The URL can be used to link to this page

20171130 Late CorrespondenceCITY OF RANCHO PALOS VFRDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: NOVEMBER 30, 2017 SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented for tonight's meeting. Item No. Description of Material 1 (ASG -53) Crown Castle Legal Counsel Appeal Letter FINAL; Emails from: John Hurrell; Wayne wayver@cox.net>; Oliver Gruettemann; Ronald Tom; Camille and Ken Feldman 2 (ASG -33) Crown Castle Legal Counsel Appeal Letter FINAL; Comments from Jeff Calvagna; For the following emails please see Item 1: John Hurrell; Wayne <wayver@cox.net>; Oliver Gruettemann; Ronald Tom; Camille and Ken Feldman 3 (ASG -32) Crown Castle Legal Counsel Appeal Letter FINAL; For the following emails please see Item 1: John Hurrell; Wayne <wayver@cox.net>; Oliver Gruettemann; Ronald Tom; Camille and Ken Feldman 4 (ASG -69) Crown Castle Legal Counsel Appeal Letter FINAL; Comments from Jeff and Annie Calvagna; For the following emails please see Item 1: John Hurrell; Wayne <wayver@cox.net>; Oliver Gruettemann; Ronald Tom; Camille and Ken Feldman 5 (ASG -09) Crown Castle Legal Counsel Appeal Letter FINAL; Comments from Jeff Calvagna; Emails from: Dr. Joseph O'Neill; For the following emails please see Item 1: John Hurrell; Wayne <wayver@cox.net>; Oliver Gruettemann; Ronald Tom; Camille and Ken Feldman ** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted through Wednesday, November 29, 2017**. Respectfully submitted, A — Emily Colborn W A01 City Clerk\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2017 Cover Sheets\20171130 additions revisions to agenda.doc IN40D NEWMEYER DIL.LION LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW MICHAEL W. SHONAFELT Michael.Shonafelt@ndlf.com November 29, 2017 VIA EMAIL 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 brian.campbell( ipvca.gov File No. 2464.130 Re: Crown Castle: Appeal of Wireless Telecommunications Facility ASG53 Dear Mayor Campbell and Members of the City Council, This office is legal counsel for Crown Castle NG West LLC ("Crown Castle") in the above -referenced appeal ("Appeal"). This letter presents Crown Castle's legal rights under both federal and state law and presents an analysis of those rights as they pertain to the Appeal. 1. INTRODUCTION. At the center of the Appeal is Crown Castle's application for a Wireless Telecommunications Facility Permit ASG53 within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("City") public right-of-way ("ROW") at the northwest intersection of Monero Drive and Granvia Altamira ("Project"). The Project is a low-power, small cell telecommunications facility that serves as an integral and vital part of a larger telecommunications and broadband network in the City. A. Original Proposal. As originally proposed the Project would feature two 24 -inch panel antennas mounted on a four -foot mast arm, extending from the existing 52 foot -tall wood utility streetlight pole. (See Exhibit A, Original Design Photo -simulations.) Radios, which convert light spectrum from fiber-optic cable into radio frequency ("RF") spectrum, an SCE power meter and a disconnect box would be located in or on a ground -mounted cabinet adjacent to the pole. (Ibid.; see also Staff Report: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission (Sept. 12, 2017) ("Staff Report") at pp. 2-3.) The location of the Project is on busy collector street that is already heavily impacted with existing utilities. A photo of the existing site is presented here: 1333 N. CALIFONIA BLVD 895 DOVE STREET 3993 HOWARD HUGHES PKWY SUITE 600 5TH FLOOR SUITE 530 WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 LAS VEGAS, NV 89169 T 925 988 3200 T 949 854 7000 T 702 777 7500 F 925 988 3290 F 949 854 7099 F 702 777 7599 1 Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29, 2017 Page 2 B. Second Proposed Design. After conferring with the City's Planning Department Staff ("Staff') concerning less intrusive design alternatives, Crown Castle revised the Project to encase the panel antennas in a two -foot -tall canister shroud that would be mounted on a four -foot mast arm, extending from the existing 52 -foot tall wood utility street light pole. The bottom of the antennas/canister would be approximately 20 feet, six inches from the ground. Additionally, Crown Castle agreed to place the related mechanical equipment, including the radio and auxiliary equipment, in underground vaults. The Project would feature a total of three vaults that would cover 43 square feet of surface area as shown on the site plan and in the photo simulation below. All vents and meter boxes would be vaulted and flush with the ground. (See Second Proposed Design Photo - simulation, Exhibit B; see also Staff Report at pp. 3-4.) An excerpted photo -simulation of the Second Proposed Design is presented here: Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29, 2017 Page 3 After conducting a view impact analysis, the Staff concluded that the Second Proposed Design would not result in individual or cumulative view impacts. (Staff Report at p. 6.) Staff noted that: There are no designated City view corridors in the area, as defined in the City's General Plan. Monera Drive is classified as a local street while Granvia Altamira is designated as a non -local, collector street within the Circulation Element of the General Plan. By locating on an existing utility streetlight pole, the Project minimizes significant view impacts from surrounding areas. The height of the existing pole will not increase, nor would the installation of the two 2' panel antennas encased in a 2' tall canister shroud significantly impair any existing views. An existing 6 -foot tall privacy, masonry wall adjacent to the Project and mature foliage on all four corners of the intersection of Moreno Drive and Granvia Altamira provides screening from visual impacts to surrounding properties. Furthermore based on a view analysis conducted on August 3, 2017, it was determined that the proposed wireless telecommunications facility does not create a significant view impairment from a residential viewing area, as defined in Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code ... . (Staff Report at p. 6.) Crown Castle examined three alternative locations. (Id. at pp. 11-12.) Staff determined that the proposed location was the preferred location and that the Project was the "least intrusive means" of filling the existing gap in service at that site. (Id. at pp. 12, 15.) The Planning Commission nevertheless denied the Project. Their reasons were based largely on disagreements with Crown Castle's demonstration of significant gap -- despite the fact that the City's own RF experts, CTC Technology & Energy ("CTC") concurred with Crown Castle's demonstration and conclusion that service levels are deficient at the Project Site. (Staff Report at pp. 13-14.) As one commissioner conceded, however, the planning commissioners were acting as "armchair RF experts." In short, the planning commissioners were acting outside their circumscribed planning role and attempting to design Crown Castle's RF network. (See http://rpv.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=5&clip_id=2893.) The planning commissioners also voiced objections about the Project providing service to residents of the adjoining City, Palos Verdes Estates. The commissioners voting against the Project provided no direction on what design or location alternatives might be considered less intrusive. Crow Castle timely filed this appeal to the City Council, pursuant to City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code ("RPVMC") sections 12.18.060 (D) and 17.80.030 (A). C. Third Proposed Design. In the wake of the Planning Commission's motion to deny the Project, Crown Castle's engineers took a hard look at the Project with an eye toward arriving at a slimmer profile, more stealth design. Their goal was to see what designs could be feasibly employed to address the Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29, 2017 Page 4 generalized aesthetic concerns raised at the Planning Commission. The constraints faced by Crown Castle in this endeavor are those posed by the radio frequency ("RF") objectives that must be achieved to fill the existing significant gap in service at this location. For small cell gaps in coverage, such as this, the tolerances for achieving network objectives are tight. Nevertheless, the Crown Castle team worked with AT&T to arrive at a yet smaller canister for the street sign location. The canister would be 14.6 inches in diameter, as opposed to 24 inches in diameter. This third revision represents the smallest design solution for the Project; the reduction in size and profile has a resultant negative impact on the Project's ability to fill the significant gap in service. Crown Castle and AT&T nevertheless are willing to accept the reduced signal strength to achieve a mutually acceptable solution. As for locational alternatives, no least intrusive site exists in the Project area. (See discussion, infra, at Part 3 B.) 2. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL. A. STATE LAW. Crown Castle is a "competitive local exchange carrier" ("CLEC"). CLECs qualify as a "public utility" and therefore have a special status under state law. By virtue of the CPUC's issuance of a "certificate of public convenience and necessity" ("CPCN"), CLECs have authority under state law to "erect poles, posts, piers, or abutments" in the ROW subject only to local municipal control over the "time, place and manner" of access to the ROW. (Pub. Util. Code, § § 1001, 7901; 7901.1; see Williams Communication v. City of Riverside (2003) 114 Cal.AppAth 642, 648 [upon obtaining a CPCN, a telephone corporation has "the right to use the public highways to install [its] facilities."].) (1) Public Utilities Code Sections 7901, 7901.1. The CPUC has issued a CPCN which authorizes Crown Castle to construct the Project pursuant to its regulatory status under state law. Crown Castle's special regulatory status as a CLEC gives rise to a vested right under Public Utilities Code section 7901 to use the ROW in the City to "construct ... telephone lines along and upon any public road or highway, along or across any of the waters or lands within this State" and to "erect poles, posts, piers, or abutments for supporting the insulators, wires, and other necessary fixtures of their lines, in such manner and at such points as not to incommode the public use of the road or highway[.]" (Pub. Util. Code, § 7901.) The nature of the vested right was described by one court as follows: ... "[I]t has been uniformly held that [section 7901] is a continuing offer extended to telephone and telegraph companies to use the highways, which offer when accepted by the construction and maintenance of lines constitutes a binding contract based on adequate consideration, and that the vested right established thereby cannot be impaired by subsequent acts of the Legislature. [Citations.]" ... Thus, telephone companies have the right to use the public highways to install their facilities. Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29, 2017 Page 5 (Williams Communications v. City of Riverside, supra, 114 Cal.App.4th at p. 648 quoting County of L. A. v. Southern Cal. Tel. Co. (1948) 32 Cal.2d 378, 384 [196 P.2d 773].) Given the vested nature of the section 7901 right, Crown Castle contends that a discretionary use permit -- like the Conditional Use Permit required by the City in this case -- constitutes an unlawful precondition for a CLEC's entry into the ROW. (See, e.g., Michael W. Shonafelt, Whose Streets? California Public Utilities Code Section 7901 in the Wireless Age, 35 HASTINGS COMM. & ENT. L. J. 371 (2013).) In a recent case, T -Mobile West LLC v. City and County of San Francisco (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 334 [2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 769], the First Appellate District, Division Five, determined that aesthetic considerations are appropriate in determining whether a facility "incommodes" the ROW. That case is being appealed to the California Supreme Court. The court did not decide the specific issue of whether obtaining a discretionary use permit is a lawful precondition to exercising the section 7901 franchise rights. Public Utility Code section 7901.1 -- a sister statute to section 7901 -- grants local municipalities the limited "right to exercise reasonable control as to the time, place, and manner in which roads, highways, and waterways are accessed[,]." Nevertheless, such controls cannot have the effect of foreclosing use of the ROW or otherwise prevent the company from exercising its right under state law to "erect poles" in the ROW. That is because "the construction and maintenance of telephone lines in the streets and other public places within the City is today a matter of state concern and not a municipal affair." (Williams Communication v. City of Riverside, supra, 114 Cal.App.4th at p. 653.) Moreover, section 7901.1 specifies that such controls, "to be reasonable, shall, at a minimum, be applied to all entities in an equivalent manner." (Ibid., emphasis added.) Accordingly, to the extent that other public utilities are authorized to use the ROW in the City without having to obtain a discretionary land use permit, such disparate treatment may run afoul of the "equivalent manner" provision of Public Utilities Code section 7901.1. On the basis of Crown Castle's status as a CLEC, and its concomitant rights to the ROW, the Project is designed as part of an ROW telecommunications system. With respect to the siting and configuration of the Project, the rights afforded under Public Utilities Code section 7901 and 7901.1 apply. Crown Castle reserves its rights under section 7901 and 7901.1, including, but not limited to, its right to challenge any approval process, that impedes or infringes on Crown Castle's rights as a CLEC. (2) Government Code Section 65964.1. Recently, the California Legislature echoed the courts' oft -repeated declaration that "the construction and maintenance of telephone lines in the streets and other public places within the City is today a matter of state concern and not a municipal affair." (Williams Communication v. City of Riverside, supra, 114 Cal.App.4th at p. 653.) It did so in the context of enacting AB 57 in October 2015. AB 57 is codified as Government Code section 65964.1. 1 Notwithstanding the submittal of this application, Crown Castle reserves its rights under Public Utilities Code sections 7901 and 7901.1, including the right to proceed with construction of its networks without having to obtain a local franchise and/or discretionary grant of entry in to the ROW. Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29, 2017 Page 6 Under section 65964. 1, if a local government fails to act on an application for a permit to construct a wireless telecommunications facility within the prescribed Shot Clock timeframes (150 days for a standalone site and 90 days for a collocation site), the application is deemed approved by operation of law. When it enacted section 65964. 1, the Legislature observed that: The Legislature finds and declares that a wireless telecommunications facility has a significant economic impact in California and is not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution, but is a matter of statewide concern. (Gov. Code, § 65964.1, subd. (c).) B. FEDERAL LAW. The approval of the Project also is governed by the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (codified as amend in scattered sections of U.S.C., Tabs 15, 18, 47) ("Telecom Act"). When enacting the Telecom Act, Congress expressed its intent "to promote competition and reduce regulation in order to secure lower prices and higher quality services for American telecommunications consumers and encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies." (110 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 Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29, 2017 Page 7 supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record (§ 332 (c)(7)(B)(iii)). (5) Finally, no state or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction or modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the perceived environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with FCC regulations concerning such emissions (§ 332 (c)(7)(B)(iv)). 3. UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL WOULD RESULT IN A VIOLATION OF THE TELECOM ACT'S PROHIBITION OF SERVICE PROVISION. As noted above, section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) of the federal Telecom Act bars local governmental decisions from precluding the provision of wireless services: The regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof— (11) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. (47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II).) In T -Mobile U.S.A. Inc. v. City ofAnacortes (9th Cir. 2009) 572 F.3d 987, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals set forth a two-step analysis for determining whether a local government's denial has the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless telecommunications services in violation of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. In the first step, the applicant must make a showing of a "significant gap" in service. (Id. at p. 995.) In the second step, the applicant must demonstrate it has selected the "least intrusive means" to fill that gap in service. (Ibid.) Each prong of the Prohibition of Service Provision is addressed below. A. A Significant Gap in Service Exists at the Project Site. (1) What Is a Significant Gap? "Significant gap" is a legal term of art developed by the courts to guide a determination of whether a local government's decision on an application prohibits a carrier or other wireless infrastructure developer from providing service. (See, e.g., T -Mobile USA, Inc. v. City of Anacortes, supra, 572 F.3d at p. 995.) Put simply, "a locality could violate the [Telecom Act's] effective prohibition clause if it prevented a wireless provider from closing a `significant gap' in service coverage." (Id., at p. 995; MetroPCS, Inc. v. City of San Francisco (9th Cir., 2005) 400 F.3d 715, 731.) Significant gap is "a contextual term that must take into consideration the purposes of the Telecommunications Act itself." (T -Mobile Northeast LLC v. Loudoun County Bd. of Supervisors (4th Cir. 2014) 748 F.3d 185, 198.) Among the goals of the Telecom Act are to "promote competition," "secure ... higher quality services for American telecommunications consumers," and "encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies." Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29, 2017 Page 8 (Ibid.) Significant gap therefore is a fluid term that invariably rests on a fact -intensive analysis. The interpretation of the term must progress with the rapid development of wireless broadband technologies in order to advance the larger goals of the Telecom Act to "encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies." On that basis, the courts have counseled against "mechanical" or fixed formulas that become outdated and therefore impede technological advancement. (See, e.g., see T -Mobile Northeast LLC v. Fairfax Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors (4th Cir., 2012) 672 F.3d 259, 267 ["reviewing courts should not be constrained by any specific formulation, but should conduct a fact -based analysis of the record, as contemplated by the [Telecom Act]."].) As the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals noted in a recently published decision: The technology of 10 years ago may have only supported wireless service that had substantial gaps in coverage and high dropped call rates. But the technology of today supports increased wireless coverage with reduced rates of dropped calls. On this trajectory, the technology of tomorrow may support 100% coverage with no dropped calls, and the focus may instead be on subtler issues about the nature and strength of signals for particular uses. The [TCA] clearly intends to encourage this technological development and, to that end, to protect such development from interference from state and local governments when approving the design and location of facilities. This is manifested in § 332(c)(7)(B). Thus, in construing the level of service protected by § 332(c)(7)(13)(i)(II), we must take a contextual approach and cannot rely on any specific formula. (T -Mobile Northeast LLC v. Loudoun County Bd. of Supervisors, supra, 748 F.3d at p. 198.) In keeping with the principle of cutting-edge concepts of what constitutes a "significant gap," the courts have upheld the use of in -building minimum standards as a proper benchmark for determining whether a significant gap in coverage exists. (See, e.g., MetroPCS Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco (N.D.Cal. 2006) 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43985 ["careful reading of existing cases that contain a significant gap analysis persuades the court that any analysis should include consideration of a wireless carrier's in -building coverage."]; see also, AT&T Mobility Servs., LLC v. Vill. of Corrales (10th Cir., 2016) 642 Fed. Appx. 886, 891.) Moreover, it is important to note that a telephone network may reveal adequate "coverage" but inadequate "capacity." The distinction between coverage and capacity may be better understood in terms of transportation infrastructure. A two-lane road may provide "coverage," but once that two lane road experiences high -levels of urban rush-hour traffic, coverage becomes irrelevant, since the road does not have sufficient "capacity" to handle the higher traffic volumes. In other words, a network may have adequate coverage, but inadequate capacity, which results in the same problem: an impermissibly high level of dropped and blocked calls. The need to fill the existing significant coverage gap to a level that allows adequate in - building coverage and to address growing capacity demands is underscored by the greater numbers of customers dropping their landlines and relying solely on wireless Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29, 2017 Page 9 telecommunications for their phone service. The following additional considerations promote a policy of employing more sophisticated notions of significant gap: (a) In a recent international study, the United States dropped to fifteenth in the world in broadband penetration, well behind South Korea, Japan, the Netherlands and France.2 (b) Over 50 percent of all American homes are now wireless only. 3 (c) More and more civic leaders and emergency response personnel cite lack of a robust wireless network as a growing public safety risk. The number of 911 calls placed by people using wireless phones has significantly increased in recent years. It is estimated that about 70 percent of 911 calls are placed from wireless phones, and that percentage is growing. 4 (d) Data demand from new smartphones and tablets is leading to a critical deficit in spectrum, requiring more wireless antennas and infrastructure. According to a 2011 report, wireless data traffic was 110 percent higher than in the last half of 2010. Similarly, AT&T reports that its wireless data volumes have increased 30 - fold since the introduction of the iPhone. 5 (e) Wireless data traffic grew by a factor of 300 percent between 2010 and 2015.6 Global mobile data traffic is expected to reach a seven -fold increase by 2021. Determining what constitutes a "significant gap" therefore must incorporate metrics that are based -- not just on basic cell phone coverage -- but also on network capacity for advanced communications technologies. As more Americans depend on wireless communications technologies and smartphones, reliable network capacity and in -building coverage are critical. These are some of the reasons courts now recognize that a "significant gap" can exist on the basis of capacity needs and inadequate in -building coverage. (See, e.g., MetroPCS Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, supra, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43985; T -Mobile Central, LLC v. Unified Government of Wyandotte County (D.Kans. 2007) 528 F.Supp.2d 1128.) Wireless telecommunications are the primary mode of communication for Americans in the twenty-first century. That fact is amply demonstrated by the latest surveys in the industry, which reveal that over 49 percent of American homes rely wholly on wireless devices.$ The marginal service currently at the Project site is inadequate to sustain current -- and future -- 2 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Directorate for Science, Technology, and Industry, "Broadband Statistics," (June 2010): <www.oecd.org/sti/ict/broadband>. 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. 4 Federal Communications Commission (2012) http://www.fcc.gov/guides/wireless-911-services. 5 Executive Office of the President Council of Economic Advisors (White House, Feb. 2012) at 2-6. 6 https://www.ctia.org/industry-data/wireless-quick-facts. 7 http://digitalconqurer.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.ors/industry-data/ctia-annual-wireless-industry-survey) Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29, 2017 Page 10 communications technologies and demands. In a recent report, the "National 911 Program," which is an office housed within the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, found that "76 percent of consumers are using cellular phones to make calls to 911 while 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 two different frequencies that will be employed at the Project site. (See ASG53-Proposed Primary and Alternate Node Analysis, attached as Exhibit C.) Exhibit C identifies levels of service in terms of the following criteria: RSRP -65 to 0 _ -75 to -85 to -7�i _ -95 to 435 =-I 05 to -95 =-I 20 to -105 LDcadons Miable Failed Coverage Objective (a) Outdoor Only —Unacceptable Coverage (Black) (>-105 dBm); (b) In -Vehicle Only — Unacceptable Coverage (Blue) (>-95 dBm); (c) Suburban/In-building, Acceptable (Red) (>-85 dBm); (d) Urban/In-building, Acceptable (Yellow) (>-75 dBm); (e) Dense Urban/Deep In -building, Optimum (Light/Dark Green) (>-75 dBm). Each level is characterized by a minimum signal level. The key to coverage is having a signal level strong -enough to allow customers to maintain contact with the network so they can make and maintain calls. Signal level, the strength of the radio signal customers' devices receive, is measured in negative decibels per milliwatt ("dBm"). The larger the negative dBm number, the weaker the coverage. For example, a signal strength of -100 dBm is weaker than a signal strength of -80 dBm. 9 See https://www.911.gov/pdf/National-911-Program-2015-ProfileDatabaseProgressReport-021716.pdf Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29, 2017 Page 11 As a general rule, a minimum signal level of -75 dBM (yellow) is required for adequate in -building coverage and a minimum of -95 dBm (blue) is required for adequate in -vehicle coverage. As noted, the courts have upheld the use of in -building minimum standards as a proper benchmark for determining whether a significant gap in coverage exists. (See, e.g., Verizon Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco (N.D.Cal. 2006) 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43985 ["careful reading of existing cases that contain a significant gap analysis persuades the court that any analysis should include consideration of a wireless carrier's in -building coverage."].) Generally, there is a direct correlation between the height of the antenna and the strength of the service. In this case, Crown Castle's design seeks to strike a balance between service penetration and antenna height by targeting a minimum service level of -75 dBM, which is sufficiently powerful to reach indoor users while avoiding poles that may be too obtrusive. Slide 4 of Exhibit C reveals existing RF coverage at the project site. OASC 39 gar + 05 I. 5�5 r rK 637 This slide depicts multiple "polygons" (in purple) that represent the RF coverage areas of the Project (center) and the coverage areas of surrounding nodes. This slide reveals the importance of the Project as a "hand-off' node that links to the other proposed and existing nodes and their respective RF polygons to provide for an integrated network in the area. This slide reveals some areas of -75 to -85 dBm (light green and yellow) to the south that emanates from an existing roof -mounted AT&T site to the south at the northeast corner of Granvia Altamira and Hawthorne Boulevard. The slide also reveals that that the existing coverage at the Project site varies from -95 to -120 dBm at 1900 MHz. In the existing condition, users in the service area will experience an increasingly higher percentage of blocked and dropped calls for outside use, with a commensurate decline in signal strength as one moves toward the inside of existing buildings and homes. Moreover, as more and more uses connect to the network, the Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29, 2017 Page 12 number of dropped and blocked calls will increase, since more users results in more demand on the network and resultant capacity problems. In short, there is a serious capacity deficit within the service radius of the Project site. 911 calls in this area would be unreliable. These conclusions were affirmed by the City's own RF consultant, CTC Technology & Energy ("CTC"). CTC conducted its own significant gap analysis at the Project site and affirmed that the levels of service are lower than the acceptable standards for modern telecommunications service. If the Project is approved and allowed put on -air, however, coverage and capacity problems will be addressed, as can be seen in Exhibit C, Slide 5, which is excerpted here: el PaJuj� ,r ii . f.a ryr R:u,ae r � �. • V - i .frtA; C rfyr, PI �r,.�.lr�nl Ur � r�Vr •i ,.. .. , The Project will provide sufficient signal strength to ensure not only adequate signal for mobile and outdoor users, but reliable in -building coverage for all those customers who may seek to abandon their home landlines. The Project also will add sufficient capacity to address new data demands from smartphones and tablets. Wireless customers must be able to count on a level of service commensurate with that once provided by their dropped landlines. Such considerations are relevant -- if not critical -- to a determination of significant gap. (See, e.g., T - Mobile Central LLC v. City of Fraser (E.D. Mich. 2009) 675 F.Supp.2d 721 [considering failure rate of 911 emergency calls.]) One of the grounds invoked by the Planning Commission for denial of the Project was a conclusory assertion that Crown Castle failed to demonstrate a significant gap in service. The drive test data presented in Exhibit C refute that contention. Nor has this data been seriously controverted by any competent evidence or alternative data. Indeed, the City's own RF expert concurred with the conclusion of Crown Castle's RF engineers that a gap indeed exists at the project site. The Planning Commission is charged with addressing zoning and planning issues, not the regulation of RF, which is a matter preempted by the Federal Communications Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29, 2017 Page 13 Commission (FCC). The City engaged CTC as an independent RF expert pursuant to Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code section 12.18.050. For areas -- such as RF coverage issues -- that are outside the scope of the Planning Commission's competency and jurisdiction it should look to the conclusions of its hired consultants and the actual data compiled by RF experts, not the unsupported assertions of project opponents. B. Crown Castle Has Demonstrated That It Has Chosen the Least Intrusive Means to Fill the Significant Gap in Service. To establish least intrusive means, the applicant establishes a "prima facie showing of effective prohibition by submitting a comprehensive application, which includes consideration of alternatives, showing that the proposed [wireless communications facility] is the least intrusive means of filling a significant gap." (T -Mobile U.S.A. Inc. v. City ofAnacortes, supra, 572 F.3d at p. 995.) After that, the burden shifts to the local government: "When a locality rejects a prima facie showing, it must show that there are some potentially available and technologically feasible alternatives." (Id. at p. 998.) The court further explained that the applicant then has an opportunity to "dispute the availability and feasibility of the alternatives favored by the locality." (Ibid.) Because Crown Castle is a CLEC entitled to construct its facilities in the ROW, its small- cell and DAS networks are inherently ROW systems. On that basis, Crown Castle examined those alternatives theoretically available to it in the ROW. The analysis below demonstrates why the Project qualifies as the "least intrusive means" of filling the significant gap in service. (1) Height and Location of the Project. The antenna height and location of the Project were chosen to provide the minimum signal level needed to meet critical coverage and capacity needs in the service area. Despite the technical limitations of a low -profile, small-cell system, Crown Castle seeks to maximize the coverage of each node location, since maximization of the node performance equates to a lower overall number of facilities and a less intrusive system. Accordingly, the Project location was chosen to provide an effective relay of signal from adjacent sites, so that ubiquitous coverage of the minimum signal level is provided throughout the service area with the minimum number of facilities. The selected location maximizes the RF coverage of the Project and minimizes interference/overlap with the other facilities, resulting in a lower overall number of facilities and a less intrusive system. The ROW is ideal for the Project from an aesthetic standpoint because the ROW is an area already impacted with utilities and similar features typical of developed roadways. Importantly, the currently proposed location and design were identified after exhausting other possible locations in the relatively small DAS coverage area or "polygon." (See Exhibit C, Slide 3.) Crown Castle's RF engineers examined alternative locations in the immediate Project area, as depicted in Slide 3 of Exhibit C and as excerpted here: 4Su5i1 Gogglegr ti w yt rJF�. Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29, 2017 Page 15 As the Staff observed, the proposed site is the least intrusive for a number of reasons, including the following: (1) it utilizes an existing utility streetlight pole thereby obviating the need for a new pole in the ROW; (2) it minimizes significant view impacts from surrounding areas by utilizing an existing six-foot tall privacy, masonry wall adjacent to the Project; and (3) it benefits from mature foliage on all four corners of the intersection of Moreno Drive and Granvia Altamira, which provides screening from visual impacts to surrounding properties. (Staff Report at p. 6.) The Staff concluded, "[ff urthermore based on a view analysis conducted on August 3, 2017, it was determined that the proposed wireless telecommunications facility does not create a significant view impairment from a residential viewing area, as defined in Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code ...." (Ibid.) Crown Castle has satisfied its burden of proof under the burden -shifting process established by T -Mobile U.S.A. Inc. v. City ofAnacortes. (2) Small Cells and DAS as Least Intrusive Means Technology, by Design. Even apart from the careful siting of the facilities that are part of a small cells or DAS system, the technological configuration of small cells and DAS nodes is inherently minimally intrusive by design. Small cells and DAS were developed as a smaller -scale solution to the larger macro -site or cell tower. It therefore represents a significant technological advance in the development of reduced- profile wireless transmission devices. The nodes are designed to be smaller scale and lower power to allow them to integrate more easily into their surroundings and thereby render them less aesthetically intrusive. While it is impossible to make the facilities invisible, each facility will be designed to blend with existing features in the road to the extent feasible. Crown Castle's small cell network qualifies as the "least intrusive means" of filling the identified significant gap for the following reasons, among others: (a) Crown Castle small cells utilize the latest in wireless infrastructure technology, incorporating smaller, low-power facilities instead of using larger -- and sometimes more obtrusive -- cell towers; (b) Crown Castle small cells utilize the ROW, thereby avoiding intrusions into private property or undeveloped sensitive resource areas; (c) Crown Castle small cells allow for collocation by multiple carriers, thereby avoiding proliferation of nodes; (d) Crown Castle small cells strike a balance between antenna height and coverage in order to minimize visual impacts; (e) Crown Castle small cells carefully are carefully spaced to effectively relay signal with a minimum of facilities; and (f) Crown Castle small cells utilize existing vertical elements in the ROW, such as utility poles, or slim -profile new poles, thereby minimizing intrusions into the ROW. Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29, 2017 Page 16 (3) The Project Location and Design Qualify as the Least Intrusive Means of Filling the Demonstrated Significant Gap in Coverage. The Project utilizes small cell technology, which, as discussed above, was designed to avoid the need for larger profile macro -sites. As for the location, the Project is located on a busy collector street that is already impacted by existing utilities and the site is shielded by existing mature foliage and a masonry wall. The Staff confirmed that the location was the least intrusive of all the other potentially feasible locations. The facility, as revised, will utilize an existing utility pole and thereby eliminate the need for a new pole in the ROW. If the City can identify another feasible alternative location that allows Crown Castle to achieve its coverage objective for this Project, it would be happy to investigate that location. Crown Castle submits, however, that it already engaged in that search and that the proposed location is the least intrusive location available. 4. CONCLUSION. For the foregoing reasons, the City Council should grant this Appeal and approve the Project. We look forward to answering your questions on the day of the hearing. Very truly yours, Michael W. Shonafelt MWS Enclosures cc: Ara Mihranian, Director, Planning and Zoning Division, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, aram&p2vca. gov Christy Lopez, Special Counsel, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, christy.lopez ,bbklaw.com Dave Aleshire, City Attorney, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, daleshiregawattorne. s Lizbeth Wincele, Government Relations Counsel — Southern California, Crown Castle, Lizbeth.Wincelegcrowncastle.com Daniel Schweizer, Director, Government Relations, West Region, Crown Castle, Daniel. S chweizer(a),crowncastle. com Stephen Garcia, Manager Government Relations, Crown Castle, Stephen. Garci a(a� crowncastle. com Aaron Snyder, Government Relations Specialist-DAS & Small Cells -Southern California, Crown Castle, Aaron. Snerrgcrowncastle.com 7249386.1 EXHIBIT A GENERAL CONTRACTOR NOTES: CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL PLANS AND EXISTING DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS ON THE JOB SITE AND SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE ENGINEER IN WRITING OF ANY DISCREPANCIES BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK OR RESPONSIBLE FOR SAME. ASG53ml ADJACENT TO 6505 MONERO DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA SIGN OFF TITLE SIGNATURE NETWORK REAL ESTATE PROJECT MANAGER CONSTRUCTION MANAGER RADIOFREQUENCY DATE PROJECT DESCRIPTION: • PLACE CROWN CASTLE FIBER AT 27'0". • INSTALL I" SCHEDULE 80 POWER FEED RISER. • INSTALL 2" SCHEDULE 80 COMM RISER. • PLACE DOUBLE 4' CEA AT 22'6" WITH (2) 24" AMPHENOL PANEL ANTENNAS #CUUX045X06F0000 WITH MOUNT BRACKET #0900397/00. • INSTALL CISH -51 PEDESTAL WITH (2) ML IONS INSIDE AND SIDE MOUNT METER AND POWER DISCONNECT BOX. PROJECT SUMMARY arinn I IN Ur-3UKIr I IV1N T-1 TITLE SHEET D-1 DETAILS & NOTES D-2 DETAILS & NOTES D-3 DETAILS & NOTES D-4 DETAILS & NOTES D-5 DETAILS & NOTES S-1 SITE PHOTOS S-2 PHOTOSIM S-3 PHOTOSIM S-4 PHOTOSIM P-1 SITE PLAN P-2 POLE PROFILE TC -1 TRAFFIC CONTROL COVERSHEET TC -2 TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN PHASE 1 cuFV r Tlxrnpv PROJECT MANAGERS: CROWN CASTLE NG WEST LLC 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR STE. 1200 IRVINE, CA 92618 HEIDIPAYNE (949 300-9493 HEIDI. PAYNE@CRO W NCASTLE.COM FIBER MANAGER: CROWN CASTLE NG WEST LLC 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR STE. 1200 IRVINE, CA 92618 ALFREDO ARZUBIAGA (818) 939-5579 ALFREDO.ARZUBIAGA@CRO W NCASTLE. COM CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS: CROWN CASTLE NG WEST LLC 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR STE. 1200 IRVINE, CA 92618 MIKE GILDERSLEEVE (808) 286-8323 MIKE.GILDERSLEEVE@CRO WNCASTLE.COM NODE ENGINEER: COASTAL COMMUNICATIONS 5841 EDISON PL, STE. 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 TODD THREW (760) 929-0910 EXT. #101 TODD@COASTALCOMMINC. COM PROJECT TEAM ASG53m1 PHASE II CROWN CASTLE PROTECT NO. 242727 �CROWN v CASTLE NG WEST LLC 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR STE. 1200 IRVINE, CA 92618 www.cro"castic.com J PREPARED BY: Communications Telecommunications Engineering 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 929-0910 FAX: (760) 929-0936 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED, 1-800-227-2600 CALL AT LEAST TWO d DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # PHOTO SIM UPDATED 11/25/14 RELOCATE NODE LOCATION 12/29/15 RELOCATE NODE LOCATION 4/15/16 REVISION I ISSUE DATE SITE NAhfE & ADDRESS: ASG53m1 ADJACENT TO 6505 MONERO DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA TITLE SHEET DRAWN BY: I DRAFT DATE: APPROVED BY: RG 08/22/16 JT SHEET NO. T-1 LEGEND SYMBOL DESCRIPTION C&G PROPOSED ■ PEDESTAL EX TRENCH AND FIRER CONDUIT (PVT) POP EXISTING ® EXISTING UTILITY POLE R/W STATION POINTS SB (I UIP INCREMENTS) EXISTING CURB RAMP C&G EXISTNI] CURB &GUTTER RlW EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY — EXISTING CENTER LINF. ABBREVIATIONS A/C ASPHALT CURB C&G CURB & GUTTER CL CENTERLINE EX EXISTING POP EDGE OF PAVEMENT PL PROPERTY LINE R/W RIGHT OF WAY SB SUBDIVISION BOUNDARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES: NOTES: TEMPORARY EROSION/SEDIMENT CONTROL, PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF FINAL IMPROVEMENTS, SHALL BE PERFORMED BY THE CONTRACTOR OR QUALIFIED PERSON AS INDICATED BELOW: I. ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES "LAND DEVELOPMENT MANUAL, STORM WATER STANDARDS" MUST BE INCORPORATED INTO THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS CONSISTENT WITH THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN AND/OR WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLAN (WPCP), IF APPLICABLE. _. FOR STORM DRAIN INLETS, PROVIDE A GRAVEL BAG SILT BASIN IMMEDIATELY UPSTREAM OF INLET AS INDICATED ON DETAILS. THE CONTRACTOR OR QUALIFIED PERSON SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CLEANUP OF SILT AND MUD ON ADJACENT STREET(S) AND STORM DRAIN SYSTEM DUE TO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. 4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE SILT AND DEBRIS AFTER EACH MAJOR RAINFALL. 5. EQUIPMENT AND WORKERS FOR EMERGENCY WORK SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE AT ALL TIMES DURING THE RAINY SEASON. 6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RESTORE ALL EROSION/SEDIMENT CONTROL DEVICES TO WORKING ORDER TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY ENGINEER OR RESIDENT ENGINEER AFTER EACH RUN-OFF PRODUCING RAINFALL. 7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL ADDITIONAL EROSION/SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE RESIDENT ENGINEER DUE TO UNFORESEEN CIRCUMSTANCES, WHICH MAY ARISE. 8. ALL EROSION/SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES PROVIDED PER THE APPROVED IMPROVEMENT PLAN SHALL BE INCORPORATED HEREON. ALL EROSION/SEDIMENT CONTROL FOR INTERIM CONDITIONS SHALL BE DONE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE RESIDENT ENGINEER. 9, ALL REMOVABLE PROTECTIVE DEVICES SHOWN SHALL BE IN PLACE AT THE END OF EACH WORKING DAY WHEN RAIN IS IMMINENT. I. CONTRACTOR TO POTHOLE ALL UTILITY CROSSINGS. 2. CONTRACTOR TO PLACE SANDBAGS AROUND ANY/ALL STORM DRAIN INLETS TO PREVENT CONTAMINATED WATER. 3. SPOILS PILE WILL BE COVERED AND CONTAINED AND STREET WILL BE SWEPT AND CLEANED AS NEEDED. 4. CONTRACTOR TO REPAIR DAMAGED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY ENGINEER. 5. CURB & GUTTER TO BE PROTECTED IN PLACE. SIDEWALK TO BE REPLACED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY ENGINEER. 6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RESTORE THE ROADWAY BACK TO ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION SATISFACTORY TO THE CITY ENGINEER INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO PAVING, STRIPING, BIKE. LANES, PAVEMENT LEGENDS, SIGNS, AND TRAFFIC LOOP DETECTORS. 7. SIDEWALK SHALL BE RESTORED/REPLACED PER CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES STANDARD DRAWINGS. S. PEDESTRIAN RAMP WILL NOT BE DISTURBED. 1. GROUND CONSTRUCTION TO REMOVE/CLEAN ALL DEBRIS, NAILS, STAPLES, OR NON -USED VERTICALS OFF THE POLE. 2. ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH MUNICIPAL, COUNTY, STATE, FEDERAL, G095. AND G0128 STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS. 3. CALL USA 48 HOURS PRIOR TO EXCAVATING AT (800) 227-2600 OR 811. 4. ALL LANDSCAPING TO BE RESTORED TO ORIGINAL CONDITION OR BETTER. 5. ALL EQUIPMENT TO BE BONDED. 6. METERING CABINET REQUIRES 36" CLEARANCE AT DOOR OPENING. 7. CAULK CABINET BASE AT PAD. 10. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ARRANGE FOR WEEKLY MEETINGS DURING OCTOBER 1ST TO APRIL 30TH FOR PROJECT TEAM (GENERAL CONTRACTOR, QUALIFIED PERSON, EROSION CONTROL SUBCONTRACTOR IF ANY, ENGINEER OF WORK, OWNE"EVELOPER AND THE RESIDENT ENGINEER) TO EVALUATE THE. ADEQUACY OF THE EROSION/SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES AND OTHER RELATED 1 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. STORMDRAIN INLET PROTECTION INLET EDGE OF PAVEMENT FLOWL�70 FLOW SPILLWAY, I -BAG HIGH SANDBAG 2 -BAGS HEIGHT TYPICAL PROTECTION FOR INLET WITH OPPOSING FLOW DIRECTIONS EDGE OF PAVEMENT INLET FLOW FE72 FLOW SPILLWAY, 1 -BAG HIGH SANDBAG 2 -BAGS HEIGHT TYPICAL PROTECTION FOR INLET WITH SINGLE FLOW DIRECTION NOTES: 1. INTENDED FOR SHORT - TERM USE. 2. USE TO INHIBIT NON - STORM WATER FLOW. 3. ALLOW FOR PROPER MAINTENANCE AND CLEANUP. 4. BAGS MUST BE REMOVED AFTER ADJACENT OPERATION IS COMPLETED. 5. NOT APPLICABLE IN AREAS WITH HIGH SILTS AND CLAYS WITHOUT FILTER FABRIC. 2. 3. 4. 5. NORMAL LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES NOTES: LOCATION AND DEPTH OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED UTILITIES MUST BE PROVIDED BY THE SUBDIVIDER AND SHOWN ON ANY PLANS SUBMITTED TO THE DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS FOR APPROVAL. CHANGES MAY BE PERMITTED BY THE DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS IN CASES OF CONFLICTING FACILITIES. CONFLICTS BETWEEN UTILITY COMPANIES FACILITIES, EXISTING AND PROPOSED, MUST BE MUTUALLY RESOLVED BY THE UTILITY COMPANIES. FOR COMMERCIAL SIDEWALKS, THE FIRE HYDRANT SHALL BE PLACED WITHIN THE SIDEWALK 1'-6" BEHIND FACE OF CURB. MAXIMUM 2" DIAMETER GAS MAINS MAY BE PLACED IN JOINT UTILITIES TRENCH SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF CITY ENGINEER (IN TRACTS). CALIFORNIA STATE CODE COMPLIANCE: ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL BE PREFORMED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT EDITIONS OF THE FOLLOWING CODES AS ADOPTED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNING AUTHORITIES. NOTHING IN THESE PLANS IS TO BE CONSTRUCTED TO PERMIT WORK NOT CONFORMING TO THESE CODES: • CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE (INCLUDING TITLES 24 & 25) 2010 • 2010 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODES. WHICH ADOPTS THE 2010 UBC, 2010 UMC, 2010 UPC AND THE 2010 NEC. • BUILDING OFFICIALS & CODE ADMINISTRATORS (BOCA) • 2010 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE • ANSI/EIA-222-F LIFE SAFETY CODE NFPA-101 • 2010 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE • 2010 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE • 2010 LOCAL BUILDING CODE • CITY/COUNTY ORDINANCES ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS: FACILITY IS UNMANNED AND NOT FOR HUMAN HABITATION. HANDICAPPED ACCESS REQUIREMENTS DO NOT APPLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 2010 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE. FCC NOTE: THIS WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY COMPLIES WITH FEDERAL STANDARDS FOR RADIO FREQUENCY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TELECOMMUNICATION ACT OF 1996 AND SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS AND ANY OTHER REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED BY STATE OR FEDERAL REGULATORY AGENCIES. ------------ ASG53ml PHASE 11 CROWN CASTLE PROJECT NO. 242727 CROWN CASTLE NG WEST LLC 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR STE. 1200 IRVINE, CA 92618 www.croWncastle.com J 'PREPARED BY: Communications Telecommunications Engineering 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 929-0910 N- FAX: (760) 929-0936 J PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. 1-800-227-2600 CALL AT LEAST TWO DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # PHOTO SIM UPDATED 11/25/14 RELOCATE NODE LOCATION 12/29/15 RELOCATE NODE LOCATION 4/15/16 REVIMCNIMLT DATE SITE NAME & ADDRESS: ASG53m1 ADJACENT TO 6505 MONERO DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA DETAILS & NOTES DRAWNBY: I DRAFT DATE: APPROVED BY: RG 08/22/16 1 JT sxeer NO. D-1 CISH -51 PEDESTAL SIDE VIEW FRONT VIEW SIDE VIEW 22.5 49.0 591 eOOO Off° O 0 10.1 12.6 �22.5� NOTES: CUBE APPROX. WEIGHT W/PEDEDSTAL = 105 LBS ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED. SCALE N.T.S. Electrical Power Supply Mains Power, Vac. ...................................... 85 to 264 ......................................115 or 230 Power consumption, wafts ......................................1150 Connectors.............................................................. E2000/APC 8° Optical return loss, dB ............................................. 45 minimum Fiber type, mm..........................................................Single mode E9/125 Optical link budget, dB ............................................. O to 10 Composite input power Female @ OTRx master side, dBm .......................................See 1900 MHz .....................+5 composite 1700 / 2100 MHz.......... +5 composite Interface 11 max. BTS Side Number of connectors 1900 MHz .....................4 1700/2100 MHz ............4 System optimized for BTS power, dBm ......................................:33 .......................................43 Antenna Port DL output tolerance over frequency, dB ............................ t1 DL output tolerance over temperature, dB..........................0.5*** Connector .......................................7/16 RELOCATE NODE LOCATION ICP3 optimized .............. I ............. Female Output power .......................................See Noise figure, dB band specification Return loss, dB .......................................15 11 max. Noise figure optimized .............................. 4.5 1700/2100 MHz (AWS) 6 max. 39 36 UMTS 45 42 Frequency range, MHz 36 LTE 45 42** 39 36 Spurious emission .............................................. Uplink ............................ <-13 dBm / 1 MHz DL output tolerance over frequency, dB ............................ 1710 to 1755 t1 Downlink ........................2110 to 2155 Output power per carrier, dBm* ICP3 optimized .............................. -12 Number of Carriers 1 2 4 8 GSM 45 42 39 36 CDMA 45 42 39 36 UMTS 45 42 39 36 LTE 45 42** 39 36 Spurious emission .............................................. < -13 dBm / 1 MHz Adjacent chanel power, dBc.........................................-48 DL output tolerance over frequency, dB ............................ t1 DL output tolerance over temperature, dB..........................0.5*** External control parts Input ICP3, dBm RELOCATE NODE LOCATION ICP3 optimized .............. I ............. .. -12 Noise figure optimized .............................. -18 Noise figure, dB ICP3 optimized .............................. 7 .............................. 11 max. Noise figure optimized .............................. 4.5 .............................. 6 max. 1900 MHz (AWS) Commands...............................RF Frequency range, MHz 11/25/14 External control parts Uplink ............................ RELOCATE NODE LOCATION 1850 to 1915 Downlink ........................1930 ...............................Optical to 1995 Output power per carder, dBm* Supervision ...............................Output Number of Carriers 1 2 4 8 GSM 45 42 39 36 CDMA 45 42 39 36 UMTS 45 42 39 36 LTE 45 42** 39 36 Spurious emission .............................................. <-13 dBm / 1 MHz DL output tolerance over frequency, dB ............................ t1 DL output tolerance over temperature, dB..........................0.5*** Input ICP3, dBm ICP3 optimized .............................. -12 Noise figure optimized .............................. -18 Noise figure, dB ICP3 optimized .............................. 7 .............................. 11 max. Noise figure optimized .............................. 4.5 .............................. 6 max. System Supervision and Control Commands...............................RF on/off 11/25/14 External control parts Alarms ...............................Summary RELOCATE NODE LOCATION ...............................Power Supply ...............................Optical ILL and DL failure ...............................Temperature Supervision ...............................Output power on a per - channel and per -band basis (optional) Mechanical**** RE VISION I ISSUE Height, width, depth mm (in) ...............................817 x 245 x 218 (32.2 x 9.61 x 8.6) Weight, kg (lb)...............................40 (88.2) Environmental Operation temperature range ............................33° C to +50° C Ingress protection RF part ...................IP67 Fan part.................IP55 * Applicable to single modulation mode only ** 3db power reduction @ < 5MHz carrier bandwith *** With active cooling **** Spacing required 40 mm (1.58 in) around unit **** With passive cooling maximum temperature +40° C All figures are typical values GROUND ROD INSTALLATION FOR WOOD POLES TYPICAL SECTION: N.T.S. NEW WOOD POLE WOOD MOULDING BAREN Cu GROUND CONDUCTOR FINISH GRADE Cu GROUND CLAMP FCI No. GBL3-T8, #6 WIRE BONDING_, --'TYCO No. 83749-1, OR EQUAL JUMPER #6 (5/8" X 8') COPPER CLAD GROUND ELECTRODE GROUND ROD INSTALLATION FOR UTILITY POLES GND-1 NOTE: UTILITY POLE GROUND SHALL COMPLY WITH PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA GENERAL ORDER No. 95 (SECTION 59.4, 92.4) 2 SCALE N.T.S. Side ANDREW I0N-M17HP/19HP MULTI -BAND, MULTI -OPERATOR REMOTE OPTICAL SYSTEM Top I �245mm� 1 —mo_ 218m'm Front Side 3 N.T.S. ------------ ASG53ml PHASE 11 CROWN CASTLE PROJECT NO. 242727 �:CCASTLE CROWN NG WEST LLC 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR STE. 1200 IRVINE, CA 92618 www.crowncastle.com J 'PREPARED BY: Communications Telecommunications Engineering 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 929-0910 ` FAX: (760) 929-0936 J PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED, 1-800-221-2600 CALL AT LEAST TWO DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # PHOTO SIM UPDATED 11/25/14 RELOCATE NODE LOCATION 12/29/15 RELOCATE NODE LOCATION 4/15/16 ] RE VISION I ISSUE DATE SITE NAME & ADDRESS: ASG53m1 ADJACENT TO 6505 MONERO DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA DETAILS & NOTES DRAWN BY: I DRAFT DATES APPROVED BY: RG 08/22/16 JT SHEET NO. D-2 __J ASG53ml PHASE II CROWN CASTLE PROJECT NO. 242727 '�CROWN v CASTLE NG WEST LLC 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR STE. 1200 IRVINE, CA 92618 -c-castle.com PREPARED BY: isCommunications Telecommunications Engineering 'Illow 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 929-0910 FAX: (760) 929-0936 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED, 1-800-227-2600 CALL AT LEAST TWO d DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # PHOTO SIM UPDATED 11/25/14 RELOCATE NODE LOCATION 12/29/15 RELOCATE NODE LOCATION 4/15/16 POWER METER W DOUBLE CROSS SQUARE D BY SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC REVISION I ISSUE DATE EXTENSION ARM LOAD CENTER, 70A o c (MODEL #Q024L70RB) a 8" 4 3/4" c A B C' tLJB / O A J D 6,. / / © TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS / AMPERE RATING 70A �. F MAXIMUM SINGLE POLE CIRCUITS 4 WIDTH 4.88 INCHES APPLICATION DESIGNED TO MEET RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL AND / 12" INDUSTRIAL REQUIREMENTS TO PROTECT ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS, EQUIPMENT AND PEOPLE.SPACES / 2 WIRE SIZE #12 TO 3 AWG(AL)-#14 TO 4 AWG(CU) / MAXIMUM TANDEM CIRCUIT BREAKERS 2 G o \ / VOLTAGE RATING 120/240VAC \ / WIRING CONFIGURATION 3 -WIRE \ / PHASE 1 -PHASE F DEPTH 4.00 INCHES A HEIGHT 9.38 INCHES O BUS MATERIAL TIN PLATED ALUMINUM UL APPROVED ONLY COVER TYPE SURFACE \ C CATALOG REFERENCE NUMBER 110OCT9901 1"oBOTTOM ENCLOSURE TYPE OUTDOOR/RAINPROOF J KNOCK OUT ENCLOSURE RATING NEMA 3R GROUNDING BAR ORDER SEPARATELY APPROVALS UL LISTED E NOTES: SHORT CIRCUIT CURRENT RATING 10KA 1. TOP KNOCK OUT WITH LIQUID FLEX 45" AND STRAIGHT CONNECTORS AVAILABLE TO POWER UTILITY CREW MAIN TYPE FIXED - FACTORY INSTALLED MAIN LUGS CONNECTION. 2. BOTTOM KNOCK OUT FOR CONNECTING TO CUSTOMER FUSE DISCONNECT BOX. 3. HEIGHT MAYBE DETERMINED BY POWER UTILITY. SHIPPING AND ORDERING PART LIST NOTES: CATEGORY 00101 - LOAD CENTERS, 1 PHASE, NEMA1 & 3R, 2 - 8 CALL QTY DESCRIPTION 1. CROSS ARM AND BRACE MAY VARY IN LENGTH AND CIRCUIT, TYPE QO OUT DIMENSION. DISCOUNT SCHEDULED 3A A 2 WOOD CROSS ARM 4' X 3 3/4" X 4 1/2" 2, 5/8" MACHINE BOLTS WILL VARY DUE TO POLE PARTS LIST ARTICLE NUMBER 785901785132 B 2 GAIN PLATE 41/2"X41/2" DIAMETER. DESCRIPTION CALLOUT OW DESC. PACKAGE QUANTITY 1 C 1 EXTENSION ARM BRACE 47"X 13/4"X 3/16" 3. ALL LINE HARDWARE TO BE HOT DIPPED GALVANIZED T LIQUID TIGHT METALLIC FLEX CONDUIT WEIGHT 5 LBS. AVAILABILITY CODE S D 1 MACHINE BOLT 16" X 5/8" IRON. E 1 MACHINE BOLT 14" X 5/8" RETURNABILITY Y F 1 CARRIAGE BOLT 6"X 1/2" 4. BRACE MAY BE REVERSED DUE TO POLE CONDITIONS. G 2 SQUARE NUT 5/8" SQUARE NUT 1/2" SCALE 2 DOUBLE COIL SPRING WASHER SCALE SCALE C J 3 FLAT SQUARE WASHER 2 1/4" X 2 1/4" X 3/16" G+ 4 N.T.S. J N.T.S. V N.T.S. DOUBLE ARM MOUNTING BRACKET MOUNTING PLATE DETAIL 2'� 0.3125"—�I �— 0.8125" II�If{I� 4" 2" 2.875" B B 0 A 0 o C D C D PART LIST NOTE: CALL QTY DESCRIPTION ALL MOUNTING HARDWARE TO BE HOT DIPPED OUT GALVANIZED IRON. A2 MOUNTING PLATE 2'X 4"X 0.3125" B 2 MACHINE BOLT 16" X 5/8" C 1 DOUBLE COIL SPRING WASHER SCALE D 1 SQUARE NUT 5/8" N.T.S. ASG53ml PHASE II CROWN CASTLE PROJECT NO. 242727 '�CROWN v CASTLE NG WEST LLC 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR STE. 1200 IRVINE, CA 92618 -c-castle.com PREPARED BY: isCommunications Telecommunications Engineering 'Illow 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 929-0910 FAX: (760) 929-0936 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED, 1-800-227-2600 CALL AT LEAST TWO d DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # PHOTO SIM UPDATED 11/25/14 RELOCATE NODE LOCATION 12/29/15 RELOCATE NODE LOCATION 4/15/16 REVISION I ISSUE DATE SITE NA & ADDRESS: ASG53ml ADJACENT TO 6505 MONERO DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA DETAILS & NOTES DRAWNBY: I DRAFTDATE: APPROVEDBY: RG 08/22/16 JT SHEET NO. D-3 CUUX045X06F0000 Connector Description Theantenna has 6 ronnectors located at the bottom,each marked tha wl dying. Low 13-d(R1) 696-960 MHz Red Rings (2x416 -DIN Female High Band #10'1) 1695-2700 MHz Yellow Rings (2x)7/16 -DIN Female High Band V IQ)) 16952700 MHz Yellow 1,ngs (2x)7116 -DIN Female Electrical Characteristics Low.Band High Band, al and V Fregoenry Bands (MH4 696160 MHz (21)1695-27M MHz ' I E96E08 806-960 1695-1880 1850.1 990 1920.2200 2300.2700 !v Polenmoon 145° (?:U'-'45° (^✓ Horimntal Beamwid1h 47° 37° 49° 45° 42° 38° Vertical Beamwidth 40.6° 30.8° 24.8° 24° 23.0° 21 7° - - - - - -- -. - - Gain 12:2 dB, 13:9 tl8i 12.9 da 13.8 db 14.1 dBi 14.4 dB, E ariml Downnit 7 0°- edance 500 50p %P 51.5.1 51.5!1 Front-t.-Snk Ratio >. 24 d6 >25 d8 If Isolatlon Between Bands 130 dB > 30 d6 Isolallon Between Ports 125 dB 12119 IM3(WM comer) <-150d0c Input Power (2A 500 W (44 300 W Dipl—d Nq q0' -a Lightning Protection Direct Ground Operating Temperas -40° to +6T C (-40° to+140" F) V Mechanical Characteristics Dimensions(Heigh,.Wdthx Depth) 611,412x185 mm 24.1x162,7,3In i r weight -hoot Mounting Brackets 7.1 kg 15,71bs :8s Surma) Wnd Speed 241 km7hr 150 mph Front 0.25 m+ 2,7 ft' Wind Area Side 0.11 m 1,2 ft� Wnd Loada Front 305 N 68 Ibf (160 k./,or 100 mph) Side. 135N 30 Ibf 8 SCALE N.T.S. MOUNTING BRACKET #0900397/00 -� M8x130 bolt 1! from pole mounting kit I �I 1I I O O o rl �I I I TORQUE SETTING FOR M8: 25 Nm 'I'I tI II IS 1 L� TWO POINTS TILT POLE MOUNTING INSTALLATION supplied with tl pole mounting BE CAREFUL WITH THE ORIENTATION OF THE HEDGES OF THE TWO SQUARES To be throw and be replaced by POLE MOUNTING K0: / 48-115 DIAMETER POLES Qty PART No: 0900181/00 4473163/68 70-150 DIAMETER POLES n _ PART No: 0900182/00 Hot Galvanized - mid steel 8.8 2 NOTICE DE MONTAGE MOUNTING INSTRUCTIONS mounting bracket antenna In contact ITEM NO. PART NO. DRAWING No DESCRIPTION Qty 1 4473163/68 / M8xl 30 Hex Ed Bolt 4/15/16 Hot Galvanized - mid steel 8.8 2 83539 / M8xl 40 Roundscrew with square neck 2 REVISION I ISSUE Hot Galvanized -mid steel 8.8 3 6273400/68 / M8 Full Nut Hot Hot Galvanized -mid steel 8.8 4 6773500/68 / M8 Plain Washer 12 Hot Galvanized -mid steel 8.8 5 H3122 H3122-003-02 Connecting bar Hot galvanized 2 6 3801759/00 3/9252759 Tilt Spacing Bar Hot galvanized 3 7 H3124 H3124-003-01 Long Scissor Bar 1 Hot galvanized 8 3902772/68 2/9252772 1 Shortclssor Arm Hot galvanized 1 9 H3416 H3416-003-00 I Scissor Mounting Brace 2 Hot galvanised tie pian��rrmM ra: T I PART No: 0900397/00 m eno Chemin du Roy,II La boitadiere,374o0 Ambo se ANTfNNA SO1090N$ www.grwi-Ojpybeam H3452-104-01 4 ,rce pnprNra tie le axiEraMWlelOyaybwell ne pear&rc rcprcaa+, ni comm q des rlen m.ea.twamron&Xre rcpercomenmtleHeap6eielemem dme afhr Mr kai xc ASG53ml PHASE II CROWN CASTLE PROJECT NO. 242727 �CROWN � CASTLE NG WEST LLC 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR STE. 1200 IRVINE, CA 92618 `—c—castle.com J 'PREPARED BY: Communications Telecommunications Engineering 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 929-0910 ` FAX: (760) 929-0936 J PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED, 1-800-227-2600 CALL AT LEAST TWO d DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # PHOTO SIM UPDATED 11/25/14 RELOCATE NODE LOCATION 12/29/15 RELOCATE NODE LOCATION 4/15/16 REVISION I ISSUE DATE SITE NA & ADDRESS: ASG53ml ADJACENT TO 6505 MONERO DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA DETAILS & NOTES DRAWN BY: I DRAFT DATE: APPROVED BY: RG 08/22/16 JT SHEET NO. D-4 ASG53ml PHASE II CROWN CASTLE PROJECT NO. 242727 '�CROWN v CASTLE NG WEST LLC 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR STE. 1200 IRVINE, CA 92618 -c-castle.com PREPARED BY: Communications Telecommunications Engineering 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 929-0910 FAX: (760) 929-0936 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED, 1-800-227-2600 CALL AT LEAST TWO d DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # PHOTO SIM UPDATED 11/25/14 RELOCATE NODE LOCATION 12/29/15 RELOCATE NODE LOCATION SPECIFICATIONS ION-M7HP/85HP EU - Product Specification SPECIFICATIONS ION-M7HP/85HP EU - Product Specification Electrical System Supervision and Control REVISION I ISSUE DATE Mains power, Vac Input ICP3, dBm*** Commands ......... RF on/off 91 nominal .. 100 to 240 ICP3 optimized .. -11 min, operating ..... 65 to 264 Noise figure optimized -18 min. Alarms Summary PowerSuPPIY Mains power, Vdc Noise figure, dB*** nominal 48 to 60 ICP3 optimized 10 max. RF UL and DI -failure operating ... 