The URL can be used to link to this page

CC SR 20171130 05 - Wireless Telecommunication Facility Permit ASG No. 09RANCHO 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. 09 to install a Wireless Telecommunication Facility (WTF) on a replacement streetlight pole adjacent to 30452 Camino Porvenir. Quasi -Judicial Decision This item is a quasi-judicial decision in which the City Council is being asked to affirm whether specific findings of fact can be made in order to overturn the denial of the Planning Commission's decision. The specific findings of fact are listed in the Resolution per Chapter 12.18 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC). RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: (1) Adopt Resolution No. 2017-_, thereby granting an appeal and overturning the Planning Commission's denial of Major Wireless Telecommunication Facility Permit ASG No. 09 to allow the installation of two panel antennas encased in a canister measuring 2' tall and 14.6" in diameter with a 2' tall tapered shroud sleeve to a replacement streetlight pole measuring a total maximum height of 24' with underground vaulted accessory equipment (Option No. 1) adjacent to 30452 Camino Porvenir. FISCAL IMPACT: The Appellant has paid the applicable appeal fees, as established by Resolution of the City Council. If the Appellant is successful in the appeal, and the City Council overturns the Planning Commission's decision to deny the project, the Appellant will receive a full refund of their appeal fee. Thus, all in-house Staff costs associated with the processing of the appeal will come from the City's General Fund. Costs for work conducted by the City's consultants, including the City's contract planner and the City's RF consultant, are borne by the Appellant (Crown Castle). Amount Budgeted: N/A Additional Appropriation: N/A Account Number(s): N/A ORIGINATED BY: Art Bashmakian, AICP, Contract Planner REVIEWED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, Director of Community Development REVIEWED BY: Christy Marie Lopez, Special Legal Counsel APPROVED BY: Doug Willmore, City Manager 55478.00001\30325978.2 1 ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: A. Draft Resolution No. 2017-_ (page A-1) B. Revised Design Options (page B-1) C. Appeal Letter to City Council dated September 14, 2017(page C-1) D. P.C. Resolution No. 2017-26 - denying without prejudice (page D-1) E. August 30, 2017 P.C. Staff Report (page E-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 F. Public Comments (page F-1) G. Tolling Agreement (page G-1) Click on the link below to view the August 30, 2017 Planning Commission meeting on ASG No. 09 - Agenda Item No. 3 (time stamp: 10:29): 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 24' tall streetlight pole and replace it with a 24' tall streetlight with two 21.4" panel antennas that would be side -mounted to the streetlight pole with above -ground mechanical equipment and meter box measuring 9.7 cubic feet in area within the public right-of-way (PROW). The wireless telecommunication facility considered by the Planning Commission consisted of the replacement of an existing 24' tall streetlight pole with the installation of a new 26.7' tall streetlight pole (measured to the top of the canister) with mast arm and attached luminaire to accommodate the installation of two panel antennas encased in a 2' tall, and 2' diameter canister with a 3' tall tapered shroud sleeve with vaulted accessory equipment located entirely within the PROW. 55478.00001\30325978.2 2 The subject site is approximately 6' in front of the 30452 Camino Porvenir property line. The facility is located on the east side of a gently sloping road, about 878' east of Calle De Suenos. Existing streetlights are located along the east side of the road within 130' and 180' intervals. There are trees and shrubs near the site (there is no landscaped parkway). The three photos 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 antenna panels encased in a canister shroud at the top of the streetlight pole. Existing Site Original Proposal Commission Denied Proposal Planning Commission's Decision 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 2-2 with Commissioner Nelson and Chairman Cruikshank dissenting, (Commissioners Leon and Tomblin, and Vice Chairman James were absent). According to the Planning Commission adopted Rules and Procedures, a tie vote results in a denial of the motion, and in this case the project died for lack of action. That said, the Commission's denial resolution was based on the following findings (see Page D-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. • 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 55478.00001\30325978.2 3 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 C-1) of the Planning Commission's denial of Major Wireless Telecommunication Facility Permit ASG No. 09 contending that the denial and the reasons for the denial effectively prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting the provisions of personal wireless services. In summary, the Appellant believes that the Commission's decision was not based on substantial evidence and that the denial violates the Appellant's right to deploy its facilities in the public rights-of-way in violation of Public Utilities Code section 7901, in that that the Planning Commission's action exceeds the local control over the "time place and manner" of access to the right-of-way. Revised Project In response to the Planning Commission's decision, the Appellant has reassessed its proposal and is presenting, in addition to the original design 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. - 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 (6" diameter at the top of the pole) with 2' tall and 14.6" in diameter canister with a 2' tall tapered sleeve shroud connecting the canister to the top of the pole. As proposed, the total height to the top of the antenna from the ground is 26' 7" However, Staff is recommending Option No. 1 with a condition that limits the overall height of the pole to 24', as measured to the top of the canister, which is the height of the existing streetlight. 55478.00001\30325978.2 Option No. 2 - Consists of a streetlight pole measuring 14" in diameter that seamlessly blends in with the 2'-7/8" tall shroud skirt and the 2' tall and 14.6" in diameter canister shroud. The total height of the streetlight pole is 28'-7/8" as measured from the ground to the top of the antenna canister. Option No. 3 - Consists of a streetlight pole measuring 16" diameter that seamlessly blends in with the approximately 2' tall shroud skirt and the 2' tall and 14.6" in diameter canister shroud. This wider pole accommodates the accessory equipment within the interior of the pole eliminating the need to vault the mechanical equipment in the ground. The tOotal height of the streetlight pole is 27' 7/8" as measured from the ground to the top of the antenna canister. 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 24', the same height as the existing pole. Photo simulations of the four design options are shown below (see B-1 for larger images): Option No. 1 Option No. 2 Option No. 3 1k. Option No. 4 Based on the four options, Staff's preference is Option No. 1 because it results in a facility that is least intrusive to the neighborhood by concealing the panel antennas and associated wires within a canister shroud measuring 14.6" in diameter. The canister shroud before the City Council has been reduced in diameter by approximately 10" than the canister shroud considered by the Planning Commission resulting in a slimmer profile. In comparison, 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, with staff's recommendation to limit the overall height to 24' in height, 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: 55478.00001\30325978.2 • Employs screening with the canister shroud. • Minimizes view and visual impacts with the panel antennas and related wires encased in a shroud with vaulted mechanical equipment. • Avoids adverse impacts to traffic patterns including pedestrians and vehicles. • Incorporates blending design techniques. • Matches the material, color, and height of 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) A detailed analysis of the required findings can be found in the attached resolution (Attachment A). Furthermore, the alternative analysis identified three other sites along Camino Porvenir all involving replacement streetlight poles located on the street fronting homes. Two of the alternative sites did not meet the RF objective and the one site that does meet the carrier's RF objective is also located in front of a residence but contains less landscaping than the subject site. None of the alternative sites are located in areas that are entirely hidden from view from residences as all streetlights are typically noticeable from residences. Exhibit A to the attached resolution includes the Conditions of Approval regulating the installation, appearance, and maintenance of the wireless facility within the public right-of-way mitigating potential adverse impacts to the immediate neighborhood. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: City Council Site Visit The City Council is encouraged to visit the project site and the proposed installation for, among other things, design assessment and location. The Council will be asked to disclose whether they visited the project site before opening the public hearing. Coverage Gap Analysis Sections 12.18.050(B)(1 9)(a) and (b) of the RPVMC states that in the event an applicant seeks to install a wireless telecommunication facility within the public right-of- way to address service coverage concerns and/or service capacity concerns, the applicant needs to submit propagation maps with objective units of signal strength measurement regarding current service coverage and written explanation identifying the existing facilities with service capacity issues. As part of the original application, the Appellant's submitted maps and a written justification have been reviewed by the City's RF consultant who has concluded that the signal levels are lower than the levels industry guidelines suggested to support modern 3G/4G customer needs. The City's RF consultant also concluded that the subject facility will provide ample signal intensity to 55478.00001\30325978.2 6 support AT&T's 3G/4G wireless services. The RF consultant's report is included in the August 30, 2017 Planning Commission Staff Report (see E-1) Pole Design Options Mockup The Appellant has installed a mockup of "replacement pole" design examples for supporting the proposed telecommunication panel antennas. The mockups are located adjacent to the City's maintenance yard at the City Hall site for City Council, Planning Commission, and public viewing. Mock -Up Notice Issues On June 2, 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 13, 2017. This is a required step in the Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Application for all proposed wireless facility installations. Pursuant to Chapter 12.18 of the RPVMC, the City Council is to review this specific proposed installations for, among other things, design assessment and location. The temporary mock-up installation will 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 to list -serve subscribers announcing the public hearing and inviting public comments on the appeal. An additional courtesy public notice was published in the Peninsula News on Thursday, November 23, 2017. Public Comments Attached are the public comments received since the appeal notice was issued (page F- 1). Planninq Commission Chairman Pursuant to City Council Policy No. 24, the Planning Commission Vice -Chair James will be attending the November 30th meeting in event the Council has any questions pertaining to the Commission's decisions in this matter. Shot Clock State and federal laws, and a FCC ruling, provide that a local jurisdiction must act on an application for certain wireless facilities antennas within the following certain strict timeframes: 55478.00001\30325978.2 7 (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 and it was set to expire on September 1, 2017. However, a Shot Clock Tolling Agreement, dated August 7, 2017 established a new Shot Clock Expiration date of September 30, 2017. The Planning Commission's action on the Project is the final City decision, unless appealed to the City Council. While the law is not clear, there is no binding legal precedent in California requiring that the shot clock run pending an appeal period. Accordingly, it is thought that the Commission's action on the Project may toll the shot clock. CONCLUSION: Based on the forgoing discussion, Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2017- _, thereby granting the appeal and overturning the Planning Commission's decision to deny Major Wireless Telecommunication Facility Permit ASG No. 09 to allow the installation of two panel antennas encased in a canister measuring 2' tall and 14.6" in diameter with a 2' tall tapered shroud sleeve to a replacement streetlight pole measuring a total maximum height of 24' with vaulted accessory equipment (Option No. 1) adjacent to 30452 Camino Porvenir. 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. 09 and direct Staff to return with a revised Resolution at the December 19, 2017 City Council Meeting. 2. Modify the appeal and direct Staff to return with a revised Resolution at the December 19, 2017, City Council Meeting. This action would entitle the Appellants to a refund of one-half of their appeal fee. 3. Identify any issues of concern with the proposed project, provide Staff and/or the Appellant with direction in modifying the project, and continue the public hearing to a date certain. 55478.00001\30325978.2 8 RESOLUTION NO. 2017- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES GRANTING AN APPEAL AND OVERTURNING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF A MAJOR WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY PERMIT ASG NO. 09 TO ALLOW THE INSTALLATION OF TWO PANEL ANTENNAS ENCASED IN A CANISTER MEASURING 2' TALL AND 14.6" IN DIAMETER WITH A 2' TALL TAPERED SHROUD SLEEVE TO A REPLACEMENT STREETLIGHT POLE MEASURING A TOTAL MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 24' WITH VAULTED ACCESSORY EQUIPMENT (OPTION NO. 1) ADJACENT TO 30452 CAMINO PORVENIR. WHEREAS, Chapter 12.18 of the Rancho Palo Verde Municipal Code (RPVMC or Municipal Code) governs the permitting, development, siting, installation, design, operation and maintenance of wireless telecommunications facilities ("WTFs") in the City's public right-of-way ("PROW") (RPVMC § 12.18.010); WHEREAS, beginning in May of 2016, Crown Castle (the "Applicant") applied to the City for an Wireless Telecommunications Facility Permit ("WTFP"), pursuant to Section 12.18.040(A) of the Municipal Code, to install 26 antennas in the public right-of- way (PROW) to service AT&T customers throughout the City including ASG No. 09 (the "Project") adjacent to 30452 Camino Porvenir; WHEREAS, the original proposal called for the replacement of a 24' tall streetlight pole with a new 24' tall streetlight pole with 21.4" panel antennas and above- ground equipment; WHEREAS, an alternative proposal presented to the Planning Commission which called for a replacement 26.7' tall streetlight pole with panel antennas encased in a 2' tall and 2' in diameter canister shroud with a 3' tall tapered canister sleeve 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 55478.00001 \30328716.1 Resolution No. 2017 - Page 1 of 21 A-1 installation of new 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; WHEREAS, on August 30, 2017, after considering testimony and evidence presented at the public hearing, the information and findings included in the Staff Report, and other records of proceedings, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes moved to deny, without prejudice, ASG No. 09 on a vote of 2-2 with Commissioner Nelson and Chairman Cruikshank dissenting (Commissioners Leon and Tomblin, and Vice -Chair James were absent). WHEREAS, on September 14, 2017, a timely appeal of the denial was filed by the Applicant. WHEREAS, on November 15, 2017, a public notice was mailed to property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the subject site and published in the Daily Breeze, pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code. A courtesy public notice was published in the Peninsula News on November 23, 2017 and a list - serve message was sent to the subscribers; and, WHEREAS, on November 30, 2017, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The City Council hereby grants the appeal and overturns the Planning Commission's denial of Major Telecommunications Facility Permit ("WTFP") ASG No. 09 involving a project that called for the replacement of the existing 24' tall streetlight pole with a with a 26.7' tall marbelite octagonal streetlight pole with mast arm and luminaire to accommodate the installation of two panel antennas encased in a 2' tall and 2' in diameter with a 3' tall tapered shroud sleeve mounted on the top of the new pole with accessory equipment to be vaulted in the PROW and approves a Major Telecommunications Facility Permit ("WTFP") involving a modified design consisting of two panel antennas encased in a canister measuring 2' tall and 14.6" in diameter with a 2' tall tapered shroud sleeve to a replacement streetlight pole measuring a total maximum height of 24' with accessory equipment to be vaulted in the PROW (Option No. 1) based on the following findings. 55478.00001\30328716.1 Resolution No. 2017 - Page 2 of 21 A-2 Section 2: Approval of a WTFP is warranted because the Project meets the findings required by Section 12.18.090 of the Municipal Code: A. All notices required for the proposed installation have been given. Crown Castle and the City have provided all notices required by the RPVMC. On June 2, 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. On November 15, 2017 a public notice announcing the November 30, 2017 public hearing on the appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of WTF permit ASG 09 was published in the Daily Breeze and provided to property owners within 500' of the proposed facility and to list -serve subscribers. An added courtesy public notice was published in the Peninsula News on November 23, 2017. B. The proposed facility has been designed and located in compliance with all applicable provisions of this chapter. 12.18.080(A)(1)(a): The Applicant shall employ screening, undergrounding and camouflage design techniques in the design and placement of wireless telecommunications facilities in order to ensure that the facility is as visually screened as possible, to prevent the facility from dominating the surrounding area and to minimize significant view impacts from surrounding properties all in a manner that achieves compatibility with the community and in compliance with Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration) of this code. The Project employs screening and a camouflage design as the panel antennas will be encased in a canister measuring 2' tall and 14.6" in diameter that will be mounted on top of the replacement streetlight pole at a total of 24' in height as measured from grade to the top of the canister affixed to the pole. The slim canister design profile minimizes the visual intrusion to the environment. The Project presents a slim profile that blends cleanly with the verticality of the light pole. The canister is designed to match the light standard being replaced and other light standards in the immediate area. The proposal places all of the related mechanical equipment underground in a vault. The proposed installation will not have any significant view impairment to surrounding properties pursuant to Chapter 17.02.040 of the RPVMC. 55478.00001\30328716.1 Resolution No. 2017 - Page 3 of 21 A-3 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 streetlight pole that matches other streetlight poles in the area, and the replacement streetlight pole will utilize similar color, size, proportion, style, and quality to other street poles in the area. The 2' tall canister and the 2' canister sleeve will be painted a concrete color to blend with the pole. According the Appellant, the canister and sleeve is the slimmest design available to meet its technological objectives. The mechanical equipment will be vaulted underground within the street. 12.18.080(A)(1)(c): Facilities shall be located such that views from a residential structure are not significantly impaired. Facilities shall also be located in a manner that protects public views over city view corridors, as defined in the city's general plan, so that no significant view impairment results in accordance with this code including Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration). This provision shall be applied consistent with local, state and federal law. The Project does not result in a significant view impairment to surrounding residences on Camino Porvenir. This finding remains unchanged with the replacement streetlight pole and with the slimmer canister design. The proposed WTF is not located in a view corridor identified in the City's General Plan or Coastal Specific Plan. Furthermore, the alternative analysis identified three other sites along Camino Porvenir all involving replacement streetlight poles located on the street fronting homes. Two of the alternative sites did not meet the RF objective and the one site that does meet RF objective is also located in front of a residence but contains less landscaping than the subject site. None of the alternative sites are located in areas that are entirely hidden from view from residences as all streetlights are typically noticeable from residences. 12.18.080(A)(3): Traffic Safety. All facilities shall be designed and located in such a manner as to avoid adverse impacts to traffic safety. The Project, as conditioned, involves a replacement streetlight pole with the placement of antennas within a canister mounted on top of the pole with a total height 24'. Additionally, the related mechanical equipment will be vaulted avoiding Resolution No. 2017 - Page 4 of 21 55478.00001\30328716.1 traffic safety impacts, and in compliance standards for undergrounding equipment under a street. 12.18.080(A)(4): Blending Methods. All facilities shall have subdued colors and non -reflective materials that blend with the materials and colors of the surrounding area and structures. The proposed streetlight pole and affixed equipment will consist of colors and materials that are subdued, non -reflective and are the same as the other streetlight poles in the immediate area. 12.18.080(A)(5): Equipment. The Applicant shall use the least visible equipment possible. Antenna elements shall be flush mounted, to the extent feasible. All antenna mounts shall be designed so as not to preclude possible future collocation by the same or other operators or carriers. Unless otherwise provided in this section, antennas shall be situated as close to the ground as possible. The Project, as conditioned, consists of a replacement streetlight pole with the installation of antennas encased in a 2' tall and 14.6" in diameter canister affixed to the top of the pole, measuring 7" in diameter at the base and 6" in diameter towards to top (standard streetlight width) with a 2' tall canister sleeve shroud connecting the canister to the pole at a maximum height of 24' to the top of the canister. The Project proposes a slim profile design that blends cleanly with the verticality of the light pole and is the least visible of the options presented as the other pole designs are significantly wider (14" to 16"). The height of the streetlight pole may have to be increased by up to 5' to accommodate a new (not yet proposed) collocation because of the size of the panel antennas combined with there being a need to provide a separation of at least 1' between antenna panels for functionality purposes. Future location of additional antennas on this street light pole would detract from the overall appearance and character of the neighborhood. 12.18.080(A)(6)(a): Facilities shall be located consistent with Section 12.18.200 (Location Restrictions) unless an exception pursuant to Section 12.18.190 (Exceptions) is granted. The proposed location is within the PROW of local residential streets as identified in the City's General Plan and the City Council finds that an Exception shall be made (see Section 3 of this Resolution). 55478.00001\30328716.1 Resolution No. 2017 - Page 5 of 21 A-5 12.18.080(A)(6)(d): Light Poles. The maximum height of any antenna shall not exceed four feet above the existing height of a light pole. Any portion of the antenna or equipment mounted on a pole shall be no less than 16% feet above any drivable road surface. No portion of the antenna or equipment is less than 16'/2 ' above the drivable road surface and does not exceed 4' above the existing height of the pole. 12.18.080(A)(6)(e): Replacement Poles. If an Applicant proposes to replace a pole in order to accommodate a proposed facility, the pole shall be designed to resemble the appearance and dimensions of existing poles near the proposed location, including size, height, color, materials and style to the maximum extent feasible. The replacement street light pole, as conditioned, will match the appearance, in terms of color, height, size and dimensions of other light poles in the immediate area. The existing pole is 7" in diameter towards the base and 6" in diameter towards the top measuring 24' in height, as measured from the ground to the top of the canister. The canister will be 2' tall and 14.6" in diameter. 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 canister and tapered sleeve shroud and directly routed to the pole in order to be hidden from view with no loops, exposed cables, splitters or unsightly wires. 12.18.080(A)(7): Space. Each facility shall be designed to occupy the least amount of space in the right-of-way that is technically feasible. The replacement streetlight pole is similar in dimension to the existing streetlight pole measuring 7" in diameter towards the base and 6" in diameter towards the top and 24' in total height. The placement of the antennas on the top of the pole at the same height as the existing pole will occupy limited air space above the right-of-way. The accessory structure will be placed underground in a vault measuring approximately 43 square feet in area. According to the Appellant, this space is the least amount of space that is technically feasible for vaulted equipment owned by AT&T. 55478.00001\30328716.1 Resolution No. 2017- Page6of 21 WO 12.18.080(A)(8): Wind Loads. Each facility shall be properly engineered to withstand wind loads as required by this code or any duly adopted or incorporated code. An evaluation of high wind load capacity shall include the impact of modification of an existing facility. Based on the information submitted by the Applicant, the City Council finds that the proposed installation will be constructed to comply with all building codes related to wind loads. 12.18.080(A)(9): Obstructions. Each component part of a facility shall be located so as not to cause any physical or visual obstruction to pedestrian or vehicular traffic, incommode the public's use of the right-of-way, or safety hazards to pedestrians and motorists and in compliance with Section 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility) so as not to obstruct the intersection visibility triangle. The project design, height and size, as revised, including the undergrounding of the mechanical equipment, will not cause an obstruction to the public's use of the PROW, constitute a safety hazard and/or does not interfere with the City -defined intersection visibility triangle. The replacement pole provides the same, height and setback parameters applicable to other streetlights. The proposed mechanical equipment will be vaulted under the existing sidewalk, and conditions are proposed to ensure the vents do not physically obstruct the safe use of the sidewalk. 12.18.080(A)(10): Public Facilities. A facility shall not be located within any portion of the public right-of-way interfering with access to a fire hydrant, fire station, fire escape, water valve, underground vault, valve housing structure, or any other public health or safety facility. 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 as determined by the Public Works Department. Furthermore, part of the plan check review process and site inspections, Public Works staff will ensure that the project will not interfere with any of the stated utilities. C. If applicable, the Applicant has demonstrated its inability to locate on existing infrastructure. 55478.00001\30328716.1 Resolution No. 2017 - Page 7 of 21 A-7 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 design, which includes the installation of two antenna panels encased in a 2' tall and 14.6" in diameter canister affixed to the top of the pole with a 2' tall tapered sleeve shroud connected to the pole is the least intrusive means of those alternatives. There is technology that is possible to use but that would require a greater number of facilities throughout the community to provide equal coverage and capacity. This may require the introduction of new pole structures where there are no streetlights or utility poles and may require associated accessory equipment at every location. The supporting mechanical equipment would be vaulted meeting the objective of installing the least intrusive facility. Other locations and designs considered as part of the application process for purposes of filling the coverage gap claimed by the Applicant were found to be more intrusive then the proposed Project. The alternative analysis identified three other sites along Camino Porvenir all involving replacement light poles located on the street fronting homes. Two of the alternative sites did not meet the RF objective and the one site that does meet RF objective is also located in front of a residence but contains less landscaping than the subject site. None of the 55478.00001 \30328716.1 Resolution No. 2017 - Page 8 of 21 1 • • alternative sites are located in areas that are entirely hidden from view from residences as all streetlights are typically noticeable from residences. Section 3: Because the Project's location is within a residential zone and within the PROW of local streets as identified in the General Plan, approval of a WTFP also requires an exception under Section 12.18.190 of the Municipal Code. The Project meets the findings for an exception as required by Section 12.18.190(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 along Camino Porvenir. This application information was provided to the City's RF consultant who reviewed the information, as well as conducted both on-site walkouts of the area and a computerized terrain study to determine if the proposed site will address a coverage gap as identified in the application. Based on the terrain profile characteristics and the field measurement data provided by Crown Castle, the proposal as provided will address coverage deficiencies within the target area. The Applicant has provided engineering details related to the wireless bands that will be used for the DAS deployment, including identifying transmitting equipment, power levels for each band and specifics regarding the radiation patterns of the antennas to be installed. Crown Castle has provided engineering measurement data defining gaps in AT&T coverage in small pocketed areas. This has been independently examined by the City's RF consultant who determined that the signal levels are lower than industry recommended levels to support modern 3G/4G customer needs. The engineering design provided by Crown Castle supports that, if constructed, DAS site ASG No. 09 will provide ample signal intensity (signal level in excess of -95 dBm) to support AT&T's 3G/4G wireless services. 55478.00001\30328716.1 Resolution No. 2017- Page9of 21 1 • 3. The Applicant has provided the City with a meaningful comparative analysis that includes the factual reasons why any alternative location(s) or design(s) suggested by the city or otherwise identified in the administrative record, including but not limited to potential alternatives identified at any public meeting or hearing, are not technically feasible or potentially available. The Applicant has provided comparative analysis for possible similar antennas on at the following four locations: • 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 as opposed to the preferred location which has existing foliage. 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 proposed Project, with the canister encasing the two panel antennas at the proposed location, is the least intrusive location for the wireless telecommunications facility in the immediate area because of the surrounding terrain as there are no other alternative sites in the area that contain natural landforms or structures that can effectively hide a WTF location. There are no major collector or arterial streets in the immediate area. 4. The Applicant has provided the city with a meaningful comparative analysis that includes the factual reasons why the proposed location and design deviates is the least noncompliant location and design necessary to reasonably achieve the Applicant's reasonable technical service objectives. 55478.00001 \30328716.1 Resolution No. 2017 - Page 10 of 21 A-10 The Applicant has provided a meaningful alternative comparative analysis and the proposed Project is found to be the preferred design. While the City does not prefer to have WTFs in residential zones, the site must be located in a residential zone in order to meet the Applicant's coverage objective. The City reviewed all alternative locations, and as discussed further above, the proposed location and utilizing an existing streetlight pole is preferred due to existing landscaping. Further, because the neighborhood has existing street lights, no new vertical infrastructure needs to be installed. The replacement streetlight pole will match the other street lights. Finally, and according to the Applicant, the proposed canister is the slimmest design available for the AT&T network. Section 4: Conditions regarding any of the requirements listed above which the City Council finds to be necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare, have been imposed in the attached Exhibit A Section 5: The City Council hereby grants the appeal and reverses the Planning Commission's denial of Wireless Telecommunications Facility Permit ASG09, as revised, based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in this resolution. Section 6: The City Clerk shall certify to the passage, approval, and adoption of this Resolution, and shall cause this Resolution and her certification to be entered in the Book of Resolutions of the City Council. Section 7: The time within which judicial review of the decision reflected in this Resolution must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure or other applicable short periods of limitation. 