CC SR 20180206 03 - WTF ASG No. 36RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: 02/06/2018
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 ASG No. 36 to
install a Wireless Telecommunication Facility on a new pole within the public right-of-
way across from 28907 Doverridge Drive.
Quasi -Judicial Decision
This item is a quasi-judicial decision in which the City Council is being asked to affirm
whether specific findings of fact can be made in order to overturn the denial of the
Planning Commission's decision. The specific findings of fact are listed in the
Resolution per Chapter 12.18 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code
(RPVMC).
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) At the Applicant's request, maintain jurisdiction over the appeal and refer the
application back to the Planning Commission for review of proposed revisions at
a future duly -noticed public hearing, and direct the Planning Commission to
forward its recommendation to the City Council for consideration at a future duly -
noticed public hearing.
FISCAL IMPACT: The Applicant has paid the applicable appeal fees. If the Applicant
is successful in its appeal and the City Council overturns the Planning Commission's
decision, the Applicant will receive a full refund. Therefore, all in-house Staff costs
associated with processing the appeal will be borne by the General Fund. Costs for
work conducted by the City's consultants are borne by the Applicant.
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: Art Bashmakian, AICP, Contract Planner /A -F,
REVIEWED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, Director of Community Development'
APPROVED BY: Doug Willmore, City ManagerALJ
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Applicant's request to refer the project back to the Planning commission
(page A-1)
B. Appeal Letter to City Council (page B-1)
1
C. P.C. Resolution No. 2017-38 (page C-1)
D. Public Comments (page D-1)
E. Tolling Agreement (page E-1)
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
Crown Castle, the Applicant/Appellant (Applicant), is a tower company hired by wireless
companies for the purposes of acquiring sites for the construction and deployment of
wireless telecommunications antennas throughout local jurisdictions. Pursuant to
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 rights-of-way
(PROW), including the subject application, to provide services to AT&T customers
throughout the City.
On October 24, 2017, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider
the Applicant's request. At this meeting, after considering evidence introduced in the
record including public testimony from the Applicant, neighbors, Staff, and the City's
radio frequency (RF) consultant, the Planning Commission moved to deny the project,
without prejudice, on a 7-0 vote. The basis of the Commission's denial can be found in
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-38 (Attachment C).
On November 8, 2017, the Applicant filed a timely appeal (Attachment B) of the
Planning Commission's denial, contending that the denial and the reasons for the denial
effectively prohibit or has the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless
services. In summary, the Applicant believes that the Planning Commission's decision
was not based on substantial evidence, and that the denial violates the Applicant's right
to deploy its facilities in the PROW, in violation of Public Utilities Code Section 7901, in
that the Planning Commission's action exceeds the local control over the "time place
and manner" of access to the PROW.
In response to the Planning Commission's denial and after filing the appeal, the
Applicant explored relocating the wireless facility onto an existing pole located south of
the subject site, instead of introducing new vertical infrastructure, for the City Council's
consideration as part of the appeal. Furthermore, the Applicant introduced to the City
Council at its November 30, 2017, meeting revised, slimmer canister designs and
various pole designs that were not originally considered by the Planning Commission.
Because the Planning Commission has not considered the new location, and has not
reviewed the revised, slimmer canister design and three different pole designs, based
on the City Council's decision on November 30, 2017, the Applicant requests
(Attachment A)—and Staff supports—the referral of the project back to the Planning
Commission for its review and recommendation to the City Council, provided that the
City Council maintains jurisdiction over the appeal.
2
If the City Council refers the project back to the Planning Commission, the Applicant will
be required install a new mock-up at least 30 days before the Planning Commission
meeting, and a new public notice announcing the public hearing will be issued to
property owners within a 500' radius of the revised project location and any identified
alternative locations to ensure all potentially -affected property owners are notified.
Public Comments
In response to the public notice, the City received comments from residents expressing
concerns with the process and the Applicant's proposal (Attachment D)
Tollina of the Shot Clock
In response to the possibility of the City Council's decision to refer the appeal back to
the Planning Commission, the Applicant agreed to toll the shot clock to April 30, 2018,
to allow time for the Planning Commission and the City Council to review the revised
project (Attachment E).
CONCLUSION:
Based on the forgoing discussion, Staff recommends that the City Council maintain
jurisdiction over the appeal and refer the application back to the Planning Commission
to review the project revisions and forward a recommendation to the City Council for
consideration at a future, duly -noticed public hearing.
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to Staff's recommendation, the following alternative action is available for
consideration by the City Council:
Continue the public hearing to a date certain, and direct Staff to come
back with the appeal analysis for the City Council's consideration.
3
Ara Mihranian
From: Snyder, Aaron <Aaron.Snyder@crowncastle.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2017 3:56 PM
To: Ara Mihranian; Cowell, Jon (Vendor); 'Michael W. Shonafelt'; 'Paul O'Boyle'
Cc: 'Christy Lopez'; Lona N. Laymon; WirelessTF
Subject: RE: ASG No. 36 and 48
Hi Ara,
I am formally requesting that staff recommend that ASG36 and ASG48 be remanded back to the planning commission
for review at the Feb 271n
Both locations are in design review with alternates being looked at.
