CC SR 20171130 02 - Wireless Telecommunication Facility Permit ASG No. 53RANCHO 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 Permit ASG No. 53
to install a Wireless Telecommunication Facility (WTF) on an existing utility pole at the
northwest intersection of Monero Drive and Granvia Altamira.
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) Review the Planning Commission's recommended design option; and,
(2) Adopt Resolution No. 2018-_, thereby granting an appeal and overturning the
Planning Commission's denial of Major Wireless Telecommunication Facility
Permit ASG No. 53 to allow the installation of antennas encased in a canister
measuring 2' tall and 14.6" in diameter mounted on a 4' mast arm to an existing
52' tall wood utility streetlight pole at the northwest intersection of Monero Drive
and Granvia Altamira.
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) via trust deposit.
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: Art Bashmakian, AICP, Contract Planner
REVIEWED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, Director of Community Development
APPROVED BY: Doug Willmore, City Manager
1
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Draft Resolution No. 2018-_ (page A-1)
B. Crown Castle Appeal Letter (page B-1)
C. P.C. Resolution No. 2018-05 (page C-1)
D. January 30, 2018 P. C. Staff Report (page D-1)
• Revised Project Plans
• Updated Coverage Maps and Supporting Documents from Applicant
• Updated Technical Information from City's RF Consultant
• November 30, 2017 City Council Staff Report
o P.C. Resolution No. 2017-28
o September 12, 2017 P.C. Staff Report
o Project Plans and Photo Simulations
o Coverage Maps and Supporting Documents
o Technical information from the City's RF Engineer
E. Public Comments (page E-1)
F. Tolling Agreement (page F-1)
Click on the link below to view the January 30, 2018 Planning Commission meeting on
ASG No. 53 - Agenda Item No. 1 (time stamp: 09:29):
http://rpv.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view id=5&clip id=3060
Click on the link below to view the September 12, 2017 Planning Commission meeting
on ASG No. 53 - Agenda Item No. 3 (time stamp: 1:24:37):
http://rpv.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view id=5&clip id=2893
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 project, to provide services to AT&T customers throughout the
City.
On September 12, 2017, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to
consider the Applicant's request to install antennas encased in a canister measuring 2'
tall and 2' in diameter to a 52' tall wood utility streetlight pole. 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 Commission moved to
deny, without prejudice, the project on a vote 5-1 with Commissioner Nelson dissenting.
The basis of the Commission's denial can be found in the attached P.C. Resolution No.
2017-28 (Attachment D).
2
On September 20, 2017, the Applicant filed a timely appeal and an updated letter in
November 2017 (Attachment B) of the Planning Commission's denial of the project
contending that the denial and the reasons for the denial effectively prohibits or has the
effect of prohibiting the provisions of personal wireless services. In summary, the
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 that the
Planning Commission's action exceeds the local control over the "time place and
manner" of access to the right-of-way.
November 30, 2017 City Council Hearing
On November 30, 2017, the City Council held a special, duly noticed, public hearing on
the appeal filed by the Applicant (Attachment D). At this meeting, in response to the
Planning Commission's decision, the Applicant presented to the City Council with the
following two revised design options:
• Option No. 1 consisted of antennas encased in a slimmer canister shroud
measuring 2' tall and 14.6" in diameter, which is approximately 10" smaller in
diameter than the canister shroud the Commission considered at its September
12th meeting.
• Option No. 2 consisted of a similar design to the original proposal with exposed
panel antennas affixed to the utility pole, utilizing smaller 20.5" tall panel
antennas instead of 24" tall panel antennas.
At the November 30th meeting, 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 City Council felt that since the Commission had not
seen the revised design options, including the slimmer canister design, and a new
AT&T wireless facility in the City of Palos Verdes Estates came on line after the gap
analysis was conducted, it decided that it would be appropriate to allow the Commission
to review the matter again with the updated information.
January 30, 2018 Planning Commission Hearing
On January 30, 2018, the Planning Commission conducted a special duly noticed public
hearing to consider the revised two design options and to consider the updated
coverage gap analysis which now included the new AT&T wireless facility (ASG No. 05)
in Palos Verdes Estates and the existing AT&T wireless facility at the 7-11 building. At
this meeting, after considering evidence introduced in the record including public
testimony from the Applicant, neighbors, Staff, and the City's RF Engineer, the Planning
Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2018-05 recommending to the City Council
approval, with conditions, the Project to allow the installation of antennas encased in a
canister measuring 2' tall and 14.6" in diameter mounted on a 4' mast arm to an existing
52' tall wood utility streetlight pole with vaulted accessory equipment. In summary, the
9
Planning Commission found that the revised slimmer canister design option that
conceals the antennas is least intrusive to the neighborhood. Furthermore, the
Planning Commission found that based on the Applicant's updated gap coverage
analysis, as affirmed by the City's RF Consultant, the proposed wireless facility would
meet the Applicant's coverage objective. A detailed analysis of the Commission's
findings can be found in the attached January 30, 2018 P.C. Staff Report (Attachment
D) and the attached P.C. Resolution No. 2018-05 (Attachment C), which includes the
Conditions of Approval.
It should be noted that the Applicant considered locating the wireless facility on an
existing utility pole south of the Project site, as requested by the City Council at the
November 30th meeting. However, this utility pole was not found acceptable because it
currently contains additional utilities, including a transformer that does not provide
additional space to install the wireless facility per applicable utility code requirements,
thus precluding the opportunity to locate on said pole.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Citv Council Site Visit
The City Council is encouraged to visit the project site and the proposed installation for,
among other things, design assessment and location. The Council will be asked to
disclose whether they visited the project site before opening the public hearing.
Coverage Gap Analysis
Sections 12.18.050(B)(1 9)(a) and (b) of the Wireless Telecommunications Facilities in
the Public Right -of -Way Chapter of the Municipal Code states that in the event an
applicant seeks to install a WTF to address service coverage concerns and/or service
capacity concerns, the Applicant needs to submit propagation maps with objective units
of signal strength measurement regarding current service coverage and written
explanation identifying the existing facilities with service capacity issues. The
Applicants submitted maps and written explanations have been reviewed by the City's
RF Consultant who has concluded that the signal levels are lower than the levels
industry guidelines suggest to support modern 3G/4G customer needs. The City's
Consultant concluded that there are gaps in coverage in small pocketed areas and the
subject facility will provide ample signal intensity to support AT&T's 3G/4G wireless
services.
Mockur) Notice
On May 23, 2017, the Applicant (Crown Castle) received a Public Works Encroachment
Permit to install a mockup of a proposed wireless telecommunications facility. The
temporary mockup was installed on June 1, 2017 with above ground mechanical
equipment. This is a required step in the Wireless Telecommunications Facilities
Application for all proposed wireless facility installations. Pursuant to Chapter 12.18 of
11
the RPVMC, the City Council is to review this specific proposed installations for, among
other things, design assessment and location. The temporary mockup installation will
remain in-place as a matter of public notice up -to and during the appeal proceedings.
The mockup will be required to be removed by the Applicant after a final decision has
been rendered.
Public Notice
On February 1, 2018, a public hearing notice was published in the Peninsula News
announcing tonight's special meeting on the project application. Similarly, public
notices were mailed to property owners within a 500' radius of the project site and to
list -serve subscribers announcing the public hearing and inviting public comments on
the appeal.
Public Comments
Attached are the public comments received since the appeal notice was issued
(Attachment E).
Planning Commission Chairman
Pursuant to City Council Policy No. 24, the Planning Commission Vice Chairman James
will attend the February 15th meeting in the event the Council has any questions
pertaining to the Commission's decisions in this matter.
Shot Clock
In response to the City Council's decision to refer the appeal application back to the
Planning Commission, the Applicant agreed to toll the shot clock to February 28, 2018,
which is now the final action deadline (Attachment F).
CONCLUSION:
Based on the Planning Commission's recommendation, Staff recommends that the City
Council adopt Resolution No. 2018- _, thereby granting an appeal and overturning the
Planning Commission's denial of Major Wireless Telecommunication Facility Permit
ASG No. 53 to allow the installation of antennas encased in a canister measuring 2' tall
and 14.6" in diameter mounted on a 4' mast arm, extending from an existing 52' tall
wood utility streetlight pole approximately at the northwest intersection of Monero Drive
and Granvia Altamira.
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to Staff's recommendation, the following alternatives are available for
consideration by the City Council:
5
1. Deny the appeal, thereby upholding the Planning Commission's denial of Major
Wireless Telecommunication Facility Permit ASG No. 53 and direct Staff to return
with a revised Resolution at the March 6, 2018 City Council meeting.
2. Modify the project design or location, and direct Staff to return with a revised
Resolution at the March 6, 2018, City Council Meeting. This action would entitle
the Applicant to a refund of one-half of their appeal fee.
3. Identify any issues of concern with the proposed project, provide Staff and/or the
Appellant with direction in modifying the project, and continue the public hearing
to a date certain.
Al
•
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES GRANTING AN APPEAL AND
OVERTURNING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF
MAJOR WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY PERMIT
ASG NO. 53 TO ALLOW THE INSTALLATION OF TWO PANEL
ANTENNAS, ENCASED IN A CANISTER MEASURING 2' TALL AND
14.6" IN DIAMETER MOUNTED ON A 4' MAST ARM, EXTENDING
FROM AN EXISTING 52' TALL WOOD UTILITY STREETLIGHT
POLE, WITH UNDERGROUND VAULTED ACCESSORY
EQUIPMENT AT THE NORTHWEST INTERSECTION OF MONERO
DRIVE AND GRANVIA ALTAMIRA
WHEREAS, Chapter 12.18 of the Rancho Palos Verdes 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. 53
("Project") at the northwest intersection of Monero Drive and Granvia Altamira;
WHEREAS, the Project (as proposed to the Planning Commission) called for the
installation of two panel antennas, encased in a canister measuring 2' tall and 2' in
diameter mounted on a 4' mast arm, extending from an existing 52' tall wood utility
streetlight pole, approximately 20.6' from the ground with accessory equipment to be
vaulted underground in the PROW;
WHEREAS, because the Project's location is within a residential zone and within
the PROW of local streets as identified in the General Plan, approval of a WTFP also
requires an exception under Section 12.18.190 of the Municipal Code;
WHEREAS, the Project is exempt from review under the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") because the Project constitutes a small scale
installation of new a new facility (14 CCR § 15303(d)).
WHEREAS, on September 12, 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
55478.00001\30324931.2
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 1 of 2'2
A-1
Rancho Palos Verdes moved to deny, without prejudice, ASG No. 53, on a vote of 5-1
with Commissioner Nelson dissenting, (Commissioner Leon was absent).
WHEREAS, on September 20, 2017, a timely appeal of the denial was filed by
the Applicant;
WHEREAS, on November 15, 2017, a public notice was mailed to property
owners within a 500' radius of the subject site and published in the Daily Breeze,
pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code. A courtesy
public notice was published in the Peninsula News on November 23, 2017; and a
notification was sent to list -serve subscribers;
WHEREAS, on November 30, 2017, the City Council held a duly noticed public
hearing, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and
present evidence.
WHEREAS, on November 30, 2017, the City Council voted to refer the Project
back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration while maintaining jurisdiction over
the appeal because the Applicant proposed modified options that the Planning
Commission had not originally considered and because it requested an updated
coverage gap analysis and to explore locating the facility on a nearby utility pole.
WHEREAS, on January 11, 2018, a public notice was mailed to property owners
within a 500' radius of the Project site and published in the Peninsula News, announcing
the Planning Commission meeting.
WHEREAS, on January 30, 2018, 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 January 30, 2018, after considering testimony and evidence
presented at the public hearing, the information and findings included in the Staff
Report, and other records of proceedings, the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes moved to recommend to the City Council approval of ASG No.
53, on a vote of 5-1 with Commissioner Emenhiser dissenting, to allow the installation of
antennas encased in a canister measuring 2' tall and 14.6" in diameter mounted on a 4'
mast arm, extending from an existing 52' tall wood utility streetlight pole with vaulted
accessory equipment at the northwest intersection of Monero Drive and Granvia
Altamira;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Resolution No. 2018 -
Page 2 of 2-2
A-2
Section 1: The City Council hereby grants the appeal and overturns the
Planning Commission's denial of Major Telecommunications Facility Permit ("WTFP")
ASG No. 53 to allow installation of antennas encased in a canister measuring 2' tall and
14.6" in diameter mounted on a 4' mast arm, extending from an existing 52' tall wood
utility streetlight pole with accessory equipment to be vaulted underground in the PROW
at the intersection of Monero Drive and Granvia Altamira based on the following
findings.
Section 2: Approval of a WTFP is warranted because the Project meets the
findings required by Section 12.18.090 of the Municipal Code:
A. All notices required for the proposed installation have been given.
The Applicant and the City have provided all notices required by the RPVMC.
On May 25, 2017 property owners within 500' of the proposed facility were
notified of the WTF mock-up which occurred at least 30 days in advance of the
public hearing. Further, on August 3, 2017, a public notice announcing the
August 22, 2017 public hearing was provided to property owners within 500' of
the proposed WTF and was published in the Peninsula News. On August 22,
2017, at the request of the Applicant, the Planning Commission continued this
item to its September 12, 2017 meeting. On November 15, 2017 a public notice
announcing the November 30, 2017 public hearing on the appeal of the Planning
Commission's denial of ASG No. 53 was published in the Daily Breeze and
provided to property owners within 500' of the proposed facility and to list -serve
subscribers. An added courtesy public notice was published in the Peninsula
News on November 23, 2017. On January 11, 2018, a new public notice was
published in the Peninsula News and mailed to property owners within 500' of the
Project announcing that the Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on
Tuesday, January 30, 2018. The notice mentioned that the hearing is a result of
the City Council referring the application back to the Commission for review with a
new recommendation for the City Council's consideration at a future duly noticed
public hearing. On February 1, 2018, a public hearing notice was published in the
Peninsula News, mailed to property owners within a 500' radius of the Project,
and sent to list -serve subscribers announcing the public hearing.
B. The proposed facility has been designed and located in compliance with all
applicable provisions of this chapter.
12.18.080(A)(1)(a): The Applicant shall employ screening, undergrounding and
camouflage design techniques in the design and placement of wireless
telecommunications facilities in order to ensure that the facility is as visually
screened as possible, to prevent the facility from dominating the surrounding area
Resolution No. 2018 -
Page 3 of 2-2
A-3
and to minimize significant view impacts from surrounding properties all in a
manner that achieves compatibility with the community and in compliance with
Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration) of this code.
The WTF is proposed to be installed on an existing 52' tall utility streetlight pole,
with mast arm and luminaire and two service arms that carry power lines along
with cable lines. The panel antennas will be encased in a 2' tall canister,
measuring 14.6"' in diameter, minimizing its visual intrusion to the environment.
The canister shroud will blend into the environment that consist of utility light
poles, power lines, cable lines, mast arms and luminaries along Granvia Altamira.
The canister and mast arm will be the same color as the existing utility pole. The
area also has existing foliage that screen views of the proposed installation from
residences. The WTF will not dominate the surrounding area because of the
existing vertical infrastructure and limited size of the proposed canister. The
proposal places all of the related mechanical equipment underground in a vault.
The proposed installation will not have any significant view impairment to
surrounding properties pursuant to Chapter 17.02.040 of the RPVMC.
12.18.080(A)(1)(b): Screening shall be designed to be architecturally compatible
with surrounding structures using appropriate techniques to camouflage, disguise,
and/or blend into the environment, including landscaping, color, and other
techniques to minimize the facility's visual impact as well as be compatible with
the architectural character of the surrounding buildings or structures in terms of
color, size, proportion, style, and quality.
The panel antennas are proposed to be installed on an existing 52' tall utility
streetlight pole, with mast arm and luminaire and two service arms that carry
power lines along with cable lines. The canister shroud encasing the panel
antennas will be painted brown to match other streetlight utility poles in the area
and the existing condition and improvements on the utility pole. The cylinder
shaped shroud encasing the two antenna panels and wires affixed to the utility
streetlight pole is an appropriate technique that disguises and blends the facility
into the environment (blending with the replacement pole and other poles in the
area). According to the Applicant, the proposed canister is the slimmest design
available, as such, it minimizes the facility's visual impacts and is more
compatible with the surrounding environment in terms of size, proportion and
color.
12.18.080 A)(( 1)(c): Facilities shall be located such that views from a residential
structure are not significantly impaired. Facilities shall also be located in a manner
Resolution No. 2018 -
Page 4 of 2-2
i
that protects public views over city view corridors, as defined in the city's general
plan, so that no significant view impairment results in accordance with this code
including Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration). This provision
shall be applied consistent with local, state and federal law.
The Project does not result in a significant view impairment to surrounding
residences. The proposed WTF is not located in a view corridor identified in the
City's General Plan or Coastal Specific Plan.
12.18.080(A)(3): Traffic Safety. All facilities shall be designed and located in such
a manner as to avoid adverse impacts to traffic safety.
The Project is designed to avoid adverse traffic impacts by affixing the panel
antennas within the canister shroud to an existing wood utility streetlight pole with
the bottom of the antenna canister shroud measuring approximately 20'-6" from the
ground. The related mechanical equipment will be vaulted underground avoiding
traffic safety impacts, including avoiding any impacts to the intersection visibility
triangle at the intersection of Monero Drive and Granvia Altamira.
12.18.080(A)(4): Blending Methods. All facilities shall have subdued colors and
non -reflective materials that blend with the materials and colors of the surrounding
area and structures.
The canister shroud that will house the panel antennas and the associated mast
arm will be painted with non -reflective brown paint that will match and blend with
the existing utility street light pole.
12.18.080(A)(5)' Equipment. The Applicant shall use the least visible equipment
possible. Antenna elements shall be flush mounted, to the extent feasible. All
antenna mounts shall be designed so as not to preclude possible future
collocation by the same or other operators or carriers. Unless otherwise provided
in this section, antennas shall be situated as close to the ground as possible.
The Project is proposed to be installed on a mast arm attached to an existing 52'
tall utility streetlight pole, with a luminaire and two service arms that carry power
lines along with cable lines. The antennas will be encased in a 2' tall and 14.6" in
diameter canister shroud on a 4' mast arm, extending from the existing wood utility
streetlight pole. The bottom of the antennas/canister would measure
approximately 20'-6" above the ground level below. Locating the antennas on the
mast arm will not preclude possible future collocation by other operators or
carriers.
Resolution No. 2018 -
Page 5 of 22
A-5
12.18.080(A)(6)(a): Facilities shall be located consistent with Section 12.18.200
(Location Restrictions) unless an exception pursuant to Section 12.18.190
(Exceptions) is granted.
The proposed location is within the PROW of local residential streets as identified
in the City's General Plan and the City Council finds that an Exception shall be
made as detailed in Section 3 of this Resolution.
12.18.080(A)(6)(b): Only pole -mounted antennas shall be permitted in the right-of-
way. All other telecommunications towers are prohibited, and no new poles are
permitted that are not replacing an existing pole. (For exceptions see
subparagraph (6)(h) below and sections 12.18.190 (Exceptions) and 12.18.220
(State or Federal Law).) Sections 12.18.080(6)(c) through (f) are not applicable.
The proposed WTF will be located in the PROW and will be pole mounted to an
existing utility streetlight pole.
12.18.080(A)(6)(c): Utility Poles. The maximum height of any antenna shall not
exceed 48 inches above the height of an existing utility pole, nor shall any portion
of the antenna or equipment mounted on a pole be less than 24 feet above any
drivable road surface.
The antenna canister will not exceed 48" above the existing height of the light
pole. The antennas are proposed below the maximum height of the 52' tall utility
light pole approximately 20'-6" above the ground level to the bottom of the
canister shroud housing the antennas. The proposed antenna and canister
shroud will not be above the drivable road surface.
12.18.080(A)(6)(d): Light Poles. The maximum height of any antenna shall not
exceed four feet above the existing height of a light pole. Any portion of the
antenna or equipment mounted on a pole shall be no less than 16% feet above
any drivable road surface.
No portion of the antenna or equipment is less than 16'/2 ' above the drivable road
surface and does not exceed 4' above the existing height of the pole.
12.18.080(A)(6)(e): Replacement Poles. If an Applicant proposes to replace a
pole in order to accommodate a proposed facility, the pole shall be designed to
resemble the appearance and dimensions of existing poles near the proposed
Resolution No. 2018 -
Page 6 of 2-2
w o
location, including size, height, color, materials and style to the maximum extent
feasible.
The project will be affixed to an existing wood streetlight utility pole, and the
existing pole will not be replaced.
12.18.080(A)(6)(f): Pole mounted equipment, exclusive of antennas, shall not
exceed six cubic feet in dimension.
The pole mounted equipment, excluding antennas, would be limited to cable
connecting the node to power and fiber optic backbone, connectors, brackets, and
GPS. The pole mounted equipment, excluding antennas, would therefore not
exceed six cubic feet in dimension. Furthermore, the related mechanical
equipment will be vaulted underground.
12.18.080(A)(6)(i): All cables, including, but not limited to, electrical and utility
cables, shall be run within the interior of the pole and shall be camouflaged or
hidden to the fullest extent feasible.
Interior installation is infeasible as the WTF will utilize an existing wooden pole. All
cables and wires shall be installed within conduit and, flush mounted and painted
brown to match the pole.
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 WTF will be mounted to an existing wood utility street light pole. The
placement of the antennas on the pole connected to a 4' arm will occupy limited
air space above the right-of-way. The accessory equipment will be
undergrounded and the vault necessary to house the equipment measures
approximately 43 square feet in area. This space is the least amount of space that
is technically feasible for vaulted equipment owned by AT&T. The space that will
be occupied is below the surface with minimum exhaust vents that will be flush to
the surrounding ground.
12.18.080(A)(8): Wind Loads. Each facility shall be properly engineered to
withstand wind loads as required by this code or any duly adopted or incorporated
code. An evaluation of high wind load capacity shall include the impact of
modification of an existing facility.
Resolution No. 2018 -
Page 7 of 22
A-7
Based on the information submitted by the Applicant and verified by the City's
consultants, the proposed installation complies with all building codes related to
wind loads.
12.18.080(A)(9): Obstructions. Each component part of a facility shall be located
so as not to cause any physical or visual obstruction to pedestrian or vehicular
traffic, incommode the public's use of the right-of-way, or safety hazards to
pedestrians and motorists and in compliance with Section 17.48.070 (Intersection
Visibility) so as not to obstruct the intersection visibility triangle.
The Project design, height and size, including the undergrounding of the
mechanical equipment, will not cause an obstruction to the public's use of the
PROW, does not constitute a safety hazard and/or does not interfere with the
City -defined intersection visibility triangle because the bottom of the proposed
antennas will be located 20'-6" above the ground level, not over the drivable
portion of the street, and the related mechanical equipment will be
undergrounded.
12.18.080(A)(10) Public Facilities. A facility shall not be located within any
portion of the public right-of-way interfering with access to a fire hydrant, fire
station, fire escape, water valve, underground vault, valve housing structure, or
any other public health or safety facility.
The proposed installation, including the undergrounding of the mechanical
equipment, will not interfere with fire hydrants, fire stations, water lines or any
other public health or safety facilities. Furthermore, part of the plan check review
process and site inspections, Public Works staff will ensure that the Project will not
interfere with any of the stated utilities.
12.18.080(A)(13) Landscaping. Where appropriate, each facility shall be installed
so as to maintain and enhance existing landscaping on the site, including trees,
foliage and shrubs. Additional landscaping shall be planted, irrigated and
maintained by applicant where such landscaping is deemed necessary by the city
to provide screening or to conceal the facility.
This portion of Granvia Altamira is characterized by a line of 52' tall utility
streetlight poles strung along the west side of the road. The placement of a vault
would require the removal of one of the saplings along the west side of Granvia
Altamira. As a Condition of Approval, the Applicant must replace the tree at a
location to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development.
Additionally, the Applicant will be required as a Condition of Approval to provide
Resolution No. 2018 -
Page 8 of 2-2
•
landscaping around the vault within the parkway to minimize its visual appearance
from pedestrians and motorists.
C. If applicable, the Applicant has demonstrated its inability to locate on
existing infrastructure.
Not applicable. The antennas will be located on an existing utility light pole and
the related mechanical equipment will be undergrounded.
D. The Applicant has provided sufficient evidence supporting the Applicant's
claim that it has the right to enter the public right-of-way pursuant to state
or federal law, or the Applicant has entered into a franchise agreement with
the city permitting them to use the public right-of-way.
The Applicant has submitted to the City a Right of Way Use Agreement (RUA)
entered into with the City in 2011, which allows the Applicant to install wireless
antennas in the PROW. Further, the Applicant has submitted a Certificate of
Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) issued by the California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC) which provides that the Applicant has been
authorized to install wireless telecommunications infrastructure in the PROW.
E. The Applicant has demonstrated the proposed installation is designed such
that the proposed installation represents the least intrusive means possible
and supported by factual evidence and a meaningful comparative analysis
to show that all alternative locations and designs identified in the
application review process were technically infeasible or not available.
Alternative locations were identified in the application review process. The revised
design, which includes the installation of antennas encased in a 2' tall and 14.6"
in diameter canister shroud mounted on a 4' mast arm, extending from the existing
52' tall wood utility streetlight pole with the bottom of the antennas/canister
measuring 20'-6" from the ground is the least intrusive means of those
alternatives. There are alternative antennas available but, according to the
Applicant, and as confirmed by the City's RF Consultant that would require a
greater number of facilities throughout the community to provide equal coverage
and capacity. This may require the introduction of new pole structures where
there are no streetlights or utility poles and would likely require associated
accessory equipment at every location. The supporting mechanical equipment
would be vaulted underground resulting in meeting the objective of installing the
least intrusive facility.
Resolution No. 2018 -
Page 9 of 2-2
Me
Other locations and designs, considered as part of the application process for
purposes of filling the coverage gap claimed by the Applicant, were found to be
more intrusive then the proposed Project.
An updated gap coverage analysis demonstrates the continued need to install ASG
No. 53 in order to achieve the coverage objective which was confirmed by the City's
RF Consultant.
Section 3: Because the Project's location is within a residential zone and
within the PROW of local streets as identified in the General Plan, approval of a WTFP
also requires an exception under Section 12.18.190 of the Municipal Code. The Project
meets the findings for an exception as required by Section 12.18.190(B) of the
Municipal Code:
A. The proposed wireless facility qualifies as a "personal wireless services
facility" as defined in United States Code, Title 47, section
332(c)(7)(C)(ii)•
The WTF meets the definition of "personal wireless services facility" as
defined by the United States Code.
B. The Applicant has provided the city with a clearly defined technical
service objective and a clearly defined potential site search area.
The "technical service objective" identified by the Applicant in all application
documents is the coverage of a "significant gap" in service in the general area
of the intersection of Monero Drive and Granvia Altamira. This application
information was provided to the City's RF engineer who reviewed the
information, as well as conducted both on-site walkout of the area and a
computerized terrain study to determine the proposed site will address a
coverage gap as identified in the application. Based on the terrain profile
characteristics and the field measurement data provided by Crown Castle, the
proposal as provided will address coverage deficiencies within the target area.
The Applicant has provided engineering details related to the wireless bands
that will be used for the DAS deployment, including identifying transmitting
equipment, power levels for each band and specifics regarding the radiation
patterns of the antennas to be installed.
Crown Castle has provided engineering measurement data defining gaps in
AT&T coverage in small pocketed areas. This has been independently
examined by the City's RF consultant who determined that the signal levels are
Resolution No. 2018 -
Page 10 of 22
A-10
lower than industry recommended levels to support modern 3G/4G customer
needs. The engineering design provided by Crown Castle supports that, if
constructed, DAS site ASG No. 53 will provide ample signal intensity (signal
level in excess of -95 dBm) to support AT&T's 3G/4G wireless services.
C. The Applicant has provided the City with a meaningful comparative
analysis that includes the factual reasons why any alternative location(s)
or design(s) suggested by the city or otherwise identified in the
administrative record, including but not limited to potential alternatives
identified at any public meeting or hearing, are not technically feasible
or potentially available.
The Applicant has provided comparative analysis for possible similar small cell
nodes (antennas) at the following 3 alternative locations:
• Alternative No. 1 (location B). Existing wood utility light pole with mast arm
and luminaire approximately 375 -feet south of the subject site located
across Monero Drive, on the same line of utility pole street lights that are
strung along the west side of Granvia Altamira.
• Alternative No. 2 (location C). Replacement of an existing traffic stop sign
pole with a larger pole approximately 84 -feet south of the subject site.
• Alternative No. 3 (location D). Diagonally across the intersection of Monero
Drive and Granvia Altamira on a replacement pole for an existing traffic
sign (stop sign) pole, approximately 140 -feet east of the subject site.
The Applicant has provided comparative analysis of these locations. All the
alternative sites meet the RF coverage objective as confirmed by the City's RF
consultant. The alternative site analysis demonstrates that the Project is likely
the least intrusive location for the wireless telecommunications facility in the
immediate area. The proposed Project, with the canister encasing the
antennas at the proposed location, is the least intrusive location for the
wireless telecommunications facility in the immediate area because the other
locations are more visible from residences as they involve either higher terrain
that's more visible to from residences or replacement stop sign pole and
replacement streetlight pole both more noticeable than the utility pole which
allows the antennas/canister to blend with the existing mast arm, luminaire
and other service arms, power lines and cable lines.
4. The Applicant has provided the city with a meaningful comparative
analysis that includes the factual reasons why the proposed location and
design deviates is the least noncompliant location and design necessary
Resolution No. 2018 -
Page 11 of 2'2
A-11
to reasonably achieve the Applicant's reasonable technical service
objectives.
The Applicant has established, and the City's RF consultant has confirmed,
that to meet its technical service objective, the proposed installation must be
installed in a residential zone. As the City is mostly zoned residential, many of
the WTF are likely to locate in residential zones. Notably, the Applicant has
provided a meaningful alternative comparative analysis and the proposed
Project is found to be the preferred design by being installed on existing
vertical infrastructure, a slim canister, and undergrounding all associated
equipment.
Section 4: Conditions regarding any of the requirements listed above which
the City Council finds to be necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare,
have been imposed in the attached Exhibit A
Section 5: The City Council hereby grants the appeal of the Planning
Commission's denial of Wireless Telecommunications Facility Permit ASG No. 53, as
revised, based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in this
resolution.
Section 6: The City Clerk shall certify to the passage, approval, and adoption
of this Resolution, and shall cause this Resolution and her certification to be entered in
the Book of Resolutions of the City Council.
Section 7: The time within which judicial review of the decision reflected in this
Resolution must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil
Procedure or other applicable short periods of limitation.
Resolution No. 2018 -
Page 12 of 22
A-12
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 15th day of February 2018.
Susan Brooks, Mayor
ATTEST:
Emily Colborn, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES )
I, Emily Colborn, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby certify that
the above Resolution No. 2018-_, was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the
said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on February 15, 2018.
CITY CLERK
Resolution No. 2018 -
Page 13 of 22
A-13
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
WTF ASG NO. 53
NORTHWEST INTERSECTION OF
MONERO DRIVE AND GRANVIA ALTAMIRA
General Conditions:
1. Prior to obtaining a permit from the Public Works Department to install the street
light pole, the Applicant and the property owner shall submit to the City a
statement, in writing, that they have read, understand, and agree to all conditions
of approval contained in this Resolution. Failure to provide said written
statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval shall render
this approval null and void.
2. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City,
and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies,
and instrumentalities thereof, from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of
mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether legal, equitable,
declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute
resolutions procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and
other such procedures) (collectively "Actions"), brought against the City, and/or
any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside,
void, or annul, the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and/or
any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City), for
or concerning the Project.
3. Prior to conducting any work in the public right of way (PROW), such as for curb
cuts, dumpsters, temporary improvements and/or permanent improvements, the
Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works.
4. Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and
appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws
and regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of
the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) shall apply.
5. The Public Works Director or Director of Community Development are authorized
to make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of
approval if such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as
would strict compliance with the approved plans and conditions. Otherwise, any
substantive change to the Project shall require approval of a revision by the final
Resolution No. 2018 -
Page 14 of 2-2
A-14
body that approved the original Project, which may require new and separate
environmental review.
6. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be
cause to revoke the approval of the Project pursuant to the RPVMC.
7. If the Applicant has not obtained approvals and/or permits from the Departments
of Public Works and/or Community Development for the approved Project or not
commenced the approved Project within one year of the final effective date of
this Resolution, approval of the Project shall expire and be of no further effect
unless, prior to expiration, a written request for extension is filed with the
Community Development Department and approved by the Director of
Community Development.
8. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations
and/or requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter
standard shall apply.
9. The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall
be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that
material used for immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may
include, but not be limited to: the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap
metal, concrete asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or
discarded furniture, appliances or other household fixtures.
10. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM,
Monday through Friday, 9:OOAM to 5:00PM on Saturday, with no construction
activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section
17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. During demolition,
construction and/or grading operations, trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at
the Project site or in the adjoining street rights-of-way before 7AM Monday
through Friday and before 9AM on Saturday, in accordance with the permitted
hours of construction stated in this condition. When feasible to do so, the
construction contractor shall provide staging areas on-site to minimize off-site
transportation of heavy construction equipment. These areas shall be located to
maximize the distance between staging activities and neighboring properties,
subject to approval by the building official.
11. All grading, landscaping and construction activities shall exercise effective dust
control techniques, either through screening and/or watering.
12. Prior to commencement work, the Applicant shall obtain approval of a haul route
from the Director of Public Works.
Resolution No. 2018 -
Page 15 of 22
A-15
13. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly
manner, to the satisfaction of the City's Inspector. All construction waste and
debris resulting from a construction, alteration or repair of the Project shall be
removed on a daily basis by the contractor or property owner.
14. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be
completed in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by
the City (Public Works and Community Development Departments) with the
effective date of this Resolution.
15. The mock-up shall be removed within seven (7) days after all appeal periods
have been exhausted.
Project -specific Conditions:
16. This approval allows for the following:
A. Install a WTF at the northwest intersection of Monero Drive and Granvia
Altamira.
B. Install antennas encased in a canister measuring 2' tall and 14.6" in
diameter that will be mounted on a 4' mast arm, extending from an
existing 52' tall wood utility streetlight pole approximately 20.6' from the
ground level.
C. The installation of vaulted accessory mechanical equipment in the PROW,
including vents and meter boxes that shall be vaulted underground and
flush to the ground and that shall not exceed 43 square feet in total
surface area.
17. The proposed Project is subject to the following Conditions to the satisfaction of
the Director of Public Works and the Director of Community Development:
o The antenna shroud and any related exposed structures shall be painted
mission brown and maintained to match the utility light pole.
o The Applicant shall install drought tolerant landscaping near the proposed
installation to screen the equipment.
o The Applicant shall replace the tree that is to be removed to accommodate
the vaulted equipment with a tree in the same general location.
Resolution No. 2018 -
Page 16 of 22
A-16
o The facility shall be designed and located in such a manner as to avoid
adverse impacts on traffic safety; construction and operation of the facility
shall comport with a duly -approved traffic control plan as required.
o Colors and materials shall be subdued and non -reflective, and shall be the
same as the existing utility streetlight pole. All paint shall be professionally
applied.
o All cables and wires attached to the exterior of the wooden pole shall be
mounted flush in a conduit that is painted to match the pole.
o No cable or wires shall be visible.
o All ground -mounted facilities including mechanical equipment, or walls,
fences, landscaping or other screening methods shall be installed at least
18 inches from the curb and gutter flow line.
o All accessory equipment shall be located underground including meter
boxes and cabinets.
o The facility shall be installed so as to maintain and enhance existing
landscaping on the site, including trees, foliage and shrubs. Additional
landscaping shall be planted, irrigated and maintained by Applicant where
such landscaping is feasible and deemed necessary by the City to provide
screening or to conceal the facility.
o The facility shall not bear any signs or advertising devices other than
certification, warning or other signage required by law or permitted by the
City.
o The facility shall not be illuminated except for the existing streetlight
luminaire. All other illumination shall be restricted pursuant to RPVMC
§ 12.18.080(A)(15).
o Noise:
■ Backup generators shall only be operated during periods of power
outages, and shall not be tested on weekends or holidays, or
between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
■ At no time shall equipment noise from any facility exceed an
exterior noise level of 55 dBA three feet from the source of the
noise if the facility is located in the public right-of-way adjacent to a
business, commercial, manufacturing, utility or school zone;
provided, however, that for any such facility located within 500 feet
Resolution No. 2018 -
Page 17 of 2-2
A-17
of any property zoned residential or improved with a residential use,
such equipment noise shall not exceed 45 dBA three feet from the
sources of the noise. The foregoing noise level limitations shall
govern facilities subject to RPVMC Chapter 12.18.080(A)(16) until
such time that a specific noise regulation ordinance is adopted and
effective in this code, at which time such noise ordinance shall
govern.
o The facility shall be designed to be resistant to, and minimize opportunities
for, unauthorized access, climbing, vandalism, graffiti and other conditions
that would result in hazardous situations, visual blight or attractive
nuisances. The Public Works Director may require the provision of
warning signs, fencing, anti -climbing devices, or other techniques to
prevent unauthorized access and vandalism when, because of their
location and/or accessibility, a facility has the potential to become an
attractive nuisance. Additionally, no lethal devices or elements shall be
installed as a security device.
o Consistent with current state and federal laws and if permissible under the
same, at the time of modification of the facility, existing equipment shall, to
the extent feasible, be replaced with equipment that reduces visual, noise
and other impacts, including, but not limited to, undergrounding the
equipment and replacing larger, more visually intrusive facilities with
smaller, less visually intrusive facilities.
o The installation and construction of the facility shall begin within one year
after its approval or it will expire without further action by the City.
17. All wireless telecommunications facilities shall comply at all times with the
following operation and maintenance standards:
o Unless otherwise provided herein, all necessary repairs and restoration
shall be completed by the permittee, owner, operator or any designated
maintenance agent within 48 hours:
■ After discovery of the need by the permittee, owner, operator or any
designated maintenance agent; or
■ After permittee, owner, operator or any designated maintenance
agent receives notification from the City.
18. Each permittee of a wireless telecommunications facility shall provide the Public
Works Director with the name, address and 24-hour local or toll free contact
phone number of the permittee, the owner, the operator and the agent
Resolution No. 2018 -
Page 18 of 22
responsible for the maintenance of the facility ("contact information"). Contact
information shall be updated within seven days of any change.
19. Prior to any construction activities, the permittee shall submit a security
instrument (bond or letter of credit as approved by the City Attorney) in an
amount determined by the City to be sufficient to cover all potential costs
(including removal costs) listed herein or in the RPVMC.
20. Prior to permit issuance, the permittee shall provide additional information to
establish that the proposed accessory equipment is designed to be the smallest
equipment technologically feasible. The City may consider equipment installed or
proposed to be installed in other jurisdictions.
21. All facilities, including, but not limited to, telecommunication towers, poles,
accessory equipment, lighting, fences, walls, shields, cabinets, artificial foliage or
camouflage, and the facility site shall be maintained in good condition, including
ensuring the facilities are reasonably free of:
a. General dirt and grease;
b. Chipped, faded, peeling, and cracked paint;
C. Rust and corrosion;
d. Cracks, dents, and discoloration;
e. Missing, discolored or damaged artificial foliage or other camouflage;
f. Graffiti, bills, stickers, advertisements, litter and debris;
g. Broken and misshapen structural parts; and
h. Any damage from any cause.
22. Applicant shall install, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director or Director
of Community Development, landscaping near the proposed installation of the
vaulted accessory equipment to screen the vaulted equipment consistent with
existing landscaping prior to final inspection.
23. All trees, foliage or other landscaping elements approved as part of the facility
shall be maintained in good condition at all times, and the permittee, owner and
operator of the facility shall be responsible for replacing any damaged, dead or
Resolution No. 2018 -
Page 19 of 22
A-19
decayed landscaping. No amendment to any approved landscaping plan may be
made until it is submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director or the
Director of Community Development.
24. The permittee shall replace its facilities, after obtaining all required permits, if
maintenance or repair is not sufficient to return the facility to the condition it was
in at the time of installation.
25. Each facility shall be operated and maintained to comply with all conditions of
approval. Each owner or operator of a facility shall routinely inspect each site to
ensure compliance with the same and the standards set forth in the RPVMC.
26. No person shall install, use or maintain any facility which in whole or in part rests
upon, in or over any public right-of-way, when such installation, use or
maintenance endangers or is reasonably likely to endanger the safety of persons
or property, or when such site or location is used for public utility purposes, public
transportation purposes or other governmental use, or when such facility
unreasonably interferes with or unreasonably impedes the flow of pedestrian or
vehicular traffic including any legally parked or stopped vehicle, the ingress into
or egress from any residence or place of business, the use of poles, posts, traffic
signs or signals, hydrants, mailboxes, permitted sidewalk dining, permitted street
furniture or other objects permitted at or near said location.
27. Unless California Government Code Section 65964, as may be amended,
authorizes the city to issue a permit with a shorter term, a permit for any wireless
telecommunications facility shall be valid for a period of ten years, unless
pursuant to another provision of the RPVMC or these Conditions of Approval, it
lapses sooner or is revoked. At the end of ten years from the date of issuance,
such permit shall automatically expire.
28. A permittee may apply for a new permit within 180 days prior to expiration. Said
application and proposal shall comply with the City's current Code requirements
for WTF's.
29. A WTF is considered abandoned and shall be promptly removed as provided
herein if it ceases to provide wireless telecommunications services for 90 or more
consecutive days unless the permittee has obtained prior written approval from
the Director of Public Works, which shall not be unreasonably denied.
30. The operator of a facility shall notify the City in writing of its intent to abandon or
cease use of a permitted site or a nonconforming site (including unpermitted
sites) within ten days of ceasing or abandoning use. Notwithstanding any other
Resolution No. 2018 -
Page 20 of 2-2
A-20
provision herein, the operator of the facility shall provide written notice to the
Director of Public Works any discontinuation of operations of 30 days or more.
31. Failure to inform the Director of Public Works of cessation or discontinuation of
operations of any existing facility as required by this section shall constitute a
violation of any approvals and be grounds for:
a. Litigation;
b. Revocation or modification of the permit;
C. Acting on any bond or other assurance required by the RPVMC or
Conditions of Approval of the permit;
d. Removal of the facilities by the City in accordance with the procedures
established under the RPVMC for abatement of a public nuisance at the
owner's or permitee's expense, and/or
e. Any other remedies permitted by law.
32. Upon the expiration date of the permit, including any extensions, earlier
termination or revocation of the permit or abandonment of the facility, the
permittee, owner or operator shall remove its WTF and restore the site to its
natural condition except for retaining the landscaping improvements and any
other improvements at the discretion of the City. Removal shall be in accordance
with proper health and safety requirements and all ordinances, rules, and
regulations of the City. The facility shall be removed from the property, at no cost
or expense to the City.
33. Failure of the permittee, owner or operator to promptly remove its facility and
restore the property within 90 days after expiration, earlier termination or
revocation of the permit, or abandonment of the facility, shall be a violation of
these Conditions of Approval. Upon a showing of good cause, an extension may
be granted by the Public Works Director where circumstances are beyond the
control of the permittee after expiration. Further failure to abide by the timeline
provided in this section shall be grounds for:
a. Prosecution;
b. Acting on any security instrument required by the RPVMC or these
Conditions of Approval;
Resolution No. 2018 -
Page 21 of 2-2
A-21
C. Removal of the facilities by the City in accordance with the procedures
established under the RPVMC for abatement of a public nuisance at the
owner's or permitee's expense, and/or
d. Any other remedies permitted by law.
34. In the event the Public Works Director or City Engineer determines that the
condition or placement of a WTF located in the public right-of-way constitutes a
dangerous condition, obstruction of the public right-of-way, or an imminent threat
to public safety, or determines other exigent circumstances require immediate
corrective action (collectively, "exigent circumstances"), the Director or City
Engineer may cause the facility to be removed summarily and immediately
without advance notice or a hearing. Written notice of the removal shall include
the basis for the removal and shall be served upon the permittee and person who
owns the facility within five business days of removal and all property removed
shall be preserved for the owner's pick-up as feasible. If the owner cannot be
identified following reasonable effort or if the owner fails to pick-up the property
within 60 days, the facility shall be treated as abandoned property.
35. In the event the City removes a facility in accordance with nuisance abatement
procedures or summary removal, any such removal shall be without any liability
to the City for any damage to such facility that may result from reasonable efforts
of removal. In addition to the procedures for recovering costs of nuisance
abatement, the City may collect such costs from the performance bond or
security instrument posted and to the extent such costs exceed the amount of the
security instrument, collect those excess costs in accordance with the RPVMC.
Unless otherwise provided herein, the City has no obligation to store such facility.
Neither the permittee, owner nor operator shall have any claim if the city destroys
any such facility not timely removed by the permitee, owner or operator after
notice, or removed by the City due to exigent circumstances.
36. Consistent with current state and federal laws and if permissible under the same,
at the time of modification of a WTF, existing equipment shall, to the extent
feasible, be replaced with equipment that reduces visual, noise and other
impacts, including, but not limited to, undergrounding any equipment installed
above ground and replacing larger, more visually intrusive facilities with smaller,
less visually intrusive facilities.
Resolution No. 2018 -
Page 22 of 2-2
A-22
IN10100D
NEWMEYER DILLION LLP
ATTORN%YS AT LAW'
MICHAEL W. SHONAFELT
Michael.Shonafelt@ndif.com
Novmber _. 2017
VIA EMAIL - brian.campbellgrpvca.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.
2464.130
Re: Crown Castle: Appeal of Wireless Telecommunications Facility ASG53
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 ASG53 within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("City")
public right-of-way ("ROW") at the northwest intersection of Monero Drive and Granvia
Altamira ("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 two 24 -inch panel antennas mounted on
a four -foot mast arm, extending from the existing 52 foot -tall wood utility streetlight pole. (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.; see also
Staff Report: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission (Sept. 12, 2017) ("Staff
Report") at pp. 2-3.) The location of the Project is on busy collector street that is already heavily
impacted with existing utilities. A photo of the existing site is presented here:
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 925 988 3200 T 949 854 7000 T 70.2 777 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
B. Second Proposed Design.
After conferring with the City's Planning Department Staff ("Staff') concerning less
intrusive design alternatives, Crown Castle revised the Project to encase the panel antennas in a
two -foot -tall canister shroud that would be mounted on a four -foot mast arm, extending from the
existing 52 -foot tall wood utility street light pole. The bottom of the antennas/canister would be
approximately 20 feet, six inches from the ground. Additionally, Crown Castle agreed to place
the related mechanical equipment, including the radio and auxiliary equipment, in underground
vaults. The Project would feature a total of three vaults that would cover 43 square feet of
surface area as shown on the site plan and in the photo simulation below. All vents and meter
boxes would be vaulted and flush with the ground. (See Second Proposed Design Photo -
simulation, Exhibit B; see also Staff Report at pp. 3-4.) An excerpted photo -simulation of the
Second Proposed Design is presented here:
Brian Campbell, Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Novmber _. 2017
Page 3
After conducting a view impact analysis, the Staff concluded that the Second Proposed
Design would not result in individual or cumulative view impacts. (Staff Report at p. 6.) Staff
noted that:
There are no designated City view corridors in the area, as defined
in the City's General Plan. Monera Drive is classified as a local
street while Granvia Altamira is designated as a non -local,
collector street within the Circulation Element of the General Plan.
By locating on an existing utility streetlight pole, the Project
minimizes significant view impacts from surrounding areas. The
height of the existing pole will not increase, nor would the
installation of the two 2' panel antennas encased in a 2' tall
canister shroud significantly impair any existing views. An
existing 6 -foot tall privacy, masonry wall adjacent to the Project
and mature foliage on all four corners of the intersection of
Moreno Drive and Granvia Altamira provides screening from
visual impacts to surrounding properties. Furthermore based on a
view analysis conducted on August 3, 2017, it was determined that
the proposed wireless telecommunications facility does not create a
significant view impairment from a residential viewing area, as
defined in Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code ... .
(Staff Report at p. 6.)
Crown Castle examined three alternative locations. (Id. at pp. 11-12.) Staff determined
that the proposed location was the preferred location and that the Project was the "least intrusive
means" of filling the existing gap in service at that site. (Id. at pp. 12, 15.)
The Planning Commission nevertheless denied the Project. Their reasons were based
largely on disagreements with Crown Castle's demonstration of significant gap -- despite the fact
that the City's own RF experts, CTC Technology & Energy ("CTC") concurred with Crown
Castle's demonstration and conclusion that service levels are deficient at the Project Site. (Staff
Report at pp. 13-14.) As one commissioner conceded, however, the planning commissioners
were acting as "armchair RF experts." In short, the planning commissioners were acting outside
their circumscribed planning role and attempting to design Crown Castle's RF network. (See
http://rpv.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view id=5&clip id=2893.) The planning
commissioners also voiced objections about the Project providing service to residents of the
adjoining City, Palos Verdes Estates. The commissioners voting against the Project provided no
direction on what design or location alternatives might be considered less intrusive. Crow 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 Proposed Design.
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
Brian Campbell, Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Novmber . 2017
Page 4
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. 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. 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 B.)
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. Utii. Code, §§
1001, 7901; 7901.1; see Williams Communication v. City of Riverside (2003) 114 Cal.AppAth
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
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.
Brian Campbell, Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Novmber . 2017
Page 5
(Williams Communications v. City of Riverside, supra, 114 Cal.AppAth at p. 648 quoting
County of L. A. v. Southern Cal. Tel. Co. (1948) 32 Cal.2d 378, 384 [196 P.2d 773].) i
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 ofSan 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
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.
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 6
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:
(1) State and local governments may not unreasonably discriminate among providers
of functionally equivalent services (§ 332 (c)(7)(B)(i)(1)).
(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)(B)(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
Brian Campbell, Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Novmber _. 2017
Page 7
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)(B)(i)(Il) 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)(B)(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.
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 quality services for American telecommunications
consumers," and "encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies."
Brian Campbell, Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Novmber . 2017
Page 8
(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
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
Brian Campbell, Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Novmber . 2017
Page 9
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
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 --
2 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Directorate for Science, Technology, and
Industry, "Broadband Statistics," (June 2010): <www.oecd.org/sti/ict/broadband>.
s U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for
Health Statistics (Released 05/2017); https://www.cde.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyreIease/w ire 1ess201705.pdf.
' Federal Communications Commission (2012) http://www.fcc.gov/guides/wireless-911-services.
s Executive Office of the President Council of Economic Advisors (White House, Feb. 2012) at 2-6.
https://www.ctia.org/industry-data/wireless-quick-facts.
' http://digitalconqurer.com/news/cisco-mobile-visual-networking-index-vni-forecasts-seven-fold-increase-global-
mobile-data-traffic-2016-21 /
a See CTIA Annual Survey Report (http://www.ctia.org/industry-data/ctia-annual-wireless-industry-survey)
S
Brian Campbell, Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Novmber _. 2017
Page 10
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 that
"76 percent of consumers are using cellular phones to make calls to 911 while 21 percent are
using wireline phones."9 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 ASG53-Proposed
Primary and Alternate Node Analysis, attached as Exhibit C.) Exhibit C identifies levels of
service in terms of the following criteria:
RSRP
_ -65 to 0
-75 to -F5
-85 to -75
_ -95 to -85
_ -105 to -95
_ -120 to -105
Locations
`Aable
Failed
Coverage Objective
(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.
e See https://www.911.gov/pdf/National-911-Program-2015-ProfileDatabaseProgressReport-021716.pdf
Brian Campbell, Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Novmber .2017
Page 11
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 C reveals existing RF coverage at the project site.
r �,1. 001
t•wrR�•• y� �L.
J
- riff_ -
scar
I�wr.erw• �•M71�r�js�}�t�la..».r...r. • jl�+••�-
I
IMB.G35�:rn ter i •� � i s a
I ..•s.mre� .S 1 turL`►i6fAY •Saul&IS
■
L— — — —
.. `'(� ,SSSS•....., i �.'`+�3 � ;: I �' - I
This slide depicts multiple "polygons" (in purple) that represent the RF coverage areas of
the Project (center) and the coverage areas of surrounding nodes. This slide reveals the
importance of the Project as a "hand-off' node that links to the other proposed and existing
nodes and their respective RF polygons to provide for an integrated network in the area. This
slide reveals some areas of -75 to -85 dBm (light green and yellow) to the south that emanates
from an existing roof -mounted AT&T site to the south at the northeast corner of Granvia
Altamira and Hawthorne Boulevard. The slide also reveals that that the existing coverage at the
Project site varies from -95 to -120 dBm at 1900 MHz. 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
B-11
Brian Campbell, Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Novmber _. 2017
Page 12
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, CTC Technology & Energy
("CTC"). 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.
If the Project is approved and allowed put on -air, however, coverage and capacity
problems will be addressed, as can be seen in Exhibit C, Slide 5, which is excerpted here:
ar
1 r ;; f4
s �+— I i
�■. _._ is �9s��bfrF4°s.-t^ .scs° aro
Ohl
4 ®o •
y � t� r •
! y •ods•' s� '+� '}�rps'';' ' 1
g�
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 C refute that contention. Nor has this data been seriously
controverted by any competent evidence or alternative data. Indeed, the City's own RF expert
concurred with the conclusion of Crown Castle's RF engineers that a 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
B-12
Brian Campbell, Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Novmber . 2017
Page 13
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. 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 C,
Slide 3.) Crown Castle's RF engineers examined alternative locations in the immediate Project
area, as depicted in Slide 3 of Exhibit C and as excerpted here:
B-13
+� t{
A"
.e r. - �.�: / �� . {gSG'S3 C • �w•' ''.r' �- + arl; , \ f aR 4
t i
` _ flit
Brian Campbell, Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Novmber . 2017
Page 15
As the Staff observed, the proposed site is the least intrusive for a number of reasons,
including the following: (1) it utilizes an existing utility streetlight pole thereby obviating the
need for a new pole in the ROW; (2) it minimizes significant view impacts from surrounding
areas by utilizing an existing six-foot tall privacy, masonry wall adjacent to the Project; and (3) it
benefits from mature foliage on all four corners of the intersection of Moreno Drive and Granvia
Altamira, which provides screening from visual impacts to surrounding properties. (Staff Report
at p. 6.) The Staff concluded, "[fJurthermore based on a view analysis conducted on August 3,
2017, it was determined that the proposed wireless telecommunications facility does not create a
significant view impairment from a residential viewing area, as defined in Rancho Palos Verdes
Development Code ...." (Ibid.) 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.
B-15
Brian Campbell, Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Novmber _. 2017
Page 16
(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 located on a busy
collector street that is already impacted by existing utilities and the site is shielded by existing
mature foliage and a masonry wall. The Staff confirmed that the location was the least intrusive
of all the other potentially feasible locations. The facility, as revised, will utilize an existing
utility pole and thereby eliminate the need for a new pole in the ROW.
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
7249386.1
Ins
P. C. RESOLUTION NO. 2018-05
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY
COUNCIL THE APPROVAL, WITH CONDITIONS, OF MAJOR
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY PERMIT ASG NO.
53 TO ALLOW THE INSTALLATION OF ANTENNAS ENCASED IN
A CANISTER MEASURING 2' TALL AND 14.6" IN DIAMETER
MOUNTED ON A 4' MAST ARM EXTENDING FROM AN EXISTING
52' TALL WOOD UTILITY STREETLIGHT POLE WITH
UNDERGROUND VAULTED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT (OPTION
NO. 1) AT THE NORTHWEST INTERSECTION OF MONTERO
DRIVE AND GRANVIA ALTAMIRA
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. 53
("Project") at the northwest intersection of Montero Drive and Granvia Altamira;
WHEREAS, the Project called for the installation of two panel antennas, encased
in a canister measuring 2' tall and 2' in diameter mounted on a 4' mast arm, extending
from an existing 52' tall wood utility streetlight pole, approximately 20.6' from the ground
with accessory equipment to be vaulted underground in the PROW;
WHEREAS, because the Project's location is within a residential zone and within
the PROW of local streets as identified in the General Plan, approval of a WTFP also
requires an exception under Section 12.18.190 of the Municipal Code;
WHEREAS, the Project is exempt from review under the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQK) because the Project constitutes a small scale
installation of new a new facility (14 CCR § 15303(d));
WHEREAS, on September 12, 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. 53, on a vote of 5-1
55478.00001 \30324931.2
Resolution No. 2018-05
Page 1 of 21
C-1
with Commissioner Nelson dissenting (Commissioner Leon was absent);
WHEREAS, on September 20, 2017, a timely appeal of the denial was filed by
the Applicant for an appeal to the City Council;
WHEREAS, on November 15, 2017, a public notice of the appeal was mailed to
property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the subject site and published in the Daily
Breeze, pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code. A
courtesy public notice was published in the Peninsula News on November 23, 2017;
and a notification was sent to list -serve subscribers;
WHEREAS, on November 30, 2017, the City Council held a duly noticed public
hearing on the appeal, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to
be heard and present evidence;
WHEREAS, on November 30, 2017, the City Council voted to refer the Project
back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration while maintaining its jurisdiction in
order to allow the Planning Commission the opportunity to weigh in on the design
options presented to the City Council, to reevaluate the gap coverage analysis to
determine whether the proposed facility is still warranted in light of another site, ASG
No. 05 in Palos Verdes Estates, which is now live, and to assess whether the wireless
facility can be located on an existing utility pole half a block from the subject site within
the city limits of Palos Verdes Estates;
WHEREAS, on January 11, 2018, a public notice was mailed to property owners
within a 500 -foot radius of the subject site and published in the Peninsula News,
announcing that a public hearing on the proposed facility is scheduled to occur on
Tuesday, January 30, 2018.
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 northwest intersection of Montero Drive and Granvia
Altamira,
B. The installation of antennas encased in a canister measuring 2' tall and 14.6" in
diameter mounted on a 4' mast arm extending from an existing 52' tall wood
utility streetlight pole approximately 20.6' from the ground,
C. Install vaulted underground mechanical equipment in the PROW.
P.C. Resolution No. 2018-05
Page 2 of 21
C-2
Section 2: Approval of a WTFP is warranted because the Project meets the
findings required by Section 12.18.090 of the Municipal Code:
A. All notices required for the proposed installation have been given.
On January 11, 2018, a new public notice was published in the Peninsula News
announcing that a public hearing on the proposed facility is scheduled to occur on
Tuesday, January 30, 2018. In addition, on January 11, 2018, a public notice was
mailed to property owners within a 500' radius of the subject site announcing the
public hearing and inviting public comments on the proposed facility. The notice
mentioned that the hearing is a result of the City Council referring the application
back to the Commission for review with a new recommendation for the City
Council's consideration at a future duly noticed public hearing.
B. The proposed facility has been designed and located in compliance with all
applicable provisions of this chapter.
12.18.080(A)(1)(a): The Applicant shall employ screening, undergrounding and
camouflage design techniques in the design and placement of wireless
telecommunications facilities in order to ensure that the facility is as visually
screened as possible, to prevent the facility from dominating the surrounding area
and to minimize significant view impacts from surrounding properties all in a
manner that achieves compatibility with the community and in compliance with
Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration) of this code.
The WTF is proposed to be installed on an existing 52' tall utility streetlight pole,
with mast arm and luminaire and two service arms that carry power lines along
with cable lines. The antennas will be encased in a 2' tall canister, measuring 14.6"
in diameter, minimizing its visual intrusion to the environment. The canister shroud
will blend into the environment that consists of utility light poles, power lines,
cable lines, mast arms and luminaries along Granvia Altamira. The canister and
mast arm will be the same color as the existing utility pole. The area also has
existing foliage that screen views of the proposed installation from residences.
The WTF will not dominate the surrounding area because of the existing vertical
infrastructure and limited size of the proposed canister. The proposal places all of
the related mechanical equipment underground in a vault.
The proposed installation will not have any significant view impairment to
surrounding properties pursuant to Chapter 17.02.040 of the RPVMC because the
P.C. Resolution No. 2018-05
Page 3 of 21
C-3
proposed WTF is not located in a view corridor identified in the City's General
Plan or Coastal Specific Plan.
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 panel antennas are proposed to be installed on an existing 52' tall utility
street light pole, with mast arm and luminaire and two service arms that carry
power lines along with cable lines. The canister shroud encasing the panel
antennas will be painted brown to match other utility poles in the area and the
existing condition and improvements on the utility pole. The cylinder shaped
shroud encasing the two antenna panels and wires affixed to the utility streetlight
pole is an appropriate technique that disguises and blends the facility into the
environment (blending with the replacement pole and other poles in the area).
According to the Applicant, the proposed canister is the slimmest design
available, as such, it minimizes the facility's visual impacts and is more
compatible with the surrounding environment in terms of size, proportion and
color.
12.18.080(A)(1)(c): Facilities shall be located such that views from a residential
structure are not significantly impaired. Facilities shall also be located in a manner
that protects public views over city view corridors, as defined in the city's general
plan, so that no significant view impairment results in accordance with this code
including Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration). This provision
shall be applied consistent with local, state and federal law.
The Project does not result in a significant view impairment to surrounding
residences. The proposed WTF is not located in a view corridor identified in the
City's General Plan or Coastal Specific Plan.
12.18.080(A)(3): Traffic Safety. All facilities shall be designed and located in such
a manner as to avoid adverse impacts to traffic safety.
The Project is designed to avoid adverse traffic impacts by affixing the panel
antennas within the canister shroud to an existing wood utility streetlight pole with
the bottom of the antenna canister shroud measuring approximately 20'-6" from the
ground. The related mechanical equipment will be vaulted underground avoiding
P.C. Resolution No. 2018-05
Page 4of21
C-4
traffic safety impacts, including avoiding any impacts to the intersection visibility
triangle at the intersection of Monero Drive and Granvia Altamira.
12.18.080(A)(4): Blending Methods. All facilities shall have subdued colors and
non -reflective materials that blend with the materials and colors of the surrounding
area and structures.
The canister shroud that will house the panel antennas and the associated mast
arm will be painted with non -reflective mission brown paint that will match and
blend with the existing utility street light pole.
12.18.080(A)(5): Equipment. The Applicant shall use the least visible equipment
possible. Antenna elements shall be flush mounted, to the extent feasible. All
antenna mounts shall be designed so as not to preclude possible future
collocation by the same or other operators or carriers. Unless otherwise provided
in this section, antennas shall be situated as close to the ground as possible.
The Project is proposed to be installed on a mast arm attached to an existing 52'
tall utility streetlight pole, with a luminaire and two service arms that carry power
lines along with cable lines. The antennas would be mounted back-to-back and
encased in a 2' tall and 14.6" in diameter canister shroud on a 4' mast arm,
extending from the existing wood utility streetlight pole. The bottom of the
antennas/canister would measure approximately 20'-6" above the ground level
below. Locating the antennas on the mast arm will not preclude possible future
collocation by other operators or carriers.
12.18.080(A)(6)(a): Facilities shall be located consistent with Section 12.18.200
(Location Restrictions) unless an exception pursuant to Section 12.18.190
(Exceptions) is granted.
The proposed location is within the PROW of local residential streets as identified
in the City's General Plan and the City Council finds that an Exception shall be
made as detailed in Section 3 of this Resolution.
12.18.080(A)(6)(b): Only pole -mounted antennas shall be permitted in the right-of-
way. All other telecommunications towers are prohibited, and no new poles are
permitted that are not replacing an existing pole. (For exceptions see
subparagraph (6)(h) below and sections 12.18.190 (Exceptions) and 12.18.220
(State or Federal Law).) Sections 12.18.080(6)(c) through (f) are not applicable.