55478.00001\30328716.1 Resolution No. 2017 - Page 11 of 21 A-11 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 30th day of November 2017. Brian Campbell, Mayor ATTEST: Emily Colborn, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ) I, Emily Colborn, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2017-_, was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on November 30, 2017. 55478.00001\30328716.1 CITY CLERK Resolution No. 2017 - Page 12 of 21 A-12 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WTF ASG NO. 09 ADJACENT TO 30452 CAMINO PORVENIR General Conditions: Prior to obtaining a permit from the Public Works Department to install the street light pole, the Applicant and the property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have read, understand, and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this Resolution. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void. 2. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolutions procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and other such procedures) (collectively "Actions"), brought against the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City), for or concerning the Project. 3. Prior to conducting any work in the public right of way (PROW), such as for curb cuts, dumpsters, temporary improvements and/or permanent improvements, the Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works. 4. Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws and regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) shall apply. 5. The Public Works Director or Director of Community Development are authorized to make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of approval if such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with the approved plans and conditions. Otherwise, any substantive change to the Project shall require approval of a revision by the final 55478.00001 \30328716.1 Resolution No. 2017 - Page 13 of 21 A-13 body that approved the original Project, which may require new and separate environmental review. 6. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be cause to revoke the approval of the Project pursuant to the RPVMC. 7. If the Applicant has not obtained approvals 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. Resolution No. 2017 - Page 14 of 21 55478.00001\30328716.1 A-14 13. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly manner, to the satisfaction of the City's Inspector. All construction waste and debris resulting from a construction, alteration or repair Project shall be removed on a daily basis by the contractor or property owner. 14. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be completed in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the City with the effective date of this Resolution. Project -specific Conditions: 15. This approval allows for the following: A. Installation of a Wireless Telecommunication Facility adjacent to 30452 Camino Porvenir. B. Removal of an existing 24' tall streetlight pole with a mast arm and luminaire to be decommissioned and replaced with a 24' tall streetlight pole with the installation of antennas encased in a canister measuring 2' tall and 14.6" in diameter with a 2' tall tapered sleeve shroud connecting the canister to the pole at a maximum height of 24' to the top of the canister. 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 replacement light standard that matches the other light standards in the area in terms of color, size, proportion, style, and quality. The antenna panels and any related exposed structures shall be professionally painted and maintained to match the light pole. o The facility shall be designed and located in such a manner as to avoid adverse impacts on traffic safety; construction and operation of the facility shall comport with a duly -approved traffic control plan as required. o Colors and materials shall be subdued and non -reflective, and shall be the same as the existing light standard and other lights standards in the nearby area. 55478.00001\30328716.1 Resolution No. 2017 - Page 15 of 21 A-15 o The replacement streetlight pole shall match the appearance and dimensions of the existing streetlight pole and all other light standards near the location. o All cables and wires shall be directly routed to the pole and encased within the pole, and hidden from view. No loops, exposed cables, splitters or unsightly wires shall be permitted. o All ground -mounted facilities shall be installed at least 18 inches from the curb and gutter flow line. o The replacement streetlight pole shall be installed in the existing pole's location 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: 55478.00001\30328716.1 ■ 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, Resolution No. 2017 - Page 16 of 21 A-16 such equipment noise shall not exceed 45 dBA three feet from the sources of the noise. The foregoing noise level limitations shall govern facilities subject to RPVMC Chapter 12.18.080(A)(16) until such time that a specific noise regulation ordinance is adopted and effective in this code, at which time such noise ordinance shall govern. o The facility shall be designed to be resistant to, and minimize opportunities for, unauthorized access, climbing, vandalism, graffiti and other conditions that would result in hazardous situations, visual blight or attractive nuisances. The Public Works Director may require the provision of warning signs, fencing, anti -climbing devices, or other techniques to prevent unauthorized access and vandalism when, because of their location and/or accessibility, a facility has the potential to become an attractive nuisance. Additionally, no lethal devices or elements shall be installed as a security device. o Consistent with current state and federal laws and if permissible under the same, at the time of modification of the facility, existing equipment shall, to the extent feasible, be replaced with equipment that reduces visual, noise and other impacts, including, but not limited to, undergrounding the equipment and replacing larger, more visually intrusive facilities with smaller, less visually intrusive facilities. o The installation and construction of the facility shall begin within one year after its approval or it will expire without further action by the City. 17. All wireless telecommunications facilities shall comply at all times with the following operation and maintenance standards: o Unless otherwise provided herein, all necessary repairs and restoration shall be completed by the permittee, owner, operator or any designated maintenance agent within 48 hours: ■ After discovery of the need by the permittee, owner, operator or any designated maintenance agent; or ■ After permittee, owner, operator or any designated maintenance agent receives notification from the city. 18. Each permittee of a wireless telecommunications facility shall provide the Public Works Director with the name, address and 24-hour local or toll free contact phone number of the permittee, the owner, the operator and the agent 55478.00001 \30328716.1 Resolution No. 2017 - Page 17 of 21 A-17 responsible for the maintenance of the facility ("contact information"). Contact information shall be updated within seven days of any change. 19. Prior to any construction activities, the permittee shall submit a security instrument (bond or letter of credit as approved by the City Attorney) in an amount determined by the City to be sufficient to cover all potential costs (including removal costs) listed herein or in the RPVMC. 20. Prior to permit issuance the permittee shall provide additional information to establish that the proposed accessory equipment is designed to be the smallest equipment technologically feasible. The City may consider equipment installed or proposed to be installed in other jurisdictions. 21. All facilities, including, but not limited to, telecommunication towers, poles, accessory equipment, lighting, fences, walls, shields, cabinets, artificial foliage or camouflage, and the facility site shall be maintained in good condition, including ensuring the facilities are reasonably free of: a. General dirt and grease; b. Chipped, faded, peeling, and cracked paint; C. Rust and corrosion; d. Cracks, dents, and discoloration; e. Missing, discolored or damaged artificial foliage or other camouflage; f. Graffiti, bills, stickers, advertisements, litter and debris; g. Broken and misshapen structural parts; and h. Any damage from any cause. 22. Permitee shall install, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director or Director of Community Development, landscaping near the proposed installation of the vaulted accessory equipment (i.e. vents) to screen the equipment consistent with existing landscaping prior to final inspection. 23. All trees, foliage or other landscaping elements approved as part of the facility shall be maintained in good condition at all times, and the permittee, owner and Resolution No. 2017 - Page 18 of 21 55478.00001 \30328716.1 operator of the facility shall be responsible for replacing any damaged, dead or decayed landscaping. No amendment to any approved landscaping plan may be made until it is submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director or the Director of Community Development. 24. The permittee shall replace its facilities, after obtaining all required permits, if maintenance or repair is not sufficient to return the facility to the condition it was in at the time of installation. 25. Each facility shall be operated and maintained to comply with all conditions of approval. Each owner or operator of a facility shall routinely inspect each site to ensure compliance with the same and the standards set forth in the RPVMC. 26. No person shall install, use or maintain any facility which in whole or in part rests upon, in or over any public right-of-way, when such installation, use or maintenance endangers or is reasonably likely to endanger the safety of persons or property, or when such site or location is used for public utility purposes, public transportation purposes or other governmental use, or when such facility unreasonably interferes with or unreasonably impedes the flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic including any legally parked or stopped vehicle, the ingress into or egress from any residence or place of business, the use of poles, posts, traffic signs or signals, hydrants, mailboxes, permitted sidewalk dining, permitted street furniture or other objects permitted at or near said location. 27. Unless California Government Code Section 65964, as may be amended, authorizes the city to issue a permit with a shorter term, a permit for any wireless telecommunications facility shall be valid for a period of ten years, unless pursuant to another provision of the RPVMC or these Conditions of Approval, it lapses sooner or is revoked. At the end of ten years from the date of issuance, such permit shall automatically expire. 28. A permittee may apply for a new permit within 180 days prior to expiration. Said application and proposal shall comply with the city's current Code requirements for WTF's. 29. A WTF is considered abandoned and shall be promptly removed as provided herein if it ceases to provide wireless telecommunications services for 90 or more consecutive days unless the permittee has obtained prior written approval from the Director of Public Works which shall not be unreasonably denied. 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. 55478.00001\30328716.1 Resolution No. 2017 - Page 19 of 21 A-19 30. The operator of a facility and/or permitee shall notify the City in writing of its intent to abandon or cease use of a permitted site or a nonconforming site (including unpermitted sites) within ten days of ceasing or abandoning use. Notwithstanding any other provision herein, the operator of the facility and/or permitee shall provide written notice to the Director of Public Works of any discontinuation of operations of 30 days or more. 31. Failure to inform the Director of Public Works of cessation or discontinuation of operations of any existing facility as required by this section shall constitute a violation of any approvals and be grounds for: a. Litigation; b. Revocation or modification of the permit; C. Acting on any security instrument 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 the RPVMC for abatement of a public nuisance at the owner's expense; and/or e. Any other remedies permitted by law. 32. Upon the expiration date of the permit, including any extensions, earlier termination or revocation of the permit or abandonment of the facility, the permittee, owner or operator shall remove its WTF and restore the site to its natural condition except for retaining the landscaping improvements and any other improvements at the discretion of the City. Removal shall be in accordance with proper health and safety requirements and all ordinances, rules, and regulations of the City. The facility shall be removed from the property, at no cost or expense to the City. 33. Failure of the permittee, owner or operator to promptly remove its facility and restore the property within 90 days after expiration, earlier termination or revocation of the permit, or abandonment of the facility, shall be a violation of these conditions of approval. Upon a showing of good cause, an extension may be granted by the Public Works Director where circumstances are beyond the control of the permittee after expiration. Further failure to abide by the timeline provided in this section shall be grounds for: a. Prosecution; 55478.00001\30328716.1 Resolution No. 2017 - Page 20 of 21 A-20 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 security instrument posted and to the extent such costs exceed the amount of the security instrument, collect those excess costs in accordance with the RPVMC. Unless otherwise provided herein, the City has no obligation to store such facility. Neither the permittee, owner nor operator shall have any claim if the City destroys any such facility not timely removed by the permittee, owner or operator after notice, or removed by the City due to exigent circumstances. 36. Consistent with current state and federal laws and if permissible under the same, at the time of modification of a WTF, existing equipment shall, to the extent feasible, be replaced with equipment that reduces visual, noise and other impacts, including, but not limited to, undergrounding the equipment and replacing larger, more visually intrusive facilities with smaller, less visually intrusive facilities. 55478.00001 \30328716.1 Resolution No. 2017 - Page 21 of 21 A-21 DESIGN OPTION NO. 1 ASG NO. 09 ASG09 B sE u �" 2;2 27 CROWN CASTLE Iv N,'6x DRrvl.lx" L, x Commuenicanons ieul vyvovaeu To Al-�s sfwcTLt vxUxIBiTFEU. is �IfYRFOIINF 11-116 DI7�g7 GRT MOVEU CiSR PNU LAN PEUE6Ta.7111111 ASG09 30462 CAMINO PORVENIR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA POLE PROFILE "�.r:�" �nnon] ��xc.i.' P-2 A ANTENNA DETAILS SCALE: 1:5 B 12 O'CLOCK VIEW SCALE: 1:8 B 3 O'CLOCK VIEW SCALE: 1:8 06` INSTALL 24'0'CONCRETE TEXTURED INSTALL (1)AMPHENOL CUUBO70XOBFXyaO G STEEL / ANTENNA INSTALL (i) AMPHENOL CUUBO]OXOGFxyzO , ANTENNA INSTALL (1)AMPHENOL CUUBO]OXOfiFxyzO INSTALL LUMINAREBMAST ARM ANTENNA � �ZOPOOF STEEL POLE � TOP OF STEEL POLE VV 24' 0" T LOP TO I INSTALL LUMINARESMAST ARM pF ANTENNA F2".F OF ANTENNA SHROUD J ?6']" IDfi = 26' ]" SKIRT ID6 RAD RAD O CENTER - INSTALL 24'0'GONCRETE TEXTURED STEEL POLE CENTER INSTALL 24'0'CONCRETE TEXTURED STEEL POLE Z 25. ]. 25' ]'. 6° 9Q° NOTES: STREETLIGHT ANA TOP OF EXISTING POLE: 24' 0' TOP OF NEW POLE: 24' 0" TOP OF ANTENNA: 26 T' RAD CENTER: 25' ]' /SIMUTHS: 350' 8230' INSTALL (1) CROWN CASTLE 1]'X30" N?R VAULT INSTALL VGR � (6'B.O.C.)STA. 9986 / (BEHIND POLE) 0] � e / EQUIPMENT AND ANTENNAS TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH POLE. GROUND LEVEL GROUND LEVEL x CBG:" C8G " INSTALL VGR it �INSTALL (1) CROWN CASTLE 4' X6 VAULT WITH — FLUSH MOUNT VENTBB (2) ML IONS INSIDE. 5' SIDEWALK (0' B.O.C.) $TA. 99 � 85 INSTALL (iJ CROWN CASTLE IT' X 30' WfR VAULT NSTALL (1) CROWN CASTLE 4' X fi VAULT WITH _ FLUSH MOUNT VENTS S (2) ML IONS INSIDE. (fi' B.O.C.7 STA. 99 � 88 (0' B, O.C.) STA. 99 * 82 ASG09 B sE u �" 2;2 27 CROWN CASTLE Iv N,'6x DRrvl.lx" L, x Commuenicanons ieul vyvovaeu To Al-�s sfwcTLt vxUxIBiTFEU. is �IfYRFOIINF 11-116 DI7�g7 GRT MOVEU CiSR PNU LAN PEUE6Ta.7111111 ASG09 30462 CAMINO PORVENIR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA POLE PROFILE "�.r:�" �nnon] ��xc.i.' P-2 A ANTENNA DETAILS SCALE: 1:5 B 12 O'CLOCK VIEW SCALE: 1:8 B 3 O'CLOCK VIEW SCALE: 1:8 06` INSTALL 24'0'CONCRETE TEXTURED INSTALL (1)AMPHENOL CUUBO70XOBFXyaO G STEEL / ANTENNA INSTALL (i) AMPHENOL CUUBO]OXOGFxyzO , ANTENNA INSTALL (1)AMPHENOL CUUBO]OXOfiFxyzO INSTALL LUMINAREBMAST ARM ANTENNA � �ZOPOOF STEEL POLE � TOP OF STEEL POLE VV 24' 0" T LOP TO I INSTALL LUMINARESMAST ARM pF ANTENNA F2".F OF ANTENNA SHROUD J ?6']" IDfi = 26' ]" SKIRT ID6 RAD RAD O CENTER - INSTALL 24'0'GONCRETE TEXTURED STEEL POLE CENTER INSTALL 24'0'CONCRETE TEXTURED STEEL POLE Z 25. ]. 25' ]'. 6° 9Q° NOTES: STREETLIGHT ANA TOP OF EXISTING POLE: 24' 0' TOP OF NEW POLE: 24' 0" TOP OF ANTENNA: 26 T' RAD CENTER: 25' ]' /SIMUTHS: 350' 8230' INSTALL (1) CROWN CASTLE 1]'X30" N?R VAULT INSTALL VGR � (6'B.O.C.)STA. 9986 / (BEHIND POLE) 0] � e / EQUIPMENT AND ANTENNAS TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH POLE. GROUND LEVEL GROUND LEVEL x CBG:" C8G " INSTALL VGR it �INSTALL (1) CROWN CASTLE 4' X6 VAULT WITH — FLUSH MOUNT VENTBB (2) ML IONS INSIDE. 5' SIDEWALK (0' B.O.C.) $TA. 99 � 85 INSTALL (iJ CROWN CASTLE IT' X 30' WfR VAULT NSTALL (1) CROWN CASTLE 4' X fi VAULT WITH _ FLUSH PROPOSED rl& iTolum NON �q 1 0 llik ASG NO. 09 A ANTENNA DETAILS SCALE: 1:5 B 1 12 O'CLOCK VIEW SCALE: 1:8 B 3 O'CLOCK VIEW SCALE: 1:8 010" Ca, INSTALL 24.0' CONCRETE TEXTURED INSTALL (1) AMPHENOL CUUB070ASSF.y O INSTALL (1) AMPNENOL CUUB07OX06F*20 G` STEEL POLE ANTENNA ANTENNA INSTALL (1) AMPHENOL CUUBO70XA6ryF0 ^ ANTENNA / T SOA_ TOP OF STEEL POLE TOP OF STEEL POLE O 24 0' JT SSK RTD 24'0' / TOP 2' y OF ANTENNA SH oU 26 - SK RT ,' TOP OF ANTENNA o z INSTALL 24'0* CONCRETE TEXTURED INSTALL 24' 0- CONCRETE TEXTURED 0.2T;" RAD CENTER STEEL POLE STEEL POLE HAD CENTER 90° 27,n' NOTES: STREETLIGHT #NA TOP OF EXISTING POLE: 24' P TOP OF NEW POLE: 24'0` 014' TOP OF ANTENNA: 28' P IN6TALLVGR 0t4• INSTALL (1) CASTLE 1TX30 WTR VAULT RAD CENTER: 2T �' (BEHIND VAULT) (ST B.oCB.O.068 .) STA 98+ KIMUTH5:3W 4230' / EQUIPMENT AND ANTENNAS TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH POLE. GROUND LEVEL GROUND LEVE L c&G . CSG • ' ' INSTALL VGR INSTALL III CROWN&(2) 4'X6'VAULTWITH FLUSH MOUNT VENTSS8 (2) ML IONS INSIDE. 8'SIDEWALK (0' B.O.C) STA. 88+82 NSTALL (1) CROWN CASTLE 4' X S' VAULT WITH INSTALL (1) CROWN CASTLE 17' X 30• WR VAULT FLUSH MOUNT VENTS & (2) ML IONS INSIDE. i IS B.O.C.) STA. 1W (0' B.O.C.) STA. 99+82 ASG09 eHnu u �Mj1Y 242727 T �°. CCROWN CASTLE ^uu SYE�,'IeDM L•ENTEX FLW sVTNE. c'AY wuw.m�wnuwk.olwn Communications tx1l EUIwN xAUE welt t:A81.YeAU. CA 12- eFAX:I)bu YsryY3hP PNIIPWITAMI' ERhUWLaTDX IECLOSURE oTHEX IHAN AY IT RPFwTEs TO ATAT t9 stX1rnY PIWRIBITEU. Is un snl,lF"'��lu Iry REDLINE fWlt& MOVED GSR PxO CATV PEDESTAL ]ittftl CUSTOMER REDLINE it1101t/ ASG09 30482 CAMINO PORVENIR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA POLE PROFILE 'll/IU/IT P-3 IBJ PROPOSED DESIGN OPTION NO. 3 ASG NO. 09 A ANTENNA DETAILS SCALE: 1:5 B 12 O'CLOCK VIEW SCALE: 1:8 B 1 3 O'CLOCK VIEW SCALE: 1:8 Oto' C' INSTALL 24-V CONCRETE TEXTURED INSTALL (1) AMPHENOL CUU807UMFay40 �C STEEL POLE WITH (2) ML IONS INSIDE. INSTALL (1) AMPHENOL CUUB070—F.YN ANTENNA ANTENNA INSTALL (1) AMPHENOL CUVBO]0X06Fxyx0 INSTALL LUMINARE S MAST ARM C' ANTENNA 1� SH_TOP AIRT SKIRT OF STEEL POLE 290 SHROUD TOP OF STEEL POLE Q TOP 1' 11 b•SKIRT INSTALL LUMINAREBMAST ARM 24' 0" .O OFANTENNA 2T e' To,rnp OF ANTENNA RAD CENTER INSTALL 24 0' CONCRETE TEXTURED RAD STEEL POLE WITH (2) ML IONS INSIDE, CENTER 0 26. Z 0. INSTALL 24' 0' CONCRETE TEXTURED STEEL POLE WITH (2) ML IONS INSIDE. 90° Ot6. NOTES: EE NA TOSTREETLIGHT OF TOPEXISTINAISTIN G POLE: 24'X TOP OF NEW POLE:24' 0' TOP OF ANTENNA: 27' e RAO CENTER: 26'I' T AZIMUTHS', 30' S 230' GROUND LEVEL GROUND LEVEL EQUIPMENT AND ANTENNAS TO 8E PAINTED TO MATCH POLE. C&O � „4(IN9ThlL VGR ' ' INSTALL VGR INSTALL (1) C1 —. CASTLE 17' A 3O' WRR VAULT INSTALL (1) CROWN CASTLE lr X W' WTR VAULT I6' B.O.C.) STA. 100 r 86 I6' BOC STA. 100 t 88 ASG09 2427271 CROWN v CASTLE sYxt 01UVl.Is'•Flaux Communications AU TV TITuST-YYWiHIBITkO.�k� NO sxxlu h:.11kx'I' ASG09 30462 CAMINO PORVENIR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA POLE PROFILE P-4 m • ;L PROPO DESIGN OPTION NO. 4 ASG NO. 09 B-11 asGo! °`/^ CRC vCAc- NG WE' >ul?id'Aa'ERLiM ("i ti'LO'R 6)R Commnni I�MF)1 i !IU'Mk1ETak5 MYMMn IkEfYliri(aPM1 tkYY CLOYY iI.YP N C U'I R MAZ T Sf LXUYIA Cx5hT1UFM1linL.TR).—I AN pl<('ELTSE`RF V'fltlL E —Iq\ I TY).\iiT Ma w(RM"ET5' IAeN IP flt�{ (:ALV A`E4N.Y6 ASO" 30462 CAMINO PORI RANCHO PALOS VERS POLE PROFI I�AC� IR;�715 F-2 ASG09 4CROWNL CASTLE`iv cRow v CASTLE NG WEST LLC 7'r +w SPERRVAt CkNI'P&DR aTE I:W Dt\TVE, CA v?518 Ej I Communications - _ Top of Antenna �j c 23.0„ y r sa.I misoN aAce s�nrezm 'rwl o_w.m34 .s �" "� raoruurw\ �vroa>,AnoN - �1•A( PR�h tl<M C4WIAP.tDMTlOS -. _ _._ _-_�� MM'INOSISflIUPRLL'IARYAND E"IW.TO ATRT m 'x£ otlmt THAN u rt avaTts 'TrNTo Ars�r/>snslT�wcyn�'.Y�eKayo'}��lreo. Existing Site I 9 /�(&'� S1I"TWT tU.— D - RiD �R\tCE NtItT 1t/0 5 `b — ASG()9 Vicinity Map 30462 CAMINODPORVENIR LOOKING EAST Proposed Site ASG09 RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA PHOTOSIM ioio ns I c,Z` S-2 i u CROWN 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 pf_ASG-09 -. Across from 30452 Camitio Porvenir (AB) Dear Ms. Colborn, Gown Castle NG West LLC ("Crown Castle") hereby appeals the Planning Commission's August 30, 2017, adoption of a resolution of denial of the above -referenced Major Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Permit application ("Denial"), pursuant to City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code ("RPVMC") section 12.18.060. D and 17.80.030.A ("Appeal"). This appeal is timely under RPVMC section 17.80.030. The Appeal rests on the following grounds, among others: (1) The Denial prohibits, or has the effect of prohibiting, the provision of personal wireless services in violation of 47 U.S.C. section 332 (c)(7)(B)(i)(II). (2) The Denial is not supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record in violation of 47 U.S.C. section 332 (c)(7)(B)(iii). (3) The Denial is based, in part, on the perceived environmental effects of radio frequency emissions in violation of 47 U.S.C. section 332 (c)(7)(B)(iv). (4) The Denial is unlawful, since it violates Crown Castle's vested right to deploy its facilities in the public rights-of-way, in violation of Public Utilities Code section 7901. The Denial exceeds the limited time, place and manner controls set forth by Public Utilities Code section 7901.1. Crown Castle reserves the right to supplement its reasons for the Appeal, and otherwise supplement the administrative record with its own evidence and points of law up to the date of the City Council hearing on this Appeal. Vett' ruly yours, Mws:11INN,s Aaron Snyder, Crown C stle NG West LLC 7104273.1 The Foundation for a Wireless World. CrownCastle.com C-1 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2017-26 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY ASG NO. 09 FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING STREET LIGHT POLE WITH THE INSTALLATION OF A NEW 26.7 -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 CANISTER SLEEVE AT THE TOP OF THE POLE WITH RELATED VAULTED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT ADJACENT TO 30462 CAMINO PORVENIR. 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. 09 adjacent to 30452 Camino Porvenir; WHEREAS, the original proposal called for the replacement of a 24 -foot tall street light pole with a new 24 -foot tall street light pole with 21.4 -inch panel antennas and above -ground equipment; WHEREAS, the alternative proposal calls for a replacement 26.7 -foot 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 ("CEQK) 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; 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; P.C. Resolution No. 2017-26 Page 1 of 6 01203.0015/403998.2 D-1 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 adjacent to 30452 Camino Porvenir, B. Removal of an existing 24 -foot tall marbelite street light with a mast arm and luminaire to be decommissioned and replaced with a 26.7 -foot tall marbelite octagonal street light with a 2' tall canister with a 3' tall tapered sleeve mounted at the top of the new pole, C. Install vaulted mechanical equipment in the PROW. Section 2: The findings required to be made by the Planning Commission for the approval of a WTF permit, as set forth in Chapter 12.18 of the RPVMC, have not been made as follows: A. The Project does not meet the Findings required by Section 12.18.090, Subsection B, of the Municipal Code, which particularly requires that "[t]he proposed facility has been designed and located in compliance with all applicable provisions of this chapter," as follows: 12.18.080(A)(1)(a): The applicant shall employ screening, undergrounding and camouflage design techniques in the design and placement of wireless telecommunications facilities in order to ensure that the facility is as visually screened as possible, to prevent the facility from dominating the surrounding area and to minimize significant view impacts from surrounding properties all in a manner that achieves compatibility with the community and in compliance with Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration) of this code. The proposed replacement pole with the antennas affixed to the top of the pole albeit contained in a canister shroud, at a height of 26.7', 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 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 01203.00151403998.2 P.C. Resolution No. 2017-26 Page 2 of 6 D-2 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. The proposed marbelite street light pole will not visually blend with the surrounding environment. The replacement street light pole, at a height of 26.7', 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 that includes minimizing the number and appearance of utilities and related equipment, particularly in residential areas. In addition, the introduction of the antenna and underground equipment necessary for this Project may lead to a proliferation of utility equipment that would otherwise not be located in the right-of- way. Therefore, this Project will detract from the visual appearance of the streetscape. These incremental changes to the improvements in the right-of-way will lead to the deterioration of the City's well-maintained streetscapes, and will establish a precedent for additional facilities in the 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 01203.00151403998.2 P.C. Resolution No. 2017-26 Page 3 of 6 D-3 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 26.7' 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 26.7', 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 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 light pole or a "slim -line" design that much more closely resembles an actual residential street light pole, as opposed to the proposed Project. 01203.0015/403998.2 P.C. Resolution No. 2017-26 Page 4 of 6 M11 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 55-65 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. Furthermore, the Applicant did not sufficiently assess how the approved installation of ASG No. 10 would impact or resolve the alleged coverage gap. Substantial evidence was not presented to the effect that the nearby installation of the Commission -approved facility, ASG No. 10, on Los Verdes Drive (which is located to the east and upslope of this application across the Los Verdes Golf Course property) will resolve alleged coverage gap issues once built. C. The Project does not meet the Findings required by Section 12.18.090, Subsection E, of the Municipal Code, which particularly requires that "[t]he applicant has provided the city with a meaningful comparative analysis that includes the factual reasons why the proposed location and design is the least noncompliant location and design necessary to reasonably achieve the applicant's reasonable technical service objectives," as follows: The Applicant has not provided a meaningful alternative comparative analysis and the proposed project is not found to be the preferred design. See above discussions in regards to RPVMC §12.18.080 for further detail, which discussions are incorporated here. Furthermore, there is inadequate documentation to support a conclusion that no other design alternative exists that might better conceal the proposed facilities from public view and/or minimize the addition of vaulted equipment within the 01203.00151403998.2 P.C. Resolution No. 2017-26 Page 5 of 6 D-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 4: For the foregoing reasons and based on testimony and evidence presented at the public hearings, the information and findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby denies, without prejudice, ASG No. 09 for the proposed wireless telecommunication facility installation adjacent to 30452 Camino Porvenir. 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 Ara r ICP Community Development Director; and, Secretary of the Planning Commission 01203.0015/403998.2 JVh M. ruikshank Cman P.C. Resolution No. 2017-26 Page 6 of 6 A e CITY OF tA STAFF REPORT �s9. Cres % t A U) �0 SITE LOCATION �r Rancho Palos': C�SrS Verdes eo cs�c4�� . LNC S� N.T.S. i RmCHO 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. 09 PROJECT ADDRESS: 30452 CAMINO PORVENIR APPLICANT: AARON SNYDER (CROWN CASTLE) LANDOWNER: CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES STAFF ART BASHMAKIAN, CONTRACT COORDINATOR: PLANNER REQUESTED ACTION: INSTALL A NEW 24' 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. 09 TO ALLOW THE REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING 24 -FOOT TALL STREET LIGHT POLE WITH THE INSTALLATION OF A NEW 26.7 -FOOT TALL STREET LIGHT POLE WITH MAST ARM AND LUMINAIR 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 CODE SECTION: RPVMC CHAPTERS 12.18 AND 17.02 ACTION DEADLINE: SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 (SHOT CLOCK) E-1 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT — (WTF ASG NO. 09) AUGUST 30, 2017 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS RESIDING WITHIN 500' OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: NONE. PRE -COMMISSION DISCLOSURES: PRIOR TO THE TAKING OF PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM, ANY PLANNING COMMISSIONERS THAT CONDUCTED ON-SITE INSPECTIONS OR ENGAGED IN EXTRA - HEARING DISCUSSIONS RELATING TO THIS ITEM SHOULD DISCLOSE SUCH EXTRA -HEARING EVIDENCE AS PART OF THE HEARING RECORD BACKGROUND 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 sites for the construction and deployment of wireless telecommunications antennas throughout local jurisdictions. On May 26, 2016, Crown Castle submitted an application, proposing to install Wireless Telecommunications Facility ASG No. 09 in the public right-of-way (PROW) at 30452 Camino Porvenir. The City notified Crown Castle that the application documents were incomplete after three resubmittals. Notices were sent to Crown Castle on June 27, 2016, January 12, 2017 and February 15, 2017. Ultimately, Crown Castle submitted documentation to obtain a mock-up permit. The mock-up of the proposed installation was constructed on June 13, 2017 and on June 2, 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 6 -feet in front of the 30452 Camino Porvenir property line. The node is located on the east side of a gently sloping road, about 878 feet east of Calle De Suenos. Existing street lights line the road on the east side of the road between 130 -feet to 180 -feet intervals. There are trees and shrubs near the site (there is no landscaped parkway). PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project as originally submitted was to remove an existing 24 -foot tall marbelite octagonal street light pole, and replace it with a 24 -foot tall marbelite octagonal street light vvith mast arm and lUminnire with two 21,4-inr:h panel antennas that would be affixed below the mast arm. The center of the proposed antennas would E-2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 09) AUGUST 30, 2017 PAGE 3 be 22.5". Two ions and a power meter were to be placed on the ground adjacent to the street light pole, consisting of 9.7 cubic feet of equipment boxes in the PROW. Below is a photograph of the existing site and the photo simulations for the proposed project as originally submitted by the Applicant: Existing Site Revised Project Proposed Site ASG09 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 at a total height of 26.7' and are encased in a 2' tall cylinder -shaped shroud mounted canister that measures approximately 2' in outside diameter (O.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 be painted a concrete color to match the Marbelite light pole. Additionally, the Applicant has agreed to vault the related mechanical equipment including the radio and auxiliary equipment. There will be a total of three vaults that will cover 43 sq. ft. of surface area as shown on the site plan and in the photo simulation below. All vents and meter boxes will be vaulted and flush with the ground. E-3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 09) AUGUST 30, 2017 PAGE 4 In addition to the revised project, the Applicant has proposed similar antennas on street light poles and one new pole 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. Thus, the primary location combined (with the revised design) was found to be superior. 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 June 2, 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. Additionally, the Applicant has notified the City 20 days prior to the expiration of the shot clock for this application, which was September 1, 2017. However, on August 7, 2017, the Applicant provided the City with a Shot E-4 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 09) AUGUST 30, 2017 PAGE 5 Clock Tolling Agreement (See Attachment) establishing a new Shot Clock Expiration date of September 30, 2017. Accordingly, all notice requirements have been met. B. The proposed facility has been designed and located in compliance with all applicable provisions of this chapter. Chapter 12.18 of the RPVMC has detailed requirements for Wireless Telecommunications Facilities in the PROW. Specifically, Section 12.18.080 lists the design and development standards for these installations. The applicable Sections relevant to the Findings are listed and evaluated below (italics text is the Code requirement followed by Staff's analysis). 