Loading...
CC SR 20171130 01 - Wireless Telecommunication Facility Permit ASG No. 33RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 02/15/2018 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. 33 to install a Wireless Telecommunication Facility on a replacement stop sign pole within the public right-of-way at the northeast corner of Chartres Drive and Cartier Drive. Quasi -Judicial Decision This item is a quasi-judicial decision in which the City Council is being asked to affirm whether specific findings of fact can be made in order to overturn the denial of the Planning Commission's decision. The specific findings of fact are listed in the Resolution per Chapter 12.18 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC). RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: (1) At the Applicant's request, continue the public hearing to a date uncertain while maintaining jurisdiction over the appeal in order to allow the Applicant additional time to explore placing the wireless facility at alternative multiple locations for further review by the Planning Commission. FISCAL IMPACT: The Appellant has paid the applicable appeal fees, as established by Resolution of the City Council. If the Appellant is successful in the appeal, and the City Council overturns the Planning Commission's decision to deny the project, the Appellant will receive a full refund of their appeal fee. Thus, all in-house Staff costs associated with the processing of the appeal will come from the City's General Fund. Costs for work conducted by the City's consultants, including the City's contract planner and the City's RF engineer, are borne by the Appellant (Crown Castle). Amount Budgeted: N/A Additional Appropriation: N/A Account Number(s): N/A ORIGINATED BY: Art Bashmakian, AICP, Contract Planner REVIEWED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, Director of Community Development 401 APPROVED BY: Doug Willmore, City Manager ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: A. Applicant's Continuance Request (page A-1) B. Appeal Letter to City Council (page B-1) 1 C. P.C. Resolution No. 2017-25 (page C-1) D. Tolling Agreement (page D-1) BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: Crown Castle, the Applicant (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 customers throughout the City. On August 22, 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 RF consultant, the Planning Commission moved to deny, without prejudice, the project on a vote of 4-0 (Commissioners Leon and Tomblin and Vice Chairman James were absent). The basis of the Commission's denial can be found in the attached P.C. Resolution No. 2017-25 (Attachment C): On September 14, 2017, the Applicant filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Major Wireless Telecommunication Facility Permit ASG No. 33 contending that the denial and the reasons for the denial effectively prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting the provisions of personal wireless services (Attachment B). In summary, the Applicant believes that the Commission's decision was not based on substantial evidence and that the denial violates the Applicant's right to deploy its facilities in the public rights-of-way in violation of Public Utilities Code section 7901, in that the Planning Commission's action exceeds the local control over the "time place and manner" of access to the right-of-way. On November 30, 2017, the City Council held a special, duly noticed, public hearing on the appeal filed by the Applicant. At this meeting, in response to the Planning Commission's decision, the Applicant reassessed its proposal and presented, in addition to the original design, five new design options including a slimmer canister design and locations for the Council's consideration as part of the appeal proceedings. After taking public testimony, the City Council voted to refer the project back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration while maintaining jurisdiction over the appeal. The Council referred the project back to the Planning Commission because the Commission had not seen the revised slimmer canister design and a faux King Palm tree design. The Council felt it would be appropriate to allow the Commission to review the matter again with the updated information. The Council also directed the applicant to explore locating the facility along Hawthorne Boulevard near one of the three entrances to the Monaco neighborhood and to present the results of the analysis to the Commission. 2 On January 30, 2018, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the revised design options and the latest RF analysis that was updated based on the Council's direction to consider locating the facility along Hawthorne Boulevard near the three entrances to the Monaco neighborhood. After considering the information presented that evening, the Planning Commission directed the Applicant to explore splitting the proposed wireless facility into two separate wireless facilities within the neighborhood rather than the one wireless facility proposed at the intersection of Chartres Drive and Cartier Drive. The Commission felt that locating two facilities in the neighborhood would meet the Applicant's coverage objective while being least intrusive if located in an area that was less visible than the proposed intersection. The Commission's direction was contingent on the Applicant tolling the shot clock and requesting that the City Council continue the public hearing on the appeal to a date uncertain so that the Applicant and the Commission can continue to review the project. The Applicant agreed to the Commission's direction at the meeting, and the public hearing was continued to the March 13, 2018 Planning Commission meeting. On January 31, 2018, the Applicant submitted a written agreement to toll the shot clock to April 30, 2018, and a written request that the City Council continue this public hearing to a date uncertain. In response to the Commission's direction, Staff will be working with the Applicant to identify two new locations within the neighborhood that can accommodate the proposed wireless facilities utilizing a least intrusive design particularly since the Monaco neighborhood does not have any vertical infrastructure, such as streetlight poles or utility poles. Once these new locations have been identified, new mock-ups will be installed, and a new notification and public notice will be issued. The Commission will then be asked to review the revised locations and forward its recommendation to the City Council for consideration at a future public hearing. Since the City Council is being asked to continue the public hearing to a date uncertain, a new public notice will be issued for the future City Council meeting. CONCLUSION: Staff recommends that the City Council maintain jurisdiction over the appeal and continue the public hearing to a date uncertain in order to allow the Applicant additional time to explore locating the wireless facility at two separate locations for further review by the Planning Commission. ALTERNATIVES: In addition to Staff's recommendation, the following alternatives are available for consideration by the City Council: 9 1. Continue the public hearing to a date certain, and direct Staff to come back with the appeal analysis for the City Council's consideration. El Ara Mihranian From: Cowell, Jon (Vendor) <Jon.Cowell.Vendor@crowncastle.com> Sent: Monday, February 5, 2018 9:08 AM To: Ara Mihranian Cc: Garcia, Stephen Subject: ASG33 - continuance Hi Ara, Crown is requesting to continue ASG33 for the City Council hearing on 2/15/18 so we can address the actions and recommendations from the Planning Commission Hearing that was held on 1/30/18. Please continue to a date uncertain. Thanks, Jon Jon Cowell Project Manager 949-344-7840 office 925-200-6857 mobile Crown Castle 200 Spectrum Center Dr. Ste. 1900, Irvine, CA 92618 This email may contain confidential or privileged material. Use or disclosure of it by anyone other than the recipient is unauthorized. If you are not an intended recipient, please delete this email. A-1 N40D NEWMEYER DILLION LLP ATTORNEYS AT i AW MICHAEL W. SHONAFELT Michael. Shonafelt@ndlf.com Novmber .2017 VIA EMAIL - brian.campbell@rpvca.gov rpvca.gov AND HAND -DELIVERY Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 File No. 2464.13G Re: Crown Castle: Appeal of Wireless Telecommunications Facility ASG33 Dear Mayor Campbell and Members of the City Council, This office is legal counsel for Crown Castle NG West LLC ("Crown Castle") in the above -referenced appeal ("Appeal"). This letter presents Crown Castle's legal rights under both federal and state law and presents an analysis of those rights as they pertain to the Appeal. 