36 to 72 Noise figure optimized 6.0 max. - - .. Temperature Power consumption, W 5.0 typical Supervision p ... Com osite output P P max. temp., fully loaded 900 power roomtemp., idle .. 380 850 MHz Mechanical* Frequency range, MHz. Height, width, depth, mm (in) Optical Link Uplink. ..... 824 to 649 K Version . .......... 817 x 245 x 218 Downlink 869 to 894 (32.2 x 9.6 x 8.6) Connectors E2000/APC 81 Output power per carrier, dBm* DCVersion . . . ..... 1053 x 245 x 218 Cabinet of ION-M7HP/85HP Extension Unit (AC Version) Optical return loss, dB 45 (41.5 x 9.6 x 8.6) Number of Carriers 1 2 4 8 Fibre type Single mode E9/125 pm Analog 45.5 42.5 39.5 36.5 Weight, kg (Ib) ....... .. . 40 (88.2) Optical link budget, dB 0 to 10 GSM 45:5 CDMA 45.5 42.5 39.5 42.5 39.5 36.5 36.5 Environmental Composite input power 0 OTRx master side,. dBm LTE 45.5 42.5** 39.5 36.5 Operating temperature range, °C ............. -33 to+50 700 MHz minimum .. .. -165 UMTS 45 42 39 36 nominal 5.5 Ingress protection DL output tolerance over frequency, d6 11 RF part .... ... IP61 850 MHz minimum.. .. -16.5 DL output tolerance over temperature, dB ±0.5 Fan part .......... IF55 nominal 5.5 Spurious emission 1 16. <-13 dBm /1 MHz Ordering Information Input ICP3, dBm'** ION-M7HP/85HP EU ..... 66 ...... 7693966** RF Interface ICP3 optimized -11 min. Noise figure optimized -18 min. Depending on the selected options and the configuration the ordering material number contains BTS Side (SMA) an identifying suffix. Number of connectors Standard Noise figure, dB*** 700 MHz 4 ICP3 optimized 10 max. Corresponding Main Unit 850 MHz .. 4 Noise figure optimized 6 max. 5 typical ..................7631412** System optimized for BTS power, dBm Corresponding Corresponding Master Unit OTRx 33 43 OTRx70-85/90/17-21 .... 7604304-XXRemote Unit antenna port Connectors 7/16 Female Return loss, dB 15 Sparing required 40 mm 0.58 in) around unit Subpopulations possible 700 MHz All figures are typical values, unless otherwise stated. Cabinet of ION-M7HP/85HP Extension Unit (DC Version) Frequency range, MHz Uplink 698 to 716/776 to 787 Downlink. 728 to 757 Output power per carrier, dBm* Number of Carriers 1 2 4 8 LTE 45.5 42.5** 39.5 36.5 DL output tolerance over frequency, dB. .. ±1 DL output tolerance over temperature, dB ... .. ±0.5 PAR 7.5 dB @ 0.11 Spurious emission <-13 dBm / 1 MHz 2 dB power reduction < 5 MHz carrier bandwidth from reference point B to A Spurious emission into Public Safety Narrowband <-46 dBm /6:25 kHz All figures are typical values unless otherwise stated 10 SCALE N.T.S. ASG53ml PHASE II CROWN CASTLE PROJECT NO. 242727 '�CROWN v CASTLE NG WEST LLC 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR STE. 1200 IRVINE, CA 92618 -c-castle.com PREPARED BY: Communications Telecommunications Engineering 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 929-0910 FAX: (760) 929-0936 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED, 1-800-227-2600 CALL AT LEAST TWO d DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # PHOTO SIM UPDATED 11/25/14 RELOCATE NODE LOCATION 12/29/15 RELOCATE NODE LOCATION 4/15/16 REVISION I ISSUE DATE SITE NAM? & ADDRESS: ASG53ml ADJACENT TO 6505 MONERO DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA DETAILS & NOTES DRAWNBY: I DRAFTDATE: APPROVEDBY: RG 08/22/16 JT SHEET NO. D-5 ASG53m1 PHASE 11 CROWN CASTLE PROJECT NO. 242727 CLIENT: rCROWN q,.0 CASTLE NG WEST LLC 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR STE. 1200 IRVINE, CA 92618 � www.croWncastle.com J 'PREPARED BY: Communications Telecommunications Engineering 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 929-0910 ` FAX: (760) 929-0936 J PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. 1-800-227-2600 CALL AT LEAST TWO d DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # PHOTO SIM UPDATED 11/25/14) RELOCATE NODE LOCATION 12/29/15 RELOCATE NODE LOCATION 4/15/16 REVISIONI IS. 01TF SITE NAME & ADDRESS: ASG53m1 ADJACENT TO 6505 MONERO DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA SITE PHOTOS DRAWN BY: DRAFT DATE: APPROVED BY: RG 08/22/16 JT SHEET NO. S-1 Existing Site m m �GQI(1lo' J Va Cerrilos yea Via Cerritos Gle Paseo x -a Monero Dr Monero I 3 ASG53ml Santora Dr Rio Linda Dr N 9 9osa Dr 6 Vicinity Map LOOKING SOUTHWEST CROWN � CASTLE Proposed Site ASG53ml ASG53ml PHASE 11 CROWN CASTLE PROJECT NO. 242727 ------------ CLIENT: \ CROWN v CASTLE NG WEST LLC 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR STE. 1200 IRVINE, CA 92618 � www.croWncastle.com J 'PREPARED BY: \ Communications Telecommunications Engineering 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 929-0910 ` FAX: (760) 929-0936 J PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. 1-800-227-2600 CALL AT LEAST TWO d DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # PHOTO SIM UPDATED 11/25/14\ RELOCATE NODE LOCATION 12/29/15 RELOCATE NODE LOCATION 4/15/16 REVISIONIISSUE DATE SITE NAME & ADDRESS: ASG53ml ADJACENT TO 6505 MONERO DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA PHOTOSIM DRAWN BY: DRAFr DATE: APPROVED EY: RG 08/22/16 JT �SHEET Na. S-2 Existing Site Via Cerritos > Via Cerritos yea Paseo La ASG53ml �DDtD�a h, Vicinity Map LOOKING NORTHWEST CROWN if � CASTLE Proposed Site ASG53ml ASG53ml PHA SI; II CRO—CAS TLE PRO]ECT NO. 242727 C CI. TENT: CROWN v CASTLE NG WEST LLC 700 SPECTRUM CENTER DR STE, 1200 IRVINE, CA 92618 www.cl Ow.'—tl—.. J 'PREPARED BY: Communications Tel---i-li.- Engineering 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 929-0910 ` FAX: (760) 929-0936 / PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL TO A'F&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. 1-xao-zz7-z600 CALL AT LEAST TWO d DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET 4 PHOTO SIM UPDATED 11125114 RELOCATE NODE LOCATION 12129115 RELOCATE NODE LOCATION 4115116 REVISIONIISSUE OATF SITE NAME & ADDRESS: ASG53ml ADJACENT TO 6505 MONERO DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA PHOTOSIM DRAWN BY.DRAFTDA'FE. APPROVED BY. RG 08/22/16 JT SHEET NO. S-3 Existing Site m m` �a Via > Ceniros Via Cerritos y�9 Paseo �a Monero Di Monero D, o ASG53m1 Sdntorie D, 1IiO Ia-a D� c N ➢ d jj �d 3� a9Osa Or 9a Vicinity Map LOOKING SOUTH CROWN � CASTLE Proposed Site ASG53ml ------------ ASG53ml PHASE 11 CROWN CASTLE PROJECT NO. 242727 CROWN v CASTLE NG WEST LLC 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR STE. 1200 IRVINE, CA 92618 www.croWncastle.com J 'PREPARED BY: Communications Telecommunications Engineering 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 929-0910 ` FAX: (760) 929-0936 J PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. 1-800-227-2600 CALL AT LEAST TWO d DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # PHOTO SIM UPDATED 11/25/14 RELOCATE NODE LOCATION 12/29/15 RELOCATE NODE LOCATION 4/15/16 REVISIONIISSUE O1TF SITE NAME & ADDRESS: ASG53m1 ADJACENT TO 6505 MONERO DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA PHOTOSIM DRAWN BY: I DRAFT DATE: APPROVED BY: RG 08/22/16 JT �SHEETNO, S-4 NEW CONSTRUCTION • PLACE CROWN CASTLE FIBER AT 27'0". • INSTALL 1" SCHEDULE 80 POWER FEED RISER. • INSTALL 2" SCHEDULE 80 COMM RISER. • PLACE DOUBLE 4' CEA AT 22' 6" WITH (2) 24" AMPHENOL PANEL ANTENNAS #CUUX045X06F0000 WITH MOUNT BRACKET #0900397/00. • INSTALL CISH -51 PEDESTAL WITH (2) ML IONS INSIDE AND SIDE MOUNT METER AND POWER DISCONNECT BOX. CABINET FOUNDATIONS / PADS CONCRETE PADS SHALL BE COLOR CONSISTENT WITH ADJACENT SURROUNDING SIDEWALKS. FOR INSTALLATIONS WHERE THERE IS NO EXISTING SIDEWALK, CONCRETE PADS SHALL BE EARTH -TONE COLOR THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH EXISTING SURROUNDING EARTH. INSTALL CISH -51 PEDESTAL, WITH SIDE MOUNTED METER PEDESTAL TO BE PAINTED BROWN 59.1" GROUND LINE •• ' -' . VA/VALVA/VA; AA/VA ;�!�vviwi�v%v%v% %vviwviwviwviw iwviwviwvi 36" SWEEP SCHEDULE 40 CONDUIT 12 T GREENBELT ;G 60'-36'- ---1 99 xG 12' T GREENBELT #6504 1 991 64'- 80" NODE 4"80'- NODE COORDINATE LATITUDE: 33.78152 LONGITUDE: -118.39250 FOOTAGE TOTALS C7 0' PUNCH THRU � U � 34' BORE 80' — TOTAL 11' I 58'— w D_ INSTALL CISH -51 PEDESTAL (7' B.O.C.) STA. 100 + 90 Q (Un (SEE DETAILS 1& 3 ON SHEET D-2, DETAILS 4& 5 N SHEET D-3, I DETAIL 10 ON SHEET D-5 AND DETAIL C BELOW) Q + 01 ZI Q 34' DIRT TRENC o SITE LOCATION o w EXISTING UTILITY POLE #1358367E (3' B.O.C.) CO ADJACENT TO 6505 MONERO DR Q STA. 100 + 61 #6505 5I CABINET FOUNDATIONS / PADS CONCRETE PADS SHALL BE COLOR CONSISTENT WITH ADJACENT SURROUNDING SIDEWALKS. FOR INSTALLATIONS WHERE THERE IS NO EXISTING SIDEWALK, CONCRETE PADS SHALL BE EARTH -TONE COLOR THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH EXISTING SURROUNDING EARTH. INSTALL CISH -51 PEDESTAL, WITH SIDE MOUNTED METER PEDESTAL TO BE PAINTED BROWN 59.1" GROUND LINE •• ' -' . VA/VALVA/VA; AA/VA ;�!�vviwi�v%v%v% %vviwviwviwviw iwviwviwvi 36" SWEEP SCHEDULE 40 CONDUIT 12 T GREENBELT ;G 60'-36'- ---1 99 xG 12' T GREENBELT #6504 1 991 64'- 80" NODE 4"80'- NODE COORDINATE LATITUDE: 33.78152 LONGITUDE: -118.39250 FOOTAGE TOTALS ASPHALT TRENCH 0' PUNCH THRU 0' DIRT TRENCH 34' BORE 0' TOTAL 34' R&R TOTAL SWP MONERO DR 4' SIDEWALKR/W 5' GREENBELT --10'+ — —36'56- 5' GREENBELT 10' 4' SIDEWALK R/W MONERO DR STA. 100 + 00 ^^GRANVIA ALTAMIRA STA. 100 + 00 U' G I � 8' p � � NORTH 4 SCALE: 1" = 40' ASG53ml PHASE II CROWN CASTLE PROJECT NO, 242727 CLIENT: '�CROWN v CASTLE NG WEST LLC 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR STE. 1200 IRVINE, CA 92618 WWw.crowncastle.com J 'PREPARED BY: Communications Telecommunications Engineering 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 929-0910 ` FAX: (760) 929-0936 J PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED, 1-800-227-2600 CALL AT LEAST TWO d DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # PHOTO SIM UPDATED 11/25/14 RELOCATE NODE LOCATION 12/29/15 RELOCATE NODE LOCATION 4/15/16 REVISION I ISSUE DATE SITE NA & ADDRESS: ASG53m1 ADJACENT TO 6505 MONERO DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA SITE PLAN DRAWN BY: I DRAFT DATE: APPROVED BY: RG 08/22/16 JT SHEET NO. P-1 A I ANTENNA DETAILS I SCALE 1:5 1 ANTENNA #CUUX045X06F0000 AZIMUTH: 0° INSTALL DOUBLE CEA ANTENNA MOUNT PROPOSED 1" POWER FEED PROPOSED 2" COMM RISER—N 015" T EFJDTING SERVICE POLE ry Q ANTENNA#CUUX045XO6F0000 Z AZIMUTH: 90" Do L900 POLE ID: #1358367E TOP OF EXISTING POLE: 52'0" TOP OF ANTENNA: 22'6" RAD CENTER: 21'6" AZIMUTH: 0'& 90° EQUIPMENT AND ANTENNAS TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH POLE. B 1 12 O'CLOCK VIEW SCALE 1:10 B 3 O'CLOCK VIEW SCALE 1:10 TOP OF POLE 52'0" PRIMARY ARM AT 52' 0" TOP OF POLE 52'0" PRIMARY ARM AT 52'0" QJ15" 015 SECONDARY SERVICE AT 34'8" SECONDARY SERVICE AT 34'8" STREET LIGHT AT 29'7" STREET LIGHT AT 29' 7" 12 PROPOSED CROWN CASTLE FIBER AT 27' 0" 12 PROPOSED CROWN CASTLE FIBER AT 27'0" 2 r 2' CATV AT 26'0" CATV DOWN GUY AT 25' 8" VERIZON AT 24'10" VERIZON DOWN GUY AT 24'6" CATV AT 26'0" CATV DOWN GUY AT 25'8" VERIZON AT 24'10" VERIZON DOWN GUY AT 24'6" \ \\3�' PROPOSED DOUBLE 4' CEA AT 22'6" WITH (2) 24" AMPHENOL PANEL PROPOSED DOUBLE 4' CEA AT 22'6" WITH (2) 24" AMPHENOL PANEL ANTENNAS #CUUX045X06F0000 WITH ANTENNAS #CUUX045X06F0000 WITH TOP OF MOUNT BRACKET #0900397/00 MOUNT BRACKET #0900397/00 ANTENNA TOP OF (SEE DETAILS 6 & 7 ON SHEET D-3 & 22' 6" (SEE DETAILS 6 & 7 ON SHEET D-3 & ANTENNA DETAILS 8 & 9 ON SHEET D-4) DETAILS 8 & 9 ON SHEET D-4) 22-6" RAD CENTER PROPOSED 1" SCHEDULE 80 POWER FEED 21'6" PROPOSED 1" SCHEDULE 80 POWER FEED RAD CENTER 21' 6" GROUND LEVEL EXISTING .,r.0&G•-••:r. \ \ \ \ \� PAVEMENT /\//,INSTALL VG R 8' %\//\//\//\\\ \\�� % %GS'\/\ �\INSTALL VGR (SEE DETAIL 2 ON SHEET D-2) -2) �\ j�\ j�\gI (SEE DETAIL 2 ON SHEET D-2) NS j ASG53ml PHASE If CROWN CAS ILL PROILCINO. 242727 CLIENT: CROWN v CASTLE NG WEST LLC 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR STE. 1200 IRVINE, CA 92618 N- _w_c,rownc.astic.com J 'PREPARED BY: Communications Telecommunications Engineering 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 929-0910 \ FAX: (760) 929-0936 J ------------ PROPRIETARY INF'ORMA'TION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PRO]HBITED. NI 1-800-227-2600 CALL AT LEAST TWO d DAYS BEFORE. YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # PHOTO SIM UPDATED 11/25/14 RELOCATE NODE LOCATION 12/29/15 RELOCATE NODE LOCATION 4/15/16 REVISION/ISSDE DATE SHE NAME"` ADDRESS ASG53m 1 ADJACENT TO 6505 MONERO DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA POLE PROFILE DRAWNBY I DR.4FTDATF: APPROVED BY RG 08/22/16 JT SIIBET NO. P_2 EXHIBIT B L-0 . 7sil� CeffftOS is Cef1wit }4, Via`CeMtos �e'.t, i rti 'fir\•� � ;�'� . IR. .._ M� t �M � �� W � � ` ' -•r'' SAI a` 4M~ 446 Monero D Monero D krOCATION -0 . Jia Cerrs; }4, Via Cerrifos ask WOW - � �� : �"i mow• �� EXHIBIT C CROWN � CASTLE 9/12/2017 ASG53 Wireless Telecommunications Facility The Foundation for a Wireless World, ASG53 Photo Sims -Before and After Installation CCCROWN Proprietary & CASTLE Confidential 1 2 _ � _, r = -• `'� -.ted► .ot. ' 41 w � w µ I IrSLa`3 C- 534 A IR 61.,e. MEMP 10. Goo eil; I J� - ■ fA�`��- - �� .— '—rte_`--� Existing Coverage E-wN Ar9T Son Xon I= ... - LTE RSRP 19DO 40e. &ROk 45 JS M • -No; NO ■ WIN 19 In AM 10 Jcs ■ SGO6 go: Raton aawmwmwwmd SG M4 ■ so ■ ■ CROWN Proprietary & CASTLE Confidential • ■ SGG4 *% ■ L .9 A. 'y S Ole ■■ frac■q a. L z Proposed RE Coverage for ASG53 CROWN Proprietary & CASTLE Confidential ryarnarxti�rl� yl, atF&*egal 112 'I'l Irdon 117 4,0 a vkj M3�,Q 7 fir ll:?,,ft >r q6 rr - - - - - - - - - - - CASG33 Li cwtl" A ASGS3 Lc [an Brrchpeld OF Mimfl) Di,• ASGs3xarU % OF klaycroll Dr Q, • Proposed Locations Eifvjll,Ard Eli I I *Vatile OFailed xC c- Drito Existing Wireless Comm. Facilities Existing AT&T Nodes IM LTE RSRP igoo MHz L E, a -65 too dHM aqw. U! -75 to -65 dBnl -85 to -75 dBm a -95 to -85 dBm CROWN Proprietary & CASTLE Confidential Proposed RF Coverage without ASG53 Staff and RF Consultant Report Summary Staff Report - "does not have a view impact per RPVMC" "least intrusive design and location after review of alternates provided" "limited commercial zones, few collector/arterial streets, residential proposals needed in order to provide coverage -staff and RF consultant supports that conclusion" "shot clock for this application ends Sept 30th" RF Staff Report - "9 sites used during drive tests" -increases chances of dropped calls, lack of connectivity "the proposed antenna patterns are designed specifically to cover the gap to the north and east of the proposed site" "gap in reliable AT&T broadband services" "we conclude that the proposal provided will address the coverage deficiencies within the target area CROWN Proprietary & CASTLE Confidential 1 7 From: John To: CC Subject: Cell Tower Recommendations Date: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 8:30:16 PM Council Members I have been attending recent meetings of the Planning Commission (PC) and am disappointed to learn that Staff are recommending reversing some of the PC decisions concerning cell tower issues. The PC reviews the Crown Castle proposals in detail and makes careful choices. Any proposed redesign of cell tower configurations have always been presented to the public and the procedure should not be ignored now. Crown Castle considers itself providing a collocation system (i.e., not just for AT&T) and their commercial partners may change over time. Identification of a gap in service is not a blanket justification for another cell tower in a residential neighborhood. Gaps have properties of physical size, location, number of homeowners involved, as well as magnitude of signal deficiency - all aspects should be considered. Thank you. From: Wayne To: CC Subject: Cell towers Date: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 8:24:40 PM I object of placement of these cell towers in RPV Lebsack's Sent from my Wad From: oliverCabcncwerks.com To: cc Subject: Planning commission and new wireless ordinance Date: Thursday, November 30, 2017 12:32:15 PM Importance: High Attn: RPV City Council As a constituent who has previously petitioned the abusive cell -tower tactics of Crown Castle, I'm appalled by their latest subversive tactics. How can there have been close door Staff meetings with Crown Castle involving brand new cell tower designs? This gives the strong impression that corruption has found it's way into our city politics. I urge you to constrain appeal deliberations only to designs reviewed by the Planning Commission. Also, going forward I urge you to take a firm stance versus Staff making secret meetings with Crown Castle. Sincerely, Oliver Gruettemann CNC Werks Inc. Tel.: 310-477-8546 Fax: 310-694-1141 ®❑ From: Ronald Tom To: CC Subject: Cell Phone Antenna Appeals Date: Thursday, November 30, 2017 12:18:34 PM I was recently informed of the appeal to the cell phone antenna placements. The planning commission is doing its job and appeals are based on finding error in the original decisions, not to introduce new designs and issues. Please do not subvert the process. The appeals should be limited to existing designs already considered by the planning commission. New designs need to go thru the same process as the original submissions and presented to the planning commission. I am surprised and saddened that the appeals process is being abused in an attempt to circumvent planning commission decisions. Ronald Tom RPV resident From: Emily Colborn To: Nathan Zweizia Subject: FW: Inappropriate Back -Room Dealing Date: Thursday, November 30, 2017 2:11:22 PM -----Original Message ----- From: Ken Feldman [mailto:k.feldman&cox.net] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 2:08 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Inappropriate Back -Room Dealing My husband and I have attended and spoken at numerous meetings concerning cell -towers up for approval on the Peninsula. This attendance has spanned over two years of City Council meetings and Planning Commission Meetings in Rancho Palos Verdes and in Palos Verdes Estates Verdes. We are absolutely stunned to hear that the RPV City Council has been circumventing the legal and moral duties of the elected Planning Commissioners. Please self -correct and follow the mandates of the laws enacted to preserve the character of the peninsula. THAT is yourjob. Sincerely, Camille [ and Ken ] Feldman IN40D NEWMEYER DIL.LION LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW MICHAEL W. SHONAFELT Michael.Shonafelt@ndlf.com November 29, 2017 VIA EMAIL 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 brian.campbell( ipvca.gov File No. 2464.130 Re: Crown Castle: Appeal of Wireless Telecommunications Facility ASG33 Dear Mayor Campbell and Members of the City Council, This office is legal counsel for Crown Castle NG West LLC ("Crown Castle") in the above -referenced appeal ("Appeal"). This letter presents Crown Castle's legal rights under both federal and state law and presents an analysis of those rights as they pertain to the Appeal. 1. INTRODUCTION. At the center of the Appeal is Crown Castle's application for a Wireless Telecommunications Facility Permit ASG33 within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("City") public right-of-way ("ROW") at the northeast corner of Chartres Drive and Cartier Drive. ("Project"). The Project is a low-power, small cell telecommunications facility that serves as an integral and vital part of a larger telecommunications and broadband network in the City. A. Original Proposal. As originally proposed the Project would feature a new, 14 -foot steel pole with two two - foot -tall panel antennas topping the pole at 14 feet. (See Exhibit A, Original Design Photo - simulations.) Radios, which convert light spectrum from fiber-optic cable into radio frequency ("RF") spectrum, an SCE power meter and a disconnect box would be located in or on a ground - mounted cabinet adjacent to the pole. (Ibid.) Notably, there is little existing vertical infrastructure in the Project area. The neighborhood feature no streetlights or utility poles. Crown Castle selected a site that is on a street intersection, in a landscaped parkway at the base of a landscaped slope that buffers the site from the nearest home, located at 30182 Cartier Drive, and partially buffered by existing trees and shrubs. The facility would be well outside ocean view corridors from any residence and would be located entirely in the ROW. (See Exhibit A.) In its initial staff report for the July 25, 2017, Planning Commission hearing, the Planning Department Staff ("Staff') noted that it had conducted view impact analyses of the Project and 1333 N. CALIFONIA BLVD 895 DOVE STREET 3993 HOWARD HUGHES PKWY sulrE 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 Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29, 2017 Page 2 concluded that the Project did not impair views from surrounding residences or from Chartres Drive and Cartier Drive. (See Staff Report: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission (July 25, 2017) at pp. 5-6, 8.) The Staff also concluded that "the proposed installation is likely the least intrusive location for the wireless telecommunications facility in the immediate area," and recommended approval. (Id. at p. 10.) At the July 25, 2017, Planning Commission hearing, the City's legal counsel opined that, with the proposed conditions of approval, the Project met "all" of the City's application criteria. (See video of proceedings of July 25, 2017, http://rpv.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=5&clip_id=2851, at 3:17:20.) The Planning Commission voted to continue the matter to August 22, 2017, meeting to receive information from the City's radio frequency consultant. B. Second Proposed Design. Based on a range of freewheeling and open-ended comments received from the Planning Commission on July 25, 2017, and subsequent site walks with the Staff, Crown Castle proposed moving the pole further to the west, to replace an existing stop sign at the intersection of Cartier and Chartres Drive with a 14 -foot pole capable of accommodating both the stop sign and the telecommunications antennas, thereby eliminating the need for a new pole in the ROW. The replacement pole would be 12 inches in diameter and incorporate a 3.5 -foot tall, 24 -inch diameter canister at its top. Crown Castle also agreed with a staff recommendation to place the equipment cabinet underground, in a subterranean vault. (See Photo -simulations of First Revision, attached as Exhibit B.) For a second time, the Staff recommended approval. Notwithstanding Crown Castle's efforts to reduce the visual profile of the Project, the Planning Commission adopted a motion to deny the Project at its continued hearing on August 22, 2017, with no specific grounds, aside from an ill-defined concern about "setting precedent" and "cumulative" aesthetic impacts for possible speculative future facilities that have not yet seen the light of day. The Planning Commission otherwise provided Crown Castle with no specific direction on what design or location alternatives would be considered less intrusive. Crown Castle timely filed this appeal to the City Council, pursuant to City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code ("RPVMC") sections 12.18.060 (D) and 17.80.030 (A). C. Third (Current) Proposal. In the wake of the Planning Commission's motion to deny the Project, Crown Castle's engineers took a hard look at the Project with an eye toward arriving at a slimmer profile, more stealth design. Their goal was to see what designs could be feasibly employed to address the generalized aesthetic concerns raised at the Planning Commission. The constraints faced by Crown Castle in this endeavor are those posed by the radio frequency ("RF") objectives that must be achieved to fill the existing significant gap in service at this location. As Andrew Afflerbach, Ph.D -- the City's own RF expert -- noted, "there is no free lunch" with respect to reducing antenna size. As antennas are reduced in size, so is their effectiveness in achieving RF coverage objectives. (See Part 3.A.1, below.) For small cell gaps in coverage, such as this, the tolerances for achieving network objectives are tight. Nevertheless, the Crown Castle team worked with AT&T to arrive at a yet smaller canister for the street sign location. The canister would be 14.6 inches in diameter, as opposed to Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29, 2017 Page 3 24 inches in diameter. A tapered skirt at the base of the canister would provide a visual transition from the canister to the 12 -inch pole. The canister would still top out at 14 feet. A conceptual photo -simulation of this third revised design is attached at Exhibit C. An excerpted photo -simulation of the Third Design Proposal is presented here: This third revision represents the smallest design solution for the Project; the reduction in size and profile has a resultant negative impact on the Project's ability to fill the significant gap in service. Crown Castle and AT&T nevertheless are willing to accept the reduced signal strength to achieve a mutually acceptable solution. As for locational alternatives, no least intrusive site exists in the Project area. (See discussion, infra, at Part 3 A.) 2. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL. A. STATE LAW. Crown Castle is a "competitive local exchange carrier" ("CLEC"). CLECs qualify as a "Public utility" and therefore have a special status under state law. By virtue of the CPUC's issuance of a "certificate of public convenience and necessity" ("CPCN"), CLECs have authority under state law to "erect poles, posts, piers, or abutments" in the ROW subject only to local municipal control over the "time, place and manner" of access to the ROW. (Pub. Util. Code, §§ 1001, 7901; 7901.1; see Williams Communication v. City of Riverside (2003) 114 Cal.AppAth 642, 648 [upon obtaining a CPCN, a telephone corporation has "the right to use the public highways to install [its] facilities."].) (1) Public Utilities Code Sections 7901, 7901.1. The CPUC has issued a CPCN which authorizes Crown Castle to construct the Project pursuant to its regulatory status under state law. Crown Castle's special regulatory status as a CLEC gives rise to a vested right under Public Utilities Code section 7901 to use the ROW in the City to "construct ... telephone lines along and upon any public road or highway, along or across Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29, 2017 Page 4 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].) Given the vested nature of the section 7901 right, Crown Castle contends that a discretionary use permit -- like the Conditional Use Permit required by the City in this case -- constitutes an unlawful precondition for a CLEC's entry into the ROW. (See, e.g., Michael W. Shonafelt, Whose Streets? California Public Utilities Code Section 7901 in the Wireless Age, 35 HASTINGS COMM. & ENT. L. J. 371 (2013).) In a recent case, T -Mobile West LLC v. City and County of San Francisco (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 334 [2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 769], the First Appellate District, Division Five, determined that aesthetic considerations are appropriate in determining whether a facility "incommodes" the ROW. That case is being appealed to the California Supreme Court. The court did not decide the specific issue of whether obtaining a discretionary use permit is a lawful precondition to exercising the section 7901 franchise rights. Public Utility Code section 7901.1 -- a sister statute to section 7901 -- grants local municipalities the limited "right to exercise reasonable control as to the time, place, and manner in which roads, highways, and waterways are accessed[,]." Nevertheless, such controls cannot have the effect of foreclosing use of the ROW or otherwise prevent the company from exercising its right under state law to "erect poles" in the ROW. That is because "the construction and maintenance of telephone lines in the streets and other public places within the City is today a matter of state concern and not a municipal affair." (Williams Communication v. City of Riverside, supra, 114 Cal.AppAth at p. 653.) Moreover, section 7901.1 specifies that such controls, "to be reasonable, shall, at a minimum, be applied to all entities in an equivalent manner." (Ibid., emphasis added.) Accordingly, to the extent that other public utilities are authorized to use the ROW in the City without having to obtain a discretionary land use permit, such disparate treatment may run afoul of the "equivalent manner" provision of Public Utilities Code section 7901.1. 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 29, 2017 Page 5 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 Ca1.App.4th at p. 653.) It did so in the context of enacting AB 57 in October 2015. AB 57 is codified as Government Code section 65964.1. Under section 65964. 1, if a local government fails to act on an application for a permit to construct a wireless telecommunications facility within the prescribed Shot Clock timeframes (150 days for a standalone site and 90 days for a collocation site), the application is deemed approved by operation of law. When it enacted section 65964. 1, the Legislature observed that: The Legislature finds and declares that a wireless telecommunications facility has a significant economic impact in California and is not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution, but is a matter of statewide concern. (Gov. Code, § 65964.1, subd. (c).) B. FEDERAL LAW. The approval of the Project also is governed by the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (codified as amend in scattered sections of U.S.C., Tabs 15, 18, 47) ("Telecom Act"). When enacting the Telecom Act, Congress expressed its intent "to promote competition and reduce regulation in order to secure lower prices and higher quality services for American telecommunications consumers and encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies." (110 Stat. at 56.) As one court noted: Congress enacted the TCA to promote competition and higher quality in telecommunications services and to encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies. Congress intended to promote a national cellular network and to secure lower prices and better service for consumers by opening all telecommunications markets to competition. (T -Mobile Central, LLC v. Unified Government of Wyandotte, 528 F.Supp. 2d 1128, 1146-47 (D. Kan. 2007). One way in which the Telecom Act accomplishes those goals is by reducing impediments imposed by local governments upon the installation of wireless communications facilities, such as antenna facilities. (47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(A).) Section 332(c)(7)(B) provides the limitations on the general authority reserved to state and local governments. Those limitations are set forth as follows: Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29, 2017 Page 6 (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: The regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof— (11) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. (47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II).) In T -Mobile U.S.A. Inc. v. City ofAnacortes (9th Cir. 2009) 572 F.3d 987, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals set forth a two-step analysis for determining whether a local government's denial has the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless telecommunications services in violation of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. In the first step, the applicant must make a showing of a "significant gap" in service. (Id. at p. 995.) In the second step, the applicant must demonstrate it has selected the "least intrusive means" to fill that gap in service. (Ibid.) Each prong of the Prohibition of Service Provision is addressed below. Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29, 2017 Page 7 A. A Significant Gap in Service Exists at the Project Site. (1) What Is a Significant Gap? "Significant gap" is a legal term of art developed by the courts to guide a determination of whether a local government's decision on an application prohibits a carrier or other wireless infrastructure developer from providing service. (See, e.g., T -Mobile USA, Inc. v. City of Anacortes, supra, 572 F.3d at p. 995.) Put simply, "a locality could violate the [Telecom Act's] effective prohibition clause if it prevented a wireless provider from closing a `significant gap' in service coverage." (Id., at p. 995; MetroPCS, Inc. v. City of San Francisco (9th Cir., 2005) 400 F.3d 715, 731.) Significant gap is "a contextual term that must take into consideration the purposes of the Telecommunications Act itself." (T -Mobile Northeast LLC v. Loudoun County Bd. of Supervisors (4th Cir. 2014) 748 F.3d 185, 198.). Among the goals of the Telecom Act are to "promote competition," "secure ... higher 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 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)(13)(i)(11), we must take a contextual approach and cannot rely on any specific formula. (T -Mobile Northeast LLC v. Loudoun County Bd. of Supervisors, supra, 748 F.3d at p. 198.) In keeping with the principle of cutting-edge concepts of what constitutes a "significant gap," the courts have upheld the use of in -building minimum standards as a proper benchmark for determining whether a significant gap in coverage exists. (See, e.g., MetroPCS Inc. v. City Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29, 2017 Page 8 and County of San Francisco (N.D.Cal. 2006) 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43985 ["careful reading of existing cases that contain a significant gap analysis persuades the court that any analysis should include consideration of a wireless carrier's in -building coverage."]; see also, AT&T Mobility Servs., LLC v. Vill. of Corrales (10th Cir., 2016) 642 Fed. Appx. 886, 891.) Moreover, it is important to note that a telephone network may reveal adequate "coverage" but inadequate "capacity." The distinction between coverage and capacity may be better understood in terms of transportation infrastructure. A two-lane road may provide "coverage," but once that two lane road experiences high -levels of urban rush-hour traffic, coverage becomes irrelevant, since the road does not have sufficient "capacity" to handle the higher traffic volumes. In other words, a network may have adequate coverage, but inadequate capacity, which results in the same problem: an impermissibly high level of dropped and blocked calls. The need to fill the existing significant coverage gap to a level that allows adequate in - building coverage and to address growing capacity demands is underscored by the greater numbers of customers dropping their landlines and relying solely on wireless telecommunications for their phone service. The following additional considerations promote a policy of employing more sophisticated notions of significant gap: (a) In a recent international study, the United States dropped to fifteenth in the world in broadband penetration, well behind South Korea, Japan, the Netherlands and France.2 (b) Over 50 percent of all American homes are now wireless only. 3 (c) More and more civic leaders and emergency response personnel cite lack of a robust wireless network as a growing public safety risk. The number of 911 calls placed by people using wireless phones has significantly increased in recent years. It is estimated that about 70 percent of 911 calls are placed from wireless phones, and that percentage is growing. 4 (d) Data demand from new smartphones and tablets is leading to a critical deficit in spectrum, requiring more wireless antennas and infrastructure. According to a 2011 report, wireless data traffic was 110 percent higher than in the last half of 2010. Similarly, AT&T reports that its wireless data volumes have increased 30 - fold since the introduction of the iPhone. 5 (e) Wireless data traffic grew by a factor of 300 percent between 2010 and 2015.6 2 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Directorate for Science, Technology, and Industry, "Broadband Statistics," (June 2010): <www.oecd.org/sti/ict/broadband>. 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 4 Federal Communications Commission (2012) http://www.fcc.gov/guides/wireless-911-services. 5 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. Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29, 2017 Page 9 Global mobile data traffic is expected to reach a seven -fold increase by 2021. Determining what constitutes a "significant gap" therefore must incorporate metrics that are based -- not just on basic cell phone coverage -- but also on network capacity for advanced communications technologies. As more Americans depend on wireless communications technologies and smartphones, reliable network capacity and in -building coverage are critical. These are some of the reasons courts now recognize that a "significant gap" can exist on the basis of capacity needs and inadequate in -building coverage. (See, e.g., MetroPCS Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, supra, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43985; T -Mobile Central, LLC v. Unified Government of Wyandotte County (D.Kans. 2007) 528 F.Supp.2d 1128.) Wireless telecommunications are the primary mode of communication for Americans in the twenty-first century. That fact is amply demonstrated by the latest surveys in the industry, which reveal that over 49 percent of American homes rely wholly on wireless devices.8 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 2lpercent are using wireline phones."9 On that ground alone, this is a matter of health, safety and welfare for the residents and visitors of the City. Notably, 911 service over systems like this is not just limited to AT&T users -- the networks carries 911 calls of any mobile user. (2) Data Support a Significant Gap at the Project Site. Applying the above principles to the Project, data reveal that the project service area has insufficient signal strength to address current data demand and statistical projections of data demand. Crown Castle has undertaken drive -test data of existing conditions at the Project site in two different frequencies that will be employed at the Project site. (See ASG33-Proposed Primary and Alternate Node Analysis, attached as Exhibit D.) Exhibit D identifies levels of service in terms of the following criteria: 7 http://digitalconqurer.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 Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29, 2017 Page 10 RSRP _ -65 to 4 -75 to -H -�H to -75 _ -95 to -6�r =A a5 to -95 =A 211 to -1 a Locations I* 4rable 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. Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29, 2017 Page 11 m S . AS c L s., _ -'moi J ,. 4 Rob.rt E. Ryan d Batk.ntltte Canyon Preserve This slide reveals that that the existing coverage varies from -95 to -120 dBm. In the existing condition, users in the service area will experience an increasingly higher percentage of blocked and dropped calls for outside use, with a commensurate decline in signal strength as one moves toward the inside of existing buildings and homes. Moreover, as more and more uses connect to the network, the number of dropped and blocked calls will increase, since more users results in more demand on the network and resultant capacity problems. In short, there is a serious capacity deficit within the service radius of the Project site. 911 calls in this area would be unreliable. These conclusions were affirmed by the City's own RF consultant, Andrew Afflerbach, of CTC Technology & Energy, at the Planning Commission's August 22, 2017, meeting. CTC conducted its own significant gap analysis at the Project site and affirmed that the levels of service are lower than the acceptable standards for "modern telecommunications service." Afflerbach also said the following: "I will tell you this that a 911 call could be confusing in that area because it could end up in Santa Monica ... [i]t's not a stable environment." (2:50:00) If the Project is approved and allowed put on -air, however, coverage and capacity problems will be addressed, as can be seen in Exhibit D, Slide 6, which is excerpted here: Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29, 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 a significant gap indeed exists at the project site. The Planning Commission is charged with addressing zoning and planning issues, not the regulation of RF, which is a matter preempted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The City engaged CTC as an independent RF expert pursuant to Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code section 12.18.050. For areas -- such as RF coverage issues -- that are outside the scope of the Planning Commission's competency and jurisdiction it should look to the conclusions of its hired consultants and the actual data compiled by RF experts, not the unsupported assertions of project opponents. §+2r ra t072R �g fie" Ave. n ■ . fie• a Monaco o w AS533 b ' =r. N +,e ASG33 B- AS033A �•a~• ASiG33 - JA1833 E a ■ AN'rar7 p �Fk 9artensna Canyon Preserve RaR*rt E Ryan Barkeottne The Project will provide sufficient signal strength to ensure not only adequate signal for mobile and outdoor users, but reliable in -building coverage for all those customers who may seek to abandon their home landlines. The Project also will add sufficient capacity to address new data demands from smartphones and tablets. Wireless customers must be able to count on a level of service commensurate with that once provided by their dropped landlines. Such considerations are relevant -- if not critical -- to a determination of significant gap. (See, e.g., T - Mobile Central LLC v. City of Fraser (E.D. Mich. 2009) 675 F.Supp.2d 721 [considering failure rate of 911 emergency calls.]) One of the grounds invoked by the Planning Commission for denial of the Project was a conclusory assertion that Crown Castle failed to demonstrate a significant gap in service. The drive test data presented in Exhibit D refute that contention. Nor has this data been seriously controverted by any competent evidence. Indeed, the City's own RF expert concurred with the conclusion of Crown Castle's RF engineers that a significant gap indeed exists at the project site. The Planning Commission is charged with addressing zoning and planning issues, not the regulation of RF, which is a matter preempted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The City engaged CTC as an independent RF expert pursuant to Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code section 12.18.050. For areas -- such as RF coverage issues -- that are outside the scope of the Planning Commission's competency and jurisdiction it should look to the conclusions of its hired consultants and the actual data compiled by RF experts, not the unsupported assertions of project opponents. Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29, 2017 Page 13 B. Crown Castle Has Demonstrated That It Has Chosen the Least Intrusive Means to Fill the Significant Gap in Service. To establish least intrusive means, the applicant establishes a "prima facie showing of effective prohibition by submitting a comprehensive application, which includes consideration of alternatives, showing that the proposed [wireless communications facility] is the least intrusive means of filling a significant gap." (T -Mobile U.S.A. Inc. v. City ofAnacortes, supra, 572 F.3d at p. 995.) After that, the burden shifts to the local government: "When a locality rejects a prima facie showing, it must show that there are some potentially available and technologically feasible alternatives." (Id. at p. 998.) The court further explained that the applicant then has an opportunity to "dispute the availability and feasibility of the alternatives favored by the locality." (Ibid.) Because Crown Castle is a CLEC entitled to construct its facilities in the ROW, its small- cell and DAS networks are inherently ROW systems. On that basis, Crown Castle examined those alternatives theoretically available to it in the ROW. The analysis below demonstrates why the Project qualifies as the "least intrusive means" of filling the significant gap in service. (1) Height and Location of the Project. The antenna height and location of the Project were chosen to provide the minimum signal level needed to meet critical coverage and capacity needs in the service area. Despite the technical limitations of a low -profile, small-cell system, Crown Castle seeks to maximize the coverage of each node location, since maximization of the node performance equates to a lower overall number of facilities and a less intrusive system. Accordingly, the Project location was chosen to provide an effective relay of signal from adjacent sites, so that ubiquitous coverage of the minimum signal level is provided throughout the service area with the minimum number of facilities. The selected location maximizes the RF coverage of the Project and minimizes interference/overlap with the other facilities, resulting in a lower overall number of facilities and a less intrusive system. The ROW is ideal for the Project from an aesthetic standpoint because the ROW is an area already impacted with utilities and similar features typical of developed roadways. Importantly, the currently proposed location and design were identified after exhausting other possible locations in the relatively small DAS coverage area or "polygon." (See Exhibit D, Slide 5.) Crown Castle's RF engineers examined five alternative locations in the immediate Project area, as depicted in Slide 7 of Exhibit D and as excerpted here: Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29, 2017 Page 14 While four of those five sites achieve RF objectives, only the proposed site is adequately buffered from existing residences by expansive ROW landscaped parkways as can be seen below: 4[ x STOPMEM [ .s Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29, 2017 Page 15 The proposed site best utilizes existing foliage, slope topography and the ROW landscaping, which buffers the Project from surrounding homes on all sides. While the Project may be visible at the proposed location, it is far less intrusive than other potential sites that are immediately adjacent to residences. Only one other possible location is removed from homes. It is located at Hawthorne Boulevard and Rhone Drive. It is too far away from the Project site and is too far downhill from that site to qualify as a viable alternative location. (See Exhibit D, Slide _.) the Crown Castle has satisfied its burden of proof under the burden -shifting process established by T -Mobile U.S.A. Inc. v. City of Anacortes. (2) Small Cells and DAS as Least Intrusive Means Technology, by Design. Even apart from the careful siting of the facilities that are part of a small cells or DAS system, the technological configuration of small cells and DAS nodes is inherently minimally intrusive by design. Small cells and DAS were developed as a smaller -scale solution to the larger macro -site or cell tower. It therefore represents a significant technological advance in the development of reduced- profile wireless transmission devices. The nodes are designed to be smaller scale and lower power to allow them to integrate more easily into their surroundings and thereby render them less aesthetically intrusive. While it is impossible to make the facilities invisible, each facility will be designed to blend with existing features in the road to the extent feasible. Crown Castle's small cell network qualifies as the "least intrusive means" of filling the identified significant gap for the following reasons, among others: (a) Crown Castle small cells utilize the latest in wireless infrastructure technology, incorporating smaller, low-power facilities instead of using larger -- and sometimes more obtrusive -- cell towers; (b) Crown Castle small cells utilize the ROW, thereby avoiding intrusions into private property or undeveloped sensitive resource areas; (c) Crown Castle small cells allow for collocation by multiple carriers, thereby avoiding proliferation of nodes; (d) Crown Castle small cells strike a balance between antenna height and coverage in order to minimize visual impacts; (e) Crown Castle small cells carefully are carefully spaced to effectively relay signal with a minimum of facilities; and (f) Crown Castle small cells utilize existing vertical elements in the ROW, such as utility poles, or slim -profile new poles, thereby minimizing intrusions into the ROW. (3) The Project Location and Design Qualify as the Least Intrusive Means of Filling the Demonstrated Significant Gap in Coverage. The Project utilizes small cell technology, which, as discussed above, was designed to avoid the need for larger profile macro -sites. As for the location, the Project is buffered from residences on all sides by existing foliage, slope topography and the ROW landscaping. The Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29, 2017 Page 16 Staff confirmed that the location was the least intrusive of all the other potentially feasible locations. The facility, as revised, will replace an existing pole (a stop sign) and thereby eliminate the need for a new pole in the ROW. It will be painted to blend into the existing setting. Moving this site to other locations elsewhere in the small RF objective ring would place the facility directly adjacent to residences, resulting in greater visual impacts. Crown Castle engaged in an exhaustive investigation of potential locations for the Project. If the City can identify another feasible alternative location that allows Crown Castle to achieve its coverage objective for this Project, it would be happy to investigate that location. Crown Castle submits, however, that it already engaged in that search and that the proposed location is the least intrusive location available. 4. CONCLUSION. For the foregoing reasons, the City Council should grant this Appeal and approve the Project. We look forward to answering your questions on the day of the hearing. Very truly yours, Michael W. Shonafelt MWS Enclosures cc: Ara Mihranian, Director, Planning and Zoning Division, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, aramgKpvca. gov Christy Lopez, Special Counsel, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, christy.lopezgbbklaw. com Dave Aleshire, City Attorney, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, daleshiregawattorneys.com Lizbeth Wincele, Government Relations Counsel — Southern California, Crown Castle, Lizbeth. Wincelegerowncastle. com Daniel Schweizer, Director, Government Relations, West Region, Crown Castle, Daniel. S chweizergcrowncastle. com Stephen Garcia, Manager Government Relations, Crown Castle, Stephen. Garci agcrowncastle. com Aaron Snyder, Government Relations Specialist-DAS & Small Cells -Southern California, Crown Castle, Aaron. SUdergcrowncastle.com 7223446.1 EXHIBIT A CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL PLANS AND EXISTING DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS ON THE JOB SITE AND SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE ENGINEER IN WRITING OF ANY DISCREPANCIES BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK OR RESPONSIBLE FOR SAME. ASG33 ACROSS FROM 6480 CHARTRES DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA SIGN OFF TITLE SIGNATURE DATE NETWORK REAL ESTATE PROJECT MANAGER CONSTRUCTION MANAGER RADIO FREQUENCY PROJECT DESCRIPTION: • INSTALL NEW 14'0" HIGH CONCRETE POLE (POLE TO BE PAINTED DARK GREEN). • INSTALL CISH -51 CABINET WITH SIDE MOUNT METER & POWER DISCONNECT BOX WITH (2) ML IONS INSIDE. • INSTALL (2) 21.4" ANTENNAS #HPA-65F-BUU-142 WITH MOUNTING BRACKET #MBK -03. • EQIPMENT AND ANTENNAS TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH POLE. • 142' TRENCH FOR POWER. PROJECT SUMMARY OfTCC I IV V. L 0/ lRlr 1 Ivry T-1 TITLE SHEET D-1 DETAILS & NOTES D-2 DETAILS & NOTES D-3 DETAILS & NOTES D-4 DETAILS & NOTES D-5 DETAILS & NOTES S-1 SITE PHOTOS S-2 PHOTOSIM P-1 SITE PLAN P-2 POLE PROFILE cu��-r Inln�x PROJECT MANAGER: CROWN CASTLE NG WEST, INC 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DRIVE, STE 1200 IRVINE, CA 92618 HEIDI PAYNE (949)300-9493 H EIDI. PAYNE@CROW NCASTLE.COM NODE ENGINEER: COASTAL COMMUNICATIONS 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 TODDTHREW (760)929-0910 EXT. 101 TODD@COASTALCOM M I NC.COM FIBER MANAGER: CROWN CASTLE NG WEST LLC 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR STE. 1200 IRVINE, CA 92618 ALFREDO ARZUBIAGA (818) 939-5579 ALFREDO.ARZUB IAGA@CROW NCASTLE.COM NODE ENGINEER: COASTAL COMMUNICATIONS 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 TODD THREW (760) 929-0910 EXT. 101 TODD @COASTALCOM M I N C. CO M PROJECT TEAM ASG33 PHASE II CROWN CASTLE PROJECT NO. 242727 CROWN CASTLE NG WEST LLC 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR, STE. 1200 IRVINE, CA 92618 www.crowncastl—.. PREPARED BY: Communications Telecommunications Engineering 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 929-0910 FAX: (760) 929-0936 11 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. 1-800-221-2600 CALL AT LEAST TWO d DAYSBEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT REVISION I ISSUE DATE SITE NAME & ADDRESS: ASG33 ACROSSFROM 6480 CHARTERS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA TITLE SHEET DRAWN BY: I DRAFT DATE: APPROVED BY: RG 10/26/16 TT SHEET NO. T-1 ABBREVIATIONS LEGEND SYMBOL DESCRIPTION CURB & GUTTER CL PROPOSED EX EXISTING NEW POLE . PL PCC SIDEWALK R/W RIGHT OF WAY TRENCH AND FIBER SUBDIVISION BOUNDARY CONDUIT (PVT) EXISTING ® EXISTING UTILITY POLE _# STATION POINTS (100' INCREMENTS) EXISTING CURB RAMP C011 EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT -&G EXISTING CURB & GUTTER A/C EXISTING ASPHALT CURB SOP EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT BERM EXISTING BERM .. EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY �S/B SUBDIVISION BOUNDARY - - - rt EXISTING CENTER LINE R EXISTING CENTER LINE ABBREVIATIONS A/C ASPHALT CURB C&G CURB & GUTTER CL CENTERLINE EX EXISTING EOP EDGE OF PAVEMENT PL PROPERTY LINE R/W RIGHT OF WAY S/B SUBDIVISION BOUNDARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES: TEMPORARY EROSION/SEDIMENT CONTROL, PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF FINAL IMPROVEMENTS, SHALL BE PERFORMED BY THE CONTRACTOR OR QUALIFIED PERSON AS INDICATED BELOW: 1. ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES "LAND DEVELOPMENT MANUAL, STORM WATER STANDARDS" MUST BE INCORPORATED INTO THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS CONSISTENT WITH THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN AND/OR WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLAN (WPCP), IF APPLICABLE. 2. FOR STORM DRAIN INLETS, PROVIDE A GRAVEL BAG SILT BASIN IMMEDIATELY UPSTREAM OF INLET AS INDICATED ON DETAILS. 3. THE CONTRACTOR OR QUALIFIED PERSON SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CLEANUP OF SILT AND MUD ON ADJACENT STREET(S) AND STORM DRAIN SYSTEM DUE TO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. 4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE SILT AND DEBRIS AFTER EACH MAJOR RAINFALL. 5. EQUIPMENT AND WORKERS FOR EMERGENCY WORK SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE AT ALL TIMES DURING THE RAINY SEASON. 6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RESTORE ALL EROSION/SEDIMENT CONTROL DEVICES TO WORKING ORDER TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY ENGINEER OR RESIDENT ENGINEER AFTER EACH RUN-OFF PRODUCING RAINFALL. 7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL ADDITIONAL EROSION/SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE RESIDENT ENGINEER DUE TO UNFORESEEN CIRCUMSTANCES, WHICH MAY ARISE. 8. ALL EROSION/SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES PROVIDED PER THE APPROVED IMPROVEMENT PLAN SHALL BE INCORPORATED HEREON. ALL EROSION/SEDIMENT CONTROL FOR INTERIM CONDITIONS SHALL BE DONE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE RESIDENT ENGINEER. 9. ALL REMOVABLE PROTECTIVE DEVICES SHOWN SHALL BE IN PLACE AT THE END OF EACH WORKING DAY WHEN RAIN IS IMMINENT. 10. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ARRANGE FOR WEEKLY MEETINGS DURING OCTOBER 1 ST TO APRIL 30TH FOR PROJECT TEAM (GENERAL CONTRACTOR, QUALIFIED PERSON, EROSION CONTROL SUBCONTRACTOR IF ANY, ENGINEER OF WORK, OWNERMEVELOPER AND THE RESIDENT ENGINEER) TO EVALUATE THE ADEQUACY OF THE EROSION/SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES AND OTHER RELATED CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. STORMDRAIN INLET PROTECTION -INLET;--EDGE OF PAVEMENT FLOW FLOW QL::�Fm SPILLWAY, 1 -BAG HIGH SANDBAG 2-13AGS HEIGHT TYPICAL PROTECTION FOR INLET WITH OPPOSING FLOW DIRECTIONS EDGE OF PAVEMENT INLET FLOW FLOW FE 91 SPILLWAY, 1 -BAG HIGH SANDBAG 2 -BAGS HEIGHT TYPICAL PROTECTION FOR INLET WITH SINGLE FLOW DIRECTION NOTES, 1. INTENDED FOR SHORT - TERM USE. 2. USE TO INHIBIT NON - STORM WATER FLOW. 3. ALLOW FOR PROPER MAINTENANCE AND CLEANUP. 4. BAGS MUST BE REMOVED AFTER ADJACENT OPERATION IS COMPLETED. 5. NOT APPLICABLE IN AREAS WITH HIGH SILTS AND CLAYS WITHOUT FILTER FABRIC. Nl(ITFC- 1. CONTRACTOR TO POTHOLE ALL UTILITY CROSSINGS. 2. CONTRACTOR TO PLACE SANDBAGS AROUND ANY/ALL STORM DRAIN INLETS TO PREVENT CONTAMINATED WATER. 3. SPOILS PILE WILL BE COVERED AND CONTAINED AND STREET WILL BE SWEPT AND CLEANED AS NEEDED. 4. CONTRACTOR TO REPAIR DAMAGED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY ENGINEER. 5. CURB & GUTTER TO BE PROTECTED IN PLACE. SIDEWALK TO BE REPLACED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY ENGINEER. & THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RESTORE THE ROADWAY BACK TO ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION SATISFACTORY TO THE CITY ENGINEER INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO PAVING, STRIPING, BIKE LANES, PAVEMENT LEGENDS, SIGNS, AND TRAFFIC LOOP DETECTORS. 7. SIDEWALK SHALL BE RESTORED/REPLACED PER CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES STANDARD DRAWINGS. 8. PEDESTRIAN RAMP WILL NOT BE DISTURBED. ROW GROUND CONSTRUCTION NOTES: 1. GROUND CONSTRUCTION TO REMOVE/CLEAN ALL DEBRIS, NAILS, STAPLES, OR NON -USED VERTICALS OFF THE POLE. 2. ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH MUNICIPAL, COUNTY, STATE, FEDERAL, G095 AND G0128 STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS. 3. CALL USA 48 HOURS PRIOR TO EXCAVATING AT (800) 227-2600 OR 811. 4. ALL LANDSCAPING TO BE RESTORED TO ORIGINAL CONDITION OR BETTER. 5. ALL EQUIPMENT TO BE BONDED. 6. METERING CABINET REQUIRES 36" CLEARANCE AT DOOR OPENING. 7. CAULK CABINET BASE AT PAD. NORMAL LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES NOTES: 1. LOCATION AND DEPTH OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED UTILITIES MUST BE PROVIDED BY THE SUBDIVIDER AND SHOWN ON ANY PLANS SUBMITTED TO THE DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS FOR APPROVAL. 2. CHANGES MAY BE PERMITTED BY THE DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS IN CASES OF CONFLICTING FACILITIES. 3. CONFLICTS BETWEEN UTILITY COMPANIES FACILITIES, EXISTING AND PROPOSED, MUST BE MUTUALLY RESOLVED BY THE UTILITY COMPANIES. 4. FOR COMMERCIAL SIDEWALKS, THE FIRE HYDRANT SHALL BE PLACED WITHIN THE SIDEWALK T-6" BEHIND FACE OF CURB. 5. MAXIMUM 2" DIAMETER GAS MAINS MAY BE PLACED IN JOINT UTILITIES TRENCH SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF CITY ENGINEER (IN TRACTS). CALIFORNIA STATE CODE COMPLIANCE: ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL BE PREFORMED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT EDITIONS OF THE FOLLOWING CODES AS ADOPTED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNING AUTHORITIES. NOTHING IN THESE PLANS IS TO BE CONSTRUCTED TO PERMIT WORK NOT CONFORMING TO THESE CODES: • CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE (INCLUDING TITLES 24 & 25) 2010 • 2010 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODES WHICH ADOPTS THE 2010 UBC, 2010 UMC, 2010 UPC AND THE 2010 NEC. • BUILDING OFFICIALS & CODE ADMINISTRATORS (BOCA) • 2010 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE • ANSI/EIA-222-F LIFE SAFETY CODE NFPA-101 • 2010 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE • 2010 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE • 2010 LOCAL BUILDING CODE • CIN/COUNTY ORDINANCES ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS: FACILITY IS UNMANNED AND NOT FOR HUMAN HABITATION. HANDICAPPED ACCESS REQUIREMENTS DO NOT APPLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 2010 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE. FCC NOTE: THIS WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY COMPLIES WITH FEDERAL STANDARDS FOR RADIO FREQUENCY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TELECOMMUNICATION ACT OF 1996 AND SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS AND ANY OTHER REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED BY STATE OR FEDERAL REGULATORY AGENCIES. ------------ ASG33 PHASE II CROWN CASTLE PROJECT NO. 242727 CLIENT0: :�CROWN CASTLE NG WEST LL 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR, STE. 1200 IRVINE, CA 92618 www.crowncastle.com PREPARED BY: Communications Telecommunications Engineering 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 929-0910 ` FAX: (760) 929-0936 J PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. 1-800-227-2600 CALL AT LEAST TWO DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # REVISION I ISSUE DATE SITE NAME & ADDRESS: ASG33 ACROSSFROM 6480 CHARTERS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA DETAILS & NOTES DRAWN BY:DRAFTDATE: APPROVEDSY: RG 10/26/16 TT SHEET NO. D-1 SIDE VIEW FRONT VIEW NOTES: CUBE APPROX. WEIGHT W/PEDESTAL = 105 LBS * ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED. Electrical CISH -51 PEDESTAL SIDE VIEW Power Supply Adjacent channel power, dBc............. ............................ -48 Mains Power, Vac. ..................................... 85 to 264 DL output tolerance over frequency, dB ............................ t1 ......................................115 or 230 Output power .......................................See Power consumption, watts ......................................1150 Temperature DL output tolerance over temperature, dB..........................0.5*** Return loss, dB Optical 8 Input ICP3, dBm 39 Connectors E2000/APC 8° ICP3 optimized .............................. -12 .............................................................. Optical return loss, dB ............................................. 45 minimum Noise figure optimized .............................. -18 Fiber type, mm..........................................................Single mode E9/125 Noise figure, dB Uplink............................1710 Optical link budget, d6 .............................................0 to 10 to 1755 ±1 Composite input power ICP3 optimized .............................. 7 @ OTRx master side, dBm dBm* ........... .......I........... 11 max. 1900 MHz .....................+5 composite Noise figure optimized .............................. 4.5 1700 / 2100 MHz ........... +5 composite .............................. 6 max. BTS Side Number of connectors 1900 MHz .....................4 1700/2100 MHz ............4 System optimized for BTS power, dBm .......................................33 .......................................43 Antenna Port Commands...............................RF Frequency range, MHz Connector .......................................7/16 Summary to 1915 Female Output power .......................................See Output power per carrier, dBm* Temperature band specification Return loss, dB .......................................15 8 GSM 45 42 39 1700/2100 MHz (AWS) CDMA 45 42 39 36 UMTS 45 42 Frequency range, MHz 36 LTE 45 42** 39 36 Spurious emission ................. .....I .......... Uplink............................1710 dBm / 1 MHz DL output tolerance over frequency, dB ............................ to 1755 ±1 Downlink ........................2110 to 2155 Output power per carrier, dBm* ICP3 optimized .............................. -12 Number of Carriers 1 2 4 8 GSM 45 42 39 36 CDMA 45 42 39 36 UMTS 45 42 39 36 LTE 45 42** 39 36 Spurious emission .............................................. < -13 dBm / 1 MHz 1900 MHz (AWS) Commands...............................RF Frequency range, MHz External control parts Uplink............................1850 Summary to 1915 Downlink ........................1930 ...............................Optical to 1995 Output power per carrier, dBm* Temperature Supervision ...............................Output Number of Carriers 1 2 4 8 GSM 45 42 39 36 CDMA 45 42 39 36 UMTS 45 42 39 36 LTE 45 42** 39 36 Spurious emission ................. .....I .......... .............<-13 dBm / 1 MHz DL output tolerance over frequency, dB ............................ ±1 DL output tolerance over temperature, dB..........................0.5*** Input ICP3, dBm ICP3 optimized .............................. -12 Noise figure optimized .............................. -18 Noise figure, dB ICP3 optimized .............................. 