12.18.080(A)(1)(a): The applicant shall employ screening, undergrounding and camouflage design techniques in the design and placement of wireless telecommunications facilities in order to ensure that the facility is as visually screened as possible, to prevent the facility from dominating the surrounding area and to minimize significant view impacts from surrounding properties all in a manner that achieves compatibility with the community and in compliance with Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration) of this code. 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 26.7' 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" 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 of surface area consisting of the following: Radio vault - 32 sq. ft. WTR vault - 5 sq. ft. Fiber vault - 6 sq. ft. As further detailed below, a view analysis was conducted and City staff determined that the proposed installation will not have any significant view E-5 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 09) AUGUST 30, 2017 PAGE 6 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 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 original Project (see attachment). As described above, the original Project would not result in a significant view impairment to surrounding residences. Based on a view assessment of the neighborhood, Staff determined that the proposed 24.5' tall pole with the attached facility would not impair the public view from the surrounding view areas including those views from Camino Porvenir. 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 47 n) f�An 1 / .VL. "FV. E-6 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 09) AUGUST 30, 2017 PAGE 7 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 267. 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. 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 or views from residences in 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 (see above photograph). 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 24' 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 E-7 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 09) AUGUST 30, 2017 PAGE 8 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 26.7'. The mechanical equipment will be vaulted under the existing sidewalk. Although both designs would be visible, the least visible would be the cylinder shroud designed antenna canister that screens the antenna panels and related wires, and while the proposed cylinder shroud design would result in a taller pole, it presents a slimmer side view that blends more cleanly with the verticality of the light pole. Recognizing the exposed 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 streets as identified in the City's General Plan. Therefore, the Planning Commission shall not grant an Exception unless the Findings for an Exception can be demonstrated as detailed further below. 12.18.080(A)(6)(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 AR• PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 09) AUGUST 30, 2017 PAGE 9 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 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 E-9 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 09) AUGUST 30, 2017 PAGE 10 pedestrians and motorists and in compliance with Section 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility) so as not to obstruct the intersection visibility triangle. Pursuant to the application documents submitted to the City including the design, height and size, the proposed installation including the undergrounding of the 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. 12.18.080(A)(10): Public Facilities. A facility shall not be located within any portion of the public right-of-way interfering with access to a fire hydrant, fire station, fire escape, water valve, underground vault, valve housing structure, or any other public health or safety facility. Pursuant to the application documents submitted to the City, the proposed installation, including the undergrounding of the mechanical equipment, will not interfere with any public health or safety facilities including interfering with fire hydrants, fire stations, water lines, or other infrastructure. C. If applicable, the applicant has demonstrated its inability to locate on existing infrastructure. Not applicable as the proposed WTF antenna is proposed to be installed on a replacement 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-10 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 09) AUGUST 30, 2017 PAGE 11 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 four alternative locations, and concurs that the original 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: E-11 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 09) AUGUST 30, 2017 PAGE 12 "The city council recognizes that federal law prohibits a permit denial when it would effectively prohibit the provision of personal wireless services and the applicant proposes the least intrusive means to provide such services. The city council finds that, due to wide variation among wireless facilities, technical service objectives and changed circumstances over time, a limited exemption for proposals in which strict compliance with this chapter would effectively prohibit personal wireless services serves the public interest. The city council further finds that circumstances in which an effective prohibition may occur are extremely difficult to discern, and that specified findings to guide the analysis promotes clarity and the city's legitimate interest in well-planned wireless facilities deployment. Therefore, in the event that any applicant asserts that strict compliance with any provision in this chapter, as applied to a specific proposed personal wireless services facility, would effectively prohibit the provision of personal wireless services, the planning commission may grant a limited, one-time exemption from strict compliance subject to the provisions in this section." Section 12.18.190(B) states that the Planning Commission shall not grant any Exception unless the applicant demonstrates with clear and convincing evidence in support of the following findings: (Finding shown in bold text followed by Staff's analysis): 1. The proposed wireless facility qualifies as a "personal wireless services facility" as defined in United States Code, Title 47, section 332(c)(7)(C)(ii). The Applicant has provided sufficient information to establish that the 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) E-12 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 09) AUGUST 30, 2017 PAGE 13 are less clearly defined; this is due to the extremely rugged and varied terrain associated with the surrounding landscape. The City's consultant also concluded that from an engineering perspective, Crown Castle has provided engineering measurement data defining gaps in AT&T coverage in small pocketed areas. This has been independently examined by the City's consultant who determined that the signal levels are lower than industry recommended levels to support modern 3G/4G customer needs. Further, the engineering design provided by Crown Castle supports that, if constructed, DAS site ASG 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 1, LLC v. City of Hillsboro (D.Or. 2004) 301 F.Supp.2d 1251, 1261 [whether facilities were needed to improve weak signals or to fill a complete void in coverage]; Nextel Partners, Inc. v. Town of Amherst (W.D.N.Y.2003) 251 F.Supp.2d 1187, 1196 [gap covers well traveled roads on which customers lack roaming capabilities]; Am. Cellular Network Co., LLC v. Upper Dublin Twp. (E.D.Pa.2002) 203 F.Supp.2d 383, 390-91 [considering "drive tests"]; Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Town of Ogunquit (D.Me. 2001) 175 F.Supp.2d 77, 90 [whether gap affects commercial district]; APT Minneapolis, Inc. v. Stillwater Twp. (D.Minn. June 22, 2001) No. 00-2500, 2001 WL 1640069, at *2-3 [whether gap poses public safety risk].) 3. The applicant has provided the City with a meaningful comparative analysis that includes the factual reasons why any alternative location(s) or design(s) suggested by the city or otherwise identified in the administrative record, including but not limited to potential alternatives identified at any public meeting or hearing, are not technically feasible or potentially available. E-13 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 09) AUGUST 30, 2017 PAGE 14 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. Further, other locations and designs that may fill the coverage gap claimed by the Applicant and discussed by the City's RF Engineer (attached) were found to be more intrusive then the proposed project as revised: • As noted above, Staff finds locations that utilize an existing or replacement pole to be preferable to a whole new pole. • A smaller or lower pole could be utilized, but it would require a multiplicity of wireless poles in the gap area claimed by the Applicant and discussed by the City's RF Engineer (attached), as opposed to having one AT&T pole in this area. E-14 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 09) AUGUST 30, 2017 PAGE 15 • 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 26.7' 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. And, as stated in the previous Finding, the limited commercially zoned areas and limited number of collector or arterial streets require the use of local residential streets in order to provide proper coverage and capacity to various portions of the City. Thus, there are no commercial zones within the signal reach of the identified gap. It should be noted that the RPVMC Section 12.18.190(C) provides that the Commission "shall limit its exemption to the extent to which the applicant demonstrates such exemption is necessary to reasonably achieve its reasonable technical service objectives. The Planning Commission may adopt Conditions of Approval as reasonably necessary to promote the purposes in this chapter and protect the public health, safety and welfare." ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Radio Frequency (RF) Emissions In compliance with RPVMC Section 12.18.050, the Applicant provided the City with "an RF exposure compliance report prepared and certified by an RF engineer acceptable to the City that certifies that the proposed facility, as well as any facilities that contribute to the cumulative exposure in the subject area, will comply with applicable federal RF exposure standards and exposure limits." With regards to RF cumulative impact concerns, there is no additional impacts simply from the installation of wireless facilities throughout the City as shown in the applicant's plans. As long as the antennas are 13.9' or more above ground and the 8' public E-15 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 09) AUGUST 30, 2017 PAGE 16 exclusion zone directly in front and at the same elevation as the antenna is observed, there is no cumulative impacts associated with RF exposure. Unlike cumulative traffic impacts from additional urban development, there is no equivalent cumulative impacts. In other words, the degree of RF does not increase in neighborhoods where it can impact the general population just from having multiple wireless facilities in a neighborhood. Importantly, beyond the fact that Applicant complied with this submittal requirement, any consideration of RF Emissions by the Planning Commission, or the health effects thereof, are beyond the Commission's authority to the extent the emissions conform to the applicable FCC regulations. Under the Telecom Act, the FCC completely occupies the field with respect to RF emissions regulation, and established comprehensive rules for maximum permissible exposure levels (the "FCC Guidelines"). State and local governments cannot (1) regulate wireless facilities based on environmental effects from RF emissions when the emissions conform to the applicable FCC regulations or (2) establish their own RF exposure standards—whether more strict, more lenient or even the same. (47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv).). As the emissions conform to the FCC regulations, the City cannot impose its own emission standards or ignore the FCC standards. Shot Clock State and federal laws, and a FCC ruling, provide that a local jurisdiction must act on an application for certain wireless facilities antennas within the following certain strict timeframes: (1) a 150 -day shot clock for new facilities; (2) a 90 -day shot clock for modifications resulting in a substantial change; or (3) a 60 -day shot clock for modifications that do not result in a substantial change. If a local government fails to approve or deny a facilities request within the applicable time period, the request will be "deemed granted" upon written notification from the applicant to the local government stating that the request is considered approved. The Project application proposes a new facility subject to the 150 -day shot clock. The application was submitted on May 26, 2016. The clock was "tolled" several times as a result of incomplete application submittals. As a result, the shot clock has not run, and it was set to expire on September 1, 2017. But as stated earlier, a new Shot Clock Tolling Agreement, dated August 7, 2017 (See Attachment) established a new Shot Clock Expiration date of September 30, 2017. As a point of clarification, the Planning Commission's action on the Project is the final City decision, unless appealed to the City Council. While the law is not clear, there is no binding legal precedent in California requiring that the shot clock run pending an appeal period. Accordingly, it is thought that the Commission's action on the Project may toll the shot clock. E-16 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 09) AUGUST 30, 2017 PAGE 17 Mock -Up Notice Issues On June 2, 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 13, 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. Public Comments Attached are the public comments received (see attachment). 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. 09 and direct Staff to come back with a resolution at the September 12, 2017 meeting; 2. Approve the originally proposed design that replaces the existing 24' light pole with the installation of a new 24' tall streetlight with two 21.4" panel antennas that would be affixed below the mast arm; or, 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 E-17 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 09) AUGUST 30, 2017 PAGE 18 • Coverage Maps and Supporting Documents from the Applicant • Feasibility Analysis on Alternate Sites • August 7, 2017 Shot Clock Tolling Agreement • Public Comments E-18 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. 09 TO ALLOW THE REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING STREET LIGHT POLE WITH THE INSTALLATION OF A NEW 26.7 -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 30452 CAMINO PORVENIR. 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. 09 located adjacent to 30452 Camino Porvenir; WHEREAS, the Project calls for an existing 24 -foot tall marbelite octagonal street light with a mast arm and luminaire to be decommissioned and replaced with a 27.5 -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. 2017- PagEL'198 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 adjacent to 30452 Camino Porvenir, B. Removal of an existing 24 -foot tall marbelite street light with a mast arm and luminaire to be decommissioned and replaced with a 26.7 -foot tall marbelite octagonal street light with a 2' tall canister with a 3' tall tapered sleeve mounted at the top of the new pole, C. Install vaulted mechanical equipment in the PROW. Section 2: Approval of a WTFP is warranted because the Project meets the findings required by Section 12.18.090 of the Municipal Code: A. All notices required for the proposed installation have been given. Crown Castle and the City have provided all notices required by the RPVMC. On June 2, 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)(1)(a): The applicant shall employ screening, undergrounding and camouflage design techniques in the design and placement of wireless telecommunications facilities in order to ensure that the facility is as visually screened as possible, to prevent the facility from dominating the surrounding area and to minimize significant view impacts from surrounding properties all in a manner that achieves compatibility with the community and in compliance with Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration) of this code. The project employs screening and a camouflage design with the use of a 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 26.7' 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. 2017- PagE_2 208 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 Camino Porvenir. 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- Pagl f e 18 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 26.7'. 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 16'/2' 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. 2017- Pagt4 � 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. 2017- Pag55 V 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. 2017- Pagv6 1248 Other locations and designs considered as part of the application process for purposes of filling the coverage gap claimed by the Applicant and discussed by the City's RF Engineer were found to be more intrusive then the proposed project. Section 3: Because the Project's location is within a residential zone and within the PROW of local streets as identified in the General Plan, approval of a WTFP also requires an exception under Section 12.18.190 of the Municipal Code. The Project meets the findings for an exception as required by Section 12.18.190(B) of the Municipal Code: 1. The proposed wireless facility qualifies as a "personal wireless services facility" as defined in United States Code, Title 47, section 332(c)(7)(C)(ii). The WTF meets the definition of "personal wireless services facility" as defined by the United States Code. 2. The applicant has provided the city with a clearly defined technical service objective and a clearly defined potential site search area. The "technical service objective" identified by the Applicant in all application documents is the coverage of a "significant gap" in service along Camino Porvenir. 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 P.C. Resolution No. 2017- Pag,E-629 administrative record, including but not limited to potential alternatives identified at any public meeting or hearing, are not technically feasible or potentially available. The Applicant has provided comparative analysis for possible similar antennas on at the following 4 locations: • 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 proposed project is the least intrusive location for the wireless telecommunications facility in the immediate area because of the surrounding terrain. There are no major collector or arterial streets in the immediate area. 4. The applicant has provided the city with a meaningful comparative analysis that includes the factual reasons why the proposed location and design deviates is the least noncompliant location and design necessary to reasonably achieve the applicant's reasonable technical service objectives. The Applicant has provided a meaningful alternative comparative analysis and the proposed project is found to be the preferred design. Section 4: Conditions regarding any of the requirements listed above which the Planning Commission finds to be necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare, have been imposed in the attached Exhibit A. Section 5: The Project is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") because the Project constitutes a small scale installation of new a new facility (14 CCR § 15303(d)). P.C. Resolution No. 2017 - Page -126 017 - Page 126 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 30452 Camino Porvenir (ASG NO. 09). PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 30th day of August 2017, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: RECUSALS: ABSENT: Ara Mihranian, AICP Community Development Director; and, Secretary of the Planning Commission John M. Cruikshank Chairman P.C. Resolution No. 2017- PagV 12r Exhibit "A" Conditions of Approval WTF ASG NO. 09 ADJACENT TO 30452 Camino Porvenir 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. 6. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be cause to revoke the approval of the project pursuant to the RPVMC. P.C. Resolution No. 2017 - Page ILI- 1288 7. If the applicant has not obtained approvals from Public Works for the approved project or not commenced the approved project within one year of the final effective date of this Resolution, approval of the project shall expire and be of no further effect unless, prior to expiration, a written request for extension is filed with the Public Works Department and approved by the Director. 8. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations and/or requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter standard shall apply. 9. The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that material used for immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may include, but not be limited to: the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or discarded furniture, appliances or other household fixtures. 10. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, 9:OOAM to 5:OOPM on Saturday, with no construction activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section 17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. During demolition, construction and/or grading operations, trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining street rights-of-way before 7AM Monday through Friday and before 9AM on Saturday, in accordance with the permitted hours of construction stated in this condition. When feasible to do so, the construction contractor shall provide staging areas on-site to minimize off-site transportation of heavy construction equipment. These areas shall be located to maximize the distance between staging activities and neighboring properties, subject to approval by the building official. 11. All grading, landscaping and construction activities shall exercise effective dust control techniques, either through screening and/or watering. 12. Prior to commencement work, the Applicant shall obtain approval of a haul route from the Director of Public Works. 13. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly manner, to the satisfaction of the City's Inspector. All construction waste and debris resulting from a construction, alteration or repair project shall be removed on a weekly basis by the contractor or property owner. 14. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be completed in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the City with the effective date of this Resolution. P.C. Resolution No. 2017- Page Ess29 Project -specific Conditions: 15. This approval allows for the following: A. Installation of a Wireless Telecommunication Facility WTF adjacent to 30452 Camino Porvenir. B. The removal of an existing 24 -foot tall rounded fiberglass street light with a mast arm and luminaire to be decommissioned and shall be replaced with a new Marbelite concrete octagonal streetlight street light pole that shall not exceed a total height of 26.7 -feet in height, as measured from adjacent grade to the top of the WTF canister, including a 2' tall canister with a a- foot tall tapered shroud sleeve mounted at the top of the new pole. 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 3 EU 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. 2017 - Page LM c3 V 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. 2017 - Page Lal 12 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 l f 33 signs or signals, hydrants, mailboxes, permitted sidewalk dining, permitted street furniture or other objects permitted at or near said location. 27. Unless California Government Code Section 65964, as may be amended, authorizes the city to issue a permit with a shorter term, a permit for any wireless telecommunications facility shall be valid for a period of ten years, unless pursuant to another provision of the RPVMC or these Conditions of Approval, it lapses sooner or is revoked. At the end of ten years from the date of issuance, such permit shall automatically expire. 28. A permittee may apply for a new permit within 180 days prior to expiration. Said application and proposal shall comply with the city's current Code requirements for WTF's. 29. A WTF is considered abandoned and shall be promptly removed as provided herein if it ceases to provide wireless telecommunications services for 90 or more consecutive days unless the permittee has obtained prior written approval from the director which shall not be unreasonably denied. If there are two or more users of a single facility, then this provision shall not become effective until all users cease using the facility. 30. The operator of a facility shall notify the City in writing of its intent to abandon or cease use of a permitted site or a nonconforming site (including unpermitted sites) within ten days of ceasing or abandoning use. Notwithstanding any other provision herein, the operator of the facility shall provide written notice to the director of any discontinuation of operations of 30 days or more. 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. 2017 - Page Lfi S48 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 E_63 9 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. 2017 - Page 4P 5(�8 CONI'RACI OR IT ALI, VERIFY AT.]. PLANS AND EXISTING DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS ON THE POB SITE AND SHALL. IMMEDIA'TF.LY NO'HF'Y TILE ENGINEER IN WRITING OF ANY DISCREPANCIES BEFORE PROCEEDING MIT If THE WORK OR RESPONSIBLE FOR SAME. ASG09 30452 CAMINO PORVENIR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA SIGN OFF TITLE SIGNATURE NETWORK REAL ESTATE PROJECT MANAGER CONSTRUCTION MkNAGER RADIO FREOUENCI' DATE PROTECT DESCRIPTION: • DELAMMISSION&RF.NEO\"EF_XISTNG24'0"FIIGHNIAR FLaEOCTAOUNAL STREFI'LIGH r (POLE ID I.198:568F1 AND RFPLACF WITH A NEIL24' 0" HIGH CONCRETE TECTURF.D STEEL POLE M'ITII MAST ARM AND LUMIN: RE (RENIOVE EXITING .NNMFR). • INSTALL H) CRGA N CASTLE 4'X G VAULT, FLUSH MOUNT VENTS MTIR METER & POW FR DISCONNECT BOX N'ITII (2) NIL IONS INSIDE, • INSTALL (2)21.4"ANTENNAS f:HPA-65F-BUI;-H2 MIMI CONCEALFAB TOP MOUNT AND SHROI1.1 • INSTALL CROWN CASTLE WIR 2'X Y VAULT. • INSTALL VOR. • POIIIPMFNT AND ANTENNAS TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH POIE IOUAN(I'PANEI. 120/240V IPHAS' I.IKW UTON 7S7 In- CREST RD RANCHO PALOS VERDES. CA W274 PROJECT SUMMARY SHEET NO I DESCRIPTION 'r -I TITLE SHEET .I DETAILS & NOTES D-2 DETAILS & NOTES D-3 DETAILS & NOTES D-1 DETAILS&NOTES D-5 DETAILS & NOTES S -I SITEPHOTOS 11 SITE PLAN R^ POLE PROFILE SHEET INDEX PROJECT' MANAGER: CROWN CASTLE ton SPECTRUM CENTER DR STE, I SW IRVINE CA 92618 1ON COWELL (925)200-6857 ION COW'ELL. �-ENDOR,&CROWNCASTLECOM CONSTRUCTION ENGNEER. CROWN CASTLE 201) SPECTRUM CENTER DR STE. 1800 IRVINE CA 92618 KENNETINSIDES (714)251-9839 KENNETH. HOBBS,a)CROWNC:ASTLE COM NODE ENGINEER. COASTAL CONINH NICATIONS 9524 TOPANGA CANTON BLIT). CIIAT:S WORTH. CA 91311 CIIRTISS TOFNSON (760)932-4.112 CIJR'I'ISSO COTSTALCOMMINCCOM PROJECT TEAM J ASG09 242727�vo R, vCROWN CASTLE `:; emmmcatlons -fio)nv�uxin D -L-1111, 111111 IIAN Al I 11L 1— TO AllL 11 IT1111.1 DIll�T CBYREDLINE "-4' MD BCISHANDCANPE ASG09 30462 CAMINO PORVENIR RANCHO PALOS VERDES. CA TITLE SHEET ACP 10/()7/li �PGAP T-1 E-37 LEGEND SYMBOL DESCRIPTION o nimraP �� r4xslrmiumrt (J I.anmrr rO.i rl. MrS it 0 inYnnsn mni m^anx —� IlaprpvnR'.�Ts nR6nS» vpwMw — —F ma.m.r+.nnrmr. R F,Sannnnpaw ABBREVIATIONS uL A.SIBALT— CAG ctrRA h!H?iFR a ltNrF .INE E\ PTSTMc WP EDOHUFPAIFbmRT PL PROPERTYLME RN. RIt1M OP NAY s;P StR01NSi0N Hfn Ab.Vtl' EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES: TF. SARV FROSION/SmDAQNT mNTRnL. PRIOR TO CON . IMPROVEM1HMTS. SHALL RC PERFOR— BY THE CONTRATOR OR QHALHTED PE - AS MDICATFD FELON' 1 NI REOLORETGNts OFTBECITI'UFRANC 11-115 NFPDEv'-LAND E{FLUPNBM MANIiAL SiOM1 1vATFRST.{N .... BE MCORftIRAnP MTO iHEDE5IGN ANOmN3TRl BION OFTHE PRU V Sm PIRNJc ISffRCM1•QHNI< RrNgRIENT lV rtx THE EROSION CUNIRIY PLAN ANOn1R tvATEA PM.LFmDN mNTROL PLAN rItPCTr. IF APPLMTBLE FOR STORM.—M1ET5. PROVIDE A ORAVFI B. Ari MILT —1— 11 OFMLFf AS INDIC.4Tm ON DETM.S S THE CON TRACTOR OR Q—BBPD PERSON SHALL BF. RESPONYIBLP. M—FAMR OF SILT AND W0 ON A M—T STREETf51 AND STORMDEM51'STEI4 Dtk: TO CONSTRTTCHON Mll-I 5 fiODGI.ffTT.IND W'ORRERYFOR PIFRGENR tt'nRR 9ULLBEA4NEA\'ADAHI.F.aTAiI.nMEt DURMG'IHERAMI'sEAYON fi nff mNTECTOR SBALF. REtiTORF..{It ERnSIONrSmMIFM Ctft'litMDLVILP TO WTIkKMG nkDER TOTHE Sr{TISFAtTiON OFTHECITYENGMFJE O0. RESIDENT ENGMEER ;\PIER FMN RTNaIFF PRODIR'INJ RAMFALI.. 1 THE CONTRATOR SHALL MSTALL ADDITIONM. EROSIONrtEDIMPNT CONTROL ABE\SORFS AS MAI E Bl'Tiff REE—FNGMEER DTTETOINF.RFSESN cIXRM TANM1 . NMICH-1 MORE R NI RRORIONrsEDinp].T mNiROL MF KOREA PROM! PFR TBE MFRO\ED IN@RO\EM; TFLW SHAW PE MmRPUETm TIPREUN NI atOSPMnEDINffwT ttWTRUL FOR MTFAMttBNDmUNS 9iALL PE DONE TO THE SATISFACHON OF THE RF_SIDEM ENGMEFR U NI —O -BLE PROTETIVE DFVRL SHMVN SH.WL xEMPLA!B AT THE END OF EAr11 tvORNMO Dnr n'Iff N wwu TS mD.miENr IB THF.CONTRA—R SHALI. AREOIS FOR WEEI:LVWETMOS MEIMJ OROBER IST TO APRIL PMH BOR PROTF.LTTEAMrGENER. . CUNTRACTOR, GIIr\LUTED PERYON, EROSION CGNTROL SIIBCUNTRARURRANI'. FMGMEFR OF WORT:. UWNWOPFJ.OPPR ANDTNE RCIDETT ENOMEERI TO GATE THE ADE<B—OF TNF. EROAON;SPtfRffNT CnNTROl AffA.4T.T0.E5.{ND OTHPR RELATED tbN3TRIATIONAROTHES STORMDRAIN INLET PROTECTION INLET EDGE OF PAVEMENT PLOW FLOW SPILLWAY, I -BAG HIGH SANDBAG 243.AGS HEIGHT EDGE OFE,I, /PAVEMENT (�j / FLOW FLOW Z� SPILLWAY. I -BAG MGH SANDBAG 2 -BAGS HEIGHT TYPICAL PROTECTION FOR INLET WITH SINGLE FLOW DIRECTION NOTES: INTENDED FOR SHORT-TERM LIRR U.SE TOFOR TBANON-STORM WATER MCL 1. N10W'FORFEOPERALVNTEN.WCEANFNTO LT. BAGSMI13TPER INO AFTER IBOtI ENTOPERATONISCODR'LTM- 5. NOT APPLiCABI£IN ARF..AS ATTR FBGFISRTS AND CLAYSMn10LRFl1_TF.R FABRIC. NOTES: !bNTEROR TO POTBOLE ALL i mLlT-ROMMOR mNTEROR TO PLACE SANDP.4OR AROIMD.11AL1.5TORM DR.NN INLETS TO rREVENT --AWA— WATER S SrUiLSrILE VILL BE Ctr\'FRED gNp(bNTAMm.WDSTREET WEi E@SNYPT ANDCLEANm ASNEmm n — MREPAIR B-11—%Rtlr H.wa01'EAm-msm THE SAnsFAr-DON OF THE CSI' ENGIATER S OCRPA GIIrtF TU BE FRUTERF IN PLACE SIDEWALK TO BE RPPIRL£U TO THE SATSFAtT1ON OF THE ITIY RIM NH T. TER CONT — SHALL RESTORE TBP. RUMR•.AY BACK TO IISORIGMAL CONDmON SATSFARORY TO T He CItY INGMFFR Ma[rDMJ. HIR NOT LITQTm T9 PAIPiJ. STPRMO. PIRP. LANES. PAVLT.@NT I.FAENDS. SIGNS. AND TRAFFlCLM➢DETERORS MBMM.X x4LL BERESTOFmEErI.ACFDPBR YOFRANCHOSPN.ORVRRDESSTANDARD PEDFTHIIOLV e - EMP WELNOT BEDIST1MBm ROW GROUND CONSTRUCTION NOTES: I OROINU mNYTRIr(TION TOREMOVFJCLEAN AI.t. D®RIS. NAES. STACLP. OR NON3lSfD 1TiRTICAiS OFF THE POLE. ALT.CUNSIRt'MVSHALT.BEMACCOWIU \ITTHMtMICIrN..CULMTI'.STATE. FEIff RN.. 1 AND GOI TS ST—ARDS MAB REGU W nONS CALi. Dcl �R xGLms rNGR Tn elcnvnTMo nr � Rro, �> _rm ox sl I NI f. W DSCAPMc N BE RESTORED TO ORIUMN, mNDmON oft BfliFR N.LEDIRPao-MrroeEeorrom METER-!-ABMLT REQIRRES ,1 1RARANt4 AT DOOR OrENMJ CNIRCADMETBASEATPAD NORMAL LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES NOTES: 1 LKAIPIN AND DEPm OFELlS11NG AND PROMSED LOII.rt�S ARST HErRONDED BT TF@ SI.TDIVNFR AND STInWT' ON,>Nl' NRNS Sl9SBTTm TOTHEDFPT OFPNBIL` W'ORNSFnH MPRUVAL —MA Bl'Tfff DEPT --l—RES-CO-1— THE F PIBLLICWORRYMC RES-CUNH.RTM'UTHE LREITY COMPANRA 4 FOR COTR.@Rt-IAL SIDEtvALKS.THE— HYDRANT SHALL BE PLACE-tVTGBN tHE 9DENAI,N 1'd' BEHIND FACE OF t'.IRtB S N(ANTARIM T'— AS HUMS MAT BE PI.ACEDMB—T1CrtA1ip5TRENCHSOB— TO APER—L OF—EItOMFtR TIN TRAt CALIFORNIA STATE CODE COMPLIANCE: nM.LVVRK ANU MATENALY -BEPREFURLDBI AND INST.ALLBD MACttrRDANCE MFH THP, RRRFINi EUInONY OF TFff TOLLO\VING COUP' AS—ISTED PY THE L<t'AL GO\4RFRNG AOINORITIES. NOTHMrI IN THESE PIANS IS N HE mN1TRLrRID TO PERS P! \YORK NOt CONFORNBNG TO THE MDFS cN.IFnnFHA AwRNIsrETNEmDFILvaTml,'c TGLEs:ah sl mFo ±ol o clunroRNu HI TLDMc coDFR wwcN nTRlrrs T xE sl n lmc. hl n cmrc. ^01 n tnc.4ND Txe vIBNEC BIRLDMG f9fl!IALShIbDEADNWVISIR4TOEw lBOr•AI TIU CALIFORMA MECi W.TC.1L CODE ANSI:HIM�:-F LIPP. SnFETY mDEN£TA-101 O CALIFrf0.NIA rLUN®MO mDE W I UCALIfORNN ELECT W CAL ttIUE IU LOCH, BOfLDMO!VDE lTR'AbIMTY ORU— .4t18�0JT1' REQIrIRENffNtS FN-Bm'FS LT`MA.vNm nND NOT F(HtmminxxAertnncu+x: TRc4PPF]TARFSSREQLRRFAffNTs FCC NOtE THIYtvIREI.EVS 17ON0.n NATION FA—TY—BIS Wml FEDERALSTANDARDS FOR RADIO FREQTrENtY M —ORB— tvITH THE TELF.COSDTI.MMATION All OF IaS6.WD—SF.QIT.NT MENDSTEMS TND ANY nTHGR pEpLRREN4NTSIN@OSFD HI'STATE O0. FF.DER.V. REGN.ATnRV AGENCNS iEASG09 cam 242727 Rrr a" CCROWN ✓✓CASTLE wEOR t am.IA eem Communications e ErrPmm.ms I. OA SLAOR. sVITE:W N¢.IPS%1R:9401a wras FAS sa;. rlo ov)nilomm�niTrli IASIREv,TFs T LRAST �TOI MOS pfcRWMDSE0.tTLE ALERT CITY BEGONE 11MItY MOVEOpSx PNDdNPEBESTAL PI'IOT ASG09 30462 CAMINO PORVENIR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA DETAILS & NOTES nc t Inoro�iis cant D-1 E-38 z 4'X UX WGROUND VA LT RADIO ENCLOSUREAS 11 G 1 09 IV X 9 X 4' GROUND VAULT RADIO ENCLOSURE (TYPICAL SECTION N.T.S) CCROWN CASTLE _6 —T. 11 ----------------------------- 6'6 ID. Communications JJ Ve $0. LD ---- ------------ -------- Tym Tw. ELEVATION V1 §' 11 .aorar3Tgn.wPgRMgnrzM1 IAI Tl.T.T T 'I'E� ISO VIE SCALE SCALE bll(�T PLAN VIEW TYR 7gjeEEo lz ANDREW ION-M17HP/19HP MULTI -BAND, MULTI -OPERATOR 21 REMOTE OPTICAL SYSTEM G—E ... E N.11 f� 1pb— E$HAPEIXS 7111117 s pNPo C—pt-ld ` 7 14 2) 1�% 1]00/2100 MHx -5 te (1 .2 I -P 9T55me Praaaercy arae. MHz 8.61 - — - — - — - — w'� cl— c 24i-_ -21 ... .. .. ... ..... 1-11411 d.- ' 42 19'sp" -g= v CDMA 45 42 Anirnna Part UMTS 45 42 .1-1 1.11.1. .1.11. . 171—.— LTE 45 42- 39 36 Mapurea uetN ml values ow+cr „see nano specll,ttpan Rnpm less, ae ...t5 Sparrow rmavvn .. 7* ASGO -3 11 32. 30462 CAMINO PORVENIR d....... ... .. ....... 817— RANCHO PALOS VERDES, --A Uph-, 171011]55 MpN 1-. Dpxnen. ........ . ........ . --l. ............................t0 1 1 4 1Np,uft—, d9 DETAILS & NOTES) GSM 45 0 J9 36 ICP3pb— w c 45 42 -T n Side F -.t Side LTE 4� 11 d.- 3 SCALE P D-2 E-39 ASG09 @„, 242727rtN• CROWN v CASTLE Communications ° N.—F.xDTTE �F.BIfiN,eITI TT pNM TO A— IS LlANnsnaE�ATFs DIG;'RT `V VyleDl. MOVEDCISHANDCAN PEDEST 7111117 ASG09 30,162 CAMINO PO RVENIR. RANCHO PALOS VERDES. CA DETAILS & NOTES v ACn 70/07/IJ SGA^ D-3 E-40 HPA-65F-BUU-H2 ----_S — — --- TOP MOUNT & SHR_OUD (FOR HPA-65F-BUU-H2 ANTENNA) SQUARE D BYSCHNEIDER ELECTRIC LOAD CENTER, 70A (MODEL MONLi0RB) -• -"� TECHNICALCHARACTERISTICS 024" RF TRASPARENT"W"LEFCLECIRCVITS THERMOPLASTIC f'•P- ANTENNA SHROUD AP°L1PT1ON eln¢r°Ts":oPRoc: Eiec:Ri'cAL EOPL "w R.m 24" �AwocAu, x�. roOa AwGccul ROurr BRFAxERsMTAM xFIGURAiroN mwu 7 { ._ wI.INUN NUMaER n . nax• Bm tRe..