1. INTRODUCTION. At the center of the Appeal is Crown Castle's application for a Wireless Telecommunications Facility Permit ASG33 within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("City") public right-of-way ("ROW") at the northeast corner of Chartres Drive and Cartier Drive. ("Project"), The Project is a low-power, small cell telecommunications facility that serves as an integral and vital part of a larger telecommunications and broadband network in the City. A. Original Proposal. As originally proposed the Project would feature a new, 14 -foot steel pole with two two - foot -tall panel antennas topping the pole at 14 feet. (See Exhibit A, Original Design Photo - simulations.) Radios, which convert light spectrum from fiber-optic cable into radio frequency ("RF") spectrum, an SCE power meter and a disconnect box would be located in or on a ground - mounted cabinet adjacent to the pole. (Ibid.) Notably, there is little existing vertical infrastructure in the Project area. The neighborhood feature no streetlights or utility poles. Crown Castle selected a site that is on a street intersection, in a landscaped parkway at the base of a landscaped slope that buffers the site from the nearest home, located at 30182 Cartier Drive, and partially buffered by existing trees and shrubs. The facility would be well outside ocean view corridors from any residence and would be located entirely in the ROW. (See Exhibit A.) In its initial staff report for the July 25, 2017, Planning Commission hearing, the Planning Department Staff ("Staff') noted that it had conducted view impact analyses of the Project and concluded that the Project did not impair views from surrounding residences or from Chartres Drive and Cartier Drive. (See Staff Report: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission (July 25, 2017) at pp. 5-6, 8.) The Staff also concluded that "the proposed installation is likely 1333 N. CALIFONIA BLVD 895 DOVE STREET 3993 HOWARD HUGHES PKWY SUITE 600 5TH FLOOR SUITE 530 WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 LAS VEGAS, NV 89169 T 925 966 3200 T 949 854 7000 T 702 777 7500 F 925 988 3290 F 949 854 7099 F 702 777 7599 B-1 Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council Novmber . 2017 Page 2 the least intrusive location for the wireless telecommunications facility in the immediate area," and recommended approval. (Id. at p. 10.) At the July 25, 2017, Planning Commission hearing, the City's legal counsel opined that, with the proposed conditions of approval, the Project met "all" of the City's application criteria. (See video of proceedings of July 25, 2017, http://rpv.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view id=5&clip id=2851, at 3:17:20.) The Planning Commission voted to continue the matter to August 22, 2017, meeting to receive information from the City's radio frequency consultant. B. Second Proposed Design. Based on a range of freewheeling and open-ended comments received from the Planning Commission on July 25, 2017, and subsequent site walks with the Staff, Crown Castle proposed moving the pole further to the west, to replace an existing stop sign at the intersection of Cartier and Chartres Drive with a 14 -foot pole capable of accommodating both the stop sign and the telecommunications antennas, thereby eliminating the need for a new pole in the ROW. The replacement pole would be 12 inches in diameter and incorporate a 3.5 -foot tall, 24 -inch diameter canister at its top. Crown Castle also agreed with a staff recommendation to place the equipment cabinet underground, in a subterranean vault. (See Photo -simulations of First Revision, attached as Exhibit B.) For a second time, the Staff recommended approval. Notwithstanding Crown Castle's efforts to reduce the visual profile of the Project, the Planning Commission adopted a motion to deny the Project at its continued hearing on August 22, 2017, with no specific grounds, aside from an ill-defined concern about "setting precedent" and "cumulative" aesthetic impacts for possible speculative future facilities that have not yet seen the light of day. The Planning Commission otherwise provided Crown Castle with no specific direction on what design or location alternatives would be considered less intrusive. Crown Castle timely filed this appeal to the City Council, pursuant to City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code ("RPVMC") sections 12.18.060 (D) and 17.80.030 (A). C. Third (Current) Proposal. In the wake of the Planning Commission's motion to deny the Project, Crown Castle's engineers took a hard look at the Project with an eye toward arriving at a slimmer profile, more stealth design. Their goal was to see what designs could be feasibly employed to address the generalized aesthetic concerns raised at the Planning Commission. The constraints faced by Crown Castle in this endeavor are those posed by the radio frequency ("RF") objectives that must be achieved to fill the existing significant gap in service at this location. As Andrew Afflerbach, Ph.D -- the City's own RF expert -- noted, "there is no free lunch" with respect to reducing antenna size. As antennas are reduced in size, so is their effectiveness in achieving RF coverage objectives. (See Part 3.A.1, below.) For small cell gaps in coverage, such as this, the tolerances for achieving network objectives are tight. Nevertheless, the Crown Castle team worked with AT&T to arrive at a yet smaller canister for the street sign location. The canister would be 14.6 inches in diameter, as opposed to 24 inches in diameter. A tapered skirt at the base of the canister would provide a visual transition from the canister to the 12 -inch pole. The canister would still top out at 14 feet. A Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council Novmber _. 2017 Page 3 conceptual photo -simulation of this third revised design is attached at Exhibit C. An excerpted photo -simulation of the Third Design Proposal is presented here: This third revision represents the smallest design solution for the Project; the reduction in size and profile has a resultant negative impact on the Project's ability to fill the significant gap in service. Crown Castle and AT&T nevertheless are willing to accept the reduced signal strength to achieve a mutually acceptable solution. As for locational alternatives, no least intrusive site exists in the Project area. (See discussion, infra, at Part 3 A.) 2. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL. A. STATE LAW. Crown Castle is a "competitive local exchange carrier" ("CLEC"). CLECs qualify as a "public utility" and therefore have a special status under state law. By virtue of the CPUC's issuance of a "certificate of public convenience and necessity" ("CPCN"), CLECs have authority under state law to "erect poles, posts, piers, or abutments" in the ROW subject only to local municipal control over the "time, place and manner" of access to the ROW. (Pub. Util. Code, §§ 1001, 7901; 7901.1; see Williams Communication v. City of Riverside (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 642, 648 [upon obtaining a CPCN, a telephone corporation has "the right to use the public highways to install [its] facilities."].) (1) Public Utilities Code Sections 7901, 7901.1. The CPUC has issued a CPCN which authorizes Crown Castle to construct the Project pursuant to its regulatory status under state law. Crown Castle's special regulatory status as a CLEC gives rise to a vested right under Public Utilities Code section 7901 to use the ROW in the City to "construct ... telephone lines along and upon any public road or highway, along or across any of the waters or lands within this State" and to "erect poles, posts, piers, or abutments for supporting the insulators, wires, and other necessary fixtures of their lines, in such manner and at Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council Novmber _. 