P.C. Resolution No. 2018-05
Page 5 of 21
C-5
The proposed WTF will be located in the PROW and will be pole mounted to an
existing utility streetlight pole.
12.18.080(A)(6)(c): Utility Poles. The maximum height of any antenna shall not
exceed 48 inches above the height of an existing utility pole, nor shall any portion
of the antenna or equipment mounted on a pole be less than 24 feet above any
drivable road surface.
The proposed antennas will not exceed 48" above the existing height of the light
pole. The antennas are proposed below the maximum height of the 52' tall utility
light pole approximately 20'-6" above the ground level to the bottom of the
canister shroud housing the panel antennas. The proposed antenna and canister
shroud will not be above the drivable road surface.
12.18.080(A)(6)(d): Light Poles. The maximum height of any antenna shall not
exceed four feet above the existing height of a light pole. Any portion of the
antenna or equipment mounted on a pole shall be no less than 96% feet above
any drivable road surface.
No portion of the antenna or equipment is less than 16Y2 above the drivable road
surface and does not exceed 4' above the existing height of the pole.
12.18.080(A)(6)(e): Replacement Poles. If an Applicant proposes to replace a
pole in order to accommodate a proposed facility, the pole shall be designed to
resemble the appearance and dimensions of existing poles near the proposed
location, including size, height, color, materials and style to the maximum extent
feasible.
The Project will be affixed to an existing wood streetlight utility pole, and the
existing pole will not be replaced.
12.18.080(A)(6)(fl: Pole mounted equipment, exclusive of antennas, shall not
exceed six cubic feet in dimension.
The pole mounted equipment, excluding antennas, would be limited to cable
connecting the node to power and fiber optic backbone, connectors, brackets, and
GPS. The pole mounted equipment, excluding antennas, would therefore not
exceed six cubic feet in dimension. Furthermore, the related mechanical
equipment will be vaulted underground.
P.C. Resolution No. 2018-05
Page 6 of 21
C-6
12.18,080(A)(6)(i): All cables, including, but not limited to, electrical and utility
cables, shall be run within the interior of the pole and shall be camouflaged or
hidden to the fullest extent feasible.
Interior installation is infeasible as the WTF will utilize an existing wooden pole. All
cables and wires shall be installed within conduit, clipped, and, flush mounted and
painted mission brown to match the pole.
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 WTF will be mounted to an existing wood utility street light pole. The
placement of the antennas on the pole connected to a 4' arm will occupy limited
air space above the right-of-way. The mechanical equipment will be
undergrounded and the vault necessary to house the equipment measures
approximately 43 square feet in area. This space is the least amount of space that
is technically feasible for vaulted equipment owned by AT&T. The space that will
be occupied is below the surface with minimum exhaust vents that will be flush to
the surrounding ground.
12.18.080(A)(8): Wind Loads. Each facility shall be properly engineered to
withstand wind loads as required by this code or any duly adopted or incorporated
code. An evaluation of high wind load capacity shall include the impact of
modification of an existing facility.
Based on the information submitted by the Applicant, the Planning Commission
finds that the proposed installation complies with all building codes related to wind
loads.
12.18.080(A)(9): Obstructions. Each component part of a facility shall be located
so as not to cause any physical or visual obstruction to pedestrian or vehicular
traffic, incommode the public's use of the right-of-way, or safety hazards to
pedestrians and motorists and in compliance with Section 17.48.070 (Intersection
Visibility) so as not to obstruct the intersection visibility triangle.
The Project design, height and size, including the undergrounding of the
mechanical equipment, will not cause an obstruction to the public's use of the
PROW, does not constitute a safety hazard and/or does not interfere with the
City -defined intersection visibility triangle because the bottom of the proposed
antennas will be located 20.5' above the ground level, not over the drivable
P.C. Resolution No. 2018-05
Page 7 of 21
C-7
portion of the street, and the related mechanical equipment will be
undergrounded.
12.18.080(A)(10): Public Facilities. A facility shall not be located within any
portion of the public right-of-way interfering with access to a fire hydrant, fire
station, fire escape, water valve, underground vault, valve housing structure, or
any other public health or safety facility.
The proposed installation, including the undergrounding of the mechanical
equipment, will not interfere with fire hydrants, fire stations, water lines or any
other public health or safety facilities. Furthermore, part of the plan check review
process and site inspections, Public Works staff will ensure that the Project will not
interfere with any of the stated utilities.
12.18.080(A)(13) Landscaping. Where appropriate, each facility shall be installed
so as to maintain and enhance existing landscaping on the site, including trees,
foliage and shrubs. Additional landscaping shall be planted, irrigated and
maintained by applicant where such landscaping is deemed necessary by the city
to provide screening or to conceal the facility.
This portion of Granvia Altamira is characterized by a line of 52' tall utility
streetlight poles strung along the west side of the road. The placement of a vault
would require the removal of one of the saplings along the west side of Granvia
Altamira. As a Condition of Approval, the Applicant must replace the tree at a
location to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development.
Additionally, the Applicant will be required as a Condition of Approval to provide
landscaping around the vault within the parkway to minimize its visual appearance
from pedestrians and motorists.
C. If applicable, the Applicant has demonstrated its inability to locate on
existing infrastructure.
Not applicable. The antennas will be located on an existing utility light pole and
the related mechanical equipment will be undergrounded.
D. The Applicant has provided sufficient evidence supporting the Applicant's
claim that it has the right to enter the public right-of-way pursuant to state
or federal law, or the Applicant has entered into a franchise agreement with
the city permitting them to use the public right-of-way.
P.C. Resolution No. 2018-05
Page 8of21
M•
The Applicant has submitted to the City a Right of Way Use Agreement (RUA)
entered into with the City in 2011, which allows the Applicant to install wireless
antennas in the PROW. Further, the Applicant has submitted a Certificate of
Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) issued by the California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC) which provides that the Applicant has been
authorized to install wireless telecommunications infrastructure in the PROW.
E. The Applicant has demonstrated the proposed installation is designed such
that the proposed installation represents the least intrusive means possible
and supported by factual evidence and a meaningful comparative analysis
to show that all alternative locations and designs identified in the
application review process were technically infeasible or not available.
Alternative locations were identified in the application review process. The revised
design, which includes the installation of antennas encased in a 2' tall and 14.6"
in diameter canister shroud mounted on a 4' mast arm, extending from the existing
52' tall wood utility streetlight pole with the bottom of the antennas/canister
measuring 20'-6" from the ground is the least intrusive means of those
alternatives. There are alternative antennas available but, according to the
Applicant, and as confirmed by the City's RF Consultant, would require a greater
number of facilities throughout the community to provide equal coverage and
capacity. This may require the introduction of new pole structures where there are
no streetlights or utility poles and would likely require associated accessory
equipment at every location. The supporting mechanical equipment would be
vaulted underground resulting in meeting the objective of installing the least
intrusive facility.
Other locations and designs, considered as part of the application process for
purposes of filling the coverage gap claimed by the Applicant, were found to be
more intrusive then the proposed Project for the reasons stated under Finding No.
3 of Section 12.18.190(B) of the Municipal Code, below.
An updated gap coverage analysis demonstrates the continued need to install ASG
No. 53 in order to achieve the coverage objective which was confirmed by the City's
RF Consultant.
Section 3: Because the Project's location is within a residential zone and
within the PROW of local streets as identified in the General Plan, approval of a WTFP
also requires an exception under Section 12.18.190 of the Municipal Code. The Project
meets the findings for an exception as required by Section 12.18.190(B) of the
Municipal Code:
P.C. Resolution No. 2018-05
Page 9 of 21
C-9
1. The proposed wireless facility qualifies as a "personal wireless services
facility" as defined in United States Code, Title 47, section
332(c)(7)(C)(ii).
The WTF meets the definition of "personal wireless services facility" as
defined by the United States Code.
2. The Applicant has provided the city with a clearly defined technical
service objective and a clearly defined potential site search area.
The "technical service objective" identified by the Applicant in all application
documents is the coverage of a "significant gap" in service in the general area
of the intersection of Monero Drive and Granvia Altamira. This application
information was provided to the City's RF Consultant who reviewed the
information, as well as conducted both on-site walkout of the area and a
computerized terrain study to determine the proposed site will address a
coverage gap as identified in the application. Based on the terrain profile
characteristics and the field measurement data provided by Crown Castle, the
proposal as provided will address coverage deficiencies within the target area.
The Applicant has provided engineering details related to the wireless bands
that will be used for the DAS deployment, including identifying transmitting
equipment, power levels for each band and specifics regarding the radiation
patterns of the antennas to be installed.
Crown Castle has provided engineering measurement data defining gaps in
AT&T coverage in small pocketed areas. This has been independently
examined by the City's RF consultant who determined that the signal levels are
lower than industry recommended levels to support modern 3G/4G customer
needs. The engineering design provided by Crown Castle supports that, if
constructed, DAS site ASG No. 53 will provide ample signal intensity (signal
level in excess of -95 dBm) to support AT&T's 3G/4G wireless services.
3. The Applicant has provided the City with a meaningful comparative
analysis that includes the factual reasons why any alternative location(s)
or design(s) suggested by the city or otherwise identified in the
administrative record, including but not limited to potential alternatives
identified at any public meeting or hearing, are not technically feasible
or potentially available.
The Applicant has provided comparative analysis for possible similar small cell
nodes (antennas) at the following 3 alternative locations:
P.C. Resolution No. 2018-05
Page 10 of 21
C-10
Alternative No. 1 (location B). Existing wood utility light pole with mast arm
and luminaire approximately 375 -feet south of the subject site located
across Monero Drive, on the same line of utility pole street lights that are
strung along the west side of Granvia Altamira.
Alternative No. 2 (location C). Replacement of an existing traffic stop sign
pole with a larger pole approximately 84 -feet south of the subject site.
Alternative No. 3 (location D). Diagonally across the intersection of Monero
Drive and Granvia Altamira on a replacement pole for an existing traffic
sign (stop sign) pole, approximately 140 -feet east of the subject site.
The Applicant has provided comparative analysis of these locations. All the
alternative sites meet the RF coverage objective as confirmed by the City's RF
Consultant. The alternative site analysis demonstrates that the Project is likely
the least intrusive location for the wireless telecommunications facility in the
immediate area. The proposed Project, with the canister encasing the two
panel antennas at the proposed location, is the least intrusive location for the
wireless telecommunications facility in the immediate area because the other
locations are more visible from residences as they involve either higher terrain
that's more visible to from residences or replacement stop sign pole and
replacement streetlight pole both more noticeable than the utility pole which
allows the antennas/canister to blend with the existing mast arm, luminaire
and other service arms, power lines and cable lines.
4. The Applicant has provided the city with a meaningful comparative
analysis that includes the factual reasons why the proposed location and
design deviates is the least noncompliant location and design necessary
to reasonably achieve the Applicant's reasonable technical service
objectives.
The Applicant has established, and the City's RF Consultant has confirmed,
that to meet its technical service objective, the proposed installation must be
installed in a residential zone. As the City is mostly zoned residential, many of
the WTFs are likely to be located in residential zones. The Applicant has
provided a meaningful comparative alternative site analysis and the proposed
Project is found to be the preferred design by being installed on existing
vertical infrastructure, a slim canister, and undergrounding all associated
equipment.
Section 4: Conditions regarding any of the requirements listed above which
the Planning Commission finds to be necessary to protect the health, safety and general
welfare, have been included in the attached Exhibit A
P.C. Resolution No. 2018-05
Page 11 of 21
C-11
Section 5: The Project is exempt from review under the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") because the Project constitutes a small scale
installation of new a new facility (14 CCR § 15303(d)).
Section 6: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and
findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby conditionally
recommends that the City Council approve the WTFP application and an exception for
the proposed installation at the northwest intersection of Montero Drive and Granvia
Altamira (ASG NO. 53).
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 30th day of January 2018, by
the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS BRADLEY, NELSON, TOMBLIN, LEON, AND VICE
CHAIRMAN JAMES
NOES: COMMISSIONER EMENHISER
ABSTENTIONS: NONE
RECUSALS: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
A
Community Development Director; and,
Secretary of the Planning Commission
William J. J es
Vice Chairman
P.C. Resolution No. 2018-05
Page 12 of 21
C-12
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
WTF ASG NO. 53
NORTHWEST INTERSECTION OF
MONERO DRIVE AND GRANVIA ALTAMIRA
General Conditions:
Prior to obtaining a permit from the Public Works Department to install the street
light pole, the Applicant and the property owner shall submit to the City a
statement, in writing, that they have read, understand, and agree to all conditions
of approval contained in this Resolution. Failure to provide said written
statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval shall render
this approval null and void.
2. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City,
and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies,
and instrumentalities thereof, from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of
mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether legal, equitable,
declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute
resolutions procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and
other such procedures) (collectively "Actions"), brought against the City, and/or
any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside,
void, or annul, the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and/or
any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City), for
or concerning the Project.
3. Prior to conducting any work in the public right of way (PROW), such as for curb
cuts, dumpsters, temporary improvements and/or permanent improvements, the
Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works.
4. Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and
appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws
and regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of
the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) shall apply.
5. The Public Works Director or Director of Community Development are authorized
to make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of
approval if such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as
would strict compliance with the approved plans and conditions. Otherwise, any
substantive change to the Project shall require approval of a revision by the final
P.C. Resolution No. 2018-05
Page 13 of 21
C-13
body that approved the original Project, which may require new and separate
environmental review.
6. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be
cause to revoke the approval of the Project pursuant to the RPVMC.
7. If the Applicant has not obtained approvals and/or permits from the Departments
of Public Works and/or Community Development for the approved Project or not
commenced the approved Project within one year of the final effective date of
this Resolution, approval of the Project shall expire and be of no further effect
unless, prior to expiration, a written request for extension is filed with the
Community Development Department and approved by the Director of
Community Development.
8. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations
and/or requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter
standard shall apply.
9. The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall
be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that
material used for immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may
include, but not be limited to: the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap
metal, concrete asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or
discarded furniture, appliances or other household fixtures.
10. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM,
Monday through Friday, 9:OOAM to 5:OOPM on Saturday, with no construction
activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section
17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. During demolition,
construction and/or grading operations, trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at
the Project site or in the adjoining street rights-of-way before 7AM Monday
through Friday and before 9AM on Saturday, in accordance with the permitted
hours of construction stated in this condition. When feasible to do so, the
construction contractor shall provide staging areas on-site to minimize off-site
transportation of heavy construction equipment. These areas shall be located to
maximize the distance between staging activities and neighboring properties,
subject to approval by the building official.
11. All grading, landscaping and construction activities shall exercise effective dust
control techniques, either through screening and/or watering.
12. Prior to commencement work, the Applicant shall obtain approval of a haul route,
if applicable, from the Director of Public Works.
P.C. Resolution No. 2018-05
Page 14 of 21
C-14
13. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly
manner, to the satisfaction of the City's Inspector. All construction waste and
debris resulting from a construction, alteration or repair of the Project shall be
removed on a daily basis by the contractor or property owner.
14. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be
completed in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by
the City (Public Works and Community Development Departments) with the
effective date of this Resolution.
15. The mock-up shall be removed within seven (7) days after all appeal periods
have been exhausted.
Project -specific Conditions:
16. This approval allows for the following:
A. Install a WTF at the northwest intersection of Monero Drive and Granvia
Altamira.
B. Install antennas encased in a canister measuring 2' tall and 14.6" in
diameter that will be mounted on a 4' mast arm, extending from an
existing 52' tall wood utility streetlight pole approximately 20.6' from the
ground level.
C. The installation of vaulted accessory mechanical equipment in the PROW,
including vents and meter boxes that shall be vaulted underground and
flush to the ground and that shall not exceed 43 square feet in total
surface area.
17. The proposed Project is subject to the following Conditions to the satisfaction of
the Director of Public Works and the Director of Community Development:
o The antenna shroud and any related exposed structures shall be painted
mission brown and maintained to match the utility light pole.
o The Applicant shall install drought tolerant landscaping near the proposed
installation to screen the equipment.
o The Applicant shall replace the tree that is to be removed to accommodate
the vaulted equipment with a tree in the same general location.
P.C. Resolution No. 2018-05
Page 15 of 21
C-15
o The facility shall be designed and located in such a manner as to avoid
adverse impacts on traffic safety; construction and operation of the facility
shall comport with a duly -approved traffic control plan as required.
o Colors and materials shall be subdued and non -reflective, and shall be the
same as the existing utility streetlight pole. All paint shall be professionally
applied.
o All cables and wires attached to the exterior of the wooden pole shall be
mounted flush and clipped in a conduit that is painted mission brown to
match the pole.
o No cable or wires shall be visible.
o All ground -mounted facilities including mechanical equipment, or walls,
fences, landscaping or other screening methods shall be installed at least
18 inches from the curb and gutter flow line.
o All accessory equipment shall be located underground including meter
boxes and cabinets.
o The facility shall be installed so as to maintain and enhance existing
landscaping on the site, including trees, foliage and shrubs. Additional
landscaping shall be planted, irrigated and maintained by Applicant where
such landscaping is feasible and deemed necessary by the City to provide
screening or to conceal the facility.
o The facility shall not bear any signs or advertising devices other than
certification, warning or other signage required by law or permitted by the
City.
o The facility shall not be illuminated except for the existing streetlight
luminaire. All other illumination shall be restricted pursuant to RPVMC
§ 12.18.080(A)(15).
o Noise:
Backup generators shall only be operated during periods of power
outages, and shall not be tested on weekends or holidays, or
between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
At no time shall equipment noise from any facility exceed an
exterior noise level of 55 dBA three feet from the source of the
noise if the facility is located in the public right-of-way adjacent to a
P.C. Resolution No. 2018-05
Page 16 of 21
C-16
business, commercial, manufacturing, utility or school zone;
provided, however, that for any such facility located within 500 feet
of any property zoned residential or improved with a residential use,
such equipment noise shall not exceed 45 dBA three feet from the
sources of the noise. The foregoing noise level limitations shall
govern facilities subject to RPVMC Chapter 12.18.080(A)(16) until
such time that a specific noise regulation ordinance is adopted and
effective in this code, at which time such noise ordinance shall
govern.
o The facility shall be designed to be resistant to, and minimize opportunities
for, unauthorized access, climbing, vandalism, graffiti and other conditions
that would result in hazardous situations, visual blight or attractive
nuisances. The Public Works Director may require the provision of
warning signs, fencing, anti -climbing devices, or other techniques to
prevent unauthorized access and vandalism when, because of their
location and/or accessibility, a facility has the potential to become an
attractive nuisance. Additionally, no lethal devices or elements shall be
installed as a security device.
o Consistent with current state and federal laws and if permissible under the
same, at the time of modification of the facility, existing equipment shall, to
the extent feasible, be replaced with equipment that reduces visual, noise
and other impacts, including, but not limited to, undergrounding the
equipment and replacing larger, more visually intrusive facilities with
smaller, less visually intrusive facilities.
o The installation and construction of the facility shall begin within one year
after its approval or it will expire without further action by the City.
17. All wireless telecommunications facilities shall comply at all times with the
following operation and maintenance standards:
o Unless otherwise provided herein, all necessary repairs and restoration
shall be completed by the permittee, owner, operator or any designated
maintenance agent within 48 hours:
■ After discovery of the need by the permittee, owner, operator or any
designated maintenance agent; or
After permittee, owner, operator or any designated maintenance
agent receives notification from the City.
P.C. Resolution No. 2018-05
Page 17 of 21
C-17
18. Each permittee of a wireless telecommunications facility shall provide the Public
Works Director with the name, address and 24-hour local or toll free contact
phone number of the permittee, the owner, the operator and the agent
responsible for the maintenance of the facility ("contact information"). Contact
information shall be updated within seven days of any change.
19. Prior to any construction activities, the permittee shall submit a security
instrument (bond or letter of credit as approved by the City Attorney) in an
amount determined by the City to be sufficient to cover all potential costs
(including removal costs) listed herein or in the RPVMC.
20. Prior to permit issuance, the permittee shall provide additional information to
establish that the proposed accessory equipment is designed to be the smallest
equipment technologically feasible. The City may consider equipment installed or
proposed to be installed in other jurisdictions.
21. All facilities, including, but not limited to, telecommunication towers, poles,
accessory equipment, lighting, fences, walls, shields, cabinets, artificial foliage or
camouflage, and the facility site shall be maintained in good condition, including
ensuring the facilities are reasonably free of:
a. General dirt and grease;
b. Chipped, faded, peeling, and cracked paint;
C. Rust and corrosion;
d. Cracks, dents, and discoloration;
e. Missing, discolored or damaged artificial foliage or other camouflage;
Graffiti, bills, stickers, advertisements, litter and debris;
g. Broken and misshapen structural parts; and
h. Any damage from any cause.
22. Applicant shall install, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director or Director
of Community Development, landscaping near the proposed installation of the
vaulted accessory equipment to screen the vaulted equipment consistent with
existing landscaping prior to final inspection.
P.C. Resolution No. 2018-05
Page 18 of 21
C-18
23. All trees, foliage or other landscaping elements approved as part of the facility
shall be maintained in good condition at all times, and the permittee, owner and
operator of the facility shall be responsible for replacing any damaged, dead or
decayed landscaping. No amendment to any approved landscaping plan may be
made until it is submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director or the
Director of Community Development.
24. The permittee shall replace its facilities, after obtaining all required permits, if
maintenance or repair is not sufficient to return the facility to the condition it was
in at the time of installation.
25. Each facility shall be operated and maintained to comply with all conditions of
approval. Each owner or operator of a facility shall routinely inspect each site to
ensure compliance with the same and the standards set forth in the RPVMC.
26. No person shall install, use or maintain any facility which in whole or in part rests
upon, in or over any public right-of-way, when such installation, use or
maintenance endangers or is reasonably likely to endanger the safety of persons
or property, or when such site or location is used for public utility purposes, public
transportation purposes or other governmental use, or when such facility
unreasonably interferes with or unreasonably impedes the flow of pedestrian or
vehicular traffic including any legally parked or stopped vehicle, the ingress into
or egress from any residence or place of business, the use of poles, posts, traffic
signs or signals, hydrants, mailboxes, permitted sidewalk dining, permitted street
furniture or other objects permitted at or near said location.
27. Unless California Government Code Section 65964, as may be amended,
authorizes the city to issue a permit with a shorter term, a permit for any wireless
telecommunications facility shall be valid for a period of ten years, unless
pursuant to another provision of the RPVMC or these Conditions of Approval, it
lapses sooner or is revoked. At the end of ten years from the date of issuance,
such permit shall automatically expire.
28. A permittee may apply for a new permit within 180 days prior to expiration. Said
application and proposal shall comply with the City's current Code requirements
for WTF's.
29. A WTF is considered abandoned and shall be promptly removed as provided
herein if it ceases to provide wireless telecommunications services for 90 or more
consecutive days unless the permittee has obtained prior written approval from
the Director of Public Works, which shall not be unreasonably denied.
P.C. Resolution No. 2018-05
Page 19 of 21
C-19
30. The operator of a facility shall notify the City in writing of its intent to abandon or
cease use of a permitted site or a nonconforming site (including unpermitted
sites) within ten days of ceasing or abandoning use. Notwithstanding any other
provision herein, the operator of the facility shall provide written notice to the
Director of Public Works any discontinuation of operations of 30 days or more.
31. Failure to inform the Director of Public Works of cessation or discontinuation of
operations of any existing facility as required by this section shall constitute a
violation of any approvals and be grounds for:
a. Litigation;
b. Revocation or modification of the permit;
C. Acting on any bond or other assurance required by the RPVMC or
Conditions of Approval of the permit;
d. Removal of the facilities by the City in accordance with the procedures
established under the RPVMC for abatement of a public nuisance at the
owner's or permitee's expense; and/or
e. Any other remedies permitted by law.
32. Upon the expiration date of the permit, including any extensions, earlier
termination or revocation of the permit or abandonment of the facility, the
permittee, owner or operator shall remove its WTF and restore the site to its
natural condition except for retaining the landscaping improvements and any
other improvements at the discretion of the City. Removal shall be in accordance
with proper health and safety requirements and all ordinances, rules, and
regulations of the City. The facility shall be removed from the property, at no cost
or expense to the City.
33. Failure of the permittee, owner or operator to promptly remove its facility and
restore the property within 90 days after expiration, earlier termination or
revocation of the permit, or abandonment of the facility, shall be a violation of
these Conditions of Approval. Upon a showing of good cause, an extension may
be granted by the Public Works Director where circumstances are beyond the
control of the permittee after expiration. Further failure to abide by the timeline
provided in this section shall be grounds for:
a. Prosecution;
P.C. Resolution No. 2018-05
Page 20 of 21
C-20
b. Acting on any security instrument required by the RPVMC or these
Conditions of Approval;
C. Removal of the facilities by the City in accordance with the procedures
established under the RPVMC for abatement of a public nuisance at the
owner's or permitee's expense; and/or
d. Any other remedies permitted by law.
34. In the event the Public Works Director or City Engineer determines that the
condition or placement of a WTF located in the public right-of-way constitutes a
dangerous condition, obstruction of the public right-of-way, or an imminent threat
to public safety, or determines other exigent circumstances require immediate
corrective action (collectively, "exigent circumstances"), the Director or City
Engineer may cause the facility to be removed summarily and immediately
without advance notice or a hearing. Written notice of the removal shall include
the basis for the removal and shall be served upon the permittee and person who
owns the facility within five business days of removal and all property removed
shall be preserved for the owner's pick-up as feasible. If the owner cannot be
identified following reasonable effort or if the owner fails to pick-up the property
within 60 days, the facility shall be treated as abandoned property.
35. In the event the City removes a facility in accordance with nuisance abatement
procedures or summary removal, any such removal shall be without any liability
to the City for any damage to such facility that may result from reasonable efforts
of removal. In addition to the procedures for recovering costs of nuisance
abatement, the City may collect such costs from the performance bond or
security instrument posted and to the extent such costs exceed the amount of the
security instrument, collect those excess costs in accordance with the RPVMC.
Unless otherwise provided herein, the City has no obligation to store such facility.
Neither the permittee, owner nor operator shall have any claim if the city destroys
any such facility not timely removed by the permitee, owner or operator after
notice, or removed by the City due to exigent circumstances.
36. Consistent with current state and federal laws and if permissible under the same,
at the time of modification of a WTF, existing equipment shall, to the extent
feasible, be replaced with equipment that reduces visual, noise and other
impacts, including, but not limited to, undergrounding any equipment installed
above ground and replacing larger, more visually intrusive facilities with smaller,
less visually intrusive facilities.
P.C. Resolution No. 2018-05
Page 21 of 21
C-21
CITYOF
MEMORANDUM
PALOS VERDES
TO: CHAIRMAN & MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: ARA MIHRANIAN, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN
DATE: JANUARY 30, 2018
SUBJECT: MAJOR WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY
PERMIT ASG NO. 53 / PROJECT LOCATION — NORTHWEST
INTERSECTION OF MONERO DR AND GRANVIA ALTAMIRA
(APPLICANT — CROWN CASTLE)
Project Manager: Art Bashmakian, Contract Planner
RECOMMENDATION
Review the Applicant's revised design options presented to the City Council on
November 30, 2017; and,
2. Adopt P.0 Resolution No. 2018- recommending to the City Council approval,
with conditions, Major Wireless Telecommunications Facility Permit ASG No. 53
to allow the installation of two panel antennas encased in a canister measuring 2'
tall and 14.6" in diameter mounted on a 4' mast arm of an existing 52' tall wood
utility streetlight pole with vaulted accessory equipment.
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION
On September 12, 2017, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public
hearing to consider a request to install a wireless facility consisting of a 2' tall and 2' in
diameter canister shroud encasing two panel antennas to be mounted on a 4' mast arm,
extending from an existing 52' tall wood utility street light pole. At this meeting, after
considering evidence introduced in the record including public testimony from the
Applicant, neighbors, Staff, and the City's RF Engineer, the Planning Commission
adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2017-28 denying, without prejudice, the project on a vote
of 5-1 with Commissioner Nelson dissenting, (Commissioner Leon was absent). The
Commission's denial was based on the following findings:
• The installation and support equipment does not meet the "non-dominant design"
standard requiring a facility to be compatible with the surrounding environment.
D-1
PC STAFF REPORT (WTF ASG NO. 53)
JANUARY 30, 2018
PAGE 2
® That the antenna and canister shroud with a 4' arm on a wood utility streetlight
pole in its proposed location is out -of -character to the surrounding neighborhood.
® The canister affixed by a 4' arm to a wood utility streetlight pole exacerbates the
visual clutter in the surrounding environment and would be visually intrusive as
there are no similar vertical elements with similar facilities in the neighborhood.
® 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.
® The record presented no evidence of the proposed antennas being situated as
close to the ground as possible.
® The facility will be mounted to the 4' arm of an existing wood utility street light
pole and would take up more right-of-way space compared to the existing utility
streetlight pole.
® The wireless telecommunication facility covers a relatively small portion of the
technical service objective and will not provide service to a significant number of
users.
® There was no significant gap in coverage that would necessitate the proposed
facility.
® The proposed facility supports a majority of coverage to residents in the City of
Palos Verdes Estates.
® A proposed facility, once activated, in the City of Palos Verdes Estates will
address the coverage needs within the immediate neighborhood and thus fulfill
the coverage needs claimed for this proposed facility.
On September 20, 2017, the Applicant filed a timely appeal of the Planning
Commission's denial of Major Wireless Telecommunication Facility Permit ASG No. 53
contending that the denial and the reasons for the denial effectively prohibit or has the
effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services (see attached appeal
letter).
On November 30, 2017, the City Council held a special, duly noticed, public hearing on
the appeal filed by the Applicant (also the Appellant). At this meeting, in response to the
Planning Commission's decision, the Applicant reassessed its proposal and presented
the following two design options for Council's consideration as part of the appeal
proceedings.
® Option No. 1 consists of two panel antennas encased in a canister shroud
measuring 2' tall and 14.6" in diameter canister, which is approximately 10"
smaller in diameter than the canister shroud the Commission considered at its
September 12th meeting.
® Option No. 2 is similar to the original proposal with exposed panel antennas
affixed to the utility pole, but utilizes smaller 20.5" tall panel antennas instead of
24" tall panel antennas.
MH
PC STAFF REPORT (wTF ASG NO. 53)
JANUARY 30, 2018
PAGE 2
Both options utilize a 4' arm affixed to the wood utility light pole. The attached
November 30, 2017 City Council Staff Report contains the detailed analysis and photos
regarding the revised proposal that was before the City Council.
At the November 30th meeting, after taking public testimony, the City Council voted to
refer the project back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration while maintaining
its jurisdiction. The City Council felt that since the Commission had not seen the revised
options, including the slimmer canister design, and a new wireless facility in the City of
Palos Verdes Estates came on line after the gap analysis was conducted, it would be
appropriate to allow the Commission to review the matter again with the updated
information.
Revised Canister Desian
As stated earlier, another reason for Council referring the application back to the
Planning Commission was to allow them to weigh in on the revised design options that
were presented to Council at the November 30th meeting. As shown in the attached
City Council Staff Report, the most notable change was the introduction of a revised
canister design which is smaller in size by measuring 14.6" in diameter compared to 24"
in diameter that the Commission had considered previously. Also, the other option
involving exposed panel antennas was also revised by incorporating slightly smaller
antenna panels measuring 20.5" in height compared to the previous height of 24".
Staff's Preferred Design Option
Based on the two design options described above, Staff's design preference is Option
No. 1 because it results in a facility that is least intrusive to the neighborhood by
concealing the panel antennas and associated wires within a canister shroud measuring
14.6" in diameter. The canister shroud before the City Council has been reduced in
diameter by approximately 10" in comparison to the canister shroud first considered by
the Planning Commission, resulting in a slimmer profile. Option No. 2 includes exposed
antennas and wires, while the design of Option No. 1 aligns with (i) the required findings
cited in Section 12.18.090 of the RPVMC and, (ii) the general guidelines stated in
Section 12.18.080 of the RPVMC, and (iii) the required "Exception" findings under
Section 12.18.190(b) of the RPVMC, all summarized as follows:
• Employs screening with the canister shroud.
• Minimizes view and visual impacts with the panel antennas and related wires
encased in a shroud with vaulted mechanical equipment.
• Avoids adverse impacts to traffic patterns including pedestrians and vehicles.
• Incorporates blending design techniques.
• Matches the material, color, and height of utility streetlight poles within the
immediate neighborhood.
• Utilizes existing infrastructure thereby avoiding the installation of new above-
ground infrastructure.
D-3
PC STAFF REPORT (WTF ASG NO. 53)
JANUARY 30, 2018
PAGE 2
® Represents the least intrusive design as compared to alternative designs and
locations.
® Meets the Appellant's coverage objective per Section 12.18.190 (see discussion
below)
Findings of Fact
Pursuant to Chapter 12.18 of the RPVMC no permit shall be granted for a Wireless
Telecommunications Facility in the PROW unless all of the findings listed in Section
12.18.090 can be made. Staff believes that the required findings can be made for the
proposed facility. A detailed analysis of the required findings can be found in the
attached resolution (see attachment).
In addition, 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. Staff also
believes that the required "Exception" findings can be made for the proposed facility. A
detailed analysis of those findings can be found in the attached resolution (see
attachment).
Coverage Gap Analysis
In response to Council direction, the Applicant updated its gap coverage analysis to
determine if ASG No. 53 was warranted to address a coverage gap with ASG No. 05 in
Palos Verdes Estates now being live. In addition, the new analysis also considered the
existing wireless facility nearby at the 7-11 market site (please note that Staff was
incorrect in previous statements that the 7-11 building does not include an AT&T
wireless facility). The results of the new analysis, according to the Applicant,
demonstrates the continued need to install ASG No. 53 in order to achieve their
coverage objective. The City's RF Engineer review of the Applicant's material confirmed
the finding for the continued need to install a new facility (ASG No. 53) in order to
achieve coverage.
Based on Council direction, the Applicant also considered locating the facility on an
existing utility pole half a block south from the subject site within the city limits of Palos
Verdes Estates. However, the subject pole was not found acceptable because it
currently contains additional utilities, including a transformer that does not provide
additional space to install the wireless facility per applicable utility code requirements,
thus precluding the opportunity to locate on said pole.
Mock -Up Display
The Applicant has installed a mock-up of "replacement pole" design examples for
supporting the proposed telecommunication panel antennas. The mockups are located
PC STAFF REPORT (WTF ASG NO. 53)
JANUARY 30, 2018
PAGE 2
adjacent to the City's maintenance yard at the City Hall site for City Council, Planning
Commission, and public viewing.
Public Noticing
On January 11, 2018, a new public notice was published in the Peninsula News
announcing that a public hearing on the proposed facility is scheduled to occur on
Tuesday, January 30, 2018. In addition, on January 11, 2018, new public notices were
mailed to property owners within a 500' radius of the subject site announcing the public
hearing and inviting public comments on the proposed facility. The notice mentioned
that the hearing is a result of the City Council referring the application back to the
Commission for review with a new recommendation for the City Council's consideration
at a future duly noticed public hearing.
Shot Clock
In response to the City Council's decision to refer the appeal application back to the
Planning Commission, the Applicant agreed to toll the shot clock to February 28, 2018,
which is now the final action deadline (see attachment).
February 15th City Council Meeting
The City Council is scheduled to conduct a special meeting on Thursday, February 15th
at 5:00 p.m. to consider the Planning Commission's recommendations on the subject
appeal.
The following alternatives are available for the Planning Commission's consideration:
1) Recommend denial of ASG No. 53 or,
2) Identify any issues of concern with the proposed project, provide Staff and/or the
applicant with direction in modifying the project and request that the applicant
redesign and resubmit for consideration at the February 13, 2018 meeting. If the
Commission continues this application the City Council will not be able to
consider this applications at it special meeting on February 15th
KJO ItoI+�1L�7 1
Based on the aforementioned information, Staff recommends that the Commission
adopt the attached resolution recommending to the City Council approval of the Major
Wireless Telecommunications Facility Permit ASG No. 53 subject to the Conditions of
Approval.
D-5
PC STAFF REPORT (WTF ASG NO. 53)
JANUARY 30, 2018
PAGE 2
ATTACHMENTS
® P.C. Resolution No. 2018- including Conditions of Approval
• Revised Project Plans and Visual Simulations
• Updated Coverage Maps and Supporting Document from the Applicant
® Updated Technical information form the City's RF Engineer
• November 30, 2017 City Council Staff Report
o P.C. Resolution No. 2017-28 denying without prejudice Planning Commission
Staff Report with Attachments
• Tolling Agreement
® Public Comments
M
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. 53
("Project") at the northwest intersection of Montero Drive and Granvia Altamira-,
WHEREAS, the Project called for the installation of two panel antennas, encased
in a canister measuring 2' tall and 2' in diameter mounted on a 4' mast arm, extending
from an existing 52' tall wood utility streetlight pole, approximately 20.6' from the ground
with accessory equipment to be vaulted underground in the PROW;
WHEREAS, because the Project's location is within a residential zone and within
the PROW of local streets as identified in the General Plan, approval of a WTFP also
requires an exception under Section 12.18.190 of the Municipal Code;
WHEREAS, the Project is exempt from review under the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") because the Project constitutes a small scale
installation of new a new facility (14 CCR § 15303(d));
WHEREAS, on September 12, 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. 53, on a vote of 5-1
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page I of 2T
55478.00001 \30324931.2
D-7
with Commissioner Nelson dissenting (Commissioner Leon was absent);
WHEREAS, on September 20, 2017, a timely appeal of the denial was filed by
the Applicant for an appeal to the City Council;
WHEREAS, on November 15, 2017, a public notice of the appeal was mailed to
property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the subject site and published in the Daily
Breeze, pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code. A
courtesy public notice was published in the Peninsula News on November 23, 2017;
and a notification was sent to list -serve subscribers;
WHEREAS, on November 30, 2017, the City Council held a duly noticed public
hearing on the appeal, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to
be heard and present evidence,
WHEREAS, on November 30, 2017, the City Council voted to refer the Project
back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration while maintaining its jurisdiction in
order to allow the Planning Commission the opportunity to weigh in on the design
options presented to the City Council, to reevaluate the gap coverage analysis to
determine whether the proposed facility is still warranted in light of another site, ASG
No. 05 in Palos Verdes Estates, which is now live, and to assess whether the wireless
facility can be located on an existing utility pole half a block from the subject site within
the city limits of Palos Verdes Estates;
WHEREAS, on January 11, 2018, a public notice was mailed to property owners
within a 500 -foot radius of the subject site and published in the Peninsula News,
announcing that a public hearing on the proposed facility is scheduled to occur on
Tuesday, January 30, 2018.
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 northwest intersection of Montero Drive and Granvia
Altamira,
B. The installation of two panel antennas, encased in a canister measuring 2' tall
and 14.6" in diameter mounted on a 4' mast arm extending from an existing 52'
tall wood utility streetlight pole approximately 20.6' from the ground,
C. Install vaulted underground mechanical equipment in the PROW.
P.C. Resolution No. 2018 -
Page 2 of 21
Section 20 Approval of a WTFP is warranted because the Project meets the
findings required by Section 12.18.090 of the Municipal Code:
On January 11, 2018, a new public notice was published in the Peninsula News
announcing that a public hearing on the proposed facility is scheduled to occur on
Tuesday, January 30, 2018. In addition, on January 11, 2018, a public notice was
mailed to property owners within a 500' radius of the subject site announcing the
public hearing and inviting public comments on the proposed facility. The notice
mentioned that the hearing is a result of the City Council referring the application
back to the Commission for review with a new recommendation for the City
Council's consideration at a future duly noticed public hearing.
B. The proposed facility has been designed and located in compliance with all
applicable provisions of this chapter.
12.18.080(A)(1)(a): The Applicant shall employ screening, undergrounding and
camouflage design techniques in the design and placement of wireless
telecommunications facilities in order to ensure that the facility is as visually
screened as possible, to prevent the facility from dominating the surrounding area
and to minimize significant view impacts from surrounding properties all in a
manner that achieves compatibility with the community and in compliance with
Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration) of this code.
The WTF is proposed to be installed on an existing 52' tall utility streetlight pole,
with mast arm and luminaire and two service arms that carry power lines along
with cable lines. The panel antennas will be encased in a 2' tall canister,
measuring 14.6" in diameter, minimizing its visual intrusion to the environment.
The canister shroud will blend into the environment that consists of utility light
poles, power lines, cable lines, mast arms and luminaries along Granvia Altamira.
The canister and mast arm will be the same color as the existing utility pole. The
area also has existing foliage that screen views of the proposed installation from
residences. The WTF will not dominate the surrounding area because of the
existing vertical infrastructure and limited size of the proposed canister. The
proposal places all of the related mechanical equipment underground in a vault.
The proposed installation will not have any significant view impairment to
surrounding properties pursuant to Chapter 17.02.040 of the RPVMC because the
P.C. Resolution No. 2018 -
Page 3 of 21
m •
proposed WTF is not located in a view corridor identified in the City's General
Plan or Coastal Specific Plan.
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 panel antennas are proposed to be installed on an existing 52' tall utility
street light pole, with mast arm and luminaire and two service arms that carry
power lines along with cable lines. The canister shroud encasing the panel
antennas will be painted brown to match other utility poles in the area and the
existing condition and improvements on the utility pole. The cylinder shaped
shroud encasing the two antenna panels and wires affixed to the utility streetlight
pole is an appropriate technique that disguises and blends the facility into the
environment (blending with the replacement pole and other poles in the area).
According to the Applicant, the proposed canister is the slimmest design
available, as such, it minimizes the facility's visual impacts and is more
compatible with the surrounding environment in terms of size, proportion and
color.
12.18.080(A)(1)(c): Facilities shall be located such that views from a residential
structure are not significantly impaired. Facilities shall also be located in a manner
that protects public views over city view corridors, as defined in the city's general
plan, so that no significant view impairment results in accordance with this code
including Section 9 7.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration). This provision
shall be applied consistent with local, state and federal law.
The Project does not result in a significant view impairment to surrounding
residences. The proposed WTF is not located in a view corridor identified in the
City's General Plan or Coastal Specific Plan.
12.18.080(A)(3) Traffic Safety. All facilities shall be designed and located in such
a manner as to avoid adverse impacts to traffic safety.
The Project is designed to avoid adverse traffic impacts by affixing the panel
antennas within the canister shroud to an existing wood utility streetlight pole with
the bottom of the antenna canister shroud measuring approximately 20'-6" from the
ground. The related mechanical equipment will be vaulted underground avoiding
P.C. Resolution No. 2018 -
Page 4 of 21
D-10
traffic safety impacts, including avoiding any impacts to the intersection visibility
triangle at the intersection of Monero ®rive and Granvia Altamira.
12.18.080(A)(4): Blending Methods. All facilities shall have subdued colors and
non -reflective materials that blend with the materials and colors of the surrounding
area and structures.
The canister shroud that will house the panel antennas and the associated mast
arm will be painted with non -reflective mission brown paint that will match and
blend with the existing utility street light pole.
12.18.080(A)(5): Equipment. The Applicant shall use the least visible equipment
possible. Antenna elements shall be flush mounted, to the extent feasible. All
antenna mounts shall be designed so as not to preclude possible future
collocation by the same or other operators or carriers. Unless otherwise provided
in this section, antennas shall be situated as close to the ground as possible.
The Project is proposed to be installed on a mast arm attached to an existing 52'
tall utility streetlight pole, with a luminaire and two service arms that carry power
lines along with cable lines. The two antennas would be mounted back-to-back
and encased in a 2' tall and 14.6" in diameter canister shroud on a 4' mast arm,
extending from the existing wood utility streetlight pole. The bottom of the
antennas/canister would measure approximately 20'-6" above the ground level
below. Locating the antennas on the mast arm will not preclude possible future
collocation by other operators or carriers.
12.18.080(A)(6)(a): Facilities shall be located consistent with Section 12.18.200
(Location Restrictions) unless an exception pursuant to Section 12.18.190
(Exceptions) is granted.
The proposed location is within the PROW of local residential streets as identified
in the City's General Plan and the City Council finds that an Exception shall be
made as detailed in Section 3 of this Resolution.
12.18.080(A)(6)(b) Only pole -mounted antennas shall be permitted in the right-of-
way.
ight-ofway. All other telecommunications towers are prohibited, and no new poles are
permitted that are not replacing an existing pole. (For exceptions see
subparagraph (6)(h) below and sections 12.18.190 (Exceptions) and 12.18.220
(State or Federal Law).) Sections 12.18.080(6)(c) through (f) are not applicable.
P.C. Resolution No. 2018 -
Page 5 of 21
D-11
The proposed WTF will be located in the PROW and will be pole mounted to an
existing utility streetlight pole.
12.18.080(A)(6)(c): Utility Poles. The maximum height of any antenna shall not
exceed 48 inches above the height of an existing utility pole, nor shall any portion
of the antenna or equipment mounted on a pole be less than 24 feet above any
drivable road surface.
The proposed antennas will not exceed 48" above the existing height of the light
pole. The antennas are proposed below the maximum height of the 52' tall utility
light pole approximately 20'-6" above the ground level to the bottom of the
canister shroud housing the panel antennas. The proposed antenna and canister
shroud will not be above the drivable road surface.
12.18.080(A)(6)(d): Light Poles. The maximum height of any antenna shall not
exceed four feet above the existing height of a light pole. Any portion of the
antenna or equipment mounted on a pole shall be no less than 16% feet above
any drivable road surface.
No portion of the antenna or equipment is less than 16'/2' above the drivable road
surface and does not exceed 4' above the existing height of the pole.
12.18.080(A)(6)(e): Replacement Poles. If an Applicant proposes to replace a
pole in order to accommodate a proposed facility, the pole shall be designed to
resemble the appearance and dimensions of existing poles near the proposed
location, including size, height, color, materials and style to the maximum extent
feasible.
The Project will be affixed to an existing wood streetlight utility pole, and the
existing pole will not be replaced.
12.18.080(A)(6)(f): Pole mounted equipment, exclusive of antennas, shall not
exceed six cubic feet in dimension.
The pole mounted equipment, excluding antennas, would be limited to cable
connecting the node to power and fiber optic backbone, connectors, brackets, and
GPS. The pole mounted equipment, excluding antennas, would therefore not
exceed six cubic feet in dimension. Furthermore, the related mechanical
equipment will be vaulted underground.
P.C. Resolution No. 2018 -
Page 6 of 21
D-12
12.18.080(A)(6)(i): All cables, including, but not limited to, electrical and utility
cables, shall be run within the interior of the pole and shall be camouflaged or
hidden to the fullest extent feasible.
Interior installation is infeasible as the WTF will utilize an existing wooden pole. All
cables and wires shall be installed within conduit, clipped, and, flush mounted and
painted mission brown to match the pole.
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 WTF will be mounted to an existing wood utility street light pole. The
placement of the antennas on the pole connected to a 4' arm will occupy limited
air space above the right-of-way. The mechanical equipment will be
undergrounded and the vault necessary to house the equipment measures
approximately 43 square feet in area. This space is the least amount of space that
is technically feasible for vaulted equipment owned by AT&T. The space that will
be occupied is below the surface with minimum exhaust vents that will be flush to
the surrounding ground.
12-18.080(A)(8): Wind Loads. Each facility shall be properly engineered to
withstand wind loads as required by this code or any duly adopted or incorporated
code. An evaluation of high wind load capacity shall include the impact of
modification of an existing facility.
Based on the information submitted by the Applicant, the Planning Commission
finds that the proposed installation complies with all building codes related to wind
loads.
12.18.080(A)(9): Obstructions. Each component part of a facility shall be located
so as not to cause any physical or visual obstruction to pedestrian or vehicular
traffic, incommode the public's use of the right-of-way, or safety hazards to
pedestrians and motorists and in compliance with Section 17.48.070 (Intersection
Visibility) so as not to obstruct the intersection visibility triangle.
The Project design, height and size, including the undergrounding of the
mechanical equipment, will not cause an obstruction to the public's use of the
PROW, does not constitute a safety hazard and/or does not interfere with the
City -defined intersection visibility triangle because the bottom of the proposed
antennas will be located 20.5' above the ground level, not over the drivable
P.C. Resolution No. 2018 -
Page 7 of 21
D-13
portion of the street, and the related mechanical equipment will be
undergrounded.
12.18.080(A)(10): Public Facilities. A facility shall not be located within any
portion of the public right-of-way interfering with access to a fire hydrant, fire
station, fire escape, water valve, underground vault, valve housing structure, or
any other public health or safety facility.
The proposed installation, including the undergrounding of the mechanical
equipment, will not interfere with fire hydrants, fire stations, water lines or any
other public health or safety facilities. Furthermore, part of the plan check review
process and site inspections, Public Works staff will ensure that the Project will not
interfere with any of the stated utilities.
12.18.080(A)(1 3) Landscaping. Where appropriate, each facility shall be installed
so as to maintain and enhance existing landscaping on the site, including trees,
foliage and shrubs. Additional landscaping shall be planted, irrigated and
maintained by applicant where such landscaping is deemed necessary by the city
to provide screening or to conceal the facility.
This portion of Granvia Altamira is characterized by a line of 52' tall utility
streetlight poles strung along the west side of the road. The placement of a vault
would require the removal of one of the saplings along the west side of Granvia
Altamira. As a Condition of Approval, the Applicant must replace the tree at a
location to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development.
Additionally, the Applicant will be required as a Condition of Approval to provide
landscaping around the vault within the parkway to minimize its visual appearance
from pedestrians and motorists.
C. If applicable, the Applicant has demonstrated its inability to locate on
existing infrastructure.
Not applicable. The antennas will be located on an existing utility light pole and
the related mechanical equipment will be undergrounded.
The Applicant has provided sufficient evidence supporting the Applicant's
claim that it has the right to enter the public right-of-way pursuant to stat. -
or federal law, or the Applicant has entered into a franchise agreement with
the city permng them to use the public right-of-way.
P.C. Resolution No. 2018 -
Page 8 of 21
D-14
The Applicant has submitted to the City a Right of Way Use Agreement (RUA)
entered into with the City in 2011, which allows the Applicant to install wireless
antennas in the PROW. Further, the Applicant has submitted a Certificate of
Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) issued by the California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC) which provides that the Applicant has been
authorized to install wireless telecommunications infrastructure in the PROW.
E. The Applicant has demonstrated the proposed installation is designed such
that the proposed installation represents the least intrusive means possible
and supported by factual evidence and a meaningful comparative analysis
to show that all alternative locations and designs identified in the
application review process were technically infeasible or not available.
Alternative locations were identified in the application review process. The revised
design, which includes the installation of two antenna panels encased in a 2' tall
and 14.6" in diameter canister shroud mounted on a 4' mast arm, extending from
the existing 52' tall wood utility streetlight pole with the bottom of the
antennas/canister measuring 20'-6" from the ground is the least intrusive means of
those alternatives. There are alternative antennas available but, according to the
Applicant, and as confirmed by the City's RF Consultant, would require a greater
number of facilities throughout the community to provide equal coverage and
capacity. This may require the introduction of new pole structures where there are
no streetlights or utility poles and would likely require associated accessory
equipment at every location. The supporting mechanical equipment would be
vaulted underground resulting in meeting the objective of installing the least
intrusive facility.
Other locations and designs, considered as part of the application process for
purposes of filling the coverage gap claimed by the Applicant, were found to be
more intrusive then the proposed Project for the reasons stated under Finding No.
3 of Section 12.18.190(3) of the Municipal Code, below.
An updated gap coverage analysis demonstrates the continued need to install ASG
No. 53 in order to achieve the coverage objective which was confirmed by the City's
RF Consultant.
Section 3: Because the Project's location is within a residential zone and
within the PROW of local streets as identified in the General Plan, approval of a WTFP
also requires an exception under Section 12.18.190 of the Municipal Code. The Project
meets the findings for an exception as required by Section 12.18.190(6) of the
Municipal Code:
P.C. Resolution No. 2018 -
Page 9 of 21
D-.15
1. The proposed wireless facility qualifies as a "personal wireless servicem
facility" as defined in United States Code, Title 47, secti
332(c)(7)(C)(ii). I
The WTF meets the definition of "personal wireless services facility" as
defined by the United States Code.
2. The Applicant has provided the city with a clearly defined technical
service objective and a clearly defined potential site search area.
The "technical service objective" identified by the Applicant in all application
documents is the coverage of a "significant gap" in service in the general area
of the intersection of Monero Drive and Granvia Altamira. This application
information was provided to the City's RF Consultant who reviewed the
information, as well as conducted both on-site walkout of the area and a
computerized terrain study to determine the proposed site will address a
coverage gap as identified in the application. Based on the terrain profile
characteristics and the field measurement data provided by Crown Castle, the
proposal as provided will address coverage deficiencies within the target area.
The Applicant has provided engineering details related to the wireless bands
that will be used for the DAS deployment, including identifying transmitting
equipment, power levels for each band and specifics regarding the radiation
patterns of the antennas to be installed.
Crown Castle has provided engineering measurement data defining gaps in
AT&T coverage in small pocketed areas. This has been independently
examined by the City's RF consultant who determined that the signal levels are
lower than industry recommended levels to support modern 3G/4G customer
needs. The engineering design provided by Crown Castle supports that, if
constructed, DAS site ASG No. 53 will provide ample signal intensity (signal
level in excess of -95 dBm) to support AT&T's 3G/4G wireless services.
The Applicant has provided comparative analysis for possible similar small cell
nodes (antennas) at the following 3 alternative locations:
P.C. Resolution No. 2018 -
Page 10 of 21
D-16
® Alternative No. 1 (location 8). Existing wood utility light pole with mast arm
and luminaire approximately 375 -feet south of the subject site located
across Monero Drive, on the same line of utility pole street lights that are
strung along the west side of Granvia Altamira.
* Alternative No. 2 (location C). Replacement of an existing traffic stop sign
pole with a larger pole approximately 84 -feet south of the subject site.
® Alternative No. 3 (location D). Diagonally across the intersection of Monero
Drive and Granvia Altamira on a replacement pole for an existing traffic
sign (stop sign) pole, approximately 140 -feet east of the subject site.
The Applicant has provided comparative analysis of these locations. All the
alternative sites meet the RIF coverage objective as confirmed by the City's RF
Consultant. The alternative site analysis demonstrates that the Project is likely
the least intrusive location for the wireless telecommunications facility in the
immediate area. The proposed Project, with the canister encasing the two
panel antennas at the proposed location, is the least intrusive location for the
wireless telecommunications facility in the immediate area because the other
locations are more visible from residences as they involve either higher terrain
that's more visible to from residences or replacement stop sign pole and
replacement streetlight pole both more noticeable than the utility pole which
allows the antennas/canister to blend with the existing mast arm, luminaire
and other service arms, power lines and cable lines.
4. The Applicant has provided the city wilth 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 servica.
objectives.
The Applicant has established, and the City's RF Consultant has confirmed,
that to meet its technical service objective, the proposed installation must be
installed in a residential zone. As the City is mostly zoned residential, many of
the WTFs are likely to be located in residential zones. The Applicant has
provided a meaningful comparative alternative site analysis and the proposed
Project is found to be the preferred design by being installed on existing
vertical infrastructure, a slim, canister, and undergrounding all associated
equipment.
Section 4: Conditions regarding any of the requirements listed above which
the Planning Commission finds to be necessary to protect the health, safety and general
welfare, have been included in the attached Exhibit A
P.C. Resolution No. 2018 -
Page 11 of 21
D-17
Section 5: The Project is exempt from review under the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") because the Project constitutes a small scale
installation of new a new facility (14 CCR § 15303(d)).
Section 6: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and
findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby conditionally
recommends that the City Council approve the WTFP application and an exception for
the proposed installation at the northwest intersection of Montero Drive and Granvia
Altamira (ASG NO. 53).
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 30th day of January 2018, by
the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
RECUSALS-
ABSENT:
Ara Mihranian, AICP
Community Development Director; and,
Secretary of the Planning Commission
William J. James
Vice Chairman
P.C. Resolution No. 2018 -
Page 12 of 21
Big
E X i"i N
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
WTF ASG NO. 53
NORTHWEST INTERSECTION OF
ROVERO D11YEAk-LUD 11- A
General Conditions:
1 Prior to obtaining a permit from the Public Works Department to install the street
light pole, the Applicant and the property owner shall submit to the City a
statement, in writing, that they have read, understand, and agree to all conditions
of approval contained in this Resolution. Failure to provide said written
statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval shall render
this approval null and void.
2. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City,
and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies,
and instrumentalities thereof, from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of
mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether legal, equitable,
declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute
resolutions procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and
other such procedures) (collectively "Actions"), brought against the City, and/or
any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside,
void, or annul, the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and/or
any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City), for
or concerning the Project.
3. Prior to conducting any work in the public right of way (PROW), such as for curb
cuts, dumpsters, temporary improvements and/or permanent improvements, the
Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works.
4. Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and
appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws
and regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of
the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) shall apply.
5. The Public Works Director or Director of Community Development are authorized
to make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of
approval if such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as
would strict compliance with the approved plans and conditions. Otherwise, any
substantive change to the Project shall require approval of a revision by the final
P.C. Resolution No. 2018 -
Page 13 of 21
D-19
body that approved the original Project, which may require new and separate
environmental review.
6. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be
cause to revoke the approval of the Project pursuant to the RPVMC.
7. If the Applicant has not obtained approvals and/or permits from the Departments
of Public Works and/or Community Development for the approved Project or not
commenced the approved Project within one year of the final effective date of
this Resolution, approval of the Project shall expire and be of no further effect
unless, prior to expiration, a written request for extension is filed with the
Community Development Department and approved by the Director of
Community Development.
8. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations
and/or requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter
standard shall apply.
9. The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall
be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that
material used for immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may
include, but not be limited to: the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap
metal, concrete asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or
discarded furniture, appliances or other household fixtures.
10. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM,
Monday through Friday, 9-OOAM to 5-OOPM on Saturday, with no construction
activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section
17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. During demolition,
construction and/or grading operations, trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at
the Project site or in the adjoining street rights-of-way before 7AM Monday
through Friday and before 9AM on Saturday, in accordance with the permitted
hours of construction stated in this condition. When feasible to do so, the
construction contractor shall provide staging areas on-site to minimize off-site
transportation of heavy construction equipment. These areas shall be located to
maximize the distance between staging activities and neighboring properties,
subject to approval by the building official.
11. All grading, landscaping and construction activities shall exercise effective dust
control techniques, either through screening and/or watering.
12. Prior to commencement work, the Applicant shall obtain approval of a haul route,
if applicable, from the Director of Public Works.
P.C. Resolution No. 2018 -
Page 14 of 21
D-20
13. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly
manner, to the satisfaction of the City's Inspector. All construction waste and
debris resulting from a construction, alteration or repair of the Project shall be
removed on a daily basis by the contractor or property owner.
14. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be
completed in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by
the City (Public Works and Community Development Departments) with the
effective date of this Resolution.
15. The mock-up shall be removed within seven (7) days after all appeal periods
have been exhausted.
Project -specific Conditions:
16. This approval allows for the following:
A. Install a WTF at the northwest intersection of Monero Drive and Granvia
Altamira.
B. Install two panel antennas encased in a canister measuring 2' tall and
14.6" in diameter that will be mounted on a 4' mast arm, extending from an
existing 52' tall wood utility streetlight pole approximately 20.6' from the
ground level.
C. The installation of vaulted accessory mechanical equipment in the PROW,
including vents and meter boxes that shall be vaulted underground and
flush to the ground and that shall not exceed 43 square feet in total
surface area.
17. The proposed Project is subject to the following Conditions to the satisfaction of
the Director of Public Works and the Director of Community Development:
o The antenna shroud and any related exposed structures shall be painted
mission brown and maintained to match the utility light pole.
o The Applicant shall install drought tolerant landscaping near the proposed
installation to screen the equipment.
o The Applicant shall replace the tree that is to be removed to accommodate
the vaulted equipment with a tree in the same general location.
P.C. Resolution No. 2018 -
Page 15 of 21
D-21
o The facility shall be designed and located in such a manner as to avoid
adverse impacts on traffic safety; construction and operation of the facility
shall comport with a duly -approved traffic control plan as required.
o Colors and materials shall be subdued and non -reflective, and shall be the
same as the existing utility streetlight pole. All paint shall be professionally
applied.
o All cables and wires attached to the exterior of the wooden pole shall be
mounted flush and clipped in a conduit that is painted mission brown to
match the pole.
o No cable or wires shall be visible.
o All ground -mounted facilities including mechanical equipment, or walls,
fences, landscaping or other screening methods shall be installed at least
18 inches from the curb and gutter flow line.
o All accessory equipment shall be located underground including meter
boxes and cabinets.
o The facility shall be installed so as to maintain and enhance existing
landscaping on the site, including trees, foliage and shrubs. Additional
landscaping shall be planted, irrigated and maintained by Applicant where
such landscaping is feasible and deemed necessary by the City to provide
screening or to conceal the facility.
o The facility shall not bear any signs or advertising devices other than
certification, warning or other signage required by law or permitted by the
City,
o The facility shall not be illuminated except for the existing streetlight
luminaire. All other illumination shall be restricted pursuant to RPVMC
§ 12.18.080(A)(15).
o Noise:
* Backup generators shall only be operated during periods of power
outages, and shall not be tested on weekends or holidays, or
between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
® At no time shall equipment noise from any facility exceed an
exterior noise level of 55 dBA three feet from the source of the
noise if the facility is located in the public right-of-way adjacent to a
P.C. Resolution No. 2018 -
Page 16 of 21
D-22
business, commercial, manufacturing, utility or school zone;
provided, however, that for any such facility located within 500 feet
of any property zoned residential or improved with a residential use,
such equipment noise shall not exceed 45 dBA three feet from the
sources of the noise. The foregoing noise level limitations shall
govern facilities subject to RPVMC Chapter 12.18.080(A)(16) until
such time that a specific noise regulation ordinance is adopted and
effective in this code, at which time such noise ordinance shall
•a
o The facility shall be designed to be resistant to, and minimize opportunities
for, unauthorized access, climbing, vandalism, graffiti and other conditions
that would result in hazardous situations, visual blight or attractive
nuisances. The Public Works Director may require the provision of
warning signs, fencing, anti -climbing devices, or other techniques to
prevent unauthorized access and vandalism when, because of their
location and/or accessibility, a facility has the potential to become an
attractive nuisance. Additionally, no lethal devices or elements shall be
installed as a security device.
o Consistent with current state and federal laws and if permissible under the
same, at the time of modification of the facility, existing equipment shall, to
the extent feasible, be replaced with equipment that reduces visual, noise
and other impacts, including, but not limited to, undergrounding the
equipment and replacing larger, more visually intrusive facilities with
smaller, less visually intrusive facilities.
o The installation and construction of the facility shall begin within one year
after its approval or it will expire without further action by the City.
17. All wireless telecommunications facilities shall comply at all times with the
following operation and maintenance standards:
o Unless otherwise provided herein, all necessary repairs and restoration
shall be completed by the permittee, owner, operator or any designated
maintenance agent within 48 hours:
After discovery of the need by the permittee, owner, operator or any
designated maintenance agent; or
After permittee, owner, operator or any designated maintenance
agent receives notification from the City.
P.C. Resolution No. 2018 -
Page 17 of 21
D-23
18. Each permittee of a wireless telecommunications facility shall provide the Public
Works Director with the name, address and 24-hour local or toll free contact
phone number of the permittee, the owner, the operator and the agent
responsible for the maintenance of the facility ("contact information"). Contact
information shall be updated within seven days of any change.
19. Prior to any construction activities, the permittee shall submit a security
instrument (bond or letter of credit as approved by the City Attorney) in an
amount determined by the City to be sufficient to cover all potential costs
(including removal costs) listed herein or in the RPVMC.