Any questions, please let me know.
Thank you,
AARON SNYDER
Government Relations Project Manager
Small Cell & Fiber Solutions (SCFS)
0: (949) 344-7834 1 M: (909) 568-4519
CCCROWN
CASTLE
200 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite #1800, Irvine, Ca. 92618
CrownCastle.com
A-1
CROWN
Crown Castle
����� 200 Spectrum Center Drive
CC Suite 1800
Irvine, CA 92618
RECEIVED
November 6, 2017 ,
COM MUNE ;'&1.1,!-`,r=c PMP, T
Emily Colborn, City Clerk I)EI=F�
City Cleric's Office
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Re: Crown Castle NG West LLC: Notice of Appeal of ASG -36— Across From 28907
Doverridge Dr
Dear Ms. Colborn,
Crown Castle NG West LLC ("Crown Castle") hereby appeals the Planning Commission's
October 24, 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 enviromnental 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,
Very truly yours,
MWS:nnvs
7125 124. 1
I e f;l
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle,com B-1
CROWN CASTLE USA INC.
2000 CORPORATE DRIVE
CANONSBURG PA 15317
724--416-2000
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
DALLAS TX
32-61/1110
TWO THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED SEVENTY FIVE AND 00/100**`*"`**`* "`*'****"*"`*"*" DATE 11/03/17 $**k^*2,275.00
Pay To CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES 624141
The 30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD
Order Of RANCHO PALOS VERDES CA 90275
VOID AFTER 180 DAYS
II' 2 268 1 2611' I: L 110006 Loi: L034 1045311'
Check No 2.268126
Check Date 11/03/17
Stub 1 of 1
CKRQ CITY COUNCIL FEE 11/03/17 Invoice Summ
2,275.00 2,275.00
2,275.00 2,275.00
October 25, 2017
CITY OF I A�
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
NOTICE OF DECISION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
has adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2017-38, denying, without prejudice, Major Wireless
Telecommunications Facility Permit ASG No. 36 for the installation of a new 26' tall
concrete pole with two 21.4" side -mounted panel antennas and related vaulted
mechanical equipment at:
LOCATION: Across 28907 Doverridge Drive
APPLICANT: Crown Castle
PROPERTY OWNER: City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Said decision is subject to the Conditions of Approval set forth in P.C. Resolution No. 2017-38
(available on the City's website at http://www.rpvca.gov/916/Wireless-Telecommunications-
Facilities).
This decision may be appealed, in writing, 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 approval date, or by 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday,
November 8, 2017. A $2,275.00 appeal fee (or a $1,275.00 appeal fee for residents) must
accompany any appeal letter. If no appeal is filed in a timely manner, the Planning Commission's
decision will be final at 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, November 8, 2017.
If you have any questions, or would like to discuss the project further in detail, please contact Art
Bashmakian at (310) 544-5227 or via email at wirelessTF@rpvca.cov.
t
Ara Mihranian, AICP
Director of Community Development
Enclosure
cc: Crown Castle
Project File
30940 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD / RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275-5391 / (310) 544-5228 / FAX (310) 544-5293 WWW R V-',A.JOV
0PRIN I ED ON RECYCLED RAPER
P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2017-38
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE,
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY PERMIT ASG NO. 36
FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A NEW 26' TALL CONCRETE POLE
WITH TWO 21.4" SIDE -MOUNTED PANEL ANTENNAS WITH
RELATED VAULTED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT ACROSS FROM
28907 DOVERRIDGE DRIVE.
WHEREAS, Chapter 12.18 of the Rancho Palo Verde Municipal Code (RPVMC or
Municipal Code) governs the permitting, development, siting, installation, design, operation and
maintenance of wireless telecommunications facilities ("WTFs") in the City's public right-of-way
("PROW") (RPVMC § 12.18.010);
WHEREAS, beginning in May of 2016, Crown Castle (the "Applicant") applied to the City
for an Wireless Telecommunications Facility Permit ("WTFP"), pursuant to Section 12.18.040(A)
of the Municipal Code, to install 26 antennas in the public right-of-way (PROW) to service AT&T
customers throughout the City including ASG No. 36 ("Project") across from 28907 Doverridge
Drive;
WHEREAS, the Project also includes vaulted mechanical equipment including the radio
and auxiliary equipment, as well as the SCE meter box in another 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 September 28, 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, and, at the request of the Applicant, continued the public hearing to October
24, 2017; and,
WHEREAS, on October 24, 2017, the Planning Commission held the duly noticed
continued public hearing, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be
heard and present evidence.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1; The proposed Project is a request to:
A. Install a WTF across from 28907 Doverridge Drive,
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-38
Page 1 of 5
C-2
B. Install a new 26' tall octagonal concrete pole with two 21.4" side -mounted panel
antennas; and
C. Install vaulted mechanical equipment in the street of 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, cannot be
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 introduction of new vertical infrastructure involving a new 26' tall pole with
two 21.4" panel antennas within the residential neighborhood will be highly visible
and will dominate the surrounding area because all utilities in this neighborhood
are underground. 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 proposed installation and support equipment is not
compatible with the surrounding environment. The introduction of a new pole and
the size of the side -mounted proposed antennas to the new pole, in its proposed
location, is a dominant feature that is out -of -character with the surrounding
neighborhood as there are no other poles or streetlight pole on that side of the
street in the immediate area, and that the size and shape of the pole and panel
antennas do not blend the facility into the built and natural environment. The City
of Rancho Palos Verdes' streets, parkway- and median- landscaping, and public
utilities within the rights-of-way have been planned and constructed to achieve an
attractive appearance which includes minimizing the number and appearance of
utilities and related equipment, particularly in residential areas. The proposed
facility would create a significant view impairment of Catalina Island from
residential viewing areas at 28731 and 28723 Shire Oaks Drive as defined in
Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation
and Restoration Code).