2017 Page 4 such points as not to incommode the public use of the road or highway[.]" (Pub. Util. Code, § 7901.) The nature of the vested right was described by one court as follows: ... "[I]t has been uniformly held that [section 7901] is a continuing offer extended to telephone and telegraph companies to use the highways, which offer when accepted by the construction and maintenance of lines constitutes a binding contract based on adequate consideration, and that the vested right established thereby cannot be impaired by subsequent acts of the Legislature. [Citations.]" ... Thus, telephone companies have the right to use the public highways to install their facilities. (Williams Communications v. City of Riverside, supra, 114 Ca1.App.4th at p. 648 quoting County of L. A. v. Southern Cal. Tel. Co. (1948) 32 Cal.2d 378, 384 [196 P.2d 773].) Given the vested nature of the section 7901 right, Crown Castle contends that a discretionary use permit -- like the Conditional Use Permit required by the City in this case -- constitutes an unlawful precondition for a CLEC's entry into the ROW. (See, e.g., Michael W. Shonafelt, Whose Streets? California Public Utilities Code Section 7901 in the Wireless Age, 35 HASTINGS COMM. & ENT. L. J. 371 (2013).) In a recent case, T -Mobile West LLC v. City and County of San Francisco (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 334 [2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 769], the First Appellate District, Division Five, determined that aesthetic considerations are appropriate in determining whether a facility "incommodes" the ROW. That case is being appealed to the California Supreme Court. The court did not decide the specific issue of whether obtaining a discretionary use permit is a lawful precondition to exercising the section 7901 franchise rights. Public Utility Code section 7901.1 -- a sister statute to section 7901 -- grants local municipalities the limited "right to exercise reasonable control as to the time, place, and manner in which roads, highways, and waterways are accessed[,]." Nevertheless, such controls cannot have the effect of foreclosing use of the ROW or otherwise prevent the company from exercising its right under state law to "erect poles" in the ROW. That is because "the construction and maintenance of telephone lines in the streets and other public places within the City is today a matter of state concern and not a municipal affair." (Williams Communication v. City of Riverside, supra, 114 Cal.AppAth at p. 653.) Moreover, section 7901.1 specifies that such controls, "to be reasonable, shall, at a minimum, be applied to all entities in an equivalent manner." (Ibid., emphasis added.) Accordingly, to the extent that other public utilities are authorized to use the ROW in the City without having to obtain a discretionary land use permit, such disparate treatment may run afoul of the "equivalent manner" provision of Public Utilities Code section 7901.1. On the basis of Crown Castle's status as a CLEC, and its concomitant rights to the ROW, the Project is designed as part of an ROW telecommunications system. With respect to the siting 1 Notwithstanding the submittal of this application, Crown Castle reserves its rights under Public Utilities Code sections 7901 and 7901.1, including the right to proceed with construction of its networks without having to obtain a local franchise and/or discretionary grant of entry in to the ROW. Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council Novmber . 2017 Page 5 and configuration of the Project, the rights afforded under Public Utilities Code section 7901 and 7901.1 apply. Crown Castle reserves its rights under section 7901 and 7901.1, including, but not limited to, its right to challenge any approval process, that impedes or infringes on Crown Castle's rights as a CLEC. (2) Government Code Section 65964.1. Recently, the California Legislature echoed the courts' oft -repeated declaration that "the construction and maintenance of telephone lines in the streets and other public places within the City is today a matter of state concern and not a municipal affair." (Williams Communication v. City of Riverside, supra, 114 Cal.App.4th at p. 653.) It did so in the context of enacting AB 57 in October 2015. AB 57 is codified as Government Code section 65964.1. Under section 65964. 1, if a local government fails to act on an application for a permit to construct a wireless telecommunications facility within the prescribed Shot Clock timeframes (150 days for a standalone site and 90 days for a collocation site), the application is deemed approved by operation of law. When it enacted section 65964. 1, the Legislature observed that: The Legislature finds and declares that a wireless telecommunications facility has a significant economic impact in California and is not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution, but is a matter of statewide concern. (Gov. Code, § 65964.1, subd. (c).) B. FEDERAL LAW. The approval of the Project also is governed by the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (codified as amend in scattered sections of U.S.C., Tabs 15, 18, 47) (`'Telecom Act"). When enacting the Telecom Act, Congress expressed its intent "to promote competition and reduce regulation in order to secure lower prices and higher quality services for American telecommunications consumers and encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies." (I 10 Stat. at 56.) As one court noted: Congress enacted the TCA to promote competition and higher quality in telecommunications services and to encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies. Congress intended to promote a national cellular network and to secure lower prices and better service for consumers by opening all telecommunications markets to competition. (T -Mobile Central, LLC v. Unified Government of Wyandotte, 528 F.Supp. 2d 1128, 1146-47 (D. Kan. 2007). One way in which the Telecom Act accomplishes those goals is by reducing impediments imposed by local governments upon the installation of wireless communications facilities, such as antenna facilities. (47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(A).) Section 332(c)(7)(B) provides the limitations on the general authority reserved to state and local governments. Those limitations are set forth as follows: Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council Novmber . 2017 Page 6 (1) State and local governments may not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services (§ 332 (c)(7)(13)(i)(I)). (2) State and local governments may not regulate the placement, construction or modification of wireless service facilities in a manner that prohibits, or has the effect of prohibiting, the provision of personal wireless services (better known as the "effective prohibition clause") (§ 332 (c)(7)(13)(i)(II)). (3) 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)). (4) Any decision by a state or local government to deny a request for construction or modification of personal wireless service facilities must be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record (§ 332 (c)(7)(B)(iii)). (5) 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 FCC regulations concerning such emissions (§ 332 (c)(7)(B)(iv)). 3. UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL WOULD RESULT IN A VIOLATION OF THE TELECOM ACT'S PROHIBITION OF SERVICE PROVISION. As noted above, section 332(c)(7)(13)(i)(II) of the federal Telecom Act bars local governmental decisions from precluding the provision of wireless services: The regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof— (11) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. (47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II).) In T -Mobile U.S.A. Inc. v. City ofAnacortes (9th Cir. 2009) 572 F.3d 987, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals set forth a two-step analysis for determining whether a local government's denial has the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless telecommunications services in violation of Section 332(c)(7)(13)(i)(II) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. In the first step, the applicant must make a showing of a "significant gap" in service. (Id at p. 995.) In the second step, the applicant must demonstrate it has selected the "least intrusive means" to fill that gap in service. (Ibid.) Each prong of the Prohibition of Service Provision is addressed below. Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council Novmber . 2017 Page 7 A. A Significant Gap in Service Exists at the Project Site. (1) What Is a Significant Gap? "Significant gap" is a legal term of art developed by the courts to guide a determination of whether a local government's decision on an application prohibits a carrier or other wireless infrastructure developer from providing service. (See, e.g., T -Mobile USA, Inc. v. City of Anacortes, supra, 572 F.3d at p. 995.) Put simply, "a locality could violate the [Telecom Act's] effective prohibition clause if it prevented a wireless provider from closing a `significant gap' in service coverage." (Id., at p. 995; MetroPCS, Inc. v. City of San Francisco (9th Cir., 2005) 400 F.3d 715, 731.) Significant gap is "a contextual term that must take into consideration the purposes of the Telecommunications Act itself." (T -Mobile Northeast LLC v. Loudoun County Bd. of Supervisors (4th Cir. 2014) 748 F.3d 185, 198.). Among the goals of the Telecom Act are to "promote competition," "secure ... higher duality services for American telecommunications consumers," and "encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies." (Ibid.) Significant gap therefore is a fluid term that invariably rests on a fact -intensive analysis. The interpretation of the term must progress with the rapid development of wireless broadband technologies in order to advance the larger goals of the Telecom Act to "encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies." On that basis, the courts have counseled against "mechanical" or fixed formulas that become outdated and therefore impede technological advancement. (See, e.g., see T -Mobile Northeast LLC v. Fairfax Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors (4th Cir., 2012) 672 F.3d 259, 267 ["reviewing courts should not be constrained by any specific formulation, but should conduct a fact -based analysis of the record, as contemplated by the [Telecom Act]."].) As the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals noted in a recently published decision: The technology of 10 years ago may have only supported wireless service that had substantial gaps in coverage and high dropped call rates. But the technology of today supports increased wireless coverage with reduced rates of dropped calls. On this trajectory, the technology of tomorrow may support 100% coverage with no dropped calls, and the focus may instead be on subtler issues about the nature and strength of signals for particular uses. The [TCA] clearly intends to encourage this technological development and, to that end, to protect such development from interference from state and local governments when approving the design and location of facilities. This is manifested in § 332(c)(7)(B). Thus, in construing the level of service protected by § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II), we must take a contextual approach and cannot rely on any specific formula. (T -Mobile Northeast LLC v. Loudoun County Bd. of Supervisors, supra, 748 F.3d at p. 198.) In keeping with the principle of cutting-edge concepts of what constitutes a "significant gap," the courts have upheld the use of in -building minimum standards as a proper benchmark for determining whether a significant gap in coverage exists. (See, e.g., MetroPCS Inc. v. City Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council Novmber _. 2017 Page 8 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."]; see also, AT&T Mobility Servs., LLC v. Vill. of Corrales (10th Cir., 2016) 642 Fed. Appx. 886, 891.) Moreover, it is important to note that a telephone network may reveal adequate "coverage" but inadequate "capacity." The distinction between coverage and capacity may be better understood in terms of transportation infrastructure. A two-lane road may provide "coverage," but once that two lane road experiences high -levels of urban rush-hour traffic, coverage becomes irrelevant, since the road does not have sufficient "capacity" to handle the higher traffic volumes. In other words, a network may have adequate coverage, but inadequate capacity, which results in the same problem: an impermissibly high level of dropped and blocked calls. The need to fill the existing significant coverage gap to a level that allows adequate in - building coverage and to address growing capacity demands is underscored by the greater numbers of customers dropping their landlines and relying solely on wireless telecommunications for their phone service. The following additional considerations promote a policy of employing more sophisticated notions of significant gap: (a) In a recent international study, the United States dropped to fifteenth in the world in broadband penetration, well behind South Korea, Japan, the Netherlands and France.2 (b) Over 50 percent of all American homes are now wireless only. 3 (c) 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 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 (d) Data demand from new smartphones and tablets is leading to a critical deficit in spectrum, requiring more wireless antennas and infrastructure. According to a 2011 report, wireless data traffic was 110 percent higher than in the last half of 2010. Similarly, AT&T reports that its wireless data volumes have increased 30 - fold since the introduction of the iPhone. 5 (e) Wireless data traffic grew by a factor of 300 percent between 2010 and 2015.6 '- Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Directorate for Science, Technology, and Industry, "Broadband Statistics," (June 2010): <www.oecd.org/sti/ict/broadband>. 3 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics (Released 05/2017); https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/wireless20l705.pd: a Federal Communications Commission (2012) http://www.fcc.-ov/guides/wireless-911-services. s Executive Office of the President Council of Economic Advisors (White House, Feb. 2012) at 2-6. 6 https://www.ctia.org/industry-data/wireless-quick-facts. Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council Novmber . 2017 Page 9 Global mobile data traffic is expected to reach a seven -fold increase by 2021. Determining what constitutes a "significant gap" therefore must incorporate metrics that are based -- not just on basic cell phone coverage -- but also on network capacity for advanced communications technologies. As more Americans depend on wireless communications technologies and smartphones, reliable network capacity and in -building coverage are critical. These are some of the reasons courts now recognize that a "significant gap" can exist on the basis of capacity needs and inadequate in -building coverage. (See, e.g., MetroPCS Inc. v. City and County of San 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.) Wireless telecommunications are the primary mode of communication for Americans in the twenty-first century. That fact is amply demonstrated by the latest surveys in the industry, which reveal that over 49 percent of American homes rely wholly on wireless devices.' The marginal service currently at the Project site is inadequate to sustain current -- and future -- communications technologies and demands. In a recent report, the "National 911 Program," which is an office housed within the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, found thal "76 percent of consumers are using cellular phones