Loading...
CC SR 20171130 03 - Wireless Telecommunication Facility Permit ASG No. 32RANCHO 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. 32 to install a Wireless Telecommunication Facility (WTF) on a replacement streetlight pole adjacent to 29504 Whitley Collins. Quasi -Judicial Decision This item is a quasi-judicial decision in which the City Council is being asked to affirm whether specific findings of fact can be made in order to overturn the denial of the Planning Commission's decision. The specific findings of fact are listed in the Resolution per Chapter 12.18 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC). RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: (1) 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. 32 to allow the installation of antennas encased in a canister measuring 2' tall and 14.6" in diameter to a replacement streetlight pole not to exceed 29' 9" in total height as measured to the top of the canister with related vaulted mechanical equipment at the intersection of Crest Road and Whitley Collins Drive (adjacent to 29716 Whitley Collins Drive); FISCAL IMPACT: The Appellant has paid the applicable appeal fees, as established by Resolution of the City Council. If the Appellant is successful in the appeal, and the City Council overturns the Planning Commission's decision to deny the project, the Appellant will receive a full refund of their appeal fee. Thus, all in-house Staff costs associated with the processing of the appeal will come from the City's General Fund. Costs for work conducted by the City's consultants, including the City's contract planner and the City's RF engineer, are borne by the Appellant (Crown Castle). Amount Budgeted: N/A Additional Appropriation: N/A Account Number(s): N/A ORIGINATED BY: Art Bashmakian, AICP, Contract Planner REVIEWED BY: ' Ara Mihranian, AICP, Director of Community Development 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. 2018-06 (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 the City's RF Consultant • November 30, 2017 City Council Staff Report o P.C. Resolution No. 2017-27 o August 30, 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 Consultant E. Tolling Agreement (page E-1) Click on the link below to view the January 30, 2018 Planning Commission meeting on ASG No. 32 - Agenda Item No. 3 (time stamp: 2:06:00): http://rpv.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view id=5&clip id=3060 Click on the link below to view the August 30, 2017 Planning Commission meeting on ASG No. 32 - Agenda Item No. 4 (time stamp: 1:39:32): http://rpv.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view id=5&clip id=2881 BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: Crown Castle, the Applicant (Appellant), is a tower company hired by wireless companies for the purposes of acquiring sites for the construction and deployment of wireless telecommunications antennas throughout local jurisdictions. Pursuant Chapter 12.18 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC), Crown Castle is proposing to install approximately 26 new antennas in the City's public right-of-way (PROW), including the subject application, to provide services to AT&T customers throughout the City. On August 30, 2017 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider the Applicant's request to decommission an existing 25'-6" streetlight pole and install a new 28.1' tall streetlight pole (measured to the top of the canister shroud) to accommodate the installation of antennas encased in a 2' tall and 2' diameter canister shroud with a 3' tall tapered shroud sleeve and vaulted accessory equipment at the intersection of Whitley Collins Drive and Scotwood Drive. At this meeting, after considering evidence introduced in the record including public testimony from the 2 Applicant, neighbors, Staff, and the City's RF consultant, moved to deny, without prejudice, on a vote of 4-0 (Commissioners Leon and Tomblin, and Vice -Chair James were absent). The basis of the Commission's denial can be found in the attached Resolution No. 2017-27 (Attachment D). During the meeting, the Planning Commission expressed a preference to relocate the proposed wireless facility to an existing streetlight pole at the intersection of Crest Road and Whitley Collins. On September 14, 2017, the Applicant filed a timely appeal 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 (Attachment B). In summary, the Applicant believes that the Commission's decision was not based on substantial evidence and that the denial violates the Applicant's right to deploy its facilities in the public rights-of-way in violation of Public Utilities Code section 7901, in that the Planning Commission's action exceeds the local control over the "time place and manner" of access to the right-of-way. November 30, 2017 City Council meetinq 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 discussion that ensued with the Planning Commission, the Applicant proposed to the City Council a new slimmer canister design and relocating the wireless facility to the intersection of Crest Road and Whitley Collins Drive. In response, 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 proposal at the new location, including the slimmer canister design, it decided that it would be appropriate to allow the Commission to review the revised project. January 30, 2018 Planninq Commission meeting On January 30th, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and considered the new slimmer canister design and the proposed wireless facility at the new location. After considering evidence introduced in the record including public testimony from the Applicant, neighbors, Staff and the City's RF Consultant, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2018-06 (Attachment C), on a vote of 6-0, 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 on a replacement streetlight pole not to exceed 29' 9" in total height as measured to the top of the canister with related vaulted mechanical equipment at the intersection of Crest Road and Whitley Collins Drive. In summary, the Planning Commission found that the revised slimmer canister design option that conceals the antennas and wires is least intrusive to the neighborhood. Furthermore, the Planning Commission found that the new location is less intrusive than the original location because the previous location was within a local residential street and the revised location was adjacent to Crest Road, an arterial street. 9 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 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. Revised Mockup Notice On January 5, 2018, property owners within 500' of the new Project location were notified of the mock-up which occurred at least 30 days in advance of tonight's City Council meeting. 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 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 notice was published in the Peninsula News, mailed to property owners within a 500' radius of the project site (including alternative locations), and sent to list -serve subscribers announcing tonight's public hearing and inviting public comments. Public Comments Since the Planning Commission's January 30th meeting, no additional public comments were received. 11 Planning Commission Chairman Pursuant to City Council Policy No. 24, the Planning Commission Vice Chairman James will attend the February 15t" 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 E). 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, 32 to allow the installation of antennas encased in a canister measuring 2' tall and 14.6" in diameter to a replacement streetlight pole not to exceed 29' 9" in total height as measured to the top of the canister with related vaulted mechanical equipment at the intersection of Crest Road and Whitley Collins Drive (adjacent to 29716 Whitley Collins Drive); ALTERNATIVES: In addition to Staff's recommendation, the following alternatives are available for consideration by the City Council: 1. Deny the appeal, thereby upholding the Planning Commission's denial of Major Wireless Telecommunication Facility Permit ASG No. 32 and direct Staff to return with a revised Resolution at the March 6, 2018 City Council Meeting. 2. Modify the appeal and direct Staff to return with a revised Resolution at the March 6, 2018, 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 date certain. 5 RESOLUTION NO. 2018- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING MAJOR WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY PERMIT ASG NO. 32 TO ALLOW THE INSTALLATION OF ANTENNAS ENCASED IN A CANISTER MEASURING 2' TALL AND 14.6" IN DIAMETER TO A REPLACEMENT STREETLIGHT POLE NOT TO EXCEED 29'-9" IN TOTAL HEIGHT AS MEASURED TO THE TOP OF THE CANISTER WITH RELATED VAULTED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT ADJACENT TO 29716 WHITLEY COLLINS DRIVE. 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 (the "Project") including ASG No. 32; WHEREAS, the original Project, located adjacent to 29504 Whitley Collins Drive, called for an existing 25'-6" tall streetlight with a mast arm and luminaire to be decommissioned and replaced with a 25'-6" tall streetlight pole with two 21.4" panel antennas that would be side -mounted to the pole and the installation of above -ground mechanical equipment and meter box measuring 9.7 cubic feet in area within the public right-of-way (PROW); WHEREAS, because the Project's location is within a residential zone and within the PROW of local streets as identified in the General Plan, approval of a WTFP also requires an exception under Section 12.18.190 of the Municipal Code; WHEREAS, the Project is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") because the Project constitutes a small scale installation of new a new facility (14 CCR § 15303(d)). WHEREAS, on August 8, 2017, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to August 30, 2017; Resolution No. 2018 - Page 1 of 23 A-1 WHEREAS, on August 30, 2017, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; WHEREAS, on August 30, 2017, after considering testimony and evidence presented at the public hearing, the information and findings included in the Staff Report, and other records of proceedings, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes moved to deny, without prejudice, ASG No. 32 on a vote 4-0 (Commissioners Leon and Tomblin, and Vice -Chair James were absent); WHEREAS, on September 14, 2017, a timely appeal of the denial was filed by the Applicant; WHEREAS, on November 15, 2017, a public notice was mailed to property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the subject site and published in the Daily Breeze, pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code announcing the appeal hearing before the City Council. A courtesy public notice was also 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 its jurisdiction over the appeal because the Applicant proposed to relocate the Project to another location adjacent to 29716 Whitley Collins Drive and had provided alternative design options that the Planning Commission has not originally considered; WHEREAS, on January 5, 2018, property owners within 500' of the proposed wireless facility were notified of the WTF mock-up which occur at least 30 days in advance of the City Council public hearing; 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 the Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on the Project on Tuesday, January 30, 2018; 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; Resolution No. 2018 - Page 2 of 23 A-2 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. 32 on a vote of 6-0 to allow the installation of antennas encased in a canister measuring 2' tall and 14.6" in diameter to a replacement streetlight pole not to exceed 29' 9" in total height as measured to the top of the canister with related vaulted mechanical equipment at the proposed new location adjacent to 29716 Whitley Collins Drive (intersection of Whitley Collins Drive and Crest Road); WHEREAS, on February 1, 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 the City Council will conduct a public hearing on the Project; and, WHEREAS, on February 15, 2018, 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 approves a Major Telecommunications Facility Permit ("WTFP") ASG No. 32 involving the installation of antennas encased in a canister measuring 2' tall and 14.6" in diameter to a replacement streetlight pole not to exceed 29' 9" in total height as measured to the top of the canister with related vaulted mechanical equipment at the proposed new location within the PROW adjacent to 29716 Whitley Collins Drive 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. Crown Castle and the City have provided all notices required by the RPVMC. On January 5, 2018 property owners within 500' of the proposed facility were notified of the WTF mock-up which occur at least 30 days in advance of the City Council public hearing. Further, on January 11, 2018, a public notice announcing the January 30, 2018 public hearing was provided to property owners within 500' of the proposed WTF stating that the City Council was referring the matter back to the Planning Commission. On December 1, 2017, the Applicant provided the City with a Shot Clock Tolling Agreement establishing a new Shot Clock Expiration date of February 28, 2018. The Applicant has notified the City 20 days prior to the expiration of the shot clock for this application, which is now February Resolution No. 2018 - Page 3 of 23 A-3 28, 2018. On February 1, 2018 a public notice announcing the February 15, 2018 public hearing on the appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of ASG No. 32 was published in the Peninsula News and provided to property owners within 500' of the proposed Project and to list -serve subscribers. 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. 12.18.080(A)(1)(a): The Applicant shall employ screening, undergrounding and camouflage design techniques in the design and placement of wireless telecommunications facilities in order to ensure that the facility is as visually screened as possible, to prevent the facility from dominating the surrounding area and to minimize significant view impacts from surrounding properties all in a manner that achieves compatibility with the community and in compliance with Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration) of this code. As proposed, the revised Project employs screening and a camouflage design with the use of a canister shroud measuring 2' tall and 14.6" in diameter to a replacement streetlight pole that will not exceed a total height of 29'-9" as measured from grade to the top of the canister. All cabling will be obscured by the use of clips or the like. The light standard will match the decommissioned light standard and those in the immediate area. All of the related mechanical equipment will be undergrounded in three vaults measuring a total of 43 square feet. The Project will not have any significant view impairment to surrounding properties pursuant to Chapter 17.02.040 of the RPVMC. In terms of cumulative visual or view impacts, a significant view impairment will not occur if other streetlight poles in this location of the City were replaced to accommodate a similar WTF. 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 antennas will be encased in a canister shroud to a replacement streetlight pole that matches other streetlight poles in the area, and the replacement streetlight Resolution No. 2018 - Page 4 of 23 i pole will utilize similar color, size, proportion, style, and quality to other street poles in the area. The canister will be painted to match the light pole with a concrete color. All cables and wires will be routed directly into the pole with no loops or exposed cables, with all cables clipped -up at the antenna -meeting point and contained within the canister. For this location, the canister installed to the top of a replacement streetlight pole is an appropriate technique that disguises and blends the facility into the environment. 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 with antennas encased in a canister shroud will not result in a significant view impairment to surrounding residences, as defined in Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration Code) of the RPVMC provided the total height of the streetlight pole does not exceed 29'-9" in height as measured to the top of the canister. City defined viewing areas such as living rooms, family rooms, dining rooms and outside rear patios are typically located on the ground floor areas of a residence. In terms of cumulative visual or view impacts, a significant view impairment will not occur if other streetlight poles in this location of the City were replaced to accommodate a similar WTF. 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 involves a replacement streetlight pole with the installation of antennas encased in a canister shroud that will be mounted to the top of a replacement streetlight pole that will be at approximately 26' above the drivable road. Additionally, the related mechanical equipment will be vaulted underground to avoid traffic safety impacts. 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 replacement streetlight pole will consist of colors and materials that are subdued and non -reflective. Further, they are the same as the existing streetlight pole and other streetlight poles in the immediate area. Resolution No. 2018 - Page 5 of 23 A-5 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 includes the installation of antennas encased in a canister shroud measuring 2' tall and 14.6" in diameter to the top of a replacement streetlight pole that will not exceed a maximum height of 29'-9" as measured to the top of the canister with mechanical equipment that will be vaulted within the street. As proposed, the canister would be visible, but it would screen the antennas and cables from view. In regards to collocation, in order to accommodate additional antennas, the height of the streetlight pole would have to be increased by approximately 5' to accommodate collocation because of the size of the panel antennas combined with there being a need to provide a separation of at least 1' between antenna panels for functionality purposes. The design does not preclude the possibility of collocation by the same or other operators or carriers but it may not always minimize visual impact. 12.18.080(A)(6)(a) Facilities shall be located consistent with Section 12.18.200 (Location Restrictions) unless an exception pursuant to Section 12.18.190 (Exceptions) is granted. The proposed location is within the PROW of local residential street as identified in the City's General Plan. The findings for an Exception are required. 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 Project meets this finding because it involves a replacement streetlight pole with mounted antenna panels within the right-of-way. No new pole is proposed that does not replace the existing pole. 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. Resolution No. 2018 - Page 6 of 23 w o The replacement streetlight pole will be the same height as the existing streetlight pole and the canister will be within that height. No portion of the antenna or equipment is less than 16'/2' above the drivable road surface. 12.18.080(A)(6)(e): Replacement Poles. If an Applicant proposes to replace a pole in order to accommodate a proposed facility, the pole shall be designed to resemble the appearance and dimensions of existing poles near the proposed location, including size, height, color, materials and style to the maximum extent feasible. The proposed replacement streetlight pole will match the appearance, in terms of color, height, size and dimensions of the existing pole and all other light poles in the immediate area. The replacement streetlight pole and related equipment will consist of a Marbelite finish and painted in a concrete color to match the existing street light poles in the area. A smaller antenna technology is possible, but smaller antennas will require the installation of many more poles in the neighborhood to achieve the same coverage and capacity. 12.18.080(A)(6)(f): Pole mounted equipment, exclusive of antennas, shall not exceed six cubic feet in dimension. There will not be pole mounted equipment, excluding antennas. The related mechanical equipment will be vaulted. 12.18.080(A)(6)(i): All cables, including, but not limited to, electrical and utility cables, shall be run within the interior of the pole and shall be camouflaged or hidden to the fullest extent feasible. All cables and wires are required to be short, encased in the shroud and directly routed to the pole in order to be hidden from view with no loops, exposed cables, splitters or unsightly wires. 12.18.080(A)(7): Space. Each facility shall be designed to occupy the least amount of space in the right-of-way that is technically feasible. The replacement streetlight pole is similar in dimension to the existing streetlight pole. The placement of the antennas on the side of the pole will occupy limited air space above the right-of-way. The supporting mechanical equipment will be undergrounded and the vault necessary to house the equipment measures Resolution No. 2018 - Page 7 of 23 A-7 approximately 43 square feet of total surface area. This space is the least amount of space that is technically feasible for equipment owned by AT&T. Furthermore, the space that will be occupied is below the surface with minimum exhaust vents that will be flush to the surrounding ground. 12.18.080(A)(8): Wind Loads. Each facility shall be properly engineered to withstand wind loads as required by this code or any duly adopted or incorporated code. An evaluation of high wind load capacity shall include the impact of modification of an existing facility. Based on the information submitted by the Applicant and as confirmed by the City's consultants, 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 design, height and size of the proposed installation, including the undergrounding of the mechanical equipment, will not cause an obstruction to the public's use of the PROW, constitute a safety hazard and/or does not interfere with the City -defined intersection visibility triangle. The proposed replacement streetlight pole provides the same lighting, height and setback parameters applicable to other streetlight poles. The mechanical equipment will be vaulted under the existing parkway, and conditions are proposed to ensure the vents do not physically obstruct the safe use of the parkway. 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 installation, including the undergrounding of the mechanical equipment, will not interfere with fire hydrants, fire stations, water lines or any other public health or safety facilities as determined by the Public Works Department. Furthermore, part of the plan check review process and site inspections, Public Works staff will ensure that the Project will not interfere with any of the stated utilities. Resolution No. 2018 - Page 8 of 23 • 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. The related mechanical equipment will be undergrounded. 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 maintained by applicant where such landscaping is deemed necessary by the city to provide screening or to conceal the facility. Conditions have been added requiring the installation of landscaping within parkway to help soften, as well as screen, the appearance of the Project. 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 Project does not include any signs or advertising devices other than certification, warning or other signage required by law. This is reinforced through the conditions of approval. 12.18.080(A)(15)(a-e) Lighting. The Project does not include any such lighting other than the luminary on the light pole. This is reinforced through the conditions of approval. C. If applicable, the Applicant has demonstrated its inability to locate on existing infrastructure. Resolution No. 2018 - Page 9 of 23 MLO Not applicable. The antennas will be located on an existing streetlight 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 design, which includes the installation of antennas encased in a canister shroud that would be affixed to the top of the pole is the least intrusive means of those alternatives. There is technology that is possible to use but that would require a greater number of facilities throughout the community to provide equal coverage and capacity. This may require the introduction of new pole structures where there are no streetlights or utility poles and may require associated accessory equipment at every location. The supporting mechanical equipment would be vaulted meeting the objective of installing the least intrusive facility. Other locations and designs considered for purposes of filling the coverage gap claimed by the Applicant and discussed by the City's RF Consultant presented the following intrusions, which will be more intrusive then the Project: • 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 Consultant, as opposed to having one AT&T pole in this area. Resolution No. 2018 - Page 10 of 23 A-10 • Alternate antenna designs, such as the canister shroud with a tapered sleeve, were found to be bulkier in appearance and less streamlined than the vertical slim -line flush and side -mounted panel antennas proposed • The other pole options are significantly wider (14" and 16") and therefore negate the objective of utilizing the least visible design option. 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. 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 Project 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. This application information was provided to the City's RF Consultant who reviewed the information, as well as conducted both on-site walkouts of the area and a computerized terrain study to determine if the proposed site will address a coverage gap as identified in the application. Based on the terrain profile characteristics and the field measurement data provided by Crown Castle, the City's consultant concluded that the proposal as provided will address coverage deficiencies within the target area. Furthermore, according to the City's RF Consultant, the Applicant has provided engineering details related to the wireless bands that will be used for the DAS deployment, including identifying transmitting equipment, power levels for each band and specifics regarding the radiation patterns of the antennas to be installed. However, information provided about existing and proposed coverage in the service area for each of the three AT&T licensed wireless bands (700 MHz, PCS and AWS) Resolution No. 2018 - Page 11 of 23 A-11 are less clearly defined, this is due to the varied terrain associated with the surrounding landscape. The City's RF 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. 32 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. Similar antennas proposed on street light poles at the following 3 alternative locations: • Replacement of an existing street light pole on the west side of Whitley Collins, approximately 190 feet to the northwest of the original Primary. • Street stop sign replacement located approximately 45 feet north of the original Primary on the opposite side of Scotwood Dr. • Replacement of an existing street light pole approximately 100' west of the original Primary site on the west side of Whitley Collins. None of the alternative sites meet the RF coverage objective as confirmed by the City's RF Consultant. The alternative site analysis submitted by the Applicant demonstrates that the proposed Project is likely the least intrusive location for the wireless telecommunications facility in the immediate area because of the surrounding slopes and vegetation. The proposed location is at the intersection of an arterial (Crest Road) compared to the original location which was in dense developed residential neighborhood. The WTF is also being proposed to be installed on a replacement streetlight pole that replaces existing infrastructure. And while the proposed location is adjacent to a residential zone, the proposed location does not interfere with any public or residential views. The City's technical consultants have reviewed the Applicant's documents and support this conclusion. Resolution No. 2018 - Page 12 of 23 A-12 Other locations and designs were found to be more intrusive then the proposed Project: • Locations that utilize an existing or replacement pole to be preferable to a whole new pole. • A smaller or lower pole could be utilized, but it would require a multiplicity of wireless poles in the gap area claimed by the Applicant and discussed by the City's RF Engineer (attached), as opposed to having one AT&T pole in this area. • Alternate antenna designs, such as the canister shroud with a tapered sleeve, were found to be bulkier in appearance and less streamlined than the vertical slim -line flush and side -mounted panel antennas 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. D. 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 proposed WTF installation will be installed on a replacement streetlight pole that will match other streetlight poles in the immediate area. The 29'-9" tall streetlight pole will match the height of the existing pole. The location is necessary to meet the Applicant's service objective, as affirmed by the City's RF Consultant. 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. There are no commercial zones within the signal reach of the identified gap. 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 approves ASG No. 32 as revised and recommended for approval by the Planning Commission, based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in this resolution. Resolution No. 2018 - Page 13 of 23 A-13 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. 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 14 of 23 A-14 Exhibit "A" Conditions of Approval WTF ASG NO. 32 Adjacent to 29716 Whitley Collins Drive 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 15 of 23 A-15 body that approved the original Project, which may require new and separate environmental review. 6. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be cause to revoke the approval of the Project pursuant to the RPVMC. 7. If the applicant has not obtained approvals from Public Works for the approved Project or not commenced the approved Project within one year of the final effective date of this Resolution, approval of the Project shall expire and be of no further effect unless, prior to expiration, a written request for extension is filed with the Public Works Department and approved by the Director. 8. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations and/or requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter standard shall apply. 9. The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that material used for immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may include, but not be limited to: the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or discarded furniture, appliances or other household fixtures. 10. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, 9:OOAM to 5:OOPM on Saturday, with no construction activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section 17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. During demolition, construction and/or grading operations, trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at the Project site or in the adjoining street rights-of-way before 7AM Monday through Friday and before 9AM on Saturday, in accordance with the permitted hours of construction stated in this condition. When feasible to do so, the construction contractor shall provide staging areas on-site to minimize off-site transportation of heavy construction equipment. These areas shall be located to maximize the distance between staging activities and neighboring properties, subject to approval by the building official. 11. All grading, landscaping and construction activities shall exercise effective dust control techniques, either through screening and/or watering. 12. Prior to commencement work, the Applicant shall obtain approval of a haul route from the Director of Public Works. Resolution No. 2018 - Page 16 of 23 A-16 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. 15. The mockup 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. Installation of a Wireless Telecommunication Facility WTF adjacent to 29716 Whitley Collins Drive. B. Removal of an existing 29'-9" tall marbelite street light with a mast arm and luminaire to be decommissioned and replaced with a 29'-9" tall marbelite octagonal street light, as measured to the top of the canister, with antennas encased in a canister shroud measuring 2' tall and 14.6" in diameter to the top of the pole. C. The installation of three separate vaults to house the required accessory equipment in the PROW, including vents and meter boxes that shall be flush to the ground and that shall not exceed 43 square feet in total surface area. 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 proposed WTF shall be installed on a new light standard that matches the other light standards in the area in terms of color, size, proportion, style, and quality. The antenna shroud and any related exposed structures shall be painted and maintained to match the light pole. o 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. Resolution No. 2018 - Page 17 of 23 A-17 • Colors and materials shall be subdued and non -reflective, and shall be the same as the existing light standard and other lights standards in the nearby area. • The replacement pole shall match the appearance and dimensions of the existing pole and all other light standards near the location. • All cables and wires shall be encased within the pole and/or canister, and hidden from view. No loops, exposed cables, splitters or unsightly wires shall be permitted • All ground -mounted facilities including mechanical equipment, or walls, fences, landscaping or other screening methods shall be installed at least 18" from the curb and gutter flow line. • All accessory equipment shall be located underground including meter boxes and cabinets. • 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. • 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. • The facility shall not be illuminated except for the standard street -light luminaire replacing the existing street light. All other illumination shall be restricted pursuant to RPVMC § 12.18.080(A)(15). • 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, Resolution No. 2018 - Page 18 of 23 • 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: 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 Resolution No. 2018 - Page 19 of 23 A-19 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; f. Graffiti, bills, stickers, advertisements, litter and debris; g. Broken and misshapen structural parts; and h. Any damage from any cause. 22. Permitee shall install, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director or Director of Community Development, drought tolerant landscaping near the proposed installation of the vaulted accessory equipment and retaining wall enclosure to screen the equipment consistent with existing landscaping prior to final inspection. 23. All trees, foliage or other landscaping elements approved as part of the facility shall be maintained in good condition at all times, and the permittee, owner and Resolution No. 2018 - Page 20 of 23 A-20 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 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. Resolution No. 2018 - Page 21 of 23 A-21 30. The operator of a facility and/or permitee shall notify the City in writing of its intent to abandon or cease use of a permitted site or a nonconforming site (including unpermitted sites) within ten days of ceasing or abandoning use. Notwithstanding any other provision herein, the operator of the facility and/or permitee shall provide written notice to the director of 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 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; Resolution No. 2018 - Page 22 of 23 A-22 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 replacing larger, more visually intrusive facilities with smaller, less visually intrusive facilities. Resolution No. 2018 - Page 23 of 23 A-23 N40D NEW"vIEYER DILL—ION LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW MICHAEL, W. SHONAFELT File No. Michael.Shonafelt@ndlf.com 2464.130 November .2017 VIA EMAIL - brian.campbell@rpvca.gov rpvca.gov AND HAND -DELIVERY Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Re: Crown Castle: Appeal of Wireless Telecommunications Facility ASG32 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 ASG32 within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("City") public right-of-way ("ROW") on Scotwood Drive, adjacent to 29504 Whitley Collins Drive ("Project"). The Project is a low-power, small cell telecommunications facility that serves as an integral and vital part of a larger telecommunications and broadband network in the City. A. Original Proposal. As originally proposed the Project would feature a new, 25 -foot, six-inch marbelite streetlight replacement pole, with two 21.4 -inch panel antennas mounted under the luminaire. (See Exhibit A, Original Design Photo -simulations.) The replacement streetlight would replace the existing 25 -foot, six-inch streetlight, and therefore would not result in a net increase in height from the existing condition. 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 (Aug. 30, 2017) ("Staff Report") at p. 3.) 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 locate the proposed antennas above the luminaire arm. The antennas would be housed in a two -foot tall, two -foot outside diameter canister that would extend the height of the Project to 28 feet. A tapered skirt would provide a gradual visual transition from the antenna canister to the diameter of the pole below the canister. See Exhibit B, Second Design Proposal Photo -simulations.) Instead of locating the radios and associated equipment in an above -ground cabinet, the equipment would be placed in 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 702 777 7500 F 925 988 3290 F 949 854 7099 F 702 777 7599 B-1 Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November . 2017 Page 2 underground vaults that would cover approximately 43 square feet of surface area. (Ibid.) The vaults and associated vents would be flush with the ground. (See Staff Report at p. 3.) An excerpted photo -simulation of the Second Design Proposal is presented here: 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 pp. 5-7.) Staff noted that Crown Castle had examined additional alternative locations. (Id. at pp. 13-14.) 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. 10-11, 14.) At the August 30, 2017, Planning Commission hearing, Commission Nelson pressed the Planning Director as to whether the Project met the City's standards; the Planning Director confirmed that it did comply. (See Video of August 30, 2017, Planning Commission hearing, https://www.rpvca.gov/1 55/Planning-Commission.) The Planning Commission nevertheless denied the Project. The commissioner raising the denial motion (Emenhiser) cited only general opposition to telecom facilities in residential areas and "neighborhood opposition" as the bases for the motion. Other commissioners cited nothing beyond conclusory grounds for their support of that motion. No commissioner cited any evidence to support the denial. Some commissioners opined that there was no significant gap in service, despite the conclusions of their own RF expert who concluded that "coverage deficiencies" existed in the area and resulted in a gap in service. (Staff Report at pp. 12-13.) The Planning Commissioners voting against the Project provided no direction on what design or Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November _. 2017 Page 3 location alternatives might be considered less intrusive. Crown Castle timely filed this appeal to the City Council, pursuant to City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code ("RPVMC") sections 12.18.060 (D) and 17.80.030 (A). C. Third 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 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. A tapered skirt at the base of the canister would provide a visual transition from the canister to the streetlight pole. The canister still top out at 28 feet, one inch. A conceptual photo -simulation of this third revised design is attached at Exhibit C. This third revision represents the smallest design solution for the Project; the reduction in size and profile has a resultant negative impact on the Project's ability to fill the significant gap in service. Crown Castle and AT&T nevertheless are willing to accept the reduced signal strength to achieve a mutually acceptable solution. As for locational alternatives, no least intrusive site exists in the Project area. (See discussion, infra, at Part 3 A.) As excerpted photo -simulation of the Third Proposed Design is presented here: Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November . 2017 Page 4 2. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL. A. STATE LAW. Crown Castle is a "competitive local exchange carrier" ("CLEC"). CLECs qualify as a "public utility" and therefore have a special status under state law. By virtue of the CPUC's issuance of a "certificate of public convenience and necessity" ("CPCN"), CLECs have authority under state law to "erect poles, posts, piers, or abutments" in the ROW subject only to local municipal control over the "time, place and manner" of access to the ROW. (Pub. Util. Code, §§ 1001, 7901; 7901.1; see Williams Communication v. City of Riverside (2003) 114 Cal_App.4th 642, 648 [upon obtaining a CPCN, a telephone corporation has "the right to use the public highways to install [its] facilities."].) (1) Public Utilities Code Sections 7901, 7901.1. The CPUC has issued a CPCN which authorizes Crown Castle to construct the Project pursuant to its regulatory status under state law. Crown Castle's special regulatory status as a CLEC gives rise to a vested right under Public Utilities Code section 7901 to use the ROW in the City to "construct ... telephone lines along and upon any public road or highway, along or across any of the waters or lands within this State" and to "erect poles, posts, piers, or abutments for supporting the insulators, wires, and other necessary fixtures of their lines, in such manner and at such points as not to incommode the public use of the road or highway[.]" (Pub. Util. Code, § 7901.) The nature of the vested right was described by one court as follows: ... "[I]t has been uniformly held that [section 7901 ] is a continuing offer extended to telephone and telegraph companies to use the highways, which offer when accepted by the construction and maintenance of lines constitutes a binding contract based on adequate consideration, and that the vested right established thereby cannot be impaired by subsequent acts of the Legislature. [Citations.]" ... Thus, telephone companies have the right to use the public highways to install their facilities. (Williams Communications v. City of Riverside, supra, 114 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].) 1 Given the vested nature of the section 7901 right, Crown Castle contends that a discretionary use permit like the Conditional Use Permit required by the City in this case -- constitutes an unlawful precondition for a CLEC's entry into the ROW. (See, e.g., Michael W. Shonafelt, Whose Streets? California Public Utilities Code Section 7901 in the Wireless Age, 35 HASTINGS COMM. & ENT. L. J. 371 (2013).) In a recent case, T -Mobile West LLC v. City and County of San Francisco (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 334 [2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 769], the First Appellate District, Division Five, determined that aesthetic considerations are appropriate in 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 November . 2017 Page 5 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.AppAth at p. 653.) It did so in the context of enacting AB 57 in October 2015. AB 57 is codified as Government Code section 65964.1. Under section 65964. 1, if a local government fails to act on an application for a permit to construct a wireless telecommunications facility within the prescribed Shot Clock timeframes (150 days for a standalone site and 90 days for a collocation site), the application is deemed approved by operation of law. When it enacted section 65964.1, the Legislature observed that: The Legislature finds and declares that a wireless telecommunications facility has a significant economic impact in California and is not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution, but is a matter of statewide concern. (Gov. Code, § 65964.1, subd. (c).) B. FEDERAL LAW. The approval of the Project also is governed by the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (codified as amend in scattered sections of U.S.C., Tabs Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November . 2017 Page 6 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)(I)). (2) State and local governments may not regulate the placement, construction or modification of wireless service facilities in a manner that prohibits, or has the effect of prohibiting, the provision of personal wireless services (better known as the "effective prohibition clause") (§ 332 (c)(7)(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 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)(II) of the federal Telecom Act bars local governmental decisions from precluding the provision of wireless services: Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November _. 2017 Page 7 The regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof (I1) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. (47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II).) In T -Mobile U.S.A. Inc. v. City ofAnacortes (9th Cir. 2009) 572 F.3d 987, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals set forth a two-step analysis for determining whether a local government's denial has the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless telecommunications services in violation of Section 332(c)(7)(13)(i)(II) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. In the first step, the applicant must make a showing of a ``significant gap" in service. (Id. at p. 995.) In the second step, the applicant must demonstrate it has selected the "least intrusive means" to fill that gap in service. (Ibid) Each prong of the Prohibition of Service Provision is addressed below. 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." (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 Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November . 2017 Page 8 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 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 '- Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Directorate for Science, Technology, and Industry, "Broadband Statistics," (June 2010): <www.oecd.org/sti/ict/broadband>. 3 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics (Released 05/2017); https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/wireless201705.pdf. Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November . 2017 Page 9 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 -- 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 21percent 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 a 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://digitaIconqurer.com/news/cisco-mobile-visual-networking-index-vni-forecasts-seven-fold-increase-global- mobile-data-traffic-2016-21 / 8 See CTIA Annual Survey Report (http //www.ctia.org/industry-data/ctia-annual-wireless-industry-survey) 9 See https://www.911.gov/pdf/National-911-Program-2015-ProfileDatabaseProgressReport-021716.pdf S Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November _. 2017 Page 10 two different frequencies that will be employed at the Project site. (See ASG07-Proposed Primary and Alternate Node Analysis, attached as Exhibit D.) Exhibit D identifies levels of service in terms of the following criteria: RSRP -65 to 0 -75 to -65 -s5 to a5 -95 to -85 -105 to -95 -120 to -105 Locations Uable S Failed Coverage Objective 0 (a) Outdoor Only —Unacceptable Coverage (Black) (>-105 dBm); (b) In -Vehicle Only — Unacceptable Coverage (Blue) (>-95 dBm); (c) Suburban/In-building, Acceptable (Red) (>-85 dBm); (d) Urban/In-building, Acceptable (Yellow) (>-75 dBm); (e) Dense Urban/Deep In -building, Optimum (Light/Dark Green) (>-75 dBm). Each level is characterized by a minimum signal level. The key to coverage is having a signal level strong -enough to allow customers to maintain contact with the network so they can make and maintain calls. Signal level, the strength of the radio signal customers' devices receive, is measured in negative decibels per milliwatt ("dBm"). The larger the negative dBm number, the weaker the coverage. For example, a signal strength of -100 dBm is weaker than a signal strength of -80 dBm. As a general rule, a minimum signal level of -75 dBM (yellow) is required for adequate in -building coverage and a minimum of -95 dBm (blue) is required for adequate in -vehicle coverage. As noted, the courts have upheld the use of in -building minimum standards as a proper benchmark for determining whether a significant gap in coverage exists. (See, e.g., Verizon Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco (N.D.Cal. 2006) 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43985 ["careful reading of existing cases that contain a significant gap analysis persuades the court that any analysis should include consideration of a wireless carrier's in -building coverage."].) Generally, there is a direct correlation between the height of the antenna and the strength of the service. In this case, Crown Castle's design seeks to strike a balance between service penetration and antenna height by targeting a minimum service level of -75 dBM, which is sufficiently powerful to reach indoor users while avoiding poles that may be too obtrusive. Slide 4 of Exhibit D reveals existing RF coverage at the project site. IS Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November . 2017 Page 11 CROWN CASTLE This slide reveals that that the existing coverage 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 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. If the Project is approved and allowed put on -air, however, coverage and capacity problems will be addressed, as can be seen in Exhibit D, Slide 6, which is excerpted here (following page): B-11 Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November _. 2017 Page 12 The Project will provide sufficient signal strength to ensure not only adequate signal for mobile and outdoor users, but reliable in -building coverage for all those customers who may seek to abandon their home landlines. The Project also will add sufficient capacity to address new data demands from smartphones and tablets. Wireless customers must be able to count on a level of service commensurate with that once provided by their dropped landlines. Such considerations are relevant -- if not critical -- to a determination of significant gap. (See, e.g., T - Mobile Central LLC v. City of Fraser (E.D. Mich. 2009) 675 F.Supp.2d 721 [considering failure rate of 911 emergency calls.]) One of the grounds invoked by the Planning Commission for denial of the Project was a conclusory assertion that Crown Castle failed to demonstrate a significant gap in service. The drive test data presented in Exhibit D refute that contention. Nor has this data been seriously controverted by any competent evidence. Indeed, the City's own RF expert concurred with the conclusion of Crown Castle's RF engineers that RF service in this area is below industry standards and that a gap indeed exists at the project site. (Staff Report, pp. 12-13.) The Planning Commission is charged with addressing zoning and planning issues, not the regulation of RF, which is a matter preempted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The City engaged CTC as an independent RF expert pursuant to Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code section 12.18.050. For areas -- such as RF coverage issues -- that are outside the scope of the Planning Commission's competency and jurisdiction it should look to the conclusions of its hired B-12 Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November .2017 Page 13 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. Cily ofAnacortes, supra, 572 F.3d at p. 995.) After that, the burden shifts to the local government: "When a locality rejects a prima facie showing, it must show that there are some potentially available and technologically feasible alternatives." (Id. at p. 998.) The court further explained that the applicant then has an opportunity to "dispute the availability and feasibility of the alternatives favored by the locality." (Ibid.) Because Crown Castle is a CLEC entitled to construct its facilities in the ROW, its small- cell and DAS networks are inherently ROW systems. On that basis, Crown Castle examined those alternatives theoretically available to it in the ROW. The analysis below demonstrates why the Project qualifies as the "least intrusive means" of filling the significant gap in service. (1) Height and Location of the Project. The antenna height and location of the Project were chosen to provide the minimum signal level needed to meet critical coverage and capacity needs in the service area. Despite the technical limitations of a low -profile, small-cell system, Crown Castle seeks to maximize the coverage of each node location, since maximization of the node performance equates to a lower overall number of facilities and a less intrusive system. Accordingly, the Project location was chosen to provide an effective relay of signal from adjacent sites, so that ubiquitous coverage of the minimum signal level is provided throughout the service area with the minimum number of facilities. The selected location maximizes the RF coverage of the Project and minimizes interference/overlap with the other facilities, resulting in a lower overall number of facilities and a less intrusive system. The ROW is ideal for the Project from an aesthetic standpoint because the ROW is an area already impacted with utilities and similar features typical of developed roadways. Importantly, the currently proposed location and design were identified after exhausting other possible locations in the relatively small DAS coverage area or "polygon." (See Exhibit D, Slide 5.) Crown Castle's RF engineers examined five alternative locations in the immediate Project area, as depicted in Slide 7 of Exhibit D and as excerpted here: B-13 a I ASG32'S SG32 C / ,l v+ SG32 ASG32 Q ., V\i a 1w, , k , ;0aQ, earth1.40 Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November _. 2017 Page 15 The proposed site best utilizes existing foliage and the ROW landscaping, which buffers the Project from surrounding homes. While the Project may be visible at the proposed location, it is far less intrusive than other potential sites that are immediately adjacent to residences. 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 (i) Crown Castle small cells utilize existing vertical elements in the ROW, such as utility poles, or slim -profile new poles, thereby minimizing intrusions into the ROW. (3) The Project Location and Design Qualify as the Least Intrusive Means of Filling the Demonstrated Significant Gap in Coverage. The Project utilizes small cell technology, which, as discussed above, was designed to avoid the need for larger profile macro -sites. As for the location, the Project is buffered from residences on all sides by existing foliage and the ROW landscaping. The Staff confirmed that the location was the least intrusive of all the other potentially feasible locations. The facility, as revised, will replace an existing streetlight pole and thereby eliminate the need for a new pole in the ROW. It will be painted to blend into the existing setting. B-15 Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November _. 2017 Page 16 Moving this site to other locations elsewhere in the small RF objective ring would render the facility more exposed, resulting in greater visual impacts. Crown Castle engaged in an exhaustive investigation of potential locations for the Project. If the City can identify another feasible alternative location that allows Crown Castle to achieve its coverage objective for this Project, it would be happy to investigate that location. Crown Castle submits, however, that it already engaged in that search and that the proposed location is the least intrusive location available. 4. CONCLUSION. For the foregoing reasons, the City Council should grant this Appeal and approve the Project. We look forward to answering your questions on the day of the hearing. Very truly yours, Michael W. Shonafelt 105 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 7249380.1 Ins P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2018-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE APPROVAL, WITH CONDITIONS, OF WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY ASG NO. 32 TO ALLOW THE INSTALLATION OF ANTENNAS ENCASED IN A CANISTER MEASURING 2' TALL AND 14.6" IN DIAMETER TO A REPLACEMENT STREETLIGHT POLE NOT TO EXCEED 29'- 9" IN TOTAL HEIGHT AS MEASURED TO THE TOP OF THE CANISTER WITH RELATED VAULTED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT ADJACENT TO 29716 WHITLEY COLLINS DRIVE. WHEREAS, Chapter 12.18 of the Rancho Palo Verde Municipal Code (RPVMC or Municipal Code) governs the permitting, development, siting, installation, design, operation and maintenance of wireless telecommunications facilities ("WTFs") in the city's public right-of-way ("PROW") (RPVMC § 12.18.010); WHEREAS, beginning in May of 2016, Crown Castle (the "Applicant") applied to the City for an Wireless Telecommunications Facility Permit ("WTFP"), pursuant to Section 12.18.040(A) of the Municipal Code, to install 26 antennas in the public right-of- way (PROW) to service AT&T customers throughout the City (the "Project") including ASG No. 32 located adjacent to 29504 Whitley Collins Drive; WHEREAS, the original Project called for an existing 25'-6" tall streetlight with a mast arm and luminaire to be decommissioned and replaced with a 25'-6" tali streetlight pole with two 21.4" panel antennas that would be side -mounted to the pole and the installation of above -ground mechanical equipment and meter box measuring 9.7 cubic feet in area within the public right-of-way (PROW); WHEREAS, because the Project's location is within a residential zone and within the PROW of local streets as identified in the General Plan, approval of a WTFP also requires an exception under Section 12.18.190 of the Municipal Code; WHEREAS, the Project is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") because the Project constitutes a small scale installation of new a new facility (14 CCR § 15303(d)); WHEREAS, on August 8, 2017, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to August 30, 2017; WHEREAS, on August 30, 2017, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; P.C. Resolution No. 2018-06 Page 1 of 21 C-1 WHEREAS, on August 30, 2017, after considering testimony and evidence presented at the public hearing, the information and findings included in the Staff Report, and other records of proceedings, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes moved to deny, without prejudice, ASG No. 32 on a vote 4-0 (Commissioners Leon and Tomblin, and Vice -Chair James were absent); WHEREAS, on September 14, 2017, a timely appeal of the denial was filed by the Applicant for a City Council appeal hearing; WHEREAS, on November 15, 2017, a public notice on 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 list -serve message was sent to the 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 because the Applicant proposed to relocate the Project to another location adjacent to 29716 Whitley Collins Drive and had provided alternative design options that the Planning Commission has not originally considered; 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 adjacent to 29716 Whitley Collins Drive, B. Removal of an existing 29'-9" tall marbelite street light with a mast arm and luminaire to be decommissioned and replaced with a 29'-9" tall marbelite octagonal streetlight pole, as measured to the top of the canister, with antennas encased in canister measuring 2' tall and 14.6" in diameter. C. Install vaulted underground mechanical equipment in the PROW. Section 2: Approval of a WTFP is warranted because the Project meets the findings required by Section 12.18.090 of the Municipal Code: P.C. Resolution No. 2018-06 Page 2 of 21 C-2 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 January 5, 2018 property owners within 500 feet of the proposed facility were notified of the WTF mock-up which occur at least 30 days in advance of the final City Council public hearing. Further, on January 11, 2018, a public notice announcing the January 30, 2018 public hearing was provided to property owners within 500 feet of the proposed WTF stating that the City Council was referring the matter back to the Planning Commission. On December 1, 2017, the Applicant provided the City with a Shot Clock Tolling Agreement establishing a new Shot Clock Expiration date of February 28, 2018. The Applicant has notified the City 20 days prior to the expiration of the shot clock for this application, which is now February 28, 2018. 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. 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 97.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration) of this code. As proposed, the revised Project employs screening and a camouflage design with the use of a canister shroud measuring 2' tall and 14.6" in diameter to replacement streetlight pole that will not exceed a total height of 29'-9"as measured from grade to the top of the canister. All cabling will be obscured by the use of clips or the like. The light standard will match the decommissioned light standard and those in the immediate area. All of the related mechanical equipment will be undergrounded in three vaults measuring a total of 43 square feet. The Project will not have any significant view impairment to surrounding properties pursuant to Chapter 17.02.040 of the RPVMC. In terms of cumulative visual or view impacts, a significant view impairment will not occur if other streetlight poles in this location of the City were replaced to accommodate a similar WTF. 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 P.C. Resolution No. 2018-06 Page 3 of 21 C-3 the architectural character of the surrounding buildings or structures in terms of color, size, proportion, style, and quality. The antennas will be encased in a canister shroud to a replacement streetlight pole that matches other streetlight poles in the area, and the replacement streetlight pole will utilize similar color, size, proportion, style, and quality to other street poles in the area. The canister will be painted to match the light pole with a concrete color. All cables and wires will be routed directly into the pole with no loops or exposed cables, with all cables clipped -up at the antenna -meeting point and contained within the canister. For this location, the canister installed to the top of a replacement streetlight pole is an appropriate technique that disguises and blends the facility into the environment. 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 with antennas encased in a canister shroud will not result in a significant view impairment to surrounding residences, as defined in Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration Code) of the RPVMC. City defined viewing areas such as living rooms, family rooms, dining rooms and outside rear patios are typically located on the ground floor areas of a residence. In terms of cumulative visual or view impacts, a significant view impairment will not occur if other streetlight poles in this location of the City were replaced to accommodate a similar WTF. 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 involves a replacement streetlight pole with the installation of antennas encased in a canister shroud that will be mounted to the top of a replacement streetlight pole that will be at approximately 26' above the drivable road. Additionally, the related mechanical equipment will be vaulted underground to avoid traffic safety impacts. 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. P.C. Resolution No. 2018-06 Page 4 of 21 C-4 The replacement streetlight pole will consist of colors and materials that are subdued and non -reflective. Further, they are the same as the existing streetlight pole and other streetlight poles in the immediate area. 12.18.080(A)(5): Equipment. The applicant shall use the least visible equipment possible. Antenna elements shall be flush mounted, to the extent feasible. All antenna mounts shall be designed so as not to preclude possible future collocation by the same or other operators or carriers. Unless otherwise provided in this section, antennas shall be situated as close to the ground as possible. The Project includes the installation of antennas encased in a canister shroud measuring 2' tall and 14.6" in diameter to the top of a replacement streetlight pole that will not exceed a maximum height of 29'-9" as measured to the top of the canister with mechanical equipment that will be vaulted within the street. As proposed, the canister would be visible, but it would screen the antennas and cables from view. In regards to collocation, in order to accommodate additional antennas, the height of the streetlight pole would have to be increased by approximately 5' to accommodate collocation because of the size of the panel antennas combined with there being a need to provide a separation of at least 1' between antenna panels for functionality purposes. The design does not preclude the possibility of collocation by the same or other operators or carriers but it may not always minimize visual impact. 12.18.080(A)(61(g Facilities shall be located consistent with Section 12.18.200 (Location Restrictions) unless an exception pursuant to Section 12.18.190 (Exceptions) is granted. The proposed location is within the PROW of local residential street as identified in the City's General Plan. The findings for an Exception are required. 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).) The proposal meets this finding because it involves a replacement streetlight pole with mounted antenna panels within the right-of-way. No new pole is proposed that does not replace the existing pole. 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. P.C. Resolution No. 2018-06 Page 5 of 21 C-5 The replacement pole will be the same height as the existing streetlight pole and the canister will be within that height. No portion of the antenna or equipment is less than 16Y2' above the drivable road surface. 