Draft Sept 5, 2021 . . .
ANNOTATED
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-R109
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CULVER CITY,
CALIFORNIA ESTABLISHING STANDARD CONDITIONS
OF APPROVAL FOR WIRELESS ENCROACHMENT
PERMITS TO INSTALL WIRELESS FACILITIES IN THE
PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY PURSUANT TO CULVER CITY
MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 11.20.065.H.1.
WHEREAS, Section 11.20.065 of the Culver City Municipal Code (CCMC) governs the permitting, installation, and regulation of wireless facilities in the City’s public rights-of-way (PROW); and
WHEREAS, CCMC Section 11.20.065.H requires that the City Council adopt standard conditions of approval applicable to all wireless facilities in the PROW, which may be modified by the approving authority on a case-by-case basis; and
Wire-USA: I believe this is applicable to all Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs), not just those in the public rights-of-way because as of the Aug 9, 2019 ruling in Case No. 18-1129, Keetoowah v FCC, the FCC has been treating WTFs of any size and any “G” as the same:
Oct 19, 2020 comment by Ms. Garnet Hanly, Division Chief of the Competition & Infrastructure Policy Division, FCC Wireless Telecommunications Bureau:
“The FCC when it modified its rules [Title 47, C.F.R. § 1.1312(e) by its October 2019 Order that became effective on Dec 5, 2019], after the DC Circuit issued its mandate [in its Ruling of Case No. 18-1129 Keetoowah v FCC] we [the FCC] took the position that we were reviewing Small Wireless Facilities as [Federal] undertakings and major Federal actions, pursuant to the DC Circuit decision and that is what we’ve been doing.”
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to establish such standard conditions of approval; and
Wire-USA: There is no need for Culver City to surrender its discretionary powers over the placement, construction and operations of WTFs to the Wireless industry’s agenda due to Federal statutes which supercede the presumptive FCC Order 18-133, Streamline sWTF Deployment Order
Link to 1996 Telecommunications Act (1996-TCA):
“(a) National Wireless Telecommunications Siting Policy. — Section 332(c) (47 U.S.C. 332(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
(7) Preservation of local zoning authority. —
(A) General authority. — Except as provided in this paragraph, nothing in this Act shall limit or affect the authority of a State or local government or instrumentality thereof over decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities.
Link to 1996-TCA Conference Report:
“When utilizing the term ‘functionally equivalent services’ the conferees are referring only to personal wireless services as defined in this section that directly compete against one another. The intent of the conferees is to ensure that a State or local government does not in making a decision regarding the placement, construction and modification of facilities of personal wireless services described in this section unreasonably favor one competitor over another. The conferees also intend that the phrase ‘unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services’ will provide localities with the flexibility to treat facilities that create different visual, aesthetic, or safety concerns differently to the extent permitted under generally applicable zoning requirements even if those facilities provide functionally equivalent services. For example, the conferees do not intend that if a State or local government grants a permit in a commercial district, it must also grant a permit for a competitor’s 50-foot tower in a residential district.
. . .
Under subsection (c)(7)(B)(ii), decisions are to be rendered in a reasonable period of time, taking into account the nature and scope of each request. If a request for placement of a personal wireless service facility involves a zoning variance or a public hearing or comment process, the time period for rendering a decision will be the usual period under such circumstances. It is not the intent of this provision to give preferential treatment to the personal wireless service industry in the processing of requests, or to subject their requests to any but the generally applicable time frames for zoning decisions.”
U.S. Code Title 47 §324 states
“In all circumstances . . . all radio . . . shall use the minimum amount of power necessary to carry out the communication desired.”
WHEREAS, on December 10, 2018, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public meeting and received testimony from City staff and all interested parties regarding the proposed conditions of approval; and
Wire-USA: Watch the video of the 12/10/2018 City Council meeting; who, from the public attended or spoke?
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of the Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Culver City, California, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN as follows
SECTION 1. Findings.
The foregoing Recitals are adopted as findings of the City Council as though fully set forth within the body of this Resolution.
SECTION 2. Definitions.
The definitions set forth in CCMC Section 11.20.065 are incorporated by reference into this Resolution.
SECTION 3. Standard Conditions of Approval for all Wireless Facilities in the Public Rights-of-Way.