to make calls to 911 while 21 percent are using wireline phones."g On that ground alone, this is a matter of health, safety and welfare for the residents and visitors of the City. Notably, 911 service over systems like this is not just limited to AT&T users -- the networks carries 911 calls of any mobile user. (2) Data Support a Significant Gap at the Project Site. Applying the above principles to the Project, data reveal that the project service area has insufficient signal strength to address current data demand and statistical projections of data demand. Crown Castle has undertaken drive -test data of existing conditions at the Project site in two different frequencies that will be employed at the Project site. (See ASG33-Proposed Primary and Alternate Node Analysis, attached as Exhibit D.) Exhibit D identifies levels of service in terms of the following criteria: ' http://di-,itatconqurer.com/news/cisco-mobile-visual-networking-index-vni-forecasts-seven-fold-increase-global- mobile-data-traffic-2016-2 I/ $ See CTIA Annual Survey Report (http://www.ctia.org/industry-data/ctia-annual-wireless-industry-survey) e See https://www.911.gov/pdf/National-911-Program-2015-ProfileDatabaseProgressReport-021716.pdf S Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council Novmber .2017 Page 10 RSRP -r5 to 0 ® -75 to -65 -85 to -75 - -95 to -05 _ -105 to -95 _ -120 to -105 Locations Viable Faded Coverage Objective 0 (a) Outdoor Only —Unacceptable Coverage (Black) (>-105 dBm); (b) In -Vehicle Only — Unacceptable Coverage (Blue) (>-95 dBm); (c) Suburban/In-building, Acceptable (Red) (>-85 dBm); (d) Urban/In-building, Acceptable (Yellow) (>-75 dBm); (e) Dense Urban/Deep In -building, Optimum (Light/Dark Green) (>-75 dBm). Each level is characterized by a minimum signal level. The key to coverage is having a signal level strong -enough to allow customers to maintain contact with the network so they can make and maintain calls. Signal level, the strength of the radio signal customers' devices receive, is measured in negative decibels per milliwatt ("dBm"). The larger the negative dBm number, the weaker the coverage. For example, a signal strength of -100 dBm is weaker than a signal strength of -80 dBm. As a general rule, a minimum signal level of -75 dBM (yellow) is required for adequate in -building coverage and a minimum of -95 dBm (blue) is required for adequate in -vehicle coverage. As noted, the courts have upheld the use of in -building minimum standards as a proper benchmark for determining whether a significant gap in coverage exists. (See, e.g., Verizon Inc. 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."].) Generally, there is a direct correlation between the height of the antenna and the strength of the service. In this case, Crown Castle's design seeks to strike a balance between service penetration and antenna height by targeting a minimum service level of -75 dBM, which is sufficiently powerful to reach indoor users while avoiding poles that may be too obtrusive. Slide 4 of Exhibit D reveals existing RF coverage at the project site. IS Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council Novmber .2017 Page 11 • �,y;, �� '1:01 rr Raberl E__,Pn. 8erkenle C anyen prw�gtvo This slide reveals that that the existing coverage varies from -95 to -120 dBm. In the existing condition, users in the service area will experience an increasingly higher 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. Moreover, as more and more uses connect to the network, the number of dropped and blocked calls will increase, since more users results in more demand on the network and resultant capacity problems. In short, there is a serious capacity deficit within the service radius of the Project site. 911 calls in this area would be unreliable. These conclusions were affirmed by the City's own RF consultant, Andrew Afflerbach, of CTC Technology & Energy, at the Planning Commission's August 22, 2017, meeting. CTC conducted its own significant gap analysis at the Project site and affirmed that the levels of service are lower than the acceptable standards for "modern telecommunications service." Afflerbach also said the following: "I will tell you this that a 911 call could be confusing in that area because it could end up in Santa Monica ... [i]t's not a stable environment." (2:50:00) If the Project is approved and allowed put on -air, however, coverage and capacity problems will be addressed, as can be seen in Exhibit D, Slide 6, which is excerpted here: B-11 Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council Novmber . 2017 Page 12 W �. 40726 tiVp oel fA Mona63 _ %1► �«'Pot 4" AS033 0 - ASG33 B-_ ASG33 A _ J� A,81;3 C c -'� ' � + ate.,•. _�, �F �', f%a,k 8arlaantno _ CAn3oR 5 ��/ t r n �tayBtY9 '! Ro6ar! E Ryan 9REPPFAMW !� The Project will 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. The Project also will add 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 once provided by their dropped landlines. Such considerations are relevant -- if not critical -- 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.]) One of the grounds invoked by the Planning Commission for denial of the Project was a conclusory assertion that Crown Castle failed to demonstrate a significant gap in service. The drive test data presented in Exhibit D refute that contention. Nor has this data been seriously controverted by any competent evidence. Indeed, the City's own RF expert concurred with the conclusion of Crown Castle's RF engineers that a significant gap indeed exists at the project site. The Planning Commission is charged with addressing zoning and planning issues, not the regulation of RF, which is a matter preempted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The City engaged CTC as an independent RF expert pursuant to Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code section 12.18.050. For areas -- such as RF coverage issues -- that are outside the scope of the Planning Commission's competency and jurisdiction it should look to the conclusions of its hired consultants and the actual data compiled by RF experts, not the unsupported assertions of project opponents. B-12 Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council Novmber .2017 Page 13 B. Crown Castle Has Demonstrated That It Has Chosen the Least Intrusive Means to Fill the Significant Gap in Service. To establish least intrusive means, the applicant establishes a "prima facie showing of effective prohibition by submitting a comprehensive application, which includes consideration of alternatives, showing that the proposed [wireless communications facility] is the least intrusive means of filling a significant gap." (T -Mobile U.S.A. Inc. v. City ofAnacortes, supra, 572 F.3d at p. 995.) After that, the burden shifts to the local government: "When a locality rejects a prima facie showing, it must show that there are some potentially available and technologically feasible alternatives." (Id. at p. 998.) The court further explained that the applicant then has an opportunity to "dispute the availability and feasibility of the alternatives favored by the locality." (Ibid.) Because Crown Castle is a CLEC entitled to construct its facilities in the ROW, its small- cell and 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. (1) Height and Location of the Project. The antenna height and location of the Project 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, small-cell system, Crown Castle seeks to maximize the coverage of each node location, since maximization of the node performance equates to a lower overall number of facilities and a less intrusive system. Accordingly, the Project location was chosen to provide an effective relay of signal from adjacent sites, so that ubiquitous coverage of the minimum signal level is provided throughout the service area with the minimum number of facilities. The selected location maximizes the RF coverage of the Project and minimizes interference/overlap with the other facilities, resulting in a lower overall number of facilities and a less intrusive system. The ROW is ideal for the Project from an aesthetic standpoint because the ROW is an area already impacted with utilities and similar features typical of developed roadways. Importantly, the currently proposed location and design were identified after exhausting other possible locations in the relatively small DAS coverage area or "polygon." (See Exhibit D, Slide 5.) Crown Castle's RF engineers examined five alternative locations in the immediate Project area, as depicted in Slide 7 of Exhibit D and as excerpted here: B-13 �• % AS3,L� tion fjASGFocat 0n6 ASG33 Locauon,A .s k ASG 43Ac tion C , YF Alt__ASG33lorat .. w �Swe Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council Novmber _. 