Loading...
20260217 Late Correspondence through FridayCity of Rancho Paos Verdes TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: FEBRUARY 13, 2026 SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received through Friday afternoon for the Tuesday, February 17, 2026, City Council meeting: Item No. Description of Material 2 Emails from Bob Nelson and Aaron Shank Respectfully submitted, Teresa Takaoka L:\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2026\20260213 additions revisions to agenda.docx Enyssa Sisson To: Teresa Takaoka Subject: RE: Feb. 17 CCMtg, Reg Bus, Iten #2 (Cell service code changes) From: Bob Nelson <nelsc pan Y.a cal cor > Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2026 6:46 PM To: CC <t;@rpvc:a.nv> Cc: Amy Seeraty <Arr�y>_� r vca r v>; Dave Emenhiser <errrenhise rrc ar cr > Subject: Feb. 17 CCMtg, Reg Bus, Iten #2 (Cell service code changes) [ FY1 Ft t ir1I Co tt Do not stick links or open any attachments unless you ;recognize the sender and know the content is safer r t Late correspondence CC Meeting Feb.17, Regular Business; Item #2 Code revisions -wireless communications This item proposes, per `Agenda Now Available' announcement, to "improve cell service in RPV." Not so fast, there Council. That's not at all what is proposed for your approval! Rather, as a non -elected Planning Commissioner states on page 15 this makes, `concessions to carriers, possible compromising resident interests.' Whoever that is should be pulled aside and told his RPV residents want reliable, clear wireless communication, nothing less, nothing more. Commissioner, stand aside! Years ago, when our Planning Commission was deeply involved in providing cell service, Crown Castle and AT&T were at almost every meeting with new or refined requests. And we had Commissioner Dave Emenhiser, then Verizon's west coast military wireless sales manager, provide professional advice to his fellow commissioners and public. Basically, these electronic waves go in a straight line. So, when they hit a hill, the backside has, at best, diminished service. And RPV is mostly hills! Therefore, placement of towers was critical. Cell tower coverage maps were featured at every meeting! And we heard a RPV doctor who couldn't have cell service with his hospital because of this. To say nothing of many other RPVers who came forward asking for help, not barriers, for their lousy cell service. And many did not want visible towers but wanted cell service!! Say that again, slowly. They wanted invisible cell service. Dave Emenhiser always took time to explain to these distraught residents ... if they really wanted cell service ... . So, if you've gotten this far —we now have new cell technology that has amazing capacity, but whose signals are more easily blocked than its predecessor. 2. And I assure you, phone land lines of yesterday are now fast disappearing as provider maintenance costs per user sky -rocket in favor of affordable computer -capable cell service. And, what your `silent majority' public wants is reliable, clear service, not hindered by limiting code changes here that affect provider ability to do just that! Nothing more, nothing less. So, why not help, not hinder as many of these changes do? Bob Nelson x -Planning Commissioner Enyssa Sisson From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: Friday, February 13, 2026 4:04 PM To: CityClerk Subject: Fw: AT&T Comments on RPV Wireless Ordinances Attachments: AT&T Comments on RPV Draft Wireless Ordinances.pdf For late corr From: Shank, Aaron M. <AShank@porterwright.com> Sent: Friday, February 13, 2026 3:22 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>; NEELY-WRIGHT, MCKENZIE <mn4453@att.com>; BROWN, PHILIP C <pb4420@att.com>; KINNEY, KERRI <ka9192@att.com> Subject: AT&T Comments on RPV Wireless Ordinances Some people who received this message don't often get email from ashanl<@porterwright.com. Learn whythis is important T I AIG Do not click links or open attyattachments unless you recognize the fender and know the content is safe!!!. Dear Mayor Seo, Mayor Pro Tern Perestam, and Councilmembers Bradley, Ferraro, and Lewis: Please accept this letter on behalf of my client, AT&T, to provide comments on the city's latest drafts of its two wireless ordinances. Please consider these comments in connection with your deliberations of this item during your February 17th Council Meeting. Thankyou. Aaron M. Shank Outside Legal Counsel for AT&T r Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP Bio / A51 k. rs port rwrIglit,.cam D: 614.227.2110 / M: 614.578.5036 / F: 614.227.2100 41 South High Street, Suites 2800 - 3200 / Columbus, OH 43215 I SEE WHAT INSPIRES US:rih.com NOTICE FROM PORTER WRIGHT MORRIS & ARTHUR LLP: This message may be protected by the attorney -client privilege. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read, print or forward it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error. Then delete it. Thank you. END OF NOTICE 2- February 13, 2026 Aaron M. Shank VIA EMAIL ashank@porterwright.com Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP (CC(Etravc3_gOM) 41 South High Street Halllt C y Suites 2800-3200 Columbus, OH 43215 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Direct: 614.227.2110 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Fax: 614.227.2100 RE: AT&T Comments on Wireless Ordinance Round 4, February 2026 Dear City Council: www.porterwright.com ioig erwright AT&T appreciates the city's ongoing efforts to update its wireless ordinances. We are pleased to see that some progress has been made over the last two years. The current drafts, however, will still hinder many wireless infrastructure deployments due to their complexity, subjectivity, and conflicts with applicable laws. Several industry comments merit further consideration by the city, especially where suggested revisions are necessary to comply with applicable laws. Comments on Private Property Wireless Ordinance • Section 17,73.020. The proposed definition for "collocation" is appropriate for eligible facilities requests (EFRs) under Section 6409(a). It is, however, too narrow for non-EFRs, which implicates the Federal Communications Commission shot clocks. For non-EFRs, the FCC has ruled that "collocation" means attaching to any structure whether or not it already houses wireless equipment and whether or not it has previously been approved for wireless use. See Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order, FCC 18-133 (September 27, 2018), at 91140. For example, the 90 -day shot clock applies to installations such as on rooftops with no existing wireless equipment (see 47 C.F.R. § 1.6003(c)(ii)), and the 60 -day shot clock applies to placing a small wireless facility on an existing structure with no existing wireless equipment (see 47 C.F.R. § 1.6003(c)(i)). Misapplication of these shot clocks, such as by applying the wrong definition for "collocation" will violate federal taw and can result in a deemed approval under Cal. Gov't Code Sec. 65964.1 (a). • Section 17.73.030.A.1.c. The city's new proposal setting a 16 -foot height limit for wireless towers is far too low and will violate federal law by causing an effective prohibition with nearly every application. This limit is shorter than most buildings and vegetation throughout the city, which wireless signals must overcome to provide an effective signal. And this is AT&T Comments February 13, 2026 Page 2 far shorter than existing infrastructure, which is unreasonable. In addition, a 16 -foot height limit will prevent many macro deployments because antennas that close to the ground may not be able to comply with FCC RF emissions rules without powering down to an extent that will prevent solutions for coverage gaps and capacity constraints. • Section 17.73.030.E.1.b.ii.B. The city proposes to prohibit wireless facilities within 200 feet of any other wireless facility. This restriction will not make sense for small wireless facilities in busy areas, and it risks pushing new macro sites away from locations the city would otherwise prefer. This restriction certainly should not apply to concealed facilities or collocations (whether or not EFRs). • Section 17,73.030.E.1.b.iii. The city should eliminate its individual and combined limitations on antenna volumes. The city is preempted from dictating the means and facilities for providing wireless services like this. These restrictions would effectively prohibit wireless services with just about every proposed deployment. Section 17,73.040.B. The city's new language improperly seeks to define when an application is deemed submitted. The FCC shot clock commences when the application is submitted, not when the city determines sufficient information has been presented. Rather, the FCC shot clock may only be unilaterally paused by the city by issuing a timely and valid incomplete notice. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.6003(d). This section also risks creating confusion, which could result in a miscalculation of the applicable FCC shot clock and a deemed approval under Cal. Gov't Code Sec. 65964.1(a). • Section 17.73.040.13.10. This new requirement fora "supplemental technical report" is duplicative. This information cannot be required for EFRs and it is entirely duplicative of other application requirements in this ordinance for non-EFRs. This should be deleted to avoid confusion and invalid incomplete notices. • Section 17.73.040.B.20. This new section requiring coverage maps cannot be required for EFRs. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(c)(1). In addition, coverage maps should not be required for proposed facilities that are needed to add network capacity. • Section 17.73.050.8. If the city chooses to delegate determinations of application completeness, it may not pass that cost to applicants. Application fees already cover these costs. The city should delete this element of the scope of work for a potential consultant. The city should use consultants sparingly and cannot pass on costs for excessive reviews. • Section 17.73.070. The city needs to revise this section as previously proposed by the wireless providers. As a matter of law, the applicant does nQt always bear the burden for the exemption based on effective prohibition. When proving an effective prohibition, a provider bears the initial burden to show it proposes the least intrusive means to close its significant service coverage gap, but the burden then shifts tQthe city to demonstrate the existence of an available, feasible, and less intrusive alternative. See T -Mobile USA, Inc. v. AT&T Comments February 13, 2026 Page 3 City ofAnacortes, 572 F.3d 987, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2009); T -Mobile W. -Corp. v. City of Huntington Beach, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148170 (C.D. Cat. Oct. 10, 2012) at *49-50; L.A. SMSA Ltd. P'ship v. City of L.A., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160046 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2021) at *34; New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC v. County of Ventura, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53923 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2022) at *16. • Section 17.73.220.1.2. The city should not allow appeals for EFR determinations because they are made based on objective criteria under federal law. There is no need for multiple levels of process, which will only put the city at risk for deemed grants. Comments on PROW Wireless Ordinance • Section 12.18.020. The proposed definition of "eligible facilities request" is not consistent with federal law and must be revised. The city's definition would exclude modifications to support structures that were "not required to undergo local review." But federal law says the o�2pc site. The applicable FCC definitions provide that if an eligible support structure is "existing," then a non -substantial modification to it is an EFR that must be approved. 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(b). Specifically, the definition of "existing" provides: "a tower that has not been reviewed and approved because it was not in a zoned area when it was built, but was lawfully constructed, is existing for purposes of this definition." 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(b)(5). To avoid violating federal law, the city should simply adopt the FCC's codified definitions. Section 12.18.020. The proposed definition of "replacement" is not consistent with federal law for EFRs and must be revised. With respect to EFRs, the city cannot restrict modifications to like -kind and cannot limit facility dimensions beyond the FCC's objective criteria. The FCC provides objective criteria for what qualifies as a replacement that must be approved even if it is neither "like -kind" nor "resemble[s] the appearance and dimensions of the structure or equipment replaced...." See 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(b)(7). Section 12.18.020. The city should delete its definition for "small cell." Small cells are more formally known as "small wireless facilities," and the city has already adopted the FCC's definition for small wireless facility. Having a different definition for "small cell" is confusing and unnecessary. Indeed, it does not appear that the city uses the term "small cell" throughout the ordinance. • Section 12.18.050.B.8.o. The requirement for a landscaping plan for small wireless facilities is unnecessary. And this requirement is an improper aesthetic regulation of the right-of-way to the extent the city does not apply this requirement to all other right-of-way users in an equivalent manner. See Cal Pub. Util. Code § 7901.1(b). This provision should be deleted. • Section 12.18,060.G. The city should delete this provision. The requirement for an applicant to inform the city of an impending shot clock expiration is improper and does not affect the city's duty to comply. The only ways that a shot clock may be tolled are (a) by the AT&T Comments February 13, 2026 Page 4 city issuing a timely and valid incomplete notice, and (b) by mutual agreement between the city and the applicant. While AT&T endeavors to communicate the shot clock deadline to the city, the city cannot avoid the rule and its impact if a wireless provider does not do so on a particular date. Nor does this notice requirement affect the applicability of a potential deemed approval under Cal, Gov't Code Sec. 65964.1(a) because the remedy is triggered by noncompliance with the FCC shot clock. Conclusion AT&T is dedicated to providing and improving vital wireless services in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Years of cumbersome regulation and push -back have created an environment where it is exceedingly difficult to deploy adequate wireless infrastructure. Only by reducing barriers to deployments can the city reinvigorate investment in wireless facility deployments that are needed to ensure residents, businesses, and visitors have ready access to reliable and resilient wireless communications services. Sincerely, /4 Aaron NT. Shank cc: Amy Seeraty, Senior Planner (a.mys(rpvca.gov) 27290342.1