requirements listed above which the Planning Commission finds to be necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare, have been imposed in the attached Exhibit A. Section 5: The Project is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") because the Project constitutes a small scale installation of new a new facility (14 CCR § 15303(d)). 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 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 Wednesday, September 14, 2017. Section 7: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby conditionally approves, a WTFP application and an exception for the proposed installation adjacent to 29504 Whitley Collins (WTF ASG NO. 32). PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 30th day of August 2017, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: RECUSALS: ABSENT: P.C. Resolution No. 2017- PagED1SR Ara Mihranian, AICP Community Development Director; and, Secretary of the Planning Commission John M. Cruikshank Chairman P.C. Resolution No. 20 Page- Tq Exhibit "A" Conditions of Approval WTF ASG No. 32 Adjacent to 29504 Whitley Collins General Conditions: 1. Prior to obtaining a permit from the Public Works Department to install the street light pole, the applicant and the property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have read, understand, and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this Resolution. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void. 2. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolutions procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and other such procedures) (collectively "Actions"), brought against the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City), for or concerning the project. 3. Prior to conducting any work in the public right of way (PROW), such as for curb cuts, dumpsters, temporary improvements and/or permanent improvements, the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works. 4. Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws and regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) shall apply. 5. The Public Works Director or Director of Community Development are authorized to make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of approval if such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with the approved plans and conditions. Otherwise, any substantive change to the project shall require approval of a revision by the final body that approved the original project, which may require new and separate environmental review. P.C. Resolution No. 20 Page &-n 6. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be cause to revoke the approval of the project pursuant to the RPVMC. 7. If the applicant has not obtained approvals from Public Works for the approved project or not commenced the approved project within one year of the final effective date of this Resolution, approval of the project shall expire and be of no further effect unless, prior to expiration, a written request for extension is filed with the Public Works Department and approved by the Director. 8. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations and/or requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter standard shall apply. 9. The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that material used for immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may include, but not be limited to: the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or discarded furniture, appliances or other household fixtures. 10. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, 9:OOAM to 5:OOPM on Saturday, with no construction activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section 17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. During demolition, construction and/or grading operations, trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining street rights-of-way before 7AM Monday through Friday and before 9AM on Saturday, in accordance with the permitted hours of construction stated in this condition. When feasible to do so, the construction contractor shall provide staging areas on-site to minimize off-site transportation of heavy construction equipment. These areas shall be located to maximize the distance between staging activities and neighboring properties, subject to approval by the building official. 11. All grading, landscaping and construction activities shall exercise effective dust control techniques, either through screening and/or watering. 12. Prior to commencement work, the Applicant shall obtain approval of a haul route from the Director of Public Works. 13. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly manner, to the satisfaction of the City's Inspector. All construction waste and debris resulting from a construction, alteration or repair project shall be removed on a weekly basis by the contractor or property owner. P.C. Resolution No. 2017 - Page � of 2(Y 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. Installation of a Wireless Telecommunication Facility WTF adjacent to 29504 Whitley Collins Drive. B. The Removal of an existing 25.6' tall marbelite street light with a mast arm and luminaire to be decommissioned and replaced with a marbelite octagonal street light with a 2' tall canister with a 3' tall tapered sleeve mounted at the top of the new pole, resulting in a total pole height of 28.1 feet. C. The installation of three separate vaults to house the required accessory equipment in the PROW, including vents and meter boxes that shall be flush to the ground and that shall not exceed 43 square feet in total surface area. 16. The proposed project is subject to the following Conditions to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and the Director of Community Development: o The proposed WTF shall be installed on a new light standard that matches the other light standards in the area in terms of color, size, proportion, style, and quality. The antenna shroud and any related exposed structures shall be painted and maintained to match the light pole. o If applicable, 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 the same as the existing light standard and other lights standards in the nearby area. o The replacement pole shall match the appearance and dimensions of the existing pole and all other light standards near the location. o All cables and wires shall be encased within the pole and/or canister, and hidden from view. P.C. Resolution No. 2017 - Page DAG o All ground -mounted facilities including mechanical equipment, or walls, fences, landscaping or other screening methods shall be installed at least 18 inches from the curb and gutter flow line. o All accessory equipment shall be located underground including meter boxes and cabinets. o The facility shall be installed so as to maintain and enhance existing landscaping on the site, including trees, foliage and shrubs. Additional landscaping shall be planted, irrigated and maintained by Applicant where such landscaping is feasible and deemed necessary by the City to provide screening or to conceal the facility. o The facility shall not bear any signs or advertising devices other than certification, warning or other signage required by law or permitted by the city. o The facility shall not be illuminated except for the standard street -light luminaire replacing the existing street light. All other illumination shall be restricted pursuant to RPVMC § 12.18.080(A)(15). o Noise: ■ Backup generators shall only be operated during periods of power outages, and shall not be tested on weekends or holidays, or between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. ■ At no time shall equipment noise from any facility exceed an exterior noise level of 55 dBA three feet from the source of the noise if the facility is located in the public right-of-way adjacent to a business, commercial, manufacturing, utility or school zone; provided, however, that for any such facility located within 500 feet of any property zoned residential or improved with a residential use, such equipment noise shall not exceed 45 dBA three feet from the sources of the noise. The foregoing noise level limitations shall govern facilities subject to RPVMC Chapter 12.18.080(A)(16) until such time that a specific noise regulation ordinance is adopted and effective in this code, at which time such noise ordinance shall govern. o The facility shall be designed to be resistant to, and minimize opportunities for, unauthorized access, climbing, vandalism, graffiti and other conditions that would result in hazardous situations, visual blight or attractive nuisances. The Public Works Director may require the provision of warning signs, fencing, anti -climbing devices, or other techniques to prevent unauthorized access and vandalism when, because of their location and/or accessibility, a facility has the potential to become an P.C. Resolution No. 2 Page 4 19 attractive nuisance. Additionally, no lethal devices or elements shall be installed as a security device. o Consistent with current state and federal laws and if permissible under the same, at the time of modification of the facility, existing equipment shall, to the extent feasible, be replaced with equipment that reduces visual, noise and other impacts, including, but not limited to, undergrounding the equipment and replacing larger, more visually intrusive facilities with smaller, less visually intrusive facilities. o The installation and construction of the facility shall begin within one year after its approval or it will expire without further action by the city. 17. All wireless telecommunications facilities shall comply at all times with the following operation and maintenance standards: o Unless otherwise provided herein, all necessary repairs and restoration shall be completed by the permittee, owner, operator or any designated maintenance agent within 48 hours: o After discovery of the need by the permittee, owner, operator or any designated maintenance agent; or o After permittee, owner, operator or any designated maintenance agent receives notification from the city. 18. Each permittee of a wireless telecommunications facility shall provide the Public Works Director with the name, address and 24-hour local or toll free contact phone number of the permittee, the owner, the operator and the agent responsible for the maintenance of the facility ("contact information"). Contact information shall be updated within seven days of any change. 19. Prior to any construction activities, the permittee shall submit a security instrument (bond or letter of credit as approved by the City Attorney) in an amount determined by the City to be sufficient to cover all potential costs listed herein or in the RPVMC. 20. The permittee shall provide additional information to establish that the proposed accessory equipment is designed to be the smallest equipment technologically feasible. The City may consider equipment installed or proposed to be installed in other jurisdictions. 21. All facilities, including, but not limited to, telecommunication towers, poles, accessory equipment, lighting, fences, walls, shields, cabinets, artificial foliage or camouflage, and the facility site shall be maintained in good condition, including ensuring the facilities are reasonably free of: P.C. Resolution No. 29 Page O -Z a. General dirt and grease; b. Chipped, faded, peeling, and cracked paint; C. Rust and corrosion; d. Cracks, dents, and discoloration; e. Missing, discolored or damaged artificial foliage or other camouflage; Graffiti, bills, stickers, advertisements, litter and debris; g. Broken and misshapen structural parts; and h. Any damage from any cause. 22. Applicant shall install, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director or Director of Community Development, drought tolerant landscaping near the proposed installation of the vaulted accessory equipment and retaining wall enclosure 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 P.C. Resolution No. 2017 - Page f 5 0 'j signs or signals, hydrants, mailboxes, permitted sidewalk dining, permitted street furniture or other objects permitted at or near said location. 27. Unless California Government Code Section 65964, as may be amended, authorizes the city to issue a permit with a shorter term, a permit for any wireless telecommunications facility shall be valid for a period of ten years, unless pursuant to another provision of the RPVMC or these Conditions of Approval, it lapses sooner or is revoked. At the end of ten years from the date of issuance, such permit shall automatically expire. 28. A permittee may apply for a new permit within 180 days prior to expiration. Said application and proposal shall comply with the city's current Code requirements for 1NTF's. 29. A WTF is considered abandoned and shall be promptly removed as provided herein if it ceases to provide wireless telecommunications services for 90 or more consecutive days unless the permittee has obtained prior written approval from the director which shall not be unreasonably denied. If there are two or more users of a single facility, then this provision shall not become effective until all users cease using the facility. 30. The operator of a facility shall notify the City in writing of its intent to abandon or cease use of a permitted site or a nonconforming site (including unpermitted sites) within ten days of ceasing or abandoning use. Notwithstanding any other provision herein, the operator of the facility shall provide written notice to the director of any discontinuation of operations of 30 days or more. 31. Failure to inform the director of cessation or discontinuation of operations of any existing facility as required by this section shall constitute a violation of any approvals and be grounds for: a. Litigation; b. Revocation or modification of the permit; C. Acting on any bond or other assurance required by this article or conditions of approval of the permit; d. Removal of the facilities by the city in accordance with the procedures established under this code for abatement of a public nuisance at the owner's expense; and/or e. Any other remedies permitted by law. 32. Upon the expiration date of the permit, including any extensions, earlier termination or revocation of the permit or abandonment of the facility, the P.C. Resolution No. 20 Page 7 o 19 permittee, owner or operator shall remove its WTF and restore the site to its natural condition except for retaining the landscaping improvements and any other improvements at the discretion of the city. Removal shall be in accordance with proper health and safety requirements and all ordinances, rules, and regulations of the City. The facility shall be removed from the property, at no cost or expense to the City. 33. Failure of the permittee, owner or operator to promptly remove its facility and restore the property within 90 days after expiration, earlier termination or revocation of the permit, or abandonment of the facility, shall be a violation of these conditions of approval. Upon a showing of good cause, an extension may be granted by the Public Works Director where circumstances are beyond the control of the permittee after expiration. Further failure to abide by the timeline provided in this section shall be grounds for: a. Prosecution; b. Acting on any security instrument required by the RPVMC or conditions of approval of permit; C. Removal of the facilities by the city in accordance with the procedures established under the RPVMC for abatement of a public nuisance at the owner's expense; and/or d. Any other remedies permitted by law. 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 P.C. Resolution No. 2017 - Page U o38 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. P.C. Resolution No. 20 Page o`f s ASG32 29504 SCOTWOOD DR AT WHITLEY COLLINS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA GENER.ALCON'TR{S:4OR NOTES: , CONI'RAC'i'OR SIIALL VERIFIALI. PLANS :\ND I NISI'INODINII:NSIONS AND CON'DIIIONS ON'1Ill 1011 SITE AND Sll ALL ININJEDIAI'EI.1' NOI'IF1' T1 1: F:.NU NF;F:R IN W'RIT'ING 01 AM DISCitl:l'ANCIES ]I] FORE PROCEEDINU Willi 'IHE IPORA OR RESPONSIBLE FOR S:\NIF.. TITLE NE 11 ORR RI.AL. E 'LI M PkO)F;I"1' MANAGER t'ONS 'IRI!("ZION MANAGER RADIO FR1iOCr1;N(1 $. Aspen WaN n . �fesNidye l:tn h a Z SIGN OFF SIGNATURE MrGa 9e O fey iicof'dO ool 'Y a( ht - _ SITE LOCATION ,, � ', c�ar1• 701 ;........ N 9{ Sin{y Catalina NTS VICINITY MAP / DATE PROJECT DESCRIPTION: • INCONIAIISSION@ REMOVE F.—IINO 25-111011 NIARRI;I.I'III ICTAGONAI. C'ONCRF'IT, S'1'RF:ETI.111111 1101,11 N 16LiSilUE1 AND RFPI.,1I'1:11111 A NF1 25' b' HIGH CONCRIi1'i:'1'l:\'I'URF.D S'1EE1. POI.E \\'I"I'H MAST ARNI ANI) I.IINIINAIRE tRIiMOVE E\ISTINO JUNIPER). • WS'fA1.L (Ill'RO\1'N('.{S'i1,F:J'\G'{'.{UI.T, PLUSH NIUI!N I'\'):NTS \1'I"IN. NIE'Itik& POWER DISCONNECT R(L\ \1'1'111 O)NILIONS INSIDE. • INS All (2) NX AN'I'F:NNAS 111P5F41UL1-lit W1111 C(INI.ALFAB TOP MOUNT .)ND SHROUD. • WIAIL(ROWN l A1lI.F: WI'R2 A 3\':{1111 • INS)' l L \'OR • EQUIPMENT AND AN IINNAS'10 BI: PAIN 1`17 IONIAICIIPOI.E. PROJEC'I' SUMMARY / PROJECT NI:\NAGER: CROWN CAS 11.17 'UtlSPEC I'RUNI CFN'IEIC Di21 STH FLOOR IRVINE. CA 92615 JON CO\ EL14 ('J25) 2w,,85] JON.COWEI L N. I;NDOR,,,CROWNCASTLF.CUNI CONSIRUC'1'ION ENGINEER: CROWN CAS I X 211(1 SPEC 'IRUNI CHN'I'ER DR 1$111 FLOOR IR\'INE.. CA 92618 AENNJrr119183911OHNS (]IJ) 1 KFNNE I 11.1 IOBBS'a CROW NCASI LF..CONI NODE ENGINEER INE LR. COAR FAL C )XINIII NICA'I IONS 95 J 1 OI \Nl \ CAVI ON BLVD. CII \ 11{1 ORI'll. CA 11 X11 C l R 1111 Jl EINSON (161)932-4312 CURI COAS'rALCONINIINC.CONI PROJECT'FEAM / ASG32 242727 CROWN v CASTLE NC WEST LLC Communications I CITY REDONE apD PED OE 0)166116 . ...�n A5G52 29504 SCOTWOOD DR AT WHITLEY COLLINS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA TITLE SHEET T-1 D-37 SHEETINDEX PROJECT NI:\NAGER: CROWN CAS 11.17 'UtlSPEC I'RUNI CFN'IEIC Di21 STH FLOOR IRVINE. CA 92615 JON CO\ EL14 ('J25) 2w,,85] JON.COWEI L N. I;NDOR,,,CROWNCASTLF.CUNI CONSIRUC'1'ION ENGINEER: CROWN CAS I X 211(1 SPEC 'IRUNI CHN'I'ER DR 1$111 FLOOR IR\'INE.. CA 92618 AENNJrr119183911OHNS (]IJ) 1 KFNNE I 11.1 IOBBS'a CROW NCASI LF..CONI NODE ENGINEER INE LR. COAR FAL C )XINIII NICA'I IONS 95 J 1 OI \Nl \ CAVI ON BLVD. CII \ 11{1 ORI'll. CA 11 X11 C l R 1111 Jl EINSON (161)932-4312 CURI COAS'rALCONINIINC.CONI PROJECT'FEAM / ASG32 242727 CROWN v CASTLE NC WEST LLC Communications I CITY REDONE apD PED OE 0)166116 . ...�n A5G52 29504 SCOTWOOD DR AT WHITLEY COLLINS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA TITLE SHEET T-1 D-37 LEGEND SYMBOL DFSCRIP MN E - E*j M m _P ABBREVIATIONS IkJ f. URSA, IS)ITAR 'I. ISNt'ERI.ING AS SRISTINI. EOP KlN .. uF PAVNAIEN'r YI. P..IRRT%'LDS. N W PRSIT OF N'AI Nell SUIMI I'ISION IHIU MIAMI EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES: NOTES: Pxl'SNAIhN,I ilI lun Nn UN kVI. n1.Fpl�Y In.I. IAD. hO II., I 1111 11 11 1A I 111 'H- III lil I •'A11 A.I. IF Al... NFVUR MM .III. IS, IRI' OF RANlIlll YAL.R IkNUkS I_ )F: \'E.I,PMENT MANI'.AI.. SIIRM ATEk %I'ANIIASIII NIINI HA INIURPUNAfEI) Ik'I'u'i'lIF. UE5IILN' ANU IVNSFRUIT'IUN UF'1'lIC YHUN)SEU Pl'Ml.11' IMPRIIVHMENI'S I ONMNI'EN'I' WffH 1'IIN. ENUNNN IVN'1IFUI. YLAN.gNISUN It'Al'EN AHI N' x IL IYAPYI.N.ILLLY. MUR N, IVINKACS-t. INTO SlIT 11ASI1It111FUlArRI.I I)PSTkSAAI UY INI YT AS IN )II A I'k IDN DH AH.N } 'fHh.LUNIHAIfUN UN W'AI.IREU YERAvN NIAI.I. HE REMNINNIHLlFlRII.EANIIPUF SII.TANIJ AIVUUN AISAAkNI NI REM I%I ANU.11111 DRAINN1N1hAl DIE R•I„NNI'RU111UNAI VIIY I 1'1lht'11N'INAI IVRNiAI.LKWOV 111 ANDUhHEi.1tKEIAI'It AIAIUR RAINFALL N NUI!IPklhNl AND N'URI:EKS FNI HMFSOENIY-SHAIA. SE AIAIX AVAIIABLE AT Al... TIMES INIRINO III. NA III SMAIU 1 n o , ,I,,11'oNP. ALL hNUAiseuMIENRVNTRUL VE\'N'Y.NTU NYINKINU UNDEY. `irl HEMA 1.SYAA I_l N OF F UN 1'.1 F.NOINhfittu0. ux' Nr�lOhHi NNUINESp ALTER EAlll RUNeINF YY.ONI I In„ IDIINtAI.I. ) TIIK IAJNfNAt'IDN MI;II.I.IN5I AI.I. ADnII LANAI. kRVSIUN ShiMAIENi'I'uNTP.OI. MEANL Y.Y.SAR AIAI OR NE,$I11OI MY I Ill. RbSINENT ENIHNI ER I111N 111ORk.1 kAkEN ITRIT'NSTAMIEC WIS1 It AIA% ARISE % eI.I.Y.NUAII,N'Nh NIAIIiNI IVNTNVI. MEASVRRI:PNV\'TURN 1'Y.NTIIk APPNUVEUTAIYRV\'BAIGNY I.I.AN N11AI.1. HY.INIUHI'uxAl'I:U iINNEVN Ai.I. ENUEIUNrcfiUlA1HN I'IONTMIJI. NMI INI'ERIAI I'uNUI"TIUNN SHALT. uh. uW h Iu l Ilt. SA IISFNTIUN Oh'I'ilF: REkUSN'1 ENU1NkEN • L.. AVIA ISO IIt IIll UEI'11E55NOWN SHALL ON IN H.A,'k:AI THE 11 OF EAI' 11 N'IPRKIxIi UA' NVII.N MAIN 11 INAIINENi 10 1'HE I UNl NN'TUR SMAI.1. ANMNItE HR N'ElKLI' }IEe'I'INUS IlU0.1NUIhiubBk I.NTIV APNII.IUTII h'•R PNOIMI 1 rEANI UinNNNA61IxRRACroX. W!:\LIYINxl1 YENAVN. FP.o51Oh raNTP.UI. TN I' P , A' I 011 1111 SUN l II NA 11 In ).11h, I Y M1 I 11 14 -AN tH NNIAIFI STORMDRAiN INLET PROTECTION INLET F1Xi7!OFPAVI!MI':N'I' FLOW FLOW SI11,LWAY. I-HA(I IIIUII SAN11 1 A G 2 -.RAGS HRIGI I'I' TYPICAL PROTECTION FOR INLET WITH OPPOSING FLOW DIRECTIONS EMM, OF �,PAVhMENf INLET FI.UW FLOW SI'I I.I.WA Y. WIA(1 III(iH SANDIIAG 2-IRAOS I II:I(ili I' TYPICAL PROTECTION FOR INLET HATH SINGLE FLOW DIRECTION NOTES: INN Ill INItllx MIUNI'-TI:NAI DAF IN, Ill Fl-KIiI NUN-AINrEANI'E "111 AAUSW YS1 I•I P"It MAIN FTERAI:ANUII.HANUI' 1 HALIA AIItsl lii!khAll)\'IJ)AYTlik a\UTAI'EN'f UPKkA'IIIIN IY I•UAIYLETEU. 5. VIII AI'ITAI'AHI.I; IN ANEAA\1'1'1'Il lllliil Ail.l'S ANO L'I.A1A lVIfHULT'F'il.rlik YAlfNi(' I 10 I011N.L ALL UTII11111 ­NIRAI 1"9 1UH SAWRAOSARUIINVANI" AL1. MORM DRAIN INLETS11 PRF:VRNT Ix� TAMINAIEU N'AI'E. A HPOPILE INS.I.bI..'I'VEREU ANU IUN'I.AIN kU AN•DNINUI NTLL RN SWEPT ANU ILEANSU NERVED I ON'rNA11'OR TU REPAIR IIAMAOED PUb1.rI' IAIYNOVNNF. 111 111H NATINFAUI'IUN UP 1 EI \ ,UI YNUINkt.µ TO RR PROfUTFD IN NI E SIDEWALK fU HE RKPI.AIRU TOTIIE AATISYAIIT NUPl REI DI'ESUIVRFR n �I HP ZUNI NAITIJR SHAI.LRE-SE fHE KIIADNA1 HA( E TO ITS URIOINAI. 1-IDION .'At NFAITUNI' Tt1INR l'n'I ENNINRER INI'I.UUINU. HIT NIDIUNHTSD 1'U PA\'INO, STNiPINU. UII:F I.ANK5. pq t'fi}IENT I.&tMNUS. SIUNN.:1NDTkAYHI IUUP UETEI'1INi.N ' SD,W LKSHAI.I. HE RKSTOREU•RRPLAISU PENII'fl' OP RANI N PALUSVSRUES5fANDARD IRAN'INOS N RUNSI'RIANRAAIPWII.I.NUTUED]Vi'RREU ROW GROUND CONSTRUCTION NOTES: VUNIl1'UNSTRUtTIVN TO RKAII,\'F:ILEAN AI.I.IJkdH1A NAILS. STAPLE%."' NUNAISEU \'.NTTI:M.%uFF'TRRP .E _ A1.6LUNSIRUI'ILL)N SIIALL bE IN At IUNDANIE N'll lI AIUNIIIPAI..I UI.Nf%'. STAIR. YSDHR.AI-5AN000IE3 STANUARUS AND kEUU1. rSINS + RA YRIUR TU 6NIAl'ATI IATIx0011II-_'NnO0.8N. AI.L I.ANI)51APINU'lu HR NESTOkIiNTU UHIUINAI.I'uNURNN UR tl¢iTER > AI.L tlU1NPAIEN'I'1'U ES RUNUKU AIMi'RRINU 1AUINST REQUIRES )A' l'I.SARANI'K At' I.h)R UPF.NINu. ) I. Al II.. S'AUINET UASEATPAU NORMAL LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES NOTES: NU.III Nn UN IS% PLANSUIHAIIi I' SO 10 Till. IAPT 11-11U."NI RSt'uR I 1 IIANO MAY HR PER -TI HI' THE t*" OF YVMAL WURK5IN I'A-OF IUNFLS. TIN" YAlll.l'I'ISS IIR 1 ONPI.1: "I.v' MEI'N'REN UTILRI' IOAIPANIkS F.AI'll.fl'IKS. kAISTINU.\ND PRUW?StlD. MUST UE NUTUAI.I.Y RER,LVKU Er illk IrfII.1T1' IUAIPANI6S' +I . :llllllEHI'HRAIISNAIA.111"AI'K'I NF. N'RIIIN T IE"AI.KP.n* IS IND FACE OF 1-111 NANIMUAI!•I"AMKTEN UAS MAIN.' AIA1' HR PL\I'SO IN RHNI' Ui'IL I TRE -1 WIHISIT TO APPROVAL OF IRT ENINNE.R IIN TRAIT'S. CALIFORNIA STATE CODE COMPLIANCE: Al.l. 1'11K I AND 1 N.1 A A. P1,Ux. 1,11 A N 111 N.1 , I' . Il II., nlRNhnr' ..-n' I ncmu, UDhs eNAm,Pltum 'I I.„ + YunrvlA vrleN ul'HINU IN III.SxI•L.gN\IN1V HE IUNSTRIII'SO TU -.11 WOSI Nul' IIUNtlNN 1u IHYS1. •AI.IFUkN1AAUAI (NISI'HAIIVEIUDEUNI'I.VUINV TR'I.F.SEIk lfl!0111 • NNIA INPILUINU t ODG PINIl'It ADOPTNI'IIF: 2010 U111. NI0 DAH'. 