12.18.080(A)(1)(b): Screening shall be designed to be architecturally compatible
with surrounding structures using appropriate techniques to camouflage, disguise,
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-38
Page 2 of 5
C-3
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 a dense residential
neighborhood with homes that have street facing windows and well-maintained
manicured landscaping and parkways. The introduction of a new pole will be
visually intrusive within the surrounding neighborhood and will not visually blend
with the surrounding environment because the proposed pole will be placed on
the side of the street that does not have any above -ground infrastructure, a slim
line antenna design is not being proposed, and mature vegetation that would
conceal the project does not exist. The proposed new pole with the antennas in its
proposed location is a dominant feature that is out -of -character to the surrounding
neighborhood or natural features in the immediate area and would create a
significant view impairment from neighboring properties. The proposal will detract
from the visual appearance of the streetscape. The introduction of a new pole
along with the antennas and underground equipment will lead to a proliferation of
utility equipment and 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. The proposed facility is not
sufficiently compatible with matters of urban design and the long-term maturation
of this residential neighborhood.
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 installation of new 26' tall pole with two 21.4" tall side -mounted panel
antennas will be visible to a significant number of residences and will create a
significant view impairment to neighboring residences especially when traveling
on Doverridge Drive. The proposal does not use the least visible equipment type
in order to minimize view impact.
B. 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 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," as follows:
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-38
Page 3 of 5
C-4
A meaningful alternative comparative analysis has not been provided, and the
proposed Project is not found to be the preferred location and particularly design
as it introduces a new pole which is not the least intrusive means possible. The
Applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated the feasibility of alternative locations
that would avoid having to erect a new pole in the residential neighborhood in
order to minimize adverse visual impacts to residents by utilizing a slim design on
an existing streetlight pole. Out of the 4 alternative sites proposed by the
Applicant, Alternative No. 1 (Location E), which proposes the replacement of an
existing streetlight pole approximately 157 feet southwest of the Project site on the
west side of Doverridge Drive, would meet the Applicant's coverage objective.
However, this Alternative would not be least intrusive as it would bring the
proposed facility closer to the front of residences and mature landscaping does
not exist in this area that would conceal the facility. The deficient coverage occurs
to the north of the project location, in the opposite location of the feasible
alternative.
C. The Project does not meet the Findings required by Section 12.18.190,
subsections 3 and 4, 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 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 that 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 objective," as follows:
A meaningful alternative comparative analysis has not been provided, and the
proposed Project is not found to be the preferred location and design. There is
inadequate documentation to support that no other design alternative exists that
might better conceal the proposed facilities from public view instead of introducing
a new pole into the neighborhood. The deficient coverage occurs to the north of
the project location, in the opposite location of the feasible alternative.
Opportunities to locate wireless facilities in a manner that does not involve a new
pole or in remote locations deserve greater consideration as an alternative.
Section 3: Pursuant to Section 12.18.060 of the Municipal Code (referencing
Chapter 17.80 of the Municipal Code), any interested person aggrieved by this decision
or any portion of this decision may appeal to the City Council. The appeal shall set forth
the grounds for appeal and any specific action being requested by the appellant. Any
appeal letter must be filed within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of this decision,
or by 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, November 8, 2017. The Council -approved appeal fee
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-38
Page 4 of 5
C-5
must accompany any appeal letter. If no appeal is filed timely, the Planning
Commission's decision will be final at 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, November 8, 2017.
Section 4: For the foregoing reasons and based on testimony and evidence
presented at the public hearings, the information and findings included in the Staff
Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the Planning Commission of the City
of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby denies, without prejudice, ASG No. 36 for the proposed
wireless telecommunication facility installation across from 28907 Doverridge Drive.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of OCTOBER 2017, by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Bradley, Emenhiser, Nelson, Tomblin, Leon, Vice -Chair
James, and Chairman Cruikshank
NOES: None
ABSTENTIONS: None
RECUSALS: None
ABSENT: None
Ara Mihranian, CP
Community Development Director; and,
Secretary of the Planning Commission
__N�
John. Cruikshank
Chairm n
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-38
Page 5 of 5
C-6
Ara Mihranian
From: Denise Van Deuren <allynpeanut@aol.com>
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2018 12:12 PM
To: Ara Mihranian
Subject: Re: CORRECTION: Wireless Telecommunication Facilities - February 6th City Council
Public Hearing
Thanks so much, Ara! Have a great weekend.