®... - Mninp.w.'roil x"...UNra ur a'"`<Rw j-, i 36" RGGF 111111=11LN 11 VL — naN,YPE cuRRENTRAnNG RxEo.FACTORv NsruLED Ma"wGs CATSHIPPING AND ORDERING EGO0111-LI LIlE s. t PHASE EMAI s 3R.: n OE 71,11,111,12 vANTrtv x.H.q..a. w..gsa : �.a.,nrov�+ ^�-•••�•• SCALE SCALE ' RETVBruBllm' r SCALE WTR FUSE BOX CFOR NEW POLES -& STREET LIGHTS -- GROUND ROD_: VAULT DETAIL STAHUN 6P ENCLOSURE __ Cl GROUNDROD SHALL BE MINIMUM NEW POLE FOUNDAT_ION 0.835 DIA. x 9' LONG. COPPER CLAD. G3 MINIMUM 3" EXPOSURE AT TOP OF FOUNDATION tMTHIN BOLT GRCLE. (FLUSH MOUNT) COVER FEATURES ' Pw-1o.aW LAB. vmEEL LOADON i0'X to' PLATE. utw KW OR KU( ® 6M11W 15A NSE NOT TO SCALE ANCHOR BOLTS Al ANCHOR TSSMLL ONG p A449E . /. ASGIVENCIRCLE -METERSPEOPTO MASTM ABLE. 2d•ROUND y:, ��c� A3 BOLT CIRCLE DIAMETER TO MTCH POLE EA PLATE, GROUND LEVEL A3 ANCHORSOLTSSHALLHAVEHEADS.OR ' APP WT. = 72 LBB. • ONE PIECE COVE ETE ONE L COVER IDENTIFICATION FOUR CONCRETE CGREY (CROWN CASTLE) 'NON SID SURFACE • LID TO HAVE H40TR �p TRAFFIC RICTION 11 . UTSWRHTHETHREADSSTAKEOAT I iWOPLACES BELOW TIE NRIf COEPFICIEN TO BE O.SOR MORE ss,e- ENB�ED I.FOUNDAIO I'I M MINIM SIALLBEEMSmDED33" N.t. BELOW STREET GRADE 163' EMBEPNEMINNNCRETE). _.o. Y - +-_- - !/ \ ��+- - SSL LATCH - BY TAE MANUFACTURER. JI. `,rA MrE 'I'T' I- ��o Ani CI CONDUT-ALLBERIGIOSTEEL -�� - HANpHOLEFEATURES LLI�FTING EVE ' POLY MER CONCRETE RING AND FIBERGIASSREINFORCEIJ POLYMERBODY ' COLOROFRINGCCNCRETEGREY f N <ALVAMZEO.INSIDE 1HE FOUNDATOu, :: N1iH6'NMMN.I StI$OUT. - 38" MINIMUM BJRIAL 42' MAXIMUM EURIAL a SERVICE wFEEDNNDwTSSHAIL • APPROX. NR.=12J LBS 25 t/N' .'. 'T/P" GROUND ROD INSTALLATION BOX UD , w.aiI.PLIulAxPls sxL' BE RGS OR SCH R, PVC AS REOMREO. HOLE�TOwtrHNa"FROM HAND \/ POLYMER NNCRETE RING SCO E CLAD TNG PP R " CONNECTOR REINFORCEMENT III," RI VERTCALREBAR—LBE(l)P5 GROUND.00(E. XB") jn� I , p. EOUALLYSRACEDINSIOE OF HOOP^. „ -II Ri HALL BE I.D.%te'SPACED \ BA E CUGROUND I CONWCTOP, SIDE VIE I fir mx o a Hui I"b In2 If,�I yPAmI I nWAaa II POl1R FOOTING N-dC FROM TW OF FOUNMTONTO XNDOFANCHORBOLT.. " A. R3 0°PS SHnI'BHE Aa Xt6'I.O.. SV SCEo 1 1 Ou GROUNDCAMPFCI net pMIN S3)49-I}OREWA mR'bTo¢1 \ Ui (TYPIcrA) I yam' D- a ',• MATERAUNDISTU�ED BOTMTOM FROM �FOUNDATONRr '}; I HANDHOLE FGRAVEL IRP BOOT Y-a�/.w Rax 1 ?' LYIRns mmVlr mraGMxs us �� I WWI CLiy 0 0 PIE T BEO2M I TO R4 ALL RESAR SHALL HAVE a' MINIMUM TVP ROUND%ER BE3250 MIX COVERING, % E'DFPM GROUN ROD( GROUND ROD (SR'Xe'1 NYdRR1 L — — SCALE — � % N.T.S, p SCALE rpEPiN O N.T.S. 9 SCALE N.T.S. ASG09 @„, 242727rtN• CROWN v CASTLE Communications ° N.—F.xDTTE �F.BIfiN,eITI TT pNM TO A— IS LlANnsnaE�ATFs DIG;'RT `V VyleDl. MOVEDCISHANDCAN PEDEST 7111117 ASG09 30,162 CAMINO PO RVENIR. RANCHO PALOS VERDES. CA DETAILS & NOTES v ACn 70/07/IJ SGA^ D-3 E-40 ASG09 mom• 242727 `V CROWN ,..CASTLE ,v, rtEo n w•+• m••mm�la `�E'x• FLxM Communications NF (+ro ^euei4� T. nX f�M1ol = �—LT13T11T. m nii iSOFfnR oIro DIGRT OSH 1—FAL -117 pTY REODNE A9++5 ASM 304620 MINOPORVENIR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA DETAILS & NOTES QAC e, 10/07/15 `S ` GA � D-4 E-41 IN DIRT STAHLIN 6P ENCLOSURE GROUND ROD INSTALLATION FOR STEEL POLE TYPICAL SECTION (MODEL #J1412HPL) TYPICAL SECTION: N.T.S. (N.T.S.) 73 15/32 10 00.313 8 ORIGINAL MATERIAL BPCKFlLL T� „2 IT '� I15 A A I 131/2 I L J 14 5/8 13 1515/32 I 31,32 I I I 121/4 CONCRETE TEXTURED STEEL POLE �I 1 L FINISHGRADE 01 '0 • I 8J SSL LATCH.I' SECTION R—R RARENC.GROUND •' 2 RO•D CONDUCTOR '. 11:. f.. CU GROUND CLAMP III— 11 31 /32 FCI . GL Te. NR GASKET 5 TYCO No. 83749-1. OR EQUAL 13 1/2 SS FLAT HINGE 5 3/8 —� t�jfl'—_—F 061518" X 8I COPPER CLAD GROUND ELECTRODE \ INSTALLATION NOTES: 6 1/4 REF. CONCRETE -CUT 6 MAX. MOTH X 3T DEPTH TRENCH 0125 FOUNDATION AACKFILL HATH THE ORIGINAL MATERIAL FROM THE i/4 iyp, 101/4 TRENCH -RESTORE THE SURFACE 1 ��ll U STAHLIN ENCLOSURE J SERIES 6P EN0.05URE 17/32 MODEL # J1412HPL 13.53 X 11.55 X 5.94 SECTION A—A WEIGHT: 6.5 Ibs 10 SCALE SCALE 1 1 ^ SCALE 112 N.T.S. N.T.S. N.T.S. NOT USED NOT USED NOT USED N/ SCALE N.T.S. N/ SCALE N.T.S. N/ N CT.S. ASG09 mom• 242727 `V CROWN ,..CASTLE ,v, rtEo n w•+• m••mm�la `�E'x• FLxM Communications NF (+ro ^euei4� T. nX f�M1ol = �—LT13T11T. m nii iSOFfnR oIro DIGRT OSH 1—FAL -117 pTY REODNE A9++5 ASM 304620 MINOPORVENIR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA DETAILS & NOTES QAC e, 10/07/15 `S ` GA � D-4 E-41 ION-M7HP/85HP EU - Product Specification a.a,imt Mdns P— , Vo[ Irpul ICP3, dB."' mnilnl I001o240 aPnmeg as:e 264 Mainz Pvver, V k naval 41:060 a -q x Paver aonvmPNon, W am.lmm, kllr laded ma WM ih 30 Noun Agum, d8•'• I(P3opldred Il nin. New F9lwe aplinimd �18 nin. I[P3op ed 10 ma. Nae fig;oe ogmAd bO ns,. s.a r7pol 700 MHs FmOomry —ge, MHz LNIA 698:26,7 bro7B7 D—k* 72810757 Cv" Paver per miner, d8 - Narlbadl'arr5m 13 4 S LIE 45.5 489' N..5 36.5 DL ou"bleronm—hequmty, dB sl DL-Nq bleranoe ore W,,,rabm, d6 0..5 PA17.SdB180.n Spurious —;mon e13 din 119W, •' 201mnrladud 0c5Mlsmnelbm"h Spurious emmxn ne P,"k Safey N-6sd '" Faa nka.e pm:BleA ,46A./&258k Al figums ors typwd vd. mlmsxwh ,a sbWd ION-M7HP/85HP EU - Product Specification Sysbns %p. vWm and Coamml 950 MHx Commands RF ae,7df Alarm, m9<„�ak<6w� Fmquelmy rmga, MHz — paa[ppry 's IP67 "me link IP55 Ialpeaun U*k 624 m 149 Camxexs n8W@FEB° M.ad,mlimr Omlid 169 NB94 Opf drealm km, dB 45 OAP0 P—• per c<nier, E.- 1322 x 9.6x a.6) 8 Fa,mtype Sigh rode E9/125 o69 Carica 45.5 25 37.5 30 Opfi lrmk budge, rW 0m 10 Gx.9 45.5 EGM 45.5 12533.5 12533.5 365 36.5 Compose mpa powc 0 OTR%moaa vde, den LIE 455 42S— 375 365 700= -165 HIS 45 42 37 x —w 15 DLwlpat tdaarce scar hegaacy, dB sl 850 MHz — -16.5 DL mu,l a,loance aver lempamNre, dB ro.5 nodal 5.5 Spurlau, eml;sion c4319m/119Pt Input ICP3, d3m••• RF hd-F— 1031glledzed ll nm BTS Side(SMA) XoBl figure aNmud 4B mn 14am6a of oaa— Smalard IJdse Bgur<, dB"' 700 NIk 4 IEP3eprm-d TO mea ASO Nile 1 Nae Rgme afmmd 6rox. Sy— apN ad lex BTS paver, dM S OPid 33 43 R—Unit on:ama PM Com— RMum k,a. dB 7,16 Femle IS 700 MHs FmOomry —ge, MHz LNIA 698:26,7 bro7B7 D—k* 72810757 Cv" Paver per miner, d8 - Narlbadl'arr5m 13 4 S LIE 45.5 489' N..5 36.5 DL ou"bleronm—hequmty, dB sl DL-Nq bleranoe ore W,,,rabm, d6 0..5 PA17.SdB180.n Spurious —;mon e13 din 119W, •' 201mnrladud 0c5Mlsmnelbm"h Spurious emmxn ne P,"k Safey N-6sd '" Faa nka.e pm:BleA ,46A./&258k Al figums ors typwd vd. mlmsxwh ,a sbWd ION-M7HP/85HP EU - Product Specification Sysbns %p. vWm and Coamml -- Commands RF ae,7df Alarm, m9<„�ak<6w� — paa[ppry 's IP67 FFA dBI kdun IP55 Ialpeaun Suiwvision G.'*alp. AMU'" � M.ad,mlimr HeghL ,eldlh, deplh, mm (m3 A(Yeano 617 045 s213y — 4 Canaspondlsg AWs , Unil OTR7[ 1322 x 9.6x a.6) 8 OEhm. !053 a 345 s 218 Cabins o7ION,M7HP/95HP 6-- Lhi! (AC Version? Weigle, kg (16) 40181.2) Fnvherunenbl OP—iv q hmpaae>ta rayo, •C 33-io m9<„�ak<6w� 0 pan IP67 Foo pm IP55 GednNg II4kr„wlTan ION WHP/85HP BU AMU'" O,pendiq on IFe wkned ep(e;aal Ilm[wrgummor.Ilse edeig monml numhexranim ®da11I71y soR4 C.—q.".q Moo, UNI ION -MI 7HP/19HP 7631418" Canaspondlsg AWs , Unil OTR7[ OIR90-85i 5'0/ 1721 7664304.1( SpaMg IegsM1od40 mm 1 .51 W—dunit •. SukMmafom P,dhk All Ngure ore lypiwl wuo, u;Jew otliw.ise eloMd. Ilf Fig i C,bnra of ION*7HP/85HP Fxle Lh k IDC V—rs l ASG 09 r�o, 24227 .e n CROWN "CASTLE Communications o, mA�rRT;�xrx�111 vianart e� DIQ SRT 111T�11 III ALIT C --NE EO GSH ANOCANPEPESTAL 7lllni ASGO9 30962 CAMINO PORVENIR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA DETAILS & NOTES onCN1 10/07/19 eN•G uv D-5 E-42 SITE LOCATION v g A KEY MAP B 12 O'CLOCK VIEW- FROM THE NORTHWEST -- C 1 3 O'CLOCK VIEW- FROM THE NORTHEAST D 9 O'CLOCK VIEW- FROM THE SOUTHWEST ASG09 �^` 242727 n CROWN CASTLE PE, 1— -- 111Z 'A 1 11 Communications s NP�nce. sunE _ou �E6r5wa9��E�, 1111117 DIST nn aEourrE AI W EO q5H ANp CAN PEOE SiA l ASG09 30462 CAMINO PORVENIR RANCHO PALOS VERDE$. Z:A SITE PHOTOS O0.ACP 10/07/15 GAP o C-1 E-43 NEW CONSTRUCTION • DECOMMISSION B REMOVE EXISTING 24'0" HIGH MARBELITE OCTAGONAL STREETLIGHT (POLE INSTALLVGR. ID 97983588E) AND REPLACE WITH A NEW24'aHIGH CONCRETE TEXTURED STEEL POLE NTH EQUIPMENT AND ANTENNAS TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH POLE. MAST ARM AND LUMINARE (REMOVE EXISTING JUNIPER). 100AMP PANEL • INSTALL(1)CROWN CASTLE4' XVVAULT, FLUSH MOUNTVENTS WITH,METERSPOWER 1201240V 1PHASE DISCONNECT BOX WITH (2) ML IONS INSIDE. 1"M OTON • INSTALL CROWN CASTLE W R Y X T VAULT. 378712 CREST RD • INSTALL(2)21A• ANTENNAS 1HPAE5F-BUU-H2 WITH CONCEALFAB TOP MOUNT AND SHROUD. RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90274 REMOVE 8 REPLACE NODE COORDINATE TX 14' SIDEWALK PANEL FOOTAGE TOTALS LATITUDE 33.75670 ASPHALT TRENCH 1 0 PROPOSED CROWN CASTLE WTR 7 X T VAULT PUNCH THRU 0 LONGITUDE: -118.40196 — (6' B.O.C.) STA. 99+ 88 DIRT TRENCH 10' (SEE DETAIL 78, 9 ON SHEET D-3) BORE 0' /10' DIRT TRENCH TOTAL 10' r1 (SEE DETAIL 9 ON SHEET D-3) 20= R&R TOTAL SWP 70 SQ. FT. 1 �,w VQO� / 12 58' / 34' i Q INSTALL (1) CROWN CASTLE 4' X 6 VAULT WITH FLUSH MOUNT VENTS WITH. CAMINO PORVENIR STA 100+DO C METER 8 POWER DISCONNECT BOX WITH (2) ML IONS INSIDE) EDGE OF DRIVEWAY STA 100+00 t0' B.O.C.7 STA. 99 + 82 (SEE DETAIL 1, 2 8 3 ON SHEET 0.2, DETAIL 6 ON SHEET D-3, y DETAIL 11 ON SHEET D4, DETAIL 13 ON DS) 6^ / q'i f^F.)�Sr'ryce DECOMMISSION 8 REMOVE EXISTING \STORi 7� j Y MARBELITE OCTAGONAL CONCRETE STREET LIGHT (POLE ID #19835 BE) V. (6' B.O.C.) STA. 99 + 80 3,q SITE LOCATION INSTALL NEW 24'0" HIGH CONCRETE TEXTURED STEEL POLE 4f (8' B.O.C.) STA. 99+82 (REMOVE EXISTINCAMINO PORVENIR �O 3OVE CAMINO JUNIPER) 12` OF G � 349 2O r'Q 9��•(,` X58' A `F>t\R,hc' NORTH ob ,z \� SCALE: I't = 40' ASG09 Q ;Z777" ^CROWN ✓� CASTLE arE ,:Ir Ruda Communication IN eaoeatrrnar tNeoamanM �4 w.ivi wsi �i0.i9rntR5 .4uD F.Drt tbuRE OTNk lH µrt REIAIFS I LWT �ic�cT ax�vND seRNce .+�9a- Cl REDUNE it9&15 —DQSHANDdNPE0E9TAl —HT ASGO9 30462 CAMINO PORVENIR RANCHO PALOS VERDES. CA SITE PLAN p 7"A,- 0'1/I—GA—;c e. P -I E-44 A I ANTENNA DETAILS SCALE: 1:5 B 1 12 O'CLOCK VIEW I SCALE: 1:5 BI 3 O'CLOCK VIEW SCALE: 1:5 INSTALL(2)21A"AHTENNASNHPA-6SF-BUU-H2 EAFA TOF UNT A WITH CONC SHROUD QO Gam. -3) O 2d' SHROUD 24' T" SHROUD INSTALL MAST ARM TOP OF POLE AT 24' 0" TOP OF POLE AT 24' T AND LUMINARE T• 36'SHROUD IND LL ST ARM SHROUD SHROUD SHROUD LUMINARE AND LUMINARE YHPA-65F-BUU-H2ANTENNAS I I SKIRT SKIRT AZIMUTH: 350" INSTALL MAST ARM AND LUMINARE �. Gib" INSTAOS- OP MOUNT AND SHROUp WTHLLL(2)21,4"ANTENNASUNT A AND SHROUD WITH 3& 4 ON (SEE DEEAIL 3 8 4 ON SHEET 0.3) DETAIL TOP MOUNTEAUFA TOP MOUNT AND SHROUD 0S —01 iOP OF PNrB Na NEW 24 0" HIGH CONCRETE TEXTURE STEEL POLE F - w DECOMMISSION & REMOVE EXISTING O 1T THIGH FIBERGLASS Z ROUND STREET LIGHT (POLE IO A4254 KSE) W AND REPLACE HATH NEW 24' 0" HIGH CONCRETE TEXTURE STEEL POLE an0 DECOMMISSIONS REMOVE EXISTING=En?_Er+ 0Ap OENTER 1 T 0(- HIGH FIBERGLASS HATENNAS ROUNDSTREETLIGHTPOLEID#4 ° AZIMUTH 232 ANDREPLACEMTHNEW24'T HIGH CONCRETE TEXTURE STEEL POLE DECOMMISSION & REMOVE EXISTING 1 T T HIGH FIBERGLASS ROUND STREET - LIGHT(FOLE ID A4254409E) AND REPLACE WITH NEW 24' THIGH NOTES: STREETLIGHT 9192356SE TOP OF EXISTING POLE: 24' V CONCRETE TEXTURE STEEL POLE TOP OF NEW POLE: 24' 0" TOP OF ANTENNA: 26`7 RAD CENTER: 25' T" AZIMUTHS: 350' 8 230• INSTALL VGR BEHIND VAULT (SEE DETAIL 12 ON SHEET 0-4) AND ANTENNAS TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH POLE. \EOVIPMENT G6" OG GROUND LEVEL GROUND LINE C&G \ PAVEMENT CG & ASPHALT / y INSTALL VGREll I (SEE DETAIL 12 ON SHEET 0<) INSTALL (1) GROWN CASTLE 4' X 6' VAULTW H FLUSH MOUNT VENTS WITH. INSTALL (1) CROWN CASTLE 4' X 6' VAULT VMTH FLUSH MOUNT VENTS WITH, METER & POWER DISCONNECT BOX`MTH (2) ML IONS INSIDE) METER & POWER DISCONNECT BOX WTH (2) ML IONS INSIDE (0' B4O,C.) STA. 99a 02 (SEE DETAIL 1, 2 & 3 ON SHEET D-2, DETAIL 6014 SHEET 03, (SEE DETAIL 1, 2 & 3ON SHEET (0' B.O.C.) STA, 99 t 82 D-2. DETAIL 6 ON SHEET D-3, DETAIL 11 ON SHEET D , DETAIL 130140.5) DETAIL 11 ON SHEET D-4, DETAIL 13 ON 0.5) ASG09 111-1.1-1--l' 242727 CROWN 4� CASTLE no srE ur°�...mr...ne.nn�l�'tT.wa Communications CIRLSSAD oEFUU All o;Pruy4 MPRIETAR DI T UAY�BEPJRE 'C' PEOUNE tv49n5 MOVEp GSHANDC-PE0EBTaL ftlT ASGO9 30462 CAMINO PORVENIR RANCHO PALO$VERDES. CA POLE PROFILE °ACH 10/07/15 —GAP P-2 E-45 i K i PROPOSED EXISYIN G ASG09 CROWN s0asz CAMINO PORVENIR RANCHO PALOS VERDES CA CASTLE m.squared ENGINEERS E-49 91 EXISTIN CITY OF LiRANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: NICOLE JULES, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS CC: ARA MIHRANIAN, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FROM: JOHN ALVAREZ, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: JULY 24, 2017 SUBJECT: VIEW ANALYSIS FOR WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY- ASG09 (adjacent to 30461 Camino Porvenir) DISCUSSION Based on a view analysis conducted on July 21, 2017, Staff has determined that the proposed Wireless Telecommunications Facility (WTF) No. ASG09, adjacent to 30461 Camino Porvenir, 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 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 "sky" view, which is not a protected view pursuant to Section 17.02.040. The proposed WTF is not located in a view corridor identified in the City's General Plan or Coastal Specific Plan. E-52 Columbia Telecommunications Corporation Wireless Facility Application Evaluation Applicant: Crown Castle Site # ASG -9 Description: Application to install a new DAS access site Site Location: 30452 CAMINO PORVENIR 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 is at the eastern most point on Camino Porvenir near the golf course. It is positioned in the center of the target area to serve residences along Camino Porvenir and the eastern part of Avenida De Calma as well as Calle Del Pajarito and Calle La Resolana. Exhibit 1— Site with Mocked Up Pole with Antenna As a part of this assignment. I conducted signal measurements of the AT&T service in the target area identified by Crown Castle to be served from the site. Before conducting the ASG Site 9 E-53 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. Since ASG Sites 8 and 9 gaps overlap, the drive test and resulting data (see Appendix A) is the same for both reports. At ASG Site 9 Gap target area, the same measurements were taken near the proposed antenna site. At the proposed ASG Site 9 1 made 2 passes: on the first pass the signal level measurement was -105 dBm 3G service, during the second run I found signal reading of -117 dBm 4G LTE service. A majority of the signal received in ASG Site 9 Gap was a combination of minimal signal in 3G service or extremely low signal levels of 4G LTE service, especially along Camino Porvenir. At the proposed site location I measured signal level of -122 dBm-- a level so low that I was unable to connect to the network and either upload or download data. 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 E-54 On the exhibit, there is an overlay is an of the target area defined by Crown Castle which is outlined in blue. Signal level measurements were made throughout the area and recorded in a slowly moving vehicle at five second intervals. The data was then plotted using the geographical coordinates onto a Google Earth map. A complete listing of the 121 measurements points used to create this coverage map can be found in Appendix A of this document. The listing includes the measured signal level, the geographical coordinates and the AT&T tower site communicated with. It should be noted that during the drive test the receiver attempted to connect to 9 individual tower sites that provide some level of signal service in the drive area. 20 of the 121 signal level test points were unable to connect at all. Note that throughout the ASG Site 9 gap the signal is very marginal and coverage alternates between many different cell tower sites which leads to dropped calls and minimal data throughput even if connections are able to be maintained, especially on Camino Porvenir. 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 E-55 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. 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 350° and 230° respectively. Exhibit 4 — Site ASG 9 Proposed Site ASG09 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 5 sample sites are available in Appendix B. 4 E-56 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. 5 E-57 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 9 will provide ample signal intensity (signal level in excess of -95 dBm) to support AT&T's 3G/4G wireless services. Currently from the information obtained in the drive tests, it appears that approximately half of the proposed service area currently is served with legacy 3G service. Signature: jf Lee Afflerbach, P.E. Date: 8/22/17 dc technology & energy engineering & business consulting 6 E-58 ' Counter Dae: Inf. Network e m Data stae: TP wLotion lati do TP lova 'on lon R de Tower Cell ID-shat Tower Cell ID -Ion Tower LAC Local Area Code Los date: 8/9117 Logstart: 9: 29:2 r Ug Interval:5 semnds ' Phone type: GSM I Country _ T I Device 10: 354775081757436 8/9/17 •9:29:16 LOST M06fLE CONNECTION Unknown -120 Djl.-.Cwd 38.75667 -118.4051603 -- 20931 58872159 55568 2 8/9/17' 9:2931 LOST MOBILE CONNECTION unknown 3 8/9/17 929:36 LOST MOBILE CONNECTION jUnJuncrano -120 Disconnected -22NOOhsonnec4ed 33.7566704 31756664 118.4051603 _ -118.4051668 20931 20931 _ _ _ 58872259 S8972159 _ 55568 55568 _ 4 8/9/17 • 9:29:41 LOST MOBILE CONNECTION Unknown 420 Disconnected 33.75666428 _ -118.4051668 20931 58872259 55568 { 5 819/17 9-29:47 LOST MOBILE CONNECTION U known -120 DMcontwchd 33,75666M -118.4041668 --_ - 20931 55568 6 8/9/17 9:29:S2 LOST MOBILE CONNECTION Unknown -120 Disconnected 33.75666428 _ -118.4051668 _ _ 20931 _ _58872259 58872259 _ _ 55568 7 8(9/17 9.29:57_ LOST MOBILE CONNECTION tfeRndsvn 88/9/17 • 9:30_2 LOST MOBILE CONNECTION Unknown_ -120 Dbcannected -120 IN, ...-d 33.75 33.75666428 -118.4051668 118.4051668 _ 20931 20931 58872259 58872259 55568 55568 9 8/9/17 •9:30.7 LOST'MOB7lE CONNECTION Unmown -1 011-runcted 33.756667- _ 20431 55568 _ 30{6/9/17 • 9:30:12 LOST MOBILE CONNECTION Unknown Disconnected 33.75666426 -1184051668 _ 116.4051668 20931 _S88722S9 58872259 55568 _ _ _ ll 8/9(17.9:30:17 lO5T M08LE COt4NECTION_ Unknown _ _-120 _ -I 106-10ed 33.75666328 -318.4051468 217931 58672259 55568 12 8/9/17'9:30:22 LOST MOBILE CONNECTION Unknown -120 Disconnected 33.75666428 -118.4051668 20931 568722598 73 8(9/17.9:30.27 LOST MOBILE CONNECTION Unknown -1 Ohconnected 33.756662 -128.4051668 20933 58872259 -_L56 55568 _ 14 8/9/17' 9:30:32 LOST MOBILE CONNECTION Unknow -120 Disconnected 33.]5666428 -118.4051668 55208 _ 50255784 _ 64835 IS 8/9/17. 9:30:37 LOST MOBILE CONNECTION_ Unknown 120 1%sconneoed 33.756563 -118.4051753 552as .50255784 64835 16 8/9/17' 9:30:41 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION HSUPA - ue 1.45-3.0 Mbps -1 Connected _ 33.75637335 -118.4051629 28973 56783149 55516 171819/17 930:46 HAVE.M051W CONNECTION O NSPAt• 42.2148 -10S CgnnectoM 33.7560968{ -128.405I037 18973 56MI49 55546 18 8/9/17 • 9:30.51 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION (OC)HSPA+ • 42.2 Mb s -101 Connected 33.75573087 -118.4050214 28973 56783149 55516 _ 19 8/9/27.9:3056 HAVE M081EE CONNECTION (OCIHSPA+ • 42 2 Mops -99 Connected _ _ 33.755451 118.40492114 _ 28973 _ 46783149 55516 20 8/9/17'_9:31:1 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION (OC)HSPA+ • 422 Mbps -103 Connected _ 33-75531103 -118.4048435 28973 55516 ?18/9/17"4:31:6 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION JDCIMb -103 C-nerted -_ 33.755296 -118446673 28973 __56781149 56783149 55516 22 8/9/17 ` 9:31:12 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION (DC)HSPA+' 42.2 Mbps -103 Connected 33.7S538244 -118.404369 2_8973 56783149 55516 23619117"431:17 HAVE MOBLE HSp0.+`42.2 CONN€CTION (OC -101 C.-sed 33-7554. -1184040381 _ 1 73 %-1=49 55516 248/9/17 • 9:31:22 _ HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION '(OC)HSPA+' 42.2 Mbp, --i -107 Connected _ 33.75567669 -118.4036798 28973 56783149 55516 25819(17.931:27 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION (Of)HSPA+•41.2 Canected 33.75586862 -3784031931 28873 SM3149 55516 26 8/9/17' 9:31:32 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION (DCIHSPA+' 42.2 Mbps t -107 Connected 33.756490 -118.4029173 28973 56783149 55516 T- 27 8/9117.9:3137 LOST MOBLE CONNECTION tnimoem _. 4 DHcannected -1184025372 -�.-_ 44555 50114059 64634 28 8/9/17 -_9 :3142 LOST MOBILE CONNECTION Unkna_ _ -I05 Drscunnet[ed _ _33.7563 33.7565452. _ -118.4022287. 445_55 50114059 64834 r-29 8/9/17.9:32:47 LOST MOBILE CONNECTION Unknown -i COW-110"4 93.7567 -1184019979 _ 44595 58114069 6184/ _ 30 8/9/17 • 9:31:52 LOST MOBILE CONNECTION iU.kn_wn -1 Disconnected 33.7570983 -118.40194521 4455550114059 _ _ _ 64834 _ 31 819/17.9:31:57M _ LOST MOBILE CONNECTION Unawt -1O blsro ected n 31 7574329 -218.401853 20931 5!%72259 _ _ SSS48 _ 32 8/9(17 • 9:32:2 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION (DCIHSPA+' 42.2 Mb -109 Cannetted 33.75773298 __ -118.4018541 _ 28973 56783149 _ _ 55516 338/9/17.9,317 HAVE MOM CONNECTOR (OCWA•' 42.2 -Contacted 33.7579M -118401907/ 28477 56783449 55516 34 819/17' 9:32:12 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION '(OC)HSPA+' 422 M_ b -111 Connected 33.75825324 -118.40209b4 28973 _ 56763149 _ 55516 ! 358/9/17.9:32:37 HAVE MONME CONN€CTION(DCIHSPA+•42.2 -3 Ctmneaed 3175021104 -1184023453 2Wn 56783149 SSS36 r- 36 8/9/17' 9:32:22 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION (DCIHSPA+• 42.2 Mb -105 Connected 33.7588479 -118.4025928 28973 56783149 _ 55516 37117.9:32:27 HAVE M061LE CONNECTIM HSUPA • tg 1.45-10 -112 Corrected 33.75313 -118.4028282 _- _ _ 28973 svilato _ S5516 38 819/17 9 32:32 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION (DC HSPA+ • Q.2 Mbps 39819/17 9.3238 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION HSUPA tot 14510.Mt l.. 40 819/17 9:32:43 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION HSUPA_p 145 3A Mbps 418/9/17 932:48 HAVE M081cE COINNECTION (' HSPA+'42� 428/9/17 932'53 HAVE MOW CONNECTION (OC)HSPA+'42.2Mbps 120 Connected -leg Cetmect di 120 Connected 101 CanneLtd 1051C-1051C 33.75941288 33.75962 33.7595953 _. 33.7595:13 _33.75962666' X118.403021 $2.40MM _ -118.403542 -318.4047947 - _118.403902 28973 _ 7073 28973 - 28973 28973 56783149 56mm 56783149 56783149 56783149 _ 55516 A5S16 _ 55516 _ 5551 55516 43 8/9117' 932:58 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION HSUPA • up 1.45-3.0 Milem -101 Camectcd 33.. -138.4039715 28973 56783144 5551. 33.,3 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION (OC)HSPA+•42.2 M6 s -309 Connected 33.760172781 -118.441066 29262 56783438 55516 _17 C--- 45 819/17 •9.338 HAVE MOBLE CONNECTION IDCP45PA. • 42.2 Mbps -103 Corrected 33. -118.443403 79262 5678638 55516 46 6/9/17`9:33:73_HAVEM081LE CONNECTION (DC)HSPA+•42.2 Mbps 47 819137.9:33:18 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION _ HSUPR • u ]45-3.0 Mhos I -_- _-1071C. CmHlected _._ 33.76070348 3§.78087 - 118.446478 __ 4184050364 29262 29262 56783438 56783438 _ _55516 55516 48 B/9/17. 9:3323 HAVE_MOBILE CONNECTION 1(DC)HSPA+•422 Mbps -111 Connected 33.76122509 -318.405402 40182 56794358 55516 49 W9/17.933:28 HAVE M6 CONN€CT109 HSPA+'422. Cosewled _ 3376153 -litd�754 4OI$i 5679¢35 _ 55616 _ 508/9/17 • 9:33:33 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION ,(()[)HSPA+`42.2 Mbps __. 51f819(17 4:33:38 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION WgF6PM `42.2 '120 Cannetted -313 Connected' 33.76178864 33J12�s97( -118.4059581 -338.40614 40182 40192 56794358 5679/368 _ 55516 _ S%16 52,8/9/1] 9:33:43 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION 'IDCIHSPA+` 42.2 Mbps -111 Connected 1 33.76216202', -118.4063699 40162 56794358 55516 538!9/17'9:33:48 NAPE M0811E.CONNECTION {OCIHSPAv'42.2. 331 Cannetted .31.7 418.4064451 40282 _ - 56294358 SSS 5418/9/1] 9 33:53 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION DCIHSPA+• 42.2 Mbps 101{Connected t 33.76210033. 55 819/27 _43358_ RAVE MOBILE CONNECTION IDORSP0. '422 t. Cannetted 33.YUM 56,8/9/17 9:34:3 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION HSUPA up 1.4S-3.0 Mbps_* 107 Connected I 33.76169573 _56/9/77 9-SC9 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION (DC)HSPA+•42.2Mbp4 Connected 33.7b1$4. _ 58 8/9/17 9.34.14 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION (DC)HSPA+- 42.2 Mbps 99 Connected 33.76303675 59 8(9/17 434:29 HAVE 4088E CAaNECTIO 0C)FISPM • 42.2 MLPs + 1 Connected _ 337 60 8/9/17 9 34'24 ,HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION HI SUPA up 1.45-3.0Mbps. 1{Connected 33.7605679 E(9/17 93429 HAVE MOBILECONNECTION HSUPA'u. IAS•3.0 _ 1 Connected _ 33.7683663 _ _ 62:8/9/17 9:34:34 'HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION_ HSUPA up 1.45-3.0 Mbps 105 C Connected 33.76012882: _ 63 8(9(17 934:39 MOBILE CONNECTION (OC)HSPA+• 422_-SDS Comeeted ---- 317596941 -118.4065479; _--115A0666T -118.4067292 -118.4066 _-118.4065149 _-118,4062582 _ -118.4059895 -378.4057306 -118_4054406 -118.40$3822-�-- 40162 40181 28943 in-ii 28943 _28943 28943 28973 28973 56794358 56794358 56783119 567831 _56783119 56783219 56783119 56783I39' 56783149 --- 56783149 55516 _ 55516 _55516 55535 55516 5551 55516 SSS16 55516 5$51 64,6/9/17 9:34.44 HAVE M_O_BILE CONNECTION (DC)HSPA+' 42.2 Mbps 07 1Connected 934:44-j{HA--U6MOSLE CQNNECHON ;(DCIHSPA+' 42.2 - Co -mad _ _ 33.75955512] 3175973191 _ -118.4050326 -138.4049404 28973 28973; 56783149 56283149 55516 5552 66 8/9/17 9 34:54 HgVE MOBILE CONNECTION ;(OC)HSPA+`42.2 Mbps _ _.. _ .. 67 8(9117 9 34 59 NAVE MOBILE CONNECTION HSUPA u01.453.0 MO(a _68 8/9/17 9 35:4 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION HSUPA up 1.45.3.0 Mbps 0 111 935:9_ IHAVEMOBBE CONNECTIONHSUPA up 3.45-3.0 mbm I 7018/9/17 9:35:1 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTI� ` up 1.40-3.0 Mbps' 73 8/9137 9:35!1 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION (OCIHSPM • 421 Mhos _ -101'Connected -106 .Connected 107 Connected -307 Connected ____ 107 Eannect d Connected 33.75889022' 31.7585993 33.75827394 33:75 _ 33.75744963 33.872 -118.4048398 -318.46175 _ -118.447388 -3184018;. _ -118.4494931 -33 -4050247 28973 56783149 _-_ 28973 s6mm 289431 6783119 __ 28943 56783119 _ 28943 56783119 28943 46763119 _ 55516 5$536 55516 -_--_---- 55576 _ _ 55516 r4SLB 72'8/9/17'935:24 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION HSUPA up 1.45-3.0 Mbps -1201 Connected 33.756994261 -116.448742 289431 56783119 55516 73 8/9(37' 93529 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION HSUPA' VP 14530 Mbps+ 1200CCrwmocted 31.7564518 -118.4045fi6 29%3 56763119. 55516 748(9/17"93534 !HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION HSUPA up 1.4530 Mbps', _ _ 78 8(9117.9:35:39 HAVE. id0814E CONNECTION HSUPA' up 1.45-3 0 Mbps 768/9/17 9'35.45 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION HSUPA up 1.45-3.0 Mbps _ 120; Conn cted 120IC-acted 120 nnCo ted _ 33.75696662 -118.404262{ _ 33.75698963 -1184040532 33.75687002 -118.4039421 _ 20931 20933 20931 58872259 58672259. 58672259 55568 - 55568 55568 _778/917.935:50 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION HSDPR_72Mbps 1 _ _ 12 Cwnected 13.75668507! _ -i134037963� 20931 5887215 78 8/9/17 • 9;35:55 35 55 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION HSDPA 7 2 Mbps _ 819(37 9:36:6 MDBOE CONNFCTION 1(, DCIHSPA • 42 2 Mops 1' Connected 3 Connected _ 33.75655117. 33.755591_ 74 -1184037535' -Y184(t36F6 29262 _ 29162 56783438 _ 56783438 SSSlfi SSSY 8018/9(17 9.365 IHAVE MOBILE CONNECTION '(DC)HSPA - 42.2 Mb s 81 9(9/17 9:36:10 NAVE MOB)L€ CONNECTION 10C)lhSPA+ • 42 2 Mbp_ 82 8/9/17 9:36. 15 (HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION HSUPA up 1.45 3 0 Mbps 120, Connected 3 Connected. 120'Cannected 33.75674668 33.7569149 -- 33.75708774 -118.4038068i -318403%247 _ - -118 404003 _ _ 29262 _ 29262 29262 56783438 56783438 55516 55516 _ _ 8 81917 36:20 HAVEMOBItt COt4NHCTIQN HSUPA up 1.4530Mopz •- _ 84W9/17-9:36:25 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION HSUPA' up 1.45 3 0 Mbps' _ 85 6(9/17 9 36:30 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION HSUPA• up 1.453 0 Mbps CmHtected 120' Connected -tx Cmm4aM 33.757 - 33.75742155 33.7575 -1L8403878� - -1184037579. 3184035548 -- 24282 292621 24162 _ __ 56789438 56783438 56783938 ---- .5551 55516 5653. 68/9/17 9.36 :35 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE 119 Connected _ �� 87 8(9(11 9 36 40 (HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION-tI.TE I13. Ca+tut3ed %"/17-9:36:40 8818/9/17 9:36:46 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE ii 113 Connected _ 8918/9/17 9:36-51 HAVE M081[E CONNECTION `lTE -.13 Cmmecid 33.7574049$ -118.4032677 _ 33 757Y5%39�--�-- -258307 _ 33 7571219 118.4029651 337572164 -18&41292561 _ 52328 52328 52328 52328 _ I40823656 _ _ 440873856 _ _ 140823656 _1406236 _ 34628 34QS- 34628 -- 90'8/9/17' 9:36:56 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE ' -115 Connected 33.75738773 118.4031484 52328 140823656 34628 _ 91 M117•9:37:1 NAVE MOBILE-ONNECFlON LTE -1 Corrected _ 337579036 _ -1184034446 S2328 [4092365 3462 9218/9(1] ` 9.37.7 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION CLIC I'-_ 11 Connected _ _93 8N/17. 4:37.12 HAVE MOBILE CONNEC'OON LTE _ 33.75757443 31.7576631 -118.4036119 -118403654 52328 _ 52328 140823656 140813856 34628 94j819117 ` 93717 jHAVE MOBILE CONNECTION ']LTE -112 Connected 33.7578604 -118.403571 52328 140823656 34628 95 819117 9:37:22 9S %/9/17.9:3722 !HAVE MOBILE CONN€[TION LTE -__ �--d -10 Camasad 33.753L32Y,. -m �751 -148 d034991k_� --I-- '1 _ _ _ SZ31 '2328 WIR23656 _ _ tg0823B56 ~- 968/9/17'9:37:2] '.HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE -SOo'Connected 33.75840223 -118.40350991 52328 140823656 34628 _ 97419/17' 9:37:32 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE -li Cc4nterlsd 31 -118.403563 523I8 140813656 34628 E-59 9:38:53HAVEOB MILE CONNEL71ON -. -9:3B:58 I HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION 9398 1 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION E-60 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 _ 1 E-61 19S � 165 E-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 WQJQ721) and 710-716 MHz and 740-746 MHz (FCC License callsign WPWU990). In the PCS band, AT&T uses 1865-1870 MHz and 1945- 1950 MHz (FCC License callsign KNLG472) and 1870-1885 MHz and 1950-1965 MHz (FCC callsigns KNLF205 and WQHT993). For the AWS broadband service, AT&T operates at 1710- 1720 MHz and 2110-2120 MHz (FCC callsign WQGA742). Signal Strength Information and Measurement Typically, radio service is measured by Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP). It is measured in dBm (which is a negative number so that -75 dBm is a very strong signal and -110 dBm is a very weak signal). AT&T's target for acceptable signal is -95 dBm and that signal strength should provide good coverage including some acceptable in -building connectivity. Our expectation for reliable coverage in outdoor environment is to measure a RSRP of >_ -105 dBm. E-62 4 / 1 . n b GAO Ie Eart _ o .aka by Is I,i �Ur' 655 650 Z 645 y 640 ro 635 0 630 625 a� 620 z 615 610 00i 654 652 650 J 648 646 644 0 642 �¢ 640 638 636 634 632 From Proposed Antenna Site to TP 1 E 655 650 645 v 640 ry 635 630 a 625 620.7 v 615 _i I i i a t a i i i I f + 1 f 1610 0,02 0,04 0.06 0.08 01 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2 0,22 0,24 0,26 0.28 0.3 0.32 0.34 Range on path (kilometers) From Proposed Antenna Site to TP 2 3G 9 . TP 2 658 656 654 652 650 648 646 v 644 642 0 640 638 cc 636 'v 634 z 632 0.010.02 0.03 0,04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1 0.110.12 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.18 Range on path (kilometers) E-64 From Proposed Antenna Site to TP 3 660 650 640 630 > 620 w v 610 600 > 590 0 580 r 570 v 560 = 550 540 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 Range on path (kilometers) From Proposed Antenna Site to TP 4 660 650 w 640 a 630 620 J v 610 Ln 600 590 .� 580 r 570 = 560 660 650 640 630 620 > cu 610 600 in 590 > 0 580 570- 560 70-560 550 = 540 660 650 640 w 630- z 620 v J 610 v 600 v 590 0 580 wc 570-0 560 = 550 1 ' ' ' ' ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' ' ' 1 550 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) E-65 660 650 640 630 620 610 600 590 580 570 560 550 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) 660 650 640 630 v a� 620 v J 610 600 590 0 580 s 570-0 560 550 E-66 LTE Coverage Analysis Market Name: Los Angeles *:* Rancho Palos Verdes Area oDAS *:* Plots Completion ®ate: August 15, 2016 E-67 LTE Existing Macro/oDAS (PCS 1900MHz) - Coverage .: LTE Coverage from Proposed New oDAS (PCS 190OMHz) E-69 • _16, � ��I"--� _ .,, 1177 � ♦ . �~a . ! * f r E-70 'ra Indoor .: Outdoor Signal -98dBm 3G Marginal to Pool Coverage 44W (. CL,.`' .0 •s jiqp �. ` • "' 4 �• �- 1 A 2014 AIRT tntenartua! Pwporty. All wilts ,;.5 •r;.1r1 A! �. t :111,, t,,., ,,Wr ipflo c,I, „:,,,,, „z,t,.. of n TW tntenecu!.,! I August 15, 2016 at&t LTE Coverage from Proposed New WAS (700MHz) r fo Q LEGEND: .na ins �� ;R �' , r- (!) a Indoor Signal -75dBm Me In-Vehicle Signal -85d6m Outdoor Signal -98d8m 3G Marginal to Poor Coverage ile 04 \ s r t 263ru S.rT SQ All t cc INV so j f Or SO" , Was S►�i :*wagon Ln Rolling Hilly 1 hta r.utghctse t'�` • aye kYal CVQ' Pr I • Existing macro Sites #, • Proposed oDA a Existing oDAS Or E-72 .. In -Vehicle Signal -85dBm ..Outdoor Signal -98dBm 3G Marginal to Poor Coverage ► { _' ♦ f y ' ' i. '_-NOW t 10 1p riI r i ?V!4 „ i,l I r 'i ; r r, ..r,..,fy All i �nr•:,_,_,er,,.,,t ;.1'.r ami rhe qI G* r; ;ro ai.• U+,d2n,ark, ar nl T int�!lecr ,,il f,' . , August 15, 2016 a18(l CCROWN C CASTLE Crown Castle NG West LLC Site Justification Narrative Submitted to City, of Rancho Palos Verdes Crown Castle 300 Spectrum Center Drive Suite 1200 Irvine, CA 92618 Submitted Pursuant to City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipai Code Title 12 Zoning Ordinance Chapter 12.18.080 The Foundation for a Wireless World. CrownCastle.com E-74 1. CROWN CASTLE. Crown Castle NG West LLC ("Crown Castle") provides wireless .carriers with the infrastructure they need to beep people connected and business running. With approximately 40,000 -towers and 18,000 small cell nodes supported by approximately 17,000 miles of fiber, Crown Castle is the nation's largest provider of shared wireless infrastructure, with a significant presence in the trap 100 US markets. Crown Castle's small cell network �(SCN) represents the state-of-the-art in wireless telecommunications network technology. It is a iow-profile tel ecom mu n !cations system capable of delivering wireless services to customers of multiple carriers such, as Verizon, A- T&T, Sprint, Metro PCS anal T -Mobile. The elements of Crown Castle's SCM are small-scale and can be attached to standard streetlight sign poles that take Lap little space in the public rights -,of -way ("ROW') or, where feasible, onto existing elements in the ROW such as streetlights, traffic signals, and wooden utility poles.Crown Castle SCNtherefore allows one aesthetically unobtrusive system to tale 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. Past another way, Crown Castle SCN 'as the equivalent of a collocation system, as it permits many carriers to provide their services over one system with only a single serials of vertical elements. 