12.18.080(A)(6)(e): Replacement Poles. If an applicant proposes to replace a pole in order to accommodate a proposed facility, the pole shall be designed to resemble the appearance and dimensions of existing poles near the proposed location, including size, height, color, materials and style to the maximum extent feasible. The proposed replacement streetlight pole will match the appearance, in terms of color, height, size and dimensions of the existing pole and all other light poles in the immediate area. The replacement streetlight pole and related equipment will consist of a Marbelite finish and painted in a concrete color to match the existing street light poles in the area. A smaller antenna technology is possible, but smaller antennas will require the installation of many more poles in the neighborhood to achieve the same coverage and capacity. 12.18.080(A)(6)(f): Pole mounted equipment, exclusive of antennas, shall not exceed six cubic feet in dimension. There will not be pole mounted equipment, excluding antennas. The related mechanical equipment will be vaulted. 12.18.080(A)(6)(i): All cables, including, but not limited to, electrical and utility cables, shall be run within the interior of the pole and shall be camouflaged or hidden to the fullest extent feasible. All cables and wires are required to be short, encased in the shroud and directly routed to the pole in order to be hidden from view with no loops, exposed cables, splitters or unsightly wires. 12.18.080(A)(7). Space. Each facility shall be designed to occupy the least amount of space in the right-of-way that is technically feasible. The replacement streetlight pole is similar in dimension to the existing streetlight pole. The placement of the antennas on the side of the pole will occupy limited air space above the right-of-way. The supporting mechanical equipment will be undergrounded and the vault necessary to house the equipment measures approximately 43 square feet of total surface area. This space is the least amount of space that is technically feasible for equipment owned by AT&T. Furthermore, the space that will be occupied is below the surface with minimum exhaust vents that will be flush to the surrounding ground. P.C. Resolution No. 2018-06 Page 6 of 21 C-6 12.18.080(A)(8): Wind Loads. Each facility shall be properly engineered to withstand wind loads as required by this code or any duly adopted or incorporated code. An evaluation of high wind load capacity shall include the impact of modification of an existing facility. Based on the information submitted by the Applicant and as confirmed by the City's consultants, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed installation complies with all building codes related to wind loads. 12.18.080(A)(9): Obstructions. Each component part of a facility shall be located so as not to cause any physical or visual obstruction to pedestrian or vehicular traffic, incommode the public's use of the right-of-way, or safety hazards to pedestrians and motorists and in compliance with Section 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility) so as not to obstruct the intersection visibility triangle. The design, height and size of the proposed installation, including the undergrounding of the mechanical equipment, will not cause an obstruction to the public's use of the PROW, constitute a safety hazard and/or does not interfere with the City -defined intersection visibility triangle. The proposed replacement streetlight pole provides the same lighting, height and setback parameters applicable to other streetlight poles. The mechanical equipment will be vaulted under the existing parkway, and conditions are proposed to ensure the vents do not physically obstruct the safe use of the parkway. 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 installation, including the undergrounding of the mechanical equipment, will not interfere with fire hydrants, fire stations, water lines or any other public health or safety facilities as determined by the Public Works Department. Furthermore, part of the plan check review process and site inspections, Public Works staff will ensure that the Project will not interfere with any of the stated utilities. 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. The related mechanical equipment will be undergrounded. P.C. Resolution No. 2018-06 Page 7 of 21 C-7 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 maintained by applicant where such landscaping is deemed necessary by the city to provide screening or to conceal the facility. Conditions have been added requiring the installation of landscaping within parkway to help soften, as well as screen, the appearance of the Project. 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. This is reinforced through the conditions of approval. 12.18.080(A)(15)(a-e) Lighting. The facility does not include any such lighting other than the luminary on the light pole. This is reinforced through the conditions of approval. C. If applicable, the applicant has demonstrated its inability to locate on existing infrastructure. Not applicable as the proposed WTF antennas are proposed to be installed on a replacement street light pole that's currently an existing infrastructure. D. The applicant has provided sufficient evidence supporting the applicant's claim that it has the right to enter the public right-of-way pursuant to state or federal law, or the applicant has entered into a franchise agreement with the city permitting them to use the public right-of-way. The Applicant has submitted to the City a Right of Way Use Agreement (RUA) entered into with the City in 2011, which allows the Applicant to install wireless antennas in the PROW. Further, the Applicant has submitted a Certificate of P.C. Resolution No. 2018-06 Page 8 of 21 M• Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) issued by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) which provides that the Applicant has been authorized to install wireless telecommunications infrastructure in the PROW. E. The applicant has demonstrated the proposed installation is designed such that the proposed installation represents the least intrusive means possible and supported by factual evidence and a meaningful comparative analysis to show that all alternative locations and designs identified in the application review process were technically infeasible or not available. Alternative locations were identified in the application review process. The design, which includes the installation of antennas encased in a canister shroud that would be affixed to the top of the pole is the least intrusive means of those alternatives. There is technology that is possible to use but that would require a greater number of facilities throughout the community to provide equal coverage and capacity. This may require the introduction of new pole structures where there are no streetlights or utility poles and may require associated accessory equipment at every location. The supporting mechanical equipment would be vaulted meeting the objective of installing the least intrusive facility. Other locations and designs considered for purposes of filling the coverage gap claimed by the Applicant and discussed by the City's RF Consultant presented the following intrusions, which will be more intrusive then the Project: • 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 Consultant, as opposed to having one AT&T pole in this area. • Alternate antenna designs, such as the canister shroud with a tapered sleeve, were found to be bulkier in appearance and less streamlined than the vertical slim -line flush and side -mounted panel antennas proposed • The other pole options are significantly wider (14" and 16") and therefore negate the objective of utilizing the least visible design option. 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. 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. 2018-06 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. This application information was provided to the City's RF Consultant who reviewed the information, as well as conducted both on-site walkouts of the area and a computerized terrain study to determine if the proposed site will address a coverage gap as identified in the application. Based on the terrain profile characteristics and the field measurement data provided by Crown Castle, the City's consultant concluded that the proposal as provided will address coverage deficiencies within the target area. Furthermore, according to the City's RF Consultant, the Applicant has provided engineering details related to the wireless bands that will be used for the DAS deployment, including identifying transmitting equipment, power levels for each band and specifics regarding the radiation patterns of the antennas to be installed. However, information provided about existing and proposed coverage in the service area for each of the three AT&T licensed wireless bands (700 MHz, PCS and AWS) are less clearly defined; this is due to the varied terrain associated with the surrounding landscape. The City's RF 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. 32 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. Similar antennas proposed on street light poles at the following 3 alternative locations: P.C. Resolution No. 2018-06 Page 10 of 21 C-10 Replacement of an existing street light pole on the west side of Whitley Collins, approximately 190 feet to the northwest of the original Primary. Street stop sign replacement located approximately 45 feet north of the original Primary on the opposite side of Scotwood Dr. Replacement of an existing street light pole approximately 100' west of the original Primary site on the west side of Whitley Collins. None of the alternative sites meet the RF coverage objective as confirmed by the City's RF Consultant. The alternative site analysis submitted by the Applicant demonstrates that the proposed Project is likely the least intrusive location for the wireless telecommunications facility in the immediate area because of the surrounding slopes and vegetation. The proposed location is at the intersection of an arterial (Crest Road) compared to the original location which was in dense developed residential neighborhood. The WTF is also being proposed to be installed on a replacement streetlight pole that replaces existing infrastructure. And while the proposed location is adjacent to a residential zone, the proposed location does not interfere with any public or residential views. The City's technical consultants have reviewed the Applicant's documents and support this conclusion. Other locations and designs were found to be more intrusive then the proposed Project: • Locations that utilize an existing or replacement pole to be preferable to a whole new pole. • A smaller or lower pole could be utilized, but it would require a multiplicity of wireless poles in the gap area claimed by the Applicant and discussed by the City's RF Engineer (attached), as opposed to having one AT&T pole in this area. • Alternate antenna designs, such as the canister shroud with a tapered sleeve, were found to be bulkier in appearance and less streamlined than the vertical slim -line flush and side -mounted panel antennas 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. P.C. Resolution No. 2018-06 Page 11 of 21 C-11 The proposed WTF installation will be installed on a replacement streetlight pole that will match other streetlight poles in the immediate area. The 29'-9" tall streetlight pole will match the height of the existing pole. The location is necessary to meet the Applicant's service objective, as affirmed by the City's RF Consultant. 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. There are no commercial zones within the signal reach of the identified gap. 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. 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 adjacent to 29716 Whitley Collins Drive (ASG NO. 32). PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 30th day of January 2018, by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS BRADLEY, EMENHISER, NELSON, TOMBLIN, LEON, AND VICE CHAIRMAN JAMES NOES: NONE ABSTENTIONS: NONE RECUSALS: NONE ABSENT: None rL- -,- Ara hr n P Community Development Director; and, Secretary of the Planning Commission William J. Jan -rd's Vice Chairman P.C. Resolution No. 2018-06 Page 12 of 21 C-12 Exhibit "A" Conditions of Approval WTF ASG NO. 32 Adjacent to 29716 Whitley Collins Drive 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 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. 2018-06 Page 13 of 21 C-13 7. If the applicant has not obtained approvals from Public Works for the approved Project or not commenced the approved Project within one year of the final effective date of this Resolution, approval of the Project shall expire and be of no further effect unless, prior to expiration, a written request for extension is filed with the Public Works Department and approved by the Director. 8. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations and/or requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter standard shall apply. 9. The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that material used for immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may include, but not be limited to: the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or discarded furniture, appliances or other household fixtures. 10. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, 9:OOAM to 5:OOPM on Saturday, with no construction activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section 17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. During demolition, construction and/or grading operations, trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at the Project site or in the adjoining street rights-of-way before 7AM Monday through Friday and before 9AM on Saturday, in accordance with the permitted hours of construction stated in this condition. When feasible to do so, the construction contractor shall provide staging areas on-site to minimize off-site transportation of heavy construction equipment. These areas shall be located to maximize the distance between staging activities and neighboring properties, subject to approval by the building official. 11, All grading, landscaping and construction activities shall exercise effective dust control techniques, either through screening and/or watering. 12. Prior to commencement work, the Applicant shall obtain approval of a haul route from the Director of Public Works. 13. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly manner, to the satisfaction of the City's Inspector. All construction waste and debris resulting from a construction, alteration or repair Project shall be removed on a weekly basis by the contractor or property owner. 14. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be completed in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the City with the effective date of this Resolution. P.C. Resolution No. 2018-06 Page 14 of 21 C-14 15. The mockup shall be removed within seven (7) days after all appeal periods have been exhausted. Protect -specific Conditions: 16. This approval allows for the following: A. Installation of a Wireless Telecommunication Facility WTF adjacent to 29716 Whitley Collins Drive. B. Removal of an existing 29'-9" tall marbelite street light with a mast arm and luminaire to be decommissioned and replaced with a 29'-9" tall marbelite octagonal street light, as measured to the top of the canister, with antennas encased in a canister shroud measuring 2' tall and 14.6" in diameter to the top of the pole. C. The installation of three separate vaults to house the required accessory equipment in the PROW, including vents and meter boxes that shall be flush to the ground and that shall not exceed 43 square feet in total surface area. 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 proposed WTF shall be installed on a new light standard that matches the other light standards in the area in terms of color, size, proportion, style, and quality. The antenna shroud and any related exposed structures shall be painted and maintained to match the light pole. o The facility shall be designed and located in such a manner as to avoid adverse impacts on traffic safety; construction and operation of the facility shall comport with a duly -approved traffic control plan as required. o Colors and materials shall be subdued and non -reflective, and shall be the same as the existing light standard and other lights standards in the nearby area. o The replacement pole shall match the appearance and dimensions of the existing pole and all other light standards near the location. o All cables and wires shall be encased within the pole and/or canister, and hidden from view. No loops, exposed cables, splitters or unsightly wires shall be permitted P.C. Resolution No. 2018-06 Page 15 of 21 C-15 o All ground -mounted facilities including mechanical equipment, or walls, fences, landscaping or other screening methods shall be installed at least 18" from the curb and gutter flow line. o All accessory equipment shall be located underground including meter boxes and cabinets. o The facility shall be installed so as to maintain and enhance existing landscaping on the site, including trees, foliage and shrubs. Additional landscaping shall be planted, irrigated and maintained by Applicant where such landscaping is feasible and deemed necessary by the City to provide screening or to conceal the facility. o The facility shall not bear any signs or advertising devices other than certification, warning or other signage required by law or permitted by the city. o The facility shall not be illuminated except for the standard street -light luminaire replacing the existing street light. All other illumination shall be restricted pursuant to RPVMC § 12.18.080(A)(15). o Noise: Backup generators shall only be operated during periods of power outages, and shall not be tested on weekends or holidays, or between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. At no time shall equipment noise from any facility exceed an exterior noise level of 55 dBA three feet from the source of the noise if the facility is located in the public right-of-way adjacent to a business, commercial, manufacturing, utility or school zone; provided, however, that for any such facility located within 500 feet of any property zoned residential or improved with a residential use, such equipment noise shall not exceed 45 dBA three feet from the sources of the noise. The foregoing noise level limitations shall govern facilities subject to RPVMC Chapter 12.18.080(A)(16) until such time that a specific noise regulation ordinance is adopted and effective in this code, at which time such noise ordinance shall govern. o The facility shall be designed to be resistant to, and minimize opportunities for, unauthorized access, climbing, vandalism, graffiti and other conditions that would result in hazardous situations, visual blight or attractive nuisances. The Public Works Director may require the provision of warning signs, fencing, anti -climbing devices, or other techniques to prevent unauthorized access and vandalism when, because of their location and/or accessibility, a facility has the potential to become an P.C. Resolution No. 2018-06 Page 16 of 21 C-16 attractive nuisance. Additionally, no lethal devices or elements shall be installed as a security device. o Consistent with current state and federal laws and if permissible under the same, at the time of modification of the facility, existing equipment shall, to the extent feasible, be replaced with equipment that reduces visual, noise and other impacts, including, but not limited to, undergrounding the equipment and replacing larger, more visually intrusive facilities with smaller, less visually intrusive facilities. o The installation and construction of the facility shall begin within one year after its approval or it will expire without further action by the city. 17. All wireless telecommunications facilities shall comply at all times with the following operation and maintenance standards: o Unless otherwise provided herein, all necessary repairs and restoration shall be completed by the permittee, owner, operator or any designated maintenance agent within 48 hours: o After discovery of the need by the permittee, owner, operator or any designated maintenance agent; or o After permittee, owner, operator or any designated maintenance agent receives notification from the city. 18_ Each permittee of a wireless telecommunications facility shall provide the Public Works Director with the name, address and 24-hour local or toll free contact phone number of the permittee, the owner, the operator and the agent responsible for the maintenance of the facility ("contact information"). Contact information shall be updated within seven days of any change. 19. Prior to any construction activities, the permittee shall submit a security instrument (bond or letter of credit as approved by the City Attorney) in an amount determined by the City to be sufficient to cover all potential costs listed herein or in the RPVMC. 20. The permittee shall provide additional information to establish that the proposed accessory equipment is designed to be the smallest equipment technologically feasible. The City may consider equipment installed or proposed to be installed in other jurisdictions. 21. All facilities, including, but not limited to, telecommunication towers, poles, accessory equipment, lighting, fences, walls, shields, cabinets, artificial foliage or camouflage, and the facility site shall be maintained in good condition, including ensuring the facilities are reasonably free of: P.C. Resolution No. 2018-06 Page 17 of 21 C-17 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 Any damage from any cause. 22. Permitee shall install, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director or Director of Community Development, drought tolerant landscaping near the proposed installation of the vaulted accessory equipment and retaining wall enclosure to screen the equipment consistent with existing landscaping prior to final inspection. 23. All trees, foliage or other landscaping elements approved as part of the facility shall be maintained in good condition at all times, and the permittee, owner and operator of the facility shall be responsible for replacing any damaged, dead or decayed landscaping. No amendment to any approved landscaping plan may be made until it is submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director or the Director of Community Development. 24. The permittee shall replace its facilities, after obtaining all required permits, if maintenance or repair is not sufficient to return the facility to the condition it was in at the time of installation. 25. Each facility shall be operated and maintained to comply with all conditions of approval. Each owner or operator of a facility shall routinely inspect each site to ensure compliance with the same and the standards set forth in the RPVMC. 26. No person shall install, use or maintain any facility which in whole or in part rests upon, in or over any public right-of-way, when such installation, use or maintenance endangers or is reasonably likely to endanger the safety of persons or property, or when such site or location is used for public utility purposes, public transportation purposes or other governmental use, or when such facility unreasonably interferes with or unreasonably impedes the flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic including any legally parked or stopped vehicle, the ingress into or egress from any residence or place of business, the use of poles, posts, traffic P.C. Resolution No. 2018-06 Page 18 of 21 C-18 signs or signals, hydrants, mailboxes, permitted sidewalk dining, permitted street furniture or other objects permitted at or near said location. 27, Unless California Government Code Section 65964, as may be amended, authorizes the city to issue a permit with a shorter term, a permit for any wireless telecommunications facility shall be valid for a period of ten years, unless pursuant to another provision of the RPVMC or these Conditions of Approval, it lapses sooner or is revoked. At the end of ten years from the date of issuance, such permit shall automatically expire. 28, A permittee may apply for a new permit within 180 days prior to expiration. Said application and proposal shall comply with the city's current Code requirements for WTF's. 29, A WTF is considered abandoned and shall be promptly removed as provided herein if it ceases to provide wireless telecommunications services for 90 or more consecutive days unless the permittee has obtained prior written approval from the director which shall not be unreasonably denied. If there are two or more users of a single facility, then this provision shall not become effective until all users cease using the facility. 30. The operator of a facility and/or permitee shall notify the City in writing of its intent to abandon or cease use of a permitted site or a nonconforming site (including unpermitted sites) within ten days of ceasing or abandoning use. Notwithstanding any other provision herein, the operator of the facility and/or permitee shall provide written notice to the director of 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. P.C. Resolution No. 2018-06 Page 19 of 21 C-19 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 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 P.C. Resolution No. 2018-06 Page 20 of 21 C-20 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 replacing larger, more visually intrusive facilities with smaller, less visually intrusive facilities. P.C. Resolution No. 2018-06 Page 21 of 21 C-21 CITY OF STAFF REPORT tiRANCHO ASG 32 - INTERSECTION OF CREST ROAD AND WHITLEY COLLINS DRIVE ADJACENT TO 29716 WHITLEY COLLINS DRIVE 0 0 PALOS VIERIDES TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ARA MIHRANIAN, DIRECTOR OF 4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: JANUARY 30, 2018 SUBJECT: MAJOR WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY PERMIT ASG NO. 32 PROJECT ADJACENT TO 29716 WHITLEY ADDRESS: COLLINS DRIVE APPLICANT: AARON SNYDER (CROWN CASTLE) LANDOWNER: CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES STAFF ART BASHMAKIAN, CONTRACT COORDINATOR: PLANNER REQUESTED ACTION: A REQUEST TO REPLACE AN EXISTING 29'-9" TALL OCTAGONAL CONCRETE STREETLIGHT POLE WITH A 29'-9" TALL STEEL CONCRETE TEXTURED STREETLIGHT POLE WITH TWO 21.4" SIDE -MOUNTED PANEL ANTENNAS FOR A WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY WITH RELATED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT. RECOMMENDATION: 1) REVIEW THE APPLICANT'S NEW LOCATION AND DESIGN OPTIONS FOR THE PROPOSED WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY PRESENTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON NOVEMBER 30,2017; AND, 2) ADOPT P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2018-_ RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL, WITH CONDITIONS, WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY ASG NO. 32 TO ALLOW THE REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING STREETLIGHT POLE WITH THE INSTALLATION OF A NEW 29'-9" TALL STREETLIGHT POLE WITH TWO D-1 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE ASG NO. 32) JANUARY 30, 2018 PAGE 2 21.4" SIDE -MOUNTED PANEL ANTENNAS AND RELATED VAULTED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT. LAND USE: PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY CODE SECTION: RPVMC CHAPTERS 12.18 AND 17.02 ACTION DEADLINE: FEBRUARY 28, 2018 (SHOT CLOCK) PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS RESIDING WITHIN 500' OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: NONE PRE -COMMISSION DISCLOSURES: PRIOR TO THE TAKING OF PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM, ANY PLANNING COMMISSIONERS THAT CONDUCTED ON-SITE INSPECTIONS OR ENGAGED IN EXTRA -HEARING DISCUSSIONS RELATING TO THIS ITEM SHOULD DISCLOSE SUCH EXTRA -HEARING EVIDENCE AS PART OF THE HEARING RECORD. BACKGROUND The Applicant, Crown Castle, has proposed to install 26 antennas to service AT&T customers throughout the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Crown Castle is a tower company hired by wireless companies for the purposes of acquiring sites for the construction and deployment of wireless telecommunications antennas throughout local jurisdictions. On July 7, 2016, Crown Castle submitted an application, proposing to install Wireless Telecommunications Facility ASG No. 32 in the public right-of-way (PROW) at Scotwood Drive adjacent to 29504 Whitley Collins Drive. The City notified Crown Castle that the application documents were incomplete after three resubmittals. Notices were sent to Crown Castle on August 5, 2016, January 3, 2017 and February 6, 2017. Crown Castle submitted documentation to obtain a mock-up permit. The mock-up of the proposed installation was constructed on June 2, 2017 and on May 25, 2017, a notice was sent to property owners within a 500 -foot radius announcing the installation of the mock-up. On July 20, 2017, a public notice was mailed to property owners within a 500' radius of the proposed site and published in the Peninsula News announcing that a public hearing on the proposed facility is scheduled to occur on August 8, 2017. On August 8, 2017, as recommended by Staff, the Planning Commission continued, without discussion, this item to its August 30, 2017 meeting to allow Staff additional time to complete its analysis. On August 30, 2017, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider the Applicant's request. At this meeting, after considering evidence introduced in the record including public testimony from the Applicant, neighbors, Staff, and the City's RF consultant, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2017-27 denying, without prejudice, the project on a vote of 4-0 (Commissioners Leon and Tomblin, and Vice -Chair James were absent) The Commission's denial was based on the following findings: W PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE ASG NO. 32) JANUARY 30, 2018 PAGE 3 • The overall appearance of the antennas on the new streetlight replacement pole at the proposed location would be a dominant feature which would be out -of - character with the surrounding neighborhood. • The antenna design is of a size and shape that would be a dominant feature on the residential street and would not blend with the surrounding environment particularly as the antenna shroud is much wider than the street light pole at the point of attachment. In particular, the replacement streetlight pole would be approximately 3' taller than the existing streetlight pole. • The wireless telecommunication facility would not visually blend with the surrounding environment and the "industrial -utility" looking style of the facility would not be compatible with the style and quality of the surrounding residential neighborhood. • The incremental changes to the improvements in the right-of-way will lead to the deterioration of the City's well-maintained streetscapes • The wireless telecommunication facility would draw attention and would reduce the desirability, including the potential to reduce property values, of the surrounding residential neighborhood • The wireless telecommunication facility covers a relatively small portion of the technical service objective and will not provide service to a significant number of uses. • There was no significant gap in coverage that would necessitate the proposed facility since the wireless service area to be served by the proposed facility only encompassed approximately 40-55 homes. Furthermore, the facility is not located upon a major highway or thoroughfare serving many in -vehicle users. To the extent any dead zone or dropped -call area was found to exist, such area was found to be very small. During the August 30th meeting, the Planning Commission requested the Applicant explore relocating the proposed wireless facility from an existing streetlight located on a residential street onto an existing streetlight pole on Crest Road, a defined arterial street in the City's General Plan. On September 14, 2017, the Applicant filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Major Wireless Telecommunication Facility Permit ASG No. 32 contending that the denial and the reasons for the denial effectively prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting the provisions of personal wireless services (see attached appeal letter). In response to the Commission's feedback, after filing the appeal of the Commission's denial, the Applicant explored relocating the wireless facility onto an existing streetlight pole on Crest Road. The Applicant reassessed the coverage objective within the intersection of Crest Road and Whitley Collins, and decided to install the proposed wireless facility on an existing streetlight pole at the intersection of Crest Road and Whitley Collins (the site that is now before the Planning Commission). D-3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE ASG NO. 32) JANUARY 30, 2018 PAGE 4 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, the Applicant proposed relocating this wireless facility (ASG No. 32) to a new location at the intersection of Crest Road and Whitley Collins Drive (adjacent to 29716 Whitley Collins Drive). In light of this, after taking public testimony, the City Council voted to refer the project to the Planning Commission for reconsideration while maintaining its jurisdiction. Specifically, the Council referred the project back to the Planning Commission because the new location and design options had not been considered by the Commission, and to allow adequate public notification for the new location to be given. The attached November 30, 2017 City Council Staff Report contains details on the revised pole designs. SITE DESCRIPTION The revised proposed site is located entirely within the PROW, at the northeast intersection of Whitley Collins Drive and Crest Road adjacent to 29716 Whitley Collins Drive. High power transmission lines traverse on the north side of Crest Road. Existing streetlight poles located along Whitley Collins Drive alternate between both side of the road at approximately 150 -feet intervals. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is to remove an existing 29'-9" tall streetlight pole and replace it with a 29'-9" tall streetlight pole with two 21.4" panel antennas that will be flush -mounted to the side of the streetlight pole with vaulted accessory equipment. The photo simulation below depicts the Applicant's flush -mounted panel antenna proposal: _009111[; MQRINI 1 -tow COW at, Existing Site ,OO<1NG NORINFAIY FROM CRIS1 RO Photo Simulation M PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE ASG NO. 32) JANUARY 30, 2018 PAGE 5 Canister Design Option In addition to the proposed project described above, as an alternative, the Applicant is proposing for the Commission's consideration a design option that encases the two panel antennas in a canister shroud measuring 2' tall and 14.6" in diameter (compared to 24" in diameter considered previously by the Commission) with a 2' tall shroud sleeve. Below are photo simulations of the canister design option. p Because the canister design option will effectively raise the overall height of the pole by approximately 3' when measured to the top of the canister, Staff's preferred design is the flush -mounted panel antennas that will be affixed to the side of the streetlight pole. As presented by the Applicant, Staff believes this is the least intrusive design as described in the finding analysis below. CODE CONSIDERATION AND ANALYSIS In accordance with Chapter 12.18 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC), the Planning Commission may approve, or conditionally approve, (in this case it's a recommendation to the City Council), an application only after it makes the Findings required in Section 12.18.090. Because the Applicant is proposing to install the facility in PROW of a local street as identified in the General Plan and within a residential zone, the subject application is also subject to Location Restrictions of Section 12.18.200. As such, the Planning Commission shall not grant any exception unless the Applicant "demonstrates with clear and convincing evidence" responses to Finding Nos. 1 through 4 of Section 12.18.190(B). FINDINGS OF FACT Pursuant to Section 12.18.090 of the RPVMC, no permit shall be granted for a Wireless Telecommunications Facility in the PROW unless all of the following Findings are made: D-5 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE ASG NO. 32) JANUARY 30, 2018 PAGE 6 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 January 5, 2018, property owners within 500 feet of the proposed facility were notified of the WTF mock-up which will occur at least 30 days in advance of the final City Council public hearing. On January 11, 2018, a public notice announcing the January 30, 2018 public hearing was provided to property owners within 500 feet of the proposed WTF and was published in the Peninsula News. On December 1, 2017, the Applicant provided the City with a Shot Clock Tolling Agreement (See Attachment) establishing a new Shot Clock Expiration date of February 28, 2018. The Applicant has notified the City 20 days prior to the expiration of the shot clock for this application, which is now February 28, 2018. Accordingly, all notice requirements have been met. B. The proposed facility has been designed and located in compliance with all applicable provisions of this chapter. Chapter 12.18 of the RPVMC has detailed requirements for wireless telecommunications facilities in the PROW. Specifically, Section 12.18.080(A) lists the design and development standards for these installations. The applicable sections which have not been clearly or substantially complied with are listed and evaluated below (italics text is the code requirement followed by Staff's analysis). 12.18.080(A)(1)(a): The applicant shall employ screening, undergrounding and camouflage design techniques in the design and placement of wireless telecommunications facilities in order to ensure that the facility is as visually screened as possible, to prevent the facility from dominating the surrounding area and to minimize significant view impacts from surrounding properties all in a manner that achieves compatibility with the community and in compliance with Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration) of this code. As proposed, the project employs screening and a camouflage design with the use of a 21.4" panel antennas that will be flush mounted to the side of the replacement streetlight pole. The replacement streetlight pole with the flush mounted panel antennas will not exceed a height of 29'-9" as measured from grade to the top of the pole (not including the luminaire and arm), and a total height of 27'-6" to the top of the panel antennas, as measured from grade. Further, the site is conditioned such that all cabling will be obscured by the use of clips. The light standard is designed to match the existing light standard being replaced and other light standards in the immediate area. Furthermore, the proposal places all of the related mechanical equipment underground in three vaults measuring a total of 43 square feet consisting of the following: me PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE ASG NO. 32) JANUARY 30, 2018 PAGE 7 • Radio vault - 32 sq. ft. • WTR vault - 5 sq. ft. • Fiber vault - 6 sq. ft. As further detailed below, a view analysis was conducted on January 19, 2018, and City staff determined that the proposed installation of panel antennas that will be flush and side -mounted to the streetlight pole will not have any significant view impairment to surrounding properties pursuant to Chapter 17.02.040 of the RPVMC. City -defined viewing areas, such as living rooms, family rooms, dining rooms and outside rear patios, are typically located on the ground floor areas of a residences. 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 antennas will be flush and side -mounted to a replacement streetlight pole that matches other streetlight poles in the area, and the replacement streetlight pole will utilize similar color, size, proportion, style, and quality to other street poles in the area. The antennas will be painted to match the light pole with a concrete color. The proposal is conditioned so that the antenna panels are snug to the pole and does not exceed 1" from the side of the pole, and is attached using a 90 -degree connector bracket with no downtilt brackets. All cables and wires will be routed directly into the pole with no loops or exposed cables, with all cables clipped -up at the antenna. Having the two flush -mounted antenna panels and wires on the side of the 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. In terms of views, on January 19, 2018, Staff conducted a view analysis for the new site. The project with flush and side -mounted panel antennas will not result in a significant view impairment to surrounding residences. However, based on a view assessment of the neighborhood, Staff determined that the proposed canister design option that encases the panel antennas in a canister shroud with a tapered sleeve will result in a significant view impairment of Catalina Island from the residential viewing areas located at 5684 and 5678 Whitecliff Drive, as defined in Rancho Palos D-7 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT — (CASE ASG NO. 32) JANUARY 30, 2018 PAGE 8 Verdes Development Code Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration Code). This is because the canister shroud increases the height of the streetlight pole and introduces new improvements in the view frame. City -defined viewing areas, such as living rooms, family rooms, dining rooms and outside rear patios, are typically located on the ground floor areas of a residence. Many, if not all, of the defined viewing areas for residences within the vicinity of the proposed WTF are located on the ground floor. In terms of cumulative visual or view impacts, Staff does not believe that, in this location of the City, if other streetlight poles were replaced to accommodate similar panel antennas that are flush and side -mounted to a streetlight pole that a significant view impairment would occur. 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 involves a replacement streetlight pole with the installation of two 21.4" panel antennas that will be flush and side -mounted the pole at approximately 26' above the drivable road. Additionally, the related mechanical equipment will be vaulted underground to avoid traffic safety impacts. 12.18.080(A)(4): Blending Methods. All facilities shall have subdued colors and non -reflective materials that blend with the materials and colors of the surrounding area and structures. The proposed street light pole will consist of colors and materials that are subdued and non -reflective. Further, they are the same as the existing light pole and other light poles in the immediate area. 12.18.080(A)(5): ' Equipment. The applicant shall use the least visible equipment possible. Antenna elements shall be flush mounted, to the extent feasible. All antenna mounts shall be designed so as not to preclude possible future collocation by the same or other operators or carriers. Unless otherwise provided in this section, antennas shall be situated as close to the ground as possible. The Applicant's Project proposes the installation of two 21.4" tall panel antennas measuring 27'-6" above the ground to the top of the antenna on a 29'-9" tall replacement streetlight pole with mechanical equipment that will be vaulted within the street. As proposed, the design would be visible, but it presents a slim side view with cables obscured from view with the use of clips or the like. Recognizing the panel antenna will be exposed, with the recommended conditions, the design meets the overarching objective of the finding to use the least visible equipment. Me PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE ASG NO. 32) JANUARY 30, 2018 PAGE 9 In regards to collocation, in order to accommodate additional antennas, the height of the street pole would have to be increased by approximately 5' to accommodate collocation because of the size of the panel antennas combined with there being a need to provide a separation of at least 1' between antenna panels for functionality purposes. The design does not preclude the possibility of collocation by the same or other operators or carriers but it should be noted that collection is does not always minimize visual impact. In fact, it will require the street pole to either be increased in height or to support additional canisters that will detract from the overall appearance. 12.18.080(A)(6)(a): Facilities shall be located consistent with Section 12.18.200 (Location Restrictions) unless an exception pursuant to Section 12.18.190 (Exceptions) is granted. The proposed location is within the PROW of local residential street as identified in the City's General Plan. As such, an exception must be approved by the Planning Commission. The findings necessary to grant an Exception are detailed further below. 12.18.080(A)(6)(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).) The proposal meets this finding because it involves a replacement streetlight pole with mounted antenna panels within the right-of-way. No new pole is proposed that does not replace the existing pole. 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 replacement pole will be the same height as the existing (29'-9") streetlight pole and the panel antennas will be below that height. No portion of the antenna or equipment is less than 16'/2' above the drivable road surface. 12.18.080(A)(6)(e): Replacement Poles. If an applicant proposes to replace a pole in order to accommodate a proposed facility, the pole shall be designed to resemble the appearance and dimensions of existing poles near the proposed location, including size, height, color, materials and style to the maximum extent feasible. m • PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE ASG NO. 32) JANUARY 30, 2018 PAGE 10 The proposed replacement streetlight pole will match the appearance, in terms of color, height, size and dimensions of the existing pole and all other streetlight poles in the immediate area. The replacement streetlight pole and related equipment will consist of a Marbelite finish and painted in a concrete color to match the existing streetlight poles in the area. A smaller antenna technology is possible, but smaller antennas will require the installation of more poles in the neighborhood to achieve the same coverage and capacity. 12.18.080(A)(6)(f): Pole mounted equipment, exclusive of antennas, shall not exceed six cubic feet in dimension. There will not be pole mounted equipment, excluding antennas. The related mechanical equipment will be vaulted. 12.18.080(A)(6)(i): All cables, including, but not limited to, electrical and utility cables, shall be run within the interior of the pole and shall be camouflaged or hidden to the fullest extent feasible. All cables and wires are required to be short and directly routed to the pole in order to be hidden from view with no loops, exposed cables, splitters or unsightly wires. 12.18.080(A)(7): Space. Each facility shall be designed to occupy the least amount of space in the right-of-way that is technically feasible. The replacement streetlight pole is similar in dimension to the existing streetlight pole. The placement of the antennas on the side of the pole will occupy limited air space above the right-of-way. The supporting mechanical equipment will be undergrounded and the vault necessary to house the equipment measures approximately 43 square feet of total surface area. This space is the least amount of space that is technically feasible for equipment owned by AT&T. Furthermore, the space that will be occupied is below the surface with minimum exhaust vents that will be flush to the surrounding ground. 12.18.080(A)(8): Wind Loads. Each facility shall be properly engineered to withstand wind loads as required by this code or any duly adopted or incorporated code. An evaluation of high wind load capacity shall include the impact of modification of an existing facility. Based on the information submitted by the Applicant and as confirmed by the City Staff, Staff finds that the proposed installation complies with all building codes related to wind loads. D-10 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE ASG NO. 32) JANUARY 30, 2018 PAGE 11 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 including the design, height and size, the proposed installation including the undergrounding of the mechanical equipment will not cause an obstruction to the public's use of the PROW, constitute a safety hazard and/or does not interfere with the City -defined intersection visibility triangle. Specifically, the proposed replacement pole, provides the same lighting, height and setback parameters applicable to other streetlights. The proposed mechanical equipment will be vaulted under the existing parkway, and conditions are proposed to ensure the vents do not physically obstruct the safe use of the parkway. 12.18.080(A)(10): Public Facilities. A facility shall not be located within any portion of the public right-of-way interfering with access to a fire hydrant, fire station, fire escape, water valve, underground vault, valve housing structure, or any other public health or safety facility. Pursuant to the application documents submitted to the City, the proposed installation, including the undergrounding of the mechanical equipment, will not interfere with any public health or safety facilities including interfering with fire hydrants, fire stations, water lines, or other infrastructure. 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. 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-11 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE ASG NO. 32) JANUARY 30, 2018 PAGE 12 maintained by applicant where such landscaping is deemed necessary by the city to provide screening or to conceal the facility. Conditions have been added requiring the installation of landscaping within parkway to help soften, as well as screen, the appearance of the Project. 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 luminaire on the light pole. C. If applicable, the applicant has demonstrated its inability to locate on existing infrastructure. Not applicable, as the proposed WTF antennas are proposed to be installed on existing infrastructure. D. The applicant has provided sufficient evidence supporting the applicant's claim that it has the right to enter the public right-of-way pursuant to state or federal law, or the applicant has entered into a franchise agreement with the city permitting them to use the public right-of-way. The Applicant has submitted to the City a Right of Way Use Agreement (RUA) entered into with the City in 2011, which allows the Applicant to install wireless antennas in the PROW. Further, the Applicant has submitted a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) issued by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) which provides that the Applicant has been authorized to install wireless telecommunications infrastructure in the PROW. E. The applicant has demonstrated the proposed installation is designed such that the proposed installation represents the least intrusive means possible and supported by factual evidence and a meaningful comparative analysis to show that all alternative locations and designs identified in the application review process were technically infeasible or not available. D-12 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE ASG NO. 32) JANUARY 30, 2018 PAGE 13 Other locations and designs considered for purposes of filling the coverage gap claimed by the Applicant and discussed by the City's RF Consultant (attached) presented the following intrusions, which Staff determined to be more intrusive then the proposed project as revised: • Staff finds locations that utilize an existing or replacement streetlight 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 Consultant (attached), as opposed to having one AT&T pole in this area. • Alternate antenna designs, such as the canister shroud with a tapered sleeve, were found by Staff to be bulkier in appearance and less streamlined than the vertical slim -line flush and side -mounted panel antennas proposed. • The other pole options are significantly wider (14" and 16") and therefore negate the objective of utilizing the least visible design option. Staff looked at other design options from other (non -AT&T) carriers. While some carriers offer antenna panels that may be smaller in overall size, such designs from other carriers are not engineered to carry the bandwidths owned by AT&T. FINDINGS FOR EXCEPTIONS Section 12.18.190 of the RPVMC states "Exceptions" provide: "The city council recognizes that federal law prohibits a permit denial when it would effectively prohibit the provision of personal wireless services and the applicant proposes the least intrusive means to provide such services. The city council finds that, due to wide variation among wireless facilities, technical service objectives and changed circumstances over time, a limited exemption for proposals in which strict compliance with this chapter would effectively prohibit personal wireless services serves the public interest. The city council further finds that circumstances in which an effective prohibition may occur are extremely difficult to discern, and that specified findings to guide the analysis promotes clarity and the city's legitimate 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(6) requires that the following "exception' findings be made by the Commission and be supported by clear and convincing evidence (Finding shown in bold text followed by Staff's analysis): D-13 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE ASG NO. 32) JANUARY 30, 2018 PAGE 14 1. The proposed wireless facility qualifies as a "personal wireless services facility" as defined in United States Code, Title 47, section 332(c)(7)(C)(ii). The Applicant has provided sufficient information to establish that the WTF meets the definition of "personal wireless services facility" as defined by the United States Code. 2. The applicant has provided the city with a clearly defined technical service objective and a clearly defined potential site search area. The "technical service objective" identified by the Applicant in all application documents is the coverage of a "significant gap" in service. This application information was provided to the City's RF Consultant who reviewed the information, as well as conducted both on-site walkouts of the area and a computerized terrain study to determine if the proposed site will address a coverage gap as identified in the application. Based on the terrain profile characteristics and the field measurement data provided by Crown Castle, the City's consultant concluded that the proposal as provided will address coverage deficiencies within the target area. Furthermore, according to the City's consultant, the Applicant has provided engineering details related to the wireless bands that will be used for the DAS deployment, including identifying transmitting equipment, power levels for each band and specifics regarding the radiation patterns of the antennas to be installed. However, information provided about existing and proposed coverage in the service area for each of the three AT&T licensed wireless bands (700 MHz, PCS and AWS) are less clearly defined; this is due to the 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 32 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 Consultant 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 D-14 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE ASG NO. 32) JANUARY 30, 2018 PAGE 15 assessing the significance of alleged gaps. (See, e.g., Cellular Tel. Co. v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of the Borough of Ho—Ho—Kus (3d Cir. 1999) 197 F.3d 64, 70 n. 2 [whether gap affected significant commuter highway or railway]; Powertel/Atlanta, Inc. v. City of Clarkston (N.D.Ga. Aug.3, 2007) No. 1:05—CV-3068, 2007 WL 2258720, at *6 [assessing the "nature and character of that area or the number of potential users in that area who may be affected by the alleged lack of service"]; Voice Stream PCS I, LLC v. City of Hillsboro (D.Or. 2004) 301 F.Supp.2d 1251, 1261 [whether facilities were needed to improve weak signals or to fill a complete void in coverage]; Nextel Partners, Inc. v. Town of Amherst (W.D.N.Y.2003) 251 F.Supp.2d 11871 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. The Applicant has proposed similar antennas on streetlight poles at the following 4 alternative locations based on the original primary location (see attachment): • Replacement of an existing street light pole on the west side of Whitley Collins, approximately 190 feet to the northwest of the original Primary. • Street stop sign replacement located approximately 45 feet north of the original Primary on the opposite side of Scotwood Dr. • Replacement of an existing street light pole approximately 100' west of the original Primary site on the west side of Whitley Collins. • Replacement of an existing street light pole on Whitley Collins at the intersection of Crest Road. Every alternative sites meet the RF coverage objective as confirmed by the City's RF Consultant. The alternative site analysis submitted by the Applicant demonstrates that the project, as currently proposed, is likely the least intrusive location for the wireless telecommunications facility in the immediate area. The proposed location is at the intersection of Whitley Collins (residential) and Crest Road (an arterial) compared to the original location which was in densely developed residential neighborhood. The WTF is also being proposed to be installed on a replacement streetlight pole that replaces existing infrastructure. And while the proposed location is adjacent to a residential zone, the proposed location does not interfere with any public or residential views. Furthermore, because of the limited commercially zoned areas in the City and limited collector or arterial streets, D-15 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE ASG NO. 32) JANUARY 30, 2018 PAGE 16 in order to provide coverage to the residential areas of the City, it's necessary to locate within the right-of-way of local streets. The City's technical consultants have reviewed the Applicant's documents and support this conclusion. Further, other locations and designs were found to be more intrusive then the proposed project as revised: • As noted above, Staff finds locations that utilize an existing or replacement pole to be preferable to a whole new pole. • A smaller or lower pole could be utilized, but it would require a multiplicity of wireless poles in the gap area claimed by the Applicant and discussed by the City's RF Engineer (attached), as opposed to having one AT&T pole in this area. • Alternate antenna designs, such as the canister shroud with a tapered sleeve, were found by Staff to be bulkier in appearance and less streamlined than the vertical slim -line flush and side -mounted panel antennas proposed. • Staff looked at other design options from other (non -AT&T) carriers. While some carriers offer antenna panels that may be smaller in overall size, such designs from other carriers are not engineered to carry the bandwidths owned by AT&T. 4. The applicant has provided the city with a meaningful comparative analysis that includes the factual reasons why the proposed location and design deviates is the least noncompliant location and design necessary to reasonably achieve the applicant's reasonable technical service objectives. See discussion immediately above. Further, the proposed WTF installation will be installed on a replacement streetlight pole that will match other streetlight poles in the immediate area. The 29'-9" tall light streetlight pole will match the height of the existing streetlight poles. The location is necessary to meet the Applicant's service objective, as affirmed by the City's RF Consultant. As stated in the previous Finding, the limited commercially zoned areas and limited number of collector or arterial streets require the use of local residential streets in order to provide proper coverage and capacity to various portions of the City. Thus, there are no commercial zones within the signal reach of the identified gap. It should be noted that RPVMC Section 12.18.190(C) provides that the Commission "shall limit its exemption to the extent to which the Applicant demonstrates such exemption is necessary to reasonably achieve its reasonable technical service objectives. The Planning Commission may adopt Conditions of Approval as reasonably necessary to promote the purposes in this chapter and protect the public health, safety and welfare." D-16 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE ASG NO. 32) JANUARY 30, 2018 PAGE 17 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 Consultant acceptable to the City that certifies that the proposed facility, as well as any facilities that contribute to the cumulative exposure in the subject area, will comply with applicable federal RF exposure standards and exposure limits." With regards to RF cumulative impact concerns, there is no additional impacts simply from the installation of wireless facilities throughout the City as shown in the Applicant's plans. As long as the antennas are 13.9' or more above ground and the 8' public exclusion zone directly in front and at the same elevation as the antenna is observed, there is no cumulative impacts associated with RF exposure. Unlike cumulative traffic impacts from additional urban development, there is no equivalent cumulative impacts. In other words, the degree of RF does not increase in neighborhoods where it can impact the general population just from having multiple wireless facilities in a neighborhood. Importantly, beyond the fact that Applicant complied with this submittal requirement, any consideration of RF Emissions by the Planning Commission, or the health effects thereof, are beyond the Commission's authority to the extent the emissions conform to the applicable FCC regulations. Under the Telecom Act, the FCC completely occupies the field with respect to RF emissions regulation, and established comprehensive rules for maximum permissible exposure levels (the "FCC Guidelines"). State and local governments cannot (1) regulate wireless facilities based on environmental effects from RF emissions when the emissions conform to the applicable FCC regulations or (2) establish their own RF exposure standards—whether more strict, more lenient or even the same. (47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv).). As the emissions conform to the FCC regulations, the City cannot impose its own emission standards or ignore the FCC standards. 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. D-17 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE ASG NO. 32) JANUARY 30, 2018 PAGE 18 The Project application proposes a new facility subject to the 150 -day shot clock. The application was submitted on July 7, 2016. The shot clock has been tolled several times and the latest agreement, dated December 1, 2017, has set to expired on February 28, 2018. (See Attachment) As a point of clarification, the Planning Commission's action on the Project is to recommend City Council either approve or deny the project. Public Comments Attached are the public comments received (see attachment). Mock -Up Notice Issues On December 21, 2017, the Applicant (Crown Castle) received a Public Works Encroachment Permit to install a Mock -Up of the revised wireless telecommunications facility. The temporary mock-up was installed on or after December 22, 2017 and the notice was issued on January 5, 2018. 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. Mock -Up Display The Applicant 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. 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. 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. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE ASG NO. 32) JANUARY 30, 2018 PAGE 19 ALTERNATIVES The following alternatives are available for the Planning Commission's consideration: 1. Recommend denial of ASG No. 32 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 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 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. 2017-27 denying without prejudice Planning Commission Staff Report with Attachments • Tolling Agreement • Public Comments D-19 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2018- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE APPROVAL, WITH CONDITIONS, OF WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY ASG NO. 32 TO ALLOW THE REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING STREET LIGHT POLE WITH THE INSTALLATION OF A NEW 29'-9" TALL STREETLIGHT POLE WITH TWO 21.4" FLUSH AND SIDE - MOUNTED PANEL ANTENNAS AT THE TOP OF THE POLE WITH RELATED VAULTED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT ADJACENT TO 29716 WHITLEY COLLINS DRIVE. WHEREAS, Chapter 12.18 of the Rancho Palo Verde Municipal Code (RPVMC or Municipal Code) governs the permitting, development, siting, installation, design, operation and maintenance of wireless telecommunications facilities ("WTFs") in the city's public right-of-way ("PROW") (RPVMC § 12.18.010); WHEREAS, beginning in May of 2016, Crown Castle (the "Applicant") applied to the City for an Wireless Telecommunications Facility Permit ("WTFP"), pursuant to Section 12.18.040(A) of the Municipal Code, to install 26 antennas in the public right-of- way (PROW) to service AT&T customers throughout the City (the "Project") including ASG No. 32 located adjacent to 29504 Whitley Collins Drive; WHEREAS, the original Project called for an existing 25-6" tall streetlight with a mast arm and luminaire to be decommissioned and replaced with a 25-6" tall streetlight pole with two 21.4" panel antennas that would be side -mounted to the pole and the installation of above -ground mechanical equipment and meter box measuring 9.7 cubic feet in area within the public right-of-way (PROW); WHEREAS, because the Project's location is within a residential zone and within the PROW of local streets as identified in the General Plan, approval of a WTFP also requires an exception under Section 12.18.190 of the Municipal Code; WHEREAS, the Project is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") because the Project constitutes a small scale installation of new a new facility (14 CCR § 15303(d)); WHEREAS, on August 8, 2017, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to August 30, 2017; WHEREAS, on August 30, 2017, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; P.C. Resolution No. 2018 - Page 1 of 21 D-20 WHEREAS, on August 30, 2017, after considering testimony and evidence presented at the public hearing, the information and findings included in the Staff Report, and other records of proceedings, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes moved to deny, without prejudice, ASG No. 32 on a vote 4-0 (Commissioners Leon and Tomblin, and Vice -Chair James were absent); WHEREAS, on September 14, 2017, a timely appeal of the denial was filed by the Applicant for a City Council appeal hearing; WHEREAS, on November 15, 2017, a public notice on 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 list -serve message was sent to the 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 because the Applicant proposed to relocate the Project to another location adjacent to 29716 Whitley Collins Drive and had provided alternative design options that the Planning Commission has not originally considered; 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 adjacent to 29716 Whitley Collins Drive, B. Removal of an existing 29'-9" tall marbelite street light with a mast arm and luminaire to be decommissioned and replaced with a 29'-9" tall marbelite octagonal streetlight pole with two 21.4" flush and side -mounted panel antennas at the top of the pole. C. Install vaulted underground mechanical equipment in the PROW. Section 2: Approval of a WTFP is warranted because the Project meets the findings required by Section 12.18.090 of the Municipal Code: P.C. Resolution No. 2018 - Page 2 of 21 D-21 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 January 5, 2018 property owners within 500 feet of the proposed facility were notified of the WTF mock-up which occur at least 30 days in advance of the final City Council public hearing. Further, on January 11, 2018, a public notice announcing the January 30, 2018 public hearing was provided to property owners within 500 feet of the proposed WTF stating that the City Council was referring the matter back to the Planning Commission. On December 1, 2017, the Applicant provided the City with a Shot Clock Tolling Agreement establishing a new Shot Clock Expiration date of February 28, 2018. The Applicant has notified the City 20 days prior to the expiration of the shot clock for this application, which is now February 28, 2018. 