Denise
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 18, 2018, at 11:36 PM, Ara Mihranian <AraM(-)rVvca.,goti> wrote:
Hi Denise,
This scheduled city council meeting is a procedural matter. The recommendation will be to refer
the application back to the planning commission. I don't think you or the neighbors need to be at
this meeting. No decision will be made by the council at this meeting.
The planning commission for this application will likely occur in March.
Let me know if you have any further questions.
Ara
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 18, 2018, at 3:25 PM, Denise Van Deuren <a]lvnpeanuuy aol.com> wrote:
Hi Ara,
This is Denise Van Deuren and we are extremely concerned about ASG 36. Is this
another hearing that we will need to speak on, or is this a procedural meeting where the
Council will vote to send it back to PC? We would appreciate any insight.
Thank you for all you do!
Denise
From: listservQciv cplus.com
To: allynpeanut@aol.com
Sent: 1/16/2018 6:54:46 PM Pacific Standard Time
Subject: CORRECTION: Wireless Telecommunication Facilities -
February 6th City Council Public Hearing
View this in your browser
This message from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is being
sent to subscribers of this list who might be interested in its
content. Please do not press "reply" when responding to this message, it is
D-1
a non -monitored email address. If there is contact information it will be
included in the body of the message.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes will conduct a public hearing on Tuesday, February 6, 2018
at 7:00 p.m. at Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne
Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes, to consider two appeals filed by Crown
Castle (Applicant/Appellant) of the proposed Wireless Telecommunication
Facilities within the public right-of-way that was denied by the Planning
Commission.
Please note that at the February 6th City Council meeting, Staff will not be
presenting new information and will be recommending that the City Council
refer the application back to the Planning Commission for its review at a
duly noticed future public hearing. The Planning Commission will then
forward its recommendation to the City Council for consideration at a duly
noticed future public hearing.
PROJECTS:
Case Number: ASG No. 36 - Across 28907 Doverridge Drive
Case Number: ASG No. 48 - Terminus of Mossback Drive west
of Basswood Avenue
APPLICANUAPPELLANT:
Crown Castle
If you have any comments or concerns about the proposed facility, please
communicate those thoughts in writing to Art Bashmakian, by Tuesday,
January 29, 2018 at noon to be included in the City Council Staff Report. By
doing so, you will ensure that your comments are taken into consideration
for the Staff analysis of the proposed facility. All correspondence received
after January 29th will be given separately to the City Council on the night of
the meeting as late correspondence. All persons who have submitted
comments will receive notification of the decision and a copy of the report
supporting that decision. City meetings may be televised and may be
accessed through the City's website. Accordingly, you may wish to omit
personal information from your written materials as it may become part of
the public record regarding an agenda item.
If you have any questions regarding this application, please contact Mr.
Bashmakian, at (310) 544-5254, or via e-mail at WirelessTF@rpvca.gov for
further information. The final staff report will be available on the City's
website, http://www.rpvca.gov, on January 30, 2018, under City Council
Agenda.
D-2
This message has been sent compliments of the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes. If you do not wish to continue receiving these messages, please
accept our apologies, and unsubscribe by visiting our website at:
hftp://www.rpvca..qov/list.aspx
Please note, The City of Rancho Palos Verdes will not sell or give your e-
mail address to any organization without your explicit permission.
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to Wireless
Telecommunications Facilities on www.rpvca.gov. To unsubscribe, click
the following link:
Unsubscribe
D-3
Ara Mihranian
From: Ara Mihranian
Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2018 9:29 PM
To: 'Gary W'
Cc: WirelessTF; Louise Ewing; Megan Wescott; mary_deley@yahoo.com; Jeff Calvagna; Ed S.
Jafari; Denise Van Deuren
Subject: RE: ASG No.36
Mr. Wu,
The City's RF consultant conducted an analysis that included in the Planning Commission Staff Report.
It is available on the City's Website as an attachment to the Staff Report at the following link:
httpW.rpv.F—ranicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view id=5&clip id_
=2918
Look for the ASG No. 36 agenda item on the October 24th Planning Commission agenda.
If you cannot locate it, I can send you the document in the morning.
Ara
From: Gary W [mailto:gwu7@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2018 9:10 AM
To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Cc: WirelessTF <WirelessTF@rpvca.gov>; Louise Ewing <Louise.e@verizon.net>; Megan Wescott
<meganwescott@cox.net>; mary_deley@yahoo.com; Jeff Calvagna <jcalvagna@netzero.com>; Ed S. Jafari
<edsjafari@gmail.com>; Denise Van Deuren <allynpeanut@aol.com>
Subject: Re: ASG No.36
Hi Ara,
Thanks for clarifying your email.