7 .............................. 11 max. Noise figure optimized .............................. 4.5 .............................. 6 max. SCALE N.T.S. System Supervision and Control Commands...............................RF on/off External control parts Alarms Summary ...............................Power Supply ...............................Optical UL and DL failure ............................... Temperature Supervision ...............................Output power on a per - channel and per -band basis (optional) Mechanical**** Height, width, depth mm (in) ...............................817 x 245 x 218 (32.2 x 9.61 x 8.6) Weight, kg (Ib)...............................40 (88.2) Environmental Operation temperature range ............................ -33" C to +50° C Ingress protection RF part ...................IP67 Fan part .................IP55 * Applicable to single modulation mode only ** 3db power reduction @ < 5MHz carrier bandwith *** With active cooling **** Spacing required 40 mm (1.58 in) around unit **** With passive cooling maximum temperature +40° C All figures are typical values GROUND ROD INSTALLATION FOR STEEL POLE TYPICAL SECTION: N.T.S. STEEL POLE FINISH GRADE BAREN Cu GROUND '• ' CONDUCTOR Cu GROUND CLAMP FCI No. GBL3-T8, •� TYCO No. 83749-1, OR EQUAL #5 (5/8" X 8') COPPER CLAD GROUND ELECTRODE C � CONCRETE • t. • FOUNDATION 2 SCALE N.T.S. Side ANDREW I0N-M17HP/19HP MULTI -BAND, MULTI -OPERATOR REMOTE OPTICAL SYSTEM TOP Front 8,6° 218, Side K -------------- ASG33 PHASE II CROWN CASTLE PROJECT NO. 242727 CROWN CASTLE NG WEST LL 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR, STE. 1200 IRVINE, CA 92618 www.crowncastle.wm 'PREPARED BY: Communications Telecommunications Engineering 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92068 PHONE: (760) 929-0910 \ FAX: (760) 929-0936 J PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. 1-800-227-2600 CALL AT LEAST TWO O DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # REVISION I ISSUE DATE SITE NAME & ADDRESS: ASG33 ACROSSFROM 6480 CHARTERS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA (DETA�NOTES DRAWN BY:DRAFTDATE: I APPROVEDBY: RG 10/26/16 TT SHEET NO. ^/ D-10 ASG33 PHASE II CROWN CASTLE PROJECT NO. 242727 'CLIENT: I (CCROWN ty CASTLE NG WEST LU 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR, STE. 1200 IRVINE, CA 92618 www.crowBcastle.com PREPARED BY: Communications Telecommunications Engineering 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 929-0910 FAX: (760) 929-0936 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. 1-800-227-2600 CALL AT LEAST TWO d DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # REVISION / ISSUE GATE SITE NAME & ADDRESS: ASG33 ACROSSFROM 6480 CHARTERS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA DETAILS & NOTES DRAWN BY: DRAFT DATE: APPROVED BY: RG 10/26/16 TT SHEET NO. D-3 HPA-65F-BUU-H2 MBK -03 SQUARE D BY SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC LOAD CENTER, 70A (MODEL #Q024L70RB) r.:.�< - ® M�Mnical weight 13,,( 14.4ng1 Hl. Pitch L3 in r,,(mml TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS Ma�minq Poie D)me,dinn zmsml5 to 12 crn7 �tkrt AMPERE RATING 70A Fastener Size wo - MAXIMUM SINGLE POLE CIRCUITS 4 ° InstalleC Tdrgxe 20fu f27Nm) .5h', WIDTH 4.88 INCHES Me<hanieal TKAtllust o' 12' APPLICATION DESIGNED TO MEET RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL REQUIREMENTS TO PROTECT ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS, EQUIPMENT AND PEOPLE. a _ _ : a erwuv.nxn<oa,me mn ma 2.� 698824 121...... SPACES 2 WIRE SIZE #12 TO 3 AWG(AL)-#14 TO 4 AWG(CU) MAXIMUM TANDEM CIRCUIT BREAKERS 2 Frequency Range 698 806 MHz 89`4 MHz 1850 1990MHz1710 1755/2110 2170 MHz 2305 23EO MHz VOLTAGE RATING 120/240VAC Gain 10.c del 10.5 Bi 12.8 dB, 126 dB, 136dBi 14.0,113; WIRING CONFIGURATION 3 -WIRE a:imum Bee-h(-3dB) 65° 62° 64° 66° 60° 59" PHASE 1 -PHASE Elevation Beamwidth 1-3,113) 40.0° 358° 17.5° 17.8° 15.8° 14.3° Elect; cal Do bit I,I II t19 x531 DEPTH 4.00 NCHES HEIGHT 9.38 INCHES Elevation5delobes(lrt upper) <-15 de _ > > > Fronato-8ack Ratio 61x6°29 tl6 >28 dB 30 tl8 30 tl6 30dB 30 dB - Dross -Polar Port -to -Port lsdadan >20 dB >20 dB 23 dB >23 dB >23dB >23dB Voltage Standinq Wave R.U.(VSWR) <1,51 <1.51 <Is:1 <1.51 <1.51 <1.51 Passive lnte.moduration(2xzoW) s-150 dB'<_ -150 d8c s -15o d8c S-150 d8c 5-150 dec <---150 dBc Input Power Continuous wave low) soo watt: 500 wattsSoo wads 300w 1a Soo watts son wane nnei;-o pAdIes<abieerarlet. nnei:-osTov Adiv�abte D. let side view - BUS MATERIAL TIN PLATED ALUMINUM COVER TYPE SURFACE CATALOG REFERENCE NUMBER 11 GOCT9901 ENCLOSURETYPE OUTDOOR/RAINPROOF ENCLOSURE RATING NEMA3R GROUNDING BAR ORDER SEPARATELY APPROVALS UL LISTED Poted-ion D- Por 45° Dual Por, Duai Por 45• Duai Poi 45° Duai Po145' Duai Pm 15• SHORT CIRCUIT CURRENT RATING 10KA lnPut lmPedance 50.h- so ohms 50 odms 50 ohms SO.- SO.- MAIN TYPE FIXED - FACTORY INSTALLED MAIN LUGS tightning Protection DCG,ound DC Ground OC Ground DC Ground DC Grounu DC Ground - -11 Fix. Becket SHIPPING AND ORDERING Mechanical CATEGORY 00101 - LOAD CENTERS, 1 PHASE, NEMA1 & 3R, 2 - 8 DimemIons(l WxD) 214x144x7.3 in(544x366x185 mm1 CIRCUIT, TYPE QO survival whd Speed >1s0 n t>241 e„m DISCOUNT SCHEDULEDE 3A Front Wind Load 66:.(293 N) 6100 mph (6' kph) ARTICLE NUMBER 785901785132 Side Wind Load 34 ms (150 N) @ 100,nph (161 kuh) Parts & Accessories PACKAGE QUANTITY 1 Equivalent Fiat Plate Area 2.6 f12 (0.2 m2) Weight• 6. 7-15 DIN Connector 6 x 7-16 DIN female long neck -- Model number MBK -03 Overall Weight 9.81bs(4.4 kg) WEIGHT 5 LBS. AVAI RETURNABLABILIILITY DE Y Mounting Pole 2 to 5,n is to 12cm) wcphrael"essmwnnre SCALEN.T.S 4 SCALE S SCALE POWER METER GROUND ROD: CST TAPERED STEEL POLE G1 GROUND ROD SHALL BE MINIMUM NEW POLE FOUNDATION 0.625" DIA. x 9' LONG. COPPER CLAD. CST SERIES G G2 MINIMUM 3" EXPOSURE AT TOP OF FOUNDATION WITHIN BOLT CIRCLE. ENON-AS REED e 8 NOT TO SCALE ANCHOR BOLTS: Al ANCHOR BOLTS SHALL BE 4-1" DIAMETER. CAP 4 3/4" G AS GIVEN IN SPECIFICATIONS ASTM A449. / / A2 BOLT CIRCLE DIAMETER TO MATCH POLE 24" ROUND�® BASEPLATE. GROUND LEVEL A3 ANCHOR BOLTS SHALL HAVE HEADS, OR 1/4 NUTS WITH THE THREADS STAKED AT DRILL FOR SIDE MTG-AS READ / TWO PLACES BELOW THE NUT, F EMBEDDED IN FOUNDATION. 12" A4 ANCHOR BOLTS SHALL BE EMBEDDED 33" MINIMUM, BELOW STREET GRADE (63" EMBEDMENT IN CONCRETE). /16" / / / AS BOLT PROJECTION AS RECOMMENDED MANUFACTURER. NOTE: ANCHOR BOLTS TO BE CONDUIT: SUPPLIED BY POLE MANUFACTURER C1 CONDUIT SHALL BE RIGID STEEL. 3C 4" x 6" Handhole 1-1/2"R. w/cover plate "H" T w/GRD Lug @ 90° / A ® UL APPROVED ONLY GALVANIZED, INSIDE THE FOUNDATION, R1 WITH 6" MINIMUM STUB -OUT. 36"MINIMUM BURIAL " C2 SERVICE AND FEED CONDUITS SHALL 42MAXIMUM BURIAL S 12" 1/4' SQUARE M IKNOC OOT z BE RGS OR SCH 80 PVC, AS REQUIRED. ,F3 C1 C3 STUB UP TO WITHIN 4" FROM HAND HOLE. NOTES: CONNECTOR REINFORCEMENT: 1. TOP KNOCK OUT WITH LIQUID FLEX 45" AND STRAIGHT CONNECTORS AVAILABLE TO POWER UTILITY CREW CONNECTION. 2. BOTTOM KNOCK OUT FOR CONNECTING TO CUSTOMER FUSE DISCONNECT BOX. R1 VERTICAL REBAR SHALL BE (7) #6 EQUALLY SPACED INSIDE OF HOOPS. 3. HEIGHT MAY BE DETERMINED BY POWER UTILITY. 4 R R2 HOOPS SHALL BE #4 X 18" I.D., SPACED p POUR FOOTING 4" O/C FROM TOP OF FOUNDATION TO END OF ANCHOR BOLTS. PARTS LIST CALLOUT TY DESCRIPTION CALLOUT TV DESC. A 1 METER CABINET WTR PARTk 2POLE 120/140 SINGLE PHASE B 1 4'x1" LI TIGHT MTA FLEX CONDUIT AGAINST R3 HOOPS SHALL BE #4 X 18" I.D., SPACED UNDISTURBED 12" MIN. FROM THE ANCHOR BOLTS TO 3„ MATERIAL BOTTOM OF FOUNDATION. CLR CONCRETE TO R4 ALL REBAR SHALL HAVE 3" MINIMUM 30" ROUND COVERING. TMP ROUND PIER BE32150 MIX Dimensions Maximum Loading Mounting Ancor Mex. 100 MPH 80 MPH Design Heighl Bonom Top 'S' Basu Ba¢ Bons Fix, Proj. Pmj. Number "H" Dia. Dia. Size Circle En Weigh Area Area CST -15 15' 5.0 3.0 10-1/2 11" 3/4x24 300 8 12 CS118 18 64 3.5 10-1/2 11" 3/4x36 450 1 8 1 12 C 1 I UIDTGH CO ECTO PONT LI UID TIGHT CONNECTOR -45" F3 5' DEPTH CST -20 20' 6.4 3.5 10-1/2 11" 3/4x36 450 8 12 CST -22 22' 7.1 3.8 10-12 11" 3l4 x 36 450 8 12 E 2 LT-STAINLES CST -25 25' 7.1 3.7 10-12 11" 1. 3B 450 fi 12 F4 2' DEPTH F 2 5 C WASHER-STAINLES SCALE CST -30 30' 8.1 3.8 11-102 11" 1x36 450 6 8 SCALE SCALE Q V N.T.S. CST35 35' 8511-1/2" 1 x 36 450 4 8 n 7 N.T.S. G 2 16" NUT -STAINLESS STEEL 7 N.T.S. csT-4o 40 91 3.3 3" 3" 3fi 450 4 8 ASG33 PHASE II CROWN CASTLE PROJECT NO. 242727 'CLIENT: I (CCROWN ty CASTLE NG WEST LU 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR, STE. 1200 IRVINE, CA 92618 www.crowBcastle.com PREPARED BY: Communications Telecommunications Engineering 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 929-0910 FAX: (760) 929-0936 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. 1-800-227-2600 CALL AT LEAST TWO d DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # REVISION / ISSUE GATE SITE NAME & ADDRESS: ASG33 ACROSSFROM 6480 CHARTERS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA DETAILS & NOTES DRAWN BY: DRAFT DATE: APPROVED BY: RG 10/26/16 TT SHEET NO. D-3 ASG33 PHASE II CROWN CASTLE PROJECT NO. 242727 'CLIENT: I CROWN v CASTLE NG WEST LL( 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR. STE. 1200 IRVINE, CA 92618 wwwV—ncastle.com PREPARED BY: Communications Telecommunications Engineering 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 929-0910 FAX: (760) 929-0936 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. NI I-800-227-2600 CALL AT LEAST TWO d DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # REVISIONOSSUE DATE SITE NAME 8 ADDRESS: ASG33 ACROSSFROM 6480 CHARTERS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA DETAILS & NOTES DRAWN BY'.DRAFT DATE I APPROVED BY: RG 10/26/16 TT SHEET NO. D-4 IN DIRT - PRIVATE TYPICAL SECTION (N.T.S.)(N.T.S.) ASPHALT TRENCH DETAIL (PRIVATE) PUNCH THRU CROSS SECTION TYPICAL SECTION: N.T.S. — 6" MAX. ASPHALT CONCRETE ORIGINAL MATERIAL BACKFILL /NEW 6" TO 12" EXISTING A.C. AND BASE 12" MIN. �18' 12' — EXISTING SCE VAULT \ I I II SIDEWALK �(1) 3" PVC CONDUIT �I I _ 21'PAVEMENT III- •• •_• EX. CURB & GUTTER GREENBELT /NATIVE SOIL III I 24" MIN. (1) 3" DUCT O4" MIN. INSTALLATION NOTES: PROPOSED (1) 3" CONDUIT TRENCH -CUT 6" MAX. WIDTH X 18" + DEPTH TRENCH- r -BACKFILL WITH THE ORIGINAL MATERIAL FROM THE TRENCHI- -RESTORE THE SURFACE 1 0 N.T.S. SCALE 1 1 N.T.S. 7 SCALE 112 1 N.T.S. ASG33 PHASE II CROWN CASTLE PROJECT NO. 242727 'CLIENT: I CROWN v CASTLE NG WEST LL( 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR. STE. 1200 IRVINE, CA 92618 wwwV—ncastle.com PREPARED BY: Communications Telecommunications Engineering 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 929-0910 FAX: (760) 929-0936 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. NI I-800-227-2600 CALL AT LEAST TWO d DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # REVISIONOSSUE DATE SITE NAME 8 ADDRESS: ASG33 ACROSSFROM 6480 CHARTERS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA DETAILS & NOTES DRAWN BY'.DRAFT DATE I APPROVED BY: RG 10/26/16 TT SHEET NO. D-4 ASG33 PHASE II CROWN CASTLE PROJECT NO. 242727 'CLIENT: I CCROWN r��CASTLE NG WEST LU 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR, STE. 1200 IRVINE, CA 92618 www.crowBcestle.com PREPARED BY: Communications Telecommunications Engineering 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 929-0910 FAX: (760) 929-0936 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. 1-800-227-2600 CALL AT LEAST TWO d DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # REVISION I ISSUE DATE SITE NAME & ADDRESS: ASG33 ACROSSFROM 6480 CHARTERS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA DETAILS & NOTES DRAWN BY: DRAFrDATE: APPROVED BV: RG 10/26/16 TT SHEET NO. D-5 10 -M7HP 85HP EU - Product Specification SPECIFICATIONS ION M7HP/85HP EU - Product Specification Electrical System Supervision and Control Mains pourer, Vac Input ICP3, dBm'** Commands RF on/off nominal 100 to 240 ICP3 optimized .. -11 min, operating . 65 to 264 Noise figure optimized -18 min. Alarms........... .... Summary .......... .... Power Supply Mains power, Vdc Figure, Noise fidB*** nominal 48 to 60 ICP3 optimized .. 10 max. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RF UL and DL failure operating 36 to 72 Noise figure optimized 6.0 max. ................ Temperature Power consumption, W 5.0 typical Supervision ...... .. . .... Com osite output p max. temp., fully loaded.. 900 power room temp., idle 380 850 MHz Mechanical' Frequency range, MHz Height, width, depth, mm (in) Optical Link Uplink 824 to 849 AC Version .. ......... 817 x 245 x 218 Downlink 869 to 894 (32.2 x 9.6 x 8.6) If Connectors E2000/APC 8° Output power per carrier, dBm* DCVersion . ..... 1053 x 245 x 218 Cabinet of ION-M7HP/85HP Extension Unit (AC Version) Optical return loss, dB 45 (41.5 x 9.6 x 8.6) Number of Carriers 1 2 4 8 Fibre type Single mode E9/125 pm Analog 45.5 42.5 39.5 36.5 Weight, kg (Ib) 40 (88.2) Optical link budget, dB Oto 10 GSM 45.5 42.5 395 TDMA 455 42.5 39.5 36.5 36.5 Environmental Composite input power � OTRx master side, dBm LTE 45.5 42. . 5 5** 39 6 3.5 Operating temperature range, °C .. ......... -33 to+50 700 MHz minimum, -16.5 UMTS 45 42 39 36 131 nominal 5.5 Ingress protection DL output tolerance over frequency, d6' 11 RF purl . ........ IP67 850 MHz minimum .. -16.5 DL output tolerance over temperature, dB . ±0.5 Fan part ........... IP55 nominal .. 5.5 Spurious emission <-13 dBm /1 MHz Ordering Information Input ICP3, dBm*** ION-M7HP/85HP EU .................. 1693966** RF Interface IfP3optimized -11 min.. Noise figure optimized -18 min. Depending on the selected options and the configuration the ordering material number contains BTS Side (SMA) an identifying suffix. Number of connectors Standard Noise figure, DIV - 700 MHz 4 ICP3 optimized 10 max. Corresponding Main Unit 850 MHz .. 4 Noise figure optimized .. 6 max. 5 typical ION-M17HP/19HP ... ... 7631412** System optimized for BTS power, dBm Corresponding Master Unit OTRx 33 43 OTRx70-85/90/ 17.21 ....... . 1604304 -XX Remote Unit antenna port 11 Connectors 7/16 Female 77 Return loss, dB 15 Spacing required 40 mm (1.58 in) around unit Subpopulations possible 900 MHz All figures are typical values, unless otherwise stated. Cabinet of ION-M7HP/85HP Extension Unit (DC Version) Frequency range, MHz Uplink 698 to 716/776 to 787 Downlink 728 to 757 Output power per carrier, dBm* Number of Carriers 1 2 4 8 LTE 45.5 42.5** 39.5 36.5 DL output tolerance over frequency, da......... ±1 DL output tolerance over temperature, dB ... .. ±0.5 PAR 7.5 dB @ 0.1% Spurious emission . _ ......... . <-13 dBm / 1 MHz ** 2 dB power reduction 9 < 5 MHz carrier bandwidth from reference point B to A Spurious emission into Public Safety Narrowband <-46 dBm /6:25 kHz All figures are typical values unless otherwise stated 1 SCALE N.T.S. ASG33 PHASE II CROWN CASTLE PROJECT NO. 242727 'CLIENT: I CCROWN r��CASTLE NG WEST LU 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR, STE. 1200 IRVINE, CA 92618 www.crowBcestle.com PREPARED BY: Communications Telecommunications Engineering 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 929-0910 FAX: (760) 929-0936 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. 1-800-227-2600 CALL AT LEAST TWO d DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # REVISION I ISSUE DATE SITE NAME & ADDRESS: ASG33 ACROSSFROM 6480 CHARTERS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA DETAILS & NOTES DRAWN BY: DRAFrDATE: APPROVED BV: RG 10/26/16 TT SHEET NO. D-5 ASG33 PHASE II CROWN CASTLE PROJECT NO. 242727 "CLIENT -1 CCROWN e� CASTLE NG WEST LL( 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR, STE. 1200 IRVINE, CA 92618 w—enowncastle.com PREPARED BY: Communications Telecommunications Engineering 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 929-0910 FAX: (760) 929-0936 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. 1-800-227-2600 CALL AT LEAST TWO DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # REVISION I ISSUE DATE SITE NAME 8 ADDRESS: ASG33 ACROSSFROM 6480 CHARTERS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA SITE PHOTOS DRAWN BY: I DRAFT DATE: I APPROVED BY: RG 10/26/16 TT SHEET NO. S-1 - 4 Yll 17 mAF <z. < A K • • `w I F. - , finAr - - --- _- y— -- - i12 O'CLOCK VIEW- FROM THE SOUTHWEST W e 1. pFROM OR pFROM ASG33 PHASE II CROWN CASTLE PROJECT NO. 242727 "CLIENT -1 CCROWN e� CASTLE NG WEST LL( 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR, STE. 1200 IRVINE, CA 92618 w—enowncastle.com PREPARED BY: Communications Telecommunications Engineering 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 929-0910 FAX: (760) 929-0936 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. 1-800-227-2600 CALL AT LEAST TWO DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # REVISION I ISSUE DATE SITE NAME 8 ADDRESS: ASG33 ACROSSFROM 6480 CHARTERS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA SITE PHOTOS DRAWN BY: I DRAFT DATE: I APPROVED BY: RG 10/26/16 TT SHEET NO. S-1 ASG33 PHASE II CROWN CASTLE PROJECT NO. 242727 "C'LIEN'I CCROWN CASTLE NG WEST LL 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR, STE. 1200 IRVINE, CA 92618 Www.--castle.com 'PREPARED BY: Communications Telecommunications Engineering 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 929-0910 FAX: (760) 929-0936 --------------- PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. 1-800-227-2600 CALL AT LEAST TWO d DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # REVISION IISSUE DATE SITE NAME & ADDRESS'. ASG33 ACROSSFROM 6480 CHARTERS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA PHOTOSIM DRAWN BY: DRAFT DATE I APPROVED BY: RG 10/26/16 TT SHEET NO. SI'/� 2 NEW CONSTRUCTION • INSTALL NEW 14'0" HIGH CONCRETE POLE (POLE TO BE PAINTED DARK GREEN). • INSTALL CISH -51 CABINET WITH SIDE MOUNT METER & POWER DISCONNECT BOX WITH (2) ML IONS INSIDE. • INSTALL (2) 21.4" ANTENNAS #HPA-65F-BUU-H2 WITH MOUNTING BRACKET #MBK -03. • EQIPMENT AND ANTENNAS TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH POLE. • 142' TRENCH FOR POWER. NODE COORDINATE LATITUDE: 33.7556 LONGITUDE: -118.393 FOOTAGE TOTALS ASPHALT TRENCH 121' PUNCH THRU 6' DIRT TRENCH 14' BORE 0' TOTAL 141' R&R SIDEWALK TOTAL 1 0 SQ. FT. BILL OF MATERIALS DESCRIPTION QTY VAULTS (PVT) 17" X 30" 0 2'X3' 0 CONDUIT (PVT) 1-1/4" PVC 0' 3" PVC 41' NORTH 4 SCALE: V = 50' UNDERGROUND UTILITY NOTE: THE LOCATIONS AND EXISTENCE OF ANY UNDERGROUND PIPES, STRUCTURES OR CONDUITS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN WERE OBTAINED BY A SEARCH OF AVAILABLE RECORDS. THERE MAY BE EXISTING UTILITIES OTHER THAN THOSE SHOWN ON THE THIS PLAN. THE CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO TAKE PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES TO PROTECT THE UTILITY LINES SHOWN AND ANY OTHER LINES NOT SHOWN ON THIS PLAN. CONDUIT SIZE OF COUNT—,,�CONDUIT APPROX. LENGTH OF FOOTAGES RIW SITE LOCATION INSTALL NEW 14'0" HIGH CONCRETE POLE (POLE TO BE PAINTED DARK GREEN) S/E CORNER OF CARTIER DR & CHARTRES DR (2' B.O.C.) STA. 100 + 25 6' DIRT TRENCH (SEE DETAIL 10 ON SHEET D4) STALL CISH -51 PEDESTAL WITH SIDE MOUNT METER & (2) ML IONS INSIDE (2' B.O.C.) STA. 100 + 19 (SEE DETAILS 1 & 3 ON D-2, DETAILS 6 & 7 ON D-3 & DETAIL 13 ON D-5) 4' PUNCH THRU (SEE DETAIL 12 ON SHEET D4) 121' ASPHALT TRENCH (SEE DETAIL 11 ON SHEET D-4) 1 3" 8' DIRT TRENCH (SEE DETAIL 10 ON SHEET D-4) 141' POINT OF CONNECTION EXISTING SCE VAULT (9' B.O.C.) STA. 102 + 08 2' PUNCH THRU (SEE DETAIL 12 ON SHEET D-4 \� 12' 102 7� 36' 60' ------------- ASG33 PHASE II CROWN CASTLE PROJECT NO. 242727 "CLIENT. CCROWN CASTLE NG WEST LL 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR, STE. 1200 IRVINE, CA 92618 www.crowBcastle.com 'PREPARED BY: Communications Telecommunications Engineering 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 929-0910 FAX: (760) 929-0936 J PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIALTO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. 1-800-227-2600 CALL AT LEAST TWO d DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # REVISION I ISSUE DATE SITE NAME & ADDRESS: ASG33 ACROSSFROM 6480 CHARTERS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA SITE PLAN DRAWN BY: DRAFTDATE: APPROVED BV: RG 10/26/16 TT SHEET NO. P-1 A I ANTENNA DETAILS I SCALE: 1:5 ANTENNA #HPA-65F-BUU-H2 AZIMUTH: 330° 09" C,CPO INSTALL 14' CONCRETE POLE ANTENNA #HPA-65F-BUU-H2 AZIMUTH: 130° ti-� T- o0 s0 c�� z 0O k 900 POLE # N/T: TOP OF POLE: 14'0" TOP OF ANTENNA: 14'0" RAD CENTER: 13'1-1/2" AZIMUTH: 130'& 330° EQUIPMENT AND ANTENNAS TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH POLE. EQUIPMENT TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH POLE. B 1 12 O'CLOCK VIEW SCALE: 1:5 B 1 9 O'CLOCK VIEW SCALE: 1:5 INSTALL (2) 21.4" ANTENNAS INSTALL (2) 21.4" ANTENNAS #HPA-65F-BUU-H2 WITH MOUNTING #HPA-65F-BUU-H2 WITH MOUNTING BRACKET #MBK -03 TOP OF BRACKET #MBK -03 TOP OF (SEE DETAILS 4 & 5 ON SHEET D-3) ANTENNA & (SEE DETAILS 4 & 5 ON SHEET D-3) ANTENNA & POLE POLE 14'0" 14'0" INSTALL 14' CONCRETE POLE INSTALL 14' CONCRETE POLE (SEE DETAILS 7 & 8 ON SHEET D-2) RAD CENTER (SEE DETAILS 7 & 8 ON SHEET D-2) RAD CENTER 13'1-1/2" 13'1-1/2" 09" 09" GROUND LINE • • • • • • • ,y \\ �/ \ ' ASPHALT INSTALL VGR (SEE DETAIL 2 ON SHEET D-2) \ INSTALL VGR (SEE DETAIL 2 ON SHEET D-2) ASG33 PHASE II CROWN CASTLE PROJECT NO. 242727 CLIENT: CROWN v CASTLE NG WEST LL( 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR. STE. 1200 IRVINE, CA 92618 V—n—d—on, PREPARED BY: Communications Telecommunications Engineering 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 929-0910 FAX: (760) 929-0936 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. NI I-800-227-2600 CALL AT LEAST TWO d DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # REVISIDNOSSUE DATE SITE NAME 8 ADDRESS: ASG33 ACROSSFROM 6480 CHARTERS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA POLE PROFILE DRAWN BY'.DRAFT DATE I APPROVED BY: RG 10/26/16 TT SHEET NO. P-2 EXHIBIT B —moT 1 '.R 0W.- �'.. fi �'•. n. •. . �. - .� ' a ' ,f , ids h- f �' 1' �I 3 - 71 Tr' 4 � R � + • ?S �� M�„•: }ids .�, - LT` .t -.4 !tom trr t a , •� �� r - ..-,. Tem,. Y• ,G ,, � i1r^+�; � - '�' `"� � � � , �. l 1.. i r M'CATION EXISTING . 0 ". 1 .. .may, � � '�"', a,� kk• x .. W.- 4� 4' 5 - L y5 LOCATION f- PROPOSED. . _ rAtl _ I P EXHIBIT C � wA f �� it •'' . Ql' K 1 � ♦ '41 - � - � - � �., +ice: - { :o� - ti ` l A r I 8 '� .,� ;•� - Vii: - - - - +— ALT F— 0- _ . dip y.♦,rl. j . 11. • • fa,2©16 Google Mops V- EXHIBIT D CROWN CASTLE 11/0g/2017 ASG33 Coverage Analysis The Foundation For a Wireless World. ASG33 Agenda • Drive Test Data Collection Setup • Existing RF Coverage • Proposed Geographic Coverage Area for ASG33 • Proposed RF Coverage Area for ASG33 • Alternative sites 0 CROWN Proprietary & CASTLE Confidential 1 2 Drive Test Setup A continuous wave (CW) test is performed to simulate the coverage expected for the new node locations This is in the vehicle PCTEL EX flex Receiver 696MHz-2120 MHz GAPS n \ r Omni Antenna 40 Feet LMR400 Ultra Flex Hotstick Adjustable height BVS Dragon Crossband 850/1900 TX Power _ Coupler Tripod Ground Scanner used to collect benchmark data for existing carrier. CROWN Proprietary & CASTLE Confidential 1 3 Existing Benchmark Coverage L r r ••• • • .:. mai � r • .� 1 r • • i � � rr 'f, "!J� r r • • r ASG33 D r • A5G33 ASG3 A • • 't 01�6666 coon r r i A5rG33 C r o �,;e •rrrraa•a r � ••r rr 3 E t. r• t Mr i a r • • t - r • • Proposed Locations Miable • f_ • • Failed �rrrr� Existing Wireless Communications Facilities D -xe'.a•''r` •a• Existing AT&T Sites *- r'�j •rr ".. �, �,•' • LTE RSRP 190o MHz -65 - r "� .. ` Bretlaerrline CanWn r—r --\ 0 -85 to -75 Preserve _ t Robert E. Ryan • M-120 to r CROWN Proprietary & CASTLE Confidential 4 The objective of the node, ASG33, is to provide coverage on the intersection of Cartier Drive and Charities Drive from Cartier and Rhone Dr., to handoff to the existing coverage just west of Charities and Martisse Dr. r. Zk 6 1. 3 . .P� ,..►, '' ♦.-�J�. ?{ t� 4 Proposed RF Coverage for ASG33-A (Primary) Alternate Locations - ASG33 Node ID Average RSRP (dBm) Loss of RSRP signal (%) ASG33-A -86 0% ASG33-C -83 3% ASG33-D -90 -5% ASG33-E -101 -17% Map Legend: ASG33-A: Primary - Meets Coverage Objective. ASG33-B: Meets coverage objective. ASG33- C: Meets coverage objective. ASG33-D: Meets coverage objective. ASG33-E: Does not meet coverage objective. jCROWN Proprietary & CASTLE Confidential 1 7 Alternate Location - ASG33F Recently evaluated location although will not reach intended coverage objective area. CROWN Proprietary & CASTLE Confidential nnP. 0 Saa fir low f ` ASG33 �eira' .v • - r �, \ r a _ i f 1 T Goode earth _ +� —-T.. 1 L9 1 1.1 Erean 4412¢ -_ Alternative Analysis — (ASG33-C) 3% Coverage Improvement Alternative Analysis — (ASG33-D) 5% Coverage Degradation Alternative Analysis — (ASG33-E) 17% Coverage Degradation CCCROWN Proprietary & CASTLE Confidential 1 13 IN40D NEWMEYER DIL.LION LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW MICHAEL W. SHONAFELT File No. Michael.Shonafelt@ndlf.com 2464.130 November 29, 2017 VIA EMAIL 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 brian.campbell( ipvca.gov 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 1333 N. CALIFONIA BLVD 895 DOVE STREET3993 HOWARD HUGHES PKWY SUITE 600 5TH FLOOR SUITE 530 WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 LAS VEGAS, NV 89169 i1 T 925 988 3200 T 949 854 7000 T 702 777 7500 •V!1 F 925 988 3290 F 949 854 7099 F 702 777 7599 Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29, 2017 Page 2 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 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/155/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 Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29, 2017 Page 3 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 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 29, 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.AppAth 642, 648 [upon obtaining a CPCN, a telephone corporation has "the right to use the public highways to install [its] facilities."].) (1) Public Utilities Code Sections 7901, 7901.1. The CPUC has issued a CPCN which authorizes Crown Castle to construct the Project pursuant to its regulatory status under state law. Crown Castle's special regulatory status as a CLEC gives rise to a vested right under Public Utilities Code section 7901 to use the ROW in the City to "construct ... telephone lines along and upon any public road or highway, along or across any of the waters or lands within this State" and to "erect poles, posts, piers, or abutments for supporting the insulators, wires, and other necessary fixtures of their lines, in such manner and at such points as not to incommode the public use of the road or highway[.]" (Pub. Util. Code, § 7901.) The nature of the vested right was described by one court as follows: ... "[I]t has been uniformly held that [section 7901] is a continuing offer extended to telephone and telegraph companies to use the highways, which offer when accepted by the construction and maintenance of lines constitutes a binding contract based on adequate consideration, and that the vested right established thereby cannot be impaired by subsequent acts of the Legislature. [Citations.]" ... Thus, telephone companies have the right to use the public highways to install their facilities. (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].) 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 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 29, 2017 Page 5 HASTINGS COMM. & ENT. L. J. 371 (2013).) In a recent case, T -Mobile West LLC v. City and County of San Francisco (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 334 [2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 769], the First Appellate District, Division Five, determined that aesthetic considerations are appropriate in determining whether a facility "incommodes" the ROW. That case is being appealed to the California Supreme Court. The court did not decide the specific issue of whether obtaining a discretionary use permit is a lawful precondition to exercising the section 7901 franchise rights. Public Utility Code section 7901.1 -- a sister statute to section 7901 -- grants local municipalities the limited "right to exercise reasonable control as to the time, place, and manner in which roads, highways, and waterways are accessed[,]." Nevertheless, such controls cannot have the effect of foreclosing use of the ROW or otherwise prevent the company from exercising its right under state law to "erect poles" in the ROW. That is because "the construction and maintenance of telephone lines in the streets and other public places within the City is today a matter of state concern and not a municipal affair." (Williams Communication v. City of Riverside, supra, 114 Cal.AppAth at p. 653.) Moreover, section 7901.1 specifies that such controls, "to be reasonable, shall, at a minimum, be applied to all entities in an equivalent manner." (Ibid., emphasis added.) Accordingly, to the extent that other public utilities are authorized to use the ROW in the City without having to obtain a discretionary land use permit, such disparate treatment may run afoul of the "equivalent manner" provision of Public Utilities Code section 7901.1. On the basis of Crown Castle's status as a CLEC, and its concomitant rights to the ROW, the Project is designed as part of an ROW telecommunications system. With respect to the siting and configuration of the Project, the rights afforded under Public Utilities Code section 7901 and 7901.1 apply. Crown Castle reserves its rights under section 7901 and 7901.1, including, but not limited to, its right to challenge any approval process, that impedes or infringes on Crown Castle's rights as a CLEC. (2) Government Code Section 65964.1. Recently, the California Legislature echoed the courts' oft -repeated declaration that "the construction and maintenance of telephone lines in the streets and other public places within the City is today a matter of state concern and not a municipal affair." (Williams Communication v. City of Riverside, supra, 114 Cal.App.4th at p. 653.) It did so in the context of enacting AB 57 in October 2015. AB 57 is codified as Government Code section 65964.1. Under section 65964. 1, if a local government fails to act on an application for a permit to construct a wireless telecommunications facility within the prescribed Shot Clock timeframes (150 days for a standalone site and 90 days for a collocation site), the application is deemed approved by operation of law. When it enacted section 65964. 1, the Legislature observed that: The Legislature finds and declares that a wireless telecommunications facility has a significant economic impact in California and is not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution, but is a matter of statewide concern. (Gov. Code, § 65964. 1, subd. (c).) Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29, 2017 Page 6 B. FEDERAL LAW. The approval of the Project also is governed by the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (codified as amend in scattered sections of U.S.C., Tabs 15, 18, 47) ("Telecom Act"). When enacting the Telecom Act, Congress expressed its intent "to promote competition and reduce regulation in order to secure lower prices and higher quality services for American telecommunications consumers and encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies." (110 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)). Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29, 2017 Page 7 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: The regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof— (11) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. (47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II).) In T -Mobile U.S.A. Inc. v. City ofAnacortes (9th Cir. 2009) 572 F.3d 987, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals set forth a two-step analysis for determining whether a local government's denial has the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless telecommunications services in violation of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. In the first step, the applicant must make a showing of a "significant gap" in service. (Id. at p. 995.) In the second step, the applicant must demonstrate it has selected the "least intrusive means" to fill that gap in service. (Ibid.) Each prong of the Prohibition of Service Provision is addressed below. A. A Significant Gap in Service Exists at the Project Site. (1) What Is a Significant Gap? "Significant gap" is a legal term of art developed by the courts to guide a determination of whether a local government's decision on an application prohibits a carrier or other wireless infrastructure developer from providing service. (See, e.g., T -Mobile USA, Inc. v. City of Anacortes, supra, 572 F.3d at p. 995.) Put simply, "a locality could violate the [Telecom Act's] effective prohibition clause if it prevented a wireless provider from closing a `significant gap' in service coverage." (Id., at p. 995; MetroPCS, Inc. v. City of San Francisco (9th Cir., 2005) 400 F.3d 715, 731.) Significant gap is "a contextual term that must take into consideration the purposes of the Telecommunications Act itself." (T -Mobile Northeast LLC v. Loudoun County Bd. of Supervisors (4th Cir. 2014) 748 F.3d 185, 198.). Among the goals of the Telecom Act are to "promote competition," "secure ... higher quality services for American telecommunications consumers," and "encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies." (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 Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29, 2017 Page 8 [Telecom Act]."].) As the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals noted in a recently published decision: The technology of 10 years ago may have only supported wireless service that had substantial gaps in coverage and high dropped call rates. But the technology of today supports increased wireless coverage with reduced rates of dropped calls. On this trajectory, the technology of tomorrow may support 100% coverage with no dropped calls, and the focus may instead be on subtler issues about the nature and strength of signals for particular uses. The [TCA] clearly intends to encourage this technological development and, to that end, to protect such development from interference from state and local governments when approving the design and location of facilities. This is manifested in § 332(c)(7)(B). Thus, in construing the level of service protected by § 332(c)(7)(13)(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 Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29, 2017 Page 9 France.2 (b) Over 50 percent of all American homes are now wireless only. 3 (c) More and more civic leaders and emergency response personnel cite lack of a robust wireless network as a growing public safety risk. The number of 911 calls placed by people using wireless phones has significantly increased in recent years. It is estimated that about 70 percent of 911 calls are placed from wireless phones, and that percentage is growing. 4 (d) Data demand from new smartphones and tablets is leading to a critical deficit in spectrum, requiring more wireless antennas and infrastructure. According to a 2011 report, wireless data traffic was 110 percent higher than in the last half of 2010. Similarly, AT&T reports that its wireless data volumes have increased 30 - fold since the introduction of the iPhone. 5 (e) Wireless data traffic grew by a factor of 300 percent between 2010 and 2015.6 Global mobile data traffic is expected to reach a seven -fold increase by 2021. Determining what constitutes a "significant gap" therefore must incorporate metrics that are based -- not just on basic cell phone coverage -- but also on network capacity for advanced communications technologies. As more Americans depend on wireless communications technologies and smartphones, reliable network capacity and in -building coverage are critical. These are some of the reasons courts now recognize that a "significant gap" can exist on the basis of capacity needs and inadequate in -building coverage. (See, e.g., MetroPCS Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, supra, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43985; T -Mobile Central, LLC v. Unified Government of Wyandotte County (D.Kans. 2007) 528 F.Supp.2d 1128.) Wireless telecommunications are the primary mode of communication for Americans in the twenty-first century. That fact is amply demonstrated by the latest surveys in the industry, which reveal that over 49 percent of American homes rely wholly on wireless devices.$ The marginal service currently at the Project site is inadequate to sustain current -- and future -- communications technologies and demands. In a recent report, the "National 911 Program," which is an office housed within the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, found that "76 percent of consumers are using cellular phones to make calls to 911 while 21 percent are 2 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Directorate for Science, Technology, and Industry, "Broadband Statistics," (June 2010): <www.oecd.org/sti/ict/broadband>. 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. 4 Federal Communications Commission (2012) http://www.fcc.gov/guides/wireless-911-services. 5 Executive Office of the President Council of Economic Advisors (White House, Feb. 2012) at 2-6. 6 https://www.ctia.org/industry-data/wireless-quick-facts. 7 http://digitalconqurer.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.ors/industry-data/ctia-annual-wireless-industry-survey) Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29, 2017 Page 10 using wireline phones."9 On that ground alone, this is a matter of health, safety and welfare for the residents and visitors of the City. Notably, 911 service over systems like this is not just limited to AT&T users -- the networks carries 911 calls of any mobile user. (2) Data Support a Significant Gap at the Project Site. Applying the above principles to the Project, data reveal that the project service area has insufficient signal strength to address current data demand and statistical projections of data demand. Crown Castle has undertaken drive -test data of existing conditions at the Project site in two different frequencies that will be employed at the Project site. (See ASG07-Proposed Primary and Alternate Node Analysis, attached as Exhibit D.) Exhibit D identifies levels of service in terms of the following criteria: RS.RP _ -65 to 0 _ -75 to -65 -85 to -75 _ -95 to _85 _-1a to -95 _ -120 to -105 Locations l `.Jable Failev 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 9 See https://www.911.gov/pdf/National-911-Program-2015-Profi le Database ProgressReport-021716.pdf Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29, 2017 Page 11 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. RSRP • -16ro 96d 5�ro sd.5 • -85-7 km -05 M -as *. -75 �-050 . d5n+ Proposed Wow • Goa ur M_ _ Af4emele 4oca0ans - � v5,nb v E.nti qAT&T Sae • CROWN � CASTLE 11 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. Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29, 2017 Page 12 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): !v •........................ • r - �'•.. •.....� 4 - "."nif G32 91. A9032_C w.... AEG 22D + ` lei i •rrj�rr 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 Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29, 2017 Page 13 section 12.18.050. For areas -- such as RF coverage issues -- that are outside the scope of the Planning Commission's competency and jurisdiction it should look to the conclusions of its hired consultants and the actual data compiled by RF experts, not the unsupported assertions of project opponents. B. Crown Castle Has Demonstrated That It Has Chosen the Least Intrusive Means to Fill the Significant Gap in Service. To establish least intrusive means, the applicant establishes a "prima facie showing of effective prohibition by submitting a comprehensive application, which includes consideration of alternatives, showing that the proposed [wireless communications facility] is the least intrusive means of filling a significant gap." (T -Mobile U.S.A. Inc. v. City ofAnacortes, supra, 572 F.3d at p. 995.) After that, the burden shifts to the local government: "When a locality rejects a prima facie showing, it must show that there are some potentially available and technologically feasible alternatives." (Id. at p. 998.) The court further explained that the applicant then has an opportunity to "dispute the availability and feasibility of the alternatives favored by the locality." (Ibid. ) Because Crown Castle is a CLEC entitled to construct its facilities in the ROW, its small- cell and DAS networks are inherently ROW systems. On that basis, Crown Castle examined those alternatives theoretically available to it in the ROW. The analysis below demonstrates why the Project qualifies as the "least intrusive means" of filling the significant gap in service. (1) Height and Location of the Project. The antenna height and location of the Project were chosen to provide the minimum signal level needed to meet critical coverage and capacity needs in the service area. Despite the technical limitations of a low -profile, small-cell system, Crown Castle seeks to maximize the coverage of each node location, since maximization of the node performance equates to a lower overall number of facilities and a less intrusive system. Accordingly, the Project location was chosen to provide an effective relay of signal from adjacent sites, so that ubiquitous coverage of the minimum signal level is provided throughout the service area with the minimum number of facilities. The selected location maximizes the RF coverage of the Project and minimizes interference/overlap with the other facilities, resulting in a lower overall number of facilities and a less intrusive system. The ROW is ideal for the Project from an aesthetic standpoint because the ROW is an area already impacted with utilities and similar features typical of developed roadways. Importantly, the currently proposed location and design were identified after exhausting other possible locations in the relatively small DAS coverage area or "polygon." (See Exhibit 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: N.17 f� y we ! . ASG32 B •' AS + ASG32 A €' t ASG32 D S.c earth I-p'YQWl 212120 6 a 1994 ,a', Mi A Q �.' �'�..'_ � •r ,N�'}' MOW Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29, 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 (f) Crown Castle small cells utilize existing vertical elements in the ROW, such as utility poles, or slim -profile new poles, thereby minimizing intrusions into the ROW. (3) The Project Location and Design Qualify as the Least Intrusive Means of Filling the Demonstrated Significant Gap in Coverage. The Project utilizes small cell technology, which, as discussed above, was designed to avoid the need for larger profile macro -sites. As for the location, the Project is buffered from residences on all sides by existing foliage 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. Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29, 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 MWS Enclosures cc: Ara Mihranian, Director, Planning and Zoning Division, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, aram(crpvca.gov Christy Lopez, Special Counsel, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, christy.lopez(a),bbklaw. com Dave Aleshire, City Attorney, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, daleshirekawattorneys.com Lizbeth Wincele, Government Relations Counsel — Southern California, Crown Castle, Lizbeth. W incelencrowncastle. com Daniel Schweizer, Director, Government Relations, West Region, Crown Castle, Daniel. S chweizer(a&crowncastle. com Stephen Garcia, Manager Government Relations, Crown Castle, Stephen. Garci akcrowncastle. com Aaron Snyder, Government Relations Specialist-DAS & Small Cells -Southern California, Crown Castle, Aaron. Snyder(c-r�,crowncastle.com 7249380.1 EXHIBIT A ASG32 29504 SCOTWOOD DR AT WH ITLEY COLLINS DR D-1 RANCHO D-2 DETAILS & NOTES D-3 DETAILS & NOTES PALOS DETAILS & NOTES VERDES, DETAILS & NOTES S-1 SITE PHOTOS S-2 CA GENERAL CONTRACTOR NOTES: CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL PLANS AND EXISTING DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS ON THE JOB SITE AND SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE ENGINEER IN WRITING OF ANY DISCREPANCIES BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK OR RESPONSIBLE FOR SAME. SIGN OFF TITLE SIGNATURE DATE NETWORK REAL ESTATE PROJECT MANAGER CONSTRUCTION MANAGER RADIO FREQUENCY PROJECT DESCRIPTION: • DECOMMISSION & REMOVE EXISTING 25'6" HIGH MARBELITE OCTAGONAL CONCRETE STREETLIGHT (POLE ID #1613500E) AND REPLACE WITH A NEW 25'6" HIGH STEEL CONCRETE TEXTURED STREETLIGHT WITH MAST ARM AND LUMINAIRE (REMOVE EXISTING JUNIPER). • INSTALL CISH -51 PEDESTAL WITH SIDE MOUNT METER AND POWER DISCONNECT BOX WITH (2) ML IONS INSIDE. • INSTALL (2) 21.4" ANTENNAS #HPA-65F-BUU-H2 WITH MOUNTING BRACKET #MBK -03. • INSTALL VGR. • EQUIPMENT AND ANTENNAS TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH POLE. PROJECT SUMMARY arinn I IN L)r-,5U CIY I AJIN T-1 TITLE SHEET D-1 DETAILS&NOTES D-2 DETAILS & NOTES D-3 DETAILS & NOTES D-4 DETAILS & NOTES D-5 DETAILS & NOTES S-1 SITE PHOTOS S-2 PHOTOSIM P-1 SITE PLAN P-2 POLE PROFILE cu1~V r TxTnpv PROJECT MANAGER: CROWN CASTLE NG WEST LLC 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR STE. 1200 IRVINE, CA 92618 HEIDIPAYNE (949)300-9493 HEIDI. PAYNE@CRO W NCASTLE.COM FIBER MANAGER: CROWN CASTLE NG WEST LLC 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR STE. 1200 IRVINE, CA 92618 ALFREDO ARZUBIAGA (818)939-5579 ALFREDO.ARZUBIAGA@CROW NCASTLE. COM CONSTRUCTION MANAGER: CROWN CASTLE NG WEST LLC 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR STE. 1200 IRVINE, CA 92618 MIKE GILDERSLEEVE (808) 286-8323 MIKE.GILDERSLEEVE@CRO WNCASTLE.COM NODE ENGINEER: COASTAL COMMUNICATIONS 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 TODD THREW (760) 929-0910 EXT. 101 TODD@COASTALCOMMINC. COM PROJECT TEAM ASG32 PHASE II CROWN CASTLE PROTECT NO. 242727 �r',.0CASTLE CROWN NG WEST LLC 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR, STE. 1200 IRVINE, CA 92618 www.crowncastle.com J PREPARED BY: Communications Telecommunications Engineering 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 929-0910 FAX: (760) 929-0936 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED, 1-800-227-2600 CALL AT LEAST TWO d DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # CITY REDLINE 11/09/15 ADD PED 09 07/05/16 REVISION I ISSUE DATE SITE NAhfE & ADDRESS: ASG32 29504 SCOTWOOD DR AT WHITLEY COLLINS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA TITLE SHEET DRAWN BY: I DRAFTDATE: APPROVED BY: RG 10/07/15 TT SHEET NO. T-1 LEGEND SYMBOL DESCRIPTION C&G PROPOSED O 2'X 3'VAULT EX NEW POLE e- NEW STREETLIGHT PL TRENCH AND FIBER CONDUIT (PVT) R/W EXISTING SB EXISTWGSTREETLIGHT Q EXISTINGVAULT/IIANDHOLE ■ EXISTING PEDESTAL 1. EXISTING TRANSFORMER ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL BE PREFORMED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATION POINTS PERFORMED BY THE CONTRACTOR OR QUALIFIED PERSON AS INDICATED BELOW: HW INCREMENTS) CONTRACTOR TO PLACE SANDBAGS AROUND ANY/ALL STORM DRAIN INLETS TO PREVENT EXISTING CURB RAMP �C&G EXISTING CUM &GUTTER A/C EXISTING ASPHALT CURB EDP EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT BERM EXISTING BERM R/W EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY S/B SUBDIVISION BOUNDARY - EXISTINGCENTER THE IU' EXISTING CENTER LINE ABBREVIATIONS A/C ASPHALT CURB C&G CURB & GUTTER CL CENTERLINE EX EXISTING EDP EDGEOFPAVEMENT PL PROPERTY LINE R/W RIGHT OF WAY SB SUBDIVISION BOUNDARY 10. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ARRANGE FOR WEEKLY MEETINGS DURING OCTOBER IST TO APRIL 30TH FOR PROJECT TEAM (GENERAL CONTRACTOR, QUALIFIED PERSON, EROSION CONTROL SUBCONTRACTOR IF ANY, ENGINEER OF WORK, OWNER/DEVELOPER AND THE RESIDENT ENGINEER) TO EVALUATE THE ADEQUACY OF THE EROSION/SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES AND OTHER RELATED 1 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. STORMDRAIN INLET PROTECTION INLET EDGE OF PAVEMENT FLOW FEE] FLOW SPILLWAY, I -BAG HIGH SANDBAG 2 -BAGS HEIGHT TYPICAL PROTECTION FOR INLET WITH OPPOSING FLOW DIRECTIONS EDGE OF PAVEMENT INLET FLOW � FLOW SPILLWAY, 1 -BAG HIGH SANDBAG 2 -BAGS HEIGHT TYPICAL PROTECTION FOR INLET WITH SINGLE FLOW DIRECTION NOTES: 1. INTENDED FOR SHORT - TERM USE. 2. USE TO INHIBIT NON - STORM WATER FLOW. 3. ALLOW FOR PROPER MAINTENANCE AND CLEANUP. 4. BAGS MUST BE REMOVED AFTER ADJACENT OPERATION IS COMPLETED. 5. NOT APPLICABLE IN AREAS WITH HIGH SILTS AND CLAYS WITHOUT FILTER FABRIC. 2. 3. 4. 5. NORMAL LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES NOTES: LOCATION AND DEPTH OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED UTILITIES MUST BE PROVIDED BY THE SUBDIVIDER AND SHOWN ON ANY PLANS SUBMITTED TO THE DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS FOR APPROVAL. CHANGES MAY BE PERMITTED BY THE DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS IN CASES OF CONFLICTING FACILITIES. CONFLICTS BETWEEN UTILITY COMPANIES FACILITIES, EXISTING AND PROPOSED, MUST BE MUTUALLY RESOLVED BY THE UTILITY COMPANIES. FOR COMMERCIAL SIDEWALKS, THE FIRE HYDRANT SHALL BE PLACED WITHIN THE SIDEWALK 1'-6" BEHIND FACE OF CURB. MAXIMUM 2" DIAMETER GAS MAINS MAY BE PLACED IN JOINT UTILITIES TRENCH SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF CITY ENGINEER (IN TRACTS). 1-800-227-2600 CALL AT LEAST TWO DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # CITY REDLINE 11/09/15 ADD PED 09 07/05/16 REVISION/ISSUE DATE SITE NAME & ADDRESS: ASG32 29504 SCOTWOOD DR AT WHITLEY COLLINS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA DETAILS & NOTES DRAWN BY: I DRAFTDATE: APPROVED By RG 10/07/15 TT SHEET NO. D-1 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES: NOTES: CALIFORNIA STATE CODE COMPLIANCE: ASG32 TEMPORARY EROSION/SEDIMENT CONTROL, PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF FINAL IMPROVEMENTS, SHALL BE 1. CONTRACTOR TO POTHOLE ALL UTILITY CROSSINGS. ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL BE PREFORMED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PERFORMED BY THE CONTRACTOR OR QUALIFIED PERSON AS INDICATED BELOW: 2. CONTRACTOR TO PLACE SANDBAGS AROUND ANY/ALL STORM DRAIN INLETS TO PREVENT CURRENT EDITIONS OF THE FOLLOWING CODES AS ADOPTED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNING AUTHORITIES. PHASE 11 CONTAMINATED WATER. NOTHING IN THESE PLANS IS TO BE CONSTRUCTED TO PERMIT WORK NOT CONFORMING TO THESE CROWN CASTLE PROJECT NO, I. ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES "LAND DEVELOPMENT MANUAL, STORM 3. SPOILS PILE WILL BE COVERED AND CONTAINED AND STREET WILL BE SWEPT AND CLEANED CODES: 24`27`27 WATER STANDARDS" MUST BE INCORPORATED INTO THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE AS NEEDED. PROPOSED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS CONSISTENT WITH THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN AND/OR WATER 4. CONTRACTOR TO REPAIR DAMAGED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE (INCLUDING TITLES 24& 25) 2010 POLLUTION CONTROL PLAN (WPCP), IF APPLICABLE. CITY ENGINEER. • 2010 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODES WHICH ADOPTS THE 2010 UBC, 2010 UMC, 2010 UPC AND THE CLIENT: 5. CURB & GUTTER TO BE PROTECTED IN PLACE. SIDEWALK TO BE REPLACED TO THE 2010 NEC. CROWN 2. FOR STORM DRAIN INLETS, PROVIDE A GRAVEL BAG SILT BASIN IMMEDIATELY UPSTREAM OF INLET SATISFACTION OF THE CITY ENGINEER. • BUILDING OFFICIALS & CODE ADMINISTRATORS (BOCA) CASTLE AS INDICATED ON DETAILS. 6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RESTORE THE ROADWAY BACK TO ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION 2010 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE v SATISFACTORY TO THE CITY ENGINEER INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO PAVING, STRIPING, • ANSI/EIA-222-F LIFE SAFETY CODE NFPA-101 NG WEST LLC 3, THE CONTRACTOR OR QUALIFIED PERSON SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CLEANUP OF SILT AND MUD ON BIKE LANES, PAVEMENT LEGENDS, SIGNS, AND TRAFFIC LOOP DETECTORS. • 2010 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR, STE. 1200 ADJACENT STREET(S) AND STORM DRAIN SYSTEM DUE TO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. 7. SIDEWALK SHALL BE RESTORED/REPLACED PER CITY OF RANCHOS PALOS VERDES STANDARD • 2010 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE IRVINE, CA 92618 DRAWINGS. • 2010 LOCAL BUILDING CODE W W W.c-castle.com 4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE SILT AND DEBRIS AFTER EACH MAJOR RAINFALL. 8. PEDESTRIAN RAMP WILL NOT BE DISTURBED. • CITY/COUNTY ORDINANCES PREPARED BY: 5. EQUIPMENT AND WORKERS FOR EMERGENCY WORK SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE AT ALL TIMES ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS: DURING THE RAINY SEASON. FACILITY IS UNMANNED AND NOT FOR HUMAN HABITATION. HANDICAPPED ACCESS REQUIREMENTS DO NOT APPLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 2010 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE. , • . Communications Telecommunications Engineering 6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RESTORE ALL EROSION/SEDIMENT CONTROL DEVICES TO WORKING ORDER ROW GROUND CONSTRUCTION NOTES: TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY ENGINEER OR RESIDENT ENGINEER AFTER EACH RUN-OFF FCC NOTE: PRODUCING RAINFALL, I. GROUND CONSTRUCTION TO REMOVE/CLEAN ALL DEBRIS, NAILS, STAPLES, OR NON -USED THIS WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY COMPLIES WITH FEDERAL STANDARDS FOR RADIO 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 VERTICALS OFF THE POLE. FREQUENCY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TELECOMMUNICATION ACT OF 1996 AND SUBSEQUENT CARLSBAD, CA 92008 7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL ADDITIONAL EROSION/SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES AS MAYBE 2. ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH MUNICIPAL, COUNTY, STATE, AMENDMENTS AND ANY OTHER REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED BY STATE OR FEDERAL REGULATORY PHONE: (760) 10 FAX: (760) 929-0939-093 6 REQUIRED BY THE RESIDENT ENGINEER DUE TO UNFORESEEN CIRCUMSTANCES, WHICH MAY ARISE. FEDERAL, G095 AND G0128 STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS. AGENCIES. 3. CALL USA 48 HOURS PRIOR TO EXCAVATING AT (800) 227-2600 OR 811. PROPRIETARY INFORMATION 8. ALL EROSION/SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES PROVIDED PER THE. APPROVED IMPROVEMENT PLAN 4. ALL LANDSCAPING TO BE RESTORED TO ORIGINAL CONDITION OR BETTER. SHALL BE INCORPORATED HEREON. ALL EROSION/SEDIMENT CONTROL FOR INTERIM CONDITIONS 5. ALL EQUIPMENT TO BE BONDED. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND SHALL BE DONE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE RESIDENT ENGINEER. 6. METERING CABINET REQUIRES 36" CLEARANCE AT DOOR OPENING. CONFIDENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR 7. CAULK CABINET BASE AT PAD. DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. 9. ALL REMOVABLE PROTECTIVE DEVICES SHOWN SHALL BE IN PLACE AT THE END OF EACH WORKING DAY WHEN RAIN IS IMMINENT. 10. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ARRANGE FOR WEEKLY MEETINGS DURING OCTOBER IST TO APRIL 30TH FOR PROJECT TEAM (GENERAL CONTRACTOR, QUALIFIED PERSON, EROSION CONTROL SUBCONTRACTOR IF ANY, ENGINEER OF WORK, OWNER/DEVELOPER AND THE RESIDENT ENGINEER) TO EVALUATE THE ADEQUACY OF THE EROSION/SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES AND OTHER RELATED 1 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. STORMDRAIN INLET PROTECTION INLET EDGE OF PAVEMENT FLOW FEE] FLOW SPILLWAY, I -BAG HIGH SANDBAG 2 -BAGS HEIGHT TYPICAL PROTECTION FOR INLET WITH OPPOSING FLOW DIRECTIONS EDGE OF PAVEMENT INLET FLOW � FLOW SPILLWAY, 1 -BAG HIGH SANDBAG 2 -BAGS HEIGHT TYPICAL PROTECTION FOR INLET WITH SINGLE FLOW DIRECTION NOTES: 1. INTENDED FOR SHORT - TERM USE. 2. USE TO INHIBIT NON - STORM WATER FLOW. 3. ALLOW FOR PROPER MAINTENANCE AND CLEANUP. 4. BAGS MUST BE REMOVED AFTER ADJACENT OPERATION IS COMPLETED. 5. NOT APPLICABLE IN AREAS WITH HIGH SILTS AND CLAYS WITHOUT FILTER FABRIC. 2. 3. 4. 5. NORMAL LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES NOTES: LOCATION AND DEPTH OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED UTILITIES MUST BE PROVIDED BY THE SUBDIVIDER AND SHOWN ON ANY PLANS SUBMITTED TO THE DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS FOR APPROVAL. CHANGES MAY BE PERMITTED BY THE DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS IN CASES OF CONFLICTING FACILITIES. CONFLICTS BETWEEN UTILITY COMPANIES FACILITIES, EXISTING AND PROPOSED, MUST BE MUTUALLY RESOLVED BY THE UTILITY COMPANIES. FOR COMMERCIAL SIDEWALKS, THE FIRE HYDRANT SHALL BE PLACED WITHIN THE SIDEWALK 1'-6" BEHIND FACE OF CURB. MAXIMUM 2" DIAMETER GAS MAINS MAY BE PLACED IN JOINT UTILITIES TRENCH SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF CITY ENGINEER (IN TRACTS). 1-800-227-2600 CALL AT LEAST TWO DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # CITY REDLINE 11/09/15 ADD PED 09 07/05/16 REVISION/ISSUE DATE SITE NAME & ADDRESS: ASG32 29504 SCOTWOOD DR AT WHITLEY COLLINS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA DETAILS & NOTES DRAWN BY: I DRAFTDATE: APPROVED By RG 10/07/15 TT SHEET NO. D-1 ASG32 PHASE 11 CROWN CASTLE PROTECT NO. 242727 r�CCASTLE CROWN NG WEST LLC 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR, STE. 1200 IRVINE, CA 92618 www. crowncastle.com PREPARED BY: 4 1 1 1 Ift Communications Telecommunications Engineezing 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 929-0910 FAX: (760) 929-0936 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED, 1-800-227-2600 CALL AT LEAST TWO d DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # CITY REDLINE 11/09/15 ADD PED 09 07/05/16 REVISION/ISSUE DATE SITE NAME & ADDRESS: ASG32 29504 SCOTWOOD DR AT WHITLEY COLLINS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA DETAILS & NOTES DRAWNBY: DRAFTDATE APPROVED BY: RG 10/07/15 1 TT SHEET NO. D//� 2 MBK -03 HPA-65F-BUU-H2 SQUARE D BY SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC LOAD CENTER, 70A (MODEL#Q024L70RB) -'e Mechanical • • • "' Weg ht 9616s(44kg) H1nga P1mn n 30 m ry TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS M-aurning Pole Dlmensian 2. 5 in (5-2-1 • • Faste:rer s'a•e Mtb AMPERE RATING 70A ° IrstallstionTo rque 20 ft las 127 Nm) MAXIMUM SINGLE POLE CIRCUITS 4 Mechanidal Tlu Adl usemern D° 12° WIDTH 4.88 INCHES APPLICATION DESIGNED TO MEET RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL REQUIREMENTS TO PROTECT ELECTRICAL +zloa sae® SYSTEMS, EQUIPMENT AND PEOPLE. SPACES 2 wn: zxtw, dP> nkncoermemt a»Hgnea.awn:wbkncwnm. ranr.ase rvw.tno-zsao wH: 69882a WIRE SIZE 412 T03 AWG(AL)-#14 T04AWG(CU) l MAXIMUM TANDEM CIRCUIT BREAKERS 2 Frequency Range 698-806 MHz 894 MHz 1850-1990 MHz 1710-1755/2110-2170 MHz 2305-2360 MHz \g k�sot+szsar VOLTAGE RATING 120/240VAC Gatn 10.0 tlBi 10.5 ,113, lza eel 126ee1 13.6 tlBi 14.0 ,11]. i WIRING CONFIGURATION 3 -WIRE Azimuth Beamwidth I -3d6) _ _ 65^ 62° 61 66° 60° sg° I PHASE 1 -PHASE Elevation Beamwidth l-3dB) 400° 35S° 17.5° 17.8° 15.81 14.3° DEPTH 4.00 INCHES Electrical Downtilt 4° 4° 3° 3" 3° 3° MBK-03Top Atljunable 6rx lex M6K-03TopAdfuaahle6x let Sitl=_V HEIGHT 9.3$INCHES Deviation Sdelobes(ist Upper) <-15 dB <-13dB <-13d8 < 17dB <-13 dB <-17de BUS MATERIAL TIN PLATED ALUMINUM Front -to -Back Ratio @180° > 28 dB > 28 dB > 30 d8 > 30 d13 > 30 dB > 30 dB COVER TYPE SURFACE Cross -Polar Port-eo-Port Isolation > 20 de > 20 eB > 23 eB > 23 dB > 23 de > 23 dB CATALOG REFERENCE NUMBER 110OCT9901 Voltage Standing Wave Ratio WSWR) <1.5:1 <15:1 <1.5:1 <1.51 <1.5:1 <1.51 ENCLOSURE TYPE OUTDOORlRAINPROOF ENCLOSURE RATING NEMA Passive Incermoawanon (2x20w) <-150 d8d <_ -150 dBc <_ -150 dBc <_ -150 dBc s -150 dig, <-iso eec S GROUNDING BAR ORDER SEPARATELY Input Power Continuous Wxve(CW) 500 watts 500 wads 300w 11, 300 watts 300 watts 300 watts APPROVALS UL LISTED Po(ad ation Duat P,145° Dual Rol 45° Dual Po145° Dual Po145° Dual Po145° Dual P.1 45' SHORT CIRCUIT CURRENT RATING 10KA Input Impedance 50 ohms 50.h- 50 ohms 50 ohms 50.h- so ohms MAIN TYPE FIXED - FACTORY INSTALLED MAIN LUGS Lightning Protection DC Ground DC Ground DC Ground DC Ground DC Ground DCGround MBK -03 exxom Fkm Biaclret SHIPPING AND ORDERING Mechanical CATEGORY 00101 - LOAD CENTERS, 1 PHASE, NEMAI & 3R, 2 - 8 Dimensions (LXWxD) 214x14.4%7.3 in (544x366%185 mm) CIRCUIT, TYPE QO - Survival wind speed > Iso mpn f> 241 kph) Parts &Accessores DISCOUNT SCHEDULEDE 3A Front Wind Load 6616, (293 N) @ 100 mph (161 kph) ARTICLE NUMBER 785901785132 PACKAGE QUANTITY 1 Side Wind Load 34 lbs (150 N) @ 100 mph (161 kph/ Model number MBK -03 WEIGHT 5 LBS. Equivalent Flat Plate Area 2.6 ftz C.2 mzl _ Overall Weight 9.S Ibs (4.4 k 1 g AVAILABILITY CODE S Weight- 15.2 m:(bs kq) RETURNABILITY Y Connector 6 x 7-16 DIN female tong neck Mounting Pole 2 to 51n (5 to 12 cm) -We'"`�cbi°`°"'°""""' SCALE SCALE SCALE 2 3 N.T.S. POWER METER CISH -51 PEDESTAL c e SIDE VIEW FRONT VIEW SIDE VIEW $" 4 3/4" 22.5 c D o In 6 / e / / 12' 49.0 / A 0 UL APPROVED ONLY 1" ID BOTTOM KNOCK OUT NOTES: O O O ° 1. TOP KNOCKOUT WITH LIQUID FLEX 45" AND STRAIGHT CONNECTORS AVAILABLE TO POWER UTILITY CREW ®• CONNECTION. 2. BOTTOM KNOCK OUT FOR CONNECTING TO CUSTOMER FUSE DISCONNECT BOX. OoU 111 0 3. HEIGHT MAY BE DETERMINED BY POWER UTILITY. 101 O O O PARTS LIST CALLOUT OTV DESCRIPTION CALLOUT QTY DESC. 12.6 �22.5� A "E111 E PHASE METALLIC FLEXCOND B 1 4'X1"0 LI UID TIGHT UIT NOTES: C R TRPOINT D t GHTCO croft -as° CUBE APPROX. WEIGHT W/PEDESTAL ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES = 105 LBS UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED. SCALE 5 N.T.S. E 2 15116' X 1' BOLT- STAINLESS STEEL F z ASHER-ST STAINLESS TE SCALE G 2 5/16' NUT- STAINLESS STEEL ^ �F N.T.S. ASG32 PHASE 11 CROWN CASTLE PROTECT NO. 242727 r�CCASTLE CROWN NG WEST LLC 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR, STE. 1200 IRVINE, CA 92618 www. crowncastle.com PREPARED BY: 4 1 1 1 Ift Communications Telecommunications Engineezing 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 929-0910 FAX: (760) 929-0936 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED, 1-800-227-2600 CALL AT LEAST TWO d DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # CITY REDLINE 11/09/15 ADD PED 09 07/05/16 REVISION/ISSUE DATE SITE NAME & ADDRESS: ASG32 29504 SCOTWOOD DR AT WHITLEY COLLINS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA DETAILS & NOTES DRAWNBY: DRAFTDATE APPROVED BY: RG 10/07/15 1 TT SHEET NO. D//� 2 Electrical Power Supply ANCHOR BOLTS: Adjacent channel power, dBc..........................................48 to 1755 Mains Power, Vac. ...................................... 85 to 264 DL output tolerance over frequency, dB ............................ t1 ...................................... 115 or 230 ...............................Optical to 1995 Power consumption, wafts ...................................... 1150 DL output tolerance over temperature, dB..........................0.5*"* 8 Optical 42 Input ICP3, dBm 36 Connectors E2000/APC 8° ICP3 optimized .............................. -12 .............................................................. Optical return loss, d6 ............................................. 45 minimum Noise figure optimized .............................. -18 Fiber type, mm..........................................................Single mode E9/125 Noise figure, dB 36 Optical link budget, dB ............................................. 0 to 10 38,200 31 Composite input power ICP3 optimized .............................. 7 @ OTRx master side, dBm .............................. 11 max. 1900 MHz .....................+5 composite Noise figure optimized .............................. 4.5 1700 / 2100 MHz.......... +5 composite .............................. 6 max. BTS Side Number of connectors 1900 MHz ..................... 4 1700/2100 MHz ............4 System optimized for BTS power, dBm ......................................33 .......................................43 Antenna Port Connector .......................................7/16 Female Output power .......................................See band specification Return loss, dB ....................................... 