2017 Page 15 The proposed site best utilizes existing foliage, slope topography and the ROW landscaping, which buffers the Project from surrounding homes on all sides. While the Project may be visible at the proposed location, it is far less intrusive than other potential sites that are immediately adjacent to residences. Only one other possible location is removed from homes. It is located at Hawthorne Boulevard and Rhone Drive. It is too far away from the Project site and is too far downhill from that site to qualify as a viable alternative location. (See Exhibit D, Slide _.) the Crown Castle has satisfied its burden of proof under the burden -shifting process established by T -Mobile U.S.A. Inc. v. City ofAnacortes. (2) Small Cells and DAS as Least Intrusive Means Technology, by Design. Even apart from the careful siting of the facilities that are part of a small cells or DAS system, the technological configuration of small cells and DAS nodes is inherently minimally intrusive by design. Small cells and DAS were developed as a smaller -scale solution to the larger macro -site or cell tower. It therefore represents a significant technological advance in the development of reduced- profile wireless transmission devices. The nodes are designed to be smaller scale and lower power to allow them to integrate more easily into their surroundings and thereby render them less aesthetically intrusive. While it is impossible to make the facilities invisible, each facility will be designed to blend with existing features in the road to the extent feasible. Crown Castle's small cell network qualifies as the "least intrusive means" of filling the identified significant gap for the following reasons, among others: (a) Crown Castle small cells utilize the latest in wireless infrastructure technology, incorporating smaller, low-power facilities instead of using larger -- and sometimes more obtrusive -- cell towers; (b) Crown Castle small cells utilize the ROW, thereby avoiding intrusions into private property or undeveloped sensitive resource areas; (c) Crown Castle small cells allow for collocation by multiple carriers, thereby avoiding proliferation of nodes; (d) Crown Castle small cells strike a balance between antenna height and coverage in order to minimize visual impacts; (e) Crown Castle small cells carefully are carefully spaced to effectively relay signal with a minimum of facilities; and (f) Crown Castle small cells utilize existing vertical elements in the ROW, such as utility poles, or slim -profile new poles, thereby minimizing intrusions into the ROW. (3) The Project Location and Design Qualify as the Least Intrusive Means of Filling the Demonstrated Significant Gap in Coverage. The Project utilizes small cell technology, which, as discussed above, was designed to avoid the need for larger profile macro -sites. As for the location, the Project is buffered from residences on all sides by existing foliage, slope topography and the ROW landscaping. The B-15 Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council Novmber _. 2017 Page 16 Staff confirmed that the location was the least intrusive of all the other potentially feasible locations. The facility, as revised, will replace an existing pole (a stop sign) and thereby eliminate the need for a new pole in the ROW. It will be painted to blend into the existing setting. Moving this site to other locations elsewhere in the small RF objective ring would place the facility directly adjacent to residences, resulting in greater visual impacts. Crown Castle engaged in an exhaustive investigation of potential locations for the Project. If the City can identify another feasible alternative location that allows Crown Castle to achieve its coverage objective for this Project, it would be happy to investigate that location. Crown Castle submits, however, that it already engaged in that search and that the proposed location is the least intrusive location available. 4. CONCLUSION. For the foregoing reasons, the City Council should grant this Appeal and approve the Project. We look forward to answering your questions on the day of the hearing. Very truly yours, Michael W. Shonafelt MWS cc: Ara Mihranian, Director, Planning and 'Zoning Division, City of Rancho Palos Verdes Christy Lopez, Special Counsel, City of Rancho Palos Verdes Lona Laymon, City Attorney, City of Rancho Palos Verdes Lizbeth Wincele, Government Relations Counsel — Southern California, Crown Castle Daniel Schweizer, Director, Government Relations, West Region, Crown Castle Stephen Garcia, Manager Government Relations, Crown Castle Aaron Snyder, Government Relations Specialist-DAS & Small Cells -Southern California, Crown Castle Enclosures 7223446.1 Ins P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2017-25 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY ASG NO. 33 FOR THE INSTALLATION OF 14 -FOOT TALL REPLACEMENT STOP SIGN POLE TO ACCOMMODATE PANEL ANTENNA ENCASED IN A 2' TALL CANISTER WITH A 3.5' TALL TAPERED CANISTER SHROUD AT THE TOP OF THE POLE WITH RELATED VAULTED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF CHARTRES DRIVE AND CARTIER DRIVE. WHEREAS, Chapter 12.18 of the Rancho Palo Verde Municipal Code (RPVMC or Municipal Code) governs the permitting, development, siting, installation, design, operation and maintenance of wireless telecommunications facilities ("WTFs") in the City's public right-of-way ("PROW") (RPVMC § 12.18.010); WHEREAS, beginning in May of 2016, Crown Castle (the "Applicant") applied to the City for an Wireless Telecommunications Facility Permit ("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. 33 at the northeast corner of Chartres Drive and Cartier Drive; WHEREAS, the original proposal called for a new 14 -foot tall steel pole with 21.4 -inch panel antennas; WHEREAS, the alternative proposal calls for a replacement 14 -foot tall stop sign pole measuring 12" in diameter with panel antennas encased in a 2' tall canister with a 3' tall tapered canister shroud; WHEREAS, the Project also includes vaulted mechanical equipment including the radio and auxiliary equipment, as well as the SCE meter box in a secondary vault. The project consists of a total of three vaults measuring approximately 43 square feet; WHEREAS, because the Project's location is within a residential zone and within the PROW of local streets as identified in the General Plan, approval of a WTFP also requires an Exception under Section 12.18.190 of the Municipal Code; WHEREAS, the Project is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQK) because the Project constitutes a small scale installation of a new facility (14 CCR § 15303(d)). WHEREAS, on July 25, 2017, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. WHEREAS, on July 25, 2017, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to August 8, 2017; WHEREAS, on August 8, 2017, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to August 22, 2017; P.C. Resolution No. 2017-25 Page 1 of 7 01203.0015/403998.2 C-1 WHEREAS, on August 22, 2017, after considering testimony and evidence presented at the public hearings, the information and findings included in the Staff Report, and other records of proceedings, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes moved to deny, without prejudice, ASG No. 33 and directed Staff to come back with a denial resolution for adoption at its August 30, 2017 meeting; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The proposed project is a request to: A. Install