2010 UPI' AND I'liE HDII.IAND'AIS &I 'HIE 11111-RATUNNIHM'AI - LAI.IMURNIA AtEI'IIANIt'ALIOUF AN I.] LI4K SAES I'%' I'W>K NFYA 101 I I .AI.IhRXIA PLUAIUINO LODE . YIINNI.q A1.kiTR11ALIUUF . -0lK . Al. ISIHA INUIT'UE • I IT 1'H I 111N I' 111HUINANI'HS All' -p 1.111 S6UL'IRF.MSN'ft FAL II.RI' 15 UNAIANNSI) ANI) NUT IUM NUAIAN IIARITARUn NANUH'APPKU All EN.S RI0SRKMSN 1 N I"NOT APVI I IN M111 -I E N I1 TIIX 2V OIAI, tuRNLI Til 11 i)INU IOUh R'I NUR TII15 N'IR81.h\H I'O}iNVNH'AIIUN PAl'ILRI' I'UAIPI.IES N'RI1 h2UPRAl. STANUARIR R+N NAUIV PHNIN - IIN A'l'VRIJANIFN'RH TII6TkIF IUNII'AI'It T vi ANTI 'QUENI AAIFN 1 II ANDAN I'VIIII:k NFQUIN6AIkN! )SM.V HI' Yt UY.kAI NE 1'l IN1' Al1ENIH. ASG32 242727 " ,..CASTLE �� CASTLE NG WEST LLC ISI Nft N. %YF. I!n'. Communications A pinl�E 2 I 1. DI RT 1 A.1: L IM MI,0. D PEU 09 ASG32 29504 SCOTWOOD DR AT WHITLEY COLLINS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES. CA DETAILS & NOTES ^ R(i 111 117 n1' I�Sln rr D-1 4'X 6X 4' GROUND VAULT RADIO ENCLOSURE AS I G 1 32 4'X FX 4' GROUND VAULT RADIO ENCLOSURE (TYPICAL SECTION: N.T.S) 242727 CrCROWN ..,CASTLE NG WEST LLC A --- m. — ----------------------------- nications ------------------ TMYP. ELEVATION VIEW 6si 11111 '�l I I'l TII I I'l.I.T 1I ve ax ------- --- _j T IS VIE PLAN VIE TYP. H U'uR0 P.— s.pply .—Il Man. -11. .48 ANDREW 10NA17HP119HP Mains Power. Vac 8510364 bl­ DL eulput 1plerance over 11sdr 230t ­.—Y 66 0 gwma MULTI -BAND, MULTI -OPERATOR I "', REMOTE OPTICAL SYSTEM Rr UPWI UL bllft Tempnralure Conneclms OWrwlrelum loss 08 45 PCB s- ADDPE­ Finer ryDe.mm S'tq 1— Iq­ dB P., I. D lo b­j.p...D Compbarle p.t goner ...... 45tt W., mm (nl 81]e YSa?1B "ftm 4 (.1 1. Rumba1800 Mw IgW81 EnvNenm•nml 111 Ild. Gw.s­ o Ingressp� — pal IP55 1-1— 4 1` 4 8 43 Gs. Is 42 CDMA 45 42 3111 .1 11— 1-1- Q 58 UMTS 4' 42 11 11 LTE 0 4.. 31 RW.p` .d ASG32 322' 29504 SCOTWOOD OR Q 617— AT WHITLEY COLLINS DR freq"my range. MH' DI RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA JOft 171010 1755 SCALE SCALE I M) v -t ICP3 d8l I—ift jcp3 Npmber DErAiLs & NoTEEs) GBM 41 a. —A45 J8"I u.Ts 0 39 3�1Ilmse ligure DD1.­ 41 LIE 45 43.. 3 SCALE D-2 D-39 HPA-65F-BUU-H2 _ L�MY yy W ♦�lA CONCEAL FAB TOP MOUNT & SHROUD (FOR HPA-65F-BUU-H2 ANTENNA) SQUARE DBYSCXNER,70ELECTRIC LOAD CENTER, 70A (MODEL PG039LTDR81 4 FNeAikN LhIAI•b,:nN Hnl•nlin - TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS O ,u. HY. .I i i'I�TIUYIS 4MPERE PANIN. ]DA ,,. •••',,, -, ;,�-- ,..,,....... _..,-..., ._ ,., _. THERMOPLASTIC THERMOPLASTIC GL WDTH SINGLE PDLEaRcuns :Bg INCHEs .P.,w ,_. ,....... ....... . ,,,,,, ... ... ,,:,. - ANTENNA SHROUD APPUC - OESIGxEOTO MEET RESAMITIML. CUMMERCNAL AND INOUATTIxu RE=lENls 10 PROTECT ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS. EOVIPMEMANDAEOPLE LIF. .. I SP4GE5 vARE SME O-WIS-111 TOAA TON MIN"TANDrvENM CIRCUIT BREASERE .. . 24" O1wcc0u-URAr ON vHABE DEPTH .'.' ..swFU•e•H+-. w.o -NF w.uM r' Awurc.HEs GHT BW PutEDALUN rwM BM9MATERM COVER TYPE SURFACE WTALIXi RE FE RE NCE NUMBER OO "_`"" • 36' {I OViCOORIw NPaOOF ENCLNEMABR ENCL09URE TYPE OS SArl ORDER S A. EPPRA]ELY T MAIx TYPE icLwRExi RAr xc1. Fu6DFACTDRY WsuLLEDMANLUw �. ,. SHIPPING AND ORDERING CATEGORY ENTERS,+ PHASE.xEMAI6JR.:�B DSCOUNi SCHEWL DE CIRCNT�YPE OO E w.u� .. ... SCALE SCALE 5 ENUMBER +]86f3_ UANITY SUBS AETU .'- Y SCALE WTR FUSE BOX (FOR NEW POLES & STREET LIGHTS VAULT DETAIL STAHLW BP ENCLOSURE GROUND ROD: 01 GROUNDROD SHALL BE MINIMUM NEW POLE FOUNDATION (FLUSH MOUNT) 0,625 DIA.. B' LONG. COPPER CUD. G2 MINIMUM3'EXPOSURETOP OF COVERFEATURES SG MUCH FOUNDATION NATHIN BOLT CIRCLE. WHEEL LOAD ON IP X tP PLgTE PW R OX SIT 'APPRO%. YJr NOT TO BCAIE BOLTS CRIFIE •ONEPIPOLYMER ETE KMAFU%t FR 9�M1R 15A FU AT ANCHOR BOLi3" BEN "'MA �b AUTHORS GNEN IN SPELIFICAt10N3 g31M AAA9 24'ROUND (A1 $ Al BOLT CIRCLE DIAMETER TO MATCH POLE CE COVE 'ONE PIECE COVER :FOU SOLT DOWII IDENTIFICATION LE) ' COLOR. CONCRETEGREY ICROWI'I CAS TLE) 'NON GROUND LEVEL SA6EPLATE AINjTS WIR BOLTS SHALL HAVE AV HEEEOAiO SKID SURFACE 'LID TO HAVE H -_O TRAFFIC LOAD FRICTION ( IIF - TWO PLACES BELOW THE HUI COEFFICIENT TO BE OSOR MORE EMBEDDED IN FOUNDATION 3 A AMCHOP BOIiSSwII BE fMBE0DE03T ' MINIMUM. BELOW S I REET GRADE 163' EMBEDMENT IN CONCRETE) AS SOUPROJECTION AS RECOMMENDED =^^^ _ BY THE MANUFACTURER CO HAHDHOLEFEMURES L1&TING EYE 'POLYMERCONCRENG FERINID FIBERGLASS REINFORCED e� LAILII _ vp SYP CI CONDUIT SNALL BE RIGID 5I EEL PoLYMER • COLOR OF RINGCONCRETE GREY GALVANVEDANSIDE—FOUNDA1104. 'ARM= WF =123 LBS WITH 6- MINIMUM STUB OUT %"MINIMUM BURIAL c2 SERVICE AND FEED CONDUITS$HALL •� I az"MAXIMUM BURIAL BE RDSR ED... PVL. AS HEGUIREO GROUND ROD INSTALLATIONa"LO �_�• �A� In kp CZJ C3 NO"UP TOW1T.—TROM HAND ROLEtl3 /� POLYMER TOP VIEW CONCRETE COPPER CLAD RING ��CONNELTOR REINfORCEYFNi RIVERTICAL REBAR sxgLL BE In ps SPACED INSIDE OF HOOPS I KAREN CU GROUNEQUALLY CONDUCTOR yj ANMMmI'ip��I $® " R2 HOPS9wLLBEP3%IB'ID.9PACE0 -O.0 FROM TOP OF FOUNDAIRIN 10 POUR FOO NG ENO OFANCHOR BOLI$ ''. SIDE VIEM E 2GROUNDCLAMP PCI 'MIN IIDVI.. TYCO N, Aq ^®N_UNDISTURBED -T{ AGAWST R3 HOOP631NLL Bf M%ITY D.$PACED B3T0.91.OR EQUALA W' (1+PKAL) I x MIN FROM THE ANCHOA BOLTS TO MATERIAL BOTTOM OF FOUNDATION CUR CONCRETE TO RI REBAR SHALL HAVE 3 -MINIMUM HAIJO PGRAVEL FRP BODY I 3P HOUND TMP ROUND PIER BE3215p M1% COVERING p5 COPPER CLAD wRONaaT dre wxs Nswa 1, 9x gAC CR ='�'G OOH SCALE `"i F3 5'DEPIN CPLE GROUND AGO(SIB"%B') ^I L _Ra--- — — _ J N.T.S. N TOEPTN $ N.T.S. SCALE Li N.T.S. ASG32 NIANE II 242727 TRY C RCIW N ,CASTLE NG WEST LLC JIM.BI Et',ANM IT.'-NX.6TE I:PII Commumcadons nrvr Y0.Nr0.1g1A0.3"INIV0.9uinJN IA -11 IN 6T IrE1111�Y I NNME I�NNEXURNI�NN SXM1I'IIV.' AI.F.RT ABG32 29504 SCOTWOOD DR AT WHRLEY COLLINS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES CA DETAILS & NOTES nM1lt<i IOT17�li L.::I:11 D-3 STAHLIN 6P ENCLOSURE (MODEL #J1412HPL) 13 15/32 B 1 0 0D.313 T51/2 �2 L J 14 5/B 13 31/32 15 ,5/32 I 12 „4 B� ILII SS i5 LSEC]OON R -A -B SSL LATCH 2 RQ'D GASKET 11 31/32 .II I 0.135 13 1/�2 SS- RAT HINGE 5 3/8 �f6 1/4 REF. 1/q—L--� T. p ��- 1/27 STAHLIN ENCLOSURE J SERIES 6P ENCLOSURE ,t 17/32 -� MODEL Y J1412HPL 13.53 X 11.55 X 5.94 SECTION yCnGl�i-A WEIGHT: 6.5 lb. GROUND ROD INSTALLATION FOR STEEL POLE TYPICAL SECTION: N.T.S. CONCRETE TEXTURED STEEL POLE NOT USED FINISH GRADE — KAREN CU GROUND N/A CONDUCTOR 5 C, GROUND CLAMP NTS. "I No. GS 3-T8 - N/A TYCO No 837491, OR EQUAL ;51516" X 8'1 CC PPER CLAD GROUND ELECTRODE CONCRETE FOUNDATION SCALE 12N.T.S NOT USED NOT USED NOT USED N/A N.T.e N/A NTS. N/A SCALE N.t.S. i ASG32 242727 _r CROWN ..v CASTLE „11„ING WEST LLC L"X'"` I�oTTUDicat,ionls, DIGiAL�RTT Y REJtiNE WIfS ASG32 29504 SCOTWOOD DR AT WHITLEY COLLINS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA DETAILS & NOTES ^eta,.: �l a,�li I; ' 111 D-4 a D-41 ION•M7HP/85HP EU - Product Specification n..tad M.— P—." V. Input 103, dl. mnt 10 I'M apnnrq BS Io 766 M.nc Irmvnr, Vdr IwnYml M.io gr7atllg 361072 Poser asmmnP71w,W nm lamp. hty hdd 903 r Ula Jo0 Knanad -II on. xPha �awa m+r;6a .le ed. Ndse figs.. dS•" I(P3v0mad 16... Nu3a li6mv cplmlUad 6Yt.. 50 rry4d rmv ate" AT. 116!7761e 787 880 MNR 779 rp 757 0.pd ewer — earn.. dB.' 33 -So F.quarq range. MFt 8 Opbal Link 36.5 DLw4a11ldx.ce vex drequermy. dB 82 .849 Calnecbn E10007RN d` Oom 1d B69ro89! Opncd rdurn b., dB 45 Ougwl P ­per comet dBni o16 dfi 1675 LNt fib. typo SUIgIr Imk E9/17Spm Nvmbmr d C '— 1 2 k* 455 425 a 9 39.5 I C"wll'mkbed9et dB I to 65M 45S 425 (DNA 45.591.5 39.5 165 39.5 365 Cana—I,1,1,1 P—, O OTR, mash ride. dB, IIF ISS 17.5" 39.5 365 700 MHz Iam.m d6S MIS IS 42 79 76 mm�d 5.5 DL m4,1 kiamrme ser fnqu ,d8 .1 850 MHz mNmm 16,5 DL wryutlderurKewnr lwnpe.N., dB 45 nvmmal 5.5 5 <436m/I ftpuna,em,sram InpA ICP3, dB.-" Elf Inca fah BTS Side ISMAI N—b. al mrm«wn Slmn3erd 70o"D / 950 ME, 1 Sp-opf—a lar BTS Pavrmr, dB, 33 43 Ronde lJne enbnna port C.neaor. 7il6 Frneh Rehm b:v, d8 IS 700 MNs Frequen, rmtye, MHz Upid AT. 116!7761e 787 0—" 779 rp 757 0.pd ewer — earn.. dB.' 33 -So Neoral C.M- 12 4 8 LIE 45.5 42S' 39.5 36.5 DLw4a11ldx.ce vex drequermy. dB .1 DLwywrt blerwce ova lanpmvL., dLr z95 Span.>erni,eiw <.13 d9m/INHr SWowa em— nib NU., S Wy N ,[—d xomtivem6nnnlmm pn i6n iylnR+ulli, o16 dfi 1675 LNt I(P3'--1 Al- Ron Fgmaapnnni -18mv Noise figure, dB"' Ifin ..w to... Naslyma Wirwd 6r., SryyiN PAR 754930.11 -' 2 d8 pm rtdow C. 5 NWrmnin bmWDh -" h-6-1 Pda 9 wA A9 figure a. ypca] . Il .1. dhemive ebW ION-M7HP/85HP EU - Product Specification 40 (M) byewm bup.rvimion and control oj'ming t-P"—=a,,c 33 -So h,q— pnbdion Commands if mIdl 21 Im pmt 255 O.d.rl.ay Iniwmadon Alorms 5mmmy 1693966" D,,,4qksnhuadppivm.4116-fp,nW. ieodrng xomtivem6nnnlmm pn i6n iylnR+ulli, Peer Soppy IONi l7HP/19HP 7631417" Sorn.pponding Maq.r Unit OTR. IF III nd Dl home 1604]0-M Imlpelalum sup --ion IPlrpoae afpn '.. .. M.chankal• Height width, depth mm (ie) AI YeN. 91787/Sr JIB -1� �S 5 (321c9.6p&6) ■' UI YnNun 1053 R 745 r 719 Cubism uI FOMM771P/05112 Cx ,W- Unil JAC V--) Weight, kg (lb) 40 (M) f -fir mortal oj'ming t-P"—=a,,c 33 -So h,q— pnbdion 0 Pvm 21 Im pmt 255 O.d.rl.ay Iniwmadon I0N117HP/85H'Eu 1693966" D,,,4qksnhuadppivm.4116-fp,nW. ieodrng xomtivem6nnnlmm pn i6n iylnR+ulli, coni ping A , Unit IONi l7HP/19HP 7631417" Sorn.pponding Maq.r Unit OTR. 033,70-85/90/ 17.21 1604]0-M ' Syarhg reRibpd 40Um1158 inlmm.d unit .. Su6pvpdoMmpombla All Rpm —typical velum, .k.. edrenvire —J. it Y L.bi- cal IUNMIMP/BSHP r,bruien Unit p7L 3—i> j ASG32 242727 CROWN .,CASTLE NG WEST LLC .,,,,,,.Unica ons DIWRT CITY NEUIIrvE rtrY&IS nUU PEU Us a7/aLl6 ASG32 29504 SCOTWOOD DR AT WHITLEY COLLINS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDE$, CA DETAILS & NOTES D-5 D-42 00 'toe , 'r , ri —,rp t l.1 e ri —,rp • DECOMMISSION&REMOVE EXISTING 25'6' HIGH MARBELITE OCTAGONALCONCRETE STREETLIGHT (POLE 109,613500E) AND REPLACE NTH A NEW 25' 6' HIGH CONCRETE TEXTURED STEEL POLE WITH MAST ARM AND LUMINAIRE (REMOVE EXISTING JUNIPER). • INSTALL(1)CROWN CASTLE 4' X S' VAULT, FLUSH MOUNT VENTS WITH, METER & POWER DISCONNECT BOX MTN(2) ML ION. INSIDE. • INSTALL CROWN CASTLE WTR 2'X T VAULT. • INSTALL(2) 21A' ANTENNAS AHPA46F� UUM2 WITH CONCEALFAB TOP MOUNT&SHROUD. • INSTALL VOR. • EQUIPMENT AND ANTENNAS TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH POLE. 61' '� "NgEi I SCALE: I"=40' NEW FOOTAGE TOTALS NODE COORDINATE ASPHALT TRENCH 0 PUNCH THRU 0 LATITUDE: 33.75285 DIRT TRENCH TV BORE 0 LONGITUDE: -118.37509 TOTAL 1 15' R&R TOTAL SWP I O SQ. FT SITE LOCATION INSTALL NEW 25'6" HIGH STEEL CONCRETE TEXTURED STREETLIGHT (REMOVE EXISTING JUNIPER) 29504 SCOTWOOD DR AT WHITLEY COLLINS DR (2' B.O.C.) STA 100 +61 DECOMMISSION & REMOVE EXISTING MARBELITE OCTAGONAL CONCRETE STREETLIGHT (POLE ID 1613500E) (2' S.O.C.) STA 100 + 63 V DIRT TRENCH (SEE DETAIL 10 ON D-4) PROPOSED CROWN CASTLE WTR 2'X T VAULT (2' B.O.C.) STA. 99 + 56 (SEE DETAIL 7 & 9 ON SHEET D•3) 9' DIRT TRENCH (SEE DETAIL 10 ON D-4) INSTALL (1) CROWN CASTLE 4' X 6' VAULT WITH FLUSH MOUNT VENTS WITH, METER & POWER DISCONNECT BOX WITH (2) ML IONS INSIDE) (0' B.O.C.) STA. 99+82 (SEE DETAIL 1, 2 & 3 ON SHEET D-2, DETAILS ON SHEET 0-3, DETAIL 11 ON SHEET D-4, DETAIL 13 ON D-5) 1 ASG32 vk'11 242727 XCROWN CASTLE NG WEST LL Ik1'INf.•' v�rvin doCommunications �nkl�v'%alrn` �u 'ID I T 'ILA ;,% T''7 %uk�N'ND 6EN1 ItS AtE%T CIiv PEDLINf 11109/15 ADDPEDM 0)IO6I16 AS 32 29504 SCOTWOOD DR AT WHITLEY COLLINS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES. CA SITE PLAN il"I7 13 P-1 A ANTENNADETAILS SCALE: 1:5 ASG32 CONCEALFAB TOP MOUNT AND SHROUD 242]2] SHPA45F-BUU-H2 ANTENNAS 036 AZIMUTH', 330' /^ CROWN DECOMMISSION 6REMOVEEXIST.,,! CASTLE AND REPLACE WITH NEW 5 G'HIGH 35`6?H HIGH ��,,, rN.iI:..; tl.x UIt.:.11: • LLC CONCRETE NG WEST STREETLIGHT (POLE IDW 25. 6- HI CONCRETE TEXTURED STEEL POLE. _ .,.., .,.,, ...,I..,.,. a5 G ..G� JIHPAHSF-SUU-H2 ANTENNAS tr.nt.0 x. AZIMUTH: 170' Communications G INSTALL MAST ARM _. D$ AND LUMINAIRE -��• 0 SGO COD pP I—�LJ...90° txut xtxt.Exi t.xluxxt.Ettun STREETLIGHT 61613600E TOP OF EXISTING POLE: 25-6- TOP OF NEW POLE: ISI T� 1 TOP OF ANTENNA: 28' 1' j RAO CENTER: 27' 1' AZIMUTHS: 1]0' 6330' 7g EQUIPMENT AND ANTENNAS TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH POLE ".IN.n.xu,•:u r:.xt x'I tLt x Y RLULINE t1091t5 9DD YEU VY ASG32 29504 SCOTWOOD DR AT WHITLEY COLLINS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES. CA POLE PROFILE R(I IH91] 15 11.. P-2 B 3 O'CLOCI: VIEW SCALE: 1:8 12 O'CLOCK VIEW SCALE: 1:8 INSTALL MAST ARM AND LUMINAIRE INSTALL MAST PRM AND LUMINAIRE SHROUD TOP OF PO EAT 5-6" 2d' 3e SHROVD SHROUD � TOP OF POLE AT 25'6" SKIRL' � OS SH UD SHIRT 0S INSTALL (2) 21.d' ANTENNAS 6HPA�65F-BVV-H2 WITH CONCEALFAB TOP MOUNT AND SHROUD (SEE DETAIL q E 5 ON SHEET D3) INSTALL (2) 21.9" ANTENNAS tHPA-65f-BVU-H2 TOP OF WITH CONCEALFAB TOP MOUNT AND SHROUD ANTENNA _g 1' TOP OF (SEE DETAIl9 E 50N SHEET Dal DECOMMISSION E REMOVE ANTENNA EXISTING 25'6"HIGH MARBELITE OCTAGONAL CONCRETE STREETLIGHT (POLE ID 6161350DE) AND REPLACE NTH NEW 25' 6" HIGH Rqp DECOMMISSION B REMOVE CONCRETE TEXTURED STEEL POLE. CENTER EXISTING D-45 26'6'HIGH MARBELITE OCTAGONAL CONCRETE 2T 1' STREETLIGHT (POLE ID 61613500E) AND ftEPIACE WITH NEW 25' 6' HIGH RAD CONCRETE TEXTURED STEEL POLE. GEN ;ER GROUIND LEVET � O6 \i\/\ .INSTALL VGR (SEE DETAIL 12 ON SHEET D-4) INSTALL VOR (SEE DETAIL 120N SHEET D -q) INSTALL (1) CRONM CASTLE d' X 6' VAULT WITH FLUSH MOUNT VENTS WITH,METEft 8 POWER DISCONNECT BO%WITH (2) ML IONS INSIDEI (0' B.O.G.) STA 88 � 82 (SEE DETAIL 1, 2 E 3 ON SHEET 0.2. DETAIL 60N SHEET DJ, DETAIL 11 ON SHEET D -d, DETAIL 130N 0.51 A ANTENNADETAILS SCALE: 1:5 ASG32 CONCEALFAB TOP MOUNT AND SHROUD 242]2] SHPA45F-BUU-H2 ANTENNAS 036 AZIMUTH', 330' /^ CROWN DECOMMISSION 6REMOVEEXIST.,,! CASTLE AND REPLACE WITH NEW 5 G'HIGH 35`6?H HIGH ��,,, rN.iI:..; tl.x UIt.:.11: • LLC CONCRETE NG WEST STREETLIGHT (POLE IDW 25. 6- HI CONCRETE TEXTURED STEEL POLE. _ .,.., .,.,, ...,I..,.,. a5 G ..G� JIHPAHSF-SUU-H2 ANTENNAS tr.nt.0 x. AZIMUTH: 170' Communications G INSTALL MAST ARM _. D$ AND LUMINAIRE -��• 0 SGO COD pP I—�LJ...90° txut xtxt.Exi t.xluxxt.Ettun STREETLIGHT 61613600E TOP OF EXISTING POLE: 25-6- TOP OF NEW POLE: ISI T� 1 TOP OF ANTENNA: 28' 1' j RAO CENTER: 27' 1' AZIMUTHS: 1]0' 6330' 7g EQUIPMENT AND ANTENNAS TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH POLE ".IN.n.xu,•:u r:.xt x'I tLt x Y RLULINE t1091t5 9DD YEU VY ASG32 29504 SCOTWOOD DR AT WHITLEY COLLINS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES. CA POLE PROFILE R(I IH91] 15 11.. P-2 B 3 O'CLOCI: VIEW SCALE: 1:8 12 O'CLOCK VIEW SCALE: 1:8 INSTALL MAST ARM AND LUMINAIRE INSTALL MAST PRM AND LUMINAIRE SHROUD TOP OF PO EAT 5-6" 2d' 3e SHROVD SHROUD � TOP OF POLE AT 25'6" SKIRL' � OS SH UD SHIRT 0S INSTALL (2) 21.d' ANTENNAS 6HPA�65F-BVV-H2 WITH CONCEALFAB TOP MOUNT AND SHROUD (SEE DETAIL q E 5 ON SHEET D3) INSTALL (2) 21.9" ANTENNAS tHPA-65f-BVU-H2 TOP OF WITH CONCEALFAB TOP MOUNT AND SHROUD ANTENNA _g 1' TOP OF (SEE DETAIl9 E 50N SHEET Dal DECOMMISSION E REMOVE ANTENNA EXISTING 25'6"HIGH MARBELITE OCTAGONAL CONCRETE STREETLIGHT (POLE ID 6161350DE) AND REPLACE NTH NEW 25' 6" HIGH Rqp DECOMMISSION B REMOVE CONCRETE TEXTURED STEEL POLE. CENTER EXISTING D-45 �. � ����r .�`} - �'-_` }•,,; ,yam �, LOCATION c EIfI511NG ��_. .: °. :... ,-..-:. •':. Ir. �Atl -Now* "Vow PROP `VA z gAL ti qw IN A.. eji- \•4AI ` ` 1 M •r WY � w .3 1 --w� t ♦ i : 1 'r I •-- •-� "` 'moi. LOCATION •1" e t •• .� - -.. .. � �, 1 i!° . h.J ''. `{�1. �,: . . n r,* � '' S �, ,��-, x ,t .-.:a x _ _ O , J ..A J'R ',, � M. T, /� . y. F,, t,.. i R ..' � V y � � F% 1 �. � � h � 1' ,�. � � � � Y � � � �.1 4 ' Y 4� � � � � � ISI t �.�,y:-:. _ _ �y ��—-___--- _-:.� .. __, _. —� _ - .. _ ..._. - e -�, CITY OFRAf ICHO I'ALOS VERDES MEMORANDUM TO: NICOLE JULES, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS CC: ARA MIHRANIAN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FROM: JOHN ALVAREZ, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: JULY 21, 2017 SUBJECT: VIEW ANALYSIS FOR WIRELESS TELECOM. FACILITY- ASG32 DISCUSSION Based on a view analysis conducted on July 21, 2017, Staff has determined that the proposed wireless telecommunications facility (ASG09), adjacent to 29504 Scotwood Drive, does not create a significant view impairment from residential viewing areas, as defined in Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration Code). 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. Many, if not all, of the viewing areas within the vicinity of the proposed facility are located on the ground floor. The proposed antenna appears to impair a "sky" view, which is not a protected view pursuant to 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. D-52 Columbia Telecommunications Corporation Wireless Facility Application Evaluation Applicant: Crown Castle Site # ASG -32 Description: Application to install a new DAS access site Site Location: 29504 SCOTWOOD DRIVE Site survey findings: The on-site survey of the above referenced site was conducted on August 9, 2017. Exhibit 1 is a photograph of the mockup pole and equipment cabinet for the proposed Crown Castle installation. The site location on Scotwood Drive is near the point where it connects to Whitley Collins Dr. It is positioned in the center of the target area to serve residences along the south side of Oceanridge Drive, Beachside Drive, Whitecliff Drive, Sunmist Drive, parts of Crest Road and some residences on the north side of Santa Barbara Drive. Exhibit 1— Site with Mocked Up Pole with Antenna D-53 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 32 measurements, I first made measurements at the City Hall parking lot to both calibrate the test equipment and also to establish a reference sample of the network throughput and signal level (signal power relative to 1 milliwatt of the LTE information signal power RSRP {Reference Signal Received Power} an industry standard metric) near the macro tower. Measurements were made with the spectrum analyzer for all three licensed AT&T bands. The measurements confirmed that tower signals were active on all three bands. A signal level of -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 ASG Site 32 Gap target area, the same measurements were taken near the proposed antenna site. At the proposed ASG Site 32, the signal level measurement was -115 dBm 4G LTE service. The download test registered a throughput 1.23 Mbs, and 30k bps for the upload. Generally, my experience indicates that is desirable to have a minimum signal level of at least -100 to -95 dBm to support reliable connections for both upload and download and data speeds consistent with the 3/4G technology. I note that Crown Castle in the application has specified a target signal goal of -95 dBm or greater for LTE technology. Exhibit 2 — Map Showing Existing AT&T Coverage Measured During Site Visit On the exhibit, there is an overlay is an of the target area defined by Crown Castle which is outlined in blue. Signal level measurements were made throughout the area and recorded in a slowly moving vehicle at five second intervals. The data was then plotted using the geographical coordinates onto a Google Earth map. A complete listing of the 121 measurements points used to create this coverage map can be found in Appendix A of this document. The listing includes the measured signal level, the 2 D-54 geographical coordinates and the AT&T tower site communicated with. It should be noted that during the drive test the receiver attempted to connect to 13 individual tower sites that provide some level of signal service in the drive area. 4 of the 121 signal level test points were unable to connect at all. Throughout the ASG Site 32 gap, the signal remained 4G LTE service (except repeated 3G service data points at the NE edge of the gap on Scotwood Drive) with the majority of the signal <-105 dBm. Only in the South end of the gap (along Crest Road) was the 4G LTE signal good, albeit inconsistent. For additional information on the specifics frequencies that AT&T operates on the RPV area as well as background technical information which is applicable to all these Crown Castle applications, please see Appendix B of this document. Based on our field measurements It is our finding that within this small area there is a gap in reliable AT&T broadband services. Technical review: This new DAS wireless access facility is to be installed on a replacement street light to provide additional capacity and service on all three AT&T bands (700 MHz, PCS and AWS) to improved digital network services to customers in vehicles and buildings. Exhibit 3 is a Google map photo submitted by the applicant defining the primary service area for this site. This is the same area in which we conducted the signal level measurements for existing AT&T coverage. Exhibit 3 — Target Area Overview Two separate antennas are mounted at a radiation center located 22' —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. D-55 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 330° and 170° respectively. Exhibit 4 — Site ASG 32 Proposed Site ASG32 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 6 sample sites are available in Appendix B. Based on our review of the terrain profile characteristics and the field measurement data provided by Crown Castle, we conclude that the proposal as provided will address the coverage deficiencies within the target area. Exhibit 5 — Sample Path Profile Locations Co -location options: Crown Castle has provided information on the various options that have been reviewed for the site deployment. It should be noted that the alternatives involve minor changes in the siting of the facility. In most cases the limited coverage areas of the DAS units limit or confine site selection. Generally, alternatives are selected based on aesthetic considerations since the overall coverage area is confined by the limited service area of DAS technology and location of the specific signal gap areas that are to be addressed. Findings and conclusions: The applicant (Crown Castle) has provided engineering details related to the wireless bands that will be used for the DAS deployment, including identifying transmitting equipment, power levels for each band and specifics regarding the radiation patterns of the antennas to be installed. However, information provided about existing and proposed coverage in the service area for each of the three AT&T licensed wireless bands (700 MHz, PCS and AWS) are less clearly defined; this is due to the extremely rugged and varied terrain associated with the RPV landscape. From an engineering perspective, Crown Castle has provided engineering measurement data defining gaps in AT&T coverage in small pocketed areas. I have independently examined these areas and find that the signal levels are lower than the levels industry guidelines suggested to support modern 3G/4G customer needs. Further, the engineering design provided by Crown Castle supports that, if constructed, DAS site ASG 32 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 D-57 appears that approximately half of the proposed service area currently is served with legacy 3G service. Signature: Lee Afflerbach, P.E. Date: 8/22/17 ctc technology & energy engineering & business consulting Counter Date: Info Network type am - Data Slate: TP Location latitude TP Location, longitude Tower Cell lD-short Tower Cell ID - la Tower LAC Local Area Code Lag t rt 10:59:36lEw irrteml:5 semr14s -Phone type: GSM Coumrymdm us De ID 354775081757436 '33.38300 38]9/17 1059:41 LOST MOBIIECONNER10N ILTE 8�flL5cEVmeC[ed 118.3749934 38469 20805381 Y6370 218/9/17 10:59:46 1 LOST MOBILE CONNECTION_ LTE 970i5connected _ 33.763007 -118.3749934 30469 20805381 16370 3 8)9/17 • 18:59:51 _ t05T MOBILE CONNECTION LTE DLscormacted _ 333763OD7 749934 30469 208053$1 y 16370 4 819/17 ` 10.59:56 LOST MOBILE CONNECTION LTE _ -90 Disconnected 33.763,073 -118.3749934 30469 20805381 16370 5 819117. 