15 1700/2100 MHz (AWS) Frequency range, MHz Uplink............................1710 ANCHOR BOLTS: NUTS WITH THE THREADS STAKED AT TWO PLACES BELOW THE NUT, EMBEDDED IN FOUNDATION. A4 ANCHOR BOLTS SHALL BE EMBEDDED 33" to 1755 Downlink ........................2110 Uplink............................1850 to 2155 Output power per carrier, dBm* Downlink ........................1930 ...............................Optical to 1995 Number of Carriers 1 2 4 8 GSM 45 42 39 36 CDMA 45 42 39 36 UMTS 45 42 39 36 LTE 45 42** 39 36 Spurious emission .............................................. < -13 dBm 11 MHz GROUND ROD: G1 GROUND ROD SHALL BE MINIMUM 0.625" DIA. x 9' LONG. COPPER CLAD. G2 MINIMUM 3" EXPOSURE AT TOP OF FOUNDATION WITHIN BOLT CIRCLE. 1900 MHz (AWS) ANCHOR BOLTS: NUTS WITH THE THREADS STAKED AT TWO PLACES BELOW THE NUT, EMBEDDED IN FOUNDATION. A4 ANCHOR BOLTS SHALL BE EMBEDDED 33" Frequency range, MHz 7 -3/4" AS GIVEN IN SPECIFICATIONS ASTM A449. Uplink............................1850 A2 BOLT CIRCLE DIAMETER TO MATCH POLE BASEPLATE. to 1915 Downlink ........................1930 ...............................Optical to 1995 Output power per carder, dBm* 1" X 36" X 4" Supervision ...............................Output Number of Carriers 1 2 4 8 GSM 45 42 39 36 CDMA 45 42 39 36 UMTS 45 42 39 36 LTE 45 42** 39 36 Spurious emission .............................................. R <-13 dBm / 1 MHz DL output tolerance over frequency, dB ............................ 38,200 31 DL output tolerance over temperature, dB..........................0.5*** Input ICP3, dBm ICP3 optimized .............................. -12 Noise figure optimized .............................. -18 Noise figure, dB ICP3 optimized .............................. 7 .............................. 11 max. Noise figure optimized .............................. R1 VERTICAL REBAR SHALL BE (7) #6 4.5 .............................. EQUALLY SPACED INSIDE OF HOOPS. 6 max. NEW POLE FOUNDATION NOT TO SCALE ANCHOR BOLTS: NUTS WITH THE THREADS STAKED AT TWO PLACES BELOW THE NUT, EMBEDDED IN FOUNDATION. A4 ANCHOR BOLTS SHALL BE EMBEDDED 33" Al ANCHOR BOLTS SHALL BE 4-1" DIAMETER. 7 -3/4" AS GIVEN IN SPECIFICATIONS ASTM A449. 24" ROUND1 3 �® A2 BOLT CIRCLE DIAMETER TO MATCH POLE BASEPLATE. 3ROUND LEVEL I 1/4 A3 ANCHOR BOLTS SHALL HAVE HEADS, OR • ANCHOR NUTS WITH THE THREADS STAKED AT TWO PLACES BELOW THE NUT, EMBEDDED IN FOUNDATION. A4 ANCHOR BOLTS SHALL BE EMBEDDED 33" on/off 7 -3/4" External control parts MINIMUM, BELOW STREET GRADE (63" Summary ...............................Power - EMBEDMENT IN CONCRETE). ...............................Optical UL and DL failure AS BOLT PROJECTION AS RECOMMENDED 1" X 36" X 4" Supervision ...............................Output BY THE MANUFACTURER. 9" channel and per -band NOTE: basis (optional) Mechanical**** ANCHOR BOLTS TO BE CONDUIT: 25,400 1,030 SUPPLIED BY POLE 12" 27,400 MANUFACTURER C1 CONDUIT SHALL BE RIGID STEEL. 12-1/2" 12" GALVANIZED, INSIDE THE FOUNDATION, R 14" WITH 6" MINIMUM STUB -OUT. 38,200 2,090 36" MINIMUM BURIAL 42" MAXIMUM BURIAL C2 SERVICE AND FEED CONDUITS SHALL BE RGS OR SCH 80 PVC, AS REQUIRED. C1 ® C3 STUB UP TO WITHIN 4" FROM HAND HOLE, 4 CONNECTOR REINFORCEMENT: R1 VERTICAL REBAR SHALL BE (7) #6 EQUALLY SPACED INSIDE OF HOOPS. RR2 HOOPS SHALL BE #4 X 18" I.D., SPACED POUR FOOTING 4" O/C FROM TOP OF FOUNDATION TO END OF ANCHOR BOLTS. AGAINST R3 HOOPS SHALL BE #4 X 18" I.D., SPACED UNDISTURBED 12" MIN. FROM THE ANCHOR BOLTS TO 3" MATERIAL BOTTOM OF FOUNDATION. CLR30" ROUND CONCRETE TO R4 ALL REBAR SHALL HAVE 3" MINIMUM TYP ROUND PIER BE32/50 MIX COVERING. F3 5'DEPTH F4 2' DEPTHr7 SCALE / N.T.S. System Supervision and Control ANCHOR Commands...............................RF on/off 7 -3/4" External control parts Alarms Summary ...............................Power Supply ...............................Optical UL and DL failure ...............................Temperature 1" X 36" X 4" Supervision ...............................Output power on a per - 9" channel and per -band 9 -1/8" basis (optional) Mechanical**** 1 -1/4" X 44" X 4 Height, width, depth mm (in) ...............................817 x 245 x 218 .......(32.2 x 9.61 x 8.6) Weight, kg (lb) ......... .............. 40 (88.2) Environmental Operation temperature range ............................:33" C to +50" C Ingress protection RF part ...................IP67 Fan part... IP55 * Applicable to single modulation mode only ** 3db power reduction @ < 5MHz carrier bandwith *** With active cooling **** Spacing required 40 mm (1.58 in) around unit **** With passive cooling maximum temperature +40" C All figures are typical values 00 00 O O O SHAFT CROSS SECTION DETAIL CATALOG POLE NUMBER HEIGHT "A" lC1-16 163" lCl-17 17'9" 1C1-19 19'6" lCl-20 20'9" lC1-23 23' 3" lCl-25 269" lC1-28 28'3" lCl-29 29'3" lC1-40 40' 3" NEW CONCRETE POLE DETAIL BASE ANCHOR O.D. BOLT 7 -3/4" 1" X 36" X 4" 7 -7/8" 1" X 36" X 4" 8" 1" X 36" X 4" 8-14" 1"X36"X4" 8 -3/8" 1" X 36" X 4" 8 -3/4" 1" X 36" X 4" 9" 1" X 36" X 4" 9 -1/8" 1" X 36"X 4" 10-114,, 1 -1/4" X 44" X 4 J L ELEVATION SEE RECOMMENDED "CAPPING DETAILS" ANDREW I0N-M17HP/19HP MULTI -BAND, MULTI -OPERATOR REMOTE OPTICAL SYSTEM Side SLOTTED BASE PLATE BOLT BASE ULTIMATE WEIGHT CIRCLE PLATE (SQ) G.L. MOMENT (FT. LBS.) (LBS.) 12 -1/2" 12" 17,000 560 12 -1/2" 12" 18,400 530 12-1/2" 12" 20,000 720 12-1/2" 12" 21,200 800 12 -1/2" 12" 22,200 940 12-1/2" 12" 25,400 1,030 12-1/2" 12" 27,400 1,240 12-1/2" 12" 28,100 1,290 14" 14" 38,200 2,090 TOP Front MAXIMUM EPA/ MPH (SQ. FT.) 80 90 100 14.0 10.0 7.5 14.0 10.0 7.5 13.0 9.0 7.0 13.0 9.0 7.0 13.0 9.0 6.0 12.5 8.5 5.5 10.5 6.5 3.5 10.0 6.5 3.0 5.0 1.0 - WIN 8.6" Iemm Side M -------------- ASG32 PHASE 11 CROWN CASTLE PROJECT NO. 242727 CROWN CASTLE NG WEST LLC 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR, STE. 1200 IRVINE, CA 92618 www.crowncastlexom 'PREPARED BY: Communications Telecommunications Engineering 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 929-0910 \ FAX: (760) 929-0936 J PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. 1-800-227-2600 CALL AT LEAST TWO O DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # CITY REDLINE 11/09115 ADD PED 09 07/05/16 REVISION/ISSUE DATE SITE NAME & ADDRESS: ASG32 29504 SCOTWOOD DR AT WHITLEY COLLINS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA DETAILS & NOTES DRAWNBY: I DRAFT DATE: APPROVED BY: RG 10/07/15 1 TT SHEET NO. D-3 __J ASG32 PHASE 11 CROWN CASTLE PRO]ECT NO. 242727 ENT: \ CROWN CASTLE NG WEST LLC 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR, STE. 1200 IRVINE, CA 92618 WWW.crowncastle.com 'PREPARED BY: Communications Telecommunications Engineering 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 929-0910 \ FAX: (760) 929-0936 J PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. 1-800-227-2600 CALL AT LEAST TWO O DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # CITY REDLINE 11/09115 ADD PED 09 07/05/16 REVISIONIISSUE DATE SITE NAME & ADDRESS: ASG32 29504 SCOTWOOD DR AT WHITLEY COLLINS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA DETAILS & NOTES DRAWNBY: DRAFI'fAPIRO�.RG 10/0SHEET NO. D GROUND ROD INSTALLATION FOR STEEL POLE TYPICAL SECTION: N.T.S. STEEL POLE FINISH GRADE BAREN Cu GROUND '• ' CONDUCTOR Cu GROUND CLAMP FCI No. GBL3-T8, TYCO No. 83749-1, OR EQUAL #5 (5/8" X 8') COPPER • •. CLAD GROUND ELECTRODE D � ° . CONCRETE FOUNDATION • • t. • SCALE 9 N.T.S. ASG32 PHASE 11 CROWN CASTLE PRO]ECT NO. 242727 ENT: \ CROWN CASTLE NG WEST LLC 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR, STE. 1200 IRVINE, CA 92618 WWW.crowncastle.com 'PREPARED BY: Communications Telecommunications Engineering 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 929-0910 \ FAX: (760) 929-0936 J PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. 1-800-227-2600 CALL AT LEAST TWO O DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # CITY REDLINE 11/09115 ADD PED 09 07/05/16 REVISIONIISSUE DATE SITE NAME & ADDRESS: ASG32 29504 SCOTWOOD DR AT WHITLEY COLLINS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA DETAILS & NOTES DRAWNBY: DRAFI'fAPIRO�.RG 10/0SHEET NO. D ASG32 PHASE 11 CROWN CASTLE PROJECT NO. 242727 CROWN CASTLE NG WEST LLC 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR, STE. 1200 IRVINE, CA 92618 www,erowneastle,00m / PREPARED BY: Communications Telecommunications Engineering 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92068 PHONE: (760) 929-0910 FAX: (760) 929-0936 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. 1-800-227-2600 CALL AT LEAST TWO O DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # CITY REDLINE 11/09115 ADD PED 09 07/05/16 REVISION/ISSUE DATE SITE NAME & ADDRESS: ASG32 29504 SCOTWOOD DR AT WHITLEY COLLINS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA DETAILS & NOTES DRAWNBY: I DRAFT DATE: APPROVED BY: RG 10/07/15 1 TT SHEET NO. D-5 ION-M7HP/85HP EU - Product Specification SPECIFICATIONS ION-M7HP/85HP EU - Product Specification Electrical System Supervision and Control Mains pourer, Vac Input ICP3, dBm'** Commands ... . ...... 99 . ..... RF on/off nominal 100 to 240 ICP3 optimized .. -11 min, operating .. , , 65 to 264 Noise figure optimized -18 min. Alarms .. . ............. Summary .......... .. . .. Power Supply Mains power, Vdc Noise figure, dB*** nominal 48 to 60 ICP3 optimized 10 max. RF UL and DI -failure operating 36 to 72 Noise figure optimized 6.0 max. Temperature Power consumption, W 5.0 typical Supervision P � - Com osite output � P P max. temp., fully loaded.... 900 power room temp., idle . 380 850 MHz Mechanical" Frequency range, MHz Height, width, depth, mm (in) Optical Link Uplink 824 to 849 AC Version .......... 817 x 245 x 218 Downlink 869 to 694 (32.2 x 9.6 x 8.6) Connectors ............ .. E2000/APC 8° Output power per carrier, dBm* DCVersion 1053 x 245 x 218 Cabinet of ION-M7HP/85HP Extension Unit (AC Version) Optical return loss, dB 45 (41.5 x 9.6 x 8.6) Number of Carriers 1 2 4 8 Fibre type Single mode E9/125 pm Analog 45.5 42.5 39.5 36.5 Weight, kg (Ib) .................. 40 (88.2) Optical link budget, dB 0 to 10 GSM 45:5 42.5 395 CDMA 45.5 42.5 39.5 36.5 36.5 Environmental Composite input power OTRX master side,. dBm LTE 45.5 42.5- 39.5 36.5 Operating temperature range, °C... -3310 +50 700 MHz minimum, -16,5 UMTS 45 42 39 36 nominal .. 5.5 Ingress protection DL output tolerance over frequency, dB 11 RF part ............ IP67 850 MHz minimum, . -16.5 DL output tolerance over temperature, dB . ±0.5 Fan part .......... IPS5 nominal 5.5 Spurious emission <-13 dBmJ1 MHz Ordering Information Input ICP3, dBm*** ION-M7HP/85HP EU 7693966** RF Interface IfP3 optimized -11 min.. Noise figure optimized -18 min. Depending on the selected options and the configuration the ordering material number contains BTS Side (SMA) an identifying suffix. Number of connectors Standard Noise figure, 8- 700 MHz . 4 ICP3 optimized 10 max. Corresponding Main Unit 350 MHz ......... 4 Noise figure optimized ... 6 max. Stypical I0N-M17HP/19HP ..................7631412** System optimized for BTS power, dBm Corresponding Master Unit OTRx 33 43 OTRx70-85/90/ 17-21 7604304 -XX Remote Unit antenna port Connectors 7/16 Female V 77 Return loss, dB 15 Spacing required 40 mm (1.58 in) around unit Subpopulations possible 700 MHz All figures are typical values, unless otherwise stated. Cabinet of ION-M7HP/85HP Extension Unit (DC Version/ Frequency range, MHz Uplink 698 to 7161776 to 787 Downlink....... .. 72810 757 Output power per carrier, dBm* Number of Carriers 1 2 4 8 LTE 45.5 42.5** 39:5 36.5 DL output tolerance over frequency, dB... ..... ±1 DL output tolerance over temperature, dB. ±0.5 PAR, 7.5dIRtUY Spurious emission I . _ .... <-13 dBm / 1 MHz 2 dB power reduction 4 < 5 MHz carrier bandwidth from reference point B to A Spurious emission into Public Safety Narrowband ......... G-46 dBm /6.25 kHz All figures are typical values unlessotherwise stated 10 SCALE N.T.S. ASG32 PHASE 11 CROWN CASTLE PROJECT NO. 242727 CROWN CASTLE NG WEST LLC 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR, STE. 1200 IRVINE, CA 92618 www,erowneastle,00m / PREPARED BY: Communications Telecommunications Engineering 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92068 PHONE: (760) 929-0910 FAX: (760) 929-0936 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. 1-800-227-2600 CALL AT LEAST TWO O DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # CITY REDLINE 11/09115 ADD PED 09 07/05/16 REVISION/ISSUE DATE SITE NAME & ADDRESS: ASG32 29504 SCOTWOOD DR AT WHITLEY COLLINS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA DETAILS & NOTES DRAWNBY: I DRAFT DATE: APPROVED BY: RG 10/07/15 1 TT SHEET NO. D-5 /- 1 +�.. �� e✓ i �, \ .. -� ` � "/yam .r�=�. rte. ..` '�./ - � .- ` a +•��i'4`. � ,II. s �� r .. ¢ai *14 ok L 1 - Ott tor U r _Y • • • ' _ , 3- -owli p 1FROM OR 4111 3 O'CLOCK VIEW- FROM THE NORTHEAST 9 O'CLOCK VIEW- FROM THE SOUTHWEST 03 aY, ''•71 � 3., ,. v� 'sM�� II { i t'ns ASG32 PHASE 11 CROWN CASTLE PROIECT NO.. 242727 ^ CROWN v CASTLE NG WEST LLC 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR, STE. 1200 IRVINE, CA 92618 -c-castle.com PREPARED BY: Communications Teleconnnumcations Engineering 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 929-0910 FAX: (760) 929-0936 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. 1-800-227.2600 CALL AT LEAST TWO DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # CITY REDLINE 11/09/15 ADD PED 09 07/05/16 REVISION/ISSUE DATE SITE NAME & ADDRESS: ASG32 29504 SCOTWOOD DR AT WHITLEY COLLINS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA SITE PHOTOS DRAWNBY: DRAFT DATE: APPROVED BY: RG 10/07/15 TT SHEET NO. S-1 Existing Site ay o� O oa0 app GD0 S Sl 7 o�P�9 ASG32 p, r� bble Rock 6 ScDtNNOotl pr �s`pI 5J� pt t aclllty Q Vicinity Map LOOKING SOUTHEAST XCROWN � CASTLE Proposed Site ASG32 ASG32 PHASE II CROWN CASTLE PROJECT NO. 242727 ^ CROWN v CASTLE NG WEST LLC 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR, STE. 1200 IRVINE, CA 92618 ` WWW.c-castle.com J PREPARED BY: Communications Telecocmnunications Engineering 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 929-0910 FAX: (760) 929-0936 J PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. 1-800-227-2600 CALL AT LEAST TWO DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # CITY REDLINE 11/09/15 ADD PED 09 07/05/16 REVISION/ISSUE DATE SITE NAME & ADDRESS: ASG32 29504 SCOTWOOD DR AT WHITLEY COLLINS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA PHOTOSIM DRAWNBY: DRAFT DATE: APPROVED BV: RG 10/07/15 TT SHEET NO. S2 NEW CONSTRUCTION • DECOMMISSION & REMOVE EXISTING 25'6" HIGH MARBELITE OCTAGONAL CONCRETE STREETLIGHT (POLE ID #1613500E) AND REPLACE WITH A NEW 25'6" HIGH STEEL CONCRETE TEXTURED STREETLIGHT WITH MAST ARM AND LUMINAIRE (REMOVE EXISTING JUNIPER). • INSTALL CISH -51 PEDESTAL WITH SIDE MOUNT METER AND POWER DISCONNECT BOX WITH (2) ML IONS INSIDE. • INSTALL (2) 21.4" ANTENNAS #HPA-65F-BUU-H2 WITH MOUNTING BRACKET #MBK -03. INSTALL VGR. • EQUIPMENT AND ANTENNAS TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH POLE. GS FOOTAGE TOTALS ASPHALT TRENCH 0 PUNCH THRU 0 DIRT TRENCH 6' BORE 0 TOTAL 6' R&R TOTAL SWP 0 SQ. FT. SCALE: I" = 40' NODE COORDINATE LATITUDE: 33.76295 LONGITUDE: -118.37509 DECOMMISSION & REMOVE EXISTING MARBELITE OCTAGONAL CONCRETE STREETLIGHT (POLE ID 1613500E) (2' B.O.C.) STA 100 + 63 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 U DIRT TRENCH INSTALL CISH -51 PEDESTAL WITH SIDE MOUNT METER AND POWER DISCONNECT BOX WITH (2) ML IONS INSIDE. (2' B.O.C.) STA. 100 + 55 (SEE DETAILS 3,4 & 5 ON SHEET D-2, DETAIL 6 ON SHEET D-3 & DETAIL 10 ON SHEET D-5) ASG32 PHASE 11 CROWN CASTLE PROTECT NO. 242727 CROWN CASTLE NG WEST LLC 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR, STE. 1200 IRVINE, CA 92618 ` www.crowncastle.com J 'PREPARED BY: Communications Telecommunications Engineering 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 929-0910 FAX: (760) 929-0936 I PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED, 1-800-227-2600 CALL AT LEAST TWO d DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # CITY REDLINE 11/09/15 ADD PED 09 07/05/16 REVISION I ISSUE DATE SITE NAME ,@ ADDRESS: ASG32 29504 SCOTWOOD DR AT WHITLEY COLLINS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA SITE PLAN DRAWNBY: I DRAFTDATE: APPROVED BY: RG 10/07/15 TT SHEET NO. P-1 A I ANTENNA DETAILS I SCALE: 1:5 1 U50 H ry O Z 00 90, #HPA-65F-BUU-H2 ANTENNAS AZIMUTH: 330' INSTALL NEW 25'6" HIGH STEEL CONCRETE TEXTURED STREETLIGHT. #HPA-65F-BUU-H2 ANTENNAS AZIMUTH: 170' INSTALL MAST ARM AND LUMINAIRE V sGp��pO STREETLIGHT #1613500E TOP OF EXISTING POLE: 25'6" TOP OF NEW POLE: 25' 6" TOP OF ANTENNA: 23'0" RAD CENTER: 22'1-1/2" AZIMUTHS: 170'& 330' EQUIPMENT AND ANTENNAS TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH POLE. B 1 3 O'CLOCK VIEW SCALE: 1:8 SCALE: 1:8 INSTALL MAST ARM AND 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 & 2 ON SHEET D-2) WITH MOUNTING BRACKET #MBK --03 TOP OF 23'0" ANTENNA (SEE DETAILS 1 & 2 ON SHEET D-2) INSTALL NEW 25'6" HIGH STEEL 23'0"RAD CENTER CONCRETE TEXTURED STREETLIGHT. INSTALL NEW 25'6" HIGH STEEL 22'1-1/2" (SEE DETAILS 6 & 7 ON SHEET D-3) CENTER CONCRETE TEXTURED STREETLIGHT. 22'1-1/2" (SEE DETAILS 6 & 7 ON SHEET D-3) 1717" 07" GROUND LEVEL A PHALT INSTALL VGR /\i\\\/\�%\\ I (SEE DETAIL 9 ON SHEET D-4) STALL VGR (SEE DETAIL 9 ON SHEET D-4) ASG32 PHASE If CROWN CASTLE PROJ LCC NO. 242727 'CLIENT: 1 CROWN v CASTLE NG WEST LLC 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR, STE. 1200 IRVINE, CA 92618 ` www.cmwnc.astic.com J PREPARED BY: Communications "telecommunications Engineering 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 929-0910 FAX: (760) 929-0936 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED, I-800-227-2600 CALL AT LEAST TWO d DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # CIN REDLINE 11/09/15 ADD PED 09 07/05/16 REVISION ISSUE DATE SI FE NAME & ADDRESS'. ASG32 29504 SCOTWOOD DR AT WHITLEY COLLINS DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA POLE PROFILE DR -BY: I DRAFTDATE: APPROVED BY, RG 10/07/15 TT SHEET NO. PS/'/� L.. EXHIBIT B An �i \.. VRI S ,� 1. \\.` '�" T4s � r,`• - Ll..f -' \ b� ��+••+ � �`� Wl rl IL y , v ' � � '► a it 1,% . ' �. o •t sem, a—v ,w y. 40, IL E L0CATIO ... . _ r. iJ400 Y! .i�,,r 4 �� •1 .. tji •y - 1 • F �". s • M f�1 B wo f V 1 , •�'�'r til � ��M1� .1�lir�`a pie.. � - � A'Y ✓`.i �•'�� 405� '. LO r � \ �,'� . �. .'fie � - ;� �� R� �.e •!3 �.� `� � �'�: w` _�"� },. }; ., � :r -. -mac .'l 2 '+•„ys y.�r y i �`� �+� ' . • �. _ice � \ +� .. Wit• ,;t ly�1��`Y ��`�Je�etW •r r r i� � � f �, .. 9 i,!,i ', i1y'r.,�-� x',P� '1• !pw Y a j •l, .` . ;- AN n(t + }}?. • ._IE `..F •-.' �r�'. it ter- - " �''� iZ� e a � s oil X'F�'`i. �. F ♦ afrn. �� yeti. aw.s°.- v 7� rl� 14, [ -• ~ �� `,� � � tl-s of ��ffff ```" ��• - _ ,� - � M -s : � , ' ,,Y r y' V � *.. ,;, 3 ,rt�y ! .- � + '�4 .� \o 'i' 't! \ �. � 'l r �►�r� i � � • �?'.. � =r'r r � A� n EXHIBIT C An �i \.. VRI S ,� 1. \\.` '�" T4s � r,`• - Ll..f -' \ b� ��+••+ � �`� Wl rl IL y , v ' � � '► a it 1,% . ' �. o •t sem, a—v ,w y. 40, IL E L0CATIO ... . _ r. iJ400 Y! .i�,,r 4 15 •1 .. to MFfi •• •�' �1 •y _ 1 • F �". f B wo V 1 , •�'S'r til' � ��5.111� .1�7ir�`a pie.. � - � A'Y ✓`.i �•'�� _F '5� '. � \ �,'� . �. ,'fie � _ ;� �� R� �.e •!3 �.� `� � �'�: w` _�"� � i \`� �'s r . � •. _ice wsF \ +e �s .. Wit• ,;+ •\' `7.25 ' i s . w -+� �4 �°''r� 2,�r,.y�� i.'�.fw��a',_ •e�yi�r.s...r r... r �Ta'' � ,. f•• .. ' - 9 MM a' � �.Y � � v yF• . � a x . yS ti v a yX" •' F:. r p �G3'� ate + , ,,�};} :. �;,5,. �R +� g ! rs!'°� a'1!► i�'�t� '^ s�,y'er� _ �� '. - �`'••• '" i+ }k � >' .'�,�' o',Fs� ,►1: ,� � mak. �°!' `3.'st � ` ., a �. F ♦ afro , Er as � . - 4 "{• r > r, i ,f, v Ith F, i�FV� *.nt ,;,3 ,rt�y ! .-� � '�4 .� \o 'i' 't5 \�. � 'lr �►�r` i �.�, �?'.. �=r'r r � A� n EXHIBIT D Exhibit C3 a. — Geographical significant gap in coverage. Benchmark Chap h CCCROWN Proprietary & CASTLE Confidential 10 61 Exhibit C3 e. — Original Candidate Location - RF coverage. Candidate was Denied at Planning Commission RSR y -"6,0-95 d'n • -93 h] -85 dErn t -75 don •—Z5dtim Preposed location CS++prn4t 45�:hK`e Alternate locations 10 Feted moble Existing AT&T site 0 • # • C hues h # • ice• ��.. + F + e rr• Ee F I�rrr s.�y� wry s rr �r • •,•rt rt6 ■ort r6 6006• r•r.s+•006•.6- ."4 fj'yV{P P9 94 s 1b r i! i t F i F i i 0 M M --. CROWN Proprietary & CASTLE Confidential 6 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Hearing Site ASG33 —Across from 6480 Chartres Drive (Monaco) Comments by Jeff Calvagna 7/25/2017 Summary of Key Points Proposed cell tower ASG33 violates multiple aspects of the RPV municipal code Serious violations include the local (residential) steet location and the placement of a new pole. This directly contradicts RPV MC 12.18.200 Crown Castle claims the site and location are required to fill a "signifigant gap" in AT&T's service thus an exception is warranted RPV requires propagation (coverage) maps to demonstrate significant gap claims. In February 2017, Crown Castle submitted maps alleged as depicting AT&T's existing coverage across the Peninsula However, AT&T propagation maps submitted to Palos Verdes Estates in 2015 show far superior coverage for the same configuration This discrepancy and corresponding field measurements raise serious questions about the validity of the maps submitted to RPV. These must be resolved prior to any "significant gap" findings Coverage map submitted to RPV appears to show low existing coverage around ASG33 and over the entire Monaco neighborhood Red box - Area in common with maps submitted in PVE LTE Existh Macro' oDA (70OM Hz) - Coverage If WWW 54371 c7 e _ rsw,0 Sgp°ii .565 Ilk— ra --c-, Ni, I4F teas 1 std' y{J _ C • - INA 10 OP SG12 NIL SG3 9 'Exr-fling Macro Sites ' �a1'% P431�' • Proposed SDA + Ex�stin , oDAS J, "*-j lE.kfi,w M.C. srt s ■ FW, V.PQ aDAS Coverage maps prepared by AT&T submitted to Palos Verdes Estates show much better existing coverage than the RPV maps Submitted To Palos Verdes Estates October 2015 Submitted To Rancho Palos Verdes February 2017 P?:7 y.Is ■ ` Roil. s es - - ' 1fFe rr~n s .� .x4(AR C1 -via Wis ! s _ r "" r. �, �p4. 41 ja ,. ly ]n-4li4Je 519na1 $� d�hl '' k l i S LTE 700 Macro - Coverage 1111-rCEND: •75 d8m - [ndlaor Signal _85 dBm InNehide Signal CutdraorSign a1-138dBm LTE Existing Marcro f oDAS (70OMHi) - Coverage LLEGEND: -75dBmal 85dSm + 1 l -48dBm Poor Coverage These maps should be identical as they are for the same 700 MHz LTE (4G) coverage with the same alleged target signal levels in the legend The RPV map is actually at least 10 d6 lower than the PVE map Submitted To Palos `Verdes Estat s via �rmnaw— IL ASGO Submitted To Raric _ l 1y -��, w ' { VZ1 alos rdes _ Edd.r :-10 VrdYr. ' r r•. - i0 mfr= ZOOM IN FROM PREVIOUS PAGE Note that the green area (-75 dBm) in the PVE map is roughly equal to the yellow area (-85 dBm) in the RPV map Note that the yellow area (-85 dBm) in the PVE map is roughly equal to the purple area (-98 dBm) in the RPV map Based on field measurements throughout the Peninsula, the Palos Verdes Estates map appears to more accurately represent existing coverage. This obvious discrepancy must be resolved to establish any claims of "significant gap" Regardless of the cause, the propagation maps submitted by Crown Castle are directly contradicted by previous submissions to Palos Verdes Estates. There are multiple sets of maps submitted to PVE in 2015 by both Crown Castle and by ATT directly that show far better LTE coverage than the map set submitted to Rancho Palos Verdes. This is despite covering a common geographical area. This is unacceptable. There is no reason why ATT coverage would have diminished between submissions. In fact, the PVE-submitted maps were found to be missing coverage from some existing small cells. Inclusion of these sites would have likely shown even better coverage. Claims of "significant gap" can't be substantiated with this outstanding discrepancy. This not only applies to ASG33 but other proposed local street sites. The City is owed a full explanation of how this discrepancy happened. In addition, the City should request updated coverage maps along with a comprehensive listing of all assumptions, equipment configurations, and model parameters. All source material is available on request About the author — Jeff Calvagna is Rancho Palos Verdes resident and a Radio Frequency Systems Engineer with over 25 years' experience in antenna design, propagation analysis, and developing link budgets. The author has access to specialized test equipment allowing field measurements and has extensively characterized AT&T's wireless network and service on the peninsula. The author has no competing interests and has received no compensation for any effort regarding Crown Castle's proposed deployment. IN40D NEWMEYER DIL.LION LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW MICHAEL W. SHONAFELT Michael.Shonafelt@ndlf.com November 29, 2017 VIA EMAIL 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 Brian. campbell gp2vca. gov File No. 2464.130 Re: Crown Castle: Appeal of Wireless Telecommunications Facility ASG69 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 ASG69 within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("City") public right-of-way ("ROW") at 3486 Seaglen 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, 24 -foot marbelite streetlight replacement pole, with two 21.4 -inch, flush -mount panel antennas mounted under the luminaire. (See Exhibit A, Original Design Photo -simulations.) The replacement streetlight would replace the existing 24.5 -foot streetlight, and therefore would result in a six-inch decrease 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 (Oct. 10, 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 place the radios and associated equipment in underground vaults that would cover approximately 43 square feet of surface area. 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 Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29, 2017 Page 2 (Ibid.) The vaults and associated vents would be flush with the ground. (See Staff Report at p. 3.) An excerpted photo -simulation 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. 6-7.) Staff noted that Crown Castle had examined three additional alternative locations. (Id. at p. 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. (Ibid.) The Planning Commission nevertheless voted to deny the Project. The reasons for the grounds for the denial were vague, conclusory and unsupported by any evidence. The commissioner raising the denial motion (Emenhiser) merely referenced the existence of community opposition as the basis for his motion. 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 p. 13.) The Planning Commissioners voting against the Project provided no direction on what design or location alternatives might be considered less intrusive, despite offers by Crown Castle's representative, Aaron Snyder, to explore specific alternative locations. (See Video of August 30, 2017, Planning Commission hearing, http://Tv.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=5&clip_id=2913 at 1:14:58; 1:18:40.) 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 Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29, 2017 Page 3 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 would top out at 26 feet, seven inches. 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.) An excerpted photo -simulation is presented here: 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.AppAth 642, 648 [upon obtaining a CPCN, a telephone corporation has "the right to use the public highways to install [its] facilities."].) Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29, 2017 Page 4 (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].) Given the vested nature of the section 7901 right, Crown Castle contends that a discretionary use permit -- like the Conditional Use Permit required by the City in this case -- constitutes an unlawful precondition for a CLEC's entry into the ROW. (See, e.g., Michael W. Shonafelt, Whose Streets? California Public Utilities Code Section 7901 in the Wireless Age, 35 HASTINGS COMM. & ENT. L. J. 371 (2013).) In a recent case, T -Mobile West LLC v. City and County of San Francisco (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 334 [2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 769], the First Appellate District, Division Five, determined that aesthetic considerations are appropriate in determining whether a facility "incommodes" the ROW. That case is being appealed to the California Supreme Court. The court did not decide the specific issue of whether obtaining a discretionary use permit is a lawful precondition to exercising the section 7901 franchise rights. Public Utility Code section 7901.1 -- a sister statute to section 7901 -- grants local municipalities the limited "right to exercise reasonable control as to the time, place, and manner in which roads, highways, and waterways are accessed[,]." Nevertheless, such controls cannot have the effect of foreclosing use of the ROW or otherwise prevent the company from exercising its right under state law to "erect poles" in the ROW. That is because "the construction and maintenance of telephone lines in the streets and other public places within the City is today a matter of state concern and not a municipal affair." (Williams Communication v. City of Riverside, supra, 114 Cal.AppAth at p. 653.) Moreover, section 7901.1 specifies that such 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 29, 2017 Page 5 controls, "to be reasonable, shall, at a minimum, be applied to all entities in an equivalent manner." (Ibid., emphasis added.) Accordingly, to the extent that other public utilities are authorized to use the ROW in the City without having to obtain a discretionary land use permit, such disparate treatment may run afoul of the "equivalent manner" provision of Public Utilities Code section 7901.1. On the basis of Crown Castle's status as a CLEC, and its concomitant rights to the ROW, the Project is designed as part of an ROW telecommunications system. With respect to the siting and configuration of the Project, the rights afforded under Public Utilities Code section 7901 and 7901.1 apply. Crown Castle reserves its rights under section 7901 and 7901.1, including, but not limited to, its right to challenge any approval process, that impedes or infringes on Crown Castle's rights as a CLEC. (2) Government Code Section 65964.1. Recently, the California Legislature echoed the courts' oft -repeated declaration that "the construction and maintenance of telephone lines in the streets and other public places within the City is today a matter of state concern and not a municipal affair." (Williams Communication v. City of Riverside, supra, 114 Cal.App.4th at p. 653.) It did so in the context of enacting AB 57 in October 2015. AB 57 is codified as Government Code section 65964.1. Under section 65964. 1, if a local government fails to act on an application for a permit to construct a wireless telecommunications facility within the prescribed Shot Clock timeframes (150 days for a standalone site and 90 days for a collocation site), the application is deemed approved by operation of law. When it enacted section 65964. 1, the Legislature observed that: The Legislature finds and declares that a wireless telecommunications facility has a significant economic impact in California and is not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution, but is a matter of statewide concern. (Gov. Code, § 65964.1, subd. (c).) B. FEDERAL LAW. The approval of the Project also is governed by the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (codified as amend in scattered sections of U.S.C., Tabs 15, 18, 47) ("Telecom Act"). When enacting the Telecom Act, Congress expressed its intent "to promote competition and reduce regulation in order to secure lower prices and higher quality services for American telecommunications consumers and encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies." (110 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. Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29, 2017 Page 6 (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: The regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof— (11) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. (47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II).) In T -Mobile U.S.A. Inc. v. City ofAnacortes (9th Cir. 2009) 572 F.3d 987, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals set forth a two-step analysis for determining whether a local government's denial has the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless telecommunications services in violation of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. In the first step, the applicant must make a showing of a Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29, 2017 Page 7 "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 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.) Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29, 2017 Page 8 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 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 2 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Directorate for Science, Technology, and Industry, "Broadband Statistics," (June 2010): <www.oecd.org/sti/ict/broadband>. 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 4 Federal Communications Commission (2012) http://www.fcc.gov/guides/wireless-911-services. 5 Executive Office of the President Council of Economic Advisors (White House, Feb. 2012) at 2-6. Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29, 2017 Page 9 (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 2lpercent are using wireline phones."9 On that ground alone, this is a matter of health, safety and welfare for the residents and visitors of the City. Notably, 911 service over systems like this is not just limited to AT&T users -- the networks carries 911 calls of any mobile user. (2) Data Support a Significant Gap at the Project Site. Applying the above principles to the Project, data reveal that the project service area has insufficient signal strength to address current data demand and statistical projections of data demand. Crown Castle has undertaken drive -test data of existing conditions at the Project site in two different frequencies that will be employed at the Project site. (See ASG69-Proposed Primary and Alternate Node Analysis, attached as Exhibit D.) Exhibit D identifies levels of service in terms of the following criteria: 6 https://www.ctia.org/industry-data/wireless-quick-facts. 7 http://digitalconqurer.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 Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29, 2017 Page 10 RSRP _ -65 to 4 -75 to -H -�H to -75 _ -95 to -6�r =A a5 to -95 =A 211 to -1 a Locations I* 4rable 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. Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29, 2017 Page 11 �St.r/ _.S' "rte.!• � �/r/�� Saar. t trr. r•w 'd..� •ar AS 6 D.. =IIy• ASG6 •M ' 1 ' • rr ASG 69 C � ` � ✓' •� • • + • • � ■ 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): Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29, 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 a service gap indeed exists at the project site. The Planning Commission is charged with addressing zoning and planning issues, not the regulation of RF, which is a matter preempted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The City engaged CTC as an independent RF expert pursuant to Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code section 12.18.050. For areas -- such as RF coverage issues -- that are outside the scope of the Planning Commission's competency and jurisdiction it should look to the conclusions of its hired consultants and the actual data compiled by RF experts, not the unsupported assertions of project opponents. Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29, 2017 Page 13 B. Crown Castle Has Demonstrated That It Has Chosen the Least Intrusive Means to Fill the Significant Gap in Service. To establish least intrusive means, the applicant establishes a "prima facie showing of effective prohibition by submitting a comprehensive application, which includes consideration of alternatives, showing that the proposed [wireless communications facility] is the least intrusive means of filling a significant gap." (T -Mobile U.S.A. Inc. v. City ofAnacortes, supra, 572 F.3d at p. 995.) After that, the burden shifts to the local government: "When a locality rejects a prima facie showing, it must show that there are some potentially available and technologically feasible alternatives." (Id. at p. 998.) The court further explained that the applicant then has an opportunity to "dispute the availability and feasibility of the alternatives favored by the locality." (Ibid.) Because Crown Castle is a CLEC entitled to construct its facilities in the ROW, its small- cell and DAS networks are inherently ROW systems. On that basis, Crown Castle examined those alternatives theoretically available to it in the ROW. The analysis below demonstrates why the Project qualifies as the "least intrusive means" of filling the significant gap in service. (1) Height and Location of the Project. The antenna height and location of the Project were chosen to provide the minimum signal level needed to meet critical coverage and capacity needs in the service area. Despite the technical limitations of a low -profile, small-cell system, Crown Castle seeks to maximize the coverage of each node location, since maximization of the node performance equates to a lower overall number of facilities and a less intrusive system. Accordingly, the Project location was chosen to provide an effective relay of signal from adjacent sites, so that ubiquitous coverage of the minimum signal level is provided throughout the service area with the minimum number of facilities. The selected location maximizes the RF coverage of the Project and minimizes interference/overlap with the other facilities, resulting in a lower overall number of facilities and a less intrusive system. The ROW is ideal for the Project from an aesthetic standpoint because the ROW is an area already impacted with utilities and similar features typical of developed roadways. Importantly, the currently proposed location and design were identified after exhausting other possible locations in the relatively small DAS coverage area or "polygon." (See Exhibit D, Slide 5.) Crown Castle's RF engineers examined alternative locations in the immediate Project area, as depicted in Slide 5 of Exhibit D and as excerpted here: OIW r t r,SGS� D p- ASG69 A\ � A 6 B `n � IIK oo Ie Earth c % I—ATION E%IEYINO — Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29, 2017 Page 15 The proposed site best utilizes existing foliage, slope topography and the ROW landscaping, which buffers the Project from surrounding homes on all sides. While the Project may be visible at the proposed location, it is far less intrusive than other potential sites that are immediately adjacent to residences. Crown Castle has satisfied its burden of proof under the burden -shifting process established by T -Mobile U.S.A. Inc. v. City ofAnacortes. (2) Small Cells and DAS as Least Intrusive Means Technology, by Design. Even apart from the careful siting of the facilities that are part of a small cells or DAS system, the technological configuration of small cells and DAS nodes is inherently minimally intrusive by design. Small cells and DAS were developed as a smaller -scale solution to the larger macro -site or cell tower. It therefore represents a significant technological advance in the development of reduced- profile wireless transmission devices. The nodes are designed to be smaller scale and lower power to allow them to integrate more easily into their surroundings and thereby render them less aesthetically intrusive. While it is impossible to make the facilities invisible, each facility will be designed to blend with existing features in the road to the extent feasible. Crown Castle's small cell network qualifies as the "least intrusive means" of filling the identified significant gap for the following reasons, among others: (a) Crown Castle small cells utilize the latest in wireless infrastructure technology, incorporating smaller, low-power facilities instead of using larger -- and sometimes more obtrusive -- cell towers; (b) Crown Castle small cells utilize the ROW, thereby avoiding intrusions into private property or undeveloped sensitive resource areas; (c) Crown Castle small cells allow for collocation by multiple carriers, thereby avoiding proliferation of nodes; (d) Crown Castle small cells strike a balance between antenna height and coverage in order to minimize visual impacts; (e) Crown Castle small cells carefully are carefully spaced to effectively relay signal with a minimum of facilities; and (f) Crown Castle small cells utilize existing vertical elements in the ROW, such as utility poles, or slim -profile new poles, thereby minimizing intrusions into the ROW. (3) The Project Location and Design Qualify as the Least Intrusive Means of Filling the Demonstrated Significant Gap in Coverage. The Project utilizes small cell technology, which, as discussed above, was designed to avoid the need for larger profile macro -sites. As for the location, the Project is located on the side of the ROW that is away from residences and is buffered from views by existing foliage, slope topography 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. Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29, 2017 Page 16 Moving this site to other locations elsewhere in the small RF objective ring would place the facility directly adjacent to residences, resulting in greater visual impacts. Crown Castle engaged in an exhaustive investigation of potential locations for the Project. If the City can identify another feasible alternative location that allows Crown Castle to achieve its coverage objective for this Project, it would be happy to investigate that location. Crown Castle submits, however, that it already engaged in that search and that the proposed location is the least intrusive location available. 4. CONCLUSION. For the foregoing reasons, the City Council should grant this Appeal and approve the Project. We look forward to answering your questions on the day of the hearing. Very truly yours, Michael W. Shonafelt MWS Enclosures cc: Ara Mihranian, Director, Planning and Zoning Division, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, aram&p2vca. gov Christy Lopez, Special Counsel, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, christy.lopez&bbklaw. com Dave Aleshire, City Attorney, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, daleshiregawattorne, s Lizbeth Wincele, Government Relations Counsel — Southern California, Crown Castle, Lizbeth. Wincele(cr�,crowncastle. com Daniel Schweizer, Director, Government Relations, West Region, Crown Castle, Daniel. S chweizerkcrowncastle. com Stephen Garcia, Manager Government Relations, Crown Castle, Stephen. Garci agcrowncastle. com Aaron Snyder, Government Relations Specialist-DAS & Small Cells -Southern California, Crown Castle, Aaron. SnyderAcrowncastle.com 7249384.1 EXHIBIT A GENERAL CONTRACTOR NOTES: CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL PLANS AND EXISTING DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS ON THE JOB SITE AND SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE ENGINEER IN WRITING OF ANY DISCREPANCIES BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK OR RESPONSIBLE FOR SAME. ASG69 ACROSS 3486 SEAGLEN DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES. CA SIGN OFF TITLE SIGNATURE DATE NETWORK REAL ESTATE PROJECT MANAGER CONSTRUCTION MANAGER RADIO FREQUENCY • DECOMMISSION EXISTING 24'6" HIGH OCTAGONAL CONCRETE STREETLIGHT (POLE ID #NT) AND REPLACE WITH A NEW 24'0" HIGH STEEL CONCRETE TEXTURED STREETLIGHT WITH MAST ARM AND LUMINAIRE. • INSTALL (2) 24.1" ANTENNAS #CUUX045X06F0000 WITH MOUNTING BRACKET #0900397/00. • INSTALL CISH -51 PEDESTAL WITH SIDE MOUNT METER & POWER DISCONNECT BOX WITH (2) ML IONS INSIDE. • PLACE "CHILDREN AT PLAY" SIGN AT 74"; EXISTING HEIGHT AT 7'4". • INSTALL VGR. PROJECT SUMMARY Jrinn I IN V. IJ1=,Jl.11lr l lvly T-1 TITLE SHEET D-1 DETAILS & NOTES D-2 DETAILS & NOTES D-3 DETAILS & NOTES D-4 DETAILS & NOTES D-5 DETAILS & NOTES S-1 SITE PHOTOS S-2 PHOTOSIM P-1 SITE PLAN P-2 POLE PROFILE ci ll,Qr' TATTIlQY PROJECT MANAGERS: CROWN CASTLE NG WEST LLC 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR STE. 1200 IRVINE, CA 92618 HEIDI PAYNE (949 300-9493 HEIDI.PAYNE@CRO WNCASTLE. COM FIBER MANAGER: CROWN CASTLE NG WEST LLC 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR STE. 1200 IRVINE, CA 92618 ALFREDO ARZUBIAGA (818) 939-5579 ALFREDO.ARZUBIAGA@CRO W NCASTLE. COM CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS: CROWN CASTLE NG WEST LLC 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR STE. 1200 IRVINE, CA 92618 MIKE GILDERSLEEVE (808)286-8323 MIKE. GILDERSLEE VE@CRO W NCASTLE.COM NODE ENGINEER: COASTAL COMMUNICATIONS 5841 EDISON PL, STE. 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 TODD THREW (760) 929-0910 EXT. #101 TODD@COASTALCOMMINC. COM PROJECT TEAM ASG69 PHASE II C�IROIECT CLIENT: '10 Tl...0CASTLE CROWN NG WEST LLC 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR STE. 1200 IRVINE, CA 92618 www. crowncastle.com PREPARED BY: Communications Telecommunications Engineering 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 929-0910 FAX: (760) 929-0936 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. DIURT 7ll..0-221-26.. LL AT ST TWO d BEFORE U DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # LUMINAIRE CHANGE 7/17/15 REVISION /ISSUE SITE NAME & ADDRESS: ASG69 ACROSS 3486 SEAGLEN DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA TITLE SHEET ff ROVED BY:TO REVISIONS 8/19/15 ANTENNA CHANGED l0/9/]5 ADD PED 009 07/7/16 REMOVED PED 009. ADD CISH -51 11/11/I6 LEGEND SYMBOL DESCRIPTION C&G PROPOSED O 2'X3'VAULT EX NEW STREETLIGHT EOP PCC SIDEWALK PL TRENCH AND FBER CONDUFI (PVT) R/W EXISTING a- EXISTING STREETLIGHT _+ STATION POINTS (100' INCREMENTS) EXISTING CURB RAMP C&G EXISTING CURB&GUTTER RIW EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY - - j EXISTING CENTER LINE IE EXISTING CENTER LINE ABBREVIATIONS A/C ASPHALT CURB C&G CURB & GUTTER CL CENTERLINE EX EXISTING EOP EDGE OF PAVEMENT PL PROPERTY LINE R/W RIGHT OF WAY SB SUBDIVISION BOUNDARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES: NOTES: TEMPORARY EROSION/SEDIMENT CONTROL, PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF FINAL IMPROVEMENTS, SHALL BE PERFORMED BY THE CONTRACTOR OR QUALIFIED PERSON AS INDICATED BELOW: I. ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES "LAND DEVELOPMENT MANUAL, STORM WATER STANDARDS" MUST BE INCORPORATED INTO THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS CONSISTENT WITH THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN AND/OR WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLAN (WPCP), IF APPLICABLE. _. FOR STORM DRAIN INLETS, PROVIDE A GRAVEL BAG SILT BASIN IMMEDIATELY UPSTREAM OF INLET AS INDICATED ON DETAILS. 3. THE CONTRACTOR OR QUALIFIED PERSON SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CLEANUP OF SILT AND MUD ON ADJACENT STREET(S) AND STORM DRAIN SYSTEM DUE TO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. 4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE SILT AND DEBRIS AFTER EACH MAJOR RAINFALL. 5. EQUIPMENT AND WORKERS FOR EMERGENCY WORK SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE AT ALL TIMES DURING THE RAINY SEASON. 6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RESTORE ALL EROSION/SEDIMENT CONTROL DEVICES TO WORKING ORDER TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY ENGINEER OR RESIDENT ENGINEER AFTER EACH RUN-OFF PRODUCING RAINFALL. 7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL ADDITIONAL EROSION/SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE RESIDENT ENGINEER DUE TO UNFORESEEN CIRCUMSTANCES, WHICH MAY ARISE. 8. ALL EROSION/SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES PROVIDED PER THE APPROVED IMPROVEMENT PLAN SHALL BE INCORPORATED HEREON. ALL EROSION/SEDIMENT CONTROL FOR INTERIM CONDITIONS SHALL BE DONE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE RESIDENT ENGINEER. 9, ALL REMOVABLE PROTECTIVE DEVICES SHOWN SHALL BE IN PLACE AT THE END OF EACH WORKING DAY WHEN RAIN IS IMMINENT. I. CONTRACTOR TO POTHOLE ALL UTILITY CROSSINGS. 2. CONTRACTOR TO PLACE SANDBAGS AROUND ANY/ALL STORM DRAIN INLETS TO PREVENT CONTAMINATED WATER. 3. SPOILS PILE WILL BE COVERED AND CONTAINED AND STREET WILL BE SWEPT AND CLEANED AS NEEDED. 4. CONTRACTOR TO REPAIR DAMAGED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY ENGINEER. 5. CURB & GUTTER TO BE PROTECTED IN PLACE. SIDEWALK TO BE REPLACED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY ENGINEER. 6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RESTORE THE ROADWAY BACK TO ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION SATISFACTORY TO THE CITY ENGINEER INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO PAVING, STRIPING, BIKE. LANES, PAVEMENT LEGENDS, SIGNS, AND TRAFFIC LOOP DETECTORS. 7. SIDEWALK SHALL BE RESTORED/REPLACED PER CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES STANDARD DRAWINGS G7, G9, G10, GI I & SDG100. S. PEDESTRIAN RAMP WILL NOT BE DISTURBED. 1. GROUND CONSTRUCTION TO REMOVE/CLEAN ALL DEBRIS, NAILS, STAPLES, OR NON -USED VERTICALS OFF THE POLE. 2. ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH MUNICIPAL, COUNTY, STATE, FEDERAL, G095. AND G0128 STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS. 3. CALL USA 48 HOURS PRIOR TO EXCAVATING AT (800) 227-2600 OR 811. 4. ALL LANDSCAPING TO BE RESTORED TO ORIGINAL CONDITION OR BETTER. 5. ALL EQUIPMENT TO BE BONDED. 6. METERING CABINET REQUIRES 36" CLEARANCE AT DOOR OPENING. 7. CAULK CABINET BASE AT PAD. 10. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ARRANGE FOR WEEKLY MEETINGS DURING OCTOBER 1ST TO APRIL 30TH FOR PROJECT TEAM (GENERAL CONTRACTOR, QUALIFIED PERSON, EROSION CONTROL SUBCONTRACTOR IF ANY, ENGINEER OF WORK, OWNE"EVELOPER AND THE RESIDENT ENGINEER) TO EVALUATE THE. ADEQUACY OF THE EROSION/SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES AND OTHER RELATED 1 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. STORMDRAIN INLET PROTECTION INLET EDGE OF PAVEMENT FLOW FLOW SPILLWAY, I -BAG HIGH SANDBAG 2 -BAGS HEIGHT TYPICAL PROTECTION FOR INLET WITH OPPOSING FLOW DIRECTIONS EDGE OF PAVEMENT INLET FLOW FE72 FLOW SPILLWAY, 1 -BAG HIGH SANDBAG 2 -BAGS HEIGHT TYPICAL PROTECTION FOR INLET WITH SINGLE FLOW DIRECTION NOTES: 1. INTENDED FOR SHORT - TERM USE. 2. USE TO INHIBIT NON - STORM WATER FLOW. 3. ALLOW FOR PROPER MAINTENANCE AND CLEANUP. 4. BAGS MUST BE REMOVED AFTER ADJACENT OPERATION IS COMPLETED. 5. NOT APPLICABLE IN AREAS WITH HIGH SILTS AND CLAYS WITHOUT FILTER FABRIC. 2. 3. 4. 5. NORMAL LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES NOTES: LOCATION AND DEPTH OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED UTILITIES MUST BE PROVIDED BY THE SUBDIVIDER AND SHOWN ON ANY PLANS SUBMITTED TO THE DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS FOR APPROVAL. CHANGES MAY BE PERMITTED BY THE DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS IN CASES OF CONFLICTING FACILITIES. CONFLICTS BETWEEN UTILITY COMPANIES FACILITIES, EXISTING AND PROPOSED, MUST BE MUTUALLY RESOLVED BY THE UTILITY COMPANIES. FOR COMMERCIAL SIDEWALKS, THE FIRE HYDRANT SHALL BE PLACED WITHIN THE SIDEWALK 1'-6" BEHIND FACE OF CURB. MAXIMUM 2" DIAMETER GAS MAINS MAY BE PLACED IN JOINT UTILITIES TRENCH SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF CITY ENGINEER (IN TRACTS). CALIFORNIA STATE CODE COMPLIANCE: ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL BE PREFORMED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT EDITIONS OF THE FOLLOWING CODES AS ADOPTED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNING AUTHORITIES. NOTHING IN THESE PLANS IS TO BE CONSTRUCTED TO PERMIT WORK NOT CONFORMING TO THESE CODES: • CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE (INCLUDING TITLES 24 & 25) 2010 • 2010 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODES. WHICH ADOPTS THE 2010 UBC, 2010 UMC, 2010 UPC AND THE 2010 NEC. • BUILDING OFFICIALS & CODE ADMINISTRATORS (BOCA) • 2010 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE • ANSI/EIA-222-F LIFE SAFETY CODE NFPA-101 • 2010 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE • 2010 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE • 2010 LOCAL BUILDING CODE • CITY/COUNTY ORDINANCES ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS: FACILITY IS UNMANNED AND NOT FOR HUMAN HABITATION. HANDICAPPED ACCESS REQUIREMENTS DO NOT APPLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 2010 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE. FCC NOTE: THIS WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY COMPLIES WITH FEDERAL STANDARDS FOR RADIO FREQUENCY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TELECOMMUNICATION ACT OF 1996 AND SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS AND ANY OTHER REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED BY STATE OR FEDERAL REGULATORY AGENCIES. ASG69 PHASE 11 CROWN CASTLE PROJECT NO. 242727 CROWN CASTLE NG WEST LLC 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR STE. 1200 IRVINE, CA 92618 www.croWncastle.com J 'PREPARED BY: aCommunications Telecommunications Engineering 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 929-0910 \ FAX: (760) 929-0936 J PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. 1-800-227-2600 CALL AT LEAST TWO DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # LUMINAIRE CHANGE 1 7/17/15 REVISIONS 8/19/15 ANTENNA CHANGED 10/9/15 ADD PED 009 07/7/16 REMOVED PED 009. ADD CISH -51 11/11/16 KEVISION/ISSUE DATE SITE NAME & ADDRESS: ASG69 ACROSS 3486 SEAGLEN DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA DETAILS & NOTES DRAWN BY: I DRAFT DATE: APPROVED BY: RG 11/11/16 1 TO sxeer NO. D-1 Electrical Power Supply .........-48 Mains Power, Vac. ...................................... 85 to 264 ......................................115 or 230 Power consumption, watts ......................................1150 BAREN Cu GROUND ' Optical Female Connectors.............................................................. E2000/APC 8' Optical return loss, dB ............................................. 45 minimum Fiber type, mm..........................................................Single mode E9/125 Optical link budget, dB ............................................. 0 to 10 Composite input power 4.5 @ OTRx master side, dBm 6 max. 1900 MHz .....................+5 composite 1700 / 2100 MHz ........... +5 composite Interface LTE 45 42" BTS Side Number of connectors 1900 MHz ..................... 4 1700/2100 MHz ............ 4 System optimized for BTS power, dBm .......................................33 .......................................43 Antenna Port .........-48 DL output tolerance over frequency, dB ............................t1 Frequency range, MHz OL output tolerance over temperature, dB..........................0.5*** Connector .......................................7/16 BAREN Cu GROUND ' ICP3 optimized ............................1. Female Output power .......................................See Noise figure, dB FCI No. GBL3-T8, band specification Return loss, dB .......................................15 .... 11 max. Noise figure optimized .............................. 4.5 1700/2100 MHz (AWS) 6 max. 39 36 UMTS 45 42 Frequency range, MHz 36 LTE 45 42" 39 36 Spurious emission .............................................. Uplink ............................ < -13 dBm / 1 MHz DL output tolerance over frequency, dB ............................ 1710 to 1755 t1 Downlink ........................2110 to 2155 Output power per carrier, dBm* ICP3 optimized .............................. -12 Number of Carriers 1 2 4 8 GSM 45 42 39 36 CDMA 45 42 39 36 UMTS 45 42 39 36 LTE 45 42" 39 36 Spurious emission .............................................. <-13 dBm / 1 MHz Adjacent chanel power, dBc................ ................ .........-48 DL output tolerance over frequency, dB ............................t1 Frequency range, MHz OL output tolerance over temperature, dB..........................0.5*** External control parts Input ICP3, dBm BAREN Cu GROUND ' ICP3 optimized ............................1. -12 Noise figure optimized...............................18 to 1995 Noise figure, dB FCI No. GBL3-T8, ICP3 optimized .............................. 7 .......................... .... 11 max. Noise figure optimized .............................. 4.5 .............................. 6 max. 1900 MHz (AWS) TYPICAL SECTION: N.T.S. Commands _.__ .............RF Frequency range, MHz STEEL POLE External control parts Uplink............................1850 BAREN Cu GROUND ' to 1915 Downlink ........................1930 ...............................Optical to 1995 Output power per carrier, dBm* FCI No. GBL3-T8, Supervision ...............................Output Number of Carriers 1 2 4 8 GSM 45 42 39 36 CDMA 45 42 39 36 UMTS 45 42 39 36 LTE 45 42" 39 36 Spurious emission .............................................. < -13 dBm / 1 MHz DL output tolerance over frequency, dB ............................ SCALE t1 OL output tolerance over temperature, dB..........................0.5*** Input ICP3, dBm ICP3 optimized .............................. -12 Noise figure optimized...............................18 Noise figure, dB ICP3 optimized .............................. 7 .............................. 11 max. Noise figure optimized .............................. 4.5 .............................. 6 max. System Supervision and Control TYPICAL SECTION: N.T.S. Commands _.__ .............RF on/off STEEL POLE External control parts Alarms ..............................Summary BAREN Cu GROUND ' ...............................Power Supply ...............................Optical UL and DL failure ...............................Temperature FCI No. GBL3-T8, Supervision ...............................Output power on a per - channel and per -band basis (optional) Mechanical**** CLAD GROUND ELECTRODE Height, width, depth mm (in) ...............................817 x 245 x 218 (32.2 x 9.61 x 8.6) Weight, kg (lb) .............................. 40 (88.2) Environmental Operation temperature range ............................33" C to +50" C Ingress protection RF part ...................IP67 Fan part .................IP55 ' Applicable to single modulation mode only " 3db power reduction @ < 5MHz carrier bandwith "* With active cooling *'** Spacing required 40 mm (1.58 in) around unit **** With passive cooling maximum temperature +40° C All figures are typical values CISH -51 PEDESTAL SIDE VIEW FRONT VIEW SIDE VIEW 22.5 u 9 O 49.0 m se 1 F�9 loo - - - - - - } @ 0 lot 22.5 NOTES: CUBE APPROX. WEIGHT W/PEDESTAL = 105 LBS ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED. 2 SCALE N.T.S. Side ANDREW I0N-M17HP/19HP MULTI -BAND, MULTI -OPERATOR REMOTE OPTICAL SYSTEM TOP 245— �_2 8mm Front Side GROUND ROD INSTALLATION FOR STEEL POLE TYPICAL SECTION: N.T.S. ANTENNA CHANGED 10/9/15 STEEL POLE FINISH GRADE REMOVED PED 009. ADD CISH -51 BAREN Cu GROUND ' CONDUCTOR Cu GROUND CLAMP FCI No. GBL3-T8, TYCO No. 83749-1, OR EQUAL #5 (5/8" X 8') COPPER CLAD GROUND ELECTRODE D � CONCRETE FOUNDATION • a • 3 SCALE SCALE ------------ ASG69 PHASE 11 CROWN CASTLE PROJECT NO.. 242727 �:CCASTLE CROWN NG WEST LLC 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR STE. 1200 IRVINE, CA 92618 www.crowncastle.com J PREPARED BY: Communications Telecommunications Engineering 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 929-0910 FAX: (760) 929-0936 J PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED, 1-800-221-7600 CALL AT LEAST TWO DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # LUMINAIRE CHANGE 1 7/17/15 REVISIONS 8/19/15 ANTENNA CHANGED 10/9/15 ADD PED 009 07/7/16 REMOVED PED 009. ADD CISH -51 11/11/16 I REVISION I ISSUE I DATE / SITE NAME & ADDRESS: ASG69 ACROSS 3486 SEAGLEN DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA DETAILS & NOTES DRAWN BY: I DRAFT DATE: APPROVED BY: RG 11/11/16 1 TO SHEET NO. D_2 SQUARE D BY SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC POWER METER GROUND ROD: LOAD CENTER, 70A o G1 GROUND ROD SHALL BE MINIMUM NEW POLE FOUNDATION 0.625" DIA. x 9' LONG. COPPER CLAD. (MODEL #0024L70RB) G2 MINIMUM 3" EXPOSURE AT TOP OF FOUNDATION WITHIN BOLT CIRCLE. E B" NOT TO SCALE ANCHOR BOLTS: 4 3/4"Al ANCHOR BOLTS SHALL BE 4-1" DIAMETER. G / AS GIVEN IN SPECIFICATIONS ASTM A449. / lLJ 24" ROUND3 �1 ® A2 BOLT CIRCLE DIAMETER TO MATCH POLE TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS © / GROUND LEVEL BASEPLATE. D 6' / 1/4" A3 ANCHOR BOLTS SHALL HAVE HEADS, OR AMPERE RATING 70A / NUTS WITH THE THREADS STAKED AT TWO PLACES BELOW THE NUT, MAXIMUM SINGLE POLE CIRCUITS 4 / F WIDTH 4.88 INCHES - EMBEDDED IN FOUNDATION. APPLICATION DESIGNED TO MEET RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL AND / er' - A4 ANCHOR BOLTS SHALL BE EMBEDDED 33" INDUSTRIAL REQUIREMENTS TO PROTECT ELECTRICAL / 12"MINIMUM, BELOW STREET GRADE (63" SYSTEMS, EQUIPMENT AND PEOPLE. - EMBEDMENT IN CONCRETE). J, SPACES 2 / AS BOLT PROJECTION AS RECOMMENDED WIRESIZE #12 TO 3 AWG(AL)-#14 TO 4 AWG(CU) / / BY THE MANUFACTURER. MAXIMUM TANDEM CIRCUIT BREAKERS 2 / NOTE: VOLTAGE RATING 120/240VAC / ANCHOR BOLTS TO BE CONDUIT: WIRING CONFIGURATION 3 -WIRE / SUPPLIED BY POLE PHASE 1 -PHASE MANUFACTURER Cl CONDUIT SHALL BE RIGID STEEL. DEPTH 4.00 INCHES HEIGHT 9.38 INCHES R GALVANIZED, INSIDE THE FOUNDATION, BUS MATERIAL TIN PLATED ALUMINUMA WITH 6" MINIMUM STUB -OUT. COVERTYPE SURFACE ® UL APPROVED ONLY 36" MINIMUM BURIAL C2 SERVICE AND FEED CONDUITS SHALL CATALOG REFERENCE NUMBER 110OCT9901 42" MAXIMUM BURIAL ENCLOSURE TYPE OUTDOOR/RAINPROOF VO BOTTOM 7z BE FIGS OR SCH 80 PVC, AS REQUIRED. ENCLOSURE RATING NEMA 3R GROUNDING BAR ORDER SEPARATELY KNOCK OUT F C1 ® C3 STUB UP TO WITHIN 4" FROM HAND APPROVALS UL LISTED HOLE. SHORT CIRCUIT CURRENT RATING 10KA NOTES: MAIN TYPE FIXED -FACTORY INSTALLED MAIN LUGS 1. TOP KNOCK OUT WITH LIQUID FLEX 45° AND STRAIGHT CONNECTORS AVAILABLE TO POWER UTILITY CREW 4 3 CONNECTOR REINFORCEMENT: CONNECTION. R1 VERTICAL REBAR SHALL BE (7) #6 SHIPPING AND ORDERING 2. BOTTOM KNOCK OUT FOR CONNECTING TO CUSTOMER FUSE DISCONNECT BOX. EQUALLY SPACED INSIDE OF HOOPS. 3. HEIGHT MAY BE DETERMINED BY POWER UTILITY. CATEGORY 00101 - LOAD CENTERS, 1 PHASE, NEMA1 & 3R, 2 - 8 4 R2 HOOPS SHALL BE #4 X 18" I.D., SPACED 4" D FROM TOP BO FOUNDATION TO CIRCUIT, TYPE QO POUR FOOTING END OF ANCHOR BOLTS. DISCOUNT SCHEDULEDE 3A AGAINST R3 HOOPS SHALL BE #4 X 18" I.D., SPACED ARTICLE NUMBER 785901785132 PARTS LIST PACKAGE QUANTITY 1 CALLOUT QTY DESCRIPTION CALLOUT QTY DESCA 1 METER CABINET VJIR PART 2 POLE 12 /140 SINGLE PHASE . UNDISTURBED 12" MIN. FROM THE ANCHOR BOLTS TO WEIGHT 5 LBS. 3" 30"ROUND MATERIAL BOTTOM OF FOUNDATION. AVAILABILITY CODE S B 1 4'X1" LIQUID TIGHT METALLICCL R CONCRETE TO R4 ALL REBAR SHALL HAVE 3" MINIMUM FLEX RETURNABILITY Y c 1 ID TI CONNECTOR R T TMP ROUND PIER BE32/50 MIX COVERING. D 1 " I F3 5' DEPTH E 2 4 SCALE F 2 SCALE F4 2'DEPTH SCALE N.T.S. G 2 5116'NUT-STAINLESS STEEL S N.T.S. NEW CONCRETE POLE DETAIL 00 00 O O O O O O ru ELEVATION SLOTTED BASE SHAFT CROSS SEE RECOMMENDED PLATE SECTION DETAIL "CAPPING DETAILS" „A„ CATALOG POLE BASE ANCHOR BOLT BASE ULTIMATE WEIGHT MAXIMUM NUMBER HEIGHT "A" O.D. BOLT CIRCLE PLATE (SQ) G.L. MOMENT (FT. LBS.) (LBS.) EPA/ MPH (SQ. FT.) 80 90 100 lCl-16 16'3" 7 -3/4" 1" X 36" X 4" 12 -1/2" 12" 17,000 560 14.0 10.0 7.5 lCl-17 17'9" 7 -7/8" 1" X 36" X 4" 12 -1/2" 12" 18,400 530 14.0 10.0 7.5 1C1-19 19'6" 8" 1" X 36" X 4" 12 -1/2" 12" 20,000 720 13.0 9.0 7.0 lC1-20 20'9" 8 - 14" 1" X 36" X 4" 12 -1/2" 12" 21,200 800 13.0 9.0 7.0 lCl-23 23' 3" 8 -3/8" 1" X 36"X 4" 12 -1/2" 12" 22,200 940 13.0 9.0 6.0 lC1-25 269" 8 -3/4" 1" X 36" X 4" 12 -1/2" 12" 25,400 1,030 12.5 8.5 5.5 lCl-28 28'3" 9" 1" X 36" X 4" 12 -1/2" 12" 27,400 1,240 10.5 6.5 3.5 lC1-29 29' 3" 9 -1/8" 1" X 36" X 4" 12 -1/2" 12" 28,100 1,290 10.0 6.5 3.0 lCl-40 40' 3" 10-1/41, 1 -1/4" X 44" X 4" 14" 14" 38,200 2,090 5.0 1.0 - SCALE 7 N.T.S. ASG69 PHASE II CROWN CASTLE PROTECT NO. 242727 �CROWN v CASTLE NG WEST LLC 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR STE. 1200 IRVINE, CA 92618 ` www.cro"castic.com J 'PREPARED BY: Communications Telecommunications Engineering 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 929-0910 ` FAX: (760) 929-0936 / PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. 1-800-227-2600 CALL AT LEAST TWO d DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # LUMINAIRECHANGE 1 7/17/15 REVISIONS 8/19/15 ANTENNA CHANGED 10/9/15 ADD PED 009 07/7/16 REMOVED PED 009. ADD CISH -51 11/11/16 REVISION/ISSUE 1 DATE SITE NA fE & ADDRESS: ASG69 ACROSS 3486 SEAGLEN DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA DETAILS & NOTES DRAWNBY: I DRAFTDATE: APPROVED BY: RG 11/11/16 1 TO SHEET NO. D-3 CUUX045X06F0000 Connector Description The antenna ha,6 m --, I—,d ethe bottom, each marked with a mlored ring. Lova Band (R1) 696-960 MHz Red Rings 0 (2N 7/16 -DIN Female High Band 01 (Yl) 16952700 MHz Yellow Ring, S (2N 7/16 -DIN Female High Band 62n1695-2700 MHz Yellow Rings r r (N7/16 -DIN Female Electrical Characteristics Low Bend HiSnISandsNlandq@ 696960 MHz (24 1695-27W MHz Frequent/ Bands (MH4 696505 1 806-960 1695-1880 1850.1990 1920-2200 230027W Polarization 1451 (24 x451 Hwlzoraal 3eamwld8, 471 371 491 451 421 38- V-1 Beamwidth 40.6° 30.81 24.81 241 23.0° 21.7° Gain 12.2 d8i 13.9 dei 12.9 d8i 13.8 dei 14.1 dB, 14.4 dBi B.