a WTF at the northeast corner of Chartres Drive and Cartier Drive, B. Replace an existing 11' tall stop sign pole with a 14' tall steel stop sign pole measuring 12" in diameter to be painted brown to visually blend with the surrounding environment. A 2' tall and 2' outside diameter cylinder -shaped canister with a 3' tall tapered canister shroud that encases the panel antennas and wires, will be placed at the top of the pole; and, C. Install vaulted mechanical equipment including the radio and auxiliary equipment, as well as the SCE meter box in a secondary vault for a total of three vaults measuring approximately 43 square feet in surface area. Section 2: The findings required to be made by the Planning Commission for the approval of a WTF permit, as set forth in Chapter 12.18 of the RPVMC, have not been made as follows: A. The Project does not meet the Findings required by Section 12.18.090, Subsection 13, of the Municipal Code, which particularly requires that "[t]he proposed facility has been designed and located in compliance with all applicable provisions of this chapter," as follows: 12.18.080(A)(1)(a): The applicant shall employ screening, undergrounding and camouflage design techniques in the design and placement of wireless telecommunications facilities in order to ensure that the facility is as visually screened as possible, to prevent the facility from dominating the surrounding area and to minimize significant view impacts from surrounding properties all in a manner that achieves compatibility with the community and in compliance with Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration) of this code. The immediate neighborhood does not have above ground utilities, with the exception of street regulation signs, and the proposed replacement pole with the antennas affixed to the top of the pole albeit contained in a canister shroud, at a height of 14', does not blend with the surrounding environment and would visually P.C. Resolution No. 2017-25 Page 2 of 7 01203.0015/403998.2 C-2 impact the character of the neighborhood as experienced from the public right-of- way. The proposed installation and support equipment does not meet the "non- dominant design" standard requiring a facility to be compatible with the surrounding environment. The overall size of the proposed antenna and canister shroud on top of a stop sign, in its proposed location, is a dominant feature that is out -of -character to the surrounding neighborhood as there are no other structures or natural features in the immediate area with a similar size and shape that would lend themselves to screening or blending the facility into the built environment. The proposed antenna design is of a size and shape that the stop sign itself would be dominated by said antenna, and there are no similar vertical elements in the neighborhood, thus making the proposed facility the dominant feature at this residential intersection. A preferred design would present equipment that is seamlessly integrated into the sign pole or a "slim -line" design that does not present the antenna nodes as the dominate feature on this stop sign. 12.18.080(A)(1)(b). Screening shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with surrounding structures using appropriate techniques to camouflage, disguise, and/or blend into the environment, including landscaping, color, and other techniques to minimize the facility's visual impact as well as be compatible with the architectural character of the surrounding buildings or structures in terms of color, size, proportion, style, and quality. The area in which this project is proposed consists of non -dense, upscale residential structures with well-maintained manicured landscaping and parkways. The proposed steel color and materials of the proposed replacement stop sign will not visually blend with the surrounding environment. The replacement stop sign pole, at a height of 14', is visually intrusive as there are no similar vertical elements in the neighborhood, thus making the proposed facility the dominant feature at this residential intersection. The "industrial -utility" looking style of the proposed facility is incompatible with the style and quality of the surrounding residential neighborhood. Additionally, the antenna shroud is much wider than the sign pole at the point of attachment. This has the effect of creating greater mass and bulk than now exists and will have the negative effect of being more visible. By drawing more attention, these facilities will reduce the desirability of this residential neighborhood. The proposed installation and support equipment is not compatible with the surrounding environment. The overall size of the proposed antenna on top of a stop sign, in its proposed location, is a dominant feature that is out -of -character to the surrounding neighborhood as there are no other structures or natural features in the immediate area with a similar size and shape that would lend themselves to screening or blending the facility into the built environment. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes' streets, parkway- and median- landscaping, and public utilities 01203.0015/403998.2 P.C. Resolution No. 2017-25 Page 3 of 7 C-3 within the rights-of-way have been planned and constructed to achieve an attractive appearance which includes minimizing the number and appearance of utilities and related equipment, particularly in residential areas. In addition, the introduction of the antenna and underground equipment necessary for this project may lead to a proliferation of utility equipment that would otherwise not be located in the right-of-way. Therefore, this project will detract from the visual appearance of the streetscape. These incremental changes to the improvements in the right- of-way will lead to the deterioration of the City's well-maintained streetscapes, and will establish a precedent for additional facilities in the public right-of-way. Consequently, the proposed facility is not sufficiently compatible with matters of urban design and the long-term maturation of this residential neighborhood— especially in light of the fact that the Applicant did not establish the presence of a significant gap in coverage that would necessitate the proposed facility (discussed below). 12.18.080(A)(5): Equipment. The applicant shall use the least visible equipment possible. Antenna elements shall be flush mounted, to the extent feasible. All antenna mounts shall be designed so as not to preclude possible future collocation by the same or other operators or carriers. Unless otherwise provided in this section, antennas shall be situated as close to the ground as possible. The record presented no evidence of the proposed antennas being situated as close to the ground as possible. The replacement stop sign pole will be 3' taller than the existing pole and approximately 12" wide in diameter, and has not been designed to resemble the existing pole to the maximum extent feasible. The proposed 14' tall stop sign pole that will house the panel antennas in a cylinder shaped canister measuring approximately 2' tall with a 3' tall tapered shroud sleeve has not been designed to be slim to an extent that maximally blends with the verticality of the pole, and is not the least intrusive design based on industry standards found for other antenna poles. 