20 THE PROJECT. AA The Network. Crown Castle proposes to develop a SCN network with thirty nine (3 9) small cell nodes jSCN)I in tihe ROW in the City of rancho Palos Verdes ('Network"). These nodes are described belooie 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 psartic0ar location will provide needed wireless broadband and telecommunications services and the addition of critical -network and capacity along A SCN "node,„ as ;.assn herein, is a small -format antenna taciiity mounted to a streetlight, traffic signal pole, Utility poie Or strut sign pole. Crown Cast! e.com E-75 onternalga Drive from roughly Basswood Avenue to .the East and Via Panorama to the West; and adjacent neighborhoods to the North and South of Montern- alga Drive � "Service Area"). Each of the 39 nodes comprising the Network Will UtillZe existing streetlight poles, traffic sign poles, utility poles and street sign poles located in the ROW, whenever possible. In some instances, hoAvvever, a new pole is being proposed In the ROW because there are no existing viable alternative from an RF perspective to achieve the coverage objective. Each SCN receives an optical signal from a central hub and distributes the signal to the SCN via fiber optic cable. The optical signal is then propagated from the SCN in the form of radio frequency SPF) transmissions. Distribution of signalfrom thehub to the low-power, low -profile SCN, allows carriers to provide wireless telecommunfieations and data services to areas otherwise difficult to reach with conventional wireless telecommunications facilities. The SCN locations are; cc] Node ID Street Address/Cross Street Site Type ASGO8 cross -from 30505 Calle de Suenos S/L REPL ASG09 30461 Camino Porvenir S/L REPL ASG1O Across from Los Verdes Golf Club S/L REPL A5G.11 NE Corner of Gingerroot/Narcissa Ex Wood Util ASG12 24 Narcissa Rel Ex Wood Util ASG13 72 M1rcissa Dr Ex Wood Util ASG15 28151 'Highridge New Pole ASG21 Basswood/Silverspur S/L REPL ASG25 27665 Longhill S/L REPL ASG31 28809 Crestridge New Pole ASG32 corner of Whitley/Scottwood S/L REPL The 'F-u-ndation for ',',I;o ia. CrownCastle.CC}m E-76 ASG33 Across 6480 Chartres Drive New Pole (concrete) ASG34 6960 Verde Ridge S/L REPL ASG35 6722 Abbottswood S/L REPL ASG36 Across from 28825 Doverridge New Pole (concrete) ASG37 Along Ridgegate Drive near South, ridge S/L REPL ASG38 7025 Maycroft S/L REPL ASG39 26804 Grayslake Rd Ex Wood Util or S/L ASG41 Palos Verdes Drive South near Seacliff New Pole ASG42 5207 Valley View S/L REPL ASG43 5721 Crestridge New Pole ASG44 Armaga Spring @ Meadow Mist S/L REPL ASG45 Adjacent to 28403 San Nicholas Dr S/L REPL ASG47 Across from 3087 Crownview/Highpoint New Pole ASG.48 Basswood @ Mossbank S/L REPL ASG49 Crest Rd Ex Wood Util or S/L ASG53 Adjacent to 6505 Monero Ex Wood Util or S/L ASG55 30002 Via Rivera, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA S/L REPL ASG64 South of 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West New Pole ASG69 Across 3486 Seaglen Dr, S/L REPL ASG70 Across from 5828 Montemalaga Ex Wood Utflity ASG72 Palos Verdes Drive (Abalone Cove) 5 of Narcissa New Pole ASG73 Hawthorne at Mallon Drive Traffic THP f:�Ioundat)on for a Wireless World Crown -'Castl e.corn E-77 By using existing vertical infrastructure within the ROW whenever possible, the proj, ect seeks to reduce the addition of new vertical elements, thereby minimizing intrusions into the ROW. TMVR«�l 3 A majority of the nodes will consist of two (2) 24 -inch long antennas mounted back-to-back on existing streetlights, utility poles, traffic sign poles or street sign poles, two �2) -fiber converters collocated with the Southern California Edison ("SCE") electric meter pedestals that would power the nodes. The total height of the facility, measured from grade level, is typically Lip 'to 139-6" .for traffic sign poles, street sign poles and free-standing poles, and UP 33'-6" for streetlight poles and utility poles. (See ZD — [(Drawings: Streetlights, traffic signal poles, street sign poles, -free-standing poles, and utility poles.)] In addition to -the antennas, the nodes -feature an un dergFrOUnd fiber pull box containing fiber. The -fiber converters convert digitalized spectrum received from the hub into RI' signals emitted from the antenna array to the Service Area. (See Drawings). Crown Castle presents this analysis pursuant to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code Title 12 ® Zoning Ordinance, Chap -ter 12.18.080. (Requirements for Facilities within Public Rights -of -Way). r F,undation for a Wireless World CrownCastle.corn E-78 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&T LA0196 Palos Verdes Drive 5 @ Boundary Trail Ex AT&T LA0351 Schooner Drive ExAT&T L40358 approx 9522 Palos Drive E Ex AT&T Silver Spur Rd @ Montemalaga Ex AT&T POLE REPL By using existing vertical infrastructure within the ROW whenever possible, the proj, ect seeks to reduce the addition of new vertical elements, thereby minimizing intrusions into the ROW. TMVR«�l 3 A majority of the nodes will consist of two (2) 24 -inch long antennas mounted back-to-back on existing streetlights, utility poles, traffic sign poles or street sign poles, two �2) -fiber converters collocated with the Southern California Edison ("SCE") electric meter pedestals that would power the nodes. The total height of the facility, measured from grade level, is typically Lip 'to 139-6" .for traffic sign poles, street sign poles and free-standing poles, and UP 33'-6" for streetlight poles and utility poles. (See ZD — [(Drawings: Streetlights, traffic signal poles, street sign poles, -free-standing poles, and utility poles.)] In addition to -the antennas, the nodes -feature an un dergFrOUnd fiber pull box containing fiber. The -fiber converters convert digitalized spectrum received from the hub into RI' signals emitted from the antenna array to the Service Area. (See Drawings). Crown Castle presents this analysis pursuant to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code Title 12 ® Zoning Ordinance, Chap -ter 12.18.080. (Requirements for Facilities within Public Rights -of -Way). r F,undation for a Wireless World CrownCastle.corn E-78 Specifically, this narrative demonstrates the demands and rationale that led to the selection of a particular location and design for the wireless telecomMUnication facilities proposed herein. Crown Castle is a "competitive Joca I exchange carrier" ("CLEC"). CLECs qualify as a 'public utility" and -therefore have a special status under state law. By virtue offCaliforma Public Utilities Commission ("CPUC") issuance of a "certificate of public convenience and necessity" ("CPCN"), CLECs have authority Linder state law to "'erect poles, posts, piers, or abutments" in the ROW subject only to local municipal control over -the "time, place and manner" of access to the ROW. (PUb. Utfl. Code, §§ 1001, 7901; 7901.1; see Wifflarns Communication v. City of Riverside (2003) 114 Cal.App, 4th 642, 648 upon obtaining a CPCN, a telephone corporation has 'the right to use the public highways to install (its] -facilities."].) The CPUC has issued a CPCN (attached as Exhibit DIb) 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 ease the ROW in the City to "construct ... telephone lines along and Ripon any public road or highway, along or across any of the waters or Lands within this State" and to "erect poles, posts, piers, or abutments for supporting the insulators, wires, and other necessary fixtures of their lines, in such manner and at such points as not to incommodethe public Lise of the road or highway],]" (Pub. Util. Code, § 7901.) The na-tUre0fthe vested right was described by one court asIfollows: ... "filt has been uniformly held that Isectiorl 7901] is a continuing offer extended to telephone and telegraph companies to use the highways, which offer when accepted by the construction and maintenance of lines constitutes a binding contract based on adequate consideration, and that the vested right established -thereby cannot be impaired by subsequent acts of the Legislature—,10tations]" ... Thus, -telephone companies have the right to usethe public highways to ins -tall their facilities. (Williams Communications v. City of Riverside, supro, 114 Cal,AppAth at p. 648 quoting .County of L A V. SOLIthem Col. Tel, Co, (1948) 32 Cal.2d 378, 384 (196 P.2d 7731.) Yid cr o -Indatiorl for a Vk/ire�Iess World. CrownCastle.com E-79 While Public Utility Code section 7901,1 ,rants local municipalities the lunited'right to exercise reasonable control as to the time, place, and manner in which roads, highways, and waterways are access d[j" Such controls cannot have the effect of foreclosing use by Crown Castle of the ROW or ot;hervvise prevent Crown Castie from exercising its right under state law to "erect poles" in the ROW. That is because "the construction and maintenance of telephone lines in the streets and ether public places within the City is today a matter of state ;concern and not a municipal affair," (Williams Communication, v. City, of Riverside, supra, 114 Ca!LApp.4th at p, 653,) On -the basis of Crown Castle's statu,s as a CLEC, and its concomitant rights to the ROW, the Network is designed as an ROW system, With respect to the siting and configura'do , of the Network, the rights afforded under Public Utilities Code section 79,01 and 7901,1 apply, Crown Castle reserves its rights under section,, 7901 and 7901,1, including, but not limited to, its right to challenge any approval process, that impedes or infringes on Crown Castle's rights as a CLEC. B. Applicable Federal Law3 The approval of the Network also is governed by the federal Telecommunications Act Of 1995, Pub. L. No 104-104, 110 State 56 (codified .as amend in scattered sections of U.S.C,, Tabs 15, 18, 47) I"Telecom Act"). When enacting the Telecom Act, Congress expressed its intent "to promote competition and reduce regulation in order to Secure lower pries and higher quality services for American telecommunications consumers and encourage the rapid deployment of new telecor°nrunicat ons technologies," (110 Stat, at 56e) As one court noted; Congress enacted the TCA to promote competition and higher quality in telecommunications servicesand to encourage the rapid :deployment of new telecommunications technologies. Congress intended to promote a national cellular network and to secure lower prices and better service for consumers by opening all telecommunications markets to competition. (T -Mobile Central, LLC v, Unified Government of Wyandotte, 528 F.Supp, 2d 1128, 1146-47 (D, Ken, 2007), One way in which the Telecom, Act accomplishes these goals is by reducing impediments (..row `i Castle.com E-80 imposed by local governments upon the installation of wireless communications facilities, such a5, antenna facilities, M U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(A),) Section 332(c)(7)(B) provides the limitations on the general authority reserved to state and. local governments. Those limitations are set Orth as follows: (a) State and local governments may not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services (§ 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(i)). (b) State and local governments may not regulate the placement, constriction or modification of wireless service facifitiesin a manner that prohibits, or has th,e effect of prohibiting, the provision of personal wireless services ;(better known as the "effective prohibition, clause") (§ 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(ll))e (c) State and, local governments must act on requests for authorization to construct or modify wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time (§ 332(c)(7)(B)(ii)), (d) Any decision by a shite or local ,government to deny a request -fear construction or modification of personal wireless service facilities must be in writing and supported by suibstantial evidence contained in a written record (§ 332(c)(7)(B)(iii))e (e) Finally, no state or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction or modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the perceived environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with -federal communications commission's regulations concerning such emissions (§ 3321(c)(7)(B)(iv)). In addition to the above, other federal enactments and policies also guide local governmental actions, including the following: (a) The Shot dock Rule: On november 18, 2009, the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") adopted the "Shot Clack" Rule, placing, strict time limits on local governments to Dict on appfications for the siting of wireless teleccammunications facilities. The Shot Clock Rile was intended to "prcarnote[] deployment of broadband and other wireless services" by 'reducing delays in constriction and improvement of wireless networks." (b) White House Broadband initiative: On February 10; 2011, the White House called for a National Wireless Initiative to make available high-speed wireless services to at lust 9 percent of Americans. The initiative would free up spectrum through incentive auctions, C rownt� asde.com Q V 1 spurring innovation, and create a nationwide, interoperable wireless network for public safety with afiscal goal of catalyzing private investment and innovation and reducing the deficit by $9.6 billion, "help the United States win the 'future and compete in the 21st century economy." (47 U.S.C. § 1455(a)(1), emphasis added.) An 'VBible 'Facilities request "Modifications" includes a request to "collocate' a facility. (Id. at § 1455(a)(2)(A).) Asdfiscussed further below, because it is a qualifying collocation facility, an argument may be made that the Project qualifies for ministerial approval under the Spectrum Act. Further, the Federal Communications Commission recently provided clarification to the Spectrum Act in a recently published order. The FCC noted in its order: We take important steps in this Report and Order to promote the deployment of 1jvireless infrastructure, recognizing that it is the physical foundation that supports all wireless communications. We do this by eliminating unnecessary reviews, thus reducing the costs and delays associated with facility siting and construction. Specifically, the order (dated October 17, 2014), makes provisions for the following: Clarifies key terms in the Act such as Base Station, Eligible Facility Request, what is deemed Existing, and Tower; ?D What constitutes Substantial Change - For Towers and Base Stations Sited within the public right-of-way, a change to an existing facility is Jess than substantial, and must be approved ifthe height increase is less than 10% increase or 10 -feet, whichever is greater, or has a Protrusion, of less than 6 - 'feet frorn the edge of the structure, or if the change would defeat concealment elements of the structure. • Governing authority may only require documentation that is reasonably related to whether the request is covered under -the rules; • Governing authority may not require submission of any other documentation, including proof of need. TheFrjundation ficyr a 'VVirej�-Ss ,/Vorld, CrownCastle.com E-82 FINDINGS 1, Visual Compatibility (RPVM, C Title 12, Chapter 12.18.080, Sec. A Design and Development Standards -for wireless telecommunication facilities in the public right-of-way). As discussed more fully below, -the Service Area described above currently experiences a significant gap in wireless telecommunications coverage. To fill that gap, Crown Castle proposes the "least intrusive means," as articulated by the Ninth Circuit in IT -Mobile U.S.A., Inc. v. City of Anacortes, 572 F.3d 987, 995 (9-th Cir. 2009) and as required by RPV's Wireless Telecommunications Facility Permit Application ("VV7FPA") Section IV(2),(c) Description of Project Coverage 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 denial sought to serve." (ibid.) This allows [F]or a meaningful comparison of alternative sites before the siting application process is needlessly repeated. It also gives providers an incentive to choose the least intrusive site in their -first siting applications, and it promises to ultimately identify -the best solution for the community, not merely the least one remaining after a series of application denials. (Id at 995.) In this case, because Crown Castle is a CLEC entitled to construct its systems in the ROW, its DAS networks are inherently ROW systems. On that basis, Crown Castle examined those alternatives -theoretically available to it in the ROW. The analysis below demonstrates why the Project qualifies as the "least intrusive means" of filling the significant gap in service described above. A. Height of the Proposed Facilities. The antenna heights and locations of the SCN were chosen to provide the minimum signal level needed to meet critical coverage and capacity needs in the Service Area. Despite the technical limitations of a low -profile system, Crown Castle seeps to maximize the coverage of each node location, since maximization of the node performance equates to a lower overall number of facilities for the Network and a less intrusive system. Accordingly, each location was chosen to provide an effective relay of signal from the adjacent node, scithat -ubiquitous coverage of the minimum signal level is provided throughout the Service Area with the minimum number of nodes. The Foundation for a Wireless World. CrownCastle.corn E-83 B. Location of the Proposed Facilities. The selected node locations maximize the RF coverage of the node and minimize interference/overlap ��iththe ether nodes of the systemres�ltin in l� ��e-reran nurnber cif facilities fear the Network and a less intrusive system. Each node provides an effective relay of signal from the adjacent node, so that ubiquitous coverage is provided throughout t!he Service Area, Because each node is locationally dependent on the other nodes of the Network, moving a node too far from its proposed location will result in an inability meet coverage objectives and thereby impair the Network. . In selecting node locations, Crown Castle also sought out existing utility pales, streetlight poles and street sign pale sites that could serve as a potential hast site for .alternative locations. Ce Small Welds as Least Intrusive Means Technology. Even apart from the siting of the nodes, SC itself is inherently minimally intrusive by design. SCC was developed as a smaller -scale solation to the larger macro -site or cell tower. It therefore represents a significant technological advance in the development of smaller profile wireless transmission devices. As devices shrink in size, they also, by definition, shrink in power. Accordingly, more facilities are needed and such facilities must be located closer to the user. The nodes are designed .to be smaller in scale and leer power to allow thein to integrate more easily into their surroundings and thereby render therm less aesthetically intrusive. The small cell node facilities proposed by Crown Castle combine a smaller scale product with state-af- the-art technology that allows for multiple carriers to provide service from the rodeo The nodes are designed to blend into the existing elements of the ROW. They feature narrow -profile poles and rnjnirnal equipment. Each facility also will be designed to blend with existing features in the road. Crown Castle's SCN network qualifier, as'the 'least intrusive means" of filling theidentified significant gap in coverage for the following reasons, among others; (1) Crown Castle SCN utilizes the latest in wireless infrastructure technology, incorporating smaller, to -po-ver ?facilities instead of using larger -- and sometimes more obtrusive -- cell towers; (2) Crown Castle SCN Utilizes the ROW, thereby avoiding intrusions into private property or undeveloped sensitive resource areas; QrownCast'se.i:com • (3) Crown Castle SCN allows forcoflocation, by multiple carriers, thereby avoiding 0 proliferation of nodes; (4) Crown Castle SCN strikes a balance between, antenna height and coverage in order to minimize visual impacts; (5) Crown Castle SCN carefully spaces the nodes to effectively relay signal with a minimum of node locations; and (6) Crown Castle SCN seeks to utilize existing vertical elements in the ROW, such as utility poles and street signs, thereby minimizing the net number of vertical intrusions in the ROW. 2. Health and Safety/FCC Compliance. The FCC has preempted -the field of compliance with RF emission standards. Moreover, section 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) preempts local and state governments from regulating the siting of wireless telecommunications facilities on the basis of the perceived health effects of RF emissions. Nevertheless, the Network, and all equipment associated with the Network, complies with all applicable FCC RFernission standards. A demonstration of the Network's compliance with applicable FCC RF emission standards is attached as Exhibit E. 3. Safety and Monitoring Standards (IMC § 3-8-2(D)). The FCC has preempted the field of compliance with RF emission standards. Moreover, section 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) preempts local and state governments from regulating the siting of wireless 0 -telecommunications facilities on the basis of the perceived health effects .oaf 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. 4. Design and Development Standards (RPVMC 12.18.080). A. Selection Criteria for Each Node Sitea Given the iow profile of the nodes, and the resultant limitations of such a low -profile system, Crown The Furldatvn for a A/irgless �ivorld. C C rownCastle.com E-85 Castle seeks to maximize the coverage of each node location, since maximization of the node coverage equates to a lower overall number of facilities for the network and a less intrusive system. Accordingly, each location was chosen to provide an effective relay of signal frorn the adjacent node, so that ubiquitous coverage is ,provided throughout the Service Area with the least number of nodes. Each node is ioeatienally dependent on the other nodes of the Network. To move a node too far frorn 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 aiso sought out existing utility pole, streetlight poie 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 feetfrom 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 installati®n of new poles — where possible ve 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 o,f 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 uses, Crown Castle identified alternative ideations that are technicallyfeasible. yet, in each instance, Crown Castle selected the proposed site on the basis of f a) Technical feasibility; (b) Ability to Litilize existing vertical elements; (e) ability to meet RF objectives; and (d) Minimization of visibility/aesthetic impacts. Since 29 of the 39 proposed :sites use or replace existing poles, the proposed network results in ten new vertical elements in the ROW. Ba Node Locations and the "Significant Gap°" in Coverage. The Foundation for a `svr n. less i1Vorld, E-86 Each node of the Network is necessary to -fill a significant gasp in service in the City. The significant gap is graphically demonstrated as reciiiired by RPVMC WTFPA Section IV3j Description of Project Coverage and Purpose [Exhibit C3], which depicts existing service for the anchor carrier for the Network, AT&T. (See "Existing Service Map".) The Existing Service Map describes six levels of service, (1) In -Building (Dark Green), (2) in -Building (Light Green); (3) Ire -Vehicle (yellow) and (4),in-Vehicle (Red), (5) Poor to Non-existent (Blue) and (6) Poor to bion -Existent (Black). Each level is characterized by a minimum signal level. The key to coverage is having, a signal level strong enough to allow Multiple customners to maintain contact with the network so they can make and maintain contact with the network. There is a direct correlatbn between the height of the antenna and the strength of the service. In this case, Crown Castle's design seeps a minimum .of RF propagation level, which provides a sufficient level of service to address growing capacity demands and to reach indoor users, while avoiding poles that may be too obtrusive. The courts have upheld the use of in - building minimum standards as a prosper benchmark for determining whether a significant gap in coverage exists. (See, e.g., MetroPCS lake v. City and County of San Francisco �N.D.Cal. 2006) 2006 U.S. Dist, LEXIS 43985 ["careful reading of existing cases that contain a significant gap analysis persuades the court that any analysis should include consideration of a wireless carrier's in -building coverage,"],) In this case, existing service levels in the Service Area Mall below the minimum standard for adequate in -building coverage. (See Existing Service Map.) The need to fill the existing significant coverage gap to a level that gallows adequate inmbUilding coverage and to address growing capacity demands is underscored by the greater numbers of customers dropping their landlines and relying solely on wireless telecornMUnications for their phone service. Additionally; (1) In e recent international study, the United States dropped to fifteenth in the world in broadband penetration, well behind South mores, Japan, the Netherlands and France,'- (2) 48 percent of all American hones are now wireless only,' (3) More and more civic leaders and emergency response personnel cite lack of a robust wireless network as a growing public safety risk. The number of 911 calls placed by '- Organization forEconomic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Directorate -for Science, Technology, and Industry, "Broadband Statistics," (June 1010): <www.oecd,org/sti`/ict/broadband>. 3 Federal COMMUnications Commission (April 2013). The Poundation for '0 d Crow Cas'tle.corn E-87 people using wireless phones has significantly increased in recent years. It is estimated that about 70 percent of 911 calls are placed from wireless phones, and that percentage is growing.4 (4) Data demand from new smartphones and tablets is leading to a critical deficit in spectrum, requiring more wireless antennas and infrastructure. According to a 2011 report, wireless data traffic was 110 percent higher than in the last half of 2010. Similarly, A.T&T reports that its wireless data volumes have increased 30 -fold since the introduction of the ftone.' (5) 6x projected mobile data traffic growth from 2015 to 2020.6 As more Americans depend on wireless communications technologies and smartphone, reliable network capacity and in -building coverage will be critical. These are some of the reasons courts now recognize that a "significant gap" can exist on the basis of inadequate in -building coverage. (See, e.g., MetroPCS Inc. v. City rind County of Son, Francisco, supra, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43985; T -Mobile Central, LLC v. Unified Government of Wyandotte County (D.Kans. 2007) 528 F.Supp.2d 1128.) Applying these principles to the Service Area, Exhibit C3, reveals that Service Area is currently experiencing insufficient signal. Users In the Service Area therefore would experience an intolerably high percentage of blocked and dropped calls for outside use, with a commensurate decline in signal strength as one moves toward the inside of existing buildings and homes. Crown Castle seeks to provide sufficient signal strength to ensure not only adequate signal for mobile and outdoor users, but reliable in -building coverage for all those customers who may seek to abandon, their home landlines and sufficient capacity to address new data demands from smartphones and tablets. Wireless Customers must be able -to count on a level of service commensurate with that provided by their landlines. Such considerations are relevant to a determination of significant gap. (See, e.g., T -Mobile Central LLC v. City of Fraser (E.D. Mich. 2009) 675 F. Supp. 2d 721 [considering failure rate of 911 emergency calls.]) Federal Communications Commission (2013) h'ttp://www.'fcc.gov/gLiides/wireless-911-services. Executive Office of the President COUncil of Economic Advisors (White HOUse, Feb. 2012) at 2-6, 6 Id. The Foundation for a Wireless World. CrownCastle.conn I By contrast, installation of the proposed nodes comprising the project would result in adequate outdoor and in -building coverage, (See Exhibit Exhibit C3(e) 1predicted coverage map with node ( ... not macros]; Exhibit C3(a) and (d) [predicted coverage map without node ( ... not macros].) Crown Castle has developed a number of node designs, some of which are depicted in Exhibit A of the existing and enforce Rights -of Way Use Agreement ("RUA") between the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and Crown Castle. Further Crown Castle has provided the engineering specifications for the proposed facility. (See Exhibit F1- Engineering Plans). The proposed designs represent the latest achievement in reducing the profile of the facilities. A smaller antenna configuration would impede larger aesthetic objectives of facilitating collocation and minimizing the need for additional network facilities as demands on the Network grow. Put simply, -the smaller true antenna result in a -less robust the network. That equates to diminished capacity and coverage -- and a resultant need for snore nodes in the future as more customers use the network. By contrast, the panel antennas proposed in the Network provide ample capacity for increased user demand (e.g., increased data needs). A Crown Castle respectfully presents its application for a Major Wireless Telecom mun, ications Facilities Permit/conditional use permit for the Network. Crown Castle's representatives are on hand to answer any questions. The Foundation for a Wireless World. CrownCastie.corn E-89 11/14/2016 CROWN CASTLE ASGog Coverage Analysis The Foundation for a Wireless World, E-90 ASGog Agenda • Exhibit C(3) ® Geographic and propagation maps • Exhibit C(4) ® Geographic service area for the subject installation • Exhibit F(4) ® Power output and operating frequency for the proposed antenna • Exhibit H(1)(b) — Master plan of all existing and proposed facilities • Exhibit I ® Alternative sites JO: CROWN Proprietary & CASTLE Confidential E-91 co A E-92 Exhibit C3 a. -- Geographical significant gap in coverage. CROWN Proprietary & r,r CASTLE Confidential h k-POP4 Gar Ceuta* • • i�r • S i i •� r � CROWN Proprietary & r,r CASTLE Confidential h k-POP4 Gar Ceuta* • • i�r a IC 14 E-93 Exhibit C3 (b) - Proposed site and surrounding existing WTF owned and operated by the applicant CROWN Proprietary & CASTLE Confidential 5 E-94 y 'tel WSG10 a G15G09 77 Paint Elismentary School r a r CSO Lee Voodoo Proposed Node Goll! Course Existing Crown Castle Facility 0 Coverage Objective Region Existing AT&T Facility CROWN Proprietary & CASTLE Confidential 5 E-94 Exhibit C3 (c) — Proposed facility relative to all existing and planned facilities CROWN Proprietary & CASTLE Confidential 6 E-95 *sG10 ■A5G09 PbInl Elementary School ■ Los vetd Proposed Node Golf Existing Crown Castle Facility m Coverage Objective Region Existing AT&T Facility CROWN Proprietary & CASTLE Confidential 6 E-95 Exhibit C3 d. — Existing RF coverage. CROWN Proprietary & CASTLE Confidential 17 E-96 % *1,, 464b *a, lose Is O%sr"Om E • 01� -4 • 0 - F 6 nI at d, Sr- WO I se ;SRP 4P SO -101, Jaw. Los Vowdles Gov Course 40 Proposed Inestion •• .6 r Is FsiL-d ExistinqAT&T site • 1% CROWN Proprietary & CASTLE Confidential 17 E-96 Exhibit C3 e. — Proposed RF coverage. I CROWN Proprietary & �ft. CASTLE Confidential �1 t •• i%-19FiP • -9a Is �. crn! • ,T5 rq, -r�14 rj-nl Prop ted toentsarr Allemate :Dc alion4 r r�� Exi=_1ing.ATU site 0' E-97 e� T ? • r ii * p. 9JSRSiilr • Legiend 18- Proposed Nodes Existing AT&T Sites fw ASGO ,% /• O .%i'i( 'ff / oma: Mh .'Propose .� coverage " r; fall ��4+L V �Yol r ilb$ IL'I� i ea :r'oC��i`'V B a E-99 The objective of the node, ASGog, is to provide continuous coverage on Palos Verdes Dr. from Rue Beaupre. to Via Anacapa/Via De La Guera. .. '� • - r� "� IV 4 All fir oil .? `: � _ �..�__ o .,,%tet ..• ,, yr f� � 'f �� ,a'".