I would like to focus on the study report done by city staff and/or external consultant on ASG No. 36 site. It is
the fundamental question - Is there a significant gap on the this proposed area? I saw the Crown Castle's report
and I disagree. My conclusion is supported by my own measurement. It is important to see if city staff and
external consultant data support my results. If not, we need to understand why. I need this data to understand if
this proposed site qualified for ROW access on the legal basis. We need to have accurate data and analysis to
protect the city and interest of the residence.
Gary Wu
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 26, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Ara Mihranian <AraM0,rg%ea.go\ wrote:
Mr. Wu,
You are absolutely correct that the City Council, at its February 6th meeting, can, among
other things, make the three decisions you point out in your email.
M11
However, my email to you and your neighbors was in consideration of your busy
schedules and evening commitments, based on what I believe would occur at the
February 6th meeting
as a result of the November 30, 2017 City Council meeting.
At the November 30th meeting, Crown Castle introduced new information, including
design alternatives and in some cases revised locations, that the Council felt the
Commission should review.
Therefore, the Council referred all five of these appealed applications back to the
Commission for its review and recommendation, but maintaining jurisdiction over the
final decision.
In other words, the Commission will be forwarding its recommendation to the Council
who will make the final decision.
The Council made it very clear that they will want the Commission to review any
changes or revisions that are being appealed.
In light of this, Crown Castle is requesting that the City Council refer ASG No. 36 back
to the Planning Commission for its review and recommendation to the City Council on
its revised project, and
has agreed to toll the shot clock to allow for this additional step in the process.
You and your neighbors can certainly attend the February 6th meeting, it is a public
hearing.
Staff's recommendation will be to refer the application back to the Planning
Commission.
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
Community Development Director
<image002.jpg>
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: Gary W [mailto:gwu7@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 6:34 AM
D-5
To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Cc: WirelessTF <Wire1essTF2rpvca.gov>; Louise Ewing <Louise.e@verizon.net>; Megan Wescott
<meganwescott@cox. net>; mart/ delev@vahoo.com; Jeff Calvagna <icalvaena@netzero.com>; Ed S.
Jafari <eds6afari2grnai1.ccm>: Denise Van Deuren <allynpeanut@aol.com>
Subject: Re: ASG No.36
Hi Ara,
I am thinking about your statement in your email last couple days. It concerns me on the
process.
The ASG No.36 application from Crown Castle was rejected by Planning Commission. Crown
Castle appeal this decision. Now is with city council as due process as you stated. However, city
council can make three types of decisions.
1. Agree with planning commission. Reject the application.
2. Disagree with planning commission. Overturn the planning commission's decision and
approve the application.
3. Based on new application or proposal from Crown Castle, return the case to planning
commission.
I would like to point out three areas you stated incorrectly and need to be correct to preserve the
integrity of the process,
1. There will be a DECISION made in 2/6 city council meeting. City council will make decision
from three options I pointed out or they will come out another option. They will listen to public
opinions and that is public hearing for. You can not assume city Council's decision and tell our
neighbors no need to attend.
2. Since, Crown Castle has not submitted the new proposal, there is no new information. During
planning commission meeting, city staff stated this site shall be rejected. Why is the
recommendation changed? I am concerning on the city staff s recommendation to send the
planning commission without merit.
3. I am requesting the existing technical data from the work done by city engineer and external
consultants on the gap analysis on ASG no.36. This analysis shall not be affected by any new
Crown Castle proposal. And, it shall be done as a part of report on the original review process. It
is the gap analysis on current condition. Please help me to get this report.
Regards,
Gary Wu
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 22, 2018, at 1:35 AM, Gary W <gwu7ahotnnai1.coni> wrote:
Hi Ara,
Thanks for quick response. I would like to see this site ASG no. 36 appeal
rejected in the city council meeting on 2/6. If crown castle wants to chose another
location and/or give a new proposal, it is their right and it shall be considered as a
NEW proposal. Entire process shall be considered to restart from day 0. Please do
not allow crown castle to gain the system and using "shot clock" against our right.
I also would like to see more detail quality work from the city engineer and
external contractor, in terms of "gap" analysis, to protect our city. If the proposed
site does not meet the qualification of "significant gap", it shall be stated and
rejected from ordinance no.580 process. The process on unqualified proposal has
wasted so many people's time and city resource.
Gary
Sent from my Wad
On Jan 21, 2018, at 10:14 PM, Ara Mihranian t ri-A l ei�rpvca.goy> wrote:
Mr. Wu,
I sent a similar email response to some of your neighbors as
I am sure your email was prompted by the public notice you
recently received.
As you may know, Crown Castle filed an appeal to the
Planning Commission's denial, which now means the City
Council must consider the application as part of the due
process entitled to everyone.
The February 6th scheduled city council meeting is a
procedural matter. The recommendation will be to refer the
application back to the planning commission because Crown
Castle is considering a revised project and location.