—I D-ntlt 7 � Impedance 500 500 VSWR 51.S 1 51.5:1 Frorrt-to-Back Ratio > 24 d6 > 25 d8 Isolation Between Bands > 30 d6 > 30 d8 Isolators Between Pores 125 dB 125. d6 IM3(2x20W err er) <-150dBc <-150 dBc Input Power (24 SW W (4N 300 W Diplexed No lighMng Protection Direct Ground Operst ng Temperature -401 m +fi0° C (-40'tt +1401 Mechanical Characteristics H3122-003-02 Connecting bar Dim (Height x Wl dth x Depth) 611 x412 x185 mm 24.1 x 16.2 x 7.31. Weigh t,., Mounting Bracken 7.1 kg 15,7 16, Surui I NMI Sp..d 241 kWhr 150 mph WndA a Front 025 m' 2,7 ft' Side 0,11 m= 12 ft- Wnd Wads (160 km/hror 100 mph) B— 305 N 68 Ibf Side 135 N 301bf MOUNTING BRACKET M8x130 bolt i i e rb from pole mounting kit N IN I � tI 11 0 I � tl 11 t M I 1 I it M TORQUE SETTING FOR M8: 25 Nm s • POLE MOUNTINGKIT: DESCRIPTION / 48-115 DIAMETER POLES - / PART No: 0900181/00 70-150 DIAMETER POLES I? _ , PART No: 0900182/00 .1 Hot Galvanized - mid steel 8.8 (V �, xI 40 Round Hall screw with TWO POINTS TILT POLE MOUNTING INSTALLATION #0900397/00 supplied with tl pole mounting BE CAREFUL WITH THE ORIENTATION OF THE HEDGES OF THE TWO SQUARES ►` To be throw and be replaced by(!) NOTICE DE MONTAGE MOUNTING INSTRUCTIONS mounting bracket antenna in contact here ITEM NO._ PART NO. POLE MOUNTINGKIT: DESCRIPTION / 48-115 DIAMETER POLES - / PART No: 0900181/00 70-150 DIAMETER POLES I? _ , PART No: 0900182/00 Hot Galvanized - mid steel 8.8 (V �, xI 40 Round Hall screw with 2 NOTICE DE MONTAGE MOUNTING INSTRUCTIONS mounting bracket antenna in contact here ITEM NO._ PART NO. DRAWING No DESCRIPTION Qty 1 4473163/68 / M8xl30 Hex Hot Bolt 1 Hot Galvanized - mid steel 8.8 xI 40 Round Hall screw with 2 83539 / square neck 2 Hot Galvanized -mid steel 8.8 3 6273400/68 / M8 Full Nui 6 Hot Galvanized -mid steel 8.8 4 6773500/68 / M8 Plain Washer 12 Hot Galvanized -mid steel 8.8 5 H3122 H3122-003-02 Connecting bar 2 Hot galvanized 6 3801759/00 3/9252759 Tilt Spacing Bar Hat galvanzed 3 7 H3124 H3124-003-01 Long Scissor Bar Hot galvanized 1 8 3902772/68 2/9252772 Shortclssor Arm Hot galvanized I 9 H3416 I H3416-003-00 SassorHot Mounting Bracket 2 galvanised PART No: 0900397/00 — - - -- W AA Mienor Chemin du Roy,II L. horrndie�,a7aoo Ambolse A45 "RE '"D rrAMrraRAS0I,t-IONS ,�,e�phe �Yb m�qm H3452-104-01 c. e, -..M iaprn,na«a.u,=uu Nnruaimum*-�.,n-a�nr<.wma..n�..�.acraa.,n.��.,tir„i.,tu. r�nr a•�-r„a..�..aa,a�,rauu�.,n agt..rtn w�aa�...m.rc ASG69 PHASE II CROWN CASTLE PROTECT NO. 242727 �CROWN v CASTLE NG WEST LLC 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR STE. 1200 IRVINE, CA 92618 www.cro"castic.com J 'PREPARED BY: Communications Telecommunications Engineering 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 929-0910 FAX: (760) 929-0936 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. 1-800-227-2600 CALL AT LEAST TWO d DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # LUMINAIRECHANGE I 7/17/15 REVISIONS 8/19/15 ANTENNA CHANGED 10/9/15 ADD PED 009 07/7/16 REMOVED PED 009. ADD CISH -51 11/11/16 1 REVISION I ISSUE I DATE SITE NA & ADDRESS: ASG69 ACROSS 3486 SEAGLEN DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA DETAILS & NOTES DRAWNBY: I DRAFTDATE: APPROVED BY: RG 11/11/16 1 TO SHEET NO. D-4 ASG69 PHASE II CROWN CASTLE PROTECT NO. 242727 CLIENT: �CROWN v CASTLE NG WEST LLC 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR STE. 1200 IRVINE, CA 92618 www.cro"castic.com PREPARED BY: Communications Telecommunications Engineering 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 929-0910 FAX: (760) 929-0936 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. ]DIii�,RT 71-800-227-2600 CALL AT LEAST TWO d DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # LUMINAIRE CHANGE 7/17/15 REVISIONS 8/19/15 ANTENNA CHANGED 10/9/15 ADD PED 009 07/7/16 REMOVED PED 009. ADD CISH -51 11/11/16 REVISION I155UE DATE SITE NAha? & ADDRESS: ASG69 ACROSS 3486 SEAGLEN DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA DETAILS & NOTES DRAWNBY: I DRAFTDATE: APPROVED BY: RG 11/11/16 TO SHEET NO. G D-5 SPECIFICATIONS ION-M7HP/85HP EU - Product Specification SPECIFICATIONS ION-M7HP/85HP EU - Product Specification Electrical System Supervision and Control Mains power, Vac Input ICP3, dBm*** Commands ......... RF on/off 91 nominal .. 100 to 240 ICP3 optimized .. -11 min, operating ..... 65 to 264 Noise figure optimized -18 min. Alarms Summary PowerSuPPIY Mains power, Vdc Noise figure, dB*** nominal 48 to 60 ICP3 optimized 10 max. RF UL and DI -failure operating ... 36 to 72 Noise figure optimized 6.0 max. - - .. Temperature Power consumption, W 5.0 typical Supervision p ... Com osite output P P max. temp., fully loaded 900 power roomtemp., idle .. 380 850 MHz Mechanical* Frequency range, MHz. Height, width, depth, mm (in) Optical Link Uplink. ..... 824 to 649 K Version . .......... 817 x 245 x 218 Downlink 869 to 894 (32.2 x 9.6 x 8.6) Connectors E2000/APC 81 Output power per carrier, dBm* DCVersion . . . ..... 1053 x 245 x 218 Cabinet of ION-M7HP/85HP Extension Unit (AC Version) Optical return loss, dB 45 (41.5 x 9.6 x 8.6) Number of Carriers 1 2 4 S Fibre type Single mode E9/125 pm Analog 45.5 42.5 39.5 36.5 Weight, kg (Ib) ....... .. . 40 (88.2) Optical link budget, dB 0 to 10 GSM 45:5 CDMA 45.5 42.5 39.5 42.5 39.5 36.5 36.5 Environmental Composite input power 0 OTRx master side,. dBm LTE 45.5 42.5** 39.5 36.5 Operating temperature range, °C ............. -33 to+50 700 MHz minimum .. .. -165 UMTS 45 42 39 36 nominal 5.5 Ingress protection DL output tolerance over frequency, d6 11 RF part .... ... IP61 850 MHz minimum.. .. -16.5 DL output tolerance over temperature, dB ±0.5 Fan part .......... IF55 nominal 5.5 Spurious emission <-13 dBm /1 MHz Ordering Information Input ICP3, dBm'** ION-M7HP/85HP EU ..... 66 ...... 7693966** RF Interface ICP3 optimized -11 min. Noise figure optimized -18 min. Depending on the selected options and the configuration the ordering material number contains BTS Side (SMA) an identifying suffix. Number of connectors Standard Noise figure, dB*** 700 MHz . 4 ICP3 optimized 10 max. Corresponding Main Unit 850 MHz .. 4 Noise figure optimized 6 max. 5 typical ..................7631412** System optimized for BTS power, dBm Corresponding Corresponding Master Unit OTRx 33 fill 11 111 43 OTRx70-85/90/17-21 .... 1604304XX Remote Unit antenna port Connectors 7/16 Female Return loss, dB 15 Sparing required 40 mm 0.58 in) around unit Subpopulations possible 700 MHz All figures are typical values, unless otherwise stated. Cabinet of ION-M7HP/85HP Extension Unit (DC Version) Frequency range, MHz Uplink 698 to 716/776 to 787 Downlink. 728 to 757 Output power per carrier, dBm* Number of Carriers 1 2 4 8 LTE 45.5 42.5** 39.5 36.5 DL output tolerance over frequency, CHI .. ±1 DL output tolerance over temperature, dB ... .. ±0.5 PAR 7.5 dB @ 0.11 Spurious emission <-13 dBm / 1 MHz 2 dB power reduction < 5 MHz carrier bandwidth from reference point B to A Spurious emission into Public Safety Narrowband <-46 dBm /6:25 kHz All figures are typical values unless otherwise stated SCALE 10 N.T.S. ASG69 PHASE II CROWN CASTLE PROTECT NO. 242727 CLIENT: �CROWN v CASTLE NG WEST LLC 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR STE. 1200 IRVINE, CA 92618 www.cro"castic.com PREPARED BY: Communications Telecommunications Engineering 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 929-0910 FAX: (760) 929-0936 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. ]DIii�,RT 71-800-227-2600 CALL AT LEAST TWO d DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # LUMINAIRE CHANGE 7/17/15 REVISIONS 8/19/15 ANTENNA CHANGED 10/9/15 ADD PED 009 07/7/16 REMOVED PED 009. ADD CISH -51 11/11/16 REVISION I155UE DATE SITE NAha? & ADDRESS: ASG69 ACROSS 3486 SEAGLEN DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA DETAILS & NOTES DRAWNBY: I DRAFTDATE: APPROVED BY: RG 11/11/16 TO SHEET NO. G D-5 ASG69 PHASE 11 CROWN CASTLE PROJECT NO. 242727 CROWN v CASTLE NG WEST LLC 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR STE. 1200 IRVINE, CA 92618 WWw.cro castle.com PREPARED BY: Communications Telecommunications Engineering 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 929-0910 FAX: (760) 929-0936 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. 1-800-227-2600 CALL AT LEAST TWO d DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # LUMINAIRE CHANGE 1 7/17/15 REVISIONS 8/19/15 ANTENNA CHANGED 10/9/15 ADD PED 009 07/7/16 REMOVED PED 009. ADD CISH -51 11/11/16 ID GLEN SITE LOCATION Y I J -y Mg A KEY MAP B 12 O'CLOCK VIEW- FROM THE SOUTHWEST t Q� ti 'x.I. Z.Yy C 3 O'CLOCK VIEW- FROM THE NORTHEAST D 9 O'CLOCK VIEW- FROM THE SOUTHEAST ASG69 PHASE 11 CROWN CASTLE PROJECT NO. 242727 CROWN v CASTLE NG WEST LLC 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR STE. 1200 IRVINE, CA 92618 WWw.cro castle.com PREPARED BY: Communications Telecommunications Engineering 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 929-0910 FAX: (760) 929-0936 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. 1-800-227-2600 CALL AT LEAST TWO d DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # LUMINAIRE CHANGE 1 7/17/15 REVISIONS 8/19/15 ANTENNA CHANGED 10/9/15 ADD PED 009 07/7/16 REMOVED PED 009. ADD CISH -51 11/11/16 1 REVISION/ISSUE 1 DATE 1 SITE NAME & ADDRESS: ASG69 ACROSS 3486 SEAGLEN DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA FSITE PHOTOS DRAWN BY: I DRAFT DATE: APPR01ED6Y: RG 11/ll/16 TO sxeer Na. S-1 Existing Site �ghfi � ASG69 r RanchoPabs Verdes Vicinity Map LOOKING NORTHWEST � CROWN � CASTLE Proposed Site ASG69 i 1 ASG69 PHASE 11 CROWN CASTLE PROJECT NO. 242727 CLIENT: CROWN CASTLE NG WEST LLC 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR STE. 1200 IRVINE, CA 92618 ` www.croWncastle.com J 'PREPARED BY: Communications Telecommunications Engineering 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 929-0910 \ FAX: (760) 929-0936 J PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. 1-800-227-2600 CALL AT LEAST TWO DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # LUMINAIRE CHANGE 1 7/17/15 REVISIONS 1 8/19/15 ANTENNA CHANGED 10/9/15 ADD PED 009 07/7/16 REMOVED PED 009. ADD CISH -51 11/11/16 REVISION/ISSUE O -F I \"SITE NAME & ADDRESS: ASG69 ACROSS 3486 SEAGLEN DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA PHOTOSIM DRAWN BY: DAAFr DATE: APPROVED BY: RG 11/11/16 TO sxeer Na. S-2 • DECOMMISSION EXISTING 24'6" HIGH OCTAGONAL CONCRETE STREETLIGHT (POLE ID #NT) AND REPLACE WITH A NEW 24'0" HIGH STEEL CONCRETE TEXTURED STREETLIGHT WITH MAST ARM AND LUMINAIRE. • INSTALL (2) 24.1" ANTENNAS #CUUX045X06F0000 WITH MOUNTING BRACKET #0900397/00. NODE COORDINATE LATITUDE: 33.735261 LONGITUDE: -118.340374 INST NORTH 4 SCALE: V = 40' NEW CONSTRUCTION • INSTALL CISH -51 PEDESTAL WITH SIDE MOUNT METER & POWER DISCONNECT BOX WITH (2) ML IONS INSIDE. • PLACE "CHILDREN AT PLAY" SIGN AT 7'4"; EXISTING HEIGHT AT T4". • INSTALL VGR. FOOTAGE TOTALS ASPHALT TRENCH 0 PUNCH THRU 0 DIRT TRENCH 40' BORE 0 TOTAL 40' R&R TOTAL SWP 36' SQ. FT. REMOVE & REPLACE UX 6' TRENCH INSTALL CISH -51 PEDESTAL WITH SIDE MOUNT METER & POWER DISCONNECT WITH (2) ML IONS INSIDE (2' B.O.C.) STA. 99 + 76 (SEE DETAILS 1 & 2 SHEET D-2, DETAILS 4 & 5 ON SHEET D-3 & DETAIL 10 SHEET D-5) ------------- ASG69 PHASE II CROWN CASTLE PROTECT NO. 242727 �CROWN � CASTLE NG WEST LLC 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR STE. 1200 IRVINE, CA 92618 www.cro"castic.com J 'PREPARED BY: Communications Telecommunications Engineering 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 929-0910 FAX: (760) 929-0936 / PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. 1-800-227-2600 CALL AT LEAST TWO d DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # LUMINAIRE CHANGE 7/17/15 REVISIONS 8/19/15 ANTENNA CHANGED 10/9/15 ADD PED 009 07/7/16 REMOVED PED 009. ADD CISH -51 11/11/16 REVISION I155UE DATE SITE NAME & ADDRESS: ASG69 ACROSS 3486 SEAGLEN DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA SITE PLAN DRAWNBY: I DRAFI'DATE: APPROVED BY: RG 11/11/16 1 TO SHEET NO. P-1 A I ANTENNA DETAILS I SCALE: 1:5 1 H ry O z 0° STREETLIGHT #N/T (REVISED) TOP OF EXISTING POLE: 24'6" TOP OF NEW POLE: 24'0" TOP OF ANTENNA: 23'0" RAD CENTER: 22'0,' AZIMUTHS: 145° & 270° ANTENNA #CUUX045X06F0000 AZIMUTH: 270° 071NSTALL NEW 24' 0" HIGH STEEL CONCRETE TEXTURED STREETLIGHT ANTENNA #CUUX045X06F0000 AZIMUTH: 145° ANTENNAS TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH POLE. B 1 12 O'CLOCK VIEW SCALE: 1:8 B 1 3 O'CLOCK VIEW I SCALE: 1:5 ADD PED 009 07,7/16 REMOVED PED 009. ADD CISH -51 INSTALL MAST ARM WITH LUMINAIRE INSTALL MAST ARM & LUMINAIRE TOP OF POLE AT 24'0" TOP OF POLE AT 24'0" INSTALL (2) 24.1" ANTENNAS #CUUX045X06F0000 WITH MOUNTING BRACKET #0900397/00 INSTALL (2) 24.1" ANTENNAS WITH MOUNTING (SEE DETAILS 8 & 9 ON SHEET D-4) BRACKET #0900397/00 BRACKET #090 39 (SEE DETAILS 8 & 9 ON SHEET D-4) TOP OF ANTENNA TOP OF 23' 0" ANTENNA 23'0" RAD RAD CENTER CENTER INSTALL NEW 24'0" HIGH STEEL 22'0" 22'0" CONCRETE TEXTURED STREETLIGHT NEW 24'0" HIGH STEEL _INSTALL CONCRETE TEXTURED STREETLIGHT PLACE "CHILDREN AT PLAY" SIGN PLACE "CHILDREN AT PLAY" SIGN AT 7'4"; EXISTING HEIGHT AT 7'4" AT 7'4"; EXISTING HEIGHT AT T4" 07" 07" GROUND LEVEL GRO NDLEV L '°• '° ASPHALT INSTALL R N� �\\'�\\�\\ (SEEDETAG3 ON SHEET D-2) INSTALL VGR (SEE DETAIL 3 ON SHEET D-2) ASG69 PHASE 11 CROWN CASTLE PROSECT NO. 242727 CLIENT: 1 CROWN v CASTLE NG WEST LLC 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR STE. 1200 IRVINE, CA 92618 www.cmwnc.aatic.com J PREPARED BY: Communications Telecommunications Engineering 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 929-0910 FAX: (760) 929-0936 PROPRIETARY INFORYIA'FION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER TI IAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. 1-800-227-2600 CALL AT LEAST TWO d DAYS BEFORE. YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # LUMINAIRE CHANGE I 7/17/15 REVISIONS 8/19/15 ANTENNA CHANGED 10/9/15 ADD PED 009 07,7/16 REMOVED PED 009. ADD CISH -51 11/11/16 SHE NAME & ADDRESS'. ASG69 ACROSS 3486 SEAGLEN DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA POLE PROFILE DRAWN BY. DRAFT DATE: APPROVED BY. RG 11/11/16 TO SIIEET NO. /'/� P�2 EXHIBIT B ju IN icy 1 4 Goo gle�- ATION I P I O • i {�+ter.-"P.Yy� �A +x r r tri 4d}P� i •i E�w •may -• - t tI'. � ..... � .. :iA. a. `Poa, s � � 8e r r � ROCAT10N • ,c4 f ir k„ ; r � r..r�• .� ��'{�q ,�i li; Y 'rte �! r`e 1 D• _ '. tl R� It 3 .J h I i i { :az y. • ,c4 f ir k„ ; r � r..r�• .� ��'{�q ,�i li; Y 'rte �! r`e 1 D• _ '. tl R� It 3 .J h I i i { :az EXHIBIT C ju IN icy 1 4 Goo gle�- ATION I P I O • i {�+ter.-"P.Yy� �A +x r r tri 4d}P� i •i E�w •may -• - t tI'. � ..... � .. :iA. a. `Poa, s � � 8e .. .;tom. . f r r � ROCAT10N IA rr.. 5 ,. r..r�• ..t, ��'�{µ�yyt �; Y 'rte! tl� r• Y I i i { :az wl y. IA rr.. 5 ,. r..r�• ..t, ��'�{µ�yyt �; Y 'rte! tl� r• Y I i i { :az wl EXHIBIT D CROWN � CASTLE 10/09/2017 ASG69 Coverage Analysis The Foundation For a Wireless World. ASG69 Exhibits • Drive Test Data Collection Setup • Existing RF Coverage • Proposed Geographic Coverage Area for ASG69 • Proposed RF Coverage Area for ASG69 • Alternative sites 0 CROWN Proprietary & CASTLE Confidential 1 2 Drive Test Setup A continuous wave (CW) test is performed to simulate the coverage expected for the new node locations This is in the vehicle PCTEL EX flex Receiver 696MHz-2120 MHz GAPS n \ r Omni Antenna 40 Feet LMR400 Ultra Flex Hotstick Adjustable height BVS Dragon Crossband 850/1900 TX Power _ Coupler Tripod Ground Scanner used to collect benchmark data for existing carrier. CROWN Proprietary & CASTLE Confidential 1 3 Existing Benchmark Coverage ' .. 'OM ' . r # i , • ■ 'i • • • .10 # AS a s p#.A3Cp6 �69 ., • !+ 410 i • '• • 4 '• + • to % 4 *r • + • a ,# a+ • # •�•s• * as *_�■•�� '+� is fr•� #■ � �� • ■ • f # ■ # 0 •■ •• ■•. i��7MF Proposed Locations �� ;ie61e Faifetl Existing Wireless Communications Facilities Existing AT&T Sites • LTE RSRP igoo MHz _ -s5 m 0 0 -75 m E5 -85 t. -75 _ -95 to 35 _-10s [0 55 _-120 M -1 •',}5 '■�► CROWN Proprietary & CASTLE Confidential 1 4 The objective of the node, ASG69, is to coverage in the neighborhood of Seaglen Dr. from Floweridge Dr. to the end to the street. 7S, �1� ! ASG6Y E`' r ASG69 A -s v4 r •; 4YASG69 C ,1100-.20 1y G ASG69 B \\\ \ _ N Google Earth T-6��d� r, gaga - " ` j FMgery6ate:10!18i2016 gat 33.7319221'-.-- n'- - '•_:__ Proposed RF coverage for ASG69-A (Primary) CCCROWN Proprietary & CASTLE Confidential 1 6 t'� u !r r r+ ■ • r` •■: AS ■rr ASG6 r r a % ASG69 C-& ... ■+ { ra r ASGG911116 • r■ •■■+.■ + s• N i Proposed Locations r � )1�able `Failed Existing Wireless Comm. Facilities 0 Existing AT&T Nodes • LTL RSRP 19oo MHz • -65 to 0 dBm 75 to -55 dBm -as to -75 dam • -95 to -85 dBm CCCROWN Proprietary & CASTLE Confidential 1 6 L _'" a - �p !e _ ^� r - C? �G• _; 1� ASG69`D a 1 E �- i. 69 C wooe 4l Ali ol # _ j Tr / f _ . T .. 6.,Je �,;, 1994 -, _ _ �� '� - •�., , - L wary Date'. 10 18!2116 !at 33 734922°,( Ion 118.339944° el., 0 ft eye at 1339 It 0 ASG69 C r p ASG69 B .. ,a Google Earth, CCROWN Proprietary & CCATLE Confidential I g CCROWN Proprietary & CCA TLE Confidential 1 10 CCROWN Proprietary & CCATLE Confidential 1 11 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Hearing Site ASG69 — Across From 3486 Seaglen Drive Comments by Jeff and Annie Calvagna 10/10/2017 Summary of Key Points The proposed cell tower is on a local street in a residential zone and requires a Planning Commission exception to our ordinance for approval It will be an intrusive eyesore in our underground utility neighborhood and prominently visible from nearby homes and while driving on Seaglen Drive The cell tower is strongly opposed by residents Crown Castle's own documentation says the new cell tower will only serve 32 homes, this equates to only 29 AT&T customers o Location's poor topography limits range to only Seaglen Drive o Seaglen is a dead-end cul-de-sac, no through traffic only residents o No significant gap, intrusive site can't be justified for so few people Existing AT&T coverage on the street is reasonable, 4G LTE connections are reliable with relatively fast connection speeds (see data) If Crown Castle wants to put cell towers in residential neighborhoods to serve only 29 people, they need to make these things all but unnoticeable Please DENY this cell toward on aesthetic grounds .,k*' �1-4 4rlq' Conspicuous and clearly visible from living room, front bedrooms and front patio ff k" +�� 1 1► � y i v' {�jkA., �«�. Via.. Y ,� Prominent location at bend right at curb is visible to all coming down Seaglen Drive to their homes Crown Castle's own data shows only 32 homes served. An intrusive residential neighborhood site can't be justified E\ki lei 1, .';-; P�° i� }c� ely . C ROW CAST 32 Homes @ 2.6 residents/home (RPV avg) x 35% ATT market share = 29 people Crown Castle only submitted 1900 MHz coverage, 700 MHz is comparable due to the poor location topography, cell tower range is severely limited by the line of site �,# . ■ . �1 .746aftr i i r � • + •� 'mss + � ■! �:ELaIJd'4ar S � nPFIb s,eaO,. w. 'tea C ROW CAST 32 Homes @ 2.6 residents/home (RPV avg) x 35% ATT market share = 29 people Crown Castle only submitted 1900 MHz coverage, 700 MHz is comparable due to the poor location topography, cell tower range is severely limited by the line of site Seaglen Drive has reliable existing AT&T 4G LTE Service Yf 9 Il My Dining Room Table 13.30 Mbit/sec DL 2.32 Mbit/sec UL 9.26 Mbit/sec DL 1.47 Mbit/sec UL 9.40 Mbit/sec DL 1.61 Mbit/sec UL a 12.55 Mbit/sec DL ?f� 2.13 Mbit/sec UL '! 13 67 Mbit/sec DL Pi oh w • 12.46 Mbit/sec DL 2.69 Mbit/sec UL 9 y 1: { - 8.92 Mbit/sec DL 2.13 Mbit/sec UL t 8.05 Mbit/sec DL 2.44 Mbit/sec UL 4.52 Mbit/sec DL 4.22 Mbit/sec UL _ 4.75 Mbit/sec DL 1.49 Mbit/sec UL ," - 2.86 Mbit/sec UL P 15.96 Mbit/sec DL ;, P s Measured by J.Calvagna on 10/7/2017 2.55 Mbit/sec UL '° ►' P R Download (DL) speed is the limiting factor for data heavy sk •rya + r> uses (e.g. video streaming) see last page for typical needs Location only serves Seaglen Drive due to the poor topography Tall hillside blocks cell tower signal to the north Topo map shows Seaglen site is located within a topographical depression ("a bowl"). Poor location limits range of cell site for any frequency band ,. _ XF= f.. _ Line of sight analysis for a 22 foot tall antenna, blue shows visual range limits from topography. (Seaglen highlighted in red) ,46 Iii %% %�' lv''�rll ; lti _ri_1l7{t This intrusive cell tower should be denied, it can't be justified It is prominent, unattractive, and out -of -place in our underground utility neighborhood It will harm property values of nearby residences It is strongly opposed by neighbors particularly those nearby It will only serve one carrier on a dead-end cul-de-sac with no through traffic. How can this possibly be warranted? If approved, this site would set a terrible precedent in our City. It is an intrusive residential cell tower that will serve only 29 people Seaglen only has 11 streetlights. If all four wireless carriers demanded to do this we'd have a cell tower on every third streetlight! The City is well within its right to DENY this site on multiple grounds o Violates our ordinance restriction on local street locations o Aesthetics and incompatibility with the neighborhood character o NOT required to fill a "significant gap" in service APPENDIX - Required Download (DQ Speed for Various Media Applications cable 12: Data Consumed by Different Streaming Applications 133 jApplication Audioor Music Throughput(Mblas)F 0.1 58 1GB/month 0.5 0.9 1.0 1.7 2.0 3.5 4.0 6.9 Small Screen Video (e.g., Feature Phone) 0.2 130 0.5 1.4 1.0 2.7 2.0 5.4 4.0 110.8 Medium Screen Video (e.g., Smartphone, Tablet, Laptop) 1.0 450 0.5 6.8 1.0 13.5 2.0 27.0 4.0 54.0 Larger Screen Video (e.g., 720p medium definition) 3.0 1350 0.5 10.3 1.0 40.5 2.0 81.0 4.0 162.0 High Definition (e.g., 1030p Netfhx HD) 5.0 2250 0.5 33.8 1.0 57.5 2.0 135.0 4.0 270.0 Ultra High definition (e.g.,NetfIix4K) 15.0 6750 0.5 101.3 1.0 202.5 2.0 405.0 4.0 1 510.0 Video applications: telemedicine, education., social networking, entertainment. Column highlighted in red box is typically required download speed, compare to measured Seaglen "DL" values Source: Beyond LTE: Enabling the Mobile Broadband Explosion, Rysavy Research/413 Americas, August 2015 Comparison of Photo Simulation versus Mock-up - Site ASG69 Seaglen Drive Antenna size is 24.1" (H) x 16.1" (W) x 7.3" (D) per drawings Photo simulation in Staff report significantly understates antenna width and depth (streetlight pole is 5" wide at top for reference) Mock-up properly shows antenna size; note much larger width and protrusion from pole (Correct size verified via measurement) IN40D NEWMEYER DIL.LION LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW MICHAEL W. SHONAFELT Michael.Shonafelt@ndlf.com November 29. 2017 VIA EMAIL 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 brian. campbellk! pvca. gov File No. 2464.130 Re: Crown Castle: Appeal of Wireless Telecommunications Facility ASG09 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 ASG09 within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("City") public right-of-way ("ROW") at 30452 Camino Porvenir ("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, 24 -foot 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 24 -foot 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 pp. 2-3.) 1333 N. CALIFONIA BLVD 895 DOVE STREET 3993 HOWARD HUGHES PKWY MTE NO 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 Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29. 2017 Page 2 B. Second Proposed Design. After conferring with the City's Planning Department Staff ("Staff") concerning less intrusive design alternatives, Crown Castle revised the Project to locate the proposed antennas above the luminaire arm. The antennas would be housed in a two -foot tall by two -foot outside diameter canister that would extend the height of the Project to 26.7 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 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 from Exhibit B 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 four additional alternative locations. (Id. at p. 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 p. 11.) At the August 30, 2017, Planning Commission hearing, various Planning Commissioners lauded the new design and repeatedly commended Crown Castle for its revised design. When pressed by Commissioner Nelson whether the Project met the City's standards, the Planning Director Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29. 2017 Page 3 confirmed that it did comply. (See Video of August 30, 2017, Planning Commission hearing, http://rpv. granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=5&clip_id=2881.) The Planning Commission nevertheless denied the Project through a tie vote. The reasons for the denial were vague references to community opposition and conclusory assertions unsupported by any evidence. 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 p. 13.) The planning commissioners voting against the Project provided no direction on what design or 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 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 an even slimmer profile and more "stealth" design. Their goal was to see what designs could be feasibly employed to address the generalized aesthetic concerns raised at the Planning Commission. The constraints faced by Crown Castle in this endeavor are those posed by the radio frequency ("RF") objectives that must be achieved to fill the existing significant gap in service at this location. As a rule, the smaller the antenna, the more attenuated the RF signal. 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. As with the Second Proposed Design, the antennas would top out at 26 feet, seven inches. A tapered skirt at the base of the canister would provide a visual transition from the canister to the streetlight pole. 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.) An excerpted photo -simulation of the Third Proposed Design alternative is below: Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29. 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. Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29. 2017 Page 5 [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].) Given the vested nature of the section 7901 right, Crown Castle contends that a discretionary use permit -- like the Conditional Use Permit required by the City in this case -- constitutes an unlawful precondition for a CLEC's entry into the ROW. (See, e.g., Michael W. Shonafelt, Whose Streets? California Public Utilities Code Section 7901 in the Wireless Age, 35 HASTINGS COMM. & ENT. L. J. 371 (2013).) In a recent case, T -Mobile West LLC v. City and County of San Francisco (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 334 [2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 769], the First Appellate District, Division Five, determined that aesthetic considerations are appropriate in determining whether a facility "incommodes" the ROW. That case is being appealed to the California Supreme Court. The court did not decide the specific issue of whether obtaining a discretionary use permit is a lawful precondition to exercising the section 7901 franchise rights. Public Utility Code section 7901.1 -- a sister statute to section 7901 -- grants local municipalities the limited "right to exercise reasonable control as to the time, place, and manner in which roads, highways, and waterways are accessed[,]." Nevertheless, such controls cannot have the effect of foreclosing use of the ROW or otherwise prevent the company from exercising its right under state law to "erect poles" in the ROW. That is because "the construction and maintenance of telephone lines in the streets and other public places within the City is today a matter of state concern and not a municipal affair." (Williams Communication v. City of Riverside, supra, 114 Cal.App.4th 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 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 29. 2017 Page 6 Communication v. City of Riverside, supra, 114 Cal.App.4th at p. 653.) It did so in the context of enacting AB 57 in October 2015. AB 57 is codified as Government Code section 65964.1. Under section 65964. 1, if a local government fails to act on an application for a permit to construct a wireless telecommunications facility within the prescribed Shot Clock timeframes (150 days for a standalone site and 90 days for a collocation site), the application is deemed approved by operation of law. When it enacted section 65964. 1, the Legislature observed that: The Legislature finds and declares that a wireless telecommunications facility has a significant economic impact in California and is not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution, but is a matter of statewide concern. (Gov. Code, § 65964.1, subd. (c).) B. FEDERAL LAW. The approval of the Project also is governed by the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (codified as amend in scattered sections of U.S.C., Tabs 15, 18, 47) ("Telecom Act"). When enacting the Telecom Act, Congress expressed its intent "to promote competition and reduce regulation in order to secure lower prices and higher quality services for American telecommunications consumers and encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies." (110 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)(13)(i)(I)). (2) State and local governments may not regulate the placement, construction or modification of wireless service facilities in a manner that prohibits, or has the effect of prohibiting, the provision of personal wireless services (better known as the "effective prohibition clause") (§ 332 (c)(7)(13)(i)(II)). (3) State and local governments must act on requests for authorization to construct or modify wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time (§ 332 (c)(7)(B)(ii))• Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29. 2017 Page 7 (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: The regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof— (II) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. (47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II).) In T -Mobile U.S.A. Inc. v. City ofAnacortes (9th Cir. 2009) 572 F.3d 987, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals set forth a two-step analysis for determining whether a local government's denial has the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless telecommunications services in violation of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. In the first step, the applicant must make a showing of a "significant gap" in service. (Id. at p. 995.) In the second step, the applicant must demonstrate it has selected the "least intrusive means" to fill that gap in service. (Ibid.) Each prong of the Prohibition of Service Provision is addressed below. A. A Significant Gap in Service Exists at the Project Site. (1) What Is a Significant Gap? "Significant gap" is a legal term of art developed by the courts to guide a determination of whether a local government's decision on an application prohibits a carrier or other wireless infrastructure developer from providing service. (See, e.g., T -Mobile USA, Inc. v. City of Anacortes, supra, 572 F.3d at p. 995.) Put simply, "a locality could violate the [Telecom Act's] effective prohibition clause if it prevented a wireless provider from closing a `significant gap' in service coverage." (Id., at p. 995; MetroPCS, Inc. v. City of San Francisco (9th Cir., 2005) 400 F.3d 715, 731.) Significant gap is "a contextual term that must take into consideration the purposes of the Telecommunications Act itself." (T -Mobile Northeast LLC v. Loudoun County Bd. of Supervisors (4th Cir. 2014) 748 F.3d 185, 198.). Among the goals of the Telecom Act are to Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29. 2017 Page 8 "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 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)(13)(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. Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29. 2017 Page 9 The need to fill the existing significant coverage gap to a level that allows adequate in - building coverage and to address growing capacity demands is underscored by the greater numbers of customers dropping their landlines and relying solely on wireless telecommunications for their phone service. The following additional considerations promote a policy of employing more sophisticated notions of significant gap: (a) In a recent international study, the United States dropped to fifteenth in the world in broadband penetration, well behind South Korea, Japan, the Netherlands and France.2 (b) Over 50 percent of all American homes are now wireless only. 3 (c) More and more civic leaders and emergency response personnel cite lack of a robust wireless network as a growing public safety risk. The number of 911 calls placed by people using wireless phones has significantly increased in recent years. It is estimated that about 70 percent of 911 calls are placed from wireless phones, and that percentage is growing. 4 (d) Data demand from new smartphones and tablets is leading to a critical deficit in spectrum, requiring more wireless antennas and infrastructure. According to a 2011 report, wireless data traffic was 110 percent higher than in the last half of 2010. Similarly, AT&T reports that its wireless data volumes have increased 30 - fold since the introduction of the iPhone. 5 (e) Wireless data traffic grew by a factor of 300 percent between 2010 and 2015.6 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, 2 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Directorate for Science, Technology, and Industry, "Broadband Statistics," (June 2010): <www.oecd.org/sti/ict/broadband>. 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 4 Federal Communications Commission (2012) http://www.fcc.gov/guides/wireless-911-services. 5 Executive Office of the President Council of Economic Advisors (White House, Feb. 2012) at 2-6. 6 https://www.ctia.org/industry-data/wireless-quick-facts. 7 http://digitalconqurer.com/news/cisco-mobile-visual-networking-index-vni-forecasts-seven-fold-increase-global- mobile-data-traffic-2016-21 / Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29. 2017 Page 10 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 2lpercent are using wireline phones."9 On that ground alone, this is a matter of health, safety and welfare for the residents and visitors of the City. Notably, 911 service over systems like this is not just limited to AT&T users -- the networks carries 911 calls of any mobile user. (2) Data Support a Significant Gap at the Project Site. Applying the above principles to the Project, data reveal that the project service area has insufficient signal strength to address current data demand and statistical projections of data demand. Crown Castle has undertaken drive -test data of existing conditions at the Project site in two different frequencies that will be employed at the Project site. (See ASG09-Proposed Primary and Alternate Node Analysis, attached as Exhibit D.) Exhibit D identifies levels of service in terms of the following criteria: RSRP _ �5 to 4 ® -75 to £5 -85 to -75 _ -95 to _,5 _ -105 to -95 _ -120 to -106 Le cations I* viable 0 Feted Coverage Objective (a) Outdoor Only —Unacceptable Coverage (Black) (>-105 dBm); (b) In -Vehicle Only — Unacceptable Coverage (Blue) (>-95 dBm); (c) Suburban/In-building, Acceptable (Red) (>-85 dBm); (d) Urban/In-building, Acceptable (Yellow) (>-75 dBm); (e) Dense Urban/Deep In -building, Optimum (Light/Dark Green) (>-75 dBm). Each level is characterized by a minimum signal level. The key to coverage is having a signal level strong -enough to allow customers to maintain contact with the network so they can make and maintain calls. Signal level, the strength of the radio signal customers' devices receive, is 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 Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29. 2017 Page 11 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 7 of Exhibit D reveals existing RF coverage at the project site. too ': arJ> 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 Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29. 2017 Page 12 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 8, which is excerpted here (following page): �• •% Agra` ilL dk 1072N ke f'at�+• Ascia MA113C© e f A, r r Loo Vara- OY'"•. .w The Project will provide sufficient signal strength to ensure not only adequate signal for mobile and outdoor users, but reliable in -building coverage for all those customers who may seek to abandon their home landlines. The Project also will add sufficient capacity to address new data demands from smartphones and tablets. Wireless customers must be able to count on a level of service commensurate with that once provided by their dropped landlines. Such considerations are relevant -- if not critical -- to a determination of significant gap. (See, e.g., T - Mobile Central LLC v. City of Fraser (E.D. Mich. 2009) 675 F.Supp.2d 721 [considering failure rate of 911 emergency calls.]) One of the grounds invoked by the Planning Commission for denial of the Project was a conclusory assertion that Crown Castle failed to demonstrate a significant gap in service. The drive test data presented in Exhibit D refute that contention. Nor has this data been seriously controverted by any competent evidence. Indeed, the City's own RF expert concurred with the conclusion of Crown Castle's RF engineers that a significant gap indeed exists at the project site. The Planning Commission is charged with addressing zoning and planning issues, not the regulation of RF, which is a matter preempted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The City engaged CTC as an independent RF expert pursuant to Rancho Palos Verdes Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29. 2017 Page 13 Municipal Code section 12.18.050. For areas -- such as RF coverage issues -- that are outside the scope of the Planning Commission's competency and jurisdiction it should look to the conclusions of its hired consultants and the actual data compiled by RF experts, not the unsupported assertions of project opponents. B. Crown Castle Has Demonstrated That It Has Chosen the Least Intrusive Means to Fill the Significant Gap in Service. To establish least intrusive means, the applicant establishes a "prima facie showing of effective prohibition by submitting a comprehensive application, which includes consideration of alternatives, showing that the proposed [wireless communications facility] is the least intrusive means of filling a significant gap." (T -Mobile U.S.A. Inc. v. City ofAnacortes, supra, 572 F.3d at p. 995.) After that, the burden shifts to the local government: "When a locality rejects a prima facie showing, it must show that there are some potentially available and technologically feasible alternatives." (Id. at p. 998.) The court further explained that the applicant then has an opportunity to "dispute the availability and feasibility of the alternatives favored by the locality." (Ibid. ) Because Crown Castle is a CLEC entitled to construct its facilities in the ROW, its small- cell and DAS networks are inherently ROW systems. On that basis, Crown Castle examined those alternatives theoretically available to it in the ROW. The analysis below demonstrates why the Project qualifies as the "least intrusive means" of filling the significant gap in service. (1) Height and Location of the Project. The antenna height and location of the Project were chosen to provide the minimum signal level needed to meet critical coverage and capacity needs in the service area. Despite the technical limitations of a low -profile, small-cell system, Crown Castle seeks to maximize the coverage of each node location, since maximization of the node performance equates to a lower overall number of facilities and a less intrusive system. Accordingly, the Project location was chosen to provide an effective relay of signal from adjacent sites, so that ubiquitous coverage of the minimum signal level is provided throughout the service area with the minimum number of facilities. The selected location maximizes the RF coverage of the Project and minimizes interference/overlap with the other facilities, resulting in a lower overall number of facilities and a less intrusive system. The ROW is ideal for the Project from an aesthetic standpoint because the ROW is an area already impacted with utilities and similar features typical of developed roadways. Importantly, the currently proposed location and design were identified after exhausting other possible locations in the relatively small DAS coverage area or "polygon." (See Exhibit D, Slide 5.) Crown Castle's RF engineers examined five alternative locations in the immediate Project area, as depicted in Slide 2 and 3 of Exhibit D and as excerpted here: Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29. 2017 Page 14 As the Staff concluded, the proposed site qualifies as the least intrusive location of the sites explored. (Staff Report, p. 11.) Moreover, as demonstrated above, Crown Castle diligently exhausted design alternatives in an effort to address the Planning Commission's concerns about the purported visual impacts of the Project (this despite the Staff's unequivocal conclusion that even the larger, Second Proposed Design did not give rise to any aesthetic impacts). (Id. at pp. 5-7.) 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: Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29. 2017 Page 15 (a) Crown Castle small cells utilize the latest in wireless infrastructure technology, incorporating smaller, low-power facilities instead of using larger -- and sometimes more obtrusive -- cell towers; (b) Crown Castle small cells utilize the ROW, thereby avoiding intrusions into private property or undeveloped sensitive resource areas; (c) Crown Castle small cells allow for collocation by multiple carriers, thereby avoiding proliferation of nodes; (d) Crown Castle small cells strike a balance between antenna height and coverage in order to minimize visual impacts; (e) Crown Castle small cells carefully are carefully spaced to effectively relay signal with a minimum of facilities; and (f) Crown Castle small cells utilize existing vertical elements in the ROW, such as utility poles, or slim -profile new poles, thereby minimizing intrusions into the ROW. (3) The Project Location and Design Qualify as the Least Intrusive Means of Filling the Demonstrated Significant Gap in Coverage. The Project utilizes small cell technology, which, as discussed above, was designed to avoid the need for larger profile macro -sites. As for the location, the 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 therefore eliminate the need for a new pole in the ROW. 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. Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November 29. 2017 Page 16 4. CONCLUSION. For the foregoing reasons, the City Council should grant this Appeal and approve the Project. We look forward to answering your questions on the day of the hearing. Very truly yours, Michael W. Shonafelt MWS Enclosures cc: Ara Mihranian, Director, Planning and Zoning Division, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, aramgp2vca. gov Christy Lopez, Special Counsel, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, christy.lopezgbbklaw. com Dave Aleshire, City Attorney, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, daleshiregawattomeys.com Lizbeth Wincele, Government Relations Counsel — Southern California, Crown Castle, Lizbeth. Wincele&crowncastle. com Daniel Schweizer, Director, Government Relations, West Region, Crown Castle, Daniel. S chweizergcrowncastle. com Stephen Garcia, Manager Government Relations, Crown Castle, Stephen. Garciagcrownc astle. com Aaron Snyder, Government Relations Specialist-DAS & Small Cells -Southern California, Crown Castle, Aaron. Snydergcrowncastle.com 7238871.1 EXHIBIT A GENERAL CONTRACTOR NOTES. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL PLANS AND EXISTING DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS ON THE JOB SITE AND SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE ENGINEER IN WRITING OF ANY DISCREPANCIES BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK OR RESPONSIBLE FOR SAME. ASG09 30452 CAMINO PORVENIR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA SIGN OFF TITLE SIGNATURE NETWORK REAL ESTATE PROJECT MANAGER CONSTRUCTION MANAGER RADIO FREQUENCY DATE PROJECT DESCRIPTION: • DECOMMISSION & REMOVE EXISTING 24'0" HIGH MARBELITE OCTAGONAL STREETLIGHT (POLE ID #1983568E) AND REPLACE WITH A NEW 24'0" HIGH MARBELITE OCTAGONAL CONCRETE STREETLIGHT WITH MAST ARM AND LUMINARE (REMOVE EXISTING JUNIPER). • INSTALL CISH -51 PEDESTAL WITH SIDE MOUNT METER & POWER DISCONNECT WITH (2) ML IONS INSIDE. • INSTALL (2) 21.4" ANTENNAS #BPA-65F-BUU-H2 WITH MOUNTING BRACKET #MBK -03. • INSTALL VGR. • EQUIPMENT AND ANTENNAS TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH POLE. IOOAMP PANEL 120/240V ]PHASE LIKW OTON 3787 1/2 CREST RD RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90274 PROJECT SUMMARY —.1 1N— LG JI.l 1 II —N T-1 TITLE SHEET D-1 DETAILS & NOTES D-2 DETAILS & NOTES D-3 DETAILS & NOTES D-4 DETAILS & NOTES D-5 DETAILS & NOTES S -I SITE PHOTOS S-2 PHOTOSIM P-1 SITE PLAN P-2 POLE PROFILE CTTRFT TNTTYPY PROJECT MANAGER: CROWN CASTLE 200 SPECTRUM CENTER DR 18TH FLOOR IRVINE, CA 92618 JON COWELL (925)200-6857 JON.COWELL. VENDOR@CROWNCASTLE.COM CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER: CROWN CASTLE 200 SPECTRUM CENTER DR 18TH FLOOR IRVINE, CA 92618 KENNETH HOBBS (714)251-9839 KENNETH. HOBBS@CRO W NCASTLE.COM NODE ENGINEER: COASTAL COMMUNICATIONS 9524 TOPANGA CANYON BLVD. CHATSWORTH, CA 91311 CURTISS JOHNSON (760) 932-4312 CURTIS S @COASTALCOMMINC. COM PROJECT TEAM ASG09 PHASE B CROWN CASTLE PROJECT NO. 242727 CLIENT: :CROWN C CASTLE 200 SPECTRUM CENTER DRIVE, I8" FLOOR IRVINE, CA 92618 www.ctowncastle.com PREPARED BY: Communications Telecommunications Engineering 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 929-0910 FAX: (760) 929-0936 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. DIWRT 7gt-800-227-2600 CALL AT LEAST TWO DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # CIN REDLINE 11/09/15 MOVED CISH AND CAN PEDESTAL 7/11/17 REVISION/ISSUE DATE SITE NAME & ADDRESS: ASGO9 30462 CAMINO PORVENIR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA TITLE SHEET DRAWN BY: DRAF DATE I APPROVEDBY'.Ns AC 10/07/15 GA SHEET NO. T-1 T .Fl_vl%T" S/B SUBDMSIDN BOUNDARY UL EXISTING CENTER LINE IL EXISTING CENTER LINE ABBREVIATIONS A/C PROPOSED Q CURB & GUTTER 2' X Y VAULT CENTERLINE EX NEW POLE EOP EDGE OF PAVEMENT NEW STREETLIGHT PROPERTY LINE RAN TRENCH AND FIBER CONDUIT( S SUBDIVISION BOUNDARY EXISTING EXISTING STREETLIGHT O EXISTINGVAULT/HANDHOLE ■ EXISTING PEDESTAL zEXISTING TRANSFORMER STATION POINTS (100' INCREMENTS) EXISTING CURB RAMP C&G EXIST.. CURB&GUTTER A/C EXISTING ASP}W.T CURB JiOP EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT BERM EXISTING BERM R/W EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY S/B SUBDMSIDN BOUNDARY UL EXISTING CENTER LINE IL EXISTING CENTER LINE ABBREVIATIONS A/C ASPHALT CURB C&G CURB & GUTTER CL CENTERLINE EX EXISTING EOP EDGE OF PAVEMENT PL PROPERTY LINE RAN RIGHT OF WAY S SUBDIVISION BOUNDARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES: NOTES: TEMPORARY EROSION/SEDIMENT CONTROL, PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF FINAL IMPROVEMENTS, SHALL BE 1 PERFORMED BY THE CONTRACTOR OR QUALIFIED PERSON AS INDICATED BELOW: 2 1. ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES "LAND DEVELOPMENT MANUAL, STORM 3. WATER STANDARDS" MUST BE INCORPORATED INTO THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS CONSISTENT WITH THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN AND/OR WATER 4. POLLUTION CONTROL PLAN (WPCP), IF APPLICABLE. 5. 2. FOR STORM DRAIN INLETS, PROVIDE A GRAVEL BAG SILT BASIN IMMEDIATELY UPSTREAM OF INLET AS INDICATED ON DETAILS. 6. 3. THE CONTRACTOR OR QUALIFIED PERSON SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CLEANUP OF SILT AND MUD ON ADJACENT STREET(S) AND STORM DRAIN SYSTEM DUE TO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. 7. 4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE SILT AND DEBRIS AFTER EACH MAJOR RAINFALL. 8. 5. EQUIPMENT AND WORKERS FOR EMERGENCY WORK. SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE AT ALL TIMES DURING THE RAINY SEASON. 6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RESTORE ALL EROSION/SEDIMENT CONTROL DEVICES TO WORKING ORDER TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY ENGINEER OR RESIDENT ENGINEER AFTER EACH RUN-OFF PRODUCING RAINFALL. CONTRACTOR TO POTHOLE ALL UTILITY CROSSINGS. CONTRACTOR TO PLACE SANDBAGS AROUND ANY/ALL STORM DRAIN INLETS TO PREVENT CONTAMINATED WATER. SPOILS PILE WILL BE COVERED AND CONTAINED AND STREET WILL BE SWEPT AND CLEANED AS NEEDED. CONTRACTOR TO REPAIR DAMAGED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY ENGINEER. CURB & GUTTER TO BE PROTECTED IN PLACE. SIDEWALK TO BE REPLACED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY ENGINEER. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RESTORE THE ROADWAY BACK TO ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION SATISFACTORY TO THE CITY ENGINEER INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO PAVING, STRIPING, BIKE LANES, PAVEMENT LEGENDS, SIGNS, AND TRAFFIC LOOP DETECTORS. SIDEWALK SHALL BE RESTORED/REPLACED PER CITY OF RANCHOS PALOS VERDES STANDARD DRAWINGS. PEDESTRIAN RAMP WILL NOT BE DISTURBED. ROW GROUND CONSTRUCTION NOTES: 11 7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL ADDITIONAL EROSION/SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES AS MAY BE 2. REQUIRED BY THE RESIDENT ENGINEER DUE TO UNFORESEEN CIRCUMSTANCES, WHICH MAY ARISE. 3. 8. ALL EROSION/SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES PROVIDED PER THE APPROVED IMPROVEMENT PLAN 4. SHALL BE INCORPORATED HEREON. ALL EROSION/SEDIMENT CONTROL FOR INTERIM CONDITIONS 5. SHALL BE DONE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE RESIDENT ENGINEER. 6. 7. 9. ALL REMOVABLE PROTECTIVE DEVICES SHOWN SHALL BE IN PLACE AT THE. END OF EACH WORKING DAY WHEN RAIN IS IMMINENT, 10. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ARRANGE FOR WEEKLY MEETINGS DURING OCTOBER 1ST TO APRIL 30TH FOR PROJECT TEAM (GENERAL CONTRACTOR, QUALIFIED PERSON, EROSION CONTROL SUBCONTRACTOR IF ANY, ENGINEER OF WORK, OWNER/DEVELOPER AND THE RESIDENT ENGINEER) TO EVALUATE THE ADEQUACY OF THE EROSION/SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES AND OTHER RELATED 1 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. STORMDRAIN INLET PROTECTION INLET EDGE OF PAVEMENT FLOWFM FLOW SPILLWAY, 1 -BAG HIGH SANDBAG 2 -BAGS HEIGHT TYPICAL PROTECTION FOR INLET WITH OPPOSING FLOW DIRECTIONS EDGE OF PAVEMENT INLET FLOW R FLOW SPILLWAY, 1 -BAG HIGH SANDBAG 2 -BAGS HEIGHT TYPICAL PROTECTION FOR INLET WITH SINGLE FLOW DIRECTION ,011"3 1. INTENDED FOR SHORT - TERM USE. 2. USE TO INHIBIT NON - STORM WATER FLOW. 3. ALLOW FOR PROPER MAINTENANCE AND CLEANUP. 4. BAGS MUST BE REMOVED AFTER ADJACENT OPERATION IS COMPLETED. 5. NOT APPLICABLE IN AREAS WITH HIGH SILTS AND CLAYS WITHOUT FILTER FABRIC. 2. 3. 4. 5. GROUND CONSTRUCTION TO REMOVE/CLEAN ALL DEBRIS, NAILS, STAPLES, OR NON -USED VERTICALS OFF THE POLE. ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH MUNICIPAL, COUNTY, STATE, FEDERAL, G095 AND G0128 STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS. CALL USA 48 HOURS PRIOR TO EXCAVATING AT (800) 227-2600 OR 811. ALL LANDSCAPING TO BE RESTORED TO ORIGINAL CONDITION OR BETTER. ALL EQUIPMENT TO BE BONDED. METERING CABINET REQUIRES 36" CLEARANCE AT DOOR OPENING. CAULK CABINET BASE AT PAD. NORMAL LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES NOTES: LOCATION AND DEPTH OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED UTILITIES MUST BE PROVIDED BY THE SUBDIVIDER AND SHOWN ON ANY PLANS SUBMITTED TO THE DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS FOR APPROVAL. CHANGES MAY BE PERMITTED BY THE DEPT, OF PUBLIC WORKS IN CASES OF CONFLICTING FACILITIES. CONFLICTS BETWEEN UTILITY COMPANIES FACILITIES, EXISTING AND PROPOSED, MUST BE MUTUALLY RESOLVED BY THEUTILITY COMPANIES. FOR COMMERCIAL SIDEWALKS, THE FIRE HYDRANT SHALL BE PLACED WITHIN THE SIDEWALK P-6" BEHIND FACE OF CURB. MAXIMUM 2" DIAMETER GAS MAINS MAY BE PLACED IN JOINT UTILITIES TRENCH SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF CITY ENGINEER (IN TRACTS). CALIFORNIA STATE CODE COMPLIANCE: ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL BE PREFORMED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT EDITIONS OF THE FOLLOWING CODES AS ADOPTED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNING AUTHORITIES NOTHING IN THESE PLANS IS TO BE CONSTRUCTED TO PERMIT WORK NOT CONFORMING TO THESE CODES: • CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE (INCLUDING TITLES 24 & 25) 2010 • 2010 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODES WHICH ADOPTS THE 2010 UBC, 2010 UMC, 2010 UPC AND THE 2010 NEC. • BUILDING OFFICIALS & CODE ADMINISTRATORS (BOCA) • 2010 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE • ANSI/EIA-222-F LIFE SAFETY CODE NFPA-101 • 2010 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE • 2010 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE • 2010 LOCAL BUILDING CODE • CITY/COUNTY ORDINANCES ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS: FACILITY IS UNMANNED AND NOT FOR HUMAN HABITATION. HANDICAPPED ACCESS REQUIREMENTS DO NOT APPLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 2010 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE. -NOTE: THIS WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY COMPLIES WITH FEDERAL STANDARDS FOR RADIO FREQUENCY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TELECOMMUNICATION ACT OF 1996 AND SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS AND ANY OTHER REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED BY STATE OR FEDERAL REGULATORY AGENCIES. ASG 09 PHASE II CROWN CASTLE PROJECT NO. 242727 CLIENT: 400*4 CROWN CCCASTLE 200 SPECTRUM CENTER DRIVE, 18'" FLOOR IRVINE, CA 92618 www.crowncaeHe.com PREPARED BY: Communications 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 929-0910 FAX: (760) 929-0936 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. 1-800-227-2600 CALL AT TWO WO DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # CITY REDLINE 11/09/15 MOVED CISH AND CAN PEDESTAL 7/11/17 REVISION/ISSUE DATE SITE NAME & ADDRESS: ASG09 30462 CAMINO PORVENIR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA DETAILS & NOTES DRAWNBY: I DRAFTDATE I APPROVEDBY: AC 10/07/15 GA SHEET NO. D-1 Electrical Power Supply 1 Mains Power, Vac. ...................................... 85 to 264 ......................................115 or 230 Power consumption, watts ......................................1150 42 Optical 36 Connectors.............................................................. E2000/APC 8° Optical return loss, dB ............................................. 45 minimum Fiber type, mm..........................................................Single mode E9/125 Optical link budget, dB ............................................. 0 to 10 Composite input power 36 @ OTRx master side, dBm 45 1900 MHz.....................+5 composite 1700 / 2100 MHz.......... +5 composite Interface LTE 45 42** BTS Side Number of connectors 1900 MHz .....................4 1700/2100 MHz ............4 System optimized for BTS power, dBm .......................................33 .......................................43 Antenna Port Connector .......................................7/16 Female Output power .......................................See band specification Return loss, dB .............._.............___.... 15 1700/2100 MHz (AWS) Frequency range, MHz Uplink............................1710 to 1755 Downlink ........................2110 to 2155 Output power per carrier, dBm* Number of Carriers 1 2 4 8 GSM 45 42 39 36 CDMA 45 42 39 36 UMTS 45 42 39 36 LTE 45 42** 39 36 Spurious emission .............................................. LTE 45 42** 39 <-13 dBm / 1 MHz Adjacent channel power, dBc................... ................... _-48 DL output tolerance over frequency, dB ............................±1 DL output tolerance over temperature, dB..........................0.5*"* Input ICP3, dBm ICP3 optimized .............................. -12 Noise figure optimized .............................. -18 Noise figure, dB ICP3 optimized .............................. 7 .... 11 max. Noise figure optimized .............................. 4.5 .............................. 6 max. 1900 MHz (AWS) Commands...............................RF Frequency range, MHz External control parts Uplink............................1850 to 1915 Downlink ........................1930 ...............................Optical to 1995 Output power per carrier, dBm* Supervision ...............................Output Number of Carriers 1 2 4 8 GSM 45 42 39 36 CDMA 45 42 39 36 UMTS 45 4239 (32.2x9.61 x8.6) 36 LTE 45 42** 39 36 Spurious emission .............................................. <-13 dBm / 1 MHz DL output tolerance over frequency, dB ............................ x1 DL output tolerance over temperature, dB..........................0.5*** FOUNDATION Input ICP3, dBm • e. • ICP3 optimized .............................. -12 Noise figure optimized .............................. -18 Noise figure, dB ICP3 optimized .............................. 7 .............................. 11 max. Noise figure optimized .............................. 4.5 .............................. 6 max. System Supervision and Control Commands...............................RF on/off External control parts Alarms ...............................Summary ...............................Power Supply ...............................Optical UL and DL failure ...............................Temperature Supervision ...............................Output power on a per - channel and per -band TYCO No. 83749-1, basis (optional) Mechanical`*** OR EQUAL Height, width, depth mm (in) ...............................817 x 245 x 218 #5 (5/8" X 8') COPPER (32.2x9.61 x8.6) Weight, kg (lb) ..............................40 (88.2) Environmental Operation temperature range ............................ -33° C to +50° C Ingress protection RF part ...................IP67 Fan part ................. IP55 * Applicable to single modulation mode only ** 3db power reduction @ < 5MHz carrier bandwith *** With active cooling **** Spacing required 40 mm (1.58 in) around unit **** With passive cooling maximum temperature +40" C All figures are typical values. Side CISH -51 PEDESTAL SIDE VIEW FRONT VIEW SIDE VIEW 22.5 �- - 49.0 59.1 ZQ 0 CO) (9—) ° @ O 10.1 00 L-001 12.6 �-22.5 NOTES: CUBE APPROX. WEIGHT W/PEDESTAL = 105 LBS SCALE *ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED. 2 N.T.S. ANDREW I0N-M17HP/19HP MULTI -BAND, MULTI -OPERATOR REMOTE OPTICAL SYSTEM Front M Side � 1 ASG09 PHASE H CROWN CASTLE PROTECT NO. 242727 C'I HAT. CROWN CASTLE 200 SPECTRUM CENTER DRIVE, 18" FLOOR IRVINE, CA 926t8 www.crowncasHe.com PREPARED BY: Communications 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 929-0910 FAX: (760) 929-0936 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. 1-800-227-2600 CALL AT LEAST TWO DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # CITY REDLINE 11/09/15 MOVED CISH AND CAN PEDESTAL 7/11/17 REVISION IISSUE DATE SITE NAME & ADDRESS: ASGO9 30462 CAMINO PORVENIR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA DETAILS & NOTES DRAWN BY: DRAFT DATE: APPROVEDBY: AC 10/07/15 GA SKEET NO. D-2 J STEEL POLE I FINISH GRADE BAREN Cu GROUND �• CONDUCTOR Cu GROUND CLAMP FCI No. GBL3-T8, TYCO No. 83749-1, OR EQUAL #5 (5/8" X 8') COPPER CLAD GROUND ELECTRODE o CONCRETE FOUNDATION • e. • 3 SCALE N.T.S. � 1 ASG09 PHASE H CROWN CASTLE PROTECT NO. 242727 C'I HAT. CROWN CASTLE 200 SPECTRUM CENTER DRIVE, 18" FLOOR IRVINE, CA 926t8 www.crowncasHe.com PREPARED BY: Communications 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 929-0910 FAX: (760) 929-0936 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. 1-800-227-2600 CALL AT LEAST TWO DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # CITY REDLINE 11/09/15 MOVED CISH AND CAN PEDESTAL 7/11/17 REVISION IISSUE DATE SITE NAME & ADDRESS: ASGO9 30462 CAMINO PORVENIR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA DETAILS & NOTES DRAWN BY: DRAFT DATE: APPROVEDBY: AC 10/07/15 GA SKEET NO. D-2 J ASG09 PHASE II CROWN CASTLE PROTECT NO. 242727 (III NT CROWN CASTLE 200 SPECTRUM CENTER DRIVE, 18" FLOOR IRVINE, CA 92618 www.ccOwncastle.c0m PREPARED BY: 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 929-0910 FAX: (760) 929-0936 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED, 1-800-221-2600 CALL AT LEAST TWO DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # CITY REDLINE 11/09/15 MOVED CISH AND CAN PEDESTAL 7/11/17 REVISION/ISSUE DATE SITE NAME & ADDRESS: ASG09 30462 CAMINO PORVENIR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA DETAILS & NOTES DRAWN BY: I DRAFT DATE: APPROVEDBY: AC 10/07/15 GA SHEETNO. D-3 HPA-65F-BUU-H2 MBK -03 SQUARE D BY SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC LOAD CENTER, 70A (MODEL#Q024L70RB) ® ^J Mc�hanical Weight 9.B Iba M.4 kgl H',n9e P;t<n v,nla3o mrry TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS -- Mqurling Pole Dlmeruian 2to sin6to 12 cml AMPERE RATING 70A ° Fastenersize Mt0 MAXIMUM SINGLE POLE CIRCUITS 4 „ I,n Ilatgn Tgrque 20tt,ds(27Nm) WIDTH 4.88 NICHES Me<Yanical Tlh Adi'�rment o' 12' APPLICATION DESIGNED TO MEET RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL REQUIREMENTS TO PROTECT ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS, EQUIPMENT AND PEOPLE. zx b° SPACES WIRESIZE 2 #12TO3AWG(AL)-#14TO4AWG(CU) pxu axxiy,a.mwu"u n<w.rnK aar.,a. 4824-894 ram mo-axoenx. MAXIMUM TANDEM CIRCUIT BREAKERS 2 Frequenry Range 698L 806 MHz MHz 1850-1990 MHz 1]30-1]55/2110-2t]C MHz 2305-2360 MH: VOLTAGE RATING 1201240VAC Gain 10.0 dill, 10.SdB1 12.8 dei 126dB. 13.6 dB1 14.0 d8i '?•' WIRING CONFIGURATION 3 -WIRE Azimuth eeamwiam 1-3de) 65° 64° 66° 60° S9° PHASE 1 -PHASE Elevation Beamwidth l-3dB) 400° 35.8° 17.5° 17.8° 15.8° 14.3° 119111t DEPTH 4.00 INCHES Electrical Down tilt 4° 4° Y 3° 3° r HEIGHT 9.381NICHES Elevation Sldelobes(1st Upper) <-15 dB <-13 dB <-13dB <-17,18 <-13 dB <-17dB MBK-o3Tev Adiastable Brr let MBK--opAdiustable13-115-- BUS MATERIAL TIN PLATED ALUMINUM Front -to -Back Ratio @L180. >28 dB >30 dB >30 dB >3DdB >30dP COVER TYPE SURFACE _>28dB Cross -Polar Port -to -Port lsolatlon >20 dB >20 dB >23 tlB >23 de - >23 tlB >2.-)00 -- CATALOG REFERENCE NUMBER ENCLOSURE TYPE 1100CT9901 OUTDOOR/RAINPROOF Voltage Standing Wave Ratio NSWF0 <15:1 <1.51<1.51 <1.5:1 <15.1 <15:1 ENCLOSURE RATING NEMA3R Passive lntermodulation(2x20W) <---150 dBc_ <--15C d8c _ <--15C clic '--150 dBc S-150 d8c 5-150 ck GROUNDING BAR ORDER SEPARATELY Input Power Contlnuous Wave (CW) 500- Sao watts 300watts 300 watts 300 watts 300watu APPROVALS UL LISTED PoWi.ation Dual Po145° Dual Poll 45° D -t Pa4S°__ Dualrol45° Daal Pol4V Dwl Pol 45° SHORT CIRCUIT CURRENT RATING 1OKA _ inpualmPedanca 50 ohms SDohms 50 ohm< 50 ohms _ SO ohms 50 "nms MAIN TYPE FIXED- FACTORY INSTALLED MAIN LUGS Lightning Protection DC (:round DCC,.- D(. Gmurxl Dc G'. M D-. Qrmnxl DC C -,nn MBK -03 B�twm Fue]Brack¢t SHIPPING AND ORDERING Mechanical CATEGORY 00101 - LOAD CENTERS, 1 PHASE, NEMAI & 3R, 2 - 8 Dimers ora RU,WxD) 214x11,4x7.3 in(544x366,185 mmi CIRCUIT, TYPE QO Sun9val Wind Speed > LO mph(> 241 kph) DISCOUNT SCHEDULEDE ARTICLE NUMBER 3A 785901785132 Front Wind Load 66 lbs (293 NI @ 100 mph (161 kph) Pars & Accessories PACKAGE QUANTITY 1 Side Wind Load 34 Ips (150 W at 100 mph (161 kohl _ Model number MBK -03 WEIGHT 5 LBS. Equivalent Flat Plate Area 2.6 V (0.2 mal Overall Weigh[ 9.81bs (4.4 kg) AVAILABILITY CODE S Weight -U3.2 ms (6.9�k 1 - RETURNABILITY Y C,,._, 6 x 7-16 DIN female long neck Mounting Pole 2. n(51o12-0 w^^ SCALE 4 SCALE $ SCALE 6 N.T.S. N.T.S. POWER METER NEW CONCRETE POLE DETAIL 8" 4 3/4" c D / O O O 00 00 12' ELEVATION SLOTTED BASE SHAFT CROSS SEE RECOMMENDED PLATE / SECTION DETAIL "CAPPING DETAILS" / nAn UL APPROVED ONLY CATALOG POLE BASE ANCHOR BOLT BASE MAXIMUM ULTIMATE WEIGHT 1" 0 BOTTOM "A" EPA /MPH (SQ. FT.) KNOCK OUT NUMBER HEIGHT O.D. BOLT CIRCLE PLATE (SQ) G.L. MOMENT (FT. LBS.) (LBS.) 80 90 100 NOTES: 1 C1-16 16' 3" 7 -3/4" 1" X 36" X 4" 12 -1/2" 12" 17,000 560 14.0 10.0 7.5 1. TOP KNOCK OUT WITH LIQUID FLEX 45° AND STRAIGHT CONNECTORS AVAILABLE TO POWER UTILITY CREW 1 C1-17 17' 9" 1" X 36" X 4" 12 12" 1$,400 530 14.0 10.0 7.5 CONNECTION. 