20. Prior to permit issuance, the permittee shall provide additional information to
establish that the proposed accessory equipment is designed to be the smallest
equipment technologically feasible. The City may consider equipment installed or
proposed to be installed in other jurisdictions.
21. All facilities, including, but not limited to, telecommunication towers, poles,
accessonj equipment, lighting, fences, walls, shields, cabinets, artificial foliage or
camouflage, and the facility site shall be maintained in good condition, including
ensuring the -facilities are reasonably free of:
ES =
b. Chipped, faded, peeling, and cracked paint-,
C. Rust and corrosion-,
d. Cracks, dents, and discoloration;
e. Missing, discolored or damaged artificial foliage or other camouflage;
f. Graffiti, bills, stickers, advertisements, litter and debris;
9. Broken andmisshapen structural parts; arl,
h. Any damage from any cause.
22. Applicant shall install, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director or Director
of Community Development, landscaping near the proposed installation of the
vaulted accessory equipment to screen the vaulted equipment consistent with
existing landscaping prior to final inspection.
P.C. Resolution No. 2018 -
Page 18 of 21
D-24
23. All trees, foliage or other landscaping elements approved as part of the facility
shall be maintained in good condition at all times, and the permittee, owner and
operator of the facility shall be responsible for replacing any damaged, dead or
decayed landscaping. No amendment to any approved landscaping plan may be
made until it is submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director or the
Director of Community Development.
24. The permittee shall replace its facilities, after obtaining all required permits, if
maintenance or repair is not sufficient to return the facility to the condition it was
in at the time of installation.
25. Each facility shall be operated and maintained to comply with all conditions of
approval. Each owner or operator of a facility shall routinely inspect each site to
ensure compliance with the same and the standards set forth in the RPVMC.
26. No person shall install, use or maintain any facility which in whole or in part rests
upon, in or over any public right-of-way, when such installation, use or
maintenance endangers or is reasonably likely to endanger the safety of persons
or property, or when such site or location is used for public utility purposes, public
transportation purposes or other governmental use, or when such facility
unreasonably interferes with or unreasonably impedes the flow of pedestrian or
vehicular traffic including any legally parked or stopped vehicle, the ingress into
or egress from any residence or place of business, the use of poles, posts, traffic
signs or signals, hydrants, mailboxes, permitted sidewalk dining, permitted street
furniture or other objects permitted at or near said location.
27. Unless California Government Code Section 65964, as may be amended,
authorizes the city to issue a permit with a shorter term, a permit for any wireless
telecommunications facility shall be valid for a period of ten years, unless
pursuant to another provision of the RPVMC or these Conditions of Approval, it
lapses sooner or is revoked. At the end of ten years from the date of issuance,
such permit shall automatically expire.
28. A permittee may apply for a new permit within 180 days prior to expiration. Said
application and proposal shall comply with the City's current Code requirements
for WT Fs.
29. A WTF is considered abandoned and shall be promptly removed as provided
herein if it ceases to provide wireless telecommunications services for 90 or more
consecutive days unless the permittee has obtained prior written approval from
the Director of Public Works, which shall not be unreasonably denied.
P.C. Resolution No. 2018 -
Page 19 of 21
D-25
30. The operator of a facility shall notify the City in writing of its intent to abandon or
cease use of a permitted site or a nonconforming site (including unpermitted
sites) within ten days of ceasing or abandoning use. Notwithstanding any other
provision herein, the operator of the facility shall provide written notice to the
Director of Public Works any discontinuation of operations of 30 days or more.
31. Failure to inform the Director of Public Works of cessation or discontinuation of
operations of any existing facility as required by this section shall constitute a
violation of any approvals and be grounds for:
a. Litigation;
b. Revocation or modification of the permit;
C. Acting on any bond or other assurance required by the RPVMC or
Conditions of Approval of the permit-,
d. Removal of the facilities by the City in accordance with the procedures
established under the RPVMC for abatement of a public nuisance at the
owner's or permitee's expense-, arid/or
e. Any other remedies permitted by law.
32. Upon the expiration date of the permit, including any extensions, earlier
termination or revocation of the permit or abandonment of the facility, the
permittee, owner or operator shall remove its WTF and restore the site to its
natural condition except for retaining the landscaping improvements and any
other improvements at the discretion of the City. Removal shall be in accordance
with proper health and safety requirements and all ordinances, rules, and
regulations of the City. The facility shall be removed from the property, at no cost
or expense to the City.
33. Failure of the permittee, owner or operator to promptly remove its facility and
restore the property within 90 days after expiration, earlier termination or
revocation of the permit, or abandonment of the facility, shall be a violation of
these Conditions of Approval. Upon a showing of good cause, an extension may
be granted by the Public Works Director where circumstances are beyond the
control of the permittee after expiration. Further failure to abide by the timeline
provided in this section shall be grounds for:
a. Prosecution-,
P.C. Resolution No. 2018 -
Page 20 of 21
D-26
b. Acting on any security instrument required by the RPVMC or these
Conditions of Approval-,
C. Removal of the facilities by the City in accordance with the procedures
established under the RPVMC for abatement of a public nuisance at the
owner's or peri itee's expense; and/or
d. Any other remedies permitted by law.
34. In the event the Public Works Director or City Engineer determines that the
condition or placement of a WTF located in the public right-of-way constitutes a
dangerous condition, obstruction of the public right-of-way, or an imminent threat
to public safety, or determines other exigent circumstances require immediate
corrective action (collectively, "exigent circumstances"), the Director or City
Engineer may cause the facility to be removed summarily and immediately
without advance notice or a hearing. Written notice of the removal shall include
the basis for the removal and shall be served upon the permittee and person who
owns the facility within five business days of removal and all property removed
shall be preserved for the owner's pick-up as feasible. If the owner cannot be
identified following reasonable effort or if the owner fails to pick-up the property
within 60 days, the facility shall be treated as abandoned property.
35. In the event the City removes a facility in accordance with nuisance abatement
procedures or summary removal, any such removal shall be without any liability
to the City for any damage to such facility that may result from reasonable efforts
of removal. in addition to the procedures for recovering costs of nuisance
abatement, the City may collect such costs from the performance bond or
security instrument posted and to the extent such costs exceed the amount of the
security instrument, collect those excess costs in accordance with the RPVMC.
Unless othenAlise provided herein, the City has no obligation to store such facility.
Neither the permittee, owner nor operator shall have any claim if the city destroys
any such facility not timely removed by the permitee, owner or operator after
notice, or removed by the City due to exigent circumstances.
36. Consistent with current state and federal laws and if permissible under the same,
at the time of modification of a 'AITF, existing equipment shall, to the extent
feasible, be ,replaced with equipment that reduces visual, noise and other
impacts, including, but not limited to, undergrounding any equipment installed
above ground and replacing larger, more visually intrusive facilities with smaller,
less visually intrusive facilities.
P.C. Resolution No. 2018 -
Page 21 of 21
D-27
I"TALL(1) 014.6"
G�
C00070XOFXYZ06 ANTENNA
INSTALL 4' CEA
2
D
PROPOSED 1' POWER FEED
PROPOSED 2' COMM RISER
D
015"
p
EXISTING SERVICE POLE
0°
L 90°
POLE ID:#1358367E
TOP OF EXISTING POLE: 52' 0"
TOP OF ANTENNA: 22'6"
RAD CENTER: 21'6"
AZIMUTH: 0" 8 90"
EQUIPMENT AND ANTENNAS TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH POLE.
B 12 O'CLOCK VIEW SCALE 1:10 B 3 O'CLOCK VIEW SCALE 1:10
TOP OF POLE 52'T TOP OF POLE 5T 0'
PRIMARY ARM AT 52' 0 PRIMARY ARM AT 52 V'
i--015" 015
SECONDARY SERVICE AT 34'8" SECONDARY SERVICE AT 34'8'
STREET LIGHT AT ZB Y'
STREET LIGHT AT 2Y 7'
12Z" PROPOSED CROWN CASTLE FIBER AT 27'0" 1 2 r PROPOSED CROWN CASTLE FIBER AT 210"
CATV AT 26'0' 24 CATVATZ6'0'
CAN DOWNGUYAT253- 1 CATV DOWN GUY AT 258"
VERI20N AT 1111' VERC.ON AT 2110'
2'4" VERIZON DOWN GUY AT 24'6" VERIZON DOWN GUY AT 266'
TOP OF
ANTENNA L PROPOSED DOUBLE 4'CEA AT 202"
TOP OF '-2 6" WITH (1) CU U070XOFXYZ06 ANTENNA
grvTENrvA PROPOSED DOUBLE /'CEA AT 20'
22' 6" WITH (1) C00070XOFXYZOO ANTENNA
r��
RAD
CENTER. RAO
21' 6" PROPOSED 1' SCHEDULE 80 POWER FEED CENTER
21' S' PROPOSED V SCHEDULE BO POWER FEED
(BEHIND POLE)
INSTALL (1) CROWN OASTLE 4' X V VAULT WITH FLUSH
MOUNT VENTS WITH (2) ML IONS INSIDE) EXISTING TREE
TO BE REMOVED AND REPLANTED PER PUBLIC WORKS
GROUND LEVEL GROUND LEVEL
/� \/lABPHALTi
ALL VGR
/(SEE
DETAIL 20N SHEET 0.2)
INSTALL VGR
(SEE DETAIL 2 ON SHEET 0.2)
INSTALL (1) CROWN CASTLE 4'X 6' VAULT WITH FLUSH
MOUNT VENTS WITH ML IONS INSIDE)UBLLIC TREE
TO BE REMOVED AND RREPLANTED PER PUBLIC WORKS
ASG53ml
242727
''XCROWN
CASTLE
Communications
I 1
III I.1 HII N 11. r x' I
A 1
I � A11. Is 1-111.1 I'E.�
1. R1111'r111
I
0 uxt �IixtN�xt.
PHUTD 6IM UPDATED i1R6114
RELOCATE NDDE LOCATION 12129/16
RELOCATE NODE LOCATION 4/15I1tl
CHANUELINTENNA t112I1r
ASG63m1
ADJACENT TO 655 MONERO DR
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA
POLE PROFILE
P-2
�T.
•�. 1'I '. �(l 4V
l
C�llfll (iti via Ce('lio, _
I
MOnefO ,' Monero D
Ira
I
ti
�T.
•�. 1'I '. �(l 4V
Via (; ffit•S iB Cwiitcis A, Ce i "to,
v
t
� 1
y b
Dr - iR�,t°ti,'r Rlunerc.�i6li Monera_
Q P Iam
i
POW
r
tOCATION 19M-••- PROPOSED •� ��; .♦ fu _► cu ::
-s.
A ANTENNA DETAILS SCALE 1:5 ASG53MI
ANTENNA NMPA AZ4MOUNT
2427
//�� 27
INSTALL DOI�I C R O W N
ANTENCASTLE
PROPOSED 1" POPROPOSED 2"COMM015"EXISTING SERVICE POANTENNA
AZIMUTH'. 90' C
mmunication6
z
I0.
90°
POLE ID: #1358367E34'8'• X�I.IIx �Ir,
TOP OF EXISTING POLE: 52'0"
TOP OF ANTENNA: 22'3"
RAD CENTER: 21'3" T T
AZIMUTH: 0" & 90' 1 1
EQUIPMENT AND ANTENNAS TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH POLE.•W
NV
IIAI �•HXHIHI.
vutele, vllnert¢xtn114ea Xt
lu SIN uvDATEu
TE NODE LUCAnoN
L'AIE NODE LUDATION
NCEU ANTENN4 1111311
ASG63m1
ADJACENT TO 6505 MON ERO DR
RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA
POLE PROFILE
II 11X :'_IG C'.1
P-3
B 12 O'CLOCK VIEW SCALE L10 B 30'CLOCK VIEW SCALE 1:10
TOP OF POLE 52' 0- TOP OF POLE SI 0'
�.y 4gS PRIMARY ARM AT SZ' 0` � PRIMARY ARM AT 5Y 0"
ots —
—' •—OJ75"
SECONDARY SERVICE AT SECONDARY SERVICE AT 3q e"
STREET LIGHT qT 2Y T'
STREET LIGHT AT 29' 1' 1T Y
172 PROPOSED CROWN CASTLE FIBER AT 27'0' Yf PROPPED CROWN CASTLE FlBER AT 2T 0'
CATV AT 28' 0"
CATV AT 28'0' CAW GOWN GUY AT 25'8`
CATV GOWN GUY AT 25'8' VERIZDN AT .4' 10'
VERIZON AT 21' 10' VERIZON DOWN GUY AT 24' B`
2'4' VER120N DOWN GUY AT 2f 8" T
TOP Of T
ANTENNA I PROPOSED DOUBLE 4'CEA AT 205"
RAD WITH 12)MHPA•ti5F•BVU-H2ANTENNA
TOP OF CENTER
ANTENNA PROPOSED DOUBLE 4'CEA AT S.
22' 6" WITH (21 tlHPA-65F-BUU-H2 ANTENNA
RPD
CENTER
216' PROPOSED i"SCHEWL E80 POWER FEED PROPOSED T' SCHEDULE 80 POWER FEED
(BEHIND POLEI
INSTALL (11 CROWN CASTLE 4' X 8' VAULT WITH FLUSH
MOUNT VENTS WITH (21 ML IONS INSIDE) EXISTING TREE
TO BE REMOVED AND REPLANTED PER PUBLIC WORKS
GROUND LEVEL GROUND LEVEL
�'•.. �: -'..:CSG �i =•.. ASPHAITi
Pv' INSTALL VGR
8 0` � `� \\ /• ` �g 0' \/(SEE DETAIL'20N SHEET D-21
INSTALL VGR
(SEE DETAIL 2 ON SHEET D-2) INSTALL I1) CROWN CASTLE 4' %e' VAULT WITH FLUSH
MOUNT VENTS WITH (2) ML IONS INSIDE) EXISTING
D-31
TREE
TO BE REMOVED ANO REPLANTED PER PUBLIC WORKS
A ANTENNA DETAILS SCALE 1:5 ASG53MI
ANTENNA NMPA AZ4MOUNT
2427
//�� 27
INSTALL DOI�I C R O W N
ANTENCASTLE
PROPOSED 1" POPROPOSED 2"COMM015"EXISTING SERVICE POANTENNA
AZIMUTH'. 90' C
mmunication6
z
I0.
90°
POLE ID: #1358367E34'8'• X�I.IIx �Ir,
TOP OF EXISTING POLE: 52'0"
TOP OF ANTENNA: 22'3"
RAD CENTER: 21'3" T T
AZIMUTH: 0" & 90' 1 1
EQUIPMENT AND ANTENNAS TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH POLE.•W
NV
IIAI �•HXHIHI.
vutele, vllnert¢xtn114ea Xt
lu SIN uvDATEu
TE NODE LUCAnoN
L'AIE NODE LUDATION
NCEU ANTENN4 1111311
ASG63m1
ADJACENT TO 6505 MON ERO DR
RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA
POLE PROFILE
II 11X :'_IG C'.1
P-3
B 12 O'CLOCK VIEW SCALE L10 B 30'CLOCK VIEW SCALE 1:10
TOP OF POLE 52' 0- TOP OF POLE SI 0'
�.y 4gS PRIMARY ARM AT SZ' 0` � PRIMARY ARM AT 5Y 0"
ots —
—' •—OJ75"
SECONDARY SERVICE AT SECONDARY SERVICE AT 3q e"
STREET LIGHT qT 2Y T'
STREET LIGHT AT 29' 1' 1T Y
172 PROPOSED CROWN CASTLE FIBER AT 27'0' Yf PROPPED CROWN CASTLE FlBER AT 2T 0'
CATV AT 28' 0"
CATV AT 28'0' CAW GOWN GUY AT 25'8`
CATV GOWN GUY AT 25'8' VERIZDN AT .4' 10'
VERIZON AT 21' 10' VERIZON DOWN GUY AT 24' B`
2'4' VER120N DOWN GUY AT 2f 8" T
TOP Of T
ANTENNA I PROPOSED DOUBLE 4'CEA AT 205"
RAD WITH 12)MHPA•ti5F•BVU-H2ANTENNA
TOP OF CENTER
ANTENNA PROPOSED DOUBLE 4'CEA AT S.
22' 6" WITH (21 tlHPA-65F-BUU-H2 ANTENNA
RPD
CENTER
216' PROPOSED i"SCHEWL E80 POWER FEED PROPOSED T' SCHEDULE 80 POWER FEED
(BEHIND POLEI
INSTALL (11 CROWN CASTLE 4' X 8' VAULT WITH FLUSH
MOUNT VENTS WITH (21 ML IONS INSIDE) EXISTING TREE
TO BE REMOVED AND REPLANTED PER PUBLIC WORKS
GROUND LEVEL GROUND LEVEL
�'•.. �: -'..:CSG �i =•.. ASPHAITi
Pv' INSTALL VGR
8 0` � `� \\ /• ` �g 0' \/(SEE DETAIL'20N SHEET D-21
INSTALL VGR
(SEE DETAIL 2 ON SHEET D-2) INSTALL I1) CROWN CASTLE 4' %e' VAULT WITH FLUSH
MOUNT VENTS WITH (2) ML IONS INSIDE) EXISTING
D-31
iio, - via C rritos is Cr inrti 'Aa Cei rtes It -
ti.
,Dr
:W, me. D ,Mone e
10
_ d
j_ LQCATIQN EXISTING
X91 , 77
INS`
_ - Vii•.
AMOS-
� tuma�
MF
Drii. Monero Lir - - MonPm-11i.
I r r
40I
..
r
.,ter - � •,t
d
N �� c
PROPOSED
.y
CROWN
CASTLE
ASG53 Coverage Analysis
"A
January 1g, 2018
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
D-34
Agenda
ASG53 map of primary and alternate candidates
ASG53 viability of the primary and alternate candidates
ASG53 — RF service objective
RF ("drive test") test set up
ASG53 elevation challenge
ASG53 primary candidate vs. all ASG53 alternate candidates
CROWN Proprietary &
;.d CASTLE Confidential 2
D-35
ObpcbveASG53 RF
(� { > / + Mfr I q t !
Vk
_
+ c r
i``1 40
AL
-�'`, • VraMa7covloo 1»
- r%7:.
Rs —7ILtASG53 –A.
y r j r` •+ ,� 1A `53_C� "r + h
AS3 U:4 ,. - A y �. ,. ' • j;-
Ll* ,, (��1�� � + `i•, ti. iR� � r: ! n►/�r,y ,���,�•wl�` � .f" ^� ;1i �.
r JONrr
.� - ' v...► ' 1"r I / .»r a � � � `,� \ ,' IF
A moi/ +' '`i ` i1 \ C �,l r "v i :� deau•Rd
aeo
lI 7 �- •'?s 0 „`,fl t \\ •f�- f1 Sys ` ft A
k �� + .`:-. i1• I '�. 'y \ vr, •`.+ ^ , w.�� A�' \ '+. � tF, '4' :I `� +• .i3 - } 11� \ ,' � •-
Map,,. T�
4 ! ; . i r1 % 1�`� lF� .eat t _ _ •?I.
Google EA4h • ; ' . y y�.� may' ., �, :��
LoWd
VOW CandmIde
i�°tl � � � z I �k `�' `�- sad R d�� `� - i '� • , ,..
14
ISG53 Arr !
- .n1 C .q • . 1ASCiS3 l) -W • � . - '1Qr „� � � '
Google -Earth s \ . 4Pte, •'\r `'a
Provide coverage at the intersection of Monero Dr/Coronel Plaza, for a handoff to locations
North of Via Cerritos.
Lqpnd
ASG63 RF.. J ,, '1�. • r '� �'yR r 'fid ' <„`` - e `` ` �.
VoWCamfidatet �. ' , _ , fr' i
P.
or
nrnmy
o.: a
LIP-
14
000
SI.47
IV
T
_'ASG`53 D. -,Z m "•O'
`7� ,S`'•,C� r• •t -.Fr� i' ,�
"�C 1, .. ��` _ ,e ,I,�, / `{ •�� 1 . ..i .d' �7!
1 _ v _ rj•n.t nd� Ct��r• .. t�1 '
`y F
�, j 1u is
Google Earth F/ NL
Drive Test Set Up
0
This is in the vehicle
PCTEL EX flex Receiver
CROWN Proprietary &
CASTLE Confidential
696MHz-2120 MHz GPS
BVS Dragon !►
850/1900 Crossband
TXPower Coupler
Ground
),ntenna
le height
m
D-39
CW Setup and Information - ASG53
ASG53 Locationl
Latitude: 33.78129834
Longitude: -118.392554
Height: 21ft 6 inches
Antenna Type:
Monopole
ASG53 _Locationl Transmitter
• Tx1 Freq: 869.0 MHz
• Tx1 Power: 33.0 dBm
• Tx1 Power before
Antenna 29.6 dBm
• Tx2 Freq: 1930.0 MHz
• Tx2 Power: 30.0 dBm
• Tx2 Power before
Antenna :30.7 dBm
CROWN
CASTLE
9!v
i 1!!ll-nTFF1TnTTTTTTfTITT1T1
Tx1: Tx2:
f - c ►--- —
L+..r.m.
`C jr 2
_
Proprietary &
Confidential
Com_b.a
OOA-36OV06NO-4
00�'A
•
17
Elvorical Data _
Frequencv
806-960 1710-2700 MHz
Gain
A 6
dBi
VSWR
5118
Polarization
Vertical
Prefigured Electrical PT
Oa, 30, 60
deg
H -Plane
250-600 180.25°
deg
E -Plane
3600
deg
Power
200 (Max)
W
Impedance
500
n
Lightning Protection
Direct Ground
Connector Type, Location
N -Female, Bottom
00�'A
•
17
Link Budget and Gain Adjust i9oo MHz - ASG53
User Input Parameters
AT&T - ProaectX AntennaTypel
nems
Description
Carrier
Customer name to a ear in the resentation tab
-Vakle
AT&T
Pro ect
Project name to appear in title of presan[ation tad. to should take
the Format: ProjeetY - AntennaTypet Example: Bridgewater State
- 48" Pole Top
Pro ctX Antenna Typel
Technolo
This link budget suictiq for LTE
LTE
__
Frequency Band MHz
Channel Bandwkh (Oz)
1900
0-in Ob'ective
Capacity vs Coverage will lead to different pathloss variables
such as interference margin and required SNR
coverage
OAS1Small Cell Equipment
Commsco a ION -M 46dBm
Maximum Primary Simulcast Ratio
Primarg refers to the -OAS portion of the budget that may
include some DAS remotes
3
46A
Primary Simuient Ratio
3
Split sectors for iDAS?
For the scenario where the primary OAS sector is also feeding
an CAS network. All power calculations will refer to the primary
s stem, white the split sector will add to the UL noise.
No
4.5
Total UsaM Subearriers
1200
Up Link DAS System Nose Figure (dB)
9.3
Nunbeer Df Tx Antennas
1
Up Link eNadeB Nose F ure (dB)
4.0
Down Lnk Node Antenna Gain (d8i)
11.6
Up Link DAS System Gain dB)
0.0
Node CabldS Mter loss 06
1.3
Number of LTE Carriers
Choose 2 For carrier aggregation within the same band
1
LTE Bandwidth MHz for first carrier
SWR Requiremeat (dB)
20.0
LTE Bandwidth MHz for second carrier
25.5
20.0
Y. of Power for LTE
IF the PA power will be shared with another teehnologg ot
operator
100•%.
Re wired OAS UL Gain dB
0 far standard BTS.'"17.1S for low-power BTS, but dependant on
a ui ent manufacturer
0.0
eNode6 Noise Fi ure d6
Traditional BTS = 4d6, consults acs For RRH units
4.0
BTS Rx1Div Ports for Primar Simulcast
A diveraitg port will allow for separate UL paths and one noise.
free addition to the simulcast row
No
PDSCH offset dBl
used when the eNode6 channel dimensioning has
disproportional power sharing.
Typical = 0; common. -3
0
Node CableaSpktter Loss (dB
1.3
eNodeB SensdhJ 'dBm
Antenna Model
lilinimum.Aatenaa Received Power 0M
Other
"Other Antenna" Down Link Node Antenna Gain IMF
4.0
11.6
"Other Antenna" Up Link Node Antenna Gain (d8i)
Minerwm UE RSRP Received Power 'dBm)
11.6
Number of Physical antennas [azimuths)
Individual antennas, not elements for MIMO consideration.
Nate. Tri -sector antennas should have 3.
1
Number of Tx Antennas (MlMOj
Path Loss Calculation
1
Number of Rx Antennas (MIMOI
6.2
1
Additional mist antenna Feed lasses d6
See Table 4 in Specifications tab for initial estimated coax loss.
Use this field to adjust for custom length runs andfor additional
losses
0.0
Boit Loss t,
_
0.0
3.0
UE RSRP Oesi n Requirement IdBml
on -street signal level required by customer
-80
142.3
Node Antenna Hei ht ime"s
0.0
8.0
UE Antenna Hei ht meters
In-Vehici&-BuildingLDss dB)
1.6
Environment
Urban
Percentage of Buildings
Total Avalable Dom Link Path Loss i'dB)
20x
Buildin Hei ht meters
3.0
10
Buildin Se orations Imetersl
UD Link Cell Ede Desi n Path Loss 'dB)
80
Raw CW File Corrected CW File
LTE Link Budget:
AT&T - ProaectX AntennaTypel
DAS Equipment Commsco ION -M 4fift
Technology: LTE 1900
Down Link
Up link
RF Node
RF We
Number Df LTE Carriers Per Node
1
Channel Bandwkh (Oz)
20000
Total LTE Carrier Bandwidth (MHz)
20
TDtal Reference Skjnal Resource Bbeks
100.0
% of Power for LTE
1001.6
Up Link We Floor per RB (dBm)
-121.9
klaxmwm Node Ou ut Per Channel (d5m)
46A
Primary Simuient Ratio
3
Tbtal Reference 5 nal Resource Bbeks
100
Nose Figure Per Repeater (dB)
4.5
Total UsaM Subearriers
1200
Up Link DAS System Nose Figure (dB)
9.3
Nunbeer Df Tx Antennas
1
Up Link eNadeB Nose F ure (dB)
4.0
Down Lnk Node Antenna Gain (d8i)
11.6
Up Link DAS System Gain dB)
0.0
Node CabldS Mter loss 06
1.3
Up Link Aggregatd System Nose Figure (dB)
10.0
Spatial Divers Gain at Cel Ede (dB)
0
SWR Requiremeat (dB)
2.0
Node Reference Signal EIRP Per Channel (fm)
25.5
Interference Margin (dB)
1.0
LhMng Link
DL by 17.3
Usabb Node Reference SianaI EPRE (dBm)
25,5
Effective RF We Sensdlvdv (dBm)
40U
Up Link Node Antenna Gain (6)
11.6
Nome station
Node CableaSpktter Loss (dB
1.3
eNodeB SensdhJ 'dBm
-103.4
lilinimum.Aatenaa Received Power 0M
-1193
Downlnk interference Margin (2)
4.0
111106Ne station
Minerwm UE RSRP Received Power 'dBm)
-99.4
UE Output EIRP fdki
23,0
Baily Loss (a)
0.0
Path Loss Calculation
Avaibble ln•VehbkM-Buddin Loss dB'
6.2
Total Available Up Link Path Loss (dB)
142.3
Lop Normal Faft Marin (dB)
10.2
Up Link Frequency Lass Advantage (dB)
E
MAP& Fafto Mar MB)
3.0
UE RSRP Power (dBm)
AJ
Adjusted Available Up Link Path Loss (dB'
142.3
Body Lass (dB)
0.0
In-Vehici&-BuildingLDss dB)
6.2
PIA LMC 01
LDg Normal Fading Margin (dB)
10.2
Total Avalable Dom Link Path Loss i'dB)
125.0
Multi -P& Fading Mar in (dB)
3.0
Down Link Ceh Edge Des n Path Loss dB
)95.6
UD Link Cell Ede Desi n Path Loss 'dB)
4" $
CROWN Proprietary &
., ,..I► CASTLE Confidential 1 8
D-41
Link Budget and Gain Adjust foo MHz - ASG53
user Input Parameters
AT&T - Pro'ecl AntennaTypel
ItemsOestri
tion
Value
Carrier
Customer name to appear in the Presentation tab
AT67
Pro ect
Project name to appear in title of presentation tab. It should take
the format: ProjectY - AnternaTypel Example: Bridgewater State
- 49" Pole Top
Pro ectk AntennaTgpe1
Technolo
This link budget strictly for LTE
LTE
Fre uenc Band(MHzl
Channel Bandwidth On
700
Design Objective
Capacity vs Coverage wi I lead to different pathloss variables
such as interference margin and required SNR
coverage
DAS1Small Cell Equipment
Commsco a ION-M.6m
Maximum Primary Simulcast Ratio
Primary refers to the oOAS portion of the budget that may
include some DAS remotes
Maxknum Node Output Per Channel dBm
46A
Prftry Simulcast Ratio
3
Split sectors for iOAS?
For the scenario where the primary OAS sector is also Feeding
an iOAS network.. All power calculations will refer to the primary
system, while the spit sector will add to the UL noise.
No
5.0
Total Usable Subcarners
600
Up Link DAS System Noise Figure (dB)
9.8
Nurrloer of Tx Antennas
1
Up Link eNodeB Noise Figure (dB)
4.0
Down Link Node Antenna Gain 40
Ti
I Up Link DAS System Gain (dB)
0.0
Node Cable+S Mter Loss dB)
3.7
Number of LTE Carriers
Choose 2 for carrier agqfeqation within the same band
I
LTE Bandwidth MHz for first carrier
SNR Requirement 6)
10.0
LTE Bandwidth MHz for second carrier
21.6
l0A
%of Power for LTE
If the PA power will be shared with another technology or
operator
100%
Required DAS UL Gain d6
0 for standard BTS. "17-19 for low-power BTS, but dependant on
a ui ment manufacturer
0.0
eNodeB Noise Figure d6
Traditional BTS= 4d13, consultspecs for RRH units
4.0
BTS Rx7Div Ports for PrimarySimulcast
A diversity port will allow for separate UL paths and one noise -
free addition to the simulcast grow
No
POSCH offset d6
used when the eNodeB channel dimensioning has
disproportional power sharing.
Typical = 0: common = -3
0
Node CablefSpldter Loss (0)
3.
eNodeB Sensitivity (dBm)
Antenna Model
Minimum Antenna Received Povier (dBm) 1
Other
"Other Antenna" Down Link Node Antenna Gain dBi
4.0
7.1
"Other Antenna" Up Link Node Antenna Gain d8i
Minknum UE RSRP Received Power 26m1
Ti
Number of Physical antennas (azimuths)
Individual antennas, not elements For MIMO consideration.
Note: Trisector antennas should have 3.
2
Number of Tx Antennas MIMOI
Path Loss Calculation
1
Number of Rx Antennas MIMO
9.3
I
Additional mist antenna Feed losses (dBI
See Table 4 in Specifications tab for initial estimated coax loss.
Use this field to adjust For custom length runs andfor additional
losses
0.0
Body Loss d8
0.0
0.0
3.0
UE RSRP Design Requirement dBm)
on -street signal level required by customer
-00
134.8
Node Antenna Height meters
0.0
0.0
UE An1anna Hei ht (meters)
In-Vehicle,9n-BuddingLoss dB
1.5
Environment
Urban
Pareentage of Buildin s
Total Available Down Link Path Loss dB)
20%
Buildin Hei ht meters)
3.0
1
Buildin Se arations meters
U Link Cell Ed Des n Path Loss (d6`,
50
CW Raw File Corrected CW File
r,..o
CROWN Proprietary&
CASTLE Confidential
LTE Link Budget:
AT&T - Pro'ecl AntennaTypel
OAS Equipment: Commsco ION -M 46dBm
Technology: LTE 700
Down Link
Up Link
RF Nate
RF Node
Nu(rloer of LTE Carriers Per Node
1
Channel Bandwidth On
1 WO
Total LTE Carrier Bandwidth MH_)
10
Total Reference Signal Resource Blocks
S0.0
% of Power for LTE
100°
Up Link Noise Floor per RB (dBm)
-121.9
Maxknum Node Output Per Channel dBm
46A
Prftry Simulcast Ratio
3
Total Reference Si nal Resource Blocks
5o
Noise Figure Per Repeater (6)
5.0
Total Usable Subcarners
600
Up Link DAS System Noise Figure (dB)
9.8
Nurrloer of Tx Antennas
1
Up Link eNodeB Noise Figure (dB)
4.0
Down Link Node Antenna Gain 40
Ti
I Up Link DAS System Gain (dB)
0.0
Node Cable+S Mter Loss dB)
3.7
Uo Link Aggregated System Noise Figure (6i
10.4
Spatial Divers' Gain at Ced Ed (M)
0
SNR Requirement 6)
2.0
Node Reference Signal EIRP Per Channel (dBm)
21.6
Interference Margin dB)
1.0
Lfting Link
DL by 10.8
Usable Node Reference S' nal EPRE (dBin)
21.5
Effective RF Node SensitN (d5m)
•108.5
Up Link We Antenna Gain (d61)
7.1
Nk1b�e Station
Node CablefSpldter Loss (0)
3.
eNodeB Sensitivity (dBm)
-106.5
Minimum Antenna Received Povier (dBm) 1
-111.8
DoWnbnk Interference Margin (dB)
4.0
ilotu1e station
Minknum UE RSRP Received Power 26m1
-102.5
UE aut ut EIRP dBmi
23.0
Body Loss (dB)
0.0
Path Loss Calculation
Available in-Vehiclellrf-BuildinLoss (dB)
9.3
TotalAvailable Up Link Path Lass (dB)
134.8
LD9 Normal Fading Margin dB
10.2
Up Link Frequency Lass Advantage (dB)
0.0
Mutti-Path Fading Mar dB)
3.0
UE RSRP Power dBmi
MA
Adjusted Available Up Link Path Loss `0
134.8
B Loss (dB)
0.0
In-Vehicle,9n-BuddingLoss dB
9.3
PA LOSS Cal Al"
Log Normal Fading Margin (dB)
10.2
Total Available Down Link Path Loss dB)
124.0
Mufti -Path Fading Mar in(dB 1
3.0
Down Link Ced Ed Desi n Path Loss dB
101.6
U Link Cell Ed Des n Path Loss (d6`,
117,4
Z
D-42
� �_ `' _ �\ ~ � � r � Y lam._ ya.c �\• : ?.j Mf: . •J
Z-�S!^�-ir - ...r- _ _ "�+ _-.. �..a•-=y"'. .> _.'ted• '.'�.. "" �.�_ ,�. � `- ' ., r �.'Wi` -.
70 ft Height
IT AS.
�me--....I� -
ASG53-A Existing Coverage
1Aoo MHz
Node Locations (primarylaltemate)
•
Existing Node On -Air
P • _Primary_Node_Loca ions
Wireless Telecommunications Faci ities
0
RF Objective_Poygons
Candidate Viability
_ No
_ Yes
RSRPdBm
_ .65 w 0
_ -75 to .65
-65 to .75
— .95 w 45
_-105 b -95
_-zoo to -105
I'S 46
•
`efts• • -0% \
i 0 ~••�
•1
•f
!ai�P•drsgai
SO04Eirea�ntar. L:n�
j 1 /•�_..
Coverage from
ASG05
\
ASG06 /
It -Mae. -so - . A J
tom' ;.� •�� 605
• ccc���
06*00 •i•• .. efts i--- 1
I t•••�EltlnlelB nr M•• i ,
I j•
AS 8 bit Dr • ZW-`r •
I ;I •
• • is + .+� V ri� f r
I �.s • efts, • }
•
CfZCROWN
CASTLE
Proprietary &
Confidential
Sao
nn� I � I ;�` � _ • 1
♦ _ �N • &� i;in�r�da Dr •
•
' 1 �'J M
1
1b— .`LL02972 \ ����� �
• 0
R • +7 t'`� • 0 r749e palh Ct �
eeas emung
•
r
•c`
ASG53-A Existing Coverage
foo MHz-.....�• �,�,.��, t v ••�
Node LVA xations tprimaryi a!tematei
\ gam, �•% i Coverage from
Existing Node On -Air • •• 1 \. ' — ` ; s SLASG 0 5
PV80_Primary _Node _Locations
Wireless Telecommunications Facilities / i + f
RF Objective_ Polygons \ ' 'Lj a4 -007Q «�- ! 6.
J Region \ GOII _- •�+/ !�� ♦ +.R
CanSdate ViabilityY.
/ ."- •1/ / ., y
j
RSRP d8m • \ �,/ • • M Iti __.. —
_ .65 to 0 1 y f � • °} • SGOS
_ -75 to -65 • �� —�
f _ ♦ t i I i,t .
-65 Io .75 • • I ' .� r -i• .
_ -95 to -85 • � I I y
_.,b5 to .,5 -''
_-zoo m -,os i ,. t I • 9�
• j erllit�r,, i I �. � f•
VP 0 0 00
I � t jjj • t t • •
Lo JJ4M6
IL
40•
4 4Z
to
J • t \
eeas eaitingiupaa
��
•
CROWN Proprietary &
CASTLE Confidential 12
D-45
ASG53=A Proposed Coverage
�. ASG3
qo
\\ �a� VH w
� '`����rrlr�r
•/
' 1745 n � `,\ � ~ '-- �`'� '�c-t�:3u,t-, . / •
\� � � ��; �'� � !� � I A � � � fir./ `,�� ~• /
3 y • •
1 0o MHz r os
pir
• •• RSI. r i�># ��1 -
9 3 r,�Y ------
Node Locations (primarylattemete) �/ ,;� • }''� J ' f �.�
• ;+ •• ••• •• • I
Existing Node On -Air v
• • I • • ol h
. • ♦ •♦ • • • I 0 rltrTr P,
PVSo_Primary_Node_Locations •• 0 • I • I 26-
0 _ I .f• �V� t,
Wireless Telecommunications Facilities :'l�c'+5�� • •••r �4 • • �� z - .� 4 `� w; .�' Ct
•� a♦ I ti,. 7,rY1DA�� I t r , g�
Obje Polygons ...a, �I"
oz
Candidate Vk&w
=No tvb nC A • ♦ t • • � �, •• � ,,
my. AL
RSRP dBm 1+, • q -
_ -75 to d5 I g i/•• • : • r
45 to .75
•
M-95 to 45 I wZ Fla tTl
Gr tx au Ra
--,os to -ss �.
_ -200 to 405 I •. jl
a � �
aroakioRl Gr I f♦ Gf,° 4% 43w1rtorne atw,0
Q I t
o �an�t
104312,4fly12..off N`_ ! • •
K4gePath Ct
f
U •f Z • 1
f • •K�,F4atc� :�� 1
CCCROWN Proprietary&
CASTLE Confidential 1 13
ASG53=A Proposed Coverage
ell
F
700 MHzI
Ve 217
Node Locations (primarylahemate) �/ ,• ••• �� �_ +� • L — -- — _ _ < e"
i. •• O I I V49 Rpt@ J !A► S�
Existing Node On -Air •.•.
PI
PV80_Primary _Node Locations • • d'. : I d;,. " + ; - �.• .
a
Wireless Telecommunications Facilities ; - t� • • 1 ,Q ,� ( O C {
• � r � �
_ •� it yl`. •, I ,% , � t- :, a � ��','
_--I Polygons I Regm_. '��_•{' I I--�—!-- _,.. ��t A,A
Can —, a Viability
AL
RSRP dRm
as m ss •
8510 -as 1 •%$ _,i • • �--•—�..�J _ _ ' Ip
• •
--ssro ss ; • .CAI•ii - �_f -- Flam:;c•�uRo
M-ios to -95
_-200 a -IDS I ( it i • bi. V •rr
r
�raoktoRl Dr � I � _ � . ,.� i . •�•+� : • � "M3wthc:rrp
Lo,
04a dc's'
Q I '0{
!�'' g{o ri .Alwop
• •i �: Ridge path Ct ®� �� ■
z
I � , • •� 'b at
I�� ` �..�x�'b"'•,: •' :. � � — � f (fit -� � � �i `
_------ 40.-
�fly Ile
.x+01,. \ `'�``s ( ; . 'f ' 1 `� (; • • 'l \
a ' •"��'�, �, .�'�' M-, �• I • i 7 z• �'i,t�,!;f�f:;llt: r - w \ \
bac �!4 t b �- a A • paw, pC y -- — ---- `
CROWN Proprietary&
k. v CASTLE Confidential 114
D-47
ASG53=B Proposed Coverage
ASGa C
1
Vid -IL
1 0o MHz ?> // '•'f.�Arcz t} r —•j'� . . �pp�a ' 1 ti
9,a ��-- ASGOS 1� Y -----
-—
Node Locations (primary/ahemate) V '�-,p Q� i _{y' • _ _ Z
Ex ting Node On -Air �t'i !� :�• I •`� V �jifgQyJ a r;, «-
• �q p
PV30_Primary_Node Locations ' • I Nr�i B da!;
Wireless Telecommunications Facilities 'h • � '
RF Objective Polygons �'<'n •• ;r tom. �Re on ,} (.Ri•' ASG A _ �i y� 4--t.
9.
Candidate Viaoildy I SGS ~ I * 77
_ves f��rt���p�1A I –G A9G57_0 I •-�"�\.. ! ff IP
S t
RSRP dem ! . + G 41!
� ' 1 i
_ 65 to 0 I ! - �i 57 B ' V p
_ -75 to -65 V# t` j` .
-85 to 75
.95 to 45 JI T FI$Mrwau Rd
__1051. _95 ^ ^ S+ •�
_.2001.-105old
BA dJey% bt I cC. Hawthorne 8r,a i F
w'Rtd9eprth C' a'
J 6.� CAt0 Ur ;u �Zv :8!1�x
egate ID.
J'�O '� .L4(iV�A• ASG4 L ---Zi—._.—_---`— ---
�`
CROWN Proprietary &
CASTLE Confidential 15
� � i
ASG53=B Proposed Coverage
l "••. - Asoa_c r
\\ \� ••� r••• 11 % ASG39_•
'A; tf iz. } r� ��"�+- — — — — .,.1 Ger . • r ASG�_B • � � TOOS � • � /
AS F
C / i + I j
� w
JA
JL
0o MHz r ... r . ; •r+• •• ••• A500 • / .ti. — J
5Df ` .'
Node Locations (primarylaHemate) V • i • • �f •
Ex sting Node On -Air •• • • • • •�{'�• ! - t ' I + I • V0 &,b� J 40
PV80_Primary_Node_Locations• I I� -f v r • f �b _ w �`
Wireless Telecommunications Facilities �ykn4t.� -�•• •i' • 'f�,. `�
101k
Rf Objectwe_Polygons V .� (� • • ASG A y�r I • _ r r
�_ _ '� ♦ F�
I Rem° - • �i
Candidate Viaauy I ASO
0 000
ves I ! /� � •� ■ � � � I i Id ibab 611"• . 3 ASGb3-C ASG53_0 I • •. 46
RSRP dem -� , 1
'S 16G53 8
_ -75 10 0 ..+Air. ;
B510 -75 f. •
1.
g / J� • i M +4P P1z�:�T71 M1`
_ -95 10 as I ' t'r �'� '`� 7 1 ; •.+ C, •: ,�' T' t 1ST J(• 3 U j'j.�
-
_.200 to .105Ir
�NSI�7a_ OF I G .1`'' }�. 1{ i +•+• • • • • • • • • Haw1h^ ttY!
•. '
j --
C o �„a �n • �� r RO.getk11n rrT;t I ft
.42
I 1 ►
Or
�1 ` b, r`� I i CC - • f /ISZ�r�'�at{: '_i' •
1V
L.
10
716 W 5'
C
CROWN Proprietary &
✓ CASTLE Confidential i6
ASG53=C Proposed Coverage
�ISS'd Dr I Y
Q I o
I
I
v
• 'r•i Arc;,
Q�
c°
C.tM�D3S
rCROWN Proprietary&
ft
CASTLE Confidential
Vw
�• ASGtw-F ,ASGS
•• ••.• I , res.
•ff
r—
'10 3
a Ascus_
r • I oVia iul
ti I • a .4 �
ASO5 I _
_ AST3-C AS.53-0 53_0 • iw1., _ AL53 e IP
�!•
owa Dr '��
• ��i � RIO o 'b
• `V • N +' -oorm
p� f aeau
I It
HaWtha
�Q �a Rdge t--Ith1043 s • ! ! ! .1..
CA
q
i
I • �II�Gu 1I� � j Asfa37 9
ASrl5* • ASG9iAJ�-- -- L— —ter.
17
D-50
Ic.;,
• 'r•i Arc;,
Q�
c°
C.tM�D3S
rCROWN Proprietary&
ft
CASTLE Confidential
Vw
�• ASGtw-F ,ASGS
•• ••.• I , res.
•ff
r—
'10 3
a Ascus_
r • I oVia iul
ti I • a .4 �
ASO5 I _
_ AST3-C AS.53-0 53_0 • iw1., _ AL53 e IP
�!•
owa Dr '��
• ��i � RIO o 'b
• `V • N +' -oorm
p� f aeau
I It
HaWtha
�Q �a Rdge t--Ith1043 s • ! ! ! .1..
CA
q
i
I • �II�Gu 1I� � j Asfa37 9
ASrl5* • ASG9iAJ�-- -- L— —ter.
17
D-50
ASG53=C Proposed Coverage
•N •�_Mo•
ASG ;�••
ASG
700 MHz • •.1 rG> :'.�- •-yL •AdGSoGS_05� �
-�-- — -- —
Node Locations (primaryraHemate) V �P'. �� i � • —
•
5
Existing Node On -Air �"�• • t. • I • I ul •�'f'O Z
• • vj f c
PV80 Primary_Node_Locetions • ' I � � ':�; , Q• • �
• j:3� I • ��I! MM•• r
Wireless Telecommunications. Facilities �l S •••••• • • • Ai'' 1 �s" ••
r
RF Objective Polygons - - - - - - - - - - - 'SPS k • C .. I �,. — t r _ ,.
ASG A + I
I _ .
Candidate Ytabiliy ASG S . -
®rm I MhnerR ti'1•yttt.� .. •••• •.. ••1* .• f �.
_rrs4 • i Z :-C ASG57 0 I ••••• - 46
RSRP dem Skt AGS3 8
_ -65 to 0 _. .•••M r♦ : ^1�► 1 ! `� ..ife }� :s.
eb
ss to 85-
c• `� tarillbaau Rd
_-105 to .95 • lo • �.
_.200 to .iDS I �i � 1� � '1 �!� t • � • '.� , `J ��
•
E c �pc 6 d va`
::.,;9e is f Yt � � 11 � � � �! ! .�
-------
CA
.h_`
rt t ! I —��— c �% y ASG3
OL -• \�«� • i C ASG37 6'*StJi�t� �\
CROWN Proprietary &
CASTLE Confidential 1 18
D-51
ASG53-D Proposed Coverage
'SASG
ASMb "41
1005 ft
A -G6 F
ge
ca igoo MHz Airfr -1
L
Node J,-
Locations (primary;aftemate)
Existing Node On -Air
e
0 fir",
PVaO Primary Node Locations •
love
go
Wireless Telecommunications Facilities;
RF Objective_� Polygons
Region ASO A
F• al
Candidate Viability
Kb ne. ro Ust
=No jC
AWS3
&
RSRPd-65 to 0
am Id a A60N x
III
-75 t. -65
L
jr
- to -75F
M .95 to - Mon, '00 ham -
M T- D beau Rd
M-105 10 -95
.200 to -105
gL
S
RO-gepair, —
— — — — — — — — — — —
X
A
tWj
ask m AW31p
it lie.
Z
ASG37 8
-- — — — — — — — --
CROWN Proprietary &
..'roigo CASTLE Confidential 19
D-52
ASG53-D Proposed Coverage
Hz
_-200 to .105
eC,
Mrwcm L--[
r.
rv
,_CROWN Proprietary&
CASTLE Confidential
......... fGG*
L
z;7 A
ASG
I A
AS
-0
A
HaWthorrie Blva
AS0310
ASG39•
-
AS G
#
',T
'ImbGauft
1 20
D-53
cA
a
1431
7;
A303b
F-7
z
ASG37_SqkS"$*
4N
AS S -A-b- A
1 20
D-53
Columbia Telecommunications Corporation
Wireless Facility Application Evaluation
Applicant: Crown Castle
Site # ASG -53
UPDATED 1/24/18 based on info received from Crown Castle
Description: Investigation of 3 Alternative Locations for Tower Site
Site Location: 6505 MONERO DRIVE
Site survey findings:
The on-site survey of the above referenced site was conducted on August 22, 2017. Exhibit 1 is a
photograph of the mockup pole and equipment cabinet for the proposed Crown Castle installation. The
site location on Monero Drive is near the point where it connects to Granvia Altamira. It is positioned
in the center of the target area to serve residences along Granvia Altamira, Monero Drive and Via
Cerritos.
Exhibit 1— Site with Mocked Up Pole with Antenna
D-54
As a part of this assignment. I conducted signal measurements of the AT&T service in the target area
identified by Crown Castle to be served from the site. Before conducting the ASG Site 53
measurements, I first made measurements at the City Hall parking lot to both calibrate the test
equipment and also to establish a reference sample of the network throughput and signal level (signal
power relative to 1 milliwatt of the LTE information signal power RSRP {Reference Signal Received
Power} an industry standard metric) near the macro tower. Measurements were made with the
spectrum analyzer for all three licensed AT&T bands. The measurements confirmed that tower signals
were active on all three bands. A signal level of -70 dBm RSRP was recorded at the site along with
data throughput download measurements exceeding 100 Mb and uploads in the range of 45 Mb. This
was fully consistent with my expectations for a properly functioning, lightly loaded 4G LTE network.
I then conducted a drive test along the route shown in Exhibit 2 below. At ASG Site 53 Gap target
area, the same measurements were taken near the proposed antenna site. At the proposed ASG Site
53, the signal level measurement was -88 dBm and 4G LTE technology. The throughput tests
registered download speeds of between 49.27-54.35 Mbps, and 47.09-51.27 Mbps for the upload.
Generally, my experience indicates that is desirable to have a minimum signal level of at least -100 to
-95 dBm to support reliable connections for both upload and download and data speeds consistent
with the 3G technology. I note that Crown Castle in the application has specified a target signal goal
of -95 dBm or greater for LTE technology.
Exhibit 2 — Map Showing Existing AT&T Coverage Measured During Site Visit
On the exhibit, there is an overlay is an of the target area defined by Crown Castle which is outlined in
blue. Signal level measurements were made throughout the area and recorded in a slowly moving
vehicle at five second intervals. The data was then plotted using the geographical coordinates onto a
Google Earth map. A complete listing of the 100 measurements points used to create this coverage
D-55
map can be found in Appendix A of this document. The listing includes the measured signal level, the
geographical coordinates and the AT&T tower site communicated with. It should be noted that during
the drive test the receiver attempted to connect to 9 individual tower sites that provide some level of
signal service in the drive area. Three signal level test points were unable to connect at all. Note that
the best AT&T coverage in the ASG #53 Gap is the immediate vicinity of the proposed tower site (at the
intersection of Granvia Altamira and Monero Drive); elsewhere the service is largely marginal LTE
coverage. The proposed antenna patterns are to cover the Gap to the North and East of the proposed
site
For additional information on the specifics frequencies that AT&T operates on the RPV area as well as
background technical information which is applicable to all these Crown Castle applications, please see
Appendix B of this document.
Based on our field measurements It is our finding that within this small area there is a gap in reliable
AT&T broadband services.
Technical review: This new DAS wireless access facility is to be installed on a replacement street light
to provide additional capacity and service on all three AT&T bands (700 MHz, PCS and AWS) to
improved digital network services to customers in vehicles and buildings. Exhibit 3 is a Google map
photo submitted by the applicant defining the primary service area for this site. This is the same area
in which we conducted the signal level measurements for existing AT&T coverage.
Exhibit 3 —Target Area Overview
D-56
Two separate antennas are mounted at a radiation center located 21'6" above ground level (AGL).
The antennas simultaneously can support the AT&T 700, PCS and AWS bands. The site will function to
provided local coverage to the area within the blue rectangle. This site work in concert with existing
AT&T macro (traditional cell towers) sites.
Exhibit 4 is an illustration of the proposed DAS facility. The site includes two directional antennas each
targeting along the road focusing the signal beam into a target 60' arc, aimed at azimuths of 0' and 90'
respectively.
Exhibit 4 — Site ASG 53
tli•I�iI LOOKING NORTHWEST fRQM GRANVIA AITAMIRA
To support the application, Crown Castle provided field measurements made with a temporary
antenna to substantiate coverage in the target area. We have reviewed the information and also
conducted both an on-site walkout of the area as well as a computerized terrain study to determine if
the proposed site will address the coverage gap identified in the Crown Castle application. For the
terrain profile study, we examined a series of individual path profiles from the proposed site to a
sampling of locations within the gap. Exhibit 5 below shows the locations (within the gap) which were
chosen for examination of the path profiles. Complete path profile information for the 4 sample sites
are available in Appendix B.
4
D-57
14 43
SAV-
�V- Ibt � . i�_Y sv ,��'• ,1t • t: • -�� � �
7 J t
Oil
PA
c �i 1 4��~ j1 ` �� i Vii. 'w 7 • r
Provide coverage at the intersection of I9,tl I'.4, ?tjCoronel Plaza, for a handoff to locations
North of Via Cerritos.
,� (. ` _V4� .�' ` •1G 6 ,
CoIY)Itel PIU., r�
Of'
k F yam• r (�. o.
IL
ft M's
.' T; s� iy� —� IC -T-
-V7
wsc i
`o a ✓/ \ d y \rte 'L res, iai� Y�
Exhibit 7 — Proposed Coverage from Locating Tower Site at ASG53—A
AS6016
igoo MHz]/,
Its.
Rf 1)"—
VW 4. . 4
4 v 4
IL V
t 44
BroWoM Dt
01
,PZ;;VP" K -,d, 9- t�," I n- I
pprip WV
1VO,
as,* IL
ev. #
t
AW
700 MHz .........
..........
V 'ell
ol
06
jfwkfom D1
per
R,
4 -, Adi"W-11 011,44V r
Exhibit 8 shows conclusions from the Crown Castle report on the viability of alternate sites for ASG53.
D-60
Exhibit 8 — Alternate Site Conclusions
Node ID
Average RSRP
dBm
Loss of RSRP
signal 96
ASG53-A
-86
0%
ASGS3-8
-87
-1%
ASG53-C
-90
-5%
ASG53-D
-88
-2%
This chart shows the Average RSRP (we assume in this analysis the data is for the 1900 MHz band, as in
other Crown Castle submittals) as measured throughout the target service objective area based on the
source location of the proposed antenna site. As you can see, while ASG53-A has the highest Average
RSRP of -86 dBm, Crown Castle has indicated that all other 3 sites are an acceptable solution to meet
the objective, since ASG53-B (the poorest location from a purely signal standpoint) still has an Average
RSRP of no less than -90 dBm. Other Crown Castle reports indicate a target goal of an Average RSRP of
greater than -95 dBm in the target service area, thus according to the data provided, every alternative
site appears to provide more than enough coverage to address the existing poor AT&T service issues in
ASG53.
Co -location options: Crown Castle has provided information on the various options that have been
reviewed for the site deployment. It should be noted that the alternatives involve minor changes in the
siting of the facility. In most cases the limited coverage areas of the DAS units limit or confine site
selection. Generally, alternatives are selected based on aesthetic considerations since the overall
coverage area is confined by the limited service area of DAS technology and location of the specific
signal gap areas that are to be addressed.
Findings and conclusions: The applicant (Crown Castle) has provided engineering details related to
the wireless bands that will be used for the DAS deployment, including identifying transmitting
equipment, power levels for each band and specifics regarding the radiation patterns of the antennas
to be installed. However, information provided about existing and proposed coverage in the service
area for each of the three AT&T licensed wireless bands (700 MHz, PCS and AWS) are less clearly
defined; this is due to the extremely rugged and varied terrain associated with the RPV landscape.
From an engineering perspective, Crown Castle has provided engineering measurement data defining
gaps in AT&T coverage in small pocketed areas. I have independently examined these areas and find
that the signal levels are lower than the levels industry guidelines suggested to support modern
3G/4G customer needs. Further, the engineering design provided by Crown Castle supports that, if
constructed, any of the proposed tower sites for ASG 53 will provide ample signal intensity (signal
level in excess of -95 dBm) to support AT&T's 3G/4G wireless services. Currently from the information
D-61
obtained in the drive tests, it appears that approximately half of the proposed service area currently
is served with marginal 4G LTE service.
Signature:
jzt
Lee Afflerbach, P.E.
Date: 9/5/17
UPDATED: 1/24/18
dc technology & energy
engineering & business consulting
D-62
D-63
Appendix B —Technical Considerations for Small Cell Wireless Networks
Introduction
This Small Cell Wireless Network is designed to augment and supplement existing AT&T
wireless communications in Rancho Palos Verdes. On the whole, Crown Castle seeks to install
dozens of these small cell antenna sites throughout the City in the public right of way. On the
whole, these antenna sites will typically be no higher than 17 feet (based on other City
ordinances) with two directional antennas to optimize coverage in a several hundred foot area
radius.
Antenna
Crown Castle proposes a tri band Amphenol CUUX045X06F0000 antenna which has the
following pattern of RF radiation in the horizontal plane (Azimuth) (see Exhibit 1 below). Each
color represents the radiation for the various bands with the 0 direction pointing directly to the
highest radiation level. Thus, in these directional antennas, while it is represented as a 65
degree beamwidth (30 degrees on either side of the 0, from 330 to 30 degrees), there is still
plenty of signal (almost half as much) nearby in the fields even 60 degrees on either side of the
0.
Exhibit I- RF Pattern Radiation Strength for Amphenol CUUX045X06F0000
696.960 MHz (R1)
s +� w
Horizontal 696.790 MHz Horizontal ( 7904880 MHz Hoftmw ( 880.960 MHz
1695.2700 MHz (Yt & Y2)
Specific RF Use and FCC License Information
In Rancho Palos Verdes (and throughout Southern California) AT&T operates on three major
frequency bands: 700 MHz, broadband PCS (Personal Communications Service), and AWS
(Advanced Wireless Services). Specifically, in the 700 MHz band they are using 704 MHz -710
MHz and 734 MHz -740 MHz (FCC License callsign WQJQ721) and 710-716 MHz and 740-746
MHz (FCC License callsign WPWU990). In the PCS band, AT&T uses 1865-1870 MHz and 1945-
1950 MHz (FCC License callsign KNLG472) and 1870-1885 MHz and 1950-1965 MHz (FCC
callsigns KNLF205 and WQHT993). For the AWS broadband service, AT&T operates at 1710-
1720 MHz and 2110-2120 MHz (FCC callsign WQGA742).
Signal Strength Information and Measurement
Typically, radio service is measured by Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP). It is measured
in dBm (which is a negative number so that -75 dBm is a very strong signal and -110 dBm is a
very weak signal). AT&T's target for acceptable signal is -95 dBm and that signal strength should
provide good coverage including some acceptable in -building connectivity. Our expectation for
reliable coverage in outdoor environment is to measure a RSRP of >_ -105 dBm.
D-65
-- P •�
`�_
' •. ,
.
j
re
.411
.ter . �, •:. �=
c� _h
GOOCjIP_.E�f
From Proposed Antenna Site to TP 1
1070
10675 ASG 3 T 1
1065 -
1062.5
1060
1057.5
1055
1052.5
1050
1047.5
1045
1042.5
1040
1037.5
1035
1032.5
1030
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28
1070
1067.5
1065
u 1062.5
1060
1057.5
1055
1052.5
N 1050
1047.5
0 1045
d 1042.5
.� 1040
its 1037.5
1035
1032.5
1030
Mange on path (kilometers)
From Proposed Antenna Site to TP 2
Range on path (kilometers)
1070
1067.5
1065
1062.5
1060
1057.5
1055
1052.5
1050
1047.5
1045
1042.5
1040
1037.5
1035
1032.5
1030
1070
1067.5
1065
1062.5
1060
1057.5 "
1055
1052.5
1050
1047.5
1045
1042,5'
1040
1037.5
1035
1032.5
1030
D-67
1120
1115
Z 1110
�+ 1105
1100
> 1095
w 1090
v 1085
1080
> 1075
.n 1070
1065
o� 1060
1055
1050
.ILS
1160
IM
v 1140
1130
d 1120
; 1110
to
in 1100
> 1090
Q 1080
1070
a 1060
= 1050
1040
From Proposed Antenna Site to TP 3
ASGS
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0,07 0.08 0.09 0.1 0.11 0.12
Range on path (kilometers)
From Proposed Antenna Site to TP 4
Range on path (kilometers)
1120
1115
1110 :r
1105
1100 -
1095 >
1090
1085 v
1080 'n
1075 >
1070-0
1065 y
1060'.,
1055
1050
1045
1160
1150
ii
1140
1130
1120 >
v
1110
1100 (n
1090 >
1080-0
1070-
1060
070t1060
1050 =
1040
� •i
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 11/30/2017
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Public Hearing
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action to grant an appeal and overturn the Planning
Commission's denial of Major Wireless Telecommunication Facility Permit ASG No. 53
to install a Wireless Telecommunication Facility (WTF) on an existing utility pole at the
northwest intersection of Monero Drive and Granvia Altamira.
Quasi -Judicial Decision
This item is a quasi-judicial decision in which the City Council is being asked to
affirm whether specific findings of fact can be made in order to overturn the denial
of the Planning Commission's decision. The specific findings of fact are listed in
the Resolution per Chapter 12.18 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code
(RPVMC).
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Adopt Resolution No. 2017-_, thereby granting an appeal and overturning the
Planning Commission's denial of Major Wireless Telecommunication Facility
Permit ASG No. 53 to allow the installation of two panel antennas encased in a
canister measuring 2' tall and 14.6" in diameter mounted on a 4' mast arm,
extending from an existing 52' tall wood utility streetlight pole approximately 20.6'
from the ground with vaulted accessory equipment (Option No. 1) at the
northwest intersection of Montero Drive and Granvia Altamira
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) via trust deposit.
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: Art Bashmakian, AICP, Contract Planner
REVIEWED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, Director of Community Development
REVIEWED BY: Christy Marie Lopez, Special Legal Counsel
APPROVED BY: Doug Willmore, City Manager
55478.00001\30324926.2 D-69
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Draft Resolution No. 2017-_ — (page A-1)
B. Revised Design Options (page B-1)
C. Appeal Letter to City Council dated September 20, 2017 (page B-1)
D. P.C. Resolution No. 2017-28 - denying without prejudice (page D-1)
E. September 12, 2017 P.C. Staff Report (page E-1)
1. P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -XX including Conditions of Approval
2. Project plans and photo simulations
3. City's View Assessment Memo
4. Technical information from the City's RF Engineer
5. Coverage Maps and Supporting Documents from the Applicant
6. Feasibility Analysis on Alternate Sites
7. August 7, 2017 Shot Clock Tolling Agreement
8. Public Comments
F. Public Comments (page F-1)
G. Tolling Agreement (page G-1)
Click on the link below to view the September 12, 2017 Planning Commission meeting
on ASG No. 53 - Agenda Item No. 3 (time stamp: 1:24:37):
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
Crown Castle, the Appellant, is a tower company hired by wireless companies for the
purposes of acquiring sites for the construction and deployment of wireless
telecommunications antennas throughout local jurisdictions. Pursuant Chapter 12.18 of
the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC), Crown Castle is proposing to
install approximately 26 new antennas in the City's public right-of-way (PROW),
including the subject application, to provide services to AT&T consumers throughout the
City.