�• t,y. � � " s..._ t` �._ j pig �o _ M �y �, r �•� p+r �_r ` t . •..hy 1 N� �rr•,r,W� N. \' 1 ! ti 'fop � � Astec L oc al i0i i C Iry 9 L ASG Wc9tiall? '7 a ASG0q ..UEallon D 4 +{j -N FA c+) 14 0 0 P. u ZW 0 v~i �a uu ti E-102 Power output and operating frequency EIRP 700 MHz Watts EIRP 850 MHz (composite, Watts EIRP 1900 MHz EIRP 2100 MHz Watts Watts 141 1 58 324 CROWN Proprietary & CASTLE Confidential E-103 n u �--I LO M a y O o P, U a E-104 List of All Existing Facilities Carrier Site ID Latitude Longitude arrier Site ID ILatitude arrier Site ID Latitude Lon Rude arrier Site ID Latitude Longitude AT&T AHWOI 33.78431 -118.36835 print LA36XC534 33.7908929 W HAW12 33.77588 -118.40315 S Tint LA36XC659 33.7736 -118.36987 AT&T HW02 33.759 -118.38 Tint LA36XC535 33.786547 W HAW14m1 33.759883 -118.405233 MUS NO2m2 33.77881 -118.37 AT&T HWO4 33.76809 -118.39135 Tint LA36XC540 33.74165Tint 7-1118.36746print LA34XD015 33.78752 -118.37618 MUS N06 33.7627 -118.3 AT&T AHW08 33.7562 -118.4101 print LA36XC548 33.7433446 Tint LA34XD027 33.77401667 -118.395 MUS N15 33.78063 -118.388 AT&T HW13 33.751972 -118.395472 Tint LA36XC564 33.7433879 Tint LA34XD031 33.74214 -118.401616 Tint NCA5054R:13 33.75267 -118.36983 AT&T HW55 33.77283 -118.4032 Tint LA36XC565 33.7577946 rint LA34XD036 33.78098 -118.39723 print NCA5054R:14 33.77411 -118.39303 MUS AN18 33.759 -118.38 print LA36XC566 33.75541 -118.40821 Tint LA34XD043 33.773162 -118.403179 S Tint NCA5054R : 15 33.78028 -118.38791 AT&T SP06 33.76225 -118.3654 print LA36XC568 33.75005 -118.4050 rint LA34XD046 33.7581 -118.4133 print NCA5054R:17 33.78238 -118.36944 AT&T P10 33.74821 -118.33322 print LA36XC570 33.76195 -118.41071 Tint LA34XD047 33.745354 -118.40078 Tint NCA50545: 12 33.77181 -118.36197 AT&T P12 33.74841 -118.32487 Tint LA36XC591 33.76263 -118.33513 rint LA34XD050 33.75232 -118.39593 MUS PV02m2 33.77621 -118.375 AT&T P13 33.74212 -118.33277 Tint LA36XC610 33.745028 -118.3849 Tint LA34XD095 33.748459 -118.32485 MUS PV07m6 33.7722 -118.361 AT&T SP14 33.76265 -118.33082 Tint LA36XC611 33.76868 -118.40277 print LA34XD099 33.74218 -118.33322 MUS PV13 33.776 -118.393 AT&T ASP32 33.76554 -118.32261 print LA36XC622 33.76267 -118.36983 rint LA34XD111 33.72728 -118.33468 MUS PV18 33.768 -118.391 AT&T SP33 33.7471 -118.31818 Tint LA36XC623 33.77411 -118.39303 Tint LA36XC212 33.74801 -118.31278 MUS PV19 33.76075 -118.3 AT&T P42 33.744397 -118.32482 Tint LA36XC635 33.73869 -118.3578 Tint LA36XC216 33.7595 -118.33021 MUS PV49 33.77899 -118.38 AT&T SP52 33.76236 -118.36987 print LA36XC639 33.7458333 -118.3372222 rint LA36XC219 33.73721 -118.330 W SP01 33.731395 -118.3429 AT&T P59m1 33.732861 -118.33469 riot LA36XC640 33.73798 -118.33618 Tint LA36XC453 33.7917 -118.3685 SPOS 33.736 -118.32976 AT&T P62 33.76321 -118.32737 print LA36XC641 33.7384 -118.34449 print LA36XC454 33.76589 -118.3109 SP06 33.74163 -118.3262 AT&T ASP63 33.758167 -118.32975 tint LA36XC646 33.77544 -118.40283 tint 1A36XC516 33.77096 -118.39619 W P07m1 33.738929 -118.336364 VZW HAW02 33.78012 -118.4005 tint LA36XC647 33.78898 -118.38521 Tint LA36XC521 33.77181 -118.3619 P21 33.7481 -118.31293 VZW HAW04 33.78543 -118.38576 rint LA36XC648 33.78238 -118.36944 Tint LA36XC522 33.73738 -118.332 W SP22 33.75471 -118.31486 ZW HAW05 33.78908 -118.38528 rint LA36XC649 33.78785 -118.38201 Tint LA36XC523 33.75335 -118.32667 SP23m1 33.73823 -118.34436 ZW HAW06 33.78766 -118.37637 print LA36XC651 33.79048 -118.37287 Tint LA36XC524 33.7640 -118.33115 P24 33.73403 -118.33834 ZW HAW07m1 33.790795 -118.382867 rint LA36XC652 33.78028 -116.38791 riot LA36XC526 33.73561 -118.34777 SP25m1 33.73518 -118.354187 ZW HAW10 33.77128 -118.39648 riot LA36XC530 33.7809 -118.4002778 MUS TM81008-0009m2 33.74063 -118.33702 ZW JHAWII 33.76837 -118.40327 rint ILA36XC653 1 33.78042 -118.37651 MUS TMB1008-OC19 33.7758 -118.4031 CROWN Proprietary & .,moi► CASTLE Confidential 16 E-105 List of All Proposed Facilities Carrier Site ID Latitude Longitude Carrier Site ID Latitude Longitude VZW SO SCL PALOS VERDES 3 33.761353 -118.410358 AT&T ASG32 33.76295102 -118.375093 VZW SO SCL PALOS VERDES 8 33.739781 -118.369334 AT&T ASG33 33.755661 -118.393449 VZW SO SCL PALOS VERDES 9 33.758782 -118.364486 AT&T ASG34 33.766074 -118.401094 VZW SO SCL PALOS VERDES 11 33.775391 -118.368853 AT&T ASG35 33.770696 -118.397066 VZW SO SCL PALOS VERDES 12 33.784143 -118.367588 AT&T ASG36 33.77089856 -118.3893824 VZW SO SCL PALOS VERDES 13 33.749477 -118.332934 AT&T ASG37 33.776566 -118.387413 VZW SO SCL PALOS VERDES 14 33.746148 -118.329719 AT&T ASG38 33.77995 -118.40271 VZW SO SCL PALOS VERDES 15 33.743179 -118.318986 AT&T ASG39 33.78541831 -118.3834136 VZW SO SCL PALOS VERDES 16 33.764385 -118.331199 AT&T ASG41 33.73169 -118.34472 VZW SO SCL PALOS VERDES 17 33.760177 -118.32499 AT&T ASG43 33.767863 -118.376828 VZW SO SCL PALOS VERDES 18 33.767905 -118.314171 AT&T ASG44 33.771255 -118.385665 VZW SO SCL PALOS VERDES 19 33.771618 -118.309292 AT&T ASG45 33.77618 -118.39398 VZW SO SCL PALOS VERDES 20 33.761589 -118.315284 AT&T ASG47 33.74959 -118.33013 VZW SO SCL ROLLING HILLS ESTATES 1 33.773894 -118.387828 AT&T ASG48 33.78279 -118.37828 VZW SO SCL ROLLING HILLS IESTATES 2 33.781481 -118.384533 AT&T IASG49B 33.74169 -118.336646 VZW SO SCL ROLLING HILLS ESTATES 3 33.783917 -118.378903 AT&T ASG53 33.781524 -118.392501 AT&T ASG01 33.795275 -118.378278 AT&T ASG55 33.763295 -118.410407 AT&T ASG08 33.756725 -118.405011 AT&T ASG64 33.75943 -118.41442 AT&T ASG09 33.75669619 -118.401964 AT&T ASG69 33.735261 -118.340374 AT&T ASG10 33.75744 -118.39885 AT&T ASG70 33.790093 -118.381213 AT&T ASG11 33.746478 -118.375309 AT&T ASG72 33.73996 -118.3725 AT&T ASG12 33.74448 -118.37641 AT&T ASG73 33.74852 -118.39366 AT&T ASG13 33.74865 -118.37003 AT&T ASG74 33.732849 -118.334681 AT&T ASG09 33.775529 -118.38307 AT&T LA0194 33.74082 -118.36438 AT&T ASG21 33.779702 -118.374277 AT&T LA0351 33.736726 -118.352793 AT&T IASG25 133.77338093 -118.370326 AT&T LA0358 33.75366 -118.327114 AT&T JASG31 1 33.765484 -118.367833 AT&T LAR069 33.787116 -118.372384 r CROWN Proprietary & J ,,ter CASTLE Confidential 17 E-106 Map of all existing and proposed facilities e r :71 Proposed Nodes ell i 11 - -------- I.It b athtowlril Existing Wireless Faclilities C-0 f Park Rolling IIS 4 X iz Rolfilkg IIHIS Nwval 0 Park Reservation 4 • r ILJ D& HIL PAL C) L 51, Verdes Pol tuqijazc- cj cao I Be M ff Course M1nt, 1Vafetra Plet.01w, • Pedro lot at pfeserfo Terra"a S Verdes W-9th-St— U04I)e ■ Dana 13th �A Dena 1: m n rump n- yr :''«°17tti At Golf C tub ,C CROWN Proprietary & %No CASTLE Confidential 1 18 E-107 CROWN Proprietary & CASTLE Coofidcudo General Plan Why dioworse than Pmped primary? Public ROW y Owner phone Zoning Exhibit Alternative Locations Lat Long Owner number Designation ASG00A(Primary) 33.75069619 -118.401064 N/A Exhibit 11 ASG00B(Alternative 1) 33,75888584 '118.4018514 N8\ Exhibit 12 ASG08C(Alternative 3) 33.7571300 118.4017933 N/A Exhibit 13 AS8OAD(Alternative 3) 33.75038993 118.4023067 N8\ Exhibit 14 ASG00E(Alternative 4) 33.7570248 -118.4018417 N/A Exhibit 15 ASG00F 38.750083 118.405233Verizon CROWN Proprietary & CASTLE Coofidcudo General Plan Why dioworse than Designation primary? Public ROW Public ROW See alternative analysis Public ROW See alternative analysis Public ROW See alternative analysis Public ROW See alternative analysis Public ROW Outside coverage objective _1 �� n� / �� Alternative Analysis — (ASGo9 Location Q 'If 0 fA % Se fA0 go oo % • It *:qi a % R)int • % Vicente Ebmentary • school ir % ,C CROWN Proprietary & ,wo CASTLE Confidential wr-G09 0 No*- • •0% 60 • 0 w S Vwmdo a GWDI 0 • • • • • • RSRP •-,. '105 d6m • -105 to -95 d6m • 95 to -86d5in -55to-7501-n 0.75 to -66 d8m • 0 -=-65 d3m Wireless Telecommunications Facility Possible Locations wHode * Fai AT&T Node to Passed 901,4F 1 20 E-109 Alternative Analysis — (ASGog Location D) .7 r AI• • • • 'P5C09 E • J on, • t•Ts '0 a SG09 ii SG09 p CROWN Proprietary & i �,r,► CASTLE Confidential Los ltatdes GOV Co ur as 91•.4l 1 21 E-110 RSRP • c=-105d6m • -105 to -95 dEn • -95to -85 d6m • • � i • ti • => 65 d6m • • Wireless Telecommunications Facility MNod6 •i fbFaiiea • lepaswel • so • r• • Sa • .s 1i� • � r *w • • • so A • r.� 'C• • • • 1 21 E-110 RSRP • c=-105d6m • -105 to -95 dEn • -95to -85 d6m • • -85 to -75 dem • • -75 to -65 d6m • => 65 d6m • • Wireless Telecommunications Facility MNod6 Possible Loeaiions fbFaiiea AT&T Node lepaswel *On -kir 1 21 E-110 Alternative Analysis — (ASGog Location E) t� r. tt�s� • s<tt�� tt 4 1• i • • ti mint • Vicente • •. *::,ps fr School • « • • do • i � i ♦f > • • • ,.. s • % CROWN Proprietary & CASTLE Confidential _. 00 0 • • to so M • y de t� r • • w •OkSG09 E � . • to ,�. 0 rr• on ••• M V �SGO r • �(40 t • • • • � + SGO B •r • p a' Z, • • l4SG09 b �!' • t r►` 9; • • ��•• r•• S •. to t : to •i• i• Gar �• • ` Courae RSRP r — _105 d6m • -105 to -95 d8n • -95 to -85 d6m 5 to -75 d5m o • • -75 to -55 d8 n r� • • -65 d6m •M.Iess Telecommunications Facility Possible Locations nNode I&Fey�y AT&T Node oPil3setl *on -Air 22 E-111 Crown Castle NG West LLC Site Specific Alternative Site Analysis Narrative for ASG®9 Submitted to City of Rancho Palos Verdes Submitted Pursuant to City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code Title 12 Zoning Ordinance Chapter 12.1 8.®8® Requirements for Facilities within the Public Right -of -Way The f=oundation for a Wireless World. CrownCastle.com E-112 12.18.080 (A) Design and Development Standards' City's Design and Development Standards require that aweless telecommunications facilities ("WTF") located in the public right-of-way ("ROW") are designed to minimize visual, noise and other impacts on the surrounding community. 12.18.080 (A)(1) General Guidelines a) The Applicant shall employ screening, undergrounding and camouflage design techniques in the placement of WTF in order to; i) To ensure that the facility is as visually screened as possible; Crown Castle employs screening by taping advantage of existing foliage, natural and man-made elements in and around the public ROW, to the maximum extent feasible. The small cell node ("SCN") will replace existing 24 -foot tall octagonal steel streetlight with mast arm and luminaire, and replace it with a 24 -foot tall marbelite concrete, octagonal streetlight with mast arm and luminaire capable of supporting Crown Castle's antennas. The SCM is more specifically located on the east side of Camino Porvenir, approximately 1,000 plus feet north east of Calle De Suenos. This stretch of Camino Porvenir has two story single-family residences along both sides of the street. The single-family residences to the east of the ROW have mature landscaping including tall shrubs and mature bushes, that front on Camino Porvenir. On the west side of Camino Porvenir, the single-family residences have multiple large trees 15 -feet in height, along with mature shrubs, trees and groundcover, that front along that side of the street. The existing foliage and surrounding topographic features, with elevation changes, ensures that the SCRI is visually screened as possible. The 24 -foot tall street light that Crown Castle proposes to replace is just one in a series of other similarly sized street lights located along the east side of Camino 1 Notwithstanding the presentation of this site-specific alternatives analysis pursuant to Chapter 12.18 of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, Crown Castle reserves its rights to challenge any portion of the City's requirements under Chapter 12.18 to the extent that such requirements violate state and/or federal law, including, but not limited to, Public Utilities Code sections 7901 and 7901.1 and section 253 of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Foundation for a Wireless World. CrownCastle.com E-113 ei) To ,prevent the facility from dominating the surrounding area; Crown Castle's 24 -foot tall SCN would not dominate the surrounding area because: 1) The replacement streetlight pole is the same size as the existing 24 -toot tall streetlight pole. 2) The nearest structures are single-family residences located approximately 25 -feet east of the SCN, behind mature landscaping. 3) Single-family residences on the west side of the Camino Porvenir R® are approximately 30 -feet back from curb behind landscaping and a small retaining wall. The views from these units is to the west, along Calle ®e Suenos and Avenida ®e Calma below. 4) Foliage in the surrounding area includes mature trees in excess of 15 -feet in height; S) The facility qualifies for a Mass Three CEQA exemption, which conforms that the facility will have no significant aesthetic impacts. N) To minimize significant view impacts from surrounding properties; Crown Castle's SCIS uses existing infrastructure in the ROW (a streetlight), foliage and topographic features to minimize significant view impacts from surrounding properties. The SCN is located on east side of Camino Porvenir, across the street from a large 15 -foot trees and mature landscaping. The SCIS does not significantly impact views because surrounding properties either look west along both Calle Ce Suenos and Avenida ®e Calma; as well as the surrounding areas or east along Los Verdes Golf Course. Moreover, Crown Castle's SCIS qualifies for a Mass Three CEQA exemption, which confirms that the facility will have no significant aesthetic impacts. iv) That achieves compatabo89ty with the community and 6n compliance with RPVMC Section 1 T 02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration). RPVMC Section Preservationaddresses residential a tis by proposed d ! 1 "i: i < l:iii ! ,� ;surrounding residential i e : parcels. The preservation of views is to be accomplished primarily through the pruning and removal of foliage. There are several reasons why RPVMC Section 17.02.040 is inapplicable to Crown Castle's proposed facilities: 1) First, Crown Castle's facilities are exclusively located within the ROW. As such, this The Foundation for a Wireless World. CrownCastle.com E-114 ordinance is inapplicable because Crown Castle's facilities are not located in a residential zone and do not otherwise involve residential properties, uses or parcels. 2) Crown Castle has a certificate of public convenience and necessary ("CPCN") which grants it a Statewide franchise to occupy and place its facilities within the ROW. Local zoning requirements are therefore inapplicable. Local regulatory authority is limited to the time, place and manner in which a wireless facility may be erected or attached. This ordinance is inapplicable because residential design standards, on residential parcels, and their visual impacts on surrounding residences does not easily, nor rationally, translate into proper or meaningful regulation of wireless telecommunication utility uses within the ROW. 3) Section 17.02.040(,x,)(12) of RPVMC defines "Structure" as anything joined together in a definitive manner, which is located on or on top of the ground on a parcel of land utilized for residential purposes, excluding antennas... and similar structures not involving the construction of habitable area. This ordinance is inapplicable because Crown Castle's facilities are not habitable, they are not located on residential parcels, and they are not used for residential purposes. Crown Castle's ROW based facilities do not involve residential land in any form or fashion. Moreover, "Antennas" are specifically excluded from consideration under this ordinance. To the extent that RPVMC Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration) can be found to be applicable to the siting of wireless facilities in the ROW (it cannot), Crown Castle's SCN achieve compatibility with the surrounding community by being designed to minimize visual, noise and other impacts. b) Screening shall be designed to be architectural compatible with surrounding structures, using appropriate techniques to camouflage, disguise, and/or blend into the environment, including landscaping, color, and other techniques to minimize the facilities visual impact as well as be compatible with the architectural character of the surrounding buildings or structures in terms of color, size, proportion, style and quality The SCN is architectural compatible with surrounding structures because it uses existing infrastructure within the ROW. The SCN is screened by existing foliage and topographic features that minimize visual impacts. The SCN would replace an existing 24 -foot tall octagonal steel streetlight with mast arm and luminaire with a 24 -foot tall marbelite concrete, octagonal streetlight with mast arm and luminaire. The SCN will be painted to match the existing streetlights that line the east side of Camino Porvenir. Crown Castle's SCN is compatible with the character of surrounding structures in terms of color, size, proportion, style and quality. Moreover, the proposed SCN is located in the ROW - in an area in the City already impacted with roadway improvements, utilities and other uses and appurtenances typical of- and proper to — the ROW. The Foundation for a Wireless World. CrownCastle.com E-115 c) Facilities shall be located such that views from a residential structure are not significantly impaired. Facilities shall also be located in a manner that protects public views over city view corridors, as defined in the City's general plan, so that no significant view impairment results in accordance with this Code including Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration). Section 17.02.040(A)(14) of RPVMC defines View as including both a "near view", meaning views of a natural setting on the peninsula; and/or "far view" defined as a scene off the peninsula, such as the ocean, city lights, etc. The ordinance intends to prevent the significant impairment of views and the maintenance of privacy. theproposedfacilityhas received CClass Three1 Qiexemptiondefinffively establishes that the proposed Ic cility will not give e o significant environmental m•)i.'c including aesthetic im •a All facilities shall be designed and located in such a manner as to avoid adverse impacts on traffic safety. The SCN is not locatedin ,he lanes otravel,�o •oto..- extend i ,n '`cey over roadway. The replacement streetfight would continue o provide lighting along Camino Porvenir. The SCN would therefore not have adverse impacts All facilities shall have subdued colors and non -reflective materials that blend with the materials, and colors of the surrounding area and structures. The Foundation for a Wireless World. CrownCastle.com E-116 Crown Castle's SCS➢ blends into the surrounding area and structures because it replaces an existing streetlight pole. The SCM would match in color the existing streetlights along the east side of Camino Porvenir, 12.18.080 (A)(5) E�ga�u�pmaeaat The applicant shall use the least visible equipment possible. Antenna elements shall be flush mounted, to the extent feasible. All antenna mounts shall be designed so as not to preclude possible future collocation by the same or other operators or carriers. Unless otherwise provided in this section, antennas shall be situated as close to the ground as possible. Crown Castle's SCSI consists of replacing an existing 24 -foot tall octagonal steel streetlight with mast arm and 'luminaire with a 24 -foot tall marbelite concrete, octagonal streetlight with mast arm and luminaires The SCIS also includes two (2) 21.4 -inch long antennas, and a joint utility cabinet (22.6 -inches wide by 12.6 -inches -deep by 59.1 -inches tall) that would house both Crown Castle's accessory equipment and Southern California Edison's ("SCE") meter pedestal. Crown Castle proposes to place its accessory equipment adjacent to the replacement streetlight in the ROW, behind the sidewalk, adjacent to existing large shrubs. The rationale for Crown Castle proposing an above -ground equipment enclosure, contrary to the City's ordinance is: 1) SCE requires that its meter pedestal (typically 48 -inches tall) be place above ground, so there will, by necessity, be above -ground street furniture, regardless of any undergrounding of other equipment; 2) if Crown Castle undergrounded its accessory equipment, it would result in multiple above ground venting stacks, each approximately 22 -inches in diameter, and approximately 40 -inches in height. Accordingly, undergrounding does not necessarily result in the best screening measure. 3) By proposing a joint utility cabinet there will be a reduction in the number of new vertical elements being introduced into the ROW. A joint cabinet removes the need for venting stacks. Crown Castle's proposal would introduce only one new above -ground element, the joint utility equipment cabinet. The drawback is the joint utility cabinet will be 11 -inches taller than the standard 48 -inch tall SCE meter pedestal. 4) Although RPVMC Section 12.18.080 (A)(6)(b) calls for undergrounding of all equipment, other than antennas, the City needs to make the final determination as to whether vaulting or Crown Castle's proposed joint utility cabinet constitutes the least visible equipment possible. The antenna mounts are designed so as not to preclude possible future collocation by the The Foundation for a Wireless World. CrownCastle.com E-117 same or other carriers. The antennas on 24 -foot tall replacement streetlight pole are as close to the ground as possible while meeting RF coverage objectives up and down Camino Porvenir. All visible Crown Castle telecommunication equipment is to be painted to match the existing streetlights along the east side of Camino Porvenir. a. Facilities shah be Jocafed consistent with Section 12.18.200(Location Restrictions) unless an exception pursuant to Section 12.18.190 (Excerptions) is granted. RPVMC Section 12.18.200 (Location restrictions) strongly disfavors wireless facilities in A) ROW local streets as identified in the general plain if within the residential zones; and S) ROW if mounted to a new pole that is not replacing an existing pole in an otherwise permitted location. Crown Castle's SCIS is inconsistent with this. �; Crown Castle needs to request an exception pursuant to Section 12.18.190 of the rPVMC because the replacement streetlight is located on a local street, Camino Porvenir. Per Section 12.18.080 A(12)(a) Grown Castle needs an exception because its accessory equipment is not being proposed underground. Crown Castle has undergrounded to the extent feasible all accessory equipment including an underground fiber vault. Although drown Castle investigated multiple alternatives, only the Primary and one alternative achieve the RF coverage objective for this SCN: Alternative 1 is a proposed streetlight replacement on the same side of Camino Porvenir, approximately 457 -feet to the north of the Primary. The Primary location is superior to Alternative 1 because there is minimal landscaping in the area, thus making it more visually prominent. Therefore, users of the ROW will likely take more notice of the SCIS as they travel north on Camino Porvenir. Per Section 12.1 .g80(A)(12)(a) Crown Castle needs an exception because its accessory equipment is not being proposed underground. Crown Castle has undergrounded to the extent feasible all accessory equipment, with the exception of the joint utility equipment cabinet that would house Crown Castle's accessory equipment and SCE's electric meter pedestal. Per Section 120180190, Exceptions, The planning Commission shall not grant any exception unless Crown Casale demonstrates with clear and convincing evidence that: The proposed wireless facility qualifies as a "personal wireless senlices facility" as defined in United ,dates Code, idle 47, section 3 2(c)(7)(C)(,ii), The Foundation for a Wireless World. CrownCastle.com E-118 Crown Castle holds a certificate of public convenience and necessity ("CP N") from the California Public Utilities Commission ("CPUC") to expand the availability of wireless networks throughout the State. Please see Exhibit D1b. Crown Castle's SCN qualifies as "personal wireless services facility" as defined in United States Code, Title 47, section 332(c)(7)(C)(ii); 2. The applicant has provided the city with a clearly deffined 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 factual reasons why any alternative location(s) or design(s) suggested by the city or otherwise identified in the administrative record, including but not limited to potential alternatives identified at any public meeting or hearing, are not technically feasible or potentially available; and With this site specific comparative analysis, Crown Castle is providing the City with meaningful comparative analysis that includes the factual reasons why the Primary location is superior to the other Alternatives evaluated. The Primary is superior to Alternative 1 because it would be less visually prominent location to surrounding properties and the community. The visual impacts created from the proposed SC N would be analogous to the visual impacts currently created by the existing streetlight. 4. The applicant has provided the city with, a meaningful comparative analysis that includes the factUal reasons why the proposed location and design deviates is the least noncompliant location and design necessary to reasonably achieve the applicant's reasonable technical service objectives With this site specific comparative analysis, Crown Castle is providing the City with meaningful comparative analysis that includes the factual reasons why the Primary location is the least noncompliant location and design necessary to reasonably achieve Crown Castle's reasonable technical service objectives. a Le, V55 VM, Of 110 The Foundation for a Wireless World. CrownCastle.com E-119 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 POW. b. Only pole -mounted antennas shall be permitted in the right-of-way. All other telecommunications towers are prohibited, and no new poles are permitted that are not replacing an existing pole. (For exceptions see subparagraph (6)(h) below and sections 12.18.190 (Exceptions) and 12.18.220 (State or Federal Lair). Crown Castle's SCN would be attached to a 24 -foot tall replacement streetlight. No new pole is needed nor requested. C. Utility Poles. The maximum height of any antenna shall not exceed 48 inches above the height of an existing utility pole, nor shall any portion of the antenna or equipment mounted on a pole be less than 24 feet above any drivable road surface. All installations on utility poles shall fully comply with the California Public Utilities Commission general orders, including, but not limited to, General Order 95, as may be revised or superseded. This provision its inapplicable because Crown Castle's SCN is not attaching to a utility pole. d. Light Poles. The maximum height of any antenna shall not exceed four feet above the existing height of a light pole. Any portion of the antenna or equipment mounted on a pole shall be no less than 1 6% feet above any drivable road surface. Crown Castle's SCN would not have any pole mounted equipment lower than 16 V2 -feet. This provision is also inapplicable because Crown Castle's SCN antennas do not extend over any drivable road surface. e. Replacement Poles. If an applicant ,proposes to replace a pole in order to accommodate a proposed facility, the pole shall be designed to resemble the appearance and dimensions of existing poles near the proposed location, including size, height, color, materials and style to the maximum extent feasible. Crown Castle's SCN would replace an existing 24 -foot tall marbelite octagonal streetlight with mast arm and luminaire with a 24 -foot tall marbelite octagonal concrete streetlight with mast arm and luminaire. See Drawings for replacement pole details. The replacement streetlight pole was designed to resemble the existing streetlights and to have the lowest antennas to the ground possible in accordance with RPVMC Section 12.18.080(A)(7), The Foundation for a Wireless World. CrownCastle.com E-120 Space. The SCIN conforms to the maximum extent feasible with the color and style of existing streetlight poles along Camino Porvenir. f. Pole mounted equipment, exclusive of antennas, shall not exceed six cubic feet in dimension. Excluding antennas, Crown Castle's pole mounted equipment would be limited to some cabling connecting the antennas to power and the fiber optic backbone, connectors, brackets, and GPS. Crown Castle's pole mounted equipment, excluding antennas, would therefore not exceed sox cubic feet in dimension. ,6, MMIMMI h. An exception shall be required to place a new pole in the public fight -of -way. If an exception is granted for placement of new poles in the right-of-way: i. All cables, including, but not limited to, electrical and utility cables, shall be run within the interior of the pole and shall be camouflaged or hidden to the fullest extent feasible. ,For all wooden poles wherein interior installation is infeasible, conduit and cables attached to the exterior of poles shall be mounted flush thereto and painted to match the pole. All cables for this SCN, including, but not limited to, electrical and utility cables, will run within the interior of the replacement streetlight pole. 12.18.080 JAI179 Space. Each facility shall be designed to occupy the least amount of space m the right-of-way that is technically feasible. The Foundation for a Wireless World. CrownCastle.com E-121 12.184080 (A)() �o 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 toad capacity shall include the impact of modification of an existing facility. For replacement poles, wind loading is incorporated into the pole structural calculations. There are no separate wind loading calculations included with this application. 12°18.080 (A)(9) Obstructions. Each component part of a facility shall he 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(intersection Visibility) so as not to obstruct the intersection visibility triangle. RPVMC Section 17.48.070 (intersection Visibility) discusses restrictions on various structures and landscaping (>30 -inches) on corner Bots near intersections for sight visibility reasons. The ordinance states that these items small not be erected, placed, plaited or allowed to groin within the triangular space referred to as the "intersection visibility triangle." The intersection visibility triangle being the area formed by the intersection of extended curb lines and a lime 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 N is not be locatedwithin 1 60 _t of : n intersection. Th efo C" the "intersection ` ibis, ,pili is inapplicable. 120180080 (A)(10) Public Facilities. A facility shall not be located within any portion of the public right -of 9aVay interfering with access to a fire hydrant, fire station, fire escape, water halve, underground vault, valve housing structure, or any other public health or safety facility. Crown Castle's SC N is not located rijl portion of the public -!. y that would interfere with access .o a fire hydrant, fire oi fire escape, underground vault,.'I.e housing structure, or any other public health or safety facility. • .{ ,is { i. The f=oundation for a Wireless World. CrownCastle.com E-122 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) Access® !y 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 SCIS from surrounding properties. Crown Castle is not opposed to providing additional screening so long as the City's requirements are reasonably related to the impacts created by the proposed facility. Crown Castle submits that a joint utility cabinet would be less intrusive, physically and visually, than, a configuration featuring a subterranean equipment vault. b. When above -ground is the only feasible location for a particular type of accessory equipment and will be ground -mounted, such accessory equipment shall be enclosed within a structure, and shall not exceed a height of five feet and a total footprint of 15 square feet, and shall be fully screened and/or camouflaged, including the use of landscaping, architectural treatment, or acceptable alternate screening. Required electrical meter cabinets shall be screened and/or camouflaged. Also, while pole -mounted equipment is generally the least favored installation, should pole -mounted equipment be sought, it shall be installed as required in this chapter. The Foundation for a Wireless World, CrownCastle.corn E-123 With dimensions of 22.5 -inches wide by 12.6 -inches -deep by 59.1 -inches tall, Crown Castle's joint utility cabinet would be less than the five foot height and a total footprint of 15 square -feet allowable gender this RPVMC Section 12,18.080 (A)(12)(b). SCE's electric meter would be housed in the joint utility cabinet. The SCIS would be camouflaged by being painted to match the existing street lights and utility cabinet along Camino Porvenir. C. In locations where homes are only along one side of a street, above -ground accessory equipment shalt not be installed directly m front of a residence. Such above- ground accessory equipment shall be installed along the side of the street with no homes. Unless said location is located within the coastal setback or the landslide moratorium area, then such locations shall be referred to the city's geotechnical staff for review and recommendations, Crown Castle's SCN would not be installed directly in trent of residences along this stretch of Camino Porvenir. Although the proposed SCN is located on the same side of the street as existing single-family residences, the Primary location is screened by mature landscaping. 12.18.080 (A)(13) Landscaping. Where appropriate, each facility shall be installed so as to maintain and enhance existing landscaping on the site, including trees, foliage and shrubs. Additional landscaping shall be planted, irrigated and .maintained by applicant where such landscaping is deemed necessary by the city to provide screening or to conceal the facility. At present Crown n Cr. le does not intend d to propose any additional ndap to further screen a proposedfacility oraccessoryequipment cabinet.The rationalebehind this decision is that this portion of the ROW has amble existing foliage that provides ;�! • concealment toe SCN from C%I� � ©! ! di C�� properties. Crown s`s not Iii �� pC�se screening providing additional )d cash g so longasthe City's requirementsare reasonablyrelated to :a visual impacts created f! by - proposed facility.Crown Castle is committed e( to working with City's landscape .'y'; if landscapingis determined .o be required this N 120180080 149 Signage. No facility shall bear any signs or advertising devices other than certification, warning or other signage required by lave or permitted by the city. t The Foundation for a Wireless World, CrownCastle.com E-124 a. leo facility may be illuminated unless specifically required by the Federal Aviation Administration or other government agency. Beacon lights are not permitted unless required by the Federal Aviation Administration or other government agency. Crown Castle's CCN 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 dotes 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 SCID lighting would be shielded by existing Collage and topographic features to the extent that any potential impacts on surrounding neighborhood would be eliminated to the maximum extent possible. d. Unless otherwise required under FAA or FCC regulations, applicants may install only tinned or motion -sensitive light controllers and lights, and must install such lights so as to avoid illumination impacts to adjacent properties to the maximum extent feasible. Crown Castle's SCN lighting Mould only include timed or motion -sensitive light controllers and lights, so as to avoid illumination impacts to adjacent properties to the maximum extent feasible. e. The applicant shall submit a lighting study which shall be prepared by a qualified lighting professional to evaluate potential impacts to adjacent properties. Should no lighting be proposed, no lighting study shall be required. iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii1111111111 r- �M� The Foundation for a Wireless World. CrownCastle.com E-125 12.18.080 (A)(16) Noise. a. Backup generators shall only be operated during periods of power outages, and shall not be tested on weekends or holidays, or between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7.00 a.m. Crown Castle SCN would not operate any backup generators outside City prescribed time restrictions. b. At no time shall equipment noise from any facility exceed an exterior noise level of 55 d8A 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 City's Noise ordinance. See Exhibit J1a. 12.18.080 (A)(17) Security Each facility shall be designed to be resistant to, and minimize opportunities for, unauthorized access, climbing, vandalism, graffiti and other conditions that would result in hazardous situations, visual blight or attractive nuisances. The director may require the provision of warning signs, fencing, anti -climbing devices, or other techniques to prevent unauthorized access and vandalism when, because of their location and/or accessibility, a facility has the potential to become an attractive nuisance. Additionally, no lethal devices or elements shall be installed as a security device. Crown Castle's SCN does not have pole mounted equipment that is reachable by the general public, nor is that equipment readily available for climbing or vandalism. Crown Castle's joint utility accessory equipment cabinet is 22.5 -inches wide by 12.5 -inches -deep by 59.1 -inches tall. This cabinet is similar in size to countless other utility cabinets located in the ROW. There is no reason to believe that the proposed joint utility cabinet would attract more vandalism than any other utility cabinet. Crown Castle will use anti -vandalism techniques such as anti -graffiti paint to discourage tagging and other nuisance property crimes. The Foundation for a Wireless World. CrownCastle.com E-126 Consistent with current state and federal laws and if permissible under the same, at the time of modification of a wireless telecornmunications facility, existing equipment shall, to the extent feasible, be replaced with equipment that reduces visual, noise and other impacts, including, but not limited to, undergrounding the equipment and replacing larger, more visually intrusive facilities with smaller, less visually intrusive facilities. Crown Castle's SCN represents the latest on smaH cell wireless technology. As such, Crown Castle's SCN uses the smaHest equipment feasible to reduce vososual, noise and other impacts. Currently, here 6s no wireless facility to modify. No permit shall be granted for a wireless telecommunications facility unless all of the following findings are made by the director: A. All notices required for the proposed installation have been given. Crowle Castle has or will provide all required not6ces for its proposed SCN. B. The proposed facility has been designed and located in compliance with all applicable provisions of this chapter. • r ' �� •' ..C� � - �i il«�,�i"I `,'lii� tip, ..