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. 12.18.080(A)(1)(a): The applicant shall employ screening, undergrounding and camouflage design techniques in the design and placement of wireless telecommunications facilities in order to ensure that the facility is as visually screened as possible, to prevent the facility from dominating the surrounding area and to minimize significant view impacts from surrounding properties all in a manner that achieves compatibility with the community and in compliance with Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration) of this code. As proposed, the revised Project employs screening and a camouflage design with the use of a 21.4" panel antennas that will be flush -mounted to the side of the replacement streetlight pole that will not exceed a height of 29'-9"as measured from grade to the top of the pole's luminaire (maximum total height of 27.6' to the top of the panel antennas). All cabling will be obscured by the use of clips or the like. The light standard will match the decommissioned light standard and those in the immediate area. All of the related mechanical equipment will be undergrounded in three vaults measuring a total of 43 square feet. The Project will not have any significant view impairment to surrounding properties pursuant to Chapter 17.02.040 of the RPVMC. In terms of cumulative visual or view impacts, a significant view impairment will not occur if other streetlight poles in this location of the City were replaced to accommodate a similar WTF. 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 P.C. Resolution No. 2018 - Page 3 of 21 D-22 the architectural character of the surrounding buildings or structures in terms of color, size, proportion, style, and quality. The antennas will be flush and side -mounted to a replacement streetlight pole that matches other streetlight poles in the area, and the replacement streetlight pole will utilize similar color, size, proportion, style, and quality to other street poles in the area. The antennas will be painted to match the light pole with a concrete color. The antenna panels will be snug to the pole and will not exceed 1" from the side of the pole and attached using a 90 -degree connector bracket with no downtilt brackets. All cables and wires will be routed directly into the pole with no loops or exposed cables, with all cables clipped -up at the antenna -meeting point. Having two flush mounted antenna panels and wires on the side of the streetlight pole is an appropriate technique that disguises and blends the facility into the environment. 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 with flush and side -mounted panel antennas will not result in a significant view impairment to surrounding residences, as defined in Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration Code) of the RPVMC. City defined viewing areas such as living rooms, family rooms, dining rooms and outside rear patios are typically located on the ground floor areas of a residence. In terms of cumulative visual or view impacts, a significant view impairment will not occur if other streetlight poles in this location of the City were replaced to accommodate a similar WTF. 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 involves a replacement streetlight pole with the installation of two 21.4" panel antennas that will be flush to the side of the pole at approximately 26' above the drivable road. Additionally, the related mechanical equipment will be vaulted underground to avoid traffic safety impacts. 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. P.C. Resolution No. 2018 - Page 4 of 21 D-23 The replacement streetlight pole will consist of colors and materials that are subdued and non -reflective. Further, they are the same as the existing streetlight pole and other streetlight poles in the immediate area. 12.18.080(A)(5). Equipment. The applicant shall use the least visible equipment possible. Antenna elements shall be flush mounted, to the extent feasible. All antenna mounts shall be designed so as not to preclude possible future collocation by the same or other operators or carriers. Unless otherwise provided in this section, antennas shall be situated as close to the ground as possible. The Project includes the installation of two 21.4" tall panel antennas measuring 27.6' above the ground to the top of the antenna on a 29'-9" tall replacement streetlight pole with mechanical equipment that will be vaulted within the street. As proposed, the design would be visible, but it presents a slim side view with cables obscured from view with the use of clips or the like. In regards to collocation, in order to accommodate additional antennas, the height of the streetlight pole would have to be increased by approximately 5' to accommodate collocation because of the size of the panel antennas combined with there being a need to provide a separation of at least 1' between antenna panels for functionality purposes. The design does not preclude the possibility of collocation by the same or other operators or carriers but it may not always minimize visual impact. 12.18.080(A)(6)(a): Facilities shall be located consistent with Section 12.18.200 (Location Restrictions) unless an exception pursuant to Section 12.18.190 (Exceptions) is granted. The proposed location is within the PROW of local residential street as identified in the City's General Plan. The findings for an Exception are required. 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).) The proposal meets this finding because it involves a replacement streetlight pole with mounted antenna panels within the right-of-way. No new pole is proposed that does not replace the existing pole. 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. P.C. Resolution No. 2018 - Page 5 of 2 b-24 The replacement pole will be the same height as the existing streetlight pole and the panel antennas will be below that height. No portion of the antenna or equipment is less than 161/2' above the drivable road surface. 12.18.080(A)(6)(e) Replacement Poles. If an applicant proposes to replace a pole in order to accommodate a proposed facility, the pole shall be designed to resemble the appearance and dimensions of existing poles near the proposed location, including size, height, color, materials and style to the maximum extent feasible. The proposed replacement streetlight pole will match the appearance, in terms of color, height, size and dimensions of the existing pole and all other light poles in the immediate area. The replacement streetlight pole and related equipment will consist of a Marbelite finish and painted in a concrete color to match the existing street light poles in the area. A smaller antenna technology is possible, but smaller antennas will require the installation of many more poles in the neighborhood to achieve the same coverage and capacity. 12.18.080(A)(6)(f): Pole mounted equipment, exclusive of antennas, shall not exceed six cubic feet in dimension. There will not be pole mounted equipment, excluding antennas. The related mechanical equipment will be vaulted. 12.18.080(A)(6)(i) All cables, including, but not limited to, electrical and utility cables, shall be run within the interior of the pole and shall be camouflaged or hidden to the fullest extent feasible. All cables and wires are required to be short and directly routed to the pole in order to be hidden from view with no loops, exposed cables, splitters or unsightly wires. 12.18.080(A)(7): Space. Each facility shall be designed to occupy the least amount of space in the right-of-way that is technically feasible. The replacement streetlight pole is similar in dimension to the existing streetlight pole. The placement of the antennas on the side of the pole will occupy limited air space above the right-of-way. The supporting mechanical equipment will be undergrounded and the vault necessary to house the equipment measures approximately 43 square feet of total surface area. This space is the least amount of space that is technically feasible for equipment owned by AT&T. Furthermore, the space that will be occupied is below the surface with minimum exhaust vents that will be flush to the surrounding ground. P.C. Resolution No. 2018 - Page 6 of 2 b-25 12.18.080(A)(8): Wind Loads. Each facility shall be properly engineered to withstand wind loads as required by this code or any duly adopted or incorporated code. An evaluation of high wind load capacity shall include the impact of modification of an existing facility. Based on the information submitted by the Applicant and as confirmed by the City's consultants, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed installation complies with all building codes related to wind loads. 12.18.080(A)(9): Obstructions. Each component part of a facility shall be located so as not to cause any physical or visual obstruction to pedestrian or vehicular traffic, incommode the public's use of the right-of-way, or safety hazards to pedestrians and motorists and in compliance with Section 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility) so as not to obstruct the intersection visibility triangle. The design, height and size of the proposed installation, including the undergrounding of the mechanical equipment, will not cause an obstruction to the public's use of the PROW, constitute a safety hazard and/or does not interfere with the City -defined intersection visibility triangle. The proposed replacement street light pole provides the same lighting, height and setback parameters applicable to other streetlight poles. The mechanical equipment will be vaulted under the existing parkway, and conditions are proposed to ensure the vents do not physically obstruct the safe use of the parkway. 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 installation, including the undergrounding of the mechanical equipment, will not interfere with fire hydrants, fire stations, water lines or any other public health or safety facilities as determined by the Public Works Department. Furthermore, part of the plan check review process and site inspections, Public Works staff will ensure that the Project will not interfere with any of the stated utilities. 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. The related mechanical equipment will be undergrounded. P.C. Resolution No. 2018 - Page 7 of 2 b-26 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 maintained by applicant where such landscaping is deemed necessary by the city to provide screening or to conceal the facility. Conditions have been added requiring the installation of landscaping within parkway to help soften, as well as screen, the appearance of the Project. 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. This is reinforced through the conditions of approval. 12.18.080(A)(15)(a-e) Lighting. The facility does not include any such lighting other than the luminary on the light pole. This is reinforced through the conditions of approval. C. If applicable, the applicant has demonstrated its inability to locate on existing infrastructure. Not applicable as the proposed WTF antennas are proposed to be installed on a replacement street light pole that's currently an existing infrastructure. D. The applicant has provided sufficient evidence supporting the applicant's claim that it has the right to enter the public right-of-way pursuant to state or federal law, or the applicant has entered into a franchise agreement with the city permitting them to use the public right-of-way. The Applicant has submitted to the City a Right of Way Use Agreement (RUA) entered into with the City in 2011, which allows the Applicant to install wireless antennas in the PROW. Further, the Applicant has submitted a Certificate of P.C. Resolution No. 2018 - Page 8 of 21 D-27 Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) issued by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) which provides that the Applicant has been authorized to install wireless telecommunications infrastructure in the PROW. E. The applicant has demonstrated the proposed installation is designed such that the proposed installation represents the least intrusive means possible and supported by factual evidence and a meaningful comparative analysis to show that all alternative locations and designs identified in the application review process were technically infeasible or not available. Alternative locations were identified in the application review process. The design, which includes the installation of two flush mounted panel antenna affixed to the top of the pole is the least intrusive means of those alternatives. There is technology that is possible to use but that would require a greater number of facilities throughout the community to provide equal coverage and capacity. This may require the introduction of new pole structures where there are no streetlights or utility poles and may require associated accessory equipment at every location. The supporting mechanical equipment would be vaulted meeting the objective of installing the least intrusive facility. Other locations and designs considered for purposes of filling the coverage gap claimed by the Applicant and discussed by the City's RF Consultant presented the following intrusions, which will be more intrusive then the Project: • 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 Consultant, as opposed to having one AT&T pole in this area. • Alternate antenna designs, such as the canister shroud with a tapered sleeve, were found to be bulkier in appearance and less streamlined than the vertical slim -line flush and side -mounted panel antennas proposed • The other pole options are significantly wider (14" and 16") and therefore negate the objective of utilizing the least visible design option. 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. 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: P.C. Resolution No. 2018 - Page 9 of 21 D-28 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. This application information was provided to the City's RF Consultant who reviewed the information, as well as conducted both on-site walkouts of the area and a computerized terrain study to determine if the proposed site will address a coverage gap as identified in the application. Based on the terrain profile characteristics and the field measurement data provided by Crown Castle, the City's consultant concluded that the proposal as provided will address coverage deficiencies within the target area. Furthermore, according to the City's RF Consultant, the Applicant has provided engineering details related to the wireless bands that will be used for the DAS deployment, including identifying transmitting equipment, power levels for each band and specifics regarding the radiation patterns of the antennas to be installed. However, information provided about existing and proposed coverage in the service area for each of the three AT&T licensed wireless bands (700 MHz, PCS and AWS) are less clearly defined; this is due to the varied terrain associated with the surrounding landscape. The City's RF 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. 32 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. Similar antennas proposed on street light poles at the following 3 alternative locations: P.C. Resolution No. 2018 - Page 10 of 21 D-29 • Replacement of an existing street light pole on the west side of Whitley Collins, approximately 190 feet to the northwest of the original Primary. • Street stop sign replacement located approximately 45 feet north of the original Primary on the opposite side of Scotwood Dr. • Replacement of an existing street light pole approximately 100' west of the original Primary site on the west side of Whitley Collins. None of the alternative sites meet the RF coverage objective as confirmed by the City's RF Consultant. The alternative site analysis submitted by the Applicant demonstrates that the proposed Project is likely the least intrusive location for the wireless telecommunications facility in the immediate area because of the surrounding slopes and vegetation. The proposed location is at the intersection of an arterial (Crest Road) compared to the original location which was in dense developed residential neighborhood. The WTF is also being proposed to be installed on a replacement streetlight pole that replaces existing infrastructure. And while the proposed location is adjacent to a residential zone, the proposed location does not interfere with any public or residential views. The City's technical consultants have reviewed the Applicant's documents and support this conclusion. Other locations and designs were found to be more intrusive then the proposed Project: • Locations that utilize an existing or replacement pole to be preferable to a whole new pole. • A smaller or lower pole could be utilized, but it would require a multiplicity of wireless poles in the gap area claimed by the Applicant and discussed by the City's RF Engineer (attached), as opposed to having one AT&T pole in this area. • Alternate antenna designs, such as the canister shroud with a tapered sleeve, were found to be bulkier in appearance and less streamlined than the vertical slim -line flush and side -mounted panel antennas 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. P.C. Resolution No. 2018 - Page 11 of 21 D-30 The proposed WTF installation will be installed on a replacement streetlight pole that will match other streetlight poles in the immediate area. The 29'-9" tall streetlight pole will match the height of the existing pole. The location is necessary to meet the Applicant's service objective, as affirmed by the City's RF Consultant. 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. There are no commercial zones within the signal reach of the identified gap. 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. Section 5: 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)). 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 adjacent to 29716 Whitley Collins Drive (ASG NO. 32). 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 D-31 Exhibit "A" Conditions of Approval WTF ASG NO. 32 Adjacent to 29716 Whitley Collins Drive General Conditions: 1. Prior to obtaining a permit from the Public Works Department to install the street light pole, the applicant and the property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have read, understand, and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this Resolution. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void. 2. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolutions procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and other such procedures) (collectively "Actions"), brought against the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City), for or concerning the Project. 3. Prior to conducting any work in the public right of way (PROW), such as for curb cuts, dumpsters, temporary improvements and/or permanent improvements, the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works. 4. Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws and regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) shall apply. 5. The Public Works Director or Director of Community Development are authorized to make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of approval if such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with the approved plans and conditions. Otherwise, any substantive change to the Project shall require approval of a revision by the final body that approved the original Project, which may require new and separate environmental review. 6. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be cause to revoke the approval of the Project pursuant to the RPVMC. P.C. Resolution No. 2018 - Page 13 of 2b-32 7. If the applicant has not obtained approvals from Public Works for the approved Project or not commenced the approved Project within one year of the final effective date of this Resolution, approval of the Project shall expire and be of no further effect unless, prior to expiration, a written request for extension is filed with the Public Works Department and approved by the Director. 8. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations and/or requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter standard shall apply. 9. The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that material used for immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may include, but not be limited to: the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or discarded furniture, appliances or other household fixtures. 10. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, 9:OOAM to 5:OOPM on Saturday, with no construction activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section 17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. During demolition, construction and/or grading operations, trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at the Project site or in the adjoining street rights-of-way before 7AM Monday through Friday and before 9AM on Saturday, in accordance with the permitted hours of construction stated in this condition. When feasible to do so, the construction contractor shall provide staging areas on-site to minimize off-site transportation of heavy construction equipment. These areas shall be located to maximize the distance between staging activities and neighboring properties, subject to approval by the building official. 11. All grading, landscaping and construction activities shall exercise effective dust control techniques, either through screening and/or watering. 12. Prior to commencement work, the Applicant shall obtain approval of a haul route from the Director of Public Works. 13. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly manner, to the satisfaction of the City's Inspector. All construction waste and debris resulting from a construction, alteration or repair Project shall be removed on a weekly basis by the contractor or property owner. 14. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be completed in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the City with the effective date of this Resolution. P.C. Resolution No. 2018 - Page 14 of 2 b-33 15. The mockup 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. ollowing: A. Installation of a Wireless Telecommunication Facility WTF adjacent to 29716 Whitley Collins Drive. B. Removal of an existing 29'-9" tall marbelite street light with a mast arm and luminaire to be decommissioned and replaced with a 29'-9" tall marbelite octagonal street light with two 21.4" flush and side -mounted panel antennas at the top of the pole not to exceed the height of the pole. C. The installation of three separate vaults to house the required accessory equipment in the PROW, including vents and meter boxes that shall be flush to the ground and that shall not exceed 43 square feet in total surface area. 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 proposed WTF shall be installed on a new light standard that matches the other light standards in the area in terms of color, size, proportion, style, and quality. The antenna shroud and any related exposed structures shall be painted and maintained to match the light pole. o The facility shall be designed and located in such a manner as to avoid adverse impacts on traffic safety, construction and operation of the facility shall comport with a duly -approved traffic control plan as required. o Colors and materials shall be subdued and non -reflective, and shall be the same as the existing light standard and other lights standards in the nearby area. o The replacement pole shall match the appearance and dimensions of the existing pole and all other light standards near the location. o All cables and wires shall be encased within the pole and/or canister, and hidden from view. No loops, exposed cables, splitters or unsightly wires shall be permitted o All ground -mounted facilities including mechanical equipment, or walls, fences, landscaping or other screening methods shall be installed at least 18" from the curb and gutter flow line. P.C. Resolution No. 2018 - Page 15 of 21 D-34 o All accessory equipment shall be located underground including meter boxes and cabinets. o The facility shall be installed so as to maintain and enhance existing landscaping on the site, including trees, foliage and shrubs. Additional landscaping shall be planted, irrigated and maintained by Applicant where such landscaping is feasible and deemed necessary by the City to provide screening or to conceal the facility. o The facility shall not bear any signs or advertising devices other than certification, warning or other signage required by law or permitted by the city. o The facility shall not be illuminated except for the standard street -light luminaire replacing the existing street light. All other illumination shall be restricted pursuant to RPVMC § 12.18.080(A)(15). o Noise: ■ Backup generators shall only be operated during periods of power outages, and shall not be tested on weekends or holidays, or between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. ■ At no time shall equipment noise from any facility exceed an exterior noise level of 55 dBA three feet from the source of the noise if the facility is located in the public right-of-way adjacent to a business, commercial, manufacturing, utility or school zone; provided, however, that for any such facility located within 500 feet of any property zoned residential or improved with a residential use, such equipment noise shall not exceed 45 dBA three feet from the sources of the noise. The foregoing noise level limitations shall govern facilities subject to RPVMC Chapter 12.18.080(A)(16) until such time that a specific noise regulation ordinance is adopted and effective in this code, at which time such noise ordinance shall govern. o The facility shall be designed to be resistant to, and minimize opportunities for, unauthorized access, climbing, vandalism, graffiti and other conditions that would result in hazardous situations, visual blight or attractive nuisances. The Public Works Director may require the provision of warning signs, fencing, anti -climbing devices, or other techniques to prevent unauthorized access and vandalism when, because of their location and/or accessibility, a facility has the potential to become an 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 P.C. Resolution No. 2018 - Page 16 of 21 D-35 the extent feasible, be replaced with equipment that reduces visual, noise and other impacts, including, but not limited to, undergrounding the equipment and replacing larger, more visually intrusive facilities with smaller, less visually intrusive facilities. o The installation and construction of the facility shall begin within one year after its approval or it will expire without further action by the city. 17. All wireless telecommunications facilities shall comply at all times with the following operation and maintenance standards: o Unless otherwise provided herein, all necessary repairs and restoration shall be completed by the permittee, owner, operator or any designated maintenance agent within 48 hours: o After discovery of the need by the permittee, owner, operator or any designated maintenance agent; or o After permittee, owner, operator or any designated maintenance agent receives notification from the city. 18. Each permittee of a wireless telecommunications facility shall provide the Public Works Director with the name, address and 24-hour local or toll free contact phone number of the permittee, the owner, the operator and the agent responsible for the maintenance of the facility ("contact information"). Contact information shall be updated within seven days of any change. 19. Prior to any construction activities, the permittee shall submit a security instrument (bond or letter of credit as approved by the City Attorney) in an amount determined by the City to be sufficient to cover all potential costs listed herein or in the RPVMC. 20. The permittee shall provide additional information to establish that the proposed accessory equipment is designed to be the smallest equipment technologically feasible. The City may consider equipment installed or proposed to be installed in other jurisdictions. 21. All facilities, including, but not limited to, telecommunication towers, poles, accessory equipment, lighting, fences, walls, shields, cabinets, artificial foliage or camouflage, and the facility site shall be maintained in good condition, including ensuring the facilities are reasonably free of: a. General dirt and grease; b. Chipped, faded, peeling, and cracked paint, C. Rust and corrosion; P.C. Resolution No. 2018 - Page 17 of 2b-36 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. Permitee shall install, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director or Director of Community Development, drought tolerant landscaping near the proposed installation of the vaulted accessory equipment and retaining wall enclosure to screen the equipment consistent with existing landscaping prior to final inspection. 23. All trees, foliage or other landscaping elements approved as part of the facility shall be maintained in good condition at all times, and the permittee, owner and operator of the facility shall be responsible for replacing any damaged, dead or decayed landscaping. No amendment to any approved landscaping plan may be made until it is submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director or the Director of Community Development. 24. The permittee shall replace its facilities, after obtaining all required permits, if maintenance or repair is not sufficient to return the facility to the condition it was in at the time of installation. 25. Each facility shall be operated and maintained to comply with all conditions of approval. Each owner or operator of a facility shall routinely inspect each site to ensure compliance with the same and the standards set forth in the RPVMC. 26. No person shall install, use or maintain any facility which in whole or in part rests upon, in or over any public right-of-way, when such installation, use or maintenance endangers or is reasonably likely to endanger the safety of persons or property, or when such site or location is used for public utility purposes, public transportation purposes or other governmental use, or when such facility unreasonably interferes with or unreasonably impedes the flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic including any legally parked or stopped vehicle, the ingress into or egress from any residence or place of business, the use of poles, posts, traffic 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 P.C. Resolution No. 2018 - Page 18 of 21 D-37 telecommunications facility shall be valid for a period of ten years, unless pursuant to another provision of the RPVMC or these Conditions of Approval, it lapses sooner or is revoked. At the end of ten years from the date of issuance, such permit shall automatically expire. 28. A permittee may apply for a new permit within 180 days prior to expiration. Said application and proposal shall comply with the city's current Code requirements for WTF's. 29. A WTF is considered abandoned and shall be promptly removed as provided herein if it ceases to provide wireless telecommunications services for 90 or more consecutive days unless the permittee has obtained prior written approval from the director which shall not be unreasonably denied. If there are two or more users of a single facility, then this provision shall not become effective until all users cease using the facility. 30. The operator of a facility and/or permitee shall notify the City in writing of its intent to abandon or cease use of a permitted site or a nonconforming site (including unpermitted sites) within ten days of ceasing or abandoning use. Notwithstanding any other provision herein, the operator of the facility and/or permitee shall provide written notice to the director of 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 P.C. Resolution No. 2018 - Page 19 of 2b _38 regulations of the City. The facility shall be removed from the property, at no cost or expense to the City. 33. Failure of the permittee, owner or operator to promptly remove its facility and restore the property within 90 days after expiration, earlier termination or revocation of the permit, or abandonment of the facility, shall be a violation of these conditions of approval. Upon a showing of good cause, an extension may be granted by the Public Works Director where circumstances are beyond the control of the permittee after expiration. Further failure to abide by the timeline provided in this section shall be grounds for: a. Prosecution; b. Acting on any security instrument required by the RPVMC or conditions of approval of permit; C. Removal of the facilities by the city in accordance with the procedures established under the RPVMC for abatement of a public nuisance at the owner's expense; and/or d. Any other remedies permitted by law. 34. In the event the Public Works Director or City Engineer determines that the condition or placement of a WTF located in the public right-of-way constitutes a dangerous condition, obstruction of the public right-of-way, or an imminent threat to public safety, or determines other exigent circumstances require immediate corrective action (collectively, "exigent circumstances"), the Director or City Engineer may cause the facility to be removed summarily and immediately without advance notice or a hearing. Written notice of the removal shall include the basis for the removal and shall be served upon the permittee and person who owns the facility within five business days of removal and all property removed shall be preserved for the owner's pick-up as feasible. If the owner cannot be identified following reasonable effort or if the owner fails to pick-up the property within 60 days, the facility shall be treated as abandoned property. 35. In the event the City removes a facility in accordance with nuisance abatement procedures or summary removal, any such removal shall be without any liability to the city for any damage to such facility that may result from reasonable efforts of removal. In addition to the procedures for recovering costs of nuisance abatement, the city may collect such costs from the performance bond posted and to the extent such costs exceed the amount of the performance bond, collect those excess costs in accordance with the RPVMC. Unless otherwise provided 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. P.C. Resolution No. 2018 - Page 20 of 21 D-39 36. Consistent with current state and federal laws and if permissible under the same, at the time of modification of a WTF, existing equipment shall, to the extent feasible, be replaced with equipment that reduces visual, noise and other impacts, including, but not limited to, undergrounding the equipment and replacing larger, more visually intrusive facilities with smaller, less visually intrusive facilities. P.C. Resolution No. 2018 - Page 21 of 2b-40 GENERAL(ONPRAt IORNOTEI: F�)NIRACIOR SIIAI I VFRIFYALL AEANS ANI) IS I ]NO DIME NSR N I111j NI)CONI ] IONS ON I 'Ill S ;IS ANI),I'IiAI,I.IMMLI)IAJFI.YNO[iFY F I 1: NOINITIR IN WRI I'il,16 OF ANY I )PSCIZ:PANCIES HFFORF PROCFFIANO W1'1'11'I-III: ijI I HE WORK OR RESPONSIRIX, 12OR SAME. ASG32 29716 WHITLEY COLLINS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA SIGN OFF TITLE SIGNATURE DATE NE IW ORA FFAI, LSI A I]F. PROJE '''I 11 A11GER CONS'( RI ICTION NIANA61 R G)IO Pk F.(11: ENCI k VICINITY MAP j -S-HEETINDEX A PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PIkO!FC I MANAGIFk OF UMNIISSION & REMOVE FXISI INC, 2W')HIGH OC IAGONAI. CONCRF IF. CROWN CAS[ 1 1: '(IOSI'hLIRIIN]CFNII:RI)RIN[lit].()()R SIREEI L[Gill II-Oliz 11) rrZJ1341).—) REPLACE "'IIIA IF 1 2" ""111(111 rk IRVIN]. CA'12(,IS CONCREIT IPXRRhDSIhFI.IPOI.I Alli IIA1I.1RNIANIII.l!MINAIRl. JON COW]1.1, (92512M-1,857 IMSIAIJ (2)214".kN]l,NN.kS=I]P.\-65]qllt RRA CKEI INSIAIA.(OCR.\kNLISII.h� X(,'VAIIA 11llil])FIACkiF:I)FI.1'.SIIMOt'NI NIFNIS CONS ITI)CIION FFR7iNFFR CROWN CAS 11.1 & k2) W IONS INSIDE. (1) llI R FISF BOXINSIDE 2( (jo NVIH � I ROM CIN I hR OR IN 1111 LOOR • IN' ., ALL VOR ,R, V2� CA12,0 KFNN : I If I IOBBS • EQ1 HPIMEN I AND AN I ENNA 10 BE PAIN I I,]) I OMA IC -II POLL (7 "'2511 11 I",'I'(" IJ III.SS CROIANCASll,I COM NODE FN( INI I R CIAS IAI. COMMUNICAIRINS SI TE LOCATION 'e' CIRR IPSSJOHNSON (7,,o) 11321312 CURIISS,,COASJAI.COMMIN( kOM XN\&q N.T.S. k VICINITY MAP j -S-HEETINDEX A PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PIkO!FC I MANAGIFk OF UMNIISSION & REMOVE FXISI INC, 2W')HIGH OC IAGONAI. CONCRF IF. CROWN CAS[ 1 1: '(IOSI'hLIRIIN]CFNII:RI)RIN[lit].()()R SIREEI L[Gill II-Oliz 11) rrZJ1341).—) REPLACE "'IIIA IF 1 2" ""111(111 IRVIN]. CA'12(,IS CONCREIT IPXRRhDSIhFI.IPOI.I Alli IIA1I.1RNIANIII.l!MINAIRl. JON COW]1.1, (92512M-1,857 IMSIAIJ (2)214".kN]l,NN.kS=I]P.\-65]qllt RRA CKEI INSIAIA.(OCR.\kNLISII.h� X(,'VAIIA 11llil])FIACkiF:I)FI.1'.SIIMOt'NI NIFNIS CONS ITI)CIION FFR7iNFFR CROWN CAS 11.1 & k2) W IONS INSIDE. (1) llI R FISF BOXINSIDE 2( (jo NVIH � I ROM CIN I hR OR IN 1111 LOOR • IN' ., ALL VOR ,R, V2� CA12,0 KFNN : I If I IOBBS • EQ1 HPIMEN I AND AN I ENNA 10 BE PAIN I I,]) I OMA IC -II POLL (7 "'2511 11 I",'I'(" IJ III.SS CROIANCASll,I COM NODE FN( INI I R CIAS IAI. COMMUNICAIRINS 4 RIVANGA CANYON IIIND CIIAIS'WOR1II,CA')i311 CIRR IPSSJOHNSON (7,,o) 11321312 CURIISS,,COASJAI.COMMIN( kOM PROJECT SUMMARY j \1 PROJECT TEAM ASG32 _ 2Z'­ .CCRCIVVN CASTLE ��'°. Communications 'DIIWRT -SI-ER REDLINES 111,11f ASG32 29716 WHITLEY COLLINS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA TITLE SHEET t �nT- I D-41 LEGEND SYNISOL DESCRIPTION 7-1 m ABBREVIATIONS ASEN-I.. I-EITTER Il -ur."T. ESTSTI. tJP FELES OF 1AMIFIST PL - IFESTY LESE FDHT III WAY S'. —111 IFFIN B.M., EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES: TE1.1 IF AS I FE, il 1-11111 E11 1,11— 11. -1. 111 I•UhRAMTE IN IF IINAI IIEFI AIIEDITS, SIR— Hk TTNA. -El I BY 11 IF CVN'I WIITI IIk UE I.Il ALINE. PkkH IN M, .111, A I h, 11111!11 I I.I. NI:UI�IHEAN{NTS OF I I III SANIIIII FDEE 1-11 11HI-S1.121,11,N1 —1— S11 THF PE, 101-14-11—Bill-0-11; 'I Will H THE H—UN 1%,N-1. ELAN AND 1,R WATER It HL xTUk:A WHAE. .-S. 1'R1 A —1 SILT BASIN 11.11REATELY 111STREAM 1-1 FNl-FT AS HIIIIIATED UN HETAH F THE II-NDIALT IF UF 141 IAI.I— EVES, . SH AlL .1. — INEIRS.1- h IE I I ANIT ."MT AND 14.INN AINA, TNT SI KHEB F) AND —10, 1 I—E F VFTHM OLIN TU 11JEHRL -11 IIN B '11 % IT Y 4 THE I NTE A- . .1— — — MY —11 IMIS AFTEE El 11 .. IS X Al. - I WtIll AND EA 'Eks F CH, Ex IFEDI- N('Y MA K SNAIL HE WADE A VAE AELB AT ALL TI I DITSHEI—EAD—Bi. TI {F iX IS — iHM.L FEET.AH — EWSit IN,.gM)M IFNI t.1 IN rE1A. DEV— Ti I W-1 N'll T,, TI IS SATIFEA — - IF THE VITY ENCH HE EX , IF MRSIDENT ENI 11 HER k XFTH k HA, Ii kU IFF I H. , ', -NU -- 4HALT. INSrAI, 1. ADD] rl' INAL )EEIS! I .."I 1111 HIN I I;'. I E'll I 8AS-1 E IF III El Wz'4i!IMDIIY U.I. IN *-MS HEIVIDIDD 111. THE All-AIE1 I-11T.Nr SH.,' FRINLIESTilEAT-HEREON A11FIBIKE-11HII—I 'XiEr."JI-1-1—DIJBINS SH -L BE DINE TD THE SAHSFAOTIIIN OF 11114 REHADEN'T ENIINUNK ALkli'—Affik 1-11% H DR—SEE-14— BE US I—F. Al THE END tl—1 BA—EID DAY WHEN BAN 1% I—ENT E- Tl:�F I -- 11R SHAI-1 AREAlNEI, K* � HIMIN IWE.I NdE Dt KINE - BINER INT IT, AFER. NHI P —TEA 01 11-1-F. —1— STORMDRAIN INLET PROTECTION H ME011PAVEMM' ImXI, FLOW FLOW ��"`VfAy "A" '� SPILLWAY. I-HAO 141011 SAININIAG 2-HAUSHEIGH1 TYPICAL PROTECTION FOR INLET WITH OPPOSING FLOW DIRECTIONS EWE OF PAVEMENT —71 -ow FLOW SPILLWAY, 141MI, I IIUH SANI)HAG 2-HAUSnmorr TYPICAL PROTECTION FOR INLET WITH SINGLE FLOW DIRECTION NOTES: L IN TENDED FOR SHORT -ITYXI USE I SPIII INHIHa r MIN - STORM WA THE FLOW 1. ALIA)WHIR MEER X WEI FNANt AND OJ:AN I A', J. HAO'N"T SEE RE1,MEDAFTER ADIMEN I OPHAAAKIN N (IiiiLPLE 111). 5 NOTAPELICARI F INAREAS WITH HIQH SUM AND CLAYS Y, f"HOU f FIL Ilk FABRIC NOTES: ININTAINNAPI'DWAIR 1 1114 LS MILE BE 0 ABSED A', I """ N. ANTEIRES, wE.I. BE SWEIII IN,) I.I.EINED AS N—HID I -N rRA1 JIM III REPAIR WtAOEJJ NIHAC I-EC-HEN7.1 III THE FATI—ON DF THE 17ITY —SEER IXTIFFAI-EY B-THH'ITYRNOINESSIN0.11IMI ETHNW INDTHAFFF—W-- 7 ROW GROUND CONSTRUCTION NOTES: Ikul: THIN MEN, EAJIS, —.1181HI VERTICALE OFF I 11F RILE 11 V li—MAIJ. Hi, 1. AL INDANU WITH I I,l -N 11krA IS iEDUAL, 01101 AND .111 N ShWUANUN AND —.A I ll,!TN I I:AV.L 11,SA4KHOURS pmokr,-HN,:AVATINUAT(411.2.')-,,WUR811 11 LAND.—N. III .'1 .11 1-11111 1'. EST IRK ALL FQUIKQEDT f1l BE BONDED IBSTERIED L'AhINET MWINES M- U.B.AX—Al AT —N I'VESENO -!ADIXUAUINKTRASH Ar— NORMAL LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES NOTES: I tAx,xri- AmH okEru IlFhXIETIN0 AND HSHBEED, —ims —r HE vN,)mm)Bv THE. SIESIE—EX ANSISHIAWN IN ANY H-4 SIAINITTTED T, I THE DEBT I W PHIM.11- W, EECS Fl IVAL I "INFLICNESinEBArrILT! IIVNJPANE.1111.111&4 .,I SE HEI11H.111"l'—.1 4 10-9 1 Ni- BEHIND 1AII, III hIANU 1,1 .1' IX-ETHA, DAI AWNS NlAY FE T—W) IN.KiINT 11111.1 tMl MIKI I SMEF3 I,, AFFR-At (IF (ITY HK1IMKlN TEAM', CALIFORNIA STATE CODE COMPLIANCE..; ,Ilk BNI Lit" IIINS IFIER ME Ll -1-111, All HINHINTHESEPLANIIS I" HiM111 WIA1,11-10-NIll—NLI lllllWlN • 'A.DI)RESAADMINI RATIIE 1)DF 11-1XIIIN11 111 —1 • lulu III IFINNIA .011.111. l— Al"ll' N I 111 .1. l2%1:.2lIW 1311- Tutu I'K- AND IIIF E:E ADIII-TRATIEl • AN iFE—I II.I.—H. • A-11B.NIA1111-1-1. FAI 1.11 Y 14 INNIASNED AND NOT FUR III— HAE1 IAIIIEY HANDE-Akilhtl At"INS JAINUI APPLY IN Al—W- ETIH THE— I-I-ENIA BUILDIN11 i% IDE III —Tv FKEQi ihNI-Y 114 AVIAA SHDANI Ii WITH THE IIII.-IMSE B•:111 ."11I 1 -ANDFIFQl k I AhBEIINUMxANDANYU1HE RHQtIIFii— INII'l-1.11 III MAIMIRMIANA-l"i I"' A—IIN ASG32 tCROWN cCASTLE Communications 1111! INH �kMI' I Ir n' I11N1:\1x110 IN THIS ISII!,DHE .11 11 ".\I T US—ERR—NES Ibllll( 29716 VVHITLEY COLLINS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA (DETAILS &NOTES jli 11/30/1IY 7 c.j D-1 D-42 Becpkd Murire Voxarr Vrc. x5!284 Vewnr unrnurr,Mrmr. waps 11s or x3tl 1150 aprk.I Summary Opticalrnturrr kns. tlB 45 mrnrmum F, per lypn. mm Srrgk mobs Eellx5 puce! UnN pWAe[aB CorrrppWie rnpul power 0110 � Gtf4 nraNer ape, eBm mMa mpmnan 1Bp0 121 110 0 1 210 0 MHi NYMNe BIE Btl •5 mmk v5 cpnrWpp'ita Numper If wnnecbn 1900 MNx 1- 1. M. ByGem epmrMatl Ipr BTB qqr. 45m 4 A AIWIw Pon o�lwr� Woow�r >/tB Fanrdn see pard apeanwauo, RNerr, bu. tlB 15 • A b nw0a Frequnrnyrmrq. MHa DylW pmwr qr garner 4em� Number.1 Oarrkn 1 2 4 LBM 95 42 39 36 45 42 39 36 umr LIM rB 95 42 39 LTE 45 42'• 3A Bpunpu>nrprnapn 38 3fi <.13 tlWn 11 M14 ULuutpulptplulnme w rlpiWenNcy,. 08 DL -Wt bWr uvnr Mmgr .. IB Input ICV3 tlym Icp3 pDuur,aw a2 Nmno tyyro uDlrn,unp -/8 N04w tyure. pB ICDJ uplrrrrrantl i Nerm A. p 1 m yarn upprnrantl 4 .5 6- I- M. mex. I-M. IAM2 F,n lKy ranpn. MH' UpN 1050 tp 191E 0 an4rp '^t OWpW ppwnr grcapnl, Gm• MumaardCarrMn 2 GBM 45 4[ 39 36 WMA 45 Y 3(l Jtl Lars as ez 39 76 LTE 45 92— >B 36 Bpurgw nmrssrpn .-13�m/1 NHi DL DL WIWI brarce uvnr pmleare.Yyn rrvnr Wnrraturn. tlB AS^ In,W,WlIcIlknrwa IGV3 Obm IDP3 W, W. Nark tymn uptrn,mtl -18 Npwn,yura. tllGP3 eN'r . "I 11 mae, N.I. hyutau 111111 tl 4,5 6mm. 9pepm 5ugrvkbn aM Cpnppl ra $ orTo I Ekmnat mnea pars Axun,s Summary elan Voval$ Optmal ULLIm DL BupnrvrNpn TamgraWra Delput Dpvror en A qr- gtAantl channnlanp mMa mpmnan Harpnl vnpllr. paptp mm I'M tltia 145e218 V4erphl, 4p (Ibl (32.2a 8.61ax6) W (66,2) Opentan mmgeMWe reryn mora! NF . 0-D IIT Ift7robcWn ppart Fan yatt N55 • A b nw0a b Wx lt.lmutldmrar, ^ ]tlp power rntluetwr,(g-SMHz wrwr OaMwrWp 1 .... spkprhy 1e4e10 40 afro lt.5a rm amend pnn .... Mnm pasua wdrry nrmrn,pp, kmpnralraa •aAc N Iquns ere types vakwn ANDREW ION-M17HP/19HP MULTI -BAND, MULTI -OPERATOR REMOTE OPTICAL SYSTEM 245m 21bnrn 322 617m Sid! F..t SIO. ASG32 r.a„r°°242727r�r „ �C CROWN S � v TLE Nr�b:D,alkl,„NTHxpxl,m..lk- k,„rrx INt3\N : A r ft-. cations Commune I•I�, I xuI RIBI.\x1 INYUb1LU'IUA lo-. a+t. rxnun,rNr�, r•� onus IfI.ULY.WII rI�Nk1UR.�111\1\r\ I�NI�.r �N Ulv,lrnl'klir�,llltlt'I 11 \`'ell NF.I.\I'Iry w.\rkrtpsrxnm�� rwnurarcu rra%i. a r r, IJ:vef 11\'•� U.\3'v Nl:M rkr�. k', 4'U91 av 6p3nm•F. At.rx r PH RY LOCATION lntlltl CLBTUMER REDLINES ASG32 29716 WHITLEY COLLINS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES. CA DETAILS & NOTES Lal lu n\ re l7ild17 uxxc.J m D-2 D-43 ASG32 n242727•„ ^CROWN v CASTLE _,u Y' -IR I LnILK ORIixI. r YI.Ix xRw l`x x .� xunlu. 10 Communications ' APulULlnuA ihxl:U In TM+ '1 14RI IYRI.faR1 n\V a RI L fl I M1� fnf A.'1 I fi IN g Lu ntweslfRF�-,m> 11 1-1 YRaII11BllEu I LLLwf I�\'n vn uiu� I,NIRRORIN•�T, xlut m.FrT a.1hT�� PRIMARY LOCATION 11lid1) USI'OMER REDLINES ASG32 29716 WHITLEY COLLINS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES. CA DETAILS & NOTES IIIgN1T arrxC.Jx D-3 .I A HPA-65F-BUU-H2 WK -W GROUND ROD: DIOROUND ROD SHALL BE MINIMUM NEW POLE FOUNDATION 0.625" DIA. x S' LONG. COPPER CLAD. • • G2 MINIMUM Y EXPOSURE AT TOP OF FOUNDATION WITHIN BOLT CIRCLE. "` � � • NOT TO SCALE ANOHOXBOLIS { Al ANDHN U LIBEHALLBE—IBARETER. AS GNEN IN SPECI— ONS ASTM AML. ..., gn'n.xW -- - -_ 2d' O i- /e,ys AS SOL EILAIE. gANETER TO HATCH POLE D EJ� BASEPLATE HerPwl pwil H.Il x'. •Y.I-I �,.�uarl_ SPLC[fICAT10N5 HPAoEY UUU-H2 ..IN xwm•Ae _ GROUND LEVEL 11A"-, A3 ANCWXbOL I55NFLL INVE HEADS OR NU - -• tVN PLNGES ELHUW TiIE NUTTKEDAT EMBBDQEOIJFOUNDATbN • .x"-„'^ ' ,...�... •..uw....w. waxany,.rXcyxaw V V' " - " - - - AI AK RUO—SHALLSEEMSEDDEO?3" MINIM UM, BELOW STREET GRACE t6Y EMBGDMENI IN REtE) LM.,Y .xnn a5 BDL1 Yku - A'RECOMMENOEp by THE MA iURER. IAN Ct CONOLI SIU BE RIGID STEEL LI Mw,-.srwX..• wre,n.e•xw.earu.� NBO Y NALWAIJILEU.INSIOE ME FOUNDATION. ., Y VR I 9B•MINIMUM BURIAL SEN_ SHALL 42' MAXIMUM BURIAL G. R PVD. wHrou�ioru ' - W CY BE HUS Ab REQUIRED. rti 4:a CI S1Utl UPIOW1T4NWFRWHAND nolE -- mn.ulaw.r.c..xx CONNECTOR REINFURGEMENi I' Rt VER TIGALREbARSHALLa(7)W EQUALLY SPACED INS IDE OF HOOPS. �.\ AZ HU �..HIv -PB Rt�N IGPP OF FOUNDDAIION TOO 7 -POUR FOOTING ENDOF ANCigR 00.T5 aw ••NIr �... •. L F AGAINST R? pUP&bXALL tlEMxtB Lp. SPACED I' UNDISTURBEDIX MIN FROM THE ANCHOR BOLTS TO SUI IUM Luaaxr .AAg. wMMwe feael• w —_—_ KSHALLDA1pN LJR MATERIAL TMP 30 -ROUND CONCRETE TO kA SHALL IWVE 3'MIWMUM - Covlxlw ROUND PIER BE3250 MIX SCALE SCALE S F sCEPIH SCALE !AR FUSE BOX PUNCH THRU CROSS SECTION IN DIRT (FOR NEW POLES & STREET LIGHTS (TYPICAL SECTION: N.T.S.) TYPICAL SECTION (N.T.S.) STAHLIN SP ENCLOSURE SSL LATCH OLATION SWITCH KTK OR KL K ORIDINAL MAI ERIAL—FILL 15A FUSE ® EX. CURB 3 GUTTEP. �IMIN, VARIER � VARIESIL Mn /\ /? GREENBELT VAULT PAVEMENT SSL LATCH •'::y..A% F--1 I EYS SEALING FillNGI PROPOSEDIEXISTI -VAULT 18" MIN. TO Imx Im� ExL' I w srarr�c mu I 36" MAX MIN IN 11 1/Y CONDUITS . ,ws ANGOR 1-3" CONDUR I INSTALLATION NOTES' _ eNt 0 00 I IroX vuum I R/W TRENCH CIL CUT V MAX. NDTM X33'. DEPTH TRENCH -BACKFILL THE ORIGINAL MATERIAL FROM THE TRENCH THE SU AE6TORE THE SURFACE rini uc1Yw,.� p SCALE S (� SCALE 1N.T.S. �s�rl�ws�OC°��ca,xm� .xe w.*ea I SCALE �7 L _ - - - _ J / N.T.S. N.T.S. 9 ASG32 n242727•„ ^CROWN v CASTLE _,u Y' -IR I LnILK ORIixI. r YI.Ix xRw l`x x .� xunlu. 10 Communications ' APulULlnuA ihxl:U In TM+ '1 14RI IYRI.faR1 n\V a RI L fl I M1� fnf A.'1 I fi IN g Lu ntweslfRF�-,m> 11 1-1 YRaII11BllEu I LLLwf I�\'n vn uiu� I,NIRRORIN•�T, xlut m.FrT a.1hT�� PRIMARY LOCATION 11lid1) USI'OMER REDLINES ASG32 29716 WHITLEY COLLINS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES. CA DETAILS & NOTES IIIgN1T arrxC.Jx D-3 .I A ASG32 242727 CASTLE WN'Ixt luxllw�l�JHN I� hl.;.; Communications RI R FURM II I N .� . i.,li,1.1 MX�IIIIHII LII ` DIG PITW JL .uU.i. unNin;lw cul.. Nul }Te xlmr nLPxT YNIMARY LOCATION 11I;WIi/ CSIOMER REDLINES ASG32 29716 WHITLEV COLLINS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA DETAILS & NOTES D-4 D-45 STAHLIN 6P ENCLOSURE GROUND ROD INSTALLATION FOR STEEL POLE PUNCH THRU CROSS SECTION MODEL #J1412HPL) (TYPICAL SECTION, N.T.S.) TYPICAL SECTION: N.T.S. —1315/32- 15/32 i0 00.313 B L J 13 �11/2A AWilla 13 � ,31/2 31/32 CANC0.ETE TEXTURED15 1T MIN. EXCURBBGUTTER 12"MIN. 15/32 12 1/4 STEEL POLE VIESVARIES I VARIESI FINISH GRADES MEDIAN PAVEMENT PAVEMENT SECTIONS SARENCUGROUNO %� USE <.vl, ','!• ::{• !T r SSL2ROD LATCPCONDUCTOR 'I I ,. I•.18"MIN. 11 31/32 CUGROUNOCUMP, FCI Na. GSL}T6. TO 38"MAX 18"MIN. iL, J8" MAX GASKET IIIL TYCO N0 83]4&1, OR EQUAL1. i p•MIN. 4" MIN. 13112 SS FLAT HINGE S 3/8 05 (SIB" X 8'I COPPER �1311 CLAD GROUND ELECTRODE �/4 b 1/4 REF. ;• . 1 CONCRETE 4 0.125 1/4� TW. J ��I' �STAHLIN FOUNDATION TRENCH TRENCH ENCLOSURE J SERIES 6P ENCLOSURE 17/32 MODEL #j J1412HPL 13.53 X 11.55 X 5.94 SECTION Arl WEIGHT: 6.5 ft j SCALE SCALE SCALE 12 N.T.S. N.T.S. N.T.S. NOT USED NOT USED NOT USED N/A NT: E N/A 9DAL N/ 9GA ASG32 242727 CASTLE WN'Ixt luxllw�l�JHN I� hl.;.; Communications RI R FURM II I N .� . i.,li,1.1 MX�IIIIHII LII ` DIG PITW JL .uU.i. unNin;lw cul.. Nul }Te xlmr nLPxT YNIMARY LOCATION 11I;WIi/ CSIOMER REDLINES ASG32 29716 WHITLEV COLLINS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA DETAILS & NOTES D-4 D-45 ASG32 1..'•'2427' 77 „ fCROWN Cv CASTLE �l'MDRl n,11 iI:NDY.Ix t1n11� Communications .,, •x N11rni:1x1 rii��iils� ��1•. ..Nw Noy 1' INUI NIY.InNI I,\YnNeI.YTIUN Ali l'a �A'in FIJI'.\IS'lJ)I`: I'nl.: 1I11x 1.1xA,t'IMi. iS IMr:PNIttYAN9'.\ND ,I.I.Ins�nnl. rv•.nr'.<r >,Nr i•..N1a :u•xR: �nu;N nl.\N.+s IT xxl.\n;N ,n n\N n x. wn mn I U.\vvll'1.plm�. \U1kUN: n'Nn Nl�ltt'x}' nl.InlT IYl::xhrn vRIAVAHV LOCATION 1f1901t1 -SI UMER REDLINES 1Lnl1I AOG32 29716 "IT EY COLLINS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES. CA DETAILS & NOTES n1.1.,, D-5 m ION-M7HP/85HP EU - Product Specification ION-M7HP/85HP EU - Product Specification eaclrlcd sy.%nn SaP.M.I.n and Control Poem. Vac hput lCP3. dB.'** of W.11 mnin.l 1pnniq 10141 240 85, 264 IM IM gbm.d Nuu vPvr gamad �il mm. t8 mn. Alarms S.nvlory Po..: S'IPPY IEM-: _JMains Mains pvvar, vdc .vt.l 48:. M Noise hgu.. dB"' I(P7.pmad 10—Af UL OL j Ipl.lny 36.12 Naw Npe y -M G.Ormx I.n9s1mv10 Pwrer Norweapon.w Ory 1d 51vp..isi.n (.1m)9..apn . mo, Ivnp f*6dd 91111 pom 1.anmry. dh 30 050 MN: M-tmw-l• F.4u y loge, MHc td.0f, width. doph, mm (in) Op*.W Link 10 4.00 AI VNske 81111245 t 918 Cann.cmn DM AK 4' OmdiA 4691.491 172.2 t9.6t11,63 ■' GV Opficd rehrn I— d8 {S 0L1wt pow, 1's+r eanim, L%m' K h— 1053 t 245 t 214 1/1.lx V.6t B61 C.N-.1 iONWHPIRSHP Ezla.m Unit (AC Y n.) Fib. lyyn Sino—h E9112V ym Numb. d Carrion 1 Andq 45.5423 2 4 39.5 4 36,5 w.ighl, kg(lbl 401N21 Opfimlllnkbudpt,M 9n10 GSA ds mAA 4x5 42,5 393 0.S 39.5 )&.S 36S EnVlronmon4al p -w O OTA. masts silo, dem 0.1 ar WA X3 OPerahn9 nmpmuNm rangq'C �31h.511 7Can00 �te.plt _1l5 ISS s.s DLa11>uf wl.once orw MtRaw.9. ds :3 awn IPU IF Ia30 oila W. naunwn 76.5 DL -0.1 N1—w.I.npwalurA dB A.S t.epol InsSpurlaus ena.lNn 03 din/ I M .._ hp., M. dB."' ION-M7HP/85HP EU 7693966'" RP fnfwlaw IMW.mdAI Nhp. �li,nn, aw h •11- WpAl.4..lk+dxnd.gvmved N.lahy.mlarl6a adolp nanlolnm6eieyly9 j ! i BTS Sid. ISMAI Number doamwhn 3mldad Nue Fog—, dB... .. d.ld9e9s.lin �)] 70 N16 4 NP3,Imvad le— Camepa1 dkV MW. LMh 1 8541 MR, 4 Nm414., Valid 6mx S RP1d ION•MI MP/19HP /631417" 3 3 I Syt opo. d I. BTS IF— d0n, C—po4dkly Mtmwr Unit OTRA I 37 43 OTW70-115/90/17$1 /604704101 _ R—o, Unil an .. parr Cannecbn ilt6 fenple 1 "� ( {r R.W. Ioss, dB 15 ' SpxAq m.uhd 40 nm1 p,Si lula.ud 9.d J '• )uhwpklW. Pnsv1A. C J 700 MNa Al pgww ala g3.iml vJ— nass alh—u doled. Cbl. d I0NM7HP/85HP Eam.brl Umf PC YradalJ F,.quency ran9e, Mhd2 t"Ij11ik 698n716076007 w 7291.357 ouput pax, pm carni., dB,- Nmbwd D"Mw 1 2 4 8 LIE 45.5 42.5•' 3PS 36.5 DL -put lalmance w. hpverny d8 xl DLouput blmwca over lempwaluro, dB 4-5 PiA7.549403S Spvrian emmmn <43 an / 1 wh 2 d8 pwel ndmm a' ; 5.9N: wnnl h.ndwdh Sp— rmacho no, Pubic Santry N,,n-bond " h.m.faenr p..x B m A N61Bm/615 Wr Nl fig—.. typical 1— .1., aNwrwi%.ruled 13 `A N.T.S. ASG32 1..'•'2427' 77 „ fCROWN Cv CASTLE �l'MDRl n,11 iI:NDY.Ix t1n11� Communications .,, •x N11rni:1x1 rii��iils� ��1•. ..Nw Noy 1' INUI NIY.InNI I,\YnNeI.YTIUN Ali l'a �A'in FIJI'.\IS'lJ)I`: I'nl.: 1I11x 1.1xA,t'IMi. iS IMr:PNIttYAN9'.\ND ,I.I.Ins�nnl. rv•.nr'.<r >,Nr i•..N1a :u•xR: �nu;N nl.\N.+s IT xxl.\n;N ,n n\N n x. wn mn I U.\vvll'1.plm�. \U1kUN: n'Nn Nl�ltt'x}' nl.InlT IYl::xhrn vRIAVAHV LOCATION 1f1901t1 -SI UMER REDLINES 1Lnl1I AOG32 29716 "IT EY COLLINS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES. CA DETAILS & NOTES n1.1.,, D-5 m r I L It �'�. � . �` fir;. � < � "r .,,• � a °• +� -I r I L It NEW CONSTRUCTION • DECOMMISSION & REMOVE EXISTING 29 9" HIGH OCTAGONAL CONCRETE STREET LIGHT (POLE ID 92063449E) AND REPLACE WITH A NEW 29' 9" HIGH CONCRETE TEXTURED STEEL POLE WITH MAST ARM AND LUMINAIRE. INSTALL (2121.4" ANTENNAS MH PA-65F-BUU-H2 WITH MBK -03 MOUNTING BRACKET, • INSTALL 11) CROWN CASTLE 4' X 6' VAULT WITH DETACHED FLUSH MOUNT VENTS & (2) ML IONS INSIDE. (1) WTR FUSE BOX INSIDE. • INSTALLVOR. • EQUIPMENT AND ANTENNA TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH POLE EXISTING 15STORM DRAIN INLET (0' B.O.C.I STA. 101 + 86 SITE LOCATION INSTALL NEW 29'-9" HIGH STEEL POLE WITH MAST ARM AND LUMINAIRE (2• B.O.C.) STA 100+69 DECOMMISSION & REMOVE EXISTING OCTAGONAL CONCRETE STREET LIGHT r(POLE ID #2063446E) (2' B.O. C.) STA 100+65 C'� •+- h I REMOVE & REPLACE 11' X 39' SIDEWALK PANEL 27' ASPHALT TRENCH 4' PUNCH THRU (SEE DETAIL 14 ON D4) 11' NORTH SCALE: V=40' 38' DIRT TRENCH 1}• (SEE DETAIL 11 ON D41 fix 12'DIRT TRENCH 1T (SEE DETAIL 11 ON D4) INSTALL (1) CROWN CASTLE 4' X S' VAULT WITH DETACHED FLUSH MOUNT VENTS WITH (2) ML IONS & (1) WTR FUSE BOX INSIDE. (T B.O.C.) STA. 100 + 71 (SEE DETAIL 1, 2 & 3 ON SHEET 0-2, DETAIL 11 ON SHEET D4, DETAIL 13 ON 0•5) bG \S\ T DIRT TRENCH (SEE DETAIL 11 ON D4) 7 1}^ 1 E3" BILL OF MATERIALS VAULTS IPVTI OESGB9'fpN OV.ONTITY 2'XS 4nc 1 GONglli IWiI 1.1N"PVC 214 YPVC 1&V 112'ASPHALT TRENCH 4T ASPHALT TRENCH 6' PUNCH THRU (SEE DETAIL 10 ON D4) EXISTING NEXT G 17" X 30" FIBER VAULT (3'5.0,C.) STA. 99+42 NODE COORDINATE LATITUDE: 33.760844 LONGITUDE' -118.374180 FOOTAGE TOTALS ASPHALT TRENCH 1 197' PUNCH THRU 11' DIRT TRENCH 56' BORE 0 TOTAL 20' R&R TOTAL SWP 429 SC. FT. \ EXISTING EDISON MANHOLE 1' (B.O.C.) STA. 100 + 72 5' PUNCH THRU (SEE DETAIL 10 ON D4) PROPOSED CROWN CASTLE 2'X T WTR VAULT \ (2' B.O.C.) STA. 100+54 / \ EXISTING SIGN (1' B.O.C.I STA, 100+49 CRO55WALK PULE STA 99 + 44 ASG32 1'llnnl•.II 24272711n CCROWN ° v CASTLE v,al•Y:..TNllfHl!n rMe NNI•.1�:, Ip" IlFxrx 1N•:nr .::+v. CommunicaNions mn:u IN nur +I•kr Y'RINIANY,WU wi'i u,`u� arxr .wcu.r ok 'sr9n� aIxN 1H.4 .\tl Il'HI9.trxfl mwn� civ riNxrxnrn,rvxrnul.rn;u uni+nrt1�er. I m�nMoxrn xn wn a 1, n—T rn:xr:ry URINARY LOCATION won; S10MER RECLINES I'JI11ti ASG32 29716 WHITLEY COLLINS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES. CA SITE PLAN I'Xi.l"P1 '11/iNri7 "xN�; i+u �„ xrc.w, p- A ANTENNA DETAILS I SCALE: 1:5 12 O'CLOCK VIEW SCALE: 1:8 RHPA65F-BUU-H2 ANTENNA INSTALL MAST ARM VMTH MSK -03 MOUNTING BRACKET AZIMUTH: =- DECOMMISSION 6 REMOVE EXISTING 29 9' HIGH OCTAGONALCONCRETE STREET LIGHT (PGCE ID x2a03446E) AND LUMINAIRE AND REPLACE WffN NEW 29 e' NIGH STEEL POLE. -- bV )BR:� T #HPA465F-BUU-H2 AN INSTALLMASTARM MBK -03 MOUNTIN AND LUMINAIRE AZ _ yoe TOP OF (SEE DETAIL 4 & 5 ON SHEET DJ) 05" ANTENNA z 0° �yGO� L901 top OF STREET LIGHT 0=03446E TOP OF EXISTING POLE'. 29 9' TOP OF NEW POLE: 29 9" TOP OF ANTENNA. 276- RAD T6"RAD CENTER: 2G T AZIMUTHS. 170. 8 330 - EQUIPMENT AND ANTENNAS TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH POLE. B 30 -CLOCK VIEW SCALE: 1:8 12 O'CLOCK VIEW SCALE: 1:8 INSTALL MAST ARM _ AND LUMINAIRE INSTALL MAST ARM AND LUMINAIRE TOP OF POLE AT 29' 9' -- TOP OF POLE AT 29'9' T INSTALL12I21.4"ANTENNASMHP-1F-BUU•H2 INSTALL(2)21.4" ANTENNAS YHPAO5F-65F-H2 _ �� WITH MBK -03 MOUNTING BRACKET IMTH MBK -03 MOUNTING BRACKET (SEE DETAIL 4 6 5 ON SHEET D-3) TOP OF (SEE DETAIL 4 & 5 ON SHEET DJ) 05" ANTENNA 27 6" top OF EW 29'9" HIGH STEEL POLE. ANTENNA T 6 RAD CENTER RAD 2S'S" EW 299"HIGH STEEL POLE. CENTER 29 6" G6 GROUND LEVEL GROUND LEVEL CBG ..-PHALt 'CSCa :• INSTALL VGR INSTALL VGR (SEE DETAIL 11 ON SHEET U-4) ASG32 242727i1 'CROWN v CASTLE 6t': L'N •'.1 r Communication6 •ne119,Iv.ml hLN1 :;urm a+� vYikut��mo •. �X I-nIr •�: 1 II 140. N V11YN I I I.,N n'.1'1 xNl:\'I'F.V m.v.N n. a rxu m.r rxoun4mu IH\I:r Llul RM1M TNI: 1111:IIN1 I MittNHx,n �n eT'k\n�n+. N.KK'f II�.Thl'. PRIMARY LDCATION CV61'OME0. REDLINES 1_111111 ASG32 29716 WHITLEY COLLINS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA POLE PROFILE a,., P-2 FEW 9�. am zi �: \\ ,000, AOK /410\ d la u sem* ,,.•��e .1�- -+" �. ,j F" i ( �.-_ ! �..,. `� •' M Sj P i t 7Wr s os .�Af 1001, HOPOSED -Wqk -444W.T7, '"Mmw 7" F7. . 4k, r13 r t � , yey�� �.s •',moi � �i�°\�'>'f'�+?". '!i '; - ;y � Q N _ Vol,iii � - �' /fir. •�, ' +m�,;;% t�K - OKI 1 c ul �J15/ i,r yki i. rrlr Y �` �4o r jo 1001, i PROP QSED • • • _ • „ A lot ii�.R3 tloll . r ti�1 f` n i_ I 11 Y R 0 PU5 EU i .�; 4% k i - �°c °9✓ no's � � � ��► % Vit,/ .'�1,.. `"` �r i, P,�� •,, L� I { -.� - i r ? it - �e LOCATION PROPOSED • , u _ CROWN CASTLE ASG32 Coverage Analysis January 23, 2018 The Foundation for a Wireless World. D-62 Agenda ASG32 map of primary and alternate candidates ASG32 viability of the primary and alternate candidates ASG32 — RF service objective RF ("drive test") test set up ASG32 elevation challenge ASG32 primary candidate vs. all ASG32 alternate candidates CROWN Proprietary & . CASTLE Confidential 2 D-63 Legend ;k i 1 .., hi ASG32 RF Polygon 41 kit lip 14 PnnwY Candidate x i •E . > +� ' C 1!� e r4�� 1 ' �x° �.e dgc to Viable Candidate J,\�41 �I% S'.-; fid'*\NX XA ASG32 'A/ ;.y s�`. ♦ ,� '��' `�' i� `ASG32_D«..-��� . \ Ow 40 ^�+lot kp 1 r a y► ' p 16 r knit ♦�'� l It � y� ,. `� ` ,� w , r •,are ��. AS 32 y ,i �(�, ` r - dt `'4..,} • }y.d. ���.� • :u� OL •r T;h S�iQO9ir�,1- '�.o#.'S: � .� ... ;...� r ',,l'�. -__, "�'� _ ...r . ,. • ,.1` ' soon J Legend \1 �;Op le, VW* CAnd"e .<Utry`• �} .x. ASG y vim, �\ : ✓ \ ;SG32 D ` 1� 'f 1 .fit. {1 ^• �.� ♦ p/ AA 41 >�',� ib • r ter\• ,. t y. - �� �' {/ -+' l .�. .a kl v. ��� It.� +'•, .. i'_ Lis.' -/�", ,, '•,, Y " i \1 �i y,���- ,�'r' ,�;�. � a �. ', +sem Wk wo 14 ir• I' _ � : A1C ".-`' '' \ `' r t � ' �• � �' \ • � '� _ � � � , a_ � 4-. _ ` y • . !? Gaogl tarth Provide coverage at the intersection of Crest Rd ASG32— Objand Whiteley Collins Dr into the Mesa Palos ective .'"`''`/ v Verdes community. ASG32 RIP Polygon V1 Non-Wable Candidate 'IN 0 Primary Candidate'"� ,:� '; ,h'. -* "� `J` ��'R •j' . i� 1l '�' G!es"'dge Ra r—r—" Viable Candidate � �•rt�� as ��� # � � 1'\� l:c w \'Y' • ti.. L� .s I r �1 ASG32 A ASG32_D rs..-1ti' s wW i t , �T• • t f / �a� L J IVA 40 ., i � .i ' \\•� '�,•� � '� a -.r Y � / f � ` � .. �,y rte. _ a ;may r - 1 ♦ i, y i A c ~ 1iryJ •ASG32_E .;, 111 - - 1. � fir, �;���-" � y�q �,r, •,. ... - Ni Z' MEL Lei. ' �13:r .�► .-, a! J�' ,� �'ii' v/' �.'=,,`�,r, c,• '>�i.,' '� :+ I ,, - X40 Googl rth _ �. ;y _ r'_ ;.r...:�' � � :,. ,' �!. ' *� - - � �•I Nt , a.!,.r- �' :i- ``�c;� 'y c 860 n _ �'" Drive Test Set Up 696MHz-2120 MHz GPS ft V V � 1 Omni Antenna This is in the vehicle PCTEL EX flex Receiver BVS Dragon ► 850/1900 TX Power C CROWN Proprietary& r...0 CASTLE Confidential Hotstick Adjustable height 40 Feet LMR400 Ultra Flex Crossband Coupler Tripod Ground I D-67 CW Setup and Information - ASG32 ASG32_E Latitude: 33.760833 Longitude: -118.374240 Height: 29.9 ft Antenna Type: Monopole ASG32 E Transmitter (t) MableNet Services .— Tx1 Freq: 703.000 MHz Tx1 Power: 26.30 dBm Tx1 Power before Antenna: 23.1 dBm Tx1 Power Loss: 3.2 dBm • Tx2 Freq: 1901.00 MHz Tx1: Tx2: • Tx2 Power: 29.00 dBm • Tx2 Power before ' Antenna: 22.00 dBm • Tx1 Power Loss: 7.0 dBm CROWN Proprietary& CASTLE Confidential Cvmba OOA-360V06N0-4 � ASG32 E Drive Route 17 M Me Electrical Data _ Frequency 806.960 1710-2700 MHz Gain 4 6 dBi VSWR 51.8 Polarization Vertical Prefigured Electrical DT 00, 30, 60 deg H -Plane 250-600 180-250 deg E -Plane 3600 deg Power 200 (Max) W Impedance 500 0 Lightning Protection Direct Ground (:onnector Type, Location N -Female. Bottom ASG32 E Drive Route 17 M Me Link Budget and Gain Adjust 190o MHz - ASG32 User Input Parameters AT&T - ProtectX AntennaTypel Items I Description Value Cacti" Ctruotrver twee to weat in the esentation tab AT&T Pt Plojwv name to appear in title of presema m tab. k """d lake theformat Proewy AMemaTypel Esampk:B,"4ty Slate -48 - Pole Top Pr AMemaT Tectr,ploqq This ink suictly for LTE "I Fr enc Band M-lz Channel Bandwidth (Mz) 1300 De ap" vs age vA kad to Moment PakNoss -.bks swh as ixerWeme margin and regired SNRcuret490 Total Reference Signal Resource Blocks OAS6rC*l E nae % of Power for LTE MM MSk-le"t Ratio anmm Prinary tekts to the oDAS portion of the budget Out a4k4t-.DAS,emotes tray Maxftm Node OutM Per Channel dBm 46.0 Primary Simulcast Ratio, 3 swtors fa OAS? Fa the sewuw vlwe the priming OAS wAot a also feeding an a.4S twtvotk. A9 power calctdaliol s vA retR to live pfi" acct whie the s seas rtil add to the LPL n.Ise. Noise Flclure Per Repeater (dB) 4.5 Total Usable Subcarriers 1200 Up Link DAS System Noise F ure (dB' 9.3 Number of Tx Antennas 1 Up Link eNadeB Noise Figure rdB) 4.0 Dawn Link Node Antenna Gavel dBi 14.3 Up Link DAS System Gain (2) 0.0 Node Cable/Splitter Loss dB 4.3 Number of LTE Catrkts Choose 2 for ear ier anon vfthn the same bmW Spatial Diversily Gam at Cell Ed 2) LTE BsMwidlh (FAH. -I fa fist oatriea 1 SINR Requirement (2' 20 LTE Bandwidh RAW for seeond curler 25.2 20. %of Pover for LTE a the PA poteer will be shoed with anottw techndogya ata 100. ed OAS lx Gain de 0 fa ttatdard BTS. `17.19 Fp fovpover BTS, but depeMaM m mars/amuret 0. ehiode6 Noise F" a d6 TrWItimSSM. 40,00nsult specs(or RPH units a. BTSFWE>vPorts for Primo Sinrdcast A dvHSRI pat viriov fox separate u paths and orve rw e- free addtiat to the sirrwlt:ast Qow No POSCHo1lsttd6 used often the #Node8 channel dimenswoq has dsptopo,dorW po- sharing. T al=O: common= -3 01 Node Cable/Splitter LOSS (dB) 4.3 eNodeB SensloY dBm) AMema Model Minimum Antenna Received Power OW -118.9 'Other Antema- Dovn Link Node Antema Gain dBi 4.0 14. "Other AMema' Link Node AMema Gain 68i hlinimm UE RSRP ReceNed Power (dW -99.4 NutnbH of Physical 4Memas 1azovAMl indvWual antemas, not elements to MW consderatlon Nae. Tri -sector antennas shade have 3. Body Loss (dB) NumbH of AMemas hAIN10 TO Path Lass Calculation Number of Rx Mtentws MIMO 6.2 Total Available Up Link Path Loss (dB' Adaitg al a (c "ema feed losses d8 See Table 4 n $pl .F.Mions tab For &ilial estimated coni loss Use this field to adjust For custom "h runs wWor addtional losses 10.2 Loss dB 0.0 0.01 3.0 IE RSW De Hnent dBm on•street siqal level, ' ed bolcustomer Adjusted Available Up Link Path Loss (dB) 141.9 Node AMema metHs 0.0 & IEArxewi . if(m h-Vehicle,'Ur-Buiktin Loss (dB' L Enwiora*m Lk a Total Avaiable Down Link Path Loss dB) 124.7 mHrtS 3.0 Down Link Cet Edge Deson Path Loss dB atkvts rt1HHs Up Link Cell Edge Design Path Loss (dB) 4" 5 Raw CW File Corrected CW File LTE Link Budget: AT&T - ProtectX AntennaTypel DAS Equipment: Commsco a ION -M 46dBm Technology: LTE 1900 Down Link Up Link RF Node RF bode Number of LTE Carriers Per Node 1 Channel Bandwidth (Mz) 20000 Total LTE Camer Bandwih Mhz 20 Total Reference Signal Resource Blocks 100.0 % of Power for LTE 100% Up Link Noise Floor per RB (dBm) -121.9 Maxftm Node OutM Per Channel dBm 46.0 Primary Simulcast Ratio, 3 Total Reference 5 nal Resource Blocks 100 Noise Flclure Per Repeater (dB) 4.5 Total Usable Subcarriers 1200 Up Link DAS System Noise F ure (dB' 9.3 Number of Tx Antennas 1 Up Link eNadeB Noise Figure rdB) 4.0 Dawn Link Node Antenna Gavel dBi 14.3 Up Link DAS System Gain (2) 0.0 Node Cable/Splitter Loss dB 4.3 Up Link Aggregated S stem Noise Figure (dB) 10.0 Spatial Diversily Gam at Cell Ed 2) 0 1 SINR Requirement (2' 2.0 Nave Reference Signal ERP Per Channel 'dBm 25.2 interference Marin (2) 1.0 Lvftg Lhk DL by 17.3 Usable Node Reference & nal EPRE dBm) 25.2 Effective RF Node Sensbv "dBm' -108.9 Up Link Nate Antenna Gam (dBi) 14.3 YOble Std Node Cable/Splitter LOSS (dB) 4.3 eNodeB SensloY dBm) - i C = Minimum Antenna Received Power OW -118.9 Downlink Interference Margin (d8) 4.0 Moble Station hlinimm UE RSRP ReceNed Power (dW -99.4 UE Output EIRP i cE v 23.0 Body Loss (dB) 0.0 Path Lass Calculation Available In-Vehictelh-Buidm Loss `dB) 6.2 Total Available Up Link Path Loss (dB' 141.9 Log Normal Faft Mar in (dB) 10.2 Up Link FrequeRcy FrequencyLoss Advantage (dB) 0.0 U P& FaUg velar in (dB) 3.0 UE RSRP Power dBm 4U Adjusted Available Up Link Path Loss (dB) 141.9 Body Loss d8 0.0 h-Vehicle,'Ur-Buiktin Loss (dB' 6.2 Pab Lass CeIt3fto Log Normal Fading Margin (dB) 10.2 Total Avaiable Down Link Path Loss dB) 124.7 U P& Fading Marin (dB) 3.0 Down Link Cet Edge Deson Path Loss dB "L2 Up Link Cell Edge Design Path Loss (dB) 4" 5 (YZ CROWN Proprietary & CASTLE Confidential 1 8 9 We Link Budget and Gain Adjust foo MHz - ASG32 User Input Parameters AT&T - ProeectX AntennaTypel Items Oeseri tion Valu Carrier Customer name to appeal in theresentation tab AT&T Pro act Project name to appear in tid of presentation tab. It should take the format: Project%' . AntennaTypel Example: Bridgewater State -48"Pole To PruectX AntennaTV el Technolo This link bud et strictly for LTE LTE Fre uenc Band (MHz Channel Banaw dth (KHz 700 Desi Ob'ec0ve Capacity vs Coverage will lead to different pathloss variables such as interference margin and regubed SNR coverage OASIS maN CeNEquipment Commsco eION-M 46d6m Maximum PrimarSimulcast Ratio Primary refers to the oDAS portion of the budget that may include some iDAS remotes Maximum Node Output Per Channel dBm 46.0 Prnary Shulcast Ratio 3 Split sectors for iDAS? For the scenario where the primary DAS sector is also leading an iOAS network. All power calculations will reler to the primary s stem, while the split sector will add to the UL noise. Ne 5.0 Total Usable Subcarriers 600 UD Link DAS System NoM Figure (dB) 9.8 Number of Tx Antennas 1 Up Link eNodeB Noise F ure dB 4.0 Down Link Node Antenna Gain (S) 10.0 Up Link DAS System Gain dB 0.0 Node Cable'S litter Loss (dB ) 3.7 Number of LTE Carriers Choose 2 for carrier acqreqation within the same band t LTE Bandwidth MHz for first carrier SWR Requirement dB 10.0 LTE Bandwidth MHz for second carrier 24.5 10.0 %of Power for LTE If the PA power will be shared with another technology or -orator 100% Re uired DAS UL Gain d11 0 for standard BTS. -1719 for low-power BTS. but dependant on equipment manufacturer 0. rNode6 Noise Fi ure dB Traditional BTS = 4d6, consultspecs for FRH units 4.0 BTS Rx,Oiv Ports for Primarq Simulcast A diversity port will allow for separate UL paths and one noise. free addition to the simulcast ro No PDSCH offset (dB) used when the eNodx6 channel dimensioning has disproportional power sharing. Typical z 0; common=3 0 Node CableifSpMter Loss (dB) 2,7 eNodeB Senslov dBm) Antenna Model Minimum Antenna Received Power (dBm; Other "Other Antenna" Down Link Node Antenna Gain fdBil 4.0 10.0 "Other Antenna" Up Link Node Antenna Gain (d6t) Miniw UE RSRP Received Power dBm 10.0 Number of Physical antennas [azimuths) Individual antennas. not elements for MIMO consideration. Note: Trisector antennas should have 3 2 Number of 7x An sennas N11M0 Path Loss Calculation t Number of Rx Antennas'MIMO 9.3 t Additional miscantenna feed losses t BI See Table 4 in Specifications [ab for initial estimated coax loss. Usr this held to adjust for custom length runs andfor additional losses 0.0 Bod Loss dB 0.0 0.0 3.0 UE RSRP Desi nRequirement dBm) onstreet signal level required bq customer -80 137.7 Node Aruenna Hei ht meters 0.0 8.0 UE Antenna Hei ht meters In-Vehiclelkl-BuildingLoss (dB) 1.5 Environmem Urban Percents eof Buildin s Total Available Down Link Path Loss 'dB 20% Building Height meters 3.0 10 Buildin Se arations meters Up Link Cel Ed Des n Path Loss 'dB) 50 RAW CW File Corrected CW File LTE Link Budget: AT&T - ProeectX AntennaTypel DAS Equipment: Commsco IONA 46dBm Technology: LTE 700 Down Link Up Link RF Node RF Node Number of LTE Carvers Per Node 1 Channel Banaw dth (KHz 10000 Total LTE Carrier Bandwidth Hz 10 Total Reference S nal Resource Blocks 50.0 % of Power for LTE 100% Up Link Noise floor per RB `d8m' -121.9 Maximum Node Output Per Channel dBm 46.0 Prnary Shulcast Ratio 3 Total Reference Signal Resource Blocks 50 Noise F ure Per Repeater dB 5.0 Total Usable Subcarriers 600 UD Link DAS System NoM Figure (dB) 9.8 Number of Tx Antennas 1 Up Link eNodeB Noise F ure dB 4.0 Down Link Node Antenna Gain (S) 10.0 Up Link DAS System Gain dB 0.0 Node Cable'S litter Loss (dB ) 3.7 Up Link Aggregated S tem Nose Figure d8 10.4 Spatial Diversity Gain at Cell Ede (dB) 0 SWR Requirement dB 2.0 Node Reference Signal EIRP Per Channel (dBm) 24.5 Interference Margin (dB) 1.0 Lirnifing Link DL by 10.8 Usable Node Reference Signal EPRE (dBm) 24.5 Effective RF Node Sensinv (dBm) -108.5 Up Link Node Antenna Gain (dBi) 10.0 Mobile swft Node CableifSpMter Loss (dB) 2,7 eNodeB Senslov dBm) -106.5 Minimum Antenna Received Power (dBm; -114.7 Downlink Interference Margin (dB) 4.0 MOl117e Station Miniw UE RSRP Received Power dBm -102.5 UE Output EIRP (dBmi 23.0 Body Loss (dB) 0.0 Path Loss Calculation AVBilableln-Vehiclelln-BuildinLoss dB' 9.3 Total Avabble UpLink Path Loss (db i 137.7 Log Normal Fading Margin dB 10.2 Up Link Frequency Loss Advanta dB 0.0 U P& Fading Margin d8 3.0 UE RSRP Pourer (dBm) -811.0 Adjusted Available Up Link Path Loss dB 137.7 Body Loss d6 0.0 In-Vehiclelkl-BuildingLoss (dB) 9.3 Path Loss Caleelatiat Log Normal Fading Margin (dB) 10.2 Total Available Down Link Path Loss 'dB 126.9 MuItFPath Faft Mar dB 3.0 Down Link Cel Ed e Des n Path Loss dB 104.5 Up Link Cel Ed Des n Path Loss 'dB) 115.3::�J CCROWN Proprietary& CASTLE Confidential 1 9 D-70 r------YY�� i s� �' .: ♦ � �`-`—y,�:�i-..