Original Project Description and Location
The Project as originally submitted to the City was to install a wireless
telecommunication facility consisting of two 24" panel antennas mounted on a 4' mast
arm extending from the existing 52' tall wood utility streetlight pole. The radio equipment
and power meter box were to be placed on the ground adjacent to the street light pole,
consisting of 9.7 cubic feet of area in the PROW.
The wireless telecommunication facility considered by the Planning Commission
consisted of the placement of two panel antennas encased in a 2' tall and 2' in diameter
canister shroud mounted on a 4' mast arm, extending from the existing 52' tall wood
55478.00001\30324926.2 D-70
utility streetlight pole with the bottom of the antennas/canister 20'-6" from the ground
with related vaulted mechanical equipment.
The site is located entirely within the PROW, along the west side of Granvia Altamira.
This portion of Granvia Altamira does not have paved sidewalks. There are trees and
shrubs near the site (there is no landscaped parkway). The three photos on the next
page depict the existing site, and a photo simulation of the original submitted project
(side -mounted antennas panels affixed to a 4' mast arm) and the project considered by
the Planning Commission with the antennas panels encased in a canister shroud
attached to a 4' mast arm to an existing wood utility pole.
Existing Site
Original Design
Planning Commission's Decision
Commission Reviewed Design
On August 30, 2017, and at the Applicant's request, the Planning Commission
continued the public hearing, without discussion to September 12, 2017. On September
12, 2017, the Commission conducted a public hearing to consider the Appellant's
request. At this meeting, after considering evidence introduced in the record including
public testimony from the Appellant, neighbors, Staff, and the City's RF Engineer, the
Planning Commission moved to deny, without prejudice, the project on a vote of 5-1
with Commissioner Nelson dissenting, (Commissioner Leon was absent). The
Commission's denial was based on the following findings (see page D-1):
• The installation and support equipment does not meet the "non-dominant design"
standard requiring a facility to be compatible with the surrounding environment.
• That the antenna and canister shroud with a 4' arm on a wood utility streetlight
pole in its proposed location is out -of -character to the surrounding neighborhood.
55478.00001\30324926.2 D-71
• The canister affixed by a 4' arm to a wood utility streetlight pole exacerbates the
visual clutter in the surrounding environment and would be visually intrusive as
there are no similar vertical elements with similar facilities in the neighborhood.
• 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.
• The record presented no evidence of the proposed antennas being situated as
close to the ground as possible.
• The facility will be mounted to the 4' arm of an existing wood utility street light
pole and would take up more right-of-way space compared to the existing utility
streetlight pole.
• The wireless telecommunication facility covers a relatively small portion of the
technical service objective and will not provide service to a significant number of
users.
• There was no significant gap in coverage that would necessitate the proposed
facility.
• The proposed facility supports a majority of coverage to residents in the City of
Palos Verdes Estates.
• A proposed facility, once activated, in the City of Palos Verdes Estates will
address the coverage needs within the immediate neighborhood.
During the Commission's discussion regarding coverage needs within the immediate
neighborhood, questions arose whether a significant gap exists with the existing
wireless antennas affixed to the 7-11 Building at the intersection Hawthorne Blvd. and
Granvia Altamira. The antennas at this 7-11 building do not include antennas for AT&T
but rather Sprint, T -Mobile, and Verizon.
City Council Appeal
On September 20, 2017, the Appellant filed a timely appeal (see page C-1) of the
Planning Commission's denial of Major Wireless Telecommunication Facility Permit
ASG No. 53 contending that the denial and the reasons for the denial effectively
prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting the provisions of personal wireless services. In
summary, the Appellant believes that the Commission's decision was not based on
substantial evidence and that the denial violates the Appellant's right to deploy its
facilities in the public rights-of-way in violation of Public Utilities Code section 7901, in
that that the Planning Commission's action exceeds the local control over the "time
place and manner" of access to the right-of-way.
Revised Project
In response to the Planning Commission's decision, the Appellant has reassessed its
proposal and is presenting two design options for the Council's consideration as part of
the appeal proceedings. Option No. 1 consists of two panel antennas encased in a
canister shroud measuring 2' tall and 14.6" in diameter canister, which is approximately
55478.00001\30324926.2 D-72
10" smaller in diameter than the canister shroud the Commission considered at its
September 12th meeting. Option No. 2, which is similar to the original proposal with
exposed panel antennas affixed to the utility pole, utilizes smaller 20.5" tall panel
antennas instead of 24" tall panel antennas. Both options utilize a 4' arm affixed to the
wood utility light pole.
Photo simulations of the two design options are shown below (see page B-1 for larger
images):
Option No. 1 Option No. 2
Based on the two options, Staff's preference is Option No. 1 because it results in a
facility that is least intrusive to the neighborhood by concealing the panel antennas and
associated wires within a canister shroud measuring 14.6" in diameter. The canister
shroud before the City Council has been reduced in diameter by approximately 10" than
the canister shroud considered by the Planning Commission resulting in a slimmer
profile in comparison, Option No. 2 includes exposed antennas and wires, while the
design of Option No. 1 aligns with the required findings cited in Section 12.18.090 of the
RPVMC, including the general guidelines stated in Section 12.18.080 of the RPVMC, as
summarized below:
• Employs screening with the canister shroud.
• Minimizes view and visual impacts with the panel antennas and related wires
encased in a shroud with vaulted mechanical equipment.
• Avoids adverse impacts to traffic patterns including pedestrians and vehicles.
• Incorporates blending design techniques.
• Matches the material, color, and height of utility streetlight poles within the
immediate neighborhood.
55478.00001\30324926.2 D-73
Utilizes existing infrastructure thereby avoiding the installation of new above-
ground infrastructure.
Represents the least intrusive design as compared to alternative designs and
locations.
• Meets the Appellant's coverage objective (see discussion below)
A detailed analysis of the required findings can be found in the attached resolution
(page A-1). Exhibit A to the attached resolution includes the Conditions of Approval
regulating the installation, appearance, and maintenance of the wireless facility within
the public right-of-way mitigating potential adverse impacts to the immediate
neighborhood.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
City Council Site Visit
The City Council is encouraged to visit the project site and the proposed installation for,
among other things, design assessment and location. The Council will be asked to
disclose whether they visited the project site before opening the public hearing.
Coverage Gap Analysis
Sections 12.18.050(B)(1 9)(a) and (b) of the Wireless Telecommunications Facilities in
the Public Right -of -Way Chapter of the Municipal Code states that in the event an
applicant seeks to install a WTF to address service coverage concerns and/or service
capacity concerns, the applicant needs to submit propagation maps with objective units
of signal strength measurement regarding current service coverage and written
explanation identifying the existing facilities with service capacity issues. The applicants
submitted maps and written explanations have been reviewed by the City's RF
Specialist who has concluded that the signal levels are lower than the levels industry
guidelines suggest to support modern 3G/4G customer needs. The City's specialist
concluded that there are gaps in coverage in small pocketed areas and the subject
facility will provide ample signal intensity to support AT&T's 3G/4G wireless services.
Pole Design Options Mockup
The Appellant has installed a mockup of "replacement pole" design examples for
supporting the proposed telecommunication panel antennas. The mockups are located
adjacent to the City's maintenance yard at the City Hall site for City Council, Planning
Commission, and public viewing.
Mockup Notice Issued
On May 23, 2017, the Applicant (Crown Castle) received a Public Works Encroachment
Permit to install a mockup of a proposed wireless telecommunications facility. The
temporary mockup was installed on June 1, 2017 with above ground mechanical
55478.00001\30324926.2 D-74
equipment. This is a required step in the Wireless Telecommunications Facilities
Application for all proposed wireless facility installations. Pursuant to Chapter 12.18 of
the RPVMC, the City Council is to review this specific proposed installations for, among
other things, design assessment and location. The temporary mockup installation will
remains in-place as a matter of public notice up -to and during the appeal proceedings.
The above ground equipment is now proposed to be vaulted underground.
Public Notice
On November 15, 2017, a public hearing notice was published in the Daily Breeze
announcing tonight's special meeting on the project application. Similarly, public
notices were mailed to property owners within a 500' radius of the project site and to
list -serve subscribers announcing the public hearing and inviting public comments on
the appeal. An additional courtesy public notice was published in the Peninsula News
on Thursday, November 23, 2017.
Public Comments
Attached are the public comments received since the appeal notice was issued (page F-
1).
Planning Commission Chairman
Pursuant to City Council Policy No. 24, the Planning Commission Vice -Chair James will
be attending the November 301h meeting in event the Council has any questions
pertaining to the Commission's decisions in this matter.
Shot Clock
State and federal laws, and a FCC ruling, provide that a local jurisdiction must act on an
application for certain wireless facilities antennas within the following certain strict
timeframes:
(1) a 150 -day shot clock for new facilities;
(2) a 90 -day shot clock for modifications resulting in a substantial change; or
(3) a 60 -day shot clock for modifications that do not result in a substantial change.
If a local government fails to approve or deny a facilities request within the applicable
time period, the request will be "deemed granted" upon written notification from the
applicant to the local government stating that the request is considered approved.
The Project application proposes a new facility subject to the 150 -day shot clock. The
application was submitted on May 3, 2016. The clock was "tolled" several times as a
result of incomplete application submittals, and it was set to expire on August 25, 2017.
A new Shot Clock Tolling Agreement, dated August 7, 2017 established a new Shot
Clock Expiration date of September 30, 2017 (page G-1).
55478.00001\30324926.2 D-75
The Planning Commission's action on the Project is the final City decision, unless
appealed to the City Council. While the law is not clear, there is no binding legal
precedent in California requiring that the shot clock run pending an appeal period.
Accordingly, it is thought that the Commission's action on the Project may toll the shot
clock.
CONCLUSION:
Based on the forgoing discussion, Staff recommends that the City Council adopt
Resolution No. 2017- _, thereby granting the appeal and overturning the Planning
Commission's decision to deny Major Wireless Telecommunication Facility Permit ASG
No. 53 to allow the installation of two panel antennas encased in a canister measuring
2' tall and 14.6" in diameter mounted on a 4' mast arm, extending from an existing 52'
tall wood utility streetlight pole approximately 20.6' above the ground with underground
vaulted accessory equipment (Option No. 1) at the northwest intersection of Montero
Drive and Granvia Altamira.
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to Staff's recommendation, the following alternatives are available for
consideration by the City Council:
1. Deny the appeal, thereby upholding the Planning Commission's denial of Major
Wireless Telecommunication Facility Permit ASG No. 53 and direct Staff to return
with a revised Resolution at the December 19, 2017 City Council Meeting.
2. Modify the appeal and direct Staff to return with a revised Resolution at the
December 19, 2017, City Council Meeting. This action would entitle the
Appellants to a refund of one-half of their appeal fee.
3. Identify any issues of concern with the proposed project, provide Staff and/or the
Appellant with direction in modifying the project, and continue the public hearing
to a date certain.
55478.00001\30324926.2 D-76
RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES GRANTING AN APPEAL AND
OVERTURNING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF
MAJOR WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY PERMIT
ASG NO. 53 TO ALLOW THE INSTALLATION OF TWO PANEL
ANTENNAS, ENCASED IN A CANISTER MEASURING 2' TALL AND
14.6" IN DIAMETER MOUNTED ON A 4' MAST ARM, EXTENDING
FROM AN EXISTING 52' TALL WOOD UTILITY STREETLIGHT
POLE, APPROXIMATELY 20.6' FROM THE GROUND WITH
UNDERGROUND VAULTED ACCESSORY EQUIPMENT (OPTION
NO. 1) AT THE NORTHWEST INTERSECTION OF MONTERO
DRIVE AND GRANVIA ALTAMIRA
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. 53
("Project") at the northwest intersection of Montero Drive and Granvia Altamira;
WHEREAS, the Project (as proposed to the Planning Commission) called for the
installation of two panel antennas, encased in a canister measuring 2' tall and 2' in
diameter mounted on a 4' mast arm, extending from an existing 52' tall wood utility
streetlight pole, approximately 20.6' from the ground with accessory equipment to be
vaulted underground in the PROW;
WHEREAS, because the Project's location is within a residential zone and within
the PROW of local streets as identified in the General Plan, approval of a WTFP also
requires an exception under Section 12.18.190 of the Municipal Code;
WHEREAS, the Project is exempt from review under the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") because the Project constitutes a small scale
installation of new a new facility (14 CCR § 15303(d)).
WHEREAS, on September 12, 2017, after considering testimony and evidence
presented at the public hearings, the information and findings included in the Staff
55478.00001\30324931.2
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 1 of 27
D-77
Report, and other records of proceedings, the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes moved to deny, without prejudice, ASG No. 53, on a vote of 5-1
with Commissioner Nelson dissenting, (Commissioner Leon was absent).
WHEREAS, on September 20, 2017, a timely appeal of the denial was filed by
the Applicant;
WHEREAS, on November 15, 2017, a public notice was mailed to property
owners within a 500 -foot radius of the subject site and published in the Daily Breeze,
pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code. A courtesy
public notice was published in the Peninsula News on November 23, 2017; and a
notification was sent to list -serve subscribers;
WHEREAS, on November 30, 2017, the City Council held a duly noticed public
hearing, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and
present evidence.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The City Council hereby grants the appeal and overturns the
Planning Commission's denial of Major Telecommunications Facility Permit ("WTFP")
ASG No. 53 involving a project that called for the placement of two panel antennas
encased in a 2' tall and 2' in diameter canister shroud mounted on a 4' mast arm,
extending from the existing 52' tall wood utility streetlight pole with the bottom of the
antennas/canister measuring 20'-6" from the ground with related vaulted mechanical
equipment in the PROW and approves a Major WTFP involving a modified design
consisting of two panel antennas, encased in a canister measuring 2' tall and 14.6" in
diameter mounted on a 4' mast arm, extending from an existing 52' tall wood utility
streetlight pole approximately 20.6' from the ground with accessory equipment to be
vaulted underground in the PROW (identified as Option No. 1 in the staff report) based
on the following findings.
Section 2: Approval of a WTFP is warranted because the Project meets the
findings required by Section 12.18.090 of the Municipal Code:
A. All notices required for the proposed installation have been given.
The Applicant and the City have provided all notices required by the RPVMC. On
May 25, 2017 property owners within 500' of the proposed facility were notified of
the WTF mock-up which occurred at least 30 days in advance of the public
hearing. Further, on August 3, 2017, a public notice announcing the August 22,
2017 public hearing was provided to property owners within 500' of the proposed
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 2 of 2T
55478.00001\30324931.2
WTF and was published in the Peninsula News. On August 22, 2017, at the
request of the Applicant, the Planning Commission continued this item to its
September 12, 2017 meeting. On November 15, 2017 a public notice
announcing the November 30, 2017 public hearing on the appeal of the Planning
Commission's denial of ASG 53 was published in the Daily Breeze and provided
to property owners within 500' of the proposed facility and to list -serve
subscribers. An added courtesy public notice was published in the Peninsula
News on November 23, 2017.
B. The proposed facility has been designed and located in compliance with all
applicable provisions of this chapter.
12.18.080(A)(1)(a): The Applicant shall employ screening, undergrounding and
camouflage design techniques in the design and placement of wireless
telecommunications facilities in order to ensure that the facility is as visually
screened as possible, to prevent the facility from dominating the surrounding area
and to minimize significant view impacts from surrounding properties all in a
manner that achieves compatibility with the community and in compliance with
Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration) of this code.
The WTF is proposed to be installed on an existing 52' tall utility streetlight pole,
with mast arm and luminaire and two service arms that carry power lines along
with cable lines. The panel antennas will be encased in a 2' tall canister,
measuring 14.6"' in diameter, minimizing its visual intrusion to the environment.
The canister shroud will blend into the environment that consist of utility light
poles, power lines, cable lines, mast arms and luminaries along Granvia Altamira.
The canister and mast arm will be the same color as the existing utility pole. The
area also has existing foliage that screen views of the proposed installation from
residences. The WTF will not dominate the surrounding area because of the
existing vertical infrastructure and limited size of the proposed canister. The
proposal places all of the related mechanical equipment underground in a vault.
The proposed installation will not have any significant view impairment to
surrounding properties pursuant to Chapter 17.02.040 of the RPVMC.
12.18.080(A)(1)(b): Screening shall be designed to be architecturally compatible
with surrounding structures using appropriate techniques to camouflage, disguise,
and/or blend into the environment, including landscaping, color, and other
techniques to minimize the facility's visual impact as well as be compatible with
the architectural character of the surrounding buildings or structures in terms of
color, size, proportion, style, and quality.
55478.00001\30324931.2
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 3 of 2T
D-79
The panel antennas are proposed to be installed on an existing 52 -foot tall utility
street light pole, with mast arm and luminaire and two service arms that carry
power lines along with cable lines. The canister shroud encasing the panel
antennas will be painted brown to match other streetlight utility poles in the area
and the existing condition and improvements on the utility pole. The cylinder
shaped shroud encasing the two antenna panels and wires affixed to the utility
streetlight pole is an appropriate technique that disguises and blends the facility
into the environment (blending with the replacement pole and other poles in the
area). According to the Applicant, the proposed canister is the slimmest design
available, as such, it minimizes the facility's visual impacts and is more
compatible with the surrounding environment in terms of size, proportion and
color.
12.18.080(A)(1)(c): Facilities shall be located such that views from a residential
structure are not significantly impaired. Facilities shall also be located in a manner
that protects public views over city view corridors, as defined in the city's general
plan, so that no significant view impairment results in accordance with this code
including Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration). This provision
shall be applied consistent with local, state and federal law.
The Project does not result in a significant view impairment to surrounding
residences. The proposed WTF is not located in a view corridor identified in the
City's General Plan or Coastal Specific Plan.
12.18.080(A)(3): Traffic Safety. All facilities shall be designed and located in such
a manner as to avoid adverse impacts to traffic safety.
The Project is designed to avoid adverse traffic impacts by affixing the panel
antennas within the canister shroud to an existing wood utility streetlight pole with
the bottom of the antenna canister shroud measuring approximately 20'-6" from the
ground. The related mechanical equipment will be vaulted underground avoiding
traffic safety impacts, including avoiding any impacts to the intersection visibility
triangle at the intersection of Monero Drive and Granvia Altamira.
12.18.080(A)(4): Blending Methods. All facilities shall have subdued colors and
non -reflective materials that blend with the materials and colors of the surrounding
area and structures.
The canister shroud that will house the panel antennas and the associated mast
arm will be painted with non -reflective brown paint that will match and blend with
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 4 of 2'f
55478.00001\30324931.2
the existing utility street light pole.
12.18.080(A)(5): Equipment. The Applicant shall use the least visible equipment
possible. Antenna elements shall be flush mounted, to the extent feasible. All
antenna mounts shall be designed so as not to preclude possible future
collocation by the same or other operators or carriers. Unless otherwise provided
in this section, antennas shall be situated as close to the ground as possible.
The Project is proposed to be installed on a mast arm attached to an existing 52'
tall utility streetlight pole, with a luminaire and two service arms that carry power
lines along with cable lines. The two antennas would be mounted back-to-back
and encased in a 2' tall and 14.6" in diameter canister shroud on a 4' mast arm,
extending from the existing wood utility streetlight pole. The bottom of the
antennas/canister would measure approximately 20'-6" above the ground level
below. Locating the antennas on the mast arm will not preclude possible future
collocation by other operators or carriers.
12.18.080(A)(6)(a): Facilities shall be located consistent with Section 12.18.200
(Location Restrictions) unless an exception pursuant to Section 12.18.190
(Exceptions) is granted.
The proposed location is within the PROW of local residential streets as identified
in the City's General Plan and the City Council finds that an Exception shall be
made as detailed in Section 3 of this Resolution.
12.18.080(A)(6)(b): Only pole -mounted antennas shall be permitted in the right-of-
way. All other telecommunications towers are prohibited, and no new poles are
permitted that are not replacing an existing pole. (For exceptions see
subparagraph (6)(h) below and sections 12.18.190 (Exceptions) and 12.18.220
(State or Federal Law).) Sections 12.18.080(6)(c) through (f) are not applicable.
The proposed WTF will be located in the PROW and will be pole mounted to an
existing utility streetlight pole.
12.18.080(A)(6)(c): Utility Poles. The maximum height of any antenna shall not
exceed 48 inches above the height of an existing utility pole, nor shall any portion
of the antenna or equipment mounted on a pole be less than 24 feet above any
drivable road surface.
The proposed antennas will not exceed 48" above the existing height of the light
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 5 of 2T
55478.00001 \30324931.2
pole. The antennas are proposed below the maximum height of the 52' tall utility
light pole approximately 20'-6" above the ground level to the bottom of the
canister shroud housing the panel antennas. The proposed antenna and canister
shroud will not be above the drivable road surface.
12.18.080(A)(6)(d): Light Poles. The maximum height of any antenna shall not
exceed four feet above the existing height of a light pole. Any portion of the
antenna or equipment mounted on a pole shall be no less than 16% feet above
any drivable road surface.
No portion of the antenna or equipment is less than 161/2 ' above the drivable road
surface and does not exceed 4' above the existing height of the pole.
12.18.080(A)(6)(e): Replacement Poles. If an Applicant proposes to replace a
pole in order to accommodate a proposed facility, the pole shall be designed to
resemble the appearance and dimensions of existing poles near the proposed
location, including size, height, color, materials and style to the maximum extent
feasible.
The project will be affixed to an existing wood streetlight utility pole, and the
existing pole will not be replaced.
12.18.080(A)(6)(f): Pole mounted equipment, exclusive of antennas, shall not
exceed six cubic feet in dimension.
The pole mounted equipment, excluding antennas, would be limited to cable
connecting the node to power and fiber optic backbone, connectors, brackets, and
GPS. The pole mounted equipment, excluding antennas, would therefore not
exceed six cubic feet in dimension. Furthermore, the related mechanical
equipment will be vaulted underground.
12.18.080(A)(6)(i): All cables, including, but not limited to, electrical and utility
cables, shall be run within the interior of the pole and shall be camouflaged or
hidden to the fullest extent feasible.
Interior installation is infeasible as the WTF will utilize an existing wooden pole. All
cables and wires shall be installed within conduit and, flush mounted and painted
brown to match the pole.
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 6 of 2-f
55478.00001\30324931.2
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 WTF will be mounted to an existing wood utility street light pole. The
placement of the antennas on the pole connected to a 4' arm will occupy limited
air space above the right-of-way. The accessory equipment will be
undergrounded and the vault necessary to house the equipment measures
approximately 43 square feet in area. This space is the least amount of space that
is technically feasible for vaulted equipment owned by AT&T. The space that will
be occupied is below the surface with minimum exhaust vents that will be flush to
the surrounding ground.
12.18.080(A)(8): Wind Loads. Each facility shall be properly engineered to
withstand wind loads as required by this code or any duly adopted or incorporated
code. An evaluation of high wind load capacity shall include the impact of
modification of an existing facility.
Based on the information submitted by the Applicant, the City Council finds that
the proposed installation complies with all building codes related to wind loads.
12.18.080(A)(9): Obstructions. Each component part of a facility shall be located
so as not to cause any physical or visual obstruction to pedestrian or vehicular
traffic, incommode the public's use of the right-of-way, or safety hazards to
pedestrians and motorists and in compliance with Section 17.48.070 (Intersection
Visibility) so as not to obstruct the intersection visibility triangle.
The Project design, height and size, including the undergrounding of the
mechanical equipment, will not cause an obstruction to the public's use of the
PROW, does not constitute a safety hazard and/or does not interfere with the
City -defined intersection visibility triangle because the bottom of the proposed
antennas will be located 20.5' above the ground level, not over the drivable
portion of the street, and the related mechanical equipment will be
undergrounded.
12.18.080(A)(10): Public Facilities. A facility shall not be located within any
portion of the public right-of-way interfering with access to a fire hydrant, fire
station, fire escape, water valve, underground vault, valve housing structure, or
any other public health or safety facility.
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 7 of 27
55478.00001\30324931.2
The proposed installation, including the undergrounding of the mechanical
equipment, will not interfere with fire hydrants, fire stations, water lines or any
other public health or safety facilities
12.18.080(A)(13) Landscaping. Where appropriate, each facility shall be installed
so as to maintain and enhance existing landscaping on the site, including trees,
foliage and shrubs. Additional landscaping shall be planted, irrigated and
maintained by applicant where such landscaping is deemed necessary by the city
to provide screening or to conceal the facility.
This portion of Granvia Altamira is characterized by a line of 52' tall utility
streetlight poles strung along the west side of the road. The placement of a vault
would require the removal of one of the saplings along the west side of Granvia
Altamira. As a Condition of Approval, the Applicant must replace the tree at a
location to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development.
Additionally, the Applicant will be required as a Condition of Approval to provide
landscaping around the vault within the parkway to minimize its visual appearance
from pedestrians and motorists.
C. If applicable, the Applicant has demonstrated its inability to locate on
existing infrastructure.
Not applicable. The antennas will be located on an existing utility light pole and
the related mechanical equipment will be undergrounded.
D. The Applicant has provided sufficient evidence supporting the Applicant's
claim that it has the right to enter the public right-of-way pursuant to state
or federal law, or the Applicant has entered into a franchise agreement with
the city permitting them to use the public right-of-way.
The Applicant has submitted to the City a Right of Way Use Agreement (RUA)
entered into with the City in 2011, which allows the Applicant to install wireless
antennas in the PROW. Further, the Applicant has submitted a Certificate of
Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) issued by the California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC) which provides that the Applicant has been
authorized to install wireless telecommunications infrastructure in the PROW.
E. The Applicant has demonstrated the proposed installation is designed such
that the proposed installation represents the least intrusive means possible
and supported by factual evidence and a meaningful comparative analysis
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 8 of 2-T
55478.00001\30324931.2
62
to show that all alternative locations and designs identified in the
application review process were technically infeasible or not available.
Alternative locations were identified in the application review process. The revised
design, which includes the installation of two antenna panels encased in a 2' tall
and 14.6" in diameter canister shroud mounted on a 4' mast arm, extending from
the existing 52' tall wood utility streetlight pole with the bottom of the
antennas/canister measuring 20'-6" from the ground is the least intrusive means of
those alternatives. There are alternative antennas available but, according to the
Applicant, and as confirmed by the City's RF Consultant that would require a
greater number of facilities throughout the community to provide equal coverage
and capacity. This may require the introduction of new pole structures where
there are no streetlights or utility poles and would likely require associated
accessory equipment at every location. The supporting mechanical equipment
would be vaulted underground resulting in meeting the objective of installing the
least intrusive facility.
Other locations and designs, considered as part of the application process for
purposes of filling the coverage gap claimed by the Applicant, were found to be
more intrusive then the proposed Project.
Section 3: Because the Project's location is within a residential zone and
within the PROW of local streets as identified in the General Plan, approval of a WTFP
also requires an exception under Section 12.18.190 of the Municipal Code. The Project
meets the findings for an exception as required by Section 12.18.190(8) of the
Municipal Code:
1. The proposed wireless facility qualifies as a "personal wireless services
facility" as defined in United States Code, Title 47, section
332(c)(7)(C)(ii).
The WTF meets the definition of "personal wireless services facility" as
defined by the United States Code.
2. The Applicant has provided the city with a clearly defined technical
service objective and a clearly defined potential site search area.
The "technical service objective" identified by the Applicant in all application
documents is the coverage of a "significant gap" in service in the general area
of the intersection of Monero Drive and Granvia Altamira. This application
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 9 of 2-T
55478.00001\30324931.2
information was provided to the City's RF engineer who reviewed the
information, as well as conducted both on-site walkout of the area and a
computerized terrain study to determine the proposed site will address a
coverage gap as identified in the application. Based on the terrain profile
characteristics and the field measurement data provided by Crown Castle, the
proposal as provided will address coverage deficiencies within the target area.
The Applicant has provided engineering details related to the wireless bands
that will be used for the DAS deployment, including identifying transmitting
equipment, power levels for each band and specifics regarding the radiation
patterns of the antennas to be installed.
Crown Castle has provided engineering measurement data defining gaps in
AT&T coverage in small pocketed areas. This has been independently
examined by the City's RF consultant who determined that the signal levels are
lower than industry recommended levels to support modern 3G/4G customer
needs. The engineering design provided by Crown Castle supports that, if
constructed, DAS site ASG No. 53 will provide ample signal intensity (signal
level in excess of -95 dBm) to support AT&T's 3G/4G wireless services.
3. The Applicant has provided the City with a meaningful comparative
analysis that includes the factual reasons why any alternative location(s)
or design(s) suggested by the city or otherwise identified in the
administrative record, including but not limited to potential alternatives
identified at any public meeting or hearing, are not technically feasible
or potentially available.
The Applicant has provided comparative analysis for possible similar small cell
nodes (antennas) at the following 3 alternative locations:
• Alternative No. 1 (location B). Existing wood utility light pole with mast arm
and luminaire approximately 375 -feet south of the subject site located
across Monero Drive, on the same line of utility pole street lights that are
strung along the west side of Granvia Altamira.
• Alternative No. 2 (location C). Replacement of an existing traffic stop sign
pole with a larger pole approximately 84 -feet south of the subject site.
• Alternative No. 3 (location D). Diagonally across the intersection of Monero
Drive and Granvia Altamira on a replacement pole for an existing traffic
sign (stop sign) pole, approximately 140 -feet east of the subject site.
The Applicant has provided comparative analysis of these locations. All the
alternative sites meet the RF coverage objective as confirmed by the City's RF
consultant. The alternative site analysis demonstrates that the Project is likely
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 10 of 27
55478.00001\30324931.2
the least intrusive location for the wireless telecommunications facility in the
immediate area. The proposed Project, with the canister encasing the two
panel antennas at the proposed location, is the least intrusive location for the
wireless telecommunications facility in the immediate area because the other
locations are more visible from residences as they involve either higher terrain
that's more visible to from residences or replacement stop sign pole and
replacement streetlight pole both more noticeable than the utility pole which
allows the antennas/canister to blend with the existing mast arm, luminaire
and other service arms, power lines and cable lines.
4. The Applicant has provided the city with a meaningful comparative
analysis that includes the factual reasons why the proposed location and
design deviates is the least noncompliant location and design necessary
to reasonably achieve the Applicant's reasonable technical service
objectives.
The Applicant has established, and the City's RF consultant has confirmed,
that to meet its technical service objective, the proposed installation must be
installed in a residential zone. As the City is mostly zoned residential, many of
the WTF are likely to locate in residential zones. Notably, the Applicant has
provided a meaningful alternative comparative analysis and the proposed
Project is found to be the preferred design by being installed on existing
vertical infrastructure, a slim canister, and undergrounding all associated
equipment.
Section 4: Conditions regarding any of the requirements listed above which
the City Council finds to be necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare,
have been imposed in the attached Exhibit A
Section 5: The City Council hereby grants the appeal and reverses the
Planning Commission's denial of Wireless Telecommunications Facility Permit ASG No.
53, as revised, based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in this
resolution.
Section 6: The City Clerk shall certify to the passage, approval, and adoption
of this Resolution, and shall cause this Resolution and her certification to be entered in
the Book of Resolutions of the City Council.
Section 7: The time within which judicial review of the decision reflected in this
Resolution must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil
Procedure or other applicable short periods of limitation.
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 11 of ZT
55478.00001\30324931.2
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 30th day of November 2017.
Brian Campbell, Mayor
ATTEST:
Emily Colborn, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES )
I, Emily Colborn, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby certify that
the above Resolution No. 2017-, was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the
said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on November 30, 2017.
CITY CLERK
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 12 of 2T
55478.00001\30324931.2
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
WTF ASG NO. 53
NORTHWEST INTERSECTION OF
MONERO DRIVE AND GRANVIA ALTAMIRA
General Conditions:
1. Prior to obtaining a permit from the Public Works Department to install the street
light pole, the Applicant and the property owner shall submit to the City a
statement, in writing, that they have read, understand, and agree to all conditions
of approval contained in this Resolution. Failure to provide said written
statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval shall render
this approval null and void.
2. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City,
and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies,
and instrumentalities thereof, from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of
mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether legal, equitable,
declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute
resolutions procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and
other such procedures) (collectively "Actions"), brought against the City, and/or
any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside,
void, or annul, the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and/or
any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City), for
or concerning the Project.
3. Prior to conducting any work in the public right of way (PROW), such as for curb
cuts, dumpsters, temporary improvements and/or permanent improvements, the
Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works.
4. Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and
appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws
and regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of
the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) shall apply.
5. The Public Works Director or Director of Community Development are authorized
to make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of
approval if such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as
would strict compliance with the approved plans and conditions. Otherwise, any
substantive change to the Project shall require approval of a revision by the final
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 13 of 2T
55478.00001\30324931.2
body that approved the original Project, which may require new and separate
environmental review.
6. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be
cause to revoke the approval of the Project pursuant to the RPVMC.
7. If the Applicant has not obtained approvals and/or permits from the Departments
of Public Works and/or Community Development for the approved Project or not
commenced the approved Project within one year of the final effective date of
this Resolution, approval of the Project shall expire and be of no further effect
unless, prior to expiration, a written request for extension is filed with the
Community Development Department and approved by the Director of
Community Development.
8. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations
and/or requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter
standard shall apply.
9. The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall
be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that
material used for immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may
include, but not be limited to: the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap
metal, concrete asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or
discarded furniture, appliances or other household fixtures.
10. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM,
Monday through Friday, 9:OOAM to 5:OOPM on Saturday, with no construction
activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section
17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. During demolition,
construction and/or grading operations, trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at
the Project site or in the adjoining street rights-of-way before 7AM Monday
through Friday and before 9AM on Saturday, in accordance with the permitted
hours of construction stated in this condition. When feasible to do so, the
construction contractor shall provide staging areas on-site to minimize off-site
transportation of heavy construction equipment. These areas shall be located to
maximize the distance between staging activities and neighboring properties,
subject to approval by the building official.
11. All grading, landscaping and construction activities shall exercise effective dust
control techniques, either through screening and/or watering.
12. Prior to commencement work, the Applicant shall obtain approval of a haul route
from the Director of Public Works.
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 14 of 2T
55478.00001\30324931.2
13. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly
manner, to the satisfaction of the City's Inspector. All construction waste and
debris resulting from a construction, alteration or repair of the Project shall be
removed on a daily basis by the contractor or property owner.
14. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be
completed in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by
the City (Public Works and Community Development Departments) with the
effective date of this Resolution.
Project -specific Conditions:
15. This approval allows for the following:
A. Install a WTF at the northwest intersection of Monero Drive and Granvia
Altamira.
B. Install two panel antennas encased in a canister measuring 2' tall and
14.6" in diameter that will be mounted on a 4' mast arm, extending from an
existing 52' tall wood utility streetlight pole approximately 20.6' from the
ground level.
C. The installation of vaulted accessory mechanical equipment in the PROW,
including vents and meter boxes that shall be vaulted underground and
flush to the ground and that shall not exceed 43 square feet in total
surface area.
16. The proposed Project is subject to the following Conditions to the satisfaction of
the Director of Public Works and the Director of Community Development:
o The antenna shroud and any related exposed structures shall be painted
brown and maintained to match the utility light pole.
o The Applicant shall install drought tolerant landscaping near the proposed
installation to screen the equipment.
o The Applicant shall replace the tree that is to be removed to accommodate
the vaulted equipment with a tree in the same general location.
o The facility shall be designed and located in such a manner as to avoid
adverse impacts on traffic safety; construction and operation of the facility
shall comport with a duly -approved traffic control plan as required.
55478.00001\30324931.2
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 15 of 2-T
D-91
o Colors and materials shall be subdued and non -reflective, and shall be the
same as the existing utility streetlight pole. All paint shall be professionally
applied.
o All cables and wires attached to the exterior of the wooden pole shall be
mounted flush in a conduit that is painted to match the pole.
o No cable or wires shall be visible.
o All ground -mounted facilities including mechanical equipment, or walls,
fences, landscaping or other screening methods shall be installed at least
18 inches from the curb and gutter flow line.
o All accessory equipment shall be located underground including meter
boxes and cabinets.
o The facility shall be installed so as to maintain and enhance existing
landscaping on the site, including trees, foliage and shrubs. Additional
landscaping shall be planted, irrigated and maintained by Applicant where
such landscaping is feasible and deemed necessary by the City to provide
screening or to conceal the facility.
o The facility shall not bear any signs or advertising devices other than
certification, warning or other signage required by law or permitted by the
City.
o The facility shall not be illuminated except for the existing streetlight
luminaire. All other illumination shall be restricted pursuant to RPVMC
§ 12.18.080(A)(15).
o Noise:
■ Backup generators shall only be operated during periods of power
outages, and shall not be tested on weekends or holidays, or
between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
■ At no time shall equipment noise from any facility exceed an
exterior noise level of 55 dBA three feet from the source of the
noise if the facility is located in the public right-of-way adjacent to a
business, commercial, manufacturing, utility or school zone;
provided, however, that for any such facility located within 500 feet
of any property zoned residential or improved with a residential use,
such equipment noise shall not exceed 45 dBA three feet from the
sources of the noise. The foregoing noise level limitations shall
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 16 of 2-T
55478.00001\30324931.2
govern facilities subject to RPVMC Chapter 12.18.080(A)(16) until
such time that a specific noise regulation ordinance is adopted and
effective in this code, at which time such noise ordinance shall
govern.
o The facility shall be designed to be resistant to, and minimize opportunities
for, unauthorized access, climbing, vandalism, graffiti and other conditions
that would result in hazardous situations, visual blight or attractive
nuisances. The Public Works Director may require the provision of
warning signs, fencing, anti -climbing devices, or other techniques to
prevent unauthorized access and vandalism when, because of their
location and/or accessibility, a facility has the potential to become an
attractive nuisance. Additionally, no lethal devices or elements shall be
installed as a security device.
o Consistent with current state and federal laws and if permissible under the
same, at the time of modification of the facility, existing equipment shall, to
the extent feasible, be replaced with equipment that reduces visual, noise
and other impacts, including, but not limited to, undergrounding the
equipment and replacing larger, more visually intrusive facilities with
smaller, less visually intrusive facilities.
o The installation and construction of the facility shall begin within one year
after its approval or it will expire without further action by the City.
17. All wireless telecommunications facilities shall comply at all times with the
following operation and maintenance standards:
o Unless otherwise provided herein, all necessary repairs and restoration
shall be completed by the permittee, owner, operator or any designated
maintenance agent within 48 hours:
■ After discovery of the need by the permittee, owner, operator or any
designated maintenance agent; or
■ After permittee, owner, operator or any designated maintenance
agent receives notification from the City.
18. Each permittee of a wireless telecommunications facility shall provide the Public
Works Director with the name, address and 24-hour local or toll free contact
phone number of the permittee, the owner, the operator and the agent
responsible for the maintenance of the facility ("contact information"). Contact
information shall be updated within seven days of any change.
55478.00001\30324931.2
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 17 of 2-T
D-93
19. Prior to any construction activities, the permittee shall submit a security
instrument (bond or letter of credit as approved by the City Attorney) in an
amount determined by the City to be sufficient to cover all potential costs
(including removal costs) listed herein or in the RPVMC.
20. Prior to permit issuance, the permittee shall provide additional information to
establish that the proposed accessory equipment is designed to be the smallest
equipment technologically feasible. The City may consider equipment installed or
proposed to be installed in other jurisdictions.
21. All facilities, including, but not limited to, telecommunication towers, poles,
accessory equipment, lighting, fences, walls, shields, cabinets, artificial foliage or
camouflage, and the facility site shall be maintained in good condition, including
ensuring the facilities are reasonably free of:
a. General dirt and grease;
b. Chipped, faded, peeling, and cracked paint;
C. Rust and corrosion;
d. Cracks, dents, and discoloration;
e. Missing, discolored or damaged artificial foliage or other camouflage;
f. Graffiti, bills, stickers, advertisements, litter and debris;
g. Broken and misshapen structural parts; and
h. Any damage from any cause.
22. Applicant shall install, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director or Director
of Community Development, landscaping near the proposed installation of the
vaulted accessory equipment to screen the vaulted equipment consistent with
existing landscaping prior to final inspection.
23. All trees, foliage or other landscaping elements approved as part of the facility
shall be maintained in good condition at all times, and the permittee, owner and
operator of the facility shall be responsible for replacing any damaged, dead or
decayed landscaping. No amendment to any approved landscaping plan may be
made until it is submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director or the
Director of Community Development.
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 18 of 2-T
55478.00001\30324931.2
24. The permittee shall replace its facilities, after obtaining all required permits, if
maintenance or repair is not sufficient to return the facility to the condition it was
in at the time of installation.
25. Each facility shall be operated and maintained to comply with all conditions of
approval. Each owner or operator of a facility shall routinely inspect each site to
ensure compliance with the same and the standards set forth in the RPVMC.
26. No person shall install, use or maintain any facility which in whole or in part rests
upon, in or over any public right-of-way, when such installation, use or
maintenance endangers or is reasonably likely to endanger the safety of persons
or property, or when such site or location is used for public utility purposes, public
transportation purposes or other governmental use, or when such facility
unreasonably interferes with or unreasonably impedes the flow of pedestrian or
vehicular traffic including any legally parked or stopped vehicle, the ingress into
or egress from any residence or place of business, the use of poles, posts, traffic
signs or signals, hydrants, mailboxes, permitted sidewalk dining, permitted street
furniture or other objects permitted at or near said location.
27. Unless California Government Code Section 65964, as may be amended,
authorizes the city to issue a permit with a shorter term, a permit for any wireless
telecommunications facility shall be valid for a period of ten years, unless
pursuant to another provision of the RPVMC or these Conditions of Approval, it
lapses sooner or is revoked. At the end of ten years from the date of issuance,
such permit shall automatically expire.
28. A permittee may apply for a new permit within 180 days prior to expiration. Said
application and proposal shall comply with the City's current Code requirements
for WTF's.
29. A WTF is considered abandoned and shall be promptly removed as provided
herein if it ceases to provide wireless telecommunications services for 90 or more
consecutive days unless the permittee has obtained prior written approval from
the Director of Public Works, which shall not be unreasonably denied.
30. The operator of a facility shall notify the City in writing of its intent to abandon or
cease use of a permitted site or a nonconforming site (including unpermitted
sites) within ten days of ceasing or abandoning use. Notwithstanding any other
provision herein, the operator of the facility shall provide written notice to the
Director of Public Works any discontinuation of operations of 30 days or more.
55478.00001\30324931.2
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 19 of 2-T
D-95
31. Failure to inform the Director of Public Works of cessation or discontinuation of
operations of any existing facility as required by this section shall constitute a
violation of any approvals and be grounds for:
a. Litigation;
b. Revocation or modification of the permit;
C. Acting on any bond or other assurance required by the RPVMC or
Conditions of Approval of the permit;
d. Removal of the facilities by the City in accordance with the procedures
established under the RPVMC for abatement of a public nuisance at the
owner's or permitee's expense; and/or
e. Any other remedies permitted by law.
32. Upon the expiration date of the permit, including any extensions, earlier
termination or revocation of the permit or abandonment of the facility, the
permittee, owner or operator shall remove its WTF and restore the site to its
natural condition except for retaining the landscaping improvements and any
other improvements at the discretion of the City. Removal shall be in accordance
with proper health and safety requirements and all ordinances, rules, and
regulations of the City. The facility shall be removed from the property, at no cost
or expense to the City.
33. Failure of the permittee, owner or operator to promptly remove its facility and
restore the property within 90 days after expiration, earlier termination or
revocation of the permit, or abandonment of the facility, shall be a violation of
these Conditions of Approval. Upon a showing of good cause, an extension may
be granted by the Public Works Director where circumstances are beyond the
control of the permittee after expiration. Further failure to abide by the timeline
provided in this section shall be grounds for:
a. Prosecution;
b. Acting on any security instrument required by the RPVMC or these
Conditions of Approval;
C. Removal of the facilities by the City in accordance with the procedures
established under the RPVMC for abatement of a public nuisance at the
owner's or permitee's expense; and/or
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 20 of 2-T
55478.00001 \30324931.2
d. Any other remedies permitted by law.
34. In the event the Public Works Director or City Engineer determines that the
condition or placement of a WTF located in the public right-of-way constitutes a
dangerous condition, obstruction of the public right-of-way, or an imminent threat
to public safety, or determines other exigent circumstances require immediate
corrective action (collectively, "exigent circumstances"), the Director or City
Engineer may cause the facility to be removed summarily and immediately
without advance notice or a hearing. Written notice of the removal shall include
the basis for the removal and shall be served upon the permittee and person who
owns the facility within five business days of removal and all property removed
shall be preserved for the owner's pick-up as feasible. If the owner cannot be
identified following reasonable effort or if the owner fails to pick-up the property
within 60 days, the facility shall be treated as abandoned property.
35. In the event the City removes a facility in accordance with nuisance abatement
procedures or summary removal, any such removal shall be without any liability
to the City for any damage to such facility that may result from reasonable efforts
of removal. In addition to the procedures for recovering costs of nuisance
abatement, the City may collect such costs from the performance bond or
security instrument posted and to the extent such costs exceed the amount of the
security instrument, collect those excess costs in accordance with the RPVMC.
Unless otherwise provided herein, the City has no obligation to store such facility.
Neither the permittee, owner nor operator shall have any claim if the city destroys
any such facility not timely removed by the permitee, owner or operator after
notice, or removed by the City due to exigent circumstances.
36. Consistent with current state and federal laws and if permissible under the same,
at the time of modification of a WTF, existing equipment shall, to the extent
feasible, be replaced with equipment that reduces visual, noise and other
impacts, including, but not limited to, undergrounding any equipment installed
above ground and replacing larger, more visually intrusive facilities with smaller,
less visually intrusive facilities.
55478.00001\30324931.2
Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 21 of 2T
D-97
DESIGN OPTION NO. 1
ASG NO. 53
A I ANTENNA DETAILS SCALE 1:5
N5TALL(1)
014.'
C00070XOFXYZOS ANTENNA
A
INSTALL 4' GEA
2
STREET LIGHT AT 24 T
y
PROPOSED 1' POWER FEED
r
PROPOSED T COMM RISER
PROPOSED CROWN CASTLE FIBER AT2 W
17S PRO POSED CROWN CASTLE FIBER AT 21'0'
+
r r4" CATV Af-U"
015'
70
EXISTING SERVICE POLE
0
z
Ux
L901
T
,
POLE ID:#1358367E
TOP OF EXISTING POLE: 52'0"
TOP OF ANTENNA: 22' 6"
RAD CENTER: 21'6"
AZIMUTH: 0'& 90"
EQUIPMENT AND ANTENNAS TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH POLE
I B 1 12 O'CLOCK VIEW SCALE 1:10 I B 13 O'CLOCK VIEW SCALE 1:10
TOP OF POLE - 0'
1 S PRIVARYARMAT52'O" TOP OF POLE 52'0'
�—'-• - PRIMARY ARM AT 52'0'
—' —015"
015 —
- - -
SECONDARY SERVICE AT 34' W
~�
-- SECONDARY SERVICE AT 34' 8'
STREET LIGHT AT 24 T
STREET LIGHT AT 26 ]'
liT
PROPOSED CROWN CASTLE FIBER AT2 W
17S PRO POSED CROWN CASTLE FIBER AT 21'0'
_ CATV Al 26'0'
r r4" CATV Af-U"
L
CAW DOWN GUY AT 25' 8'
VERIZCN AT 24.1W
1 CATV DOWN GUY AT 25' 8'
VERIZON AT 24.10'
2'4'
VERIZON DOWN GUY AT 24'6'
VERIZON DOWN GUY AT 24.6'
TOP OF
ANTENNA
PROP OSEDDOUBLE4'CEA AT20'2"
TOP OF
22 6"
WITH (1) C00070XOFXYZ06 ANTENNA
ANTENNA
PROPPED DOUBLE 4' CEA AT 20'2'
22 8"
WITH (1) C00070XOFXYZOS ANTENNA
RAO
CENTEP
2'6'
PROPOSED I'SCHEDUL'E 80 POWER FEED
RAD
CENTER
INSTAL_ (1) CROWN CASTLE 4' X S VAULT WITH FLUSH
MOUNT VENTS WITH (2) ML IONS INSIDE) EXISTING TREE
TO BE REMOVED AND REPLANTED PER PUBLIC WORKS
GROUND LEVEL .
INSTALLVGR
(SEE DETAIL 2 ON SHEET D-2)
05E01- SCHEDULE80 POWER FEED
NO POLE)
VGR
"AIL 2 ON SHEET D-2)
u II) Urt V-AnaI-r ADv
MOUNT VENTS WITH (2) ML IONS INSIDE) EXISTING TREE
TO BE REMOVED AND REPLANTED PER PUBLIC WORKS
ASG53ml
B1a6B u
242727 r"
Ci� CROWN
�, CASTLE
m+9PBa 9261BX1H1wUR
Cam—T aicaaons
LACE.9NTB:W
RL1 �'BAD. CA
A vain
TrAXBi iIW�Y:PiW94
FRGFRB:rARVLurowurmN
TNtl P 'OWV ATION CONTAIN6P IN TBIB
9BT UYONAN'MO515NRWRi ANR
CON'PIDkV1W.T0 ATAT ANY -U1SB OR
I. A—
DISOTNER THAN A9 rt RBLAT6Y
ru rkT rs 91'RIrnY eRoxlBrniD
I
ASG53m1
ADJACENT TO 6505 MONERO DR
RANCHO PALOS VERDES. CA
POLE PROFILE
vru`1 ..r
P-2
MCC
P'
C7 `f
Dr „ lone(ofDt Mone ro D
I{'1
�. T,
f;I79
Air!.
i
DESIGN OPTION NO. 2
ASG NO. 53
D-101
A ANTENNA DETAILS SCALE 1:5 mltl
ANTENNANHPA-65F-BUU-H2 A4MOUNT
^
INSTALL DOL CROWN
ANTENVCASTLE
PROPOSED 1- PPROPOSED 2' COMM EXISTING SERVICE POANTENNA
Ir AZIMUTH:. 90' LS 1COInIRUn103[IOii$
O
Z ��►
0° S11 N)ISON PLA[F., sRITt.'o
I(A1C9 9��
L901 .0 -uvx°
PNOPNB.TAR1' 3NPONMATION
'TRENFONFIATR]NCU AINBDINTHIS
S61' OF' DRAt1'INOs I5 PNOPIUETANY AND
POLE ID: #1358367E UI CL -IM -11 R . As LATE.
TOP OF EXISTING POLE: 52 Ox TO ATs c o
TOP OF ANTENNA: 22'3"
RAD CENTER: 21'3" i
AZIMUTH: 0° & 90° 1
EQUIPMENT AND ANTENNAS TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH POLE. --
PHOTO SIM UPDATED
RELOCATE NODE LOCATION
RELOCATE NODE LOCATION
N 11,1311,
ASG53m1
ADJACENT TO 6505 MONERO OR
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA
POLE PROFILE
l �k.x, lM/L' IG rcroC nTj P-3
B 12 O'CLOCK VIEW SCALE 1:10 B 3 O'CLOCK VIEW SCALE 1a0
TOP Of POLE 52' 0" TOP OF POLE 52' 0"
PRIMARY ARM AT 52'0" PRIMARY ARM AT 52'0'
015 -�
'�-015"
SECONDARY SERVICE AT �' S"
-. ... � SECONDARY SERVICE ATM
I STREET LIGHT AT 29' ]"
STREET LIGHT AT 39'7" 1Z 2�
12'2' PROPOSED CROWN CASTLE FIBER AT 2]'D' 2'4- PROPOSED CROWN CASTLE FIBER AT 37'0"
frI CAIV AI'?B'U"
CATV A'260" 1 CATV DOWN GUY AT 25'B"
CATV DOWN GUYAT 25'6" VERIZVN AT 2a'1U"
VERIZUv AT 24' 1U' VERIZON DOWN GUY AT Z4' 6"
2'a" VER120V DOWN GUY AT 2a'6"
TOP OF
.ANTENNA PROPOSED DOUBLE 4'CEA AT 20'S`
226' RAD WITH (2I #RPA-65F-BUU-H2 ANTENNA
TOP OF CENTER
ANTENNA PROPOSED DOUBLE 4'CEA AT 20'S"
Z2'6' WITH (D #H-65f-BUU-H2 ANTENNA
RAD
CENTER
21'6' PROPOSED I"SCHEDUL'E BD POWER FEED PROPOSE01"SCHEDULE 80 POWER FEED
(BEHIND POLE)
INSTFLLL (1) CROWN CASTLE a' X 6 VAULT WITH FLUSH
MOUNT VENTS WITH (2) ML IONS INSIDE) EXISTING TREE
TO BE REMOVED AND REPLANTED PER PUBLIC WORKS
GROUND LEVEL
LEVEL
' 4 ':' •i CSG � � / ..; ASPHALT;
✓ ✓/ ✓✓ `\✓✓\\(/✓ ✓✓\//\j' ✓✓\\✓�/Bcp. \\'INSTALL VGR
\�� B' 0 � \\\ '\\��\��\\/ \✓✓\//
(SEE
D-102
DETAIL 2 ON SHEET D-2)
INSTALL VGR
INSTALL (i) CROWN CASTLE 4' X 6' VAULT WITH FLUSH
(SEE DETAIL 2 CM SHEET D-2)
MOUNT VENTS WITH (2) ML IONS INSIDE) EXISTING TREE
TO BE REMOVED AND REPLANTED PER PUBLIC WORKS
D-102
o.
ne,p7f0i
,Monro D
N
�G.
O)
1 •
7
'.•` •••��•�- PROPOSED
71.
-w
CROWNCrown Castle
c CASTLE 200 Spectrum Center Drive
Suite 1800
Irvine, CA 92618
9/20/2017
Emily Colborn, City Clerk
City Clerk's Office
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
RECEIVED
SEP 2 12017
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
Re: Crown Castle NG West LLC: Notice of Appeal of ASG -53— Adjacent to 6505 Monero
Drive
Dear Ms. Colborn,
Crown Castle NG West LLC ("Crown Castle") hereby appeals the Planning Commission's
August 30, 2017, adoption of a resolution of denial of the above -referenced Major Wireless
Telecommunications Facilities Permit application ("Denial"), pursuant to City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Municipal Code ("RPVMC") section 12.18.060. D and 17.80.030.A ("Appeal"). This appeal is timely
under RPVMC section 17.80.030.
The Appeal rests on the following grounds, among others:
(1) The Denial prohibits, or has the effect of prohibiting, the provision of personal wireless
services in violation of 47 U.S.C. section 332 (c)(7)(B)(i)(II).
(2) The Denial is not supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record in
violation of 47 U.S.C. section 332 (c)(7)(B)(iii).
(3) The Denial is based, in part, on the perceived environmental effects of radio frequency
emissions in violation of 47 U.S.C. section 332 (c)(7)(B)(iv).
(4) The Denial is unlawful, since it violates Crown Castle's vested right to deploy its
facilities in the public rights-of-way, in violation of Public Utilities Code section 7901.
The Denial exceeds the limited time, place and manner controls set forth by Public
Utilities Code section 7901.1.
Crown Castle reserves the right to supplement its reasons for the Appeal, and otherwise supplement the
administrative record with its own evidence and points of law up to the date of the City Council hearing on this
Appeal.
MWS:mws
7125124.1
Very truly yours,
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com
D-104
P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2017-28
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE,
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY ASG NO. 53 FOR
THE INSTALLATION OF TWO 21.4" PANEL ANTENNAS
ENCASED IN A 2' TALL CANISTER SHROUD ON AN EXISTING
52' TALL WOOD UTILITY STREETLIGHT POLE WITH RELATED
VAULTED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AT THE NORTHWEST
INTERSECTION OF MONERO DRIVE AND GRANVIA
ALTAMIRA.
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. 53 at the intersection of Monero Drive and Granvia Altamira;
WHEREAS, the original proposal called for the installation of two 21.4" panel
antennas mounted on a 4' mast arm, extending from the existing 52' tall wood utility
streetlight pole. The radio equipment and power meter were to be placed on the ground
adjacent to the streetlight pole, consisting of 9.7 cubic feet of equipment boxes in the
PROW;
WHEREAS, the revised project calls for the installation of two 21.4" panel
antennas, encased in a 24" tall canister shroud on an existing 52' tall utility streetlight
pole;
WHEREAS, the Project also includes vaulted mechanical equipment including
the radio and auxiliary equipment, as well as the SCE meter box in a secondary vault.
The Project consists of a total of three vaults measuring approximately 43 square feet;
WHEREAS, because the Project's location is within a residential zone and within
the PROW of local streets as identified in the General Plan, approval of a WTFP also
requires an Exception under Section 12.18.190 of the Municipal Code;
WHEREAS, the Project is exempt from review under the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") because the Project constitutes a small scale
installation of a new facility (14 CCR § 15303(d)).
WHEREAS, on August 22, 2017, the Planning Commission continued the public
hearing, without discussion, to September 12, 2017; and
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-28
Page 1 of 5
55478.00001 \30149997.1
D-105
WHEREAS, on September 12, 2017, the Planning Commission considered
testimony and evidence presented at the public hearings, the information and findings
included in the Staff Report, and other records of proceedings.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The proposed Project is a request to:
A. Install a WTF at the northwest intersection of Monero Drive and Granvia
Altamira,
B. Install two 21.4" panel antennas, encased in a 2' tall canister shroud measuring
2' in diameter that will be mounted on a 4' mast arm, extending from an existing
52' tall wood utility streetlight pole approximately 20.6' from the ground level, and
C. Install vaulted mechanical equipment including the radio and auxiliary equipment,
as well as the SCE meter box in a secondary vault for a total of three vaults
measuring approximately 43 square feet in surface area.
Section 2: The findings required to be made by the Planning Commission for
the approval of a WTF permit, as set forth in Chapter 12.18 of the RPVMC, have not
been made as follows:
A. The Project does not meet the Findings required by Section 12.18.090,
Subsection B, of the Municipal Code, which particularly requires that "[tjhe
proposed facility has been designed and located in compliance with all
applicable provisions of this chapter," as follows:
12.18.080(A)(1)(a): The applicant shall employ screening, undergrounding and
camouflage design techniques in the design and placement of wireless
telecommunications facilities in order to ensure that the facility is as visually
screened as possible, to prevent the facility from dominating the surrounding area
and to minimize significant view impacts from surrounding properties all in a
manner that achieves compatibility with the community and in compliance with
Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration) of this code.
The proposed installation of panel antennas encased in a 2' tall canister shroud,
at a height of 20.6' from the ground level, that would be affixed to a 52' tall wood
utility streetlight pole, does not blend with the surrounding environment and would
visually impact the character of the neighborhood as experienced from the
PROW.
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-28
Page 2 of 5
55478.00001 \30149997.1
D-106
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 that is attached to a 4' arm of a wood utility streetlight pole, in its proposed
location, is a feature that is out -of -character to the surrounding neighborhood as
there are no other structures or natural features in the immediate area that would
lend themselves to screening or blending the facility into the built environment. A
more compliant design would present equipment that is seamlessly integrated into
the utility streetlight pole or a "slim -line" design that does not present the antenna
nodes as the dominate feature on this wood utility streetlight pole.
1.2.18.080 A)0� (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 panel antennas encased in a canister shroud that would be affixed
by a 4' arm to a wood utility streetlight pole exacerbates the visual clutter in the
surrounding environment and would be visually intrusive as there are no similar
vertical elements with similar facilities in the neighborhood.
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.
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.
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 panel proposed panel antennas encased in a
canister shroud measuring approximately 2' tall that would be affixed to a wood
utility streetlight pole on a 4' arm and as such has not been designed to be flush
55478.00001 \30149997.1
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-28
Page 3 of 5
D-107
mounted 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)(7): Space. Each facility shall be designed to occupy the least
amount of space in the right-of-way that is technically feasible.
The proposed WTF will be mounted to the 4' arm of an existing wood utility street
light pole and would take up more right-of-way space compared to the existing
utility streetlight pole and does not use other feasible "slim -line" or pole -integrated
designs found in the industry.
B. The Project does not meet the Findings required by Section 12.18.190,
Subsection B.2, of the Municipal Code, which particularly requires that
"[t]he applicant has provided the city with a clearly defined technical
service objective and a clearly defined potential site search area," as
follows:
The "technical service objective" identified by the Applicant in all application
documents is the coverage of a "significant gap" in coverage. The wireless service
area to be served by the proposed facility only encompasses approximately 20
homes in City of Rancho Palos Verdes and is not located upon a major highway or
thoroughfare serving many in -vehicle users. Notably, and according to the
Applicant's testimony, the proposed installation will only serve an area within 1000
feet. The evidence provided did not support a finding of a significant gap. 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. Moreover, the
record established that the service area covered by the proposed installation mostly
covers property located in another jurisdiction. The Planning Commission's
preference is to see collaboration amongst adjacent jurisdiction such that the
communities can share the burden of these installations.
C. The Project does not meet the Findings required by Section 12.18.090,
Subsection E, of the Municipal Code, which particularly requires that "[t]he
applicant has provided the city with a meaningful comparative analysis that
includes the factual reasons why the proposed location and design is the
least noncompliant location and design necessary to reasonably achieve the
applicant's reasonable technical service objectives," as follows:
The Applicant has not provided a meaningful alternative comparative analysis and
the proposed project is not found to be the preferred design. The Applicant should
have explored locating the proposed facility along Hawthorne Blvd. outside the
immediate residential neighborhood to minimize adverse impacts to residents, to
the commercial building located at 28041 Hawthorne Blvd, or the monopole in
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-28
Page 4 of 5
65478.00001 \30149997.1
Palos Verdes Estates. See above discussions in regards to RPVMC §12.18.080
for further detail, which discussions are incorporated here.
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 Wednesday, September 27, 2017. The Council -approved appeal fee
must accompany any appeal letter. If no appeal is filed timely, the Planning
Commission's decision will be final at 5:30 PM on Wednesday, September 27, 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. 53 for the proposed
wireless telecommunication facility installation at the northwest intersection of Monero
Drive and Granvia Altamira.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of SEPTEMBER 2017, by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Emenhiser, Tomblin, Bradley, Vice -Chairman James, and
Chairman Cruikshank
NOES: Commissioner Nelson
ABSTENTIONS: None
RECUSALS: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Leon
Ara Mihranian, AICP
Community Development Director; and,
Secretary of the Planning Commission
55478.00001\30149997.1
CANt
n M. Cruikshank
airman
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-28
Page 5 of 5
D-109
CITY OF tA
STAFF
REPORT
E d�°otos
ro
� Q
s >
Via Cerritos 0 Via Cerritos ViaCere
sm ADJACENT TO
6505 MONERO
DRIVE
�r
Monero Dr Monero Dr Monero Dr Monero Dr
0
o m
0 -
0
k
SantonaDr 5 Rio Linda Di
��o c
p Q 74.
� d
9r
d
w
d� sa Dr
0
�d
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
ARA MIHRANIAN, DIRECTOR O
4
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
NICOLE JULES, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
PUBLIC WORKS
DATE:
SEPTEMBER 12, 2017
SUBJECT:
MAJOR WIRELESS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY
PERMIT ASG NO, 53
PROJECT
NORTHWEST INTERSECTION OF
ADDRESS:
MONERO DR AND GRANVIA
ALTAMI RA
APPLICANT:
AARON SNYDER (CROWN CASTLE)
LANDOWNER: CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
STAFF ART BASHMAKIAN, CONTRACT
COORDINATOR: PLANNER
REQUESTED ACTION: A REQUEST TO INSTALL TWO 21.4" PANEL ANTENNAS TO AN EXISTING UTILITY
POLE FOR A WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY WITH RELATED
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT.
RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2017-_ APPROVING, WITH CONDITIONS, MAJOR
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY ASG NO. 53 TO ALLOW THE
INSTALLATION OF TWO 21.4" PANEL ANTENNAS ENCASED IN A 2' TALL
CANISTER SHROUD ON AN EXISTING 52' TALL UTILITY STREETLIGHT POLE WITH
RELATED VAULTED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT.
LAND USE: PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
CODE SECTION: RPVMC CHAPTERS 12.18 AND 17.02
D-110
55478.00001 \30127228.1
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 53)
SEPTEMBER 12, 2017
PAGE 2
ACTION DEADLINE: SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 (SHOT CLOCK)
PRE -COMMISSION DISCLOSURES: PRIOR TO THE TAKING OF PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM, ANY
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS THAT CONDUCTED ON-SITE INSPECTIONS OR ENGAGED IN EXTRA -
HEARING DISCUSSIONS RELATING TO THIS ITEM SHOULD DISCLOSE SUCH EXTRA -HEARING EVIDENCE
AS PART OF THE HEARING RECORD
BACKGROUND
Crown Castle, the Applicant, is a tower company hired by wireless companies for the
purposes of acquiring sites for the construction and deployment of wireless
telecommunications antennas throughout local jurisdictions. Pursuant Chapter 12.18 of
the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC), Crown Castle is proposing to
install approximately 26 new antennas in the City's public right-of-way (PROW),
including the subject application, subject to review by the Planning Commission, to
provide services to AT&T consumers throughout the City.
On May 3, 2016, Crown Castle submitted an application, proposing to install Wireless
Telecommunications Facility ASG No. 53 in the public right-of-way (PROW) at the
northwest intersection of Monero Drive and Granvia Altamira, adjacent to 6505 Monero
Drive. The City notified Crown Castle that the application documents were incomplete
after three resubmittals. Notices were sent to Crown Castle on June 3, 2016, November
23, 2016 and February 10, 2017. Ultimately, Crown Castle submitted requested
documentation to process the application.
On May 23, 2017, the Applicant (Crown Castle) received a Public Works Encroachment
Permit to install a temporary mock-up of a proposed wireless telecommunications
facility. On May 25, 2017, a notice was sent to property owners within a 500 -foot radius
announcing the installation of the mock-up. The temporary mock-up was installed on
June 1, 2017.
On August 3, 2017, a public notice was published in the Peninsula News announcing
that a public hearing on the proposed facility is scheduled to occur on Tuesday, August
22, 2017. Similarly, public notices were mailed to property owners within a 500' radius
of the proposed site announcing the public hearing and inviting public comments on the
proposed facility.
On August 22, 2017, the Planning Commission continued this item to the September
12, 2017 meeting.
Pursuant to federal law a decision on the project application must be made within 150
calendar days from application submittal. According to the City's files, the shot clock for
ASG No. 53 expired on August 25, 2017. However, the Applicant agreed to stop (toll)
the shot clock during this period until September 30, 2017, which is the final date to
render a decision on the subject application. The City received the tolling agreement in
writing, in a letter dated August 7, 2017.
D-111
55478.00001 \30127228.1
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 53)
SEPTEMBER 12, 2017
PAGE 3
SITE DESCRIPTION
The proposed site is located entirely within the PROW, near the northwest intersection
of Granvia Altamira and Monero Drive, along the west side of Granvia Altamira. This
portion of Granvia Altamira does not have paved sidewalks.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Project as originally submitted was to install a Small Cell Node (SCN)
consisting of two 24" panel antennas mounted on a 4' mast arm, extending from the
existing 52' tall wood utility streetlight pole. The radio equipment and power meter were
to be placed on the ground adjacent to the street light pole, consisting of 9.7 cubic feet
of equipment boxes in the PROW. Below is a photograph of the existing site and the
photo simulations for the proposed project as originally submitted by the Applicant:
Existing Site
Revised Project
Original Proposal
As a result of discussions with Staff, the Applicant has revised the Project so that the
proposed panel antennas would be encased in a 2' tall canister shroud that would be
mounted on a 4' mast arm, extending from the existing 52' tall wood utility street light
pole. The bottom of the antennas/canister would be 20'-6" from the ground. Additionally,
the Applicant has agreed to vault the related mechanical equipment including the radio
and auxiliary equipment. There will be a total of three vaults that will cover 43 sq. ft. of
surface area as shown on the site plan and in the photo simulation below. All vents and
meter boxes will be vaulted and flush with the ground. On the next page is a photograph
of the existing site and a photo simulation, prepared by the Applicant, of the site with the
proposed revised installation:
D-112
55478.00001 \30127228.1
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 53)
SEPTEMBER 12, 2017
PAGE 4
Revised Proposal
Proposed Alternative Locations
In addition to the proposed project, the Applicant has proposed similar SCN (antennas)
at the following three alternative locations (see attached site map):
• Alternative No. 1 (location B). Existing wood utility light pole with mast arm and
luminaire approximately 375 -feet south of the Primary located across Monero
Drive, on the same line of utility pole street lights that are strung along the west
side of Granvia Altamira.
• Alternative No. 2 (location C). Replacement of an existing traffic stop sign pole
with a larger pole approximately 84 -feet south of the Primary.
• Alternative No. 3 (location D). Diagonally across the intersection of Monero Drive
and Granvia Altamira on a replacement pole for an existing traffic sign (stop sign)
pole, approximately 140 -feet east of the Primary.
CODE CONSIDERATION AND ANALYSIS
In accordance with Chapter 12.18 of the RPVMC, the Planning Commission may
approve, or conditionally approve, an application only after it makes the Findings
required in Section 12.18.090.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Pursuant to Section 12.18.090 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC),
no permit shall be granted for a Wireless Telecommunications Facility in the PROW
unless all of the following Findings are made:
A. All notices required for the proposed installation have been given.
Crown Castle and the City have provided all notices required by the RPVMC. On
May 25, 2017 property owners within 500 feet of the proposed facility were
55478.00001 \30127228.1 D-1 13
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 53)
SEPTEMBER 12, 2017
PAGE 5
notified of the WTF mock-up which occurred at least 30 days in advance of the
public hearing. Further, on August 3, 2017, a public notice announcing the
August 22, 2017 public hearing was provided to property owners within 500 feet
of the proposed WTF and published in the Peninsula News. Additionally, the
Applicant has notified the City a minimum of 20 days prior to the expiration of the
shot clock for this application, which was September 1, 2017. However, on
August 7, 2017, the Applicant provided the City with a Shot Clock Tolling
Agreement (See Attachment) establishing a new Shot Clock Expiration date of
September 30, 2017. Accordingly, all notice requirements have been met.
B. The proposed facility has been designed and located in compliance with all
applicable provisions of this chapter.
Chapter 12.18 of the RPVMC has detailed requirements for wireless
telecommunications facilities in the ROW. Specifically, Section 12.18.080 lists the
design and development standards for these installations. The applicable sections
relevant to the findings are listed and evaluated below (italics text is the code
requirement followed by Staff's analysis).
12.18.080(A)(1)(a): The applicant shall employ screening, undergrounding and
camouflage design techniques in the design and placement of wireless
telecommunications facilities in order to ensure that the facility is as visually
screened as possible, to prevent the facility from dominating the surrounding area
and to minimize significant view impacts from surrounding properties all in a
manner that achieves compatibility with the community and in compliance with
Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration) of this code.
The proposed panel antennas consists of a collocation on an existing 52 -foot tall
utility streetlight pole, with mast arm and luminaire and two service arms that carry
power lines along with cable lines. As revised, the panel antennas will be encased
in a 2' tall canister, measuring 2' in diameter, on the existing utility streetlight pole
minimizing its visual intrusion to the environment. Although the antennas will not
be visible, the canister will be, but it will blend into the environment that consist of
utility light poles, power lines, cable lines, mast arms and luminaries along
Granvia Altamira. The area also contains mature foliage that screen the views of
the poles from residences. Furthermore, the proposal now places all of the related
mechanical equipment underground in three vaults measuring a total of 43 square
feet of surface area consisting of the following:
• Radio vault - 32 sq. ft.
• WTR vault - 5 sq. ft.
• Fiber vault - 6 sq. ft.
D-114
55478.00001 \30127228.1
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 53)
SEPTEMBER 12, 2017
PAGE 6
As further detailed below, a view analysis was conducted and City staff
determined that the proposed installation will not have any significant view
impairment to surrounding properties pursuant to Chapter 17.02.040 of the
RPVMC.
12.18.080(A)(1)(b): Screening shall be designed to be architecturally compatible
with surrounding structures using appropriate techniques to camouflage, disguise,
and/or blend into the environment, including landscaping, color, and other
techniques to minimize the facility's visual impact as well as be compatible with
the architectural character of the surrounding buildings or structures in terms of
color, size, proportion, style, and quality.
The proposed panel antennas will be a collocation on an existing 52' tall utility
street light pole, with mast arm and luminaire and two service arms that carry
power lines along with cable lines. The proposed canister shroud encasing the
panel antennas will be painted brown to match other streetlight utility poles in the
area and the existing condition and improvements on the utility pole. As discussed
above, the cylinder shaped shroud encasing the two antenna panels and wires
affixed to the utility streetlight pole is an appropriate technique that disguises and
blends the facility into the environment (blending with the replacement pole and
other poles in the area).
12.18.080(A)(1)(c): Facilities shall be located such that views from a residential
structure are not significantly impaired. Facilities shall also be located in a manner
that protects public views over city view corridors, as defined in the city's general
plan, so that no significant view impairment results in accordance with this code
including Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration). This provision
shall be applied consistent with local, state and federal law.
There are no designated City view corridors in the area, as defined in the City's
General Plan. Monero Drive is classified as a local street while Granvia Altamira is
designated as a non -local, collector street within the Circulation Element of the
General Plan. By locating on an existing utility streetlight pole, the Project
minimizes significant view impacts from surrounding areas. The height of the
existing pole will not increase, nor would the installation of the two 2' panel
antennas encased in a 2' tall canister shroud significantly impair any existing
views. An existing 6 -foot tall privacy, masonry wall adjacent to the Project and
mature foliage on all four corners of the intersection of Moreno Drive and Granvia
Altamira provides screening from visual impacts to surrounding properties.
Furthermore based on a view analysis conducted on August 3, 2017, it was
determined that the proposed wireless telecommunications facility does not create
a significant view impairment from a residential viewing area, as defined in Rancho
Palos Verdes Development Code Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and
Restoration Code).
D-115
55478.00001 \30127228.1
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 53)
SEPTEMBER 12, 2017
PAGE 7
12.18.080(A)(3): Traffic Safety. All facilities shall be designed and located in such
a manner as to avoid adverse impacts to traffic safety.
The proposed Project has been designed to avoid adverse traffic impacts by
affixing the panel antennas and the canister shroud to an existing wood utility
street light pole with the bottom of the antenna canister shroud measuring
approximately 20'-6" from the ground. Additionally, the related mechanical
equipment will be vaulted avoiding traffic safety impacts, including an infringement
on the intersection visibility triangle, at the intersection of Monero Drive and
Granvia Altamira.
12.18.080(A)(4): Blending Methods. All facilities shall have subdued colors and
non -reflective materials that blend with the materials and colors of the surrounding
area and structures.
The canister shroud that will house the panel antennas and the associated mast
arm will be painted with non -reflective brown paint that will match and blend with
the existing utility street light pole.
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 proposed panel antennas will be a collocation on an existing 52' tall utility
street light pole, with mast arm and luminaire and two service arms that carry
power lines along with cable lines The two antennas would be mounted back-to-
back and encased in a 2' tall canister shroud on a 4' mast arm, extending from the
existing wood utility street light pole. The bottom of the antennas/canister would
measure approximately 20'-6" above the ground level below. Locating the
antennas on the mast arm will not preclude possible future collocation by the
same or other operators or carriers.
12.18.080(A)(6)(a) Poles - Facilities shall be located consistent with Section
12.18.200 (Location Restrictions) unless an exception pursuant to Section
12.18.190 (Exceptions) is granted.
The proposed location is within the PROW of local residential streets as identified
in the City's General Plan. Therefore, the Planning Commission shall not grant an
Exception unless the Findings for an Exception can be demonstrated as detailed
further below.
D-116
55478.00001 \30127228.1
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 53)
SEPTEMBER 12, 2017
PAGE 8
12.18.080(A)LZ(b) Only pole -mounted antennas shall be permitted in the right-of-
way. All other telecommunications towers are prohibited, and no new poles are
permitted that are not replacing an existing pole. (For exceptions see
subparagraph (6)(h) below and sections 12.18.190 (Exceptions) and 12.18.220
(State or Federal Law).) Sections 12.18.080(6)(c) through (f) are not applicable.
The proposed wireless telecommunication facility will be located in the PROW
and will be pole mounted to an existing utility street light pole.
12.18.080(A)(6)(c): Utility Poles. The maximum height of any antenna shall not
exceed 48 inches above the height of an existing utility pole, nor shall any portion
of the antenna or equipment mounted on a pole be less than 24 feet above any
drivable road surface.
The proposed antennas will not exceed 48" above the existing utility pole.
Furthermore, the antennas are proposed below the maximum height of the 52' tall
utility light pole approximately 20.5' above the ground level to the bottom of the
canister shroud housing the panel antennas. The proposed antenna and canister
shroud will not be above the drivable road surface.
12.18.080(A)(6)(d): Light Poles. The maximum height of any antenna shall not
exceed four feet above the existing height of a light pole. Any portion of the
antenna or equipment mounted on a pole shall be no less than 16% feet above
any drivable road surface.
The proposed antennas will not exceed 4' above the existing height of the light
pole. Furthermore, the antennas are proposed below the maximum height of the
52' tall utility street light pole approximately 20.5' above the ground level. The
antenna and the mast are not above the drivable road surface.
12.18.080(A)(6)(e): Replacement Poles. If an applicant proposes to replace a pole
in order to accommodate a proposed facility, the pole shall be designed to
resemble the appearance and dimensions of existing poles near the proposed
location, including size, height, color, materials and style to the maximum extent
feasible.
The project will be affixed to an existing wood street light utility pole, and the
existing pole will not be replaced.
12.18.080(A)(6)(f): Pole mounted equipment, exclusive of antennas, shall not
exceed six cubic feet in dimension.
D-117
55478.00001 \30127228.1
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 53)
SEPTEMBER 12, 2017
PAGE 9
The pole mounted equipment, excluding antennas, would be limited to cable
connecting the node to power and fiber optic backbone, connectors, brackets, and
GPS. Crown Castle's pole mounted equipment, excluding antennas, would
therefore not exceed six cubic feet in dimension. Furthermore, the related
mechanical equipment will be vaulted.
12.18.080(A)(6)(h) An exception shall be required to place a new pole in the
public right-of-way. If an exception is granted for placement of new poles in the
right-of-way.
The project utilizes an existing wood street light utility pole. Therefore no
exception is required.
12.18.080(A)(6)(i): All cables, including, but not limited to, electrical and utility
cables, shall be run within the interior of the pole and shall be camouflaged or
hidden to the fullest extent feasible. For all wooden poles wherein interior
installation is infeasible, conduit and cables attached to the exterior of poles shall
be mounted flush thereto and painted to match the pole.
Interior installation is infeasible as the WTF will utilize an existing wooden pole. All
conduit and cabling is to be flush mounted and painted brown to match the pole.
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 SCN is proposed to be mounted to an existing wood utility street light pole.
The related mechanical equipment (radio units and meter) will be undergrounded
and the vault necessary to house the equipment measures approximately 43
square feet in area and consists of three separate vaults. This space is the least
amount of space that is technically feasible for vaulted equipment owned by
AT&T. The space that will be occupied is below the surface with minimum
exhaust vents that will be flush to the surrounding ground
12.18.080(A)(8): Wind Loads. Each facility shall be properly engineered to
withstand wind loads as required by this code or any duly adopted or incorporated
code. An evaluation of high wind load capacity shall include the impact of
modification of an existing facility.
Pursuant to the application documents submitted to the City, the proposed
installation complies with all building codes related to wind loads as confirmed by
the City Engineer and City consultants.
D-118
55478.00001 \30127228.1
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 53)
SEPTEMBER 12, 2017
PAGE 10
12.18.080(A)(9): Obstructions. Each component part of a facility shall be located
so as not to cause any physical or visual obstruction to pedestrian or vehicular
traffic, incommode the public's use of the right-of-way, or safety hazards to
pedestrians and motorists and in compliance with Section 17.48.070 (Intersection
Visibility) so as not to obstruct the intersection visibility triangle.
Pursuant to the application documents submitted to the City, the proposed
wireless telecommunication facility installation would not 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 because the bottom of the proposed
antennas will be located 20.5 feet above the ground level, not over the drivable
portion of the street, and the related mechanical equipment will be
undergrounded.
12.18.080(A)(10): Public Facilities. A facility shall not be located within any
portion of the public right-of-way interfering with access to a fire hydrant, fire
station, fire escape, water valve, underground vault, valve housing structure, or
any other public health or safety facility.
Pursuant to the application documents submitted to the City, the proposed
installation would not interfere with any public health or safety facilities. The
wireless telecommunication facility is proposed on an existing utility light pole.
12.18.080(A)(11): Screening. All ground -mounted facility, pole -mounted
equipment, or walls, fences, landscaping or other screening methods shall be
installed at least 18 inches from the curb and gutter flow line.
The project does not have pole -mounted equipment, excluding the antennas and
the support mast arms. The related mechanical equipment will be undergrounded.
Therefore, the project will be consistent with this finding.
12.18.080(A)(12): Accessory Equipment. Accessory Equipment. Not including the
electric meter, all accessory equipment shall be located underground, except as
provided below.
The related accessory equipment, including the meter, will be located
underground.
12.18.080(A)(13) Landscaping. Where appropriate, each facility shall be installed
so as to maintain and enhance existing landscaping on the site, including trees,
foliage and shrubs. Additional landscaping shall be planted, irrigated and
D-119
55478.00001 \30127228.1
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 53)
SEPTEMBER 12, 2017
PAGE 11
maintained by applicant where such landscaping is deemed necessary by the city
to provide screening or to conceal the facility.
This portion of Granvia Altamira is characterized by a line of 52' tall utility street
light poles strung along the west side of the road. The placement of a vault would
require the removal of one of the saplings along the west side of Granvia
Altamira. As a condition of approval, the applicant must replace the tree at a
location to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development.
Additionally, the Applicant will be required as a condition of approval to provide
landscaping around the vault within the parkway to minimize its visual appearance
from pedestrians and motorists.
12.18.080(A)(14) Signage. No facility shall bear any signs or advertising devices
other than certification, warning or other signage required by law or permitted by
the city.
The facility does not include any signs or advertising devices other than
certification, warning or other signage required by law.
12.18.080(A)(15)(a-e) Lighting.
The facility does not include any such lighting other than the existing luminary on
the light pole.
C. If applicable, the applicant has demonstrated its inability to locate on
existing infrastructure.
Not applicable. The antennas will be located on an existing utility light pole and
the related mechanical equipment will be undergrounded.
D. The applicant has provided sufficient evidence supporting the applicant's
claim that it has the right to enter the public right-of-way pursuant to state
or federal law, or the applicant has entered into a franchise agreement
with the city permitting them to use the public right-of-way.
The Applicant has submitted to the City a Right of Way Use Agreement (RUA)
entered into with the City in 2011, which allows the Applicant to install wireless
antennas in the PROW. Further, the Applicant has submitted a Certificate of
Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) issued by the California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC) which provides that the Applicant has been
authorized to install wireless telecommunications infrastructure in the PROW.
D-120
55478.00001 \30127228.1
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 53)
SEPTEMBER 12, 2017
PAGE 12
E. The applicant has demonstrated the proposed installation is designed
such that the proposed installation represents the least intrusive means
possible and supported by factual evidence and a meaningful
comparative analysis to show that all alternative locations and designs
identified in the application review process were technically infeasible or
not available.
City's consulting RF Engineer has reviewed the Applicant's alternative site
analysis, and concurs that the proposed design and location are the least
intrusive means and the alternative locations and designs were not technically
feasible.
Other locations and designs considered for purposes of filling the coverage gap
claimed by the Applicant and discussed by the City's RF Engineer (attached)
presented the following intrusions, which Staff determined to be more intrusive
then the proposed project as revised:
• Alternative No. 1 (location B). Existing wood utility light pole with mast arm and
luminaire approximately 375 -feet south of the Primary located across Monero
Drive, on the same line of utility pole street lights that are strung along the west
side of Granvia Altamira.
This site is on a slope which may make the site more visible from residences
situated above Granvia Altamira to the east.
• Alternative No. 2 (location C). Replacement of an existing traffic stop sign pole
with a larger pole approximately 84 -feet south of the Primary.
Replacing a stop sign pole will require a larger pole and the antennas will be
more noticeable, compared to the existing utility light pole which allows the
antennas to blend with the existing mast arm, luminaire, other service arms,
power lines and cable lines.
• Alternative No. 3 (location D). Diagonally across the intersection of Monero
Drive and Granvia Altamira on a replacement pole for an existing traffic sign
(stop sign) pole, approximately 140 -feet east of the Primary.
Same as the findings for Alternative No. 2 above.
FINDINGS FOR EXCEPTIONS
Section 12.18.190 of the RPVMC states "Exceptions" provide:
D-121
55478.00001\30127228.1
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 53)
SEPTEMBER 12, 2017
PAGE 13
"The City Council recognizes that federal law prohibits a permit denial when it would
effectively prohibit the provision of personal wireless services and the applicant
proposes the least intrusive means to provide such services. The City Council finds
that, due to wide variation among wireless facilities, technical service objectives and
changed circumstances over time, a limited exemption for proposals in which strict
compliance with this chapter would effectively prohibit personal wireless services
serves the public interest. The City Council further finds that circumstances in which
an effective prohibition may occur are extremely difficult to discern, and that
specified findings to guide the analysis promotes clarity and the city's legitimate
interest in well-planned wireless facilities deployment. Therefore, in the event that
any applicant asserts that strict compliance with any provision in this chapter, as
applied to a specific proposed personal wireless services facility, would effectively
prohibit the provision of personal wireless services, the Planning Commission may
grant a limited, one-time exemption from strict compliance subject to the provisions
in this section."
Section 12.18.190(B) states that the Planning Commission shall not grant any
Exception unless the applicant demonstrates with clear and convincing evidence in
support of the following findings: (Finding shown in bold text followed by Staff's
analysis):
1. The proposed wireless facility qualifies as a "personal wireless services
facility" as defined in United States Code, Title 47, section 332(c)(7)(C)(ii).
The Applicant has provided sufficient information to establish that the wireless
telecommunication facility meets the definition of "personal wireless services
facility" as defined by the United States Code.
2. The applicant has provided the City with a clearly defined technical
service objective and a clearly defined potential site search area.
The "technical service objective" identified by the Applicant in all application
documents is the coverage of a "significant gap" in service. This application
information was provided to the City's RF Engineer who reviewed the information,
as well as conducted both on-site walkouts of the area and a computerized terrain
study to determine if the proposed site will address a coverage gap as identified in
the application. Based on the terrain profile characteristics and the field
measurement data provided by Crown Castle, the City's consultant concluded that
the proposal as provided will address coverage deficiencies within the target area.
Furthermore, according to the City's consultant, the Applicant has provided
engineering details related to the wireless bands that will be used for the DAS
deployment, including identifying transmitting equipment, power levels for each
band and specifics regarding the radiation patterns of the antennas to be installed.
However, information provided about existing and proposed coverage in the service
D-122
55478.00001 \30127228.1
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 53)
SEPTEMBER 12, 2017
PAGE 14
area for each of the three AT&T licensed wireless bands (700 MHz, PCS and AWS)
are less clearly defined; this is due to the extremely rugged and varied terrain
associated with the surrounding landscape.
The City's consultant also concluded that from an engineering perspective, Crown
Castle has provided engineering measurement data defining gaps in AT&T
coverage in small pocketed areas. This has been independently examined by the
City's consultant who determined that the signal levels are lower than industry
recommended levels to support modern 3G/4G customer needs. Further, the
engineering design provided by Crown Castle supports that, if constructed, DAS
site ASG No. 53 will provide ample signal intensity (signal level in excess of -95
dBm) to support AT&T's 3G/4G wireless services.
While the City's RF Engineer found evidence of a gap in signal levels, the question
of whether such gap constitutes a "significant" gap lies within the discretionary
purview of the Planning Commission, subject to limitation that Applicant evidence
must be considered as "primae facie" evidence that can be rebutted with site-
specific, non -speculative, and non -generalized objective analyses. Courts have
made clear that this is a fact -based judgment. "[T]he existing case law amply
demonstrates that `significant gap' determinations are extremely fact -specific
inquiries that defy any bright -line legal rule." (MetroPCS, Inc. v. City and County of
San Francisco (9th Cir. 2005) 400 F.3d 715, 733.) There is a wide range of
context -specific factors in assessing the significance of alleged gaps. (See, e.g.,
Cellular Tel. Co. v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of the Borough of Ho—Ho—Kus (3d
Cir. 1999) 197 F.3d 64, 70 n. 2 [whether gap affected significant commuter highway
or railway]; Powertel/Atlanta, Inc. v. City of Clarkston (N.D.Ga. Aug.3, 2007) No.
1:05—CV-3068, 2007 WL 2258720, at *6 [assessing the "nature and character of
that area or the number of potential users in that area who may be affected by the
alleged lack of service"]; Voice Stream PCS 1, LLC v. City of Hillsboro (D.Or. 2004)
301 F.Supp.2d 1251, 1261 [whether facilities were needed to improve weak signals
or to fill a complete void in coverage]; Nextel Partners, Inc. v. Town of Amherst
(W.D.N.Y.2003) 251 F.Supp.2d 1187, 1196 [gap covers well traveled roads on
which customers lack roaming capabilities]; Am. Cellular Network Co., LLC v.
Upper Dublin Twp. (E.D.Pa.2002) 203 F.Supp.2d 383, 390-91 [considering "drive
tests"]; Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Town of Ogunquit (D.Me. 2001) 175 F.Supp.2d 77,
90 [whether gap affects commercial district]; APT Minneapolis, Inc. v. Stillwater
Twp. (D.Minn. June 22, 2001) No. 00-2500, 2001 WL 1640069, at *2-3 [whether
gap poses public safety risk].)
3. The applicant has provided the City with a meaningful comparative
analysis that includes the factual reasons why any alternative location(s) or
design(s) suggested by the city or otherwise identified in the administrative
record, including but not limited to potential alternatives identified at any
public meeting or hearing, are not technically feasible or potentially
available.
D-123
55478.00001 \30127228.1
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 53)
SEPTEMBER 12, 2017
PAGE 15
As noted earlier, the Applicant has proposed similar antennas at the following
three alternative locations (see attachment):
• Alternative No. 1 (location B). Existing wood utility light pole with mast arm
and luminaire approximately 375 -feet south of the Primary located across
Monero Drive, on the same line of utility pole street lights that are strung
along the west side of Granvia Altamira..
• Alternative No. 2 (location C). Replacement of an existing traffic stop sign
pole with a larger pole approximately 84 -feet south of the Primary.
• Alternative No. 3 (location D). Diagonally across the intersection of Monero
Drive and Granvia Altamira on a replacement pole for an existing traffic sign
(stop sign) pole, approximately 140 -feet east of the Primary.
All the alternative sites meet the RF coverage objective as confirmed by the City's
RF Engineer. The alternative site analysis submitted by the Applicant
demonstrates that the proposed project is likely the least intrusive location for the
wireless telecommunications facility in the immediate area because Alternative
No. 2 is on a slope which may make the site more visible from residences situated
above Granvia Altamira to the east and Alternative Nos. 2 and 3 utilize
replacement pole for stop signs which will make the facility more noticeable than
the primary location which will better disguise and blend the antennas, encased in
a canister) with the existing utility pole and the existing equipment (luminaire, two
service arms, power lines, and cable lines).
While the proposed location is adjacent to a residential zone, the proposed
location does not interfere with any public or residential views. Furthermore,
because of the limited commercially zoned areas in the City and limited collector
or arterial streets, in order to provide coverage to the residential areas of the City,
it's necessary to locate within the right-of-way of local streets. The City's
technical consultants have reviewed the Applicant's documents and support this
conclusion.
Further, other locations and designs that may fill the coverage gap claimed by the
Applicant and discussed by the City's RF Engineer (attached) were found to be
more intrusive then the proposed project as revised:
• As noted above, Staff finds locations that utilize an existing or replacement
pole to be preferable to a whole new pole.
• A smaller or lower pole could be utilized, but it would require a multiplicity
of wireless poles in the gap area claimed by the Applicant and discussed
by the City's RF Engineer (attached), as opposed to having one AT&T pole
in this area.
D-124
55478.00001 \30127228.1
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 53)
SEPTEMBER 12, 2017
PAGE 16
• Alternate antenna designs, such as the side -mounted open panels
originally proposed, were found by Staff to be bulkier in appearance and
less streamlined than the vertical shroud design now proposed.
• Staff looked at other design options from other (non -AT&T) carriers. While
some carriers offer antenna panels that may be smaller in overall size,
such designs from other carriers are not engineered to carry the
bandwidths owned by AT&T.
4. The applicant has provided the city with a meaningful comparative
analysis that includes the factual reasons why the proposed location and
design deviates is the least noncompliant location and design necessary to
reasonably achieve the applicant's reasonable technical service objectives.
See discussion immediately above. Further, the proposed installation will be
installed on an existing wood utility street light pole that will match other utility
street light poles in the immediate area. The proposed canister housing the panel
antennas will be painted brown to match the existing pole. The location is
necessary to cover a gap in service, as affirmed by the City's RF Engineer who
will be present at the September 12th meeting. And, as stated in the previous
Finding, the limited commercially zoned areas and limited number of collector or
arterial streets require the use of local residential streets in order to provide
proper coverage and capacity to various portions of the City. Thus, there are no
commercial zones within the signal reach of the identified gap.
It should be noted that the RPVMC Section 12.18.190(C) provides that the
Commission "shall limit its exemption to the extent to which the applicant
demonstrates such exemption is necessary to reasonably achieve its reasonable
technical service objectives. The Planning Commission may adopt Conditions of
Approval as reasonably necessary to promote the purposes in this chapter and protect
the public health, safety and welfare."
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Radio Frequency (RF) Emissions
In compliance with RPVMC Section 12.18.050, the Applicant provided the City with "an
RF exposure compliance report prepared and certified by an RF engineer acceptable to
the City that certifies that the proposed facility, as well as any facilities that contribute to
the cumulative exposure in the subject area, will comply with applicable federal RF
exposure standards and exposure limits."
With regards to RF cumulative impact concerns, there is no additional impacts simply
from the installation of wireless facilities throughout the City as shown in the applicant's
plans. As long as the antennas are 13.9' or more above ground and the 8' public
D-125
55478.00001\30127228.1
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 53)
SEPTEMBER 12, 2017
PAGE 17
exclusion zone directly in front and at the same elevation as the antenna is observed,
there is no cumulative impacts associated with RF exposure. Unlike cumulative traffic
impacts from additional urban development, there is no equivalent cumulative impacts.
In other words, the degree of RF does not increase in neighborhoods where it can
impact the general population just from having multiple wireless facilities in a
neighborhood.
Importantly, beyond the fact that Applicant complied with this submittal requirement, any
consideration of RF Emissions by the Planning Commission, or the health effects
thereof, are beyond the Commission's authority to the extent the emissions conform to
the applicable FCC regulations. Under the Telecom Act, the FCC completely occupies
the field with respect to RF emissions regulation, and established comprehensive rules
for maximum permissible exposure levels (the "FCC Guidelines"). State and local
governments cannot (1) regulate wireless facilities based on environmental effects from
RF emissions when the emissions conform to the applicable FCC regulations or (2)
establish their own RF exposure standards—whether more strict, more lenient or even
the same. (47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv).). As the emissions conform to the FCC
regulations, the City cannot impose its own emission standards or ignore the FCC
standards.
Shot Clock
State and federal laws, and a FCC ruling, provide that a local jurisdiction must act on an
application for certain wireless facilities antennas within the following certain strict
timeframes:
(1) a 150 -day shot clock for new facilities;
(2) a 90 -day shot clock for modifications resulting in a substantial change; or
(3) a 60 -day shot clock for modifications that do not result in a substantial change.
If a local government fails to approve or deny a facilities request within the applicable
time period, the request will be "deemed granted" upon written notification from the
applicant to the local government stating that the request is considered approved.
The Project application proposes a new facility subject to the 150 -day shot clock. The
application was submitted on May 3, 2016. The clock was "tolled" several times as a
result of incomplete application submittals. As a result, the shot clock has not run, and it
was set to expire on August 25, 2017. But as stated earlier, a new Shot Clock Tolling
Agreement, dated August 7, 2017 (see attachment) established a new Shot Clock
Expiration date of September 30, 2017.
As a point of clarification, the Planning Commission's action on the Project is the final
City decision, unless appealed to the City Council. While the law is not clear, there is no
binding legal precedent in California requiring that the shot clock run pending an appeal
D-126
55478.00001 \30127228.1
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 53)
SEPTEMBER 12, 2017
PAGE 18
period. Accordingly, it is thought that the Commission's action on the Project may toll
the shot clock.
Public Comments
Attached are the public comments received (see attachment).
Mock -Up Notice Issues
On May 23, 2017, the Applicant (Crown Castle) received a Public Works Encroachment
Permit to install a Mock -Up of a proposed wireless telecommunications facility. The
temporary mock-up was installed on June 1, 2017. This is a required step in the
Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Application for all proposed wireless facility
installations. Chapter 12.18 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code states that the
Planning Commission is to review these specific proposed installations for, among other
things, design assessment and location.
The temporary mock-up installation remains in-place as a matter of public notice up -to
and during Planning Commission deliberations, and any appeal to the City Council if
applicable.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Staff recommends that the proposed WTF be conditionally
approved as provided in the attached P.C. Resolution conditionally approving the
project.
ALTERNATIVES
The following alternatives are available for the Planning Commission's consideration:
1) Deny, without prejudice, ASG No. 53; or,
2) Identify any issues of concern with the proposed project, provide Staff and/or the
applicant with direction in modifying the project and request that the applicant
redesign and resubmit for consideration at the September 26, 2017 meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
• P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -XX including Conditions of Approval
• Project plans and photo simulations
• City's View Assessment Memo
• Technical information from the City's RF Engineer
• Coverage Maps and Supporting Documents from the Applicant
• Feasibility Analysis on Alternate Sites
D-127
55478.00001 \30127228.1
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (WTF ASG NO. 53)
SEPTEMBER 12, 2017
PAGE 19
August 7, 2017 Shot Clock Tolling Agreement
Public Comments
D-128
55478.00001 \30127228.1
P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING, WITH
CONDITIONS, MAJOR WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS
FACILITY PERMIT ASG NO. 53 TO ALLOW THE INSTALLATION
OF TWO 21.4" PANEL ANTENNAS ENCASED IN A 2' TALL
CANISTER SHROUD ON AN EXISTING 52' TALL WOOD
UTILITY STREETLIGHT POLE WITH RELATED VAULTED
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AT THE NORTHWEST
INTERSECTION OF MONERO DRIVE AND GRANVIA
ALTAMIRA.
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. 53 located at the northwest intersection of Monero Drive and Granvia Altamira;
WHEREAS, the original proposal called for the installation of two 21.4" panel
antennas mounted on a 4' mast arm, extending from the existing 52' tall wood utility
street light pole. The radio equipment and power meter were to be placed on the ground
adjacent to the street light pole, consisting of 9.7 cubic feet of equipment boxes in the
PROW;
WHEREAS, the revised project calls for the installation of two 21.4" panel
antennas, encased in a 24" tall canister shroud on an existing 52' tall utility streetlight
pole;
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
within the PROW. There will be a total of three vaults measuring approximately 43
square feet;
WHEREAS, because the Project's location is within a residential zone and within
the PROW of local streets as identified in the General Plan, approval of a Major WTFP
also requires an exception under Section 12.18.190 of the Municipal Code;
WHEREAS, the Project is exempt from review under the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") because the Project constitutes a small scale
installation of new a new facility (14 CCR § 15303(d)).
P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 1 of� 12 9
55478.00001\30127231.1
WHEREAS, on August 22, 2017, the Planning Commission continued the public
hearing to September 12, 2017;
WHEREAS, on September 12, 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.
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 northwest intersection of Monero Drive and Granvia
Altamira,
B. Install two 21.4" panel antennas, encased in a 2' tall canister shroud measuring
2' in diameter that will be mounted on a 4' mast arm, extending from an existing
52' tall wood utility streetlight pole approximately 20.6' from the ground level, 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: Approval of a WTFP is warranted because the Project meets the
findings required by Section 12.18.090 of the Municipal Code:
A. All notices required for the proposed installation have been given.
Crown Castle and the City have provided all notices required by the RPVMC. On
May 25, 2017 property owners within 500' of the proposed facility were notified of
the WTF mock-up which occurred at least 30 days in advance of the public
hearing. Further, on August 3, 2017, a public notice announcing the August 22,
2017 public hearing was provided to property owners within 500' of the proposed
WTF and was published in the Peninsula News. On August 22, 2017, the
Planning Commission continued this item to its September 12, 2017 meeting.
B. The proposed facility has been designed and located in compliance with all
applicable provisions of this chapter.
12.18.080(A)(1)(a): The applicant shall employ screening, undergrounding and
camouflage design techniques in the design and placement of wireless
telecommunications facilities in order to ensure that the facility is as visually
screened as possible, to prevent the facility from dominating the surrounding area
and to minimize significant view impacts from surrounding properties all in a
P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 2 of 130
55478.00001\30127231.1
manner that achieves compatibility with the community and in compliance with
Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration) of this code.
The proposed WTF is a collocation on an existing 52' tall utility streetlight pole,
with mast arm and luminaire and two service arms that carry power lines along
with cable lines. The panel antennas will be encased in a 2' tall canister,
measuring 2' in diameter, minimizing its visual intrusion to the environment. The
canister shroud will blend into the environment that consist of utility light poles,
power lines, cable lines, mast arms and luminaries along Granvia Altamira. The
area also contains foliage that screen views towards poles from residences. The
WTF will not dominate the surrounding area because of the existing vertical
infrastructure. The mechanical equipment will be vaulted 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.
The design would not have any significant view impairment to the surrounding
area. This design is preferred to avoid the installation of a new pole and is
visually less -intrusive compared to "side -mounted" panel antennas because the
vertical shroud presents a slim side view that blends with the verticality of the
utility pole. The Project is in line with the vision and policies set forth in the General
Plan by minimizing the installation of new above -ground infrastructure.
12.18.080(A)(1)(b): Screening shall be designed to be architecturally compatible
with surrounding structures using appropriate techniques to camouflage, disguise,
and/or blend into the environment, including landscaping, color, and other
techniques to minimize the facility's visual impact as well as be compatible with
the architectural character of the surrounding buildings or structures in terms of
color, size, proportion, style, and quality.
The proposed panel antennas will be a collocation on an existing 52 -foot tall utility
street light pole, with mast arm and luminaire and two service arms that carry
power lines along with cable lines. The canister shroud encasing the panel
antennas will be painted brown to match other streetlight utility poles in the area
and the existing condition and improvements on the utility pole. The cylinder
shaped shroud encasing the two antenna panels and wires affixed to the utility
streetlight pole is an appropriate technique that disguises and blends the facility
into the environment (blending with the replacement pole and other poles in the
area).
12.18.080(A)(1)(c): Facilities shall be located such that views from a residential
structure are not significantly impaired. Facilities shall also be located in a manner
that protects public views over city view corridors, as defined in the city's general
plan, so that no significant view impairment results in accordance with this code
including Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration). This provision
shall be applied consistent with local, state and federal law.
P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 3 ofDD- 131
55478.00001 \30127231.1
The Commission finds that the design would not significantly impair any public or
private views. The site is not located in a view corridor identified in the City's
General Plan or Coastal Specific Plan.
12.18.080(A)(3): Traffic Safety. All facilities shall be designed and located in such
a manner as to avoid adverse impacts to traffic safety.
The Project is designed to avoid adverse traffic impacts by affixing the panel
antennas and the canister shroud to an existing wood utility streetlight pole with
the bottom of the antenna canister shroud measuring approximately 20'-6" from the
ground. The related mechanical equipment will be vaulted avoiding traffic safety
impacts, including impacting the intersection visibility triangle at the intersection of
Monero Drive and Granvia Altamira.
12.18.080(A)(4): Blending Methods. All facilities shall have subdued colors and
non -reflective materials that blend with the materials and colors of the surrounding
area and structures.
The canister shroud that will house the panel antennas and the associated mast
arm will be painted with non -reflective brown paint that will match and blend with
the existing utility street light pole.
12.18.080(A)(5): Equipment. The applicant shall use the least visible equipment
possible. Antenna elements shall be flush mounted, to the extent feasible. All
antenna mounts shall be designed so as not to preclude possible future
collocation by the same or other operators or carriers. Unless otherwise provided
in this section, antennas shall be situated as close to the ground as possible.
The Project will collocate on an existing 52' tall utility streetlight pole, with mast
arm and luminaire and two service arms that carry power lines along with cable
lines. The two antennas would be mounted back-to-back and encased in a 2' tall
canister shroud on a 4' mast arm, extending from the existing wood utility
streetlight pole. The bottom of the antennas/canister would measure
approximately 20'-6" above the ground level below. Locating the antennas on the
mast arm will not preclude possible future collocation by the same or other
operators or carriers.
12.18.080(A)(6)(a): Facilities shall be located consistent with Section 12.18.200
(Location Restrictions) unless an exception pursuant to Section 12.18.190
(Exceptions) is granted.
The proposed location is within the PROW of local residential streets as identified
in the City's General Plan. Therefore, the Planning Commission shall not grant an
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-
Page 4 of 132
55478.00001\30127231.1
Exception unless the Findings for an Exception can be demonstrated as detailed
further below.
12.18.080(A)(6)(b): Only pole -mounted antennas shall be permitted in the right-of-
way. All other telecommunications towers are prohibited, and no new poles are
permitted that are not replacing an existing pole. (For exceptions see
subparagraph (6)(h) below and sections 12.18.190 (Exceptions) and 12.18.220
(State or Federal Law).) Sections 12.18.080(6)(c) through (f) are not applicable.
The proposed WTF will be located in the PROW and will be pole mounted to an
existing utility streetlight pole.
12.18.080(A)(6)(c)Utility Poles. The maximum height of any antenna shall not
exceed 48 inches above the height of an existing utility pole, nor shall any portion
of the antenna or equipment mounted on a pole be less than 24 feet above any
drivable road surface.
The proposed antennas will not exceed 48" above the existing height of the light
pole. The antennas are proposed below the maximum height of the 52' tall utility
light pole approximately 20.5' above the ground level to the bottom of the canister
shroud housing the panel antennas. The proposed antenna and canister shroud
will not be above the drivable road surface.
12.18.080(A)(6)(d): Light Poles. The maximum heiqht of any antenna shall not
exceed four feet above the existing height of a light pole. Any portion of the
antenna or equipment mounted on a pole shall be no less than 16% feet above
any drivable road surface.
The proposed antennas will not exceed 4' above the existing height of the light
pole. The antennas are proposed below the maximum height of the 52' tall utility
light pole approximately 20.5' above the ground level. The antenna and the mast
are not above the drivable road surface.
12.18.080(A)(6)(e): Replacement Poles. If an applicant proposes to replace a pole
in order to accommodate a proposed facility, the pole shall be designed to
resemble the appearance and dimensions of existing poles near the proposed
location, including size, height, color, materials and style to the maximum extent
feasible.
The project will be affixed to an existing wood streetlight utility pole, and the
existing pole will not be replaced.
55478.00001\30127231.1
P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 5 ofDL 1 33
12.18.080(A)(6)(f): Pole mounted equipment, exclusive of antennas, shall not
exceed six cubic feet in dimension.
The pole mounted equipment, excluding antennas, would be limited to cable
connecting the node to power and fiber optic backbone, connectors, brackets, and
GPS. The pole mounted equipment, excluding antennas, would therefore not
exceed six cubic feet in dimension. Furthermore, the related mechanical
equipment will be vaulted.
12.18.080(A)(6)(h): An exception shall be required to place a new pole in the
public right-of-way. If an exception is granted for placement of new poles in the
right-of-way.
The project utilizes an existing wood streetlight utility pole. Therefore no
exception is required.
12.18.080(A)(6)(i): All cables, including, but not limited to, electrical and utility
cables, shall be run within the interior of the pole and shall be camouflaged or
hidden to the fullest extent feasible. For all wooden poles wherein interior
installation is infeasible, conduit and cables attached to the exterior of poles shall
be mounted flush thereto and painted to match the pole.
Interior installation is infeasible as the WTF will utilize an existing wooden pole. All
conduit and cabling is to be flush mounted and painted brown to match the pole.
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 WTF will be mounted to an existing wood utility street light pole. The related
mechanical equipment (radio units and meter) will be vaulted measuring
approximately 43 square feet in area and consists of three separate vaults. This
space is the least amount of space that is technically feasible for vaulted
equipment owned by AT&T. The space that will be occupied is below the surface
with minimum exhaust vents that will be flush to the surrounding ground.
12.18.080(A)(8): Wind Loads. Each facility shall be properly engineered to
withstand wind loads as required by this code or any duly adopted or incorporated
code. An evaluation of high wind load capacity shall include the impact of
modification of an existing facility.
Based on the information submitted by the Applicant and as confirmed by the
City's consultants, the installation complies with all building codes related to wind
loads.
55478.00001\30127231.1
P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 6 ofD)-1 34
12.18.080(A)(9): Obstructions. Each component part of a facility shall be located
so as not to cause any physical or visual obstruction to pedestrian or vehicular
traffic, incommode the public's use of the right-of-way, or safety hazards to
pedestrians and motorists and in compliance with Section 17.48.070 (Intersection
Visibility) so as not to obstruct the intersection visibility triangle.
Pursuant to the application documents submitted to the City, the proposed
wireless telecommunication facility installation would not 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 because the bottom of the proposed
antennas will be located 20.5' above the ground level, not over the drivable
portion of the street, and the related mechanical equipment will be
undergrounded.
12.18.080(A)(10): Public Facilities. A facility shall not be located within any
portion of the public right-of-way interfering with access to a fire hydrant, fire
station, fire escape, water valve, underground vault, valve housing structure, or
any other public health or safety facility.
Pursuant to the application documents submitted to the City, the proposed
installation would not interfere with any public health or safety facilities. The
wireless telecommunication facility is proposed on an existing utility light pole.
12.18.080(A)(11): Screening. All ground -mounted facility, pole -mounted
equipment, or walls, fences, landscaping or other screening methods shall be
installed at least 18 inches from the curb and gutter flow line.
The project does not have pole -mounted equipment, excluding the antennas and
the support mast arms. The related mechanical equipment will be vaulted.
Therefore, the project will be consistent with this finding.
12.18.080(A)(12): Accessory Equipment. Accessory Equipment. Not including the
electric meter, all accessory equipment shall be located underground, except as
provided below.
The related accessory equipment, including the meter, will be vaulted.
12.18.080(A)(13) Landscaping. Where appropriate, each facility shall be installed
so as to maintain and enhance existing landscaping on the site, including trees,
foliage and shrubs. Additional landscaping shall be planted, irrigated and
maintained by applicant where such landscaping is deemed necessary by the city
to provide screening or to conceal the facility.
P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 7 o9a l 35
55478.00001 \30127231.1
This portion of Granvia Altamira is characterized by a line of 52' tall utility
streetlight poles strung along the west side of the road. The placement of a vault
would require the removal of one of the saplings along the west side of Granvia
Altamira. As a Condition of Approval, the Applicant must replace the tree at a
location to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development.
Additionally, the Applicant will be required as a Condition of Approval to provide
landscaping around the vault within the parkway to minimize its visual appearance
from pedestrians and motorists.
12.18.080(A)(14) Signage. No facility shall bear any signs or advertising devices
other than certification, warning or other signage required by law or permitted by
the city.
The facility does not include any signs or advertising devices other than
certification, warning or other signage required by law.
12.18.080(A)(15)(a-e) Lighting.
The facility does not include any such lighting other than the existing luminary on
the light pole.
C. If applicable, the applicant has demonstrated its inability to locate on
existing infrastructure.
Not applicable. The antennas will be located on an existing utility light pole and
the related mechanical equipment will be undergrounded.
D. The applicant has provided sufficient evidence supporting the applicant's
claim that it has the right to enter the public right-of-way pursuant to state
or federal law, or the applicant has entered into a franchise agreement with
the city permitting them to use the public right-of-way.
The Applicant has submitted to the City a Right -of -Way Use Agreement (RUA)
entered into with the City in 2011, which allows the Applicant to install wireless
antennas in the PROW. Further, the Applicant has submitted a Certificate of
Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) issued by the California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC) which provides that the Applicant has been
authorized to install wireless telecommunications infrastructure in the PROW.
E. The applicant has demonstrated the proposed installation is designed such
that the proposed installation represents the least intrusive means possible
and supported by factual evidence and a meaningful comparative analysis
P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 8 ofpo_ 136
55478.00001 \30127231.1
to show that all alternative locations and designs identified in the
application review process were technically infeasible or not available.
The proposed project is the least intrusive of the alternative locations
considered. Other locations and designs considered as part of the application
process for purposes of filling the coverage gap claimed by the Applicant and
discussed by the City's RF Engineer were found to be more intrusive then the
proposed project.
Section 3: Because the Project's location is within a residential zone and
within the ROW of local streets as identified in the General Plan, approval of a Major
WTFP also requires an exception under Section 12.18.190 of the Municipal Code. The
Project meets the findings for an exception as required by Section 12.18.190(B) of the
Municipal Code:
1. The proposed wireless facility qualifies as a "personal wireless services
facility" as defined in United States Code, Title 47, section 332(c)(7)(C)(ii).
The WTF meets the definition of "personal wireless services facility" as defined by
the United States Code.
2. The applicant has provided the city with a clearly defined technical
service objective and a clearly defined potential site search area.
The "technical service objective" identified by the Applicant in all application
documents is the coverage of a "significant gap" in service in the general area of
the intersection of Monero Drive and Granvia Altamira. This application
information was provided to the City's RF engineer who reviewed the information,
as well as conducted both on-site walkout of the area and a computerized terrain
study to determine of the proposed site will address a coverage gap as identified
in the application. Based on the terrain profile characteristics and the field
measurement data provided by Crown Castle, the proposal as provided will
address coverage deficiencies within the target area. The Applicant has provided
engineering details related to the wireless bands that will be used for the DAS
deployment, including identifying transmitting equipment, power levels for each
band and specifics regarding the radiation patterns of the antennas to be installed.
Crown Castle has provided engineering measurement data defining gaps in AT&T
coverage in small pocketed areas. This has been independently examined by the
City's consultant who determined that the signal levels are lower than industry
recommended levels to support modern 3G/4G customer needs. The engineering
design provided by Crown Castle supports that, if constructed, DAS site ASG No.
53 will provide ample signal intensity (signal level in excess of -95 dBm) to support
AT&T's 3G/4G wireless services.
P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 9 ofD137
55478.00001\30127231.1
3. The applicant has provided the city with a meaningful comparative
analysis that includes the factual reasons why any alternative location(s) or
design(s) suggested by the city or otherwise identified in the administrative
record, including but not limited to potential alternatives identified at any
public meeting or hearing, are not technically feasible or potentially
available.
The Applicant has provided comparative analysis for possible similar small cell
nodes (antennas) at the following 3 alternative locations:
• Alternative No. 1 (location B). Existing wood utility light pole with mast arm
and luminaire approximately 375 -feet south of the Primary located across
Monero Drive, on the same line of utility pole street lights that are strung
along the west side of Granvia Altamira..
• Alternative No. 2 (location C). Replacement of an existing traffic stop sign
pole with a larger pole approximately 84 -feet south of the Primary.
• Alternative No. 3 (location D). Diagonally across the intersection of Monero
Drive and Granvia Altamira on a replacement pole for an existing traffic sign
(stop sign) pole, approximately 140 -feet east of the Primary.
The Applicant has provided comparative analysis of these locations. All the
alternative sites meet the RF coverage objective as confirmed by the City's RF
Engineer. The alternative site analysis demonstrates that the Project is likely the
least intrusive location for the wireless telecommunications facility in the
immediate area. There are no major collector or arterial streets in the immediate
area.
4. The applicant has provided the city with a meaningful comparative
analysis that includes the factual reasons why the proposed location and
design is the least noncompliant location and design necessary to
reasonably achieve the applicant's reasonable technical service objectives.
The Applicant has provided a meaningful alternative comparative analysis and the
proposed project is found to be the preferred design.
Section 4: Conditions regarding any of the requirements stated herein are
necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare have been imposed in the
attached Exhibit A.
Section 5: The Project is exempt from review under the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") because the Project constitutes a small scale
installation of a new facility (14 CCR § 15303(d)).
Section 6: Pursuant to Section 12.18.060 of the Municipal Code (referencing
Chapter 17.80 of the Municipal Code), any interested person aggrieved by this decision
P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 10 ofD1 1 38
55478.00001 \30127231.1
or any portion of this decision may appeal to the City Council. The appeal shall set forth
the grounds for appeal and any specific action being requested by the appellant. Any
appeal letter must be filed within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of this decision,
or by 5:30 PM on Wednesday, 27, 2017. The Council -approved appeal fee must
accompany any appeal letter. If no appeal is filed timely, the Planning Commission's
decision will be final at 5:30 PM on Wednesday, September 27, 2017.
Section 7: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and
findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby conditionally
approves, a WTFP application and an exception for the proposed installation at the
northwest intersection of Monero Drive and Granvia Altamira (ASG NO. 53).
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of September 2017, by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
RECUSALS:
ABSENT:
John M. Cruikshank
Chairman
Ara Mihranian, AICP
Director of Community Development; and,
Secretary of the Planning Commission
P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 11 of 139
55478.00001 \30127231.1
Exhibit "A"
Conditions of Approval
WTF ASG NO. 53
ADJACENT TO 6505 Monero Drive
General Conditions:
1. Prior to obtaining a permit from the Public Works Department to install the WTF,
the applicant and the property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in
writing, that they have read, understand, and agree to all conditions of approval
contained in this Resolution. Failure to provide said written statement within
ninety (90) days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null
and void.
2. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City,
and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies,
and instrumentalities thereof, from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of
mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether legal, equitable,
declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute
resolutions procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and
other such procedures) (collectively "Actions"), brought against the City, and/or
any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside,
void, or annul, the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and/or
any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City), for
or concerning the project.
3. Prior to conducting any work in the public right of way (PROW), such as for curb
cuts, dumpsters, temporary improvements and/or permanent improvements, the
applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works.
4. Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and
appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws
and regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of
the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) shall apply.
5. The Public Works Director or Director of Community Development are authorized
to make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of
approval if such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as
would strict compliance with the approved plans and conditions. Otherwise, any
substantive change to the project shall require approval of a revision by the final
body that approved the original project, which may require new and separate
environmental review.
6. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be
cause to revoke the approval of the project pursuant to the RPVMC.
P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 12 ofpo.140
55478.00001\30127231.1
7. If the applicant has not obtained approvals from Public Works for the approved
project or not commenced the approved project within one year of the final
effective date of this Resolution, approval of the project shall expire and be of no
further effect unless, prior to expiration, a written request for extension is filed
with the Public Works Department and approved by the Director.
8. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations
and/or requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter
standard shall apply.
9. The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall
be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that
material used for immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may
include, but not be limited to: the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap
metal, concrete asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or
discarded furniture, appliances or other household fixtures.
10. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM,
Monday through Friday, 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturday, with no construction
activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section
17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. During demolition,
construction and/or grading operations, trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at
the project site or in the adjoining street rights-of-way before 7:00 AM Monday
through Friday and before 9:00 AM on Saturday, in accordance with the
permitted hours of construction stated in this condition. When feasible to do so,
the construction contractor shall provide staging areas on-site to minimize off-site
transportation of heavy construction equipment. These areas shall be located to
maximize the distance between staging activities and neighboring properties,
subject to approval by the building official.
11. All grading, landscaping and construction activities shall exercise effective dust
control techniques, either through screening and/or watering.
12. Prior to commencement work, the Applicant shall obtain approval of a haul route
from the Director of Public Works.
13. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly
manner, to the satisfaction of the City's Inspector. All construction waste and
debris resulting from a construction, alteration or repair project shall be removed
on a weekly basis by the contractor or property owner.
14. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be
completed in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by
the City with the effective date of this Resolution.
P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 13 of 141
55478.00001 \30127231.1
Project -specific Conditions:
15. This approval allows for the following:
A. Install a WTF at the northwest intersection of Monero Drive and Granvia
Altamira,
B. Install two 21.4" panel antennas, encased in a 2' tall canister shroud
measuring 2' in diameter that will be mounted on a 4' mast arm, extending
from an existing 52' tall wood utility streetlight pole approximately 20.6' from
the ground level,
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.
16. The proposed project is subject to the following Conditions to the satisfaction of
the Director of Public Works and the Director of Community Development:
o The antenna shroud and any related exposed structures shall be painted
brown and maintained to match the utility light pole.
o The Applicant shall install drought tolerant landscaping near the proposed
installation to screen the equipment and proposed retaining wall
consistent with existing landscaping.
o The Applicant shall replace the tree that is to be removed to accommodate
the vaulted equipment with a tree in the same general location.
o The facility shall be designed and located in such a manner as to avoid
adverse impacts on traffic safety; construction and operation of the facility
shall comport with a duly -approved traffic control plan as required.
o Colors.and materials shall be subdued and non -reflective, and shall be the
same as the existing utility streetlight pole.
o All cables and wires attached to the exterior of the wooden pole shall be
mounted flush in a conduit that is painted to match the pole.
o All ground -mounted facilities including mechanical equipment, or walls,
fences, landscaping or other screening methods shall be installed at least
18 inches from the curb and gutter flow line.
o All accessory equipment shall be located underground including meter
boxes and cabinets.
o The facility shall be installed so as to maintain and enhance existing
landscaping on the site, including trees, foliage and shrubs. Additional
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-
Page 14 oBa 142
55478.00001\30127231.1
landscaping shall be planted, irrigated and maintained by Applicant where
such landscaping is feasible and deemed necessary by the City to provide
screening or to conceal the facility.
o The facility shall not bear any signs or advertising devices other than
certification, warning or other signage required by law or permitted by the
city.
o The facility shall not be illuminated except for the standard streetlight
luminaire replacing the existing street light. All other illumination shall be
restricted pursuant to RPVMC § 12.18.080(A)(15).
o Noise:
■ Backup generators shall only be operated during periods of power
outages, and shall not be tested on weekends or holidays, or
between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
■ At no time shall equipment noise from any facility exceed an
exterior noise level of 55 dBA three feet from the source of the
noise if the facility is located in the public right-of-way adjacent to a
business, commercial, manufacturing, utility or school zone;
provided, however, that for any such facility located within 500 feet
of any property zoned residential or improved with a residential use,
such equipment noise shall not exceed 45 dBA three feet from the
sources of the noise. The foregoing noise level limitations shall
govern facilities subject to RPVMC Chapter 12.18.080(A)(16) until
such time that a specific noise regulation ordinance is adopted and
effective in this code, at which time such noise ordinance shall
govern.
o The facility shall be designed to be resistant to, and minimize opportunities
for, unauthorized access, climbing, vandalism, graffiti and other conditions
that would result in hazardous situations, visual blight or attractive
nuisances. The Public Works Director may require the provision of
warning signs, fencing, anti -climbing devices, or other techniques to
prevent unauthorized access and vandalism when, because of their
location and/or accessibility, a facility has the potential to become an
attractive nuisance. Additionally, no lethal devices or elements shall be
installed as a security device.
o Consistent with current state and federal laws and if permissible under the
same, at the time of modification of the facility, existing equipment shall, to
the extent feasible, be replaced with equipment that reduces visual, noise
and other impacts, including, but not limited to, undergrounding the
equipment and replacing larger, more visually intrusive facilities with
smaller, less visually intrusive facilities.
55478.00001 \30127231.1
P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 15 o0a 143
o The installation and construction of the facility shall begin within one year
after its approval or it will expire without further action by the city.
17. All wireless telecommunications facilities shall comply at all times with the
following operation and maintenance standards:
o Unless otherwise provided herein, all necessary repairs and restoration
shall be completed by the permittee, owner, operator or any designated
maintenance agent within 48 hours:
o After discovery of the need by the permittee, owner, operator or any
designated maintenance agent; or
o After permittee, owner, operator or any designated maintenance agent
receives notification from the city.
18. Each permittee of a wireless telecommunications facility shall provide the Public
Works Director with the name, address and 24-hour local or toll free contact
phone number of the permittee, the owner, the operator and the agent
responsible for the maintenance of the facility ("contact information"). Contact
information shall be updated within seven days of any change.
19. Prior to any construction activities, the permittee shall submit a security
instrument (bond or letter of credit as approved by the City Attorney) in an
amount determined by the City to be sufficient to cover all potential costs listed
herein or in the RPVMC.
20. The permittee shall provide additional information to establish that the proposed
accessory equipment is designed to be the smallest equipment technologically
feasible. The City may consider equipment installed or proposed to be installed in
other jurisdictions.
21. All facilities, including, but not limited to, telecommunication towers, poles,
accessory equipment, lighting, fences, walls, shields, cabinets, artificial foliage or
camouflage, and the facility site shall be maintained in good condition, including
ensuring the facilities are reasonably free of:
a. General dirt and grease;
b. Chipped, faded, peeling, and cracked paint;
C. Rust and corrosion;
d. Cracks, dents, and discoloration;
e. Missing, discolored or damaged artificial foliage or other camouflage;
P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 16 of D- 144
55478.00001\30127231 A
Graffiti, bills, stickers, advertisements, litter and debris;
g. Broken and misshapen structural parts; and
h. Any damage from any cause.
22. Applicant shall install, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director or Director
of Community Development, drought tolerant landscaping near the proposed
installation of the vaulted accessory equipment to screen the equipment
consistent with existing landscaping prior to final inspection.
23. All trees, foliage or other landscaping elements approved as part of the facility
shall be maintained in good condition at all times, and the permittee, owner and
operator of the facility shall be responsible for replacing any damaged, dead or
decayed landscaping. No amendment to any approved landscaping plan may be
made until it is submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director or the
Director of Community Development.
24. The permittee shall replace its facilities, after obtaining all required permits, if
maintenance or repair is not sufficient to return the facility to the condition it was
in at the time of installation.
25. Each facility shall be operated and maintained to comply with all conditions of
approval. Each owner or operator of a facility shall routinely inspect each site to
ensure compliance with the same and the standards set forth in the RPVMC.
26. No person shall install, use or maintain any facility which in whole or in part rests
upon, in or over any public right-of-way, when such installation, use or
maintenance endangers or is reasonably likely to endanger the safety of persons
or property, or when such site or location is used for public utility purposes, public
transportation purposes or other governmental use, or when such facility
unreasonably interferes with or unreasonably impedes the flow of pedestrian or
vehicular traffic including any legally parked or stopped vehicle, the ingress into
or egress from any residence or place of business, the use of poles, posts, traffic
signs or signals, hydrants, mailboxes, permitted sidewalk dining, permitted street
furniture or other objects permitted at or near said location.
27. Unless California Government Code Section 65964, as may be amended,
authorizes the city to issue a permit with a shorter term, a permit for any wireless
telecommunications facility shall be valid for a period of ten years, unless
pursuant to another provision of the RPVMC or these Conditions of Approval, it
lapses sooner or is revoked. At the end of ten years from the date of issuance,
such permit shall automatically expire.