7 -7/$" -1/2" 2. BOTTOM KNOCK OUT FOR CONNECTING TO CUSTOMER FUSE DISCONNECT BOX. 1 Cil -19. 19' 6" $" 1 ° X 36" X 4° 12 -1/2" 12" 20,000 720 13.0 9.0 7.0 3. HEIGHT MAY BE DETERMINED BY POWER UTILITY. lC1-20 20'9" 8-14" 1"X36"X4" 12-1/2" 12" 21,200 800 13.0 9.0 7.0 1 C1-23 23' 3" 8 -3/8" 1" X 36" X 4" 12 -1/2" 12" 22,200 940 13.0 9.0 6.0 PARTS LIST LLOUT QTY DESCRIPTION ICALLOUTIQTYI DESC. 1 C1-25 25' 9" 8 -3/4" 1" X 36" X 4" 12 -1/2" 12" 25,400 1,030 12.5 8.5 5.5 A I T# PHASE B T MErnu,c FLE c ,TIIGUI 1 C1-28 28' 3" 9" 1" X 36" X 4" 12 -1/2" 12" 27,400 1,240 10.5 6.5 3.5 C 1 1" LI U,DT,GHT CONNECTOR STR POINT D ,o TIGHT CONNECTOR. 45' 1 C1-29 29' 3" 9 -1/8" 1" X 36" X 4" 12 -1/2" 12" 28,100 1,290 10.0 6.5 3.0 E 2 - F 2 5116" LOCK WASHER - STAINLESSSTEEL SCALE % 1C1-40 40'3" 10-1/4" 1-1 /4"X44"X4" 14" 14" 38,200 2,090 5.0 1.0 - g SCALE N.T.S. 6" U - STAINLESS EEL N.T.S. ASG09 PHASE II CROWN CASTLE PROTECT NO. 242727 (III NT CROWN CASTLE 200 SPECTRUM CENTER DRIVE, 18" FLOOR IRVINE, CA 92618 www.ccOwncastle.c0m PREPARED BY: 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 929-0910 FAX: (760) 929-0936 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED, 1-800-221-2600 CALL AT LEAST TWO DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # CITY REDLINE 11/09/15 MOVED CISH AND CAN PEDESTAL 7/11/17 REVISION/ISSUE DATE SITE NAME & ADDRESS: ASG09 30462 CAMINO PORVENIR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA DETAILS & NOTES DRAWN BY: I DRAFT DATE: APPROVEDBY: AC 10/07/15 GA SHEETNO. D-3 ASG09 PHASE II CROWN CASTLE PROTECT NO. 242727 c I.I PU T: CROWN CASTLE 200 SPECTRUM CENTER DRIVE, 18" FLOOR IRVINE, CA 92618 www.ccowncastle.com PREPARED BY: 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 929-0910 FAX: (760) 929-0936 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFmENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED, 1-800-227-2600 CALL AT LEAST TWO DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # CITY REDLINE 1115 MOVED CISH AND CAN PEDESTAL 7/11/17 REVISION/ISSUE DATE SITE NAME & ADDRESS: ASG09 30462 CAMINO PORVENIR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA DETAILS =NOTES DRAWN BY: I DRAFT DATE: APPROVEDBY: AC 10/07/15 GA SHEETNO. D-4 GROUND ROD: G1 GROUND ROD SHALL BE MINIMUM NEW POLE FOUNDATION IN DIRT - PRIVATE 0.625" DIA. x 9' LONG. COPPER CLAD. G2 MINIMUM 3" EXPOSURE AT TOP OF TYPICAL SECTION FOUNDATION WITHIN BOLT CIRCLE. (N.T.S.) NOT TO SCALE ANCHOR BOLTS: Al ANCHOR BOLTS SHALL BE 4-1" DIAMETER. AS GIVEN IN SPECIFICATIONS ASTM A449. 24" ROUND 3 �® A2 BOLT CIRCLE DIAMETER TO MATCH POLE BASEPLATE. GROUND LEVEL A3 ANCHOR BOLTS SHALL HAVE HEADS, OR 6" MAX. NUTS WITH THE THREADS STAKED AT CKFILL • TWO PLACES BELOW THE NUT, - EMBEDDED IN FOUNDATION. A4 ANCHOR BOLTS SHALL BE EMBEDDED 33" MINIMUM, BELOW STREET GRADE (63" EMBEDMENT IN CONCRETE). AS BOLT PROJECTION AS RECOMMENDED BY THE MANUFACTURER. NOTE: 33" MIN. ANCHOR BOLTS TO BE CONDUIT: SUPPLIED BY POLE MANUFACTURER Cl CONDUIT SHALL BE RIGID STEEL. o(l)-PVLC'CONDUT GALVANIZED, INSIDE THE FOUNDATION, R WITH 6" MINIMUM STUB -OUT. 36" MINIMUM BURIAL 42" MAXIMUM BURIAL C2 SERVICE AND FEED CONDUITS SHALL BE RGS OR SCH 80 PVC, AS REQUIRED. F3 C1 ® C3 STUB UP TO WITHIN 4" FROM HAND NATIVE SOIL HOLE. 4 CONNECTOR REINFORCEMENT: R1 VERTICAL REBAR SHALL BE (7) #6 EQUALLY SPACED INSIDE OF HOOPS. F4 R R2 HOOPS SHALL BE #4 X 18" I.D., SPACED POUR FOOTING 4" O/C FROM TOP OF FOUNDATION TO INSTALLATION NOTES: AGAINST END OF ANCHOR BOLTS. UNDISTURBED R3 SPACED HOOPS "MIN. FROM TH ANCHOR BOLTS TO -CUT 6" MAX. WIDTH X 33" + DEPTH TRENCH 3" MATERIAL BOTTOM OF FOUNDATION. -BACKFILL WITH THE ORIGINAL MATERIAL FROM THE CLR 30" ROUND CONCRETE TO R4 ALL REBAR SHALL HAVE 3" MINIMUM TRENCH TYP ROUND PIER BE32/50 MIX COVERING. -RESTORE THE SURFACE F3 5' DEPTH F4 2' DEPTH SCALE 5 L SCALE 6 N T.S. N.T.S. ASG09 PHASE II CROWN CASTLE PROTECT NO. 242727 c I.I PU T: CROWN CASTLE 200 SPECTRUM CENTER DRIVE, 18" FLOOR IRVINE, CA 92618 www.ccowncastle.com PREPARED BY: 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 929-0910 FAX: (760) 929-0936 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFmENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED, 1-800-227-2600 CALL AT LEAST TWO DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # CITY REDLINE 1115 MOVED CISH AND CAN PEDESTAL 7/11/17 REVISION/ISSUE DATE SITE NAME & ADDRESS: ASG09 30462 CAMINO PORVENIR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA DETAILS =NOTES DRAWN BY: I DRAFT DATE: APPROVEDBY: AC 10/07/15 GA SHEETNO. D-4 ASG09 PHASE II CROWN CASTLE PROTECT NO. 242727 (I.II: NT: CROWN CASTLE 200 SPECTRUM CENTER DRIVE, 18" FLOOR IRVINE, CA 92618 www.crowncastle.com PREPARED BY: 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 929-0910 FAX: (760) 929-0936 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFmENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED, 1-800-227-2600 CALL AT LEAST TWO DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # CITY REDLINE 11/09/15 MOVED CISH AND CAN PEDESTAL 7/11/17 REVISION/ISSUE DATE SITE NAME & ADDRESS: ASG09 30462 CAMINO PORVENIR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA DETAILS =NOTES DRAWN BY: I DRAFT DATE: APPROVEDBY: AC 10/07/15 GA SHEETNO. D-5 SPECIFICATIONS ION-M7HP/85HP EU - Product Specification SPECIFICATIONS ION-M7HP/85HP EU - Product Specification Electrical System Supervision and Control NNW Mains power, Vac Input ICP3, dBm*** Commands RF on/off nominal 100 to 240 ICP3 optimized ... .....11 min. operating .. ......... 85 to 264 Noise figure optimized. .. -I8 min. Alarms Summary ... Power Supply Mains power, Vdc Noise figure, dB*** m - nominal .............. 48 to 60 ICP3 optimized .. 10 max. RF UL and Dl failure operating ......... _ .. 36 to 72 Noise figure optimized ... 6.0 max. Temperature Power consumption, W ..... 5.0 typical Su ervision � � � . ... . . Composite output max. temp., fully loaded 900 power room temp., idle .... ... 380 850 MHz Mechanical` Frequency range, MHz Height, width, depth, mm (in) Optical Link Uplink 824 to 849 ACVenion .......... . 817 x 245 x 218 Downlink 869 to 894 (32.2 x 9.6 x 8.6) Connectors E2000/0 8° Output power per carrier, dBm* DC Version ............ 1053 x 245 x 218 Cabinet of ION-M7HP/85HP Extension Unit (AC Version) Optical return loss,. dB 45 (41.5 x 9.6 x 8.6) Number of Carriers 1 2 4 8 Fibre type Single mode E9/125 Pm Analog 45,5 42:5 39.5 36,5 Weight, kg (Ib)..... ..40 (88.2) Optical link budget, dB Oto 10 GSM 45.5 CDMA 45.5 42.5 39.5 42.5 39,5 36.5 36.5 Environmental Composite input power � OTRx master side, dBm LTE 45.5 42.5 39.5 36.5 Operating temperature range, °C....... _ ... -33 to +50 700 MHz minimum......... , . -16.5 UMTS 45 42 39 36 nominal .......... 5.5 Ingress protection DL output tolerance over frequency, dB......... ±1 RF pan _ . _ ..... IP61 850 MHz minimum.......... -16.5 DL output tolerance over temperature, dB ... .. - ±0.5 Fan part .. _ ..... I1`55 nominal ...... .. 5.5 Spurious emission ............ <-13 dBm /1 MHz Ordering Information Input ICP3, dBm*** ION-M7HP/85HP EU ... ....... . 1693966'* RF Interface ICP3 optimized .... ....11 min. Noise figure optimized . -18 min. Depending on the selected options and the configuration the ordering material number contains BTS Side (SMA) an identifying suffix. Number of connectors Standard Noise figure, dB*** 100 MHz 4 ICP3 optimized .. 10 max. Corresponding Main Unit �kp kk'NN 650 MHz _ . 4 Noise figure optimized . - 6 max. 5typical ION-M17HP/19HP ..........1631412** System optimized for BTS power, dBm Corresponding Master Unit OTRx 33 43 OTRx70-85/90/17-21 ....7604304-M ML=M Remote Unit antenna port t4 Connectors ........... 7/16 Female Return loss, dB ... 15 Q � Spacing required 40 mm 0.58 in) around unit Subpopulations possible 700 MHz All figures are typical values, unless otherwise stated. Cabinet of ION-M7HP/85HP Extension Unit (DC Version) Frequency range, MHz Uplink . ....... 698 to 716/776 to 787 Downlink, 728 to 757 Output power per carrier, dBm* Number of Carriers 1 2 4 8 LTE 45.5 425** 39.5 36.5 DL output tolerance over frequency, dB......... 11 DL output tolerance over temperature, dB ........ ±0.5. PAR.7.5 dBt Ol/ Spurious emission ... ....... ... <-13 dBm / I MHz ** 2 A power reduction @ < 5 MHz carrier bandwidth ** from reference point BtoA Spurious emission into Public Safety Narrowband ... <46 dim / 6.25 kHz All figures are typical values unless otherwise stated SCALE 6 N.T.S. ASG09 PHASE II CROWN CASTLE PROTECT NO. 242727 (I.II: NT: CROWN CASTLE 200 SPECTRUM CENTER DRIVE, 18" FLOOR IRVINE, CA 92618 www.crowncastle.com PREPARED BY: 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 929-0910 FAX: (760) 929-0936 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFmENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED, 1-800-227-2600 CALL AT LEAST TWO DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # CITY REDLINE 11/09/15 MOVED CISH AND CAN PEDESTAL 7/11/17 REVISION/ISSUE DATE SITE NAME & ADDRESS: ASG09 30462 CAMINO PORVENIR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA DETAILS =NOTES DRAWN BY: I DRAFT DATE: APPROVEDBY: AC 10/07/15 GA SHEETNO. D-5 ASG 09 PHASE II CROWN CASTLE PROJECT NO. 242727 1IFNT CROWN CASTLE 200 SPECTRUM CENTER DRIVE, 18" FLOOR IRVINE, CA 92618 www.crowncasHe com PREPAREDBY: Communications Telecommunications Engineering 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 929-0910 FAX: (760) 929-0936 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. ----------- ]DI W. 7 g 1100-211-20. LL AT ST TWO BEFORE U DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # CITY REDLINE 11/09/15 MOVED CISH AND CAN PEDESTAL 7/11/17 REVISION/ISSUE DATE SITE NAME & ADDRESS: ASG09 30462 CAMINO PORVENIR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA SITE PHOTOS DRAWN BY: I DRAJTDATE: APPROVED BY: AC 10/07/15 GA SHEET NO. S-1 .. 77 Ak r i SITE LOCATION / t III \_ – - II #- I■■■ ■■■■— — _- Mw 17� Soon ` _ •\ �J0 ..(' r.f - .yam _ Q� A KEY MAP B 12 O'CLOCK VIEW- FROM THE NORTHWEST will 1 son a Y� C 3 O'CLOCK VIEW- FROM THE NORTHEAST D 9 O'CLOCK VIEW- FROM THE SOUTHWEST ASG 09 PHASE II CROWN CASTLE PROJECT NO. 242727 1IFNT CROWN CASTLE 200 SPECTRUM CENTER DRIVE, 18" FLOOR IRVINE, CA 92618 www.crowncasHe com PREPAREDBY: Communications Telecommunications Engineering 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 929-0910 FAX: (760) 929-0936 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. ----------- ]DI W. 7 g 1100-211-20. LL AT ST TWO BEFORE U DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # CITY REDLINE 11/09/15 MOVED CISH AND CAN PEDESTAL 7/11/17 REVISION/ISSUE DATE SITE NAME & ADDRESS: ASG09 30462 CAMINO PORVENIR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA SITE PHOTOS DRAWN BY: I DRAJTDATE: APPROVED BY: AC 10/07/15 GA SHEET NO. S-1 Top of Antenna 23'0" (1 Existing Site v 7J O m U r Cm ASG09 �5 Q 05,e Gan Vicinity Map LOOKING EAST Proposed Site ASG09 CROWN CASTLE R9 ASG09 PIIA51i II CRU W N CASTLL PRDJL'C T NU. 242727 CLIENT: CROWN ... CASTLE 200 SPECTRUM CENTER DRIVE, W' FLOOR IRVINE, CA 92618 www.crowncastle.com �r PREPARED BY. .®. Communications Te1,Rica1l , E,,g— n g 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 929-0910 FAX: (760) 929-0936 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. 1-800-227-2600 CALL AT TWO WO DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # CITY REDLINE I 11/09/15 MOVED CISH AND CAN PEDESTAL 1 7/11/17 REVISION/ISSUE DATE SITE NAME & ADDRESS: ASG09 30462 CAMINO PORVENIR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA PHOTOSIM DRAWNRY' I DRAFTDATE: APPROVED BY: AC 10/07/15 GA SHEET NO. /'/� S NEW CONSTRUCTION • DECOMMISSION & REMOVE EXISTING 24'0" HIGH MARBELITE OCTAGONAL STREETLIGHT (POLE • EQUIPMENT AND ANTENNAS TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH POLE. ID #1983568E) AND REPLACE WITH ANEW 24' 0" HIGH MARBELITE OCTAGONAL CONCRETE 100AMP PANEL STREETLIGHT WITH MAST ARM AND LUMINARE (REMOVE EXISTING JUNIPER). 120/240V 1PHASE • INSTALL CISH -51 PEDESTAL WITH SIDE MOUNT METER & POWER DISCONNECT WITH (2) ML 1 A KW OTON IONS INSIDE. 3787 1/2 CREST RD • INSTALL (2) 21.4" ANTENNAS #HPA-65F-BUU-H2 WITH MOUNTING BRACKET #MBK -03. RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90274 • INSTALL VGR. NODE COORDINATE LATITUDE: 33.75670 LONGITUDE: -118.40196 NORTH 4 SCALE: V= 40' FOOTAGE TOTALS ASPHALT TRENCH 0 PUNCH THRU 0 DIRT TRENCH 3' BORE 0' TOTAL 3' R&R TOTAL SWP 1 50 SQ. FT. / 12' 58' V 34' 12' Q CAMINO PORVENIR STA. 100 + 00 Io v EDGE OF DRIVEWAY STA. 100 + 00 h i�o pk INSTALL CISH -51 PEDESTAL WITH SIDE MOUNT METER & 100 2 (5 g O.C.)WER DISCONNECT 99E I 85 (SEE DETAILS 1 INSIDE &2 ON SHEET D-2, DETAILS 6 & 7 ON D-3 & 10 ON D-5) 701'F�gY 7 9Xu'q�� C 00 R&R 5'X 10' SIDEWALK PANEL T DIRT TRENCH \ A N'g`� (SEE DETAIL 6 ON SHEET D-4) \ �O 99 OQ�� S� iiST 34' '9�'�'c 58' \xl 2 12' G� SITE LOCATION INSTALL NEW 24'0" HIGH MARBELITE OCTAGONAL CONCRETE STREETLIGHT POLE (6' B.O.C.) (REMOVE EXISTING JUNIPER) 30452 CAMINO PORVENIR STA. 99 + 82 DECOMMISSION & REMOVE EXISTING MARBELITE OCTAGONAL CONCRETE STREETLIGHT (POLE ID #1983568E) (6B.O.C.) STA. 99 + 80 ASG 09 PHASE II CROWN CASTLE PROJECT NO. 242727 III NT CROWN v CASTLE 200 SPECTRUM CENTER DRIVE, 18" FLOOR IRVINE, CA 92618 W W W.�"nWB�Eae.�o�N PRBPARED BY: Communications Telecommunicarions HngLi—mg 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 929-0911) FAX: (760) 929-0936 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. DIRT 7g 1_800-227-2600 CALL AT LEAST TWO DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET # CITY REDLINE 11/09/15 MOVED CISH AND CATV PEDESTAL 7/11/17 REVISIONIISSUE DATE SII F NAII'IE& ADDRESS: ASG09 30462 CAMINO PORVENIR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA SITE PLAN DRAWN BY I DRAFTDATE APPROVED BY AC 10/07/15 GA SIIEEP NO. 1 P I A ANTENNA DETAILS SCALE: 1:5 B 1 12 O'CLOCK VIEW SCALE: 1:5 B 3 O'CLOCK VIEW SCALE: 1:5 J� c� QO �� O � LUMINARE INSTALL MAST ARM TOP OF POLE AT 24'0" TOP OF POLE AT 24'0" AND LUMINARE INSTALL MAST ARM INSTALL MAST ARM #HPA-65F-BUU-H2 ANTENNAS AND LUMINARE AND LUMINARE AZIMUTH: 350° INSTALL (2) 21.4" ANTENNAS INSTALL (2) 21.4" ANTENNAS #HPA-65F-BUU-H2 #HPA-65F-BUU-H2 WITH MOUNTING BRACKET #MBK -03 WITH MOUNTING BRACKET #MBK -03 (SEE DETAILS 1 & 2 ON SHEET D-2) (SEE DETAILS 1 & 2 ON SHEET D-2) TOP OF TOP OF 07' ANTENNA ANTENNA NEW 17'0" HIGH MARBELITE 23'0" 23-0" OCTAGONAL CONCRETE RAD RAD = CENTER CENTER H 22'1-112" 22'1-1/2" ry #HPA-65F-BUU-H2 ANTENNAS z z AZIMUTH: 350° 01 DECOMMISSION & REMOVE EXISTING 17'0" HIGH FIBERGLASS ROUND STREET LIGHT (POLE ID #4254409E) AND REPLACE WITH NEW 17'0" HIGH 90o MARBELITE OCTAGONAL CONCRETE DECOMMISSION & REMOVE EXISTING 17'0" HIGH FIBERGLASS ROUND STREET LIGHT (POLE ID #4254409E) NOTES: STREETLIGHT #1983568E AND REPLACE WITH NEW 17'0" HIGH TOP OF EXISTING POLE: 24'0" MARBELITE OCTAGONAL CONCRETE TOP OF NEW POLE: 24' 0" TOP OF ANTENNA: 23'0" RAD CENTER: 22'1-12" AZIMUTHS: 350° & 230° 07" 07" EQUIPMENT AND ANTENNAS TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH POLE. GROUND LEVEL GROUND LINE ASPHALT INSTALL VGR (SEE DETAIL 5 ON SHEET D-2)E&IVNSTALL VGR (SEE DETAIL 5 ON SHEET D-2) \ ASG09 PHASE H CROWN CASTLE PROJECT NO. 242727 C I.II:NT CROWN v CASTLE 200 SPECTRUM CENTER DRIVE, I8' FLOOR IRVINE. CA 92618 www.cr"wncaeHe.c"m PREPARED BY: Communications Telecom --tions Eng—eying 5841 EDISON PLACE, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 929-0911) FAX: (760) 929-0936 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL TO AT&T. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO AT&T IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. DIWRT 7� 1-800-227-2600 CALL AT LEAST TWO 0 DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UN DFAGROUND SERVICE ALERT TICKET e CITY REDLINE 11/09/15 MOVED CISH AND CATV PEDESTAL 7/11/17 REVISION!IIIIE DATF. SITE NAME & ADDRESS: ASG09 30462 CAMINO PORVENIR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA POLE PROFILE DRAWN -I -AlTDATI I A11111111]AC 10/07/15 GA LIJIFEL PSL.. EXHIBIT B ASG09 30452 CAMINO PORVENIR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA @2016 Google Maps CROWN CASTLE ST FROM CAMINO PORVENIR tri r f. ti ASG09 30452 CAMINO PORVENIR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA @2016 Google Maps CROWN CASTLE ST FROM CAMINO PORVENIR VISA y co A - w t LOCAT' PROPOSED Ii! 'WIT, • B a ►j �,' f i ;�1■icy` .. �� ' �.�� - -.. Locar EXISTIN • ' ` s1s.. . "•rte i AI ASG09 30452 CAMINO PORVENIR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA ro CROWN CASTLE LOOKING NORTHEAST FROM CAMINO PORVENIR @2016 Google Mops LOOKING NORTHEAST FROM CAMINO PORVENIR EXHIBIT C 0 mqlelllwa 30452 CAMINO PORVENIR RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA @2016 C."le Maps CROWN CASTLE rl LOOKING SOUTHEAST FROM CAMINO RORVENIR iL! PROPOSED S EXHIBIT D GROWN CASTLE ASGog Wireless Facility Proposal 8/30/2017 The Foundation for a Wireless World. Significant Gap Analysis ASGog-Camino Porvenir Proposed Locations 'Jo Viable *Failed Existing Wireless Comm. Facilities Existing AT&T Nodes LTE RSR]P igoo MHz 0 -R5 to 0 dBm 75 to 65 dBm to -75 dBm • 55 to -85 dB,, CASGO9 JJAS 09 C IffAS 09 9 (',:•AS 9 A • OkSGO • • rivOrRoute A. ,,Orr CCFKMN Proprietary & C CAME Confidential 1 2 • Y' At 4 � 0 r 11...., m l ASd69 Location E ,ASG09 Loc Rion C tl /,,ASG09 Location B r� ASG09 Lacat on5A s + ASG nocaiion D I, . GoOglr Least Intrusive Analysis ASGo9-Camino Porvenir Before and After Photo Simulations Him CFKMN Proprietary & CASTLE Confidential 1 4 Staff and RF Consultant Reports Summary ASGog-Camino Porvenir Staff Report - "no view impact per RPVMC or cumulative visual impact per Ordinance No 58o" "does not obstruct the publics' use of the ROW, constitute a safety hazard or interfere with the city defined intersection visability triangle" "least instrusive design configuration -meets the stated RF coverage objective" "conclusion -there are limited commercial zones and collector/ arterial roads in the city, in order to provide coverage, its necessary to locate within the ROW of local streets" RF Consultant Report - "proposed site location--122DBM-a level so low I was unable to connect to the network and either upload or download data" "signal levels are lower than industry standards" "gap in coverage, use of multiple cell sites during testing -dropped calls, minimal data use if connections are able to be maintained -especially along Camino Porvenir" CRWN Proprietary & me CASTLE Confidential 5 GROWN CASTLE ASGog and ASGio Coverage Analysis The Foundation for a Wireless World. ASGo9 Cover Objective and ASG10 Coverage - igoo MHz r �' •• Proposed Locations •i • Mable ��i+ ••+••+• Feilc-d Existing Wireless Communications Facilities *+•# Existing AT&T Sites r #•i •• *; • LTE RSRP igoo MHz y _ -85 to 9 + IiiW-75 [o £5 ++%W& 111 % • •rft -OS to -75 _ -95 to AS _ -105 to 95 _-120 W -195 #CAWLE Confidential 1 7 ASG10 Coverage Objective and ASGo9 Coverage - igoo MHz *+ •r••% •• * r ■ . r + tf + .�.� • 1 ;. '':fir ■ ., a N + e ! * ■} i t +0..& * , •r, ,� r • • .� � i + r "rte r ascIa �..•�` �� ` ua ,i.t Monaco % Jr + + �t F • 1 �� •, • �■ �y Proposed Locations r 'r • �• + � Mable Feilc-d Existing Wireless Communications Facilities Got- )OPipililp Existing AT&T Sites dill Courw • LTE RSRP igoo MHz sd■+ + r■i�'+ls. . -85 to a r * $ •. + + �� F -75 m -6s •.• r + +_ S • -95 to A5 • •�•+! _-105 to 55. • e +` _-120 is -105 r T *w# GANTLE Confidential 1 8 GROWN CASTLE ASG32 Wireless Facility Proposal 8/30/2017 The Foundation for a Wireless World. Significant Gap Analysis ASG32-Scottwood Dr @ Whitley Collins CFKMN Proprietary & CAME Confidential 1 10 ,r M. r w e'Tndwo • dad,. 0.0. X.Iw< mol ..... ..... iv, rive Route 4% ASG32 8 ASG32 C I @S ASG3�G32 A John S,Proposed Locations UVable *Failed Existing Wireless Comm. Facilities % Existing AT&T Nodes sa"J., W RSRP (1900 MHz) 65 to 0 dEm -75 to -Bb dBm 85 to dBm :75 • :95 to 85 dBm CFKMN Proprietary & CAME Confidential 1 10 4 ., � T _- SAS! • . .mss �^ •i ...i �. ,r �e� �r, arth,f" 17 fl y X2415 Goo ie � :—p'y 9ale'. T?12p16 M 1994 lal 37762578`Ion-1183749B2"elev 12161[ Eye ail 3161110 T IN s A )"4 a e y ;" • -A'. ice" li. � =*� 7� � � '� �z+ � v°- I r •Wd '+� r mss_ e Vii: "•,.4 ' - ._r Iv ., T , d ry _ L'.. ..:.i 1: � .• - ° !a te to + + • � + I �. is F w r 7 ' Staff and RF Consultant Reports Summary ASG32-Scottwood @Whitley Collins Staff Report - "no view impact per RPVMC or cumulative visual impact per Ordinance No 58o" "does not obstruct the publics' use of the ROW, constitute a safety hazard or interfere with the city defined intersection visability triangle" "least instrusive design configuration -meets the stated RF coverage objective" "conclusion -there are limited commercial zones and collector/ arterial roads in the city, in order to provide coverage, its necessary to locate within the ROW of local streets" RF Consultant Report - "proposed site location--115DBM" "signal levels are lower than industry standards" "drive test conducted involved connections to as many as 13 cell sites" "based off field measurements -there is a gap in AT&T services" CRWN Proprietary & CASTLE Confidential 13 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Hearing Site ASG09 — 30452 Camino Porvenir Comments by Jeff Calvagna 8/30/2017 5 Summary of Key Points There are significant problems with the EXISTING AT&T coverage maps submitted by Crown Castle, however the PROPOSED coverage maps appear to be accurate The maps Crown Castle provided show a large overlap in coverage between ASG 09 (Camino Porvenir - pending) and ASG10 (Los Verdes Drive - approved on 8/22/2017) This is not surprising as the Los Verdes Golf Course lies between the locations, there are minimal vertical obstructions and very favorable topography My own propagation modeling shows coverage from ASG10 (Los Verdes) extends well onto Camino Porvenir ATU PROPOSED 700 MHz Coverage Map from Crown Castle LTE Coverage from Proposed New oDA (70OMHa) ;ii"•" r . _ r ' d 0 V&mr Signi l -?Sam � � • 4 - ,, 17 G1ic� 5lgflal-9`1Ei91Fl - ��" � ?I. F+ _• . _ ,� �`-6-.Fs x.11 _I I f,4 s; � P�45t1;]ih�l h�]iPbtt Ctrrbrn ja IA�m Los [y CUS1... OL ro09 e' 1 i t ;;qtr'-. •� -v L ti4 r F ira'aG IIID ?1 Rockirghor's 'i. ` Area of interest;LIP T. • Existing Macro Sites _ - Proposed o A L� . N J s _ � r . 40 All � •_ *5:. �. ° k - ice' " .1 ' •� � ' �I � All +NA '*l ea q }`! `� I '�S•_yw' � 't '�', . ,K • ' • y �� P �'';,i �i r 5pp_yy�� .s • Modeling of ASG10 ALONE (Los Verdes Coverage — 700 MHz) gignal [Ij8i5 fy e 6 J ij At 10 4point Vicente E16�hent�rly School I a: I a ; ASG09 Calle de Suenos t. ,�� I AL (Pending) 1 ASG10 Los Verdes .r (APPROVED 8/22) Prepared by J. Calvagna, all modeling parameters available on request The of jective of the node, ASGog, is to provide continuous coverage on P -Mos T Verdes l t�. from tt �ii �• . to 'i n£ i I L u r . 4 p 4 ,La KI - AP S 9 '� - r k 14 z� k. 1 o f .. ,1" � a•d� p �p � a 400 g IY � ., a ,... „ r. ..,. . I- •-, u " �'�,,. — ,di.'�I. a�.0 ##Y From: cont ei1139 To: WirelessTF Subject: c/o Art Bashmakian: Please deny appeal of cell tower permit for Camino Porvenir ASG 09 Date: Saturday, November 25, 2017 12:30:40 PM Attachments: Cell Towers appeal.docx Dear Mr. Bashmakian: Please add the attached to the public comments for the 11/30/17 City Council meeting concerning the above matter. Thank you in advance, Joseph O'Neill, PhD RPV Citizen Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. 6 November 25, 2017 O'Neill Family 7009 Calle del Pajarito Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL Brian Campbell, MAYOR Jerry V. Duhovic, MAYOR PRO TEM Susan M. Brooks Ken Dyda Anthony M. Misetich RE: Opposition to appeal of proposed installation of cell phone tower on Camino Porvenir Dear Councilmembers: We write in opposition to all of the recently proposed new cellular telephone towers in RPV, and particularly ask that you deny Crown Castle's appeal of the decision of the City Planning Commission against installation of the cell phone tower at 30452 Camino Porvenir. The proposed towers address a problem that does not need to be solved. Cell phone coverage is already nearly complete in our neighborhood. This was confirmed by the statements of several neighbors and by Crown Castle's own presentation at the City Planning meeting, as well as by our own experience walking through our neighborhood with a cell phone. Crown Castle is talking about filling -up tiny little gaps. More importantly, the people in the neighborhood don't need or want any more coverage. Nobody is saying, "My cell service is so bad, I want a tower in my front yard!" On the contrary, many people are coming out to speak against these cell towers. Crown Castle is shoving them down our throats! If some people with some carriers sometimes lose coverage for a block or two, we, like most people, agree that that's a minor nuisance. When it happens, we don't get angry, we just drive a block or two farther and pick it up again. Many of us lived for decades without any cell phones at all, and we got on just fine. This is a second -order problem, one that doesn't need to be solved. Meanwhile, if the towers go up, RPV property owners are net losers. This is supposed to be an upscale neighborhood. We pay more for property, more in finance costs, more in property taxes, and contractors overcharge us for improvements and repairs. We pay all that in order to keep things like cell phone towers away. The less of that stuff we have, the more our property is worth. If we let the towers go up, we lose. Right now, in our neighborhood, the streetlamps are above ground, but power lines, phone lines, cable TV lines,... all that is below ground. Let's keep it that way. Some other streets in RPV have above -ground lines, but we're talking here about side streets, fully residential areas. We know the cell phone towers are designed to resemble streetlamps, but you can still tell the difference with the little boxes up top. The towers may seem minor, but if we let them go up, it will contribute to the decline of our neighborhood. We've got to keep pushing against this sort of thing. RPV has its precious semi -rural character because neighbors who came before us fought to keep it that way. Now it's our turn. Keep the towers down to protect our investments. We don't live right next to the proposed towers, but imagine the poor people who do? Imagine trying to sell? It would be like selling a powerline house. It will take longer to sell and you're going to take a hit in price. And it may be those people now for the towers, next time it could be your house for something else. So no towers. For all these reasons and more, please oppose installation of all new cell towers, and deny the appeal for the one on Camino Porvenir. Respectfully yours, Joseph O'Neill, PhD Fatemeh Akbarian, PhD Masoud Akbarian Mostafa Akbarian Zahra Khaji Property Owners Taxpayers Voters CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VFRDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: NOVEMBER 29, 2017 SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received through Wednesday afternoon for the Thursday, November 30, 2017 City Council meeting: Item No. Description of Material 1 (ASG -53) Crown Castle Legal Counsel Appeal Letter DRAFT; Emails from David Emenhiser; Denise Van Deuren; Lisa Sakai; Virginia Yee; Dr. Samson Munn; Rachel Munn; Jeff Calvagna; Al Hasham; Ann Wong; Betty Riedman; Krista Johnson; Don and Caroline Carter; Noel Park; William Spinelli 2 (ASG -33) Crown Castle Legal Counsel Appeal Letter DRAFT; Stephen Garcia — Crown Castle; For the following emails please see Item 1: David Emenhiser; Denise Van Deuren; Lisa Sakai; Virginia Yee; Dr. Samson Munn; Rachel Munn; Jeff Calvagna; Al Hasham; Ann Wong; Betty Riedman; Krista Johnson; Don and Caroline Carter; Noel Park; William Spinelli 3 (ASG -32) Crown Castle Legal Counsel Appeal Letter DRAFT; For the following emails please see Item 1: David Emenhiser; Denise Van Deuren; Lisa Sakai; Virginia Yee; Dr. Samson Munn; Rachel Munn; Jeff Calvagna; Al Hasham; Ann Wong; Betty Riedman; Krista Johnson; Don and Caroline Carter; Noel Park; William Spinelli 4 (ASG -69) Crown Castle Legal Counsel Appeal Letter DRAFT; Jeff and Annie Calvagna; For the following emails please see Item 1: David Emenhiser; Denise Van Deuren; Lisa Sakai; Virginia Yee; Dr. Samson Munn; Rachel Munn; Jeff Calvagna; Al Hasham; Ann Wong; Betty Riedman; Krista Johnson; Don and Caroline Carter; Noel Park; William Spinelli 5 (ASG -09) Crown Castle Legal Counsel Appeal Letter DRAFT; Emails from: Lore Fraix; Maria Cancino; For the following emails please see Item 1: David Emenhiser; Denise Van Deuren; Lisa Sakai; Virginia Yee; Dr. Samson Munn; Rachel Munn; Jeff Calvagna; Al Hasham; Ann Wong; Betty Riedman; Krista Johnson; Don and Caroline Carter; Additions/Revisions and Amendments to the Agenda Wednesday, November 29, 2017 Page 2 Noel Park; William Spinelli Respectfully submitted, A � Emily Colborn W:\01 City Clerk\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2017 Cover Sheets\20171130 additions revisions to agenda thru Wednesday.doc Nathan Zweizig From: Ara Mihranian Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2017 6:20 PM To: CC Cc: Doug Willmore; christy.lopez@bbklaw.com; WirelessTF; CityClerk Subject: Crown Castle - RPV Appeal Letters Attachments: Ltr to Mayor and Members of the City Council - ASG-53.DOC; Ltr to Mayor and Members of the City Council - ASG-69.DOC; Ltr to Mayor and Members of the City Council - ASG-32.DOC; Ltr to Mayor and Members of the City Council - ASG-09.DOC; Ltr to Mayor and Members of the City Council - ASG-33.DOC Importance: High Mayor Campbell and Members of the City Council, Attached are five letters submitted by Crown Castle's legal counsel on Wednesday to supplement the appeal letters attached to the respective staff reports. Hard copies will be provided as late correspondence at Thursday's meeting. From: Michael W. Shonafelt[mailto:Michael.Shonafelt@ndlf.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 2:04 PM To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Cc: christy.lopez@bbklaw.com; Lona N. Laymon <Ilaymon@awattorneys.com>; Snyder, Aaron (Aaron.Snyder@crowncastle.com) <Aaron.Snyder@crowncastle.com>; Garcia, Stephen <Stephen.Garcia@crowncastle.com>; 'Cowell, Jon (Vendor)' <Jon.Cowell.Vendor@crowncastle.com>; Paul O'Boyle <pro@oboylelaw.com> Subject: RPV Appeal Letters Importance: High Ara, Attached are courtesy DRAFTs of appeal letters for ASG -53, -09, -69, -33, and -32 (attached in that random order and without exhibits). Pursuant to our agreement, I pass these along to the City as drafts that are subject to being finalized later, with a reservation of our right to amend, supplement and/or revise the final version. Apologies for the delay in getting these out; there were a number of logistical and technical challenges in getting all the information together that caused us to miss the original ETA. Happy Thanksgiving! \V, NN"NII; N V,If 0I I,IA0\ I.I.r, Michael W. Shonafelt Michael.Shonafelt@ndif.com p 949.854.7000 - d 949.271.7196 Newmeyer & Dillion LLP 895 Dove Street, 5th Floor Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach • Walnut Creek - Las Vegas l -5. This email and any files transmitted with it may contain confidential information that is legally privileged and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, dissemination, distribution, or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender by reply email or by telephone at 949 854 7000 and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving them in any manner. IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: Pursuant to Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, only formal opinions satisfying specific requirements may be relied on for the purpose of avoiding certain penalties under the Internal Revenue Code. Any tax advice contained in this communication (including attachments) does not constitute a formal opinion satisfying such requirements. Accordingly, we must advise you that any such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by you or any other person as such an opinion for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any matters addressed herein. Nf�D N.EWMLYER DIL.LION LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW MICHAEL W. SHONAFELT Michael.Shonafelt@ndlf.com Novmber _. 2017 VIA EMAIL - brian.campbell@rpvca.gov AND HAND -DELIVERY Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 File No. 2464.130 Re: Crown Castle: Appeal of Wireless Telecommunications Facility ASG53 Dear Mayor Campbell and Members of the City Council, This office is legal counsel for Crown Castle NG West LLC ("Crown Castle") in the above -referenced appeal ("Appeal"). This letter presents Crown Castle's legal rights under both federal and state law and presents an analysis of those rights as they pertain to the Appeal. 1. INTRODUCTION. At the center of the Appeal is Crown Castle's application for a Wireless Telecommunications Facility Permit ASG53 within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("City") public right-of-way ("ROW") at the northwest intersection of Monero Drive and Granvia Altamira ("Project"). The Project is a low-power, small cell telecommunications facility that serves as an integral and vital part of a larger telecommunications and broadband network in the City. A. Original Proposal. As originally proposed the Project would feature two 24 -inch panel antennas mounted on a four -foot mast arm, extending from the existing 52 foot -tall wood utility streetlight pole. (See Exhibit A, Original Design Photo -simulations.) Radios, which convert light spectrum from fiber-optic cable into radio frequency ("RF") spectrum, an SCE power meter and a disconnect box would be located in or on a ground -mounted cabinet adjacent to the pole. (Ibid.; see also Staff Report: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission (Sept. 12, 2017) ("Staff Report") at pp. 2-3.) The location of the Project is on busy collector street that is already heavily impacted with existing utilities. A photo of the existing site is presented here: 1333 N. CALIFONIA BLVD 895 DOVE STREET 3993 HOWARD HUGHES PKWY SUITE 600 5TH FLOOR SUITE 530 WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 LAS VEGAS, NV 89169 T 925 988 3200 T 949 854 7000 T 702 777 7500 F 925 988 3290 F 949 854 7099 F 702 777 7599 Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council Novmber _. 2017 Page 2 B. Second Proposed Design. After conferring with the City's Planning Department Staff ("Staff') concerning less intrusive design alternatives, Crown Castle revised the Project to encase the panel antennas in a two -foot -tall canister shroud that would be mounted on a four -foot mast arm, extending from the existing 52 -foot tall wood utility street light pole. The bottom of the antennas/canister would be approximately 20 feet, six inches from the ground. Additionally, Crown Castle agreed to place the related mechanical equipment, including the radio and auxiliary equipment, in underground vaults. The Project would feature a total of three vaults that would cover 43 square feet of surface area as shown on the site plan and in the photo simulation below. All vents and meter boxes would be vaulted and flush with the ground. (See Second Proposed Design Photo - simulation, Exhibit B; see also Staff Report at pp. 3-4.) An excerpted photo -simulation of the Second Proposed Design is presented here: IOOn.IN[: NORI WEV F2QM ORANVIA AyTAIAIRA Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council Novmber _. 2017 Page 3 After conducting a view impact analysis, the Staff concluded that the Second Proposed Design would not result in individual or cumulative view impacts. (Staff Report at p. 6.) Staff noted that: There are no designated City view corridors in the area, as defined in the City's General Plan. Monera Drive is classified as a local street while Granvia Altamira is designated as a non -local, collector street within the Circulation Element of the General Plan. By locating on an existing utility streetlight pole, the Project minimizes significant view impacts from surrounding areas. The height of the existing pole will not increase, nor would the installation of the two 2' panel antennas encased in a 2' tall canister shroud significantly impair any existing views. An existing 6 -foot tall privacy, masonry wall adjacent to the Project and mature foliage on all four corners of the intersection of Moreno Drive and Granvia Altamira provides screening from visual impacts to surrounding properties. Furthermore based on a view analysis conducted on August 3, 2017, it was determined that the proposed wireless telecommunications facility does not create a significant view impairment from a residential viewing area, as defined in Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code ... . (Staff Report at p. 6.) Crown Castle examined three alternative locations. (Id. at pp. 11-12.) Staff determined that the proposed location was the preferred location and that the Project was the "least intrusive means" of filling the existing gap in service at that site. (Id. at pp. 12, 15.) The Planning Commission nevertheless denied the Project. Their reasons were based largely on disagreements with Crown Castle's demonstration of significant gap -- despite the fact that the City's own RF experts, CTC Technology & Energy ("CTC") concurred with Crown Castle's demonstration and conclusion that service levels are deficient at the Project Site. (Staff Report at pp. 13-14.) As one commissioner conceded, however, the planning commissioners were acting as "armchair RF experts." In short, the planning commissioners were acting outside their circumscribed planning role and attempting to design Crown Castle's RF network. (See http://rpv.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=5&clip id=2893.) The planning commissioners also voiced objections about the Project providing service to residents of the adjoining City, Palos Verdes Estates. The commissioners voting against the Project provided no direction on what design or location alternatives might be considered less intrusive. Crow Castle timely filed this appeal to the City Council, pursuant to City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code ("RPVMC") sections 12.18.060 (D) and 17.80.030 (A). C. Third Proposed Design. In the wake of the Planning Commission's motion to deny the Project, Crown Castle's engineers took a hard look at the Project with an eye toward arriving at a slimmer profile, more stealth design. Their goal was to see what designs could be feasibly employed to address the Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council Novmber _. 2017 Page 4 generalized aesthetic concerns raised at the Planning Commission. The constraints faced by Crown Castle in this endeavor are those posed by the radio frequency ("RF") objectives that must be achieved to fill the existing significant gap in service at this location. For small cell gaps in coverage, such as this, the tolerances for achieving network objectives are tight. Nevertheless, the Crown Castle team worked with AT&T to arrive at a yet smaller canister for the street sign location. The canister would be 14.6 inches in diameter, as opposed to 24 inches in diameter. This third revision represents the smallest design solution for the Project; the reduction in size and profile has a resultant negative impact on the Project's ability to fill the significant gap in service. Crown Castle and AT&T nevertheless are willing to accept the reduced signal strength to achieve a mutually acceptable solution. As for locational alternatives, no least intrusive site exists in the Project area. (See discussion, infra, at Part 3 B.) 2. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL. A. STATE LAW. Crown Castle is a "competitive local exchange carrier" ("CLEC"). CLECs qualify as a "public utility" and therefore have a special status under state law. By virtue of the CPUC's issuance of a "certificate of public convenience and necessity" ("CPCN"), CLECs have authority under state law to "erect poles, posts, piers, or abutments" in the ROW subject only to local municipal control over the "time, place and manner" of access to the ROW. (Pub. Util. Code, §§ 1001, 7901; 7901.1; see Williams Communication v. City of Riverside (2003) 114 Cal.AppAth 642, 648 [upon obtaining a CPCN, a telephone corporation has "the right to use the public highways to install [its] facilities."].) (1) Public Utilities Code Sections 7901, 7901.1. The CPUC has issued a CPCN which authorizes Crown Castle to construct the Project pursuant to its regulatory status under state law. Crown Castle's special regulatory status as a CLEC gives rise to a vested right under Public Utilities Code section 7901 to use the ROW in the City to "construct ... telephone lines along and upon any public road or highway, along or across any of the waters or lands within this State" and to "erect poles, posts, piers, or abutments for supporting the insulators, wires, and other necessary fixtures of their lines, in such manner and at such points as not to incommode the public use of the road or highway[.]" (Pub. Util. Code, § 7901.) The nature of the vested right was described by one court as follows: ... "[I]t has been uniformly held that [section 7901] is a continuing offer extended to telephone and telegraph companies to use the highways, which offer when accepted by the construction and maintenance of lines constitutes a binding contract based on adequate consideration, and that the vested right established thereby cannot be impaired by subsequent acts of the Legislature. [Citations.]" ... Thus, telephone companies have the right to use the public highways to install their facilities. Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council Novmber _. 2017 Page 5 (Williams Communications v. City of Riverside, supra, 114 Cal.AppAth at p. 648 quoting County of L. A. v. Southern Cal. Tel. Co. (1948) 32 Cal.2d 378, 384 [196 P.2d 773].) 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 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.App.4th 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. 1 Notwithstanding the submittal of this application, Crown Castle reserves its rights under Public Utilities Code sections 7901 and 7901.1, including the right to proceed with construction of its networks without having to obtain a local franchise and/or discretionary grant of entry in to the ROW. Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council Novmber _. 2017 Page 6 Under section 65964. 1, if a local government fails to act on an application for a permit to construct a wireless telecommunications facility within the prescribed Shot Clock timeframes (150 days for a standalone site and 90 days for a collocation site), the application is deemed approved by operation of law. When it enacted section 65964. 1, the Legislature observed that: The Legislature finds and declares that a wireless telecommunications facility has a significant economic impact in California and is not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution, but is a matter of statewide concern. (Gov. Code, § 65964.1, subd. (c).) B. FEDERAL LAW. The approval of the Project also is governed by the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (codified as amend in scattered sections of U.S.C., Tabs 15, 18, 47) ("Telecom Act"). When enacting the Telecom Act, Congress expressed its intent "to promote competition and reduce regulation in order to secure lower prices and higher quality services for American telecommunications consumers and encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies." (I 10 Stat. at 56.) As one court noted: Congress enacted the TCA to promote competition and higher quality in telecommunications services and to encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies. Congress intended to promote a national cellular network and to secure lower prices and better service for consumers by opening all telecommunications markets to competition. (T -Mobile Central, LLC v. Unified Government of Wyandotte, 528 F.Supp. 2d 1128, 1146-47 (D. Kan. 2007). One way in which the Telecom Act accomplishes those goals is by reducing impediments imposed by local governments upon the installation of wireless communications facilities, such as antenna facilities. (47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(A).) Section 332(c)(7)(B) provides the limitations on the general authority reserved to state and local governments. Those limitations are set forth as follows: (1) State and local governments may not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services (§ 332 (c)(7)(B)(i)(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 Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council Novmber _. 2017 Page 7 supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record (§ 332 (c)(7)(B)(iii)). (5) Finally, no state or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction or modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the perceived environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with FCC regulations concerning such emissions (§ 332 (c)(7)(B)(iv)). 3. UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL WOULD RESULT IN A VIOLATION OF THE TELECOM ACT'S PROHIBITION OF SERVICE PROVISION. As noted above, section 332(c)(7)(13)(i)(II) of the federal Telecom Act bars local governmental decisions from precluding the provision of wireless services: The regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof— (11) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. (47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II).) In T -Mobile U.S.A. Inc. v. City ofAnacortes (9th Cir. 2009) 572 F.3d 987, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals set forth a two-step analysis for determining whether a local government's denial has the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless telecommunications services in violation of Section 332(c)(7)(13)(i)(II) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. In the first step, the applicant must make a showing of a "significant gap" in service. (Id. at p. 995.) In the second step, the applicant must demonstrate it has selected the "least intrusive means" to fill that gap in service. (Ibid.) Each prong of the Prohibition of Service Provision is addressed below. A. A Significant Gap in Service Exists at the Project Site. (1) What Is a Significant Gap? "Significant gap" is a legal term of art developed by the courts to guide a determination of whether a local government's decision on an application prohibits a carrier or other wireless infrastructure developer from providing service. (See, e.g., T -Mobile USA, Inc. v. City of Anacortes, supra, 572 F.3d at p. 995.) Put simply, "a locality could violate the [Telecom Act's] effective prohibition clause if it prevented a wireless provider from closing a `significant gap' in service coverage." (Id., at p. 995; MetroPCS, Inc. v. City of San Francisco (9th Cir., 2005) 400 F.3d 715, 731.) Significant gap is "a contextual term that must take into consideration the purposes of the Telecommunications Act itself." (T -Mobile Northeast LLC v. Loudoun County Bd. of Supervisors (4th Cir. 2014) 748 F.3d 185, 198.) Among the goals of the Telecom Act are to "promote competition," "secure ... higher quality services for American telecommunications consumers," and "encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies." Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council Novmber _. 2017 Page 8 (Ibid.) Significant gap therefore is a fluid term that invariably rests on a fact -intensive analysis. The interpretation of the term must progress with the rapid development of wireless broadband technologies in order to advance the larger goals of the Telecom Act to "encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies." On that basis, the courts have counseled against "mechanical" or fixed formulas that become outdated and therefore impede technological advancement. (See, e.g., see T -Mobile Northeast LLC v. Fairfax Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors (4th Cir., 2012) 672 F.3d 259, 267 ["reviewing courts should not be constrained by any specific formulation, but should conduct a fact -based analysis of the record, as contemplated by the [Telecom Act]."].) As the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals noted in a recently published decision: The technology of 10 years ago may have only supported wireless service that had substantial gaps in coverage and high dropped call rates. But the technology of today supports increased wireless coverage with reduced rates of dropped calls. On this trajectory, the technology of tomorrow may support 100% coverage with no dropped calls, and the focus may instead be on subtler issues about the nature and strength of signals for particular uses. The [TCA] clearly intends to encourage this technological development and, to that end, to protect such development from interference from state and local governments when approving the design and location of facilities. This is manifested in § 332(c)(7)(B). Thus, in construing the level of service protected by § 332(c)(7)(13)(i)(11), we must take a contextual approach and cannot rely on any specific formula. (T -Mobile Northeast LLC v. Loudoun County Bd. of Supervisors, supra, 748 F.3d at p. 198.) In keeping with the principle of cutting-edge concepts of what constitutes a "significant gap," the courts have upheld the use of in -building minimum standards as a proper benchmark for determining whether a significant gap in coverage exists. (See, e.g., MetroPCS Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco (N.D.Cal. 2006) 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43985 ["careful reading of existing cases that contain a significant gap analysis persuades the court that any analysis should include consideration of a wireless carrier's in -building coverage."]; see also, AT&T Mobility Servs., LLC v. Vill. of Corrales (10th Cir., 2016) 642 Fed. Appx. 886, 891.) Moreover, it is important to note that a telephone network may reveal adequate "coverage" but inadequate "capacity." The distinction between coverage and capacity may be better understood in terms of transportation infrastructure. A two-lane road may provide "coverage," but once that two lane road experiences high -levels of urban rush-hour traffic, coverage becomes irrelevant, since the road does not have sufficient "capacity" to handle the higher traffic volumes. In other words, a network may have adequate coverage, but inadequate capacity, which results in the same problem: an impermissibly high level of dropped and blocked calls. The need to fill the existing significant coverage gap to a level that allows adequate in - building coverage and to address growing capacity demands is underscored by the greater numbers of customers dropping their landlines and relying solely on wireless Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council Novmber _. 2017 Page 9 telecommunications for their phone service. The following additional considerations promote a policy of employing more sophisticated notions of significant gap: (a) In a recent international study, the United States dropped to fifteenth in the world in broadband penetration, well behind South Korea, Japan, the Netherlands and France.2 (b) Over 50 percent of all American homes are now wireless only. 3 (c) More and more civic leaders and emergency response personnel cite lack of a robust wireless network as a growing public safety risk. The number of 911 calls placed by people using wireless phones has significantly increased in recent years. It is estimated that about 70 percent of 911 calls are placed from wireless phones, and that percentage is growing. 4 (d) Data demand from new smartphones and tablets is leading to a critical deficit in spectrum, requiring more wireless antennas and infrastructure. According to a 2011 report, wireless data traffic was 110 percent higher than in the last half of 2010. Similarly, AT&T reports that its wireless data volumes have increased 30 - fold since the introduction of the iPhone. 5 (e) Wireless data traffic grew by a factor of 300 percent between 2010 and 2015.6 Global mobile data traffic is expected to reach a seven -fold increase by 2021. Determining what constitutes a "significant gap" therefore must incorporate metrics that are based -- not just on basic cell phone coverage -- but also on network capacity for advanced communications technologies. As more Americans depend on wireless communications technologies and smartphones, reliable network capacity and in -building coverage are critical. These are some of the reasons courts now recognize that a "significant gap" can exist on the basis of capacity needs and inadequate in -building coverage. (See, e.g., MetroPCS Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, supra, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43985; T -Mobile Central, LLC v. Unified Government of Wyandotte County (D.Kans. 2007) 528 F.Supp.2d 1128.) Wireless telecommunications are the primary mode of communication for Americans in the twenty-first century. That fact is amply demonstrated by the latest surveys in the industry, which reveal that over 49 percent of American homes rely wholly on wireless devices.$ The marginal service currently at the Project site is inadequate to sustain current -- and future -- 2 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Directorate for Science, Technology, and Industry, "Broadband Statistics," (June 2010): <www.oecd.org/sti/ictibroadband>. s U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics (Released 05/2017); https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/wireless201705.pdf. a Federal Communications Commission (2012) http://www.fcc.gov/guides/wireless-911-services. 5 Executive Office of the President Council of Economic Advisors (White House, Feb. 2012) at 2-6. 6 https://www.ctia.org/industry-data/wireless-quick-facts. 7 http://digitalconqurer.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.ors/industry-data/ctia-annual-wireless-industry-survey) Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council Novmber _. 2017 Page 10 communications technologies and demands. In a recent report, the "National 911 Program," which is an office housed within the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, found that "76 percent of consumers are using cellular phones to make calls to 911 while 2lpercent are using wireline phones."9 On that ground alone, this is a matter of health, safety and welfare for the residents and visitors of the City. Notably, 911 service over systems like this is not just limited to AT&T users -- the networks carries 911 calls of any mobile user. (2) Data Support a Significant Gap at the Project Site. Applying the above principles to the Project, data reveal that the project service area has insufficient signal strength to address current data demand and statistical projections of data demand. Crown Castle has undertaken drive -test data of existing conditions at the Project site in two different frequencies that will be employed at the Project site. (See ASG53-Proposed Primary and Alternate Node Analysis, attached as Exhibit C.) Exhibit C identifies levels of service in terms of the following criteria: R5RP _ -65 to 0 _ -75 to -65 -85 to -75 _ -95 to -85 -1C15 to _C5 _ -129 to -105 Locadons Viable Failed Coverage Objective (a) Outdoor Only —Unacceptable Coverage (Black) (>-105 dBm); (b) In -Vehicle Only — Unacceptable Coverage (Blue) (>-95 dBm); (c) Suburban/In-building, Acceptable (Red) (>-85 dBm); (d) Urban/In-building, Acceptable (Yellow) (>-75 dBm); (e) Dense Urban/Deep In -building, Optimum (Light/Dark Green) (>-75 dBm). Each level is characterized by a minimum signal level. The key to coverage is having a signal level strong -enough to allow customers to maintain contact with the network so they can make and maintain calls. Signal level, the strength of the radio signal customers' devices receive, is measured in negative decibels per milliwatt ("dBm"). The larger the negative dBm number, the weaker the coverage. For example, a signal strength of -100 dBm is weaker than a signal strength of -80 dBm. 9 See https://www.911.gov/pdf/National-911-Program-2015-Profile Data base Progress Repo rt-021716.pdf Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council Novmber _. 2017 Page 11 As a general rule, a minimum signal level of -75 dBM (yellow) is required for adequate in -building coverage and a minimum of -95 dBm (blue) is required for adequate in -vehicle coverage. As noted, the courts have upheld the use of in -building minimum standards as a proper benchmark for determining whether a significant gap in coverage exists. (See, e.g., Verizon Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco (N.D.Cal. 2006) 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43985 ["careful reading of existing cases that contain a significant gap analysis persuades the court that any analysis should include consideration of a wireless carrier's in -building coverage."].) Generally, there is a direct correlation between the height of the antenna and the strength of the service. In this case, Crown Castle's design seeks to strike a balance between service penetration and antenna height by targeting a minimum service level of -75 dBM, which is sufficiently powerful to reach indoor users while avoiding poles that may be too obtrusive. Slide 4 of Exhibit C reveals existing RF coverage at the project site. .000 �,: � �Scas• � �! ■ @A3039 � ..... .A ca� �' ... L ........�+. �.......,. ...._,..... G5 _..� C This slide depicts multiple "polygons" (in purple) that represent the RF coverage areas of the Project (center) and the coverage areas of surrounding nodes. This slide reveals the importance of the Project as a "hand-off' node that links to the other proposed and existing nodes and their respective RF polygons to provide for an integrated network in the area. This slide reveals some areas of -75 to -85 dBm (light green and yellow) to the south that emanates from an existing roof -mounted AT&T site to the south at the northeast corner of Granvia Altamira and Hawthorne Boulevard. The slide also reveals that that the existing coverage at the Project site varies from -95 to -120 dBm at 1900 MHz. In the existing condition, users in the service area will experience an increasingly higher percentage of blocked and dropped calls for outside use, with a commensurate decline in signal strength as one moves toward the inside of existing buildings and homes. Moreover, as more and more uses connect to the network, the Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council Novmber _. 2017 Page 12 number of dropped and blocked calls will increase, since more users results in more demand on the network and resultant capacity problems. In short, there is a serious capacity deficit within the service radius of the Project site. 911 calls in this area would be unreliable. These conclusions were affirmed by the City's own RF consultant, CTC Technology & Energy ("CTC"). CTC conducted its own significant gap analysis at the Project site and affirmed that the levels of service are lower than the acceptable standards for modern telecommunications service. If the Project is approved and allowed put on -air, however, coverage and capacity problems will be addressed, as can be seen in Exhibit C, Slide 5, which is excerpted here: p�F� � �. 4,, 6muntan �cMol t � � t v„ R:.m ■ i : jai>.., ■ � .. ,.sR�, e' '$`! - e r ` ■ nns�.�un or � - _ � ,,,, oe F��naa�.:as p �� g��cY+mar gyp. 'v , lc.151![.i •.ft i;.. �Q'O ` ■ v �kbsa� The Project will provide sufficient signal strength to ensure not only adequate signal for mobile and outdoor users, but reliable in -building coverage for all those customers who may seek to abandon their home landlines. The Project also will add sufficient capacity to address new data demands from smartphones and tablets. Wireless customers must be able to count on a level of service commensurate with that once provided by their dropped landlines. Such considerations are relevant -- if not critical -- to a determination of significant gap. (See, e.g., T - Mobile Central LLC v. City of Fraser (E.D. Mich. 2009) 675 F.Supp.2d 721 [considering failure rate of 911 emergency calls.]) One of the grounds invoked by the Planning Commission for denial of the Project was a conclusory assertion that Crown Castle failed to demonstrate a significant gap in service. The drive test data presented in Exhibit C refute that contention. Nor has this data been seriously controverted by any competent evidence or alternative data. Indeed, the City's own RF expert concurred with the conclusion of Crown Castle's RF engineers that a gap indeed exists at the project site. The Planning Commission is charged with addressing zoning and planning issues, not the regulation of RF, which is a matter preempted by the Federal Communications Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council Novmber _. 2017 Page 13 Commission (FCC). The City engaged CTC as an independent RF expert pursuant to Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code section 12.18.050. For areas -- such as RF coverage issues -- that are outside the scope of the Planning Commission's competency and jurisdiction it should look to the conclusions of its hired consultants and the actual data compiled by RF experts, not the unsupported assertions of project opponents. B. Crown Castle Has Demonstrated That It Has Chosen the Least Intrusive Means to Fill the Significant Gap in Service. To establish least intrusive means, the applicant establishes a "prima facie showing of effective prohibition by submitting a comprehensive application, which includes consideration of alternatives, showing that the proposed [wireless communications facility] is the least intrusive means of filling a significant gap." (T -Mobile U.S.A. Inc. v. City ofAnacortes, supra, 572 F.3d at p. 995.) After that, the burden shifts to the local government: "When a locality rejects a prima facie showing, it must show that there are some potentially available and technologically feasible alternatives." (Id. at p. 998.) The court further explained that the applicant then has an opportunity to "dispute the availability and feasibility of the alternatives favored by the locality." (Ibid.) Because Crown Castle is a CLEC entitled to construct its facilities in the ROW, its small- cell and DAS networks are inherently ROW systems. On that basis, Crown Castle examined those alternatives theoretically available to it in the ROW. The analysis below demonstrates why the Project qualifies as the "least intrusive means" of filling the significant gap in service. (1) Height and Location of the Project. The antenna height and location of the Project were chosen to provide the minimum signal level needed to meet critical coverage and capacity needs in the service area. Despite the technical limitations of a low -profile, small-cell system, Crown Castle seeks to maximize the coverage of each node location, since maximization of the node performance equates to a lower overall number of facilities and a less intrusive system. Accordingly, the Project location was chosen to provide an effective relay of signal from adjacent sites, so that ubiquitous coverage of the minimum signal level is provided throughout the service area with the minimum number of facilities. The selected location maximizes the RF coverage of the Project and minimizes interference/overlap with the other facilities, resulting in a lower overall number of facilities and a less intrusive system. The ROW is ideal for the Project from an aesthetic standpoint because the ROW is an area already impacted with utilities and similar features typical of developed roadways. Importantly, the currently proposed location and design were identified after exhausting other possible locations in the relatively small DAS coverage area or "polygon." (See Exhibit C, Slide 3.) Crown Castle's RF engineers examined alternative locations in the immediate Project area, as depicted in Slide 3 of Exhibit C and as excerpted here: Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council Novmber _. 2017 Page 14 Staff determined that the proposed site was the least intrusive, in part because the site is already developed with existing utilities and is shielded from residences by and existing wall and foliage. A photo of the existing site is presented here: Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council Novmber _. 