However, However, at this time, plans have not been
submitted so I cannot give you more information. I don't think
you or the neighbors need to be at this meeting. No decision
will be made by the council at this meeting.
The planning commission meeting for this application will
likely occur in March. I will make sure your email is attached
to the future planning commission staff report, plus you will
receive a new public notice.
Let me know if you have any further questions.
Ara
From: Gary W fmai1to:gwu72hotmai1.com1
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2018 10:02 PM
To: WirelessTF <WirelessTF@rpvca.gov>; Louise Ewing
<Louise.e@verizon.net>; Megan Wescott <meganwescott@cox.net>;
mart/ delev@yah_oo.com
Subject: ASG No.36
Hi Mr. Bashmakian,
D-7
It is very sad to hear city staff recommending to have the decision
of this site circle back to Planning Commission after the
unanimous NO vote by all seven Planning Commissioners. I would
like to urge city staff to reconsider this position. In addition to its
highly intrusive aesthetics, this proposed site is not needed.
THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT GAP on the proposed area. I presented
the measured data to demonstrate this point during the Planning
Commission meeting. Basically, the proposed site is not qualified
to be considered under Ordinance No.580 to access ROW. I hope
city engineer and external contractor did the study and reached
the same conclusion. If otherwise, could you please send me a
copy of city staff and external contractor's report before the city
council meeting so that I can understand your findings? Thanks
Regards,
Gary Wu
Sent from Outlook
Mee
Ara Mihranian
From:
Ed S. Jafari <edsjafari@gmail.com>
Sent:
Thursday, January 25, 2018 9:27 AM
To:
gwu7@hotmail.com
Cc:
Ara Mihranian
Subject:
FW: ASG No.36
Hi Gary;
This is a thank you note for following our concern on this unsightly location for the said communication Tower so
diligently.
Regards
Ed & Irene Jafari
From: Gary W [mailto:gwu7@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 6:34 AM
To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Cc: WirelessTF <WirelessTF@rpvca.gov>; Louise Ewing <Louise.e@verizon.net>; Megan Wescott
<meganwescott@cox.net>; mary_deley@yahoo.com; Jeff Calvagna <jcalvagna@netzero.com>; Ed S. Jafari
<edsjafari@gmail.com>; Denise Van Deuren <allynpeanut@aol.com>
Subject: Re: ASG No.36
Hi Ara,
I am thinking about your statement in your email last couple days. It concerns me on the process.
The ASG No.36 application from Crown Castle was rejected by Planning Commission. Crown Castle appeal
this decision. Now is with city council as due process as you stated. However, city council can make three types
of decisions.
1. Agree with planning commission. Reject the application.
2. Disagree with planning commission. Overturn the planning commission's decision and approve the
application.
3. Based on new application or proposal from Crown Castle, return the case to planning commission.
I would like to point out three areas you stated incorrectly and need to be correct to preserve the integrity of the
process,
1. There will be a DECISION made in 2/6 city council meeting. City council will make decision from three
options I pointed out or they will come out another option. They will listen to public opinions and that is public
hearing for. You can not assume city Council's decision and tell our neighbors no need to attend.
2. Since, Crown Castle has not submitted the new proposal, there is no new information. During planning
commission meeting, city staff stated this site shall be rejected. Why is the recommendation changed? I am
concerning on the city staff's recommendation to send the planning commission without merit.
3. I am requesting the existing technical data from the work done by city engineer and external consultants on
the gap analysis on ASG no.36. This analysis shall not be affected by any new Crown Castle proposal. And, it
shall be done as a part of report on the original review process. It is the gap analysis on current condition. Please
help me to get this report.
F •
Regards,
Gary Wu
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 22, 2018, at 1:35 AM, Gary W <uwu7Ler:hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi Ara,
Thanks for quick response. I would like to see this site ASG no. 36 appeal rejected in the city
council meeting on 2/6. If crown castle wants to chose another location and/or give a new
proposal, it is their right and it shall be considered as a NEW proposal. Entire process shall be
considered to restart from day 0. Please do not allow crown castle to gain the system and using
"shot clock" against our right. I also would like to see more detail quality work from the city
engineer and external contractor, in terms of "gap" analysis, to protect our city. If the proposed
site does not meet the qualification of "significant gap", it shall be stated and rejected from
ordinance no.580 process. The process on unqualified proposal has wasted so many people's time
and city resource.
Gary
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 21, 2018, at 10:14 PM, Ara Mihranian <AraMkKpvca. og_v> wrote:
Mr. Wu,
I sent a similar email response to some of your neighbors as I am sure
your email was prompted by the public notice you recently received.
As you may know, Crown Castle filed an appeal to the Planning
Commission's denial, which now means the City Council must consider
the application as part of the due process entitled to everyone.
The February 6th scheduled city council meeting is a procedural matter.
The recommendation will be to refer the application back to the planning
commission because Crown Castle is considering a revised project and
location. However, However, at this time, plans have not been submitted
so I cannot give you more information. I don't think you or the neighbors
need to be at this meeting. No decision will be made by the council at this
meeting.