��.• ,� l�l��!" (n` :1D ��(�)� I":C� '� li;i'1 ;-� Vit! �u �� :, �,�, 1; ,(1f �; "� �7 � • rt� r �:,,: �1'\q� ,w �� j�'l%a �- �•y � i �, ,�,. i�. � � �l 1��1 �� _ �� i�' .:: .`. :; 'i�� :� �cs �. t� .• �l�lil. �;-.� �,-/�'` ';. 'rl •h ice' �r .fil 'I!�;tl i� ,��'.i,N �"�� if rV'��.� Ic• i- � 1� iy,l��' �.�i �I„t"- I ,�)i i��l.�"r..11�I C. If applicable, the applicant has demonstrated its inability to locate on existing infrastructure. The Foundation for a Wireless World. CrownCastle.com E-127 Crown Castle is proposing to attach to existing infrastructure (a streetlight pole) in the ROW. This provision is inapplicable. D. The applicant has provided sufficient evidence supporting the applicant's claim that it has the right to enter the public fight -of -way pursuant to state or federal law, or the applicant has entered into a franchise agreement with the City® permitting thein to use the public right-of-way. Crown Castle has provided a copy of its certificate of public convenience and necessity (66CPCN" ). 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 th at it has the right to enter the ROW pursuant to state and federal law, as well as by colt lltra Sot with the City. F. The applicant has demonstrated the proposed installation is designed such that the proposed installation represents the least intrusive means possible and supported by factual evidence and a meaningful comparative analysis to show that all alternative locations and designs identified in the application review process were technically infeasible or not available. Comparative Analysis Crown Castle can demonstrate that the proposed wireless facility is the least intrusive means possible. Supported by factual evidence and a meaningful comparative analysis Crown Castle can show that all alternative locations and designs identified in the application review process were technically infeasible, inferior to the Primary or unavailable. Moreover, federal telecommunications case law unequivocally establishes that municipalities cannot regulate in the area of RF broadcasting. (See, e.g., Freeman v. Burlington Broadcasters, Inc., (2d Cir. 2000) 204 F.3d 311.) They have done so in the context of reviewing ordinances like the City's F ordinance, and found that that "Congress intended the FCC to possess exclusive authority over technical utters related to radio broadcasting" and that "Congress's grant of authority to the FCC was intended to be exclusive and to preempt local regulation." (Id. at 320®21; accord Southwestern Bell Wireless Inc. v. Johnson County Bd. of County Coir m rs (10th Cir. 1999) 199 F.3d 1135, 1193 [same principle cited]; N.Y SMSA Ltd. P°ship v. Town of Clarkstown (2nd Cir. 2010) 512 F.3d 97 ["Congress intended federal regulation of [radio frequency interference] issues to be so pervasive as to occupy the field."]; Bennett v. r -Mobile United States, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2003) 597 F. Supp. 2d 1050, 1053 [same principle cited].). Crown Castle reserves its rights to challenge those portions of the City's WTF ordinance and application that purport to regulate Crown Castle's facilities on the basis of RF coverage objectives. The Foundation for a Tireless World. CrownCastle.corn E-128 Primary (Location A) 24 -foot Tall Octagonal Concrete Replacement Streetliclht Meets RF Coverage Objective: Up and ®own Camino Porvenir. The proposed Primary candidate is located entirely within the public ROW. Camino Porvenir is classified as a local street in the RPV Circulation Element. There are no City designated views on, across or over Camino Porvenir. The Primary Candidate is located on the east side of Camino Porvenir, approximately 1,000 plus feet north east of Calle ®e Suenos. Topography in the ROW is elevated, with large trees, hedges and mature landscaping running along both sides of the street. Crown Castle's SCN consists of attaching two (2) 21.4 -inch long antennas, mounted back to back at the top of a proposed twenty-four (24) foot tall, octagonal concrete replacement streetlight. Crown Castle's accessory wireless equipment including two (2) ions would be located in an above -ground enclosure, collocated within a joint utility cabinet with SCE's power meter pedestal. .All visible Crown Castle telecommunication equipment would be painted to match the existing streetlights and utility cabinet long the east side of Camino Porvenir. This stretch of Camino Porvenir has single-family residences on both sides of the road. The homes on -the west side of Camino Porvenir have views further west, along Calle ®e Suenos and Avenida ®e Calma below. The single-family units on the east side of Camino Porvenir have primary views out their backdoors towards the golf course. There are limited views, from properties along both sides of Camino Porvenir because of existing landscaping, retaining walls and large trees. The SCM would be attached to an existing street light, mid -block. The 24 -foot tall street light that Crown Castle proposes to replace is just one in a series of 24 -- foot tall street lights located along the east side of Camino Porvenir. The landscaped ROW creates an elevation differential, plus the existing foliage along both sides of the street, separates the SCSI from impacting surrounding properties and blends the SCN into the existing environment thus minimizing impacts to the community. The Primary ensures that the proposed wireless facility achieves RF coverage objectives, while not unreasonably infringing on the privacy of surrounding properties. Alternative 1 (Location E) Replacement Streetlight Meets RF Coverage Objective Alternative 1 is a proposed streetlight replacement on the same side of Camino Porvenir, approximately 457 -feet to the north of 'the Primary. The Primary location is superior to Alternative 1 because there is minimal landscaping in the area, thus making it more visually prominent. Users of the ROW will likely take more notice of the SCN as they travel north on Camino Porvenir. Therefore, the Primary is a superior location that Alternative 1. The Foundation for a Wireless World. CrownCastle.com E-129 Alternative 2 (Location C) Replacement Streetlight Alternative 2 is located approximately 171 -feet north of the Primary on the same side ol: Camino Porvenir. The Primary location is superior to Alternative 2 because there is minimal landscaping in the area, thus making it more visually prominent. Users of the ROW will likely take more notice of thie SCN as they travel north on Camino Porvenir. Therefore, the Primary is a superior location that Alternative 2. This Alternative does not achieve the SRF coverage objective; therefore, it is not a viable candidate. ,Alternative 3 is located approximately 77 -feet north of the Primary on the same side of Camino Porvenr. The Primary location is superior to Alternative 3 because there is minimal landscaping in the area, thus making it more visually prominent. Users of the ROW will likely take more notice of the SCN as they travel north on Camino Porvenir. Therefore, the Primary is a superior location that Alternative 3. Also, proposing a new pole is in conflict with PPVMC, unless an exception is granted. This Alternative does not achieve the RF coverage objective therefore, it is not a viable candidate. �- � .�; .� •, � � ,�� :� � �� -ilia, Does Not Meets RIF Coverage Objective Alternative 4 is located approximately 158 feet south of the Primary on the same side of Camino Porvenir. The Primary location is superior to Alternative 4 because there is minimal landscaping in the area, thus making it more visually prominent. Users of the ROW will likely take more notice of the SCN as they travel north on Camino Porvenir. Therefore, the Primary is a superior location that Alternative 4. This Alternative .noes not achieve the PF coverage objective for this SCN, Consequently, Alternative 4 is not a viable candidate. Crown Castle has presented a comparative analysis between the Primary and the Alternatives that were evaluated. Crown analysis demonstrates it is using the "least intrusive i s'' o achieve its R objective by using minimally sized small cell technology and' equipment,dminimum ___ antenna heights n order o conform othe maximume <, possible with community expressed in theCity's design and development r'iia The Foundation for a Wireless World. CrownCastle.com C-1 30 NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS Crown Castle Ground -Mounted Two Remote Configuration Site Name, ASG09 30461 Camino Porvenir Rancho Palos Verdes, California Prepared For Crown Castle Attention: Aaron Snyder 300 SpectrUM Center Drive, Suite 1200 Irvine, California 92618 Phone: 949-344-7834 Prepared By Eilar Associates, Inc. Acoustical $ Environmental Consulting 210 South Juniper Street, Suite 100 Escondido, California 92025 www.eilarassociates.com Phone: 760-738-5570 Pax: 760-738-5227 129612016 E-131 EILAR ASSOCIATES, INC. Acoustical and Environmental Consulting 210 South Juniper Street, Suite 100, Escondido, CA 92025 Phone: 760-738-5570 or 800439-8205 • Fax: 710-7384%27 www.eitarassociates.com • info@eilarassociates..com August 11, 2016 Job #B60622N1 Crown Castle Attention: Aaron Snyder 300 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 1201 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 IQNs 1) M17HP{9HP unit and 1) M7HP686HP-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 "LEG.." Unless a different time period is specified, "LEO' is implied to mean a period of one hour. Methodology Attenuation due to distance is calculated by the equation: SPL, = SPLI — 20 log( D2 ) D, where SPL, = Known sound pressure level at known distance, SPL2 = Calculated sound pressure level at distance, D, = Distance from source to location of known sound pressure level, and D2 = Distance from source to location of calculated sound pressure level. E-132 Equipment Noise Measurements for Crown Castle (Ground -Mounted Two Remote Configuration) August 11, 2016 Job #B60622N1 Page 2 of 4 This is identical to the more commonly used reference of 6 dB reduction for every doubling of distance. This equation does not take into account reduction in noise due to atmospheric absorption. Applicable Noise Standards The noise regulations applicable to installations in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes are contained within the City Municipal Code, which specifies noise limits for wireless telecommunications facilities located within the public right-of-way. Section 12.18.080, Item A16b of the municipal code states the following: At no time shall equipment noise from any facility exceed an exterior noise level of 55 dBA three feet from the source of the noise if the facility is located in the public right-of-way adjacent to a business, commercial, manufacturing, utility or school zone; provided, however, that for any such facility located within 500 feet of any property zoned residential or improved with a residential use, such equipment noise shall not exceed 45 dBA. As installations located within 500 feet of residential property will be subject to meeting the more stringent 45 dBA noise limit, this noise limit has been considered the appropriate threshold for all future installations in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes_ Measurement Equipment The following equipment was used at the existing equipment site to measure noise levels: • Larson Davis Model LxT Type 1 Integrating Sound Level Meter, Serial #4084 • Larson Davis Model CA250 Type 1 Calibrator, Serial #2625 • Tripods, microphones with windscreens The sound level meter was field -calibrated immediately prior to all noise level measurements and checked afterwards, to ensure accuracy. All sound level measurements conducted and presented in this report were made with sound level meters that conform to the American National Standards Institute specifications for sound level meters (ANSI 51.4). ABI 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 0, 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 92025.760-736-5570 • Fax 760-738-5227 E-133 Equipment Noise Measurements for Crown Castle (Ground -Mounted Two Remote Configuration) August 11, 2016 Job #B60622N1 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 4. Nouse Wasurements and Adjusted Nolise Levels at AHW1I 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 1 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 ICON units are used. As sites located within nonresidential areas would be subject to meeting higher noise limits (55 dBA at three feet from equipment), noise levels at installations located in nonresidential areas would also be expected to comply with applicable noise limits. Based on the noise measurements documented herein, no mitigation is deemed necessary for attenuating exterior noise levels from wireless equipment operation at future similar installations. Conclusion Noise levels generated by the ground -mounted two remote configuration equipment at the AHW11 node were determined to be in compliance with City of Rancho Palos Verdes noise regulations, which require noise levels that do not exceed 45 dBA at three feet from wireless equipment in the right-of-way near residential properties. Based on these noise measurements, it can be concluded that future similar installations will also comply with the applicable noise regulations of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes in both residential and nonresidential areas, provided the identical shroud and two ION units are used. Based on the noise- measurements documented herein, no mitigation is deemed necessary for attenuating exterior noise levels from wireless equipment operation at future similar installations. Eilar Associates, Inc. • 210 South Juniper Street, Suite 100, Escondido, CA 92025.760-738-5570 • Fax 760-738-5227 E-134 Equipment Noise Measurements for Crown Castle (Ground -Mounted Two Remote Configuration) August 11, 2016 Job #860622N1 Page 4 of 4 This report is based on project information received and measured noise levels, and represents a true and factual analysis of the acoustical impact issues associated with Crown Castle Ground - Mounted Two Remote Configuration installations in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California. This report was prepared by Jonathan Brothers„ ®an Gershun, and Amy Hool. FILAR ASSOCIATES, INC. Amy Hoo rinci I Acoustical Consultant Figures ~ i Jona Brothers, Senior Acoustical Consultant Satellite Aerial Photograph Showing Noise Source and Noise Measurement Locations at AHW11 Site Eilar Associates, Inc. • 210 South Juniper Street, Suite 100, Escondido, CA 92025.760-738-5570 • Fax 760-738-5227 E-135 IItelira*� E-136 E-137 STATE OF C,AUFGRN1A Edmund G. Brown Jr.; Gloverior PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 50' 5VAK NES-SAVENUE SAN FRANG[GOO, CA November 12. 21014 Mary Chiodo Crown Castle. 2000 Corporate Drive Canonsburg, PA 1-5317 Dear Ms. Chiodo: NextG Networks of Cali fomia,'Crown Castle submitted a Notice of Proposed Construction for the installation of (1) new micro -antes -ma; (2) new underground/aerial fiber optic cable; ty 1 new and replacement utility poles in Rancho Palos Verdes... California. The NPC requests the Energy Division to act upon Ne G's request for a determination that the proposed project is consistent with the activities identified as categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality, Act (CEQA) by the California Public Utilities Corm-nission (Commission). In January 2003, the Commission gmanted NextG the authority to operate as limited facilities - based (LFB)'camerin California. In�-May2OO6,Nexit siibmittedA.06-05-0')Iseeking expansion of its LFB authority to include the installation of Distributed Antenna System (DAS) micro -antennae and other related equipment in California. In the application.. NextG stated that its prqjects may include the installation of a limited nurnber of new poles, small scale or micro - trenching, conduit installation, and the installation of laterals. Under D.07! -04-045, the Commission determined that the projects planned by Nlexl(3 would fall within one of several categorical exemptions identified under CEQA, and that further environmental review would not be required The Energy Division has reviewed the NeYtGfC.rovvr. Castle proposal to install DSS equipment in Rancho Palos Verdes and has deten-nIned that the proposed project is consistent with the aalions identified by the Commission as cate.gorically exempt front, CEQA. The Energy Division hereby grants NT-,XtG Nkrith the authority to proceed with the construction of the project as described in the NPC. Sincerely, / If `TrisenUchida California Public Utilities Commission Regulatory Analyst E-138 7/14/2016 ULS License- Cellular License- KNKA351 -AT&T Mobility Spectrum LLC ULS License Cellular License - KNKA351AT&T Mobility Spectrum LLC Call Sign KNKA351 Radio Service CL - Cellular Status 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 Five Year Buildout 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 (4) FRN 0014980726 Type Lurensee Limited Liability Company AT&T Mobility Spectrum LLC P:(855)699-7073 3300 E. Renner Road, B3132 F:(972)907-1131 Richardson, TX 75082 E:FCCMW@att.com ATTN Reginald Youngblood Contact AT&T Mobility LLC P:(202)457-2055 F:(202)457-3073 1120 20th Street, NW - Suite 1000 E: michael.p.goggin ted Yes @att.com Washington, DC 20036 ATTN Michael P. Goggin Radio Service Type Fixed Regulatory Status Common Carrier Interconnec 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, Race http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UIsApp/UIsSearch/Iicense.jsp?licKey=12514&printable E-139 1/2 7/14/2016 ULS License- PCS Broadband License- KNLF205- NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC ULS License PCS Broadband License - KNLF205 - NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC Call Sign KNLF205 Status Active Market 001950.00000000- Market MTA002 - Los Angeles -San Diego Submarket 37 Dates Grant 06/05/2015 Effective 06/05/2015 Buildout Deadlines 001950.00000000- 1st 06/23/2000 Notification Dates 1st 05/05/2000 FRN 0003291192 Licensee NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC 3300 E. Renner Road, B3132 Richardson, TX 75082 ATTN Reginald Youngblood Contact AT&T MOBILITY LLC Michael P Goggin 1120 20th Street, NW - Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 ATTN Michael P. Goggin Radio Service Type Mobile Radio Service CW - PCS Broadband Auth Type Regular Channel Block B Associated 001870.00000000 - Frequencies 001885.00000000 (MHz) 001950.00000000- 001965.00000000 Expiration 06/23/2025 Cancellation 2nd 06/23/2005 2nd 03/14/2003 Type Limited Liability Company P:(855)699-7073 F:(972)907-1131 E:FCCMW@att.com P:(202)457-2055 F:(202)457-3073 E:michael.p.goggin@att.com Regulatory Status Common Carrier Interconnected Yes 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 Land Bidding Credits This license did not have tribal land bidding credits. http://wi rel ess2.fcc.gov/U I sApp/U IsSearcWl i cense.j sp?Ii cKey= 8882&hasLease=Y&printable E-140 —140 1 /2 7/14/2016 ULS License- 700 MHz Lower Band (Blocks A, B & E) License- WQJ0721 -AT&T Mobility Spectrum LLC ULS License 700 MHz Lower Band (Blocks A, B & E) License - WQJQ721 - AT&T Mobility Spectrum LLC Call Sign WQJQ721 Status Active Market Market CMA002 -Los Angeles -Long Beach/Anaheim Submarket 0 Dates Grant 11/26/2008 Effective 02/12/2014 Buildout Deadlines 1st 12/13/2016 Notification Dates 1st 06/28/2013 FRN 0014980726 Licensee AT&T Mobility Spectrum LLC 3300 E. Renner Road, B3132 Richardson, TX 75082 ATTN Reginald Youngblood Contact AT&T Mobility LLC Michael P Goggin 1120 20th Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 j,,. p� -.; ,: T , m !;!s pis Radio Service Type Mobile Radio Service WY - 700 MHz Lower Band (Blocks A,B&E) Auth Type Regular Channel Block B Associated 000704.00000000 - Frequencies 000710.00000000 (MHz) 000734.00000000- 000740.00000000 Expiration 06/13/2019 Cancellation 2nd 06/13/2019 2nd Type Limited Liability Company P:(855)699-7073 F:(972)907-1131 E:FCCMW@att.com P:(202)457-2055 F:(202)457-3073 E:michael.p.goggin@att.com Regulatory Status Common Carrier Interconnected Yes Alien Ownership The Applicant answered "No" to each of the Alien Ownership questions. Basic Qualifications The Applicant answered "No" to each of the Basic Qualification questions. Tribal Land Bidding Credits This license did not have tribal land bidding credits. http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UIsApp/UIsSearcNlicense.jsp?licKey=3060348&printable 0-141 1/2 7/14/2016 ULS License- PCS Broadband License - WQHT993-AT&T Mobility Spectrum LLC ULS License PCS Broadbanda E♦Spectrum Call Sign WQHT993 Radio Service CW - PCS Broadband Status Active Auth Type Regular Market Market MTA002 - Los Angeles -San Diego Channel Block B Submarket 14 Associated 001870.00000000 - Frequencies 001885.00000000 (MHz) 001950.00000000- 001965.00000000 Dates Grant 06/10/2015 Expiration 06/23/2025 Effective 06/10/2015 Cancellation Buildout Deadlines 1st 2nd Notification Dates 1st 2nd FRN 0014980726 Type Limited Liability Company Licensee AT&T Mobility Spectrum LLC P:(855)699-7073 3300 E. Renner Road, B3132 F:(972)907-1131 Richardson, TX 75082 E:FCCMW@att.com ATTN Reginald Youngblood AT&T Mobility LLC P:(202)457-2055 F:(202)457-3073 1120 20th Street, NW - Suite 1000 E:michael.p.goggin@att.com Washington, DC 20036 ATTN Michael P. Goggin Radio Service Type Mobile Regulatory Status Common Carrier Interconnected Yes Alien Ownership The Applicant answered "No" to each of the Alien Ownership questions. Basic Qualifications The Applicant answered "No" to each of the Basic Qualification questions. Tribal Land Bidding Credits This license did not have tribal land bidding credits. http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UIsSearcIVIicense.jsp?licKey=2957918&printable E-142 1/2 7/14/2016 ULS License - AWS (1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz) License - WQGA742- AT&T Mobility Spectrum LLC ULS License AWS (1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz) License - WQGA742 - AT&T Mobility Spectrum LLC Call Sign WQGA742 Status Active Market Market CMA002 - Los Angeles -Long Beach/Anaheim Submarket 1 Dates Grant 11/29/2006 Effective 02/12/2014 Buildout Deadlines 1st Notification Dates 1st FRN 0014980726 Licensee AT&T Mobility Spectrum LLC 3300 E. Renner Road, B3132 Richardson, TX 75082 ATTN Reginald Youngblood Contact AT&T Mobility LLC Michael P Goggin 1120 20th Street, NW - Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 ATTN Michael P. Goggin Radio Service AW - AWS (1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz) Auth Type Regular Channel Block A Associated 001710.00000000 - Frequencies 001720.00000000 (MHz) 002110.00000000- 002120.00000000 Expiration 11/29/2021 Cancellation 2nd 2nd Type Limited Liability Company P:(855)699-7073 F:(972)907-1131 E:FCCMW@att.com P:(202)457-2055 F:(202)457-3073 E:michael.p.goggin@att.com 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. hUp://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UIsSearch/Iicense.jsp?licKey=2862653&printable 0-143 1/2 7/14/2016 ULS License- PCS Broadband License- KNLG472- AT&T Mobility Spectrum LLC ULS License P. Broadband eAT&TSpectrum Call Sign KNLG472 Radio Service CW - PCS Broadband Status Active Auth Type Regular Market Market BTA262 - Los Angeles, CA Channel Block D Submarket 0 Associated 001865.00000000 - Frequencies 001870,00000000 (MHz) 001945.00000000- 001950.00000000 Dates Grant 06/21/2007 Expiration 04/28/2017 Effective 12/05/2014 Cancellation Buildout Deadlines 1st 04/28/2002 2nd Notification Dates 1st 01/14/2002 2nd FRN 0014980726 Type Limited Liability Company 1-lcensee AT&T Mobility Spectrum LLC P:(855)699-7073 3300 E. Renner Road, B3132 F:(972)907-1131 Richardson, TX 75082 E:FCCMW@att.com ATTN Reginald Youngblood Contact AT&T Mobility LLC P:(202)457-2055 F:(202)457-3073 1120 20th Street, NW - Suite 1000 E:michael.p.goggin@att.com Washington, DC 20036 ATTN Michael P. Goggin Radio Service Type Mobile Regulatory Status Common Carrier Interconnected Yes Alien Ownership The Applicant answered "No" to each of the Alien Ownership questions. Basic Qualifications The Applicant answered "No" to each of the Basic Qualification questions, Tribal Land Bidding Credits This license did not have tribal land bidding credits. http://wireless2.fcc.gov/U]sApp/UIsSearch/license.jsp;JSESSIONID_ULSSEARCH=XGKyXnhVROC6p1rrIOkVJ5snJRT16ybLNWIR9Slzpn ry4,;j444129... 1/2 7/14/2016 ULS License- 700 MHz Lower Band (Blocks C, D) License- WPV1N990- AT&T Mobility Spectrum LLC ULS License 700 MHz Lower Band (Blocks C, D) License - WPWU990 - AT&T Mobility Spectrum LLC Call Sign WPWU990 Status Active Market Market CMA002 - Los Angeles -Long Beach/Anaheim Submarket 0 Dates Grant 01/24/2003 Effective 12/05/2014 Buildout Deadlines 1st 06/13/2019 Notification Dates 1st FRN 0014980726 Licensee AT&T Mobility Spectrum LLC 3300 E. Renner Road, 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 Radio Service WZ - 700 MHz Lower Band (Blocks C, D) Auth Type Regular Channel Block. C Associated 000710.00000000 - Frequencies 000716.00000000 (MHz) 000740.00000000- 000746.00000000 Expiration 06/13/2019 Cancellation 2nd 2nd Type Limited Liability Company P:(855)699-7073 F:(972)907-1131 E:FCCMW@att.com P:(202)457-2055 F:(202)457-3073 E:michael.p.goggin@att.com Radio Service Type Fixed, Mobile, Radio Location Regulatory Status Common Carrier Interconnected Yes Alien Ownership The Applicant answered "No" to each of the Alien Ownership questions. Basic Qualifications The Applicant answered "No" to each of the Basic Qualification questions. Tribal Land Bidding Credits This license did not have tribal land bidding credits. http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UIsApp/UIsSearch/[icense.jsp?licKey=2479929&printable 0-145 1/2 E-146 List of All Existing Facilities Carrier Site ID Latitude Longitude artier Site ID Latitude Lungiiude arrier ite ID Latitude Longitude Cagier Site: ID Latitude Longitude AT&T AHW01 33.78431 -'118.36835 Sprint LA36)(C534 33.79089 -118.38329 ZW HAW12 33.77588 -118.40315 print IA36)(C659 33.77366 -118.36987 AT&T AHW02 33.759 -118.38 rint LA36)(C535 33.7865 -118.37279 2W HAW14m1 33.759883 -118.405233 MUS NO2m2 33.77881 -118.371 AT&T AHW04 33.76809 -118.39135 rint LA36XC540 33.74165 -118.3739 rint LA34XDD1S 33.78752 -118.37618 MUS N06 33.76271 -118.37 AT&T AHW08 33.7562 -118.41017 rant LA36XC548 33.74334 -118.40946 rint LA34XD027 33.7740166 -118.3956 MUS N15 33.7806 -118.386 AT&T AHW13 33.751972 -118.39547 rint LA36)(C564 33.74338 -118.3187 tint LA34XD031 33.742141 -118.40161 rint NCA5054R:13 33.7626 -118.35983 AT&T HW55 33.77283 -118.4032 rint LA36XC565 33.75779 -118.36746 rint LA34XD036 33.78098 -118.397236 rint NCAS054R:14 33.7/411 -118.39303 'rmus ANIS 33.759 -118.38 rint LA36XC566 33.75541 -118.40821 rint LA34)(D043 33.773162 -118.403179 rine NCA5054R: 15 333.7802 -118.3879 AT&T ASP06 33.76225 -118.36546 print LA36)(CS68 33.75005 -118.40501 rint LA34)(D046 33.75817 -118.4133 print NCA5054R : 17 33.78238 -118.36944 AT&T' P10 33.'74821 -118.3332 print LA36)(C570 33.76195 -118.41071 print LA34)(D047 33.745354 -118.400786 rint NCA50545:12 33.77181 -118.36197 AT&T ASP1Z 33.74841 -116.3248 rint LA36XC591 33.76263 -118.33513 rint LA34XD050 33.75232 -118.39593 MUS PVaZm2 33.77621 -118.375 TBLT ASP13 33.7421 -118.33277 print LA36XC610 33.745028 -118.3849 print LA34XD095 33.748459 -118.32485 U5 PV07m6 33.772 -118.36 AT&T ASP14 33.76265 -118.33082 rint LA36XC611 33.76866 -118.40277 rint -A34)(D099 33.74218 -118.33322 MUS PV13 33.7764 -118.393 AT&T ASP32 33.76554 -118.32261 rint LA36)(CG22 33.76267 -118.36983 rint LA34)(D111 33.72728 -118.33468 US PV18 33.768 -118.391 AT&T ASP33 33.7471 -118.31618 rint LA36)(C623 33.77411 -118.39303 tint LA36XC212 33.74801 -118.3127 MUS PV19 33.76075 -115.394 AT&T ASP42 33.744397 418.324822 rint LA36)(C635 33.73869 -118.35780 rint LA36XC216 33.75954 -118.33021 MUS PV49 33.77899 -118.381 AT&T A5PS2 33.76236 -118.3698 print LA36XC639 33.7458333 -118.3372222 print LA36)(C219 33.73721 -118.3302 ZW SP01 33.731395 -118.3429 AT&T JASP59ml 33.732861 -118.33469 print LA36XC640 33.73798 -118.33618 tint LA36)(C453 33.791709 -118.368509 W ISP05 33.7360 -118.32976 AT&T SP62 33.7631 -118.3273 print LA36XC641 33.7384 -118.34449 rint LA36XC454 33.76589 -118.31092 2W SP06 33.74163 -118.32621 AT&T NSP63 33.75816 -118.32975 rint LA36XC646 33.77 -118.40283 rint LA36XC516 33.77096 -118.3961 ZW SP07m1 33.73892 -119.336364 VZW AW02 33.78012 -118.4005 print LA36XC647 33.78898 -118.38521 rint LA36)(C521 33.77181 -118.36197 W SP21 33.7481 -118.31293 V2W HAW04 33.78543 -118.3857 orint LA36XC648 33.78238 -118.3 print LA36XC522 33.73738 -118.33244 ZW SP22 33.75471 -118.31486 VZW IIAW05 33.78908 -118.3852 print LA36XC649 33.78785 -118.38201 rint LA36XC523 33.75335 -118.32667 ZW SP23m1 33.73823 -116.34436 VZW HAW06 33.78756 -118.3763 print LA36)(C651 33.79048 -118.37287 rint LA36XC524 33.7540 -118.33115 ZW SP24 33.73403 -118.33634 VZW IiAW07m1 33.790795 -118.382867 rint LA36XC652 33.79029 -118.3879 rint LA36XC526 33.73561 -118.34777 ZW P25m1 33.735186 -110.354187 ZW HAW10 33.771.28 -118.3964 riot LA36XC530 33.78 -118.400277 US MB1008-0009m2 33.74063 -118.33702 _W INAW13. 1 33.76837 -118.40327 rint If A36XC653 33.78042 -118.37651 MUS 61008-OC19 33.77539 -118.4031 CROWN Proprietaiy & CASTLE Confidential E-147 List of All Proposed Facilities Carrier Site ID Latitude Longitude Carrier Site ID Latitude Longitude VZW 50 SCL PALOS VERDES 3 33.761353 -118.410358 T&T ASG32 33.76295102 -118.375093 VZW SO SCL PALOS VERDES 08 33.739781 -118.369334 &T ASG33 33.755661 -118.393449 VZW SO SCL PALOS VERDES 9 33.75870"2 -118.364486 M A5634 33.766074 -118.401094 VZW SO SCL PALOS VERDES 11 33.775391 -118.368853 MT ASG35 33.770696 -118.397066 VZW 50 SCL PALOS VERDES 12 33.784143 -118.367588 T&T ASG36 33.77089856 -118.3893824 VZW 50 SCL PALOS VERGES :L3 33.749477 -1101.332934 AT&T ASG37 33.776566 -118.387413 VZW SO SCL PALOS VERDES 14 33.74614.8 -118.329719 T T ASG38 33.77995 -118.4-0271 VZW SO SCL. PALOS VERDES 15 33.743179 -118.313986 T&T ASG39 33.78541631 -118.3834136 VZW 50 SCL PALOS VERDES 16 33.764385 -118.331199 AT&T AS641 33.73169 -.11104.34472 VZW SO SCL PALOS VERIDES 17 33.760177 -118.32499 AT&T AS643 33.767963 -1110.37682101 VZW SO SCL PALOS VERDES 19 33.767905 -118.314171 T&T ASG521.4 'A'.771.255 -118.385665 VZW SO SCL PALOS VERDES 19 33,771619 -1181.30929' AT&T ASG45 33.776100 -11101.393910 VZW SO SCL PALOS VERDES 20 33.7615819 -110.315204 T&T ASG47 33.74959 -1110.33013 VZW SO SCL ROLLING HILLS ESTATES 1 33.773994 -118.3878028 T - T ASG48 33.78279 -118.37®28 VZW SO SCL ROLLING HILLS ESTATES2 33.781481 -116.384533 T&T ASG49B 33.74169 -119.336646 VZW SO SCL ROLLING HILLS ESTA-IE53 33.783917 -118.3701903 T&T ASG53 33.781524.1 -118.392501 AT&T 1ASGO-1 33.795275 -118.378270" TAT ASG55 33.763295 -1110.410407 ATMT ASG013 33.756725 -118.4-05011 AT&T ASG64 33.75943 -118.4,1442 AT&T ASG31 33.75669619 -118.401964 T&T ASG69 33.735261 -11101.340374 Alfe"!T ASGIO 33.75744 -1101.398185 T&T ASG70 33.790093 11u. 5012'13 A'M-F ASGII 33.746478 -118.375309 -',T ASG72 33.73996. -118.3725 AMT ASG12 33.74443 -118.37641 T&T ASG73 33.74052 -118.39366 ATR.- ASG13 33.74865 -1.18.37003 MT ASG741 -733.732849 418.3346811 AMT ASG31 33.775529 -1183'80307 MT LA0194. 33.740fB2 -118.36438 AT &-I- ASG21 33.779702 -118,374277 T&T LA0351 33.736726 -1.19.352793 AT&T ASG31 133.77338093 -110.370326 T&T LA0358 33.75366 1 -11.18.327114 I\- ,MT ASG31 I -� I LAR069 I 33.7871161 -118.372,384 CROWN Propietary & CASTLE Confidential E-148 Map of all existing and proposed facilities rs e rd e 'v I I Ill. WI -a".— -,I. it� t t Park it Y o I , 1� - ",-�7, 7 1 ■ PA IL L v.�- cle Po I !w tie Bend K 8 jrkentine Nziture Psv ;.*r, F110 serve r ."V / / to --t irlTardw 4IL- Pvesorvc- L Dew F -,InGana, CROWN Proprietary &T .,w CASTLE Confidential E-149 11mv, Hills rj I , 1� - ",-�7, 7 1 ■ PA IL L v.�- cle Po I !w tie Bend K 8 jrkentine Nziture Psv ;.