2017 Page 15 As the Staff observed, the proposed site is the least intrusive for a number of reasons, including the following: (1) it utilizes an existing utility streetlight pole thereby obviating the need for a new pole in the ROW; (2) it minimizes significant view impacts from surrounding areas by utilizing an existing six-foot tall privacy, masonry wall adjacent to the Project; and (3) it benefits from mature foliage on all four corners of the intersection of Moreno Drive and Granvia Altamira, which provides screening from visual impacts to surrounding properties. (Staff Report at p. 6.) The Staff concluded, "[f]urthermore based on a view analysis conducted on August 3, 2017, it was determined that the proposed wireless telecommunications facility does not create a significant view impairment from a residential viewing area, as defined in Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code ...." (Ibid.) Crown Castle has satisfied its burden of proof under the burden -shifting process established by T -Mobile U.S.A. Inc. v. City ofAnacortes. (2) Small Cells and DAS as Least Intrusive Means Technology, by Design. Even apart from the careful siting of the facilities that are part of a small cells or DAS system, the technological configuration of small cells and DAS nodes is inherently minimally intrusive by design. Small cells and DAS were developed as a smaller -scale solution to the larger macro -site or cell tower. It therefore represents a significant technological advance in the development of reduced- profile wireless transmission devices. The nodes are designed to be smaller scale and lower power to allow them to integrate more easily into their surroundings and thereby render them less aesthetically intrusive. While it is impossible to make the facilities invisible, each facility will be designed to blend with existing features in the road to the extent feasible. Crown Castle's small cell network qualifies as the "least intrusive means" of filling the identified significant gap for the following reasons, among others: (a) Crown Castle small cells utilize the latest in wireless infrastructure technology, incorporating smaller, low-power facilities instead of using larger -- and sometimes more obtrusive -- cell towers; (b) Crown Castle small cells utilize the ROW, thereby avoiding intrusions into private property or undeveloped sensitive resource areas; (c) Crown Castle small cells allow for collocation by multiple carriers, thereby avoiding proliferation of nodes; (d) Crown Castle small cells strike a balance between antenna height and coverage in order to minimize visual impacts; (e) Crown Castle small cells carefully are carefully spaced to effectively relay signal with a minimum of facilities; and (f) Crown Castle small cells utilize existing vertical elements in the ROW, such as utility poles, or slim -profile new poles, thereby minimizing intrusions into the ROW. Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council Novmber _. 2017 Page 16 (3) The Project Location and Design Qualify as the Least Intrusive Means of Filling the Demonstrated Significant Gap in Coverage. The Project utilizes small cell technology, which, as discussed above, was designed to avoid the need for larger profile macro -sites. As for the location, the Project is located on a busy collector street that is already impacted by existing utilities and the site is shielded by existing mature foliage and a masonry wall. The Staff confirmed that the location was the least intrusive of all the other potentially feasible locations. The facility, as revised, will utilize an existing utility pole and thereby eliminate the need for a new pole in the ROW. If the City can identify another feasible alternative location that allows Crown Castle to achieve its coverage objective for this Project, it would be happy to investigate that location. Crown Castle submits, however, that it already engaged in that search and that the proposed location is the least intrusive location available. 4. CONCLUSION. For the foregoing reasons, the City Council should grant this Appeal and approve the Project. We look forward to answering your questions on the day of the hearing. Very truly yours, Michael W. Shonafelt MWS cc: Ara Mihranian, Director, Planning and Zoning Division, City of Rancho Palos Verdes Christy Lopez, Special Counsel, City of Rancho Palos Verdes Lona Laymon, City Attorney, City of Rancho Palos Verdes Lizbeth Wincele, Government Relations Counsel — Southern California, Crown Castle Daniel Schweizer, Director, Government Relations, West Region, Crown Castle Stephen Garcia, Manager Government Relations, Crown Castle Aaron Snyder, Government Relations Specialist-DAS & Small Cells -Southern California, Crown Castle Enclosures 7249386.1 Nathan Zweizig From: Emily Colborn Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 12:07 PM To: Nathan Zweizig Cc: Ara Mihranian Subject: FW: Cell Site Recommendation from a Planning Commissioner Late Correspondence for 11/30/17. Ni = Emily Colborn, MMC, City Clerk s City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 (310) 544-5208 Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail, From: David Emenhiser [mailto:emenhiser@aol.com] Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 11:30 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; cc@rpv.gov Cc: john@johncruikshank.us; ealegria@healthcarepartners.com; billandkathyjames@msn.com; Ara Mihranian <Ara M @ rpvca.gov> Subject: Cell Site Recommendation from a Planning Commissioner Mr. Mayor and Members of the City Council: Given the appeal of a number of the cell sites denied by the Planning Commission, your hearing on Nov 30th and the fact that I'll be out on vacation for the next week, I thought I'd share some background and a recommendation for your consideration. 1. The PC has reviewed about 20 cell sites, received approximately 60 presentations by citizens and interested parties and spent the better part of 50 hours considering the implications. About 1/2 of the proposed cell sites were approved by the PC and the others denied. 2. Of the 60 presentations, the vast majority of the residents were in opposition to the cell sites located on residential streets. I believe we received 3 comments in favor of these cell sites. 3. The legal, tectnical and aesthetic implications of these mirco cell sites are complex and frequently contradictory. Where possible, the PC tried to chart a middle course. What is clear is that these sites have an effective range of roughly 100 yards and not that many customers would benefit from them, citizens on residential streets are not if favor of cell sites in their front yards and these initial ATT sites will provide the precedent for the other carriers (Verizon, Sprint and T Mobile). Recommendation: Those located cell sites on arterial streets and located out of the line of site on residential streets should be approved, in the name of enhanced wireless coverage. Those on residential streets should be held to a higher standard. Finally, RPV was founded in an effort to control local land use, if the local citizens located closest to the cell site want additional coverage, they will let the Council know either through their appearance or their silence at the upcoming hearing, those who are opposed should be given extra consideration by the Council Members and their concerns should be heeded. Thank you for your consideration. David Emenhiser emenhiser ,,aol.com 1-5 Nathan Zweizig From: Denise Van Deuren <allynpeanut@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 12:50 PM To: cc Dear RPV City Council Members, I am writing to urge you to deny Crown Castle's appeals for the 5 proposed Cell Towers in residential neighborhoods that are up for review on Thursday, Nov 30th. I have attended several of these meetings and have been very impressed with the thoughtful review by our esteemed Planning Commissioners, who spent countless hours reviewing the facts and circumstances surrounding these proposed cell towers. The Wireless Ordinance passed by the City was put in place to ensure we maintain the aesthetics of our great city. I am very disappointed that City staff would go against the decision of the Planning Commission. These staff members may not live in our city and have no vested interest in keeping our city beautiful. PLEASE LISTEN TO RPV RESIDENTS AND OUR PLANNING COMMISSION AND AFFIRM THEIR DECISION TO DENY THESE FIVE CITES. Thank you, Denise Van Deuren Sea Breeze Development, RPV I-5 Nathan Zweizig From: Lisa Sakai <lisaj.sakai@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 9:06 AM To: CC Subject: Opposition to Cell Phone Tower RPV City Council, I am writing in to express my support for upholding the Planning Commissions recommendations regarding the rejection of the 5 cellphone sites being appealed by Crown Castle. The Planning Commission decisions should be binding as they have been given the authority on this matter. We are fortunate to live in one of the most beautiful coastal communities in America. We don't want to ruin the ascetics by placing cellphone towers in impactful ways that make our neighborhoods less desirable. Thank you for your time and efforts, Lisa Sakai Sent from my iPad / 5 Nathan Zweizig From: Virginia y <vluckyee@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 7:07 AM To: cc Subject: cell towers RPV Council, Please affirm the denials to the cell tower locations being appealed this week. They are unnecessary, unsightly,and unhealthy. Virginia Yee 6810 Crest Rd. RPV 1,--5 Nathan Zweizig From: Samson Munn <02467@earthlink.net> Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 12:25 AM To: CC Cc: Rachel Munn; Saul Munn; Amalia Munn Subject: Wrong -Headed on Cell Towers in RPV -- Thursday, 11/30/17 To RPV's City Council Members --- I write now with respect to the upcoming meeting Thursday, 30 November 2017. For the record, I am a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes. I live at 7021 Calle del Pajarito, with my wife and two children. Professionally, I'm a medical school professor at UCLA's and at Tufts' (in Boston) Medical Schools, officially Visiting Professor at the former (with regular Professorship pending) and Adjunct Associate Professor at the latter. I am now Chair of Radiology at a nearby hospital. My wife is Rachel Munn, an architect (undergraduate at Princeton, architecture at Harvard's Graduate School of Design). I have been present at two relatively recent Planning Commission meetings with regard to cell tower applications. I have seen some pass muster, and others fail to pass muster, at those meetings. The meetings were held with due diligence, with due decorum, and with due process; nothing was rushed. Ample time and opportunity were provided to the applicant(s) as well as to residents. Appropriate discussion was had back and forth in each case. A major purpose of our recently implemented wireless ordinance was to shift such decision making from the Council -- whose staff do not live in RPV -- to the Commission, all of whose members do in fact live in RPV. The Commissioners and other residents would have to live -- physically live -- amidst the results of the decisions, while the staff of the Council would not and so are not to be anticipated to be so invested personally. It is obviously inappropriate and counter to due process to reconsider only those applications which were denied, even if only those were appealed. Further, while it may very well be to the financial benefit of the City, certainly the applications and the avoidance of due process simply are not in the City's overall best interests. The negatives were properly weighed against the positives put forward by the applicant(s) at the hearing(s)/meeting(s) of the Commission. Had the Commission denied the applicant(s) due process, then the submission of newly available information or data from the applicant(s) now might be appropriate. However, due process was never denied. Even if due process had in fact been denied, the lack of due process would have to have been with regard to information that was known by the applicant(s) at the time of the various Planning Commission meetings (at which ASG #s 9,32,33,53 and 69 were denied) in order for such additional views, sentiments, data, and/or observations of the applicant(s) now to be submitted, in order to be appropriate. I am concerned that this upcoming meeting could become a forum for an end -run around the intent of the City's recently implemented ordinance, and an end -run around due process by disregarding the decisions of the appropriate Commission, noting that not all applications were denied by the Commission. In other words, the Commission was not uniformly against all cell tower applications, nor did it find so. Should the upcoming City Council meeting indeed become such an end -run, I am further concerned that that would constitute the basis of sound litigation prevailing against the City by residents (such as myself, for instance) and against the individual City Councilors by virtue of abandoning due process and not fulfilling their obligations and responsibilities as individual members of the Council. I would certainly not like to see the City err and in so doing create such vulnerabilities. My wife agrees with the content of this message and will write to you separately to so confirm. By the way, fully apart from the legal and procedural elements outlined above, I found the lack of cell reception at our home to be a positive attribute that made me more inclined to purchase it, and indeed more inclined to pay more for it, when we decided to buy about a year and a half ago. Respectfully, Samson Munn, M.D., FACR Nathan Zweizig From: Rachel Munn <rachelmunn@earthlink.net> Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 12:31 AM To: Samson Munn Cc: CC; Saul Munn; Amalia Munn Subject: Re: Wrong -Headed on Cell Towers in RPV -- Thursday, 11/30/17 Honorable Council Members: Please consider this short message to be confirmation of my support for the points and conclusion enumerated in the message from my husband, included below. Thank you! Rachel Munn On Nov 28, 2017, at 12:25 AM, Samson Munn <02467(cr�earthlink.net> wrote: To RPV's City Council Members --- I write now with respect to the upcoming meeting Thursday, 30 November 2017. For the record, I am a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes. I live at 7021 Calle del Pajarito, with my wife and two children. Professionally, I'm a medical school professor at UCLA's and at Tufts' (in Boston) Medical Schools, officially Visiting Professor at the former (with regular Professorship pending) and Adjunct Associate Professor at the latter. I am now Chair of Radiology at a nearby hospital. My wife is Rachel Munn, an architect (undergraduate at Princeton, architecture at Harvard's Graduate School of Design). I have been present at two relatively recent Planning Commission meetings with regard to cell tower applications. I have seen some pass muster, and others fail to pass muster, at those meetings. The meetings were held with due diligence, with due decorum, and with due process; nothing was rushed. Ample time and opportunity were provided to the applicant(s) as well as to residents. Appropriate discussion was had back and forth in each case. A major purpose of our recently implemented wireless ordinance was to shift such decision making from the Council -- whose staff do not live in RPV -- to the Commission, all of whose members do in fact live in RPV. The Commissioners and other residents would have to live -- physically live -- amidst the results of the decisions, while the staff of the Council would not and so are not to be anticipated to be so invested personally. It is obviously inappropriate and counter to due process to reconsider only those applications which were denied, even if only those were appealed. Further, while it may very well be to the financial benefit of the City, certainly the applications and the avoidance of due process simply are not in the City's overall best interests. The negatives were properly weighed against the positives put forward by the applicant(s) at the hearing(s)/meeting(s) of the Commission. Had the Commission denied the applicant(s) due process, then the submission of newly available information or data from the applicant(s) now might be appropriate. However, due process was never denied. Even if due process had in fact been denied, the lack of due process would have to have been with regard to information that was known by the applicant(s) at the time of the various Planning Commission meetings (at which ASG #s 9,32,33,53 and 69 were denied) in order for such additional views, sentiments, data, and/or observations of the applicant(s) now to be submitted, in order to be appropriate. I am concerned that this upcoming meeting could become a forum for an end -run around the intent of the City's recently implemented ordinance, and an end -run around due process by disregarding the decisions of the appropriate Commission, noting that not all applications were denied by the Commission. In other words, the Commission was not uniformly against all cell tower applications, nor did it find so. Should the upcoming City Council meeting indeed become such an end -run, I am further concerned that that would constitute the basis of sound litigation prevailing against the City by residents (such as myself, for instance) and against the individual City Councilors by virtue of abandoning due process and not fulfilling their obligations and responsibilities as individual members of the Council. I would certainly not like to see the City err and in so doing create such vulnerabilities. My wife agrees with the content of this message and will write to you separately to so confirm. By the way, fully apart from the legal and procedural elements outlined above, I found the lack of cell reception at our home to be a positive attribute that made me more inclined to purchase it, and indeed more inclined to pay more for it, when we decided to buy about a year and a half ago. Respectfully, Samson Munn, M.D., FACR Nathan Zweizig From: Jeff Calvagna <jcalvagna@netzero.com> Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 7:45 PM To: CC Cc: john@johncruikshank.us; ealegria@healthcarepartners.com Subject: Staff recommendation regarding cell tower appeals Dear City Council members, As you know, I have been very active on the cell tower issue in our City, my main concern being that the resident's interests are protected when it comes to locating these facilities. The wireless industry has a long history of running amuck in our City, with virtually every site being rubber-stamped by Staff prior to our new ordinance. Our ordinance was meant to counter industry misinformation regarding the legal and technical aspects of these facilities to ensure our community aesthetics, neighborhood character, and property values were protected. It has been extremely effective and it is being used as model by other cities. I was shocked to find City Staff is recommending you overturn the Planning Commission's thoughtful denial of these cell towers. I mean this with no disrespect, but as far as I know, none of the Staff members involved in these recommendations lives in our City. Our ordinance rightfully took this decision authority away from Staff and placed it with the Planning Commission. These decisions that potentially have such a negative impact on residents must be made by fellow residents. This was a key reform in our wireless ordinance as it required those with "skin in the game" (i.e. fellow residents who would also be stuck with them) to make these decisions, not by Staff who don't live here and are also in frequent contact with the applicant. Staff originally recommended approval of all five of these sites yet they were denied by the Planning Commission. While I understand this for the initial hearings, the fact that Staff would now recommend that you overturn our Commission's extensive deliberations is deeply troubling. The Commission speaks for and protects the interests of the residents and I would have thought this would weigh heavily in any Staff recommendation. In Palos Verdes Estates, Staff has been neutral on cell tower denials that were appealed to their City Council, an entirely appropriate position. It is very surprising and seemingly inappropriate that our Staff would now take a blanket position in direct opposition to the extensive deliberations of the Planning Commission and the concerns of the residents themselves. Again, I don't mean this as disrespectful as I realize Staff has a tremendous workload and this has been a learning process. However, I ask that you take these points into consideration during your deliberations. I also ask that you consider that the Planning Commission has approved about half of the proposed sites before them, about the same proportion that were approved in Palos Verdes Estates. Clearly the Commission has acted appropriately and in a considered manner. A blanket recommendation that these decisions be overturned just can't be justified. Best Regards, Jeff Calvagna Rancho Palos Verdes i s. Nathan Zweizig From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear City Council members, Jeff Calvagna <jcalvagna@netzero.com> Tuesday, November 28, 2017 8:32 PM CC john@johncruikshank.us; ealegria@healthcarepartners.com Re: Staff recommendation regarding cell tower appeals This is a follow-up to my earlier correspondence regarding Staff's recommendation that you overturn the Planning Commission's denial of five wireless facilities. At tonight's Planning Commission hearing we received very surprising and disturbing news. The Commission politely asked Director Mihranian why Staff had made their recommendations. He replied this was because after the denials Staff had continued to coordinate with Crown Castle. Further, they would be coming to the appeals with new designs that neither the Commission nor the public had seen previously. The Commission was visibly shocked, with at least two Commissioners obviously angry. It is entirely warranted. None of us had any idea this was going on. Council members, the intent of an appeal is to determine if the Commission made an error in its denial, not to restart the process from scratch after months of painstaking deliberations. To do so is unfair to both the public and the Planning Commission, who unlike Staff and Crown Castle, aren't being paid to attend these hearings. We now feel like we've wasted months of our time (as one Commissioner stated tonight). Further, none of these new designs have been mocked -up at the locations and there has been no public outreach or notification whatsoever. Those residents located near the proposed sites that dutifully attended hearings and made their voice heard are completely unaware this has taken place. I would even venture that this "bait and switch" raises important ethical concerns. I would strongly request the City Council constrain its deliberations only to the designs that were before the Planning Commission and reject any attempts to restart this process with different submissions. Crown Castle had two years to come up with acceptable design/locations and refused. They have only now started to propose other options once it was clear the Commission was unafraid to deny their sites coupled with Governor Brown's veto of SB649. If Crown Castle wishes to bring these new designs before the Commission, then they should start the process over with new applications. That is the appropriate and correct course of action. I hope you will consider this request. If the City allows new submissions in the appeal, or grants a continuance to pursue other options, it will completely undermine the authority of the Planning Commission. It must be clear to the wireless industry that it's the Commission's charter to make these decisions, and the City Council will only intervene if it believes the Commission made a clear error in denying a wireless facility. On a related topic, I learned this morning that Crown Castle submitted 20 MB of late correspondence for these sites after only submitting a single page included in the Staff Report. I did not learn of this from Staff, but through other means. This morning I questioned why the interested public was not notified of this submission. In response, Staff today posted the material online. I am currently reviewing Crown Castle's claims and will soon provide commentary to you on their late correspondence. I know this process has been a trying experience, and I truly appreciate your patience and consideration of these matters. Best Regards, Jeff Calvagna On 11 /27/2017 7:44 PM, Jeff Calvagna wrote: Dear City Council members, As you know, I have been very active on the cell tower issue in our City, my main concern being that the resident's interests are protected when it comes to locating these facilities. The wireless industry has a long history of running amuck in our City, with virtually every site being rubber-stamped by Staff prior to our new ordinance. Our ordinance was meant to counter industry misinformation regarding the legal and technical aspects of these facilities to ensure our community aesthetics, neighborhood character, and property values were protected. It has been extremely effective and it is being used as model by other cities. I was shocked to find City Staff is recommending you overturn the Planning Commission's thoughtful denial of these cell towers. I mean this with no disrespect, but as far as I know, none of the Staff members involved in these recommendations lives in our City. Our ordinance rightfully took this decision authority away from Staff and placed it with the Planning Commission. These decisions that potentially have such a negative impact on residents must be made by fellow residents. This was a key reform in our wireless ordinance as it required those with "skin in the game" (i.e. fellow residents who would also be stuck with them) to make these decisions, not by Staff who don't live here and are also in frequent contact with the applicant. Staff originally recommended approval of all five of these sites yet they were denied by the Planning Commission. While I understand this for the initial hearings, the fact that Staff would now recommend that you overturn our Commission's extensive deliberations is deeply troubling. The Commission speaks for and protects the interests of the residents and I would have thought this would weigh heavily in any Staff recommendation. In Palos Verdes Estates, Staff has been neutral on cell tower denials that were appealed to their City Council, an entirely appropriate position. It is very surprising and seemingly inappropriate that our Staff would now take a blanket position in direct opposition to the extensive deliberations of the Planning Commission and the concerns of the residents themselves. Again, I don't mean this as disrespectful as I realize Staff has a tremendous workload and this has been a learning process. However, I ask that you take these points into consideration during your deliberations. I also ask that you consider that the Planning Commission has approved about half of the proposed sites before them, about the same proportion that were approved in Palos Verdes Estates. Clearly the Commission has acted appropriately and in a considered manner. A blanket recommendation that these decisions be overturned just can't be justified. Best Regards, Jeff Calvagna Rancho Palos Verdes Nathan Zweizig From: Al Hasham <hashamal@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 12:33 PM To: CC Cc: Al Hasham 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! Nathan Zweizig From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Sir or Madam, Al Hasham <hashamal@hotmail.com> Wednesday, November 29, 2017 2:16 PM CC Al Hasham Please deny the Cell Tower approval. Please deny the approval of the cell towers in RPV. Please keep in mind the future of our children. The sites being appealed are: • ASG NO. 09 (30452 Camino Porvenir) • ASG NO. 32 (Scotwood Drive Adjacent to 29504 Whitley Collins Drive) • ASG No. 33 (Across 6480 Chartres Drive) • ASG NO. 53 (Adjacent to 6505 Monero Drive) • ASG NO. 69 (Across 3486 Seaglen Drive) Thanks, Al I 1 -5 Nathan Zweizig From: A W <annnwong@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 2:33 PM To: CC Subject: Cell towers denials The City Council should only consider if the Planning Commission made the correct decision in denying the proposed design before them. Based on our participation in the hearings, we strongly believe all five denials were warranted and should be affirmed. It is unbelievable what is happening behind closed doors between staff and Crown Castle. I fully opposed to the method Staff and Criwn Castle are using top approve Cell towers in our city Ann Wong 61 Nathan Zweizig From: BW Riedman <rabbit943@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 1:58 PM To: CC Subject: Cell tower appeals and Staff actions I am sure that you have already seen these emails from Jeff. If what he has written is true, I am horrified that we have a city process by which items that will impact our community and which are considered and ruled upon by the various Commissions (CREATED BY YOU, THE CITY COUNCIL) and yet staff, rather than abide by the Commission's decision, secretly works with the appellant to undermine the process. I thought staff worked for ME, a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes, and did what was good for our community. My take on this is that staff has been compromised and someone (the City Council) needs to examine this further as to why staff was doing this in secret. There should not be a hearing re any changes - the Commission's decision should be upheld. If staff is allowed to get away with this, I would be surprised if anyone would want to serve on a commission again. Why bother? Staff does what staff wants to do so why waste so much time and energy spitting in the wind. I wish I could come to the meeting tomorrow but I'll be at LAX picking up family. Please do the right thing. Betty Riedman 3668 Cliffsite Drive ---------- Forwarded message ----- From: Jeff Calvagna < j calvagnannetzero. com> Date: Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 1:05 PM Subject: IMPORTANT UPDATE: Cell tower appeals and Staff actions To: Palos Verdes Neighbor, Thanks to those who replied to my earlier email as I have not yet had a chance to reply back to all. I truly appreciate your support and again ask those concerned about this issue to plan on attending the RPV cell tower appeal starting at 4 PM on Thursday (Nov 30th) at the Hesse Park Community Room (29301 Hawthorne Blvd, RPV). We received some very disturbing news at last night's RPV Planning Commission hearing. The Commission politely asked Staff to explain why they had recommended the City Council overturn their past cell tower denials. The Planning Director revealed that Staff has been coordinating with Crown Castle after the denials occurred and would be bringing brand new cell tower designs before the City Council at the appeal hearings. The Commissioners were clearly shocked, with a few members visibly angry. Their reaction was completely understandable, neither the Commission nor the public had any idea this was going on. Friends, this is clearly an abuse of the appeals process. The intent of an appeal is for the City Council to determine if the Planning Commission made an error in the denial decision, it is not a vehicle to restart and short-circuit the application process with brand new designs. Nor should an appeal entail secret negotiations between Staff and the applicant aimed at undermining the Planning Commission's authority and negating months of painstaking public deliberations. The fact that people who should have known better allowed this to take place raises serious ethical concerns. 1 In addition, Planning Commission hearings have continued while this was going on behind closed doors. Over the past few months, Crown Castle has repeatedly requested continuances (with Staff's concurrence) to allegedly allow more time to review alternatives. Despite this, the public has repeatedly attended hearings, sometimes month after month, only to find the hearing had been continued yet again. The Commission has been clearly frustrated with the delays. Now it's clear what was really going on, these were stalling tactics intended to delay decisions while Crown Castle and Staff worked together on the appeals strategy. If the denials were overturned, it would be a sharp rebuke to the Commission. It can't go without notice that unlike the Planning Commission, none of those involved in this live in our City. I urge you to contact the City Council now (ccgrpvca.com)and urge them to constrain their appeal deliberations only to designs reviewed by the Planning Commission. If the City Council allows these new designs to be introduced in the appeal it will completely undermine the Planning Commission's authority going forward. The Commissioners are accomplished residents of our City, were appointed by the City Council, and they represent our interests. There needs to be a clear message sent to both the wireless industry and to City Staff that it's within the Planning Commission's charter to make these decisions, and the City Council will only intervene in the event of a clear decision error. Further, Staff needs to understand that secret dealings with Crown Castle are completely unacceptable. A few other points to consider: none of these new designs have been mocked -up at the proposed locations (as required by our ordinance), there has been no public outreach, and no public notification regarding the new designs. Residents attended these hearings in good -faith, and dutifully provided public testimony regarding the design proposed in the Planning Commission hearings. Now we are seeing a classic "bait and switch" being attempted, involving back room dealings without public oversight. If Crown Castle wishes these new designs to be considered then they must submit new applications for the Planning Commission to review. Introducing them in an appeal hearing is completely inappropriate. The City Council should only consider if the Planning Commission made the correct decision in denying the proposed design before them. Based on our participation in the hearings, we strongly believe all five denials were warranted and should be affirmed. Please contact the City Council today and let them know about your concerns (ccgrpvca.gov). Again, here are the sites that were denied by the Planning Commission and will be heard at the appeal: • ASG NO. 09 (30452 Camino Porvenir) • ASG NO. 32 (Scotwood Drive Adjacent to 29504 Whitley Collins Drive) • ASG No. 33 (Across 6480 Chartres Drive) • ASG NO. 53 (Adjacent to 6505 Monero Drive) • ASG NO. 69 (Across 3486 Seaglen Drive - this site is next to my house) Please forward this email to neighbors and friends. Best regards, Jeff Calvagna On 11/27/2017 9:51 PM, Jeff Calvagna wrote: Palos Verdes Neighbor, If you are concerned about the cell tower issue, we desperately need your help this week. Crown Castle has appealed five residential neighborhood cell towers that were denied by our Planning Commission. The Rancho Palos Verdes City Council will hear all five appeals at a special City Council meeting on Nov 30th. Unfortunately, that is just the start of the bad news as our City Staff has stacked the deck against us. Despite these appeals being delayed for nearly two months, RPV's Staff has scheduled the hearing to start at 4 PM. I don't know the motivation for this decision, but this awkward hour will almost certainly suppress public participation. It is critical we have a strong turnout; I'm asking as personal favor that you attend and urge the Council to affirm these denials. The hearing will be at the Hesse Park Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, RPV. Even worse, the RPV Staff has recommended that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission's thoughtful denial of these sites! You read that right. City Staff, who don't live in our City, are recommending the City Council reverse our Planning Commissions hours of considered deliberations. Note that the Commissioners are all accomplished residents of our City, who were appointed by the City Council, and volunteer their time to ensure our aesthetics are maintained and resident interests are protected. Our new wireless ordinance took this decision power away from Staff and placed it with the Planning Commission as a long overdue reform. As you can tell from driving around the City, previously every crazy cell tower design and location was rubber-stamped. The intent of our new ordinance was that those who live here and are thus stuck with the outcome would make these decisions. That Staff would now push to overturn our Planning Commission's decision is inexcusable. Staff originally recommended approval of these sites yet they were denied by the Commission. At a minimum, Staff should have stayed neutral for these appeals in light of the Commission's actions. The five sites being appealed are: • ASG NO. 09 (30452 Camino Porvenir) • ASG NO. 32 (Scotwood Drive Adjacent to 29504 Whitley Collins Drive) • ASG No. 33 (Across 6480 Chartres Drive • ASG NO. 53 (Adjacent to 6505 Monero Drive • ASG NO. 69 (Across 3486 Seagrlen Drive - this site is next to my house) It should also be pointed out that the Commission has approved about half of the proposed cell towers, those that were in appropriate locations. The Commission has been judicious and reasonable. Apparently that is not good enough and we are expected to be approve all cell towers regardless of location. It's not too late to write the RPV City Council and urge them to affirm these cell tower denials. Please take a few minutes to contact the City Council (cc@rpvca.gov) and let them know that the Planning Commission did the right thing. I look forward to seeing you Thursday afternoon. Please forward this email to neighbors and friends as it's critical we get the word out. Best regards, Jeff Calvagna Nathan Zweizig From: Krista Johnson <kristamjohnson@cox.net> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 1:43 PM To: CC Subject: Planning Commission Cell Tower Appeals To the City Council As a resident of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and an advocate for an open, community involved process, it has come to my attention that the city planning staff has been colluding with Crown Castle to resubmit new designs to the City Council on an appeal basis numerous cell tower sights that were unequivocally denied through our wireless ordinance through the Planning Commission hearings and public input. The appeal process to the City Council should not introduce any new designs and circumvent in any way the decisions of the Planning Commission, who are ALL residents of Rancho Palos Verdes and understand the issues these towers have created. By allowing Crown Castle to introduce new designs at this stage of the process versus submitting them through planning the appropriate way, the staff has completely undermined the Planning Commission authority. This behavior by staff is completely unethical and clearly violates their ability to put the community residents above a company that has repeatedly been disrespectful and intent on changing the topography and beauty of our open space without resident knowledge until the tower goes up. This abusive and scheming behavior is inappropriate and out of alignment with the city general plan and what the residents want for their community. It is pretty easy to make decisions when they do not impdctyour private property rights and view and you don't even live in the city itself where you have to see all of the cell towers. But to live with the impact of those decisions should be part of the process, which is why the Planning Commission is reviewing them and has the authority to deny them. I understand there are rules we have to abide by for utility companies, but we do not have to just roll over and take whatever they say about wherever they want to put cell towers without a thought to the impact on our community and residents, the location, need and aesthetics of the towers. Where is the balance? This is just one company doing it now, what happens when the rest of them decide to come along and do the same thing? I see a huge issue with this. Please do not allow this travesty to occur on your watch. We just had an election and those who were voted in will need to follow your guidance in this matter and stand strong for our residents. I am highly concerned about the objectivity of a staff that proceeds to plan behind the backs of the Council and Planning Commission to circumvent a very thoughtful wireless ordinance that was implemented to prevent exactly this situation from happening. In addition, who gave the planning head the authorization to even do this deed in the first place? Where is the oversight of the staff by the City Manager and what is appropriate? Did the City Council know about this? If this had occurred prior to the denials of the Planning Commission, I can see the potential for everyone winning, for it to happen at this stage just seems like an offensive, backstabbing attempt to remove any authority of the Planning Commission and bulldoze the process and the community completely. Our best interests as residents are not served by this happening. Please do not look at any new designs at the City Council level and kick them all back to Planning for an appropriate, public review as designed by our wireless ordinance. Sincerely, Krista Johnson 58 Avenida Corona 310-508-3201 Nathan Zweizig From: Don Carter <carter.pv@cox.net> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 12:23 PM To: CC Subject: November 30 Special City Council Meeting Mr Mayor and Members We strongly support the decisions made by the RPV Planning Commission pertaining to the five cell sites to be considered by you tomorrow. PLEASE DO NOT OVERTURN THEM! We are out of town and thus will not be able to attend the Council meeting tomorrow. Sincerely. Don and Caroline Carter 30539 Calle de Suenos Sent from Mail for Windows 10 l-5 Nathan Zweizig From: Noel Park Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 7:25 PM To: CC; Doug Willmore; Ara Mihranian Subject: 11/30/17 Council agenda, Planning Commission cell tower decision appeals I refer to Mr. Jeff Calvagna's recent letter to you on this subject. I agree completely with Mr. Calvagna's remarks. There is a particularly obnoxious cell tower "mock-up" in our neighborhood. As the President of our local HOA, I have attended the majority of the Planning Commission meetings on this issue, trying to create a common cause with other similarly afflicted neighborhoods. As a result, I have observed first hand the heroic efforts of the Planning Commissioners as they sat through seemingly endless hours of hearings and carefully weighed the issues. As a result of their efforts, Crown Castle's original "my way or the highway" attitude has evolved into more of a willingness to listen to neighborhood concerns and consider alternatives. If the applicant can have it's application denied, subsequently negotiate with staff, and then go directly to Council to have the Planning Commission's decisions overturned, what is the point of having a Planning Commission at all? Out of respect for the diligent work and dedication of the Planning Commissioners, I would suggest that a much better procedure would be to deny these appeals without prejudice and direct the applicant to return to the Planning Commission with any new proposals they may wish to bring forward. Your Planning Commissioners have done great work on behalf of our community. Please do not cut them off at the knees by granting these appeals. Sincerely, Noel Park 6715 El Rodeo Road Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 562-413-5147 l 5. ND Nk'WNI.EYER DILL[ON i..1:.P ATTORNEYS AT LAW MICHAEL W. sHONAFELT Michael.Shonafelt@ndlf.com Novmber .2017 VIA EMAIL - brian.campbell@rpvca.gov AND HAND -DELIVERY Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 File No. 2464.130 Re: Crown Castle: Appeal of Wireless Telecommunications Facility ASG33 Dear Mayor Campbell and Members of the City Council, This office is legal counsel for Crown Castle NG West LLC ("Crown Castle") in the above -referenced appeal ("Appeal"). This letter presents Crown Castle's legal rights under both federal and state law and presents an analysis of those rights as they pertain to the Appeal. 1. INTRODUCTION. At the center of the Appeal is Crown Castle's application for a Wireless Telecommunications Facility Permit ASG33 within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("City") public right-of-way ("ROW") at the northeast corner of Chartres Drive and Cartier Drive. ("Project"). The Project is a low-power, small cell telecommunications facility that serves as an integral and vital part of a larger telecommunications and broadband network in the City. A. Original Proposal. As originally proposed the Project would feature a new, 14 -foot steel pole with two two - foot -tall panel antennas topping the pole at 14 feet. (See Exhibit A, Original Design Photo - simulations.) Radios, which convert light spectrum from fiber-optic cable into radio frequency ("RF") spectrum, an SCE power meter and a disconnect box would be located in or on a ground - mounted cabinet adjacent to the pole. (Ibid.) Notably, there is little existing vertical infrastructure in the Project area. The neighborhood feature no streetlights or utility poles. Crown Castle selected a site that is on a street intersection, in a landscaped parkway at the base of a landscaped slope that buffers the site from the nearest home, located at 30182 Cartier Drive, and partially buffered by existing trees and shrubs. The facility would be well outside ocean view corridors from any residence and would be located entirely in the ROW. (See Exhibit A.) In its initial staff report for the July 25, 2017, Planning Commission hearing, the Planning Department Staff ("Staff") noted that it had conducted view impact analyses of the Project and concluded that the Project did not impair views from surrounding residences or from Chartres Drive and Cartier Drive. (See Staff Report: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission (July 25, 2017) at pp. 5-6, 8.) The Staff also concluded that "the proposed installation is likely 1333 N. CALIFONIA BLVD 895 DOVE STREET 3993 HOWARD HUGHES PKWY SUITE 600 5TH FLOOR SUITE 530 WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 LAS VEGAS, NV 89169 T 925 988 3200 T 949 854 7000 T 702 777 7500 F 925 988 3290 F 949 854 7099 F 702 777 7599 Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council Novmber _. 2017 Page 2 the least intrusive location for the wireless telecommunications facility in the immediate area," and recommended approval. (Id. at p. 10.) At the July 25, 2017, Planning Commission hearing, the City's legal counsel opined that, with the proposed conditions of approval, the Project met "all" of the City's application criteria. (See video of proceedings of July 25, 2017, http://rpv.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=5&clip id=2851, at 3:17:20.) The Planning Commission voted to continue the matter to August 22, 2017, meeting to receive information from the City's radio frequency consultant. B. Second Proposed Design. Based on a range of freewheeling and open-ended comments received from the Planning Commission on July 25, 2017, and subsequent site walks with the Staff, Crown Castle proposed moving the pole further to the west, to replace an existing stop sign at the intersection of Cartier and Chartres Drive with a 14 -foot pole capable of accommodating both the stop sign and the telecommunications antennas, thereby eliminating the need for a new pole in the ROW. The replacement pole would be 12 inches in diameter and incorporate a 3.5 -foot tall, 24 -inch diameter canister at its top. Crown Castle also agreed with a staff recommendation to place the equipment cabinet underground, in a subterranean vault. (See Photo -simulations of First Revision, attached as Exhibit B.) For a second time, the Staff recommended approval. Notwithstanding Crown Castle's efforts to reduce the visual profile of the Project, the Planning Commission adopted a motion to deny the Project at its continued hearing on August 22, 2017, with no specific grounds, aside from an ill-defined concern about "setting precedent" and "cumulative" aesthetic impacts for possible speculative future facilities that have not yet seen the light of day. The Planning Commission otherwise provided Crown Castle with no specific direction on what design or location alternatives would be considered less intrusive. Crown Castle timely filed this appeal to the City Council, pursuant to City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code ("RPVMC") sections 12.18.060 (D) and 17.80.030 (A). C. Third (Current) Proposal. In the wake of the Planning Commission's motion to deny the Project, Crown Castle's engineers took a hard look at the Project with an eye toward arriving at a slimmer profile, more stealth design. Their goal was to see what designs could be feasibly employed to address the generalized aesthetic concerns raised at the Planning Commission. The constraints faced by Crown Castle in this endeavor are those posed by the radio frequency ("RF") objectives that must be achieved to fill the existing significant gap in service at this location. As Andrew Afflerbach, Ph.D -- the City's own RF expert -- noted, "there is no free lunch" with respect to reducing antenna size. As antennas are reduced in size, so is their effectiveness in achieving RF coverage objectives. (See Part 3.A.1, below.) For small cell gaps in coverage, such as this, the tolerances for achieving network objectives are tight. Nevertheless, the Crown Castle team worked with AT&T to arrive at a yet smaller canister for the street sign location. The canister would be 14.6 inches in diameter, as opposed to 24 inches in diameter. A tapered skirt at the base of the canister would provide a visual transition from the canister to the 12 -inch pole. The canister would still top out at 14 feet. A Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council Novmber _. 2017 Page 3 conceptual photo -simulation of this third revised design is attached at Exhibit C. An excerpted photo -simulation of the Third Design Proposal is presented here: This third revision represents the smallest design solution for the Project; the reduction in size and profile has a resultant negative impact on the Project's ability to fill the significant gap in service. Crown Castle and AT&T nevertheless are willing to accept the reduced signal strength to achieve a mutually acceptable solution. As for locational alternatives, no least intrusive site exists in the Project area. (See discussion, infra, at Part 3 A.) 2. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL. A. STATE LAW. Crown Castle is a "competitive local exchange carrier" ("CLEC"). CLECs qualify as a "public utility" and therefore have a special status under state law. By virtue of the CPUC's issuance of a "certificate of public convenience and necessity" ("CPCN"), CLECs have authority under state law to "erect poles, posts, piers, or abutments" in the ROW subject only to local municipal control over the "time, place and manner" of access to the ROW. (Pub. Util. Code, §§ 1001, 7901; 7901.1; see Williams Communication v. City of Riverside (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 642, 648 [upon obtaining a CPCN, a telephone corporation has "the right to use the public highways to install [its] facilities."].) (1) Public Utilities Code Sections 7901, 7901.1. The CPUC has issued a CPCN which authorizes Crown Castle to construct the Project pursuant to its regulatory status under state law. Crown Castle's special regulatory status as a CLEC gives rise to a vested right under Public Utilities Code section 7901 to use the ROW in the City to "construct ... telephone lines along and upon any public road or highway, along or across any of the waters or lands within this State" and to "erect poles, posts, piers, or abutments for supporting the insulators, wires, and other necessary fixtures of their lines, in such manner and at Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council Novmber _. 2017 Page 4 such points as not to incommode the public use of the road or highway[.]" (Pub. Util. Code, § 7901.) The nature of the vested right was described by one court as follows: ... "[I]t has been uniformly held that [section 7901] is a continuing offer extended to telephone and telegraph companies to use the highways, which offer when accepted by the construction and maintenance of lines constitutes a binding contract based on adequate consideration, and that the vested right established thereby cannot be impaired by subsequent acts of the Legislature. [Citations.]" ... Thus, telephone companies have the right to use the public highways to install their facilities. (Williams Communications v. City of Riverside, supra, 114 Cal.App.4th at p. 648 quoting County of L. A. v. Southern Cal. Tel. Co. (1948) 32 Cal.2d 378, 384 [196 P.2d 773].) 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 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.App.4th at p. 653.) Moreover, section 7901.1 specifies that such controls, "to be reasonable, shall, at a minimum, be applied to all entities in an equivalent manner." (Ibid., emphasis added.) Accordingly, to the extent that other public utilities are authorized to use the ROW in the City without having to obtain a discretionary land use permit, such disparate treatment may run afoul of the "equivalent manner" provision of Public Utilities Code section 7901.1. On the basis of Crown Castle's status as a CLEC, and its concomitant rights to the ROW, the Project is designed as part of an ROW telecommunications system. With respect to the siting 1 Notwithstanding the submittal of this application, Crown Castle reserves its rights under Public Utilities Code sections 7901 and 7901.1, including the right to proceed with construction of its networks without having to obtain a local franchise and/or discretionary grant of entry in to the ROW. Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council Novmber _. 2017 Page 5 and configuration of the Project, the rights afforded under Public Utilities Code section 7901 and 7901.1 apply. Crown Castle reserves its rights under section 7901 and 7901.1, including, but not limited to, its right to challenge any approval process, that impedes or infringes on Crown Castle's rights as a CLEC. (2) Government Code Section 65964.1. Recently, the California Legislature echoed the courts' oft -repeated declaration that "the construction and maintenance of telephone lines in the streets and other public places within the City is today a matter of state concern and not a municipal affair." (Williams Communication v. City of Riverside, supra, 114 Cal.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 15, 18, 47) ("Telecom Act"). When enacting the Telecom Act, Congress expressed its intent "to promote competition and reduce regulation in order to secure lower prices and higher quality services for American telecommunications consumers and encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies." (110 Stat. at 56.) As one court noted: Congress enacted the TCA to promote competition and higher quality in telecommunications services and to encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies. Congress intended to promote a national cellular network and to secure lower prices and better service for consumers by opening all telecommunications markets to competition. (T -Mobile Central, LLC v. Unified Government of Wyandotte, 528 F.Supp. 2d 1128, 1146-47 (D. Kan. 2007). One way in which the Telecom Act accomplishes those goals is by reducing impediments imposed by local governments upon the installation of wireless communications facilities, such as antenna facilities. (47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(A).) Section 332(c)(7)(B) provides the limitations on the general authority reserved to state and local governments. Those limitations are set forth as follows: Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council Novmber _. 2017 Page 6 (1) State and local governments may not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services (§ 332 (c)(7)(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: The regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof— (11) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. (47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II).) In T -Mobile U.S.A. Inc. v. City ofAnacortes (9th Cir. 2009) 572 F.3d 987, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals set forth a two-step analysis for determining whether a local government's denial has the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless telecommunications services in violation of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. In the first step, the applicant must make a showing of a "significant gap" in service. (Id. at p. 995.) In the second step, the applicant must demonstrate it has selected the "least intrusive means" to fill that gap in service. (Ibid.) Each prong of the Prohibition of Service Provision is addressed below. Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council Novmber _. 2017 Page 7 A. A Significant Gap in Service Exists at the Project Site. (1) What Is a Significant Gap? "Significant gap" is a legal term of art developed by the courts to guide a determination of whether a local government's decision on an application prohibits a carrier or other wireless infrastructure developer from providing service. (See, e.g., T -Mobile USA, Inc. v. City of Anacortes, supra, 572 F.3d at p. 995.) Put simply, "a locality could violate the [Telecom Act's] effective prohibition clause if it prevented a wireless provider from closing a `significant gap' in service coverage." (Id., at p. 995; MetroPCS, Inc. v. City of San Francisco (9th Cir., 2005) 400 F.3d 715, 731.) Significant gap is "a contextual term that must take into consideration the purposes of the Telecommunications Act itself." (T -Mobile Northeast LLC v. Loudoun County Bd. of Supervisors (4th Cir. 2014) 748 F.3d 185, 198.). Among the goals of the Telecom Act are to "promote competition," "secure ... higher 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 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)(13)(i)(11), we must take a contextual approach and cannot rely on any specific formula. (T -Mobile Northeast LLC v. Loudoun County Bd. of Supervisors, supra, 748 F.3d at p. 198.) In keeping with the principle of cutting-edge concepts of what constitutes a "significant gap," the courts have upheld the use of in -building minimum standards as a proper benchmark for determining whether a significant gap in coverage exists. (See, e.g., MetroPCS Inc. v. City Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council Novmber _. 2017 Page 8 and County of San Francisco (N.D.Cal. 2006) 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43985 ["careful reading of existing cases that contain a significant gap analysis persuades the court that any analysis should include consideration of a wireless carrier's in -building coverage."]; see also, AT&T Mobility Servs., LLC v. Vill. of Corrales (10th Cir., 2016) 642 Fed. Appx. 886, 891.) Moreover, it is important to note that a telephone network may reveal adequate "coverage" but inadequate "capacity." The distinction between coverage and capacity may be better understood in terms of transportation infrastructure. A two-lane road may provide "coverage," but once that two lane road experiences high -levels of urban rush-hour traffic, coverage becomes irrelevant, since the road does not have sufficient "capacity" to handle the higher traffic volumes. In other words, a network may have adequate coverage, but inadequate capacity, which results in the same problem: an impermissibly high level of dropped and blocked calls. The need to fill the existing significant coverage gap to a level that allows adequate in - building coverage and to address growing capacity demands is underscored by the greater numbers of customers dropping their landlines and relying solely on wireless telecommunications for their phone service. The following additional considerations promote a policy of employing more sophisticated notions of significant gap: (a) In a recent international study, the United States dropped to fifteenth in the world in broadband penetration, well behind South Korea, Japan, the Netherlands and France.2 (b) Over 50 percent of all American homes are now wireless only. 3 (c) More and more civic leaders and emergency response personnel cite lack of a robust wireless network as a growing public safety risk. The number of 911 calls placed by people using wireless phones has significantly increased in recent years. It is estimated that about 70 percent of 911 calls are placed from wireless phones, and that percentage is growing. 4 (d) Data demand from new smartphones and tablets is leading to a critical deficit in spectrum, requiring more wireless antennas and infrastructure. According to a 2011 report, wireless data traffic was 110 percent higher than in the last half of 2010. Similarly, AT&T reports that its wireless data volumes have increased 30 - fold since the introduction of the iPhone. 5 (e) Wireless data traffic grew by a factor of 300 percent between 2010 and 2015.6 2 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Directorate for Science, Technology, and Industry, "Broadband Statistics," (June 2010): <www.oecd.org/sti/ict/broadband>. 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 'Federal Communications Commission (2012) http://www.fcc.gov/guides/wireless-911-services. 5 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. Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council Novmber _. 2017 Page 9 Global mobile data traffic is expected to reach a seven -fold increase by 2021. Determining what constitutes a "significant gap" therefore must incorporate metrics that are based -- not just on basic cell phone coverage -- but also on network capacity for advanced communications technologies. As more Americans depend on wireless communications technologies and smartphones, reliable network capacity and in -building coverage are critical. These are some of the reasons courts now recognize that a "significant gap" can exist on the basis of capacity needs and inadequate in -building coverage. (See, e.g., MetroPCS Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, supra, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43985; T -Mobile Central, LLC v. Unified Government of Wyandotte County (D.Kans. 2007) 528 F.Supp.2d 1128.) Wireless telecommunications are the primary mode of communication for Americans in the twenty-first century. That fact is amply demonstrated by the latest surveys in the industry, which reveal that over 49 percent of American homes rely wholly on wireless devices.' The marginal service currently at the Project site is inadequate to sustain current -- and future -- communications technologies and demands. In a recent report, the "National 911 Program," which is an office housed within the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, found that "76 percent of consumers are using cellular phones to make calls to 911 while 2lpercent are using wireline phones."9 On that ground alone, this is a matter of health, safety and welfare for the residents and visitors of the City. Notably, 911 service over systems like this is not just limited to AT&T users -- the networks carries 911 calls of any mobile user. (2) Data Support a Significant Gap at the Project Site. Applying the above principles to the Project, data reveal that the project service area has insufficient signal strength to address current data demand and statistical projections of data demand. Crown Castle has undertaken drive -test data of existing conditions at the Project site in two different frequencies that will be employed at the Project site. (See ASG33-Proposed Primary and Alternate Node Analysis, attached as Exhibit D.) Exhibit D identifies levels of service in terms of the following criteria: http://digitalconqurer.com/news/cisco-mobile-visual-networking-index-vni-forecasts-seven-fold-increase-global- mobile-data-traffic-2016-21 / s See CTIA Annual Survey Report (http://www.ctia.org/industry-data/ctia-annual-wireless-industry-survey) e See https://www.911.gov/pdf/National-911-Program-2015-ProfileDatabaseProgressRe port-021716.pdf Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council Novmber _. 2017 Page 10 RSRP _ -65 to 0 _ -75 to -65 -S5 to -75 _ -95 to -95 -t i15 to 96 =-I 20 to -106 Locations %!able 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. Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council Novmber _. 