P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 17 of 2- 1 45
55478.00001 \30127231.1
28. A permittee may apply for a new permit within 180 days prior to expiration. Said
application and proposal shall comply with the city's current Code requirements
for WTF's.
29. A WTF is considered abandoned and shall be promptly removed as provided
herein if it ceases to provide wireless telecommunications services for 90 or more
consecutive days unless the permittee has obtained prior written approval from
the director which shall not be unreasonably denied. If there are two or more
users of a single facility, then this provision shall not become effective until all
users cease using the facility.
30. The operator of a facility shall notify the City in writing of its intent to abandon or
cease use of a permitted site or a nonconforming site (including unpermitted
sites) within ten days of ceasing or abandoning use. Notwithstanding any other
provision herein, the operator of the facility shall provide written notice to the
director of any discontinuation of operations of 30 days or more.
31. Failure to inform the director of cessation or discontinuation of operations of any
existing facility as required by this section shall constitute a violation of any
approvals and be grounds for:
a. Litigation;
b. Revocation or modification of the permit;
C. Acting on any bond or other assurance required by this article or
conditions of approval of the permit;
d. Removal of the facilities by the city in accordance with the procedures
established under this code for abatement of a public nuisance at the
owner's expense; and/or
e. Any other remedies permitted by law.
32. Upon the expiration date of the permit, including any extensions, earlier
termination or revocation of the permit or abandonment of the facility, the
permittee, owner or operator shall remove its WTF and restore the site to its
natural condition except for retaining the landscaping improvements and any
other improvements at the discretion of the city. Removal shall be in accordance
with proper health and safety requirements and all ordinances, rules, and
regulations of the City. The facility shall be removed from the property, at no cost
or expense to the City.
33. Failure of the permittee, owner or operator to promptly remove its facility and
restore the property within 90 days after expiration, earlier termination or
revocation of the permit, or abandonment of the facility, shall be a violation of
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-
Page 18 oBQ 146
55478.00001\30127231.1
these conditions of approval. Upon a showing of good cause, an extension may
be granted by the Public Works Director where circumstances are beyond the
control of the permittee after expiration. Further failure to abide by the timeline
provided in this section shall be grounds for:
a. Prosecution;
b. Acting on any security instrument required by the RPVMC or conditions of
approval of permit;
C. Removal of the facilities by the city in accordance with the procedures
established under the RPVMC for abatement of a public nuisance at the
owner's expense; and/or
d. Any other remedies permitted by law.
34. In the event the Public Works Director or City Engineer determines that the
condition or placement of a WTF located in the public right-of-way constitutes a
dangerous condition, obstruction of the public right-of-way, or an imminent threat
to public safety, or determines other exigent circumstances require immediate
corrective action (collectively, "exigent circumstances"), the Director or City
Engineer may cause the facility to be removed summarily and immediately
without advance notice or a hearing. Written notice of the removal shall include
the basis for the removal and shall be served upon the permittee and person who
owns the facility within five business days of removal and all property removed
shall be preserved for the owner's pick-up as feasible. If the owner cannot be
identified following reasonable effort or if the owner fails to pick-up the property
within 60 days, the facility shall be treated as abandoned property.
35. In the event the City removes a facility in accordance with nuisance abatement
procedures or summary removal, any such removal shall be without any liability
to the city for any damage to such facility that may result from reasonable efforts
of removal. In addition to the procedures for recovering costs of nuisance
abatement, the city may collect such costs from the performance bond posted
and to the extent such costs exceed the amount of the performance bond, collect
those excess costs in accordance with the RPVMC. Unless otherwise provided
herein, the city has no obligation to store such facility. Neither the permittee,
owner nor operator shall have any claim if the city destroys any such facility not
timely removed by the Applicant, owner or operator after notice, or removed by
the city due to exigent circumstances.
36. Consistent with current state and federal laws and if permissible under the same,
at the time of modification of a WTF, existing equipment shall, to the extent
feasible, be replaced with equipment that reduces visual, noise and other
impacts, including, but not limited to, undergrounding the equipment and
P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 19 of 147
55478.00001 \30127231.1
replacing larger, more visually intrusive facilities with smaller, less visually
intrusive facilities.
P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 20 of 148
55478.00001\30127231.1
GENERAL CON"TILU."FOR NOTES:
CONTRA 'TOR SHAI.I. VERIFY ALL
PLANS AND EXISl'ING DIMENSIONS
\ND CONDITIONS ON THE JOR SITE
AND SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY
TDF: ENGINFRE IN WRITING (1F ANY
DIS, S 1::1':\NC 11.5 RRI'ORF PR(1CHEDING
N' III I I I I F: \\' ORE OR RESPONSIIII.F.
Ft)It SA NI I::.
ASG53ml
ADJACENT TO 6505 MONERO DR
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA
TITLE
NF:I -RK RFA I. ESTATE.
PROJHCInLWAUER
CONS'IRVC'1'ION NIANA(il!R
RAIII11 F'RE(J1IENCY
SIGN OFF
SIGNATURE DATE
E,
S,s 3a _- 'Ounwa Along
E—
""0'.
VRraa.
Qr. ENales
p Via Ceni[os
a� 1. Cce4R SITE LOCATION
Monera D
D
f2to Lid. Dr
3 L
N Rancho Palos '
F verdes /a R 9na or
�\ C yo
OX01
O Vyn
waBeNnu' Cl '
cy Dr g
Oo 3
VICINITY MAP
PROJEC" DESCRIPTION:
• I -LACE CROWN CASTLE FINER AT27' 0-"
• INSTAEI.I'SC'l1E011I.E SU P(111'ER FYI:D RI5ER.
• IN51'ALI. 2' SCIIEOVI.F: LU L'OhIM RISER.
• PI.A T DO('Rl,R 4' L'i?A A1' 211'6" N'111112) 21.4' nlil'A-65F-Hlll'-II2 ANTENNAS
\\'1'1'll F111VNr RRACK11',,001.197N11 AND CONCEALF'AD SHRs RID.
• INS'I'ALI. 111 CROWN CAS'1'I.li4'A6'\'A111.1' Willi OI MI. IONSINSIDE AND FIASII
Milt, NO VF.N'18.
• INSTALL. CROWN C'ASTIXW'l'RTN.S'VAI1L1' WIm PI)WERDISCI)NNEC'1'RON.
• EAIS'rINO TREETODEKENIDVEDANURIiP1.AN'rEDAr THEDISCRP.'11()Nt1F
PUBLIC WORKS.
\ PROJECT SUMMARY 0
I9tU11!C'I' NIANACiE
N CASTLE
2011 SIlix IRO\f CIiNTEK UR IN I'll FLOOR
IR\'INE. CA 92619
JON COWL".
(925) 200-(,557
JON C,)\\ F I.I.. V ENDOILtPC ROW NC'.AS'JI.K.CONI
CON'S'I RI SCI ION F:.\t II NI:FA
CROWN ('ASI I.I�:
20n SPFCTIII \I CEYI lilt DR is I'll FLOOR
IR\'INK CA 9201 S
KF.NNE:I1 HOURS
(714)251.9Ri9
KE NE,11{,IIOSRS.&C'RON'NCASTLE.CONI
NODE ENGINEER:
co is CONIMVNIC:\PIONS
')5'4'I'"W AN(M CUM ON RIND.
('.I I.\ I'SM OR 11. CA 91,111
l'l'it'I'ISS JOII NSON
f7unl )12-4,112
c'1:It I' ISSRICOASTALCONIMINC.CONI
\ PROJECT TEAM l
ASG53ml
242727
CCROWN
CASTLE
.WAIT) Al l'FNl'M.H DII IxI II Ftxll�k
1tl'INF. .. .
1
®:.:. .
•.,.
Commumcaoons
YROYRIE'1'ARI'I�ttlHlt\110N
YIDlNI'111iIlr Al i, ",.j
toau'kk-ft OIAN Aril phl.,\I Y.:
t'aT6 Oon ito...RReD
IGMURT
IIAT..nre'kF
—TO31MUPOATEO
RELOGIE NODE WOAiION
RELOCATE NODE LOCATWN
ASG53ml
ADJACENT TO 65D5 MONERO DR
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA
TITLE SHEET
ItG ux
22 •16 1
T-1
D-149
7-7--F—
DIiSC'RIP1Tl1N
I'•I
11114; SflFE 1'
DA
IIE 1'AII.S J': NO'HS
n-2
uF: PAILS& NI It FIN
UJ
DI'v'I'AHs 4t NIII
D -s
ur:T.uLSA N1 n'ra
S -I
SI'mi—IH1'1'11S
S-2
O'1'r1i1.(R'A71oN
1-3
SI'I IAWA'1'11 IN
S-4
SOL l.tlL'Al 11IN
SO 1: L1 R'.\'1'JOIN
IN li Ji 1'RIMIX
TRAI+FII't'GN'I'RUI. L'U\'NNSI{EE'I'
'It' -2
TKAF'F'KCONI 'Kill. ITAN PHASE I
SHEET INDEX
I9tU11!C'I' NIANACiE
N CASTLE
2011 SIlix IRO\f CIiNTEK UR IN I'll FLOOR
IR\'INE. CA 92619
JON COWL".
(925) 200-(,557
JON C,)\\ F I.I.. V ENDOILtPC ROW NC'.AS'JI.K.CONI
CON'S'I RI SCI ION F:.\t II NI:FA
CROWN ('ASI I.I�:
20n SPFCTIII \I CEYI lilt DR is I'll FLOOR
IR\'INK CA 9201 S
KF.NNE:I1 HOURS
(714)251.9Ri9
KE NE,11{,IIOSRS.&C'RON'NCASTLE.CONI
NODE ENGINEER:
co is CONIMVNIC:\PIONS
')5'4'I'"W AN(M CUM ON RIND.
('.I I.\ I'SM OR 11. CA 91,111
l'l'it'I'ISS JOII NSON
f7unl )12-4,112
c'1:It I' ISSRICOASTALCONIMINC.CONI
\ PROJECT TEAM l
ASG53ml
242727
CCROWN
CASTLE
.WAIT) Al l'FNl'M.H DII IxI II Ftxll�k
1tl'INF. .. .
1
®:.:. .
•.,.
Commumcaoons
YROYRIE'1'ARI'I�ttlHlt\110N
YIDlNI'111iIlr Al i, ",.j
toau'kk-ft OIAN Aril phl.,\I Y.:
t'aT6 Oon ito...RReD
IGMURT
IIAT..nre'kF
—TO31MUPOATEO
RELOGIE NODE WOAiION
RELOCATE NODE LOCATWN
ASG53ml
ADJACENT TO 65D5 MONERO DR
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA
TITLE SHEET
ItG ux
22 •16 1
T-1
D-149
LEGEND
SYMBOL DESCRIPTION
�+NID
J
ABBREVIATIONS
All ASI'IIANI' I ANIS
ekG IONHk -"ER
I'I. iEN'1kR1.INE
E\ ENISTINII
ROP EIRIKOP PAVEMEM
II. YKOVhNT1'I.INE
IIN' EN111OFWAY
SIV EVHDI\'I MON HI.NINIIAM'
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES
1-11001111 M1111 -1 11.X111 ). 11 I l:n 1'H+:I.. PRION 10111A11•I.E 1'1+1X' 11 SINAI. IMPAO"NIINI'N EIIr\I.1. IIF
1104IRAIF,II III'I Il, 1111 Ill R: R1 IINII.III'NIISk 1U"A1.DII. A"
I ALL Rf.VINREIENTN 01111E1111': 1F RANITI!I PALOS\'I101':N I.AA'D IIFVFLOPMENI' NIAMIAL. SIONAI
MAI'FR.STANUAltUR' AII:NI IIF IN' ORPOSATAII INi'O.'IIF. M:El-1-1UN?'INl1i PION OF INF.
,IN OPOSE0IRI, '. I'll INIPNO11MhMSIONSISIENT W11 I HH, EROSION ION'IROI.PIAN ANIINR WATER
N'LLD 11-1 ORI ROI. PIAN IWMI PL If APPLIL AXLE
FOR NTORNI DRAIN IN1.h1l. PNOVIDF A t;KAVFL NAG RII:I' KA,- IMMEDIATELY 111ETREA , u! INLET
AN E111L A'I1.11- Nh'IAll.S
II1-NI'RAI 'T UR OR VI'ALI-II I'IIR.SON SIIALL IIR RENPONRIRI.N FOR I'I.FANOI'OF 511:1 A- AMID l'N
'\OIAt RN' 1' N'1 RNK'IISI ANII SI -11 'IRAN -11 1111E 10 ITINSTRI'ITIVN A171111'I'
I 'ritEl'UNi RAITOR.NIIALI.kEMI'VE.S11.1 AND DkNRINAFfFR EAI'N N -OK RAINFALL
I EVOIPAIENI ANN WUkEF,SEIOR REHIPAME1'1'WORK NIIALI.RE AIADF. AVAILARLF AT ALL MINI
IN+NINI;'f11 F. E-1 SNA51!N
.r .,:INTNAI'11-K N11ALLIN-111EAI.L ERO511!1NEDINIlH'II\ANTSAIL UV:Vh'ESTI W'OREINUURHXR
'rO1[ Ilk SATI.-I It- OF l HN I Iry ENINNEhil I RfiSiDEN'1' KNOINF6N AFTER EAiIt K11N•OFF
PSI11-11KA B-1AU.
I rill, l'I INTSAI'1 REIIAIJ INS ALL \111111' FINAL hRl .N1ON SiNiNt RNl l ON 1101. AIFASLKRN AS MAY NK
REVOIIIET 111' III4. RhILIENI FNU.Nfikk DIDi'III UNFI IKESF.RX I'IKIIIMSTAll ES. W'111111 AIAY ARISE
x ALL Eu51ON 51,111IL 1111'X1N-rL N FASIMRE PROVIIriN PER INEAPPkOVIIII IMPROYFMENT PLAN
$HAIL.:. Hh'IkIOEPOMAlEu 11lNF.11N AI.I.FIOSII'N.SEI110.1ENI I�'M RW. 1.!R INTFRDIIVNIIITII'NS
511AL1. NR INRJE III t11E NA'IINFAI'Ik+N OI TIIF RE51Uh I"IU-S
ALI. SRNIU\ Uhl, PRIG El 1111 N1.YR"EN %11uW'N NIIALL ME IN IR.A IF. AT I.I. FNII OF ERIN WORE INE;
IFA 1' WHEN KAIN IS INI M M 1.N I'
Ill .1' H 1IONI'RAI I OR SII AI.I. ARRA NGh FOS I FME 1,1 AI EE PINUS NL+ttI NO i,, T- ISI' 1'1.1 APEII:!0111
I RIX.lJR1'I fF.Akl 11 LNEKAL I i INIR I'I IF. fl IIIIN I- IRS' N ES, I NI'N."
St - III ittlR 1 N II IF. F F IL 111 Wilik. - 11' ll IIN111. F'll IF, E l IIIIHN EI RI 1'11
IS 11. TF IIth\I EAII A, 1 Y1111. HillNfl IRIill I N1 Kill. 11hA Nh.A D 1111N KF 1.11 RI)
I I AR E1NII 10N Al IIII 1111
STORMDRAIN INLET PROTECTION
4"ANIMA
)1;PAVEMENT'
PLO1��*
PI.01V
SPILLWG
2.13A0SI11::[(111'1'
TYPICAL PROTECTION FOR INLET WITH OPPOSING FLOW DIRECTIONS
MOM OF
�I'A VIiMIiN I' INI,II'
PLOW
PLOW
SPILLWAY. I-IiA(i III<i Il SANIAIAG
2 -HAUS III:I(111I
TYPICAL PROTECTION FOR INLET WITH SINGLE FLOW DIRECTION
NOTES:
I IN IINDI+I: EOR SIIOKI -MRM IIs(:.
I
1)x1:I,)'IN'illllrl NDE'. SICHM WATI:k FLOW
.n I.I.Ol1' FO1 I'SOI'Ii5 NIAINTENANI•i. ANN I f:Ali I'
3 xanx Mos'Hll KN61uYE[)APFJEK AI11AII,NI OrLN., 111 H: urouYl.R-n:u
5 NOT APPLlt'ANI.F: IN ARRAS WITH HIGIINII IS AIN i I.All 1\'111RAIT FILTRR FAIIMO
1(1111 *1
NI'KAI'O'R l' I I.Ai""
'DRAIN INLETS'IOPREVKNI
\I NIANIMAIfVAII N '
I SPOILS111-11..NNI'UVERSDANDIIANIAINhil ANDSfRE6r WILL HKY\VM ANI-AANKD
AENKKIIED
J II-RAITORTO REPAIR RAMACKI)PIIXI.IL'IMPNI-MFNI$ ru THESAI'l-AriONOFTHE
t 111' EN01NF.R1
• L'IIKRJ:I;tTERTOREPR(ThtTEl)INYI.At'H SIONWAI-111EREPLAi6I)TOTllh
%ATIYFAITIUN I;THE I'R1'FNGIN6ER
A iIIR I'UNTIAITO0.511ALL RRSTUkK TII6 NUANW'AI'XAYR itI RN.VRN:INA6IUk DI'riON
U\'I'ISFAlTOK1"u Tlifi \'lTl" ExUINRFR IN\LODINti. RIII Nlr1 LIAllT611 I'V Ya 1'1X0, ti'I'NIYINO,
H- LANEE. YA`P.AIENI' I.EOF'.NDN. SIGNS, ANN TKAFFII I.VUY METE,,) ORS
'/ Nlllll\VALE:SIIAI]. HR ftESTUNE111RR1'I.AihD I'Nk1'I'll'UF NANi ITU YALI1NVfi RDNE S'I:\NDARD
PNDhSI NI:\N HA.IY N'ILI. NVT Hti DINTIINXFD
ROW GROUND CONSTRUCTION NOTES:
1'.E1IIAIE OFF ME PALS.
\I.I. iI NSI'RINTIUN SIIALL1IR NA'I ORDANI. R Will] All NIt1PAI..IUVNI STA'1'I
NFDtlNAI.. GUNS.IND UUI2R STANDARDS ANU 1X11111.:\ I'IUNS
t'AI.L ONA JN IID IRS PRIOR Tu MEOA\'ATINM AT (8001221.2010 OR ST I
AL1. I.AHNSi AYIV V TO RE RkSTU1ED Tu LIKIOIkA1. t AINDITIUN uR NETIER
AEI. E12111PMF.NI t I HE HUNUEU
M FfERING I ARIVET REVOIRES S0' •I.EAKANI E AT M.NIR OPENING
i ANLK (ARINET BASE AT PAD
NORMAL LOCATION OF
UNDERGROUND UTILITIES NOTES
11AI ON AN1)IhPr1 A I\IN'I' NII ANN INI PON" I'I. IIF 1 111.1111 1 IF
. NM\'ll- AND .IMOD N ON ANI PLANN EI. EAI111 FN 11111E DEPT I -F 1 ICA- W 0.F.N FIM
APPNOYAL
t HAN HTS NIA(' BE PERMRI'ED BY T11K RKPI III HIHLN WARES IN I ANE$ OF 10X01.11"'1X11
H IUNFI.1!'TE HE" I'N EEN I LITY YOMPANIKS FAt'11.111E'. F.NINTING ANN PROP,NEN.MOST RE
11111'1 L11.1.\' -11,1111 III' 1111. OT11.11'I iOAlYAN1f.5
J FON I++NINI4:"''AI."it11 AI.NE.1'IIF. 111U, H1111(\MI SHALL 11i PLAT FD\\'Ifni\'IIIF.
NII1N\1'AI.N 1'.N' Hh I11NO FAil, i1F IUItN
P0.1ARINt Al2')IAAIFI'Ek GAS MAINS AI AY111PI-El) IN kill' !ITU rIF.51'TEN, It MIIIAWI
rO APPROVAL 'IF L'11'I ENI0-It IIN TRA, INI
CALIFORNIA STATE CODE COMPLIANCE:
ALL WI!RF. ANII MAi'FI LM.N NIIALL XE PSE111111I(D 1111 11 1 11.1.1.11 IN A, i'I E11,111 I II1'11 1114.
tURhENT RDirRESOF111E 1ULIC-Ol'OlA.1 I: 111111PILD 111IIIF I11I'Al. '.It FRV AI \I (II If.N
NOI'II-IN ritHEE PIANSIN IOU ION -L IFN 0 11NL N.I n1111[nllkl 1 '1'111+X4.
)'ODMS'
i AI.IFONNIA ADLIINIYTNAI IVR YI'Dk IINILIIDINti 1111.IiS 2J 6 2SI2u10
9Mt ALIFURNIA lit'ILI)INll l'UDFN WIIli 11 AIN!PIN TIIF 301b Vlk-.3010t-
HINI.I)INIi UFFIYI,\I.S b.IUI)F.ADAIINIS1HAiI1kN IXIN A)
2110 YALIfOXXIA AINi 11ANIYALI OVE
:1NSNEI:\::].F LIFE SAFF:rI', on NF-toi
!UIN L AUFORNIA PLOAfHIN1i IIIDF
2110 YAI.IFOKNIA NI.RVI'RK AI. -013.
All 'ESEIHILP T REW'IREMENT'S
. 'II.IT1"151%NNIANdEI) ANII NI IT I'll HP- HAND A ZION IIAN1111 AYYkD Mt'EXS NkW'IKENIhNIX
NO INuI IN- t OKOANYF WITH 111E 30111 AEIFORNIA 1111ILDI-1.'DF
NOTE
IIIlS \V'1KEI.EES tY?AIAl11NII':\'PION FAi II.I'1'1'I1!AIYI.IFN\\'1111 FEOFN:\h %' . \N ��. 1
4RhVl1EN11' IN All i'KHANI'F. \I'till '1'llli l NI.h1 ONIAIONR Alf -Al I 0411 v' ul'\NNII EIFRSFH'IIII I
AA1FA'DNIIN'N,\NII AAI I'I'IIFH ItI+V Itt:A P.N 'I II NFD Il1'XI'. I'I, R'hDf.'l:\I. III:OI..\I1ilt1
:\li till 11...1
ASG53ml
242727
^ CROWN
CASTLE
.uu $PF.ITIII'NI II!N'1'F,I I11.1:I 11.
®Communications
5 11.UIu1N YI.AI'11..51111!. !00
AHI.NLID.1
1'110X0. 11
VENIN)
IFOYRIh l N1' All'
*+1.'flAl,tl
DIG.RT
IMI
UaiEO
RELOCATE NODE LOCATION
RELOCATE NODE LOCATION
ASG63ml
ADJACENT TO 6505 MONERO DR
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA
DETAILS & NOTES
E]!El
D-150
Ef imole
-0b
6yet m 3.4ne"Nb. end Co."
Commend. RF enroll
pe— Supply
Ix o.roull,N,almeovel ll.,.ency. dB
:1
Mems Pae -V.,
MULTI -BAND, MULTI -OPERATOR
851,:64
Power comm.ptan. wall°
AM'm° P-, reply
115 m 230
1150
Optical
OpUc.I UL and OL l.del.
C.n .m.
ICP3 opIl...d
Ei00--e'
OPlmat rel.m I..s. dB
45 ,mem
Fiber type, mm
p Puw.l on ° per.
Sypervlslon Delul
Sm". met. E91125
Opti cal lm, budges. da
c—po.im Input power
om IQ
® OTR, maser rid.. d8m
ICP3 opumizad
]
Meen.nl4al—"
1800 MHz
1]001 2100 MHz
•5 compiled.
♦5 wmpoMla
Imbefe.
H.18111. width, d.pm mn (in) 617 v 245. 318
BTS -
B mn..
)32.2 x 4.131 a B.6)
Wnl9hl. 1B 1161 4U(802)
.1 -mme—
IMMHz
4
Eul...... I
11001100 lei
4
Syseme opl...W I., BTS
p see. dB.
Downlink
;B]0 10 1485
1.9'11. Plomcnon RF pun IPB]
Fen pan IPSfi
Ompm Power p., per,rel, dem•
43
Antenna Pml
Conneam
7116 Female
0.1'm se
Relum lues. de
3dbpowm�em—ma< SMHz canml lem—b
bend ap.cd,d
15
,7(oorz100 MHz (AWS)
39 3fi
Wdh a.—.olnp
Fre,uencY mn8e. Y4H:
Upllnk
17;01,1755
• Spacing re .1— 40 mm 11.5. in) around .111
Downllt,
2it0 to 2155
0,tm, power to teem', dem'
Win, delete. tooled m lame t.myemlme �40-C
Nymbe, of C.1iele
1 2
4 9
GSM
45 42
3S 30
CDMA
45 4:
39 30
UMTS
LTE
Sem,, eml..m.
45 42
45 4,
35 36
39 36
<.I3 dBm I1 MH:
GROUND ROD INSTALLATION FOR WOOD POLES
TYPICAL SECTION: N.T.S.
NEW WOOD POLE
WOOD MOULDING
BAREN Cu GROUND
CONDUCTOR
FINISH GRADE
kk_�.Cu GROUND CLAMP FCI No. GSL3-T8•
#6 WIRE BONDING TYCO No. 83749-1. OR EQUAL
JUMPER
-� #6 IS.' X By COPPER
U CLAD GROUND ELECTRODE
GROUND ROD INSTALLATION FOR UTILITY POLES ND -1
NOTE.
UTILITY POLE GROUND SMALL COMPLY WITH PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA GENERAL ORDER No. 95 (SECTION 59.4, 92.4)
z SCALE
N.T. .
At,.. aloe. pow.. IS,
-0b
6yet m 3.4ne"Nb. end Co."
Commend. RF enroll
ANDREW I0N-M17HP/19HP
Ix o.roull,N,almeovel ll.,.ency. dB
:1
E4le"'al.mrol pens
MULTI -BAND, MULTI -OPERATOR
In ,mvm ,.l.nc—,mmp—ee. de
D.5-•
AM'm° P-, reply
REMOTE OPTICAL SYSTEM
InVul IC13. d.m
OpUc.I UL and OL l.del.
ICP3 opIl...d
.12
7empm.1—
dloleb liyure ppbm4^a0
'18
p Puw.l on ° per.
Sypervlslon Delul
Nm.b Ilgmb, dB
Mnnnnl and p.lAand
6611. l,Pllpnap
ICP3 opumizad
]
Meen.nl4al—"
Noise 89u1e opyniued
11 mbx,
AS
H.18111. width, d.pm mn (in) 617 v 245. 318
B mn..
)32.2 x 4.131 a B.6)
Wnl9hl. 1B 1161 4U(802)
1900 MNz (AWS)
Eul...... I
FlequeneY �anBa. MHx
UPunk
1950 to 1915
O.,4non lVmpmotm. vnOb -dJ. c to 150'c
Downlink
;B]0 10 1485
1.9'11. Plomcnon RF pun IPB]
Fen pan IPSfi
Ompm Power p., per,rel, dem•
Almlic.bl. ed .m 11. m.dutpxon m.d...I,
Number Carn 1 i
d 6
3dbpowm�em—ma< SMHz canml lem—b
GSM 45 43
39 3fi
Wdh a.—.olnp
COMA 45 42
38 313
• Spacing re .1— 40 mm 11.5. in) around .111
UMTS 45 42
38
Win, delete. tooled m lame t.myemlme �40-C
LIE 45 42'•
39 36
All fMmee mb lypeN vetoes.
smeme. emisei.n
<.13 d8e, I 1 MHz
I
ILL .mpm e,emen.. ov.1 bed -1. dB
.1
OL n., mer... ore, tempelelme. dB
0.5—
Inpu11C 1 IS.
ICP3 pdm d
-12
Noise llyme opem..d
.i&
U—
Nu'S.IIom., de,
ICP3 optimized
7
11
N... flgme ,pbmlz,d
ma
45
o'_
Side Front Side
ASG53ml
242727
C
CROWN
CASTLE
_uuuh, txl,kl, 6N1E Ix IN I�I.�A�x
® Communications
1.0 In nus
lax\ novo
u.r�x
kil Hkl.Al kS
'1511NA1 e}Fte�biky 11.1 .Nr+11111. k11
IG�RT
0A1 r41 Uhl
INn�nxyk T. AI.Y.II'I
PHOTO SMI UPDATED I1fYN44
RELIX:ATE— LOCATION 1—I,
RELOCATE NUDE L—TION 4ltbli8
ASG63m7
ADJACENT TO 6505 MONERO DR
RANCHO PALOS VERDE$• CA
DETAILS & NOTES
D-2
D-151
ASG53ml
242727
^ CROWN
,CASTLE
.eP XPE, 1Hn Ar Y.
Communications
111111F, l.0 A., IIHEII.
(IAN ASN REL.A I Ex
UInI1 nIIIt Y.� IIIHN`II 1.1' 1EI,R NU'x11
DIGMRT
ktii to uu
Ih\t S BEYt NtY.
1 WI U11I
UANUNUTM1l1.NEN\II'B:fI.Y.N l
n�1:CT•
I'HOTOSTEUPDATED
RELOCATE IJDDE LODAii
ASG6aml
ADJACENT TO 6505 MONERO DR
RANCHO PALO$ VERGES, CA
DETAILS & NOTES
121i ILK 22IU 11
D-3
D-152
LAR FUSE BOX
SQUARE D BY SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC
4r DOUBLE CROSS
(FOR NEW POLES & STREET LIGHTS
LOADCENTER, 70A
EXTENSION ARM
STAHLIN 6P ENCLOSURE
SSL LATCH
KTK OR KLK ® CATION SWITCH
15A FUSE
(MODEL PC_LT0F.O
°
TECA.IEHNICAL MNAIvcNG ECHARACTERISTICSHu
o>Bn O
RA Q
JI
J
A
LNENN
APPLOATN DES1=70 MEET RESIDENTIAL, CDMMENCIAL AND
g
YSTETP.IAL REQUIREMENTS IO PRD( ECT ELECTRICAL
66. EOUIPMENI AND PEOPLE
WINE -E n2 T02 API RI° TO A AVIGICUI
MAUINII TAN EM CIRCUIT BNEAKERs 2
1
SSL LATCH
VoLADE RAD-11GCONIGURAIION 3WIRE—C
PHASN I.PHABE
DEPTP
Ru B.N INC.CE
SM
IIAIERM
%TREFERExGE NUMBER "PECT�IALUMIxUM
\ C
r EYS SEALING FITTING
eci tm� sE' I
CA
ENCLOSURE TYPE CUTDOORMAI"PROOF
ENCLOSURE RAIINU
GROUNDING BAR ORDER SEPARAiEIY
RPI(
TA Lrs ssnu
rvoA un.xs
xo
TU—rtnC .........
RE xsPPcsnxuT I
MART Aa IT CURRENT HAI ING ,LSI rED
YPECU FIXED- FACTDRY INSTALLED MAIN LUG$
SHIPPING AND ORDERING s 1 PHARE NEMnI a
DI,;I AD ENr aR.t.a
U MRCUR. TYPE OO ER
ZBSWTYIBI]2
E
RT UBI NOTES'. Iu BRACE unv vuty w
CAI( QTY A OESCR1Pigw
Dui LexOTN ANO
- BOLIE HILL VARY DUE TO POLE
°
PUcroxs Mm ctt EBAE6
1O0N FIBER Ott rsxowx sncPEM I
I Pl mics cryo conNEcrcACl III T1111111 I
ART( NUMBER
�GEIOUagiOl vE
PACK e
AVAITrLABILITY 100E YL
RETURNABILITY
5 9ALE
N.T.S.
CIAMEIEx
A HnHUWAHE
PF4FPiT%r1°"X JIIB- TO BE HOT DIPPED GALVANIZE
tl L XN' 3 ALL LINE O
...._.— 9 BRACE MAY$
�— ENEVERBED DUE TO POLE CONDITIONS
s"EsFTSTIF, 6 SCALE
N.T.S
L1�irexrrv,reloxlr MPrvmrrvAxeurnrl.ro. IWlex—� 4 SCALE
N.T.S.
DOUBLE ARM MOUNTING BRACKET
MOUNTING DETAIL
VAULT DETAIL
PLATE
J�LLI,C�
Y rr.' u
(FLUSH MOUNT)
COVER FEATURES
• PN/- TD.ADD LB6. WHkEI L(MOON t0" %ID' PLATE
• APPROVE VJT • 12 LB6.
IDENAT FCASTKIN
POL' ONE PIECE
ONE PIECE COVER (L'ROWN CA6TLE)
,4
g
FOUR BOLT DOWN
•GOLOR'GOI FACE
•NON-SKID$ TR
-LID FI HAVE H -A , OLb OR: LOAD FRICTION �+e ^.^"..'^.^
COEFFICIENT TO BE O.S Uft MORE
LFTING EYE
HANDHC'LE FEATURE$
' POLY MERGORONEIERENGAND FIBENC—SREINFORCEL
POLYMER BODY
' OOLOR OF REND UCXN:RETE GREY
• APPROX. Y?. = Ib UEB. . `,T
GROUND ROD INSTALLATION j
POLYNER
D
_
ITTOP VIEW FEIE
vI'LWPER CUFF) lONU
ON TUND ROD ISI$" X8-7
C
I dAREN GU -CURD
L.'UL.IDIJCTOP }
0
SIDE VIE
u GROUND CLAMP FG
Io.OBIJ-1B, MOW.
I(2'MIN
PART LTsi NOTE:
CALL QTY DESCRIPROII ALL LING HARUWAAE TORE HOT DIPPED
CUT GALVANILEUIROx
A MOUIITIIIG hAIE�
sl REQUAL
I UNAVEL-ANDHOLE
P FRP BODY
a"XO 125
_ A NM BUL T6- X
QLfw—
UA EIIUL SCALE
— 7 N.T.S.
BE CAPPER CLAD
U--RO.W., BT
S E
8 ..S.
ASG53ml
242727
^ CROWN
,CASTLE
.eP XPE, 1Hn Ar Y.
Communications
111111F, l.0 A., IIHEII.
(IAN ASN REL.A I Ex
UInI1 nIIIt Y.� IIIHN`II 1.1' 1EI,R NU'x11
DIGMRT
ktii to uu
Ih\t S BEYt NtY.
1 WI U11I
UANUNUTM1l1.NEN\II'B:fI.Y.N l
n�1:CT•
I'HOTOSTEUPDATED
RELOCATE IJDDE LODAii
ASG6aml
ADJACENT TO 6505 MONERO DR
RANCHO PALO$ VERGES, CA
DETAILS & NOTES
121i ILK 22IU 11
D-3
D-152
HPA-65F-BUU-H2
..cULTr.nRu)rS t:.rPn',l lt.I.i-Hui M,bn�.. —__— Hen 6frEN; Fli
., • `i�y�ir.i. ter.,»`. -
_— 9 SCALE
(FOR HPA-65F-BUU-H2 ANTENNA)
`— 024"RFTRASPARENT
THERMOPLASTIC
ANTENNA SHROUD
24"
F'f! MBzl30 boll
/I -n pole moulding kit
iii i y U
If I I
lit 1°
TORQUE SETTING FOR M8:25 Nn1
If I i
j 1 i I
TWO POINIS TILT POLE MOUNTING INSTALLATION
#0900397/00
BE CAREFUL WITH THE
ORIENTATION OF THE
HEDGES OF THE
I WO SQUARLS
Mk50 `�A�E?PIptES
NOTICE DE MONTAGE
MOUNT/NG INSTRUCTIONS
7sciss�r mount ncU Market
/ Df the vl ter nu n Contact
'MO PARTNO. DRAWINGNO
DESCRIPTION
Oly
wT3163/68
/
Hpl Ca OniinrYA'd it lalel
L 63b39
/
ew wi
x 59'�U ,Ik
2
HOI Galvanuatl+nitl s1ae18.8
3 6273400/68i
FblGM8 HSI NDIdvarvzaorrkl stea18.8
6
4 67735W/
/
Hot Galvarue -rrM9 Pbin W-1 id M—I 8.8
12
5 H3122
H3122-003-02
C ecnr.9 pm
Hotq NUn iotl
2
6 3301751/00
3/9252759
r')' 1-1h
Hot golvanlzatl
3
7 H'3124
H3124-00301
Lone Sdssor tla
Not gDlvwlizatl
B ;T/01111/6B
2/9257777
Stro115Dcissd Alm
H01 IvOnizetl
9 H3/16
H3416-003-00
cas Hol oso� �1i nip �ac a
— 2
PART No: 0900397/00 Am^'Ta of ANaR, ,zz bbanu .,s74w Armw N
__...,.. ..:._.. _......,_ .-. w «._.....__....... H3452-10407__
ASG 53ml
242727
CROWN
� CASTLE
-------------
Communications
Tr `
I RT
Ulny, s'tl1:IfL�In.
OINI)�CH,'b'f. ,,Lh.lti
DATED
REL -ATE NODEL 11—
REL—TE WUDE LOCATION
ASG53m7
ADJACENT TO 6505 MON ERO DR
RANCHO PALOS VERGES, CA
DETAILS & NOTES
�'I'
D-4
D-153
ASG53ml
242727
CROWN
43� CASTLE
CommumEations
DIG&ERT
inlm
W iJ 5 Al aYJATEG
ELJCATE NJJE LJCATIJN
NELucAI E NUDE LUCAI IJN
AS(363m1
ADJACENT TO 6505 MCNERO DR
RANCHO PALO$VERDES, CA
DETAILS & NOTES
R(i 0x2216.JI
D-5
D-154
ION-M7HP/85HP EU - Product Specification
ION-M7HP/85HP EU - Product Specification
114Ark4d
117.um sul mrl43on and C4mtro1
Mums Porer, Vac
Input ICP3, dB."'
C..- ds
RI ovIff
mllinol
opnollnp
10010240
tlS to ld4
IL
N&ds, ipw. yliMvd
-llmn,
19 Mn,
Alarms
wImwy
P-st,
p9au1 Supph
S
f
Mmn; Irnnr. vdc
Noise figura, dB"•
'
Iw16vl
481r 80
I(P3 rpmad
IOmot
Nl UlodN(vU.1e
�I
am.li:q
36'.72
Nosy or., W -i
6.0nos
Inryamw
Poweru,n pIm W
s.hlrPld
Supervision
t OnpmNe oRlpul
temp, f:Av laded
900
Oms1
:
loom lmp., Idle
360
BSO mHz
AMchankal'
Fregoncy -9, MHz
Height. ,idlh. &0, mm (in)
Opdwl W.kUpBk
B1eroH9
AL Vents
8111745s 218
S ,p p
p.gytl
C.-I-
Corms I-
6'6000/API 8'
OomIW
864ro W4
(W..7 s9.6. 86)
Upticd raNm I-,dS
45
Ougwl povar Par <aaiar,
dBm'
OI VaJmi
1053 x 24S x118
141S.9.6s86)
Gu!>inal of ION M7HP/N5HP Exrenslon
UWP (AC V-;-)
Fibra type
1,.16mobs EY/115 In
NumM.d Carrier 1
W.945.5
2 4
42.5 39.5
8
36.5
Weight. 6g (161
401997)
01Ohnk b dgel, d8
01010
GSA 65 S
CDMA 45.5
4239.5 39.5
47.5 39.5
38.5
36,f
FnWronmantal
Composite rapid p-., K 01b must-sde, dBm
IN 45,5
425" 39.5
36.5
Opomtn0 fanpRrallo range, t:
3Ylo sSO
700 MHz n�hmlm
16.5
UM75 45
41 39
36
--
d
5.5ou
gw hegumcy, riB
DlI Mwance over
sl
In6oss profxlia
0pm1
IA
1
850 MHz n.aom
18.5
DL oulpul Mwaacawel lnnlpmulura
dB
z0.5
l-pm1
psi.
1
t
nannol
5.5
Sj--Inman
:-13 Ami IWb
Ord.ring Intormallm
it
Input ICP], dB,"'
IONM7Hp/85HP EV
1693m
II
RP I.wf-
IIP3 rylin.d
I l nm
Nm.Igu.
-IBnm
Pop.nd.B and. .6'd olio'.and lh-II;,, lknl6 cN-o
mlwid-'.61-1.
BTS Side (SMA)
I.
Ie idmnhipl wIrk
j
Numbrr o7 mnnacron Swndasd
700 MHr
4
Noise figure, dB'**
U3.9Imid
lol-
al
C -p -ling M. ILI
950 BNL
4
N.a. fig. mllmad
6
51YPId
ION-M)7HP/19HP
1631412"
Sy -apo -d 6 BTS P -.r, dB.
37
13
Ca.r.spanding Moet.r Unit O}Rx
OTRx70-85/90/17 21
160430CXX
1 �-
Rmmnk U,,l ..,- Poll
Conn non
Rehm loss, d6
15
��18111
5PwY0 pu6dwnn11..5B 101 wooed -II
,.
Sehpope6li.m P.Mh6
'
700 MNz
All fig- are lyp=l v,1- un1e s wk -i,. IM d.
(;.bhm1 of ICWM7HP/85HP E-.iun
Unll NC V -i -j
Frarpnncy rouge, MHz
Uplid:
69010 716/776 m 701
D -11A
77910751
0agw1 prover per carder, dBm'
Numb-dCarrim 12 4
B
LB 45.5 42.5•' 345
36.s
Dt aulPul Mwance a.w Faryenry, dB
sl
DL -1, Merano oar 1-para)un. dS
.0.5
PAR7.5dBL0.ln
S,--em:ssm
:130'./1 N8r
2 dB para l.du4:m 3 : 5 Alh.ma16:d.Bh
SN-, emission :,N: Pulilc Saky Narravbund
homnlelrm. Pam BIrA
:46 dBm /6.75 IN9
All figures aro f4,-1 vnlaas unlms Ih-k. slated
SCALE
ASG53ml
242727
CROWN
43� CASTLE
CommumEations
DIG&ERT
inlm
W iJ 5 Al aYJATEG
ELJCATE NJJE LJCATIJN
NELucAI E NUDE LUCAI IJN
AS(363m1
ADJACENT TO 6505 MCNERO DR
RANCHO PALO$VERDES, CA
DETAILS & NOTES
R(i 0x2216.JI
D-5
D-154
J 7
a
�—•R•
ASTLE
L�
"'
- ----� �' MONEaoon -Zia—
Coastal
MIA
A_ .,
D-155
ASG53ml
C ROW N4z�2�
.I CASTLE `°CROWN
v CASTLE
Comm onicaLions
-- iuurxre:raxr lan,xu.0 u,o
,.. � uc I, ^i. i�islivarl'la'rrcommuu
# DIGAMIRT
LOOKING SOUTHWEST
IlA,1.1Mh1'��ItY.
Vicinity Map
ASG53ml
ADJACENTT06505 MONERO DR
- RANCHO PALO$VERDE$. CA
Existing Site
SITE LOCATION
Hli UN',zla ,�
S-2
D-156
CROWN
CASTLE
LOOKING NORTHWEST
Vicinity Map
Existing Site
ASG53ml
242727
CROWN
..,CASTLE
CDmmunicaGUIIS
DIGAMRT
ASG63ml
ADJACENT TO 6505 MONERO DR
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA
SITE LOCATION
Ru 113221M11T
S-3
D-157
ASG53m1
CROWN 24272'
v CASTLE "T CROWN
_ CASTLE
Communications
I.
l DIGMRT
LOOKING OUTH
i vmw,i
wrED
RELOCATE NDDE LDCATION
REL-AIE NDDE -A RON
Vicinity Map
i
ASG53ml
ADJACENT TO 6505 MONERO OR
I RANCHO PALOS VERDES. CA
Existing Site SITE LOCATION
R(I OX
S-4
D-158
PLACE CROWN CASTLE FIBER AT 27'0" . EXISTING TREE WILL BE REMOVED AND REPLANTED AT THE DISCRETION OF PUBLIC WORKS.
INSTALL V SCHEDULE BO POWER FEED RISER,
INSTALL 2 -SCHEDULE 80 COMM RISER.
PLACE DOUBLE 4' CEA AT 20 6- WITH (2) 21,4- SHPA-55F-BUU-H2 ANTENNAS WITH MOUNT
BRACKET 90900397100 AND CONCEALFAB SHROUD.
INSTALL (1) CROWN CASTLE 4'X V VAULT WITH (2) ML IONS INSIDE AND FLUSH MOUNT VENTS.
INSTALL CROWN CASTLE WTR 2' X T VAULT WITH POWER DISCONNECT BOX.
iw
PROPOSED CROWN CASTLE WTR 2'X 3' VAULT
WITH POWER DISCONNECT INSIDE
(3' B.O.C.) STA. 100 * 76 a
U
(SEE DETAILS 4, 5 8 8 ON SHEET D-3) o
6' DIRT TRENCH
s
INSTALL (1; CROWN CASTLE 4' X 6' VAULT WITH FLUSH MOUNT VENTS WITH
(2) ML IONS INSIDE) (V B.O.C.) STA. 100 t 70
(SEE DETAILS 1 & 3 ON SHEET D-2,
DETAIL 11 ON SHEET D-5)
W DIRT TRENCH
SITE LOCATION
EXISTING UTILITY POLE #1358367E (3' B.O.C.)
ADJACENT TO 6505 MONERO OR
STA. 100 t 61
#6505
R/W – — —
MEINALK
12 GREENBELI
C6G
12'
k 60'.36'_ .-99
C&G
'GREENBELT
#16504
I
11
NODE COORDINATE
LAilluuE ff.ielo-
K
lluuE
ii' Louc. -Ile f::,a
FOOTAGE TOTALS
ASPHALT TRENCH 0'
PUNCH THRU 0'
IRTTRENCH 9'
Q BORE 0'
O TOTAL 9'
O I
z R&R TOTAL SWP DSO. FT.
<I
MONERO DR
A
GRANVIA AL
_-8��BOZ
rr
NORTH
SCALE: I" = 40'
ASG53ml
242727
CROWN
.CASTLE
(.
�,
' onununlcanunS
I ul. �•u�.e.a:: w r, �.
DIG�ERT
nulo 5 m UvpclEu
RELUCAIE iJppE L-Arl
RELOCAIENOUS L—1—
I
ASG63m1
ADJACENT TO 6505 MONERO DR
RANCHO PALOS VERDE$, CA
SITE PLAN
211122
D-159
A ANTENNA DETAILS SCALE 1:5 ASG53ml
ANTENNA#HPA45F-BUU-H2 ,..�
A4WUNT
242727
CONCEALFATSP ) �x.
INSTALL DO
ANTEN^ CROW N
CASTLE
PROPOSED 1" PPROPOSED S' COMM 52'0"
EXISTING SERVICE POANTENNA-H2 t
AZIMUTH: 90' Coin RI UDiI'd[IUDS
Z
0°
90=
POLE ID: #1358367E ^-� Tn�
TOP OF EXISTING POLE: 52'0" DIGWERT"I
TOP OF ANTENNA: 22' 6"
RAD CENTER: 21'6"
AZIMUTH: 0° & 90°
t.xul. r.:n,m
EQUIPMENT AND ANTENNAS TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH POLE.24'10"1, AILIRI
PHaiO SiM FPGA tED rlI[5/14
RELOCATE NODE LOCATION
RELOCATE NODE.—AVON
ASG63m7
ADJACENT TO 6505 MONERO DR
RANCHO PALOS VERGES. CA
POLE PROFILE
Im n% 27 11, •,11
P-2
B 120'CLOCK VIEW SCALE 1:10 B 30'CLOCK VIEW SCALE I:10
TOP OF POLE 52' 0"
PRIMARY' ARM AT 52' 0" PRIMARY ARM AT 52' 0"
I
—' �-015" 07$� h—
I
---5 SECONDARY SERVICE AT 34' 8" — -- SECONDARY SERVICE AT 34' 8"
STREET LIGHT AT 29' 7"
STREET LIGHT AT 29' 7" j
72 PROPOSED CROWN CASTLE FIBER AT 2T 0" 12' ! r
PROPOSED CROWN CASTLE FIBER AT 27' 0"
_ .._.._...._ CATV AT 26' 0" CA TV AT 26' 0"
CATV DO W N GUY AT 25' 8" I'
I CATV DOWN GUY AT 25' 8"
VERIZON AT 24' 10" VERIZON AT
2' VER GOWN GUY AT VERI20N DOWN GUY AT 24' 6"
PROPOSED DOUBLE 4' CEA AT 20' 6" PROPOSED DOUBLE 4' CEA AT 20' 6"
� WITH (2) 21.4" ANTENNAS TOP OF WITH (2) 27.4" ANTENNAS
#HPA-65F-BUU-H2 WITH ANTENNA #HPA-65F-BUU-H2 WITH
TOP OF MOUNT BRACKET #0900397100 22'6*' MOUNT BRACKET #0900397/00
ANTENNA AND CONCEALFAB SHROUD (SEE i AND CONCEALFAB SHROUD
22' 6" DETAILS 6 & 7 ON SHEET D•3 8 DETAILS (SEE DETAILS 6 & 7 ON SHEET D-3 &
9,10, & 11 ON SHEET D-4) RAD DETAILS 9,70, & 11 ON SHEET D-4)
PROPOSED t" SCHEDULE 60 POWER FEED CENTER'
INSTALL (1) CROWN CASTLE 4' X 6' VAULT 21'6'* PROPOSED 1"SCHEDULE 60 POWER FEED
. RAD WITH FLUSH MOUNT VENTS WITH (2) ML
CENTER IONS INSIDE) EXISTING TREE TO BE
21' 6" REMOVED AND REPLANTED PER PUBLIC
WORKS I
,_ u GROUND; E�rL EXISTING
"+'+�•
/\�NSTAIL VGR
/(BE
D-160
E DETAIL 2 ON SHEET D-2)
INSTALL VGR
(SEE DETAIL 2 ON SHEET D-2)
A ANTENNA DETAILS SCALE 1:5 ASG53ml
ANTENNA#HPA45F-BUU-H2 ,..�
A4WUNT
242727
CONCEALFATSP ) �x.
INSTALL DO
ANTEN^ CROW N
CASTLE
PROPOSED 1" PPROPOSED S' COMM 52'0"
EXISTING SERVICE POANTENNA-H2 t
AZIMUTH: 90' Coin RI UDiI'd[IUDS
Z
0°
90=
POLE ID: #1358367E ^-� Tn�
TOP OF EXISTING POLE: 52'0" DIGWERT"I
TOP OF ANTENNA: 22' 6"
RAD CENTER: 21'6"
AZIMUTH: 0° & 90°
t.xul. r.:n,m
EQUIPMENT AND ANTENNAS TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH POLE.24'10"1, AILIRI
PHaiO SiM FPGA tED rlI[5/14
RELOCATE NODE LOCATION
RELOCATE NODE.—AVON
ASG63m7
ADJACENT TO 6505 MONERO DR
RANCHO PALOS VERGES. CA
POLE PROFILE
Im n% 27 11, •,11
P-2
B 120'CLOCK VIEW SCALE 1:10 B 30'CLOCK VIEW SCALE I:10
TOP OF POLE 52' 0"
PRIMARY' ARM AT 52' 0" PRIMARY ARM AT 52' 0"
I
—' �-015" 07$� h—
I
---5 SECONDARY SERVICE AT 34' 8" — -- SECONDARY SERVICE AT 34' 8"
STREET LIGHT AT 29' 7"
STREET LIGHT AT 29' 7" j
72 PROPOSED CROWN CASTLE FIBER AT 2T 0" 12' ! r
PROPOSED CROWN CASTLE FIBER AT 27' 0"
_ .._.._...._ CATV AT 26' 0" CA TV AT 26' 0"
CATV DO W N GUY AT 25' 8" I'
I CATV DOWN GUY AT 25' 8"
VERIZON AT 24' 10" VERIZON AT
2' VER GOWN GUY AT VERI20N DOWN GUY AT 24' 6"
PROPOSED DOUBLE 4' CEA AT 20' 6" PROPOSED DOUBLE 4' CEA AT 20' 6"
� WITH (2) 21.4" ANTENNAS TOP OF WITH (2) 27.4" ANTENNAS
#HPA-65F-BUU-H2 WITH ANTENNA #HPA-65F-BUU-H2 WITH
TOP OF MOUNT BRACKET #0900397100 22'6*' MOUNT BRACKET #0900397/00
ANTENNA AND CONCEALFAB SHROUD (SEE i AND CONCEALFAB SHROUD
22' 6" DETAILS 6 & 7 ON SHEET D•3 8 DETAILS (SEE DETAILS 6 & 7 ON SHEET D-3 &
9,10, & 11 ON SHEET D-4) RAD DETAILS 9,70, & 11 ON SHEET D-4)
PROPOSED t" SCHEDULE 60 POWER FEED CENTER'
INSTALL (1) CROWN CASTLE 4' X 6' VAULT 21'6'* PROPOSED 1"SCHEDULE 60 POWER FEED
. RAD WITH FLUSH MOUNT VENTS WITH (2) ML
CENTER IONS INSIDE) EXISTING TREE TO BE
21' 6" REMOVED AND REPLANTED PER PUBLIC
WORKS I
,_ u GROUND; E�rL EXISTING
"+'+�•
/\�NSTAIL VGR
/(BE
D-160
E X IS 7 1 N G
ii
13
"I'll. "m Cerao.s
AX-R&OMWE
no ia_ C rritos i Ceri!i..c:r u � �
v o
vt
R � 1
�. 4
0
—ko
PROPOSED
—ko
CITY OF
MEMORANDUM
PALOS VERDES
TO: NICOLE JULES, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
CHARLES EDER, ASSOCIATE ENGINEER
CC: ARA MIHRANIAN, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
FROM: JOHN ALVAREZ, SENIOR PLANNER
DATE: AUGUST 4, 2017
SUBJECT: VIEW ANALYSIS FOR WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY-
ASG53 (adjacent to 6505 Monero Drive)
DISCUSSION
Based on a view analysis conducted on August 3, 2017, Staff has determined that the
proposed wireless telecommunications facility (ASG53), adjacent to 6505 Monero Drive
(on Granvia Altamira), does not create a significant view impairment from a residential
viewing area, as defined in Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code Section 17.02.040
(View Preservation and Restoration Code).
On August 31d, City Staff reached out by letter to nearby residents whose views are likely
affected by the proposed WTF. Subsequently, Staff received an email from the resident
at 6411 Monero Drive stating that a site visit from the City was not necessary. At this
time of writing, no additional property owners have contacted Staff requesting a site visit.
Still, based on a street side view assessment, it likely that 2-3 properties on Monero
Drive have their Ocean views impaired by the proposed WTF. However, given the far
distance from those identified residences to the proposed WTF and given that the view
from Monero Drive is largely an expansive Ocean view, the WTF would not cause a
significant view impairment from any viewing area on Monero Drive nor from other
nearby properties.
The proposed wireless telecommunications facility is not located in a view corridor
identified in the City's General Plan or Coastal Specific Plan.
D-167
Columbia Telecommunications Corporation
Wireless Facility Application Evaluation
Applicant: Crown Castle
Site # ASG -53
Description: Application to install a new DAS access site
Site Location: 6505 MONERO DRIVE
Site survey findings:
The on-site survey of the above referenced site was conducted on August 22, 2017. Exhibit 1 is a
photograph of the mockup pole and equipment cabinet for the proposed Crown Castle installation. The
site location on Monero Drive is near the point where it connects to Granvia Altamira. It is positioned
in the center of the target area to serve residences along Granvia Altamira, Monero Drive and Via
Cerritos.
Exhibit 1- Site with Mocked Up Pole with Antenna
As a part of this assignment. I conducted signal measurements of the AT&T service in the target area
identified by Crown Castle to be served from the site. Before conducting the ASG Site 53 n-1
measurements, I first made measurements at the City Hall parking lot to both calibrate the test
equipment and also to establish a reference sample of the network throughput and signal level (signal
power relative to 1 milliwatt of the LTE information signal power RSRP {Reference Signal Received
Power} an industry standard metric) near the macro tower. Measurements were made with the
spectrum analyzer for all three licensed AT&T bands. The measurements confirmed that tower signals
were active on all three bands. A signal level of -70 dBm RSRP was recorded at the site along with
data throughput download measurements exceeding 100 Mb and uploads in the range of 45 Mb. This
was fully consistent with my expectations for a properly functioning, lightly loaded 4G LTE network.
then conducted a drive test along the route shown in Exhibit 2 below. At ASG Site 53 Gap target
area, the same measurements were taken near the proposed antenna site. At the proposed ASG Site
53, the signal level measurement was -88 dBm and 4G LTE technology. The throughput tests
registered download speeds of between 49.27-54.35 Mbps, and 47.09-51.27 Mbps for the upload.
Generally, my experience indicates that is desirable to have a minimum signal level of at least -100 to
-95 dBm to support reliable connections for both upload and download and data speeds consistent
with the 3G technology. I note that Crown Castle in the application has specified a target signal goal
of -95 dBm or greater for LTE technology.
Exhibit 2 — Map Showing Existing AT&T Coverage Measured During Site Visit
On the exhibit, there is an overlay is an of the target area defined by Crown Castle which is outlined in
blue. Signal level measurements were made throughout the area and recorded in a slowly moving
vehicle at five second intervals. The data was then plotted using the geographical coordinates onto a
Google Earth map. A complete listing of the 100 measurements points used to create this coverage
map can be found in Appendix A of this document. The listing includes the measured signal level, the
geographical coordinates and the AT&T tower site communicated with. It should be noted that during
2 D-169
the drive test the receiver attempted to connect to 9 individual tower sites that provide some level of
signal service in the drive area. Three signal level test points were unable to connect at all. Note that
the best AT&T coverage in the ASG #53 Gap is the immediate vicinity of the proposed tower site (at the
intersection of Granvia Altamira and Monero Drive); elsewhere the service is largely marginal LTE
coverage. The proposed antenna patterns are designed specifically to cover the Gap to the North and
East of the proposed site.
For additional information on the specifics frequencies that AT&T operates on the RPV area as well as
background technical information which is applicable to all these Crown Castle applications, please see
Appendix B of this document.
Based on our field measurements It is our finding that within this small area there is a gap in reliable
AT&T broadband services.
Technical review: This new DAS wireless access facility is to be installed on an existing utility pole
(with existing street light) to provide additional capacity and service on all three AT&T bands (700
MHz, PCS and AWS) to improved digital network services to customers in vehicles and buildings.
Exhibit 3 is a Google map photo submitted by the applicant defining the primary service area for this
site. This is the same area in which we conducted the signal level measurements for existing AT&T
coverage.
Exhibit 3 — Target Area Overview
Two separate antennas are mounted at a radiation center located 21'6" above ground level (AGL).
The antennas simultaneously can support the AT&T 700, PCS and AWS bands. The site will function to
D-170
provided local coverage to the area within the blue rectangle. This site work in concert with existing
AT&T macro (traditional cell towers) sites.
Exhibit 4 is an illustration of the proposed DAS facility. The site includes two directional antennas each
targeting along the road focusing the signal beam into a target 60° arc, aimed at azimuths of 0° and 90°
respectively.
Exhibit 4 — Site ASG 53
Proposed Site ASGS3ml
To support the application, Crown Castle provided field measurements made with a temporary
antenna to substantiate coverage in the target area. We have reviewed the information and also
conducted both an on-site walkout of the area as well as a computerized terrain study to determine if
the proposed site will address the coverage gap identified in the Crown Castle application. For the
terrain profile study, we examined a series of individual path profiles from the proposed site to a
sampling of locations within the gap. Exhibit 5 below shows the locations (within the gap) which were
chosen for examination of the path profiles. Complete path profile information for the 4 sample sites
are available in Appendix B.
4 D-171
Based on our review of the terrain profile characteristics and the field measurement data provided by
Crown Castle, we conclude that the proposal as provided will address the coverage deficiencies within
the target area.
Exhibit 5 — Sample Path Profile Locations
Co -location options: Crown Castle has provided information on the various options that have been
reviewed for the site deployment. It should be noted that the alternatives involve minor changes in the
siting of the facility. In most cases the limited coverage areas of the DAS units limit or confine site
selection. Generally, alternatives are selected based on aesthetic considerations since the overall
coverage area is confined by the limited service area of DAS technology and location of the specific
signal gap areas that are to be addressed.
Findings and conclusions: The applicant (Crown Castle) has provided engineering details related to
the wireless bands that will be used for the DAS deployment, including identifying transmitting
equipment, power levels for each band and specifics regarding the radiation patterns of the antennas
to be installed. However, information provided about existing and proposed coverage in the service
area for each of the three AT&T licensed wireless bands (700 MHz, PCS and AWS) are less clearly
defined; this is due to the extremely rugged and varied terrain associated with the RPV landscape.
From an engineering perspective, Crown Castle has provided engineering measurement data defining
gaps in AT&T coverage in small pocketed areas. I have independently examined these areas and find
that the signal levels are lower than the levels industry guidelines suggested to support modern
3G/4G customer needs. Further, the engineering design provided by Crown Castle supports that, if
J
constructed, DAS site ASG 53 will provide ample signal intensity (signal level in excess of -95 dBm) to
support AT&T's 3G/4G wireless services. Currently from the information obtained in the drive tests, it
appears that approximately half of the proposed service area currently is served with marginal 4G LTE
service.
Signature:
Lee Afflerbach, P.E.
Date: 9/5/17
ctc technology & energy
engineering & business consulting
D-173
CCCROWN
CASTLE
Site Justification Narrative
Submitted to
Crowns Castle
300 Spectrum Center Drive
Suite 1200
Irvine, CA 92618
Submitted Pursuant to City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code Title 12
The Foundation for a Wireless World. D-1 74
CrownCastle.com
Crown Castle NC West LLC ("Crown Castle") provides wireless carriers with the infrastructure they
need to keep people connected and business running. WO approximately 40,009 towers and 18,000
small cell nodes supported by approximately 17,000 miles of fiber, Crown Castle is the nation's largest
provider of shared wireless infrastructure, with a significant presence in the top 100 US markets.
Crown Castle's small cell network (SCN) represents the state-of-the-art in wireless telecommunications
network technology. It is a Bow -profile telecommunications system capable of delivering wireless
services to customers of multiple carriers such as Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, Metro PCS and `>r -Mobile. The
elements of Crown Castle's SCN are small-scale and can be attached to standard streetlight sign poles
that take up little space in the public rights-of-way ("ROW") or, where feasible, onto existing elements
in the ROW such as streetlights, traffic signals, and wooden utility poles. Crown Castle SCN therefore
allows one aesthetically unobtrusive system to take the place of multiple antennas or macro -sites
constructed by individual carriers -- a single, strearnfined solution that avoids the prospect of multiple
carrier -constructed antenna facilities servicing a given area. Put another way, Crown Castle SCN is the
equivalent of a collocation system, as it permits many carriers to provide their services over one
system with only a single series of vertical elements.
Crown Castle proposes to develop a SCN network with thirty nine (39) small cell nodes (SCN)l in the
ROW in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("Network"). Thesenodes are described below. This is an
application for one of those SCN (ASG70) submitted to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("RPS'") for
review by the Department of Public Forks. This particular location will provide needed wireless
broadband and telecommunications services and the .addition of critical network and capacity along
1 A SCN "node,,, as used herein, is a small -format antenna facility mounted to a streetlight, traffic signal pole,
utility pole or street sign pole.
The Foundation for a 'wireless World.