11:0.1 _ _ _ HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION _ LTE _ -1 Cmmetted __ 33.76300 -1183749934 6760 142219880 _34628 6 8/9/17 11 0:7 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE -309 Connected 33.7630 -118.3749934 6760 142219800 34628 7819/17 11:0:12 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE - -1 Connected3176380 _-118.3749934 6760 T 342219880 _ `-� 34626 6 8/9/17 "11.0.17 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION ILTE -109 Connected 33.7630071 -118.3749934 6760 _ 142219880 _ 34628 9 8/9/17'_ 11:0:22 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE Connected 33.76302 -118.3749514 6760 142219880 34628 _ 10 8/9/17' 11:0:27 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE -104 Connected 33.76317162 _ -118.3747244 6760 142219880 34628 21 819/17 • 31:0:32 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE -184 Coaneeted 33.7633 -1_8.3743979 142119880 _ 34US 12 819/17 • 11:0:37 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE -106 Connected _ 33.7636154 _6760 -118.3740113 6760 _ 142219880 34628 � 33 819117' 11:0:42 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE _ -Im Co-aw 3&m?29U _118.3736454 6760 14221988 _ 34628 14 8/9/17 ` 11:0:47 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE -102 Connected 33.76392368 -118.3733232 6760 142219880 34628 258/9/17.11:0:52 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION_ LTE -10j Connacied I 33.7640,1 -1283731643 6760 1422t98B0 34628 16 8/9/17' 11:057 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE -100 Connected 33.76410205 -118.3_732031 60fi95 1414_87383 34561 17 AN17 * 11:1,2 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE Connected _ 31 -113.3731993 60695 141487383 34561 18 9/9/17_11.17 r HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE _. �MOBILE -102 Connected _ 33.76407783 -118.3731927 _ 60695 141487383 34561 _ 19 8(9/17' 11:1:12_ HAVE CONNECTION LTE Co.,"" _ 33.7 -128.3731961 __ J 3863 143331045 34600 20 8/9117 • 11:1:17 _ HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE -102 Connected 33.7640290 _118.3732864 3863---- 143331095 34600 21 819117 11:1:22 _ - HAVE MOTLILE CONNECTION LTE W106 Co.."led 3176367. -11&37357$7 3863 _ 143331095 ` 22 8/9/17 ` 11:1:27 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE -114 Connected 33.7636929 -118.3739631 3863 143331095 34600 h^23 89/17. 11:1:}E _ _ HAVE MOBILE CONNECtiC1N LTE Co..mud 3&7435274 . -U&374292 --- 3863 -_- U3331095 3469 -- 24 8/9/17 • 11:1:38_ HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION ILTE =122 Connected --3176382 33_76358987 -118.3744897 38680 _ _ 141530904 34626 3518]9117 • ]Y:1:43 --- 26 8/9/17" 11:1:48 HAVE MOBILE. CONNECTION LTE HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION 21,7E -105 Cenneded -110 Connected _1183746$11 -118.3749254 6767 6760 142219880 _v 142219880 34628 34628 {______271819/17.11:153_ 2888W9/17"11:1:58 HAVEMOBILECONNEC11ON-LTE HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE __33.7641197 Connor, -111 Connected 33.764 33.76466959 -1183751768 -118.37541621 55567 55567 - _ 141547791 346, 34628 298/9/1711_2:3 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION_ LTE -til ConntIIed _ 33964�i -11&37561 55567 _141547791 141547791 34628 30 8/9/17 ` 11.2.8 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE 111 Connected 33.76511014 -118.3758583 55567 141547191 34628 31 8)9/17. 31_2.13 _ HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE -31 Conneped __ 33.7 _ -YI&37615 _ 55567 _ ____ 14154779E _ 34628 _ 32 8/9/17 ` 11:2:18 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE -111 Connected - 33.7655485 -118.3764779 55567 14154779I 34628 _ 33 8/9/17. 11:2:23 HAVE M094LE CONNECTION LTC _ _ _ _ -In Cmmected 33.76574 -118376833 -_ 6244 142219968 34628 341819/17'11:2.28 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE -103 Connected 33.7658879 -118.37]2302 55567 141547791 34628 35,8(92!]' 71:2:33 HAVE,061E CONNECTION LTE Connected 317UM -118.3776213 55567 141547791 _ 368/9/17 ` 11:2:38 _ _ HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE _ __ -103 Co_cted 33.7 6 6115 131 _ -118.3780044 _ 55567 141547791 34628 3718/9/17 ` 11:2_43 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE _ Connecter 3376613772 -31&3781455 6248 142119368 3.4628 _ 11_2:48 _ _ HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE--- __97 _ Connected _ _ 33.76607787 _ -118.3782403 6248 _ 142219368 _ 34628 39 BM/17. 21:253 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE _497 Cannected 3336987/ -11&3782846 6246 142219368 _ �_ 4018/9/17' 11:2:58 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE _=96 .89 Connected 33.76550502 -118.3783495 6248 142219368 34628 41 8(9)17 11 3:3 HAVE MOBILE CONNECOON LTE -$S CamMed 34717 414 i_ -118:3783807 6248 - --_ 34628 42 8/9/17 113:8 _ HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE -86 Connected 33.765296551 _ -118.3783279 6248 _1422193 _ 142219368 34428 _. 43 8/9/17 113:14 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE _ - Connected i3.Y652Fi3 ._ -11&378O33S 6248 142219368 Moo 44 8/9/17 11 :3:19 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE _ -93 Connected 33.76513374 __ -118.37773 6248 142219368 34628 IIS 819/17 11:3:20 _ HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE -103 Connected 33.74499811 _ -1183773788 6148 _ 141219968 34628 _ 46 8/9/17' 11:3 29 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION fUTE ��- 103 Connected 33.76485479 - -118.3772883 --1383774296 _ 6248 142219368 34628 47 SM17"11:3_34 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION 103 C -..I d 33.7646459 6248 142219360 4.118/9/17 • 11:3:39 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE _ 102 Connected 33.76440166.. -118.3776225 6240 142219368 34628 1 0 819 17.11:3:44 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE - -112 Connected 3i.7642+iJ3 -11&377704 �_ 6240 -- »tmtW --34628 34628 _ 50 8/9/17 ` 113:49 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE -122'Cannected 33.764113531 _ -118.3775541 6240 _t 142219360 34628 51 _=3S4 HAVE M08iLE CONNECTION t.T€ _ ConnectYd _ 31 -IW .3_ 6248---- _ 14UI91W. _ r 52 8/9/_17 " 11.359 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION ILTE -113 Connected .__ 33.76364297 -119.3769180 6248 _ 142219368 34628 53 819/17.1tA-4 54 8/9/17 • 11.4 9 HAVE MID CONNECTION ILTE HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION -IDS Connecte0 -107 Connected 33:76334 33.762909811 -119.37665E -118.376399 6760 U221.989 _ 142219880 34626 34628 5515/9/17 114 14 ,LTE HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE 332 Connected! _ 6750 14221 34628 _ 1 56; 8/9/17 11:4:19 _ _ _1 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE __118.376 -107. Connected _ 33.762340551 _ -118.3762421 6760 _ 142219880 34628 57 8/9/17 114.24 _ HAVE MOBIIf CONNECTION L7'E 10 Connected _ 33,76229709 -13&37 6780 142219$ 3462 58 8/9/17-114 29 ;HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE _ 1 _ 105 Connected _ �___�. 33.762�� -118.3756757 6760 142219880 _ 34628 590/9/17 114.34 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION ILTE _ t _ 103 Connected 33.76242=4 -11537537 6760 147219880 34626 _ 60 8/9/17 114.39 618!9/1T 13445 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE_ NAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE 106 Connectedd� 1 Connected 33.762 33762090 -118 375 -_783751367 6760 _ 6760 __ 142219080 1422E 34628 34628 j 628/9/17.11450 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION -LTE_ l06Cnnected 3376173634 -1183750104 »6760 142219880 _ 34628 r 63 819/ll 114 55 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE_ 1 Connected 31761 143 -118.3708189 6760 142249880 346 L 64,8/9/17 1150 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE_ 99C -netted 3376106487 -1183745841 6760 142219880 34628 1155 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE _Connetsed TT92iC 3376081224 _ -3_83]43341 6760 _ ^ 1422L9880 34628 6618/9/17`115.10 7 67 8/9/3 lF S:iS 48 8/9/17.'.11'.5.20 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE _& _- -- HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE - on c ne Led wylwnneded j _ -86 Con cted 3376069258 76 973 33 04 3 _ 33 76022701 1183742802. l4 7 -1183 SOk -118 3748972 6760 7 _ 660 6]60 142219880 142219"" 142219880 34628 _ 34628 69 8/9117 k15:25 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTHIN lTE 111 ConnnCe6 33 75991147 2183753563 6752 U22L9872 30628 70,8/9/17 11 5:30 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE 94 Connected 45 .-_.._. _ 71 5)9(17 it 5:35 HAVE:MOBILE CONNECTION LTE � -79 Contresied 33.75959497 _ .. 33.7594142e -118 3759553' 6752 -_ .__ -1263766484 6752 142219872 _- 142219872 _. 34628 30628 _ ]2'8/9/17 11.5:40 73 8/9/17 11:5:45 _ HAVE MOBI LE CONNECTION LTE _ - -_ all HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE -702 Connected ! Caniteoted 33.75934377. 31759367011 _ _ -118.37]3866 -319.3780948 _ 6752 6751 142219872 34628 34628 I _7418/9117 11:5:50 75 8/9117 11 :555 76' 8/9/17 11'6;0 _ HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE -70 Connected 33.75927043 -118.378919 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION tTE 75�Gnnected 33.7392021 _ -118.37955 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION 'LTE -741 Connected 33.75919155. -118.3798584 6752 6752 6752 _142219872 142219872 142219872 _J 142219872 _ 34628 34629 34628 77 8/9217' 11,66 78;8/9/17'11611 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE 'HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE 74 Connected - 74 Connected 311759192524 33.75919252 -138.3798627 -118.3798627; 6752 6752 142219872 14221987279 $79/17 11,6 26 &AYE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE 75Conrnued 33-35919 iF93 6752 142219672 11462B' 8018/9/17 11 fi 21 -41 8%9(17 116 26 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION _ LTE _ 75 Con cted 81 Can ected 33.75914024 31759221 -118 3798621' -1183796229 6752 6752 142219872 _ _ _ _ 14221987 _ _ _ 346281 82'8/9/17' 11:6:31 -- HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION : LTE -731C.nnected 33.75916959 -118.3790814: 6752 _ _ 142219872 34629 83 17.11:6:36 1HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION ILTE---Connected 33.75826_II&783505 6752 142219872---T 34818 �- 84;8/9/17"11:6:41 ':HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION :LTA E -81`Conne.ed 33.75924469 -118.37757111 6752 142219872 34520. x$(9/17 116,16 NAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE 417 Connected 33.759 -118.3767874 6752 142229871 34628 _ . 87 7'11:6:56 ..__ - HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION �T17E - - ConnetFed 93.75473344 -1183753476` 6752 _ .. �- 142219872 8818/9/17 1 117:1 _ HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE 1091 Conn cted33.76014592 _ _ _ -118.3747528 _ 67 2 - _142219872 34628 11 T 6 HAVE MOBItE CONNECTION ILTE -F Connelt d 33.760_ -319 3742331 _ 6752 142219872 3462 9028/9/17'11:7:11 918(9217 11716 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE _ _ NAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE -126 Connected -103 Connected 33.7608192 33.761. 118.3741781! -138.37 J 6752 4760 _ 142219872 142219880 34628 t- 92 8/9/17'11:7:21 819117. 117 26 _. HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE HAVE MOBILE CCINNECTM LTE �. 306 Can ected -1. Cocmoc4e4 '. 33 76138376 33 7617353 -118.37471741 -118 3749 6760 6 _ 142219880 .. _ 34628 3462 94 8/9/17' 11 ] 32 __ HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE -112 Connected 33.7619789 _ __ -118.37502731 6760 .. ___14221989 142219880 _ 34628 _ 95819/17.31:7:37 HAVE MOB LE CONT4EElION LTE -11Connected 33.762253 -ib$375i07 6760 _ 142219888 14628 9618/9/17'11742 : HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION .LTE ! -112 Con ctd 33.76264921 11837520791 6760 142219880 346281 97 8/9/17. 11,7:47 _ HAVE M06CECONNECTION LTE 1 Cmrne6ed 38.1383 . _ 6760 _ ____ - 14221988 _ 30428 D-59 98 8/9/17 11:7:52 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE -112 Connected 33.76302116 -118.3750504 6760 142219880 34628 _ 99 6/9/17'11737 100 8/9/17' 11:8:2 101 819117' 11:8:7 102 8/9/17' 11:8:12 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION__ HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION 12 -1 f4mnecled -112 Connected .112 Connoted -112 Connected 33.763024 _ _ 33.76316478 33.763632 -516375 -118.3747423 -118374327 -118.3738863 6760 6760 6760 _ 6760 _ 142219880 14221988_0 _ 1422198110 34628 _ _ 34628 _34628 34628 103 8/9/17. 11:8:17 _ HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION [LTE -112 Connected _33.76366175 --- 33,763&5$1 -118-3736922 6760 _142219880 1 4 2 219 880 34628 104 8/9/17 ` 118:22 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION -112 Connected 33.76399577 -118.3731913 6760 _ 142219880 _ _ 34628 105 8/9/17' 11:8:27 _ HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION -112 Con33.764071 -118.3730278 8760 142239880106 8/9/17 • 11:8:32 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION -112 Connected 33.76407623 -118.3729977 6760 142219880 34628 107 7.11::37 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION PA • u IA5-3.0 Mb -93 Connected 33.76407623 •3183729977 26852 53569764 55526 10818/9117 ` 11:8:42 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION HSUPA' up 1.45-3.0 Mbps -89 Connected 33.76407753 -118.3729775 26852 53569764 55526 U98/9/17.11847 NE HAVE MOBILE CONCTIONUM • up 1.453.0 M NS -89 Connected 33. -1183729775 _ 30122 53376426 55525 110 8/9/17 `11:8:52 HAVE MOBILE CONNECRON HSUPA' up 1.45-3.0 Mbps -91 Connected 33.76407753 -118.3729775 30122 53376426 55525 11"M17. Ila -S7 HAVE MOLE CONNECTION HSUPA • u 1.45-3.0 M -91 Connected 33. -1183729775 30122 53376426 58525 112 8/9/17 • 11:92 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION HSUPA' up 1.45-331 Mbps -91 Connected _ 33.76407753 _ -1183729775 30122 53376426 SSS25 213 819/17. 11:9:8 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION OTjHSPAt • 42.2 Mbps -91 Connected 33.7 -118.3729775 _ 26532 J 53569444 _ 55526 114 8/9/17 • 11:9:13 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION IDCIHSPA• • 42.2 Mbps -91 Connected_ 33.76407753 -118.3729775 26532 53569444 55526 115 819/17.11:9:18 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION OCIHSPAe • 42.2 Mbps _ -91 Connected 33.7640 -1583729775 26532 _ 53569444 55526 116 8/9/17' 11:9:23 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION HSUPA • u 1.45-3.0 Mbps -91 Conoected 33.76407753 -118.3729775 _ 26532 _ 53569444 i 55526 117 8/9/17 • ]1428 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION HSUPA • 145-3.0 M it Connected 33. -128.3729775 26532 53569444 55526 118 8/9/17' 11:9:33 !HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION HSUPA' u 1.45-3.0 Mbps _ -95 Connected 33.7600775 -118.3729775 26562 54/14658 55557 178 8/9/17' 11936 HAVE MOBILE CONNECf10N HSUPA • 1.45-3.0 -97 [onned_M_ 33.7 -1]8.3729775 26%2 54814658 120 8/9/17' 11:9:43 _ HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION HSUPA' u IAS -3.0 Mbp, -91 Connected 33.76407753 -118.3729775 _ 26562 _ 54814658 55557 12110/17 114A8 JHAW MOBILE CONNECTION JHSUPA' up 1.45-3.0 Maps -91 Connected 33.7640 -118.3729775 26532 53569444 95528 Appendix B — Technical Considerations for Small Cell Wireless Networks Introduction This Small Cell Wireless Network is designed to augment and supplement existing AT&T wireless communications in Rancho Palos Verdes. On the whole, Crown Castle seeks to install dozens of these small cell antenna sites throughout the City in the public right of way. On the whole, these antenna sites operate with two directional antennas to optimize coverage in a several hundred foot area radius. Antenna Crown Castle proposes a CCI HPA-65F-BUU-H2 antenna which has the following pattern of RF radiation in the horizontal plane (Azimuth) (see Exhibit 1 below). Each color represents the radiation for the various bands with the 0 direction pointing directly to the highest radiation level. Thus, in these directional antennas, while it is represented as a 60 degree beamwidth (30 degrees on either side of the 0, from 330 to 30 degrees), there is still plenty of signal (almost half as much) nearby in the fields even 60 degrees on either side of the 0. This shows Exhibit I- RF Pattern Radiation Strength for CCI HPA-65F-BUU-H2 Azimuth 341, IS 10. t: 135 iia :95 IM 165 D-61 Specific RF Use and FCC License Information In Rancho Palos Verdes (and throughout Southern California) AT&T operates on three major frequency bands: 700 MHz, broadband PCS (Personal Communications Service), and AWS (Advanced Wireless Services). Specifically, in the 700 MHz band they are using 704 MHz -710 MHz and 734 MHz -740 MHz (FCC License callsign WOJQ721) and 710-716 MHz and 740-746 MHz (FCC License callsign WPWU990). In the PCS band, AT&T uses 1865-1870 MHz and 1945- 1950 MHz (FCC License callsign KNLG472) and 1870-1885 MHz and 1950-1965 MHz (FCC callsigns KNLF205 and WQHT993). For the AWS broadband service, AT&T operates at 1710- 1720 MHz and 2110-2120 MHz (FCC callsign WQGA742). Signal Strength Information and Measurement Typically, radio service is measured by Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP). It is measured in dBm (which is a negative number so that -75 dBm is a very strong signal and -110 dBm is a very weak signal). AT&T's target for acceptable signal is -95 dBm and that signal strength should provide good coverage including some acceptable in -building connectivity. Our expectation for reliable coverage in outdoor environment is to measure a RSRP of >_ -105 dBm. D-62 r"+�.�•^ a, ♦ �` � ,rte . � � r , , .yi � � F'S \ - a 0♦ r ♦ O r jk IP IP 10 fr VO OP rIL w Wiz- SuM``' u%Ra • rv` • `.'►�� �Q. i " a ri: �• • ` --�i' -L 1340 1330 1320 1310 v 1300 J Om 1290 v 1280 0 1270 r 1260 1250 = 1240 1230 1350 1340 1330 1320 > 1310 v ro 1300 Ln 1290 > 1280 0 a 1270 L 1260 1250 z 1240 1230 From Proposed Antenna Site to TP 1 0.010.020.030.040.050,060,070,080.09 0.10.110.120.130.140.150-.160.170,180.19 0.2 Range on path (kilometers) From Proposed Antenna Site to TP 2 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2 0.22 0.24 Range on path (kilometers) 1340 1330 1320 1310 v 1300 v J 1290 v 1280 v > 1270 0 1260 r 1250.2 1240 z 1230 1350 1340 1330 1320 1310 > v 1300 1290 Ln 1280 > 0 1270 1260 r 1250 'cu 1240 = 1230 OM 1340 1330 1320 4., - 1310 a� 1300 J 1290 1280 7 0 1270 1260 1250 1240 1230 1265 1260 1255 g 1250 - 1245 > 1240 1235 v 1230 1225 'n 1220 1215 1210 �+ 1205 1200 1195 1190 From Proposed Antenna Site to TP 3 0.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.09 0.1 0.110.120.130.140.1 50.160.170.180.19 0.2 0.21 Range on path (kilometers) From Proposed Antenna Site to TP 5 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.3 0.32 0.34 0.36 Range on path (kilometers) 1340 1330 1320 1310- 1300 310-1300 v J 1290 v 1280 a, 1270 0 1260 1250 •7 1240 z 1230 1265 1260 1255 1250 � 1245- 1240 245-1240 > 1235 1230 1225 1220 0 1215 1210 .� 1205.0 1200 i 1195 1190 D-65 1265 1260 1255 1250 1245 4i 1240 Om 1235 Ln 1230 0 1225 1220 t 1215 ani 1210 s 1205 1200 1265 1260 1255 1250 1245 1240 > 1235 1230 m 1225 a� 1220 ar 1215 0 1210 1205 1200 r 1195 1190 = 1185 1180 1175 From Proposed Antenna Site to TP 6 G32 P6 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.3 0.32 Range on path (kilometers) From Proposed Antenna Site to TP 7 1265 1260 1255 1250 1245 1240 1235 1230 a 1225 0 1220 1215 r 1210 'v 1205 1200 1265 P 7 1260 1255— 1250 12459 1240 = 1235 > 12303 1225 1220 1215 a, 1210 0 1205 1200 1195 t 119010 1185 = 1180 1175 0.020.040.060.08 0.1 0.120.140.160.18 0.2 0.220.240,260.28 0.3 0.320.340.360.38 0.4 Range on path (kilometers) LTE Coverage Analysis Market Name: Los Angeles ❖ Rancho Palos Verdes Area oDAS ❖ Plots Completion Date: August 15, 2016 L D-67 LTE Existing Macro/oDAS (PCS 1900MHz) - Coverage .: LTE Coverage from Proposed New oDAS (PCS 1900MHz) 1•• LTE Coverage (Existing Macro/oDAS and Proposed New oDAS) — PCS 1900MHz D-70 iu 2014 AT&T Intellectual Property. All nghts reserved. A I & I and the A1811 logo are trademarks of AI'&1' Intellectual Property. QUgUSt 15, 2�1� �L&L LTE Coverage from Proposed New oDAS (700MHz) D-72 CROWN CASTLE Collocation Analysis-ASGo8 Crown Castle has already submitted an extensive alternate analysis reviewing six (6) alternative locations identified in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project address. Explanation was given as to the validity of the alternative as well as expected issues Crown Castle may encounter during the design, construction and implementation of the proposed alternatives. Crown Castle is submitting an additional alternative for review in accordance with the city's application process; specifically examining the nearest known existing structure currently supporting wireless equipment in the public right of way (PROW). This alternate would be proposed as a collocation between Crown Castle and the existing carrier at that location. For ASGo8, the nearest known wireless facility is located at the intersection of Crest Rd and Calle De Suenos. The location is roughly IL 25 feet north of the proposed primary, separated by single and multi -family residences, extensive mature landscaping; including large trees in excess Of 25-30 feet in height, a bend in the road and a change in elevation. Collocation of the wireless facility located at Crest Rd and Calle De Suenose is not a viable alternate for the proposed facility, ASGo8, opposite 30505 Calle De Suenos. The existing facility is outside of the coverage objective for the proposed facility. There are constructability and design challenges at the location due to the existing equipment installed and technologies involved. Because of the above challenges, Crown Castle has determined that collocation of the existing facility would be inferior to the proposed primary, as such, that location does not warrant any additional consideration. The Foundation for a Wireless World. CrownCastle.com D-74 Croy-in '�astle CROWN 300 Spc'ctrum Center Drillre CASTLE Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Crown Castle NG West LLC Site Justification Narrative Submitted to City of Rancho Palos Verdes Submitted Pursuant to City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal CodeTitle 12 Zoning Ordinance Chapter 12.18.080 The Foundation for a Wireless World. Crown Cast! e.com D-75 INTRODUCTION 1. CROWN CASTLE, Crown Castle NG West LLC �"Crown Castle") provides �,)jireless carriers with the infrastructure they need to keep people connected anti business running. With approximately 40,000 towers and 18,000 srnali cell nodes supported by approximately 17,000 miles of fiber, Crown Castle is -the nation's largest provider of shared wireless infrastructure, �kii,th a significant presence in the top 100 US markets. Crown Castle's small cell network (SCN) represents the state-of-the-art in wireless telecommunications network technology, It is a low -profile telecommunications system capable of delivering wireless services to customers of multiple carriers such as Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, Metro PCS and T -Mobile, The elements of Crown Castle's SCN, are small-scale and can be attached to standard streetfight sign poles 'that take up little space in the public rights-of-way ('ROW") or, where feasible, on -to existing elements in the ROW such as streetlights, traffic signals, and wooden utility poles. Crown, Castle SCNI therefore allows one aesthetically unobtrusive systern'to take the place of multiple antennas or macro -sites constructed by individual carriers -- a single, streamlined solution that avoids the prospect of multiple carrier -constructed antenna -facilities servicing a given area. Put another way, Crown Castle SCN is the equivalent of a collocation system, as it permits many carriers to provide their services over one system with only a single series of vertical elements. 