�,a_ `Its, _��'7�' 'Ti�w , f �...-..wr_ a \ _ " • ' M.. , k..-__ ��.r �.. or - _ - ASG32B - "'130ft Elevation r J _ ` ,• t*" 'a AG 32 AMi .63 _'°7�'�� „�, - _ .�; f -ice,. ... :� - •,,,. - s_A G„2=E�"� '�` GoogleIL ath' K AI IU LI CGIICJ 0 t I ICIIICI IMC IUI III {JCI ICII QIIUI I. 1 1 IC I ICCU �r n1 4 IHighridge/Whiteley 1. Service Objective JP It qp �*,•�,,,4T,�. � tom.-•"+% � {,f�'R r+♦ ��' ii"-� ^. j x •' � '�'; � ti• ter, \c7.� �yi`(i'� ASG~32`•B ASG32 _ �SG3�zD�� r •� '_` 1. '_+ "i" _ ti t• 1�'+ �- J�i t S. f ,� ', �. OL 3G le Earth /b2119*313163•ste ..� x The community o • Palos Verdes • hill ASG32-A Existing Coverage 19oo MH •�• ••• Fbuin-.u4i Cammwtfy / • Chutch A, 40vmv iia94c,�3t_, • S- h0631 z 7 �" • ti Existing Sites �. Yo .i. Node locations (primary/alterna • Existing Node On -Air •P _Primary_Node_locations Wireless Telecommunications Facilities R• Objective_Po ly go ns I— � Rcgron Candidate Viability ®No Yes RSRPdem _ 65 l0 0 75 1. -65 -a5 to -75 - -95 to 35 _-105 to -95 _-200 to -105 i �SjO • •, • •••�•.N•� /�/\\ • ••♦ 3 � • Go �! _ro y + / 1 � � � \,fir♦•% = -.,.'� Vt \ • �•�rj \ I oh \ • TMU s « «� • �" •,� AS,tt::`, Existing Sites CROWN Proprietary & CASTLE Confidential one or ine existing sites can serve the iviesa raios veraes neighborhood, because of the change in elevation between the entrances to the on Crest Rd and Hiahridae on Whitelev Collin 12 D-73 gCoverageASG 2-A Existin 3 goo MHz ��- - .• _ •M• • Penin%WaComulriy • tta7g•: st`� • •• in • • ChutchAcadanA ••�i � j{ �►�• N•�` ~' : — . Miicile r • • ' • ti ! ' ` ` ' School�•♦". �- _,_,/ • •,�. �f'.. 0 • !yp • % / 4,1P p Existing ; ..,.* ••• ���� • .••• • —�"� , Sites Node Locations (primary/alterna I Existing Node On -Air P • _Primary_Node_Locations Wireless Telecommunications Facilities R•Objectwe_Polygons : neg— Candidate Viability ®im Yes RSRP dBm _ 65 to 0 _ -75 to -65 -65 to -7S ® -95 10 as _-105 1. -95 _ 200 to -105 TMU 94111110 AS • rfr • • QNS11.32 • • � JL, 4w • • • •ft Alt / 'r CROWN Proprietary& # CASTLE Confidential • 960000 AS AF&T Existing Sites one of the existing sites can serve the iviesa Faros verges neighborhood, because of the change in elevation between the entrances to the on Crest Rd and Hiahridae on Whitelev Collin: 113 D-74 ASG32-E Primary Proposed Coverage i000 MHz PA • � �fS�{3 ����" i .• / .• - 9ftOR - ` •••• Paelinsu43 Ca n:nunr� •� f N• _ t . ' 11 •••• ChurchAa.x>e::a ` V ••tt ~ rare rt Rbi:fl5l� • • hs. A AL hoo +— •' • • It / 4i . y •.•• .• to <:1 su ,� ••••• ••• • •••Nii/�t�liMiiy j ti 6to to `' �IIrM I ®C . X40 = a'r ••'.+. • ; ' •`• r �s / �,'e t� `9 Hill. •• •al1CR•R• e'�••• •• • '••• �' � ` �`' / ' ('lark : : ,� � \ � ` � �•� , ���r�•? . • '� • '� :• /�� � :� M � � •.amu -�n�, • •� e Node Locations Iprimaryialternatet i i Nt • ,•_\ • • ASP T3T 1 '" ASPO66PAT&T • x Existing Node On -Air P• _Primary_Node_Locations Wireless Telecommunications Facilities R• Objective_Polygons JRegwn Candidate Viability _.. _ vu RSRP dBm _ 65 to 0 75 to -65 "E5 to 75 -95 to -Ss _-105 to -95 _ 200 to -105 � • S �cx1r• 4 � _ �. Je Il 1 \ �G3; • i � • Gd�L•••••••• • •� • e j ! • ATfdU$�ATBT -�f o )A ASG32_E Primary Candidate rt a"''`•� City Recommended i • ••�jF not - CROWN Proprietary& , o CASTLE Confidential 1 14 D-75 ASG32=E Primary PrODosed Coverage ,00 MHz��- C f Node Locations (primary/altematej e Existing Node On -Air •P _Primary_Node_Locations Wireless Telecommunications Facilities R•Objecuve_Polygons JReO�on Candidate VlaMllty MNo Yes RSRPdBm _ -65 to 0 .75 to .65 "a5 to -75 ® -gs to -E5 _-105 to -95 _ 200 to .105 Aa t ••••••••• PoCAuAcavrrlgr] �• •�t�••. Rtdgac last • / Mddle ' s—_._�__ / mss• `-ti Sc 11001 ` tii� i'-�„�� • • `�'..� / • 4 ib h •• ••J • w ti • \ I John • • • I 'r 4 h•t A T& ASPO T87 • •.................. .............•..• • \ / •• �� ASG32_E Primary Candidate t v City Recommended • e CROWN Proprietary& CASTLE Confidential E d 7 15 D-76 ASG32=A Proposed Coverage goo MHz � �� ---_ 46 • ` j •••.• f%nu�wta i;.vnnwniY 7•• r:•• • • • CAuKhAcao—)% I , � Kdg•c �st • • - • ^.-chaos F+i _.� • ti.{ � ! F3�!luy� i s Not% 4 Ste" • r r6a �ngare L•.: r • I •ilk ASG32_A • w) �[ '� \ • i/ • •••••y`••'{�i�t • ••• ASG32 �8� ^ 32 C , \ • \ `J 4 • i • ASG32jai _A ••• : -11 f• 1 %• ' .yam••+ \ Oak -i ",. • i •s � M Mr ••, ••�D� .• • •• ••••• ASPS'i3F° ASPO6 AT&( • y �- _ It as . 00" •••••••••• j J 6 l 00".. 1. TRTJab � � � • � _ _ • •i.•.Ui••�ws Gf 1-14 CROWN Proprietary& CASTLE Confidential 16 D-77 H.Ohr"I' 1'•r h HOu Park r, O Vfd(j� ASG32=B Proposed Coverage l.3 ................... 1 P6ninwla Gomnwnty •7•• Riagoc { si ` CAurth APL ata r+H , MNdle School -` ter► _ _. _ • Srr • •wNN•NH• . - � 'f AJ2 �S632_C ` ASG 32 B Za 330 . • 2 <= AHWO� TI.IU$ AT6T d / rtiF �✓ _ �� c�nta GakTGrw `. p `� (.�A �" "CROWN Proprietary& Y.r '.0 CASTLE Confidential .•TIAUS •' ASP5*AT&T • - AS^TaT #AG42 ~ ali l / Or tF +�� r a .2� rK / �4 17 ee ASG32=C Proposed Coverage 19oo MHz .� .........- 6. ` •• • 1 flo" Pt Mn ula ConunIL1147 •r�L, !-i.Jti � • 4 i hdq•c �f t Church M a.iv ns • r -- I • School f _ • Y • IWF03 r / •••••••••••-4%44- - ••• .• r�. IL 3/ / i. _ � •.• �•'' ASG 32 C FWk - • 0. •. �• . • �.M..•.. •. •� Gv • '! AS632 •/d5Gs2 C ` ; .: t J /f.ln � •. •; /� � ••� �. ♦S ♦t=t'S MMS ASWz_A �• SS i #- • • \ • •, R* \ . ••• US John • •� • �•� • • • • ra h•r Node Locations (primaryialternate) T',•��SG73_� o••• • •• A Sal. 11.it� A$POM'. TiL1 • • F�� • /.• 1� Existing Node On -Air • \ • • •• '�' P• _Primary_Node—Locations Wireless Telecommunications Facilities R•Objecuve_PotY9ons JReOon Candicate Vianlity _ ND _ Ya RSRP oBm _ -e5 to o _ -75 to -a5 -85 to -75 _ -95 to -85 —.105 to .95 _.200 to -105 AHYY9: n.w • : , •• Jx •R I •••.••...,„� J I sst CROWN Proprietary & %wo CASTLE Confidential \ � �Spri•t D-79 ASG32=D Proposed Coverage roe Pe j•• may^+ i • Mddle� Kdgrr{ 7�sy • ••• / i ��S( School ••— r / • �.` 000 7 AJPO AT&T S �ipnnt v � CROWN Proprietary & CASTLE Confidential aG 7 1 19 • H•�flf t�'ja• • • • F*7911 + +' �� � - tilifl,rgj ��, Hdlg • i `r* • l �intjJ �+LCi ASG32=D Proposed Coverage roe Pe j•• may^+ i • Mddle� Kdgrr{ 7�sy • ••• / i ��S( School ••— r / • �.` 000 7 AJPO AT&T S �ipnnt v � CROWN Proprietary & CASTLE Confidential aG 7 1 19 Columbia Telecommunications Corporation Wireless Facility Application Evaluation Applicant: Crown Castle Site # ASG -32 UPDATED 1/24/18 based on info received from Crown Castle Description: Investigation of 4 Alternative Locations for Tower Site Site Location: 29504 SCOTWOOD DRIVE Site survey findings: The on-site survey of the above referenced site was conducted on August 9, 2017. Exhibit 1 is a photograph of the mockup pole and equipment cabinet for the proposed Crown Castle installation. The site location on Scotwood Drive is near the point where it connects to Whitley Collins Dr. It is positioned in the center of the target area to serve residences along the south side of Oceanridge Drive, Beachside Drive, Whitecliff Drive, Sunmist Drive, parts of Crest Road and some residences on the north side of Santa Barbara Drive. Exhibit 1— Site with Mocked Up Pole with Antenna As a part of this assignment. I conducted signal measurements of the AT&T service in the target area identified by Crown Castle to be served from the site. Before conducting the ASG Site 32 measurements, I first made measurements at the City Hall parking lot to both calibrate the test equipment and also to establish a reference sample of the network throughput and signal level (signal power relative to 1 milliwatt of the LTE information signal power RSRP {Reference Signal Received Power} an industry standard metric) near the macro tower. Measurements were made with the spectrum analyzer for all three licensed AT&T bands. The measurements confirmed that tower signals were active on all three bands. A signal level of -74 dBm RSRP was recorded at the site along with data throughput download measurements exceeding 100 Mb and uploads in the range of 45 Mb. This was fully consistent with my expectations for a properly functioning, lightly loaded 4G LTE network. I then conducted a drive test along the route shown in Exhibit 2 below. At ASG Site 32 Gap target area, the same measurements were taken near the proposed antenna site. At the proposed ASG Site 32, the signal level measurement was -115 dBm 4G LTE service. The download test registered a throughput 1.23 Mbs, and 30k bps for the upload. Generally, my experience indicates that is desirable to have a minimum signal level of at least -100 to -95 dBm to support reliable connections for both upload and download and data speeds consistent with the 3/4G technology. I note that Crown Castle in the application has specified a target signal goal of -95 dBm or greater for LTE technology. Exhibit 2 — Map Showing Existing AT&T Coverage Measured During Site Visit On the exhibit, there is an overlay is an of the target area defined by Crown Castle which is outlined in blue. Signal level measurements were made throughout the area and recorded in a slowly moving vehicle at five second intervals. The data was then plotted using the geographical coordinates onto a Google Earth map. A complete listing of the 121 measurements points used to create this coverage map can be found in Appendix A of this document. The listing includes the measured signal level, the geographical coordinates and the AT&T tower site communicated with. It should be noted that during the drive test the receiver attempted to connect to 13 individual tower sites that provide some level of signal service in the drive area. 4 of the 121 signal level test points were unable to connect at all. Throughout the ASG Site 32 gap, the signal remained 4G LTE service (except repeated 3G service data points at the NE edge of the gap on Scotwood Drive) with the majority of the signal <-105 dBm. Only in the South end of the gap (along Crest Road) was the 4G LTE signal good, albeit inconsistent. For additional information on the specifics frequencies that AT&T operates on the RPV area as well as background technical information which is applicable to all these Crown Castle applications, please see Appendix B of this document. Based on our field measurements It is our finding that within this small area there is a gap in reliable AT&T broadband services. Technical review: This new DAS wireless access facility is to be installed on a replacement street light to provide additional capacity and service on all three AT&T bands (700 MHz, PCS and AWS) to improved digital network services to customers in vehicles and buildings. Exhibit 3 is a Google map photo submitted by the applicant defining the primary service area for this site. This is the same area in which we conducted the signal level measurements for existing AT&T coverage. Exhibit 3 — Target Area Overview Two separate antennas are mounted at a radiation center located 22' —1 %" above ground level (AGL). The antennas simultaneously can support the AT&T 700, PCS and AWS bands. The site will function to provided local coverage to the area within the blue rectangle. This site work in concert with existing AT&T macro (traditional cell towers) sites. Exhibit 4 is an illustration of the proposed DAS facility. The site includes two directional antennas each targeting along the road focusing the signal beam into a target 60' arc, aimed at azimuths of 330' and 170' respectively. Exhibit 4 — Site ASG 32 •r % it i Mean Palm Vord a LOOKING NORTHEAST FROM CREST RD To support the application, Crown Castle provided field measurements made with a temporary antenna to substantiate coverage in the target area. We have reviewed the information and also conducted both an on-site walkout of the area as well as a computerized terrain study to determine if the proposed site will address the coverage gap identified in the Crown Castle application. For the terrain profile study, we examined a series of individual path profiles from the proposed site to a sampling of locations within the gap. Exhibit 5 below shows the locations (within the gap) which were chosen for examination of the path profiles. Complete path profile information for the 6 sample sites are available in Appendix B. Based on our review of the terrain profile characteristics and the field measurement data provided by Crown Castle, we conclude that the proposal as provided will address the coverage deficiencies within the target area. 000T.4 1 •�P z STP 3 `� *�• y,,,r„��' j +'� "- - quiff ` .. �'�,4"� 1 �' � Nc a• �' t� '. k, x Fes. �' •,c �' '�!Poo ASG32'.. '�� ilk iL It �.1 t7 • _� �,r-y. �Ss t / `; , / e . -L�-�.�•S�S'1('n F'•�.��}P6 • �-" TPS: 's�Q I►' + 6 Provide coverage at the intersection of Crest Rd ., Objective and kk'JttXs Collins a- into the Mesu Palos Legend `�� +� r✓ _ Verdes community. ASG32 RF P P. We C-ddele b. ; Amoi ,; • �y • i1 0'��.. - Rin q ,. YASG32L B l.L, . 1. ASG32 i. S � F w.11 cct Rd fill, .00 it Stone C i —t Rde" �- . rv'- \r� .f,.�, •' -'�+ A - A '. ;-• , ASG32lEI?. •C!l,h ).�l\'(l� —y ,A��i 1� • �y __,, ,�,. _ t fT-ti''• ' ,o SantaCatalina Dr tianta Barba ��'� oogl rth - j v' /. r-•- �� `N Exhibit 7 — Proposed Coverage from Locating Tower Site at ASG32E igoo MHz 1 •.............. • :,: Ly. ••..•• ,. ,�w ••• 1N•. u rR.•, ri N.N IM•Ian�pwurlr.l•r*•MI �•w'. • � \ .• •,w fr. � \ �� • ASD• Il�v W~IW[q•»q•h•■y». K.R•f \ �i)7 • '� � jl r•• ■ • i >/ .................. ............• ••,� •/// �\\\ IWS AI61 ' « "-►- ASG32_E Primary Candidate cr City Recommended loo MHz ,................... / ItUO•c Rtt� i •. ...4i ...•..•. ••' F���� ••- 4 _ A f : • ••• ♦ .rte ' i Es»by IIoO• CM M • V+wl!ioM _luu.N• Wr.4.• 4Mao�w.»<.w» E.t •Op.lw•.Paypoe W r ri •••• \ �4�1 • • ASG32—E Primary Candidate City Recommended Exhibit 8 shows conclusions from the Crown Castle report on the viability of alternate sites for ASG32. Exhibit 8 —Alternate Site Conclusions Node ID Average RSRP 1900 MHz (d8m) loss of RSRP signal %) ASG32-A -65.5021 6.4% 1 mprovement ASG32-E -69.9693 0°/0 ASG32-C -75.2618 7.6% Degraded ASG32-D -79.9525 14.3% Degraded ASG32-8 -84.7755 21.2% Degraded] This chart shows the Average RSRP for the 1900 MHz band as measured throughout the target service objective area based on the source location of the proposed antenna site. As you can see, while ASG32- A has the highest Average RSRP of -65.5 dBm, Crown Castle has indicated that ASG -33E is an acceptable solution to meet the objective, since it has an Average RSRP of no less than -69.9 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 for ASG32 appears to provide more than enough coverage to address the existing poor AT&T service issues in ASG32. Co -location options: Crown Castle has provided information on the various options that have been reviewed for the site deployment. It should be noted that the alternatives involve minor changes in the siting of the facility. In most cases the limited coverage areas of the DAS units limit or confine site selection. Generally, alternatives are selected based on aesthetic considerations since the overall coverage area is confined by the limited service area of DAS technology and location of the specific signal gap areas that are to be addressed. Findings and conclusions: The applicant (Crown Castle) has provided engineering details related to the wireless bands that will be used for the DAS deployment, including identifying transmitting equipment, power levels for each band and specifics regarding the radiation patterns of the antennas to be installed. However, information provided about existing and proposed coverage in the service area for each of the three AT&T licensed wireless bands (700 MHz, PCS and AWS) are less clearly defined; this is due to the extremely rugged and varied terrain associated with the RPV landscape. From an engineering perspective, Crown Castle has provided engineering measurement data defining gaps in AT&T coverage in small pocketed areas. I have independently examined these areas and find that the signal levels are lower than the levels industry guidelines suggested to support modern 3G/4G customer needs. Further, the engineering design provided by Crown Castle supports that, if constructed, DAS site ASG 32 at any of the proposed tower site locations will provide more than ample signal intensity (signal level in excess of -95 dBm) to support AT&T's 3G/4G wireless services. Based on Crown Castle's report and data, the tower site location proposed by the City Council (ASG 32E) off Crest Road would deliver an Average RSRP of -69.97 dBm to the proposed target service objective, clearly surpassing the threshold of -95 dBm by more than 20 dBm. Currently from the information obtained in the drive tests, it appears that approximately half of the proposed service area currently is served with legacy 3G service. � ii Signature: Lee Afflerbach, P.E. Date: 8/22/17 UPDATED: 1/24/18 ctc technology & energy engineering & business consulting CITY OF L RANCHO PALOS VERDES CONTRACTTO: ART BASHMAKIAN, PLANNER CHARLES ' SENIOR ENGINEER 1 1'1 . 'IFOR ALTF Ri'LATE• TELECOMMUNICATION * public right-of- way CollinsDrive) On July 21, 2017, Staff determined that the originally proposed wireless telecommunications facility at the intersection of Scotwood Drive and Whitely Collins Drive, adjacent to 29504 Whitely Collins Drive, did not create a significant view impairment from residential viewing areas, as defined in Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration Code). The applicant is now proposing to install flush mounted antenna panels WTF at an alternate location within the public right-of-way intersection of Crest Road and Whitley Collins Drive adjacent to 29716 Whitley Collins Drive. Based on a view analysis conducted on January 19, 2018, Staff has determined the view impairment by the panel antennas for the alternate location for ASG No. 32 would not create a significant view impairment because the 21.4" panel antennas would be flush mounted to an existing streetlight pole, which minimizes their obstruction of the Catalina Island view. However, the alternative design option using a canister would create a view impairment of Catalina Island from the residential viewing areas located at 5684 and 5678 Whitecliff Drive, as defined in Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration Code). This is because the canister shroud would increase the height of the pole and would encroach into the view frame from these properties. � •1 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. 32 to install a Wireless Telecommunication Facility (WTF) on a replacement streetlight pole adjacent to 29504 Whitley Collins. Quasi -Judicial Decision This item is a quasi-judicial decision in which the City Council is being asked to affirm whether specific findings of fact can be made in order to overturn the denial of the Planning Commission's decision. The specific findings of fact are listed in the Resolution per Chapter 12.18 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC). RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: (1) Direct the Appellant to relocate the proposed wireless facility to an existing streetlight pole located at the intersection of Crest Road and Whitley Collins Drive (adjacent to 29716 Whitley Collins Drive); (2) Direct the Appellant to encase the two panel antennas in a canister shroud measuring 2' tall and 14.6" in diameter with a 2' tall tapered sleeve shroud to a replacement streetlight pole with vaulted accessory equipment (Option No. 1); and, (3) Continue the public hearing to January 16, 2018 in order for the Appellant to install a mock-up at the new location and for the City to issue a new public notice pursuant to the provisions stated in Section 12.18 of the RPVMC, provided that the Appellant agrees, in writing, to toll the shot clock to January 31, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: The Appellant has paid the applicable appeal fees, as established by Resolution of the City Council. If the Appellant is successful in the appeal, and the City Council overturns the Planning Commission's decision to deny the project, the Appellant will receive a full refund of their appeal fee. Thus, all in-house Staff costs associated with the processing of the appeal will come from the City's General Fund. Costs for work conducted by the City's consultants, including the City's contract planner and the City's RF engineer, are borne by the Appellant (Crown Castle). Amount Budgeted: N/A Additional Appropriation: N/A Account Number(s): N/A 55478.00001\30325822.1 D-91 ORIGINATED BY: Art Bashmakian, AICP, Contract Planner REVIEWED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, Director of Community Developmen 4 REVIEWED BY: Christy Marie Lopez, Special Legal Counsel APPROVED BY: Doug Willmore, City Manager ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: A. Revised Design Options (page A-1) B. Appeal Letter to City Council dated October 20, 2017 (page B-1) C. P.C. Resolution No. 2017-27 - Denying without Prejudice (page C-1) D. August 30, 2017 P.C. Staff Report (page D-1) 1. P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -XX including Conditions of Approval 2. Revised project plans and photo simulations 3. City's View Assessment Memo 4. Technical information from the City's RF Engineer 5. Coverage Maps and Supporting Documents from the Applicant 6. Feasibility Analysis on Alternate Sites 7. August 7, 2017 Shot Clock Tolling Agreement 8. Public Comments E. Public Comments (page E-1) F. Tolling Agreement (page F-1) Click on the link below to view the August 30, 2017 Planning Commission meeting on ASG No. 32 - Agenda Item No. 4 (time stamp: 1:39:32): http://rpv.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view id=5&clip id=2881 BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: Crown Castle, the Appellant, is a tower company hired by wireless companies for the purposes of acquiring sites for the construction and deployment of wireless telecommunications antennas throughout local jurisdictions. Pursuant Chapter 12.18 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC), Crown Castle is proposing to install approximately 26 new antennas in the City's public right-of-way (PROW), including the subject application, to provide services to AT&T consumers throughout the City. Original Project Description and Location The proposed project, as originally submitted, was to remove an existing 25-6" tall streetlight pole and replace it with a 25-6" tall streetlight pole with two 21.4" panel antennas that would be side -mounted to the pole and the installation of above -ground mechanical equipment and meter box measuring 9.7 cubic feet in area within the public right-of-way (PROW). 55478.00001\303 25 82 2. 1 D-92 The wireless telecommunication facility considered by the Planning Commission consisted of the replacement of an existing 25'-6" streetlight pole with the installation of a new 28.1' tall streetlight pole (measured to the top of the canister shroud) with mast arm and luminaire to accommodate the installation of two panel antennas encased in a 2' tall and 2' diameter canister shroud with a 3' tall tapered shroud sleeve with vaulted accessory equipment located entirely within the PROW. All vents and meter boxes would be vaulted and flush with the ground. The original project site is located entirely within the PROW, approximately 55 -feet east of Whitley Collins Drive centerline on Scotwood Drive. The wireless facility is located on the south side of a gently sloping road, next to a corner lot. Existing streetlights line the road switching from one side of the road to the other at approximately 150 -foot intervals. Mature trees and shrubs (including a landscaped parkway) and a concrete wall on the adjacent property provide partial screening of the wireless facility. The three photos on below depict the existing site, and a photo simulation of the original submitted project (side -mounted antennas panels) and the project considered by the Planning Commission with the antennas panels encased in a canister shroud at the top of the streetlight pole. Existing Site Original Proposal Planning Commission's Decision Commission Denied Proposal On August 30, 2017, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider the Appellant's request. At this meeting, after considering evidence introduced in the record including public testimony from the Appellant, neighbors, Staff, and the City's RF consultant, moved to deny, without prejudice, on a vote of 4-0 (Commissioners Leon and Tomblin, and Vice -Chair James were absent). The Commission's denial was based on the following findings (see Page C-11).- The -1): The overall appearance of the antennas on the new streetlight replacement pole at the proposed location would be a dominant feature which would be out -of - character with the surrounding neighborhood. 55478.00001\30325822.1 D-93 • The antenna design is of a size and shape that would be a dominant feature on the residential street and would not blend with the surrounding environment particularly as the antenna shroud is much wider than the street light pole at the point of attachment. In particular, the replacement streetlight pole would be approximately 3' taller than the existing streetlight pole. • The wireless telecommunication facility would not visually blend with the surrounding environment and the "industrial -utility" looking style of the facility would not be compatible with the style and quality of the surrounding residential neighborhood. • The incremental changes to the improvements in the right-of-way will lead to the deterioration of the City's well-maintained streetscapes • The wireless telecommunication facility would draw attention and would reduce the desirability, including the potential to reduce property values, of the surrounding residential neighborhood • The wireless telecommunication facility covers a relatively small portion of the technical service objective and will not provide service to a significant number of uses. • There was no significant gap in coverage that would necessitate the proposed facility. Basis for the Appeal On September 14, 2017, the Appellant filed a timely appeal (Page B-1) of the Planning Commission's denial of Major Wireless Telecommunication Facility Permit ASG No. 32 contending that the denial and the reasons for the denial effectively prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting the provisions of personal wireless services. In summary, the Appellant believes that the Commission's decision was not based on substantial evidence and that the denial violates the Appellant's right to deploy its facilities in the public rights-of-way in violation of Public Utilities Code section 7901, in that the Planning Commission's action exceeds the local control over the "time place and manner" of access to the right-of-way. New Project Location During the August 30th meeting, the Planning Commission requested the Appellant to explore relocating the proposed wireless facility from an existing streetlight located on a residential street onto an existing streetlight pole on Crest Road, a defined arterial street in the City's General Plan. In response to the Commission's feedback, after filing the appeal of the Commission's denial, the Appellant explored relocating the wireless facility onto an existing pole on Crest Road. The Appellant reassessed the coverage objective within the intersection of Crest Road and Whitley Collins, and is now proposing to install the proposed wireless facility on an existing streetlight pole at the intersection of Crest Road and Whitley Collins. Specifically, the streetlight pole in question is located adjacent to 29716 Whitley Collins Drive. Albeit on a residential street, Staff supports relocating the facility to this streetlight pole because it is approximately 10' from Crest Road right-of-way and would not adversely impact the surrounding properties or 55478.00001\30325822.1 D-94 neighborhood because other similar wireless facilities are located within the same general area. If the Council supports relocating the wireless facility, Staff recommends that the public hearing be continued to January 16, 2018 to allow the Appellant to install a new mock- up and to allow the City to issue a new public notice to the property owners within a 500' radius of the new project location. Revised Project In addition to relocating the facility, in response to the Planning Commission's decision, the Appellant has reassessed its proposal and is presenting, in addition to the original design submittal as Option No. 4 (exposed panel antennas side -mounted to the streetlight pole), three new design options for the Council's consideration as part of the appeal proceedings. Option Nos. 1 - 3 consist of two panel antennas encased in a canister shroud measuring 2' tall and 14.6" in diameter with different pole dimensions, as described below: Option No. 1 - Consists of a tapered streetlight pole similar in size to a standard streetlight pole (with a 6" diameter at the top of the pole) with the canister and 2' tall sleeve shrouds attached to the top of the pole at a maximum height of 28.1'. Option No. 2 - Consists of a streetlight pole measuring 14.6" in diameter that seamlessly blends in with the canister shroud at a maximum height of 29'. Option No. 3 - Consists of a streetlight pole measuring 16" in diameter that seamlessly blends in with the canister shroud at a maximum height of 29'. This wider pole accommodates the accessory equipment within the interior of the pole eliminating the need to vault the mechanical equipment in the ground. Option No. 4 (Original Proposal) — Consists of two 21.4" tall side -mounted panel antennas affixed to the side of a replacement streetlight pole measuring a total height of 25.6'. Below are the photo simulations of the four design options (see A-1 for larger images): Option No. 1 Option No. 2 Option No. 3 Option No. 4 55478.00001\30325822.1 D-95 Based on the four options, Staff's preference is Option No. 1 because it results in a facility that is least intrusive to the neighborhood by concealing the panel antennas and associated wires within a canister shroud measuring 14.6" in diameter. The canister shroud before the City Council has been reduced in diameter by approximately 10" than the canister shroud considered by the Planning Commission resulting in a slimmer profile. In comparison, Option Nos. 2 and 3 include a wider streetlight pole that does not match the streetlight poles within the neighborhood making them appear out -of - character. Whereas the design of Option No. 1 aligns with the required findings cited in Section 12.18.090 of the RPVMC, including the general guidelines stated in Section 12.18.080 of the RPVMC, as summarized below: • Employs screening with the canister shroud. • Minimizes view and visual impacts with the panel antennas and related wires encased in a shroud with underground vaulted mechanical equipment. • Avoids adverse impacts to traffic patterns including pedestrians and vehicles. • Incorporates blending design techniques. • Matches the material, color, and height of streetlight poles within the immediate neighborhood. • Utilizes existing infrastructure thereby avoiding the installation of new above- ground infrastructure. • Represents the least intrusive design as compared to alternative designs and locations. • Meets the Appellant's coverage objective (see discussion below) If Staff's recommendation is acceptable to the Council, Staff will prepare a detailed analysis of the required findings in the resolution for consideration at the January 16, 2018 meeting. The resolution will include Conditions of Approval regulating the installation, appearance, and maintenance of the wireless facility within the public right- of-way mitigating potential adverse impacts to the immediate neighborhood. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: City Council Site Visit The City Council is encouraged to visit the project site and the proposed installation for, among other things, design assessment and location. The Council will be asked to disclose whether they visited the project site before opening the public hearing. Coverage Gap Analysis Sections 12.18.050(B)(1 9)(a) and (b) of the RPVMC states that in the event an applicant seeks to install a wireless telecommunication facility within the public right-of- way to address service coverage concerns and/or service capacity concerns, the applicant needs to submit propagation maps with objective units of signal strength measurement regarding current service coverage and written explanation identifying the existing facilities with service capacity issues. 55478.00001\30325822.1 D-96 In light of relocating the wireless facility, Staff is requesting that the Appellant submit updated maps and a written justification for further review by the City's RF consultant to verify the coverage needs based on industry guidelines suggested to support modern 3G/4G customer needs. Pole Design Options Mock -Up The Appellant has installed a mockup of "replacement pole" design examples for supporting the proposed telecommunication panel antennas. The mockups are located adjacent to the City's maintenance yard at the City Hall site for City Council, Planning Commission, and public viewing. Mockup Notice Issued On May 25, 2017, the Appellant (Crown Castle) received a Public Works Encroachment Permit to install a mockup of a proposed wireless telecommunications facility. The temporary mockup was installed on June 2, 2017. This is a required step in the Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Application for all proposed wireless facility installations. The temporary mock-up installation will remains in-place as a matter of public notice up - to and during the appeal proceedings. Public Notice On November 15, 2017, a public hearing notice was published in the Daily Breeze announcing tonight's special City Council meeting on the appeal of the project application. Similarly, public notices were mailed to property owners within a 500' radius of the project site and a list -serve message issued announcing the public hearing and inviting public comments on the appeal. An additional courtesy public notice was published in the Peninsula News on Thursday, November 23, 2017. Public Comments Attached are the public comments received since the appeal notice was issued (page E-1). Plannina Commission Chairman Pursuant to City Council Policy No. 24, the Planning Commission Vice -Chair James will be attending the November 30th meeting in event the Council has any questions pertaining to the Commission's decisions in this matter. 55478.00001\30325822.1 D-97 Shot Clock State and federal laws, and a FCC ruling, provide that a local jurisdiction must act on an application for certain wireless facilities antennas within the following certain strict timeframes: (1) a 150 -day shot clock for new facilities; (2) a 90 -day shot clock for modifications resulting in a substantial change; or (3) a 60 -day shot clock for modifications that do not result in a substantial change. If a local government fails to approve or deny a facilities request within the applicable time period, the request will be "deemed granted" upon written notification from the applicant to the local government stating that the request is considered approved. The Project application proposes a new facility subject to the 150 -day shot clock. The application was submitted on May 26, 2016. The clock was "tolled" several times as a result of incomplete application submittals. As a result, the shot clock was set to expire on September 1, 2017. A new Shot Clock Toiling Agreement, dated August 7, 2017, established a new Shot Clock Expiration date of September 30, 2017 (page F-1). The Planning Commission's action on the Project is the final City decision, unless appealed to the City Council. While the law is not clear, there is no binding legal precedent in California requiring that the shot clock run pending an appeal period. Accordingly, it is thought that the Commission's action on the Project may toll the shot clock. As recommended by Staff, because the Appellant proposes to relocate the wireless facility, in order for the Council to continue the public hearing to January 16, 2018, the Appellant must agree, in writing, to toll the shot clock to January 31, 2018. CONCLUSION: Based on the forgoing discussion, Staff recommends that the City Council continue the public hearing to January 16, 2018 to allow the Appellant to install a new mock-up at the intersection of Crest Road and Whitley Collins Drive, adjacent to 29716 Whitley Collins Drive, based on Design Option No. 1 and to have City Staff issue a new public notice provided the Appellant agrees, in writing, to toll the shot clock to January 31, 2018. ALTERNATIVES: In addition to Staff's recommendation, the following alternatives are available for consideration by the City Council: 1. Deny the appeal, thereby upholding the Planning Commission's denial of Major Wireless Telecommunication Facility Permit ASG No. 32 and direct Staff to return with a revised Resolution at the December 19, 2017 City Council Meeting. 55478.00001\30325822.1 D-98 2. Modify the appeal and direct Staff to return with a revised Resolution at the December 19, 2017, City Council Meeting. This action would entitle the Appellants to a refund of one-half of their appeal fee. 3. Identify any issues of concern with the proposed project, provide Staff and/or the Appellant with direction in modifying the project, and continue the public hearing to December 19, 2017. 55478.00001\30325822.1 D-99 DESIGN OPTION NO. 1 ASG NO. 32 D-100 ANTENNA DETAILS tJT INSTALL(1)AMPHENOLCUU6020X06Fx 0 �,^ ANTENNA VOO�! T-25 OF STEEL POLE Z IOP OF ANENNA HROUD INSTALL LUMINARE 8 MAST ARM S 0° 28'1' SKIRT OF 2' 0` PAC C ENTER INSTALL 25'6" CONCRETE TEXTURED STEEL POLE s0° 27 .. ,.. STREET LIGHT #1613500E TOP OF EXISTING POL5: 29 Y' TOP OF NEW POLE: 25-6- TOP 5'6'TOP OF ANTENNA: 261" RAO CENTER: 27' 1- AZIMUTHS'.1 ]0' & 330^ EQUIPMENT AND ANTENNAS TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH POLE. 1i�`G�r �t�0♦ �i�lia w ill �I I 1:8 INSTALL(1) AMPHENOL CUUB070XNFnZO ANTENNA INSTALL LUMINARE 8 MAST ARM C_TOP OF STEEL POLE 25' 6" OP OF AN SHROUD 28'V 1' ShIR'I' pf > 0` RAD CENTER INSTALL 25'6 CONCRETE TEXTUREDSTEEL POLE ,7, 1.. INSTALL VGR (BEHIND 4 X 6' VAULT) INSTALL (1) CROWN CASTLE 2'X 3' WFR VAULT p:, (2' S O 0.1 STA. 100 - 56 G-11ND LEVEL INSTALL(1) CROWN CASTLE 4' X 6' VAULT WITH FLUSH MOUNT VENTS 8(2) ML IONS INSIDE. (0' B.O.C) STA 1001 T6 ASG32 YW\SG 11 242727 rw, CROWN v CASTLE xxx.n xmIM6.�Mn ®_ TSoTnnicaIiitit.tions I'nt�inwnnY IAX� r..In.x��u i � 1ai�v`Vu Wt *i PR(WRIY.'fAA1' MF(IRAL\'I'R+v IGART �nnnn�iltl r CI rY RE INF A., IPO 09 !iltti —UIJ Hl, I.(tC IfV:!S/tl IUII..FH RFIN.INE6 ASG32 295D4 SCOTWOOD DR AT VMITLEY COLLINS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA POI_F. PROFILE P-3 D-101 INSTALL25`6'C0NCRETETEXTURED STEEL INSTALL (1) AMPHENOL CUUBO]0X—yz0 ANTENNA tJT INSTALL(1)AMPHENOLCUU6020X06Fx 0 �,^ ANTENNA VOO�! T-25 OF STEEL POLE Z IOP OF ANENNA HROUD INSTALL LUMINARE 8 MAST ARM S 0° 28'1' SKIRT OF 2' 0` PAC C ENTER INSTALL 25'6" CONCRETE TEXTURED STEEL POLE s0° 27 .. ,.. STREET LIGHT #1613500E TOP OF EXISTING POL5: 29 Y' TOP OF NEW POLE: 25-6- TOP 5'6'TOP OF ANTENNA: 261" RAO CENTER: 27' 1- AZIMUTHS'.1 ]0' & 330^ EQUIPMENT AND ANTENNAS TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH POLE. 1i�`G�r �t�0♦ �i�lia w ill �I I 1:8 INSTALL(1) AMPHENOL CUUB070XNFnZO ANTENNA INSTALL LUMINARE 8 MAST ARM C_TOP OF STEEL POLE 25' 6" OP OF AN SHROUD 28'V 1' ShIR'I' pf > 0` RAD CENTER INSTALL 25'6 CONCRETE TEXTUREDSTEEL POLE ,7, 1.. INSTALL VGR (BEHIND 4 X 6' VAULT) INSTALL (1) CROWN CASTLE 2'X 3' WFR VAULT p:, (2' S O 0.1 STA. 100 - 56 G-11ND LEVEL INSTALL(1) CROWN CASTLE 4' X 6' VAULT WITH FLUSH MOUNT VENTS 8(2) ML IONS INSIDE. (0' B.O.C) STA 1001 T6 ASG32 YW\SG 11 242727 rw, CROWN v CASTLE xxx.n xmIM6.�Mn ®_ TSoTnnicaIiitit.tions I'nt�inwnnY IAX� r..In.x��u i � 1ai�v`Vu Wt *i PR(WRIY.'fAA1' MF(IRAL\'I'R+v IGART �nnnn�iltl r CI rY RE INF A., IPO 09 !iltti —UIJ Hl, I.(tC IfV:!S/tl IUII..FH RFIN.INE6 ASG32 295D4 SCOTWOOD DR AT VMITLEY COLLINS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA POI_F. PROFILE P-3 D-101 �� �'4 �r.p� r . K bttc� � � �� � •k . •� c >.• .i�'iij _�'� tea*' •_+ �-r: �.. �1 ,S '^ y' �` ��•? arm i �.7'�• a TM r DESIGN OPTION NO. 2 ASG NO. 32 D-103 A ANTENNA DETAILS SCALE: I:5 ASG32 rNaSEu ell UIT ,.,, 242727rT� 014" CROWN �../� CASTLE C¢ INSTALL 25'6` CONCRETE TEXTURED avLi1 F1.1— INSTALL (1) AMPHENOL CUUW70XW FXYZD wxw.uuwimwl�.cwn S ANTENNA 00 TOO a� Communisations F- IX OO'Q c`�G Z IN, 11 10' L� 900 HM6' N<vkURHL1lUN IIL\�\L� oiscNimuae oixenATHa fo w leti i1.sr'Rlc'1 Vv MKOII tl,'IN1E5 STREET LIGHT Y1613500E T TOP OF EXISTING POLE: 25' 6' 1 TOP OF NEW POLE: 26 6' 1 TOP OF ANTENNA: 29k RAD CENTER: 26'�' AZIMUTHS: 17G'& 330' EQUIPMENT AND ANTENNAS TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH POLE. D PEO 09 E LT RELOOr1T10N IUSIOMER NES AS 32 29504 SCOTWOOD DR AT WHITLEY COLLINS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA POLE PROFILE P-4 B 3 O'CLOCK VIEW SCALE: 1:8 12 O'CLOCK VIEW SCALE: 1:8 INSTALL (1)AMPHENOL CUUB070XWFxyzO INSTALL (1)AMPHENOL CUU8070XOBFzyzO i ANTENNA ANTENNA INSTALL LUMINARE 6 MAST ARM TOP OF STEEL POLE � TOP OF STEEL POLE 25 � SHROUD � 26' S' TOP SKIRT OFA NTENNA SHROUD 2. 29'x„ SKIRT P' b" TOP OF ANTENNA INSTALL 25'6`CONCRETE TEXTURED RAD STEEL POLE CENTER 26' (�• INSTALL 25' 6 CONCRETE TEXTURED RAD STEEL POLE CENTER 26 INSTALL (1) CROWN CASTLE 2' X S WIR VAULT i (2'flO.C.J STA.IW*56 (BEHIND —6 VAULT) GROUND LEVEL GROUND LEVEL <C&G r ` INSTALL VGR INSTALL VGR (BEHIND 4' X 6' VAULT) INSTALL (1) CROWN CASTLE 4' X 6' VAULT D-104 WITH FLUSH MOUNT VENTS & (2) ML IONS INSIDE. (0' B.O. C.7 STA. 100 * ]S A ANTENNA DETAILS SCALE: I:5 ASG32 rNaSEu ell UIT ,.,, 242727rT� 014" CROWN �../� CASTLE C¢ INSTALL 25'6` CONCRETE TEXTURED avLi1 F1.1— INSTALL (1) AMPHENOL CUUW70XW FXYZD wxw.uuwimwl�.cwn S ANTENNA 00 TOO a� Communisations F- IX OO'Q c`�G Z IN, 11 10' L� 900 HM6' N<vkURHL1lUN IIL\�\L� oiscNimuae oixenATHa fo w leti i1.sr'Rlc'1 Vv MKOII tl,'IN1E5 STREET LIGHT Y1613500E T TOP OF EXISTING POLE: 25' 6' 1 TOP OF NEW POLE: 26 6' 1 TOP OF ANTENNA: 29k RAD CENTER: 26'�' AZIMUTHS: 17G'& 330' EQUIPMENT AND ANTENNAS TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH POLE. D PEO 09 E LT RELOOr1T10N IUSIOMER NES AS 32 29504 SCOTWOOD DR AT WHITLEY COLLINS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA POLE PROFILE P-4 B 3 O'CLOCK VIEW SCALE: 1:8 12 O'CLOCK VIEW SCALE: 1:8 INSTALL (1)AMPHENOL CUUB070XWFxyzO INSTALL (1)AMPHENOL CUU8070XOBFzyzO i ANTENNA ANTENNA INSTALL LUMINARE 6 MAST ARM TOP OF STEEL POLE � TOP OF STEEL POLE 25 � SHROUD � 26' S' TOP SKIRT OFA NTENNA SHROUD 2. 29'x„ SKIRT P' b" TOP OF ANTENNA INSTALL 25'6`CONCRETE TEXTURED RAD STEEL POLE CENTER 26' (�• INSTALL 25' 6 CONCRETE TEXTURED RAD STEEL POLE CENTER 26 INSTALL (1) CROWN CASTLE 2' X S WIR VAULT i (2'flO.C.J STA.IW*56 (BEHIND —6 VAULT) GROUND LEVEL GROUND LEVEL <C&G r ` INSTALL VGR INSTALL VGR (BEHIND 4' X 6' VAULT) INSTALL (1) CROWN CASTLE 4' X 6' VAULT D-104 \ �4y 4 a - i • �� ' K � �'i � � a f{ t .� 'r r . 1( Mtn .+. _ �' YL ,- *'. ♦ - ♦ 3 -. . a4- t 1 o`�'o �+' y • ���` t yr web ' r. ( s ap s . '.• �y �i■' ' dal>NO�' ��f ea ''�' •.h _ � W ice► {��'[ �'. o y Ail -� LOCATION - - --- - PROPOSED - '• - ASG NO. 32 D-106 A ANTENNA DETAILS SCALE: 1:5 ASG32 D 6 LCJ CROWN v CASTLE ca INSTALL 25'6'CONCRETETEXTURED 6L'fxUM L'NI'x 0vt_Ix Fux4 C STEEL POLE WITH (2) ML IONS INSIDE \'INE. L'A v:eIS wxv.anxouslkavni INSTALL (1)AMPHENOL CUUB070X06Fvyrt1 S ANTENNA Cppp' Communications O Z 0° L90^ rRNPx,t.IAx, IN,I,N.\L,NI,� STREET LIGHT 61617600E TOP OF EXISTING POLE: 25' 6' l.11 TOP OF NEW POLE: 25' 6' Ll TOP OF ANTENNA: 28' 1"' RAD CENTER: 213'1' AZIMUTHS'. 170'& 700' .N.I.N\ v h nLhNI EQUIPMENT AND ANTENNAS TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH POLE. TY REDLINE IIIUbIi� AX GEDp T RELOCATUN OS 11, REDLINES ASG72 29504 SCOTMOD DR AT WHITLEY COLLINS OR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA POLE PROFILE P-5 B 3 O'CLOCK VIEW SCALE: 1:8 12 O'CLOCK VIEW SCALE: 1:8 INSTALL (1)AMPNENOL CUVB070XOBFxyaO INSTALL (t)AMPHENOL CUUSO70%06Fxyz0 ANTENNA ANTENNA f INSTALL LUMINPRE BMAST ARM SHROUD _TOP OF STEEL POLE TOP OF STEEL POLE SKIRT 25'6' SHROUD 256" 70P 1' SKIRT OF ANTENNA INSTALL LUMINARE 8 MART ARM IOP 1' 112" OF ANTENNA RAD CENTER INSTALL 25'6'CONCRETE TEXTURED RAO 28'5 STEEL POLE WITH (2) ML IONS INSIDE- CENTER INSTALL 2S 8' CONCRETE TEXTURED STEEL POLE WITH D-107 (2) ML IONS INSIDE. Ot E" 016' GROUND LEVEL 'i CdG : GROUND LEVEL '�T �L C6G ( �JNStVG INSTALL VGR INSTALL (1) CROWN CASTLE 2' X S VJTR VAULT (2'B.O.C.)STA. t00�86 (BEHIND POLE) A ANTENNA DETAILS SCALE: 1:5 ASG32 D 6 LCJ CROWN v CASTLE ca INSTALL 25'6'CONCRETETEXTURED 6L'fxUM L'NI'x 0vt_Ix Fux4 C STEEL POLE WITH (2) ML IONS INSIDE \'INE. L'A v:eIS wxv.anxouslkavni INSTALL (1)AMPHENOL CUUB070X06Fvyrt1 S ANTENNA Cppp' Communications O Z 0° L90^ rRNPx,t.IAx, IN,I,N.\L,NI,� STREET LIGHT 61617600E TOP OF EXISTING POLE: 25' 6' l.11 TOP OF NEW POLE: 25' 6' Ll TOP OF ANTENNA: 28' 1"' RAD CENTER: 213'1' AZIMUTHS'. 170'& 700' .N.I.N\ v h nLhNI EQUIPMENT AND ANTENNAS TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH POLE. TY REDLINE IIIUbIi� AX GEDp T RELOCATUN OS 11, REDLINES ASG72 29504 SCOTMOD DR AT WHITLEY COLLINS OR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA POLE PROFILE P-5 B 3 O'CLOCK VIEW SCALE: 1:8 12 O'CLOCK VIEW SCALE: 1:8 INSTALL (1)AMPNENOL CUVB070XOBFxyaO INSTALL (t)AMPHENOL CUUSO70%06Fxyz0 ANTENNA ANTENNA f INSTALL LUMINPRE BMAST ARM SHROUD _TOP OF STEEL POLE TOP OF STEEL POLE SKIRT 25'6' SHROUD 256" 70P 1' SKIRT OF ANTENNA INSTALL LUMINARE 8 MART ARM IOP 1' 112" OF ANTENNA RAD CENTER INSTALL 25'6'CONCRETE TEXTURED RAO 28'5 STEEL POLE WITH (2) ML IONS INSIDE- CENTER INSTALL 2S 8' CONCRETE TEXTURED STEEL POLE WITH D-107 • �- »...$) r. " �� pry Sr .1 � lip�f r 8 � „rte �• � c� �I � -- - :, oAmw PROPO DESIGN OPTION NO. 4 ASG NO. 32 D-109 A ANTENNA DETAILS SCALE: 1:5 SCALE: 1:8 #HPA-65F-BUU-H2 ANTENNAS SCALE: 1:8 AZIMUTH: 330' INSTALL NEW 266" HIGH STEEL CONCRETE TEXTURED STREETLIGHT. TOP OF POLE AT 25'6" #HPA-65F-BUU-H2 ANTENNAS AZIMUTH: 170' 07"� &G TOP OF POLE AT 25'6" INSTALL MAST ARM AND LUMINAIRE IgG O^^'OOO �R 0° SGO L 90^ INSTALL (2) 24.1"ANTENNA STREETLIGHT #1613500E TOP OF EXISTING POLE: 25'6" TOP OF NEW POLE: 25'6" TOP OF ANTENNA: 23'0" RAD CENTER: 22'1-112" AZIMUTHS: 170° 8 330° EQUIPMENT AND ANTENNAS TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH POLE. B 1 3 O'CLOCK VIEW SCALE: 1:8 SCALE: 1:8 INSTALL MAST ARMAND LUMINAIRE , INSTALL MAST ARM AND LUMINAIRE TOP OF POLE AT 25'6" TOP OF POLE AT 25'6" INSTALL (2) 24.1"ANTENNA #HPA-65F-BUU-H2 INSTALL (2) 24.1"ANTENNA TOP OF WITH MOUNTING BRACKET #MBK -03 #HPA-65F-BUU-H2 ANTENNA (SEE DETAILS 1 8 2 ON SHEET D-2) WITH MOUNTING BRACKET #MBK -03 23'0" TOP OF (SEE DETAILS 1 8 2 ON SHEET D-2) RAD INSTALL NEW 25'6" HIGH STEEL ANTENNA CENTER - CONCRETE TEXTURED STREETLIGHT. 23 0" INSTALL NEW 25'6" HIGH STEEL 22'1-1/2" (SEE DETAILS 6 & 7 ON SHEET 0.3) RAD - CONCRETE TEXTURED STREETLIGHT. CENTER 22.1-1/2' (SEE DETAILS 6 & 7 ON SHEET D-3) 07" 07" GROUND L LEVEL INSTALL VGR/jam //�//� (SEE DETAIL 9 ON SHEET 0.4) /n/T INSTALL VGR (SEE DETAIL 9 ON SHEET D-4) ASG32 <.° 242727�T"° N�CROWN C CASTLE NG WEST LLC ,00m unic�+rea ox..:reiw vwe cn Communications Fnx�R rFL� �GO�owYYwlU raoma-rui' i�roau�nory no i va'�or�er v�v rorrsr �ssmirn.vrao�r m.� I oAIT voN71 _FROaMT9_""_T arr aEouru: ASG32 29504 SCOTWOOD DR AT W I LEY COLLINS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA POLE PROFILE r RG 10/07/11 P "1 av P-2 D-110 0 EXIST (woc CROWN CASTLE September 14, 2017 Emily Colborn, City Clerk City Clerk's Office 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 200 Spectrum Center Drive Suite #1800 Irvine, Ca. 92618 CrownCastle.com Re: Crown Castle NG West LLC: Notice of Appeal of ASG -32 - Across from 29504 Whitley Collins Drive Dear Ms. Colborn, Crown Castle NG West LLC ("Crown Castle") hereby appeals the Planning Commission's August 30, 2017, adoption of a resolution of denial of the above -referenced Major Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Permit application ("Denial"), pursuant to City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code ("RPVMC") section 12.18.060. D and 17.80.030.A ("Appeal"). This appeal is timely under RPVMC section 17.80.030. The Appeal rests on the following grounds, among others: (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)(11). (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 fi•equency emissions in violation of 47 U.S.C. section 332 (c)(7)(B)(iv). (pl) The Denial is unlawful, since it violates Crown Castle's vested right to deploy its facilities in the public rights-of-way, in violation of Public Utilities Code section 7901. The Denial exceeds the limited time, place and manner controls set forth by Public Utilities Code section 7901.1. Crown Castle reserves the right to supplement its reasons for the Appeal, and otherwise supplement the administrative record with its own evidence and points of law up to the date of the City Council hearing on this Appeal. Very truly yours, Mws:111w5 Aaron Snyder, Crown Castle NG West LLC 7104273.1 The Foundation for a Wireless World. CrownCastle.com D-112 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2017-27 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY ASG NO. 32 FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING STREET LIGHT POLE WITH THE INSTALLATION OF A NEW 28.1 FOOT TALL STREET LIGHT WITH MAST ARM AND LUMINAIRE TO ACCOMMODATE A 21.4" TALL MOUNTED ANTENNA ENCASED IN A 2' TALL CANISTER WITH A 3' TALL TAPERED CANISTER SLEEVE AT THE TOP OF THE POLE WITH RELATED VAULTED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT ADJACENT TO 29504 WHITLEY COLLINS DRIVE. WHEREAS, Chapter 12.18 of the Rancho Palo Verde Municipal Code (RPVMC or Municipal Code) governs the permitting, development, siting, installation, design, operation and maintenance of wireless telecommunications facilities ("WTFs") in the City's public right-of-way ("PROW") (RPVMC § 12.18.010); WHEREAS, beginning in May of 2016, Crown Castle (the "Applicant") applied to the City for an Wireless Telecommunications Facility Permit ("WTFP"), pursuant to Section 12.18.040(A) of the Municipal Code, to install 26 antennas in the public right-of-way (PROW) to service AT&T customers throughout the City (the "Project") including ASG No. 32 adjacent to 29504 Whitley Collins; WHEREAS, the original proposal called for removing an existing 25.6' tall steel octagonal street light pole with a mast arm and luminaire, and replace it with a 25.6' tall concrete, octagonal street light pole with mast arm and luminaire with two 21.4 -inch panel antennas that would be affixed below the mast arm with above -ground equipment; WHEREAS, the alternative proposal calls for a replacement of the 25.6 -foot tall street light pole with a 28.1' tali street light pole with panel antennas encased in a 2' tall canister shroud with a Stall tapered canister sleeve; WHEREAS, the Project also includes vaulted mechanical equipment including the radio and auxiliary equipment, as well as the SCE meter box in a secondary vault. The Project consists of a total of three vaults measuring approximately 43 square feet; WHEREAS, because the Project's location is within a residential zone and within the PROW of local streets as identified in the General Plan, approval of a WTFP also requires an Exception under Section 12.18.190 of the Municipal Code; WHEREAS, the Project is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") because the Project constitutes a small scale installation of a new facility (14 CCR § 15303(d)). WHEREAS, on August 8, 2017, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing, without discussion, to August 30, 2017 to allow the Applicant and Staff additional time to address concerns with the original Project submittal; P.C. Resolution No. 2017-27 Page 1 of 6 D-113 WHEREAS, on August 30, 2017, the Planning Commission considered testimony and evidence presented at the public hearings, the information and findings included in the Staff Report, and other records of proceedings; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The proposed Project is a request to: A. Install a WTF on Scotwood Drive adjacent to 29504 Whitley Collins Drive, B. Removal of an existing 25.6' tall marbelite street light with a mast arm and luminaire to be decommissioned and replaced with a 25.6' tall marbelite octagonal street light with a 2' tall canister with a 3' tall tapered sleeve mounted at the top of the new pole, resulting in a total pole height of 28.1', and C. Install vaulted mechanical equipment in the PROW. Section 2: The findings required to be made by the Planning Commission for the approval of a WTF permit, as set forth in Chapter 12.18 of the RPVMC, have not been made as follows: A. The Project does not meet the Findings required by Section 12.18.090, Subsection B, of the Municipal Code, which particularly requires that "[t]he proposed facility has been designed and located in compliance with all applicable provisions of this chapter," as follows: 12.18.080(A)(1)(a): The applicant shall employ screening, undergrounding and camouflage design techniques in the design and placement of wireless telecommunications facilities in order to ensure that the facility is as visually screened as possible, to prevent the facility from dominating the surrounding area and to minimize significant view impacts from surrounding properties all in a manner that achieves compatibility with the community and in compliance with Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration) of this code. The proposed replacement pole with the antennas affixed to the top of the pole albeit contained in a canister shroud, at a height of 28.1', does not blend with the surrounding environment and would visually impact the character of the neighborhood as experienced from the PROW. The proposed installation and support equipment does not meet the "non- dominant design" standard requiring a facility to be compatible with the surrounding environment. The overall size of the proposed antenna and canister shroud on top of the street light pole, in its proposed location, is a dominant feature that is out -of -character to the surrounding neighborhood as there are no P.C. Resolution No. 2017-27 Page 2 of 6 D-114 other structures or natural features in the immediate area with a similar size and shape that would lend themselves to screening or blending the facility into the built environment. The proposed antenna design is of a size and shape that the street light would be dominated by said antenna, thus making the proposed facility the dominant feature at this residential street area. A preferred design would present equipment that is seamlessly integrated into the street light pole or a "slim -line" design that does not present the antenna nodes as the dominate feature on this street light pole. 12.18.080(A)(1)(b): Screening shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with surrounding structures using appropriate techniques to camouflage, disguise, and/or blend into the environment, including landscaping, color, and other techniques to minimize the facility's visual impact as well as be compatible with the architectural character of the surrounding buildings or structures in terms of color, size, proportion, style, and quality. The area in which this Project is proposed consists of non -dense, upscale residential structures with well-maintained manicured landscaping and parkways The proposed marbelite street light pole will not visually blend with the surrounding environment. The replacement street light pole, at a height of 28.1', is visually intrusive as there are no similar vertical elements with similar facilities in the neighborhood, thus making the proposed facility the dominant feature on this residential street. The "industrial -utility" looking style of the proposed facility is incompatible with the style and quality of the surrounding residential neighborhood. Additionally, the antenna shroud is much wider than the street light pole at the point of attachment and adequate screening and fairing measures were not taken to blend with the pole. This has the effect of creating greater mass and bulk than now exists and will have the negative effect of being more visible. By drawing more attention, these facilities will reduce the desirability of this residential neighborhood. The proposed installation and support equipment is not compatible with the surrounding environment. The overall size of the proposed antenna on top of a street light pole, in its proposed location, is a dominant feature that is out -of - character to the surrounding neighborhood or natural features in the immediate area with a similar size and shape that would lend themselves to screening or blending the facility into the built environment. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes' streets, parkway- and median- landscaping, and public utilities within the rights-of- way have been planned and constructed to achieve an attractive appearance which includes minimizing the number and appearance of utilities and related equipment, particularly in residential areas. In addition, the introduction of the antenna and underground equipment necessary for this project may lead to a proliferation of utility equipment that would otherwise not be located in the right-of- way. Therefore, this Project will detract from the visual appearance of the streetscape. These incremental changes to the improvements in the right-of-way P.C. Resolution No. 2017-27 Page 3 of 6 D-115 will lead to the deterioration of the City's well-maintained streetscapes, and will establish a precedent for additional facilities in the PROW. Consequently, the proposed facility is not sufficiently compatible with matters of urban design and the long-term maturation of this residential neighborhood—especially in light of the fact that the Applicant did not establish the presence of a significant gap in coverage that would necessitate the proposed facility (discussed below). 12.18.080(A)(5): Equipment. The applicant shall use the least visible equipment possible. Antenna elements shall be flush mounted, to the extent feasible. All antenna mounts shall be designed so as not to preclude possible future collocation by the same or other operators or carriers. Unless otherwise provided in this section, antennas shall be situated as close to the ground as possible. The record presented no evidence of the proposed antennas being situated as close to the ground as possible. The replacement street light pole will be approximately 3' taller than the existing pole at a proposed height of 28.1' that will house the panel antennas in a cylinder shaped canister measuring approximately 2' tall with a 3' tall tapered shroud sleeve has not been designed to be slim to an extent that maximally blends with the verticality of the pole, and is not the least intrusive design based on industry standards found for other antenna poles. 12.18.080(A)(6)(e): Replacement Poles. If an applicant proposes to replace a pole in order to accommodate a proposed facility, the pole shall be designed to resemble the appearance and dimensions of existing poles near the proposed location, including size, height, color, materials and style to the maximum extent feasible. The proposed replacement pole with the panel antennas affixed to the top of the pole albeit encased within a canister, at a height of 28.1', does not blend with the surrounding environment and would visually impact the character of the neighborhood as experienced from the public right-of-way. The proposed installation and support equipment does not meet the design standard requiring a facility to be compatible with the surrounding environment. The overall size of the proposed antenna on top of a street light pole, in its proposed location, is a dominant feature that does not resemble in appearance or dimension any other features in the surrounding neighborhood because there are no other structures or natural features in the immediate area with a similar size and shape that would lend themselves to screening or blending the facility into the built environment. The proposed antenna design is of a size and shape that the street light pole itself would be dominated by said antenna, and the street at which the pole is proposed would be dominated by the antenna, thus making the proposed facility a non -conforming feature in appearance and dimension. A preferred design would present equipment that is fully integrated into the street P.C. Resolution No. 2017-27 Page 4 of 6 D-116 light pole or a "slim -line" design that much more closely resembles an actual residential street light pole, as opposed to the proposed project. 12.18.080(A)(7): Space. Each facility shall be designed to occupy the least amount of space in the right-of-way that is technically feasible. The replacement pole would take up much more right-of-way space compared to the existing street light pole, with the antennas on top of the replacement pole occupying much more air space above the right-of-way than other feasible "slim - line" or pole -integrated designs found in the industry. B. The Project does not meet the Findings required by Section 12.18.190, Subsection B.2, of the Municipal Code, which particularly requires that "[t]he applicant has provided the city with a clearly defined technical service objective and a clearly defined potential site search area," as follows: The "technical service objective" identified by the Applicant in all application documents is the coverage of a "significant gap" in coverage. The wireless service area to be served by the proposed facility only encompasses approximately 40-55 homes and is not located upon a major highway or thoroughfare serving many in -vehicle users. To the extent any dead zone or dropped -call area was found to exist, such area was found to be very small. The Applicant is not entitled to seamless or perfect coverage in every area it serves, and the existence of a small "dead spot" in coverage is hereby found to be an insignificant deficiency in Applicant's existing coverage in the area. C. The Project does not meet the Findings required by Section 12.18.090, Subsection E, of the Municipal Code, which particularly requires that "[t]he applicant has provided the city with a meaningful comparative analysis that includes the factual reasons why the proposed location and design is the least noncompliant location and design necessary to reasonably achieve the applicant's reasonable technical service objectives," as follows: The Applicant has not provided a meaningful alternative comparative analysis and the proposed project is not found to be the preferred design. The Applicant should have explored locating the proposed facility along Crest Road outside the immediate residential neighborhood to minimize adverse impacts to residents. See above discussions in regards to RPVMC §12.18.080 for further detail, which discussions are incorporated here. Furthermore, there is inadequate documentation to support a conclusion that no other design alternative exists that might better conceal the proposed facilities from public view and/or minimize the addition of vaulted equipment within the P.C. Resolution No. 2017-27 Page 6 of 6 D-117 PROW. Opportunities to locate wireless facilities in remote locations deserve greater consideration as an alternative. This could result in the identification of remote wireless installations that provide adequate coverage to homes in this residential neighborhood. Section 3: Pursuant to Section 12.18.060 of the Municipal Code (referencing Chapter 17.80 of the Municipal Code), any interested person aggrieved by this decision or any portion of this decision may appeal to the City Council. The appeal shall set forth the grounds for appeal and any specific action being requested by the appellant. Any appeal letter must be filed within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of this decision, or by 5:30 PM on Thursday, September 14, 2017. The Council -approved appeal fee must accompany any appeal letter. If no appeal is filed timely, the Planning Commission's decision will be final at 5:30 PM on Thursday, September 14, 2017. Section 7: For the foregoing reasons and based on testimony and evidence presented at the public hearings, the information and findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby denies, without prejudice, ASG No. 32 for the proposed wireless telecommunication facility installation adjacent to 29504 Whitley Collins. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 30th day of AUGUST 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Bradley, Emenhiser, Nelson and Chairman Cruikshank NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None RECUSALS: None ABSENT: Commissioners Leon and Tomblin, and Vice -Chair James A ICP Community Development Director; and, Secretary of the Planning Commission C4&(--- hn M. Cruikshank C airman P.C. Resolution No. 2017-27 Page 6 of 6 D-118 CITY OF tiRANCHO STAFF REPORT ,s Crsstridge 1�d n+ydd a c �Srf: a9@ C�estridgf �,ney ga O d� or e0 ca O� Sron �rH� 4p01. c No Scotv+ood rl SITE LOCATION 0 4' Sunm�Sti V Catalina � T �r ' 1V N.T S. PALOS VERDES TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: NICOLE JULES, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS ARA MIHRANIAN, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: AUGUST 30, 2017 SUBJECT: WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY PERMIT ASG NO. 32 PROJECT SCOTWOOD DRIVE ADJACENT TO ADDRESS: 29504 WHITLEY COLLINS DRIVE APPLICANT: AARON SNYDER (CROWN CASTLE) LANDOWNER: CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES STAFF ART BASHMAKIAN, CONTRACT COORDINATOR: PLANNER REQUESTED ACTION: INSTALL A NEW 25'-6" TALL STREET LIGHT POLE THAT WILL REPLACE AN EXISTING STREET LIGHT POLE TO ACCOMMODATE A WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY WITH RELATED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT. RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2017- APPROVING, WITH CONDITIONS, WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY ASG NO. 32 TO ALLOW THE REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING STREET LIGHT POLE WITH THE INSTALLATION OF A NEW 28.1' TALL STREET LIGHT WITH MAST ARM AND LUMINAIRE TO ACCOMMODATE A 2' TALL MOUNTED ANTENNA ENCASED IN A 2' TALL CANISTER WITH A 3' TALL TAPERED CANISTER SLEEVE AT THE TOP OF THE POLE WITH RELATED VAULTED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT. LAND USE: PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY D-119 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE ASG NO. 32) AUGUST 30, 2017 PAGE 2 CODE SECTION: RPVMC CHAPTERS 12.18 AND 17.02 ACTION DEADLINE: SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 (SHOT CLOCK) PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS RESIDING WITHIN 500' OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: NONE PRE -COMMISSION DISCLOSURES: PRIOR TO THE TAKING OF PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM, ANY PLANNING COMMISSIONERS THAT CONDUCTED ON-SITE INSPECTIONS OR ENGAGED IN EXTRA - HEARING DISCUSSIONS RELATING TO THIS ITEM SHOULD DISCLOSE SUCH EXTRA -HEARING EVIDENCE AS PART OF THE HEARING RECORD. BACKGROUND The Applicant, Crown Castle, has proposed to install 26 antennas to service AT&T consumers throughout the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Crown Castle is a tower company hired by wireless companies for the purposes of acquiring site for the construction and deployment of wireless telecommunications antennas throughout local jurisdictions. On July 7, 2016, Crown Castle submitted an application, proposing to install Wireless Telecommunications Facility ASG No. 32 in the public right-of-way (PROW) at Scotwood Drive adjacent to 29504 Whitley Collins Drive. The City notified Crown Castle that the application documents were incomplete after three resubmittals. Notices were sent to Crown Castle on August 5, 2016, January 3, 2017 and February 6, 2017. Crown Castle submitted documentation to obtain a mock-up permit. The mock-up of the proposed installation was constructed on June 2, 2017 and on May 25, 2017, a notice was sent to property owners within a 500 -foot radius announcing the installation of the mock-up. On July 20, 2017, a public notice was mailed to property owners within a 500' radius of the proposed site and published in the Peninsula News announcing that a public hearing on the proposed facility is scheduled to occur on August 8, 2017. On August 8, 2017, as recommended by Staff, the Planning Commission continued, without discussion, this item to its August 30, 2017 meeting to allow Staff additional time to complete its analysis. SITE DESCRIPTION The proposed site is located entirely within the PROW, approximately 55 -feet east of Whitley Collins Drive centerline on Scotwood Drive. The node is located on the south side of a gently sloping road, next to a corner lot. Existing street lights line the road switching from one side of the road to the other at approximately 150 -feet intervals. Mature trees and shrubs (including a landscaped parkway) and a concrete wall on the adjacent property provide partial screening of the facility. D-120 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT — (CASE ASG NO. 32) AUGUST 30, 2017 PAGE 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project as originally submitted is to remove an existing 25.6' tall steel octagonal street light pole with a mast arm and luminaire, and replace it with a 25 -foot 6 -inch tall concrete, octagonal street light pole with mast arm and luminaire with two 21.4 -inch panel antennas that would be affixed below the mast arm. The center of the proposed antennas would be 22.5". Two ions and a power meter would be placed on the ground adjacent to the street light pole, which will consist of 9.7 cubic feet of equipment boxes in the PROW. Below is a photograph of the existing site and the photo simulations for the proposed installation submitted by the Applicant: Existing Site Revised Project As a result of discussions with Staff, the Applicant has revised the project so that the proposed antennas are located above the top of the street light pole and are encased in a 2' tall cylinder -shaped shroud mounted canister that measures approximately 2' in outside diameter (O.D.) and a 3' tall tapered canister sleeve. The canister will house the two antenna panels (approximately 21.4" tall) and related wires. The street light pole and cylinder -shaped canister will measure a total height of 28.1' tall, from grade to the top of the canister, and will be painted to match the Marbelite light pole with a concrete color. Additionally, the Applicant has agreed to vault the related mechanical equipment including the radio and auxiliary equipment. There will be a total of three vaults that will occupy 43 sq. ft. of surface area as shown on the site plan and in the photo simulation below. All vents and meter boxes will be vaulted and flush with the ground. D-121 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE ASG NO. 32) AUGUST 30, 2017 PAGE 4 Proposed Alternative Locations In addition to the revised project, the Applicant has proposed similar antennas on street light poles at the following 3 locations (see attachment): Replacement of an existing street light pole on the west side of Whitley Collins, approximately 190 feet to the northwest of the Primary. Street stop sign replacement located approximately 45 feet north of the Primary on the opposite side of Scotwood Dr. Replacement of an existing street light pole approximately 100' west of Primary site on the west side of Whitley Collins. None of the alternative sites meet the RF coverage objective as confirmed by the City's RF Engineer. Thus, the primary location was found to be superior. This issue is fully discussed in the findings section of this staff report. CODE CONSIDERATION AND ANALYSIS In accordance with Chapter 12.18 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC), the Planning Commission may approve, or conditionally approve, an application only after it makes the Findings required in Section 12.18.090. Because the Applicant is proposing to install the facility in PROW of a local street as identified in the General Plan and within a residential zone, the subject application is also subject to Location Restrictions of Section 12.18.200. As such, the Planning Commission shall not grant any exception unless the Applicant "demonstrates with clear and convincing evidence" responses to Findings 1 - 4 of Section 12.18.190(B). FINDINGS OF FACT Pursuant to Section 12.18.090 of the RPVMC, no permit shall be granted for a Wireless Telecommunications Facility in the PROW unless all of the following Findings are made: A. All notices required for the proposed installation have been given. Crown Castle and the City have provided all notices required by the RPVMC. On May 25, 2017 property owners within 500 feet of the proposed facility were notified of the WTF mock-up which occurred at least 30 days in advance of the public hearing. Further, on July 20, 2017, a public notice announcing August 8, 2017 public hearing was provided to property owners within 500 feet of the proposed WTF. Additionally, the Applicant has notified the City 20 days prior to the expiration of the shot clock for this application, which was August 22, 2017. However, on August 7, 2017, the Applicant provided the City with a Shot Clock Tolling Agreement (See Attachment) establishing a new Shot Clock Expiration date of September 30, 2017. Accordingly, all notice requirements have been met. D-122 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE ASG NO. 32) AUGUST 30, 2017 PAGE 5 B. The proposed facility has been designed and located in compliance with all applicable provisions of this chapter. Chapter 12.18 of the RPVMC has detailed requirements for wireless telecommunications facilities in the PROW. Specifically, Section 12.18.080(A) lists the design and development standards for these installations. The applicable sections which have not been clearly or substantially complied with are listed and evaluated below (italics text is the code requirement followed by Staff's analysis). 12.18.080(A)(1)(a): The applicant shall employ screening, undergrounding and camouflage design techniques in the design and placement of wireless telecommunications facilities in order to ensure that the facility is as visually screened as possible, to prevent the facility from dominating the surrounding area and to minimize significant view impacts from surrounding properties all in a manner that achieves compatibility with the community and in compliance with Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration) of this code. As proposed, the revised project employs screening and a camouflage design with the use of a 2' high antenna encased in a 2' tall cylinder -shaped shroud canister measuring 2' in diameter with a 3' tall tapered canister sleeve placed on top of the replacement street light pole that will be a total of 28.1' in height as measured from grade to the top of the canister. Although the overall height of the street light pole, with the antenna, increases by 3.5' (42") above the original proposal, this design is found to comply with this Finding as the Wireless Ordinance allows antennas on light poles when it does not exceed 48 inches above the height of the pole. Further, the proposed cylinder shroud design may be aesthetically preferred to the original "side -mounted" panel design because, while taller, the vertical shroud design presents a slimmer side view that blends with the verticality of the light pole. The light standard is designed to match the existing light standard being replaced and other light standards in the immediate area. Furthermore, the proposal now places all of the related mechanical equipment underground in three vaults measuring a total of 43 square feet consisting of the following: Radio vault - 32 sq. ft. WTR vault - 5 sq. ft. Fiber vault - 6 sq. ft. As further detailed below, a view analysis was determined that the proposed installation will not impairment to surrounding properties pursuant to RPVMC. conducted and City staff have any significant view Chapter 17.02.040 of the D-123 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE ASG NO. 32) AUGUST 30, 2017 PAGE 6 12.18.080(A)(1)(b): Screening shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with surrounding structures using appropriate techniques to camouflage, disguise, and/or blend into the environment, including landscaping, color, and other techniques to minimize the facility's visual impact as well as be compatible with the architectural character of the surrounding buildings or structures in terms of color, size, proportion, style, and quality. The proposed WTF will be affixed to a replacement street light pole that matches other street light poles in the area, and the replacement street light pole will utilize similar color, size, proportion, style, and quality to other street poles in the area. The antenna encased in the cylinder -shaped canister shroud and the canister sleeve will be painted to match the Marbelite light pole with a concrete color. As discussed above, the cylinder shaped shroud encasing the two antenna panels and wires on top of the light pole is an appropriate technique that disguises and blends the facility into the environment (blending with the replacement pole and other poles in the area). 12.18.080(A)(1)(c): Facilities shall be located such that views from a residential structure are not significantly impaired. Facilities shall also be located in a manner that protects public views over city view corridors, as defined in the city's general plan, so that no significant view impairment results in accordance with this code including Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration). This provision shall be applied consistent with local, state and federal law. In terms of views, on July 24, 2017, Staff conducted a view analysis for the Project. As described above, the Project does not result in a significant view impairment to surrounding residences. Based on a view assessment of the neighborhood, Staff also determined that the proposed street light pole with attached panel antenna does not impair the public view from the surrounding view areas including those views from Scotwood Drive adjacent to Whitley Collins Drive. Further, the proposed WTF is not located in a view corridor identified in the City's General Plan or Coastal Specific Plan. City defined viewing areas such as living rooms, family rooms, dining rooms and outside rear patios are typically located on the ground floor areas of a residence. Many, if not all, of the defined viewing areas for residences within the vicinity of the proposed WTF are located on the ground floor. The proposed WTF appears to impair a view from the second floor of the adjacent property, which is not a protected view area pursuant to Section 17.02.040. This finding remains unchanged even with the additional height of the pole to accommodate the cylinder -shaped canister on top of the pole measuring a total height of 29'. Further, the proposed WTF is not located in a view corridor identified in the City's General Plan or Coastal Specific Plan. Thus, City Staff has determined that there will be no negative impacts to residential views. D-124 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE ASG NO. 32) AUGUST 30, 2017 PAGE 7 In terms of cumulative visual or view impacts, Staff does not believe that in this location of the City, if other street light poles were replaced to accommodate a similar WTF encased within a cylinder -shaped canister will adversely impact the area. This is because the canister will be placed at the top of the street light pole which will not be directly visible to pedestrians and motorists, and that the topography of the area would inherently screen the facility. Ordinance No. 580 in part, is charged to ensure that all wireless facilities are installed using the least intrusive means possible. The Code requires that facilities be designed in ways "to minimize visual, noise and other impacts..." The Code recognizes that the community, over time, could eventually have a number of facilities within its public right-of-ways. It's also recognized that facilities will not be necessarily unnoticeable as the Code uses phrases like "minimize visual impacts", "least intrusive means..." The Code recognizes the potential for many facilities within the right-of-way over the coming years. And as long as each facility meets the required findings, and is found to be designed in the least intrusive means possible, the mere permitting of many such facilities would not constitute a cumulative visual or aesthetic impact. 12.18.080(A)(4): Blending Methods. All facilities shall have subdued colors and non -reflective materials that blend with the materials and colors of the surrounding area and structures. The proposed street light pole will consist of colors and materials that are subdued and non -reflective. Further, they are the same as the existing light pole and other light poles in the immediate area. 12.18.080(A)(5): Equipment. The applicant shall use the least visible equipment possible. Antenna elements shall be flush mounted, to the extent feasible. All antenna mounts shall be designed so as not to preclude possible future collocation by the same or other operators or carriers. Unless otherwise provided in this section, antennas shall be situated as close to the ground as possible. The Applicant's original project proposed the placement of two 21.4 inch tall antennas with the top of the antennas 23' above ground on a 25.5' tall replacement street light pole. However, the proposal has been revised consisting of a replacement street light pole with a 2' tall canister by a 2' in diameter cylinder shaped shrouded with a 3' tall tapered shroud sleeve that will house the antenna panels and wires on top of the replacement pole which would result in an overall height of 28.1'. Although both designs would be visible, the least visible would be the cylinder designed antenna that screen the antenna panels and related wires, and the proposed cylinder shroud design, while taller, presents a slimmer side view that blends more cleanly with the verticality of the light pole. Recognizing the exposed D-125 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE ASG NO. 32) AUGUST 30, 2017 PAGE 8 panel antenna design is lower in height, the overarching objective of the Finding is to use the least visible equipment. In regards to collocation, in order to accommodate additional antennas, the height of the street pole would have to be increased by approximately 5' to accommodate collocation because of the size of the panel antennas combined with there being a need to provide a separation of at least 1' between antenna panels for functionality purposes. The design does not preclude the possibility of collocation by the same or other operators or carriers but it should be noted that collection is does not always minimize visual impact. In fact, it will require the street pole to either be increased in height or to support additional canisters that will detract from the overall appearance. 12.18.080(A)(6)(a): Facilities shall be located consistent with Section 12.18.200 (Location Restrictions) unless an exception pursuant to Section 12.18.190 (Exceptions) is granted. The proposed location is within the PROW of local residential street as identified in the City's General Plan. As such, an exception must be approved by the Planning Commission. The findings necessary to grant an Exception are detailed further below. 12.18.080(A)(6)(d): Light Poles. The maximum height of any antenna shall not exceed four feet above the existing height of a light pole. Any portion of the antenna or equipment mounted on a pole shall be no less than 16% feet above any drivable road surface. The cylinder shaped antenna shroud exceeds 2' above the height of the replacement pole. No portion of the antenna or equipment is less than 16Y2' above the drivable road surface. 12.18.080(A)(6)(e): Replacement Poles. If an applicant proposes to replace a pole in order to accommodate a proposed facility, the pole shall be designed to resemble the appearance and dimensions of existing poles near the proposed location, including size, height, color, materials and style to the maximum extent feasible. The proposed replacement street light pole will match the appearance, in terms of color, height, size and dimensions of the existing pole and all other light poles in the immediate area. The replacement street light pole and related equipment, including the canister, will consist of a Marbelite finish and painted in a concrete color to match the existing street light poles in the area. A smaller antenna D-126 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE ASG NO. 32) AUGUST 30, 2017 PAGE 9 technology is possible, but smaller antennas will require the installation of many more poles in the neighborhood to achieve the same coverage and capacity. 12.18.080(A)(6)(i): All cables, including, but not limited to, electrical and utility cables, shall be run within the interior of the pole and shall be camouflaged or hidden to the fullest extent feasible. All cables and wires will be encased within the pole and the canister, thus hidden from view. 12.18.080(A)(7): Space. Each facility shall be designed to occupy the least amount of space in the right-of-way that is technically feasible. The replacement street light pole is similar in dimension to the existing street light pole. The placement of the antennas on top of the pole will occupy limited air space above the right-of-way. The supporting mechanical equipment will be undergrounded and the vault necessary to house the equipment measures approximately, 43 square feet of total surface area. This space is the least amount of space that is technically feasible for equipment owned by AT&T. Furthermore, the space that will be occupied is below the surface with minimum exhaust vents that will be flush to the surrounding ground. 12.18.080(A)(8): Wind Loads. Each facility shall be properly engineered to withstand wind loads as required by this code or any duly adopted or incorporated code. An evaluation of high wind load capacity shall include the impact of modification of an existing facility. Based on the information submitted by the Applicant and as confirmed by the City's consultants, Staff finds that the proposed installation complies with all building codes related to wind loads. 12.18.080(A)(9): Obstructions. Each component part of a facility shall be located so as not to cause any physical or visual obstruction to pedestrian or vehicular traffic, incommode the public's use of the right-of-way, or safety hazards to pedestrians and motorists and in compliance with Section 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility) so as not to obstruct the intersection visibility triangle. Pursuant to the application documents submitted to the City, the proposed WTF installation does not cause an obstruction to the public's use of the PROW, constitute a safety hazard and/or does not interfere with the City -defined intersection visibility triangle. D-127 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE ASG NO. 32) AUGUST 30, 2017 PAGE 10 12.18.080(A)(10): Public Facilities. A facility shall not be located within portion of the public right-of-way interfering with access to a fire hydrant, station, fire escape, water valve, underground vault, valve housing structure any other public health or safety facility. any fire or Pursuant to the application documents submitted to the City including the design, height and size, the proposed installation including the undergrounding of the mechanical equipment will not cause an obstruction to the public's use of the PROW, constitute a safety hazard and/or does not interfere with the City - defined intersection visibility triangle. Specifically, the proposed pole is not located in a sidewalk or walking area established for regular pedestrian use, provides the same lighting, height and setback parameters applicable to other streetlights. The proposed mechanical equipment will be vaulted under the existing sidewalk and conditions are proposed to ensure the vents do not physically obstruct the safe use of the sidewalk. C. If applicable, the applicant has demonstrated its inability to locate on existing infrastructure. Not applicable, as the proposed WTF antennas are proposed to be installed on existing infrastructure. D. The applicant has provided sufficient evidence supporting the applicant's claim that it has the right to enter the public right-of-way pursuant to state or federal law, or the applicant has entered into a franchise agreement with the city permitting them to use the public right-of-way. The Applicant has submitted to the City a Right of Way Use Agreement (RUA) entered into with the City in 2011, which allows the Applicant to install wireless antennas in the PROW. Further, the Applicant has submitted a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) issued by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) which provides that the Applicant has been authorized to install wireless telecommunications infrastructure in the PROW. E. The applicant has demonstrated the proposed installation is designed such that the proposed installation represents the least intrusive means possible and supported by factual evidence and a meaningful comparative analysis to show that all alternative locations and designs identified in the application review process were technically infeasible or not available. The City's consulting technical engineer has reviewed the Applicant's alternative site analysis for the three alternative locations, and concurs that the original D-128 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE ASG NO. 32) AUGUST 30, 2017 PAGE 11 proposed design and the modified design that includes the encasing of the two antenna panels within a cylinder -shaped canister proposed to be placed on top of the street light pole are the least intrusive means. In terms of utilizing smaller antennas, there is technology that is possible to use but that would require a multiplicity of wireless facilities throughout the community to provide equal coverage and capacity. This may require the introduction of new pole structures where there are no street lights or utility poles and would require associated accessory equipment at every location. Furthermore, the supporting mechanical equipment, even if placed in vaults underground, would require additional fans that may result in adverse cumulative noise impacts negating the objective of installing the least intrusive systems. Other locations and designs considered for purposes of filling the coverage gap claimed by the Applicant and discussed by the City's RF Engineer (attached) presented the following intrusions, which Staff determined to be more intrusive then the proposed project as revised: • Staff finds locations that utilize an existing or replacement pole to be preferable to a whole new pole. • A smaller or lower pole could be utilized, but it would require a multiplicity of wireless poles in the gap area claimed by the Applicant and discussed by the City's RF Engineer (attached), as opposed to having one AT&T pole in this area. • Alternate antenna designs, such as the side -mounted open panels originally proposed, were found by Staff to be bulkier in appearance and less streamlined than the vertical shroud design now proposed. • Staff looked at other design options from other (non -AT&T) carriers. While some carriers offer antenna panels that may be smaller in overall size, such designs from other carriers are not engineered to carry the bandwidths owned by AT&T. FINDINGS FOR EXCEPTIONS Section 12.18.190 of the RPVMC states "Exceptions" provide: "The city council recognizes that federal law prohibits a permit denial when it would effectively prohibit the provision of personal wireless services and the applicant proposes the least intrusive means to provide such services. The city council finds that, due to wide variation among wireless facilities, technical service objectives and changed circumstances over time, a limited exemption for proposals in which strict compliance with this chapter would effectively prohibit personal wireless services serves the public interest. The city council further finds that circumstances in which an effective prohibition may occur are extremely difficult to discern, and that specified findings to guide the analysis promotes clarity and the city's legitimate D-129 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE ASG NO. 32) AUGUST 30, 2017 PAGE 12 interest in well-planned wireless facilities deployment. Therefore, in the event that any applicant asserts that strict compliance with any provision in this chapter, as applied to a specific proposed personal wireless services facility, would effectively prohibit the provision of personal wireless services, the planning commission may grant a limited, one-time exemption from strict compliance subject to the provisions in this section." Section 12.18.190(B) requires that the following "exception' findings be made by the Commission and be supported by clear and convincing evidence (Finding shown in bold text followed by Staff's analysis): 1. The proposed wireless facility qualifies as a "personal wireless services facility" as defined in United States Code, Title 47, section 332(c)(7)(C)(ii). The Applicant has provided sufficient information to establish that the WTF meets the definition of "personal wireless services facility" as defined by the United States Code. 2. The applicant has provided the city with a clearly defined technical service objective and a clearly defined potential site search area. The "technical service objective" identified by the Applicant in all application documents is the coverage of a "significant gap" in service. This application information was provided to the City's RF Engineer who reviewed the information, as well as conducted both on-site walkouts of the area and a computerized terrain study to determine if the proposed site will address a coverage gap as identified in the application. Based on the terrain profile characteristics and the field measurement data provided by Crown Castle, the City's consultant concluded that the proposal as provided will address coverage deficiencies within the target area. Furthermore, according to the City's consultant, the Applicant has provided engineering details related to the wireless bands that will be used for the DAS deployment, including identifying transmitting equipment, power levels for each band and specifics regarding the radiation patterns of the antennas to be installed. However, information provided about existing and proposed coverage in the service area for each of the three AT&T licensed wireless bands (700 MHz, PCS and AWS) are less clearly defined; this is due to the extremely rugged and varied terrain associated with the surrounding landscape. The City's consultant also concluded that from an engineering perspective, Crown Castle has provided engineering measurement data defining gaps in AT&T coverage in small pocketed areas. This has been independently examined by the City's consultant who determined that the signal levels are lower than industry recommended levels to support modern 3G/4G customer needs. Further, the engineering design provided by Crown Castle supports that, if constructed, DAS D-130 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE ASG NO. 32) AUGUST 30, 2017 PAGE 13 site ASG 09 will provide ample signal intensity (signal level in excess of -95 dBm) to support AT&T's 3G/4G wireless services. While the City's RF Engineer found evidence of a gap in signal levels, the question of whether such gap constitutes a "significant" gap lies within the discretionary purview of the Planning Commission, subject to limitation that Applicant evidence must be considered as "primae facie" evidence that can be rebutted with site- specific, non -speculative, and non -generalized objective analyses. Courts have made clear that this is a fact -based judgment. "[T]he existing case law amply demonstrates that `significant gap' determinations are extremely fact -specific inquiries that defy any bright -line legal rule." (MetroPCS, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco (9th Cir. 2005) 400 F.3d 715, 733.) There is a wide range of context -specific factors in assessing the significance of alleged gaps. (See, e.g., Cellular Tel. Co. v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of the Borough of Ho—Ho—Kus (3d Cir. 1999) 197 F.3d 64, 70 n. 2 [whether gap affected significant commuter highway or railway]; Powertel/Atlanta, Inc. v. City of Clarkston (N.D.Ga. Aug.3, 2007) No. 1:05—CV-3068, 2007 WL 2258720, at *6 [assessing the "nature and character of that area or the number of potential users in that area who may be affected by the alleged lack of service"]; Voice Stream PCS 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. As noted earlier, the Applicant has proposed similar antennas on street light poles at the following 3 locations (see attachment): • Replacement of an existing street light pole on the west side of Whitley Collins, approximately 190 feet to the northwest of the Primary. • Street stop sign replacement located approximately 45 feet north of the Primary on the opposite side of Scotwood Dr. • Replacement of an existing street light pole approximately 100' west of Primary site on the west side of Whitley Collins. D-131 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE ASG NO. 32) AUGUST 30, 2017 PAGE 14 None of the alternative sites meet the RF coverage objective as confirmed by the City's RF The alternative site analysis submitted by the Applicant demonstrates that the proposed project is likely the least intrusive location for the wireless telecommunications facility in the immediate area because of the surrounding slopes and vegetation. The WTF is also being proposed to be installed on a replacement street light pole that replaces existing infrastructure. And while the proposed location is adjacent to a residential zone, the proposed location does not interfere with any public or residential views. Furthermore, because of the limited commercially zoned areas in the City and limited collector or arterial streets, in order to provide coverage to the residential areas of the City, it's necessary to locate within the right-of-way of local streets. The City's technical consultants have reviewed the Applicant's documents and support this conclusion. Further, other locations and designs were found to be more intrusive then the proposed project as revised: • As noted above, Staff finds locations that utilize an existing or replacement pole to be preferable to a whole new pole. • A smaller or lower pole could be utilized, but it would require a multiplicity of wireless poles in the gap area claimed by the Applicant and discussed by the City's RF Engineer (attached), as opposed to having one AT&T pole in this area. • Alternate antenna designs, such as the side -mounted open panels originally proposed, were found by Staff to be bulkier in appearance and less streamlined than the vertical shroud design now proposed. Staff looked at other design options from other (non -AT&T) carriers. While some carriers offer antenna panels that may be smaller in overall size, such designs from other carriers are not engineered to carry the bandwidths owned by AT&T. 4. The applicant has provided the city with a meaningful comparative analysis that includes the factual reasons why the proposed location and design deviates is the least noncompliant location and design necessary to reasonably achieve the applicant's reasonable technical service objectives. See discussion immediately above. Further, the proposed WTF installation will be installed on a replacement street light pole that will match other street light poles in the immediate area. The 28.1' tall light pole will match the height of the existing light pole. The location is necessary to meet the Applicant's service objective, as affirmed by the City's RF Engineer who will be present at the August 30th meeting. D-132 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE ASG NO. 32) AUGUST 30, 2017 PAGE 15 And, as stated in the previous Finding, the limited commercially zoned areas and limited number of collector or arterial streets require the use of local residential streets in order to provide proper coverage and capacity to various portions of the City. Thus, there are no commercial zones within the signal reach of the identified gap. It should be noted that RPVMC Section 12.18.190(C) provides that the Commission "shall limit its exemption to the extent to which the Applicant demonstrates such exemption is necessary to reasonably achieve its reasonable technical service objectives. The Planning Commission may adopt Conditions of Approval as reasonably necessary to promote the purposes in this chapter and protect the public health, safety and welfare." ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Radio Frequency (RF) Emissions In compliance with RPVMC Section 12.18.050, the Applicant provided the City with "an RF exposure compliance report prepared and certified by an RF engineer acceptable to the City that certifies that the proposed facility, as well as any facilities that contribute to the cumulative exposure in the subject area, will comply with applicable federal RF exposure standards and exposure limits." With regards to RF cumulative impact concerns, there is no additional impacts simply from the installation of wireless facilities throughout the City as shown in the applicant's plans. As long as the antennas are 13.9' or more above ground and the 8' public exclusion zone directly in front and at the same elevation as the antenna is observed, there is no cumulative impacts associated with RF exposure. Unlike cumulative traffic impacts from additional urban development, there is no equivalent cumulative impacts. In other words, the degree of RF does not increase in neighborhoods where it can impact the general population just from having multiple wireless facilities in a neighborhood. Importantly, beyond the fact that Applicant complied with this submittal requirement, any consideration of RF Emissions by the Planning Commission, or the health effects thereof, are beyond the Commission's authority to the extent the emissions conform to the applicable FCC regulations. Under the Telecom Act, the FCC completely occupies the field with respect to RF emissions regulation, and established comprehensive rules for maximum permissible exposure levels (the "FCC Guidelines"). State and local governments cannot (1) regulate wireless facilities based on environmental effects from RF emissions when the emissions conform to the applicable FCC regulations or (2) establish their own RF exposure standards—whether more strict, more lenient or even the same. (47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv).). As the emissions conform to the FCC regulations, the City cannot impose its own emission standards or ignore the FCC standards. D-133 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE ASG NO. 32) AUGUST 30, 2017 PAGE 16 Shot Clock State and federal laws, and a FCC ruling, provide that a local jurisdiction must act on an application for certain wireless facilities antennas within the following certain strict timeframes: (1) a 150 -day shot clock for new facilities; (2) a 90 -day shot clock for modifications resulting in a substantial change; or (3) a 60 -day shot clock for modifications that do not result in a substantial change. If a local government fails to approve or deny a facilities request within the applicable time period, the request will be "deemed granted" upon written notification from the Applicant to the local government stating that the request is considered approved. The Project application proposes a new facility subject to the 150 -day shot clock. The application was submitted on July 7, 2016. The clock was "tolled" several times as a result of incomplete application submittals. As a result, the shot clock has not run, and it was set to expire until August 22, 2017. But as stated earlier, a new Shot Clock Tolling Agreement, dated August 7, 2017 (See Attachment) established a new Shot Clock Expiration date of September 30, 2017 As a point of clarification, the Planning Commission's action on the Project is the final City decision, unless appealed to the City Council. While the law is not clear, there is no binding legal precedent in California requiring that the shot clock run pending an appeal period. Accordingly, it is thought that the Commission's action on the Project may toll the shot clock. Mock -Up Notice Issues On May 25, 2017, the Applicant (Crown Castle) received a Public Works Encroachment Permit to install a Mock -Up of a proposed wireless telecommunications facility. The temporary mock-up was installed on June 2, 2017. This is a required step in the Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Application for all proposed wireless facility installations. Chapter 12.18 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code states that the Planning Commission is to review these specific proposed installations for, among other things, design assessment and location. The temporary mock-up installation remains in-place as a matter of public notice up -to and during Planning Commission deliberations, and any appeal to the City Council if applicable. D-134 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE ASG NO. 32) AUGUST 30, 2017 PAGE 17 CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Staff recommends that the proposed WTF be conditionally approved as provided in the attached P.C. Resolution conditionally approving the project. ALTERNATIVES The following alternatives are available for the Planning Commission's consideration: 1. Deny, without prejudice, ASG No. 32 and direct Staff to come back with a resolution at the September 12, 2017 meeting; or, 2. Approve the originally proposed design that replaces the existing 25.5 -foot light pole with the installation of a new 25.5 -foot tall streetlight with two 21.4 -inch panel antennas that would be affixed below the mast arm. 3. Identify any issues of concern with the proposed project, provide Staff and/or the applicant with direction in modifying the project and request that the applicant redesign and resubmit for consideration at the September 12, 2017 meeting. ATTACHMENTS • P.C. Resolution No. 2017 -XX including Conditions of Approval • Revised project plans and photo simulations • City's View Assessment Memo • Technical information from the City's RF Engineer • Coverage Maps and Supporting Documents from the Applicant • Feasibility Analysis on Alternate Sites • August 7, 2017 Shot Clock Tolling Agreement • Public Comments D-135 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2017- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING, WITH CONDITIONS, WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY ASG NO. 32 TO ALLOW THE REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING STREET LIGHT POLE WITH THE INSTALLATION OF A NEW 28.1 FOOT TALL STREET LIGHT WITH MAST ARM AND LUMINAIRE TO ACCOMMODATE A 2' TALL MOUNTED ANTENNA ENCASED IN A 2' TALL CANISTER WITH A 3' TALL TAPERED CANSITER SLEEVE AT THE TOP OF THE POLE WITH RELATED VAULTED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT ADJACENT TO 29504 WHITLEY COLLINS DRIVE. WHEREAS, Chapter 12.18 of the Rancho Palo Verde Municipal Code (RPVMC or Municipal Code) governs the permitting, development, siting, installation, design, operation and maintenance of wireless telecommunications facilities ("WTFs") in the city's public right-of-way ("PROW") (RPVMC § 12.18.010); WHEREAS, beginning in July of 2016, Crown Castle (the "Applicant") applied to the City for an Wireless Telecommunications Facility Permit ("WTFP"), pursuant to Section 12.18.040(A) of the Municipal Code, to install 26 antennas in the public right-of- way (PROW) to service AT&T customers throughout the City (the "Project") including ASG No. 32 adjacent to 29504 Whitley Collins Drive; WHEREAS, the Project calls for an existing 25.6 -foot tall marbelite octagonal street light with a mast arm and luminaire to be decommissioned and replaced with a 29 -foot tall marbelite octagonal street light with panel antennas encased in a 2 -foot tall canister with a 3' tall tapered canister sleeve mounted at the top of the new pole with accessory equipment to be vaulted in the PROW; WHEREAS, because the Project's location is within a residential zone and within the PROW of local streets as identified in the General Plan, approval of a WTFP also requires an exception under Section 12.18.190 of the Municipal Code; WHEREAS, the Project is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") because the Project constitutes a small scale installation of new a new facility (14 CCR § 15303(d)). WHEREAS, on August 8, 2017, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to August 30, 2017; WHEREAS, on August 30, 2017, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. P.C. Resolution No. 2017 - Page 1 of[D9- 1 36 NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The proposed project is a request to: A. Install a WTF on Scotwood Drive adjacent to 29504 Whitley Collins Drive, B. Removal of an existing 25.6' tall marbelite street light with a mast arm and luminaire to be decommissioned and replaced with a 25.6 tall marbelite octagonal street light with a 2' tall canister with a 3' tall tapered sleeve mounted at the top of the new pole, resulting in a total pole height of 28.1 feet, and C. Install vaulted mechanical equipment in the PROW. Section 2: Approval of a WTFP is warranted because the Project meets the findings required by Section 12.18.090 of the Municipal Code: A. All notices required for the proposed installation have been given. Crown Castle and the City have provided all notices required by the RPVMC. On May 25, 2017 property owners within 500 feet of the proposed facility were notified of the WTF mock-up which occurred at least 30 days in advance of the public hearing. Further, on July 20, 2017, a public notice announcing the August 8, 2017 public hearing was provided to property owners within 500 feet of the proposed WTF. B. The proposed facility has been designed and located in compliance with all applicable provisions of this chapter. 12.18.080(A)(1)(a): The applicant shall employ screening, undergrounding and camouflage design techniques in the design and placement of wireless telecommunications facilities in order to ensure that the facility is as visually screened as possible, to prevent the facility from dominating the surrounding area and to minimize significant view impacts from surrounding properties all in a manner that achieves compatibility with the community and in compliance with Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration) of this code. The project employs screening and a camouflage design with the use of a 2' high antenna encased in a 2' tall cylinder -shaped shroud canister measuring 2' in diameter with a 3' tall tapered canister sleeve placed on top of the replacement street light pole that will be a total of 28.1' in height as measured from grade to the top of the canister. The vertical shroud design includes a transition piece between the canister and the pole that presents a slim side view that blends cleanly with the verticality of the light pole. The light standard is designed to match the light standard being replaced and other light standards in the P.C. Resolution No. 2017 - Page 2 ofGY137 immediate area. The proposal places all of the related mechanical equipment underground in a vault. The proposed installation will not have any significant view impairment to surrounding properties pursuant to Chapter 17.02.040 of the RPVMC. 12.18.080(A)(1)(b): Screening shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with surrounding structures using appropriate techniques to camouflage, disguise, and/or blend into the environment, including landscaping, color, and other techniques to minimize the facility's visual impact as well as be compatible with the architectural character of the surrounding buildings or structures in terms of color, size, proportion, style, and quality. The proposed WTF will be affixed to a replacement street light pole that matches other street light poles in the area, and the replacement street light pole will utilize similar color, size, proportion, style, and quality to other street poles in the area. The antenna encased in the cylinder -shaped canister shroud will be painted to match the Marbelite light pole with a concrete color and the canister will blend into the pole with a tapered transition sleeve. The mechanical equipment will be vaulted under the existing sidewalk. 12.18.080(A)(1)(c): Facilities shall be located such that views from a residential structure are not significantly impaired. Facilities shall also be located in a manner that protects public views over city view corridors, as defined in the city's general plan, so that no significant view impairment results in accordance with this code including Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration). This provision shall be applied consistent with local, state and federal law. The Project does not result in a significant view impairment to surrounding residences on Scotwood Drive or Whitley Collins Drive. This finding remains unchanged even with the additional height of the pole to accommodate the cylinder -shaped canister on top of the pole. The proposed WTF is not located in a view corridor identified in the City's General Plan or Coastal Specific Plan. 12.18.080(A)(4): Blending Methods. All facilities shall have subdued colors and non -reflective materials that blend with the materials and colors of the surrounding area and structures. The proposed street light pole and affixed equipment will consist of colors and materials that are subdued, non -reflective and are the same as the other light poles in the immediate area. 12.18.080(A)(5): Equipment. The applicant shall use the least visible equipment possible. Antenna elements shall be flush mounted, to the extent feasible. All antenna mounts shall be designed so as not to preclude possible future P.C. Resolution No. 2017 - Page 3 of 0-138 collocation by the same or other operators or carriers. Unless otherwise provided in this section, antennas shall be situated as close to the ground as possible. The project consists of a replacement street light pole with a 2' tall canister shroud with a 3' tall tapered canister sleeve that will house the antenna panels and wires on top of the replacement pole which would result in an overall height of 28.1'. The proposed cylinder shroud design presents a slim side view that blends cleanly with the verticality of the light pole, particularly with the transition piece between the pole and the canister, and is the least visible of the options presented. The height of the street pole may have to be increased by up to 5' to accommodate collocation because of the size of the panel antennas combined with there being a need to provide a separation of at least 1' between antenna panels for functionality purposes. Future location of additional antennas on this street light pole would detract from the overall appearance. 12.18.080(A)(6)(a): Facilities shall be located consistent with Section 12.18.200 (Location Restrictions) unless an exception pursuant to Section 12.18.190 (Exceptions) is granted. The proposed location is within the PROW of local residential streets as identified in the City's General Plan and the Planning Commission finds that an Exception shall be made. 12.18.080(A)(6)(d): Light Poles. The maximum height of any antenna shall not exceed four feet above the existing height of a light pole. Any portion of the antenna or equipment mounted on a pole shall be no less than 16% feet above any drivable road surface. The cylinder shaped antenna shroud exceeds 2' above the height of the replacement pole. No portion of the antenna or equipment is less than 16Y2' above the drivable road surface. 12.18.080(A)(6)(e): Replacement Poles. If an applicant proposes to replace a pole in order to accommodate a proposed facility, the pole shall be designed to resemble the appearance and dimensions of existing poles near the proposed location, including size, height, color, materials and style to the maximum extent feasible. The proposed replacement street light pole will match the appearance, in terms of color, height, size and dimensions of other light poles in the immediate area. P.C. Resolution No. 2017 - Page 4 of[Y- 1 39 12.18.080(A)(6)(i): All cables, including, but not limited to, electrical and utility cables, shall be run within the interior of the pole and shall be camouflaged or hidden to the fullest extent feasible. All cables and wires will be encased within the pole and the canister, thus hidden from view. 12.18.080(A)(7): Space. Each facility shall be designed to occupy the least amount of space in the right-of-way that is technically feasible. The replacement street light pole is similar in dimension to the existing street light pole. The placement of the antennas on top of the pole will occupy limited air space above the right-of-way. The accessory structure will be undergrounded and the vault necessary to house the equipment measures approximately 43 square feet in area and consists of three separate vaults. This space is the least amount of space that is technically feasible for vaulted equipment owned by AT&T. The space that will be occupied is below the surface with minimum exhaust vents that will be flush to the surrounding ground. The SCE meter box will also be vaulted. 12.18.080(A)(8): Wind Loads. Each facility shall be properly engineered to withstand wind loads as required by this code or any duly adopted or incorporated code. An evaluation of high wind load capacity shall include the impact of modification of an existing facility. Based on the information submitted by the Applicant and as confirmed by the City's consultants, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed installation complies with all building codes related to wind loads. 12.18.080(A)(9): Obstructions. Each component part of a facility shall be located so as not to cause any physical or visual obstruction to pedestrian or vehicular traffic, incommode the public's use of the right-of-way, or safety hazards to pedestrians and motorists and in compliance with Section 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility) so as not to obstruct the intersection visibility triangle. The proposed installation will not cause an obstruction to the public's use of the PROW, constitute a safety hazard and/or does not interfere with the City -defined intersection visibility triangle. The proposed location is not located in a sidewalk or walking area established for regular pedestrian use, and the replacement pole provides the same lighting, height and setback parameters applicable to other streetlights. 12.18.080(A)(10): Public Facilities. A facility shall not be located within any portion of the public right-of-way interfering with access to a fire hydrant, fire P.C. Resolution No. 2017 - Page 5 of 140 station, fire escape, water valve, underground vault, valve housing structure, or any other public health or safety facility. The proposed installation, including the undergrounding of the mechanical equipment, will not interfere with fire hydrants, fire stations, water lines or any other public health or safety facilities C. If applicable, the applicant has demonstrated its inability to locate on existing infrastructure. Not applicable as the proposed WTF antennas are proposed to be installed on a replacement street light pole that's currently an existing infrastructure. D. The applicant has provided sufficient evidence supporting the applicant's claim that it has the right to enter the public right-of-way pursuant to state or federal law, or the applicant has entered into a franchise agreement with the city permitting them to use the public right-of-way. The Applicant has submitted to the City a Right of Way Use Agreement (RUA) entered into with the City in 2011, which allows the Applicant to install wireless antennas in the PROW. Further, the Applicant has submitted a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) issued by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) which provides that the Applicant has been authorized to install wireless telecommunications infrastructure in the PROW. E. The applicant has demonstrated the proposed installation is designed such that the proposed installation represents the least intrusive means possible and supported by factual evidence and a meaningful comparative analysis to show that all alternative locations and designs identified in the application review process were technically infeasible or not available. Alternative locations were identified in the application review process. The present design, which includes encasing the two antenna panels within a cylinder -shaped canister proposed to be placed on top of the light pole, is the least intrusive means of those alternatives. There is technology that is possible to use but that would require a greater number of facilities throughout the community to provide equal coverage and capacity. This may require the introduction of new pole structures where there are no street lights or utility poles and may require associated accessory equipment at every location. The supporting mechanical equipment, even if placed in vaults underground, would require additional fans that may result in adverse cumulative noise impacts negating the objective of installing the least intrusive systems. P.C. Resolution No. 2017 - Page 6 ofd 141 Other locations and designs considered as part of the application process for purposes of filling the coverage gap claimed by the Applicant and discussed by the City's RF Engineer were found to be more intrusive then the proposed project. Section 3: As discussed in the findings above, because the Project's location is within a residential zone and within the PROW of local streets as identified in the General Plan, approval of a WTFP also requires an exception under Section 12.18.190 of the Municipal Code. The Project meets the findings for an exception as required by Section 12.18.190(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 near the intersection of Whitley Collins Drive and Scotwood Drive. This application information was provided to the City's RF Engineer who reviewed the information, as well as conducted both on-site walkouts of the area and a computerized terrain study to determine if the proposed site will address a coverage gap as identified in the application. Based on the terrain profile characteristics and the field measurement data provided by Crown Castle, the proposal as provided will address coverage deficiencies within the target area. The Applicant has provided engineering details related to the wireless bands that will be used for the DAS deployment, including identifying transmitting equipment, power levels for each band and specifics regarding the radiation patterns of the antennas to be installed. Crown Castle has provided engineering measurement data defining gaps in AT&T coverage in small pocketed areas. This has been independently examined by the City's consultant who determined that the signal levels are lower than industry recommended levels to support modern 3G/4G customer needs. The engineering design provided by Crown Castle supports that, if constructed, DAS site ASG 10 will provide ample signal intensity (signal level in excess of -95 dBm) to support AT&T's 3G/4G wireless services. 3. The applicant has provided the City with a meaningful comparative analysis that includes the factual reasons why any alternative location(s) or design(s) suggested by the city or otherwise identified in the administrative record, including but not limited to potential alternatives P.C. Resolution No. 2017 - Page 7 of IYL 142 identified at any public meeting or hearing, are not technically feasible or potentially available. As noted earlier, the Applicant has proposed similar antennas on street light poles at the following 4 locations (see attachment): • Replacement of an existing street light pole approximately 457' to the north of the proposed location on the same side of the street. • Replacement of an existing street light pole approximately 171' to the north of the proposed location on the same side of the street. • A new concrete pole approximately 77' to the north of the proposed location on the same side of the street. • Replacement of an existing street light pole approximately 158' south (downhill) from the proposed location on the same side of the street. All but one of the alternative sites did not meet the RF coverage objective as confirmed by the City's RF Engineer. The one alternative location that met the Applicant's RF coverage objective is not desired because there is minimal landscaping in the area for screening purposes. Furthermore, this alternative is at the top of the hill making for noticeable than the primary location. Thus, the primary location was found to be superior. The alternative site analysis submitted by the Applicant demonstrates that the proposed project is likely the least intrusive location for the wireless telecommunications facility in the immediate area because of the surrounding slopes and vegetation. The WTF is also being proposed to be installed on a replacement street light pole that replaces existing infrastructure. And while the proposed location is adjacent to a residential zone, the proposed location does not interfere with any public or residential views. Furthermore, because of the limited commercially zoned areas in the City and limited collector or arterial streets, in order to provide coverage to the residential areas of the City, it's necessary to locate within the right-of- way of local streets. The City's technical consultants have reviewed the Applicant's documents and support this conclusion. The proposed project is the least intrusive location for the wireless telecommunications facility in the immediate area because of the surrounding terrain. There are no major collector or arterial streets in the immediate area. 4. The applicant has provided the city with a meaningful comparative analysis that includes the factual reasons why the proposed location and design deviates is the least noncompliant location and design necessary P.C. Resolution No. 2017 - Page 8 oUS 143 to reasonably achieve the applicant's reasonable technical service objectives. The Applicant has provided a meaningful alternative comparative analysis and the proposed project is found to be the preferred design. Section 4: Conditions regarding any of the requirements listed above which the Planning Commission finds to be necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare, have been imposed in the attached Exhibit A. Section 5: The Project is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") because the Project constitutes a small scale installation of new a new facility (14 CCR § 15303(d)). Section 6: Pursuant to Section 12.18.060 of the Municipal Code (referencing Chapter 17.80 of the Municipal Code), any interested person aggrieved by this decision or any portion of this decision may appeal to the City Council. The appeal shall set forth the grounds for appeal and any specific action being requested by the appellant. Any appeal letter must be filed within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of this decision, or by 5:30 PM on Wednesday, September 14, 2017. The Council -approved appeal fee must accompany any appeal letter. If no appeal is filed timely, the Planning Commission's decision will be final at 5:30 PM on Wednesday, September 14, 2017. Section 7: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby conditionally approves, a WTFP application and an exception for the proposed installation adjacent to 29504 Whitley Collins (WTF ASG NO. 32). PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 30th day of August 2017, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: RECUSALS: ABSENT: P.C. Resolution No. 2017 - Page 9 of[Y144 Ara Mihranian, AICP Community Development Director; and, Secretary of the Planning Commission John M. Cruikshank Chairman P.C. Resolution No. 2017 - Page 10 of 145 Exhibit "A" Conditions of Approval WTF ASG No. 32 Adjacent to 29504 Whitley Collins General Conditions: 1. Prior to obtaining a permit from the Public Works Department to install the street light pole, the applicant and the property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have read, understand, and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this Resolution. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void. 2. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolutions procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and other such procedures) (collectively "Actions"), brought against the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City), for or concerning the project. 3. Prior to conducting any work in the public right of way (PROW), such as for curb cuts, dumpsters, temporary improvements and/or permanent improvements, the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works. 4. Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws and regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) shall apply. 5. The Public Works Director or Director of Community Development are authorized to make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of approval if such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with the approved plans and conditions. Otherwise, any substantive change to the project shall require approval of a revision by the final body that approved the original project, which may require new and separate environmental review. P.C. Resolution No. 2017 - Page 11 of[Y- 1 46 6. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be cause to revoke the approval of the project pursuant to the RPVMC. 7. If the applicant has not obtained approvals from Public Works for the approved project or not commenced the approved project within one year of the final effective date of this Resolution, approval of the project shall expire and be of no further effect unless, prior to expiration, a written request for extension is filed with the Public Works Department and approved by the Director. 8. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations and/or requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter standard shall apply. 9. The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that material used for immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may include, but not be limited to: the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or discarded furniture, appliances or other household fixtures. 10. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, 9:OOAM to 5:OOPM on Saturday, with no construction activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section 17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. During demolition, construction and/or grading operations, trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining street rights-of-way before 7AM Monday through Friday and before 9AM on Saturday, in accordance with the permitted hours of construction stated in this condition. When feasible to do so, the construction contractor shall provide staging areas on-site to minimize off-site transportation of heavy construction equipment. These areas shall be located to maximize the distance between staging activities and neighboring properties, subject to approval by the building official. 