CrownCastle.com D-175
Montemalga Drive from roughly Basswood Avenue to the East and Via Panorama to the West; and
adjacent neighborhoods to the North and South of Montemalga Drive ("Service Area"). Each of the 39
nodes comprising the Network will utilize existing streetlight poles, traffic sign poles, utility poles and
street sign poles located in the ROW, whenever possible. In some instances, however, a new pole is
being proposed in the ROW because there are no existing viable alternative from an RF perspective to
achieve the coverage objectives
Each SCN receives an optical signal from a central hub and distributes the signal to the SCN via fiber
optic cable. The optical signal is then propagated from the SCN in the form of radio frequency (PP)
transmissions. Distribution of signal from the hub to the low-power, low -profile SCC, allows carriers to
provide wireless telecommunications and data services to areas otherwise difficult to reach with
conventional wireless telecommunications facilities. The SCN locations area
CCI
Node
ID
Street Address/Cross Street
Site Type
ASGO8
across from 30505 Calle ole Suenos
S/L REPL
ASG09
30461 Camino Porvenir
S/L REPL
ASCI®
Across from Los Verdes golf Club
S/L REPL
ASGII
NE Corner of Gingerroot/Narcissa
Ex Wood Util
ASG 12
24 Narcissa Rd
Ex Wood Util
ASG13
72 Narcissa Dr
Ex Wood Util
ASG15
28151 Highridge
New Vole
ASG21
Basswood/Silverspur
S/L REPL
ASG25
27665 Longhill
S/L REPL
ASG31
28809 Crestr dge
New Pole
ASG32
corner of Whitley/Scottwood
S/L REPL
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com D-176
ASG33
Across 6480 Chartres Drive
New Pole
(concrete)
ASG34
6960 `verde Ridge
S/L REPL
ASG35
6722 Abbottswood
S/L REPL
ASG36
Across from 28825 ®overrialge
New Pole
(concrete)
ASG37
Along Ridgegate ®rive near SoutMclge
S/L REPL
ASG38
7625 Maycroft
S/L REPL
ASG39
26804 Grayslake Rd
Ex Wood Util or
S/L
ASG41
Palos Verdes ®rive South near Seacliff
New Pole
ASG42
5267 Valley View
S/L REPL
ASG45
5721 Grestricige
New Pole
ASG44
Arrraga Spring @ Meadow Mist
S/L REPL
ASG45
Adjacent to 28403 San Nicholas ®r
S/L REPL
ASG47
Across from 5087 Grownview/Highpoint
New Pole
ASG48
Basswood @ Mossba:nk
S/L REPL
ASG49
Crest Pd
Ex Wood Util or
S/L
ASG53
Adjacent to 6505 Monero
Ex Wood Util or
S/L
ASG55
30601 Via Rivera, Rancho Palos Verdes, GA
S/L REPL
ASG64
South of 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West
New Pole
ASG69
Across 3486 Seaglen Dr,
S/L REPL
ASG70
Across from 5828 Monterrlalaga
Ex Wood Utility
ASG72
Palos Verdes ®rive (Abalone Cove) S of Narcissa
New Pole
ASG73
Hawthorne at Vallon Drive
Traffic
The Foundation for a Wireless World. D-177
CrowwnCastle.com
By using existing vertical infrastructure within the POW whenever possible, the project seeks to reduce
the addition of new vertical elements, thereby minimizing intrusions into the ROW.
A majority of the nodes will consist of two (2) 24 -inch long antennas mounted back-to-back on existing
streetlights, utility poles, traffic sign poles or street sign popes, two (2) fiber converters collocated with
the Southern California Edison ("SCE") electric meter pedestals that weld power the nodes. The total
height of the facility, measured from grade level, is typically up to 13'-6" for traffic sign poles, street
sign poles and free-standing poles, and up to 33`-5" for streetlight poles and utility poles. [See Exhibit _
[(0rawings: Streetlights, traffic signal poles, street sign poles, free-standing poles, and utility poles,)] In
addition to the antennas, the nodes feature an underground fiber pull box containing fiber. The fiber
converters convert digitalized spectrum received from the hub into RF signals emitted from the
antenna array to the Service Area, (See Drawings),
Crown Castle presents this analysis pursuant to the City of rancho Palos Verdes Municipal :ode Title
12 — Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 12,18,080, (Requirements for Facilities within Public bights -of -Way).
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
D-178
CrownCastie.com
Signal_PEPL
ASG74
31207 1/2 Palos Verdes Or E c+ Ganado
(LA0352)
S/L PEPL—ExAtt
LA0194
approx 5127 Palos Verdes Drive S
Ex AT&T
LA0105
Palos Verdes ®rive S @ Boundary Frail
Ex AT&T
LA0351
Schooner Drive
Ex AT&T
LA0358
approx 0522 Palos Drive E
Ex AT&T
LAP060
Silver Spur Pd @ Monternalaga
Ex AT&T POLE
REPL
By using existing vertical infrastructure within the POW whenever possible, the project seeks to reduce
the addition of new vertical elements, thereby minimizing intrusions into the ROW.
A majority of the nodes will consist of two (2) 24 -inch long antennas mounted back-to-back on existing
streetlights, utility poles, traffic sign poles or street sign popes, two (2) fiber converters collocated with
the Southern California Edison ("SCE") electric meter pedestals that weld power the nodes. The total
height of the facility, measured from grade level, is typically up to 13'-6" for traffic sign poles, street
sign poles and free-standing poles, and up to 33`-5" for streetlight poles and utility poles. [See Exhibit _
[(0rawings: Streetlights, traffic signal poles, street sign poles, free-standing poles, and utility poles,)] In
addition to the antennas, the nodes feature an underground fiber pull box containing fiber. The fiber
converters convert digitalized spectrum received from the hub into RF signals emitted from the
antenna array to the Service Area, (See Drawings),
Crown Castle presents this analysis pursuant to the City of rancho Palos Verdes Municipal :ode Title
12 — Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 12,18,080, (Requirements for Facilities within Public bights -of -Way).
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
D-178
CrownCastie.com
Specifically, thisnarrative demonstrates the demands and rationale that led to the selection of a
particular location and design for the wirelesstelecommunication facilities proposed herein.
Aa Applicable State Law.
Crown Castle is a "competitive local exchange carrier" ("CLEC"). CLECs qualify as a "public utility" and
therefore have a special status under state law, By virtue of California Public Utilities Commission
["CPUC"] issuance of a "certificate of public convenience and necessity" ['CPCN"], CLECs have
authority under state law to "erect poles, posts, piers, or abutments" in the ROW subject only to local
municipal control over the "time, place and manner" of access to the IOW. (Pub. Util, Code, §§ 1001,
7901; 7901.1; see ' ifflams Communication v. City of Riverside [2063) 114 Cal.App. 4th 642, 648 [upon
obtaining a CPCN, a telephone corporation has "the right to use the public highways to install [its]
facilities."].]
The CPUC has issued a CPCN (attached as Exhibit ®1b) which authorizes Crown Castle to construct the
Network pursuant to its regulatory status under stare law. Crown Castle's special regulatory status as a
CLEC gives rise to a vested right to use the ROW in the City to "construct ... telephone lines along and
upon any public road or highway, along or across any of the waters or lands within this State" and to
""erect poles, posts, piers, or abutments for supporting the insulators, wires, and other necessary
fixtures of their Pones, in such manner and at 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;
... "[f]t has been uniformly held that [section 7961] 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, supro, 114 Cal.App.4th at p. 648 quoting County of L. A.
v. Southern Col. TeL Co. [1948] 32 Cal.2d 378, 384 [196 P.2d 773],]
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com D-179
While Public Utility Code section 7901,1 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[,]" such controls cannot have the effect of foreclosing use by Crown Castle of the ROW or
otherwise prevent Crown Castle from exercising its right under state law to "erect poles" in the ROW.
That is because "the construction and maintenance of telephone dines 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, 663,)
On the basis of Crown Castle's status as a CLEC, and its concomitant rights to the ROW, the Network is
designed as an ROW system, With respect to the siting and configuration of the Network, the rights
afforded under Public Utilities Code section 7001 and 7901,1 apply, Crown Castle reserves its rights
under section 7001 and 7001,1, including, but not limited to, ,its right to challenge any approval
process, that impedes or infringes on Crown Castle's rights as a CLEC,
B. Applicable Federal Law.
The approval of the Network also is governed by the federal Telecommunications Act of 1000, Pub. L.
No 104-104, 110 State 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," (110 Stat. at 66,) 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 Wyondotte, 528 E,Supp. 2d 1128, 1146-47 (D, Kana
2007), One way in which the Telecom Act accomplishes these goals is by reducing impediments
The Foundation for a Wireless World, D-1 8O
CrownCastle.com U
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 North as follows:
(,a) State and local governments may not unreasonably discriminate among providers of
functionally equivalent services (§ 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(1)],
(b) State and local governments may not regulate the placement, construction or
modification of wireless service facilities in a manner that prohibits, or has the effect of
prohibiting, the provision of personal wireless services (better known as the "effective
prohibition clause") (§ 332(c)(7)(B)(0)(ll)],
(c) State and local governments must act on requests for authorization to construct or
modify wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time (§ 332(c)(7)(B)(oi)).
(d) 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)(Ui))�
(e) Finally, no state or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the
placement, construction or modification of personal wireless service facilities on the
basis of the perceived environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent
that such facilities comply with federal communications commission's regulations
concerning such emissions (§ 332(c)(7)(B)(iv)).
In addition to the above, other federal enactments and policies also guide local governmental actions,
including the following:
(a) The Shot Clock Rule: On November 18, 2009, the Federal Communications Commission
("FCC") adopted the "Shot Clock" Rule, placing strict time limits on local governments to
act on applications for the siting of wireless telecommunications facilities, The Shot
Clock Rule was intended to "promote[] deployment of broadband and other wireless
services" by "reducing delays in construction and improvement of wireless networks."
(b) White Mouse Broadband Initiative: On February 19, 2011, the White House called for a
National Wireless Initiative to make available high-speed wireless services to at least 98
percent of Americans. The initiative would free up spectrum through incentive auctions,
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
D-181
CrownCastle.corn
spurring innovation, and create a nationwide, interoperable wireless network for public
safety with a fiscal goal of catalyzing private investment and innovation and reducing
the deficit by $9.6 billion, "help the United States win the future and compete in the
21st century economy,"
(47 U.S.C. § 1455(a)(1), emphasis added,) An "eligible facilities request "Modifications"
includes a request to "collocate" a facility. (Id. at § 1455(a)(2)(A)e9 As discussed further
below, because it is a qualifying collocation facility, an argument may be made that the
Project qualifies for ministerial approval under the Spectrum Acte
Further, the Federal Communications Commission recently provided clarification to the
Spectrum Act in a recently published order, The FCC noted in its order:
We take important steps in this Report and Order to promote the deployment of
wireless infrastructure, :recognizing that it is the physical foundation that
supports all wireless communications. We do this by eliminating unnecessary
reviews, thus reducing the costs and delays associated with facility siting and
Construction,
Specifically, the order (dated October 17, 2014), makes provisions for the followings
0 Clarifies key terms in the Act such as Base Station, Eligible Facility bequest,
what is deemed Existing, and Tower;
What constitutes Substantial Change - For Towers and Base Stations sited
within the public right-of-way, a change to an existing facility is less than
substantial, and east be approved if the height increase is less than 10%
increase or 10 -feet, whichever is greater, or has a protrusion of less than 6 -
feet from the edge of the structure, or if the change would defeat
concealment elements of the structure.
Governing authority may only require documentation that is reasonably
related to whether the request is covered under the rules;
0 Governing, authority may not require submission of any other
documentation, including proof of need,
The Foundation for a Wireless World. D-1 Q2
CrownCastle.com U
1. Visual Compatibility (RPVMC Title 12, Chapter 12.18.080, Sec. A Design and Development
Standards for wireless telecommunication facilities in the public right-of-way).
As discussed more fully below, the Service Areadescribed above currently experiences a significant gap
in wireless telecommunications coverage. To fill that gap, Crown Castle proposes the "least intrusive
means," as articulated by the Ninth Circuit in T Mobile U.S.A., Inc. v, Chtw of Anocortes, 572 F.3d 987,
995 (9th Cir. 2009) and as required by RPV's Wireless Telecommunications Facility Permit Application
("WTFPA") Section 9V(2)(c) Description of Project Coverage and Purpose [Exhibit C2]. The standard, as
the court rooted in that ease, "requires that the provider `show that the manner in which it proposes to
fill the significant gap in service is the least intrusive on the values that the denial sought to serve."'
(ibid.) This allows
[F]or a meaningful comparison of alternative sites before the siting
application process is needlessly repeated. It also gives providers an
incentive to choose the least intrusive site in their first siting applications,
and it promises to ultimately identify the best solution for the
community, not merely the least one remaining after a series of
application denials,
(Id. at 9950)
In this case, because Crown Castle is a CLEC entitled to construct its systems in the ROW, its IFAS
networks are inherently ROW systems. On that basis, Crown Castle examined those alternatives
theoretically available to it in the ROW. The analysis below demonstrates why the Project qualifies as
the "least intrusive means" of filling the significant gap in service described above.
Am Height of the Proposed Facilities.
The antenna heights and locations of the SCN were chosen to provide the minimum signal level needed
to meet critical coverage and capacity needs in the Service Area. Despite the technical limitations of a
low -profile system, gown Castle seeks to maximize the coverage of each node location, since
maximization of the node performance equates to a lower overall number of facilities for the Network
and a less intrusive system. Accordingly, each location was chosen to provide an effective relay of
signal from the adjacent node, so that ubiquitous coverage of the minimum signal level is provided
throughout the Service Area with the minimum number of nodes.
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com D-183
B. Location of the Proposed Facilities.
The selected node locations maximize the RF coverage of the node and minimize interference/overlap
with the other nodes of the system, resulting in a lower overall number of facilities for the Network
and a fess 6ntrusive system. Each node provides an effective relay of signal from the adjacent node, so
that ubiquitous coverage is provided throughout the Service Area. Because each node is locationally
dependent on the other nodes of the Network, moving a node too far from its proposed location will
result in an inability meet coverage objectives and thereby impair the Network. In selecting node
locations, Crown Castle also sought out existing utility poles, streetllght poles and street sign pole sites
that could serve as a potential host site for alternative locations.
Ca Small Cells as Least intrusive Means Technology.
Even apart from the siting of the nodes, SCI's itself is inherently minimally intrusive by design. SCN was
developed as a smaller -scale solution to the larger macro -site or cell tower. It therefore represents a
significant technological advance in the development of smaller profile wireless transmission devices.
As devices shrink in size, they also, by definition, shrink in power. /accordingly, more facilities are
needed and such facilities must be located closer to the user. The nodes are designed to be smaller in
scale and lower power to allow them to integrate more easily into their surroundings and thereby
render thea less aesthetically intrusive.
The small cell node facilities proposed by Crown Castle combine a smaller scale product with state-of-
the-art technology that allows for multiple carriers to provide service from the mode. The nodes are
designed to blend into the existing elements of the ROW. They feature narrow -profile poles and
minimal equipment. Each facility also will be designed to blend with existing features in the road.
Crown Castle's SCN network puafiifies as the "least intrusive means" of filling the identified significant
gap in coverage for the following reasons, among others:
(1) Crown Castle SCN utilizes the latest in wireless infrastructure technology, incorporating
smaller, low-power facilities instead of using larger -- and sometimes more obtrusive --
cell towers;
(2) Crown Castle SCN utilizes the R®, thereby avoiding intrusions into private property or
undeveloped sensitive resource areas;
The Foundation for a wireless world.
D-184
CrownCastle.com
(3) Crown Castle SCN allows for collocation by multiple carriers, thereby avoiding
proliferation of nodes;
(4) Crown Castle SCN strikes a balance between antenna height and coverage inorder to
minimize visual impacts,
(5) Crown Castle SCN carefully spaces the nodes to effectively relay signal with a minimum
of node locations; and
(6) Crown Castle SCN seeks to utilize existing vertical elements in the ROW, such as utility
poles and street signs, thereby minimizing the net number of vertical intrusions in the
R®,
i K0
The FCC has preempted the field of compliance with RF emission standards. Moreover, section 47
U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) preempts local and state governments from regulating the siting of wireless
telecommunications facilities on the basis of the perceived health effects of RF emissions.
Nevertheless, the Network, and all equipment associated with the Network, complies with all
applicable FCC RF emission standards. A demonstration of the Network's compliance with applicable
FCC RF emission standards is attached as Exhibit E.
30 Safety and Monitoring Standards (IMC § 3-8-2(®))o
The FCC has preempted the field of compliance with RF emission standards. Moreover, section 47
U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) preempts local and state governments from regulating the siting of wireless
telecommunications facilities on the basis of the perceived health effects of RF. Nevertheless, the
Network, and all equipment associated with the Network, complies with all applicable FCC RF emission
standards. A demonstration of the Network's compliance with applicable FCC RF emission standards is
attached as Exhibit E.
Given the low profile of the nodes, and the resultant limitations of such a 'low -profile system, gown
The f=oundation for a Wjre3ess World.
CrownCastie.corn D-185
Castle seeps to maximize the coverage of each node location, since maximization of the node coverage
equates to a lower overall number of facilities for the network and a less intrusive system.
Accordingly, each location was chosen to provide an effective relay of signal from the adjacent node,
so that ubiquitous coverage is provided throughout the Service Area with the least number of nodes.
Each node is locationally dependent on the other nodes of the Network. To move a node too far from
its proposed location will result in an inability meet coverage objectives. Moving outside that
proposed location will preclude the ability of the node to properly propagate its signal to the other
nodes in the larger Network. Crown Castle also sought out existing utility pope, streetlight pole and
traffic sign pole sites that could serve as a potential host site for alternative locations.
The further a node is moved from its proposed location, the more the signal from that node will
attenuates In determining other viable locations for a node, moving more than 50 feet from the
proposed location may materially impair the coverage objectives for the facility, While Crown Castle is
able to install new poles to achieve its IAF coverage objectives, Crown Castle made a strategic decision
to minimize the installation of new poles — where possible -- and locate the Network nodes at the site
of existing vertical elements, such as street signs and wood utility poles. By approaching a network
design in this matter, Crown Castle sought to avoid the risk of proliferation of verticality in the ROW.
Crown Castle's approach ensures that it has chosen the "least intrusive means" of providing service to
the Service Area,
In many cases, Crown Castle identified alternative locations that are technically feasible, yet, in each
instance, Crown Castle selected the proposed site on the basis of
(a) Technical feasibility;
(b) Ability to utilize existing vertical elements;
(c) Abillty to meet RF objectives; and
(d) Minimization of visibil'tyf aesthetic impacts.
Since 29 of the 39 proposed sites use or replace existing poles, the proposed network results in ten
new vertical elements in the ROW.
Bo Node Locations and the "Significant Gape in Coverage.
The Foundation for a Wireless World. D-1 8G
CrownCastte.com U V
Each node of the Network is necessary to fall a significant gap in service in the City. The significant gap
is graphically demonstrated as required by RPVMC WTFPA Section IV(3) Description of Project
Coverage and Purpose (Exhibit C31, which depicts existing service for the anchor carrier for the
Network, AT&T. (See "Existing Service flap".) The Existing Service Map describes six levels of service:
(1) In -Building (Dark Green); (2) ln-Building (Light Green),, (3) In -Vehicle (yellow) and (4) In -Vehicle
(Ped); (5) Poor to Non-existent (Blue) and (6) Poor to Non -Existent (Mack).
Each level is characterized by a minimum signal level. The key to coverage is having a signal level
strong enough to allow multiple customers to maintain contact with the network so they can make and
,maintain contact with the network. There is a direct correlation between the height of the antenna
and the strength of the service. In this case, Crown Castle's design seeks a minimum of ISI= propagation
level, which provides a sufficient level of service to address growing capacity demands and to reach
indoor users, while avoiding poles that may be too obtrusive. The courts have upheld the use of in -
building minimum standards as a proper benchmark for determining whether a significant gap in
coverage exists. (See, e.g., MetroPCS Inc. v. City and County of Son Francisco (N.D.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." j.)
In this case, existing service levels in the Service Area fall below the minimum standard for adequate
in -building coverage. (See Existing Service Map.)
The meed to fill the existing significant coverage gap to a level that allows adequate in-bu ldiing
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. Additionally:
(1) In a recent international study, the United Mates dropped to fifteenth in the world in
broadband penetration, well :behind South ]Corea, Japan, the Netherlands and France.2
(2) 48 percent of .all American homes are now wireless only.3
(3) More and more civic leaders and emergency response personnelcite lack of a robust
wireless network as a growing public safety risk. The number of 911 calls placed by
Z 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 Federal Communications Commission (April 2030.
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
crowncastle.com D-187
people using wireless phones has significantly increased in recent years. It is estimated
that about 70 percent of 911 calls are solaced from wireless phones, and that percentage
is growing.
(4) Data demand from new smartphones and tablets is leading to a critical deficit in
spectrum, requiring more wireless antennas and infrastructure, According to a 2011
report, wireless data traffic was 110 percent higher than in the last half of 2010,
Similarly, AT&T reports that its wireless data volumes have increased 30 -fold since the
introduction of the Phone.'
(5) Ex projected mobile data traffic growth from 2015 to 2020.
As more Americans depend on wireless communications technologies and smartphone, reliable
network capacity and in -building coverage will be critical. These are some of the reasons courts now
recognize that a "significant gap" can exist on the basis of inadequate in -building coverage, (See, e.g.,
etroPCS inc. v. City and County of Son Francisco, .supra, U.S. Dist, LEXIS 43985➢ T -Mobile Centred, LLC
v. Unified Government of Wyandotte County (D.Kanse 2007) 528 E,Supp,2d 1128,)
Applying these principles to the Service Area, Exhibit C3, reveals that Service Area is currently
experiencing insufficient signal. lasers in the Service .Area therefore would experience an intolerably
high percentage of blocked and dropped calls for outside use, with a commensurate decline in signal
strength as one moves toward the inside of existing buildings and homes, Crown Castle seeks to
provide sufficient signal strength to ensure not only adequate signal for mobile and outdoor users, but
reliable in -building coverage for all those customers who may seek to abandon their home landlines
and sufficient capacity to address new data demands from smartphones and tablets. Wireless
customers must be able to count on a level of service commensurate with that provided by their
landlinese Such considerations are relevant to a determination of significant gap, (See, e.g., T Mobile
Centrad LLC v, City of Fraser (E,D. Mich, 2009) 675 F. Supp, 2d 721 [considering -failure rate of 911
emergency calls,])
u Federal Communications Commission (2013) http://www.fcc.gov/guides/wireless-911-seivices.
5 Executive Office of the President Council of Economic Advisors (White House, Feb. 2012) at 2-0.
6 Id.
The Foundation for a Wireless World,
CrownCastle.com D-188
By contrast, installation of the proposed nodes comprising the project would result in adequate
outdoor and in -building coverage, (See Exhibit Exhibit C3(e) [predicted coverage map with node (...not
macros]; Exhibit C3(a) and (d) [predicted coverage map without node (_not macros].)
Crown Castle has developed a number of node designs, some of which are depicted in Exhibit A of the
existing and enforce Rights -of Way Use Agreement ("RUA") between the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
and Crown Castle. Further Crown Castle has provided the engineering specifications for the proposed
facility. (See Exhibit F1- Engineering Plans). The proposed designs represent the latest achievement in
reducing the profile of the facilities. A smaller antenna configuration would impede lamer aesthetic
objectives of facilitating collocation and minimizing the need for additional network facilities as
demands on the Network grow. Put simply, the smaller the antenna result in a less robust the
network. That equates to diminished capacity and coverage -- and a resultant need for more nodes in
the future as more customers use the network. By contrast, the panel antennas proposed in the
!Network provide ample capacity for increased user demand (e.g., increased data needs).
Crown Castle respectfully presents its application for a Major Wireless Telecommunications Facilities
Permit/conditional use permit for the Network, gown Castle's representatives are on band to answer
any questions.
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com D-189
CROWN
� CASTLE
11/03/2016
Node ASG53
Coverage Analysis
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
D-190
ASG53 Exhibits
• Exhibit C(3) — Geographic and propagation reaps
• Exhibit C(4) — Geographic service area for the subject installation
• Exhibit F(4) — Power output and operating frequency for the proposed
antenna
• Exhibit H(1)(b) — Master plan of all existing and proposed facilities
• Exhibit I — Alternative sites
CROWN Proprietary &
CASTLE Confidential
D-191
co
U
ZW
00
crQ
u V
D-192
Exhibit C3 a. — Geographical significant gap in coverage.
*,fw
af Flad"miai
Sao.
75 r'l
ciffin
Praposed Inc ah,
r, w Altem2l:E tDeations
•
00 Existing.ATU site
40* @&Sao
•
•
J, A
ASG53 Locat�� C AS053 cation A
000404000*000 So
1.1,jyctd, t Ut •if moms
• 1 4 40 S.
sk 004 0 0 91 Pip •
�2 ,
C, Opp"
CROWN Proprietary &
CASTLE Confidential
D-193
Exhibit C3 (b) - Proposed site and surrounding existing WTF owned and
UpefdLtu Dy Me dPP11UZl11L
1;11; not Me 11a
OkSG04
at rladivoqW
ElyamntdN School
3
f%SG06
'Orot el
.lov)")
OkSG39
roe 6 7.
an
(b
"t
OkSGOS t
f
V 1.3 44 zR 41 Z:
T
U)
16
or -Ir
la i
fASG53
Lofty Grove Or
Dr
Q�oSnCnJA
Proposed Node
Existing Crown Castle Facility
-Z
10439
Coverage Objective
Existing AT&T Facility
*A
OkSG45
�2
CROWN Proprietary &
CASTLE Confidential
D-194
Exhibit C3 (c) — Proposed facility relative to all existing and planned facilities
CROWN Proprietary &
CASTLE Confidential
D-195
SkSG04
M Pd,..W
L t`N41e
C"I
OkSGO6
a (;Drle?
•7.
rda S
be
ZD
G85
P.
kit,
UuerhlatAa Dr
Monern LirSkSG53
Lofty Grove Dr
g,%
Linda W
bias
CJY
G4S.qk05.CFOR Dr
ffrjf,i; Dr
'P
Proposed Node
Existing Crown Castle
Facility
75
Coverage Objective
1043 F
Reg—
iF -2
--Z
Existing AT&T Facility
Q
IWsG t, '01
OkSG45
7
CROWN Proprietary &
CASTLE Confidential
D-195
Exhibit C3 d. — Existing RF coverage.
Lofly'Gfroe Dr
Nlaycloft DI
•
•
•
CROWN Proprietary &
CASTLE Confidential
ASG53
•
-1135 lo -F, CEO
At Fodl qdl -5-K G&TI
aS:� I oE
d&t
-sed lotst�r
prqpfj -n
cfxmmoc. onpmve
Memate tricatons
Emsfing.ATU site
It
•
'N
D-196
Jr
•
•
•
•
•
•
Lofly'Gfroe Dr
Nlaycloft DI
•
•
•
CROWN Proprietary &
CASTLE Confidential
ASG53
•
-1135 lo -F, CEO
At Fodl qdl -5-K G&TI
aS:� I oE
d&t
-sed lotst�r
prqpfj -n
cfxmmoc. onpmve
Memate tricatons
Emsfing.ATU site
It
•
'N
D-196
Exhibit C3 e. — Proposed RF coverage.
ASGS3 Locatl C
i •
HIV
I - •
i Lutiy.GrweC)r � • `•
: i • +• ��
• • • • Igo
.i:kiyq'idt G7 � % sLI 6
i...sleeMelae�• ; Z ;'
)• • N4.11101irg- e o
•
r •
• %
•
C'.tlBrt•i N•• •• l]
•`` ••••• . •.••• • 1 • ,.
%
CROWN proprietary &
CASTLE Confidential
•
E:arn�i ;;L:•nr
ril f-a-,GIe�7:d
•-951c,w5r154a
+65 is- c Cc,m
•-�-E•5.9Em
Proposed luceton
nw.rrv1,
AIlernnate mcali ryne.
f•y
Eaa®.ting.ATU site
•
D-197
•
•
•
0
.00,00000*
0.0
•
•••
•
eve••
rtes
,�
i
• •
•
an
=
i
y
i ••
_
Q
•
4y,�t
_
•
i
u
*00
•'
•
4
••
�•
;nl'Onel
ASGS3 Locatl C
i •
HIV
I - •
i Lutiy.GrweC)r � • `•
: i • +• ��
• • • • Igo
.i:kiyq'idt G7 � % sLI 6
i...sleeMelae�• ; Z ;'
)• • N4.11101irg- e o
•
r •
• %
•
C'.tlBrt•i N•• •• l]
•`` ••••• . •.••• • 1 • ,.
%
CROWN proprietary &
CASTLE Confidential
•
E:arn�i ;;L:•nr
ril f-a-,GIe�7:d
•-951c,w5r154a
+65 is- c Cc,m
•-�-E•5.9Em
Proposed luceton
nw.rrv1,
AIlernnate mcali ryne.
f•y
Eaa®.ting.ATU site
•
D-197
%I
4cz
Q) 'C
0 0
�+ U
Q,
The objective of the node, ASG53, is to provide coverage along Granvia Altamira from
Coronel Plaza to just north or HaNNIhorne Blvd.
, A
fj
.�'i � rJ:
w ."w+
laft !ft
qw
4 0. IC t4rth
I •: � 9 h
IEP, t..., -_ ,. .+�„ M ..L«��......,,..• �r.'1`�'�>�� 'AI'd4iai�RYAiih�i`...•.'..�,
t ASC53 C
ASG53D
-
511,
ASG 5
M 1 -
(e =
• a
kt�-Jo slc ec'all
e
51
AS G34 9
fSGO5
ATS. I E
Ism
IM,
2
to r th
li
ZW
O to
0�Q
u
a
D-202
Power output and operating frequency
ERP 700 MHz
ERP 950 MHz (composite, Watts)
ERP 1900 MHz
ERP 2100 MHz
(Watts)
(Watts)
(Wafts)
171.8
254.1
2408.31
266.07
CROWN Proprietary &
CASTLE Confidential
D-203
n
D-204
List of All Existing Facilities
Carrier
Site ID
LatitudeLongitude
arrier
Site ID
ILatitude Longitude
arrier
Site ID
Latitude
Longitude
arrier
Site ID
Latitude
Longitude
AT&T
AHWO1
33.78431
-118.36835
print
LA36XC534
33.79089
-118.38329
ZW
IHAW12
33.77588
-118.40315
print
LA36XC659
33.77366
-118.36987
AT&T
AHW02
33.759
-118.38
rint
LA36XC535
33.78654
-118.37279
ZW
HAW14ml
33.759883
-118.405233
MUS
NO2m2
33.77881
-118.371
AT&T
HW04
33.76809
-118.39135
rint
LA36XC540
33.74165
-118.37394
rint
LA34XD01S
33.7875
-118.37618
MUS
N06
33.76271
-118.37
AT&T
HW08
33.7562
-118.41017
rint
LA36XC548
33.74334
-118.40946
rint
LA34XD027
33.77401667
-118.3956
MUS
N15
33.78063
-118.388
AT&T
AHW13
33.751972
-118.395472
rint
LA36XC564
33.74338
-118.31879
rint
LA34XD031
33.742141
-118.401616
Tint
NCA5054R:
13
33.76267
-118.36983
AT&T
AHW55
33.77283
-118.40324
S rint
LA36XC565
33.75779
-118.36746
rint
LA34XD036
33.78098
-118.397236
rint
NCA5054R:
14
33.77411
-118.39303
MUS
AN18
33.759
8
-118.3print
S
LA36XC566
33.75541
-118.40821
rint
LA34XD043
33.773162
-118.403179
rint
NCA5054R:15
33.78028
-118.38791
AT&T
ASP06
33.76225
-118.36546
rint
LA36XC568
33.75005
-118.40501
rint
LA34XD046
33.75817
-118.41334
print
NCA5054R:
17
33.78238
-118.36944
AT&T
SP10
33.74821
-118.33322
rint
LA36XC570
33.76195
-118.41071
rint
LA34XD047
33.745354
-118.400786
rint
NCA5054S:12
33.77181
-118.36197
AT&T
ASP12
33.74841
-118.32487
rint
LA36XC591
33.76263
-118.33513
rint
LA34XD0SO
33.75232
-118.39593
US
PV02m2
33.77621
-118.375
AT&T
ASP13
33.74212
-118.33277
5 rint
LA36XC610
33.745028
-118.38499
rint
LA34XD095
33.748459
-118.32485
MUS
PV07m6
33.7722
-118.361
AT&T
SP14
33.76265
-118.33082
5 rint
LA36XC611
33.76868
-118.40277
rint
LA34XD099
33.74218
-118.33322
MUS
PV13
33.7764
-118.393
AT&T
SP32
33.76554
-118.32261
rint
LA36XC622
33.76267
-118.36983
rint
LA34XD111
33.72728
-118.33468
MUS
PV18
33.768
-118.391
AT&T
SP33
33.7471
-118.31818
rint
LA36XC623
33.77411
-118.39303
rint
LA36XC212
33.74801
-118.31278
MUS
PV19
33.76075
-118.394
AT&T
ASP42
33.744397
-118.324822
rint
LA36XC635
33.73869
-118.3578
rint
LA36XC216
33.75954
-118.33021
MUS
PV49
33.77899
-118.381
AT&T
SP52
33.76236
-118.3698
5 rint
LA36XC639
33.7458333
-118.3372222
rint
LA36XC219
33.73721
-118.33022
ZW
SPO1
33.731395
-118.34294
AT&T
ASP59m1
33.732861
-118.33469
rint
LA36XC640
33.73798
-118.33618
print
LA36XC453
33.791709
-118.368509
ZW
SPO5
33.73684
-118.3297
AT&T
ASP62
33.76321
-118.32737
print
LA36XC641
33.7384
-118.34449
rint
LA36XC454
33.76589
-118.31092
ZW
SP06
33.74163
-118.32621
AT&T
SP63
33.758167
-118.32975
rint
LA36XCE46
33.77544
-118.40283
print
LA36XC516
33.77096
-118.39619
ZW
SP07m1
33.738929
-118.336364
VZW
HAW02
33.78012
-118.4005
rint
LA36XC647
33.78898
-118.38521
rint
LA36XC521
33.77181
-118.36197
ZW
SP21
33.7481
-118.31293
VZW
HAW04
33.78543
-118.38576
rint
LA36XC648
33.78238
-118.36944
rint
LA36XC522
33.73738
-118.33244
ZW
SP22
33.75471
-118.31486
VZW
HAWO5
33.78908
-118.38528
rint
LA36XC649
33.78785
-118.38201
rint
LA36XC523
33.75335
-118.32667
ZW
SP23ml
33.73823
-118.34436
VZW
HAWO6
33.78766
-118.37637
rint
LA36XC651
33.79048
-118.37287
rint
LA36XC524
33.76407
-118.33115
ZW
SP24
33.73403
-118.33834
VZW
HAW07ml
33.790795
-118.382867
rint
LA36XC652
33.7802
-118.38791
rint
LA36XC526
33.73561
-118.34777
ZW
SP25m1
33.735186
-118.354187
ZW
HAW
33.77128
-118.39648
print
LA36XC530
33.7809444
-118.4002778
MUS
MB1008-0009m2
33.74063
-118.33702
ZW
HAW11
33.76837
-118.40327
rint
LA36XC653
33.78042
-118.37651
MUS
TMB1008-OC19
33.77589
-118.40319
CROWN proprietary &
CASTLE Confidential
D-205
List of All Proposed Facilities
Carrier
Site ID
Latitude
Longitude
Carrier
Site ID
Latitude
Longitude
VZW
SO SCL PALOS VERDES 3
33.761353
-118.410358
AT&T
ASG32
33.76295102
-118.375093
VZW
50 SCL PALOS VERDES 8
33.739781
-118.369334
AT&T
ASG33
33.755661
-118.393449
VZW
SO SCL PALOS VERDES 9
33.758782
-118.364486
AT&T
ASG34
33.766074
-118.401094
VZW
SO SCL PALOS VERDES 11
33.775391
-118.368853
AT&T
ASG35
33.770696
-118.397066
VZW
50 SCL PALOS VERDES 12
33.784143
-118.367588
AT&T
ASG36
33.77089856
-118.3893824
VZW
50 SCL PALOS VERDES 13
33.749477
-118.332934
AT&T
ASG37
33.776566
-118.387413
VZW
SO SCL PALOS VERDES 14
33.746148
-118.329719
AT&T
ASG38
33.77995
-118.40271
VZW
50 SCL PALOS VERDES 15
33.743179
-118.318986
AT&T
ASG39
33.78541831
-118.3834136
VZW
50 SCL PALOS VERDES 16
33.764385
-118.331199
AT&T
ASG41
33.73169
-118.34472
VZW
SO SCL PALOS VERDES 17
33.760177
-118.32499
AT&T
ASG43
33.767863
-118.376828
VZW
SO SCL PALOS VERDES 18
33.767905
-118.314171
AT&T
ASG44
33.771255
-118.385665
VZW
50 SCL PALOS VERDES 19
33.771618
-118.309292
AT&T
ASG45
33.77618
-118.39398
VZW
50 SCL PALOS VERDES 20
33.761589
-118.315284
AT&T
ASG47
33.74959
-118.33013
VZW
SO SCL ROLLING HILLS
ESTATES 1
33.773894
-118.387828
AT&T
ASG48
33.78279
-118.37828
VZW
SO SCL ROLLING HILLS
ESTATES 2
33.781481
-118.384533
AT&T
ASG49B
33.74169
-118.336646
VZW
SO SCL ROLLING HILLS
ESTATES 3
33.783917
-118.378903
AT&T
ASG53
33.781524
-118.392501
AT&T
ASG01
33.795275
-118.378278
AT&T
ASG55
33.763295
-118.410407
AT&T
ASG08
33.756725
-118.405011
AT&T
ASG64
33.75943
-118.41442
AT&T
ASG09
33.75669619
-118.401964
AT&T
ASG69
33.735261
-118.340374
AT&T
ASG10
33.75744
-118.39885
AT&T
ASG70
33.790093
-118.381213
AT&T
ASG11
33.746478
-118.375309
AT&T
ASG72
33.73996
-118.3725
AT&T
ASG12
33.74448
-118.37641
AT&T
ASG73
33.74852
-118.39366
AT&T
ASG13
33.74865
-118.37003
AT&T
ASG74
33.732849
-118.334681
AT&T
ASG15
33.775529
-118.38307
AT&T
1A0194
33.74082
-118.36438
AT&T
SG21
33.779702
-118.374277
AT&T
LA0351
33.736726
-118.352793
AT&T
ASG25
33.77338093
-118.370326AT&T
LA0358
33.75366
-118.327114
AT&T
ASG31
33.765484
-118.367833
AT&T
LAR069
33.787116
-118.372384
CROWN Proprietary &
CASTLE Confidential
D-206
Map of all existing and proposed facilities
Verdes
""Opo",
Proposed Nodes H allExisting Wireless Faclilities,
—Pacific
0 it
A'
F.
01 4
Estates
Men Hills
IIN Memorial Novel
�hos vefdoscol Park Rewrvalwsn
sk
IJ
NALL
104:
RP
ol A L Q' _VL
z
wz
Ve (do's
fle,
Fund
ar kL. n
Course ;Canyon. Naluse Pie I-
4
�4, N
t —cho -S
S
Do dim)
Fron4s'hip
Trump 1`1 "1
Gaff C b V%,7 1700,
I Ki..i
t
CROWN Proprietary &
CASTLE Confidential
D-207
Exhibit I
Address
CROWN Proprietary &
CASTLE Confidential
J Ii
Property
Zoning
General Plan
Why it is worse than
Exhibit Alternative Locations
Lat Long Owner Owner phone number
Designation
Designation
primary?
ASG53 A (Primary)
33.78153292 -118.3925232
N/A
Public ROW
ASG53 B (Alternative
33.78054911 -118.3922405
Exhibit 11 1)
N/A
Public ROW
ASG53 C (Alternative
33.78129834 -118.3925537
Exhibit 12 2)
N/A
Public ROW
ASG53 D (Alternative
33.78121893 -118.3922403
See comparative analysis
Exhibit 13 3)
N/A
Public ROW
Exhibit 14 ASG53 E
33.78063 -118.388 T -Mobile USA
N/A
Public ROW
Too far from the objective
CROWN Proprietary &
CASTLE Confidential
J Ii
Alternative Analysis — (ASG53 Location B)
RSRP
•
;{...lt{c{:auiat _
• -1111-45dBm
••••••Goes
• -55 to -85 d6m
•• o
-85 to -75 d6m
•
•••
• ?6 to -65 d6m
• =:-65 dBm
Wireless Telecommunicabons Facility
.Node
••
•�•
AT &T Node
.On -Her
•
,�•r
•i
•
rdas _ •f
tF C 3
•
aU e, • •
C • G
• •• fir'
• r
1
•
A•GeM.EEkM•!!1N•••� r•N•
•
•
•
_ •
Lofty Gra=a Dr
Fa.rycrvlt G{
�•yRf.IttM!?rf.�
•
•
•
77�(i'j � _ NM••• •
%*.a
CROWN Proprietary 8i:
CASTLE Confidential
•e•• Or
as • r �1M1
i $•i
ASG53 Locati C
r
I� •
A
c't+rnar<:C<i nu
- •t t�ydro-��7 al � ,r'�
Sir � J
c
•
•
e �Li;tC r,u • 1 7 �? rr
• _'trt)t 1'i
- -�--��iiiiiiii�r •••••
•
;{...lt{c{:auiat _
1
r
G
,�•r
Possible Locations
Failed
Psssad
D-209
Alternative Analysis — (ASG53 Location Q
RSRP
•— -105 dBm •00*00 9*0000
• 105 to -95 d6rn
• 9
5 to85 d8 n ar FV!,d,&9
-85 t :75 d6m 0010 L Ele"wqmafv ho,I
• 75 to -65 d6m
• -=-65 d8m
Wireless TeJeconimunications Facility •
0
Node *01
AT&T Node
711 ft*
i•1•••••
%-0
000*000
•
041
4wo's ieL•I
ASG53 Locath i C ASG53 I )cation A
Loc
r*9
00
d
•
*so
t
7'
•9, N14
Possible Locations
• Faied
0
0
9 % Passed
CROWN Proprietary &
CASTLE Confidential
D-210
Alternative Analysis — (ASG53 Location D)
RSRP* •
•105d6m �••o•••�••
• -1000
5 to -95d6m •.f ••••••�••• ••••,
• -95 to -35 dBm a •
-35 to -75 dans •
• -75 to-GSd5m • ��%,
• =>_65 dBm-Y� t�flyM
Wireless Telecommunications Facility ••�f•fy
NNade
AT&T Node �•.'�"•N��y •
•Gn-ilLt •i ��• -P:,, �
ri !0015 ft _
•
Mri
ASG53
.,*a o*AAA0r&o Go" Go **0000*9
i
• •
Lofty r,rovaClr(Wool
s _
4'
• •
• - %
f r
• %
•
i:ttetty� •�••ay i�
ti� ••• ••y•Go • •
•
•
CROWN Proprietary &
CASTLE Confidential
•
•
•
•
••660••
ion A
:a •
a om
0.000•• •�N+1Vi•(
f • i _ •
•
IIL
• c7
c, a F
ssibl€: Locations
Mra�ltReNl•tt• Vie• ••.••'••��
Faded
Passed
D-211
4 t:
� ti�rnerr�tetia
��
fS t�iRC4'gd l.t
,
Efam•naer�r 6. heof
— ,�
of
ion A
:a •
a om
0.000•• •�N+1Vi•(
f • i _ •
•
IIL
• c7
c, a F
ssibl€: Locations
Mra�ltReNl•tt• Vie• ••.••'••��
Faded
Passed
D-211
LTA coverage Analysis
Market Name: Los Angeles
Rancho Palos Verdes Area oDAS
❖ Plots Completion Date: August 15, 2016
D-212
LTE Existing Macro/oDAS (PCS 1900MHz) - Coverage
D-213
LTE Coverage from Proposed New oDAS (PCS 1900MHz)
D-214
* .. LEGEND:
Indoor Signal
In-Vehicle Signal -85dBm
• • '' �4,. .ire �. . Outdoor
e.. • r �!3G Marginal to Poor Coverage
t �, •"�' `7� �'. ,� -'—' a r . /+rte../ � � �, -,.� s � .� " _ : �K``!•''
IL
Cal
Macro Sites
�► f.- i
.t - •
oDASj
r
August 15, 2016 duct
Outdoor Signal -98cBrn
_ _ \3G Marginal to PoorCoverage
74 ow
AYR��,,,,,� ,
•1 :► r y' 1• .:1 it
l 1
t�
p it dr
• ,w CT.
fA
4&1_14
xistin.1.90
• Macro Sites
xisting
oDAS% --
.t014 AIP.1 All rights reserved. Air ,. �. r p ., ,. ,� I _ .,I r u.l o,...ry,., I „� August 15, 2016 aw
LTE Coverage from Proposed New oDAS (700MHz)
h LE®END:
via \As � � � f 9? mIndoor Signal -75d8m
vt Fe t y18 R' Fes' °�� In-Vehicle Signal 85d8m
Outdoor Signal -98d8m
q' 3G Marginal to Poor Coverage
V.
i { i .25'3t(i KIR.
AWl cl
�Ls ,
t � QU�ynQ!
Y ♦ m f9t
SPAfck
ox y
♦1 @! cle DSoo
W
Rolling Hills ` ~
�' Qrest � 9 �. � r Ro,.kingnotse
C� R11 Cr Y f Mit,. St
/
* Existing Macro Sites, LXAh t ,,
• Proposed oDAS
♦ Existing oDAS Or
D-217
77 .LEGEND:
M Indoor..
Aw In -Vehicle Signal -85dBm
JLU!- .:
G !arginal to Poor Coverage
.• ;
or
OW
de
00
10
- .
_ y
201.1 AT&T Intellectual Pwp2rfy. All fights reserved AIM ar.,i r!:r .' I _.! .,,: u.:d• c,.�i - t ,;' August 15, 2016 at&t
�.�
Counter Date:
l.f.
e
Networkdam oat. state: TP"oration latitude TPLocetionlon Rude ('1wer014110-1hort Tower CWIIO-Ion Tower" C loot Area Lode
L t rt 1a ]sz
Lob rrtgl. s SecanCs
- -- -
-
:
--- -.. ---- 1 ---..
i
. -
Phone type. GSM
r_-
--. - -
- -
Dewce11):35477508375J436
_ L 8(21%11 • ID.]:S7
�MAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
LTE
T4 Cdnneaesr
_ 33.7616"445
27173924867. _
55818
U25/80F1 -
346281
28/22/17'10:8:2
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
LTE
95Connected
33.78161435
-118.3926684
55818
141548062
34628
_. _
_ 3 8/12(17 (DST _�HAVE_MOBHE
- __ .-_ -
CDNNECION
-1-. _
LTE . _- _. �_ _
-�.-___ _
_AEIC6np15W _ -
. __
33.
.I793_42giR _
__ 558_1.. _
-
U154�112. _ _ _
j46711
4 9/22/17 • IOB:U
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
LTE
-8E Connected
-116.3923496
55818
141548042'
34628
- __T.
5:."271/17 • 104121
rHAVE IfOBHCCONBHEtCIN
_ _ _ __ _
_
.iv _ - -_ i-..
_-L - and -.r
_ _33.78189985;
_
- _
6.8/22/17. 10:812
MOBILE CONNECTION
LTE
-104 Connected_
33.78240431-
-116.3923544
55818
141548042
34628
_ 16/22.17•(0837 -
_HAVE
J HAVE_MOBILECONNERION
_I_ _ -_
._L7E ---- j_ _ -
1__-__--
-1 ectad
L � _ I.
33.'8369705
-_ _. _._
-1I&39239!! -__
1
_ _ _
SSBIB
_ �_
IaI546012 -..
� -_.._ _
_
38626.
812
E
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
LTE
-LOS Co nerved_
-116.3921441
55616
141548042
34628
_ _68/22/17`10632
- _ K722/t7. 10.6:37 _.
HAVEM081IE CONNERTON
T
_ .. 1._....
-�Q ru ee
_33.76302822
13.78F363N�-
--
415.39 -
_ .._-.
__ 31618}
10 8/22/17' 10:8:42
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
LTE_
.108 Connected
33.76367769
-118.3917612
55818'
141549042
3d62H
--ILBL/17/17. 108:48 ._HAYEMOBILE
_
CONNECTION
__ __ _____T
Com. I__ -
tD9rCarmrcfea - ---
_
33.78i90b6W - --
. _-_
-__-
128 ffi75055 __
_-__ y�____
.I4,��T __ ___-
_ -
12 8/22/17 • 10:8:53
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
.LTE
-109 Connected
33.]6403241
-118.3911659
5SB1B
16154804''211.
34628
_-
_ f3 B/!Ij[T • LQ$5q -
HAVE LtOBIf£ CVMYECTKIN
LIE
-_
-im cameo _
-�_-ro _
_
;;
--_-_.
-1783914404(
j_____
_
558 -. -_.
,ULS480a1 -
148/22/17.109:3
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
LTE
�i16 ecied
33.784072x6.
55816
141546042.
U629
34628
-. -_i5 am7•m38-_rNAVF YOe11E 6M41ECStON-
_-
_ itTE__- --- 1 -
-
_2_ Wed- _
_
_31_78(OB'92d�----
_1.16.3903938
tI4IDB0657 --
-6------�
ta---w _
-- --
-
16':8/22/17 • 10:9:13
HAVE "AOBILE �ONNERION
LTE
117 Connmed
33.784243]6
-318.3899533
25364
14151BOU
34585
_
. _til"2Wt7•tQ4lL8.- H0.M105NLE CONNEC7tON
_
_ lYE -. --_ S-_-
_
'7��•••�••�
• '_
_
Y3.7WF6Rt
___ - _
_ _ _
___-T-------
it8.aaeeo.al.�___ - �_ ..
_
t1153➢085�_.
- . _ 3684''
_ 18 8/22/17 LORD
__ I9+6171lLT_ 109:28
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
NAVE ryIOBltlf_fDNMECT10lF
_ LTE _ _ _ _ _
_. �LTfi- __ .- � L._
�L03 Connected
7iWiWnvected �
33.78470028
33.78196E17 - _
-1183899458
""}138991
2587116151/095
34585
_ _
20'8/22/17 • 10:933
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
LTE�
106 C cted
33.785168]9
118.3900923
2587711`
161518095.
34585
. zt 81*17• W33e--1
/6 _M0811E CONNErnoN
__ _
l E _ _. �_
necea _.._
i
228/22/17 • 10.9:43
-_ 238 2/Ii•LQ9,79
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
__ -
LTE
-106 Connected
33.78525428
-118.3903371
25671
141518095
34585
._3W35
_ _
14lYE MGBttE COt1NECtipN
_ _
lTE - �-
�IarneCled_ -� _.
.;3.76[ 6T- -_
-t1B
_ _
68998y-
}424714 _ _-_-_
24 6/22/17 • 10:9:53
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
106 Connected
33.]850145
-118.3906865
62999
Id2931479'.
34635
S5 Bt72h7_'10958_
_
1H COtOKLS4M
- --r
--r-
I,LTE - _
_ _ _
----
33 L®-ax4
_
SIe9� er-- -
-e1s.3916a�- --
_ -- --:f-
_
- - ---
__-. 5f857�_
_
26 ,6/22/17 • 10:10:3
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
Unknown
120Disconnected33.78478917
-118.3911131
4352
54857984.
_
D fR2J1T • [Q:[08
NAta•NOWLE 1O140EEStON _
_ _ _
-.
___
- -
.-.
amemmea4Q _
_ 33.784610fAT _
_ _
28 8/22/_1]' 10_:10:14
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
HSUPA • up 1.45-3.0 Mbps
-91 Connecte0
33.]8444132
-118.3918106
56794359
15516
_ _
ffii/l1➢47•[O:LQ:[A
-THAVENWIIE fO/ECTH7N
TQ7L'i16VA••42.2 tA0M 1
9liCmrrcaed
_40183 _
_
30 8/22/17 10.10:24
. - 38[12_,j'E7 N:16d9
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION _
N0.YE NQ8HG �N8ECSH391
OC HSPA-42.2 Moos _
_ D�[�PAo•4T2 mbw-
.107 Conn-ed _ _ _
33.784(0236
-1183924758.
40183
56794359
55516
_ _
_ 32 8/22/1] • 10:10:34
38[F-/Rh7' :iP39
-. -1-^-.
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTON
_._ __
HNEYONt6 ODNNECT40N
_ -- _
_ (DCIHSPAr • 422 Mbps _ _
._ . L=��..V,�tAS-396Fhps -.
97 Connected
-C94CotoTedM �..
_ 33.]8376809 _ _
. __s'^°'a^N __ ^�._F18369374i�_
-138.3931005 _
_ _40193
--__ _
56794359
__._._
. _ Vii.
"55516
3�
348/22/17'10:10:41-�HA_V,E.
MOBILE CONNECTION
HSPA+•42
-93 Connected
33.]8333445
-111188393569-81-
29223.E
567B3399
55516
_ 36i6ltZ/L)•7a:IR:49-..
Jr_NOWPL C01�QL41N--
_.IjO[J_tl�M'Ii.2 Ntros-T ____._CmuleR66
r
44783055
_
MOBILE CONNECTION_
OCHSPA+' 42.2 Mbps
-8�7 C.-ed
33.78276549x.
-116393]023
2,9..2.2�3�
5.6],83+3„9.9.
55536
_368/22/1]'1010:56
- - D /12f1i• LfiF059
_}HAVE
yf01YL IIBREC03NiL71W1
i� -1 _
T -
_ . __
__
..33 i _-_ _
'6WIfiQ� _-.
�. _-�J.
38 8/22/1]' 10.11:4
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
j.O�f HSPA+' 4Z.2 Mbps
.79 Connected
33.78237674
1183937259
29713
56783399
=5516
197•W.fI9
-
LHtli@ LOBNECQIMI cow
_
M�-L1.453.OMes1
-'
3i.,-. �,--
.BOt7D74JirP)I:.:-ff1S3Dt.
, ---
_-----_._
595�Gj
40 8/22/17 • 10:11:25
MOBILE CONNECTION
401 Connected
33.78225281:
-118.3936574
55818
1.41548042
34628
_LF BiMb 7.10:11:20
_ IHAVE _
IdHA1rEN®8b O8ipeTIQM-
7LT,;E� i- _
_-___ __-_--
IN
_
_
__ _
._..081548041_----.
__ ?i6Te�
d2 X8/22/17'10:11:25
__ t3 BJi2(il •
_
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
_LTE
.100 Connected
33.76221907
-1163929502
("8}1428657
55818
14]548062. _ _
34626
44 6/22/17' 10:11:35HAVE
MOBILE CONNECTION
LTE
-95 Connected
33.782L5223
-11113924793
55836
141548042
34628
6 7•[OcL1A0
'WYE Y781LF.1371NEfF6[0
_._ _ _ _ _
_ 39Q66t�
46 8 22/17 • 10:11:45
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
LTE
9�5 C n.-d
33.78166193
-1183924366
55818.
14154BD42
34628
47 • f8i25V
VAVE fAulm L7JMIEQLOt1
_ _ _-
TE
-
--
-}043621151
___
48 8[22/1]' 101155
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
LTE
-89 Connected
33.]8140288
-1183923694
55818
141548042
34628
-
61771"1• 10.120
_
HALF maw COW&C[1L89
-
IUE. - - _ _._.
_ -
•WrC4Prte@d
___
33-78334i8l� _._
_-/183"}7@8_
__-
._.. �IB�_-_
__.
I8154BeQ1_ ___... _..
B"a.
50 8/22/17' 10:12:6
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
LTE
-100 Connected
33.78134639
-1183919614
55816
142548042
34628
_ --_
_. 5tWT 10:12:1.
--___._._._ _
IIAYE NO
_- BI4E,CONf.GFtU�
T.._.. _ -. r.-.-_
_i�TE- .___..._.-
_ _
-. __.
_ 33.18 -_...
_-'L)B.IIITS2 _..
_
-_. Sl �� _ _
.7--__._._-
3K48..
52 8/22/1]' 10:t2:i6
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
LTE
-L07 Connected
33.781350]1
-1183915392.
558�1.6
L41548042
34628
_ _S8 •FQ:JZ
INAVH NONTE tIDFIffEt3pN
_ _ T._
_ CTE. 1
___,mow-__-_ -
_
33;78135037 _ _
_.tl'BlDlt®3i -_
_ _ -
_ _-._--
_ _ _
_. _W54�C�.- _ _
34028'.
56 6(22 1]' 10.[2:2'0
HAVE MOBILE CONNE ON
LTE
106 L.....ed
33.78134643
116.3909501
5581E
161548042
34628
SSJ83•DSF23i_HA4E
_
0.1U/NE C'OAIfL1(OM -._
_ _ ____ _
__ _ -.:
J_ _.
-
3s-mtbs®, -
�...._
tFI.7f8E7Ye
.-._
_ �------�
_ _ -
_
--- 340.
5622/1] 10.12:36
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION_
LTE
-LD3 Connected
33.71134647
-1183903589
40456
14628
_ -
5714tim17 ffi:t2;4Q. ._I-:-.N4181L'F.mNIBCtTMN
_-t�_��
_._
Ll 7g - _ - : --
d :Gwsreae/ _ _
_ _
13_7613063}1 -
- _. -
.3L. y}15-[-
�-
- - -_ 1_.
_143236616 --.__
167 J6t _.� _
_ 3x678
58 8/22/17 • 10:12:46
HAVE MO3t1E CONNECTION
LTE
-104 Connected
33.78110633
-1183901297
40456
143236616
34628
59 8/LZ 7 • [Q:t25at
- - _-
HAVE N08122MNIL8t2f041
LM
_
-.. _
_
_ _- tl06R
.. _ -- _
-
_ _ _ 3�(62D.
60 8/22/17 • 10:1256
.HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
LTE
-100 Connettetl
33.7806851
-118.3901583
40456
143236616
34628
61.8 Ilt7•L0.7Pi
,(fgVE NpBW6.G010¢C.tM1]N
_ _LSE _ _
-now" _..
9b.)6063OSL. _....
-11A.6P(874�
__ 4QKf
146086}}4__ _ _-.._
311678
62 8/22/17 • 10:13:6
NAVE MOBILE CONNECOON
LTE
.100.Conne-d
33.78066188
.118.3900624
40656
143236626
34628
7•IO:L3:1F
WefiE CON118LTI61N
-__ ..__.-_---
._
13x0068
_�
-
_ _ _.�... -
.. -_ _ _
..__-_.
3636
54 8/22/1]' 10:13:16
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
LTE
-100 Connected
33.78069524
-1183901045
60656143236616
34628
f51Bf1?/t7 1Q:t3'2/.
141NIF M08TtE C007ACt141,3
LIE
.IDl EenaNte4
lL.7608f�. _
EIIl.39Q6ZAI
�
_ 145361 _
-._ -
66 8[22/17' 10:13.26
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
LTE
400 [nnettetl
3376115993
-118.3901397
40456
143236616.
34628
67�Bf22/t7•IM. 33f
�HA6E M09LE CONNECTION
-L, 1E
iDP.Coa1�e0
_
73.76110
-11fd/BeB87(
-
W1i66FN- __
Mil
68 122/1] • 10:1336
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
LTE
300 Connettetl
33.76137082
118.389983
40456
143236616
34628_
49jBl22/17 ",a
H/NE N698E CONNEL'77ON
iLTE.tOS;Gotmw7e6
_
- 33.7NIS795c. _ _
118.389p#7:
_ 4X656,
143116616 _ . _ _ .
Ran
70 8/22/17 • 10:13:47
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
LTE
109 Connected
33.7813585
-118.3893218
40456
143236616
34628
- - .--_-
/LSE/1Z/[7.1Q:L352
__.__.-_
IN" NONCE COIBCHCIION
-
:LTE ._
..
109lCoNt4![R
-"_ __. -_
33.76129671
..
.416..140/176:
_ __t.
_41M'..
_ _
14373661 ___
-= -
...._
_ UBZe'.
72 8/22/17' 10:13:57
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
LTE
-L10Connected
33.78109221
118.388]909
40456
143236616
34628
-._.. ___
1318/22l1i.18;14:d
_T_____ _._-_T
IlAtst_MOBILE l71NNEETLON
..
176
--_. _
•1LS,iC4MMeQ -
_..___..-_..__ _
iD.?6915tW
___._. _.
-tF83885668 �.
_---.
/OUL�,
___T _ __...-.
1432.16616;
__-
34626
74 6/22/17 • 10:14:7
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
LTE
-112 Connected
33.78089683
-118.38845DS
40656
Ld3236616
M628
15 BRUIT • W-14:L2
LIMS NOBICE CONNECTION
LTE - _ _
-liti£anaMtd
13 78090336 _ _ _ _
_LIN36ld"56�
_ . -
1�33.E5116 . .. _
X628
76 B/22/U• 10:14:17
HAVE MOBILECONNECOON
LTE
.112 onnettetl
33.78090688
-118.388486
40456
143236616
34628
17 ,B/ZZftt•lQM$
IHAt�MONLE CANTIECTION
- _.LTE _
.CLO dnewlTe4 _.
3b_786965�7
-[!8.36!766,'
4015645 j-
316PBi
]8 1/22/17 • LUA --27
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
LTE
113 Connected
33.78116366
-118.386232
40456
_14326816
143236616
34628
_T
79' �lt•[O:I4:R
__ .-._-
_HAYS MONLE[06INERWN
_._ ._... _ _
'LTE_
-- --
-112 JCWURtbed.
__.._ -..-._ _
33.78134388; -_
- ._ _-_.
-tl&IM041
_._-
4QP6i..
___._ -
.14;1366}6]
_
4618'
80 8/22/1710:14:37
.LAVE M081LE CONNECTION
LTE
-L33 Connected
33.78140552
-118.3895197
40456
143236616.
34628
..
91�f1T•[0:14>f2
y1K4E 6dONtF CONlIFRIOfO
__. _ ___._..
ILR
_
[l3 CdtwGTN
13.78139383'
_ _ .
-1 [A39Q0625e
_ _
40456
-142236616!92
42236616!82
-.
8/22/17' 10:14 47
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
LTEl0]
Connettetl
33.78139333
118.3907405
40456
143236616
34628
_ 631RU17•LTU47
iKAWMOBILECONTIECt10Al
ILTE -..
__15.�C4nMeeU
_. 73.RL40M _.
•t7A,i9t26I7;
4(74_56.
tf3230616.. __.
_ 34636
84 8/22/17' 10:14:57
HAVE MOBILE CONN€KION
LTE
-110 Connettetl
33.781389931183917628
40456
143236616
3462_8
@8(2Tt4c67.2
WIVE MODU C018(EC00E1
_.LTE
IV3°C=McWd
33_RUL5791.._ _-
u9joM70i1'
_
_55816_.
415488L11.__
3462&
86 4/22/17' LD:t5:a
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
LTE
108 Connected
33.78141864
-118.39213L7
55818
141566082
36628
_ -_. _ -_
_ 8718/IS(17•IP.IS:t3
._..___.
!mli I1IONIE InNNE(TISRe
._'LTE
--
_ Ctm�
_
3d: 1447. _
_
•��336�.
___ _.. -.
366H(8I
___ __�. .___..
1U54__�2j
88 8/22/17' 10:15:19
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
LTE
110 Connected
33.7814147
-118.3921315
55818
/41548042
34628
89427�327, 10US13
iYAVj NNNILE CONNECnON_
LTL_ _
faSC9nnited _
_39.78UU7 _
_ L1839413F9j-_
- _ _5�
1_41518o4I _
90 8/22/17 • 10:15:28
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
LTE
105 Connected
33.78140661
-118.3922064
55818
141548042
_74628
34628
9118/72 7 1025.33
HAVE Mf1--RICTION
:LTE. .._ ..
:9S{C{�ulectbm._ _
33.7M443Q8_ _
136_7422923}1.