2. THE PROJECT. A. The Network. Crovin Castle proposes to develop a SCN ne-nuorkwith thirty nine (39) small cell nodes (SCN)l in the ROW in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes {'Network-"). These nodes are described beimm This is an application for one of those SCN (ASG70) submitted to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("RPV") for review by the Department of Public Works. This particular location will provide needed wireless broadband and telecommunications services and the addition of critical network and capacity along .1 A SCN "node," as used herein, is a small -format antennafadity mounted 'to a streetlight, Traffic signal pons, uflity pole or street sign poie. T 11 e Fo i -A r d a r. 3 o n f o a 14\j i r -_ I i�s P '01' or I d D-76 Monternallga Drive frons roughly Basswooci Avenue to the East and MaPanorama to the YAJest, anal ad acent neighborhoods to the North and South of Monternalga Drive ('Service Area"). Each of the 39 nodes comprisingthe Network will utflize existing streetlight poles, -traffic sign poles, utility poles and street sign poles located in the ROW, whenever possible. In some instances, hoAjvever, a new pole is being proposed in the ROW because there are no existing viable aiternativefrom an, RF perspective to achieve the coverage objective. Each, SCN receives an optical signalfrom a central hub and distributes the signal -to the SCN via fiber optic cable. The optical signal] is then propagated from th, e SIM in the form of radio frequency. (RF) transmissions. Distributi©n of signal from the hub to the low-power, low -profile SCN, allows carriers to provide wireless telecommunications and data servAcesto areas otherwise difficuft to reach with conventional wireless telecommunications facilities. The SCN locations are: CCI Node ID Street Address/Cross Street Site Type ASGOB cross .fro m 30505 Calle de Suenos S/L REPL ASGO9 30461 Camino Porvenir S/L REPL ASGIO Across from Los Verdes Golf Club S/L REPL ASG11 NE Corner of Gingerroot/Narcissa Ex Wood UtH ASG12 24 Narcissa Rd Ex Wood Util ASG13 72 N@rcissa Dr Ex Wood UtIl ASG 15 28151 Highridge New Pole ASG21 Basswood/Silverspur S/L REPL ASG25 27665 Longhifl S/L REPL ASG31 28809 Crestridge New Pole ASG 3 2] corner of Whitley/Scottwood S/L REPL crow ncastlacom D-77 -/-NSG33 Across 6480 Ch-artres Drive Nevi Pole (concrete-) ASG34 6960 Verd a Ridge S/L REPL IASG35 6722 Abbottswood S/L REPL ASG36 Across from 25,825 Doverridoe Nevv Pole (concrete) ASG37 Along Ridgegate Drive near Southrid-ge S/LREPL ASt538 7025 Maycroft S/L REPL ASG39 26804 Grayslake Rd Ex Wood UN or S/L ASG41 Palos Verdes Drive South near Seacfitff New Pole ASG42 5207 V@ ley View S/L REPL ASG43 55721 Crestridge New Pole ASG44 Armaga Spring @ Meadovv Mist S/L REPL ASG45 Adjacent to 28403 San Nicholas Dr S/L REPL ASG47 Across -from 3087 Crownview/Highpoint New Poie ASG48 Basswood @,Mossbank S/L REPL ASG49 Crest Rd Ex Wood U-0 or SYI'L ASG53 Adjacent -to 6505 Monero Ex Wood Utili -or 5/L ASG55 30:0-01 Via Rivera, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA S/L REPL ASG64 South of 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West NeNiv Pole ASG69 Across 348-0 Seaglen Dr, S/L REPL ASG -110 Across from 3828 Monternalava 0 Ex WoodUrdfity ASG72 Palos Verdes Drive (Abalone Cove), S of Narcissa New Po I a ASG73 Hawthorneat VallonDrive Traffic C a s D-78 By using existing vertical infrastructure within the ROW whenever possible, the project seeks to reduce 'the addition of need vertical elements, thereby minimizing intrusions intra 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 me -ter pedestals that woo, ld power the nodes. The total height of the facility, measured from grade level, is typically Lip to 13'-6' for traffic sign poles, street sign poles and -Free-standing poles, and up to 33'-6" for streetlight poles and utility poles. (See &.Mbit [(Drawings- Streetlights, traffic signal poles, street sign poles, free-standing poles, and utility poiles.fl In addition to the antennas, the nodes feature an Linder -round fiber pull] box containing -fiber. The -fiber M converters convert digitalized spectrum received from -the hub into RF signals emitted from the antenna array to the Service Area, (See Drawings). 3, THE APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL. Crown Castle presents this analysis pursuant to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Mun`,iclpal Code Title 12 ® Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 12.18.080. (Requirements for Facilities within Public Rights -of -Way). The Fcundation for 'Ajcrid, CrownCasde.com. D-79 Signal—REPL ASG74 31297 1/2 Palos Verdes Dr E @ Ganado (LA0362) S/L REPL—ExAtt ,LA0194 approx 5127 Palos Verdes Drive 5 Ex AT LA,0196 Palos Verdes Drive 5 @ 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 ExATMT POLE REPL By using existing vertical infrastructure within the ROW whenever possible, the project seeks to reduce 'the addition of need vertical elements, thereby minimizing intrusions intra 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 me -ter pedestals that woo, ld power the nodes. The total height of the facility, measured from grade level, is typically Lip to 13'-6' for traffic sign poles, street sign poles and -Free-standing poles, and up to 33'-6" for streetlight poles and utility poles. (See &.Mbit [(Drawings- Streetlights, traffic signal poles, street sign poles, free-standing poles, and utility poiles.fl In addition to the antennas, the nodes feature an Linder -round fiber pull] box containing -fiber. The -fiber M converters convert digitalized spectrum received from -the hub into RF signals emitted from the antenna array to the Service Area, (See Drawings). 3, THE APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL. Crown Castle presents this analysis pursuant to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Mun`,iclpal Code Title 12 ® Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 12.18.080. (Requirements for Facilities within Public Rights -of -Way). The Fcundation for 'Ajcrid, CrownCasde.com. D-79 Specifically, this narrative demonistrates 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 Litflity' and there -fore 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 tro local municipal control over the "time, place and manner' of access to the ROW. (Pub. Util, Code, §§ 1001, 7901; 7901.1; see VVYIjams Communication v. City of Riverside (2003) IJACal. 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 01b) 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 11derect poles, posts, peers, or abUtments for supporting the insulators, wires, and other necessary fixtures of their lines, in such mann, er and at such points as not to incommode -the public use of the road or highways j" (Pub. tail. Code, § 7901.) The nature of the vested right was described by one court as follows: ... `[flt has been uniformly held that TLsection 79011 is a continuing offer ,extended to telephone anal ,telegraph companies to use the highways, which offer when accepted by the construction and, maintenance of lines constitutes a binding con -tract based on adequate consideration, and that the vested right established thereby cannot be impaired by subsequent acts ofth, e Legislature. Thus, telephone companies have the right to use the public highways to install their' facilities, (WIMCMS COMM UniCVV',0,nS V. City of Riverside, supra, 114 CalAppAth at p. X48 quoting County of L, A. v. Southern Cal. Tel, a. (19 48) 32 Cal.2d 378, 384 1196 P.2d 7731.) The ,',,m_indation for -3 \Not!d _.room' a st 12. corn D-80 While Public Utility Code section 7901.1 grants local municipalities the firnited 'right to exercise reasonable control as to the time, place, and man, nerin, which roads, highways, and waterways are accessed[[' such controls cannot have the eff act of foreclosing use by Crown Castle of the ROW or otherwise prevent Crown Castle from exercising its right under statelaw to 'erect poles' in the ROW. That is because 'the construction and maintenance of telephone lines ire the streets and other public places within -the City is today a matter of state concern and not a municipal affair." (Wilflams Communication v. City, of Riverside, .supra, 114 Cal.App.4th at p. 653.) On the basis ®f Crown Castle's status as a CLEC, and its concomitant rights to the ROW, the Network is designed as an ROW system. With respect to the siting and configuration of -the Network, the rights afforded under Public Utilities Code section 7901 and 7901.1 apply. Crown Castle reserves its rights Linder section 7901 and 7901.1, including, but not limited to, its right to challenge any approval process, that impedes or infringes on Crown Castle's rights a s a CLEC. B. Applicable Federal Law. The approval of the Network also is governed by the -federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (codified as amend in scattered sections of U3.C., Tabs 15, 18, 47) (",Telecom Act'). When enacting the Telecom Act, Congress expressed its intent 'to promote competition and reduce regulation in order to secure lower prices and higher quality services dor American telecommunications consumers and encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies," (110 Stat. at 55.) As one court noted: Congress enacted the TCA to promote competition. and higher quality in telecommunications services and to encourage the rapid deployment of neve telecorn m Lin ications technologies, Congress intended to promote a national ceJILdar network and to secure lower prices and better service for consumers by opening all -telecommunications markets to competition. (T-MobileCentrai, LLC Y. Unified Government of lWyandotte, 528 F.Supp, 2d 1128, 1146-47 (D. Kan. 2007). One way in which the Telecom Act accomplishes these goals is by reducing impediments 0 "The �-Gurdatk_)n hor a \Ajorld C rown Ca s t� acorn imposed by local governments upon the installation of w�reless communications facilities, such as antenna facilities. (47 U.S.C. § 332(s)�7)( )j j Section 332(c)(7)(B) ,provides the limitations on the general authority reserved to state anti local govern ments. Those limitations are set forth as follolivs; (a) State and local governments may not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services (§ 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(1))• (b) State and local governments may not regulate the placement, construction or modification of wireless service facilities in a manner that prohibits, or has the effect of prohlibiting, the provision of personal wireless services (better known as the 'effective prohibition clause') (§ 332(c)(7)(13)(i)(11)). (c) State and local governments roust act on requests or authorization to construct or r ocffhy wireless service facilities within. a reasonable period oftime (§ 332(c)(7)(B)(ii)). (d) Any decision by a state or local government 't®deny a request for construction or modification of ,personal wireless service facilities must be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record (§ 332(c)'(7)�B)( i))o (e) Finally, no state or local government or instrumentality -thereof may regulate the placement, construction or modification a -if personal Wireless service facilities on t'he basis of the perceived environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the -extent that such fa ilities comply with federal communications commission's regulations concerning such emissions (§ 332(c)'(2)(B)(iv)). In addition to the above, ether -Federal enactments and policies also guide local governmental action,S, inclurding the following: (a) The Shot Clock Rile; On November 18, 2009, the Federal Communications Commission ,("FCC") adopted th:e "Shot Clock'° Rule, placing stricttime limits on local governments to act on applications for the siting of wirelesstelecommunications facilities. The Shot Clock Rule was intended to '°prormote'j] deployment of broadband and other Avvireiess services" by 'reducing delays in construction and improvement of wireless networks." (b) White House Broadband Initiative: On Februarys 10, 2011, the White House called for a National Wireless Init°sative to make availabile high-speed wireless services to as least !98 percent of -Americans, The 'initiative would free up spectrum through incentive auctlons, T++ F;,DU n d a t i o r irDY a 0lire{957 'e%VC;F'Id, Cas Lie.= • sp,urnng- hnnova-do!;, and Create a natlonVojide, inter-operabie 1,virele:ss ne-0,vodK or public ? t��'l h mi fiscal got -ll of, cit'lly7ing private investment and innovation and reducing the deficit by X9,6 billion, "halp the U nitecl Stites win the future and compete in the- 21st he21st century econorny." (47 U3.C, § 1455(a)(i), emphasis added.) An 'eligible facilities request"Mozlifieations' includes a request to "collocate" a facility. lel& at § 1455(a)(2)(A).) As discussed (further below, because it is -@ -lualifying collocation facility, an argument may be made that the Project qualifies for ministerial approval under -the Spectrum Act. Further, the Federal >YornMUniCations Commission recently provd.ed clariflratio a to she Spectrum Act in a recently published order. The FCC noted in its order: We take important steps in this Report and ,Order to promote the deployment of )�Ajlreless iniraslructure, recognizing that it is the physical found -anon that supports all wireless communications. We Flo this by eliminating unnecessary reviews, thus reducing the costs and delays associated with facility siting and construction. Specifically, the order (dated October 27, 2014), makes provisions for the following. Clarifies key terms in the Act such as Base Station, F igible Facility Request, whit is deemed Existing, and Toviera What constitutes Substantial Change - For Towers and Brise SLations sited within the public right-of—way, a change to an existing facility is less than substyantiol, and must be approved if the height increase is less than 10% increase or 10 -feet, whichever is greater, or has a protrusion of less t! an 6 - feet from he edve of the structure, or if the change would defeat concealment elements of the str_ict�ire. Governing ,authority may only require documentation thatis reonbly related to whether the request is covered under the rules; Governing auithoriLy a -ay not require submission of any other i o i en ition in lu:vfng proof of need. FINDINGS L Visual Compatibility (RPVMC Title 12, Chap -ter 12.18.080, Sec, A Design and Development Standards for wireless telecommunication facilities in the public right-of-way). As discussed more fully below, the Service Area described above currently experiences a significant gap in, wireless telecommunications coverage. To fill that gap, Crown Castle proposes the'qeast intrLISiVe m eans," as articulated by the Ninth Circuit in T—MoMe U.S.A., Inc. v. City of Anacartes, 572 F.3d 987, 995 (9th Cir. 2009) and as required by RPVs Wireless Telecommunications Facility Permit Application �"WTFPA') Section iV(2),,(c) Description of Project Coven -we and, Purpose [Exhibit C2]. The standard, as the court noted in that case, 'reqUires that the provider 'show that the manner in which, it proposes to fill the significant gap in service is 'the least intrusive on the values that the den jai sought to serve." (Ib d.) This allows [F]or a meaningful comparison of alternative sites before the siting application process is needlessly repeated.. it also gives providers an incentive -to choose the least intrusive site in their -first siting applications, and it promises to ultimately identify the best solution for the community, not merely the least one remaining after a series -of application denials. yd. at 995.) ,In this case, because Crown. Castle is a CLEC en, titled to construct its systems in the ROW, its DAS networks are inherentiyROW systems. On that basis, Crown Castle examined those aiternatNes theoretically available -to it in -the ROW. The analysis below demonstrates why the Project qualifies as -the 'least intrusive means' of filling the significant gap in service described above. A. Height of the Proposed Facilities. The antenna heights and locations of the SCIS 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 lovi-profile system, Crown, Castle seeks to maximize the coverage of each node iocation, since maximization of the node performance equates to lower overall number off-gacifl-ties 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 sign -al level is provided throughout the Service Area with the minimum number of nodes. -Ch� F--,._,,undation fc>r -3 W;reAess vVorid, Cr0),VnC=)ST1e.C`.DM 10601:15 B. Location of the ProposedFacifitles. The seilEcted node locations maximize the RF coverage of the node and minimime �r�t�rr�rence����erl�t ith she other nodes of tlhe system,, resulting In a 1ovje7 o��er�,l] number,�"p facilities fir the Network anti a less intrusive system,. Each node provides an effe"ct ve relay of signal fr orn the adjacent flode, so that ubiquitous coverage is provided throughout the Service ;area, Because each node is locationally dependent on the other nodes of the Network, mowing .a node too far from its proposes] location 'wlll result in an inability meet coverage objectives and thereby impair the !Net *ork, In selecting node I ocat ons, Crown Castle also sought out exist ng utility poles, streetlight poles anal street sign pole sites that could serve as a potential :host site for alternative locations. Co Small Fells as Le ast 7ntrushve Means Technology. Even apart "from the sign, of the nodes, SCC itself is inherently rninirnal ly intrusive by c9:esig"na SCN �Nvas developed as a smaller -scab solution to the lamer rr,acro-si"tr cell tmver. It there, re 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 suchfacilities must be located closer to the user. The nodes are designed, to be smaller in scale and lower power "to allow their, to integrate more easily into their surrounding's and thereby render them less aesthetically intrusive. The small cell node "facilities proposed by Crown Castle combine a smaller scale product with state-of- the-art technology that allows ;or multiple carriers,to provide service from the node. The nodes are des gnFed to blend into 'the existing elements of the ROW. Thr ey feature narrow—profile poles and minimal epuiprn.ente Each "facility also yvill be designed, to blend] with existing features in "the roadie Crawn Castle's SGN nel. ork qualifies as t'he 'least intrusive means" of "flllir,g the identified significant -ap im coverage for the following reasons, among others: j1) Crown Castle 5CN utilizes the latest in wireless infrastructure technology, incorporating 5m'aller, 1ow- ower 'facilities instead of usjng larger -a and some -times more Obtrusive -- cell towers, �2) Crown Castle Ss N lrt,l zes the RON, "thereby avoiding intrusions into prix --ate property or undieveloped] sensitive resource areas; (3) C ro vn Castle 3CN allows for collocation by multiple carriers, thereby avoiding proliferation of nodes, Crown Castle 3CN strifes a balance between antenna height and coverage in order to minimize Astral impacts, (5) Crown Castle 3CN carefully spaces the nodes to effectively relay signal with a mr nlmum of node locations; and (b) Crown Castle SCN seeps to Utilize existing vertical elements in thce ROW, such as utility poles and street signs, thereby minimizing the net n, umber of vertical intrusions in the ROW. 20 Health and Safe /FCC Compliance, The FCC has preempted -the field of compliance with, RF emission s andards.or, over, 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 § 3-3m2tD)), 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 standards. A demonstration of the Network's compliance with applicable FCC RF emission standards is attached as Exhibit E. 40 Design and Development Standards (RPVTV4C 12.18.080), Aa Selection Criteria for Each Node Site, Given the low profile of the nodes, and the resultant limitations of such a love -profile system, Crown ✓rovv jC�s.3e,�orn D-86 Castle seeks to maximize the coverage of each node location, de on, since maximization of the nocovenc ge 0 equates to a lolver overall number of fiacifities for the network and a less intrusive system. Accordingly, each location was chosen to provide an effective relay of signal -from the adjpcent node, so that ubiquitous coverage is provided throughout the Service Area with the least number of nodes. Each node islocation, ally dependent- .on the other nodes of the Network. To move a node toofar from its proposed location will result in an inability meet coverage objectives. Moving outside that proposed location will preclude the ability of the node to properly propagate its signal to the other nodes in the larger Network. Crown Castle also sought out existing utility pole, streetlight pole and traffic sign pole sites that could serve as a potential host site for alternative locations. The -further a node is moved -from its proposed location, the more the signal from 'that node will attenuate. In determining other viable locations for a node, moving more than, 50 feet from the proposed location may materially impair the coverage objectives for the facility. While Crown, Castle is 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 nodes at the site of -existing vertical elements, such as street signs and wood utility poles. By approaching a network design in this 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' of providing service to the Service Area. In many cases, Crown Castle identified alternative locations that are technically feasible. Yet, in each instance, Crown Castle selected the proposed site on the basis of (a) Technical -feasibility; (b) Ability to utilize existing vertical elements; (c) Ability to meet RF objectives, and (d) Minimization of visibility/aesthetic impacts. Since 29 ofthe 39 proposed sites use or replace existing poies-, -the proposed network results in ten new vertical elements in the ROW. B. Node Locations and the "Significant Gap" in Coverage. 1rhe Fc.)umlation for _31vV!rqJess \?Iorid, 'Crown Cast] 9.corn I Each node of the 1IletAivork is necessary to Fill a significant gap in service in the pity. The -sign71can'i gala is graphically demonstrate ��� �� red urea] by ��IC WTFPA Section IV(3)Description of Project 'Coverage and PurposeftExhibit C3), ,t,%, ch depicts existing service .dor the anchor Carrie, for the Network, AT&T. (see "Existing Service flap"o) The Existing Service Map describes six levels of seervicei (1) In -Building (Durk Green )) In -Building (LightGreen); )lig®Velii. le (' ell uv) an l () In-Iehi le (Reil), (5) boor to Mon-axistent (Blue) and (6) Poorto Non -Existent- (Blick), Each level is c'hararterized :by a minimum signal 'level. The key to coverage is having a signal level strong enough to allow multiple customers to maintain :contact wi to the network so -they can makeand maintain contact with the network. There is a direct correlation between the height of the antenna and the strength of the service. In this case, Cro ivn C astle's design seeks a rninimurn •ref RF propagation level, avhich prrivicles a suhficient ]evel of service to ad d ress grow!n9 capa- ity demancis a:nd to reach indoor risers, while avoiding ]poles that may be toga obtrusive. The courts have upheld the -use of in- bu fling m. 1nimurn standards as a proper benchmark for determining whether a significant'gap in coverage exists. (See, e.g., MetraPCS Ince v, Oty and .Coon y of San Francisco (N.D.Calo 2006) 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43985 ["careful reading of eAsidn;g cases that contain a significant gap analysis persuades the court that any analysis should include consideration of a wireless carrier's in-builzling, coverage "].) In. this case, existing service levels in the Service Area fall below the rninirnklim standard .for adequate inabuilding c,overage, (See Existing Service Map,) The nee; l to fill the existing significant cover:a_ e gapt level that allows adequate in -building coverage and to address growing capacity demands is 'underscored by the greater numbers of customers dropping their land ines and relying solely on wireless for their phone service. Additionally: () Ina recent international] study, the United States dropped to fifteenth in the world in broadband penetration, viell behind South Korea, Japan, the Netherlands and 'Frame.' (2) 48 percent of all American homes are noxi wireless only-' (3) More and more civic leaders and emergency response personnel cite lack of 7 robust wireless network as a growing public, safety risk. The number of 911 calls placed by ' fSo- niz. tion for Eccnwn cSCO-Oiler a -d � „i,,,,. C t. ,:i d s bevel ; r i ) a p ➢) _'�) j, .=a ai Industry, .°Bmadband s%aw-.s+ics" Ou'ne 2010): br. adbard>. 