11. All grading, landscaping and construction activities shall exercise effective dust control techniques, either through screening and/or watering. 12. Prior to commencement work, the Applicant shall obtain approval of a haul route from the Director of Public Works. 13. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly manner, to the satisfaction of the City's Inspector. All construction waste and debris resulting from a construction, alteration or repair project shall be removed on a weekly basis by the contractor or property owner. P.C. Resolution No. 2017 - Page 12 of 19 D-147 14. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be completed in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the City with the effective date of this Resolution. Project -specific Conditions: 15. This approval allows for the following: A. Installation of a Wireless Telecommunication Facility WTF adjacent to 29504 Whitley Collins Drive. B. The Removal of an existing 25.6' tall marbelite street light with a mast arm and luminaire to be decommissioned and replaced with a marbelite octagonal street light with a 2' tall canister with a 3' tall tapered sleeve mounted at the top of the new pole, resulting in a total pole height of 28.1 feet. C. The installation of three separate vaults to house the required accessory equipment in the PROW, including vents and meter boxes that shall be flush to the ground and that shall not exceed 43 square feet in total surface area. 16. The proposed project is subject to the following Conditions to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and the Director of Community Development: o The proposed WTF shall be installed on a new light standard that matches the other light standards in the area in terms of color, size, proportion, style, and quality. The antenna shroud and any related exposed structures shall be painted and maintained to match the light pole. o If applicable, the Applicant shall install drought tolerant landscaping near the proposed installation to screen the equipment and proposed retaining wall consistent with existing landscaping. o The facility shall be designed and located in such a manner as to avoid adverse impacts on traffic safety; construction and operation of the facility shall comport with a duly -approved traffic control plan as required. o Colors and materials shall be subdued and non -reflective, and shall be the same as the existing light standard and other lights standards in the nearby area. o The replacement pole shall match the appearance and dimensions of the existing pole and all other light standards near the location. o All cables and wires shall be encased within the pole and/or canister, and hidden from view. P.C. Resolution No. 2017 - Page 13 of,Y9 148 o All ground -mounted facilities including mechanical equipment, or walls, fences, landscaping or other screening methods shall be installed at least 18 inches from the curb and gutter flow line. o All accessory equipment shall be located underground including meter boxes and cabinets. o The facility shall be installed so as to maintain and enhance existing landscaping on the site, including trees, foliage and shrubs. Additional landscaping shall be planted, irrigated and maintained by Applicant where such landscaping is feasible and deemed necessary by the City to provide screening or to conceal the facility. o The facility shall not bear any signs or advertising devices other than certification, warning or other signage required by law or permitted by the city. o The facility shall not be illuminated except for the standard street -light luminaire replacing the existing street light. All other illumination shall be restricted pursuant to RPVMC § 12.18.080(A)(15). o Noise: ■ Backup generators shall only be operated during periods of power outages, and shall not be tested on weekends or holidays, or between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. ■ At no time shall equipment noise from any facility exceed an exterior noise level of 55 dBA three feet from the source of the noise if the facility is located in the public right-of-way adjacent to a business, commercial, manufacturing, utility or school zone; provided, however, that for any such facility located within 500 feet of any property zoned residential or improved with a residential use, such equipment noise shall not exceed 45 dBA three feet from the sources of the noise. The foregoing noise level limitations shall govern facilities subject to RPVMC Chapter 12.18.080(A)(16) until such time that a specific noise regulation ordinance is adopted and effective in this code, at which time such noise ordinance shall govern. o The facility shall be designed to be resistant to, and minimize opportunities for, unauthorized access, climbing, vandalism, graffiti and other conditions that would result in hazardous situations, visual blight or attractive nuisances. The Public Works Director may require the provision of warning signs, fencing, anti -climbing devices, or other techniques to prevent unauthorized access and vandalism when, because of their location and/or accessibility, a facility has the potential to become an P.C. Resolution No. 2017 - Page 14 of 149 attractive nuisance. Additionally, no lethal devices or elements shall be installed as a security device. o Consistent with current state and federal laws and if permissible under the same, at the time of modification of the facility, existing equipment shall, to the extent feasible, be replaced with equipment that reduces visual, noise and other impacts, including, but not limited to, undergrounding the equipment and replacing larger, more visually intrusive facilities with smaller, less visually intrusive facilities. o The installation and construction of the facility shall begin within one year after its approval or it will expire without further action by the city. 17. All wireless telecommunications facilities shall comply at all times with the following operation and maintenance standards: o Unless otherwise provided herein, all necessary repairs and restoration shall be completed by the permittee, owner, operator or any designated maintenance agent within 48 hours: o After discovery of the need by the permittee, owner, operator or any designated maintenance agent; or o After permittee, owner, operator or any designated maintenance agent receives notification from the city. 18. Each permittee of a wireless telecommunications facility shall provide the Public Works Director with the name, address and 24-hour local or toll free contact phone number of the permittee, the owner, the operator and the agent responsible for the maintenance of the facility ("contact information"). Contact information shall be updated within seven days of any change. 19. Prior to any construction activities, the permittee shall submit a security instrument (bond or letter of credit as approved by the City Attorney) in an amount determined by the City to be sufficient to cover all potential costs listed herein or in the RPVMC. 20. The permittee shall provide additional information to establish that the proposed accessory equipment is designed to be the smallest equipment technologically feasible. The City may consider equipment installed or proposed to be installed in other jurisdictions. 21. All facilities, including, but not limited to, telecommunication towers, poles, accessory equipment, lighting, fences, walls, shields, cabinets, artificial foliage or camouflage, and the facility site shall be maintained in good condition, including ensuring the facilities are reasonably free of: P.C. Resolution No. 2017 - Page 15 of ®- 1 50 a. General dirt and grease; b. Chipped, faded, peeling, and cracked paint; C. Rust and corrosion; d. Cracks, dents, and discoloration; e. Missing, discolored or damaged artificial foliage or other camouflage; Graffiti, bills, stickers, advertisements, litter and debris; g. Broken and misshapen structural parts; and h. Any damage from any cause. 22. Applicant shall install, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director or Director of Community Development, drought tolerant landscaping near the proposed installation of the vaulted accessory equipment and retaining wall enclosure to screen the equipment consistent with existing landscaping prior to final inspection. 23. All trees, foliage or other landscaping elements approved as part of the facility shall be maintained in good condition at all times, and the permittee, owner and operator of the facility shall be responsible for replacing any damaged, dead or decayed landscaping. No amendment to any approved landscaping plan may be made until it is submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director or the Director of Community Development. 24. The permittee shall replace its facilities, after obtaining all required permits, if maintenance or repair is not sufficient to return the facility to the condition it was in at the time of installation. 25. Each facility shall be operated and maintained to comply with all conditions of approval. Each owner or operator of a facility shall routinely inspect each site to ensure compliance with the same and the standards set forth in the RPVMC. 26. No person shall install, use or maintain any facility which in whole or in part rests upon, in or over any public right-of-way, when such installation, use or maintenance endangers or is reasonably likely to endanger the safety of persons or property, or when such site or location is used for public utility purposes, public transportation purposes or other governmental use, or when such facility unreasonably interferes with or unreasonably impedes the flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic including any legally parked or stopped vehicle, the ingress into or egress from any residence or place of business, the use of poles, posts, traffic P.C. Resolution No. 2017 - Page 16 of 19 D-151 signs or signals, hydrants, mailboxes, permitted sidewalk dining, permitted street furniture or other objects permitted at or near said location. 27. Unless California Government Code Section 65964, as may be amended, authorizes the city to issue a permit with a shorter term, a permit for any wireless telecommunications facility shall be valid for a period of ten years, unless pursuant to another provision of the RPVMC or these Conditions of Approval, it lapses sooner or is revoked. At the end of ten years from the date of issuance, such permit shall automatically expire. 28. A permittee may apply for a new permit within 180 days prior to expiration. Said application and proposal shall comply with the city's current Code requirements for WTF's. 29. A WTF is considered abandoned and shall be promptly removed as provided herein if it ceases to provide wireless telecommunications services for 90 or more consecutive days unless the permittee has obtained prior written approval from the director which shall not be unreasonably denied. If there are two or more users of a single facility, then this provision shall not become effective until all users cease using the facility. 30. The operator of a facility shall notify the City in writing of its intent to abandon or cease use of a permitted site or a nonconforming site (including unpermitted sites) within ten days of ceasing or abandoning use. Notwithstanding any other provision herein, the operator of the facility shall provide written notice to the director of any discontinuation of operations of 30 days or more. 31. Failure to inform the director of cessation or discontinuation of operations of any existing facility as required by this section shall constitute a violation of any approvals and be grounds for: a. Litigation; b. Revocation or modification of the permit; C. Acting on any bond or other assurance required by this article or conditions of approval of the permit; d. Removal of the facilities by the city in accordance with the procedures established under this code for abatement of a public nuisance at the owner's expense; and/or e. Any other remedies permitted by law. 32. Upon the expiration date of the permit, including any extensions, earlier termination or revocation of the permit or abandonment of the facility, the P.C. Resolution No. 2017 - Page 17 of�, 152 permittee, owner or operator shall remove its WTF and restore the site to its natural condition except for retaining the landscaping improvements and any other improvements at the discretion of the city. Removal shall be in accordance with proper health and safety requirements and all ordinances, rules, and regulations of the City. The facility shall be removed from the property, at no cost or expense to the City. 33. Failure of the permittee, owner or operator to promptly remove its facility and restore the property within 90 days after expiration, earlier termination or revocation of the permit, or abandonment of the facility, shall be a violation of these conditions of approval. Upon a showing of good cause, an extension may be granted by the Public Works Director where circumstances are beyond the control of the permittee after expiration. Further failure to abide by the timeline provided in this section shall be grounds for: a. Prosecution; b. Acting on any security instrument required by the RPVMC or conditions of approval of permit; C. Removal of the facilities by the city in accordance with the procedures established under the RPVMC for abatement of a public nuisance at the owner's expense; and/or d. Any other remedies permitted by law. 34. In the event the Public Works Director or City Engineer determines that the condition or placement of a WTF located in the public right-of-way constitutes a dangerous condition, obstruction of the public right-of-way, or an imminent threat to public safety, or determines other exigent circumstances require immediate corrective action (collectively, "exigent circumstances"), the Director or City Engineer may cause the facility to be removed summarily and immediately without advance notice or a hearing. Written notice of the removal shall include the basis for the removal and shall be served upon the permittee and person who owns the facility within five business days of removal and all property removed shall be preserved for the owner's pick-up as feasible. If the owner cannot be identified following reasonable effort or if the owner fails to pick-up the property within 60 days, the facility shall be treated as abandoned property. 35. In the event the City removes a facility in accordance with nuisance abatement procedures or summary removal, any such removal shall be without any liability to the city for any damage to such facility that may result from reasonable efforts of removal. In addition to the procedures for recovering costs of nuisance abatement, the city may collect such costs from the performance bond posted and to the extent such costs exceed the amount of the performance bond, collect those excess costs in accordance with the RPVMC. Unless otherwise provided P.C. Resolution No. 2017 - Page 18 of 19 D-153 herein, the city has no obligation to store such facility. Neither the permittee, owner nor operator shall have any claim if the city destroys any such facility not timely removed by the Applicant, owner or operator after notice, or removed by the city due to exigent circumstances. 36. Consistent with current state and federal laws and if permissible under the same, at the time of modification of a WTF, existing equipment shall, to the extent feasible, be replaced with equipment that reduces visual, noise and other impacts, including, but not limited to, undergrounding the equipment and replacing larger, more visually intrusive facilities with smaller, less visually intrusive facilities. P.C. Resolution No. 2017 - Page 19 of 1� 154 ASG32 29504 SCOTWOOD DR AT WHITLEY COLLINS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA (-GENERALCONTR:\CTOR NOTES: , CONTRACTOR SHAI.I. VERIFY ALL PIANS .AND EXISTING DMI: SIGNS AND CONDITIONS ON Till: JOD SITE :IND SHALL IMMEDIATEI.1' NOTIFY llll: ENGINEER IN WRHINOOF ANY D I.SCRI:I'ANCII:5111:FORE I•ROCEI:DINIi tY 1'1'11 1'111: WORA OR RIiSFONSIBLE FOR SANIE. SIGN OFF TITLE SIGNATURE DATE NE'fWtIRR REAI. EST '.\IF. PEOJE("IMANAGER CONSIAVt"1'IUN MANAGER RAUIO FREQUENCY As Fen Way Pdk w R d d' Cres(rilyyy � a o A' O 2 W4 6 SITE LOCATION m �t 9t Santa Catalina \ VICINITY MAP NTS PROJECT DESCRIPTION: • DIMAIMISSION R REMOVE ENISIING ?3' 6- HIGH NIARRI:IATE UC rAGONAI. CONCRETE: S1REE'11.IUi ll' (FOLK N 116135WE) AND RFPLAUF. \\'ITH A NEW 25' 6 - HIGH CUNCRIi1'E'rESITIRED STEEL MHJ: WITH NIAS'r AMI AM) LUMINAIRF. IIt1:N1U1%E\IXIING JUNIPER). • INSTALLO)CROWN('ASTLE 4'86'\'ALIT. FLUSH NIOUN'r VENTS WI'IILNiE-I'ER& PUWI(R DISCONNECT ROA WI'ni (2) NII.IONS INSiDII. • INSI'AI.I.12)2IA'ANINNN.1S x111'4-65F-Iil!U-IIJWITH ('ONl'E:\I.1":\N TUI'NIULIN'I' ANDSHROUD. • INSI'AI.I.I'ROR'N t'AS'I'LF: I\'1'R PX 3'V:tUl:l'. • INSfAIJ. VUR. • EQUIPMENTAND:INTF.NNAS TORI:i'.AIN'rF.DTINI.A'rl'Ii POI.E. \ PROJECT SUMMARY / PROJECT -MANAGER: CRO%N N CAS1'I.I 2119 SPECTRVNI CI.N'I I:R OR 18TH FLOOR IRVINE CA'J2M S JON CO\VELL (125) 2W-6857 .ION.0 O\\'1:1.1..\'ENDORmCR(l\\'NC:\Sl'I.F.'.l'U\7 C'ONSI'RVC"1'ION ENGINEER: CRO\l'N C Agri.E 21111 SPEC 'IRONI CENTER OR I III II FLUOR II(V INF.. CA 12618 EI:NNE: I'll I IOI)HS (714)_251-983'1 ):Ii NF.III.IIOHHS(mCROWNCAST.E.CUNI NODE ENGINEER: COASTAL COMNIUNICATIONS 95341 OPANGA CANYON HIND. (:1 WTSWORTH. CA 91:11 CVRI'ISS JOHNSON (7611) 9324312 C'VR'f ISttaCO.AST:1l.COMA)INC.CONI PROJECT TEAM J 1 ASG32 24 2' 7 CROWN � v CASTLE NG WEST LLC Communications AP'INu'. IV I'NUP%I^.il\p )RAAD I:tM1 YIIAR A%xIT REI.ATI:x ru Auns6lxu n.) rxounlrrcu I �wxe Ix A}%tlM1t:( x11 zkxt Irt ALMT CGv gEMME IINx/14 ADDPEDW D'mwE ASG32 29504 SCOTWOOD DR AT WHITLEY COLLINS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA TITLE SHEET o.�c.� iumru 1..I'IPr. T-1 D-155 LEGEND SYMBOL DESCRIPTION 0 0 M 0 1 ABBREVIATIONS AA A111-1.1, DID IL I_1UB.INF. EX IRI%1'I.I E111 MN,H OP IAVRMEN'1 PI. PNUPEHTI'LINE ktl A -IT UY\VAI %.D NI HIIVISIUN DOUNDA11I EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES: I'Y.It 1111 A11 Iiltt rN11HIIOIAINNII L-1'1'X1IL. YHIUN 1111 UM P1.11'I'ION OY IINAI. MPXUV.MENT1 It ALL NI! PER,, JN 111.111 1111, 11 IHNAI I IIHI-N LlIA1.1'- TUN AS IN III A' H) RELUN I ALI. NtUI HUOIHN"I'%UE 1 D II' I' I' IIP BAN' 1111 PA 1.11s 1ENDII1 51'U L, ., 1ExT AIANIr:U..N. W'AI'TIN NFAIDAR Us' IN "I HE INIURPUNA I III IN'IU'I'It. DINBPI ANI! (PONE INVIT'IVN UP'fHE 1!NUYUSEI......T11%IPHU\•RNI ENI.N('1)NNI%'1'ENI W.1.1 THEINU'll IN I ONt'NUI. PLAN AND ON NATER IOU PI ILL. IN I xl HDI. PLAN, VIP, I -r. II APYI.II'ABLE U I''HIM DRAIN INLETf PROVIDE URAVEI. IIAU NIIA IIANN HUMB.IIATHIN UYTTP.EAII OF INLET .1.1 ATED UN I -All.' .I I u XMTrk UX VII,l1.IFIHD PIIEUA M.M. HE RF.BIA.NEIIIR 10. 1'LEANI'I UI HILT ANU MUD ON AU)A�tNI TTREtTIMANV TTORSI DRAIN.1111IM UVE N.I I—.1-1.1'IN All 11111 I 111E ITINTRA1I OR MALL REMOVE NUT AHD IHIMUH AHI EN El It HA)OR RAINFALL I III.I INHNI. 1t'Lxt`N, FON F.MI,NI.1.N'I'I'I—BILA I.I. RE MADE AVAILABLE AT ALL TIMES III -RINU I HE RAIN x ,I,r .N'TUR SBAI.I.IINHII,NE AI.L I1ftU%N.N.NF.DIAII.x11'UNTRUI. DEL'IfY.%1'V LYURNINU UHUEx '- ISYAITNW UY 111NIIl'1'ENUINkEHUN RMXIUIN'1'NNUINh:ER AFYCIt kAI'll kVNUFF' YI.UOI I INTI HABO AM. /. rR NIAI.I.INN"TALL ADDII'IUNAI.HkU%IUWSHNIAIY.N I' I IINI'HOL AIEA.RBIAS MAY HE IN'UUIH1.11E,111.. HEEIll N'NNO.EER DOE'IU VNI-UNk%EEN IINIVMRTANINS, W111111 AWT A— nILL . UN r + I'IN 'fHUI. MEANUXNE PROVIDED I HE T11E APPRUVND IMPEUVEMENI PIAN NPIFIHHE INl'UkPUN ANnU IIHN.UN A1.1. ENU5IUN'ShIl1AlENT 1UN1'HU1. WR WTEXIAI I'UNUII'NN's .1 .1. BE DVNE1111IIE %AYINIAIIIIIN I'll III REIRXEN'I INUINEEN a ALL IIIIIUV.SRLE 1`101111111 11 SIIUNW IIIALL BEIN ILAI1A'ITNEE111111 II1111NINU DAC' II BEN MAIN 1.1 IMMIN.El 10 It IUN1'RAI-TOR MIAI.I. ANNANUE N:R WHEE1.1'AIE.TINUN DORIHU INTUIIxN 151'TO APNII. HOTN •N PRWII T TEAM IUNNENAL IUNTRA-IN VDAIAFTED PNREDN.. I I I . EDIIIITIII 111 I A.UN'NIX•DIYIiI.OPItt AN 11 THE NINIDENT NNUMRRXITV IVALOA. MUMnuEIANAIFI'"I TfE RHtL IUN'NEDIAINN"f IvxfRt+1. MNATUNE%AND OTHER xM.ATHU ItH E AI-H STORMDRAIN INLET PROTECTION INIA"I' HDOF OI'PAVI?MGNT PLOW FLOW SPILLWAY. I -NAG HIGH SANDBAG 2 -NAGS IMIG IT TYPICAL PROTECTION FOR INLET HATH OPPOSING FLOW DIRECTIONS HIxIE OF PA VISMI(NI' INi.11' III.GW I'I.UW SPILLWAY. MIA(; 111611 SANDBAG 243AUS HEIGHT TYPICAL PROTECTION FOR INLET WITH SINGLE FLOW DIRECTION NOTES: IN I I+NI N,D 1'.SfIUk l'-1'HE', IIS, _ I'SI,It IN IIHIII,E N UN. H1'11k11 1111hk H.- I A1.1-\\' IUIt 1'RUvER MAIN TIINANII: AND I'I.HANOP 5. Ntl IIISAhIl1'I.H'AINNTIIRLEINNNAkH A5a\I\\''I'IlTikN v\DIAI'kN1 U1•F.kA'11UN 1Y I'Uhll'I.Ii1kU. IIIIiII SII.TE v\NUI'1.:\1'S t1'ITIIUI'T YII:TIik lAiSklt' NATFC- I'r Wl'III "I'OR TU POTHOLE ALL TlB.ITI' I'ROI.IIHIII )NTRAI"I'I'll 'IU PL E%ANDDAUN ARUI!NN AN)AI.L 51 URAI DRAIN INI.ET11'11 PEHVNNT UNTAMINAIRDIllrER .i NPIIH.E PILE WILL BE IOVNNIIANUIIN'I'AIN RU AND NOR BET WILL BENN'EPT.AN" CLEARED ANNEEDRD R UNTIUA IUE TO REPAIR IHMAIIED PUBLIC' IMIlBOVENENTH TO THE 5ATIMAITION OF TUE. L'DI RNUINERR ). IUkX 8 UITfENYU RN VRUTY.1fRUIN I'IA1E MUEN'gLN TI XE FIRILAIEU IOTHI IWTIMAI-f1UN OF TNI ITT, ... D ENR n IN$INTRAt'TUR5NAI.L HIDVURE III. NOAUWAI NAPA TU RS URBIINr\L l'UNURIUN AT'INF'AITURY TU THE I(T' ENUINEER INI'LUINx'U. BUT NUT LIMITED TU PAVINIL TTRIPINU. XII. I.ANEN. PAV'.NIHIR I.NIEXIA.5IUNN, ANUTR.AFFN' I.1H+P DETELTLRE ' SIDRWAI.N BIALY. BE RSE7V 1VURPLA, Ell PER, [TV 11 RANI HUS PALOEVERDERM'ANIARU DNAN'INUN It PIDY.EIRIAN RAMPWIIJ. NUT BEDIETDRIEI ROW GROUND CONSTRUCTION NOTES: AI.L l'UNSTRIIt'1'IUN SIIAI.L NE Ik P1l'UNDANt'. WI IN nIUNI('IPAI.. (bl!Nl'1'. NYAl'N FEDERAL. 11- AND UUISN %l'ANDARDE AND NHOTI.A'I ZUNI L'gl.l.11: r\ RN IIUI'R%PRIOR TU ERI: AVATINU AT I%W Y12I:W0 VR sl I ALL LANDH'APINU'11 RR RENTUkEDTUORNINAI, t'ONUU'IVE VR BETTRR AI.L HVVIPMRNT'TU BE DUNUI ) HE'TERINU IADINT REQDR N.N- I'I.EARANVE AT III UPENIN,. IL, I'ARIN£T BASE AT PAIL NORMAL LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES NOTES: L 'AYION AND IEPI'11 OF EXISYINU AND PRIPIDUDVTILITIE% MUNT HE PROVIDED BY IHE MIBIEVIDER AND SNUITK ON ANY PLANS HUILUBTINI TO THI.. DEff UY IHIHIA W'UIEEFOR N ­NF1.1(ILITH-REN UfIMTY IUAIPANIESF'Al'HM P1 EAITIND AND PROPUEED.MORT BE IIIITUALLI REMN.YPD BY TIIH ITT ILD 11UMPANIES i YDR IUIIAIENI'IAI, SIORRALNE. THS FIRE BY DEAN I'%HALL BE FI.AI'III) NP MIN I' Eh NIDNN'AI.N 1'.1` DENIND PAL'S IIII IIRD I MAXIMUM I• DIAMETER UAS MAINS NLYHE PLA('ED 11)OINT II'TILI'IBEH TNENUII .411 NIHI"'I' TU APPROVAL UI IIVl' HNUINVER IN THAI 111 CALIFORNIA STATE CODE COMPLIANCE: ALL WORN AND MAIN k b\LN SIIALL DE PH EFURMED AND INETAM.NU IN Ml'uRUANrE \VII It I HF. I'IINkENi' NDII'IUN%OF1't1EYU1.LON'IN.... v\Xr\11UP'1'HDN11'111 IUI'AI.UU\'IIIc l,, AI i'1'IIUIIU'INS NOININII IN t DIKHE PLAN% N "U Ht I UNN'RO11 BU 11.11IMID MINI Nul IONIOBIBLIO IV'I XIHI _DEE • ('AI.IFI1kNW AIAl1.YIITNVVI'I\'EITJUF.'INt'I.IIUINU'fIT1.Y.N:1k:A,.NIO • :0101 ALIYVNNIA bVILDIN(i I OVER N'Ii111 AfR1PI31'llfi 1010 UMI. IMV L'AIt'. 5010 UPI' AXUI'IE `010 NEI' • BUII.DINIIUMIt'IALSRIVDEADMIN•IHINATORNINIX-AI • 2D101'AI.IFURNIA AIEL'HANII'ALI'OU. . ANHI:MA.I:,.F LIFEHAFET"LODENT -101 III HNIAILI-MINNUOUL. • ?0101 A1.IFIRNW EI.ELTRN'AL I VUI • 1 BE Ull Al. tlUI1.U1NU IIID. • I Rl I IN NTV ON INHANIES Il'EX'I NI- Il UOINEAIENTS FAt'll.lTY 1%IRMANNI I ANU NUT FUR HOMAN HABITATION M.ANIHI'AI'YkU n1'I'E55 NRVI'INNAIENTN U, NOT APPLY IN Af I'UNDAIIE WITH'1'lIH 2110, ALHURNIA HIILIBROI OUR. IL'I' NUTS THIN N'IREI.R%N (UAIMUN'IIATIUN FAI'II.D'I IU1IPIAH1 N'ITH IEIIHR IL NI'ANDARDN NIN RADIO YIl EVUEN11' I` AI I All It W' Hl'I'lIE' `HI.EITnnnI1,v IIA'I'IUN At 1111 AND NUHXNVI!Y.NI AIIII 111NI"ANI ll' 1'1ftl NEVI!IH61F'N'I'I II' :I:U 11'IIA 'TEUN hHUNH:\l. 11'.II.AI'IR1' AUENIIHE ASG32 242727-- r- CCROWN CASTLE NG WEST LL NNOUL MI'E.NIENURIIIEI` 1m Communications �RRIRTAXV Axu HEN TIIAx Ast1il "Al I I AT 1'SSNEFIR! 111, DIU CITY REDLINE I INWIN U PED HE 0!105111 ASG32 29504 SCOTWOOD DR AT WH LEY COLLINS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES. CA DETAI S & NOTES PLR(i IOr(17�1'5 D-1 D-156 ASG3 LWX 6'X 4' GROUND VAULT RADIO ENCLOSURE --------------------------_--- - IV X 6'X 4' GROUND VAULT RADIO ENCLOSURE X 6-- (TYPICAL SECTION: N.T.S) 2 GROWN NG WEST LLC - — ----------- — --------- ications .... ........ TYR ELEVATION VIEW 4 EM ISOVIEW PLAN VIESCALE SCALE W D1W KI 7V lZL Al E.— R—N ANDREW 10N-M17HP119HP MULTI-BAND, MULTI-OPERATOR P.— --pl., -1. A.— E­—.1 I W" REMOTE OPTICAL SYSTEM "CITY—INE A.-E.0 ll­116 lcp3,pm, d ®UTPa mash 1E. tt —1. OIL,— (1,,) 0-245:: INMrtca I-M.(A-) EnwrpnmenMl sl$slo NDegel+1. �111 ll.— R1 21 21ft ,-..z 4 k F.— 4 ­pm Apgftllble 1,, ­gk ­­ 3" 412 =z­ ­A :51 41 31 1 All— u— 42N 3B I-- LIE 45 42- J9 36 ASG32 .WetmWW Dewe, ECOTVVOOD DR 1)W12100 MXx (AWB) DL 1.1pt 11 k­­ d8 1 6a2 2" 1m. AT WHITLEY COLLINS OR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA Up'k —.1 211-2- OdPut power pe, paurcl.d8l' 'l-.1 of c.111.11 1 2 11 (DETULS & NOTES) GSM 45 CP3 op 1 COMA 0 42 11 '1 4' 1: lid. F-t Skill umTs i � LTE 41'N 30 bene: D-2 D-157 ASG32 242)27 ccCROWN � ,,,,CASTLESTLE NG WEST LLC FAP Sr n.STE I?An Communications Huta XIA0.t INW0.NATTUN IINMn:1. rl151nXAi ulsio eisiIa sinio ll,I Ixuu"I rEN DI DrvN %Enrllti.\LEFT CITY REDLINE INOMJ5 ADD RED 09 -1 ASG32 29504 SCOTWOOD DR AT WHITLEY COLLINS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES CA DETAILS & NOTES A�RM,I IUR17FI5 F':"IRI D-3 D-158 HPA-65F-BUU-H2 _a f �M . ji6 '. CONCEAL FAB TOP MOUNT & SHROUD (FOR HPA-65F-BUU-H2 ANTENNA) SQUARE D BY SCNNEIDER ELECTRIC LOAD CENTER, TO ry00E1. F0024LT0R81 DItiCIFIGTIONs FW..WrI Dual-H.,Ip nn HHA- 1 Ell. .1. 024"RF TRASPARENT TECHNICALCHARACTERISTICS (! AMPERE RANNG TOA • I>. _ ".,•. THERMOPLASTIC ANTENNA SHROUD _ slxr,LE PALE CIACU.1. MA1pMVM TENS "PP`DARp" NDOSTMAL REDVREMEN S"10PRO ECTEL 111CAL n.,.�rD3 r NDIEOPIE AW .I arylDJAWGICUI ALMADEU ROUT BREAAERS 24" Mlucox NDURATWISH vM.•, - T I nG SURFAD AL MNUM CT u•u. A,. 1 I 36„ ENCLOBATALSURE vvE"CE NYMBER OUMiCOOORRmANPROCF ENSR SIROYN0INC RATING NE uROER SEPARATELY APP10. SNJRtC URRExi RATIxG ^ , ' e".•:. tawM.•II .. .".: „�:, ' ' Fq.pERanBiC F%ED PACT-11METALLEOMANLUOS SHIPPING AND ORDERING ADC TYPE LPHASE, NEMAT AA . ARTICLE NH>9of E =SCHEDULE. A _ SCALE 4 N.T.S. SCALE 5 N.T.B, RETURxAeam r SCALE b N.T.S. WTR FUSE BOX (FOR NEW POLES & STREET LIGHTS STANUNT BP ENCLOSURE LATCH GROUNDROD: GT GROUND RODSHALLBENINIMUM NEW POLE FOUNDATION 0.625- CIA. • B' LONG. COPPER CLAD. G2 MINIMUM 3- EXPOSURE AT TOP OF FOUNDATION JMITHIN SOLT CIRCLE. VAULT DETAIL (FLUSH MOUNT) LOVER FEaT ORES • PW. f0.JD0 LBB VMEEL LOAD OH TP X TP PLaiE • APF OX W'i = T2 LBB RCR AK ® ��" M TSA NSE NOT TO SCALE NONORBOLIS ANCHOR J BOLTS �OTTSGIfALL BE—DIAMETER AI AGNE 11ONSASIMAM9 24•ROUND U1 A5 AZ BOLI CIRCLE CAM E I E R IO MAT CH POLE _� x-' BASEPLATE GROUNDLEVEL AS ANCHOR BOLTS SNALL HAVE HEADS. OR 1 IIT NUE VISINTHE RHREADSSJANEOAR • POLYMERCONCRETE ONE PIECE COVER •FOUR BOLT DOVIN IDENTIFICATION • NON.SNIDSURFACE • LID TO HAVE H�V TRAFFIC LOAD FRICTION COEFFICIENT TO SE 05 OR MORE 'COLOR. CONCRETEGREY (CROWNCAS4EYE TWO PLACES BELOW THE MII L, I ENSEDDEOINFOUROAIGN AA BOLTS STREETNALL BE EMBEDGRADE IMUM.BELOW EIREET GRADE MINIMUM BIT 163'EOLT SSL LATCH LIil-iGpLM11LL.LLIU`-YL • BO%YD . •� y® -Lu• LN-a-� I els niao 1 r ON PRONTINCONSRECOAE BOTHE MANUFACTASRECOMMENOEO BY THE MANUFACTURER CONDUIT A SUI"P„LNO BY POLE Y UFACNRER C1 CONDUIT SHALL BE RIGID SI EEL GALVANMEOINSIDE THE FOUNDATION, Wlix 6' NMIMUM SI UBOUT _ _ MAUlIMMUM BURIAAL C2 BERSHEANDfEEOCONWIISSHAUL BE BOB OR SCH BD PVC, AS REQUIRED (F] _ •f �V Cl STUB UP TO WIRHIN J• FROM HAND HOLE. �� -CONNECTOR {� RERTICALERMENR. Rt VD Ll EBAR NISLLBEIIIAS EOUAIIY BPACED INBIOE Of x00Pd POLYMERCOIJCRETERING AIJp FIBERGLASS NE,,,CRCEbFTIM NANGHOLR FEATURESCOPWTSTOeE POLYMER BODY • COLOR OF FIND CONCRETE GREY 'APPROX BIT =13LES GROUND ROD INSTALLATION / 'LTi PWYMER CONCRETE RETE pg COPPER CLAD x GROUIJO ROD (51tl"XtlT I BARENCU GROUNp 2�1 COIJUUCTOR } L. �°uir,� - IAnvrx �Rp=�l sT I I"AP'� "u ra-ru IN1Ar MIFAmI I nF0..Ltm \ A W% m��c�) VIII `—MOI 1. cOxTMCIq SruL EMRME WHAT COIAFc1106 AIM NATG I tplr BCALE L _ _Y�D�nRc_N.w_n F� MG R�. _ _ J % N.T.B !FN ,yI Rt HOOP551M TOP OF X IrFOU I FOUNDATIONTO L I I \-POUR FOOTING ENOOF NONCHOF BOOLIyUNW1pN t0 I� AGAINST pS HOOPSBIULL BE YJ% IW IU. SPACED UNOISTtIRSEp Y MIN FROM THE ANCHOR BOLTS TO ]• MATERIAL BOTTOM OF FOUNfMTION LLR CONLRETE TO RJ REBAq SHALL HAVE 3' MINIMUM TYP 30"ROUND BE0?150 MIk COVERING ROUN DER F3 5'DEPTH SCALE FA zOEPRx S N.T.B. SIDE VI CYGROUNDCLPMP FCI MIN NO491. OR. TYCO No $3749 1. ON EQUAL HRWH LE —RAVEL FRP BOpY 45 COPPER CLAD GROUNDRUCIERl'XS'J SCALE 9 N.T.S. ASG32 242)27 ccCROWN � ,,,,CASTLESTLE NG WEST LLC FAP Sr n.STE I?An Communications Huta XIA0.t INW0.NATTUN IINMn:1. rl151nXAi ulsio eisiIa sinio ll,I Ixuu"I rEN DI DrvN %Enrllti.\LEFT CITY REDLINE INOMJ5 ADD RED 09 -1 ASG32 29504 SCOTWOOD DR AT WHITLEY COLLINS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES CA DETAILS & NOTES A�RM,I IUR17FI5 F':"IRI D-3 D-158 F ASG32 242727 CROWN CASTLE NG WEST, LLC Com,monicationfi DI Y REULxuE 11091,5 orlo5rls ASG32 295D4 SCOTWOOD DR AT WHITLEY COLLINS DR RANCHO PAI VERDES. CA DETAILS & NOTES RG 101011 ' I, D-4 D-159 IN DIRT STAHLIN EIP ENCLOSURE GROUND ROD INSTALLATION FOR STEEL POLE TYPICAL SECTION (MODEL #J1412HPL) TYPICAL SECTION: N.T.S. IN,T.S.) 13 15/32 10 r0.313 B eA nt "ill Ac RULcnc E / e \ I15 1/2 131/2 / / \ A A L J 14 5/a 15 15/32 13 31/32 12 1/4 CONCRETE TEXTURED STEEL POLE FINISH GRADE I • ` SSL LATCH SECTION B-8 BARE. CU GROUND 2 R. CONDUCTOR I A Solt✓ �% CU GROUND CLAMP /ur7 /J�` / / \ I 71 31/32 y FCIN, .GE370. . \ GASKET 0.135 I TYCO N083DUAL OR EOVAL / 13 1/2 SS RAT HINGE 5 3/8 / •r 95(51S" X 8') COPPER CLAD GROUND ELECTRODE INSTALLATION NOTES 6 1/4 REF. CONCRETE WIOTHX33"YDEPTHTRENCH :BACKFILL WITH THE ORIGINAL MATERIAL FROM THE :BACKFILL TRENCH II 11 0125 1/4 TYP. 10 1/9 1� -1T V FOUNDATION RESTORE THE SURFACE STAHLIN ENCLOSURE J SERIES 6P ENCLOSURE It 17/32 MODEL M J1412HPL 13.53 x 11.55 x 5.94 SECTION A—A WEIGHT. 6.5 lbs 1 SCALE SCALE ( ) SCALE I = TS N.T.S N.T.S. NOT USED NOT USED NOT USED N/A Ni.SE N/A GALE NIA SCALE N.T.S. F ASG32 242727 CROWN CASTLE NG WEST, LLC Com,monicationfi DI Y REULxuE 11091,5 orlo5rls ASG32 295D4 SCOTWOOD DR AT WHITLEY COLLINS DR RANCHO PAI VERDES. CA DETAILS & NOTES RG 101011 ' I, D-4 D-159 ION-M7HP/85HP EU - Product Specification p.dawl Mainz pa•+n, V« MPat ICP3, dem"' wmml 1 Io200 ryrrzliry 8510 164 Morns I—, Vdr wmkl I8m60 rya.l6g Mnn Porn ca -Ption, W mor Mmp, M boded 900 Nb ND ILP3 vpmind 11 nin Xahe k9wo apimod -IE mn Noise figure. de"' 107 w— Ia— Nm.NBmrcplafud luno S0rry6d "enln�" 90 (8171 330 MMB Commends AFw7dl iLl 33w r50 Frequmrcy range. MFk 00.1 Unit011uA B6) Domini 831:819 B69 04 Cwmxbrs n0W/Aft S' sq� tbn (.am new 7693966 Op-1raN,m hss, de /s Ougw1 Pave Par cartiar, dBni I F6.type 16Nhnnrdrl9!Iilan Nrmbs d twos, F 2 a An969 955 125 39.5 3 36S Opnml lmk budges dB 0010 NSM 15.5 125 39.5 (OM 155/2S 39S 365 365 Cwnlbsile input,—. 0 OTR. maskr ode, dB. IIF 6S5 39.5 36.5 700 MHz d6.5 umn 95 92 39 36 nwrnd 5.5 DLwgwt 9rinorlce ow h9qumry. dB zl 850 ANiz nminnn 165 DLwlpul blmurrca war Imp—hn,, de z0.5 mom S S)wncvs anruren cl3dl- l Nb Inpr0 ILP3 dB."' RF I.Wf— ILP3 apt and 11rrm Nwe filar d8rm BTS Side ISMAI Number of acmecbrs Sbwlard Nose fig—, d6'" JOO XIB /Jim wmiud l0., 830 ft 1 Nan hp. a siknd 6moz Sysbm oPlimned for 813 paver, dem 5.0ni i( /3 R-- LJhd ankwra port Cenncbn 7/16 F-1, R— — d8 15 700 MMa Frequn Y range, MHz J011A 69Bie 116,"7761,107 D-114 71810757 Ovlpul pwnr par mhos, dBW HumbzrdC.nlrn 1 2 1 M LC 95.5 92.5" 39.5 36.5 DL mugwl binnnce wet hayuenry. d8 zl DL wgwl Werance oro lmnlxrraNm, de x0,5 PAN 7.5 4070.1i Spun—wrnsnr .43 Nm/1 NXr — 2dd Pane rtdumm 9.5.6tlarmmr 6vn4Mt1 5purious annszn mb Pubbe Safey N--bwldiomrefnem pain Alo6 "k 'A i 675 III, At Squ— nm lypxal wluas -lens ot—m, spend ION M7HP/85HP EU - Product Specification 90 (8171 Systmm Supmrvision and Control Commends AFw7dl iLl 33w r50 Alarms 5nww7 j i Pwm inppn — B6) IF NI zQ N btmr CSS Iw. tor. sq� tbn (.am new 7693966 Pwm I nnmel rr nb r ran mm MmsNankal• � I Height width, depth mm (Mt AL WNw BID zi/Sz71a y �A A 10191Y' DID z9.6z 161 N Vumon IN z 715 s 718 Cobium ollON.7I WIVSHP Ezlwnlrm Unit JAC Ver.iwrd %ight k8 flhl 90 (8171 Em•I—nbl OF -169 bmpsmNro mngo,'C 33w r50 Ingmn prohcdon P p o B6) for pml CSS Ordmring inFm fi— ICN -M7HP/85HP EU 7693966 Depend 0 nn 16a6nd enw%s and broolgemron IM o dr aB nnmel rr nb r ran mm nr idn*nD An. Comspmndirg A3mIn Unit ION-M17HP/I9HP 10191Y' Comspona,q MasWor Unit OiMr 0TRx70-8.5/90/1721 D60M Xt ' Sp M91Nvbd 40 nnr(I.SB IN aeord soil .. Se6poWklnnpwbi All Ngne are (ypicol.duw, wslys etsorwbe sbrod. I 1 I d I 4` : i.0 Cabi— a70NM/HP/NSHP Extension Um9 PC V..;—) ASG32 242727..., rCROWN CASTLE nn+'I NG WEST LLC 0 Communicatio(ts DIWRT 1111: IT' 11.1111 1 11111 Ciiv REnlinE a9r15 nDD PED Ua ASG32 29509 SCOTWOOD DR AT WHITLEY COLLINS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA DETAILS & NOTES r ec�r� �ia11,n is ,r. D-5 D-160 IVNz ' tz. VPt� DECOMMISSION & REMOVE EXISTING 25 V HIGH MARBELITE OCTACANAL CONCRETE STREETLIGHT (POLE ID 4h 1513500E) AND REPLACE WITH ANEW 25'6' HIGH CONCRETE TEXTURED STEEL POLE WITH MAST ARM AND LUMINAIRE (REMOVE EXISTING JUNIPER). INSTALL (11 CROVM CASTLE 4' I6 VAULT. PLUSH MOUNT VENTS WITH. METER & POWER DISCONNECT BOX WITH (2) ML IONS INSIDE. INSTALL CROWN CASTLE WTR 2' X S VAULT. INSTALL (2) 21.4' ANTENNAS 6HPA-6SF-BUU-H2 WITH CONCEALFAS TOP MOUNT & SHROUD. INSTALL VGR. EQUIPMENT AND ANTENNAS TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH POLE. SCALE: I" = 40' NEW CO FOOTAGE TOTALS NODE COORDINATE ASPHALT TRENCH 0 PUNCHTHRU 0 LATITUDE: 33.76285 DIRT TRENCH 15' BORE 0 LONGITUDE: -118.37509 TOTAL 1 15' R&R TOTAL SWP 1 CSO. FT SITE LOCATION INSTALL NEW 25' 6" HIGH STEEL CONCRETE TEXTURED STREETLIGHT (REMOVE EXISTING JUNIPER) 29504 SCOTWOOD DR AT WHITLEY COLLINS DR (2' B.O.C.) STA 100 + 61 DECOMMISSION & REMOVE EXISTING MARBELITE OCTAGONAL CONCRETE STREETLIGHT (POLE ID 1613500E) (2'8.0 C.) STA 100 + 63 6' DIRT TRENCH (SEE DETAIL 10 ON D-4) PROPOSED CROWN CASTLE WTR 2'X 3' VAULT (2' B.O.C.) STA. 99 + 56 (SEE DETAIL 7 & 9 ON SHEET D-3) 9' DIRT TRENCH (SEE DETAIL 10 ON D-4) INSTALL (1) CROWN CASTLE 4'X 6' VAULT WITH FLUSH MOUNT VENTS WITH, METER & POWER DISCONNECT BOX WITH (2) ML IONS INSIDE) (0' B.O.C.) STA. 99 + 82 (SEE DETAIL 1, 2 & 3 ON SHEET D-2, DETAIL 6 ON SHEET D-3, DETAIL 11 ON SHEET D-4, DETAIL 13 ON DS) 1 ASG32 242727 . `'CROWN CASTLE NG WEST LLC IwNYt,',%ON1INxl E I -I,. 1NCIxl:. +•. Communications I euuux pl.nrE. nvtN nm I NUYWClM1' IxlULNM1HM 1MNn,lUx+t 'I'.1I YIIIN x! U'NwwINt.N Ix p114.1-1A.1114.1-1A.11A.nNl' .IxU llUl.xTl.il. 1EIU.1Yk UN%U11NN!1 �Tts III A- I'NUYII.IN1(11 IIINIYEI+ DI NIUl:Ntlhup NU NLN I'xt:,1LFJIT CITY RECLINE 11 I5 ADD PEDW 6NOSIi6 A8G32 295D4 SCOTWOOD DR AT WHITLEY COLLINS DR RANCHO PALDS VERDE$, CA SITE PLAN I10 15 'I'1 P-1 D-162 A I ANTENNA DETAILS SCALE: 1:5 ASG32 CONCEALFAB TOP MOUNT AND SHROUD 242727 tlZIMUT 131' 2ANTENNAS 235' 9HPA-6 F-BUU DECOMMISSION d REMOVE a r C R O W N EXISTING ZS' V HIGH MARBELITE OCTAGONAL .,CASTLE CONCRETE NG WEST LLC STREETLIGHT (POLE ID 91613500E) AND REPLACE WITH NEW 25' 6- HIGH CONCRETE TEXTURED STEEL POLE. n t `&G YHPA-65F-BUU-H2 ANTENNAS AZIMUTH: 170' INSTALL MAST ARM mac, cations ommun AND LUMINAIRE Z SGO OOOOCj 0° 90° I xorxo-. L.xt luoxxu wn STREETLIGHT#1613600E TOP OF EXISTING POLE: 25' 6" TOPOFANTENN E: 25'6" TI :AI F{!T TOPOF ANTENNA: 26'1' I Wl`At,l■ RAD CENTER', 2T 1- AZIMUTHS: 170" d 330' EQUIPMENT AND ANTENNAS TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH POLE'I" ro9tt5 ASG32 29504 SCOTWOOD DR AT WHITLEY COLLINS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA POLE PROFILE .._.R6 1111171, '1"1 P2 B 30'CLOCKVtEW SCALE: 1:8 120'CLOCFVIEW SCALE: 1:8 INSTALL MAST ARM AND LUMINAIRE INSTALL MAST ARM AND LUMINAIRE 24" SHROUD TOP OF PO EAT 6' 24" 3e snauuD bHROUD � TOP OF POLE AT 25'6" SXIRT � 05 SHROUD �. SKIRT INSTALL (2) 31.4-ANTENNAS YHPA-65F-BUV412 WITH GONCEALFAB TOP MDUNT AND SHROUD TOP OF (SEE OETAll4 d 5 ON SHEET D-3) � INSTALL (2) 21.4' ANTENNAS RHPA65F-BUU-H2 WITH CONCEALFAB TOP MOUNT AND SHROUD ANTENNA (SEE DETAIL 4 8 5 ON SHEET 0.3) 2g I' ATOP OF DECOMMISSION d REMOVE ANTENNA EXISTING 2S 6"HIGH MARBELITE OCTAGONAL CONCRETE STREETLIGHT (POLE ID.1613500E) AND REPLACE KITH NEW 25'6"HIGH RAC DECOMMISSIONBREMOVE CONCRETE TEXTURED STEEL POLE. CENTER EXISTING 256-HIGH MARBELITE OCTAGONAL CONCRETE 2T I' -STREETLIGHT (POLE Ip #i611500E7 AND REPLACE WITH NEW 25' 6" HIGH RAD CONCRETE TEXTURED STEEL POLE. CENTER 1. i. GRDVIVD LEVEL INSTALL VGR INSTALL VOR (SEE DETAIL 12 ON SHEET D-4) (SEE DETAIL 12 ON SHEET D17 INSTALL (17 CROWN CASTLE 4' X 6' VAULT WITH FLUSH MOUNT VENTS VMTH,METER 6 POWER DISCONNECT BOX WITH (27 ML IDNS INSIDE) 10' B. C.) D-163 STA. ss. e2 (SEE DETAIL 1, 2 8 3 ON SHEET D-2. DETAIL 6 ON SHEET D3, DETAIL I f ON SHEET D<. DETAIL f 3 ON 0.5) A I ANTENNA DETAILS SCALE: 1:5 ASG32 CONCEALFAB TOP MOUNT AND SHROUD 242727 tlZIMUT 131' 2ANTENNAS 235' 9HPA-6 F-BUU DECOMMISSION d REMOVE a r C R O W N EXISTING ZS' V HIGH MARBELITE OCTAGONAL .,CASTLE CONCRETE NG WEST LLC STREETLIGHT (POLE ID 91613500E) AND REPLACE WITH NEW 25' 6- HIGH CONCRETE TEXTURED STEEL POLE. n t `&G YHPA-65F-BUU-H2 ANTENNAS AZIMUTH: 170' INSTALL MAST ARM mac, cations ommun AND LUMINAIRE Z SGO OOOOCj 0° 90° I xorxo-. L.xt luoxxu wn STREETLIGHT#1613600E TOP OF EXISTING POLE: 25' 6" TOPOFANTENN E: 25'6" TI :AI F{!T TOPOF ANTENNA: 26'1' I Wl`At,l■ RAD CENTER', 2T 1- AZIMUTHS: 170" d 330' EQUIPMENT AND ANTENNAS TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH POLE'I" ro9tt5 ASG32 29504 SCOTWOOD DR AT WHITLEY COLLINS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA POLE PROFILE .._.R6 1111171, '1"1 P2 B 30'CLOCKVtEW SCALE: 1:8 120'CLOCFVIEW SCALE: 1:8 INSTALL MAST ARM AND LUMINAIRE INSTALL MAST ARM AND LUMINAIRE 24" SHROUD TOP OF PO EAT 6' 24" 3e snauuD bHROUD � TOP OF POLE AT 25'6" SXIRT � 05 SHROUD �. SKIRT INSTALL (2) 31.4-ANTENNAS YHPA-65F-BUV412 WITH GONCEALFAB TOP MDUNT AND SHROUD TOP OF (SEE OETAll4 d 5 ON SHEET D-3) � INSTALL (2) 21.4' ANTENNAS RHPA65F-BUU-H2 WITH CONCEALFAB TOP MOUNT AND SHROUD ANTENNA (SEE DETAIL 4 8 5 ON SHEET 0.3) 2g I' ATOP OF DECOMMISSION d REMOVE ANTENNA EXISTING 2S 6"HIGH MARBELITE OCTAGONAL CONCRETE STREETLIGHT (POLE ID.1613500E) AND REPLACE KITH NEW 25'6"HIGH RAC DECOMMISSIONBREMOVE CONCRETE TEXTURED STEEL POLE. CENTER EXISTING 256-HIGH MARBELITE OCTAGONAL CONCRETE 2T I' -STREETLIGHT (POLE Ip #i611500E7 AND REPLACE WITH NEW 25' 6" HIGH RAD CONCRETE TEXTURED STEEL POLE. CENTER 1. i. GRDVIVD LEVEL INSTALL VGR INSTALL VOR (SEE DETAIL 12 ON SHEET D-4) (SEE DETAIL 12 ON SHEET D17 INSTALL (17 CROWN CASTLE 4' X 6' VAULT WITH FLUSH MOUNT VENTS VMTH,METER 6 POWER DISCONNECT BOX WITH (27 ML IDNS INSIDE) 10' B. C.) D-163 {' y *so 10 CO A LOCATION do w• t. i • ` L � � �� � � Cid wlF��..`7 � . n tOCATION PROPOSED _ .„ ... Z / . sf- �. /,1000,000, -� ��• s r y .�R��� fit_-y�r.k� o i 7 1 Y � � + • - -..:fit n " Lill, i• ,•may r . _ � • •� � Y 5 w.17'1' � � l'. a ?'� I.. ' •3 ,y 1 VA.1 -- -or ASG32 _ CROWN 29504 SCOTTWOOD DR AT WHITLEY COLLINS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA CASTLE�.. �✓ m.squared ENGINEERS LOOKING SOUTHEAST FROM WHITLEY COLLINS DR z7 1 v r t��; t CfTY OF('�`ICHO I'ALOS VERDES MEMORANDUM TO: NICOLE JULES, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS CC: ARA MIHRANIAN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FROM: JOHN ALVAREZ, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: JULY 21, 2017 SUBJECT: VIEW ANALYSIS FOR WIRELESS TELECOM. FACILITY- ASG32 DISCUSSION Based on a view analysis conducted on July 21, 2017, Staff has determined that the proposed wireless telecommunications facility (ASG09), adjacent to 29504 Scotwood Drive, does not create a significant view impairment from residential viewing areas, as defined in Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration Code). Generally, City defined viewing areas such as living rooms, family rooms, dining rooms and outside rear patios are located on the ground floor areas of a residence. Many, if not all, of the viewing areas within the vicinity of the proposed facility are located on the ground floor. The proposed antenna appears to impair a "sky" view, which is not a protected view pursuant to Section 17.02.040. The proposed wireless telecommunications facility is not located in a view corridor identified in the City's General Plan or Coastal Specific Plan. D-170 Columbia Telecommunications Corporation Wireless Facility Application Evaluation Applicant: Crown Castle Site # ASG -32 Description: Application to install a new DAS access site Site Location: 29504 SCOTWOOD DRIVE Site survey findings: The on-site survey of the above referenced site was conducted on August 9, 2017. Exhibit 1 is a photograph of the mockup pole and equipment cabinet for the proposed Crown Castle installation. The site location on Scotwood Drive is near the point where it connects to Whitley Collins Dr. It is positioned in the center of the target area to serve residences along the south side of Oceanridge Drive, Beachside Drive, Whitecliff Drive, Sunmist Drive, parts of Crest Road and some residences on the north side of Santa Barbara Drive. Exhibit 1— Site with Mocked Up Pole with Antenna D-171 As a part of this assignment. I conducted signal measurements of the AT&T service in the target area identified by Crown Castle to be served from the site. Before conducting the ASG Site 32 measurements, I first made measurements at the City Hall parking lot to both calibrate the test equipment and also to establish a reference sample of the network throughput and signal level (signal power relative to 1 milliwatt of the LTE information signal power RSRP {Reference Signal Received Power) an industry standard metric) near the macro tower. Measurements were made with the spectrum analyzer for all three licensed AT&T bands. The measurements confirmed that tower signals were active on all three bands. A signal level of -74 dBm RSRP was recorded at the site along with data throughput download measurements exceeding 100 Mb and uploads in the range of 45 Mb. This was fully consistent with my expectations for a properly functioning, lightly loaded 4G LTE network. I then conducted a drive test along the route shown in Exhibit 2 below. At ASG Site 32 Gap target area, the same measurements were taken near the proposed antenna site. At the proposed ASG Site 32, the signal level measurement was -115 dBm 4G LTE service. The download test registered a throughput 1.23 Mbs, and 30k bps for the upload. Generally, my experience indicates that is desirable to have a minimum signal level of at least -100 to -95 dBm to support reliable connections for both upload and download and data speeds consistent with the 3/4G technology. I note that Crown Castle in the application has specified a target signal goal of -95 dBm or greater for LTE technology. Exhibit 2 — Map Showing Existing AT&T Coverage Measured During Site Visit On the exhibit, there is an overlay is an of the target area defined by Crown Castle which is outlined in blue. Signal level measurements were made throughout the area and recorded in a slowly moving vehicle at five second intervals. The data was then plotted using the geographical coordinates onto a Google Earth map. A complete listing of the 121 measurements points used to create this coverage map can be found in Appendix A of this document. The listing includes the measured signal level, the D-172 geographical coordinates and the AT&T tower site communicated with. It should be noted that during the drive test the receiver attempted to connect to 13 individual tower sites that provide some level of signal service in the drive area. 4 of the 121 signal level test points were unable to connect at all. Throughout the ASG Site 32 gap, the signal remained 4G LTE service (except repeated 3G service data points at the NE edge of the gap on Scotwood Drive) with the majority of the signal <-105 dBm. Only in the South end of the gap (along Crest Road) was the 4G LTE signal good, albeit inconsistent. For additional information on the specifics frequencies that AT&T operates on the RPV area as well as background technical information which is applicable to all these Crown Castle applications, please see Appendix B of this document. Based on our field measurements It is our finding that within this small area there is a gap in reliable AT&T broadband services. Technical review: This new DAS wireless access facility is to be installed on a replacement street light to provide additional capacity and service on all three AT&T bands (700 MHz, PCS and AWS) to improved digital network services to customers in vehicles and buildings. Exhibit 3 is a Google map photo submitted by the applicant defining the primary service area for this site. This is the same area in which we conducted the signal level measurements for existing AT&T coverage. Exhibit 3 — Target Area Overview Two separate antennas are mounted at a radiation center located 22' —1 %" above ground level (AGL). The antennas simultaneously can support the AT&T 700, PCS and AWS bands. The site will function to provided local coverage to the area within the blue rectangle. This site work in concert with existing AT&T macro (traditional cell towers) sites. D-173 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 600 arc, aimed at azimuths of 330° and 170° respectively. Exhibit 4 — Site ASG 32 Proposed Site ASG32 To support the application, Crown Castle provided field measurements made with a temporary antenna to substantiate coverage in the target area. We have reviewed the information and also conducted both an on-site walkout of the area as well as a computerized terrain study to determine if the proposed site will address the coverage gap identified in the Crown Castle application. For the terrain profile study, we examined a series of individual path profiles from the proposed site to a sampling of locations within the gap. Exhibit 5 below shows the locations (within the gap) which were chosen for examination of the path profiles. Complete path profile information for the 6 sample sites are available in Appendix B. Based on our review of the terrain profile characteristics and the field measurement data provided by Crown Castle, we conclude that the proposal as provided will address the coverage deficiencies within the target area. D-174 Exhibit 5 — Sample Path Profile Locations Co -location options: Crown Castle has provided information on the various options that have been reviewed for the site deployment. It should be noted that the alternatives involve minor changes in the siting of the facility. In most cases the limited coverage areas of the DAS units limit or confine site selection. Generally, alternatives are selected based on aesthetic considerations since the overall coverage area is confined by the limited service area of DAS technology and location of the specific signal gap areas that are to be addressed. Findings and conclusions: The applicant (Crown Castle) has provided engineering details related to the wireless bands that will be used for the DAS deployment, including identifying transmitting equipment, power levels for each band and specifics regarding the radiation patterns of the antennas to be installed. However, information provided about existing and proposed coverage in the service area for each of the three AT&T licensed wireless bands (700 MHz, PCS and AWS) are less clearly defined; this is due to the extremely rugged and varied terrain associated with the RPV landscape. From an engineering perspective, Crown Castle has provided engineering measurement data defining gaps in AT&T coverage in small pocketed areas. I have independently examined these areas and find that the signal levels are lower than the levels industry guidelines suggested to support modern 3G/4G customer needs. Further, the engineering design provided by Crown Castle supports that, if constructed, DAS site ASG 32 will provide ample signal intensity (signal level in excess of -95 dBm) to support AT&T's 3G/4G wireless services. Currently from the information obtained in the drive tests, it D-175 appears that approximately half of the proposed service area currently is served with legacy 3G service. Signature: Lee Afflerbach, P.E. Date: 8/22/17 ctc technology & energy engineering & business consulting D-176 Counter I Date: Info Network dB. Data state: TPLatatlon latitude TP Location lon (tulle Tower CeI11D-short Tower tell lD - ion Tower LAC !oral Area [ode Log Start: 30:59:3fi Intent!: 5 seconds _ Phone type: 65M Device 10: 354775081757436 10117 10:59:41 LOST MOBILE CONNECTION ILTF -87 Disconnected 3&763007 413.3749934 30469 10805381 16370 2 8/_9/17 • 10:59:46 LOST MOBILE CONNECTION LTE -97 Disconnected 33.763007 -118.3749934 30469 20805381 16370 3 8/9/17 • 10:59:51 LOST MOBILE CONNECTION LTE.90 Disconnected 3376300 -128,3749934 30469 20805381 16370 4 8/9/17 • 10:59:56 LOST MOBILE CONNECTION LTE Disconnected 33.763007 -118.3749_934 30469 20805381 16370 5 8/9/17' 1141 _ _ HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE _ -1 Coma[ted _ 33 -77&3749934 6760 _ 142219880 _ 39678 6 8/9/17' 11:0:7 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE .109 Connected 33.76300 -118.3749934 6760 142219880 34628 8/9/17. 11:0..12 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE 4 Connected _ 33. -11&3749934 _ 6760 147719880 34628 �7 8/9/17 ` 11:0:17 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE -109 Connected 33.763007 J -118.3749934 6760 _ 34628 t'-- 98(9/17"11:0:22 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE CormeAed . 33 .76311268 -1183749514 _ _ 6760 _142219880 7 219830 34628 30 8/9/17 • 11:0:27 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE LTE -104 Connected 33.76317162 -118.3747244 6760 _14 142219880 34628 1 31 81/17 ' 11:0:.32 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE -104 Connected 33.76339 -1183743979 67W 142219880 34628 12 8{9/17' 11:0:37 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE -106 Connected 33.7636154 -118.3740113 6760 142219880 34628 13 8}9/17.11442 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE •102 Comertod 33.763 -1113736454 6760 142219990 34628 1418/9/17 11:0:47 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE -102 Connected _ 33.7639236 -118.3733232 6760 142219880 34628 25 W9/17.11:0:52 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE -101 Connected 33764014 -1183731663 6760 142219880 34628 16 8/9/17 11:0:57 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE Connected_ 33.7641020 -118.3732031 60695 141487383 34561 17 8/9117. 111:2 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE _-100 Canneded 33.7 -11&3731993 60695 _ 14L467393 34561 18 8/9/17 • 11:1:7 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE -102 Connected 33.76407783 -118.3731927 60695 141487393 34561 19 8/9/17 • 11:1:12 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE -- - 33.76408M -1883731961 3863 143331095 34600 _ 20 8/9/17' 11:1:17 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE -102 Connected 33.7640290 -118.3732864 3863 143331095 34600 21 8/9117 11:1:22 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE -1 Connected _ ____ 35.7630755- -118.3735787 3863 143331095 _ 34600 22 8/9/17 • 11:1:27 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE -114 Connected 33.76_36929 -118.3_739631 3863 143331095 34 u_600 23 8 7 • 11:1:32 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE Connected 33.7635274 -118374292 3863 143331095 34600 24 8/9/17 • 11:1:38 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE -122 Connected 33.7635898 -118.3744897 38680 141530904 34626 2518p/17 11:1'.43 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE •105 Cooneded 337682 -1183746811 6760 142219880 _ 34878 2618/9/17 • 11:1:48 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE _ -110 Connected 33.7641147 -118.3749254 6760 _ 142219880 34628 27 B1 7. 11:1153 28 8/9/17 • 11:1:58 NAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE C-aad d .111 Connected 33.764 33.76466959 -11837517 -110.3754162 55567 55567 _ 141547791 _141547791 _ 34628 34628 "9/9/17 11:2:3 _ 30 8/9/17 • 11:2:8 _ HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION UE HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE -113 C.1 -bad .111 Connected 3376401 33.76511014 4111375617 -118.3758583 55567 55567 L41547791 _ 141547791 34628 _ 34628 II- 318 /17'112:/3 3Z 8/9/17 • 11:2:18 HAVEMOBILE CONNECTION LTE HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE -11 C. -ted -111 Connected 337 33.76554856 -1113761508 -1183764779 55%7 55567 14154779/ 141547791 34628 34628 33 8/9/17. 112:73 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE •111 C ..tided 33.7657 -118376833 6248 242219368 34628 34 8/9/17' 11:2:28 _ _ _ HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE -103 Connected _ 33.7658879 -118.3772302 _ 55567 141547791 34628 35 WW17. 112:33 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE _ _ Count" 33.76601 -118.3776213 55567 [41547711 34628 36 8/9/17' 11:2:38 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE -103 Connected 33.76611513 -11'.3780044 55567 _ 141547791 34628 37 SM7. 11:2.43 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE _ -97 Connected _ W6613M_ -111373455 6248 1422893368 34626 38 8/9/17 • 11:2:48 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE -97 Connected 33.7660778 -118.37824D3 6248 142219368 34628 - 39 8!9/17. 11:2:53 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE C -e kited 3378587 -133,3782 6246 _ 142219368 _ _ 34628 40 8/9/17' 11_2.58_ HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE -89 Connected 33.76558502 -1183783495 6248 142219368 _ 34628 '__ 418/9/17 • 11:3:3 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE -85 Connected 33.7657134 -118.3783807 _ 6248 142219368 _ _ 34628 42 8/9/17' 11:3:8 _ HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE _. -86 Connected _ 33.76529655 -118.3783279 _ 6248 142219368 34628 _ --- 43 899 7' 113:14 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE •87 Connected 337652252 -11'-3780835 6248 142219368 --- 34628 44 8/9/17. 11:3:19 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE -931 Connected 33.76513374, -118.3777399 6248 142219368 34628 45 SM7.11:3:24 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE -103 Conmted 33.7649%1 -1113713788 _ 6246 142119368 _ 34628 46 8/9/17 • 11:329 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION ILTE -103 Connected 33.764854791 -118.3772883 6248 142219368 34628 /7 8/9/17. 11:3:34 4818/9/17 • 11:3_39 _ _ NAVE MOBILE CONNECTIONLTE_ ., HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE -118 Connected -102 Connected 33.76E 33.76440166 -18.3774286 -118.3776225 6248' 6248 _ 142239368 142219368 3%14 34628 498)'9/17.11:3:44 50 8/9/17 • 11:3:49 51 9/17. 11:3:54 _ HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE -112 Connecta -122-Il Connected •109 ComecLM 33.7642471 33.76411353 33. -318377704 -1183775547 -1183772372 6240 _ 6240 6248 142219960 142219360 142219368 ---- 3467E _ 34628 34629 52 8/9/17 • 11:3:59 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE -113 Connected 33.7636429 -118.3769188 6248 142219368 34628 5}SA117'11.4:/ HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE -1 Connetbad 3i -118376Y> 6760 142219880 34628 54 8/9/17. 11:4:9 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE -107 Connected 33.76290981 -118.376399 6760 142219880 34628 55 8/9/17. 11A:14 _ HAVE M0811E CONNECTION LTH -111 Connected _ 33 21B3162ni 6760 142219880 56 8/9/17' 11:4:19 57 11/9/17.11:4:14 Ng/17' 11:4:29 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE -- HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE =107 Connected -106 Connected -IOSIConnacted 33.7623405 33.762297 33.7623603 118.3762421 -11&3760262 -178.3756757 6760 6760 6760 142219880 142219860 142219880 34628 _ 3462 34628 59 17 • IIA:34 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE -101 CMneded 33.7620 -111375373 6760 141719 34628 L- 608/9/17. 11:4:39 _ HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE -101 Connected 33.76237299 -118.3752235 6760 _142219880 34628 63 BM/17,11:4AS HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LITE -1 Connected 33.767094 118.3751367 6760 142219680 34628 62 8/9/17 • 11450 6318A/17 11:4:55 HAVE MOBILE C_ONNERION LTE HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE -106 Connected -103 Connected _ _ - 33.76173634 33 -118.3750104 -113.3748199 - 6760 6760 _ _ _ 142219890 142239680 _ 34628 34628 _ 6418/9/17 11:5:0_ HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE -99 Connected 33.76106487 -118.37458411 6760 142219880 34628 ^ 65 8/9/17' 11:5:5 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE Conceded _ 33-76061 •178.374334 6760 14221%00 _ 34628 66 8/9/17' 11:5:10 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE -92 Connected 33.760692561 -118.3742802 6760 142219880 34628 _ '� 67 9 17. 11:5:[5 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTB •# Comeded _ _ 33.76049733 -118.3746017 6.760 142219880 34616 �____ 68 8/9/17 • 31:5:20 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE _ _ -86 Connected 33.76022701 -118.3748972 6760 142219880 _ 34618 _ 698/9/17'11:5:28 _ HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE _ _ -11 Connected _ 33.7599314 _ -1113753561 _ mT 6752 142219872 _ 34878 L 70 8/9/17' 11:5:30 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE _ _ -94 Connected 33.759594971 _ -118.3759551 6752 142219872 34628 71 819117 ` 115:35 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE -I Connected 33.7594142 -1383766484 6752 1422L9872 34628 72 8/9/17 • 11:5:40 _ HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE -70 Connected 33.759343 -118.3773886 _ 6752 142219872 34628 r-- 73 8/9/17 • 11:5:45_ RAVE MOBILE CONNECTIONLTE Contrecte0 337593 6152 371628 74 8/9/17' 11:5:50 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE -70 Connected _ _ ____:11837809411 33.75927043, 118.376919 _ _ 6752 _142219872 142219872 _ 34628 75 8/9/17 ' 11:5:55 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE -75 Connected 76 8/9/17' 11:6:0 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION 'LTE i -74 Connected 77 819/17' 116:6 _ HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION jLTf _ _ 7 Connected 788/9/17' 11.6.11 AYE MOBILE CONNECTION_LTE -74 Connected AM117. 116:16 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE. C nnected33.75919-_ 80 8/9/17' 11:6:21 1 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION j LTE -75 Connected 337592021 33.75919155; 33.75919 33.75919252 _ 33.75914026 -138.37955 -118.37985841 -118.3796627 -118.3798627 -338379867 -I118.3798621, 6752 6752 6752 6752 6752 6752 142U9872, 142219872 _ _!42219672 142219872 142219672 142219872 34628 34628 34828 _ _34628 34628 81 81/17 • 11:6:26 _ 82 8/9/17' 11:6:31 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE ---_- HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION -8 Connected- .73 Conn -d _ 33759___ __--11837962 33.7591695 418.3790814 6751 6752 142219872 142219872 34628 34628 _ _ 63 /I7 • 11:6:36 _LTE HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE[onnected _ _ 337582 -21A.373350 6752 --- 142219872 34628 _ 84� 8/9/17 11 fi 41 85 81 7 11 6.46 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE _ HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE -81: Con ct d -87 ConrrectM _ _ _ 33.75924469. 33759 -118.3775711 -11&376787 1_ 6752 142219872 1422198' 34628 34618 86 8/9/17 11 6:51 878/9/17 116.56 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE .HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION_ LTE "TTT" 83 Con cted -- -302 Connecta 33.75943354 _118.376031 33.7.5973 -13$37534) _ 6752 6752--1711219872 _ 142219872 34628 34018 811 8/9/17 • 11:7:1 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LITE -109 Connected _ 33.760145921 6752 142219872 34628 89x8(9/17 • 11:J 6 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE -1113IC-ted 3i- -1113711333 6752 142219672 34921 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE -120 Connected 33.7608192 118.374_1781 6752 _ 34628 _908/9/17.11:7:11 ti 91 819/17 11716 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE _101 Cortoeded 33761-11137 6760 _142219872 142219 34628 -`- 92 8/9/17 11 7.21 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE_ _ 106 Connected _ 33.76138376 -118.3747174 6760 _ _ _ 34628 93 8/9/17 11:7:26 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LIE•1 Carmeds0 _ 33.7577#1 -118.3749 676060 1421198 _^- 3462 94 8/9/17 • 11:7:32 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE -112 ct Conneed - 33.7619789 -118.37502731 67 14221988 0 34628 95 81/17. 11:7:37 NAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LITE -Yl Cannectm 33.76225 -118.3751 760 1422198 34628 968/9/17 • 11:7:42 BE. HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE _ _ _ -31 Connected 33.76264921, -118.37520791 __f- 6760 -_342219880 142219880 __ 34628 9718/9/17 11:7:47 HAVE MOBILE CONNECTION LTE _ -1 Connnled 33.. _ -118.3M467i 67501 1422198 _ 34628 D-177 D-178 Appendix B — Technical Considerations for Small Cell Wireless Networks Introduction This Small Cell Wireless Network is designed to augment and supplement existing AT&T wireless communications in Rancho Palos Verdes. On the whole, Crown Castle seeks to install dozens of these small cell antenna sites throughout the City in the public right of way. On the whole, these antenna sites operate with two directional antennas to optimize coverage in a several hundred foot area radius. Antenna Crown Castle proposes a CCI HPA-65F-BUU-H2 antenna which has the following pattern of RF radiation in the horizontal plane (Azimuth) (see Exhibit 1 below). Each color represents the radiation for the various bands with the 0 direction pointing directly to the highest radiation level. Thus, in these directional antennas, while it is represented as a 60 degree beamwidth (30 degrees on either side of the 0, from 330 to 30 degrees), there is still plenty of signal (almost half as much) nearby in the fields even 60 degrees on either side of the 0. This shows Exhibit I- RF Pattern Radiation Strength for CCI HPA-65F-BUU-H2 Azimuth D-179 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. Its w. r w 1 rf% � � \ 4�, QAC � !♦ �� d� � .*. r T-� �,• int 4" *, � _ . �.�� �`' _ � a a1 4' y \\' ��+ �• ASC. 32Ile � •' f�ol '• x'p, i �*� .,J t IFI +a = �, fi `�, `tip'• ��_/ / � }} � � ^ ',�. orL v ot Ll 1340 1330 Y 1320 a� 1310 m 1300 J 1290 1280 0 1270 1260 1250 1240 1230 1350 1340 1330 =% 1320 > 1310 1300 1290 > 1280 1270 1260 1250 1240 1230 From Proposed Antenna Site to TP 1 010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.09 0.1 0.110.120.130..140.150.160.170.180.19 0.2 Range on path (kilometers) From Proposed Antenna Site to TP 2 Range on path (kilometers) 24 1340 1330 1320 w 1310 - 1300 a>i J 1290 1280 1270 1260 1250. 1240 = 1230 1350 1340 1330 1320 1310 > v 1300 1290Ln 1280 > 1270 1260 1250 1240 = 1230 D-182 1340 1330 1320 1310 ani 1300 J 1290 v 1280 > 1270 1260 1250 1240 1230 From Proposed Antenna Site to TP 3 0.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.09 0.10.110.120.130.140.150.160.170.180.19 0.2 0.21 Range on path (kilometers) From Proposed Antenna Site to TP 5 1265 1260 5 1255 1250 `—'----_�� 1245--- > 1240 - _"'---- - 1235 1230 1225 > 1220 1215 y 1210 Q+ 1205 1200 1195 1190 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2 0.2 2 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.3 0.32 0.34 0.36 Range on path (kilometers) 1340 1330 1320g 1310-- 1300 310-1300 J 1290 1280 v 1270 1260 1250 1240 1230 1265 1260 1255 1250 1245- 1240 245-1240 > 12353 1230 12250 1220 > 1215 1210 +� 1205+ 1200 1195 1190 D-183 1265 1260 1255 1250 1245 1240 1235 1230 1225 1220 1215 1210 1205 1200 1265 1260 1255 js 1250 1245 1240 > 1235 1230 r0 1225 1220 a 1215 o' 1210 1205 1200 1195 4) 1190 x 1185 1180 1175 From Proposed Antenna Site to TP 6 1265 1260 1255 1250 1245 1240 1235 w 1230 1225 0 1220 1215 s 1210 Z 1205 x 1200 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.3 0.32 Range on path (kilometers) From Proposed Antenna Site to TP 7 1265 7 1260 1255 1250 � 1245 1240-- - 1235 > 12303 1225 ro `--_ 1220 1215 a 1210 0 1205 1200 1195 119010 1185 x 1180 1,175 0.020.040.060.08 0.1 0.120.140.160.18 0.2 0.220.240.260.28 0.3 0.320.340.360.38 0.4 Range on path (kilometers) � i� LTE Coverage Analysis Market Name: Los Angeles ❖ Rancho Palos Verdes Area oDAS ❖ Plots Completion Date: August 15, 2016 D-185 LTE Existing Macro/oDAS (PCS 1900MHz) - Coverage 7 :. LTE Coverage from Proposed New WAS (PCS 190OMHz) D-187 LTE Coverage (Existing Macro/oDAS and Proposed New oDAS) — PCS 1900MHz LEGEND Vla v1sw1a W Indoor Signal -75dBm y In -Vehicle Signal -SSdBm Vie Fetraet�rt !' _¢ 6 Outdoor Signal 98dBm u r` e 3G Marginal to Poor Coverage S R ti ``cc A9, �``` � �60 jy � - <.ta w ��1�6► �'« } `` °'' -ot?• Wes Wagon Ln, �r - + Rofto HMS — -� ♦6 q}� e Ver s I Mfr � „_- � �--- w 3 ,s A2 r 74 A • Existing Macro Sites • Proposed oDAS R ♦ Existing oDAS A LEGEND: 0 Indoor Signal -75dBn Aw In -Vehicle Signal -85dBr, 0""00"ignal -98dBn 3G Marginal to Pom Coverace w 4% do - 4W .9 4, t ;4F a 49 1. (c) 2014 AIM Intellectual Property. All rujints r -1--t, d A I el and the A I ',,I I aie tiadarwmks or A F& I I ntrl I ec',L;al 11 , , August 15, 2016 at&t LTE Coverage from Proposed New oDAS (700MHz) *rl LEGEND- %iaV1 Z& M Indoor Signal --15dBrn v Fit In -Vehicle Signal -85dBm Fe Outdoor Signal -98dBni 3G Marginal to Poor Coverage W*E Ziri 215 -Ara Ar 'J Vk C wes f %A.agon Ln 2 Rolling HiNs t Roo St PF na Q's • Existing Macro Sitesa— • Proposed oDAS P h Ln, ♦ Existing oDAS Or -i -- D-190 04 .• AftOutdoor Signal -98dBmµW Indoor Signal -75dBm In -Vehicle Signal -85dBm r • 3G Marginal to Poor Coverage ,. • • ys r �' `- 1 S V /" 1 10 (r • 4 V. ` L► • &6, t 411, + Macro Sites rI iised oDAS , i oDAS 4. ! ,c) 2014 AT&T Intellectual Property. All rights reserved. AICs and ;he AT&I - - August 15, 2016 aw CCCROWN CASTLE Collocation Analysis-ASGo8 Proposed Project Address ---Opposite 30505 Calle De Suenos Crown Castle has already submitted an extensive alternate analysis reviewing six (b) alternative locations identified in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project address. Explanation was given as to the validity of the alternative as well as expected issues Crown Castle may encounter during the design, construction and implementation of the proposed alternatives. Crown Castle is submitting an additional alternative for review in accordance with the city's application process; specifically examining the nearest known existing structure currently supporting wireless equipment in the public right of way (PROW). This alternate would be proposed as a collocation between Crown Castle and the existing carrier at that location. For ASGo8, the nearest known wireless facility is located at the intersection of Crest Rd and Calle De Suenos. The location is roughly 1425 feet north of the proposed primary, separated by single and multi -family residences, extensive mature landscaping; including large trees in excess of 25-30 feet in height, a bend in the road and a change in elevation. Collocation of the wireless facility located at Crest Rd and Calle De Suenose is not a viable alternate for the proposed facility, A sGo8, opposite 30505 Calle De Suenos. The existing facility is outside of the coverage objective for the proposed facility. There are constructability and design challenges at the location due to the existing equipment installed and technologies involved. Because of the above challenges, Crown Castle has determined that collocation of the existing facility would be inferior to the proposed primary, as such, that location does not warrant any additional consideration. The Foundation for a Wireless World. CrownCastle.com D-192 cCROWN CASTLE Crown Castle NG West LLC Site Justification Narrative Submitted to City of Rancho Pal®s Verdes Crou-in Castle 300 Spectrur, i C nt,- Suits 1200 Irvine, CA 92618 Submitted Pursuant to City of Rancho Palos Verres Municipal Code Title 12 Zoning Ordinance Chapter x 2.18.080 The Foundation for a Wireless World. CrownCastie.corn D-193 INTRODUCTION 1. CROWN CASTLE. Crovin Castle NG West LLC ("Crown Castle") provides wireless carriers with the infrastructure they need to keep people connected and business running. With approximately 40,000 tovvers 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 %vireless telecommunications network technology, ology. It is a low-proffle telecommunications system capable of delivering wireless services to customers of multiple carriers such as Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, Metro PCS and T-Mobfle, 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, on -to existing elements in the ROW such as streetlights, traffic signals, and wooden utility poles. Crown Castle SCNI therefore allows one aesthetically unobtrusive system to take the place of multiple antennas or macro -sites constructed by individual carriers -- a single, streamlined solution that avoids the prospect of multiple carrier -constructed antenna -facilities servicing a given area. Put another way, Crown Castle SCN is the ,equivalent of a collocation system, as it permits many carriers -to provide -their services over one system with only a single series of vertical elements. 