In addition to any supplemental conditions imposed by the approving authority, all wireless encroachment permits shall be subject to the following conditions, unless modified by the approving authority:
Wire-USA: Why only wireless encroachment (administrative) permits and not wireless discretionary permits?
a. Code Compliance. The permittee shall at all times maintain compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws, regulations and other rules, including, without limitation, those applying to use of public rights-of-way.
Wire-USA: See federal statutes, quoted above and the City’s requirements to deliver actual public safety and privacy, per the CA State Constitution.
ARTICLE I DECLARATION OF RIGHTS [SECTION 1 – SEC. 32] ( Article 1 adopted 1879.)
SECTION 1.
“All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.”
See also Aug 13, 2021 DC Circuit ruling in Case No. 20-1025, EHT/CHD et al. v FCC
“We grant the petitions in part and remand to the Commission. The Commission failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect against the harmful effects of exposure to radiofrequency radiation . . .”
b. Permit Duration. A wireless encroachment permit shall be valid for a period of ten (10) years, unless pursuant to another provision of the Code or these conditions, it expires sooner or is terminated. At the end of ten (10) years from the date of issuance, such Permit shall automatically expire, unless an extension or renewal has been granted. A person holding a wireless encroachment permit must either (i) remove the facility within thirty (30) days following the expiration (provided that any involved support structure that is not owned by the person holding the expiring permit need not be removed, but must be restored to its prior condition, except as specifically permitted by the City); or (ii) at least ninety (90) days prior to expiration, submit an application to renew the permit, which application must, among all other requirements, demonstrate that the wireless facility will comply with then-current wireless regulations. The wireless facility may remain in place until the renewal application is acted upon by the City and all appeals from the City’s decision exhausted.
c. Timing of Installation. The installation and construction authorized by a wireless encroachment permit shall begin within one (1) year after its approval, or it will expire without further action by the City. The installation and construction authorized by a wireless encroachment permit shall conclude, including any necessary post-installation repairs and/or restoration to the public rights-of-way, within sixty (60) days following the day construction commenced, unless the Public Works Director / City Engineer grants an extension, which extension shall not be more than sixty (60) additional days.
d. Commencement of Operations. The operation of the approved facility shall commence no later than three (3) months after the completion of installation, or the wireless encroachment permit will expire without further action by the City.
Wire-USA: This is an example of the Culver City already regulating the operations of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs). Culver City can go much further and regulate maximum power output from any Wireless Telecommunications Facilities by adopting workable recipes of VERTICAL (offset), HORIZONTAL (offset) and maximum POWER output capability of the installed antennas. (Recipes for VHP = Vertical | Horizontal | Power) because Culver City must deliver to its residents actual public safety and privacy when allowing the provision of telecommunications services.
e. As-Built Drawings. The Permittee shall submit an as-built drawing within ninety (90) days after installation of the facility. As-builts shall be in an electronic format acceptable to the City.
f. Inspections; Emergencies. The City or its designee may enter onto the facility area to inspect the facility upon 48 hours prior notice to the permittee. The permittee shall cooperate with all inspections and may be present for any inspection of its facility by the City. The City reserves the right to enter or direct its designee to enter the facility and support, repair, disable, or remove any elements of the facility in emergencies or when the facility threatens imminent harm to persons or Permittee shall reimburse the City for any costs the City incurs related to emergency support, repairs, disabling, or removal of permittee’s facilities. The City shall make an effort to contact the permittee prior to disabling or removing any facility elements, but in any case shall notify permittee within one (1) business day of doing so.
Wire-USA: Transmitting frequencies using a guideline that does not adequately protect Culver City residents is such an example of a material threat of imminent harm to persons.
Aug 13, 2021 DC Circuit Ruling:
“The Commission failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect against the harmful effects of exposure to radiofrequency radiation . . .”
g. Contact. The permittee shall at all times maintain accurate contact information for all parties responsible for the facility, which shall include a phone number, street mailing address and email address for at least one natural person.
h. Insurance. Permittee shall obtain and maintain throughout the term of the permit commercial general liability insurance in the amounts and subject to terms set by the wireless regulations. The relevant policy(ies) shall name the City, its elected/appointed officials, commission members, officers, representatives, agents, and employees as additional insureds. Permittee shall use its best efforts to provide thirty (30) days’ prior notice to the City of to the cancellation or material modification of any applicable insurance policy.