12.18.080(A)(6)(e): Replacement Poles. If an applicant proposes to replace a pole in order to accommodate a proposed facility, the pole shall be designed to resemble the appearance and dimensions of existing poles near the proposed location, including size, height, color, materials and style to the maximum extent feasible. The immediate neighborhood does not have above ground utilities, with the exception of street regulation signs, and the proposed replacement pole with the panel antennas affixed to the top of the pole albeit encased within a canister, at a height of 14', does not blend with the surrounding environment and would visually impact the character of the neighborhood as experienced from the public right-of- way. 01203.0015/403998.2 P.C. Resolution No. 2017-25 Page 4 of 7 C-4 The proposed installation and support equipment does not meet the design standard requiring a facility to be compatible with the surrounding environment. The overall size of the proposed antenna on top of a stop sign, in its proposed location, is a dominant feature that does not resemble in appearance or dimension any other features in the surrounding neighborhood because there are no other structures or natural features in the immediate area with a similar size and shape that would lend themselves to screening or blending the facility into the built environment. The proposed antenna design is of a size and shape that the stop sign itself would be dominated by said antenna, the intersection at which the pole is proposed would be dominated by the antenna, and there are no similar vertical elements in the neighborhood, thus making the proposed facility a non- conforming feature in appearance and dimension. A preferred design would present equipment that is fully integrated into the sign pole or a "slim -line" design that much more closely resembles an actual residential street sign, as opposed to a sign topped with a utility transformer. 12.18.080(A)(7): Space. Each facility shall be designed to occupy the least amount of space in the right-of-way that is technically feasible. The replacement pole would take up much more right-of-way space compared to the existing street sign/stop sign pole, with the antennas on top of the replacement pole occupying much more air space above the right-of-way than other feasible "slim -line" or pole -integrated designs found in the industry. 12.18.080(9): Obstructions. Each component part of a facility shall be located so as not to cause any physical or visual obstruction to pedestrian or vehicular traffic, incommode the public's use of the right-of-way, or safety hazards to pedestrians and motorists and in compliance with Section 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility) so as not to obstruct the intersection visibility triangle. The proposed stop sign pole design may cause an obstruction to the public's use of the PROW, constitute a safety hazard, and/or interfere with a City -defined intersection visibility triangle. Specifically, the proposed antenna design is of a size and shape that the stop sign itself would be dominated by said antenna, detracting from the visibility and discernibility of the stop and directional signage, thus making the proposed facility a potential distraction to drivers. B. The Project does not meet the Findings required by Section 12.18.190, Subsection B.2, of the Municipal Code, which particularly requires that "(t]he applicant has provided the city with a clearly defined technical service objective and a clearly defined potential site search area," as follows: The "technical service objective" identified by the Applicant in all application documents is the coverage of a "significant gap" in coverage. The wireless P.C. Resolution No. 2017-25 Page 5 of 7 01203.0015!403998.2 C-5 service area to be served by the proposed facility only encompasses about 20-30 homes and is not located upon a major highway or thoroughfare serving many in - vehicle users. To the extent any dead zone or dropped -call area was found to exist, such area was found to be very small, possibly no larger than the size of the street intersection itself. The Applicant is not entitled to seamless or perfect coverage in every area it serves, and the existence of a small "dead spot" in coverage is hereby found to be an insignificant deficiency in Applicant's existing coverage in the area. C. The Project does not meet the Findings required by Section 12.18.090, Subsection E, of the Municipal Code, which particularly requires that "[t]he applicant has provided the city with a meaningful comparative analysis that includes the factual reasons why the proposed location and design is the least noncompliant location and design necessary to reasonably achieve the applicant's reasonable technical service objectives," as follows: The Applicant has not provided a meaningful alternative comparative analysis and the proposed project is not found to be the preferred design. See above discussions in regards to RPVMC §12.18.080 for further detail, which discussions are incorporated here. Furthermore, there is inadequate documentation to support a conclusion that no other design alternative exists that might better conceal the proposed facilities from public view and/or minimize the addition of vaulted equipment within the PROW. Opportunities to locate wireless facilities in remote locations deserve greater consideration as an alternative. This could result in the identification of remote wireless installations that provide adequate coverage to homes in this residential neighborhood. Section 3: Pursuant to Section 12.18.060 of the Municipal Code (referencing Chapter 17.80 of the Municipal Code), any interested person aggrieved by this decision or any portion of this decision may appeal to the City Council. The appeal shall set forth the grounds for appeal and any specific action being requested by the appellant. Any appeal letter must be filed within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of this decision, or by 5:30 PM on Thursday, September 14, 2017. The Council -approved appeal fee must accompany any appeal letter. If no appeal is filed timely, the Planning Commission's decision will be final at 5:30 PM on Thursday, September 14, 2017. Section 7: For the foregoing reasons and based on testimony and evidence presented at the public hearings, the information and findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby denies, without prejudice, ASG No. 33 for the proposed wireless telecommunication facility installation at the northeast corner of Chartres Drive and Cartier Drive. P.C. Resolution No. 2017-25 Page 6 of 7 01203.0015!403998.2 C-6 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 30th day of AUGUST 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Bradley, Nelson, Emenhiser, and Chairman Cruikshank NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None RECUSALS: None ABSENT: Commissioners Leon and Tomblin, and Vice -Chair James Cr)1___ - Ara a ' , AICP Community Development Director; and, Secretary of the Planning Commission 01203.0015/403998.2 r John M. Cruikshank hairman P.C. Resolution No. 2017-25 Page 7 of 7 C-7 CC CROWN CASTLE January 31, 2018 Mr. Ara Mihranian, Director of Community Development Community Development Department 3094® Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Crown Castle 200 SpectrUM Center Drive Suite 1700 Irvine, CA 92618 RE: Shot Clock Extension Agreement for Crown Castle Wireless Communication Facility Site ASG 33 - New Shot Clock Expiration Date: April in, 2®n8 Dear Mr. Mihranian: Crown Castle NG West LLC ("Crown Castle") has agreed to extend the Shot Clock expiration date for the above -referenced wireless telecommunication application until April 30, 2018. Crown Castle is agreeing to this extension in order to investigate alternative site designs and locations identified by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes' (the "City") Planning Commission at its hearing of January 30, 2018. Specifically, the Planning Commission directed Crown Castle to evaluate cell splitting the existing ASG33 coverage area in order to relocate out of residential areas. Further, the Planning Commission requested that Crown Castle evaluate whip antenna site designs, as well as narrowing the pole support structure in order to minimize aesthetic impacts to the community. This Shot Clock extension does not in any way abrogate the rights of either Crown Castle or the City. Crown Castle's rights were vested when the above -referenced wireless application was submitted and subsequently deemed complete. The Shot Clock for the above -referenced wireless telecommunication application will expire on April 30, 2018; 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. C: P Stephen Garcia Ara Mihranian CROWN /CASTLE NG WEST LLC CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES The Foundation for a Wireless World. CrownCastle.com D-1