2017 Page 11 1 c2� Alp e f e r � • f • s ASW3 S _ ASGS3.A 33 E ~ BOtYY At1110 . � Rawrvs k•,•I:r+3 k 4<n..r 'S afAB glll'19 This slide reveals that that the existing coverage varies from -95 to -120 dBm. In the existing condition, users in the service area will experience an increasingly higher percentage of blocked and dropped calls for outside use, with a commensurate decline in signal strength as one moves toward the inside of existing buildings and homes. Moreover, as more and more uses connect to the network, the number of dropped and blocked calls will increase, since more users results in more demand on the network and resultant capacity problems. In short, there is a serious capacity deficit within the service radius of the Project site. 911 calls in this area would be unreliable. These conclusions were affirmed by the City's own RF consultant, Andrew Afflerbach, of CTC Technology & Energy, at the Planning Commission's August 22, 2017, meeting. CTC conducted its own significant gap analysis at the Project site and affirmed that the levels of service are lower than the acceptable standards for "modern telecommunications service." Afflerbach also said the following: "I will tell you this that a 911 call could be confusing in that area because it could end up in Santa Monica ... [i]t's not a stable environment." (2:50:00) If the Project is approved and allowed put on -air, however, coverage and capacity problems will be addressed, as can be seen in Exhibit D, Slide 6, which is excerpted here: Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council Novmber _. 2017 Page 12 � a t0721t A",. ^A��a . S 4s°ems 0 &,, v\ Monaco _ v AS G33 D - r c v� ASG33 6 . A$033 A as'�lic tic t��an see�ace = C� b� 3i G All 3 s7, G V Q '�1r7n P `�'k BarVrntine Canyon pteW ve RoboFtE firm Bvke+rime The Project will provide sufficient signal strength to ensure not only adequate signal for mobile and outdoor users, but reliable in -building coverage for all those customers who may seek to abandon their home landlines. The Project also will add sufficient capacity to address new data demands from smartphones and tablets. Wireless customers must be able to count on a level of service commensurate with that once provided by their dropped landlines. Such considerations are relevant -- if not critical -- to a determination of significant gap. (See, e.g., T - Mobile Central LLC v. City of Fraser (E.D. Mich. 2009) 675 F.Supp.2d 721 [considering failure rate of 911 emergency calls.]) One of the grounds invoked by the Planning Commission for denial of the Project was a conclusory assertion that Crown Castle failed to demonstrate a significant gap in service. The drive test data presented in Exhibit D refute that contention. Nor has this data been seriously controverted by any competent evidence. Indeed, the City's own RF expert concurred with the conclusion of Crown Castle's RF engineers that a significant gap indeed exists at the project site. The Planning Commission is charged with addressing zoning and planning issues, not the regulation of RF, which is a matter preempted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The City engaged CTC as an independent RF expert pursuant to Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code section 12.18.050. For areas -- such as RF coverage issues -- that are outside the scope of the Planning Commission's competency and jurisdiction it should look to the conclusions of its hired consultants and the actual data compiled by RF experts, not the unsupported assertions of project opponents. Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council Novmber _. 2017 Page 13 B. Crown Castle Has Demonstrated That It Has Chosen the Least Intrusive Means to Fill the Significant Gap in Service. To establish least intrusive means, the applicant establishes a "prima facie showing of effective prohibition by submitting a comprehensive application, which includes consideration of alternatives, showing that the proposed [wireless communications facility] is the least intrusive means of filling a significant gap." (T -Mobile U.S.A. Inc. v. City ofAnacortes, supra, 572 F.3d at p. 995.) After that, the burden shifts to the local government: "When a locality rejects a prima facie showing, it must show that there are some potentially available and technologically feasible alternatives." (Id. at p. 998.) The court further explained that the applicant then has an opportunity to "dispute the availability and feasibility of the alternatives favored by the locality." (Ibid.) Because Crown Castle is a CLEC entitled to construct its facilities in the ROW, its small- cell and DAS networks are inherently ROW systems. On that basis, Crown Castle examined those alternatives theoretically available to it in the ROW. The analysis below demonstrates why the Project qualifies as the "least intrusive means" of filling the significant gap in service. (1) Height and Location of the Project. The antenna height and location of the Project were chosen to provide the minimum signal level needed to meet critical coverage and capacity needs in the service area. Despite the technical limitations of a low -profile, small-cell system, Crown Castle seeks to maximize the coverage of each node location, since maximization of the node performance equates to a lower overall number of facilities and a less intrusive system. Accordingly, the Project location was chosen to provide an effective relay of signal from adjacent sites, so that ubiquitous coverage of the minimum signal level is provided throughout the service area with the minimum number of facilities. The selected location maximizes the RF coverage of the Project and minimizes interference/overlap with the other facilities, resulting in a lower overall number of facilities and a less intrusive system. The ROW is ideal for the Project from an aesthetic standpoint because the ROW is an area already impacted with utilities and similar features typical of developed roadways. Importantly, the currently proposed location and design were identified after exhausting other possible locations in the relatively small DAS coverage area or "polygon." (See Exhibit D, Slide 5.) Crown Castle's RF engineers examined five alternative locations in the immediate Project area, as depicted in Slide 7 of Exhibit D and as excerpted here: 'of- a , F ,cation C. l --fIk::�-ltLg fl ,L'. °.- r.��•. ASG 33 LDC SAlan,fr a ASG33 L --ti co 0" � r Alf`.. `*.. 4" G`3 Locat,g-Wl rr yy Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council Novmber _. 2017 Page 15 The proposed site best utilizes existing foliage, slope topography and the ROW landscaping, which buffers the Project from surrounding homes on all sides. While the Project may be visible at the proposed location, it is far less intrusive than other potential sites that are immediately adjacent to residences. Only one other possible location is removed from homes. It is located at Hawthorne Boulevard and Rhone Drive. It is too far away from the Project site and is too far downhill from that site to qualify as a viable alternative location. (See Exhibit D, Slide _.) the Crown Castle has satisfied its burden of proof under the burden -shifting process established by T -Mobile U.S.A. Inc. v. City of Anacortes. (2) Small Cells and DAS as Least Intrusive Means Technology, by Design. Even apart from the careful siting of the facilities that are part of a small cells or DAS system, the technological configuration of small cells and DAS nodes is inherently minimally intrusive by design. Small cells and DAS were developed as a smaller -scale solution to the larger macro -site or cell tower. It therefore represents a significant technological advance in the development of reduced- profile wireless transmission devices. The nodes are designed to be smaller scale and lower power to allow them to integrate more easily into their surroundings and thereby render them less aesthetically intrusive. While it is impossible to make the facilities invisible, each facility will be designed to blend with existing features in the road to the extent feasible. Crown Castle's small cell network qualifies as the "least intrusive means" of filling the identified significant gap for the following reasons, among others: (a) Crown Castle small cells utilize the latest in wireless infrastructure technology, incorporating smaller, low-power facilities instead of using larger -- and sometimes more obtrusive -- cell towers; (b) Crown Castle small cells utilize the ROW, thereby avoiding intrusions into private property or undeveloped sensitive resource areas; (c) Crown Castle small cells allow for collocation by multiple carriers, thereby avoiding proliferation of nodes; (d) Crown Castle small cells strike a balance between antenna height and coverage in order to minimize visual impacts; (e) Crown Castle small cells carefully are carefully spaced to effectively relay signal with a minimum of facilities; and (f) Crown Castle small cells utilize existing vertical elements in the ROW, such as utility poles, or slim -profile new poles, thereby minimizing intrusions into the ROW. (3) The Project Location and Design Qualify as the Least Intrusive Means of Filling the Demonstrated Significant Gap in Coverage. The Project utilizes small cell technology, which, as discussed above, was designed to avoid the need for larger profile macro -sites. As for the location, the Project is buffered from residences on all sides by existing foliage, slope topography and the ROW landscaping. The Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council Novmber _. 2017 Page 16 Staff confirmed that the location was the least intrusive of all the other potentially feasible locations. The facility, as revised, will replace an existing pole (a stop sign) and thereby eliminate the need for a new pole in the ROW. It will be painted to blend into the existing setting. Moving this site to other locations elsewhere in the small RF objective ring would place the facility directly adjacent to residences, resulting in greater visual impacts. Crown Castle engaged in an exhaustive investigation of potential locations for the Project. If the City can identify another feasible alternative location that allows Crown Castle to achieve its coverage objective for this Project, it would be happy to investigate that location. Crown Castle submits, however, that it already engaged in that search and that the proposed location is the least intrusive location available. 4. CONCLUSION. For the foregoing reasons, the City Council should grant this Appeal and approve the Project. We look forward to answering your questions on the day of the hearing. Very truly yours, Michael W. Shonafelt MWS cc: Ara Mihranian, Director, Planning and Zoning Division, City of Rancho Palos Verdes Christy Lopez, Special Counsel, City of Rancho Palos Verdes Lona Laymon, City Attorney, City of Rancho Palos Verdes Lizbeth Wincele, Government Relations Counsel — Southern California, Crown Castle Daniel Schweizer, Director, Government Relations, West Region, Crown Castle Stephen Garcia, Manager Government Relations, Crown Castle Aaron Snyder, Government Relations Specialist-DAS & Small Cells -Southern California, Crown Castle Enclosures 7223446.1 Nathan Zweizig From: Ara Mihranian Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 2:47 PM To: CityClerk Subject: FW: King Palm Drawing for A&E Received: RPV Mock Ups - 11-22-17 730AM Update Attachments: DRAWING _ DATE PALM _ 25'.pdf, King Palm Concept- CONCEPT- 11-16-17.pdf Add as late correspondence Hi Ara, Re: King Palm We received the King Palm elevation and that is attached, so now we just need the CAD file before our A&E vendor can prepare drawings and photosims. The King palm can be as short as 12 -feet high at the top of the trunk or as tall as 25 feet to the top of the trunk. Once we add the palm fronds to the trunk the overall height will increase by 4 to 6 feet. Each palm frond will vary in length to mimic a live palm, since palm fronds on a live tree are never the exact same length. In the case of ASG33 the top of the trunk will be 12 -feet high with a 16 to 18 -feet overall height after the fronds are added Let me know if you have questions about the palm until we have the drawings and simulation. I can get palm frond samples and bark, but the King palm frond and bark will not be available before the City Council hearing on the 3W1. Let us know how you want to proceed given that we can't mock up the palm before the 30" Stephen STEPHEN GARCIA Manager Government relations T: (949) 344-7784 1 Ill: (562) 665--9421 CROWN CASTLE 200 Spertr= Center Drive Suite 1800 Irvine, ""A 92618 CrownCastle.com Ara Michael Mihranian Community Development Director GITN"OFLi 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5228 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) aram _rpvca.gov www.rpvca.gov Do you really need to print this e-mail? his e -mal message, wnta3rrs inforrrotion k olonging to the;, {amity of Rancho Pidos vrrcl.s, a"thich nlay be pr€vilecled, confidential and/or farotected'rrom CiisciOsurta. (he information rntande.d only for use of t-110. individual or a.ntity named, Unauthorize,,J dissemination, ciistnbuLion, or copying Is strictly prohibited, Cf you uxeivco this a¢nail in error, or ares not an stlf.Mt1dCd racif.:retat, please notify ,.iaa :,ender unrnadiately, Thank you for your as,€.,t,rntr and cooperation. From: Garcia, Stephen[mailto:Stephen.Garcia@crowncastle.comj Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 3:59 PM To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Hobbs, Kenneth<Kenneth.Hobbs@crowncastle.com>; Snyder, Aaron <Aaron.Snyder@crowncastle.com>; Cowell, Jon (Vendor) <Jon.Cowell.Vendor@crowncastle.com>; Garcia, Julio <Julio.Garcia@crowncastle.com> Cc: Swendner, Scott (Vendor) <Scott.Swendner.Vendor@crowncastle.com>; Longhurst, Scott <Scott.Longhurst@crowncastle.com>; Myers, Marc <Marc.Myers@crowncastle.com>; Garcia, Stephen <Stephen.Garcia@crowncastle.com>; Garcia, Stephen <Stephen.Garcia@crowncastle.com>; Art Bashmakian <abashmakian@rpvca.gov>; Michael W. Shonafelt <Michael.Shonafelt@ndlf.com>; Garcia, Stephen <Stephen.Garcia@crowncastle.com> Subject: RE: King Palm Drawing for A&E Received: RPV Mock Ups - 11-22-17 730AM Update Hi Ara - Re: King Palm -- Detailed Elevation See the attached elevations with color detail and finished palm frond layout. As mentioned, I can't get this mocked up, but we'll get simulations and hopefully drawings by the 30th. Jon, Re: Photo Sims and Drawings for ASG33 Can you get a photo sim before the 30th? We'd like to present the drawings too, but let me know what is possible. Have the A&E call me with any questions about the sims and/or drawings. Two important point. First the ASG33 palm will be 12 -feet to the top of the trunk and the palm fronds will vary from 4 to 6 feet above the trunk. Second, the color of the palm must match the palm shown to the far left of this drawing. The base to near the top is grayish/brown and the top of the trunk is green. See drawing. Best regards, Stephen STEPHEN GARCIA 9anagerGovernment Relations y(943 427 1K (583 665-9421 CROWN CASTLE 200 Sp, arum CenterDrive Sib ]800 Iw%% CA G]8 CrownCastle.com LN 3A AT B OMNI ANTENNA OR PANEL ANTENNAS A 4 3 2 THIS DESIGN DRAWING IS PROPRIETARY & CONFIDENTIAL DWG UNITS: FEET & INCHES DRAFTER: RJN PROJECT: KING PALM _ E I MNFG TOLERANCE: 1/76' DATE: 1 1/22/17 DRAWING: Larson Concept Sheet RE PR: CUC iCN OR PARTORAS a MATERIAL & FINISH 1: NOTES ....__.. SIZE RE AM Ui,,,�-�_��,�E -Ull- i.. 1S Rr [n� .... SCALE: 1:16CEHEET 1 OF 1 4 3 2 PROJECT: PROJECT LOCATION: DRAWING TITLE: SCALE: o a z a �_' o rx, - aI=) Z C -J m O a a a CD a m e o o xz cnv Amo z �z n n ax M o ' z C:) x a c n z a m a� x KING PALM CONCEPT ISE PROJECT a: JDATE:November 17, 2017 ISE Incorporated E? Structural Engineers LiqRS01f CAMOUFLAGE 1501 South Euclid Avenue PO Box 50039 Tucson, AZ 85713 Phoenix, Arizona 85076 (520) 294-3900 PHONE: 602-403-8614 www.larsoncomo.com :9 www.ise-inc.biz N SD N G:WM.i V.E'R DIL I -ION L,LP ATTORNEYS AT LAW MICHAEL W. SHONAFELT File No, Michael.Shonafelt@ndlf.com 2464.130 November _. 2017 VIA EMAIL - brian.campbell@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 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/155/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— (11) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. (47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II).) In T -Mobile U.S.A. Inc. v. City ofAnacortes (9th Cir. 2009) 572 F.3d 987, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals set forth a two-step analysis for determining whether a local government's denial has the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless telecommunications services in violation of Section 332(c)(7)(13)(i)(II) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. In the first step, the applicant must make a showing of a "significant gap" in service. (Id. at p. 995.) In the second step, the applicant must demonstrate it has selected the "least intrusive means" to fill that gap in service. (Ibid.) Each prong of the Prohibition of Service Provision is addressed below. 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)(13)(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 2 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Directorate for Science, Technology, and Industry, "Broadband Statistics," (June 2010): <Www.oecd.org/sti/ict/broadband>. 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 2021.7 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.8 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 2lpercent 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 '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. 6 https://www.ctia.org/industry-data/wireless-quick-facts. http://digitalconqurer.com/news/cisco-mobile-visual-networking-index-vni-forecasts-seven-fold-increase-global- mobile-data-traffic-2016-21 / s See CTIA Annual Survey Report (http://www.ctia.org/industry-data/ctia-annual-wireless-industry-survey) e See https://www.911.gov/pdf/National-911-Program-2015-ProfileDatabaseProgressRe port-021716.pdf 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: R5RP _ -65 to 4 _ -75 to -65 -85 to -75 _ -95 to -85 _ A 05 to _C5 _ -120 to -105 Locations '.viable Failed Coverage Objective (a) Outdoor Only —Unacceptable Coverage (Black) (>-105 dBm); (b) In -Vehicle Only — Unacceptable Coverage (Blue) (>-95 dBm); (c) Suburban/In-building, Acceptable (Red) (>-85 dBm); (d) Urban/In-building, Acceptable (Yellow) (>-75 dBm); (e) Dense Urban/Deep In -building, Optimum (Light/Dark Green) (>-75 dBm). Each level is characterized by a minimum signal level. The key to coverage is having a signal level strong -enough to allow customers to maintain contact with the network so they can make and maintain calls. Signal level, the strength of the radio signal customers' devices receive, is measured in negative decibels per milliwatt ("dBm"). The larger the negative dBm number, the weaker the coverage. For example, a signal strength of -100 dBm is weaker than a signal strength of -80 dBm. 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. Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November _. 2017 Page 11 RSRP r _ -1 05 asn a -106 W-65 aEm -95 W 45 (&n AS m -7S ®m -75 A E5 tlEm —454Bm PFaposed Wow DGm� AJ6-- M. 1—ti. s • FaRG • VNEk Existing ATBTsil. CCROWN CASTLE • w 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): Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November _. 2017 Page 12 ........................................ ..• ......YY..... •• Y• .Ys Ya �M�'YYe!' +�� Y•YY 0 E 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 Ya•.�+�.YY.• •YYY YYSYY• r M� M 0 E 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 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. City ofAnacortes, supra, 572 F.3d at p. 995.) After that, the burden shifts to the local government: "When a locality rejects a prima facie showing, it must show that there are some potentially available and technologically feasible alternatives." (Id. at p. 998.) The court further explained that the applicant then has an opportunity to "dispute the availability and feasibility of the alternatives favored by the locality." (Ibid. ) Because Crown Castle is a CLEC entitled to construct its facilities in the ROW, its small- cell and DAS networks are inherently ROW systems. On that basis, Crown Castle examined those alternatives theoretically available to it in the ROW. The analysis below demonstrates why the Project qualifies as the "least intrusive means" of filling the significant gap in service. (1) Height and Location of the Project. The antenna height and location of the Project were chosen to provide the minimum signal level needed to meet critical coverage and capacity needs in the service area. Despite the technical limitations of a low -profile, small-cell system, Crown Castle seeks to maximize the coverage of each node location, since maximization of the node performance equates to a lower overall number of facilities and a less intrusive system. Accordingly, the Project location was chosen to provide an effective relay of signal from adjacent sites, so that ubiquitous coverage of the minimum signal level is provided throughout the service area with the minimum number of facilities. The selected location maximizes the RF coverage of the Project and minimizes interference/overlap with the other facilities, resulting in a lower overall number of facilities and a less intrusive system. The ROW is ideal for the Project from an aesthetic standpoint because the ROW is an area already impacted with utilities and similar features typical of developed roadways. Importantly, the currently proposed location and design were identified after exhausting other possible locations in the relatively small DAS coverage area or "polygon." (See Exhibit D, Slide 5.) Crown Castle's RF engineers examined five alternative locations in the immediate Project area, as depicted in Slide 7 of Exhibit D and as excerpted here: ASG°2 H „A f 6 •R-.�. pitearth 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 (f) Crown Castle small cells utilize existing vertical elements in the ROW, such as utility poles, or slim -profile new poles, thereby minimizing intrusions into the ROW. (3) The Project Location and Design Qualify as the Least Intrusive Means of Filling the Demonstrated Significant Gap in Coverage. The Project utilizes small cell technology, which, as discussed above, was designed to avoid the need for larger profile macro -sites. As for the location, the Project is buffered from residences on all sides by existing foliage 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. 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 MWS cc: Ara Mihranian, Director, Planning and Zoning Division, City of Rancho Palos Verdes Christy Lopez, Special Counsel, City of Rancho Palos Verdes Lona Laymon, City Attorney, City of Rancho Palos Verdes Lizbeth Wincele, Government Relations Counsel — Southern California, Crown Castle Daniel Schweizer, Director, Government Relations, West Region, Crown Castle Stephen Garcia, Manager Government Relations, Crown Castle Aaron Snyder, Government Relations Specialist-DAS & Small Cells -Southern California, Crown Castle Enclosures 7249380.1 N�OOD NEWMEYER I LIMON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW MICHAEL W. SHONAFELT Michael.Shonafelt@ndif.com Novmber .2017 VIA EMAIL - brian.campbell@rpvca.gov AND HAND -DELIVERY Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 File No. 2464.130 Re: Crown Castle: Appeal of Wireless Telecommunications Facility ASG69 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 ASG69 within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("City") public right-of-way ("ROW") at 3486 Seaglen 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, 24 -foot marbelite streetlight replacement pole, with two 21.4 -inch, flush -mount panel antennas mounted under the luminaire. (See Exhibit A, Original Design Photo -simulations.) The replacement streetlight would replace the existing 24.5 -foot streetlight, and therefore would result in a six-inch decrease 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 (Oct. 10, 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 place the radios and associated equipment in 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 is presented here: 1333 N. CALIFONIA BLVD 895 DOVE STREET 3993 HOWARD HUGHES PKWY SUITE 600 5TH FLOOR SUITE 530 WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 LAS VEGAS, NV 89169 T 925 988 3200 T 949 854 7000 T 702 777 7500 F 925 988 3290 F 949 854 7099 F 702 777 7599 s Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council Novmber _. 2017 Page 2 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. 6-7.) Staff noted that Crown Castle had examined three additional alternative locations. (Id. at p. 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. (Ibid.) The Planning Commission nevertheless voted to deny the Project. The reasons for the grounds for the denial were vague, conclusory and unsupported by any evidence. The commissioner raising the denial motion (Emenhiser) merely referenced the existence of community opposition as the basis for his motion. 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 p. 13.) The Planning Commissioners voting against the Project provided no direction on what design or location alternatives might be considered less intrusive, despite offers by Crown Castle's representative, Aaron Snyder, to explore specific alternative locations. (See Video of August 30, 2017, Planning Commission hearing, http://rpv.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=5&clip id=2913 at 1:14:58; 1:18:40.) 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 Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council Novmber _. 2017 Page 3 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 would top out at 26 feet, seven inches. 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.) An excerpted photo -simulation is presented here: 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.AppAth 642, 648 [upon obtaining a CPCN, a telephone corporation has "the right to use the public highways to install [its] facilities."].) Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council Novmber _. 2017 Page 4 (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.App.4th at p. 648 quoting County of L. A. v. Southern Cal. Tel. Co. (1948) 32 Cal.2d 378, 384 [196 P.2d 773].) 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 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 1 Notwithstanding the submittal of this application, Crown Castle reserves its rights under Public Utilities Code sections 7901 and 7901.1, including the right to proceed with construction of its networks without having to obtain a local franchise and/or discretionary grant of entry in to the ROW. Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council Novmber _. 2017 Page 5 controls, "to be reasonable, shall, at a minimum, be applied to all entities in an equivalent manner." (Ibid., emphasis added.) Accordingly, to the extent that other public utilities are authorized to use the ROW in the City without having to obtain a discretionary land use permit, such disparate treatment may run afoul of the "equivalent manner" provision of Public Utilities Code section 7901.1. On the basis of Crown Castle's status as a CLEC, and its concomitant rights to the ROW, the Project is designed as part of an ROW telecommunications system. With respect to the siting and configuration of the Project, the rights afforded under Public Utilities Code section 7901 and 7901.1 apply. Crown Castle reserves its rights under section 7901 and 7901.1, including, but not limited to, its right to challenge any approval process, that impedes or infringes on Crown Castle's rights as a CLEC. (2) Government Code Section 65964.1. Recently, the California Legislature echoed the courts' oft -repeated declaration that "the construction and maintenance of telephone lines in the streets and other public places within the City is today a matter of state concern and not a municipal affair." (Williams Communication v. City of Riverside, supra, 114 Cal.App.4th at p. 653.) It did so in the context of enacting AB 57 in October 2015. AB 57 is codified as Government Code section 65964.1. Under section 65964. 1, if a local government fails to act on an application for a permit to construct a wireless telecommunications facility within the prescribed Shot Clock timeframes (150 days for a standalone site and 90 days for a collocation site), the application is deemed approved by operation of law. When it enacted section 65964. 1, the Legislature observed that: The Legislature finds and declares that a wireless telecommunications facility has a significant economic impact in California and is not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution, but is a matter of statewide concern. (Gov. Code, § 65964.1, subd. (c).) B. FEDERAL LAW. The approval of the Project also is governed by the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (codified as amend in scattered sections of U.S.C., Tabs 15, 18, 47) ("Telecom Act"). When enacting the Telecom Act, Congress expressed its intent "to promote competition and reduce regulation in order to secure lower prices and higher quality services for American telecommunications consumers and encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies." (110 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. Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council Novmber _. 2017 Page 6 (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: The regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof— (11) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. (47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II).) In T -Mobile U.S.A. Inc. v. City ofAnacortes (9th Cir. 2009) 572 F.3d 987, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals set forth a two-step analysis for determining whether a local government's denial has the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless telecommunications services in violation of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. In the first step, the applicant must make a showing of a Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council Novmber _. 2017 Page 7 "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 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.) Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council Novmber _. 2017 Page 8 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 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 Whone. 5 2 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Directorate for Science, Technology, and Industry, "Broadband Statistics," (June 2010): <www.oecd.org/sti/ict/broadband>. 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 '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. Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council Novmber _. 2017 Page 9 (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 2021.7 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.8 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 2lpercent are using wireline phones."9 On that ground alone, this is a matter of health, safety and welfare for the residents and visitors of the City. Notably, 911 service over systems like this is not just limited to AT&T users -- the networks carries 911 calls of any mobile user. (2) Data Support a Significant Gap at the Project Site. Applying the above principles to the Project, data reveal that the project service area has insufficient signal strength to address current data demand and statistical projections of data demand. Crown Castle has undertaken drive -test data of existing conditions at the Project site in two different frequencies that will be employed at the Project site. (See ASG69-Proposed Primary and Alternate Node Analysis, attached as Exhibit D.) Exhibit D identifies levels of service in terms of the following criteria: 6 https://www.ctia.org/industry-data/wireless-quick-facts. http://digitalconqurer.com/news/cisco-mobile-visual-networking-index-vni-forecasts-seven-fold-increase-global- mobile-data-traffic-2016-21 / s See CTIA Annual Survey Report (http://www.ctia.org/industry-data/ctia-annual-wireless-industry-survey) e See https://www.911.gov/pdf/National-911-Program-2015-ProfileDatabaseProgressRe port-021716.pdf Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council Novmber _. 2017 Page 10 RSRP _ -65 to 0 _ -75 to -65 -S5 to -75 _ -95 to -95 -t i15 to 96 =-I 20 to -106 Locations %!able 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. Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council Novmber _. 2017 Page 11 •ar L � � ••a •i r + a r A5G69 11+ A5G6 D.., is+• • � � L • • • as ` .�•� • , � � ASG69 Cr�f+ ••• r • ASG6984;. �:�•' 1 �% '_ • ' � aw'' ssill• �r V •.tir Astt:.. :r�. �' �' 1. �I 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): Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council Novmber _. 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 a service gap indeed exists at the project site. The Planning Commission is charged with addressing zoning and planning issues, not the regulation of RF, which is a matter preempted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The City engaged CTC as an independent RF expert pursuant to Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code section 12.18.050. For areas -- such as RF coverage issues -- that are outside the scope of the Planning Commission's competency and jurisdiction it should look to the conclusions of its hired consultants and the actual data compiled by RF experts, not the unsupported assertions of project opponents. Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council Novmber _. 2017 Page 13 B. Crown Castle Has Demonstrated That It Has Chosen the Least Intrusive Means to Fill the Significant Gap in Service. To establish least intrusive means, the applicant establishes a "prima facie showing of effective prohibition by submitting a comprehensive application, which includes consideration of alternatives, showing that the proposed [wireless communications facility] is the least intrusive means of filling a significant gap." (T -Mobile U.S.A. Inc. v. City ofAnacortes, supra, 572 F.3d at p. 995.) After that, the burden shifts to the local government: "When a locality rejects a prima facie showing, it must show that there are some potentially available and technologically feasible alternatives." (Id. at p. 998.) The court further explained that the applicant then has an opportunity to "dispute the availability and feasibility of the alternatives favored by the locality." (Ibid.) Because Crown Castle is a CLEC entitled to construct its facilities in the ROW, its small- cell and DAS networks are inherently ROW systems. On that basis, Crown Castle examined those alternatives theoretically available to it in the ROW. The analysis below demonstrates why the Project qualifies as the "least intrusive means" of filling the significant gap in service. (1) Height and Location of the Project. The antenna height and location of the Project were chosen to provide the minimum signal level needed to meet critical coverage and capacity needs in the service area. Despite the technical limitations of a low -profile, small-cell system, Crown Castle seeks to maximize the coverage of each node location, since maximization of the node performance equates to a lower overall number of facilities and a less intrusive system. Accordingly, the Project location was chosen to provide an effective relay of signal from adjacent sites, so that ubiquitous coverage of the minimum signal level is provided throughout the service area with the minimum number of facilities. The selected location maximizes the RF coverage of the Project and minimizes interference/overlap with the other facilities, resulting in a lower overall number of facilities and a less intrusive system. The ROW is ideal for the Project from an aesthetic standpoint because the ROW is an area already impacted with utilities and similar features typical of developed roadways. Importantly, the currently proposed location and design were identified after exhausting other possible locations in the relatively small DAS coverage area or "polygon." (See Exhibit D, Slide 5.) Crown Castle's RF engineers examined alternative locations in the immediate Project area, as depicted in Slide 5 of Exhibit D and as excerpted here: 1Y r 11Jq�!'S _ a r' : day ¢}0 ¢. \ a, s .c z "LI 600gfe !Earth While only two of those four sites achieve RF objectives, only the proposed site is tdequately buffered from existing residences by foliage and a landscaped hillside as can be seen •- POW t0[a T1mN 7lISi1k0 a. s • , Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council Novmber _. 2017 Page 15 The proposed site best utilizes existing foliage, slope topography and the ROW landscaping, which buffers the Project from surrounding homes on all sides. While the Project may be visible at the proposed location, it is far less intrusive than other potential sites that are immediately adjacent to residences. Crown Castle has satisfied its burden of proof under the burden -shifting process established by T -Mobile U.S.A. Inc. v. City ofAnacortes. (2) Small Cells and DAS as Least Intrusive Means Technology, by Design. Even apart from the careful siting of the facilities that are part of a small cells or DAS system, the technological configuration of small cells and DAS nodes is inherently minimally intrusive by design. Small cells and DAS were developed as a smaller -scale solution to the larger macro -site or cell tower. It therefore represents a significant technological advance in the development of reduced- profile wireless transmission devices. The nodes are designed to be smaller scale and lower power to allow them to integrate more easily into their surroundings and thereby render them less aesthetically intrusive. While it is impossible to make the facilities invisible, each facility will be designed to blend with existing features in the road to the extent feasible. Crown Castle's small cell network qualifies as the "least intrusive means" of filling the identified significant gap for the following reasons, among others: (a) Crown Castle small cells utilize the latest in wireless infrastructure technology, incorporating smaller, low-power facilities instead of using larger -- and sometimes more obtrusive -- cell towers; (b) Crown Castle small cells utilize the ROW, thereby avoiding intrusions into private property or undeveloped sensitive resource areas; (c) Crown Castle small cells allow for collocation by multiple carriers, thereby avoiding proliferation of nodes; (d) Crown Castle small cells strike a balance between antenna height and coverage in order to minimize visual impacts; (e) Crown Castle small cells carefully are carefully spaced to effectively relay signal with a minimum of facilities; and (f) Crown Castle small cells utilize existing vertical elements in the ROW, such as utility poles, or slim -profile new poles, thereby minimizing intrusions into the ROW. (3) The Project Location and Design Qualify as the Least Intrusive Means of Filling the Demonstrated Significant Gap in Coverage. The Project utilizes small cell technology, which, as discussed above, was designed to avoid the need for larger profile macro -sites. As for the location, the Project is located on the side of the ROW that is away from residences and is buffered from views by existing foliage, slope topography 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. Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council Novmber _. 2017 Page 16 Moving this site to other locations elsewhere in the small RF objective ring would place the facility directly adjacent to residences, resulting in greater visual impacts. Crown Castle engaged in an exhaustive investigation of potential locations for the Project. If the City can identify another feasible alternative location that allows Crown Castle to achieve its coverage objective for this Project, it would be happy to investigate that location. Crown Castle submits, however, that it already engaged in that search and that the proposed location is the least intrusive location available. 4. CONCLUSION. For the foregoing reasons, the City Council should grant this Appeal and approve the Project. We look forward to answering your questions on the day of the hearing. Very truly yours, Michael W. Shonafelt MWS cc: Ara Mihranian, Director, Planning and Zoning Division, City of Rancho Palos Verdes Christy Lopez, Special Counsel, City of Rancho Palos Verdes Lona Laymon, City Attorney, City of Rancho Palos Verdes Lizbeth Wincele, Government Relations Counsel — Southern California, Crown Castle Daniel Schweizer, Director, Government Relations, West Region, Crown Castle Stephen Garcia, Manager Government Relations, Crown Castle Aaron Snyder, Government Relations Specialist-DAS & Small Cells -Southern California, Crown Castle Enclosures 7249384.1 Nathan Zweizig From: Jeff Calvagna <jcalvagna@netzero.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 12:31 PM To: CC; WirelessTF Cc: Jeffrey Thompson; babich5@cox.net Subject: Request to Affirm Denial of Cell Site ASG69 (Seaglen Drive) Members of the City Council, On October 10th, the Planning Commission denied wireless facility ASG69 (Across from 3486 Seaglen Drive) by unanimous vote. This site is near our home and directly in front of two of our neighbors' homes. The Commission denied this cell tower based on it's intrusiveness and aesthetics, finding the proposed facility inappropriate for a quiet residential cul-de-sac street. The Commission also considered that there is already adequate AT&T service on the street, in addition to the fact that Crown Castle's own data showed the site would only serve 29 AT&T customers. All of these factors led to the clear conclusion that the intrusiveness of this facility just couldn't be justified, particularly in light of RPV's wireless ordinance location restrictions for local, residential streets (RPV MC 12.18. 200). We urge you to affirm the Commission's denial of this cell tower at the special November 30th City Council hearing. Our Planning Commission did the right thing in denying this site. The Commission engaged in thoughtful deliberation after lengthy public testimony from the applicant, residents of Seaglen Drive, and other concerned community members. Rather than accept this fact, Crown Castle has chosen to disregard the Commission's decision and appeal to you. While it is their right, there is no valid basis for the appeal. The Commission interpreted the law correctly, did not make procedural errors, nor were they rash in their decision. Crown Castle simply did not like the decision and believes they're entitled to a "do over". We've included below the original correspondence sent to the Planning Commission as part of the October 10th hearing. None of the facts have changed, the site will be an intrusive eyesore in our pleasant neighborhood and isn't warranted. We look forward to addressing you at the appeal and again request you affirm the Commission's thoughtful denial of this ugly and inappropriate cell tower. Best Regards, Jeff and Annie Calvagna 3497 Seaglen Drive On 10/2/2017 12:34 PM, Jeff Calvagna wrote: Planning Commission members, (Staff - please include in correspondence regarding Wireless facility ASG69 - Seaglen Drive scheduled for public hearing on Oct 10, 2017) q. We respectfully request that you DENY wireless facility ASG69, located across from 3486 Seaglen Drive. As fifteen year residents of Seaglen, we strongly believe this site will be a prominent eyesore and will harm our neighborhood's character. The proposed site is in a highly visible location on Seaglen, directly across from two homes, along a pastoral hillside setting, and conspicuously out of place in our underground utility neighborhood. Further, Crown Castle's own documentation shows this site will only serve the 32 homes on Seaglen Drive due to the site's poor location and topography. Such an intrusive site just can't be justified to serve so few homes. Our home is two doors west of the proposed cell site and we strongly object to this intrusion on our pleasant residential street. The site is prominently visible from our front balcony and living room windows, and intrudes on our hillside vista. The cell tower is also an eyesore as we drive down Seaglen and approach our home. More importantly, this site will be located directly across from the homes of our neighbors and friends, the Thompson family (3474 Seaglen) and Babich family (3486 Seaglen). Neither of these homes have ocean vistas thus the hillside is their view. Our friends will have this cell tower prominently visible from the living room, front bedroom windows, and front patios, lying directly in front of the hillside. Both families strongly object to the site and have written to you separately. Like many others, we specifically chose the Mediterrania tract (of which Seaglen is a part) due to the aesthetics provided by underground utilities. The proposed cell tower will place two obvious and out -of -place antenna panels on a resident streetlight, unlike any other such installation in our neighborhood. Locating such an obvious commercial telecommunication facility will undoubtedly harm property values. Few home shoppers want a cell tower in front of their house, thus home prices must drop accordingly to attract buyers. This will cause financial harm to nearby homeowners, including the Thompsons, Babichs, and ourselves. When we bought our homes here, we never thought we would someday have a commercial cell tower and its accompanying visual clutter and equipment noise on our picturesque street. Seaglen's terrain forms a topographic depression (a "bowl") that makes the site a terrible location for any such facility. Crown Castle's own documentation shows the site will only serve a few dozen homes and will not extend beyond Seaglen itself. The site's location in the bottom of the "bowl" prevents the signals from extending beyond our street. Even if Crown Castle wanted to serve more homes, it's precluded by the site's location and topography. As an RF engineer, I've extensively modeled propagation from this site and have demonstrated this conclusively. This is readily apparent in Crown Castle's own "Proposed RF coverage" map which only includes 32 homes within the rectangular "cake pan" objective (below) and extremely short range in their drive test data. Exhibit C3 e. — Proposed RF coverage. �' •l •tlfd�4 �� . � aae'�ir�r • n+ows. • i • i� tl b •7i �. ••irf �- • 4'. s..w\Y acaiaw �• ti ! 'Ainr • * «^9 WTI D •r066A ti1.• � au�e•c4. • J. �M•a CROWN Pmpneigry8 CASTLE Confidential Such an intrusive site can't be justified for so few homes for only one wireless carrier. At most, this site will serve 29 people assuming every resident on Seaglen owns a cell phone. 32 homes * 2.6 residents/home (RPV avg) * 35% AT&T market share = 29.1 people Only 29 people cannot be considered a "significant gap" in AT&T's service coverage thus the City is under no obligation to approve this intrusive residential neighborhood site. Further, this cell tower's location on a local (residential) street violates the location restrictions of RPV's wireless ordinance (Section 12.18.200) and requires an exception for approval. I would respectfully submit to the Planning Commission that this site's intrusive location and design, opposition from nearby residents, and extremely limited coverage do not warrant an exception. We ask that you DENY this site. If Crown Castle would like to supplement service in our neighborhood, it must find a far less intrusive method, particularly when the site will only serve 29 people based on Crown Castle's own data. We have AT&T service ourselves and have no problems with calls or data connections at our home, but we recognize we cannot speak for everyone on our street. If there are Seaglen residents that are unhappy with their AT&T service, we offer to purchase for them a signal extender from the AT&T Store at our own cost. These devices are specifically marketed by AT&T to supplement coverage in small "dead spots". Jeff is a Radio Frequency Engineer and can perform the installation to ensure any affected Seaglen resident receives sufficient signal. We've not heard any complaints but extend this invitation in any case. Even so, a few homes does not constitute a "significant gap" and therefore does not entitle Crown Castle/AT&T to place such an intrusive facility on our street. Nor do we believe it warrants or justifies the RPV ordinance exception required to approve this non-compliant cell tower in our quiet residential neighborhood. Thank you for consideration of this matter and we look forward to addressing you at the hearing. We recognize these hearings have been tedious and time-consuming and we appreciate your service to our community. Best regards, Jeff and Annie Calvagna 3497 Seaglen Drive Neighbors of proposed Crown Castle site ASG69 NEWM EYLR DILL 10N r_.T,P ATTORNEYS AT LAW MICHAEL W. SHONAFELT File No. Michael.Shonafelt@ndlf.com 2464.130 November _. 2017 VIA EMAIL - brian.campbell@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 ASG09 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 ASG09 within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("City") public right-of-way ("ROW") at 30452 Camino Porvenir ("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, 24 -foot 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 24 -foot 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 pp. 2-3.) 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 by two -foot outside diameter canister that would extend the height of the Project to 26.7 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 STREET3993 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 925 986 3290 F 949 854 7099 F 702 777 7599 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 from Exhibit B 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 four additional alternative locations. (Id. at p. 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 p. 11.) At the August 30, 2017, Planning Commission hearing, various Planning Commissioners lauded the new design and repeatedly commended Crown Castle for its revised design. When pressed by Commissioner Nelson 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, http://rpv.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=5&clip id=2881.) The Planning Commission nevertheless denied the Project through a tie vote. The reasons for the denial were vague references to community opposition and conclusory assertions unsupported by any evidence. 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 p. 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 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 an even slimmer profile and more "stealth" design. Their goal was to see what designs could be feasibly employed to address the generalized aesthetic concerns raised at the Planning Commission. The constraints faced by Crown Castle in this endeavor are those posed by the radio frequency ("RF") objectives that must be achieved to fill the existing significant gap in service at this location. As a rule, the smaller the antenna, the more attenuated the RF signal. 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. As with the Second Proposed Design, the antennas would top out at 26 feet, seven inches. A tapered skirt at the base of the canister would provide a visual transition from the canister to the streetlight pole. 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.) An excerpted photo -simulation of the Third Proposed Design alternative is below: 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— (11) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. (47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II).) In T -Mobile U.S.A. Inc. v. City ofAnacortes (9th Cir. 2009) 572 F.3d 987, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals set forth a two-step analysis for determining whether a local government's denial has the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless telecommunications services in violation of Section 332(c)(7)(13)(i)(II) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. In the first step, the applicant must make a showing of a "significant gap" in service. (Id. at p. 995.) In the second step, the applicant must demonstrate it has selected the "least intrusive means" to fill that gap in service. (Ibid.) Each prong of the Prohibition of Service Provision is addressed below. 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)(13)(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 2 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Directorate for Science, Technology, and Industry, "Broadband Statistics," (June 2010): <www.oecd.org/sti/ict/broadband>. 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 2021.7 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.8 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 2lpercent 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 '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. 6 https://www.ctia.org/industry-data/wireless-quick-facts. http://digitalconqurer.com/news/cisco-mobile-visual-networking-index-vni-forecasts-seven-fold-increase-global- mobile-data-traffic-2016-21 / s See CTIA Annual Survey Report (http://www.ctia.org/industry-data/ctia-annual-wireless-industry-survey) e See https://www.911.gov/pdf/National-911-Program-2015-ProfileDatabaseProgressRe port-021716.pdf 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 ASG09-Proposed Primary and Alternate Node Analysis, attached as Exhibit D.) Exhibit D identifies levels of service in terms of the following criteria: R5RP _ -65 to 4 _ -75 to -65 -85 to -75 _ -95 to -85 _ A 05 to _C5 _ -120 to -105 Locations '.viable Failed Coverage Objective (a) Outdoor Only —Unacceptable Coverage (Black) (>-105 dBm); (b) In -Vehicle Only — Unacceptable Coverage (Blue) (>-95 dBm); (c) Suburban/In-building, Acceptable (Red) (>-85 dBm); (d) Urban/In-building, Acceptable (Yellow) (>-75 dBm); (e) Dense Urban/Deep In -building, Optimum (Light/Dark Green) (>-75 dBm). Each level is characterized by a minimum signal level. The key to coverage is having a signal level strong -enough to allow customers to maintain contact with the network so they can make and maintain calls. Signal level, the strength of the radio signal customers' devices receive, is measured in negative decibels per milliwatt ("dBm"). The larger the negative dBm number, the weaker the coverage. For example, a signal strength of -100 dBm is weaker than a signal strength of -80 dBm. 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 7 of Exhibit D reveals existing RF coverage at the project site. Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November _. 2017 Page 11 Los Vecd GOB Course ti r 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 8, which is excerpted here (following page): Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November _. 2017 Page 12 Abp � L y % % p r ti �! ;072 ft131 ASG10.. M'Ona,GO e �a +, •i• .�w r�•i Los Vecd cou sr• LVA ."s The Project will provide sufficient signal strength to ensure not only adequate signal for mobile and outdoor users, but reliable in -building coverage for all those customers who may seek to abandon their home landlines. The Project also will add sufficient capacity to address new data demands from smartphones and tablets. Wireless customers must be able to count on a level of service commensurate with that once provided by their dropped landlines. Such considerations are relevant -- if not critical -- to a determination of significant gap. (See, e.g., T - Mobile Central LLC v. City of Fraser (E.D. Mich. 2009) 675 F.Supp.2d 721 [considering failure rate of 911 emergency calls.]) One of the grounds invoked by the Planning Commission for denial of the Project was a conclusory assertion that Crown Castle failed to demonstrate a significant gap in service. The drive test data presented in Exhibit D refute that contention. Nor has this data been seriously controverted by any competent evidence. Indeed, the City's own RF expert concurred with the conclusion of Crown Castle's RF engineers that a significant gap indeed exists at the project site. The Planning Commission is charged with addressing zoning and planning issues, not the regulation of RF, which is a matter preempted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The City engaged CTC as an independent RF expert pursuant to Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code section 12.18.050. For areas -- such as RF coverage issues -- that are outside the scope of the Planning Commission's competency and jurisdiction it should look to the conclusions of its hired consultants and the actual data compiled by RF experts, not the unsupported assertions of project opponents. Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November _. 2017 Page 13 B. Crown Castle Has Demonstrated That It Has Chosen the Least Intrusive Means to Fill the Significant Gap in Service. To establish least intrusive means, the applicant establishes a "prima facie showing of effective prohibition by submitting a comprehensive application, which includes consideration of alternatives, showing that the proposed [wireless communications facility] is the least intrusive means of filling a significant gap." (T -Mobile U.S.A. Inc. v. City ofAnacortes, supra, 572 F.3d at p. 995.) After that, the burden shifts to the local government: "When a locality rejects a prima facie showing, it must show that there are some potentially available and technologically feasible alternatives." (Id. at p. 998.) The court further explained that the applicant then has an opportunity to "dispute the availability and feasibility of the alternatives favored by the locality." (Ibid.) Because Crown Castle is a CLEC entitled to construct its facilities in the ROW, its small- cell and DAS networks are inherently ROW systems. On that basis, Crown Castle examined those alternatives theoretically available to it in the ROW. The analysis below demonstrates why the Project qualifies as the "least intrusive means" of filling the significant gap in service. (1) Height and Location of the Project. The antenna height and location of the Project were chosen to provide the minimum signal level needed to meet critical coverage and capacity needs in the service area. Despite the technical limitations of a low -profile, small-cell system, Crown Castle seeks to maximize the coverage of each node location, since maximization of the node performance equates to a lower overall number of facilities and a less intrusive system. Accordingly, the Project location was chosen to provide an effective relay of signal from adjacent sites, so that ubiquitous coverage of the minimum signal level is provided throughout the service area with the minimum number of facilities. The selected location maximizes the RF coverage of the Project and minimizes interference/overlap with the other facilities, resulting in a lower overall number of facilities and a less intrusive system. The ROW is ideal for the Project from an aesthetic standpoint because the ROW is an area already impacted with utilities and similar features typical of developed roadways. Importantly, the currently proposed location and design were identified after exhausting other possible locations in the relatively small DAS coverage area or "polygon." (See Exhibit D, Slide 5.) Crown Castle's RF engineers examined five alternative locations in the immediate Project area, as depicted in Slide 2 and 3 of Exhibit D and as excerpted here: Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November _. 2017 Page 14 As the Staff concluded, the proposed site qualifies as the least intrusive location of the sites explored. (Staff Report, p. 11.) Moreover, as demonstrated above, Crown Castle diligently exhausted design alternatives in an effort to address the Planning Commission's concerns about the purported visual impacts of the Project (this despite the Staff's unequivocal conclusion that even the larger, Second Proposed Design did not give rise to any aesthetic impacts). (Id. at pp. 5-7.) 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: Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November _. 2017 Page 15 (a) Crown Castle small cells utilize the latest in wireless infrastructure technology, incorporating smaller, low-power facilities instead of using larger -- and sometimes more obtrusive -- cell towers; (b) Crown Castle small cells utilize the ROW, thereby avoiding intrusions into private property or undeveloped sensitive resource areas; (c) Crown Castle small cells allow for collocation by multiple carriers, thereby avoiding proliferation of nodes; (d) Crown Castle small cells strike a balance between antenna height and coverage in order to minimize visual impacts; (e) Crown Castle small cells carefully are carefully spaced to effectively relay signal with a minimum of facilities; and (f) Crown Castle small cells utilize existing vertical elements in the ROW, such as utility poles, or slim -profile new poles, thereby minimizing intrusions into the ROW. (3) The Project Location and Design Qualify as the Least Intrusive Means of Filling the Demonstrated Significant Gap in Coverage. The Project utilizes small cell technology, which, as discussed above, was designed to avoid the need for larger profile macro -sites. As for the location, the 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 therefore eliminate the need for a new pole in the ROW. Crown Castle engaged in an exhaustive investigation of potential locations for the Project. If the City can identify another feasible alternative location that allows Crown Castle to achieve its coverage objective for this Project, it would be happy to investigate that location. Crown Castle submits, however, that it already engaged in that search and that the proposed location is the least intrusive location available. 4. CONCLUSION. For the foregoing reasons, the City Council should grant this Appeal and approve the Project. We look forward to answering your questions on the day of the hearing. Very truly yours, Michael W. Shonafelt MWS cc: Ara Mihranian, Director, Planning and Zoning Division, City of Rancho Palos Verdes Christy Lopez, Special Counsel, City of Rancho Palos Verdes Brian Campbell, Mayor and Members of the City Council November _. 2017 Page 16 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 7238871.1 Nathan Zweizig From: Lore Fraix <lorefraix@outlook.com> Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2017 2:21 PM To: WirelessTF; CC Cc: 'lorefraix@verizon.net' Subject: FW: Cell site ASG 09 ( 30452 Camino Porvenir) ; Notice of Public Hearing on Thursday, November 30,2017 . City Council and Mr. Bashmakian , On August 30, 2017 the Planning Commission of Rancho Palos Verdes, CA denied the request to replace the existing street light pole with the installation of a new cell antenna/light pole . At the same August 30,2017 meeting many residents objected to the location of this cell antenna in our neighborhood ; this site is across the street from our front door and also very close to our neighbors houses. It is highly intrusive and serving very limited AT&T customers .In our neighborhood AT&T coverage is reasonable, indeed our ADT security system is using the AT&T network for monitoring our house and no problems have been noticed nor reported . This cell tower is proposed within a few dozen feet from the front of the houses and will negatively impact our privacy and properties values . Also, the 24/7 noise generated by the cooling fans of the equipment is unacceptable in such a residential environment. The City Council needs to take a strong stand in defending and preserving our community aesthetics ,neighborhood character and properties value . Our City Council passed a tough and comprehensive wireless facility ordinance ; however, Crown Castel has shown no concrete evidence in following the ordinance guidelines. We are extremely grateful for the dedication of our Planning Commission and the strong support of the City Council to deny the appeal filed by Crown Castel for the facility permit ASG NO 09 ( 30452 Camino Porvenir Rancho Palos Verdes, CA .90275 ). Sincerely yours , Lore Fraix Nathan Zweizig From: Maria Cancino <mariacancino@cox.net> Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 10:24 PM To: CC Subject: Cell site ASG09 To whom it may concern, This email is to let you know that we are strongly opposed to the installation of cell site ASG09 on 30452 Camino Porvenir and cell site ASG08 on 30505 Calle de suenos. Our home at 30344 Camino Porvenir will be directly impacted by these two cell sites. In addition to the aesthetic of the poles, the impact on the house values and the overall effect to our neighborhood, there are some serious concerns. If one of the neighbors gets cancer because of this cell tower, that is too high of a price to pay to have better cell coverage. Furthermore, there are several valid studies that showed that there are other options. In assessing these proposals, you need to ask yourselves if this cell tower is in front of your house, would you approved it? Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter, Maria Cancino Sent from my Whone _5