3 Fede al 'S„S`7mi"n'un c-tiions Commission, .on, (r'iprii 2013), people using wireless phones has significantly increased in recent years. It is estimated that aboiut 70 percent of 911 calls are placed from vAre less phones, and that p-ercentage is grow ng! (4) Data demand -from neer smart,phones and tablets is leadlnq to a critical deficit i spectrum, requiring more wireless antennas and infrastructure. According to, a 2011 report, wireless data traffic was 110 percent higher than in the last half of 2010a Similarly, AT&T reports that its wireless data volumes lave increased 30 -fold since the introduction of the iPhone.-5 (5) 6x projected mobile data traffic growth from 2015 .to 2020,1 As more Americans depend on, wireless communications technologies and smartphonc, rellable network capacity and In -building coverage will be critical. These are some of -the reasons courts now recognize that a 'significant gap, can exist on the basis of inadequate in-bUilding coverage. (See, e.g., etr- OPCS Inc, ve City and County of ion Francisco, supro, U.S. Dist. LEAS 43983, T obsle Central, L1c v, Unified Government of Wyandotte County, (D,Kans, 2007) 528 F.Supp,2d 1128,) Applying these principles to the Service Area, Exhibit C3, reveals that Service Area is currently experiencing insufficient signal. Users in the Service Area therefore would experience ars intolerably high percentage of blocked and dropped calls for outside usee, with a commensurate dcdine in signal strength as one moves toward the inside of existing buildings and homes, Crown Castle seeps to provide sufficient signal strength to ensure not only adequate signal for mobile and outdoor users, but reliable ire -b ilding 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. Wreless customers must be able to count on a level of service cornrnensurate with that provided by their land lines. Such considerations are relevant to a determination of significant gap. (See, e.g., T Mobile Cent•ral LLC ve City of Fraser (1_..01 , Mich. 2009) 675 F. Sapp, 2d 721 ''Icons defing falkire rate of 911 emergency calls,]) q Federal Communications Commission (20113) http-/,/www.'fcc.goNi/`gLLiicies/�ji3reless-911-s;er�jlces. EXeCLative Office of the President C©unc � of Econ mic Advisors (WhiteHouse, Feb, 2012) at 2-6. Id. roitt nCastle.corn By contrast, installation of the proposed nodes comprising the project would result in adequate outdoor and in-buflding coverage. �Sel- Exhibit Exhibit C3(e) 11predicted coverage map 1with node ( ... not macros]; Exhibit C3(a) and'(d) [predicted coverage map i.Ajithcut node � ... not macros].) ZD Crown Castle has deveioped a number of node designs, some of which -are depicted, in Exhibit A of the existing anal enforce Rights -of Way LU, se Agreement ("RUA") between the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and Crown Castle, Further Crown Castle has provided the engineering specifications for the proposed f@ciflty. (See Exhibit F1 - Engineering Plans). The proposed designs represent the latest achievement in reducing the profile of the Facilities. A smaller -antenna configuration wou Hd impede larger aesthetic objectives of facilitating collocation and minimizing th-e geed for additional network -facilities as demands on the Network grow. Put SiMply, the smaller the antenna result in a less robust the network. That equates -to diminished capacity and coverage -- and., a resultant need for more nodes in -the future as more customers use the network. By contrast, the panel antennas proposed in the Network provide ample capacity for increased user demand (e.g., increased data nueeds). CONCLUSiON Crown Castle respectfully presents its application for a Major Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Permit/c.onditional use permit -for the Network. Crown Castle's representatives are on hand to answer any qu, estions. 'he P at n for a 0/ i r 9! -) s 5 Al,:, r d, D-90 JERROLD T. BUSHBERG Ph.D., DABMP, DABSNM, FAAPM, FHPS ♦ HEAL TH AND MEDICAL PHYSICS CONSULTING* Albert Landicho Crown Castle 300 Spectrum Center Suite 1200 Irvine, CA 92618 7784 Oak Bay Circle Sacramento, CA 95831 (800) 760-8414—jbushberg@hampc.com Introduction October 30, 2016 The proposed project consists of the installation and operation of wireless equipment for Crown Castle on utility poles. This report provided a review the technical specifications and a calculation of the maximum radiofrequency, (RF), power density from the proposed Crown Castle nodes to be located in the public right-of- way in Rancho Palos Verdes, CA. The project scope includes the installation of new wireless equipment and all associated brackets in accordance to construction specifications and governing construction guidelines as depicted in the node configuration drawing (attachment 1). These nodes will be used for wireless telecommunications transmission and reception utilizing two directional CCI antennae model HPA-65F-BUU-112 mounted to a utility pole. Each of the panel (sector) antennae used in this network is designed to transmit with a maximum input power of up to 16.98 watts, with a gain of up to 7.85 dB resulting in an effective radiated power (ERP) of 103.5 watts at approximately 700 MHz; 16.98 watts, with a gain of up to 8.35 dB resulting in an effective radiated power (ERP) of 116.1 watts at approximately 850 MHz; 16.98 watts, with a gain of up to10.65 dB resulting in an effective radiated power (ERP) of 197.3 watts at approximately 1,900 MHz and 16.98 watts with a gain of up to 11.45 dB resulting in an ERP of 237.2 watts at approximately 2,100 MHz. The distance from the antenna center to the ground for all nodes will be at least 13.9 feet. The antenna specification details are depicted in attachment two. This analysis represent the worst case potential RF exposure for a site utilizing these transmission and antennae specifications. There will be 15 nodes of this configuration proposed for Rancho Palos Verdes, CA (see Appendix A-0). Calculation Methodology Calculations at the level of the antenna were made in accordance with the cylindrical model recommendations for near -field analysis contained in the Federal Communications Commission, Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin 65 (OET 65) entitled "Evaluating Compliance with FCC -Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields." RF exposure calculations at ground level were made using equation 10 from the same OET document and taking into account the actual antenna pattern and gain as a function of the elevation angle and distance from the antenna at ground level. Several assumptions were made in order to provide the most conservative or "worse case" projections of power densities. Calculations were made assuming that all channels were operating simultaneously at their maximum design ERP. Attenuation (weakening) of the signal that would result from surrounding foliage or buildings was ignored. Buildings or other structures can reduce the signal strength by a factor of 10 (i.e., 10 dB) or more depending upon the construction material. In addition, for ground level calculations, the ground or other surfaces were considered to be perfect reflectors (which they are not) and the RF energy was assumed to overlap and interact constructively at all locations (which they would not) thereby resulting in the calculation of the maximum potential exposure. In fact, the accumulations of all these very conservative assumptions, will significantly overestimate the actual exposures that would typically be expected from such a facility. However, this method is a prudent approach that errs on the side of safety. D-91 RF Safety Standards The two most widely recognized standards for protection against RF field exposure are those published by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) 095.1 and the National Council on Radiation Protection and measurement (NCRP) report #86. The NCRP is a private, congressionally chartered institution with the charge to provide expert analysis of a variety of issues (especially health and safety recommendations) on radiations of all forms. The scientific analyses of the NCRP are held in high esteem in the scientific and regulatory community both nationally and internationally. In fact, the vast majority of the radiological health regulations currently in existence can trace their origin, in some way, to the recommendations of the NCRP. All RF exposure standards are frequency -specific, in recognition of the differential absorption of RF energy as a function of frequency. The most restrictive exposure levels in the standards are associated with those frequencies that are most readily absorbed in humans. Maximum absorption occurs at approximately 80 MHz in adults. The NCRP maximum allowable continuous occupational exposure at this frequency is 1,000 pW/cm'. This compares to 5,000 gW/cm' at the most restrictive of the PCS frequencies (1,800 MHz) that are absorbed much less efficiently than exposures in the VHF TV band. The traditional NCRP philosophy of providing a higher standard of protection for members of the general population compared to occupationally exposed individuals, prompted a two-tiered safety standard by which levels of allowable exposure were substantially reduced for "uncontrolled " (e.g., public) and continuous exposures. This measure was taken to account for the fact that workers in an industrial environment are typically exposed no more than eight hours a day while members of the general population in proximity to a source of RF radiation may be exposed continuously. This additional protection factor also provides a greater margin of safety for children, the infirmed, aged, or others who might be more sensitive to RF exposure. After several years of evaluating the national and international scientific and biomedical literature, the members of the NCRP scientific committee selected 931 publications in the peer-reviewed scientific literature on which to base their recommendations. The current NCRP recommendations limit continuous public exposure at PCS frequencies to 1,000 µW/cmz . The 1992 ANSI standard was developed by Scientific Coordinating Committee 28 (SCC 28) under the auspices of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE). This standard, entitled "IEEE Standards for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz" (IEEE C95.1-1991), was issued in April 1992 and subsequently adopted by ANSI. A complete revision of this standard (095.1-2005) was completed in October 2005 by SCC 39 the IEEE International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety. The current version, including minor revisions, was published in March 2010. Their recommendations are similar to the NCRP recommendation for the maximum permissible exposure (MPE) to the public PCS frequencies (950 uW/cm'- for continuous exposure at 1,900 MHz) and incorporates the convention of providing for a greater margin of safety for public as compared with occupational exposure. Higher whole body exposures are allowed for brief periods provided that no 30 minute time -weighted average exposure exceeds these aforementioned limits. On August 9, 1996, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) established a RF exposure standard that is a hybrid of the current ANSI and NCRP standards. The maximum permissible exposure values used to assess environmental exposures are those of the NCRP (i.e., maximum public continuous exposure at PCS frequencies of 1,000 µW/cm' ). The FCC issued these standards in order to address its responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to consider whether its actions will "significantly affect the quality of the D-92 human environment." In as far as there was no other standard issued by a federal agency such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the FCC utilized their rulemaking procedure to consider which standards should be adopted. The FCC received thousands of pages of comments over a three-year review period from a variety of sources including the public, academia, federal health and safety agencies (e.g., EPA & FDA) and the telecommunications industry. The FCC gave special consideration to the recommendations by the federal health agencies because of their special responsibility for protecting the public health and safety. In fact„ the maximum permissible exposure (MPE) values in the FCC standard are those recommended by EPA and FDA. The FCC standard incorporates various elements of the 1992 ANSI and NCRP standards which were chosen because they are widely accepted and technically supportable. There are a variety of other exposure guidelines and standards set by other national and international organizations and governments, most of which are similar to the current ANSI/IEEE or NCRP standard, figure one. The FCC standards "Guidelines for Evaluating the Environmental Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation" (Report and Order FCC 96-326) adopted the ANSMEEE definitions for controlled and uncontrolled environments. In order to use the higher exposure levels associated with a controlled environment, RF exposures must be occupationally related (e.g., PCS company RF technicians) and they must be aware of and have sufficient knowledge to control their exposure. All other environmental areas are considered uncontrolled (e.g., public) for which the stricter (i.e., lower) environmental exposure limits apply. All carriers were required to be in compliance with the new FCC RF exposure standards for new telecommunications facilities by October 15, 1997. These standards applied retroactively for existing telecommunications facilities on September 1, 2000. The task for the physical, biological, and medical scientists that evaluate health implications of the RF data base has been to identify those RF field conditions that can produce harmful biological effects. No panel of experts can guarantee safe levels of exposure because safety is a null concept, and negatives are not susceptible to proof. What a dispassionate scientific assessment can offer is the presumption of safety when RF -field conditions do not give rise to a demonstrable harmful effect. Summary & Conclusions All Crown Castle antenna systems operating with the maximal exposure conditions characteristics as specified above and observing a 8 foot (public) and 5 foot (occupational) exclusion zone directly in front of and at the same elevation as the antenna, will be in full compliance with FCC RF public and occupational safety exposure standards (see appendix A-1). These transmitters, by design and operation, are low-power devices (see attachment 2). An RF safety caution sign, as depicted in appendix A-2 should be placed near the antenna. This sign should contain appropriate contact information and indicate that RF exposures at 5 and 8 feet or closer to the face of the antenna may exceed the FCC occupational and public exposure standards respectively. Thus only qualified RF workers may work within the 8 foot exclusion zone. The maximum RF exposure at ground level from this node will not be in excess of 10.7% of the FCC public safety standard, (see appendix A-3). A chart of the electromagnetic spectrum and a comparison of RF power densities from various common sources is presented in figures two and three respectively in order to place exposures from wireless telecommunications systems in perspective. Given the flow levels of radiofrequency fields that would be generated from all Crown Castle directional antenna installations of this configuration, (e.g., antenna specification and input power); where the center of the antenna is 13.9 or more feet above grade, and the 8 foot public exclusion zone directly in front and at the same elevation as the antenna is observed, there is no scientific basis to conclude that harmful effects will attend the utilization of these proposed wireless telecommunications facilities. This conclusion is supported by a large numbers of scientists that have participated in standard-setting activities in the United States who are overwhelmingly agreed that RF radiation exposure below the FCC exposure limits has no demonstrably harmful effects on humans. D-93 These findings are based on my professional evaluation of the scientific issues related to the health and safety of non -ionizing electromagnetic radiation and my analysis of the technical specification as provided by Crown Castle Networks. The opinions expressed herein are based on my professional judgement and are not intended to necessarily represent the views of any other organization or institution.. Please contact me if you require any additional information. Sincerely, Jerrold T. Bushberg Ph.D., DABMP, DABSNM, FAAPM Diplomate, American Board of Medical Physics (DABUT) Diplomate, American Board of Science in Nuclear Medicine (DABSNMM ) Fellow, American Association of Physicists in Medicine (FAAPM) Fellow, Health Physics Society (FHPS) Enclosures: Figures 1-3; Attachment 1,2; Appendix A -Q, A-1, A-2, A-3 and Statement of Experience. National and International Public RF Exposure Standards (DAS @ 1,950 MHz) 1.4 �i'a s�aer'a�� ,��� 4, 6 "",�?i P `� ���.G 1.2 le 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 �i'a s�aer'a�� ,��� 4, 6 "",�?i P `� ���.G �i`0 �4�i� ��� QC' le *International Commission on Non -Ionizing Radiation Protection (I( -'NMP) Public Safety Exposure Standard. ICNIRP standard recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO). Members oithe ICNIRP Scientific Committee were from: - Australia • Finland • France • Germany - Hungary - Italy . Sweden • Japan - United Kingdom • United States Figure . l , ..���. ................................................................................®................................................................ IIAMPC 2088 All Rights Reserved D-95 Non • • Electromagnetic 10. 4- Ionizing Electromagnetic • •n (NI/EMR) Radiation Power •0l Nfliz Communication Cellular - J ACV . 1 Hertz Services Visible Ultra- diagnosis► , Television and lamp therapy Fr , d::p Energy (ev) Electric and Magnetic Fields 10"13 1012 10-11 10"19 10'9 104 to, 106 10-5 10'9 10"3 le -1 1 10 10'- 103 10° 105 106 1W 108 109 1010 loll HOW 9) �VIEC 2008 Atl Rights Reserved Figure 2_ • Typical Exposure from Various Radio Frequency / Microwave Sources 350 N r=" 300 250 200 150 100 w 50 11� 250 100}' 30 20 15 1 1 0.1 ® I Cordless Bluetooth CB Outside WiFi Baby Typical Max. Typica DAS Phone Headset Mobile Microwave Laptop Monitor Public Public Radio Oven Exposure Exposure in from a DAS Neighborhood Transmission Site Figure 3 .................................................................................................................................................................... FicSdPC 2008 All Rights Reserved D-97 /#1/\:\\432,Iff +6+:nw,v Crown Czr9* SitName: S 32 292$4 ?c*:y##L Dr At Whitley Collins Dr Rancho Palos . . Verdes, California I;= 2 f / #z Crown Castle Attention: Aaron Snyder 00Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 1200 Irvine, 2»,ice2i 92618 ph#!- » — . 2\«I Associates, Inc Acoustical £ Environmental Cons d « * 210 0 2' Juniper Street, Suite 100 Escondido, California 92025 wr . - , � a .% <z_._ #«©tfK<■» f§,C 76$«285570 Fa 760-738-5227 ■ ®i EILAR ASSOCIATES, INC. Acoustical and Environmental Consulting 210 South Juniper Street, Suite 100, Escondido, CA 92025 760 738570 or 800-439-9205 - Fax: 760-738-5227 www.eiWassociates.com - info@eilarassociates.com Z�� 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) M117HP19HP 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: SPL2 =SPLI — 20 log( D : , DI 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. Equipment Noise Measurements for Crown Castle (Ground -Mounted Two Remote Configuration) August 11, 2016 Job #660622N1 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 D-100 Equipment Noise Measurements for Crown Castle (Ground -Mounted Two Remote Configuration) August 11, 2016 Job #860622N1 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 AHW91 Equipment Site Noise Level (dBA) Start Time Position Duration Noise Limit Compliance (sec) At 1' from At 3' from (dBA) 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 D-101 Equipment Noise Measurements for Crown Castle (Ground -Mounted Two Remote Configuration) August 11, 2016 Job #1360622N1 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, JZIT—W ���Vn 964) Amy Hoo , �'rinci 1 Acoustical Consultant Figures Jona Brothers, Senior Acoustical Consultant Satellite Aerial Photograph Showing Noise Source and Noise Measurement Locations at AHW11 Site Ellar Associates, Inc. • 210 South Juniper Street, Suite 100, Escondido, CA 92025.760-738-5570 • Fax 760-738-5227 D-102 FIGURES D-103 t E ud M Location Ambient Noise A ` t { f Measurement location i .r r Eilar.Associates, Inc. Satellite Aerial Photograph Showing Noise 210 South Juniper Street, Suite 100 Source and Noise Measurement Locations Escondido, California 92025 Figure 760-738-5570 at AHW11 Site Job # B60622N°I D-104 ' T,`�E OF CAIFURNIA EaMLmd G. Bravvrl. 17- Gcvsmo�- PUBUC UTILITES COMWSSiON 505 VAN NESS AV'EHUIE SA N FFIMCBDO, Qk 941 W-VSER 'over [*'-4 -nber 12.29 14 Mary Chiodo Cr -own Castle. 2000 Corpotaw Drive Canonsbur& PA 1 D-317 Dear Ms. Chiodo: NextG Networks of California/Crown Castle sub mitteda Notice of Proposed -Coxrstruction for the installation of- (1) neer micro -,antenna; (2) new underground./aen-al filbcr optic Cable; (3) ire -w and replacement utility poles in Rancho Palos Verdes, Califbmia. The NPC reqir,5is the Energy Division to act upon NcxtG-s request for a determination that the proposed project !its corlsistenl with the activities identified as categorically exempt from the Calffbnia Ernviaroair&nial Quality Act (CEQA) by the California Public Utilities Commission (Co mmi3-sion). I (n January 2-00-3, the Commission granted NextG ffie authority to operate as limned facilities- basedfLFB) cartier in California. In May I 2006; NextG subinined A,06-05-031 seeping expansion of its LFB autho6ty to includ-, the installation of Distributed ::antenna System (DDS) rni-aro-ante-nnae and other related eq-tnipment in California. In the application, Nextri stated that its projects tray include the iirstallati-on of a lirnited number of new poles, small scale or micro - trenching, conduit installation, and the installation of taterals. Under D,0740-4-045, the Comission-determined That the projects pla-Tured -by. NextG would fiall within one of several categorical e-xemptions identified under CEQA, and that Further environ mental review would not be required - The Energy Division tias revie-wed the N(extG/Cr,---vY-n Castle proposal to install DAS equipment in Rancho Palos Verdes and filas determined that the proposed project is consistent with the actions ide�ntfflcd by the Commission as categorically exempt from CEQA. The Energy Division he-mby graats Next -G xith dheauthority to proceed -,,vith the corotruction of the projcct as described in the IMMC. J J-nsen Uchida California. Pul,)I-'--- Utilities Co-mrrissi-or Regulatory -Anaiyst D-105 7/1.4/2016 ULS License- Cellular License- KI \1KA351 - AT&T Mobility Spectrum LLC Cellular Li - KNKA351 - AT&T Mobility Spectrum LIC Cali Sign KNKA351 Radio Service CL - Cellular StaCus Active Auth Type Regular Market Market CMA002 - Los Angeles -Long Channel Block A Beach/Anaheim Submarket 0 Phase 2 Dates Grant 11/06/2007 Expiration 10/01/2017 Effective 12/05/2014 Cancellation Faye Year Sulldout Date 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 L4_' FRN 0014980726 Type Licensee AT&T Mobility Spectrum LLC P:(855)699-7073 3300 E. Renner Road, B3132 F;(972)907-1131 Richardson, -DiC 75082 E;FCCMW@att.com AT TN Reginald Youngblood Limited Liability Company 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 Fixed Regulatory Status Common Carrier Interconnected Yes Allen Ov4nership 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 http:/hAil rel ess2.fcc.gov/U i sApp/U I sSearchJl i cense.j sp?I i GKey=1251,i&printable D-106 i/2 7/14/2016 ULS License- PCS Broadband License- KNLF205- NENV CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC ULS License PCS Broadband License - KNLF205 a NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC Call Sign KNLF205 Radio Service CW - PCS Broadband Status Active Auth Type Regular Market Market MTA002 - Los Angeles -Sail Diego Channel Block B Submarket 37 Associated 001870,00000000 - Frequencies 001885,00000000 (MHz) 001950.00000000- 001965.00000000 Dates Grant 06/05/2015 Expiration 06/23/2025 Effective 06/05/2015 Cancellation Buildout Deadlines 1st 06/23/2000 2nd 06/23/2005 Notification Dates 1st 05/05/2000 2nd 03/14/2003 FRN 0003291192 Type Limited Liability Company Licensee NEW CINGI ILAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC P:(855)699-7073 3300 E. Renner Road, B3132 F:(972)907-1131 Richardson, TX 75.082 E:FCCMW@att.com ATTN Reginald Youngblood Contact AT&T !