The planning commission meeting for this application will likely occur in
March. I will make sure your email is attached to the future planning
commission staff report, plus you will receive a new public notice.
Let me know if you have any further questions.
Ara
D-10
From: Gary W [mailto:gwu7@hotmai1.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2018 10:02 PM
To: WirelessTF <WirelessTF@rpvca.gov>; Louise Ewing <Louise.e@ve_rizon.net>; Megan
Wescott <meganwescott@cox.net>; rnary deley@yahoo.com
Subject: ASG No.36
Hi Mr. Bashmakian,
It is very sad to hear city staff recommending to have the decision of this site
circle back to Planning Commission after the unanimous NO vote by all seven
Planning Commissioners. I would like to urge city staff to reconsider this
position. In addition to its highly intrusive aesthetics, this proposed site is not
needed. THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT GAP on the proposed area. I presented the
measured data to demonstrate this point during the Planning Commission
meeting. Basically, the proposed site is not qualified to be considered under
Ordinance No.580 to access ROW. I hope city engineer and external contractor
did the study and reached the same conclusion. If otherwise, could you please
send me a copy of city staff and external contractor's report before the city
council meeting so that I can understand your findings? Thanks
Regards,
Gary Wu
Sent from Outlook
D-11
Ara Mihranian
From: Gary W <gwu7@hotmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 6:34 AM
To: Ara Mihranian
Cc: WirelessTF; Louise Ewing; Megan Wescott; mary_deley@yahoo.com; Jeff Calvagna; Ed S.
Jafari; Denise Van Deuren
Subject: Re: ASG No.36
Hi Ara,
I am thinking about your statement in your email last couple days. It concerns me on the process.
The ASG No.36 application from Crown Castle was rejected by Planning Commission. Crown Castle appeal
this decision. Now is with city council as due process as you stated. However, city council can make three types
of decisions.
1. Agree with planning commission. Reject the application.
2. Disagree with planning commission. Overturn the planning commission's decision and approve the
application.
3. Based on new application or proposal from Crown Castle, return the case to planning commission.
I would like to point out three areas you stated incorrectly and need to be correct to preserve the integrity of the
process,
1. There will be a DECISION made in 2/6 city council meeting. City council will make decision from three
options I pointed out or they will come out another option. They will listen to public opinions and that is public
hearing for. You can not assume city Council's decision and tell our neighbors no need to attend.
2. Since, Crown Castle has not submitted the new proposal, there is no new information. During planning
commission meeting, city staff stated this site shall be rejected. Why is the recommendation changed? I am
concerning on the city staff s recommendation to send the planning commission without merit.
3. I am requesting the existing technical data from the work done by city engineer and external consultants on
the gap analysis on ASG no.36. This analysis shall not be affected by any new Crown Castle proposal. And, it
shall be done as a part of report on the original review process. It is the gap analysis on current condition. Please
help me to get this report.
Regards,
Gary Wu
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 22, 2018, at 1:35 AM, Gary W <_�'\4-u7 wilotrnail.com> wrote:
Hi Ara,
Thanks for quick response. I would like to see this site ASG no. 36 appeal rejected in the city
council meeting on 2/6. If crown castle wants to chose another location and/or give a new
proposal, it is their right and it shall be considered as a NEW proposal. Entire process shall be
considered to restart from day 0. Please do not allow crown castle to gain the system and using
D-12
"shot clock" against our right. I also would like to see more detail quality work from the city
engineer and external contractor, in terms of "gap" analysis, to protect our city. If the proposed
site does not meet the qualification of "significant gap", it shall be stated and rejected from
ordinance no.580 process. The process on unqualified proposal has wasted so many people's time
and city resource.
Gary
Sent from my Wad
On Jan 21, 2018, at 10:14 PM, Ara Mihranian <AraM(]Mvca ovov> wrote:
Mr. Wu,
I sent a similar email response to some of your neighbors as I am sure
your email was prompted by the public notice you recently received.
As you may know, Crown Castle filed an appeal to the Planning
Commission's denial, which now means the City Council must consider
the application as part of the due process entitled to everyone.
The February 6th scheduled city council meeting is a procedural matter.
The recommendation will be to refer the application back to the planning
commission because Crown Castle is considering a revised project and
location. However, However, at this time, plans have not been submitted
so I cannot give you more information. I don't think you or the neighbors
need to be at this meeting. No decision will be made by the council at this
meeting.
The planning commission meeting for this application will likely occur in
March. I will make sure your email is attached to the future planning
commission staff report, plus you will receive a new public notice.
Let me know if you have any further questions.