2. THE PROJECT. A. The Network. Crown Castle proposes to develop a SCN n, etwork with'thirty nine (39) small cell nodes (SCN)' in the ROW in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("Network"). These nodes are described below. Yids is an application for on, e of those SCN (ASG70) submittedto the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("RPV") for review by the Department of Public Works. This particular location will provide needed wireless broadband and telecommunications services and the addition of critlaal 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 .:or a Yvfr�Iessz YIorld. C r o vv n C a s t I -a. co m D-194 rvIontemalga Drive frorn roughly Basswood Avenue to the East and Via Panorama 'Lathe West; incl adevent neighborhoods to the North and South of MoniremalgI'D a Drive ('Service Are@"). Each of the 39 nodes comprising the Network %,v ll UtiflZe UiStlng Streetfight poles, -traffic sign poles, utility poles and street sign poles located in the ROW, whenever possible. In some instances, however, a n--lj)j pole is being proposed. in the ROW because there are no existing viable alternative -from an RF perspective to achieve the coverage objective. Each SCN receives an optical signal from a central hu. b and distributes the signal to the SCN via fiber optic cable. The optical signal is then propagated from the SCN in the form of radflo frequency (RF) transmissions. Distribution of signal -from the hub to the low-power, low—profile SCN, allows carriers to provide 41dreless teleCOMMUnications and data services to areas otherwise difficuit -to reach with conventional wireless telecommunications facilities, The SCN locations are: CCI N a de ID Street Address/ Cross Street Site Type ASGO8 Across from 30505 Calle de Suenos S/L REPL ASG09 30451 Camino Porvenir S/L REPL ASGIO Across from Los Verdes Golf Club S/L REPL ASG, 11 NE Corn, er of Gingerroot/Narrissa Ex Wood UtH ASG12 24 Narcissa Rd Ex Wood Util ASG13 72 Narcissa Dr Ex Wood Uti i ASG15 28151 Highridge New Pale ASG21 Basswood/Sflverspur S/L REPL ASG25 27665 bon gh M S/L REPL ASG31 28809 Crestridge New Pole ASG corner of Whitlay/Scottwood S/L REPL C - r`3 "A1n C,- astis. com D-195 A5G33 Across 64-80 Ch-artres Drive Ne 11 :l reteP ol a ASG34 5950 Verde Ridue M S/L REPL ASG35 5722 Abbottslivood S/L REPL ASG36 Across -from 1218,825 Doverridoe Neiv Pole (concrete) ASG37 Along Ridge ate Drive near So, uthridge S/L REPL ASG38 7025 Maycrofut S/L REPL ASG39 26804 Grayslake Rd Ex Wood UtH or S/L ASG41 Palos Verdes Drive South near Seacb-ff New Pole ASG42 5207 V,@11ey View S/L REPL ASG43 5721 Crestridge New Pole ASG44 Armaga Spring @ Meadow Mist S/L REPL ASG45 Adjacent to 284,03 San Nicholas Dr S/L REPL ASG47 Across from 3087 Crownview/Higgbpoint New Pole ASG48 Basswood, @ Mossbank S/L REPL ASG49 Crest Rd Ex Wood Utihor S/L ASG53 Adjacent to 6505 fvloanero Ex Wood Util or S/L A S G 555 30001 Via River@, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA S/L REPL ASG64- South of 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West dew Pole ASG69 Across 3486 _.Seaglen Dr. S/L REPL ASG -110 Across from 3828 Monternahwa Ex Wood Utflity .ASG72 Palc)sVer d--sDri�ie(Abal�oneCo,,,;e)Sof Nar-cissa Nev'] Pole ASG73 Hawthorn-- --,it Vallon Drive Traffic h�� Fcu nd a cio"ri i Pli �'/Vc�a !,'I rc)',vr,, asH-=,m D-196 I Signal—REPL ASG74 31297 V2 Palos Verdes Dr E @ Ganado ((LA0362) S/L REPL—Ex4tt ,LA0194 approx 5127 Palos Verdes Drive 5 Ex AT&T LA,0196 Palos Verdes Drive 5 @ Boundary Trail Ex AT&T LA'0351 Schooner Drive Lx AT&T LA,0358 approx 9522 Palos Drive E ExATU LAR069 Silver Spur Rd @ Montemalaga Ex A TMT POLE REPL By using existing vertical infrastructure within the ROW whenever possible, the project seeks to reduce -the addition of nervi vertical elements, thereby minimizing intrusions into the ROW. B. The Features Df the Network Facilities. A majority of the nodes will consist of two (2) 24 -inch long antennas mounted back-to-back on existing streetlights, utility poles, traffic sign poles or street sign poles, two (2) fiber converters collocated with -the Southern California Edison ("SCE') electric meter pedestals that would power the nodes. The total height of the -facility, measured from grade level, is typically Lip to 13'-6' for -traffic sign poles, street sign poles and -free-standing poles, and, Lip to 33'-6" for streetlight poles and utility poles. (SeeExhJb1t [(Drawings: 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). 3, THE APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL. Crown Castle presents this analysis PUrsU@ntt0 the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code Title 12 — Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 12.18.08,0. (Requirements for Facilities within Public Rights -of -Way). The Poundatior, Foy aNirek�,,ss vVoHd. Crown Cas d a.c-orn D-197 Specifically, this narrative demonstrates the demands anti rationale that led to the selection of a particular location and design -for -the -facilities proposed herein. A. Applicable State Law. Crown Castle is a 'competitive local exchange carrier" ('CLEC"). CLECs qualffy 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 pu. bfic convenience and necessity" ("CPCN'), CLECs have authority under state law to "erect poles, posts, piers, or abutments" in the ROW subject only to local municipal control] over the "'time, place and manner' of access to the ROW. (Pub. Util. Code, §§ 1001, 7901; 7901.1; see VVYIjams Communication v. City of Riverside (2003) 114 Cal.App, 4th 642, 648 [upon obtaining a CPCN, atelephone corporation has 'the right to use the pubic highways to install [its] facilities."].) The CPUC has issued a CPCN (attached as Exhibit DIb) which authorizes Crown Castle to construct the Network pursuant to its regulatory status Linder state law. Crown Castle's special regulatory status as a CLEC gives rise to a vested right to use she 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[j" (Pub. Utd. Code, § 7901.) The nature of the vested right was described by one court as -follows: — `[]lt has been uniformly held that TLsection 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 con -tract based on ad, equate consideration, and that the vested right established thereby cannot be impaired by subsequent acts of the Legislature. [Citationsj` ... Thus, telephone companies have the right to use the public highways to instaii their facilities, (WIMOMS COMMUnIcations v. City of Riverside, supra, 114 Cai,App.4-th at p. 648 quoting County of 1. A. v. Southern, Cad, Tel.,Coa (1948) 32 Cal.2d 378, 384 [196 P.2d 7731.) T -.t_, , r) t_4 d -,i ,, I o n fig; 3 Vv i re I e 1 Crovvn Cas d acom While Public Utility Code section 7901.1 grants local municipalities the limited "rightto exercise reasonable control] as to the time, place, ars dmanner in, 1which roads, highways, an, d waterways are accessed,[J" such controls cannot have the effect of foreclosing use by Crown Castle of the ROW or otherwise prevent Crown Castlefrorn exercising its right under state law to 'erect poles" in the ROW. That is because "'the construction and maintenance of telephone flnes inithe streets and other public places within -the City is today a matter of state concern, and not a municipal affair." (WIVII-ams Comm unica-tion v. City, of Riversicle, supra, 114 Cal.App.4t.h at p. 653.) 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 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 Castles rights as a CLEC. B. Applicable Federal Law. The approval of the Network also is governed by the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (codified as amend in scattered sections of U.SX., 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 con, surners and encou. rage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies," (110 Stat. at 55.) As one court noted: Congress enacted the TCA to promote competition and higher quality in telecornmunications services and to encourage the rapid deployment of new telecom m Lin !cations techn cllogies. Congress intended to promote a 0 national CeflUiar ne'nvork and to secure louver prices and better service for consumers by opening all telecommunications markets to competition. (T-MobileCentroi, LLC v. Unife-d Governn, ant of Wyandotte, 528 F.Supp, 2d 1128,1146-47 (D. Kan. 2007). One way in which the Telecom Act accomplishes -these goals is by recusing impediments The F-oundation for a Wirqhe�s-, Y_Ilcwl .- rowncasrla.com D-199 imposed by local governments upon the installation of 1,14reless communications fiacilities, such as antenna facilities. (47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(A)o) 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: (a) State and local governments may not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent sen ices (§ 332�c)(7)(B)(i)('1)), (b) State and local governments may n©t regulate the placement, construction or modification of wireless service `facilities in a mana,er that prohibits, or has the effect of prohibiting, the prevision of personal wireless services (better kn, own, as the 'effective prohibition clause") (§ 332(c)(7)(!B)(i)(H)), (c) State and local governments roust act on requests for authorization to construct or modi-f,y wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time (§ 332(c)(7)(B)(ii)). (,l) Any decision by a state or local government to deny a request for construction or modifica-don ,of personal wireless service facilities roust be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record (§ 332(c)(7)(13)(111))o (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 allowing: (a) The Shot Clock Rale; On November 13, 2009, the Federal Communications Commission ('"FSC") adapted th,e "Shot Clock' Rule, placing strict time limits on local governments to asst on applications -for the siting of wireless telecommunications facilities. The Snot Clock Rule was intended to 'promote[] deployment of broadband and other wireless services" by 'reducing delays in construction and improvement of wireless networks," M White House Broadband initiative. On February 10, 2011, the White House called for a National Wireless Initiative to make availabie high-speed wireless services to at least 98 percent of Americans. The Initiative would free up spectrurn through incentive auctions, Ti,e FGundation for a 'MrP1c-ss Vvorid. Crow1` Cas tie. cL7t"? i D-200 spurring, hvnanovadon, and create a nationwide, interoperable 4wirele.ss n ervrjJodK for public saf ty+,v i -i h 9, fiscal gccai Of cay aly2inv private inv e trinant and innovation and reducing the dficit by SM bil!d-on, ,"halls the United States win -the futuira and compete in the 71st century :econornye' (47 U3.C. -5 1455�a'(!) amp!hasis added.) An "e-ligibla facilities request "Modifications' includes a request to "c:CllOcate" a facility, (1& at § 1455(a)(2)(A)e) As discussed further below, because it is a qualifying collocation facility, an argument may be made that the Project gUadifiec fc-)r Ministerial approval un, der the Spectrum Act. Further, the Federal COMM Commission recently provided, clarification to the Spectrum Act in a recently published order. The FCC noted in itsorder: We take important steps in this Report a_nd 0rclar -to prorncitc the deployment of wireless infrastructure, recognizing that it is the physical foundation that supports all wireless cornmunicationse We do this by eliminating unnecessary reVieWS, thus redUCiing'the casts and delays associated with -facility siting an,d construction. Specifically, the order (dated October 17, 2014), makes provisions for the following: Clarifi=es key terms in the Act such as Base Station, Eligible Facility Request, what is deemed Existing, and Tvivero What constitutes Substantial Change - For dowers and Base Stations sited within the public rightmo-,F- vay, a change to an existing facility is less than substantial, and must be approved if the height increase is less than ID ,increase or 10 -feet, whichever is greater, or has a ,protrusion of less than 6G meet from the ,ed -a of the structure, or if the change would -defeat concealment elements of the strvictuirao .2 Governing authority may only require docurn,entation that is reasonably related to whether the request is c-overEd Linder the rules; 9 Governing authority may not require submission of any other documentation, including proof of need. tr?r'a ttrfr'yl .. .t;=ir.l D-201 FINDINGS 1. Visual Compatibility �RPVIMC Title 12, Chap -ter 12.18.080, Sec, A Design anal Development Standards -for wireless telecornmunication, -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. Y. City of Anacortes, 572 F -3d 987, 995 (9th Cir. 2009) and as required by RPVs Wireless Telecommunications Facility Permit Application ("VV 'FPA") Section iV(2)(c) Description of Project Coverage and Purpose [Exhibit C2]. The standard, as the court noted in that case, "reqUires that the provider'show that the manner in which, it proposes to -fill the significant gap in service is the least intrusive on the values that the denial sought to serve."' (Lbifl 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, Cyd, at 995.) In this case, because Crown Castle is a CLEC entitled to construct its systems in the R01VV, its DAA ,networks are inherently ROW systems. On that basis, Crown Castle examined those alternatives theoretically available to it in -the ROW. The analysis below demonstrates why the Project qualifies as -the "least intrusive means" of filling the significant gap in service described above. A. Height of the Proposed Facilities. The antenna heights and locations of the SCN were chosen to provide the minimum signal level needed to meet critical coverage and capacity needs in the Service Area. Despite the technical limitations of a lovi-proffle system, Crown Castle seeks to maximize the coverage of each node location, since maxi mizationo-fthe node performance equates toa 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 minium number of nodes. 'The P�_­.unciaticn fof a Wir-"doss ,(Vorid. CrownCcisde.com D-202 Ba Location of the Propose' Fdcffatf_ps, -71he sefie.rted node locations maxim ?e the RF coverage of t -he node an 9 rninimi2e inter'fe-renceJoverlap with the other nodes :o'f'th e system, resulting in a lm'jver overall number of Each tl�s `fir the lel-atvvork nsl a less intrusive system. Each node provides neffective, relayof sinal fr 'thy3jart rah:, so that ?ibiquitous coverage is provided throughout the Servlce ,Ar&a, because each node is locatianafly dependent on the other nodes o'f'the Network, moving a node too liar from its proposed Iocation d?alll result in an inability meet coverage objectives and hereby l °ripalr the Net,\,vork. In selecting mode locations, Crown Castle also sough, out existing utility poles, poles an d street sign pone sites that could serve as a potential host site for aal'ternative locations. Cm S ail Canis as Least Intrusive Means Technology. Even apart 'from the siting ofthe nodees, SCN itself is inherently mWrun.ally intrusive by clesign, SCN �Nias ,developed as a smaller -scale solution to 'the larger macro -site or cell 'tower. Itthere-fore represents a significant technological advance in the development of smaller profile wireless transmission devices. As devices shrink in size, they also, by def nition, shrink in power. Accordingly, more facilities are needed and such facilities rr,ust be located closer -to the user. The nodes are designed to be smaller in seals and lower power to allow them to integrate more easily into their surroundin-s anal thereby render them less aesthetically intrusive. The small cell no de'facilities proposed ;by Crown Castle combine �@ smaller scale product with state-,o'f- the-mr't' technology that allows for multiple carriers to provide servicefrom the node. the nodes are designed to blend into the existing elements of the ROW. They ,feature narrow -profile poles and minimal equipme a Eachfacility also ,vill be designed to blend with existing 'features inthe e road° Crovin Castle's SCN network qualifies as the °'bast intn_.sive means" of filling -the identified significant gap in covergge for the following reasons, among others: i1) Crown Castle SCN utilizes the latest in wireless 1r)'fr-,.structure technology, incorponating srn�llar, iow-power facilities instead of usinS larger -- and sometimes more obtrius ve -- C e I I -Cell tOwe rs, 2 Crown Castle SrCN utilizes the RO�)V, thereby avoiding Intrusions into private property or, undevei ape d sensitive resource areas; D-203 (3) Cro,�jn Castle SCN allows for collocation by multiple carriers, thereby avoiding proliferation of nodes, �4) Crown Castle SCN strifes a balance between antenna height and coverage in order 'to minimize visual impacts; (5 ) Crown Castle SCN carefully spaces the nodes to effectively relay signal with a rninirn :im of node locations; and (6) Crown Castle SCN seeps to Utilize existing vertical elements in -the ROW, such as Utility poles and street signs, thereby minimizing the net number of vertical intrusions in the ROW. 20 Health and Safes/FCC Compliance. The FCC has preempted the field of compliance with RF emission standards. Moreover, section 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) preempts local and state govern. mentsfrom regulating the siting of wireless telecommunications facilities on the loiasis of the perceived health effects of RF emissions. Nevertheless, the Network, and all equ. iprnent 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 Fa 3. Safety and Monitoring Standards IMC § 3-8-2tD)), The FCC has preempted the fieri of compliance with RF emission standards. Moreover, section 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) preempts Deal 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. 4. Design and Development Standards (RPVMIC 12.18,080), Ao Selection Criteria for Each Node Site. Given the low pro -file of the nodes, and the resultant limitations of such a low -profile system, Crown 1 he F-:, U, nG1-:3" +;t7 iQr .a `/Vlre1es,­,; V\loF'1!�,J i..YrJVI, T1CBS:ta,coiY1 D-204 Castle seeks to maximize the coverage of each node location, since maximization of the node coverage equates to a lower overall number of facilities for the neuvork and a less intrusive system. Accordingly, each location was chosen to provide an effective relay of signal from the adlacent node, so that ubiquitous coverage is provided thi-OUghout the Service Area with the least number of nodes. Each node is locationally dependent on the other nodes of the Network. To move anode too far fro Its proposed location, will result in an, inability meet coverage objectives. Moving outside that proposed location will preclude -the ability of -the node -to properly propagate its signal to the other nodes in, the larger Network. Crown Castle also sought out existing utility pole, streetlight pole and traffic sign pole sites that could serve as a potential host site for alternative locations. The further a node is moved from its proposed location, the more the signal from that node will iattenuate, In determining other viable locations for a node, moving more than 50 feet from the proposed location may materially impair the coverage objectives for the facility. While Crown Castle is able to install new poles to achieve Its RF coverage objectives, Crown Castle made a strategic decision to minimize the installation of new poles ® where possible -- and locate the Network nodes at the site of existing vertical elements, such as street signs and wood utility poles. By approaching a network design in this matter, Crown Castle sought to avoid the risk of proliferation of verticality in the ROW. Crown Castle's approach -ensures that it has chosen the "least intrusive means' of providing service -to the Service Area. In many cases, Crown Castle identified alternative locations that are technically feasible. Yet, in each instance, Crown Castle selected the proposed site on the basis of (a) Technical -feasibility; (b) Ability to utilize existing vertical elements; (c) Ability to meet RF objectives; and �d) Minimization of visibility/aesthetic impacts. Since 29 of the 39 proposed sites use or replace existing poles -,the proposed network results in ten new vertical elements in the ROW. B. Node Locations and -the "Significant Gap" in Coverage. Th-,�Fc:)umoatiorn tor -3 WireIpss VVorJd CrownCastle.com D-205 Each node of ;the N9t,,�vor'k is necessary to -fill a significant gap in sen4ce'n the City. The significant ggap is graphiallydemonstrated as reel aired by RPVMC WTFl:ec°tion lV(3)Description tProject E �,verae and Purpose [Exhibit C, v,,hich depictsexislLing service for the anchor rr, lor the Natvvork, AT&T. (See 'Existing Service Map".) The Existing Service Map describes six levels of service, In -Building r ren); '(2) 11 - z! l l r' (l j !} t r n ) (3) In-Vehicie Yellow) and'(1) In-Vehide (Reil), (5) Poo, rto Non -:existent (BILIS) and (-6) Poor to Non -Existent (Black), Each level is dharacteri�erl by a minimum signal level. The key to .coverage is having a signal level strong enough to allow multiple custorners to maintain contact with 'the network so they can make anal rnaintain contact with the network. There is a direct correlation between the height oft -he antenna and the strength of the service. in this case, ;Crown 'Cantle's-3esiign seeks a minimum of RF propagation level, which provides a Sufficient level of service to address sgrovving capacity demands and to reach indoor users, while avoiding pales that may be too obtrusive. The courts have upheld the use of in - building minimum standards as a proper benchmark for determining whether a significantgap in Coverage exists. (See, e,ga, MetroPCS Inc. v, pity and County. of San F=rancisco (N,�D,Cah 2006) 20,06 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43935 Z" careful reading of existing, cases -that contain a signifi-cant gap analysis persuades the court that any analysis, should inWUlde consideration of a wireless carrier's in, ®buil'ding coverage,''.l.) In this case, 'existing service levels in the Service Area fall below the minimum standard for adequate in -building coverage. (See Existing Service T1ap,) The need to fill the existing sign �ficant coverage gals to a level that allows adequate in bu fding, coverage and to address growing, capacity demands is underscored by the greater numbers of customers dropping their land Ines and relying solely on wireless telecommunications for their phone service, Additionally; (1) 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,, .1 (2) 48 percent of all Amen an homes are novi wireless only,' (3) dere and more civic leaders and emergency response personnel cite lack of a robust, wireless network as a gro�sving public safety risk. The number of 911 call; placed by ' f 1,13yat1� ?or �=conof;l .. Co--ope .tical a-inu4 D'avels men i W e r -a e f ed of `' ::i'nd p ,,���j�r anis , !. 3a 1, Industry? 'Broadb-ncl Statistics)" ilfe 2310ja i1 may' i fi �`IP�r n 3 Federal Comm ,ln') itlo ns Ccm i-, sslon. (April 2013), c D-206 people using -wireless phones has s1gnfflcantly increased in recent years. It is estimated that about 70 percent of 911 calls are placed from �oilreless phones, and that percentage is growing.' (4) Data demand from neva smart;phones 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 haif of 2010. Similarly, AT&T reports that its wireless data volumes have increased 30 -fold since the introduction of the Phone°s (5) 5x projected mobile data traffic growthfrom 2115 to 2020.1 As more Americans depend on wireless communications technologies and srnartphone, reliable network capacity and in -building coverage will be critical, These are some of -the :reasons courts now recognize that a "sign fican.t gap, can exist on the basis of inadequate in -building coverage. (See, e.g., etroPCS lace Y. Caty sand County of Son Francisco, supra, U.S. mist, LEXIS 43985; T obile Central, LLC va Unified Government of Wyandotte County, (D.Kans, 2007) 528 F.Supp,2d 1128,) Applying these principles to the Service ,Area, Exhibit C3, reveals that Service Area is currently experiencing insufficient signal. Users in the Service .Area therefore would experience an int6erably high percentage of blocked and dropped calls for outside use, with a commensurate decline in signal strength as one rooves toward the inside of existing buildings and homes. Crown Castle seeps to provide sufficient signal strength to ensure not only adequate signal -for mobile and outdoor users, but reliable in -building coverage, for all those customers who may seep to abandon their home iandlines and sufficient capacity to address new data demands -from smartphones and tablets. Wireless customers roust be able to count on a level sof service commensurate with that provided by their landlinese Such considerations are relevant to a determination of significant gap. (See, e.g., T Mobile LLC ve City of Froser, (E.D. Mich. 2009) 675 F, Supp, 2d ` 21 11considering -failure rate of 911 emergency calls,]) seder'ql COMM Un Cornet sslon (2013) httpoJ'vwvva��,f��,����fg?ai�les��������i�ss-�l�-ser�f3y��, ExeCLItNe Office of the President CouncH of Economic Advisors .(White ;-Huse., Feb. 20 .2) at 2-06a The Fc.r_rr;dat!,on for -a fir` clr'ld 4—rovv n Cas d e. --om D-207 By contrast, instafladon of the proposed nodes comprising the project would result in adequate outdoor and in -building coverage. (See Exhjbit Exhibit 10(e) [predicted coverage map A�vjth node (..-'not macros]; Exhibit C3(a) and (d) [predicted coverage map �jvfthout node,( ... not macros].) Crown Castle has developed a nUmberof 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 E1 - Engineering, Plans). The proposed designs represent the latest achievement in reducing the profile of the -,facilities. A smaller antenna configuration wou-Ld impede larger aesthetic objectives of facilitating collocation and minimizing the need for additional networkfacifitles 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 custorners use the network. By contrast, the panel antennas proposed in the Network provide ample capacity for increased user demand (e.g., increased data needs). CONCLUSION Crown Castle respect -fully presents its application for a Major Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Permit/conditional Lisa permit -for the Network. Crown, Castle"s representatives are on hand to answer any questions. The a:= �)un,1.1­3 t i ', n I"4 i, a r-7? 1 e z s `.Al,-) r�; d, JERROLD T. BUSHBERC Ph.D., DABMP, DABSNM, FAAPM, FHPS ♦ HEAL TH AND MEDICAL PHYSICS CONSULTING* 7784 Oak Bay Circle Sacramento, CA 95831 (800) 760-8414—jhushberg@hampc.com Albert Landicho October 30, 2016 Crown Castle 300 Spectrum Center Suite 1200 Irvine, CA 92618 Introduction The proposed project consists of the installation and operation of wireless equipment for Crown Castle on utility poles. This report provided a review the technical specifications and a calculation of the maximum radiofrequency, (RF), power density from the proposed Crown Castle nodes to be located in the public right-of- way in Rancho Palos Verdes, CA. The project scope includes the installation of new wireless equipment and all associated brackets in accordance to construction specifications and governing construction guidelines as depicted in the node configuration drawing (attachment 1). These nodes will be used for wireless telecommunications transmission and reception utilizing two directional CCI antennae model HPA-65F-BUU-H2 mounted to a utility pole. Each of the panel (sector) antennae used in this network is designed to transmit with a maximum input power of up to 16.98 watts, with a gain of up to 7.85 dB resulting in an effective radiated power (ERP) of 103.5 watts at approximately 700 MHz; 16.98 watts, with a gain of up to 8.35 dB resulting in an effective radiated power (ERP) of 116.1 watts at approximately 850 MHz; 16.98 watts, with a gain of up to10.65 dB resulting in an effective radiated power (ERP) of 197.3 watts at approximately 1,900 MHz and 16.98 watts with a gain ofu p to 11.45 dB resulting in an ERP of 237.2 watts at approximately 2,100 MHz. The distance from the antenna center to the ground for all nodes will be at least 13.9 feet. The antenna specification details are depicted in attachment two. This analysis represent the worst case potential RF exposure for a site utilizing the transmission and antennae specifications. There will be 15 nodes of this configuration proposed for Rancho Palos Verdes, CA (see Appendix A-0). Calculation Methodology Calculations at the level of the antenna were made in accordance with the cylindrical model recommendations for near -field analysis contained in the Federal Communications Commission, Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin 65 (OET 65) entitled "Evaluating Compliance with FCC-Guidehnes for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields." RF exposure calculations at ground level were made using equation 10 from the same OET document and taking into account the actual antenna pattern and gain as a function of the elevation angle and distance from the antenna at ground level. Several assumptions were made in order to provide the most conservative or "worse case" projections of power densities. Calculations were made assuming that all channels were operating simultaneously at their maximum design ERP. Attenuation (weakening) of the signal that would result from surrounding foliage or buildings was ignored. Buildings or other structures can reduce the signal strength by a factor of 10 (i.e., 10 dB) or more depending upon the construction material. In addition, for ground level calculations, the ground or other surfaces were considered to be perfect reflectors (which they are not) and the RF energy was assumed to overlap and interact constructively at all locations (which they would not) thereby resulting in the calculation of the maximum potential exposure. In fact, the accumulations of all these very conservative assumptions, will significantly overestimate the actual exposures that would typically be expected from such a facility. However, this method is a prudent approach that errs on the side of safety. D-209 RF Safety Standards The two most widely recognized standards for protection against RF field exposure are those published by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) C95.1 and the National Council on Radiation Protection and measurement (NCRP) report #86. The NCRP is a private, congressionally chartered institution with the charge to provide expert analysis of a variety of issues (especially health and safety recommendations) on radiations of all forms. The scientific analyses of the NCRP are held in high esteem in the scientific and regulatory community both nationally and internationally. In fact, the vast majority of the radiological health regulations currently in existence can trace their origin, in some way, to the recommendations of the NCRP. All RF exposure standards are frequency -specific, in recognition of the differential absorption of RF energy as a function of frequency. The most restrictive exposure levels in the standards are associated with those frequencies that are most readily absorbed in humans. Maximum absorption occurs at approximately 80 MHz in adults. The NCRP maximum allowable continuous occupational exposure at this frequency is 1,000 p,W/em-. This compares to 5,000 gW/cm- at the most restrictive of the PCS frequencies (1,800 MHz) that are absorbed much less efficiently than exposures in the VHF TV band. The traditional NCRP philosophy of providing a higher standard of protection for members of the general population compared to occupationally exposed individuals, prompted a two-tiered safety standard by which levels of allowable exposure were substantially reduced for "uncontrolled " (e.g., public) and continuous exposures. This measure was taken to account for the fact that workers in an industrial environment are typically exposed no more than eight hours a day while members of the general population in proximity to a source of RF radiation may be exposed continuously. This additional protection factor also provides a greater margin of safety for children, the infirmed, aged, or others who might be more sensitive to RF exposure. After several years of evaluating the national and international scientific and biomedical literature, the members of the NCRP scientific committee selected 931 publications in the peer-reviewed scientific literature on which to base their recommendations. The current NCRP recommendations limit continuous public exposure at PCS frequencies to 1,000 µw/cm,. The 1992 ANSI standard was developed by Scientific Coordinating Committee 28 (SCC 28) under the auspices of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE). This standard, entitled "IEEE Standards for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz" (IEEE C95.1-1991), was issued in April 1992 and subsequently adopted by ANSI. A complete revision of this standard (C95.1-2005) was completed in October 2005 by SCC 39 the IEEE International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety. The current version, including minor revisions, was published in March 2010. Their recommendations are similar to the NCRP recommendation for the maximum permissible exposure (MPE) to the public PCS frequencies (950 gW/cm'- for continuous exposure at 1,900 MHz) and incorporates the convention of providing for a greater margin of safety for public as compared with occupational exposure. Higher whole body exposures are allowed for brief periods provided that no 30 minute time -weighted average exposure exceeds these aforementioned limits. On August 9, 1996, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) established a RF exposure standard that is a hybrid of the current ANSI and NCRP standards. The maximum permissible exposure values used to assess environmental exposures are those of the NCRP (i.e., maximum public continuous exposure at PCS frequencies of 1,000 µW/cm' ). The FCC issued these standards in order to address its responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to consider whether its actions will "significantly affect the quality of the D-210 human environment." In as far as there was no other standard issued by a federal agency such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the FCC utilized their rulemaking procedure to consider which standards should be adopted. The FCC received thousands ofpages of comments over a three-year review period from a variety of sources including the public, academia, federal health and safety agencies (e.g., EPA & FDA) and the telecommunications industry. The FCC gave special consideration to the recommendations by the federal health agencies because of their special responsibility for protecting the public health and safety. In fact, the maximum permissible exposure (MPE) values in the FCC standard are those recommended by EPA and FDA. The FCC standard incorporates various elements of the 1992 ANSI and NCRP standards which were chosen because they are widely accepted and technically supportable. Where are a variety of other exposure guidelines and standards set by other national and international organizations and governments, most of which are similar to the current ANSI/IEEE or NCRP standard, figure one. The FCC standards "Guidelines for Evaluating the Environmental Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation" (Report and Order FCC 96-326) adopted the ANSVIEEE definitions for controlled and uncontrolled environments_ in order to use the higher exposure levels associated with a controlled environment, RF exposures must be occupationally related (e.g., PCS company RF technicians) and they must be aware of and have sufficient knowledge to control their exposure. All other environmental areas are considered uncontrolled (e.g., public) for which the stricter (i.e., lower) environmental exposure limits apply. All carriers were required to be in compliance with the new FCC RF exposure standards for new telecommunications facilities by October 15, 1997. These standards applied retroactively for existing telecommunications facilities on September 1, 2000. The task for the physical, biological, and medical scientists that evaluate health implications of the RF database has been to identify those RF field conditions that can produce harmful biological effects. No panel of experts can guarantee safe levels of exposure because safety is a null concept, and negatives are not susceptible to proof. What a dispassionate scientific assessment can offer is the presumption of safety when RF -field conditions do not give rise to a demonstrable harmful effect. Summary & Conclusions All Crown Castle antenna systems operating with the maximal exposure conditions characteristics as specified above and observing a 8 foot (public) and 5 foot (occupational) exclusion zone directly in front of and at the same elevation as the antenna, will be in full compliance with FCC RF public and occupational safety exposure standards (see appendix A-1). These transmitters, by design and operation, are low-power devices (see attachment 2). An RF safety caution sign, as depicted in appendix A-2 should be placed near the antenna. This sign should contain appropriate contact information and indicate that RF exposures at 5 and 8 feet or closer to the face of the antenna may exceed the FCC occupational and public exposure standards respectively. 'Thus only qualified RF workers may work within the 8 foot exclusion zone. The maximum RF exposure at ground level from this node will not be in excess of 10.7% of the FCC public safety standard, (see appendix A-3). A chart of the electromagnetic spectrum and a comparison of RF power densities from various common sources is presented in figures two and three respectively in order to place exposures from wireless telecommunications systems in perspective. Given the low levels of radiofrequency fields that would be generated from all Crown Castle directional antenna installations of this configuration, (e.g., antenna specification and input power); where the center of the antenna is 13.9 or more feet above grade, and the 8 foot public exclusion zone directly in front and at the same elevation as the antenna is observed, there is no scientific basis to conclude that harmful effects will attend the utilization of these proposed wireless telecormnunications facilities. This conchision is supported by a large numbers of scientists that have participated in standard-setting activities in the United States who are overwhelmingly agreed that RF radiation exposure below the FCC exposure limits has no demonstrably harmful effects on humans. D-211 These findings are based on my professional evaluation of the scientific issues related to the health and safety of non -ionizing electromagnetic radiation and my analysis of the technical specification as provided by Crown Castle Networks. The opinions expressed herein are based on my professional judgement and are not intended to necessarily represent the views of any other organization or institution.. Please contact me if you require any additional information. Sincerely, oma, Jerrold T. Bushberg Ph.D., DABMP, DABSNM, FAAPM Diplomate, American Board of Medical Physics (DABMP) Diplomate, American Board of Science in Nuclear Medicine (DABSNM) Fellow, American Association of Physicists in Medicine (FAAPM.) Fellow, health Physics Society (FHPS) Enclosures: Figures 1-3; Attachment 1,2; Appendix A -O, A-1, A-2, A-3 and Statement of Experience. D-212 National and International Public RF Exposure Standards (DAS @ 1,950 MHz) `4 oi� `tea Q J� �G6 zp Q�� s2`� ? rya G � � �� P �,D'a �� ti 5 'd ".,do '0 P Cdr d *International Commission on Non -Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) Public Safety Exposure Standard. ICNIRP standard recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO). Members of the ICN -IRP Scientific Committee were from: • Australia . Finland • France • Germany • Hungary • Italy • Sweden • Japan • United Kingdom • United States ............................................. F iWure.................. 94LMPC 2008 All Rights Reserved D-213 1 � 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 oi� `tea Q J� �G6 zp Q�� s2`� ? rya G � � �� P �,D'a �� ti 5 'd ".,do '0 P Cdr d *International Commission on Non -Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) Public Safety Exposure Standard. ICNIRP standard recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO). Members of the ICN -IRP Scientific Committee were from: • Australia . Finland • France • Germany • Hungary • Italy • Sweden • Japan • United Kingdom • United States ............................................. F iWure.................. 94LMPC 2008 All Rights Reserved D-213 F-- Non Ionizing Electromagnetic 00, 4- Ionizing Electromagnetic Radiation (NI/EMR) ' Radiation Power Line Wireless PCs -1,900 M& Communication Cellular -900. Z i 60 Hertz Services Visible Television light v Medical Ultra- diagnosis Microwaves violet and ))))er lamp therapy Radio Toast T�f aii�oisi p to 0 ' A 0 X111 Electric and •— X-rays ---► Magnetic Radio & Td waves Infrared Ultra Cosmic Fields violet amma Rays Energy (ev) rays 10"13 10-1' 10-31 10-10 10-9 10'8 10-2 le 10'5 10-1 10-3 10"2 -1 1 10 102 103 le le 106 le 108 109 1010 1011 T © HAINIPC 2008 AD Rights Reserved Figure 2 D-214 .................................................................................................................................................................... Typical Exposure from Various Radio Frequency / Microwave Sources 350 N 300 250 200 150 100 0 w 50 f� 250 30 20 15 1 1 0.1 O Cordless Bluetooth CB Outside WiFi Baby Typical Mas. TypicalDAS Phone Headset Mobile Microwave Laptop Monitor Public Public Radio Oven Exposure Exposure in from a DAS Neighborhood Transmission Site Figure 3 .................................................................................................................................................................... HANIPC 2008.0 Rights Reserved D-215 Crown Castle Ground -Mounted Two Remote Configuration Site Name: ASG32 29504 Scotwood Dr At Whatley Collins Dr Rancho Palos Verdes, California Prepared For Crown Castle Attention: Aaron Snyder 300 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 1200 Irvine, California 92618 Phone: 949-344-7334 Prepared By Eilar Associates, Inc. Acoustical & Environmental Consulting 210 South Juniper Street, Suite 100 Escondido, California 92025 www. e i la rassociates. co rn Phone: 760-736-5570 Fax: 760-738-5227 10/12/2016 D-216 August 11, 2016 Job #B60622N1 Crown Castle Attention: Aaron Snyder 300 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 1200 Irvine, California 92618 EILAR ASSOCIATES, INC. Acoustical and Environmental Consulting 210 south Juniper street, Suite 100, Escondido, CA 92025 Ptwww 7W738 -WO or 800-439-8205 - Fax: 760-738-5227 www.eUwassociates.com - inf6WHarassociates.com Subject: Equipment Noise Measurements for Crown Castle (Ground -Mounted Two Remote Configuration) Eilar Associates has conducted equipment noise measurements of the ground -mounted cabinet at an existing Crown Castle node location known as AHW11. 'These equipment noise measurements were conducted to determine compliance with City of Rancho Palos Verdes noise regulations for future similar installations. Equipment Noise Sources Noise measurements were taken of the existing equipment cabinet located at 691 Paseo de Playa in the City of Torrance, California. The equipment is located within the public right-of-way. The equipment consists of two Andrew IONs 1) [1A.17HP19HP unit and 1) M7HPI85HP-EU unit installed inside of a CISH51 equipment pedestal that was ground -mounted at the site. The entire installation will hereafter be referred to as cabinet" in this report. The cabinet is the only source of noise associated with Crown Castle at this location and likewise is expected to be the only source of noise at future similar installations. Noise and Sound Level Descriptors All noise level or sound level values presented herein are expressed in terms of decibels (dB), with A -weighting, abbreviated "dBA," to approximate the hearing sensitivity of humans. Time -averaged noise levels are expressed by the symbol "LEQ." Unless a different time period is specked, "LEQ" is implied to mean a period of one hour. Methodology Attenuation due to distance is calculated by the equation:. SPL, = SPLI — 20 log(—D2 ) D, where SPL, = Known sound pressure level at known distance, SPL2 = Calculated sound pressure level at distance, D, = Distance from source to location of known sound pressure level, and D2 = Distance from source to location of calculated sound pressure level. D-217 Equipment Noise Measurements for Crown Castle (Ground -Mounted Two Remote Configuration) August 11, 2016 Job #1360622N1 Page 2 of 4 This is identical to the more commonly used reference of 6 dB reduction for every doubling of distance. This equation does not take into account reduction in noise due to atmospheric absorption. Applicable Noise Standards The noise regulations applicable to installations in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes are contained within the City Municipal Code, which specifies noise limits for wireless telecommunications facilities located within the public right-of-way. Section 12..18.080, Item A16b of the municipal code states the following: At no time shall equipment noise from any facility exceed an exterior noise level of 55 dBA three feet from the source of the noise if the facility is located in the public right-of-way adjacent to a business, commercial, manufacturing, utility or school zone; provided, however, that for any such facility located within 500 feet of any property zoned residential or improved with a residential use, such equipment noise shall not exceed 45 dBA. As installations located within 500 feet of residential property will be subject to meeting the more stringent 45 dBA noise limit, this noise limit has been considered the appropriate threshold for all future installations in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Measurement Equipment The following equipment was used at the existing equipment site to measure noise levels: • Larson Davis Model LxT Type 1 Integrating Sound Level Meter, Serial #4084 • Larson Davis Model CA250 Type 1 Calibrator, Serial #2625 • Tripods, microphones with windscreens The sound level meter was field -calibrated immediately prior to all noise level measurements and checked afterwards, to ensure accuracy. All sound level measurements conducted and presented in this report were made with sound level meters that conform to the American National Standards Institute specifications for sound level meters (ANSI S1.4). All instruments are maintained with National Bureau of Standards traceable calibration, per the manufacturers' standards. On -Site Noise Level Measurements A site visit at the AHW11 site was conducted during the late night hours of Monday, August 8, 2016 and early morning hours of Tuesday, August 9, 2016 to perform noise level measurements while the cabinet was in operation and to determine ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the cabinet. During the ambient noise measurement, the microphone position was placed approximately five feet above grade, while the microphone was placed at a height of three feet, ten inches for all measurements taken of the cabinet itself. An ambient noise measurement was performed approximately 20 Feet south of the cabinet location. As equipment noise was inaudible at this location, this measurement was able to effectively determine the ambient noise environment without the influence of the equipment. The primary contributors to the ambient noise environment were traffic on nearby roadways, and rooftop mechanical equipment from a nearby property. The ambient noise level was measured to be 40.0 dBA at 12:00 a.m. As cabinet noise measurements were paused for extraneous noise sources, this Eilar Associates, Inc. - 210 South Juniper Street, Suite 100, Escondido, CA 92025.760-738-5570 - Fax 760-738-5227 D-218 Equipment Noise Measurements for Crown Castle (Ground -Mounted Two Remote Configuration) August 11, 2016 Job #860622N1 Page 3 of 4 noise measurement is considered to be representative of the ambient noise at the cabinet noise measurement locations during the measurements detailed herein. Noise level measurements of the cabinet were performed at one foot from the front side of the cabinet, and were then adjusted to determine the noise level at three feet using the distance attenuation calculation detailed herein. Noise levels were observed to be quieter at all other sides of the cabinet, and therefore, noise measurement results from the front of the cabinet can be considered worst-case. The cabinet operates continuously at a single speed, and for this reason, the short duration measurements detailed below are considered to be representative of the noise levels generated by the cabinet at all times. Please refer to Table 1 for the noise measurement data and adjusted noise levels of the cabinet. A graphical representation of noise measurement locations is shown in Figure 1. Table 1. Noise Measurements and Adjusted Noise Levels at AHW11 Equipment Site Noise Level (dBA) Start Time Position Duration Noise Limit Compliance (sec) At 1 from At 3 from (dBA) Cabinet Cabinet 11:53 p.m. Front 90 51.3 41.3 45 at 3' Yes As shown above, cabinet noise levels are shown to be approximately 41 to 42 dBA at three feet from the cabinet, falling below the 45 dBA noise limit of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. These noise levels do not account for any adjustment due to the ambient noise environment at the AHW11 site, which would demonstrate noise levels that are further reduced from what is shown herein. As noise levels at three feet from the cabinet in its current installation at AHW11 are shown to be less than the most stringent noise limit of 45 dBA at three feet from the equipment, and as equipment within the cabinet operates constantly, it can be concluded that future similar installations will also comply with the applicable residential noise regulations of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, provided the identical shroud and two ION units are used. As sites located within nonresidential areas would be subject to meeting higher noise limits (55 dBA at three feet from equipment), noise levels at installations located in nonresidential areas would also be expected to comply with applicable noise limits. Based on the noise measurements documented herein, no mitigation is deemed necessary for attenuating exterior noise levels from wireless equipment operation at future similar installations. Conclusion Noise levels generated by the ground -mounted two remote configuration equipment at the AHW11 node were determined to be in compliance with City of Rancho Palos Verdes noise regulations, which require noise levels that do not exceed 45 dBA at three feet from wireless equipment in the right-of-way near residential properties. Based on these noise measurements, it can be concluded that future similar installations will also comply with the applicable noise regulations of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes in both residential and nonresidential areas, provided the identical shroud and two ION units are used. Based on the noise measurements documented herein, no mitigation is deemed necessary for attenuating exterior noise levels from wireless equipment operation at future similar installations. Eilar Associates, Inc. • 210 South Juniper Street, Suite 100, Escondido, CA 92025.760-738-5570 • Fax 760-738-5227 D-219 Equipment Noise Measurements for Crown Castle (Ground -Mounted Two Remote Configuration) August 11, 2016 Job #1360622N1 Page 4 of 4 This report is based on project information received and measured noise levels, and represents a true and factual analysis of the acoustical impact issues associated with Crown Castle Ground - Mounted Two Remote Configuration installations in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California. This report was prepared by Jonathan Brothers, ®an Gershun, and Amy Hool. EILAR ASSOCIATES, INC, Amy Hool," rinci I Acoustical Consultant Figures JonaVVn Brothers, Senior Acoustical Consultant Satellite Aerial Photograph Showing Noise Source and Noise Measurement Locations at AHW11 Site Ellar Associates, Inc. • 210 South Juniper Street, Suite 100, Escondido, CA 92025.760-738-5570 • Fax 760-738-5227 D-220 FIGURES D-221 E ui of Location d P' moor ��PntDient N®6Tue it- - t 4 , iNeasurement Location 1 -E 'T •e 5 ,f ,1 Eilar Associates, Inc. Satellite Aerial Photograph Showing Noise 210 South Juniper Street, Suite 100 Source and Noise Measurement Locations Escondido, California 92025 I at AHW11 Site Figure 760-738-5570 Jots # B60622N1 T D-222 TA—E OF CAIiFORNIA Edmmd G. Brown PUBUC UTUTES CO?ANIIHSSION 505VAK NESS AVENUE SA . FRANCISCO, CA 941 W -3P.95 N o v e lil b e r 1 '2. '2-1 0 14 Mary Chiodo Crown, Castle. 2000 Corporate Drive Can,unsburg, PA 15317 Dear els. Chiodo: r�� NextGNNe-mvorLq of California/Crown Castle submitted Notice of ProposedConstruction for the installation of- (1) new, micro -antenna; (2� nee v u-ndearc garmu-nd/aefialfilber uptics•c�ble;(3)ne-w and replacement utility poles in Rancho Palos Verdes, Calif-omia. The NNPC requests the Energy Division to act upon NextG's request for a determination that the proposed project is consistent ivith the activities identificd as caaego rical-i- exerrapt from the Calikirnia Envir-oTmner-tal Quaity Act (CEQA) by the California Public Utilities Comrra ssion (Commission). I In January 2-003e the Commission granted NextG the authority to operate as 11 -m -ted facilities - based (LFBI carrier in Califon -Aa. In May 2006, Next -G sub it' A.06-05-931 seeking expansion of its LF B authority to inol-u& the installation of Di3trikitied Antemna, Sys-tenm (DAS) inicro-antennae, and other related eql-flpm-, ent in California. In the application; -,WL-.d -that its projects nnky include the installation of -a I imited number of new poles, mmil scale or mlcro- trenching, conduit installation, and the installation of laterals. Under D,07-("'-0345, the Conan-Assio?,ad-etermined 1"nat the projects planned by NeNtG wotild fall -within One of Several categorical e-�Impfions identified rider CEQA, and that fUrther environmental review -,Tuuld not be required The Energy Division has revi-e-vved the NextG'Cr,--vvn Castle proposal to install DAS e-quipment in Rancho Palos Verdes and has determined that the proposed project is consistent with the actions ident-ified by the Commission as categorically exempt firc _A. mm CEQThe E,,nergy Div-, sion hereby grants N--XtG with tincaufhotiay to proceed with the construction e, of the pro -'cl as described in the i\ PC. Sincerely, f A 'Jensen Uchida California Public Utilities Commussi-or Regulatory Analyst D-223 7/14/2016 ULS License- Cellular License- KNKA351 - AT&T Mobility Spectrum LLC {.e l se Cellular License - KNKA351 - AT&T MobilitySpectrum LLC Call Sign KNK.A351 Status Active Market Market CMA002 - Los Angeles -Long Beach/Anaheim Radio Service CL - Cellular Auth Type Regular Channel Block A Submarket 0 Phase Dates Grant 11/06/2007 Expiration Effective 12/05/2014 Cancellation Five Year Buildout Date 11/22/1998 Control Points 1 6045 EAST SLAUSON AVENUE, COMMERCE, CA 2 301 NORTH CRESCENT WAY, ANAHEIM, CA 3 15215 SOUTH BROADWAY, GARDENA, CA Ali Control Points (4j FRN 0014980726 Type Licensee K 10/01/2017 Limited Liability Company AT&T Mobility Spectrum LLC P:(855)699-7073 3300 E. Renner Road, B3132 F:(972)907-1131 Richardson, T:( 75082 E:FCCMW@att.com ATTN Reginald Youngblood Contact AT&T Mobility LLC P:(202)457-2055 F:(202)457-3073 1120 20th Street, NW - Suite 1000 E:michael.p.goggin@att.com Washington, DC 20036 ATTN Michael P. Goggin Radio Service Type Fixed Regulatory Status Common Carrier Interconnected Yes Alien Oiivnersblp The Applicant answered "No" to each of the Alien Ownership questions. Basic Qualifications The Applicant answered "No" to each of the Basic Qualification questions. Race http://avi reless2.fcc.gov/U I sApp/U I sSearchJl icense.j s p?li cKey=12514$.pri ntable D-224 7/14/2016 ULS License- PCS Broadband License- KNLF205- NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC ULS License PCS Broadband License - KNLF205 - NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC Call Sign KNLF205 Radio Service CW - PCS Broadband Status Active Auth Type Regular Market Market MTA002 - Los Angeles -San Diego Channel Block B Submarket 37 Associated 001870,00000000 - Frequencies 001885,00000000 (MHz) 001950.00000000- 001965.00000000 Dates Grant 06/05/2015 Expiration 06/23/2025 Effective 06/05/2015 Cancellation Buildout Deadlines 1st 06/23/2000 2nd 06/23/2005 Notification Dates 1st 05/05/2000 2nd 03/14/2003 FRN 0003291192 Type Limited Liability Company Licensee NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC P:(855)699-7073 3300 E. Renner Road, 83132 F:(972)907-1131 Richardson, TX 75.082 E:FCCMW@att.com ATTN Reginald Youngblood Contact AT&T MOBILITY LLC P:(202)457-2055 Michael P Goggin F:(202)457-3073 1120 20th Street, NW - Suite 1000 E:michael.p.goggin@att.com Washington, DC 20036 AT -FN Michael P. Goggin Radio Service Type Mobile Regulatory Status Common Carrier Interconnected Yes Alien Ownership The Applicant answered "No" to each of the Alien Ownership questions. Basic Qualifications The Applicant answered "No" to each of the Basic Qualification questions. Tribal Land Bidding Credits This license did not have tribal land bidding credits. http:/Mjirel ess2.fcc.gov/U lsApp/U IsSearcWlicense.j sp?licKey=8882&has Lease=Y&printable D-226 _^^6 7/14/2016 ULS License- 700 MHz Louver Band (Blocks A, B & E) License- WQJ0721 - ATU iMobility Spectrum LC ULS License 700 MHz Lower Band (Blocks A, B & E) License - WQJQ721 - AT&T Mobility Spectrum LLC Call Sign WQJQ721 Status Active Market Market CMA002 -Los Angeles -Long Beach/Anaheim Submarket 0 Bates Grant 11/26/2008 Effective 02/12/2014 Buildout Deadlines 1st 12/13/2016 Notification Bates 1st 06/28/2013 FRN 0014980726 Licensee AT&T Mobility Spectrum LLC 3300 E. Renner Road, 83132 Richardson, TX 75082 ATTN Reginald Youngblood Contact AT&T Mobility LLC Michael P Goggin 1120 20th Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Radio Service Type Mobile Radio Service WY - 700 MHz Lower Band (Blocks A,B&E) Ruth Type Regular Channel Block B Associated 000704.00000000 - Frequencies 000710.00000000 (MHz) 000734.00000000- 000740.00000000 Expiration 06/13/2019 Cancellation 2nd 06/13/2019 2nd Type Limited Liability Company/ P:(855)699-7073 F:(972)907-1131 E:FCCMW@att.com P:(202)457-2055 F:(202)457-3073 E:michael.p,goggin@att.com Regulatory Status Common Carrier Interconnected Yes Aller, Ownership The Applicant answered "No" to each of the Alien Ownership questions. Basic Qualifications The Applicant answered "No" to each of the Basic Qualification questions, Tribal Land Bidding Credits This license did not have tribal land bidding credits, http://v<iireless2.icc.gov/UlsApp/UisSearchliicense.jsp?licK,ey=3060348&printable 1/2 D-226 7/14/2016 ULS License- PCS Broadband License- bVCHT993- AT&T Mobility Spectrum LLC ULS Ucensl- PUS Broadband License : - WQHT993 - AT&T'Mobifity Spectrum LLC Call Sign WQHT993 Status Active Market Market MTA002 - Los Angeles -San Diego Submarket 14 Deter Grant 06/10/2015 Effective 06/10/201.5 Buildout Deadlines 1 sL Notification Dates 1st FRN 0014980726 Licensee AT&T Mobility Spectrum LLC 3300 E. Renner Road, 63132 Richardson, i:{ 7'5082 AT T N Reginald Youngblood Contact AT&T Mobility LLC 1120 20th Street, NW - Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 ATTN Michael P. Goggin Radio Service Type Mobile Radio Service CVS/ - PCS Broadband Auth Type Regular Channel Block B Associated 001870.00000000 - Frequencies 001885.00000000 (MHz) 001950.00000000- 001965.00000000 Expiration 06/23/2025 Cancellation 2nd am Type Limited Liability Company P;(855)699-7073 F;(972)907-1131 E;FCCM`dV@att.com P;(202)457-2055 F:(202)4.57-3073 E:michaei.p.goggin@att.com Regulatory Status Common Carrier interconnected Yes Alien Ownership The Applicant answered "No" to each of the .Alien Ownership questions. Basic Qualifications The Applicant answered "No" to each of the Basic Qualification questions. Tribal Land Bidding Credits This license did not have tribal land bidding credits. http://4�7i r--less2.fcc.gov/U I sApp/U i sSearchJli cense.jsp?l icKey=2957918&printable 1/2 D-227 7/14/2016 ULS License - AVVS (1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz) License -WQGA742- AT&T Mobility Spectrum LLC ULS License AWS (1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz) License ® WQGA742 - AT&T Mobility Spectrum LLC Call Sign WQGA742 Status Active Market Market CMA002 - Los Angeles -Long Beach/Anaheim Submarket 1 Dates Grant 11/29/2006 Effective 02/12/2014 Buildout Deadlines 1st Notification Dates 1st FRN 0014980726 Licensee AT&T Mobility Spectrum LLC 3300 E. Renner Road, 83132 Richardson, TX 75082 ATTN Reginald Youngblood Contact AT&T Mobility LLC Michael P Goggin 1120 20th Street, NVQ/ - Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 ATTN Michael P. Goggin Radio Service Type Mobile Radio Service A`/U - AWS (1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz) Auth Type Regular Channel Block A Associated 001710.00000000 - Frequencies 001720,00000000 (MHz) 002110,00000000- 002120,00000000 Expiration 11/29/2021 Cancellation 2nd 2nd Type Limited Liability Company P:(855)699-7073 F:(972)907-1131 E:FCCMW@att.com P:(202)457-2055 F:(202)457-3073 E:michael.p,goggin@att.com Regulatory Status Common Carrier interconnected Yes Alien Ownership The Applicant answered "No" to each of the Alien Ownership questions. Basic Qualifications The Applicant answered "No" to each of the Basic Qualification questions, Tribal Land Bidding Credits This license did not have tribal land bidding credits. hti;o://vvire!ess2.fcc.go�dU!sApp/U I sSearch/! i cense.j sp?!i cKey=2862653&pri ntab! e D-22`8 _ 2 2"ig 7/'14/20'16 ULS License- PCS Broadband License- KNLG472-AT 2&T Mobi II hj Spectrum LLC ULS License PCS Broadband License - KNLG472 - AT&T Mobility Spectrum LLC Call Sign KNLG472 Radio Service CW - PCS Broadband Status Active Auth Type Regular Market Market BTA262 - Los Angeles, CA Channel Block D Submarket 0 Associated 001865,00000000 - Frequencies 001870,00000000 (MHz) 001945,00000000- 001950,00000000 Dates Grant 06/21/2007 Expiration 04/28/2017 Ef=fective 12/05/2014 Cancellation Bu111 lo?a't Deadlinfes 1st 04/28/2002 2nd Notification Dates lst 01/14/2002 2nd FRU 0014980726 Type Limited Liability Company Licensee AT&T Mobility Spectrum LLC P:(855)699-7073 3300 E. Renner Road, .83132 F:(972)907-1131 Richardson, TIC 75082 E:FCCMW@att,com Al f N Reginald Youngblood Contact AT&T Mobility LLC P:(202)457-2055 F:(202)4.57-3073 1120 20th Street, NVV - Suite 1000 E:michael,p,goggin@att,com Washington, DC 20036 AiTN Michael P. Goggin Radio Service Type Mobile Regulatory Status Common Carrier interconnected Yes ;alien Ownership The Applicant answered "No" to each of the Alien Ownership questions, Basic Qualifications The Applicant answered "No" to each of the Basic Qualification questions, Tribal Land Bidding Credits This license did not have tribal land bidding credits: htt;o://inireless2.icc.gov/UIsApp/UIsSearchjlicense.jsp;JSESSION IQ_ULSSEARCH=1XGKy:nhVRUC6p,Irr10kVJ5snJRTinjbLNVVIR9S1_pn'IpkgJIBXODi2'129... 1/2 D-229 7/14/2016 ULS License- 700 MHz Lovder Band (Blocks C, D) License - VwPWU990- AT&T Mobility Spectrum LLC ULS License 700 MHz Lower Band (Blocks C, D) License - WPWU990 - AT&T Mobility Spectrum LLC Call Sign WPWU990 Status Active Market Market CMA002 - Los Angeles -Long Beach/Anaheim Submarket 0 Dates Grant 01/24/2003 Effective 12/05/2014 Buildout [deadlines 1st 06/13/2019 Notification Dates 1st FRN 0014980726 Licensee AT&T Mobility Spectrum LLC 3300 E. Renner Road, B3132 Richardson, TX 75082 ATTN Reginald Youngblood Contact AT&T Mobility LLC 1120 20th Street, NW - Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 ATTN Michael P. Goggin Radio Service WZ - 700 MHz Lower Band (Blocks C, D) Auth Type Regular Channel Block. C Associated 000710,00000000 - Frequencies 000716,00000000 (MHz) 000740.00000000- 000746,00000000 Expiration 06/13/2019 Cancellation 2nd 2nd Type Limited Liability Company P:(855)699-7073 F:(972)907-1131 E:FCCMW@att,com P:(202)457-2055 F:(202)457-3073 E:michael.p.goggin@att,com Radio Service Type Fixed, Mobile, Radio Location Regulatory Status Common Carrier Interconnected Yes Alien Ownership The Applicant answered "No" to each of the Alien Ownership questions= Basic Qualifications The Applicant answered "No" to each of the Basic Qualification questions, Tribal Lary Bidding Credits This license did not have tribal land bidding credits, http://wi rel ess2.fcc.gov/U IsApp/U I sSearch/i i cense.j sp?I i they=2479929&pri ntable 1/2 D-230 CROWN CASTLE Node ASG32 Coverage Analysis The Foundation for a Wireless World. D-231 ASG32 Exhibits • Exhibit C(3) — Geographic and propagation neaps • Exhibit C(4.) — Geographic service area for the subject installation • Exhibit FC4.) — 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-232 Exhibit C3 r'.0 CROWN Proprietary & CASTLE Confidential D-233 Exhibit G3 a. — Geographical significant gap in coverage. S J: CROWN Proprietary & CASTLE Confidential �-Oft%4610 .zm Aa,irt_ Y �• Wim# 0 S I4 D-234 Exhibit C3 (b) - Proposed site and surrounding existing WTF owned and CROWN Proprietary & CASTLE Confidential D-235 Exhibit C3 (c) — Proposed facility relative to all existing and planned facilities CROWN Proprietary & ✓ CASTLE Confidential Am a a q%.G-&Q I I6 D-236 Exhibit C3 d. — Existing RF coverage. .4 -05. ha4" Wft -w -951c 3E Len 46 S. C&-,, • -1 - '51C-55ac - - =-Z� dB w Pfoposed Incaton Alternate *-,,tafions Faeted '.-'wu6 ExistnqAT&T site •. pltMryM±»ikn Now. I • • • CROWN Proprietary & CASTLE Confidential ;�Aft%hw 000 7 D-237 Exhibit C3 e. -- Proposed RF coverage. arara.a.