`MOBILITY LLC P:(202)457-2055 Michael P Goggin 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. http://vAjireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UisSearch/license.jsp?licKey=8882&has Lease=Yuprintable D-107 I19 7/14/2016 ULS License- 700 MHz Louver Band (Blocks A, B &E) License- WQJQ721 - AT&T iMobilibj Spectrum LLC ULS License 700 MHz Lower Band (Blocks A, B & E) License - WQJQ721 - AT&T Mobility Spectrum LLC Call Sign WOJQ721 Radio Service WY - 700 MHz Louver Band (Blocks A,B&E) Status Active Auth Type Regular Market Market CMA002 - Los Angeles -Long Channel Block B Beach/Anaheim Submarket 0 Associated 000704.00000000 - Frequencies 000710.00000000 (MHz) 000734.00000000- 000740.00000000 Dates Grant 11/26/2008 Expiration 06/13/2019 Effective 02/12/2014 Cancellation Buildout Deadlines 1st 12/13/2016 2nd 06/13/2019 Notification Dates 1st 06/28/2013 2nd FRN 0014980726 Type Limited Liability Company Licensee 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 Michael P Goggin F:(202)457-3073 1120 20th Street, NW, Suite 1000 E:michael.p.goggin@att.corn Washington, DC 20036 Radio Service Type Mobile Regulatory Status Common Carrier Interconnected Yes Allen 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 Laud Bidding Credits This license did not have tribal land bidding credits. http://wireless2.icc.gov/UlsApp/UIsSeai chJlicense.jsp?licKey=30603488,printable D-108 1/2 7/11/2016 ULS License - PCS Broadband License- WQHT993-AT&T Mobility Spectrum LLC ULS License""' PCS Broadband License - WQHT993 - AT&T Mobility Spectrum LL Call Sign WQHT993 Radio Service CW - PCS Broadband Status Active Auth Type Regular Market Market MTA002 - Los .Angeles -Sari 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, —IX 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 G;michaei.p.goggin@att,corn Washington, DC 20036 ATTN Michael P. Goggin Radio Service Type Mobile Regulatory Status Common Carrier interconnected Yes Alien Oilinership 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. h tp://hvireless2.fcc.gov/U1sApp/U1sSearchJ]icense.jsp?IicKey=29579'18cgprintable 1/2 D-109 7/14/2016 ULS License -ANS (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 Radio Service AVIV - AWS (1710-1755 MHz and Effective 02/12/2014 Cancellation [Buildout Deadlines 2110-2155 MHz) Status Active Auth Type Regular Market 2nd FRN 0014980726 Type Limited Liability Company Market CMA002 - Los Angeles -Long Channel Block A 3300 E. Renner Road, B3132 Beach/Anaheim Richardson, TX 75082 E:FCCMW@att.com Submarket 1 Associated 001710.00000000 - Frequencies 001720,00000000 (MHz) 002110.00000000- 002120.00000000 Cates Grant 11/29/2006 Expiration 11/29/2021 Effective 02/12/2014 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 Michael P Goggin F:(202)457-3073 1120 20th Street, NVII - 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 Ovvnership 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://vvireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/license.jsp?iicKey=2862653&printable D-110 7/114/2016 ULS License- PCS Broadband License- KNLG472- AT&T Mobilibj 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 lst 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 '':(972)907-1131 Richardson, TX 75082 E:FCCMW@at_;com ATTN Reginald Youngblood Contact AT&T Mobility LLC P:(202)457-2055 F:(202)457-3073 1120 20th Street, NVV - Suite 1000 E:michael,p,goggin@att,com Washington, DC 20036 ATTN Michael P. Goggin Radio Service Type Mobile Reguiatory Status Common Carrier Interconnected Yes Alien 0-,itnership The Applicant answered "No" to each of the Alien Ownership questions, Basic Qualifications The Applicant answered "fro" to each of the Basic Qualification questions, Tribal Land Bidding Credits This license did not have tribal land bidding credits. ht;o:/hvireless2.icc.gov/UIsApp/UIsSearchllicense.jsp;JSESSIOyID_ULSSEARCN=XGKy nhVROC6pIrr'101<VJ5snJRT15jbLNVVIR9Si=pnIpl<gJIBXQDl2'129... 1/2 D-111 7/14/2016 ULS License- 700 MHz Louver Band (Blocks C, D) License-1NPVVU990- ATc8,T Mobility Spectrum LLC ULS License 700 MHz Lower Band (Blocks C, D) License - WPWU990 - AT&T Mobility Spectrum LLC Call Sign Status Market Market Submarket WPWU990 Radio Service WZ - 700 MHz Louver Band (Blocks C, D) Active Auth Type Regular CMA002 - Los Angeles -Long Beach/Anaheim 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, 83132 Richardson, TX 75082 ATTN Reginald Youngblood Contact AT&T Mobility LLC 1120 20th Street, NW - Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 ATTN Michael P, Goggin 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://wireiess2.fcc.gov/U lsApp/U i sSearch/license.j sp?li cl<ey=2479929uprintable '/2 D-112 CROWN „�► CASTLE Um Node ASG32 Coverage Analysis The Foundation for a Wireless World. D-113 ASG32 Exhibits • Exhibit C(3) — Geographic and propagation maps • Exhibit C(4) — Geographic service area for the subject installation • Exhibit F'(4) — Power output and operating frequency for the proposed antenna • Exhibit H(1)(b) ® Master plan of all existing and proposed facilities • Exhibit I — Alternative sites CROWN Proprietary & CASTLE Confidential D-114 Exhibit C3 CROWN Proprietary & CASTLE Confidential D-115 Exhibit C3 a. — Geographical significant gap in coverage. *A0d;w x two • • low"" CROWN Proprietary & CASTLE Confidential 4 D-116 Exhibit C3 (b) - Proposed site and surrounding existing WTF owned and CROWN Proprietary & wo CASTLE Confidential D-117 Exhibit C3 (c) — Proposed facility relative to all existing and planned facilities 4 wtnlfl,a vJ:3 <.mwtn�):niS� 4wr+3r . �sa59 �Y%c'aa3 CROWN Proprietary & ,,�► CASTLE Confidential ■ 16 D-118 ■ �Y%c'aa3 CROWN Proprietary & ,,�► CASTLE Confidential ■ 16 D-118 Exhibit C3 d. — Existing RF coverage. 4 =--63 d&i PropoFed Incat;cn r,rYdff"j r" r- w—w. tw n Altemate fDraT -Dris Fa.*d ExistnipAT&T sitte 0 *R`Oftft%6b, *ZOft CROWN Proprietary & CASTLE Confidential 71 17 D-119 • • CROWN Proprietary & CASTLE Confidential 71 17 D-119 Exhibit C3 e. — Proposed RF coverage. �.•.....�•w♦.,..,♦,W,�++,_ ` ,fir .. . , vo*�ipw 069 w : � nnyryeeic„4. ♦ w ha+c I, i f'.t.*J crest A& :Atwiw s y c�>•o+ Pae, . !i Ars • j014�a,,, r♦ •i..r♦r•wA♦s.r� CROWN Proprietary & CASTLE Confidential r I8 D-120 y A• 8T Exist7nNode ` `•/ - iv. CSR ` t L I- ... ` l ``� ` yam' � ��` / t A1'&Exist ng Nod k- SG32 /TBT Exist Node �Y•�i ASG42 Yl - Proposed Nodes Existing AT&" T Sites , ry,.h �.,, Goo��lc� earth Exhibit C4 CROWN Proprietary & CASTLE Confidential 10 D-122 �,,-' i,el;,9..,, 4 �l^F3• ,�r a dr, ASG32 Google earth ail- T ASG6 �ASG32 C, � ' ,�- •• . ASG32 A y s` iASG32 D ea i t f Exhibit F4 CROWN Proprietary & CASTLE Confidential 13 D-125 Power output and operating frequency EIRP 700 MHz (Watts) EIRP 850 MHz (composite, Watts) EIRP 1900 MHz (Wafts) EIRP 2100 MHz (Waft§l____ 103.5 116.1 197.24 237.14 CCROWN Proprietary & CASTLE Confidential 114 D-126 Exhibit Hi(b) CROWN Proprietary & CASTLE Confidential 15 D-127 List of All Existing and Proposed facilities Carrier Well) Latitude Longitude -1.,IdeID Latitude Longitude mer Side1D Latitude Longitude AT&T HWOI 33.78431 -118.36835 W HAMS 33.79012 -118.355 print ILA36XC538 33.77259 -118.33469 AT&T AHW02 33.759 .118.38 ZW HAW10 33.77128 -118.3964 Tint LA36XC539 33.77343 -118.32591 AT&T AHW03 33.75776 -118.38661 ZW HAWll 33.76837 -118.4032. Tint LA36XC540 33.74165 -118.37394 AT&T AHW04 33.76809 -118.39335 ZW HAW12 33.77588 -118.4031 Tint LA36XC542 33.78218 -118.36113 AT&T AHW05.1 33.787778 -118.358417 ZW HAW14rn1 33.759883 -118.40523 print LA36XC543 33.77368 118.34589 AT&T AHWG6 33.76421 -118.38083 W HAW15 33.76519 -118.407 Tint LA36XC545 33.77247 -118.35101 AT&T AHW07 33.76975 -118.38096 ZW HAW16 33.77724 -118.4083 print L1148 33.74334 -118.40946 T&T AHWOB 33.7562 -118.41017 clot LA34XD015 33.78752 -118.3761 riot LA36XC549 33.76364 -118.35995 AT&T AHW31 33.80482 -118.39075 Tint LA34XD027 33.77401667 -118.395 print LA36XC550 33.77269 -118.41471 AT&T AHW12 33.79196 -118.40443 print LA34XD031 33.742141 -118.40163 ,int LA36XC552 33.80219 118.36782 AT&T AHW33 33.751972 -118.395472 Tint LA34XD032 33.77802 -118.4173 print LA36XC553 33.78528 -.118.38638 AT&T AHWSS 33.77283 -118.4032 clot LA34XD035 33.77881 -118.41596 riot LA36%C557 33.79142 -118,39284 MUS AN03 33.78465 -118.366 print LA34XD036 33.78098 -118.39723 [int LA36XC560 33.78581 -118.34418 MUS N04 33.78646 -118.362 print LA34XD037 33.78198 -118.403 print LA36XC561 33.78281 -118,31923 MUS AN08 33.76636 -118.365 print LA34XD039 33.78177 418.4003 print LA36XC562 33.79276 -118.35084 MUS N10 33.77991 -118353 riot LA34XD042 33.77513333 -118.378283 print LA36XC563 33.77735 -118.37304 MUS N14 33.78579 -118.356 rint LA34XD043 33.773162 118.4031 Tint LA36XC564 33.74338 -118.31879 MUS N16 33.77621 -118.344 print LA34XD046 33.75817 -118.4133 print LA36XC565 33.75779 -118.36746 MUS AN17 33.772 -118.334 print LA34XD047 33.745354 -118.40078 Tint LA36XC566 33.75541 -118.40821 MUS AN18 33.759 -118.38 Tint LA34XD050 33.75232 -118.3959 print LA36XC567 33.80201 -118.37439 AT&T POI 33.7763 -118:34363 Tint LA34XD077 33.7615 -118.348 Tint LA36XC568 33.75005 -118.40501 AT&T ASP02 33.77217 -118.33444 Tint LA34XD095 33.748459 -118.3248 Tint LA36XC570 33.76195 -118.41071 AT&T ASP03 33.76816 -118.371 print LA34XDG99 33.74218 -118.3332 Tint LA36XC578 33.77392 -118.34802 T8,T A525 33.77340352 -118.3482305 Tint LA34XD311 33.72728 -118.3346 Tint LA36XC579 33.75351 -118.34156 AT&T ASP06 33.76225 -118.36546 Tint LA34XD212 33.79908 -118.3646 print LA36XC580 33.76533 -118.35449 AT&T ASP07 33.75886 -118,35815 riot LA36XC212 33.74801 -118.3127 print LA36#C581 33.76451 -118.34879 T&T ASP08 33.75436 -116.34886 print LA36XC215 33.75909 -118,358 Tint LA36XC582 33.77478 -118.34581 AT&T ASP09.1 33.75 -118.342638 Print LA36XC216 33.75954 -118,3302Tint LA36XC583 33.76962 -118.34252 AT&T ASPiD 33.74821 4183332 print ILA36XC217 33.75712 -118.3336print LA36XC589 33.75546 -118.34894 AT&T ASP12 33.74841 -118.32487 Tint LA36XC218 33.75244 -118.334 Tint LA36XC590 33.74867 -118.34514 AT&T ASP13 33.74212 -118.33277 Tint LA36XC219 33.73721 -118.3302 print LA36XC591 33.76263 -118.33513 AT&T ASP14 33.76265 -118.33082 print LA36XC408 33.77609 -118.3168 print LA36XC608 33.78445 -118.4121 AT&T ASP16m1 33.77983 -118.322 Print LA36XC453 33.791709 -118.36850 Tint LA36XC610 33.745028 .118.38499 AT&T ASP17 33.776 -118.3317 Tint LA36XC454 33.76589 -118.3109 Tint LA36XC611 33.76868 -118.40277 AT&T SP18 33.78041 -118.3421 Print LA36XC51U 33.76912 -118.4142 print LA36XC612 33.78381 -118.40706 AT&T ASP29 33.78529 -118.34512 print LA36XC516 33.77096 -118.3961 print LA36RC613 33.80432 -118.38271 AT&T ASP32 33.76554 -118.32261 print LA36XC519 33.75492 -118.3351 Tint LA36XC614 33.77703 -118.34077 AT&T P33 33.7471 -118.31818 Tint LA36XC520 33.77589 -116.359 print LA36XC622 33.76267 -118.36983 AT&T ASP42 33.744397 •118.324822 Tint LA36XC521 33.77181 -118.3619 print LA36XC623 33.77411 -118.39303 AT&T ASP52 33.76236 .118.36987 print LA36XC522 33.73738 -118.332 print LA36XC624 33.77629 -118.33186 AT&T ASP59m1 33.732861 -118.334694 Tint LA36XC523 33.75335 -118.3268 Tint LA36XC625 33.80294 -118.38928 AT&T SP61 33.76773 -118.32229 Tint LA36XC524 33.76407 Print LA36XC626 33.79928 -118.36879 AT&T A5P62 33.76321 -118.32737 Tint LA36XC526 33.73561 -118.3477 Tint LA36XC635 33.73869 -118.35786 AT&T ASP63 33.758167 -11843297 print ILA36XC527 33.78833 -118.356944 print LA36XC637 33.78391 -118.35132 ZW -iAW02 33.78012 -118.40 print ILA36XC528 33.77406 -118.3538 print LA36XC639 33.7458333 -118.3372222 ZW HAW03 33.78173 118. print LA36#C530 33.7809444 -118.400277 Tint LA36XC640 33.73798 -118.33618 2W HAW04 33,78543 -1183857 Tint LA36XC534 1 33.79089 -118.3832 Tin[ LA36XC641 33.7384 -118.34449 HAWOS 33.78908 -118.38528 clot LA36XC535 33.76654 -118.3727 print LA36XC642 33.78382 418.35552 W HAW06 33.78766 -118.37637 Tint LA36XC536 33.79321 -118.365i*print ILA36XC646 33.77544 -118.40283 ZW IHAW07.1 33.790795 print LA36XC537 1 33.77874 -118.347 rant LA36RC647 33.78898 -118.38521 CROWN Proprietary & CASTLE Confidential k 16 D-128 List of All Existing and Proposed facilities (cont.) Carrier Ideli) Latitude Longitude artier Side1D Latitude Longitude trier ide1D Latitude Longitude Sprint LA36XC648 33.78238 -118.369 ZW SP02m1 33.727396 -118.32951 W SO SCL SAN PEDRO 1 -118.308895 33.716303 Sprint LA36XC649 33.78785 -118.38201 ZW SPOS 33.73684 -118.3297 W SO SCL SAN PEDRO 2 -118.302028 33.716818 Sprint LA36XC651 33.79048 .118.37287 ZW SP06 33.74163 -118.32621 W SO SCL SAN PEDRO 3 -118.303384 33.721565 Sprint tA36XC652 33.78028 -118,38791 ZW SP07m1 33.738929 -118.3363 ZW SO SCL SAN PEDRO 4 -118.303474 33.726101 Sprint LA36XC653 33.78042 -118.37651 W SP08 33.75886 -118.35815 ZW SO SCL SAN PEDRO 5 -118.310174 33.742245 Sprint LA36XC654 33.79638 -118.35687 W SP09 33.75436 .118.3488 ZW SO SCL SAN PEDRO 6 -118.305037 33.754887 Sprint LA36XC657 33.77517 -118.3216 ZW SP10 33.7489 -118.34495 W SO SCL SAN PEDRO 7 -118.302776 33.763453 Sprint LA36XC658 33.78545 -118.36296 ZW SP35 33.7605 -118.349 W SO SCL PALOS VERGES 1 -118.40954 33.782286 Sprint LA36XC659 33.77366 -118.36987 W SP16 33.76492 -118.3518 ZW SO SCL PALOS VERDES 10 -118.385454 33.768153 Sprint LA36XC662 33.77315 -118.35813 W SP17 33.76375 -118.3472 W SO SCL PALOS VERDES 2 -118.408992 33.769408 Sprint LA36XC663 33.76973 -116.35913 ZW P18 33.77335 -118.3482 ZW SO SCL PALOS VERDES 3 -118.410358 33.761353 MUS NO2m2 33.77881 -118.371 W SP19 33.7695 -118.342 W SO SCL PALOS VERDES 4 -118.42382 33.774696 US N05 33.79067 -118.35 W $P20 33.76733 -118.34151 W O SCL PALOS VERDES 5 -118.40953 33.775167 MUS N06 33.76271 -118.37 W SP21 33.7481 -118.31293 ZW SO SCL PALOS VERDES 6 -118.405096 33.788051 MUS N07 33.76816 .118,371 ZW P22 33.75471 -118.3148 ZW O SCL PALOS VERDES 7 -118.395735 33.788193 MUS N31 33.7854 -118.345 2W ISP23.1 33.73823 -118.3443 W SO SCL PALOS VERDES 8 -118.369334 33.739781 MUS N15 33.78063 -118,388 W SP24 33.73403 -118.3383 W O SCL PALOS VERDES 9 -118.364486 33.758782 Sprint NCAS054R : 13 33.76267 -118.36983 ZW SP25m1 33.735186 -118.354187 W SO SCL PALOS VERDES 11 -118.368853 33.775391 Sprint NCA5054R : 14 33.7741 -118.39303 MUS MB1008-001 33.78188 -118.4032 ZW SO SCL PALOS VERDES 12 -118.367588 33.784143 Sprint NCAS054R: 15 33.78028 -118.38791 MUS MB10D8-0005 33.75881 .118.35809 ZW O SCL PALOS VERDES 13 -118.332934 33.749477 Sprint NCA5054R : 16 33.77735 -118.37304 MUS MB100B-0006 33.76466 -118.3518 W SO SCL PALOS VERDES 14 -118.329719 33.746148 Sprint NCA5054R : 17 33.78238 -118.36944 MUS MB1008-0007 33.78457 -118,41166 W SO SCL PALOS VERDES 15 -118.318986 33.743179 Sprint NCA5054R : 18 33.78545 -118.3629 MUS MB1008-008 33.78393 -118.4071 W SO SCL PALOS VERDES 16 -118.331199 33.764385 5 riot NCA5054S: 01 33.80209 -118.36761 MUS MB1OOB-OCO9m2 33.74063 -118.3370 W SO SCL PALOS VERDES 17 -118.32499 33,760177 Sprint NCA50545:02 33.79321 418.36546 MUS MB10OB-OC10 33.74747 -118.3397 ZW SO SCL PALOS VERDES 18 -118.314171 33.767905 S riot NCA5054S: 03 33.78833 -118.3569444 MUS MB1008-OCSI 33.76025 SO SCL PALOS VERDES 19 -118.309292 33.771618 Sprint NCA50545: 04 33.78382 .118.35552 MUS TMB1008-OC12 33.7638 418.34 W O SCL PALOS VERDES 20 -118.315284 33.761589 SO SGL ROLLING HILLS ESTATES Sprint NCA5054S:05 33.77874 -118.34781 MUS MB100B-OC19 33.77589 -118.4031 W 1 -118.387828 33.773894 SO SCL ROLLING HILLS ESTATES Sprint NCA5054S: 06 33.77259 -118.33469 T&T LA0196 33.727526 -118.32913 ZW 10 -118.329586 33.779825 SO SCL ROLLING HILLS ESTATES Sprint NCA5054S: 07 33.77343 -118.32591 T&T LA0362 33.73285 -118.33465 W -118.384533 33.781481 SO SCL ROLLING HILLS ESTATES Sprint NCA5054S:09 33,79276 -118.3508 T&T L40351 33.736722 -118.35280 W 3 -118:378903 33.783917 SO SCL ROLLING HILLS ESTATES Sprint NCAS0545: 10 33.78581 -118.34418 T&T EL0495 33.737194 -118.39731 z -118.373511 33.781897 SO SCL ROLLING HILLS ESTATES 5 r.rt NCA5054S: 11 33.77589 -118.35906 T&T LA0361 33.738 -118.328972 ZW 5 _118.379208 33.774194 SO SCL ROLLING HILLS. ESTATES Sprint NCA5054S:12 33.77181 -118.36197 T&T EL0404 33.73875 .118.39705 W -118.362858 33.782333 SO SCL ROLLING HILLS ESTATES MUS PV02m2 33.77621 -118.375 T&T EL0403 33.73877 -118.3969 W 7 _118.360514 33.7687 SO SCL ROLLING HILLS ESTATES MUS PV07m6 33.7722 -118.361 T&T LA0194 33.740689 -118.36436 W 8 -118.35301 33.775039 SO SCL ROLLING HILLS ESTATES SO MUS PV10Am3 33.79664 -116.367 T&T LA0360 33.74430 -118.324633 ZW I- -118.341083 33.782411 PV10B 33.80098 -118.366 T&T LAC124 33.745278 -118.405444 MUS PV13 33.7764 -118.393 T&T LA0359 33.749917 -118.32625 MUS PV17m1 33.75783 -116.387 T&T CLV3925 L40358 33.753667 -118.327056 MUS PV18 33.768 -118.391 T&T ELOO56 33.7555 -118.30927 MUS PV19 33.76075 -118.39 T&T LAR062 33.759306 -118.379778 MUS PV20m3 33.80242 -118.372 T&T LA0456 33.761414 -118.392936 MUS PV22m2 33.77465 -118.322 T&T LAR065 33.7635 418.39225 MUS PV23.8 33.80482 -118.385 T&T LA0356 33.764528 -118.329806 MUS PV45m3 33.7908 -118.3 T&T LA0364 33.765894 -118.326028 MUS PV47 33.77383 -11834 T&T L7i0447/CLW3364/CLW1401/CLW4711 33.771903 -118.329611 MUS PV48 33.77223 -118.37 T&T LA.C380 33.773417 -118.373306 MU5 PV49 33.77899 -118.381 T&T ILA0095 33,7742061 10064 IvZw Spol 33.731395 -118.342911AT&T ILARD64 33.7795561 391028 SAT&T ILA0354 1 33.7892221 -118.3791391 CROWN Proprietary & .�.+ CASTLE Confidential ° i; D-129 Map of all existing and proposed facilities Proposed Nodes �.. .;r p 1'a l us '`-y • ,. I, tl�ri t t.Y 7! r} r r Ea' ■ILI X2131 Existing Wireless Faclilities � ■ � •' w c I'`altj<; ■ ■ Tor? n o `z 1"l�jFr AtiFV rt r L Prfles . ■ �y a j? i I arbor 01v s { � 4`lil it �� _, - H:� --it s� — wytN1 . y,SG70 ■ � PacthcG°' wy ■ ■ R069IZtI l HarbDr F _"- Golf Co ■ SSG481,' ■ Ft aI (� I� ■ }3artaryAra1 u Ksn Mdfk)V t .,::34 rt•-�. ■psi • ;;5m �,. ■ u F�.it �.�n,tl{- aG45 a OS ■■ ■ ■ RI li zt g mi I 1 f{a18� ■ NIPS . ■� ■, ', : rif fatery+ptiat � Navel &G35 ■ IIID tL ■.:4"' Park ¢ Reservation �Sc� ? ■ n C'■ �SG31 ■ - ��J,� ... &SG10: ■ ■ A �SG33 s Ohorcie < t,v r Fort'Sa sr t , : 0358 �5■ • Chi +fott+ B xf antuu Etvnd C:ont • ticUls6 PI.t14u@.i7C�;3Jr+c ■ C rw on r� ■ WSG47■ `�;ps Gi3e rirro ,� SG13 rn, -.� . _ ■ f'a! &SG12 ■f.r.atr. ■ I�6■ l�10 "s,1 n?:s of bre >="tftht`.StN Natl+F S � ': ��f`.•t I?:iltici Urranea •�.�dG,.Z2'--_.&Ag 94 - pfess�r•:s. � ■ Ve ties > ff1 ;f 4:11:11I'edrt .�OM35L - 215;-v- yY-94h-St �5 69 ■ i�aa�e �, IWSG74 Dana 7r.�,T,, tti FrerWship Park !iSatf'u.:6Nf'r ''`d'i I !I') :•,1 j miles �•... c � v' h `:::I Smae: 1:37,610 CROWN Proprietary & ..0 CASTLE Confidential 18 D-130 Exhibit I Address Exhibit Alternative Locations Lat Long Owner number ASG32 A (Primary) 33.76295102 -118.375093 Exhibit ASG32 B (Alternative 33.76329544 -118.375562 11 1) Public ROW See alternative analysis Exhibit ASG32 C (Alternative 33.76305364 -118.3751772 12 3) Public ROW See alternative analysis Exhibit ASG32 D (Alternative 33.76290739 -118.3754228 13 3) Public ROW Outside coverage objective Exhibit ASG32 E 33.76271 -118.37 14 CROWN ]Proprietary & •./ CASTLE Confidential Property Owner phone Zoning General Plan Why it is worse than Owner number Designation Designation primary? N/A Public ROW N/A Public ROW See alternative analysis N/A Public ROW See alternative analysis N/A Public ROW See alternative analysis T -Mobile USA N/A Public ROW Outside coverage objective 1 19 D-131 Alternative Analysis — (ASG32 Location B) G32 SIP goo dBm -95 d6n) 35 dBiln T5 d6 35 ds: -n Ism Telecommunications Facility CROWN Proprietary & CASTLE Confidential a 0 1 20 D-132 • Ommu M\ ri tkid< Az4knq • 61"Ie • • • 00"908" Hd 4*1 • • • SG32 El A 04C _ • AS A G32 SIP goo dBm -95 d6n) 35 dBiln T5 d6 35 ds: -n Ism Telecommunications Facility CROWN Proprietary & CASTLE Confidential a 0 1 20 D-132 Alternative Analysis — (ASG32 Location Q • • • • LL • • • 96ASG32 A dd' sea -I C ASG3 A BG32 • RSRP : <=-105dBrn L ............. • -105 to -95 OEM 4,-95 to 35d6rn • •.0 -85 to -75 drum e -75 to -65 d6m 9 =>-65 dBm Wireless Telecommunications Facility MNode AT&T NDCIe *On -Air CROWN Proprietary & _..0 CASTLE Confidential A"Oh" f , J III 0 Possible Locations Passed 1 21 D-133 Alternative Analysis — (ASG32 Location D) Rage ♦Mabel Cm .Qmu ROM- ago hur h AK lr� 16 go % Oo z 5G32_W AS 32_C • AS G312 40 -a oo*,Oel* *a a a jCROWN Proprietary & CASTLE Confidential 1 22 D-134 Crown Castle NG West LLC Site Specific Alternative Narrative for ASG32 The Foundation for a Wireless World. CrownCastle.com D-135 M 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. 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', The 25 -foot 6 -inch tall street light that Crown Castle proposes to replace is just ' Notwithstanding the presentation of this site-specific alternatives analysis pursuant to Chapter 12.18 of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, Crown Castle reserves its rights to challenge any portion of the City's requirements under Chapter 12.18 to the extent that such requirements violate state and/or federal law, including, but not limited to, Public Utilities Code sections 7901 and 7901.1 and section 253 of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Foundation for a Wireless World. CrownCastle.com D-136 one of other s I. dila dy sized street lights �ocated along the south side o Scotwood Dr. a6) To ,prevent the facility from dominating the surrounding area; iii) To minimize significant view impacts from surrounding properties; fir\. N uses existinginfrastructure in thl ROW tfigi, foliage and topographic features to minimize significant view impacts from surrounding properties. The SCN is located on south side of Scotwood Dr, amongst mature shrubsand a large• r ; ,• ,i tree. The I .1 does not �. t• ��� .' .,�:� ta:� i,"V`.. Irl ::I�� ,' r ,: � �Cf�l ?I� ii)�C ., ,� •.,;� •��ii•)i� , �.�, �l•;��i' \'' ! '� �;,',� ��l)i r �"'� ��t^\' �,�:ill ` 1�I �; ;' <.�i(� ?Ct �� �•I ','fir ;�, iv) That achieves compatibility with the community and in compliance with RPVMC Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration). r y r• • �'i�)r�: �• � i � 'r;� �� '�tl'���' ,'ii I 'r C= 1. The Foundation for a Wireless World. CrownCastle.corn D-137 Iii i.��' ♦!i rel ( �ilfil�ll 3) Section 17.02.040(A)(1 2) of RPVMC defines "Structure99 as anything joined together in a definitive manner, which is located on or on top of the ground on a parcel of land utilizes/ 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. the RPVMC Section0. 04(View Preservation 1d Restoration) can be found to be applicable o the siting of wireless facilities inN ROW (it cannot), Crown Castle's SCN achieve compatibility with the surrounding community by be�ng designed to minimize visual, noise d other a b) Screening shall be designed to be architectural compatible with surrounding structures, using appropriate techniques to camouflage, disguise, and/or blend into the environment, including landscaping, color, and other techniques to minimize the facilities visual impact as well as be compatible with the architectural character of the surrounding buildings or structures in terms of color, size, proportion, style and quality Crown Castle's SCN is compatible with the character of surrounding structures in terms of The Foundation for a wireless World. CrownCastle.com D-138 color, size, propf L` style / d quality. Moreover, o l«\ r t e proposed \N is located n the ROW - in ! , „yr_ill « .r.",a in the Cityalready impacted with roadway improvements,till and other uses 2nd appurtenances typical of- and proper to — the ROW. ca Facilities shall be located such that views from a residential structure are not significantly impaired. Facilities shall also he 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. ®4® (View Preservation and Restoration). Section 0 .0A..