*r, F110 serve r ."V / / to --t irlTardw 4IL- Pvesorvc- L Dew F -,InGana, CROWN Proprietary &T .,w CASTLE Confidential E-149 List of All Existing Facilities Carrier Site ID Latitude Longitude arrier Site ID Latitude Longitude drier Site ID Latitude Longitude arrier Site ID Latitude Longitude AT&T AHWO1 33.78431 -118.36835 rint LA36XC534 33.79089 -118.3832 W HAW12 33.77588 -118.40315 rint LA36XC659 33.77366 -118.36987 AT&T AHWO2 33.759 -118.3 print LA36XC535 33.78654 -118.3727 ZW HAW14m1 33.759883 -118.405233 MUS NO2m2 33.77881 -118.371 AT&T AHWO4 33.76809 -118.39135 rint LA36XC540 33.74165 -118.3739 rint LA34XD015 33.78752 -118.37618 MUS N06 33.76271 -118.37 AT&T HWO8 33.7562 -118.41017 rint LA36XC548 33.74334 -118.40946 rint LA34XD027 33.77401667 -118.3956 MUS N15 33.78063 -118.388 AT&T HW13 33.751972 -118.39547 rint LA36XC564 33.74338 -118.318 rint LA34XD031 33.742141 -118.401616 rint NCA5054R: 13 33.76267 -118.36983 AT&T HW55 33.77283 -118.4032 rink LA36XC555 33.75779 -118.3674 rink LA34XD036 33.78098 -118.397236 rint NCA5054R:14 33.77411 -118.39303 TMUS ANIS 33.759 -118.3 rint LA36XC566 33.75541 -118.40821 rint LA34XD043 33.773162 -118.403179 rint NCA5054P.: 15 33.78028 -118.38791 AT&T ASP06 33.76225 -118.3654 Tint LA36XCSSS 33.75005 -118.40501 rint LA34XD046 33.75817 -118.41334 rint NCA5054R:17 33.78238 -118.36944 AT&T A5PIG 33.74821 -118.33322 rint LA36XC570 33.76195 -118.41071 rint LA34XDD47 33.745354 -118.400786 rint NCA50545:12 33.77181 -118.3619 AT&T ASP12 33.7484 -118.3248 rink LA36XC591 33.76263 -118.33513 rint LA34XDOSO 33.75232 -118.39593 MUS PV02m2 33.7762 -118.375 AT&T ASP13 33.7421 -118.33277 rint LA36XC610 33.745028 -118.3849 rint LA34XD095 33.748459 -118.32485 MUS PV07m6 33.7722 -118.361 AT&T IASP14 33.76265 -118.3308 S rint LA36XC611 33.76868 -118.40277 rint LA34XD099 33.74218 -118.33322 US PV13 33.7764 -118.393 AT&T ASP32 33.76554 -118.3226 print ILA36XC622 33.76267 -118.36983 print LA34XD111 33.72728 -118.334 MUS PVSS 33.768 -118.391 AT&T ASP33 33.7471 -118.3181 rint LA36XC623 33.77411 -118.39303 rint LA36XC212 33.74801 -118.3127 US PV19 33.76075 -118.394 AT&T ASP42 33.744397 -118.324822 rint LA36XC635 33.73869 -118.35788 rint LA36XC216 33.7595 -118.33021 US PV49 33.77899 -118.381 AT&T ASP52 33.7623 -118.36987 rint LA36XC639 33.7458333 -118.3372222 rink LA36XC219 33.73721 -118.33022 W SP01 33.731395 -118.34294 AT&T ASP59m1 33.732861 -118.334694 rint LA36XC640 33.73798 -118.33618 rint LA36XC453 33.791709 -118.368509 W SP05 33.7368 -118.32976 AT&T ASP62 33.76321 -118.3273 dint LA36XC641 33.7384 -118.34449 print LA36XC454 33.76589 -118.31 ISP06 33.74163 -118.32621 AT&T ASP63 33.758167 -118.329 print LA36XC646 33.77544 -118.40283 print LA36XC516 33.77096 -118.3961 ZW SP07m1 33.738929 -118.336364 VZW HAW02 33.78012 -118.4005 print jLA36XC647 33.78898 1 rint LA36XC521 33.77181 -118.36197 W P21 33.7481 -118.31293 VZW HAW04 33.78543 -118.3857 rint LA36XC648 33.78238 rint LA36XC522 33.73738 -118.332 ZW SP22 33.75471 -118.31486 VZW HAW05 33.78908 -118.38528 rint LA36XC649 33.78785 1 rint LA36XC523 33.75335 -118.32667 ZW SP23m1 33.73823 -118.34436 VZW AW06 33.78766 -118.37637 rint LA36XC651 33.79048 7 1327r,"'I"ntt rint LA36XC524 33.76407 -118.33115 ZW P24 33.73403 -118.33834 VZW AW07m1 33.790795 -118.382867 riot LA36XC652 33.78028 1 riot LA36XC526 33.73561 -118.3477 ZW SP25m1 33.735186 -118.354187 VZW HAW10 33.77128 8 rint E136XC531 33.7809444 -118.4002778 MUS M61008 -0009m2 33.74063 -118.33702 VZW HAW11 33.76837 7 rint LA36XC653 33.78042 -118.37651 MUS T1\AB1008-OC19 33.775II9 -118.40319 CASTLE Confidential_ E-150 List of All Proposed Facilities Carrier Site ID Latitude Longitude Carrier Site ID Latitude Longitude VZW SO SCL PALOS VERDES 3 33,761353 -118.4103510 T&T ASG32 33.76295102 -118.375093 VZW SO SCL PALOS VERDES 8 33.739781 -118.369334 AT&T ASG33 33.755661 -118.39344.9 VZW SO SCL PALOS VERDES 9 33.758782 -118.364486 AT&T ASG34 33.766074 -118.401094 VZW SO SCL PALOS VERDES 11 33.775391 -118.368953 AT&T ASG35 33.770696 -118.397066 VZW SO SCL PALOS VERDES 12 33.784143 -118.367588 AT&T ASG36 33.77089856 -118.3893824 VZW SO SCL PALOS VERDES 13 33.749477 -118.332934 AT&T ASG37 33.776566 -118.387413 VZW SO SCL PALOS VERDES 14 33.746148 -118.329719 AT&T ASG38 33.77995 -11101.40271 VZW SO SCL PALOS VERDES 15 33.743179 -118.3199886 AT&T ASG39 33,78541831 -118.3834136 VZW SO SCL PALOS VERDES 16 33.764385, -118.331199 AT&T ASG41 33.73169 -118.341172 VZW SO SCL PALOS VERDES 17 33.760177 -118.32499 AT&T ASG43 33.767863 -118.376828 VZW 50 SCL PALOS VERDES 110 33.767905 -118.314171 AT&T JASG44 33.771255 -118.385665 VZW SO SCL PALOS VERDES 19 33.771618 -118.309292 AT&T ASG45 33.77618 -1180.39398 VZW SO SCL PALOS VERDES 20 33.761589 -118.315284 AT&T ASG47 33.74959 -118.33013 VZW SO SCL ROLLING HILLS ESTATES 1 33.773894. -118.387828 AT&T ASG48 33.78279 -118.37828 VZW SO SCL ROLLING HILLS ESTATES 2 33.781481 -118.384533 AT&T ASG49B 33.74169 -118.336646 VZW SO SCL ROLLING HILLS ESTATES 3 33.783917 -118.378903 AT&T ASG53 33.781524 -118.392501 AT&T jASG01 33.795275 -118.3788278 AT&T IASG55 33.763295 -1101.410407 AT&T ASG000 33.756725 -119.405011 AT&T ASG64 33.75943 -118.41442 AT&T ASG31 33.75669619 -118.401964 AT&T ASG69 33.735261 -118.340374 AT&T ASGIO 33.75744 -118.39885 AT&T ASG -70 33.790093 -119.381213 AT&T ASG11 33.746478" -1110.375309 AT&T ASG72 33.73996 -1188.3725 AT&T ASG12 33.74448 -119.37641 AT&T ASG73 33.74852 -118.39366 AT&T ASG13 33.748165 -118.37003 AT T ASG74 33.732949 -118.334681 AT&T ASG31 33.775529 -118.38307 AT&T LA0194 33.74082 4101.36438 AT&T ASG21 33.779702 -118.374277 AT&T LA0351 33.736726 -1108.352793 1AT&T IASG31 - I 33.77338093 -118.370326 A AT&T LA0358 33.75366 -1110.327114 AT&T JASG31 _8 33.7654841 -118.367933 AT&T LAR069 33.7871161 -118.372384 CROWN Proprietary & CASTLE Confidential E-151 Map of all existing and proposed facilities Proposcd Nodes Existaig Wireless Faclilibes f -h Its Est a I t, 000 a v a? A L ?06 M ILL A 0 5 �jr I If CROWN Proprietary & CASTLE Confidential E-152 List of,All Existing Facilities Carrier Site YD Latitude Longitude Carrier site I® Latitude Longitude airier Site 10 Latitude Longitude 'airier Site LD Latitude korgitude AMT AHWOI 33.78431 -118.36835 print LA36)(C534 33.79039 -1183832 ZW HAW12 33.77538 -118.40315 riot I-A36)(C659 33.77366 -118.36987 MIT AHWO2 33.759 -118.38 Sprint LA36)(C535 33.73654 -1183727 ZW HAW14ml 33.759833 -118.405233 MUS NO2m2 33.77881 -113.371 AT9,T AHWO4. 33.76809 -118.39135 rint LA36)(C540 33.74165 -118.3739 print LA34XDOIS 33.78752 -118.37618 MUS N06 33.76271 -118.37 A F&T AHW08 33.7562 -118.4101 print LA36XC542 33.74334 -118.40946 rant LA349DO27 33.77401667 -118.395 MUS IN15 33.78063 -118.399 AT3,T AHW13 33.751972 -118.395472 rint LA36)(C564 33.74338 -118.3187 rint LA34XD031 33.742141 -118.401616 Vint NCA5054R:13 33.76267 -118.36983 AT&T AHW55 33.77289 -118.4032 rint LA36)(C565 33.75779 -113.3674 rint IA34XD036 33.73098 -118.397236 print NCA5054R:14 33.77411 -11839303 TMUS ANI'. 33.759 -118.3 print LA36)(C566 33.75541 -118.40821 rint LA34XD043 33.773162 -113.403179 S rint NCA5054R:15 33.78028 -11838791 Alii( ASP06 33.76225 -119.36546 rint LA36)(CS68 33.75005 -113.40501 print LA34XD046 33.75317 -118.4133 rint NCA5050:17 33.78233 -11836944 ATirT ASP10 33.74821 -113.3332 print LA36XC570 33.76195 -118.41071 Tint LA34XD047 33.745354 -118.40078 print NCA50545:12 33.77131 -113.36197 A LT ASP12 33.74341 -113.3248 print LA35XC591 33.76263 -113.33513 rini LA34XD050 33.75232 -118.39593 MUS PV02m2 33.77621 -118375 AMT ASP13 33.74212 -118.33277 print LA36XC610 33.745028 -118.38499 rint LA34)(D095 33.748459 -118.32485 MUS PV07m6 33.7722 -118.361 AT&T ASP14 33.76265 -118.33082 rint IJA36XC611 33.76868 -113.40277 rint LA34XD099 33.74218 -118.33322 IMUS PV13 33.7764 -118.393 AF&T ASP32 33.76554 -118.3226 Tint LA36)(C622 33.76267 -113.36983 rant LA34XD111 33.72728 -118.33468 MUS PV18 33.768 -113.391 AT&T ASP33 33.7471 -118.31818 Tint LA36XC623 33.77411 -118.39303 rint LA36XC212 33.74801 -118.31278 MUS PV19 33.76075 -118.394 AT&T FlSP42 33.744397 -113.324822 Vint LA36XC635 33.73869 -118.35788 pdnt LA36XC216 33.75954 -118.33021 MUS PV4.9 33.77899 -118.331 ATirT ASP52 33.76236 -118.36937 riot LA36XC639 33.7458333 -118.337222 Vint LA36XC219 93.73721 -118.3302 ZW 5P01 33.731395 -Y1334294 AT&T ASP59ml 33.732861 -118.33469 print ILA36XC640 33.73798 -119.3361 rint LA36)(C453 33.791709 -118368509 ZW SP05 33.7368 -118.32976 AT&T ASP62 33.76321 -118.3273 prim LA36XC641 33.7384 -118.3444 rint LA36XC454 33.76589 -119.31092 ZW 'SP06 33.74163 -118.3262 AT3,T A51`63 33.758167 -118.32975 print LA36)(C646 33.77544 -113.40283 rint LA36)(C516 33.77096 -11839619 ZW SP07ml 33.738929 -118.336364 VZW HAW02 33.78012 -118.4005 rint LA36)(C647 33.78898 -118.38521 rint LA36XC521 33.77131 -11..36197 VZW SP21 33.7481 -11831293 VZW I1AW04 33.73543 -118.38576 rint LA36XC648 33.73238 -118.3694 rint 1A36XC522 33.73738 -113.3324 ZW SP22 33.75471 -118.31406 VZW HAMS 33.78908 -118.3852 rint LA36)(C549 33.7.785 -119.3320 print LA36XC523 33.75335 -118.3266 VZW SP23m1 33.73823 -11..34436 VZW HAW06 33.78766 -113.3763 rine LA36)(C651 33.79040 -118.37287 print LA36)(C524 33.76407 -118.33115 ZW SP24 33.73403 -11..33834 VZW HAW07m1 33.790795 -119.382867 print LA36XC652 33.78028 -113,38791&print LA36XC526 33.73561 -118.34777 ZW 51 3354107 ZW HAW10 33,77128 -113.39648 rine ILA36XC530 I 33.7809444 -118.4002778 MUS LMB1008-0009m2 33.74063 -118.33702 ZW JHAWII 33.76337 -118.4032 riot LA36XC653 I33.78042 -118.3765 MUS TMD1008-OC19 33.77589 -118.40319 CROWN Proprietary & CASTLE Confidential E-153 List of All Proposed Facilities Carrier Site ID Latitude Longitude Carrier Site ID Latitude Longitude VZW SO SCL PALOS VERDES 3 33.761353 -118.4,10358 T&T ASG32 33.76295102 -118.375093 VZW SO SCL PALOS VERDES 8 33.739781 -118.369334 T&T ASG33 33.755661 -1101.3931449 VZW SO SCL PALOS VERDES 9 33.758782 -118.364486 'ru ASG34 33.766074 -118.4-01094 VZW 50 SCL PALOS VERDES 11 33.775391 -118.368853 AT&T 33.770696 -119.397066 VZW SO SCL PALOS VERDES 12 33.784-143 -118.367588 T&T -ASG35 ASG36 33.77089856 -1101,3893824 WIN 50 SCL PALOS VERDES 13 33.749477 -118.332934 T&T ASG37 33.776566 -118.397413 VZW 50 SCL PALOS VERDES 14 33.746148 -1181.329719 T&T ASG30' 33.77995 -118.40271 VZW SO SCL PALOS VERDES 15 33.7433.79 -11101.318986 T&T ASG39 33.78541831 -118.3834136 VZW SO SCL PALOS VERDES 16 33.7643105 418-321199 T&T ASG41 33.73169 -118.34472 VZW SO SCL PALOS VERDES 17 33.760177 -119,32499 AT &T ASG43 33.767863 -118.376828 VZW SO SCL PALOS VERDES 18 33,767905 -118.314171 T&T ASG44 33.771255 -118.385665 VZW SO SCL PALOS VERDES 19 33.771618 -13.8.309292 M ASG45 33.77618 -11011.39390" VZW 50 SCL PALOS VERDES 20 33.761589 -118.315284 T&T ASG47 33.74959 -118.33013 VZW SO SCL ROLLING HILLS EST ATES 1 33.773894 -118.38782 T&T ASG48 33.700279 -118.37828 VZW 50 SCL ROLLING HILLS ESTATES 2 33.781481 -1181.38114533 Mi �ASG4913 33.74169 -1118.336646 VZW 50 SCL ROLLING HILLS ESTATES 33.7003917 -119.378903 T&T IASG53 33.781524 -118.392501 AT&T ASGOI 33.795275 -1101.378278 AT &T ASG55 33.763295 -118.4104-07 ATU ASG001 33.756725 -119,405011 AT&T ASG64 33.75943 -118.41442 ACMT ASG31 33.756696'19 -118.401964 T&T ASG69 33.735263. -11101.340374 AT&T ASGID 33.75744 -119.391085 T&T ASG70 33.790093 -118.381213 AT&T ASGII 33.746478 -118.375309 AT&T ASG72 33.73996 -1110.3725 AT&T ASG12 33.74448 -118.3764:1. AT&T ASG73 33.74852 -118.39366 ATI&T ASG13 33.741065 -13.81.37003 T&T JASG74 33.732949 -118,334681 ATMT AS631 33.775529 -1181.361307 AT&T LA0194 33.74082 -118.364438 AT&T AS621 33.779702 -118.374.277 AT&T LA0351 33.736726 -11.9.352793 AT&T ASG31 133.77338093 -118370326 T&T LA0358 33.75366 -11.1,3271111. AT&T ASG31 1 33.765484 -118.367833 AT&T ILAR069 33.7.871161 -118.372284 CROWN Proprietaq & CASTLE Co4idential E-154 CCCROWN CASTLE Collocation Analysis-ASGo9 Proposed Project Address ---30461 Camino Porvenir Crown Castle has already submitted an extensive alternate analysis reviewing four (4) 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 ASGo9, the nearest known wireless facility is located at approx. 7249 Crest Rd, roughly 1915 feet south of the proposed primary. Collocation of the wireless facility located on Crest Rd is outside of the RF coverage objective for the proposed facility, ASGo9, located along Camino Porvenir. There are challenges regarding design and construction of the proposed facility due to the existing equipment installed and technologies involved. There are additional challenges expected due to the visual impact a proposed collocation would cause. Because of these challenges, Crown Castle considers the collocation not a viable option, and as such, that location doesn't warrant further consideration. The Foundation for a Wireless World. CrownCastle.com E-155 CCROWN CCASTLE August 7, 2017 Nicole Jules, Deputy Director, Acting Director Public Works Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90276 Crown Castle 200 Spectrum Center Drive Suite 1700 Irvine, CA 92618 RE: Shot dock Tolling Agreement and Notice of Shot Clock Expiration Per RPVMC Section i2.18.o6o (C)(g) for Crown Castle Wireless Communication Facility Site ASGo4 - New Shot Clock Expiration Date: September 30, 201^, Dear Ms. Jules: Crown Castle NG West LLC ("Crown Castle") has agreed to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes' (the "City") request to extend the Shot Clock for this site until September 30, 2017. The purpose of extending the Shot Clock is to allow City Staff additional time to get better organized so that more meaningful presentations can be developed to better inform City decision makers. Under the FCC's Wireless Infrastructure Order (FCC 14-153, October 14, 2014), a local government is required not just to take some action within the application timeframe, but to take a final action on the application within the time period. See New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC v. Town of Stoddard, 2o12 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 .frondequoit, 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 66964.1 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: 0 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 CxowN CASTLE NG WEST LLC Nicole Jules CITY OF RANCHO PALos VERDEs The Foundation for a Wireless World. CrownCastle.com E-156 Ara Mihranian From: Paul Rubel <paul.w.rubel@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, lune 14, 2017 11:36 AM To: Charles Eder; PublicWorks Subject: ASG 09 - Cell Site At 30452 Camino Porvenir: Follow Up To Whom It May Concern: Re: Cell Site At 30452 Camino Porvenir As a follow up to my email of June 13, 2017, now that my wife and I have had a chance to fully view the "mock up" power box, I would like to add the following comments with regards to its current position: 1. The box is situated a few inches from the main, 3 -car driveway. There is clear danger that cars backing out or coming in could collide with the box. A small misjudgment could result in a bad collision. 2. As an alternative location, is there an opportunity to move the green Cox cable box and put a power box there? Perhaps the cabling could be re-routed underground? Are there options to have a smaller power box that is less of an eyesore? The current height of 5 feet is so obtrusive it makes it hard to blend into the shrubbery. As a final comment, there may be other alternatives to the box placement. I would hope that as homeowners who are directly affected by this, we will have input which will be given due consideration of which box will be used and the final placement of that box. Thank you Paul Rubel E-157 30452 Camino Porvenir Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 (310) 430-5876 E-158 Ara Mihranian From: Paul Rubel <paul.w.rubel@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, lune 13, 2017 11:27 AM To: Charles Eder, PublicWorks Subject: ASG 09 - Cell Site At 30452 Camino Porvenir Attachments: 30452 Camino Porvenir Cell Site Issues.docx To Whom It May Concern: Re: Cell Site At 30452 Camino Porvenir I am the owner at 30452 Camino Porvenir and am writing to express my concerns about the selection of the cell site at the aforementioned address as well as the project as a whole. I will preface this statement with the acknowledgment that while I am not against technological progress, I would expect that full consideration and potential accommodations are made for the residents of this city. 1. Cell site dangers. I was fortunate to be at home when the gas company marked up the gas line location in connection with this project. Based on the information I received from them, it appears that the proposed position of the power box would sit directly above the gas mains. This is obviously extremely concerning. As it was explained to me, gas rises directly up and to have an electrical box sitting above it could be catastrophic. Should this box position remain even in the vicinity, I am expecting a full and detailed explanation about why there is absolutely no potential risk for disaster. 2. Cell site position/aesthetics I recently received the mock-up of the cell site at 30452 Camino Porvenir and was horrified to see where the power box was positioned. Yesterday, the "life size" mock-up was installed. I am appalled at what has transpired as to be the end result. I am at the end of a remodeling project and am finishing up with the front garden. I already have plans in place, and work is ongoing, to upgrade my garden. Sprinklers have been laid, E-159 garden lights have been ordered and scheduled to be installed, followed by sod and fencing, all facets of which involve the area of the power box. The position of the box has destroyed those plans. Most infuriating was that at no time during this supposed upon process was there any indication given to the size and positioning of the box. It was all kept conveniently quiet! While I understand that this is city land; up and down the neighborhood residents extend their gardens onto public land for the beautification of the streets. This box position gives no consideration to that. It is an unsightly and overbearing monstrosity that only diminishes the look and value of my property. I can only conclude that its position has been selected out of convenience. This conclusion is reinforced as I looked at the other proposed cell sites. These sites seem to have been selected with some forethought i.e. where the public land used is between properties, or where it is clearly segregated from a properties line of sight, or where it is incorporated as part of the vegetation built by homeowners. None of the above can be referenced in the positioning of the box outside my property. Below is a photograph and perfect example of how the utilities have been accommodating and minimized the ugliness of these power boxes. Below that is a real picture of the mock-up. It is a disgrace that the positioning of this box was allowed to move forward without any consultation. I expect this situation to be addressed. E-160 3. Cell site project as a whole While I have focused on this cell site, I also want to make clear I have serious reservations about this project as a whole. While this cell site leverages off a replacement street light, others do not and the power boxes can only be described at unsightly at best. The mock-ups do not enhance the city; they do not add character to the city and are not aesthetically pleasing. The value to residents can only be defined by the residents themselves and at this point, from what I have heard, that benefit appears to be questionable. There are fundamental questions that need to addressed. Why is this project so important for the residents? Why are so many things relating to the residents done covertly? What, if any, are the potential health effects? and what is being done to minimize noise pollution from these cell sites? I have walked past these cell towers and can hear the buzzing. We live in a family community with family community concerns, so a clear understanding and explanation of our concerns should be addressed. 4 E-162 Thank you for your consideration of the above. Paul Rubel 30452 Camino Porvenir Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 (310) 430-5876 E-163 Ara Mihranian From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: FYI Nicole Department of Public Works 310-544-5275 Nicole Jules Monday, June 5, 2017 6:01 PM Charles Eder Christy Lopez; Lona N. Laymon FW: Cell Site at 30452 Camino Porvenir From: Judy Zimmerman [mailto:judydeanzim@aol.com] Sent: Monday, June 05, 2017 6:00 PM To: PublicWorks <PublicWorks@rpvca.gov> Subject: Cell Site at 30452 Camino Porvenir To Whom It May Concern: We have been residents of Rancho Palos Verdes since 1970, residing in our home at 30478 Camino Porvenir since 1975. One of the many factors in choosing this area was the underground utilities, offering views free of lines and poles. For 43 years we have enjoyed the views, and adamantly protest any changes at this or any future time. The mockup on Calle de Suenos (the one on Camino Porvenir has not yet been erected) is ugly, invasive, with far too many unanswered questions of issues of potential health ramifications and noise emissions. This is not a protest of only this one tower, but of all cell towers planned on properties adjoining homes in our city of Rancho Palos Verdes. We had noticed underground cable and electrical work done on the property in question on Camino Porvenir a few months ago, and when we questioned the workers doing the work, we asked specifically if this was a part of the Crown Castle or any other company's plans for cell sites. They assured us it was not. I just spoke with the homeowner, and she told us that she was visited by a cell company a few months ago and asked if she would approve of the cell site installation. They told her all the other neighbors already approved and it was a done deal. it is very clear to us now that they, indeed, were doing preliminary work towards this cell site and lied to all who question the work going on. Please inform all the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes of the hearings relating to this matter so that we may have our voices heard regarding this negative impact on our neighborhoods. Dean and Judy Zimmerman 310-541-2248 6udydeanzima-aol.com E-164 Ara Mihranian From: Becky Martin Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 7:17 AM To: Charles Eder Subject: FW: Cell Sites ASG08 and ASG09 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged From: Lore Fraix [mailto:lorefraix@outlook.com] Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2017 5:12 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; PublicWorks <PublicWorks@rpvca.gov> Cc: jcalvagna@netzero.net; carter.pv@cox.net; Lore Fraix <lorefraix@outlook.com>; judydeazim@aol.com Subject: Cell Sites ASG08 and ASG09 To Whom it May Concern: This email is to let you know that our family and neighbors are strongly opposed to the installation of cell Site ASG09 on 30452 Camino Porvenir and cell Site ASG08 on 30505 Calle de Suenos . Our home at 30461 Camino Porvenir, will be directly impacted by this cell site. Also ,cell site ASG08 is only half a mile from our house . We have been residents of Rancho Palos Verdes since 1975 and we greatly appreciate the good services of our city . One of the many factors in choosing this area was the underground utilities with low profile light poles and views free of electrical lines .Furthermore the adverse impact on aesthetics will have negative effects on properties values in the neighborhoods adjacent to these cell sites . The current profile mock up shows an ugly square enclosure above ground and higher modified light poles with antenna . It is evident that Crown Castle has ignored some of the basic requirements of our city ordinance 580 and has made no efforts to install underground the associate equipment required for the cell towers . Also, there are many unanswered questions of issues of potential health ramifications and noise emissions which need to be addressed and understood. . All residents of Rancho Palos Verdes need to be informed of the hearings related to this matter, so that all residents may have the opportunity to express their views and concerns regarding the negative impacts of these cell towers on the neighborhood. Offering an option to a few people for an additional communication provider does not justify the negative impacts to so many residents in the city . Your support and understanding on this matter is greatly appreciated. Sincerely yours. Lore Fraix, E-165 Ara Mihranian From: Paul Rubel <paul.w.rubel@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 2:36 PM To: Charles Eder Subject: Re: 30452 Camino Porvenir - Cell Site Pictures Hi Charles, Thanks for getting back to me. Just so I'm clear on the process could you clarify my questions. What happens prior to and during the planning commission meeting? Have they taken all the information (emails) and made their own recommendations prior to the meeting and the meeting is to discuss those results? Or is it another opportunity to give input as a decision has yet to be agreed upon? Are the commission's recommendations final? Can they be overturned by Crown Castle? And do you have any idea of a time frame for this to be concluded? We are in a holding pattern as to finishing out build out of the front garden until we know what's going on. Let me know if it's easier to talk in person. I have a lot of concerns about making sure a sensible site is chosen and want to make sure my input is heard by those who can make that decision. Thanks Paul Rubel On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Charles Eder <CharlesEkrpvca.gov> wrote: Hello Paul, Once the 30 days finishes, the applicant will be asked to take down the mock-up. Nothing happens until this process goes through the Planning Commission, which is yet to be scheduled. You will be informed of this upcoming meeting when it is scheduled. Charles Eder, PE Department of Public Works City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 E-166 From: Paul Rubel [mailto:paul.w.rubel@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 23, 2017 10:24 AM To: Charles Eder <CharlesE@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: 30452 Camino Porvenir - Cell Site Pictures HI Charles, I know we are now a couple of weeks in to the mock up being in position and time is ticking on the 30 day requirement. What are the next actions/steps that can be taken and when, in regards to looking at possible alternatives to the current position. My concern is the 30 days will pass and Crown Castle will just turn up and start building. Feel free to call or email. I am concerned so will follow up in a few days if I have not heard back. Thank you Charles. Paul Rubel (310) 430-5876 On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Charles Eder <CharlesEnaO mvca.gov> wrote: Hi Paul, E-167 Yes, I received the email. Thank you for your written correspondence. It will be included with the set that will be given to the Planning Commission. Please call or email if you have any additional questions. Thank you. Charles Eder, PE Department of Public Works City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 From: Paul Rubel [mailto:paul.w.rubel@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 12:32 PM To: Charles Eder <CharlesE@rpvca.gov> Subject: 30452 Camino Porvenir - Cell Site Pictures Hi Charles, This is Paul Rubel. I wanted to confirm that the email I sent yesterday came through with pictures. I had attached a pdf file too which was a copy of the email. The pictures are very relevant so I wanted to confine they are visible. Thank you Paul Rubel E-168 Ara Mihranian From: Ara Mihranian Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 3:27 PM To: shiro.inoue@gmail.com Cc: PC; Art Bashmakian; Nicole Jules; Charles Eder Subject: RE: Cell Tower Shiro, Thank you for taking the time to express you position on the proposed application. Your email is now part of the public record and will be provided to the planning commission when this item is heard on August 30tH Thank you, Ara Ara Michael Mihranian Community Development Director CiNOF IZN`IGHOPNDSV�RDES 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: shiro.inoue@gmail.com [mailto:shiro.inoue@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 7:10 AM To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Cc: PC <PC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Cell Tower E-169 To whom it may concern Hi, my name is Shiro Inoue the owner/residence of 30462 Camino Porvenir, RPV. I have signed on the agreement to set up the cell tower right in front of my house (facility permit no. ASG 09: 30452 Camino Porvenir) while ago but I am not a native English speaker and I didn't know what I was signing to. I do not support the installation of the cell tower and I would like to pull back the agreement. I'll be attending the meeting on August 30th but I hope you could help me with it before that. Thank you. Shiro Inoue E-170 Ara Mihranian From: Elias Sassoon Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 7:28 AM To: Ara Mihranian Subject: FW: Cell Sites ASG08 AND ASG09 fyi Elias K. Sassoon, Director Department of Public Works Citv of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Tel: 310-544-5335 Fax: 310-544-5292 L IR From: Shelley [mailto:sp.kwock@gmail.comj Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2017 10:21 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; PublicWorks <PublicWorks@rpvca.gov> Cc: jcalvagna@netzero.net Subject: Cell Sites ASG08 AND ASG09 To Whom It May Concern: This email is to let you know that we are strongly opposed to the installation of cell Site ASG09 on 30452 Camino Porvenir and cell Site ASG08 on 30505 Calle de Suenos. Our home at 30423 Calle De Suenos will be directly impacted by this cell site as we are nearly across the street from it. Also, cell site ASG09 is only half a mile from our home. We have been residents of Rancho Palos Verdes since 2011. One of the many factors in choosing this area was the underground utilities with low profile light poles and views free of electrical lines. Furthermore the adverse impact on aesthetics will have a negative effects on properties values in the neighborhoods adjacent to these cell sites. The current profile mock up with its unsightly square enclosure above ground and higher modified light poles with antenna is inappropriate for this residential area. Clearly, Crown Castle has ignored some of the basic requirements of our city ordinance 580 and has made no efforts to install underground the associate equipment for the cell towers. Also, there is the issue of the many unanswered questions regarding potential health ramifications and noise emissions which need to be addressed and understood. All residents of Rancho Palos Verdes need to be informed of the hearings related to this matter, so that all residents may have the opportunity to express their views and concerns regarding the negative impacts of these cell towers on the neighborhood. Offering an option to a few people for an additional communication provider does not justify the negative impacts to so many residents in the city. Your support and understanding on this matter is greatly appreciated. F-1 Sincerely yours, Patterson & Shelley Kwock F-2 Ara Mihranian From: Lore Fraix <lorefraix@outlook.com> Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2017 2:21 PM To: WirelessTF; CC Cc: 'loref raix@verizon.net' Subject: FW: Cell site ASG 09 ( 30452 Camino Porvenir) ; Notice of Public Hearing on Thursday, November 30,2017 . City Council and Mr. Bashmakian , On August 30, 2017 the Planning Commission of Rancho Palos Verdes, CA denied the request to replace the existing street light pole with the installation of a new cell antenna/light pole . At the same August 30,2017 meeting many residents objected to the location of this cell antenna in our neighborhood ; this site is across the street from our front door and also very close to our neighbors houses. It is highly intrusive and serving very limited AT&T customers .In our neighborhood AT&T coverage is reasonable , indeed our ADT security system is using the AT&T network for monitoring our house and no problems have been noticed nor reported . This cell tower is proposed within a few dozen feet from the front of the houses and will negatively impact our privacy and properties values . Also, the 24/7 noise generated by the cooling fans of the equipment is unacceptable in such a residential environment . The City Council needs to take a strong stand in defending and preserving our community aesthetics ,neighborhood character and properties value . Our City Council passed a tough and comprehensive wireless facility ordinance ; however, Crown Castel has shown no concrete evidence in following the ordinance guidelines. We are extremely grateful for the dedication of our Planning Commission and the strong support of the City Council to deny the appeal filed by Crown Castel for the facility permit ASG NO 09 ( 30452 Camino Porvenir Rancho Palos Verdes, CA .90275 ). Sincerely yours , Lore Fraix F-3 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 ClTVOFLiRANaiOPaCsVaRM 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.eov> Cc: Al Hasham <hashamal@hotmail.com> Subject: F-4 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! a F-5 Ara Mihranian From: Samson Munn <02467@earthlink.net> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 1:16 PM To: WirelessTF Subject: My Views of the Appeal Application Dear Mr. Bashmakian: As per the e-mailed request from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, here are my "thoughts" "in writing" regarding the appeal of the denied facility permits ASG #s 09,32,33,53 and 69. I object to the appeal(s) on the following grounds, jointly and severally: 1. Reception in Rancho Palos Verdes is already sufficient. That is, there are areas of strong reception and areas of no reception at all, and that is -- is -- sufficient, even more than sufficient. 2. When I bought my house at 7021 Calle del Pajarito, RPV, one of the real estate values I perceived was the absence of reception. That is, reception to me is a negative, while absence of reception has added value. 3. 1 am a Professor at UCLA's and an Adjunct Associate Professor at Tufts University's Schools of Medicine. My field is radiology. I know something about all kinds of rays. 4. There is a petition via NextDoor that your office has already received with over 100 signatories. That petition was with regard to ASG # 08. However, I received the dozens of comments added by all signatories. Many of these comments were with regard more generally to added cell emission/transmission towers. They were uniformly negative (none positive). 5. Via NextDoor, there have also been dozens of comments written generally about additional emission/transmission towers (apart from those related to the signatories against ASG # 08). Some of those additional comments were positive, while others were negative. Those that were negative outnumbered the positive ones by more than ten -to -one. 6. Proper process was engaged by the Planning Commission in its denials of those permits named at the outset of this message. If proper process yields denial, the appeal had better contain new and truly extraordinary and exceptional grounds in order to be re -considered. Substantiation of ordinary grounds for the permit applications at this time should be considered insufficient, since being late to circumvent proper process should not now be supported. In other words, Crown Castle had its "day in court," one might say, including proper opportunity to submit grounds for approval, and and simply lost. Unless the grounds now presented are extraordinary and exceptional, PLUS are combined with substantiation for why the grounds had not been submitted in due course (rather than now), PLUS are altogether new, Crown Castle's appeal(s) should be summarily dismissed without further consideration on the grounds of due process. That is, unless the new grounds are as I have described, satisfying all three categories of the preceding sentence, Crown Castle should -- properly -- not be afforded another "day in court," so to speak. THAT would compose due process, respecting the due process already behind us. Thank you, kindly! Samson Samson Munn, M.D., FACR F-6 CCCROWN CASTLE August 7, 2017 Nicole Jules, Deputy Director, Acting Director Public Works Department 3094o Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Crown Castle 200 Spectrum Center Drive Suite 1700 Irvine, CA 92618 RE: Shot Clock Tolling Agreement and Notice of Shot Clock Expiration Per RPVMC Section 12.18.o6o (C)(3) for Crown Castle Wireless Communication Facility Site ASGoq - New Shot Clock Expiration Date: September .3o, 2017 Dear Ms. Jules: Crown Castle NG West LLC ("Crown Castle") has agreed to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes' (the "City") request to extend the Shot Clock for this site until September 30, 2017. The purpose of extending the Shot Clock is to allow City Staff additional time to get better organized so that more meaningful presentations can be developed to better inform City decision makers. Under the FCC's Wireless Infrastructure Order (FCC 14-153, October 14, 2o14), a local government is required not just to take some action within the application timeframe, but to take a final action on the application within the time period. See New C'ingular 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 G-1