Ara
From: Gary W [mailto:gwu7@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2018 10:02 PM
To: WirelessTF <WirelessTF@rpvca.gov>; Louise Ewing <Louise.e@verizon.net>; Megan
Wescott <meganwescott@cox.net>; mary_deley@yahya.com
Subject: ASG No.36
Hi Mr. Bashmakian,
It is very sad to hear city staff recommending to have the decision of this site
circle back to Planning Commission after the unanimous NO vote by all seven
Planning Commissioners. I would like to urge city staff to reconsider this
position. In addition to its highly intrusive aesthetics, this proposed site is not
needed. THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT GAP on the proposed area. I presented the
D-13
measured data to demonstrate this point during the Planning Commission
meeting. Basically, the proposed site is not qualified to be considered under
Ordinance No.580 to access ROW. I hope city engineer and external contractor
did the study and reached the same conclusion. If otherwise, could you please
send me a copy of city staff and external contractor's report before the city
council meeting so that I can understand your findings? Thanks
Regards,
Gary Wu
Sent from Outlook
D-14
Ara Mihranian
From: Gary W <gwu7@hotmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2018 11:35 PM
To: Ara Mihranian
Cc: WirelessTF; Louise Ewing; Megan Wescott; mary_deley@yahoo.com; Jeff Calvagna; Ed S.
Jafari; Denise Van Deuren
Subject: Re: ASG No.36
Hi Ara,
Thanks for quick response. I would like to see this site ASG no. 36 appeal rejected in the city council meeting
on 2/6. If crown castle wants to chose another location and/or give a new proposal, it is their right and it shall be
considered as a NEW proposal. Entire process shall be considered to restart from day 0. Please do not allow
crown castle to gain the system and using "shot clock" against our right. I also would like to see more detail
quality work from the city engineer and external contractor, in terms of "gap" analysis, to protect our city. If the
proposed site does not meet the qualification of "significant gap", it shall be stated and rejected from ordinance
no.580 process. The process on unqualified proposal has wasted so many people's time and city resource.
Gary
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 21, 2018, at 10:14 PM, Ara Mihranian <AraMC rmvca.gov> wrote:
Mr. Wu,
I sent a similar email response to some of your neighbors as I am sure your email was
prompted by the public notice you recently received.
As you may know, Crown Castle filed an appeal to the Planning Commission's denial,
which now means the City Council must consider the application as part of the due
process entitled to everyone.
The February 6th scheduled city council meeting is a procedural matter. The
recommendation will be to refer the application back to the planning commission
because Crown Castle is considering a revised project and location. However,
However, at this time, plans have not been submitted so I cannot give you more
information. I don't think you or the neighbors need to be at this meeting. No decision
will be made by the council at this meeting.
The planning commission meeting for this application will likely occur in March. I will
make sure your email is attached to the future planning commission staff report, plus
you will receive a new public notice.
Let me know if you have any further questions.
Ara
D-15
From: Gary W [mailto:gwu7@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2018 10:02 PM
To: WirelessTF <WirelessTF@rpvca.gov>; Louise Ewing <Louise.e@verizon.net>; Megan Wescott
<meganwescott@cox.net>; mary delev@vahoo.com
Subject: ASG No.36
Hi Mr. Bashmakian,
It is very sad to hear city staff recommending to have the decision of this site circle back to
Planning Commission after the unanimous NO vote by all seven Planning Commissioners. I
would like to urge city staff to reconsider this position. In addition to its highly intrusive
aesthetics, this proposed site is not needed. THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT GAP on the proposed
area. I presented the measured data to demonstrate this point during the Planning Commission
meeting. Basically, the proposed site is not qualified to be considered under Ordinance No.580
to access ROW. I hope city engineer and external contractor did the study and reached the
same conclusion. If otherwise, could you please send me a copy of city staff and external
contractor's report before the city council meeting so that I can understand your findings?
Thanks
Regards,
Gary Wu
Sent from Outlook
D-16
CCROWN
C CASTLE
January 25, 2018
VIA E-MAIL: ARAM@RPVCA.GOV
Ara Mihranian
Director, Community Development Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Crown Castle
200 Spectrum Center Drive
Suite 1700
Irvine, CA 92618
Re: Shot Clock Extension Agreement and Notice of Shot Clock Expiration fRVP Municipal
Code section 12.18.060(C )( 3)1
Dear Ara,
This letter memorializes an agreement between Crown Castle NG West LLC ("Crown Castle")
and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("City") to extend the Shot Clock for ASG36 from November
30, 2017 to April 30, 2018, pursuant to paragraph 49 of the Federal Communications Commission's
"Shot Clock Rule" (Petition for Declaratory Ruling, 24 F.C.C. Red. 13994, ¶ 49 (2009)).
Accordingly, the Shot Clock for ASG36 shall expire on April 30 2018, and any and all
applicable statutes of limitations under either federal or state law shall be deemed to commence from
that extended date. This agreement shall also serve to satisfy Crown Castle's requirement to provide
notice to the City of the Shot Clock expiration under City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code
section 12,18.060 (C)(3).
This agreement has been reviewed and approved by legal counsel for Crown Castle and the City.
If this accurately memorializes our agreement, please provide your signature in the designated
block below.
Aron Si1Vder
CROWN CASTLE NG WEST LLC CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com
E-1