�a`a•r� r .. rVr� . • ixti cad. � si vrwdr i *ar• AMm 00 ._P • r•rr.r..r...r.+ .. r .. r .... r r a■ s ■ CROWN Proprietary & .r► CASTLE Confidential ..•a.... r••.. a ■ D-238 &T E_x� ist ng,N�de z. AS.G 31 1 AT&T Exist Node a ASG42 n Goog, le. earth ---- -� Exhibit C4 CROWN Proprietary & CASTLE Confidential I 10 D-240 a ASG32 2 20 y ASU32,B ... �- #' , ' ASG32 C,-�, j`j 'SG32 D . ,, Exhibit F4 CROWN Proprietary & CASTLE Confidential 1 13 D-243 Power output and operating frequency EIRP 700 MHz (Wafts) EIRP 850 MHz (composite, Watts) EIRP 1900 MHz (Wafts) EIRP 2100 MHz (Wat!§J_____ 103.5 116.1 197.24 237.14 ,r CROWN Proprietary & "wo CASTLE Confidential 14 D-244 Exhibit Hi(b) CROWN Proprietary & CASTLE Confidential I N. D-245 List of All Existing and Proposed facilities CROWN Proprietary & *CASTLE Confidential 16 D-246 Latitude ion Rude trier IdeID Latitude Lo Nude trier IdelD Latitude o ude HW01 33.78431 -118.36835 W HAW08 33.79012 -118.355 print LA36XC538 33.77259 .118.33469 AHW02 33.759 .118.38 ZW HAW10 33.77128 -118.3964 rint LA36XC539 33.77343 -118.32591 HW03 33.75776 -11838661 W HAW11 33.76837 -118.4032 rint LA36XC540 33.74165 -118.37394 kerSide]D HWD4 33.76809 -118.39135 HAW12 33.77588 -118.4031 rint LA36XC542 33.7821 -118.36113 HW05133.787778 -118358417 ZW HAW14m1 33.759883 -118.40523 rint LA36XC543 33.77368 -118.34589 AHW06 33.76421 -118.38083 ZW HAW15 33.76519 -116.407 tint LA36XC545 33.77247 -118.35101 HW07 33.76975 -118.38096 ZW HAW16 33.77724 -118.4083 print LA36XC548 33.74334 -118,40946 AT&T AHW08 33.7562 -118.41017 print ILA34XDDI5 33.78752 -118.3761 print ILA36XC549 33,76364 .118.35995 AT&T AHWI1 33.80482 -118.39075 tint LA34XD027 33.77401667 -118.395 rint LA36XC550 33.77269 -118.41471 AT&T AHW12 33.79196 -118.40443 rtnt LA34%D031 33.742141 -118.40161 rint LA36XC552 33.80219 -118.36782 AT&T AHW13 33.751972 -118.395472 Drant LA34%0032 33.77802 -118.4173 print LA36XC553 33.78528 -118.38638 AT&T AHWSS 33.77283 -118.4032 Print LA34XD035 33.77881 -118.41596 print LA36XC557 33.79142 -11839284 MUS AN03 33.78465-118.368 rint LA14XD031 33.78098 -118.39723 rint LA36XCSGO 33.78581 -118.34418 MUS 04 33.78646 -118.362 rint LA34XD037 33.78198 -118.403 print LA36XC561 33.78281 .118.31923 MUS ANOB 33.76836 -118365 print LA34XD039 33.78177 -118.4003 rint LA36XC562 1 33.7927 -118.35084 MUS ANIO 33.77991 -118.353 Print ILA34XD042 33.77513333 -118.378283 rint LA36XC563 33.77735 -118.37304 MUS AN14 33.78579 -118.35 tint LA34XD043 33.773162 -118.40317 print LA36XCS64 33.74338 -118.31879 MUS AN16 33.77621 -118.344 print LA34XD046 33.75817 -118.4133 print LA36XC565 33.75779 -118.36746 MUS AN17 33.772 -118.334 print LA34XD047 33.745354 -118.40078 rint LA36XC566 33.75541 •118.40821 MUS ANIB 33.759 .118.3 arint LA34XD0SD 33.75232 -118.3959 rint LA36XC567 33.80201 -118.37439 AT&T ASP01 33.7763 -118.34363 print LA34XD077 33.7615 -118.348 print LA36XC568 33.75005 -118.40501 AT&T ASP02 33.77217 -118.33 rint LA34XD095 33.748459 -118.3248 print LA36XC570 33.76195 -118.41071 AT&T ASP03 33.76816 -118.371 print LA34XD099 33.74218-118.3332 rint LA36XC578 33.77392 •118.34802 T&T P05 33.77340352 -118.3482305 rint LA34XD111 33,72728 -118.334 rint LA36XC579 33.75351 •118.34156 MT ASP06 33.76225 -118.36 rint LA34XD212 33.79908 -118.3646 rint LA36XCSBO 33.76533 -118,35449 T&T P07 33.75886 -118,35815 .,It LA36XC212 33.74801 -118.3127 rint LA36XCSBI 33.76451 -118.34879 T&T POS 33.75436 -118.3488 rint LA36XC215 33.75909 -118.35 rint LA36XC582 33.77478 -118.34581 T&T P09m1 33.75 -138.342638 rint LA36XC216 33.75954 •118.3302 rint LA36XC583 33.76962 -118.34252 TV ASP10 33.74821 -118.33322 rint LA36XC217 33.75712 -118.3336 rint LA36XC589 33.75546 -118.34894 AT&T P12 33.74841 -118.32487 rint LA36XC218 33.75244 -118.334 rint LA36XC590 33.74867 •118.34514 i&T ASP13 33.74212 -118.33277 tint LA36XC219 33.73721 -118.3302 print LA36XC591 33.76263 -118.33513 AT&T P14 33.76265 -116.3308 rint LA36XC408 33.77609 -118.3168 rint LA36XCGOB 33.78445 -118.4121 AT&T ASP16ml 33.77983 -118.322 tint LA36XC453 33.791709 -118.36850 rint LA36XC610 33.745028•118.38499 AT&T ASP17 33.776 -118.331 rint LA36XC454 33.76589 -118.3109 tint LA36XC611 33.76868 •118.40277 AT&T P18 33.78041 -118.34216 rint LA36XC510 33.76912 -118.4142 print LA36XC612 33.78381 .118.40706 AT&T ASP29 33.78529 -_118.3451 print LA36XC516 33.77096 -118.3961 print LA36XC613 33.80432 -118.38271 T&T ASP32 33.76554 -118.32261 tint LA36XC519 33.75492 -118.3351 tint LA36XC614 33.77703 -118.34077 T&T ASP33 33.7471 -118,3181 rint LA36XC520 33.77589 -118.35 rint LA36XC622 33.76267 •118.36983 T&T ASP42 33.744397 -118,32482 rint LA36XC521 33.77181 -118.3619 tint LA36XC623 33.77411 418.39303 T&T ASP52 33.76236 -118.36987 tint LA36XC522 33.73738 .118.3324 rint LA36XC624 33.77629 -118.33186 T&T ASP59.1 33,732861 -118.33469 orint LA36XC523 33.75335 -118.3266 rint LA36XC625 33.80294 .118.38928 T&T A5P61 33.76773 -11113222 print 1A36XC524 33.76407 •118.331 rint LA36XC626 33.79928 •118.36679 T&T ASP62 33.76321 -118.32737 rint LA36XC526 33.73561 -118.347 rint LA36XC635 33.73869 -118.35788 T&T ASP63 33.758167 -118.32975 print LA36XC527 33.78833 -118.356 tint LA36XC637 33.78391 418.35132 ZW IHAW02 33.78012 -118.4005 print ILA36XC528 33.77406 -118.3538 rint LA36XC639 33.7458333 -118,3372222 ZW HAW03 33,78173 -118.40323 print LA36XC530 33.7809444 -118.400277 tint LA36XC640 33.73798 -118.33618 W HAW04 33.78543 -118.3857 rint LA36XC534 33.79089 -118.3832 rint LA36XC641 33.7384 .118.34449 HAMS 33.78908 -118.3852 rint 1A36XC535 33.78654 -118.3727 print LA36XC642 33.78382 -118.35552 HAW06 33.78766 -118.3763 rint XC536 33.79321 -118.3654 rint LA3fiXC. 33.77544 -118.40283 ZW HAW07m1 33.790795 -118.38286 rint LA36XC537 33.77874 -118.347 tint LA36XCfi47 33.78898 •118.38521 CROWN Proprietary & *CASTLE Confidential 16 D-246 List of All Existing and Proposed facilities (cont.) Carder Ide11) Latitude IlLongitude r,let de113 Latitude Longitude mer IMI) Latitude Longitude Sprint LA36XC648 33.78238 -118.369 W SP02ml 33.727396 -118.32951 W SO SCL SAN PEDRO 1 -118.306895 33.716303 Sprint LA36XC649 33.78785 -118.38201 W SPOS 33.73684 .118.3297 SO SCL SAN PEDRO 2 -118.302028 33.716818 Sprint LA36XC651 33.79048 -118.37287 ZW SPO6 33.74163 -118.32621 W SO SCL SAN PEDRO 3 -118.303384 33.721565 Sprint LA36XC652 33.78028 -118.38791 W P07ml 33.738929 -118.336364 W SO SCL SAN PEDRO 4 -118.303474 33.726101 Sprint LA36XC653 33.78042 -118.3765 W P08 33.75866 -118.358 O SCL SAN PEDRO 5 -118.310174 33.742245 Sprint LA36XC654 33.7963 -118.35687 W P09 33.75436 .118.3488 W SO SCL SAN PEDRO 6 -118.30503 33.754887 Sprint LA36XC657 33.77517 -118.321 W PLO 33.748 -118.34495 W O SCL SAN PEDRO 7 -118.30277 33.763453 Sprint LA36XC658 33.78545 -118.3629 W SP35 33.760 -118.34 W O SCL PALOS VERDES 1 -118.40954 33.782286 Sprint LA36XC659 33.77366 -118.3698 W P16 33.76492 .118.3518 SO SCL PALOS VERDES 10 -118.385454 33.768153 Sprint LA36XC662 33.77315 -118.35813 ZW P17 33.7637 -118.3472 SO SCL PALOS VERDES 2 -118.408992 33.769408 Sprint LA36XC663 33.76973 -118.35913 ZW 5P18 33.77335 .118.34824 ZW SO SCL PALOS VERDES 3 -118.410358 33.761353 MUS 902m2 33.77881 -118.371 W SP19 33.7695 -118.342 W SO SCL PALOS VERDES 4 -118.42382 33.774696 US 905 33.7906 -118.35 IN SP20 33.76733 -118.3415 W SO SCL PALOS VERDES 5 -118.40953 33.775167 US 406 33.76271 -118.37 IN SP21 33.7481 -118.31293 W SO SCL PALOS VERDES 6 -118.405096 33.788051 US IN07 33.7681 -118.371 IN SP22 33.75471 -118.3148 O SCL PALOS VERDES 7 -118.395735 33.788193 MUS 11,111 33.78 -118.345 SP23.1 33.73823 -118.3443 W O SCL PALOS VERDES 8 -118.369334 33.739781 MUS IN15 33.78063 -118.38 W SP24 33.73403 -118.3383 SO SCL PALOS VERDES 9 -118.364486 33.758762 tint NCA5054R :13 33.76267 -118.36983 W SP25.1 33.73518 .118.354187 W SO SCL PALOS VERDES 11 -118.368853 33.775391 Sprint NCAS054R :14 33.77411 -118.39303 MUS MB1008-0001 33.78188 418.4032 W SO SCL PALOS VERDES 12 -118.367586 33.784143 Sprint NCA5054R : 15 33.78028 -118.38791 MUS M8100B-000S 33.75881 -118.3580 W SO SCL PALOS VERDES 13 -118.332934 33.749477 Sprint NCA5054R : 16 33.77735 -118.373 MUS MB1008-OCO6 33.7646 -118.3518 W O SCL PALOS VERDES 14 -118.329719 33.746148 Sprint NCA5054R :17 33.78238 -118.36 MUS MB1008-0007 33.78457 -118.4116 W SO SCL PALOS VERDES 15 -118.318986 33.743179 Sprint NCA5054R : 18 33.78545 -118.3629 MUS M81006-OCO8 33.78393 -118.4071 W SO SCL PALOS VERDES 16 -118.3311991 33.754385 Sprint NCA5054S: 01 33.80209 -118.36761 MUS M81008 -0009m2 33.74063 -118.3370 W SO SCL PALOS VERDES 17 -118.32499 33.760177 Sprint NCA50545:02 33.79321 -118.36546 MUS 81008-OC10 33.74747 .118.3397 W SO SCL PALOS VERDES 18 -118.314171 33.767905 5 riot 4CA5054S:03 33.78833 -118.3569444 US 81008-0C11 33.76025 .118.3491 W SO SCL PALOS VERDES 19 -118.309292 33.771618 Sprint 4CA5054S:04 33.78382 -118.35552 MUS MB1008-OCi2 33.7638 -118.34 W SO SCL PALOS VERDES 20 -11B.315284 33.761589 Sprint NC450545:05 33.77874 -118.34781 MUS MB1008-0C19 33.77589 -118.4031 W SO SCL ROLLING HILLS ESTATES 1 _716 387828 33.773894 Sprint 4CA50545:06 33.77259 -118.33469 T&T LA0196 33.72752 -118.32913 W SO SCL ROLLING HILLS ESTATES 10 _118,329586 33.779825 tint 4CA5054S: 07 33.77343 -118.32591 T&T LA0362 33.73285 -116.33465 SO SCL ROLLING HILLS ESTATES _118.38453 33.781481 Sprint NCA50545: 09 33.7927 -118.350 T&T LA0351 33.736722 -118.35280 SO SCL ROLLING HILLS ESTATES _118.37890 33.78391 Sprint NCA50545: 10 33.78581 -118.3441 T&T EL0495 33.737194 -118.39731 W S O SCL ROLLING HILLS ESTATES _116 373511 33.781897 tint NCA50545: 11 33.77589 -118.3590 T&7 LA0361 33.738 -118.328972 ZW S 5 O SCL ROLLING HILLS ESTATES '118,379208 33.774194 Sprint CA50545: 12 33.77181 -118.36197 T&T EL0404 33.73875 -118.39705 W SO SCL ROLLING HILLS ESTATES _118.36285 33.782333 MUS IPV02.2 $3.7762 -118.375 T&T EL0403 33.738778 -118.396 O SCL ROLLING HILLS ESTATES _118.360514 33.7687 US PV07m6 33.7722 LA0194 33.740689 -118.36436 W O SCL ROLLING HILLS ESTATES .116.353014 33.775039 US 11110Am3 33.79664 --119.3611AT&T -118.367 T&T 111360 33.744306 -118.324833 SO SCL ROLLING HILLS ESTATES 9 _118.341083 33.782411 CROWN Proprietary& CASTLE Confidential -7 D-247 Map of all existing and proposed facilities CROWN Proprietary & CASTLE Confidential tb � � i Proposed Nodes Va 1 t)5 ; X, 4)111 l t a ■ Existing Wireless Faclilities ■ ^ c Lt<ttes i r S, a y - p<tit1S ■ ■ .ytr ir.rrarec:r J Q `I _: \'etEies ■ ■ 'sof, c tfart}vr (:'itti' f p efil l It :441 Eariia , M, f31ti� ■ 1-btis,. r ,w ■ ■ 1p1;+-- V ■MOSG70 lip 4� rf " ■ ■ I■0� y■ '•-{' u4'111�'c Harboror R069 i il■ �SG39 _. d G Golf C o .t 3 � OSG48■ Ui �i . 1�6G ■ C FlartxrC o nec kiatkov ! ■ ■ GBS ■SG1r ■ ■ AL�i ti �1 t; ■i i 1 ■ Mal ■ ■ �, G25 �; ■ _ 10M ■ 1111 t+em 1 ori?� Ncrvarl ¢ Reservation OG35 ■S(A `' Pars . 4 ■ *: �,SG43 ■ ■ r ■ ■ ■ 4 '� C?` if SG31 a ■ ■ •' ■ ■ G r . d1;, If•5 yC 'SG3:§■ ■ Nl)ttv:e'Jr." ■0358 � ` {(�� 'B �t @ilCfiNO ... J anti �'.�(? fr ■ 0`,a.d t_".hi Cont ■ VAr fy ■ &,SG47 OSG13 + 7 ■ �S <■ 4 �t C) ,F cr,1 •: �� , ; r: fl� ■ S A•. ■ `+`'r I =.Y '�E �hctifjk4 Y�ft�nb Z?r "cr � 194 J +a4+ .� f'Yt1iPh ` ■ ` ;`y 'Ifl �;t Bald Vedr/ OA035j ■ siJ69 C_, a,,v SG74 Dana , U From p. 11 Frenddhip Patk I. miles F ¢ \� p aril Scale: 1:37.610 J CROWN Proprietary & CASTLE Confidential tb � � i Exhibit I Address Exhibit Alternative Locations Lat Long Owner number ASG32 A (Primary) 33.76295102 -118.375093 Exhibit ASG32 B (Alternative 33.76329544 -118.375562 11 1) Public ROW See alternative analysis Exhibit ASG32 C (Alternative 33.76305364 -118.3751772 12 3) Public ROW See alternative analysis Exhibit ASG32 D (Alternative 33.76290739 -118.3754228 13 3) Public ROW Outside coverage objective Exhibit ASG32 E 33.76271 -118.37 14 CROWN proprietary & CASTLE Confidential Property Owner phone Zoning General Plan Why it is worse than Owner number Designation Designation primary? N/A Public ROW N/A Public ROW See alternative analysis N/A Public ROW See alternative analysis N/A Public ROW See alternative analysis T -Mobile USA N/A Public ROW Outside coverage objective M D-249 Alternative Analysis — (ASG32 Location B) u, h • • • • • • • • • • • -e SG32—B A C • • 0 AS AA G32 See k 41 See • See see 016 .016 • d m dBin 5 d6m • 5 Sin 5 d6ii la 3m Telecommunications Facility PC CROWN Proprietary & CASTLE Confidential 0 N 20 D-250 Alternative Analysis — (ASG32 Location Q •-000 • • go go • 32 AS 3Z C ASG3, A 00 G32 RSRP • C= - 105 d5m L.•.•.•••••.••• • -105 to -95 d6m• * -95 to -35 d6m -85 to -75 d6m * -75 to -65 d6m 9 =-65 Om Wireless Telecommunications Facility MNOde AT&T Node CROWN Proprietary & CASTLE Confidential 0 0 Possible Lacatons Passed 1 21 D-251 Alternative Analysis — (ASG32 Location D) RSRP : — .105 CIBM -105 to -95 dBm * -95 to -85 dBin -85 to -75 dE5m * .75 to -65 dBm * =---65 d8m Wireless Telecommunications Facility MNode AT&T Nods o Oofi..Lur CROWN Proprietary & ...0 CASTLE Confidential • Opt ....... 0000*0... • ROO 0*1 004", • - % N- 4, 0 * Ole 40 0 00 6 G32 AS 32_C • 0 ASY 't John G32 �p 0,0010 • 006 *0 0,0 if - 0 0 0•see*0*0 .0 04 b 0• 016 % as .00• be 4.0 40 • be 0 4w 0 00 -0• 01P -N atons 7POstsible Lot, *P� 22 D-252 q 111 p- 11111liq 11111111; Site Specific Alternative r i 1 :k i for Lt S The Foundation for a Wireless World. CrownCastle.com D-253 City's Design and Development Standards require that wireless telecommunications facilities ("WTF) located in the public right-of-way ("ROW") are designed to minimize visual, noise and other impacts on the surrounding community. a) The Applicant shall employ screening, undergrounding and camouflage design techniques in the placement of INTF in order to: i) To ensure that the facility is as visually screened as possible; The 25 -foot 6 -inch tall street light that Crown Castle proposes to replace is just I Notwithstanding the presentation of this site-specific alternatives analysis pursuant to Chapter 12.18 of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, Crown Castle reserves its rights to challenge any portion of the City's requirements under Chapter 12.18 to the extent that such requirements violate state and/or federal law, including, but not limited to, Public Utilities Code sections 7901 and 7901.1 and section 253 of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Foundation for a Wireless World. CrownCastle.com D-254 one in a series of other similarly sized street lights located along the south side of Scotwood Dr. ii) To prevent the facility from dominating the surrounding area; Drown Castle's 25 -foot 6 -inch tall SCN would not dominate the surrounding area because: 1) The replacement streetlight pole is the same size as the existing 25 -foot 6 - inch tall streetlight pole. 2) The nearest structures are single-family residences located approximately 24 -feet south of the SCN, behind mature landscaping, down a moderate slope. The views from these residences is west along Whitley Collins. 3) Single-family residences on the north side of the Scotwood ROW are approximately 33 -feet back from curb behind mature landscaping. The views from these residences are to the east, along Scotwood Dr. and south along Whitley Collins Dr. 4) Foliage in the surrounding area includes mature trees in excess of 20 -25 - feet in height; 5) The facility qualifies for a Class Three CEQA exemption, which confirms that the facility will have no significant aesthetic impacts. iii) To minimize significant view impacts from surrounding properties; Crown Castle's SCN uses existing infrastructure in the ROW (a streetlight), foliage and topographic features to minimize significant view impacts from surrounding properties. The SCN is located on south side of Scotwood Dr, amongst mature shrubs and a large 25 -foot high tree. The SCN does not significantly impact views from residences to the south because those properties look west and south along Whitley Collins or east along Scotwood Dr. Residences to the north of the proposed SCN have views north and south along Whitley Collins as well as east along Scotwood Dr. Moreover, Crown Castle's SCN qualifies for a Class 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). RPVMC Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration) addresses impacts to residential views created by proposed residential structures on surrounding residential parcels. The preservation of views is to be accomplished primarily through the pruning and removal of foliage. There are several reasons why RPVMC Section 17.02.040 is The Foundation for a Wireless World, CrownCastle.com D-255 I,r'Offf fs r _ _ 'i,�I c.'. • ;.i. ii1 fid! "fly ���.� � t` � ��� sir "e ,I�,C�I .�% ��; i)��( "`. �� �)� ;I�, 3) Section 17.02.040(A)(12) of RPVMC defines "Structure" as anything joined together in a definitive manner, which is located on or on top of the ground on a parcel of land utilized for residential purposes, excluding antennas... and similar structures not involving the construction of habitable area. This ordinance is inapplicable because Crown Castle's facilities are not habitable, they are not located on residential parcels, and they are not used for residential purposes. Crown Castle's ROW based facilities do not involve residential land in any form or fashion. Moreover, `,Antennas" are specifically excluded from consideration under this ordinance. To the extent that RPVMC Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration) can be found to be applicable ii? a siting owirelessfacHitiesn ROW (it cannot), , I i)' Castle's SN achieve compatibilitywith the surrounding community by being designed to minimize visual, noise and other impacts. b) Screening stall be designed to be architectural compatible with surrounding structures, using appropriate techniques to camouflage, disguise, andyor blend into the environment, including landscaping, color, and other techniques to minimize the facilities visual impact as well as be compatible with the architectural character of the surrounding buildings or structures in terms of color, size, proportion, style and quality OTA The Foundation for a Wireless World. CrownCastle.com D-256 ROW- in anarea in the mit already impacted with roadway improvements, utilities li r other uses and appurtenances typical of- and proper to — the ROW. ca Facilities shall be located such that views from a residential structure are not significantly impaired. Facilities shall also he located in a manner that protects public views over city view corridors, as defined in the City's general plan, so that no significant view impairment results in accordance with this Code including Section 17.02. ®4® (View Preservation and restoration). Section 17.02.040(A)(14) of R'PVMC defines View as including both a "near view", meaning views of a natural setting on the peninsula; and/or "far view" defined as a scene off the peninsula, such as the ocean, city lights, etc. The ordinance intends to prevent the significant impairment of views and the maintenance of privacy. it �C' �� ill i �°I'- �) l: !� 1i�1 � ;� �.I �I�� t, •i' I --------------- INMAN` Mill II Finally, the proposed facility has received a Class Three CEQA exemption which definitively establishes that the proposed facility will not give rise to significant environmental impacts, including aesthetic impacts. All facilities shall be designed and located in such a manner as to avoid .adverse impacts :on traffic safety. The . { not located in the lanes o travel, n o does it extend in < n way over 1y. roadway. I. The replacement p/.c 1men a.c i'... t would .oi' o provide de gg along o 'o d Dr. N would therefore not have adverse impacts on traffic safety. The Foundation for a Wireless World. crowncastle.com D-257 All facilities shall have subdued colors and non -reflective materials that blend with the ,materiels, and colors of the surrounding area and structures. Crown Castle's N blends into Its surrounding aei and structures because replaces an existing streetlight pole.- SCN wouldmatchcolorthe .I.`;III gstreetlightsalong the south side of Scotwooce' Dr. M The applicant shell use the least visible equipment possible. Antenna elements shell he flush mounted, to the extent feasible. All antenna mounts shell 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, !�), ,. �l:l%f a.i ,,�!i � � .� �r:�:` .lid ll �./ l� ! sl i "mill. ��ii'I�i .i�" ,�Illl � I����t il,..! � I` (•n��`� ' '",.. ,mI':�i i cm -- ���`.� �)!.. - -. ��..: i- ��-1 l'."�I 'v t��' -. ��1<.• i, ,I 11V 'i �_�cm ;:,.i'� ill i1)'M1 .�);', l—� I. � ��c�i ('.� i �.; !=�cc.. �� i ! � ill �:�. • it ,'� � �i§ � l !� ( � � i1 � , ' 11 . � _, �..:, , is .0 �) �) �) `_�, . ': l� ��; :� i� � �. �' ,� 11 ill �h .�� �� �•�c — ''i �, r �' i� ;�� it — The Foundation for a Wireless World. CrownCastle.com D-258 equipment, other than antennas, the City needs to make the final 1tli-nnnl 1. !(/11 !; ..i g * cabinet constitutes the least a. Facilities shall be located consistent with Section 12.18.200(Location Restrictions) unless an exception pursuant to Section a2.18. a9® (Exceptions) is granted. RPVC Section 12.18.200 (Location Restrictions) strongly disfavors wireless facilities in 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 permitted location. Crown Castle's SCR is inconsistent with this. �l. The proposed wireless facility qualifies as a "personal wireless services facility" as defined in United Mates Code, Title 47, section 332(c)(7)(C)fii) The Foundation for a Wireless World, CrownCastle.com D-259 Crown Castle holds a certificate of public convenience and necessity ("CPCN") from the California Public Utilities Commission ("CPUC") to expand the availability of wireless networks throughout the State. Please see Exhibit ®1 b. Crown Castle's SCN qualifies as "personal wireless services facility" as defined in United States Code, Title 47, section 332(c)(7)(C)(ii)-, 2. The applicant has provided .the city with a clearly'deffined technical service objective and a clearly defined potential site search area; Crown Castle has provided clearly defined technical service objective and a clearly defined potential site search area. Please See Exhibits C3a-e. 3, The applicant has provided the city, with a meaningful comparative analysis that includes the factual reasons why any alternative location(s) ordesign(s) suggested by the city or otherwise identified in the administrative record, including but not limited to potential alternatives identified at any public meeting or hearing, are not technically feasible or potentially available; and With this site specific comparative analysis, Crown Castle is providing the City with meaningful comparative analysis that includes the factual reasons why the Primary location, is superior to the other Alternatives evaluated. The Primary is superior to Alternatives because it would be less visually prominent location to surrounding properties and the community. The Alternatives also do not meet the RF coverage objective for this proposed SCN. The visual impacts created from the proposed SCN would be analogous to the visual impacts currently created by the existing streetlight. 4. The applicant has provided the city with a meaningful comparative analysis that includes the factual reasons why the proposed location and design, deviates are the least non, compliant location and design necessanl to reasonably achieve the applicant's reasonable technical serO . ce objectives With this sit-- specific comparative analysis, Crown Castle is providing the City with meaningful comparative analysis that includes the factual reasons why the Primary location is the least noncompliant location and design necessary to reasonably achieve Crown Castle's reasonable technical service objectives. The Foundation for a Wireless World. CrownCastle.com D-260 both Crown Castle's accessory equipment and SCE's electric power meter pedestal. Although the ordinance calls for uindergrounding all accessory equipment, Crown Castle believes that its joint equipment cabinet represents the least noncompliant location and design because it would introduce the fewest number of new vertical elements into the 'ROW. b. Only pole -mounted antennas shall be permitted in the fight -of -way. All other telecommunications towers are prohibited, and no new poles are permitted that are not replacing an existing pole. (For exceptJons see subparagraph (6)(h) below and sections 12.18.190 (Exceptions) and 12.18.220 (State or Federal Law). Crown Castle's_would ieattachedQ �, ���+ 6 -inch .I'replacement streetlight. tlighl ,o new pole is needed no requested. C. Utility Poles. The maximum height of any antenna shall not exceed 48 inches above the height of an existing utility pole, nor shall any portion of the antenna or equipment mounted on a pole be less than 24 feet above any drivable road surface. All installations on utility poles Tall fully comply with the California Public Utilities Commission general orders, including, but not limited to, General Order 95, as may be revised or superseded. This provision is inapplicable because Crown Castle's SCN is not attaching to a utility pole. d. Light Poles. The maximum height of any antenna shall not exceed four feet above the existing height of a light pole. Any portion of the antenna or equipment mounted on a pole shall be no less than 16% feet above any drivable road surface. Crown Castle's +l N would not K any pole mounted equipment lower than '!, -feet. This provision also inapplicable because own as S.N antennas do not extend over any drivable road surface. e. Replacement Poles. if an applicant proposes to replace a pole in order to accommodate a proposed facility, the pole shall be designed to resemble the appearance and dimensions of existing poles near the proposed location, including size, height, color, materials and style to the maximum extent feasible. The Foundation for a Wireless World. CrownCas'tle.com D-261 and to have the lowest antennas to the ground possible in accordance with RPVff61C Section 12.18.080(A)(7), Space. The S N conforms to the maximum exeL feasible "ll the color and style o; existing streetlight poles along Scotwood Dr. f, Pole mounted equipment, exclusive of antennas, shall not exceed six cubic feet in dimension. Excluding antennas, ,,i-o\.,il. les poet' mounted tefi p_ 1t would e limited m cabling connecting the antennas to power and the fiberoptic backbone,connectors, brackets, and GPS. Crown Castle's pole mounted equipment, excluding antennas, would therefore ( o; exceed six cubicfeet , dimension. 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., i. All cables, including, but not limited to, electrical and utility cables, shall be run within the interior of the pole and shall be camouflaged or hidden to the fullest extent feasible. For all wooden poles wherein interior installation is infeasible, conduit and cables attached to the exterior of poles shall be mounted flush thereto and painted to match the pole. All cables for this SCN, induding, but not limited to, electrical and utility cables, will run within the interior of the replacement streetlight pole. 12.18.080 (A)(7)pace. Each facility shall be designed to occupy the least amount of space in the right-of-way that is technically feasible. il� - r� • .� Ili'-�i�,�,f; ,�� ,•, .I� ,� r °�r�����u� �� E� ^! i:,� l 1 I�i,,?ii' � l� �iliif�"i�:'(i, �' ( r.l i (' 1.; i• The Foundation for a Wireless World, CrownCastle.com D-262 final determination as to whether Crown Castle's joint utility cabinet constitutes the least amount of space in the ROW that is technically feasible, 12.18.080 JAJJqind Lads 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. For replacement poles, Wind loading is incorporated into the pole structural calculations. Vere are no separate Wind loading calculations included With this application. 12,180080 (A)J9) 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. PVMC Section 17.48.070 (intersection Visibility) discusses restrictions on various structures and landscaping (>30 -inches) on corner lots near intersections for sight visibility reasons. The ordinance states that these items shall not be erected, placed, planted or allowed to grow within the triangular space referred to as the "intersection visibility triangle." The intersection visibility triangle being the area formed by the intersection of extended curb lines and a line joining points on the curb sixty feet (measured along the curb lines) from the point of intersection of the curb line extensions. Crown Castle's SCN is located within 60 -feet of an intersection. However, Crown Castle feels the "intersection visibility triangle" section of the ordinance for this particular location is invalid for several reasons. First, this particular intersection is a 7 -intersection," with one stop sign for users of the ROW traveling from Scotwood Cr to Whitley Collins Cr. Second, the proposed joint use equipment pedestal is located among a large existing row of bushes, therefore screening the piece of equipment from view, lastly, the visual impacts created from the proposed SCN would be analogous to the visual impacts currently created by the existing streetlight. 12.18.080 (A)(10) Public Facilities. A facility shall not be located within any portion of the public right-of-way interfering with access o a fire hydrant," station, fire escape, water valve, underground vault, valve housing structure, or any other p:.%%,Iii.health1.' safety facility. The Foundation for a Wireless World, CrownCastle.com D-263 Crown Castle's SCN is not located within any portion of the public right-of-way that would interfere with access to a fire hydrant, fire station, fire escape, water valve, underground vault, valve housing structure, or any other public health or safety facility. 12.18.080 (AM 1) Screening . All ground -mounted facility, pole -mounted equipment, or walls, fences, landscaping or other screening methods shall be installed at least 18 inches from the curb and gutter flow line. Crown Castle's SCN has no pole -mounted equipment, excluding antennas, cabling, connectors and brackets. Crown Castle's accessory equipment cabinet (22.5 -inches wide by 12.6 -inches -deep by 59.1 -inches tall) will be set back at least 18 -inches from the gutter flow line. 12.18.080 (A)(12) Accessory Equipment. Accessory Equipment. Not including the electric meter, all accessory equipment shall be located underground, except as provided below: a. Unless city staff determines that there is no room in the public right-of-way for undergrounding, or that undergrounding is not feasible, an exception shall be required in order to place accessory equipment above -ground and concealed with natural or manmade features to the maximum extent possible. If Crown Castle undergrounded its accessory equipment that would result in compliance with this ordinance section but multiple above ground venting stacks, each approximately 22 -inches in diameter and approximately 40 -inches in height would be required. Crown Castle is requesting an exception per RPVMC Section 12.18.190 to place its accessory equipment in an above -ground joint utility cabinet with SCE's electric meter pedestal. Crown Castle has not proposed any additional screening because there is amble foliage and topographic features that screen the SCN from surrounding properties. Crown Castle is not opposed to providing additional screening so long as the City's requirements are reasonably related to the impacts created by the proposed facility. Crown Castle submits that a joint utility cabinet would be less intrusive, physically and visually, than a configuration featuring a subterranean equipment vault. The Foundation for a Wireless World. CrownCastle.com D-264 f �1�:�'�; _i.R c. l_,�� �.���ill.'•�n iii), ��)�'" I_� ��_ I�� 'N I�( .A� �� ,I �( �I �� �P"�.�i(�I, ,�*' �.iQ�'•. � 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. The Foundation for a Wireless World, Crow nCastle.com D-265 1�o1�ofl� �)�,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. 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. . ,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 arrestors and beacons that would increase its height. C. Any required lighting shall be shielded to eliminate, to the maximum extent possible, impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods. Crown Castle's lighting would be shielded b existing oliage and topographic features to the extent that any ote impacts on surrounding neighborhood would b eliminated to the maximum extent possible. d. Unless otherwise required under FAA or FCC regulations, applicants may install only timed or motion -sensitive light controllers and lights, and must install such lights so as to avoid illumination impacts to adjacent properties to the maximum extent feasible. Crown Castle's SC-tll lighting would only include timed or motion -sen s itive light controllers and lights, so as to avoid illumination impacts to adjacent properties to the maximum extent feasible. The Foundation for a Wireless World. CrownCastle.com D-266 e. The applicant shall submit a lighting study which shall be prepared by a qualified lighting professional to evaluate potential impacts to adjacent properties. Should no lighting be proposed, no lighting study shall be required. 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 terve 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 ad11acent 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 noose. Crown Castle has submitted a Noise Study that confirms the SCN's complies with ft� City's Noise ordinance. See Exhibit J1a. 12.18.080 (A)(17) Security Each facility shall be designed to be resistant to, and minimize opportunities for, unauthorized access, climbing, vandalism, graffiti and other conditions that would result in hazardous situations, visual blight or attractive nuisances. The director may require the provision of warning signs, fencing, anti -climbing devices, or other techniques to prevent unauthorized access and vandalism when, because of their location ander accessibility, a facility has the potential to become an attractive nuisance. Additionally, no lethal devices or elements shall be installed as .a security device. Crown Castle's SCN does not have pole mounted equipment that is reachable by the general public, nor a f readily available o r climbing o ; 'ti : Crown Castle's joint utility accessory equipment cabinet is 22.5 -inches wide by 12.6-inches-dee,,# b 59. !-inches This cabineto countless other utility cabinetslocated The Foundation for a Wireless World. CrownCastle.com D-267 �� ���Ir�r � •��.� ,` !`� (1C� i"c;��, �� ��' i�: .I iii �� i�l�fi�C�`:"li 'l�lli I'!� �i '(����,^'j ^,i�, �Cr' y i E61411f IvironnnWIM Consistent with current state and federal laws and if permissible under the sane, 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, u ndergrouurndirng the equipment and replacing larger, more visually intrusive facilities with smaller, less visually intrusive facilities. Crown 11 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 faculty to modify. No permit shall be granted for a wireless telecommunications facility unless all of the follopling findings are invade by the director: A. All notices required for .the proposed installation have been given. B. The proposed facility has been designed and located in compliance with all applicable provisions of this chapter, The Foundation for a Wireless World. CrownCastle.com D-268 Ultimately, it will be up to the City to determine which accessory equipment configuration is the most compliant. C. if applicable, the applicant has demonstrated its inability to locate on existing infrastructure. Crown Castle is proposing to attach to existing infrastructure c<? streetlight ;.tr2 eli(!]i l: pole in a ROW. This provision is inapplicable. D. The applicant has provided sufficient evidence supporting the applicant's claim that it has the right to enter the public right-of-way pursuant to state or federal lave, or the applicant has entered into a franchise agreement with the Cited 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 ®1 b. Crown Castle has entered into a franchise agreement with the City permitting use of the ROW and City infrastructure, See Exhibit ®1a. Crown Castle has provided sufficient evidence that it has the right to enter the ROW pursuant to state and federal law, as well as by contract with the City. E. The applicant has demonstrated the proposed installation is designed such that the proposed installation represents the least intrusive means possible and supported by factual evidence and a meaningful comparative analysis to show that all alternative locations and designs identified in the application review process were technically infeasible or not available. 1 ., �..� � .!_.. .,c i ;��.� � n -�,� �:.r .��, ., <: G. �c•. Ili, �i �., '.I ", I� �� ;�� r �`. ,�,. ,,.�,, i �,�.. `,'. I� � i•� !�'' ..� .�,w �� .�..I `..�. � �)i �l`�', ;i ,1)���': `, I:'i 11 ,. �1 '.lel: • !�^`f ilf� i��l. � �"� l`l ! �sl, r. '..,111 111 �� � !'I.',! � �l,�ac ;!%� The Foundation for a Wireless World. CrownCastle.com D-269 Meets Coverage Objective: Up and Down co ood Dr and Whitley Collins Dr. The Foundation for a Wireless World, CrownCastle.com D-270 =1r�1i�.=,q Alternative 1 is a proposed streetlight replacement on the west side of Whitley Collins, approximately 190 -feet to the northwest of the Primary. The Primary location is superior to Alternative 1 because it is not as visually prominent. Alternative 1 does not have mature landscaping around the location while the Primary does. It is also in front of residences as compared to the side of a residence like the Primary location. The Primary, being screened by large bushes and shrubs, will have fewer users of Scotwood ®r likely notice the SCN. This Alternative does not achieve the RF coverage objective; therefore, it is not a viable candidate. Does NotMeet RF Coverage Objt''L;ilve Alternative 2 is located approximately 45 -feet north of the Primary on the opposite side of Scotwood Dr. Alternative 2 does not have mature landscaping around the location while the Primary does. It is also at an intersection and stop sign. Therefore, many more users of the ROW will pass by Alternative 2 and possibly take notice of the SCN. The Primary, being screened by large bushes and shrubs, will have fewer users of Scotwood Dr likely notice the SCN. This Alternative does not achieve the PF coverage objective; therefore, it is not a viable candidate. Alternative 3 is located approximately 100 -feet west of the Primary on the west side of Whitley Collins. Alternative 3 does not have mature landscaping around the location while the Primary does. It is also in front of residences as compared to the side of a residence like the Primary location. Therefore, many more users of the ROW will pass by Alternative 3 and possibly take notice of the SCIS. The Primary, being screened by large bushes and shrubs, will have fewer users of Scotwood Dr likely notice the SCN. This Alternative does not achieve the RF coverage objective; therefore, it is not a viable candidate. Crown Castle has presented a comparative analysis between the Primary and the Alternatives that were evaluated. Crown Castle's analysis demonstrates it is using the "least intrusive means" to achieve its RF objective by using minimally sized small cell technology and equipment, and minimum antenna heights in order to conform to the maximum extent possible with community values expressed in the City's design and development standards. The Foundation for a wireless World. CrownCastle.com D-271 CCCROWN CASTLE August 7, 2017 Nicole Jules, Deputy Director, Acting Director Public Works Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Crown Castle 200 Spectrum Center Drive Suite 1700 Irvine, CA 92618 RE: Shot Clock Tolling Awreernent and Notice: of Shot ClockExpirutiup Per RPVMC motion 12,18.o6o (Q(a) for Crown Castle Tireless Communication Facility Site ASG -42 - New Shot Clock Expiration Date:September,30, 201 Dear Ms. Jules: Crown Castle NG West LLC ("Crown Castle") has agreed to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes' (the "City") request to extend the Shot Clock for this site until September 30, 2017. The purpose of extending the Shot Clock is to allow City Staff additional time to get better organized so that more meaningful presentations can be developed to better inform City decision makers. Under the FCC's Wireless Infrastructure Order (FCC 14-153, October i4, 2014), a local government is required not just to take sonic action within the alrplmcabon timeframe, but to take a final .action on the application %i thin the time Ilersta3_ See New C3ngidur Wireless P(N, LL(' v. 'Ileum of Stoddard, 2ot2 ti.l;_ Hist. UXIS 1945{ *t3. t5 jD.N.H. Feb. 16, 20[21. ACeOrrtingly, the City nitist co mlplety all of its rc%iiew within the Shat Clrxk periud. hell: rlawic Mr�hile Uf RmItester. L.1. v� 1 -own e?f lrrsrrcfcc taetit, 2012 tl,& Dist. t.,exi- t14210 tVt+.ta.N,'�'..iaia. 3t. 2012). 1111; MC11 is that they City must isstec all permnits rwitlired for construction to comnmener within the ajil;)hnihleJ Shot Orvwk time period. absent permitted tolling,. Expiration of the FCC Shot Clock time ImicAs meam s the proiec�t is ;hovel ready, ntut merely poi.*A for another round of E�:mrc�aucratic inertia such as an encroachment permit or appeals processes or negtati:ltmun 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., § 65964.8, subd. (c).). In consideration of Crown Castle's agreement to Toll the Shot Clock, the City has agreed that: m i This document satisfies Crown Castle's noticing requirement of Shot Clock expiration per RPVMC Section 12.18.o6o (C)(3). 1) 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. /1, �f Aaron Snyder CROWN CASTLE NG WEsr LLC Nicole Jules Crry QE RANCH® PALOS VERDES Time Foundation for a Wireless World. CrownCastle.corn D-272 Ara Khranian From: Jim Pugh <jim@sunbeamtech.net> Sent: Friday, June 2, 2017 5:21 PM To: Charles Eder Cc: Nicole Jules Subject: 29504 Scotwood - ASG -32 Before and after photos Permit # 11034 Cell site mock up constructed on 6/2 Photo sim placed on 6/2 Clock can start today All equipment / Antenna is constructed per plan D-273 w WHITIf Y COIL J . 1 c 401? r o r� lit Ap, WA Qui-�;.,'fl .,.��:'" •� ;:fY��j4gk� ��y�` • .�''. AIt f �. 1 D-277 0 to 14 f ilr 'i4;•y s� J= '+1•r -s. � 4 iii +•err .. •�� :� �`- � �-� ,.tr •+ yI' � �•'�. til �F xY t @ i L/f! MtB 14 f ilr 'i4;•y s� J= '+1•r -s. � 4 iii +•err .. •�� :� �`- � �-� ,.tr •+ yI' � �•'�. til f. '7�W •CJS' .Y�•�^^' /� f `♦ / ��/� \ `�. I • .. - -- r f. '7�W •CJS' .Y�•�^^' /� f `♦ / ��/� \ `�. I • .. - -- Jim Pugh Public Works Inspector Cell - (310) 621-8865 Sent from my iPhone Jim Pugh Public Works Inspector Cell - (310) 621-8865 Sent from my iPhone D-279 Ara Mihranian From: Nancy Penate Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 7:53 AM To: Charles Eder Subject: FW: Proposed Cell Tower 29504 Scottwood For your records... From: Ardi [mailto:ardit@compuserve.com] Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2017 9:07 AM To: PublicWorks <PublicWorks@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Proposed Cell Tower 29504 Scottwood Mr. Eder, This week we received the notice for public hearing regarding regarding AS G32 — wireless telecomm facility on Scottwood drive. Your name was mentioned as contact to share any correspondence prior to July 28 so that it would be included in the planning commission report. I am forwarding the note (see below) that I sent early last month on this on topic. I did not receive any feedback since then. Can you please confirm receipt of this email and any reports/research that may have been done regarding the concern noted below. I plan to attend the hearing. In addition, either via email or during the hearing, please advise on the following: - expected start of the project - time for completion, per details noted in AS G32 report - will there any additional excavation + removal of greenery beyond what was already done to setup the mock- up? - expected start of service (e.g., by AT&T, Verison, etc.) via the new cell tower Thank you for your attention. Ardi Tavakol 29504 Whitley Collins Dr., RPV From: Ardi Sent: Friday, June 2, 2017 1:05 PM To: publicworks@rpvca.gov Subject: Proposed Cell Tower 29504 Scottwood Hello, Today a mock-up cell tower was installed right in front our property (29504 Whitley Collins). My wife has been in touch with you regarding the effect of microwave from the potential tower. I would like to voice some concern about our property value if this tower is actually installed at this same i� location. Should we ever decide to sell our property, the visibility (adjacent to a light tower) and health concerns can potentially affect some potential buyers and, hence, negatively impact the value of our property. Has the City done any studies regarding the impact of cell towers installed within 150 feet of a single family property? A web search shows different findings across many studies but mostly lean towards a negative impact (anywhere up to 10% drop in value). Does the city plan to compensate property owners in immediate vicinity of such towers? Whenever you schedule a public hearing regarding this tower, please be prepared to share any information you have may gathered in studying potential sites. Thank you for help, Ardi Tavakol 29504 Whitley Collins Dr., RPV D-281 Ara Mihranian From: Becky Martin on behalf of Phone -PW -Main Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 7:14 AM To: Charles Eder Subject: FW: Request to not Install Crown Castle Cell Unit at 29504 Scotwood Drive From: Guity [mailto:guity2007@verizon.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 6:01 AM To: PublicWorks <PublicWorks@rpvca.gov> Subject: Request to not Install Crown Castle Cell Unit at 29504 Scotwood Drive Hi, I am resident at 29504 Whitley Collins Drive. My home is the one that you can see in the background of all the photos that you have provided as part of ASG32 antenna installation. I am right next to this antenna as my office is less than 100ft away from this. This cell antenna will be right in front of my eye sight daily as my office (which I work 10 hours daily) is right next to it. I have a major concern of installation of this unit. My concern is the EMF that this unit is projecting. Please don't tell me that the EMF is very low. I have Thyroid and my doctor asked me to not even have cell phone in my office. I am doing all I can to reduce EMF in my house. Our cellphones have reduced EMP device added to them. I have purchased mat around the house that is connected to ground so it drains electricity from our bodies. We turn off all the Bluetooth and wireless connectivity. My best friend died of brain tumor. I really do not want a cellular antenna with additional EMF install right next to my house. I know that my family is only one voice but let me know what I can do to not get this install in this location. Thank you, -Guity TavakoI Ara Mihranian From: Charles Eder Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 8:14 AM To: 'ardit@compuserve.com' Subject: RE: Proposed Cell Tower 29504 Scottwood Good morning Ardi, Thank you for your correspondence. We will include this in the package that will be sent to the Planning Commission for review. To answer your questions below: -- There is no expected start date for the project, as it will be decided by the Planning Commission on August 8th. If it is approved, the applicant would need to meet any conditions set forth by the Commission and may take several weeks. -- The construction may take less than a week, but it is still dependent on approval and/or conditions. -- There will be additional removal of greenery, because one pole would need to be removed. -- We are only aware of the completion of the construction of the cell site (if it is approved). The cell carrier would have their scheduled timeline on when that will go online. But I suspect it will be as soon as the site is powered up and live. Charles Eder, PE Department of Public Works ON of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 L IR From: Ardi [mailto:ardit@compuserve.com] Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2017 9:07 AM To: PublicWorks <PublicWorks@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Proposed Cell Tower 29504 Scottwood Mr. Eder, This week we received the notice for public hearing regarding regarding AS G32 — wireless telecomm facility on Scottwood drive. Your name was mentioned as contact to share any correspondence prior to July 28 so that it would be included in the planning commission report. I am forwarding the note (see below) that I sent early last month on this on topic. I did not receive any feedback since then. Can you please confirm receipt of this email and any reports/research that may have been done regarding the concern noted below. I plan to attend the hearing. D-283 In addition, either via email or during the hearing, please advise on the following: - expected start of the project - time for completion, per details noted in AS G32 report - will there any additional excavation + removal of greenery beyond what was already done to setup the mock- up? - expected start of service (e.g., by AT&T, Verison, etc.) via the new cell tower Thank you for your attention. Ardi Tavakol 29504 Whitley Collins Dr., RPV From: Ardi Sent: Friday, June 2, 2017 1:05 PM To: publicworks(cbrpvca.gov Subject: Proposed Cell Tower 29504 Scottwood Hello, Today a mock-up cell tower was installed right in front our property (29504 Whitley Collins). My wife has been in touch with you regarding the effect of microwave from the potential tower. I would like to voice some concern about our property value if this tower is actually installed at this same location. Should we ever decide to sell our property, the visibility (adjacent to a light tower) and health concerns can potentially affect some potential buyers and, hence, negatively impact the value of our property. Has the City done any studies regarding the impact of cell towers installed within 150 feet of a single family property? A web search shows different findings across many studies but mostly lean towards a negative impact (anywhere up to 10% drop in value). Does the city plan to compensate property owners in immediate vicinity of such towers? Whenever you schedule a public hearing regarding this tower, please be prepared to share any information you have may gathered in studying potential sites. Thank you for help, Ardi Tavakol 29504 Whitley Collins Dr., RPV O i2 Ara Mihranian From: Charles Eder Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 8:14 AM To: ardit@compuserve.com' Subject: RE: Proposed Cell Tower 29504 Scottwood Good morning Ardi, Thank you for your correspondence. We will include this in the package that will be sent to the Planning Commission for review. To answer your questions below: -- There is no expected start date for the project, as it will be decided by the Planning Commission on August Stn If it is approved, the applicant would need to meet any conditions set forth by the Commission and may take several weeks. -- The construction may take less than a week, but it is still dependent on approval and/or conditions. -- There will be additional removal of greenery, because one pole would need to be removed. -- We are only aware of the completion of the construction of the cell site (if it is approved). The cell carrier would have their scheduled timeline on when that will go online. But I suspect it will be as soon as the site is powered up and live. Charles Eder, PE Department of Public Works Citv of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 L IR From: Ardi [mailto:ardit@compuserve.com] Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2017 9:07 AM To: PublicWorks <PublicWorks@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Proposed Cell Tower 29504 Scottwood Mr. Eder, This week we received the notice for public hearing regarding regarding AS G32 — wireless telecomm facility on Scottwood drive. Your name was mentioned as contact to share any correspondence prior to July 28 so that it would be included in the planning commission report. I am forwarding the note (see below) that I sent early last month on this on topic. I did not receive any feedback since then. Can you please confirm receipt of this email and any reports/research that may have been done regarding the concern noted below. I plan to attend the hearing. D-285 In addition, either via email or during the hearing, please advise on the following: - expected start of the project - time for completion, per details noted in AS G32 report - will there any additional excavation + removal of greenery beyond what was already done to setup the mock- up? - expected start of service (e.g., by AT&T, Verison, etc.) via the new cell tower Thank you for your attention. Ardi Tavakol 29504 Whitley Collins Dr., RPV From: Ardi Sent: Friday, June 2, 2017 1:05 PM To: publicworks@rpvca.gov Subject: Proposed Cell Tower 29504 Scottwood Hello, Today a mock-up cell tower was installed right in front our property (29504 Whitley Collins). My wife has been in touch with you regarding the effect of microwave from the potential tower. I would like to voice some concern about our property value if this tower is actually installed at this same location. Should we ever decide to sell our property, the visibility (adjacent to a light tower) and health concerns can potentially affect some potential buyers and, hence, negatively impact the value of our property. Has the City done any studies regarding the impact of cell towers installed within 150 feet of a single family property? A web search shows different findings across many studies but mostly lean towards a negative impact (anywhere up to 10% drop in value). Does the city plan to compensate property owners in immediate vicinity of such towers? Whenever you schedule a public hearing regarding this tower, please be prepared to share any information you have may gathered in studying potential sites. Thank you for help, Ardi Tavakol 29504 Whitley Collins Dr., RPV Ara Mihranian From: Ardi <ardit@compuserve.com> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 4:49 AM To: Ara Mihranian; WirelessTF Cc: Guity Tavakol Subject: Re: Appeal for Wireless Telecom Permit ASG NO 32 (Scottwood and Whitley Collins) Ara, Thank you very much for the feedback. If indeed they are considering that new location it would be most welcome news for Guity and I. Sincerely, Ardi From: Ara Mihranian Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 10:15 PM To: 'Ardi' ; WirelessTF Cc: Guity Tavakol Subject: RE: Appeal for Wireless Telecom Permit ASG NO 32 (Scottwood and Whitley Collins) I want to add that I will email you as soon as I hear is a new location is being proposed. I believe the applicant is exploring located the facility at the intersection of Crest Road and Whitley Collins. Ara Ara Michael Mihranian Community Development Director GGTY0F IRAMGI ID I'LL \4 -__RDFS 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? 1 D-287 This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. From: Ara Mihranian Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 10:04 PM To:'Ardi' <ardit@compuserve.com>; WirelessTF <WirelessTF@rpvca.gov> Cc: Guity Tavakol <guity.ktl@verizon.net> Subject: RE: Appeal for Wireless Telecom Permit ASG NO 32 (Scottwood and Whitley Collins) Mr. and Mrs. Tavakol, The City is in receipt of your email and questions. See below for responses following each question. Ara Ara Michael Mihranian Community Development Director 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5228 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) aram@rpvca.gov www.rpvca.gov ADo you really need to print this e-mail? This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. From: Ardi [mailto:ardit@compuserve.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 3:31 PM To: WirelessTF <WirelessTF@rpvca.gov> Cc: Guity Tavakol <guity.ktl@verizon.net> Subject: Appeal for Wireless Telecom Permit ASG NO 32 (Scottwood and Whitley Collins) Hi Art, � ii This note is in relation to a notice we received in the mail regarding appeal by Crown Castle regarding Permit No 32 which was turned down by the Planning commission during the last Aug meeting. We live in the property at 29504 Whitley Collins, directly facing the proposed telecom antenna. Our objections to this installation was voiced (by email and also in person) at the planning commission meeting (also supported by other residents in the community. Question 1: Will the City Council be reviewing the discussion notes and related material that was covered by the commission and residents during that meeting? Yes, the City Council will receive and review a complete record covered by the Planning Commission. Question 2: Has there been any changes / updates to the proposer antenna relative to what was presented during the Planning commission meeting in August? If so, are those plans available online for review? Staff is currently working with the Applicant to identify an alternative location. That information will be made available to the public next week when the staff report is released. Until then, the proposal remains on the street light considered by the Planning Commission Question 3: Is format for the City Council meeting similar to the Planning commission with residents having an opportunity for a 3 min verbal discussion? Yes Question 4: Has the City Council reviewed / voted on other similar permits that were initially denied by the planning commission and then appealed by Crown Castle? If so, what were the outcomes of those earlier hearings? No. This is the first appeal public hearing at the City Council level. Question 5: Is this the last meeting before the final decision for this permit request? It depends on whether the Council feels they have the information needed to render a decision. Thank you in advance for your assistance and feedback. Ardi & Guity Tavakol 310-541-1394 Ara Mihranian From: Ara Mihranian Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 10:04 PM To: 'Ardi'; WirelessTF Cc: Guity Tavakol Subject: RE: Appeal for Wireless Telecom Permit ASG NO 32 (Scottwood and Whitley Collins) Mr. and Mrs. Tavakol, The City is in receipt of your email and questions. See below for responses following each question. Ara Ara Michael Mihranian Community Development Director CITvoF fL4`ICFbPaMs\EkDES 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5228 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) aram rpvca.gov www. rpvca.gov ADo you really need to print this e-mail? This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. From: Ardi [mailto:ardit@compuserve.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 3:31 PM To: WirelessTF <WirelessTF@rpvca.gov> Cc: Guity Tavakol <guity.kt1@verizon.net> Subject: Appeal for Wireless Telecom Permit ASG NO 32 (Scottwood and Whitley Collins) Hi Art, D-290 This note is in relation to a notice we received in the mail regarding appeal by Crown Castle regarding Permit No 32 which was turned down by the Planning commission during the last Aug meeting. We live in the property at 29504 Whitley Collins, directly facing the proposed telecom antenna. Our objections to this installation was voiced (by email and also in person) at the planning commission meeting (also supported by other residents in the community. Question 1: Will the City Council be reviewing the discussion notes and related material that was covered by the commission and residents during that meeting? Yes, the City Council will receive and review a complete record covered by the Planning Commission. Question 2: Has there been any changes / updates to the proposer antenna relative to what was presented during the Planning commission meeting in August? If so, are those plans available online for review? Staff is currently working with the Applicant to identify an alternative location. That information will be made available to the public next week when the staff report is released. Until then, the proposal remains on the street light considered by the Planning Commission Question 3: Is format for the City Council meeting similar to the Planning commission with residents having an opportunity for a 3 min verbal discussion? Yes Question 4: Has the City Council reviewed / voted on other similar permits that were initially denied by the planning commission and then appealed by Crown Castle? If so, what were the outcomes of those earlier hearings? No. This is the first appeal public hearing at the City Council level. Question 5: Is this the last meeting before the final decision for this permit request? It depends on whether the Council feels they have the information needed to render a decision. Thank you in advance for your assistance and feedback. Ardi & Guity Tavakol 310-541-1394 D-291 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 30' Staff Reports. Thank you, Ara Ara Michael Mihranian Community Development Director CITY OF LiRANCflO PXO6 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: 1 D-292 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! IN D-293 Ara Mihranian From: ebagherzadeh@aol.com Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 11:48 AM To: WirelessTF Subject: Fwd: Regarding Permit ASG NO.32 Hello, I reside at 5648 Scotwood Dr., just one house away from the proposed location for the mounted telecommunication antenna . I am a cancer survival and do not want any thing such as an antenna that could harm me or my family next to my house . Our area is not a dead Zone as far as using cellphone, There are companies such as T -Mobile , that they have good reception in our area. Therefor I ask you to deny appeal again, NO PERMIT PLEASE Thank you Nadereh A Eslami and Abraham Bagherzadeh 5648 Scotwood Dr. Rancho Palos Vredes Cell # 310 384 7090 Email: ebagherzadeh@aol.com D-294 Ara Mihranian From: Ardi <ardit@compuserve.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 3:31 PM To: WirelessTF Cc: Guity Tavakol Subject: Appeal for Wireless Telecom Permit ASG NO 32 (Scottwood and Whitley Collins) Hi Art, This note is in relation to a notice we received in the mail regarding appeal by Crown Castle regarding Permit No 32 which was turned down by the Planning commission during the last Aug meeting. We live in the property at 29504 Whitley Collins, directly facing the proposed telecom antenna. Our objections to this installation was voiced (by email and also in person) at the planning commission meeting (also supported by other residents in the community. Question 1: Will the City Council be reviewing the discussion notes and related material that was covered by the commission and residents during that meeting? Question 2: Has there been any changes / updates to the proposer antenna relative to what was presented during the Planning commission meeting in August? If so, are those plans available online for review? Question 3: Is format for the City Council meeting similar to the Planning commission with residents having an opportunity for a 3 min verbal discussion? Question 4: Has the City Council reviewed / voted on other similar permits that were initially denied by the planning commission and then appealed by Crown Castle? If so, what were the outcomes of those earlier hearings? Question 5: Is this the last meeting before the final decision for this permit request? Thank you in advance for your assistance and feedback. Ardi & Guity Tavakol 310-541-1394 D-295 Ara Mihranian From: Samson Munn <02467@earthlink.net> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 1:16 PM To: WirelessTF Subject: My Views of the Appeal Application Dear Mr. Bashmakian: As per the e-mailed request from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, here are my "thoughts" "in writing" regarding the appeal of the denied facility permits ASG #s 09,32,33,53 and 69. I object to the appeal(s) on the following grounds, jointly and severally: 1. Reception in Rancho Palos Verdes is already sufficient. That is, there are areas of strong reception and areas of no reception at all, and that is -- is -- sufficient, even more than sufficient. 2. When I bought my house at 7021 Calle del Pajarito, RPV, one of the real estate values I perceived was the absence of reception. That is, reception to me is a negative, while absence of reception has added value. 3. 1 am a Professor at UCLA's and an Adjunct Associate Professor at Tufts University's Schools of Medicine. My field is radiology. I know something about all kinds of rays. 4. There is a petition via NextDoor that your office has already received with over 100 signatories. That petition was with regard to ASG # 08. However, I received the dozens of comments added by all signatories. Many of these comments were with regard more generally to added cell emission/transmission towers. They were uniformly negative (none positive). 5. Via NextDoor, there have also been dozens of comments written generally about additional emission/transmission towers (apart from those related to the signatories against ASG # 08). Some of those additional comments were positive, while others were negative. Those that were negative outnumbered the positive ones by more than ten -to -one. 6. Proper process was engaged by the Planning Commission in its denials of those permits named at the outset of this message. If proper process yields denial, the appeal had better contain new and truly extraordinary and exceptional grounds in order to be re -considered. Substantiation of ordinary grounds for the permit applications at this time should be considered insufficient, since being late to circumvent proper process should not now be supported. In other words, Crown Castle had its "day in court," one might say, including proper opportunity to submit grounds for approval, and and simply lost. Unless the grounds now presented are extraordinary and exceptional, PLUS are combined with substantiation for why the grounds had not been submitted in due course (rather than now), PLUS are altogether new, Crown Castle's appeal(s) should be summarily dismissed without further consideration on the grounds of due process. That is, unless the new grounds are as I have described, satisfying all three categories of the preceding sentence, Crown Castle should -- properly -- not be afforded another "day in court," so to speak. THAT would compose due process, respecting the due process already behind us. Thank you, kindly! Samson Samson Munn, M.D., FACR D-296 CCCROWN CASTLE August 7, 2017 Nicole Jules, Deputy Director, Acting Director Public Works Department 3094o Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Crown Castle 200 Spectrum Center Drive Suite 1700 Irvine, CA 92618 RE: Shot Clock Tolling Agreement and Notice of Shot Clock Expiration Per RPVMC Section 12.18.o6o (OW for Crown Castle Wireless Communication Facility Site ASG. -A2 - New Shot Clock Expiration Date: September 30, 2012 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 u. 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. u. 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. Ae4lc_� Aaron Snyder CROWN CASTLE NG WEST LLC Nicole Jules Crry OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES The Foundation for a Wireless World. CrownCastle.com D-297 CCCROWN CASTLE December 1, 2017 VIA E-MAIL: ARAM@RPVCA,GDV 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 Rea Shot Clock Extension Agreement and Notice of Shot Clock ExRiration [RVP Municipal Code section i2A.o6o(C)(3)1 Dear Ara, This letter memorializes an agreement between Crown Castle NG Shiest LLC ("Crown Castle") and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("City") to extend the Shot Clock for ASG32 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. Rcd. 13994, ¶ 49 (2009)). Accordingly, the Shot Clock for ASG32 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. f Aaron Snyder Ara Mihranian Crown Castle NG Shiest LLC City of Rancho Palos Verdes The Foundation for a Wireless World. CrownCastle.com E-1