(A ( 1 4 ) o Mdefines as including bo. "near meaning and/orviews of a natural setting on the peninsula; peninsula, Asuch s the ocean, Its lights,etc. The ordinance c intends s o prevent !en the significant l Iviews � �! ,�),I�;! i ! �I andandl! ,N maintenance oI privacy. ;Ili! �) ;�>i � '�:�'� irl .:�.1� �i�.il ,� 1 �.�.�� � !�!.i ' <�!(!1 � �✓`%i !,!��V' l iii !a. �)! " . ll;i;� �I�li�i � .+il;li�i�'. 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. r'� ;r -Ix , All facilities shall be designed and located in such a manner as to avoid adverse impacts on traffic safety. wouldThe SCN is not located in the lanes of travel, nor does it extend in any way over the roadway. The replacement streetlight would continue to provide lighting along Scotwood Dr. The SCN is ' not have adverse impactson traffic safety. The Foundation for a Wireless World. CrownCastle.com D-139 MUM ;fit s ,r, All facilities shall have subdued colors and non -reflective materials that blend with the materials, and colors of the surrounding area and structures. CrownCastle's..I blends into the surrounding area and structures because it replaces existing streetlight pole. The SCN would match In color 1+1e existing streetlights along the south side , of Scotwood Dr. The applicant shall use the least visible equipment possible. Antenna elements shall he 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. IC- (�) 1C,1�'t�� l_';.� "CR �.11'�l"'llll�i�i_ ','•,rli� Ill��`_.�:r I �.:�)C� Il (11111�'Il�� Ili." �� .��`� �'� O I(iC l CIG'),, A,'C�> (�. f f: �-1� l' .ce�� ;. �rt�`, `�r!)�lll� ���)I ��1: `�����1 ., �`;�ili �. �,�1 � � �%_;Li �;��'r i'�n� I���1 C: ?i • !, 1 ; � f• �r: �i - i i , ;� . � 1 L+o � �) I i ; i � � , I �� � �, , '� . i � u i� 11 �) .`.; � (1 � i� �) , «' ii � � i �f •r � � «!f -� �f_ iii ��"i �' "�l ,t' n. The Foundation for a Wireless World. CrownCastle.com D-140 equipment, other than antennas, the City needs to make the final Ifl",(.;i'il':Ilailol as to whether vaulting or Crown Castle's proposed ed ji,nl utility cabinet ,h._. least visibleequipment possible. 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. RPViT,IC Section 12.18.200(Location Restrictions) s,) i) gl / disfavors vo wireless facilities in A ROW o ROW mounted LeCi ;o a Ie1,r pole that not replacing an existing pole Il .fotherwise permittedlocation. Crown Castle's inconsistent with this. Per Section 12.18.080(A)(12)(a) Crown Castle needs an exception because its accessory equipment is not being proposed underground. Crown Castle has undergrounded to the extent feasible all accessory equipment, with the exception _i` f the joint utility equipment cabinet that would house CrownCastle's accessory i; iit (1' a.''(, SCE'sped Per Section 120180190, 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 31-32(c)(7,)(C jii) The Foundation for a Wireless World. CrownCastle.com D-141 Crown Castle holds a certificate of public convenience and necessity ("CPCN") from the California Plublic Utilities Commission ("CPUC") to expand the availability of wireless networks throughout the State. Please see Exhibit D1b. Crown Castle's SCN qualifies as "personal wireless services facility" as defined in United States Code, Title 47, section 332(c)(7)(C)(ii)y 2. The applicant has provided the city with, a clearlydefined technical service objective and a clearly defined potential site search area, - Crown Castle has provided clearly defined technical service objective and a clearly defined potential site search area. Please See Exhibits C3a-e. 3. The applicant has provided the city with a meaningful comparative analysis that includes the factualreasons why any alternative iocation(s) or design(s) I suggested by the city or othenwise 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; anal With this site specific comparative analysis, Crown Castle is providing the City with meaningful comparative analysis that includes the factual reasons why the Primary location is superior to the other Alternatives evaluated. The Primary is superior to Alternatives because it would be less visually prominent location to surrounding properties and the community. The Alternatives also do not meet the RF coverage objective for this proposed SCN. The visual impacts created from the proposed SCN would be analogous to the visual impacts currently created by the existing streetlight. 4. The applicant has provided the city with a meaningful comparative analysis that includes the factual reasons why the proposed location and design deviates are the least noncompliant location and design necessanl to reasonably achieve the applicants reasonable technical service objectives With this site specific comparative analysis, Crown Castle is providing the City with meaningful comparative analysis that includes the factual reasons why the Primary location is the least noncompliant location and design necessary to reasonably achieve Crown Castle's reasonable technical service objectives. The Foundation for a Wireless World. CrownCastle.com D-142 both Crown Castle's accessory equipment and SCE's electric power meter pedestal. Although the ordinance calls for undergrounding all accessory equipment, Crown Castle believes that its joint equipment cabinet represents the least noncompliant location and design because it would introduce the fewest number of new vertical elements into the ROW, b. Only pole -mounted antennas shall be permitted in the fight -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 1 2. a 8.22® (State or Federal Law). CrownCastle's SCN would be attached to25-foot 6 -inch replacement ..Ill c:l "eI .ghi No new pole is needed eded Io requested. C. Utility Poles. The maximum height of any antenna shall not exceed 48 inches above the height of an existing utility pole, nor shall any portion of the antenna or equipment 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. 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. I,r. iC�./.1 as1��.SL,I. would not have any pole mounted equipment lower than 16 raff' This provisioni:; also inapplicable because Crown Castle's ', S.N antennas ilk not e `;I,"'n over any drivable road surface. e. replacement Poles. if an applicant proposes to replace a pole in order to accommodate a proposed facility, the pole shall be designed to resemble the appearance and dimensions of existing poles near the proposed location, including size, height, color, materials and style to the maximum extent feasible. /:� .�' .f� it ri )) ;rs�,1• l�i�' � I���.�A I� .fll The Foundation for a Wireless World. CrownCastle.com D-143 rl • to have the lowest antennas to illi',- ground ;1F rr,.sIbi"' in accordance nC:' with RPVMC Section 12.18.080(A)(7), Space. T( e SCN conforms to the maximum m l : en feasible h the color and style ofexisting streetlight poles ;plc.ng S_,,r 'oo Dr. f. Pole mounted equipment, exclusive of antennas, shall not exceed six cubic feet in dimension. Excludingantennas, Cin Castle's oe mounted equipment would be limited o some cabling connecting the antennas to power and the fiber optic backbone, connectors, brackets, r ir.., e< and GPS.Crown Castle's pole mounted Cd eql ip1.. excluding y.i t„ 'i':;s would d therefore not exceed six cubic feet in dlimension. h. An exception shall be required to place a new pole in the public right -off way. Of an exception is granted for placement of new poles in the fight -of -way: �?'ll 111M �' i. All cables, including, but not limited to, electrical and utility cables, shall he run within the interior of the pole and shall he camouflaged or hidden to the fullest extent feasible. For all wooden poles wherein interior installation is infeasible, conduit and cables attached to the exterior of poles shall be mounted flush thereto and ,painted to match the pole. All cables for this SCN, including, but not limited to, electrical and utility cables, will run within the interior of the replacement streetlight pole. 12018,080 (A)(7) Space, Each facility shall be designed to occupy the least amount of space in the fight -of -way that is technically feasible. ?�'� I i- r�ri �.,i n%I,� .f Cr` �_� �� �. � IIS II` l �'i" • � ��. !lri The Foundation for a Wireless World, CrownCastle.com D-144 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 (Ahg end Lads Each facility shall be properly engineered to withstand wand loads as required by this code or any daily adopted or incorporated code. An evaluation of high wind load capacity shall include the impact of modification of an existing facility. Ir: i(R11i 12,180080 (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 fight -of -way, or safety hazards to pedestrians and motorists and In compliance with Section 17.48.070(lntersectlon 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.OA The intersection visibility triangle being the area formed by the intersection of extended garb lines and a line joining points on the curb sixty feet (measured along the curb lines) from the point of intersection of the curb line extensions. Crown Castle's SCN is located within 60 -feet of an intersection. However, Crown Castle feels the "intersection visibility triangle" section of the ordinance for this particular location is invalid for several reasons. Forst, this particular intersection is a 7 -intersection," with one stop sign for users of the ROW traveling from Scotwood Dr to Whitley Collins Dr. Second, the proposed joint use equipment pedestal is located among a large existing row of bushes, therefore screening the piece of equipment from view. Lastly, the visual impacts created from the proposed SCN would be analogous to the visual impacts currently created by the existing streetlight. 12.18.080 (A)(10) Public Facilities. A facility shall not be located within any portion of the public fight -of -way interfering with access to a fire hydrant, fire station, fire escape, water valve, underground vault, valve housing structure, or any other public : i' or safetyfacility. The Foundation for a Wireless World. crowncastle.com D-145 Crown Castle's SCN is not located within any portion of the public right-of-way that would interfere with access to a fire hydrant, fire station, fire escape, water valve, underground vault, valve housing structure, or any other public health or safety facility. 12.18.080 (A)(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 gutter flow line. 12.18.080 (A)(12) Accessory Equipment. Accessory Equipment. Not including the electric meter, all accessory equipment shall be located underground, except as provided below: a. Unless city staff determines that there is no room in the public right-of-way for undergrounding, or that undergrounding is not feasible, an exception shall be required in order to place accessory equipment above -ground and concealed with natural or manmade features to the maximum extent possible. If Crown Castle undergrounded its accessory equipment that would result in compliance with this ordinance section but multiple above ground venting stacks, each approximately 22 -inches in diameter and approximately 40 -inches in height would be required. Crown Castle is requesting an exception per RPVMC Section 12.18.190 to place its accessory equipment in an above -ground joint utility cabinet with SCE's electric meter pedestal. Crown Castle has not proposed any additional screening because there is amble foliage and topographic features that screen the SCN from surrounding properties. Crown Castle is not opposed to providing additional screening so long as the City's requirements are reasonably related to the impacts created by the proposed facility. Crown Castle submits that a joint utility cabinet would be less intrusive, physically and visually, than a configuration featuring a subterranean equipment vault. The Foundation for a Wireless World. CrownCastle.com D-146 f i_I I `':iL �'i i�l'��,��tiC�ii i�l � il_pl � �'-.ilii��-"'�• -. �1 i �'�)t ,("'C� l�� '.� �.l �.��;(:; til t�'j� '�`' 12°18.080 (A)(13) LandacAR nw. Where appropriate, each facility shall be installed so as to maintain and enhance existing landscaping on the site, including trees, foliage and shrubs. Additional landscaping shall be planted, irrigated and maintained by applicant where such landscaping is deemed necessary by the city to provide screening or to conceal the facility. The Foundation for a Wireless World. crowncastle.com D-147 12818°08IA)(14) Signage. No facility shall bear any signs or advertising devices other than certification, warning or other signage required by lair or permitted by the city. 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. Crown Castle's gi g Would be shielded by nfoliage and topographic I features to the extentanypti' p.cts on u'oundinneighborhood would b eliminated d o the maximum exiei ii possible. d. unless otherwise required under FAA or FCC regulations, applicants may install only timed or motion -sensitive tight controllers and tights, and must install such tights so as to avoid illumination impacts to adjacent properties to the maximum extent feasible. extentCrown 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 aibl The Foundation for a wireless World. CrownCastle.com D-148 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 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 has submitted a Noise Study that confirms the SCN's complies with the Noise ordinance. - Exhibit 12.18.080 (A)c77i Secur6t� 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 andfor accessibility, a facility has the potential to become an attractive nuisance. Additionally, no lethal devices or eluents shall be installed as a security device. The Foundation for a Wireless World. CrownCastle.com D-149 s ti; ��L iii) j ��.. ... i �, - +� �I � � �-� ( �/ "• �� �t I r� _� -'ilc� M-11111 C� !i. ( ` ;fel • �rCl '�C� .��til 11 ^I-�1 �) il'�)i"' crimes. a 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, uudergrounding 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 giver. B. The proposed facility has leen designed and located in compliance with all applicable provisions of this chapter. The Foundation for a Wireless World. CrownCastle.com D-150 Ultimately, it will be up to the City to determine which accessory equipment configuration is the most compliant. C. if applicable, the applicant has demonstrated its inability to locate on I existing infrastructure. Crown Castle is proposing to attach to existing n:(n. I ure streetlight Ni)ie in the Vii;' l This provision i inapplicable. f;l!:'. D. The applicant has provided sufficient evidence supporting the applicant's claim that it has the right to enter the public right-of-way ay pursuant to Mate or federal lain, or the applicant has entered into a franchise agreement with the City pennitting then to use the public right-of-way. Crown Castle has provided a copy of its certificate of public convenience and necessity (" CPCN" ). See Exhibit ®1 b. Crown Castle has entered into a franchise agreement with the City permitting use of the ROW and city infrastructure. See Exhibit ®1a. Crown Castle has provided sufficient evidence that it has the right to enter the ROW pursuant to state and federal law, as well as by contract with the City. 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. Ji I' l,iri ,� �� • i � �;i� it ll,' � iii The Foundation for a Wireless World. CrownCastle.com D-151 F I `� Meets RIF Coverage Objective: Up and Down Scotwood Dr and Whitley Collins Dr. The Foundation for a Wireless World. CrownCastle.com D-152 Alternative 1 is a proposed streetlight replacement on the west side of Whitley Collins, approximately 190 -feet to the northwest of the Primary. The Primary location is superior to Alternative 1 because it is not as visually prominent. Alternative 1 does not have mature landscaping around the location while the Primary does. It is also in front of residences as compared to the side of a residence like the Primary location. The Primary, being screened by large bushes and shrubs, will have fewer users of Scotwood ®r likely notice the SCN. This Alternative does not achieve the RF coverage objective; therefore, it is not a viable candidate. FUl kf4 t L.\,INOM's 11 Does Not Meet RF Coverage Objective Alternative 2 is located approximately 45 -feet north of the Primary on the opposite side of Scotwood 'Dr. Alternative 2 does not have mature landscaping around the location while the Primary does. It is also at an intersection and stop sign. Therefore, many more users of the RDW will pass by Alternative 2 and possibly take notice of the SCN. The Primary, being screened by large bushes and shrubs, will have fewer users of Scotwood Dr likely notice the SCN. This Alternative does not achieve the PF coverage objective; therefore, it is not a viable candidate. M Does ;R .. Coverage Ob rt Alternative 3 is located approximately 100 -feet west of the Primary on the west side of Whitley Collins. Alternative 3 does not have mature landscaping around the location while the Primary does. It is also in front of residences as compared to the side of a residence like the Primary location. Therefore, many more users of the ROW will pass by Alternative 3 and possibly take notice of the SCN. The Primary, being screened by large bushes and shrubs, will have fewer users of Scotwood Dr likely notice the SCN. This Alternative does not achieve the RF coverage objective; therefore, it is not a viable candidate, Nur UN Crown Castle has presented a comparative analysis between the Primary and the Alternatives that were evaluated.oanalysis demonstrates it is using the "least intrusive means" to achieve its RIF objective by using minimally sized small cell technology and equipment, and minimum antenna heights in order to conform to the maximum extent possible with community values expressed in the City's design and development standards. The Foundation for a Wireless World. CrownCastle.com D-153 CCROWN v CCASTLE August 7, 2017 Nicole Jules, Deputy Director, Acting Director Public Works Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Crown Castle 200 Spectrum Center Drive Suite 1700 Irvine, CA 92618 RE: $hot Clock TollinE Agreement and Notice of Shot Clock ExpirutW.n Per RPVNIC SCction 12A8,o6o (Q(a) for Crown Castle Wireless Communication Faeglity Site ASG32 - New Shot Clock Expiration Date: ___ September 3og 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 riot, jwd to ta6-! 91:11ttu action within Ow application timeframe., but to take a: final nation im the .sppiicalion Mithin the flare jwri4A. "Sete New C'ingtidar V ir0ess P(N, LLC(t. 'i"ctwn q,( Stoddard, 2ot2 U,S. Dict. LEXIS tRb;5;l 1,13 t5 Feb. t6, 20L2). ACCOVdingly, the city- must Ecatt plety all of its re,61ew within the Shit C -"-k periud. bell Atlantic 4fohile of R,A.Itester. LY. v.. fcptt n Of Fro nd{'qt oil, 2012 LI—S, DiSt. LeXi:c i14:dep ( .ClXY. Jan. ;t, 2012). Thk means that the City Must issltc all pearinit:..4 required for t-Ortstivetion to crrsnrotr,nre within the asiplplicailile Shot Onck time period, absent perntitisrl toliin- fiatpiratiun of the FCC Shot Flock time jwi*xls mean they proJei•.t is shorcl ready, not merely 1pspi.'ed for another round of bureatuvrcitic inenia such as .an `tocroachnient jwrmit or appeals processes or negtptisttiun 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 659641 also contains an express legislative finding that wireless telecommunications facilities are a matter of statewide concern, not a "municipal affair" as that germ 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: i ! This document satisfies Crown Castle's noticing requirement of Shot Clock expiration per RPVMC Section 12.18.o6o (C)(3). w 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. 0 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. A,,41� Aaron Snyder CROWN CASTLE NO WEST LLC Nicole Jules CrTy OF RANcHo PALOS VERDES The f=oundation for a Wireless World. CrownCastle.com D-154 Ara Mihranian From: Jim Pugh <jim@sunbeamtech.net> Sent: Friday, June 2, 2017 5:21 PM To: Charles Eder Cc: Nicole Jules Subject: 29504 Scotwood - ASG -32 B e fore and after photos Permit # 11034 Cell site mock up constructed on 6/2 Photo sim placed on 6/2 Clock can start today All equipment / Antenna is constructed per plan 1 D-155 . • wig? •�,�. �, •2 N 1 � f . by1�4 J v� IIr � :; NAY. �: •'�' ��• r, • \r ; �* i ,�1Y'.�.�,,'` �'-� �� '•t�J //jam • ' � ,,��/ : ate' f . „ , a .,., ` Li;�•�'"�� � (_ fti`�Y'+��i� fir,/ � f*{`a � >.w;,7Dz - '�.�� <r a� -..-tel, .� �. �� •�i/�'�'3 `i... -�=,�r�'1r''�.�* J i D-159 Jim Pugh Public Works Inspector Cell - (310) 621-8865 Sent from my iPhone Jim Pugh Public Works Inspector Cell - (310) 621-8865 Sent from my iPhone D-161 Ara 1901ohranian From: Nancy Penate Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 7:53 AM To: Charles Eder Subject: FW: Proposed Cell Tower 29504 Scottwood For your records... From: Ardi [mailto:ardit@compuserve.com] Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2017 9:07 AM To: PublicWorks <PublicWorks@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Proposed Cell Tower 29504 Scottwood Mr. Eder, This week we received the notice for public hearing regarding regarding AS G32 — wireless telecomm facility on Scottwood drive. Your name was mentioned as contact to share any correspondence prior to July 28 so that it would be included in the planning commission report. I am forwarding the note (see below) that I sent early last month on this on topic. I did not receive any feedback since then. Can you please confirm receipt of this email and any reports/research that may have been done regarding the concern noted below. I plan to attend the hearing. In addition, either via email or during the hearing, please advise on the following: - expected start of the project - time for completion, per details noted in AS G32 report - will there any additional excavation + removal of greenery beyond what was already done to setup the mock- up? - expected start of service (e.g., by AT&T, Verison, etc.) via the new cell tower Thank you for your attention. Ardi Tavakol 29504 Whitley Collins Dr., RPV Frown: Ardi Sent: Friday, June 2, 2017 1:05 PM To: publicworks@rpvca.gov Subject: Proposed Cell Tower 29504 Scottwood Hello, Today a mock-up cell tower was installed right in front our property (29504 Whitley Collins). My wife has been in touch with you regarding the effect of microwave from the potential tower. I would like to voice some concern about our property value if this tower is actually installed at this same D-162 location. Should we ever decide to sell our property, the visibility (adjacent to a light tower) and health concerns can potentially affect some potential buyers and, hence, negatively impact the value of our property. Has the City done any studies regarding the impact of cell towers installed within 150 feet of a single family property? A web search shows different findings across many studies but mostly lean towards a negative impact (anywhere up to 10% drop in value). Does the city plan to compensate property owners in immediate vicinity of such towers? Whenever you schedule a public hearing regarding this tower, please be prepared to share any information you have may gathered in studying potential sites. Thank you for help, ArdiTavakol 29504 Whitley Collins Dr., RPV D-163 Ara Mihranian From: Becky Martin on behalf of Phone -PW -Main Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 7:14 AM To: Charles Eder Subject: FW: Request to not Install Crown Castle Cell Unit at 29504 Scotwood Drive From: Guity [mailto:guity2007@a verizon.