_ 55818 --.._
141548ML
34626:
92 8122/17 ` 10:15:38
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
LTE
100 Connected
33.71_164445_
-118.392338"775"
55818
34628
__. _.. _ _.._
94;8/12/17 10:15:4}
- -
HAVE MOBIL2 CONNECTTOI4
_
;LTE.._._...-. .. _ ._.
_
-1111 CgtmeNM.. _
_
337619312.
_
-f1A3S' t
__
.__ _._ _54818
_141548042
l41 , _- _._
-.- 14628,
94 B/22/17' 10:15:48
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
LTE
-CIO Connected
33.78230478
-118.3923327
55816
14154Bf142
34628
_ __. __.
95,17"12/17•[0:1553
_
- -__.-
HAVE MOBILE [ONNEiT1081
_ _ _ -__.
__. .. - -__-_ r
.LTE .--_.L
._. - - _ _
_. _._ - --
-/17CMnetted
_ __... -
- _..._.
33 )BY547E;
-. - _
_ ..-_.- __
118.39E3A26i.
-_._ -_
_ _50818
L715/8612�._ .
..
31471
96 8/22/17' 10:15:58
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
LTE
-114 Connected
33.78296992
-118.3921484
55818
141548042
34628
-. __. - __ -
9]��Bj12/})•10:163
-.__-_
(NAV" MOBILE 60NNFLTDN
..-- . _ r
'LIE �,-
._.. _ __.. .�
-119 Connected
-_.. __ _..
i8.76268D3p -_
_
_ -._
-11839(86921
---_..
_ 15816
- __ T_ .-__ _ _-..__._..
1415480421
____-.
346$8
96 8/22/17' tO:16:8
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
LEE
-I19 Cnnnett d
33.78338709
118.391892
-__
55818
141548042
34628
_ 9918`2.[17' [0.16:13
_HAVE. MUHIt1 CUNftCTWA
,LTE - _ ;
_113 Cwmec-
_
13.783951"I
-13B39t8E6J
_
_Sfi62__"i''
1N548pMI� _.
_
100 8/22/17' 10:16:18
HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION
LTE
113 CSnnected
33.78333320
118.3918777
55825
_
141548049
_34626
34628
D-219
Appendix B — Technical Considerations for Small Cell Wireless Networks
TITUOUTE am
This Small Cell Wireless Network is designed to augment and supplement existing AT&T
wireless communications in Rancho Palos Verdes. On the whole, Crown Castle seeks to install
dozens of these small cell antenna sites throughout the City in the public right of way. On the
whole, these antenna sites will typically be no higher than 17 feet (based on other City
ordinances) with two directional antennas to optimize coverage in a several hundred foot area
radius.
Antenna
Crown Castle proposes a tri band Amphenol CUUX045X06F0000 antenna which has the
following pattern of RF radiation in the horizontal plane (Azimuth) (see Exhibit I below). Each
color represents the radiation for the various bands with the 0 direction pointing directly to the
highest radiation level. Thus, in these directional antennas, while it is represented as a 65
degree beamwidth (30 degrees on either side of the 0, from 330 to 30 degrees), there is still
plenty of signal (almost half as much) nearby in the fields even 60 degrees on either side of the
0.
Exhibit I- RIF Pattern Radiation Strength for Arnphenol CUUX045X06F0000
Homer" 1 696-7" W -1a 1-0f7zol*Ai 790-W MHz No -%o MHz
1695-2700 MHIZ (YI & YDS
r\ f V
D-220
Specific RF Use and FCC License Information
In Rancho Palos Verdes (and throughout Southern California) AT&T operates on three major
frequency bands: 700 MHz, broadband PCS (Personal Communications Service), and AWS
(Advanced Wireless Services). Specifically, in the 700 MHz band they are using 704 MHz -710
MHz and 734 MHz -740 MHz (FCC License callsign WQ1Q721) and 710-716 MHz and 740-746
MHz (FCC License callsign WPWU990). In the PCS band, AT&T uses 1865-1870 MHz and 1945-
1950 MHz (FCC License callsign KNLG472) and 1870-1885 MHz and 1950-1965 MHz (FCC
callsigns KNLF205 and WQHT993). For the AWS broadband service, AT&T operates at 1710-
1720 MHz and 2110-2120 MHz (FCC callsign WQGA742).
Signal Strength Information and Measurement
Typically, radio service is measured by Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP). It is measured
in dBm (which is a negative number so that -75 dBm is a very strong signal and -110 dBm is a
very weak signal). AT&T's target for acceptable signal is -95 dBm and that signal strength should
provide good coverage including some acceptable in -building connectivity. Our expectation for
reliable coverage in outdoor environment is to measure a RSRP of >_ -105 dBm.
D-221
pr
t `'
4W.
of .' !,,'+ }'� : �4 "}; a `i j - �• . . II
Av
�� �r v , � � � � , �� +��IN
;.'� •yam � r ,•, j � F �
-��•C...af • 4'��;,1' � '•+ �.. 1` ��' '+ ` � �i. `fir aQ s F
j
XL
il►^l+�`,"`
e. {..�
,yew , 9 .i * y.. � i '�� � r y *��.M� � � Rs �fjS. !• r V jr �.
16
� .�. `.�� • � ♦�•� -_aft ,1 *` _► �� � '�� '� • � s
1070
10675
1065
10625
1060
1057.5
1055
,0
10525
' 1050
1047.5
a
1045
Q 10425
1040
a 1037.5
1035
1032.5
1030
1070
1067.5
1065
1062.5
1060
1057.5
1055
1052.5
1050
1047.5
1045
1042.5
1040
1037.5
1035
1032.5
1030
From Proposed Antenna Site to TP 1
1070
10675
1065
10625
10600
1057.5.
1055
1052.5
1050
1ID4 7 5
1045
1042.5
1040
1037-5
1035
1032.5
1030
Range on path (Worneters)
From Proposed Antenna Site to TP 2
0020.04 006O.D3 01 0120.14 0.160.18 0.2 0.220.24 0.26023 03
Rance on Path (Uometers)
1070
1067.5
1065
1062.5
1060
1057.5
1055
1052.5
1050
1047.5
1045
10425
1040
1037.5
1035
10325
1030
D-223
.1120
1115
1110
1105
1100
Z
> 1095
logo
1085
1080
1075
1070
1065
1060
1055
1050
MEMIN
1160
"WIF,
A.-
1140
1130
v
>
1.120
41
a 1110
us 1100
It 1090
1030
1070
1060
10 50
1040
From Proposed Antenna Site to TP 3
AST53
0.01 0-02 0.03 0,04 0-05 0.06 6.07 0 08 0 09 0-1 011 0.12
Range on Path (kilotern)
From Proposed Antenna Site to TP 4
Range an path (Wom&ters)
1120
1115
1110
1105
1100-
1095 >
1090
1085
1080
1075 >
14700
1065
1060
1055
1050
1045
1160
1150
1140
1130
1220 >
1110",
1100
1090
0
1080
1070-
1060
1050 �
1040
D-224
Crown Castle NG West LLC
Site-Specific
e . p Alternative
.a :. Analysis
: Narrative
s r .
o -1
6456803.1
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com
D-225
City's Design and Development Standards require that wireless telecommunications facilities
(" F") located in the public right-of-way ("ROW") are designed to minimize visual, noise and
other impacts on the surrounding community.
a) The Applicant shall employ screening, a ndergr®unding and camouflage design
techniques in the placement of WTF in order to.-
j,)
oa
j,) To ensure that the facility is as visually screened as possible ...
Crown Castle employs screening by taping advantage of existing foliage, natural
and man-made elements in and around the public ROW, to the maximum extent
feasible. The Small Cell Node ("SCN") is a collocation on an existing utility
streetlight pole, with mast arm and luminaire. There is an existing 6 -foot tall
masonry wall and foliage that screen the SCN from the nearest adjacent
property, 6504 Monero Druce. Foliage to the north in the fora of saplings will
eventually grow to screen the SCN, and the other existing utility streetlight poles
that run along the west side of tranvia Altaimira. All four properties, on all four
corners of the intersection of Moreno ®rive and tranvia Altamira, have large
mature foliage that visually screens the SCN.
At present, Crown Castle is proposing a joint utility cabinet (22.5 inches wide by
12.5 inches deep by 59.1 inches tall) that would house both Crown Castle's
accessory equipment and Southern California Edison's ("SCE") meter pedestal.
The rationale for this is:
1) SCE requires that its pedestal be place above ground, so there will, by
necessity, be above -ground street furniture, regardless of any
undergrounding of other equipment;
2) if Crown Castle undergrounded its accessory equipment, it would result in
1 Notwithstanding the presentation of this site-specific alternatives analysis pursuant to Chapter 12.18
of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, Crown Castle reserves its rights to challenge any
portion of the City's requirements under Chapter 12.18 to the extent that such requirements violate
state and/or federal law, including, but not limited to, Public Utilities Code sections 7001 and 7901.1
and section 253 of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1906.
The Foundation for a wireless world.
64668031 CrownCastle.com D-226
multiple above ground venting stacks, each approximately 22 inches in
diameter, and approximately 40 inches off the ground. Accordingly,
undergrounding does not necessarily result in the hest screening measure.
3) lnstead of three (3) new vertical elements in the ROW involved with vaulting,
Crown Castle's proposal would introduce only one new above -ground
element.
4) Although RPVC Section 12.18-080 (A)(6)(b) calls for undergrounding of all
equipment, other than antennas, the City needs to male the final
determination as to whether Crown Castle's joint utility cabinet constitutes
the least visible equipment "possible."
ii) To prevent the facility from dominating the surrounding area ...
Crown Castle's SCN does not dominate the surrounding area because it is
attached to an existing vertical element (an existing 53 -foot tall utility streetlight
pole) in the ROW. The top of Crown Castle's antennas mould be at a height of
22 -feet 6 -inches. Crown Castle is proposing to attach to one of the many
existing utility streetlight poles that line the west side of tranvia Altamira.
Crown Castle's node does not dominate the surrounding area because it is
attached to an existing vertical element (an existing utility streetlight pole) in the
ROW. Crown Castle is proposing to attach to one of the many existing utility
streetlight poles that line the north side of Montemalaga Drive. By utilizing an
existing streetlight pole, Crown Castle's facility minimizes the potential for
additional visual intrusion.
iii) To minimize significant vier impacts from surrounding properties...
The location of Crown Castle's facility, on an existing utility streetlight pole,
minimizes significant view impacts from surrounding areas. Crown Castle's SCN
would not increase the height of the existing pole, nor would it significantly impair
any existing views. An existing 6 -foot tall privacy, masonry wall adjacent to the
SCN and mature foliage on all four corners of the intersection of Moreno Drive
and tranvia Altamira provides screening from view impacts to surrounding
properties. Notably, the facility qualifies for a Mass Three CEQA exemption,
which confirms that the facility will have no significant aesthetic impacts.
iv) That achieves compatibility with the community and in compliance with RPVMC
Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and restoration).
F0.11 I`NO.! ' : ffi / '� r
The Foundation for a wireless world.
6456803.1 CrownCastle.com
D-227
surrounding residential parcels. The preservation of views is to be accomplished
through the pruning and removal of foliage. There are several reasons why
RPVMC Section 17.02.040 is inapplicable to Crown Castle's proposed facilities:
1) First, Crown Castle's facilities are exclusively located within the ROW. As
such, this ordinance is inapplicable because Crown Castle's facilities are not
located in a residential zone and do not otherwise involve residential properties,
uses or parcels.
2) Crown Castle has a certificate of public convenience and necessary
"CPCN") which grants it a statewide franchise to occupy and place its facilities
within the ROW. Local zoning requirements are therefore inapplicable. Local
regulatory authority is limited to the time, place and manner in which a wireless
facility may be erected or attached. This ordinance is inapplicable because
residential design standards, on residential parcels, and their visual impacts on
surrounding residences does not easily, nor rationally, translate into proper or
meaningful regulation of wireless telecommunication utility uses within the ROW.
3) Section 17.02.040(A)(12) of l PVMC defines "Structure" as anything joined together in a
definitive manner, which is located on or on top of the ground on a parcel of land
utilized for residential purposes, excluding antennas... and similar structures not
involving the construction of habitable area. This ordinance is inapplicable because
Crown Castle's facilities are not habitable, they are not located on residential parcels,
and they are not used for residential purposes. Crown Castle's ROW based facilities
do not involve residential land in any forma or fashion. Moreover, "antennas" are
specifically excluded from consideration under this ordinance.
To the extent that RPVMC Section 17.02.040 (View preservation and Restoration) can
be found to be applicable to the siting of wireless facilities in the ROW (it cannot),
Crown Castle's nodes achieve compatibility with the surrounding community by being
designed to minimize visual, noise and other impacts.
b) Screening shall be designed to be architectural compatible with surrounding structure,
using appropriate techniques to camouflage, disguise, and/or blued into the
environment, including landscaping, color, and other techniques to minimize the
facilities visual impact as well as be compatible with .the architectural character of the
surrounding .buildings or structures in terms of color, size, proportion, style and quality.
Crown Castle's SCN is architecturally compatible with surrounding structures because it
is attached to one of many existing utility streetlight poles, strung along the west side of
Granvia Altamira. The proposed Crown Castle node is small in size, especially when
compared to the scale of the 52 -foot tall existing utility infrastructure on which it is
The Foundation for a Wireless World..
64568003.1 CrownCastle.com D-228
attached. Crown Castle's SCN blends into the environment with minimum visual
impacts because it will use non -reflective paint that will match the utility street light pole
and thus camouflage it. Mature foliage on all four corners of Moreno Drive and tranvia
Altamira screen the SCN from nearby residential uses. Moreover, the proposed facility
is located in the ROW — an area in the City already impacted with roadway
improvements, sidewalks, utilities and other uses and appurtenances typical of ® and
proper to ® the ROW.
c) Facilities shall be located such that viers from a residential structure are not
significantly impaired. Facilities shall also be located in a manner that protects public
views over city view corridors, as defined in the City's general plan, so that no
significant view impairment resultsin accordance with this Code including Section
a a. 02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration).
Section 17,02.040(A)(14) of RPVMC defines View as including both a "near view99,
meaning views of a natural setting on the peninsula; and/or "far view" defined as a
scene off the peninsula, such as the ocean, city lights, etc. The ordinance intends to
prevent the significant impairment of views and the maintenance of privacy.
There are no designated city view corridors in the area, as defined in the City's general
plan. Monero ®rive is classified as a local street, while tranvia Altamira is designated
as a non -local, collector street within the Circulation Element of the RPV General Plan.
tranvia Altamira is characterized by a line of existing utility street light poles aloe the
west side of the road, with foliage in various stages of maturing. Crown Castle's SCN
does not significantly impair dews because it is located on existing utility infrastructure,
and is visually screened by foliage from residential structures. A 6 -foot tall privacy
fence immediately adjacent to the west and foliage on all four comers of Moreno Drive
and tranvia Altamira screen the SCN.
Finally, the proposed facility has received a Class Three CEQA exemption which
definitively ecblis proposed will not give risetosignificant
'-_ vi o) I 1C c • impacts, aestheticVia`
r °E3i; " i,
All facilities shall be designed and located in such a manner as to avoid .adverse impacts on
traffic safety.
Fhe Crown i. SCN is designed .o attach to an existing tib etlig pole. The
bottom of Crown Castle's antenna would eighteen feet eight inches. The SCN meets
ihe minimum height clearance requirements for street lights (16 feet, six inches) as
defined in RPVMC Section 12.18.080 (A)(6)(d). Crown Castle's SCN therefore should
not adversely impact
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
6456863.1 CrownCastle.com D-229
All facilities shall have subdued colors and non -reflective materials that blend with the
materials, and colors of the surrounding area and structures.
Crown Castle's SCN blends into the surrounding area and structures because it uses existing
vertical infrastructure in the ROW, an existing utility streetlight pole. The SON will use
subdued, non -reflective paint that will match the utility street light pole thus further blending
and camouflaging the facility.
12016°060 JA)(5) Eglient
The applicant shall use the least visible equipment possible. Antenna elements shall be flush
mounted, to the extent feasible. All antenna mounts shall be designed so as not to preclude
possible future collocation by the same or other operators or carriers. Unless otherwise
provided in this section, antennas shall be situated as close to the ground as possible.
Crown Castle's two (2) 24 -inch antennas would be mounted back-to-back on a four -foot mast
arm, extending from the existing wood utility street light pole. The antennas would be placed
at a maximum height of 22 feet, 6 inches, meaning the bottom of the antennas would be at
20 feet, 0 inches. This configuration complies with public Utilities Commission ("PUC"
health and safety regulations, such as General Order 95. The SCN height was determined
by evaluating the amount of available space in the common area of the telecommunication
zone on this Joint Pole Authority (" JPA") pole, and compliance with lel VMC Section
32.18.080 (A)(6)(d) that requires a minimum height of 10 feet, 6 inches for street light poles.
Crown Castle's SCN is therefore situated as close to the ground as possible.
120160060 4A9j6j Poles
a. Facilities shall be located consistent with Section 22.1.200(Location Restrictions)
unless an exception pursuant to Section 12.18.190 (Exceptions) is granted.
RPVMC Section 12.18.200 (Location Restrictions) strongly disfavors wireless facilities �n A)
ROW local streets as identified in the general plan if within the residential zones; and B)
ROW if mounted to a new pole that is not replacing an existing pole in an otherwise permittec
location. Crown Castle's SCN is consistent with this ordinance because it is proposed to be
located on an existing utility street light pole on a non -local street, Granvia Altamira.
Therefore, Crown Castle's SCN is consistent RPVMC Section 12.18.200(Location
Restrictions).
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
64 6803.1 CrownCastle.com D-230
b. Only pole -mounted antennas shall be permitted in the fight -of -way. All other
telecommunications towers are prohibited, and no new poles are permitted that are not
replacing an existing pole. (Por exceptions see subparagraph (6)(h) below and sections
12.18.190 (Exceptions) and 12.18.220 (State or;Federal Law).)
Crown Castle's SCN is located in the ROW and is pole -mounted to an existing utility street
light pole.
C. Utility Poles. The maximum height of any antenna shall not exceed 48 inches above
the height of are existing utility pole, seer shall any portion of the antenna or equipment
mounted on a pole be/ess than 24 feet above any drivable road surface. All installations
on utility poles shall filly comply with the California Public Utilities Commission general
orders, including, but not limited to, General Order 95, as may be revised or superseded.
Grown Castle's SCN is located in the ROW and is pole mounted to an existing utility street
light pole.
d. Light Poles. The maximum height of any antenna shall not exceed four feet above
the existing height of a light pole. Any portion of the antenna or equipment mounted on a
pole shall be no less than 16% feet above any drivable road surface.
Crown Castle's SCN is located in the ROW and is pole mounted to an existing utility street
light pole at a minimum height of 20 feet, 6 inches. The facility does not extend above the
existing pole.
e. Replacement Poles. If are applicant proposes to replace a pole in order to
accommodate a proposed facility, the pole shall be designed to resemble the appearance
and dimensions of existing poles near the proposed location, including size, height, color,
materials and style to the maximum extent feasible.
Crown Castle's SCN is mounted to ars existing utility street light pole. No replacement pole
is required.
f. Pole mounted equipment, exclusive of antennas, shall not exceed six cubic feet in
dimension.
6456803.1
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com
D-231
Crown Castle's pole mounted equipment, excluding antennas, would be limited to cabling
connecting the node to power and fiber optic backbone, connectors, brackets, and GPS.
.rf,i,�equipment,�i
.� tmounted �
excluding g `I enas. would therefore f1CiJt exceed
six cubic feet in dimension.
h. An exception shall be regained to place a neve pole in the public right-of-way. If an
exception is granted for placement of neve poles in the fight -of -way:
Crown Castle's SCN is mounted to an existing utility street light pole on a non—local,
collector street, tranvia Altamira. No exception is required
i. All cables, including, but not limited to, electrical and utility cables, shell be run
within the interior of the pole and shall be camouflaged or hidden to the fullest extent
feasible. For all wooden poles wherein interior installation is infeasible, condo t and cables
attached to the exterior of poles shell be mounted flush thereto and painted to match the
pole.
Crown Castle's SCN is mounted to an existing wood pole therefore interior installation of
cabling is infeasible. Crown Castle's conduit and cabling is to be flush mounted and
painted to match the pole.
12J8.080 (A)(7) Space.
Each facility shall be designed to occupy the least amount of space in the fight -of -way that
is technically feasible.
Crown Castle's SCIS is mounted to an existing Futility street light pole. A joint utility cabinet
(22.5 inches wide by 12.6 inches deep by 59.1 inches tall) is being proposed to house SCE
power meter pedestal and Crown Castle's accessory equipment. This configuration would
take up less space in the ROW than complying with RPVMC Section 12.18.080 (A)(6)(b) that
requiresunderrgrouning of all equipment, other thanantennas. The City needs to make the
final determination as to whether Co Castle's joint uility cabinet co sfitutes the
least
amount of space in the ROW that is technically feasible.
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
6456803.1 CrownCastle.corn D-232
12018.080 JA)() Wind Loads
Each facility shad be properly engineered to withstand wind loads as required by this code
or any duly adopted or incorporated code. An evaluation of high wind load capacity shall
include the impact of modification of an existing facility.
Crown Castle has submr ted wind loading capacity calculations as required by code. Please
see Exhibit F7.
12.18.080 (A)(9) Obstructions.
Each component part of a facility shall be locate' so as not to carcase any physical or visual
obstruction to pedestrian or vehicular traffic, incommode the public's nese of the fight -of -way,
or safety hazards to pedestrians and motorists and in compliance with Section 17.48.0 70
(Intersection Visibility) so as not to obstruct the intersection visibility triangle.
PPVMC Section 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility) discusses restrictions on various structures
and landscaping (>30 inches) on corner lots near intersections for sight visibility reasons. The
ordinance states that these items shall not be erected, placed, pleated or allowed to grow
within the triangular space referred to as the "intersection visibility triangle." The intersection
visibility triangle being the area formed by the intersection of extended curblines and a line
joining points on the curb sixty feet (measured along the curblines) from the point of
intersection of the curbline extensions.
Crown Castle's SCN is located within 60 -feet of an intersection of Monero Drive and Granvia
Altamira. Crown Castle's joint utility cabinet (59.1 -inches tall) would be located approximately
50 -feet from the northwest corner of the intersection of Monero Drive and tranvia Altamira but
would be screened by intervening utility infrastructure (poles and guy wires) and foliage.
12.18.090 (A)(10) Public Facilities.
A facility shall not be located within any portion of the public right-of-way interfering with
access to a fire hydrant, fire station, fire escape, water valve, underground vauit, valve
housirng structure, or any other public health or safety facility.
Crown Castle's node is located on an existing utility street light pole. Crown Castle's
accessory equipment cabinet (22.5 inches wide by 12.6 inches deep by 59.1 inches tall)
would not interfere with any fire, water facilities or any other public health or safety facility
including underground vaults.
The Foundation for a wireless World.
6456803.1 CrownCastle.com D-233
12.18.080 (10111) Screeni
All ground-mounted facility, pole-mounted equipment, or walls, fences, landscaping or other
screening methods shall be installed at least 18 inches from the curb and gutter flew line.
Crown Castle's node has no pole -mounted equipment, excluding antennas, cabling,
connectors and brackets. Crown Castle's accessory equipment cabinet (22.5 inches Wide
by 12.6 inches deep by 59.1 inches tall) will be set back at least 18 inches from the curb
and gutter blow line.
Accessory Equipment. Not including the electric meter, all accessory equipment shall be
located underground, except as provided below:
a. finless city staff determines that there is no room in the public right-of-way for
a ndergrounding, ®r that undergrounding is not feasible, an exception smelt be required in
order to place accessory equipment above -ground and concealed with natural or
manmade features to the maximum extent possible.
Per Section 12.18.080(A)(12)(a) Crown Castle needs an exception because its accessory
equipment is not being proposed underground. Crown Castle has undergrounded to the
extent feasible all accessory equipment, With the exception of the joint utility equipment cabinet
that would house Crean Castle's accessory equipment and SCE electric Meter pedestal.
Per Section 12.18.190, Exceptions, The Planning Commission shall not grant any
exception unless Crown Castle demonstrates With clear and convincing evidence that:
The proposed liwireless facility Qualifies as a 'personal wireless services
facility" as d fined n United :Mates Cede, Title 47, section 332(c)(7)(C)(ii),
Crown Castle holds a certificate of public convenience and necessity
("CPCN") from the California Public Utilities Commission ("CPUC") to expand
the, availa:biilty of wireless networks throughout the State. Please see Exhibit
D1b. Crown Castle's SC'N qualifies as "personal wireless services facility" as
defined in United Mates Ocie, Title 47, section a 32(c)(7);C); s;;
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
6456003.1 CrownCastle.com D-234
2. The applicant has provided the city with a clearly defined technicaservice
objective an,d a clearly defined potential site search area;
Crown Castle has provided clearly defined technical service objective and a
clearly defined potential site search area. Please See Exhibits C3a-e.
3. The applicant has provided the city iwith a meaningful comparative analysis
that includes thefactual reasons why any altern ative location(s) or design(S-)
suggested by the city or otherwise identified in the administrative record,
includin, g but not limited to potential alternatives identified at any public
meeting or hearing, are not technically feasible or potentially available; and
With this site specific comparative analysis, Crown Castle is providing the
,City with meaningful comparative analysis that includes the factual reasons
why the Primary location is superior to the other Alternatives evaluated. The
Primary is superior to other Alternatives because it provides better RF
coverage and capacity, and because it is less visually impactful to
surrounding properties and the community.
4. The applicant has provided the city with a meaningful comparative analysis
that inchides the factual reasons why the proposed location and design
deviates is the least non, compliant location and design, necessary to
reasonably achieve the applicant's reasonable technical service objectives
With this site specific comparative analysis, Crown Castle is providing the
City with m-eaningful comparative analysis that includes the -factual reasons
why the Primary location is the most compHant location and design necessary
to reasonably achieve Crown Castle's reasonable technical service
objectives.
Crown Castle is proposing an above -ground, joint equipment cabinet to house
both Crown Castle's accessory equipment and SCE's electric power meter
pedestal. Although the ordinance calls for undergrounding all accessory
equipment, Crown Castle believes that its joint equipment cabinet represents the
least noncompliant location -and design with a joint utility cabinet there would
only be one new vertical element. If vaulting is required, there will be two vents,
each approximately 22 -inches in diameter, and 40 -inches in height, in addition to
the SCE's 48 -inch tall electric meter pedestal.
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
6456803.1 CrownCastle.com D-235
b. When above=ground is the only feasible location for a particular type of accessory
equipment and will be ground -mounted, such accessory equipment shall be enclosed
within a structure, and shall not exceed a height of five foot and a total footprint of 15
square feet, and shall be fully screened andl°or camouflaged, including the use of
landscaping, architectural treatment, or acceptable .alternate screening. Required
electrical meter cabinets shall be screened and/or camouflaged. Also, while pole -mounted
equipment is generally the least favored installation, should pole -mounted equipment be
sought, It shall be installed as required In this chapter.
With dimensions of 22.5 inches wide by 12.6 inches deep by 59.1 inches tali, Crown
Castle's joint utility cabinet would be Mess than the five-foot height and a total footprint of 15
square -feet allowable under this RPVMC Section 12.18.080 (A)(1 2)(b).
C. In locations where homes are only along one side of a street, above -ground
accessory equipment shall not be installed directly In front of a residence. Such above-
ground accessory equipment shall be installed along the side of the street with no homes.
Unless said location is located within the coastal setback or the landslide moratorium
area, then such locations shall be referred to the city's geotechnical staff for review and
recommendations.
Crown Castle's SCN is installed on a non local, collector street, tranvia Altamira. There
aro no homes in the area with direct access to tranvia Altamira; therefore, the SCN would
not be installed directly in front of a residence. Nearby homes are screened from viewing
Crown Castle's utility cabinet by a 6 -foot tall masonry, privacy wall and by foliage. Placing
the joint utility cabinet on the west side of tranvia Altamira Drive is consistent with the utility
character of that side of the strut, and the cabinet would not significantly impact views from
surrounding properties.
12.18.080 (19(13) Landscaping.
Where appropriate, each facility shall be installed so as to maintain and enhance existing
landscaping on the site, including trees, foliage and shrubs. Additional landscaping shall be
planted, irrigated and maintained by applicant where such landscaping is deemed
necessary by the city to provide screening or to conceal the facility.
Crown Castle's SCN does not presently include 'landscaping. This portion of tranvia
Altamira is characterized by a line of 2 -foot tall utility street light poles strung along the
west side of the road. The placement of a vault or a joint utility cabinet would require the
removal of one of the saplings along the west side of tranvia Altamira. if the City desires
landscaping around Crown Castle's proposed joint utility cabinet, Crown Castle would be
The Foundation for a Wireless world.
6456803.1 CrownCastle.com D-236
willing to work with the City's landscape architect or other knowledgeable staff or
consultant.
12.1 .080 (A)(14) Signage.
No facility shall bear any signs or advertising devices other than certification, warning or
other signage required by law or permnitted by the city.
a. No facility may be illuminated unless specifically required by the Federal Aviation
Administration or other government agency. Beacon lights are not permitted .unless
required by the Federal Aviation Administration or other government agency.
Crown Castle's SCN does not include any such illumination.
h. Legally required lightning arresters and beacons shall be included when calculating
the height of facilities such as towers, lattice towers and monopoles.
Crown Castle's SCN does not include lightning arresters and beacons that would increase
the height of the utility street light polo to which it is attached.
C. Any required lighting shall he shielded to eliminate, to the maximum extent possible,
impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods.
Any Crown Castle SCN lighting would be shielded by existing foliage. The adjacent 6 -foot
tall masonry privacy wall would assist in minimizing any potential impacts on the
surrounding neighborhood to the maximum extent possible.
d. Unless otherwise required under FAA or FCC regulations, applicants mrnay install
only timed ,or motion sensitive light controllers and lights, and mast install such lights so
as to avoid illumination impacts to adjacent properties to the maximum extent feasible.
Any Crown Castle's SCN lighting would only include trod or motion -sensitive light
controllers and lights, so as to avoid illumination impacts to adjacent properties to the
maximum extent fusible.
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
64568003.1 CrownCastle.com D-237
e. The applicant shall submit a lighting study which shall be prepared by a g&aalified
lighting professional to evaluate potential impacts to adjacent properties. Should no
lighting be proposed, no lighting study shall be required.
Crown Castle is not proposing any permanent lighting.
12.18.080,,[A)(16) Noise.
a. Backup generators shall only be operated during periods of power outages, and
shall not be tested on weekends or holidays, or between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and
7:00 a.m.
Crown Castle SCN would not operate any backup generators outside City prescribed time
restrictions.
b. At no time shall equipment noise from any facility exceed an exterior noise level of
55 dBA three feet from the source of the noise if the facility is located in the public
fight -of -way adjacent to a business, commercial, manufacturing, utility or school
zone; provided, however, that for any such facility located within 500 .feet of any
property zoned residential or improved with a residential use, such equipment noise
shall not exceed 45 dBA three feet from the sources of the noise.
Crown Castle's SCIS is within 500 -feet of residential uses. Crown Castle has supplied a
Noise Study verifying that the node would comply with City noise standards. See Exhibit
J1a.
12.18.080 (A)(17) Security
Each facility shall be designed to be resistant to, and minimize opportunities for,
unauthorized access, climbing, vandalism, graffiti and other conditions that would result in
hazardous situations, visual blight or attractive nuisances. The director may require the
provision of warning signs, fencing, anti -climbing devices, or other techniques to prevent
unauthorized access and vandalism when, because of their location andlor accessibility, a
facility has the potential to become an attractive nuisance. Additionally, no lethal deuces or
elements shall be installed as a security device.
Crown Castle's SCN does not have pole mounted equipment that is reachable by the
general public, nor is that equipment readily available for climbing or vandalism. Crown
Castle's joint utility accessory equipment cabinet is 22.5 inches wide by 12.6 inches deep
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
64568003.1 CrownCastle.com D-238
by 59.1 inches tall. This cabinet is similar in size to countless other utility cabinet located in
the ROW. There is no reason to believe that the proposed joint utility cabinet would attract
any more vandalism than any other utility cabinet. Crown Castle will use anti -vandalism
techniques such as anti -graffiti paint to discourage tagging and other nuisance property
crime.
12.18.080 (A)(18) Modification.
Consistent with current ent state and federal laws and if permissible under the same, at the time
of modification of a wireless telecommunications facility, existing equipment shall, to the
extent feasible, be ,replaced with equipment that reduces visual, noise and other impacts,
including, but not limited to, undergrounding the equipment and replacing larger, more
visually intrusive facilities with .smaller, less visually intrusive facilities.
Crown Castle's SCN represents the latest in small cell wireless technology. As such,
Crown Castle's SCN uses the smallest equipment feasible to reduce visual, noise and
other impacts. Currently, there is no wireless equipment on the existing utility street light
pole that needs modification.
No permit shall be granted for a wireless telecommunications facility sinless all of the
following findings .are made by the director.,
A. Ali notices required for the proposed installation have been given.
Crown Castle has or will provide all required notices for its proposed node.
B. The proposed facility has leen designed and located in compliance with all
applicable provisions of this chapter.
Crown Castle's SCN is designed to use existing utility infrastructure and is located on
a collector street, tranvia Altamira. Crown Castle's SCN is in compliance with all
applicable provisions of this chapter, with the exception of the Crown Castle/SCE joint
utility cabinet. While RPVMC Section 12.18.080 (A)(6)(b) calls for the undergrounding
all accessory equipment, RPVMC Section 12.18.080 (A)(5) and RPVMC Section
12.18.080 (A)(7) call for using the least visible equipment and the least amount of
space within the ROW. gown Castle believes one new vertical element is better than
three new vertical elements in regard to taking up less space in the ROW and creating
The Foundation for a Wireless World,
6456803.1 CrownCastle.com D-239
visual impacts. Thedetermination is ultimately up to the City to decide which of the
two configurations is ,preferred.
C, if applicable, the applicant has demonstrate' its inability to locate on existing
infrastructure.
Crown Castle's SCN is located on existing infrastructure, an existing utility street light
pole.
D. The applicant has provided sufficient evidence supporting the applicant's claim that
it has the right to enter the public right-of-way pursuant to state or federal law, or the
applicant has entered into a franchise agreement with the city permitting there to
use the public right-of-way.
Crown Castle has provided a copy of its certificate of public convenience and necessity
("CPCN„). See Exhibit ®1b. Grown Castle has entered into a franchise agreement
with the City permitting use of the ROW and infrastructure therein. See Exhibit ®la.
Crown Castle has provided sufficient evidence that it has the right to enter the ROW
pursuant to state and federal law, as well as by executed agreement with the City.
E. The applicant has demonstrated the proposed installation is designed such that the
proposed installation represents the least intrusive means possible and supported
by factual evidence and a meaningful comparative analysis to show that all
alternative locations and designs identified in the application review process were
technically infeasible or not available.
Crown Castle can demonstrate that the proposed facility is the least intrusive means possible.
Supported by factual evidence and a meaningful comparative analysis Crown Castle can show
that all alternative locations and designs identified in the application review process were
technically infeasible, inferior to the Primary or unavailable.
Fortunately for Crown Castle and the City all of the candidates (Primary and Alternative
locations), with the exception of collocating on the nearest existing wireless telecommunication
facility, would satisfy the RF coverage objective. Consequently, the foes is not be on whether
a particular Alternative Location would technically provide coverage, but instead on what
location and design makes the most sense given the values of this community. Moreover,
federal telecommunications case law unequivocally establishes that municipalities cannot
regulate in the area of RF broadcasting. (See, e.g., Freeman v. Burlington broadcasters, Inc.,
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
6456803.1 CrownCastle.com D-240
(2d Cir. 2000) 204 F.3d 311.) They have done so in the context of reviewing ordinances like
the City's WTF ordinance, and found that that "Congress intended the FCC to possess
exclusive authority over technical matters related to radio broadcasting" and that "Congress's
grant of authority to the FCC was intended to he exclusive and to preempt local regulation."
(Id. at 320-21; accord Southwestern Bell fireless Inc. v. Johnson County Bd. of County
C®rnm'rs (10th Cir. 1999) 190 F,3d 1135, 1193 [same principle cited]; N.Y SMSA Ltd. Pshio
v. Town of Clarkstown (2nd Cir. 2010) 512 F.3d 97 ["Congress intended federal regulation of
[radio frequency interference] issues to be so pervasive as to occupy the field."]; Bennett v. T
Mobile United States, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2005) 597 F. Cupp. 2d 1050, 1053 [same principle
cited].). Crown Castle reserves its rights to challenge those portions of the City's WTF
ordinance and application that purport to regulate Crown Castle's facilities on the basis of RF
coverage objectives.
Crown Castle believes the existing built environment along tranvia Altamira which includes a
row of wood utility light poles with mast arms loaded with primary power lines,
telecommunication and cable equipment. The Primary benefits from existing foliage, such as
mature trees in the front yards of adjacent residential lots that ensure that the facility is as
visually screened as practicable. These existing screening features, plus the use of an
existing vertical element, prevent the Primary from dominating the surrounding area, while
minimizing any significant impacts that the proposed facility would have on surrounding
properties.
Alternative Location 1 (Location ) Existing Wood Utility Street Light Pole with Mast
Arm./Luminaire. Fleets RF Coverage Objective
This alternative is located approximately 375 -feet south of the Primary on a wood utility street
light pole. This pole is located across Monero Drive, on the same line of utility pole street
lights that are strung along the west side of tranvia Altarnira. This location has many of the
same pros and coins as the Primary. Both enjoy placement on a non -local street, adjacent to
5 -foot tali privacy walls and fences. Alternative 1 could be considered a superior iocation
from a visibility perspective because it is further from the intersection of Monero Drive and
tranvia Altamira. The Primary provides better coverage along Monero Drive. Alternative 1
is screened by foliage, man-made and natural features. It sloes not have significant view
i3 npacts on surrounding properties
The Foundation for a wireless World.
6456803.1 CrownCas'tle.com
D-241
„
Meets RF Coverage Objective
This alternative is located within the Monero'Drive ROW, on a replacement pole for an
existing traffic/stop sign pole, approximately 84 -feet south of the Primary. This location is
inFerior to the Primary because it is lel or a local street, MonerJrive. This it°t?r
would require the replacement of the existing traffic sign (stop sign) .pole with a larger pole,
Although Alternative 2 would achieve the RF coverage objective, the location of the SCT in
front of nearby residences makes it an inferior location.
Meets RF Coverage Objective
Alternative 3 is located within the tranvia AOtarnira 'ROW, diagonally across the intersection
of Monero Drive and tranvia Altamira, on a replacement pole for an existing tragic sign (stop
sign) pole. This location, approximately 140 -feet east of the Primary, is interior to the
Primary because it would require the replacement of the existing traffic sign (stop sign) pole
with a larger pole. Although Alternative would achieve the PAF coverage objective, the
location of the SCN in front of nearby residences makes it an inferior location.
O zs 1
Crown Castle has presented a PrimarythreeAlternatives ti,.
screeningRF coverage objective. Crown Castle has provided analysis that demonstrates it is using thi;-
"least intrusive means” to achieve its RF objective by using minimally sized small cell
technology and equipment, minimum antenna heights, use of existing vertical infrastructure
and in the ROW, conform to the maximum extent possible with
community values as expressed in the City's design and development standards. Crown
Castle would be willing
o accept whi.nva one e oh o u ,: (4) viable candidates that
the City
determines be the most conforming to the rro i g community's va
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
6456303.1 CrownCastle.corn D-242
A I'M
C6
U
El
D-243
1 +�
a. r�
t
}
'• e
Fw— , "I'*
.1
Im. t
ti
Y
�
i
'i
I
Jm . k
Olk
Wit �%:
�Vtxllll
t.xo.
'�4' Exit Street Viero
Goo
Slc earth
J
m
NNOMMOR I -IT -I-, S--, 117-
- -,..,A,- -�t'
I
An
V I-
1w,
1" (,raltdt �
1
s
j
WOW r
Goot
,-* earlh
acplceartl
1,f -1rwl
+I
U." i3 Alt:fmfra
a
�� tom, � y t 7r + {.� �' , `•
low
y _ �..: C.;c�c�Sle earth
;,,.
CCCROWN
r*400
CASTLE
Collocation Analysis-ASG53
Proposed Project Address ---Adjacent to 6505 Monero
Crown Castle has already submitted an extensive alternate analysis reviewing three (3) alternative locations
identified in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project address. Explanation was given as to the validity of the
alternative as well as expected issues Crown Castle may encounter during the design, construction and
implementation of the proposed alternatives.
Crown Castle is submitting an additional alternative for review in accordance with the city's application process;
specifically examining the nearest known existing structure currently supporting wireless equipment in the public
right of way (PROW). This alternate would be proposed as a collocation between Crown Castle and the existing
carrier at that location.
For ASG53, the nearest known wireless facility is located at approximately 6146 Monero Dr. The location is
roughly 1500 feet southeast of the proposed primary, separated by single and multi -family residences and
extensive mature landscaping, including large trees in excess Of 25-30 feet in height.
Collocation of the wireless facility located on Monero Dr is not a viable alternate for the proposed facility, ASG53,
near 6505 Monero Dr. The existing facility is outside of the coverage objective for the proposed facility. Also, there
are challenges regarding design and construction of the proposed facility, due to G095 regulations enforced via
the Joint pole committee (JPA) and California Public Utilities Commission (CPUQ. There are constructability
challenges at the location due to the existing equipment installed and technologies involved. Because of the above
challenges, Crown Castle has determined that collocation of the existing facility would be inferior to the proposed
primary, as such, that location does not warrant any additional consideration.
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com D-259
CCCROWN
CASTLE
August 7, 2017
Nicole Jules, Deputy Director, Acting Director
Public Works Department
3094o Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Crown Castle
200 Spectrum Center Drive
Suite 1700
Irvine, CA 92618
RE: Shot Clock Tolling Agreement and Notice of Shot Clock Expiration Per RPVMC Section
i2.i8.o6o (OW for Crown Castle Wireless Communication Facility Site ASG5a - New Shot
Clock Expiration Date: September -10. 2017
Dear Ms. Jules:
Crown Castle NG West LLC ("Crown Castle") has agreed to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes' (the "City")
request to extend the Shot Clock for this site until September 30, 2017. The purpose of extending the Shot Clock is to
allow City Staff additional time to get better organized so that more meaningful presentations can be developed to
better inform City decision makers.
Under the FCC's Wireless Infrastructure Order (FCC 14-153, October 14, 2014), a local government is required
not just to take some action within the application timeframe, but to take a final action on the application within the
time period. See New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC v. Town of Stoddard, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19453 *13-15 (D.N.H.
Feb. 16, 2012). Accordingly, the City must complete all of its review within the Shot Clock period. Bell Atlantic Mobile
of Rochester, L.P. v. Town of Irondequoit, 2012 U.S. Dist. Lexis 11420 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2012). This means that the
City must issue all permits required for construction to commence within the applicable Shot Clock time period,
absent permitted tolling. Expiration of the FCC Shot Clock time periods means the project is shovel ready, not merely
poised for another round of bureaucratic inertia such as an encroachment permit or appeals processes or negotiation
of a franchise or other similar agreement.
Further, pursuant to California Government Code section 65964.1, an application for a new wireless facility
"shall be deemed approved" if: (a) the city --including a charter city -- or county fails to approve or disapprove the
application within the time periods established in the Shot Clock Order and (b) all public notices regarding the
application have been provided. (Gov. Code, § 65964.1, subd. (a).) Section 65964.1 also contains an express legislative
finding that wireless telecommunications facilities are a matter of statewide concern, not a "municipal affair" as that
term is used in section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. (id., § 65964.1, subd. (c).).
In consideration of Crown Castle's agreement to Toll the Shot Clock, the City has agreed that:
1) This document satisfies Crown Castle's noticing requirement of Shot Clock expiration per RPVMC Section
12.18.o6o (C)(3).
2) The City will attest to and not challenge that Crown Castle's application is compliant with any and all Shot
Clock requirements (federal, state and local) as of the date of this Tolling Agreement and Notice of Shot
Clock Expiration.
3) That the Shot Clock for this site will expire on: September 30, 2017, unless mutually extended in a
written agreement by the Parties. Any and all applicable statutes of limitation will commence from the
date of the Shot Clock's expiration.
Aaron Snyder Nicole Jules C�1
CROWN CASTLE NG WEST LLC CITY DE RANCHO PALLS VERDES
The Foundation for a Wireless World, D-260
CrownCastle.com
Art Bashmakian
From: Nancy Penate on behalf of Phone -PW -Main
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 1:14 PM
To: Charles Eder
Subject: FW: Proposed Cell Tower Site - ASG53 - Adjacent to 6505 Monero Dr - Resident
Objection
1of3
From: Robert Tun [mailto:rctun@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 10:59 AM
To: PublicWorks <PublicWorks@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Proposed Cell Tower Site - ASG53 - Adjacent to 6505 Monero Dr - Resident Objection
Dear Charles Eder and City Council Members of Rancho Palos Verdes,
Please be informed that my spouse has had symptoms of chronic fatigue and insomnia caused by exposure to
radio frequency and microwave radiation. Proximity of such a proposed installation of cell site located
within 600 feet site of our house in Palos Verdes Estates will cause harmful health effects on my spouse, who
has high sensitivity to "non -thermal' effects of RF and microwave radiation. If Rancho Palos Verdes City
proceeds with such cell site installation adjacent to our property in Palos Verdes Estates without regards
to health of concerned residents, is City of Rancho Palos and its Council Members fully aware of the potential
joint and several liability arising from residents development of acute and chronic health conditions and
diseases (i.e. childhood leukemia, cancer, etc.) known to be associated with exposure to these harmful radio
frequency EM fields in the vicinity of this subject cell site.
Therefore, I sincerely ask that Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members and Planners find an alternative cell
site which does not adversely impact the health of residents of Rancho Palos Verdes and Palos Verdes Estates
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
P.S. - Please make sure that this email is forwarded to the Council Members of RPV for their review.
R.T
D-261
Art
Bashmakian
From: Nancy Penate on behalf of Phone -PW -Main
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 1:14 PM
To: Charles Eder
Subject: FW: Cell Site - ASG 53 - Adjacent to 6505 Monera Drive - Resident Objections Against
58649 - Urgent Message
2of3
From. Robert Tun [mailto:rctun@yahoo.corn]
Sento Friday, August 11, 2017 11:26 AM
To. PublicWorlcs <PublicWorks@rpvca.gov>
Subject- Cell Site - ASG 53 - Adjacent to 6505 Monera ®rive - Resident Objections Against SB649 - Urgent Message
Dear RPV planning Commission and City Council Members:
Please stop cell towers on every block. -
® SB 649 would force installation of cell towers in neighborhoods and countrysides throughout California. How many? Likely
one every 1000 feet.
SB 649 would eliminate local control and public input.
® SB 649 would allow unlimited access to deploy refrigerator -size equipment on utility and light poles and sidewalks with no
safety oversight.
Cities would have no recourse to remove a tower even if every resident complained.
SB 649 would harm Califfornians. Children are especially vulnerable. peer-reviewed published science shows harmful
effects include: increased cancer risk, cellular stress, headaches, sleep problems, learning and memory disorders and more.
See www.bioinitiative.org
SB 649 would harm nature. peer reviewed published studies found radiation harms trees, birds, bees and insects. Studies
of radiation impacts on wild birds documented nest abandonment, plumage deterioration and death.
https: 'www.ntia.doc.gov. files. ntia :us doi comments.pdf
® SD 649 would lay the groundwork for 5G millimeter wave technology. Peer reviewed published science shows millimeter
waves adversely affect health. https:', goo. 1r gbSKHL
® 216 cities, 34 counties, the SF Public Utilities Commission and 45 health, environment and consumer justice
organizations representing millions of Californians oppose SB 649; Environmental Working Group, Sierra Club
California, California League of Conservation Voters, AARP American Association of Retired persons, Association of
Environmental Professionals, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, Center for Environmental Health, Citizens for
Health, The Utility Reform Network, Teens Turning Green, As You Sow, Daily Acts, and many morel
D-262
'Art Bashmakian
From: Taney Penate on behalf of Phone -PW -Main
Sent- Friday, August 11, 2017 1:15 PM
To- Charles Eder
Subject: FW: Proposed Cell Site - ASG 53 - Adjacent to 6505 MonerO Drive - Resident
Objections Against SB 649- Urgent Message
3 of 3
From. Robert Tun [mailto:rctun@yahoo.corn]
Sent- Friday, August 11, 2017 11:30 AM
To. PublicWorks <PublicWorks@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Proposed Cell Site - ASG 53 - Adjacent to 6505 MonerO Drive - Resident Objections Against SB 649- urgent
Message
Dear Charles Elder, RPV Manning Commission, and City Council Members:
Please stops cell towers on every block. -
® SB 649 would force installation of cell towers in neighborhoods and countrysides throughout California. plow many? Likely
one every 1000 feet.
® SB 649 would eliminate local control and punlrlic input.
• SB 649 would allow unlimited access to deploy refrigerator -size equipment on utility and light poles and sidewalks with no
safety oversight.
® Cities would have no recourse 10 remove a tower even if every resident complained.
• SB 649 would harm Californians. Children are especially vulnerable. Peer-reviewed published science shows harmful
effects include: increased cancer risk, cellular stress, headaches, sleep problems, learning and memory disorders and more.
See www.bioinitiative.org
® Sly 649 would harm nature. Peer reviewed published studies found radiation harms trees, birds, bees and insects. Studies
of radiation impacts on wild birds documented nest abandonment, plumage deterioration and death.
https.;- www, ntia.doe. �_Yovr'files'ntia,us doi comments. df
® SB 649 would lay the groundwork for 5G millimeter wave technology. Peer reviewed published science shows millimeter
waves adversely affect health. https:i`goo.gl<'g_bBKHL
® 216 cities, 34 counties, the SF Public Utilities Commission and 45 health, environment and consumer justice
organizations representing millions of Californians oppose SIB 649- Environmental Working Group, Sierra Club
California, California League of Conservation Voters, AARP American Association of Retired Persons Association of
Environmental Professionals, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, Center for Environmental Health, Citizens for
Health, The Utility Reform Network, Teens Turning Green, As You Sow, Daily Acts, and man , more;
D-263
Art Bashmakian
Subject: FW: Ugly Cell Towers
Attachments: RPV CC re Crown Castle - Letter .pdf; RPV CC re Crown Castle .pdf
Importance: High
From: Connie Semos [mailto:bconmast@msn.com]
Sent: Monday, May 29, 2017 10:23 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ugly Cell Towers
To the Mayor and City Councilmembers,
The following attachments were hand delivered to me by my neighbor, Herschel Owen. Notice for the
attached project is defective. The photograph is of poor quality and merely shows a third line crossing Monero
Drive all along Granvia Altamira. The photo is incorrect for 6504 Monero Drive. Neither my next-
door neighbor at 6504 Monero Drive nor I received this notice. There is no Public Notice posted on or near
the corner of 6504 Monero Drive.
Further, and more importantly, the plan makes an already over -burdened corner even more of an eyesore.
The attached letter is dated May 25, 2017 and arrived on Saturday, May 27, 2017. It is telling that
whenever contentious work is to be done and is authorized by the Public Works Department, the notices are
sent out to arrive on a 3 -day holiday or before the Christmas Holiday. This behavior works against improving
the relationship between residents and Public Works.
My cell phone carrier is AT&T. My family has excellent reception on the corner and anywhere near the corner
including all over our house. Has anyone complained to the city about poor cell reception with AT&T on or
near this corner?
I hope you address my concerns before they start erecting the mock up.
Sincerely,
Connie Semos
D-264
Art Bashmakian
From: Becky Martin
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 2:49 PM
To: Charles Eder
Subject: FW: CELL SITE MOCK-UP at 6504 Monero Drive (adjacent to PVE)
CONCERNS NOTIFICATION
From: Robert Tun [mailto:rctun@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 2:47 PM
To: PublicWorks
RESIDENT HEALTH
Subject: CELL SITE MOCK-UP at 6504 Monero Drive (adjacent to PVE) - RESIDENT HEALTH CONCERNS NOTIFICATION
Dear Charles Eder and City Council Members of Rancho Palos Verdes,
Please be informed that my spouse has had symptoms of chronic fatigue and insomnia caused by exposure to
radio frequency and microwave radiation. Proximity of such a proposed installation of cell site located within
600 feet site of our house in Palos Verdes Estates will cause harmful health effects on my spouse, who has
high sensitivity to "non -thermal" effects of RF and microwave radiation. If Rancho Palos Verdes City proceeds
with such cell site installation adjacent to our property in Palos Verdes Estates without regards to health of
concerned residents, is City of Rancho Palos and its Council Members fully aware of the potential joint and
several liability arising from residents development of acute and chronic health conditions and diseases (i.e.
childhood leukemia, cancer, etc.) known to be associated with exposure to these harmful radio frequency EM
fields in the vicinity of this subject cell site.
Therefore, I sincerely ask that Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members and Planners find an alternative cell
site which does not adversely impact the health of residents of Rancho Palos Verdes and Palos Verdes Estates.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
P.S. - Please make sure that this email is forwarded to the Council Members of RPV for their review.
Robert Tun
Resident, 1628 Via Margarita, PVE
D-265
Ara Mihranian
From:
Ara Mihranian
Sent:
Thursday, November 16, 2017 12:48 PM
To:
'hashamal@hotmail.com'
Cc:
CC; WirelessTF
Subject:
Wireless Telecommunication Facilities
Mr. Hasham,
The City is in receipt of your email and will provide it to the City Council as part of the November 30th
Staff Reports.
Thank you,
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
Community Development Director
CITY OF LiRANCHO BUM VERDES
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
ADo you really need to print this e-mail?
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from
disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If
you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
From: Al Hasham [mailto:hashamal@hotmail.com
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 12:33 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Al Hasham <hashamal@hotmail.com>
Subject:
D-266
Dear Sir or Madam,
Please do not support the building of Cell Towers in our area (RPV). As you know, it is not safe for our families
and especially our children.
Thanks!
a
D-267
Ara Mihranian
From:
Samson Munn <02467@earthlink.net>
Sent:
Friday, November 10, 2017 1:16 PM
To:
WirelessTF
Subject:
My Views of the Appeal Application
Dear Mr. Bashmakian:
As per the e-mailed request from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, here are my "thoughts" "in writing"
regarding the appeal of the denied facility permits ASG #s 09,32,33,53 and 69.
I object to the appeal(s) on the following grounds, jointly and severall :
1. Reception in Rancho Palos Verdes is already sufficient. That is, there are areas of strong reception and areas
of no reception at all, and that is -- is -- sufficient, even more than sufficient.
2. When I bought my house at 7021 Calle del Pajarito, RPV, one of the real estate values I perceived was the
absence of reception. That is, reception to me is a negative, while absence of reception has added value.
3. I am a Professor at UCLA's and an Adjunct Associate Professor at Tufts University's Schools of
Medicine. My field is radiology. I know something about all kinds of rays.
4. There is a petition via NextDoor that your office has already received with over 100 signatories. That
petition was with regard to ASG # 08. However, I received the dozens of comments added by all
signatories. Many of these comments were with regard more generally to added cell emission/transmission
towers. They were uniformly negative (none positive).
5. Via NextDoor, there have also been dozens of comments written generally about additional
emission/transmission towers (apart from those related to the signatories against ASG # 08). Some of those
additional comments were positive, while others were negative. Those that were negative outnumbered the
positive ones by more than ten -to -one.
6. Proper process was engaged by the Planning Commission in its denials of those permits named at the outset
of this message. If proper process yields denial, the appeal had better contain new and truly extraordinary and
exceptional grounds in order to be re -considered. Substantiation of ordinary grounds for the permit applications
at this time should be considered insufficient, since being late to circumvent proper process should not now be
supported. In other words, Crown Castle had its "day in court," one might say, including proper opportunity to
submit grounds for approval, and and simply lost. Unless the grounds now presented are extraordinary and
exceptional, PLUS are combined with substantiation for why the grounds had not been submitted in due course
(rather than now), PLUS are altogether new, Crown Castle's appeal(s) should be summarily dismissed without
further consideration on the grounds of due process. That is, unless the new grounds are as I have described,
satisfying all three categories of the preceding sentence, Crown Castle should -- properly -- not be afforded
another "day in court," so to speak. THAT would compose due process, respecting the due process already
behind us.
Thank you, kindly!
Samson
Samson Munn, M.D., FACR
CCCROWN
CASTLE
August 7, 2017
Nicole Jules, Deputy Director, Acting Director
Public Works Department
3094o Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Crown Castle
200 Spectrum Center Drive
SuiteT70C
Vrvirre, CSF 92618
RdE: Shot Clock 'Polling Agreement and Notice of Shot Clock Expiration Per R.PVMC Section
12.18.o6o (C)(,3) for Crow Castle Wireless Communication Facility Site ASG;l - New Shot
Clock Expiration Date: September 30, 2017
Dear Ms. Jules:
Crown Castle NG West LLC ("Crown Castle") has agreed to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes' (the "City")
request to extend the Shot Clock for this site until September 30, 2017. The purpose of extending the Shot Clock is to
allow City Staff additional time to get better organized so that more meaningful presentations can be developed to
better inform City decision makers.
Under the FCC's Wireless Infrastructure Order (FCC 14-153, October 14, 2014), a local government is required
not just to take some action within the application timeframe, but to take a final action on the application within the
time period. See New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC v. Town of Stoddard, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19453 *13-15 (D.N.H.
Feb. 16, 2012). Accordingly, the City must complete all of its review within the Shot Clock period. Bell Atlantic Mobile
of Rochester, L.P. v. Town of Irondequoit, 2012 U.S. Dist. Lexis 11420 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2012). This means that the
City must issue all permits required for construction to commence within the applicable Shot Clock time period,
absent permitted tolling. Expiration of the FCC Shot Clock time periods means the project is shovel ready, not merely
poised for another round of bureaucratic inertia such as an encroachment permit or appeals processes or negotiation
of a franchise or other similar agreement.
Further, pursuant to California Government Code section 65964.1, an application for a new wireless facility
"shall be deemed approved" if: (a) the city --including a charter city -- or county fails to approve or disapprove the
application within the time periods established in the Shot Clock Order and (b) all public notices regarding the
application have been provided. (Gov. Code, § 65964.1, subd. (a).) Section 65964.1 also contains an express legislative
fording that wireless telecommunications facilities are a matter of statewide concern, not a "municipal affair" as that
term is used in section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. (id., § 65964.1, subd. (c).).
In consideration of Crown Castle's agreement to Toll the Shot Clock, the City has agreed that:
1) This document satisfies Crown Castle's noticing requirement of Shot Clock expiration per RPVMC Section
12.18.o6o (C)(3)•
2) The City will attest to and not challenge that Crown Castle's application is compliant with any and all Shot
Clock requirements (federal, state and local) as of the date of this Tolling Agreement and Notice of Shot
Clock Expiration.
3) That the Shot Clock for this site will expire on: September ,o, ?-017, unless mutually extended in a
written agreement by the Parties. Any and all applicable statutes of limitation will commence from the
date of the Shot Clock's expiration.
Aaron Snyder Nicole Jules
CROWN CASTLE NG WEST LLC CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
The Foundation for a Wireless World. D-269
CrownCastle.com
CCCROWN
CASTLE
December 1, 2017
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 1800
Irvine, CA 92618
Re; Shot Clock Extension Asreeinent and Notice of Shot Clock Expiration IRVP
Municipal Code section 12.18.o6o(C)(3)]
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 ASG53 to February 28,
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 ASG53 shall expire on February 28, 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.
AaWnri Snyder ian
Crown Castle NG West LLC City of Rancho Palos Verdes
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastl e.com
D-270
Ara Mihranian
From: Frank Yan <ftyan@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 1:25 PM
To: CC; PC
Cc: Tina Tsai; Jaime and Leticia Escudero; Stewart Kanemaki; Joe Ognjanac; Connie Semos;
Marlis Larkins
Subject: Cell Antennae - Monero & Granvia Altamira
Dear City Council and Planning Commission,
I am writing this letter to oppose the planned installation of a cell antenna on the corner of Granvia Altamira
and Monero Drive in its proposed configuration. It is a visual eyesore every time you enter and leave our
beautiful community. That intersection is one of the gateways to our community and having the antenna does
not fit the surroundings.
One of the reasons why I moved to PV was because of the beautiful tree lined streets. Having the cell antenna
on the corner of Granvia Altamira and Monero Drive is an eyesore to our beautiful community.
Please explore other options on how to make the proposed cell tower blend into the community. I have seen
how cell towers can be disguised to look like trees to blend into the neighborhood.
The cell antenna looks like it belongs in an industrial part of Los Angeles and not in a seaside residential
community. I believe that such an industrial looking piece of hardware will bring down property values.
Please explore other options on how to modify & beautify the proposed cell tower.
Thank you for listening.
Kind regards,
Frank Yan
E-1
Ara Mihranian
From: Ara Mihranian
Sent: Monday, February 5, 2018 9:41 PM
To: 'Linton'; WirelessTF
Subject: RE: Cell site at Monero and Gandvia Altmira
Linton,
Thank you for bringing this concern to the City's attention.
I will forward your email to the City's RF specialist and will circle back.
Ara Mihranian
Director of Community Development
From: Linton [mailto:lintonhonda@verizon.net]
Sent: Monday, February 5, 2018 3:09 PM
To: WirelessTF <WirelessTF@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Cell site at Monero and Gandvia Altmira
Dear Mr. Bashmakian,
I would like to request that the Planning Commission and the City Council ensure the Wireless Telecommunication
Facility has ensured that the added site(s) will not increase interference with other systems.
In particular, I am aware that cell sites around Los Angeles have increased their gains, resulting in interference patterns
across the southbay. This can be observed when driving any car with Sirius -SM along Hawthorne Boulevard and stopping
for a minute in a node. A few examples are the seven -eleven on Hawthorne and Grandvia and the intersection of
Sepulveda and Hawthorne. This is a different phenomenon than not being able to see southern sky like on Hawthorne
and Ravenspur. On my drive from seven eleven to EI Segundo, there are at least 6 spots affected by cell towers. After
contacting XM, I found out that this was due to the cell towers and not the satellites nor cars.
Since the cell sites are already built, there is little we can do. But for new Facilities, there should be a mitigation plan in
place and accountability such that we do something about it if this closer tower creates another dead zone right at my
home.
Regards,
Linton
E-2
CCROWN
CCASTLE
December 1, 2017
VIA lE-NLAIL; ASM, RPVCAoGOV
Ara Miliranian
Director, Community Development Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
crown Castle
200 Spectrura) Center Drive
Suite 1800
Irvine, CA 9251$
Re, Shgt'Clock Extension Agreement and Notice of Shot Clock Expiration [RYP
Municipal Code section 12A8.o6o(C)(3)3
Bear Ara,
This letter memorializes an agreement between Crown Castle NG `Vest LLC ("Crown Castle")
and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("City") to extend the Shot Clock for ASG53 to February 28,
2018, pursuant to paragraph 49 of the Federal Communications Commission's "Shot Clock Ride"
(Petition for Declaratory puling, 24 F.C.C. Red. 13994, 149 (2009)).
Accordingly, the Shot Clock for ASG53 shall expire on February 28, 2018, and any and all
applicable statutes of limitations under either federal or state lave shall be deemed to commence. from
that extended date. This agreement shall also serge 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.
A n Snyder inn
Crown Castle NG Wiest LLC City of Rancho Palos Verdes
The Foundation for a Wireless World.
CrownCastle.com
F-1