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 6:01 AM To: PublicWorks <PublicWorks@rpvca.gov> Subject: Request to not Install Crown Castle Cell Unit at 29504 Scotwood Drive Hi, I am resident at 29504 Whitley Collins Drive. My home is the one that you can see in the background of all the photos that you have provided as part of ASG32 antenna installation. I am right next to this antenna as my office is less than 100ft away from this. This cell antenna will be right in front of my eye sight daily as my office (which I work 10 hours daily) is right next to it. I have a major concern of installation of this unit. My concern is the EMF that this unit is projecting. Please don't tell me that the EMF is very low. I have Thyroid and my doctor asked me to not even have cell phone in my office. I am doing all I can to reduce EMF in my house. Our cellphones have reduced EMP device added to them. I have purchased mat around the house that is connected to ground so it drains electricity from our bodies. We turn off all the Bluetooth and wireless connectivity. My best friend died of brain tumor. I really do not want a cellular antenna with additional EMF install right next to my house. I know that my family is only one voice but let me know what I can do to not get this install in this location. Thank you, -Guity Tavakol D-164 Ara Mihranian From: Charles Eder Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 8:14 AM To: ardit@compuserve.com' Subject: RE: Proposed Cell Tower 29504 Scottwood Good morning Ardi, Thank you for your correspondence. We will include this in the package that will be sent to the Planning Commission for review. To answer your questions below: -- There is no expected start date for the project, as it will be decided by the Planning Commission on August 8th. If it is approved, the applicant would need to meet any conditions set forth by the Commission and may take several weeks. -- The construction may take less than a week, but it is still dependent on approval and/or conditions. -- There will be additional removal of greenery, because one pole would need to be removed. -- We are only aware of the completion of the construction of the cell site (if it is approved). The cell carrier would have their scheduled timeline on when that will go online. But I suspect it will be as soon as the site is powered up and live. Charles Eder, PE Department of Public Works Citv of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 L IR From: Ardi [mailto:ardit@compuserve.com] Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2017 9:07 AM To: PublicWorks <PublicWorks@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Proposed Cell Tower 29504 Scottwood Mr. Eder, This week we received the notice for public hearing regarding regarding AS G32 — wireless telecomm facility on Scottwood drive. Your name was mentioned as contact to share any correspondence prior to July 28 so that it would be included in the planning commission report. I am forwarding the note (see below) that I sent early last month on this on topic. I did not receive any feedback since then. Can you please confirm receipt of this email and any reports/research that may have been done regarding the concern noted below. I plan to attend the hearing. D-165 In addition, either via email or during the hearing, please advise on the following: - expected start of the project - time for completion, per details noted in AS G32 report - will there any additional excavation + removal of greenery beyond what was already done to setup the mock- up? - expected start of service (e.g., by AT&T, Verison, etc.) via the new cell tower Thank you for your attention. ArdiTavakol 29504 Whitley Collins Dr., RPV From: Ardi Sent: Friday, June 2, 2017 1:05 PM To: publicworks rpvca.gov Subject: Proposed Cell Tower 29504 Scottwood Hello, Today a mock-up cell tower was installed right in front our property (29504 Whitley Collins). My wife has been in touch with you regarding the effect of microwave from the potential tower. I would like to voice some concern about our property value if this tower is actually installed at this same location. Should we ever decide to sell our property, the visibility (adjacent to a light tower) and health concerns can potentially affect some potential buyers and, hence, negatively impact the value of our property. Has the City done any studies regarding the impact of cell towers installed within 150 feet of a single family property? A web search shows different findings across many studies but mostly lean towards a negative impact (anywhere up to 10% drop in value). Does the city plan to compensate property owners in immediate vicinity of such towers? Whenever you schedule a public hearing regarding this tower, please be prepared to share any information you have may gathered in studying potential sites. Thank you for help, Ardi Tavakol 29504 Whitley Collins Dr., RPV D-166 Ara Mihranian From: Charles Eder Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 8:14 AM To: ardit@compuserve.com' Subject: RE: Proposed Cell Tower 29504 Scottwood Good morning Ardi, Thank you for your correspondence. We will include this in the package that will be sent to the Planning Commission for review. To answer your questions below: -- There is no expected start date for the project, as it will be decided by the Planning Commission on August Stn If it is approved, the applicant would need to meet any conditions set forth by the Commission and may take several weeks. -- The construction may take less than a week, but it is still dependent on approval and/or conditions. -- There will be additional removal of greenery, because one pole would need to be removed. -- We are only aware of the completion of the construction of the cell site (if it is approved). The cell carrier would have their scheduled timeline on when that will go online. But I suspect it will be as soon as the site is powered up and live. Charles Eder, PE Department of Public Works Citv of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 L IR From: Ardi [mailto:ardit@compuserve.com] Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2017 9:07 AM To: PublicWorks <PublicWorks@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Proposed Cell Tower 29504 Scottwood Mr. Eder, This week we received the notice for public hearing regarding regarding AS G32 — wireless telecomm facility on Scottwood drive. Your name was mentioned as contact to share any correspondence prior to July 28 so that it would be included in the planning commission report. I am forwarding the note (see below) that I sent early last month on this on topic. I did not receive any feedback since then. Can you please confirm receipt of this email and any reports/research that may have been done regarding the concern noted below. I plan to attend the hearing. D-167 In addition, either via email or during the hearing, please advise on the following: - expected start of the project - time for completion, per details noted in AS G32 report - will there any additional excavation + removal of greenery beyond what was already done to setup the mock- up? - expected start of service (e.g., by AT&T, Verison, etc.) via the new cell tower Thank you for your attention. Ardi Tavakol 29504 Whitley Collins Dr., RPV From: Ardi Sent: Friday, June 2, 2017 1:05 PM To: publicworksOrpvca.gov Subject: Proposed Cell Tower 29504 Scottwood Hello, Today a mock-up cell tower was installed right in front our property (29504 Whitley Collins). My wife has been in touch with you regarding the effect of microwave from the potential tower. I would like to voice some concern about our property value if this tower is actually installed at this same location. Should we ever decide to sell our property, the visibility (adjacent to alight tower) and health concerns can potentially affect some potential buyers and, hence, negatively impact the value of our property. Has the City done any studies regarding the impact of cell towers installed within 150 feet of a single family property? A web search shows different findings across many studies but mostly lean towards a negative impact (anywhere up to 10% drop in value). Does the city plan to compensate property owners in immediate vicinity of such towers? Whenever you schedule a public hearing regarding this tower, please be prepared to share any information you have may gathered in studying potential sites. Thank you for help, Ardi Tavakol 29504 Whitley Collins Dr., RPV � •i Ara Mihranian From: Ardi <ardit@compuserve.com> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 4:49 AM To: Ara Mihranian; WirelessTF Cc: Guity Tavakol Subject: Re: Appeal for Wireless Telecom Permit ASG NO 32 (Scottwood and Whitley Collins) Ara, Thank you very much for the feedback. If indeed they are considering that new location it would be most welcome news for Guity and I. Sincerely, Ardi From: Ara Mihranian Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 10:15 PM To: 'Ardi' ; WirelessTF Cc: Guity Tavakol Subject: RE: Appeal for Wireless Telecom Permit ASG NO 32 (Scottwood and Whitley Collins) want to add that I will email you as soon as I hear is a new location is being proposed. I believe the applicant is exploring located the facility at the intersection of Crest Road and Whitley Collins. Ara Ara Michael Mihranian Community Development Director 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5228 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) aram@rpvca.gov .'U.I.u`►` !zL*111*COY/ ADo you really need to print this e-mail? E-1 This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. From: Ara Mihranian Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 10:04 PM To: 'Ardi' <ardit@compuserve.com>; WirelessTF <WirelessTF@rpvca.gov> Cc: Guity Tavakol <guity.ktl@verizon.net> Subject: RE: Appeal for Wireless Telecom Permit ASG NO 32 (Scottwood and Whitley Collins) Mr. and Mrs. Tavakol, The City is in receipt of your email and questions. See below for responses following each question. Ara Ara Michael Mihranian Community Development Director 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5228 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) aram@rpvca.gov www.rpvca.gov ADo you really need to print this e-mail? This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. From: Ardi [mailto:ardit@compuserve.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 3:31 PM To: WirelessTF <WirelessTF@rpvca.gov> Cc: Guity Tavakol <guity.ktl@verizon.net> Subject: Appeal for Wireless Telecom Permit ASG NO 32 (Scottwood and Whitley Collins) Hi Art, E-2 This note is in relation to a notice we received in the mail regarding appeal by Crown Castle regarding Permit No 32 which was turned down by the Planning commission during the last Aug meeting. We live in the property at 29504 Whitley Collins, directly facing the proposed telecom antenna. Our objections to this installation was voiced (by email and also in person) at the planning commission meeting (also supported by other residents in the community. Question 1: Will the City Council be reviewing the discussion notes and related material that was covered by the commission and residents during that meeting? Yes, the City Council will receive and review a complete record covered by the Planning Commission. Question 2: Has there been any changes / updates to the proposer antenna relative to what was presented during the Planning commission meeting in August? If so, are those plans available online for review? Staff is currently working with the Applicant to identify an alternative location. That information will be made available to the public next week when the staff report is released. Until then, the proposal remains on the street light considered by the Planning Commission Question 3: Is format for the City Council meeting similar to the Planning commission with residents having an opportunity for a 3 min verbal discussion? Yes. Question 4: Has the City Council reviewed / voted on other similar permits that were initially denied by the planning commission and then appealed by Crown Castle? If so, what were the outcomes of those earlier hearings? No. This is the first appeal public hearing at the City Council level. Question 5: Is this the last meeting before the final decision for this permit request? It depends on whether the Council feels they have the information needed to render a decision. Thank you in advance for your assistance and feedback. Ardi & Guity Tavakol 310-541-1394 E-3 Ara Mihranian From: Ara Mihranian Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 10:04 PM To: 'Ardi'; WirelessTF Cc: Guity Tavakol Subject: RE: Appeal for Wireless Telecom Permit ASG NO 32 (Scottwood and Whitley Collins) Mr. and Mrs. Tavakol, The City is in receipt of your email and questions. See below for responses following each question. Ara Ara Michael Mihranian Community Development Director CINOF RAhGi0P,4tD6\ARDEs 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5228 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) aram(D_rpvca.gov www.rpvca.gov ADo you really need to print this e-mail? This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. From: Ardi [mailto:ardit@compuserve.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 3:31 PM To: WirelessTF <WirelessTF@rpvca.gov> Cc: Guity Tavakol <guity. kt1 @verizon. net> Subject: Appeal for Wireless Telecom Permit ASG NO 32 (Scottwood and Whitley Collins) Hi Art, E-4 This note is in relation to a notice we received in the mail regarding appeal by Crown Castle regarding Permit No 32 which was turned down by the Planning commission during the last Aug meeting. We live in the property at 29504 Whitley Collins, directly facing the proposed telecom antenna. Our objections to this installation was voiced (by email and also in person) at the planning commission meeting (also supported by other residents in the community. Question 1: Will the City Council be reviewing the discussion notes and related material that was covered by the commission and residents during that meeting? Yes, the City Council will receive and review a complete record covered by the Planning Commission. Question 2: Has there been any changes / updates to the proposer antenna relative to what was presented during the Planning commission meeting in August? If so, are those plans available online for review? Staff is currently working with the Applicant to identify an alternative location. That information will be made available to the public next week when the staff report is released. Until then, the proposal remains on the street light considered by the Planning Commission Question 3: Is format for the City Council meeting similar to the Planning commission with residents having an opportunity for a 3 min verbal discussion? Yes Question 4: Has the City Council reviewed / voted on other similar permits that were initially denied by the planning commission and then appealed by Crown Castle? If so, what were the outcomes of those earlier hearings? No. This is the first appeal public hearing at the City Council level. Question 5: Is this the last meeting before the final decision for this permit request? It depends on whether the Council feels they have the information needed to render a decision. Thank you in advance for your assistance and feedback. Ardi & Guity Tavakol 310-541-1394 E-5 Ara Mihranian From: Ara Mihranian Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 12:48 PM To: 'hashamal@hotmail.com' Cc: CC; WirelessTF Subject: Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Mr. Hasham, The City is in receipt of your email and will provide it to the City Council as part of the November 30th Staff Reports. Thank you, Ara Ara Michael Mihranian Community Development Director 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5228 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) aram rpvca.gov www. rpvca. gov ADo you really need to print this e-mail? This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. From: Al Hasham [mailto:hashamal@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 12:33 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: Al Hasham <hashamal@hotmail.com> Subject: E-6 Dear Sir or Madam, Please do not support the building of Cell Towers in our area (RPV). As you know, it is not safe for our families and especially our children. Thanks! 9 E-7 Ara Mihranian From: ebagherzadeh@aol.com Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 11:48 AM To: WirelessTF Subject: Fwd: Regarding Permit ASG NO.32 Hello, I reside at 5648 Scotwood Dr., just one house away from the proposed location for the mounted telecommunication antenna . I am a cancer survival and do not want any thing such as an antenna that could harm me or my family next to my house . Our area is not a dead Zone as far as using cellphone, There are companies such as T -Mobile , that they have good reception in our area. Therefor I ask you to deny appeal again, NO PERMIT PLEASE Thank you Nadereh A Eslami and Abraham Bagherzadeh 5648 Scotwood Dr. Rancho Palos Vredes Cell # 310 384 7090 Email: ebagherzadeh@aol.com AN Ara Mihranian From: Ardi <ardit@compuserve.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 3:31 PM To: WirelessTF Cc: Guity Tavakol Subject: Appeal for Wireless Telecom Permit ASG NO 32 (Scottwood and Whitley Collins) Hi Art, This note is in relation to a notice we received in the mail regarding appeal by Crown Castle regarding Permit No 32 which was turned down by the Planning commission during the last Aug meeting. We live in the property at 29504 Whitley Collins, directly facing the proposed telecom antenna. Our objections to this installation was voiced (by email and also in person) at the planning commission meeting (also supported by other residents in the community. Question 1: Will the City Council be reviewing the discussion notes and related material that was covered by the commission and residents during that meeting? Question 2: Has there been any changes / updates to the proposer antenna relative to what was presented during the Planning commission meeting in August? If so, are those plans available online for review? Question 3: Is format for the City Council meeting similar to the Planning commission with residents having an opportunity for a 3 min verbal discussion? Question 4: Has the City Council reviewed / voted on other similar permits that were initially denied by the planning commission and then appealed by Crown Castle? If so, what were the outcomes of those earlier hearings? Question 5: Is this the last meeting before the final decision for this permit request? Thank you in advance for your assistance and feedback. Ardi & Guity Tavakol 310-541-1394 E-9 Ara Mihranian From: Samson Munn <02467@earthlink.net> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 1:16 PM To: WirelessTF Subject: My Views of the Appeal Application Dear Mr. Bashmakian: As per the e-mailed request from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, here are my "thoughts" "in writing" regarding the appeal of the denied facility permits ASG #s 09,32,33,53 and 69. I object to the appeal(s) on the following grounds, jointly and severallX: 1. Reception in Rancho Palos Verdes is already sufficient. That is, there are areas of strong reception and areas of no reception at all, and that is -- is -- sufficient, even more than sufficient. 2. When I bought my house at 7021 Calle del Pajarito, RPV, one of the real estate values I perceived was the absence of reception. That is, reception to me is a negative, while absence of reception has added value. 3. 1 am a Professor at UCLA's and an Adjunct Associate Professor at Tufts University's Schools of Medicine. My field is radiology. I know something about all kinds of rays. 4. There is a petition via NextDoor that your office has already received with over 100 signatories. That petition was with regard to ASG # 08. However, I received the dozens of comments added by all signatories. Many of these comments were with regard more generally to added cell emission/transmission towers. They were uniformly negative (none positive). 5. Via NextDoor, there have also been dozens of comments written generally about additional emission/transmission towers (apart from those related to the signatories against ASG # 08). Some of those additional comments were positive, while others were negative. Those that were negative outnumbered the positive ones by more than ten -to -one. 6. Proper process was engaged by the Planning Commission in its denials of those permits named at the outset of this message. If proper process yields denial, the appeal had better contain new and truly extraordinary and exceptional grounds in order to be re -considered. Substantiation of ordinary grounds for the permit applications at this time should be considered insufficient, since being late to circumvent proper process should not now be supported. In other words, Crown Castle had its "day in court," one might say, including proper opportunity to submit grounds for approval, and and simply lost. Unless the grounds now presented are extraordinary and exceptional, PLUS are combined with substantiation for why the grounds had not been submitted in due course (rather than now), PLUS are altogether new, Crown Castle's appeal(s) should be summarily dismissed without further consideration on the grounds of due process. That is, unless the new grounds are as I have described, satisfying all three categories of the preceding sentence, Crown Castle should -- properly -- not be afforded another "day in court," so to speak. THAT would compose due process, respecting the due process already behind us. Thank you, kindly! Samson Samson Munn, M.D., FACR E-10 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 ELcpiration Per RPVMC Section 12.18.o6o (C)Ci) for Crown Castle Wireless Communication Facility Site ASG -42 - New Shot Clock Expiration Date: September .10, 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 timeframe, but to take a final action on the application within the time period. See New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC v. Town of Stoddard, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19453 *13-15 (D.N.H. Feb. 16, 2012). Accordingly, the City must complete all of its review within the Shot Clock period. Bell Atlantic Mobile of Rochester, L.P. v. Town of Irondequoit, 2012 U.S. Dist. Lexis 11420 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2012). This means that the City must issue all permits required for construction to commence within the applicable Shot Clock time period, absent permitted tolling. Expiration of the FCC Shot Clock time periods means the project is shovel ready, not merely poised for another round of bureaucratic inertia such as an encroachment permit or appeals processes or negotiation of a franchise or other similar agreement. Further, pursuant to California Government Code section 65964.1, an application for a new wireless facility "shall be deemed approved" if: (a) the city --including a charter city -- or county fails to approve or disapprove the application within the time periods established in the Shot Clock Order and (b) all public notices regarding the application have been provided. (Gov. Code, § 65964.1, subd. (a).) Section 65964.1 also contains an express legislative finding that wireless telecommunications facilities are a matter of statewide concern, not a "municipal affair" as that term is used in section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. (id., § 65964.1, subd. (c).). In consideration of Crown Castle's agreement to Toll the Shot Clock, the City has agreed that: 1) This document satisfies Crown Castle's noticing requirement of Shot Clock expiration per RPVMC Section 12.18.o6o (C)(3). 2) The City will attest to and not challenge that Crown Castle's application is compliant with any and all Shot Clock requirements (federal, state and local) as of the date of this Tolling Agreement and Notice of Shot Clock Expiration. 3) That the Shot Clock for this site will expire on: September 30, 2017, unless mutually extended in a written agreement by the Parties. Any and all applicable statutes of limitation will commence from the date of the Shot Clock's expiration. Aaron Snyder CROWN CASTLE NG WEST LLC Nicole Jules CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES The Foundation for a Wireless World. CrownCastle.com F-1