Wire-USA: This insurance paragraph completely misses the point — there is a pollution exclusion from ALL GENERAL LIABILITY POLICIES for claims of injury, illness or death from RF Microwave Radiation (RF/MW radiation) — so Culver City is facing significant liabilities without sufficient insurance protection from the wireless industry. This is by design . . . see https://scientists4wiredtech.com/thisworks . . . STOPPED HERE at 1:10 pm
i. Indemnities. The permittee and, if applicable, the owner of the property upon which the wireless facility is installed shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, officials, and employees
- (i) from any and all damages, liabilities, injuries, losses, costs, and expenses, and from any and all claims, demands, law suits, writs of mandamus, and other actions or proceedings brought against the city or its agents, officers, officials, or employees to challenge, attack, seek to modify, set aside, void or annul the city’s approval of the permit, and
- (ii) from any and all damages, liabilities, injuries, losses, costs, and expenses, and any and all claims, demands, law suits, or causes of action and other actions or proceedings of any kind or form, whether for personal injury, death or property damage, arising out of or in connection with the activities or performance of the permittee or, if applicable, the private property owner or any of each one’s agents, employees, licensees, contractors, subcontractors, or independent contractors.
In the event the city becomes aware of any such actions or claims the city shall promptly notify the permittee and, if applicable, the private property owner and shall reasonably cooperate in the defense. The City shall have the right to approve, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City’s defense, and the property owner and/or permittee (as applicable) shall reimburse City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of the defense.
Wire-USA: The public owns the public rights-of-way and Culver City is charged with managing the public rights-of-way for the benefit of the public, delivering to residents both actual public safety and effective privacy. Culver City, via its negligence, is shifting liabilities to the taxpayers, which is the aim of the Wireless Industry. Read Harry Lehmann, Esq. analysis re: Doctrine of Fixtures and Dangerous Condition of Public Property in this 7/19/2017 letter to CA Legislature re: SB.649.
j. Performance Bond. Prior to issuance of a wireless encroachment permit, the permittee shall file with the City, and shall maintain in good standing throughout the term of the approval, a performance bond or other surety or another form of security for the removal of the facility in the event that the use is abandoned or the permit expires, or is revoked, or is otherwise terminated. The security shall be in the amount equal to 100% of the cost of physically removing the facility and all related facilities and equipment on the site and restoration of the public rights-of-way to its prior condition, based on the higher of two contractor’s quotes for removal that are provided by the permittee. The permittee shall reimburse the City for any and all costs the City incurs in relation to permittee’s facilities, including, but not limited to, staff time associated with the processing and tracking of the bond, based on the hourly rate adopted by Resolution of the City Council. Reimbursement shall be paid when the security is posted and during each administrative review.
Wire-USA: The bond needs to extend throughout the full time period of the operational permit and not sunset upon project approval because no party can get insurance to cover claims of injury, illness or death from RF microwave radiation
k. Adverse Impacts on Adjacent Properties. Permittee shall undertake all reasonable efforts to avoid undue adverse impacts to adjacent properties and/or uses that may arise from the construction, operation, maintenance, modification, and removal of the facility.
Wire-USA: The operation of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) at current levels are 25 million times higher than needed for telecommunications service. That is unreasonable. The power output of WTFs in the public rights-of-way must be reduced to no higher than -85 dBm in areas accessible to residents of Culver City
l. Noninterference. Permittee shall not move, alter, temporarily relocate, change, or interfere with any existing structure, improvement, or property without the prior consent of the owner of that structure, improvement, or property. No structure, improvement, or property owned by the City shall be moved to accommodate a permitted activity or encroachment, unless the City determines that such movement will not adversely affect the City or any surrounding businesses or residents, and the Permittee pays all costs and expenses related to the relocation of the City’s structure, improvement, or property. Prior to commencement of any work pursuant to a wireless encroachment permit, the Permittee shall provide the City with documentation establishing to the City’s satisfaction that the Permittee has the legal right to use or interfere with any other structure, improvement, or property within the public rights-of-way or City utility easement to be affected by Permittee’s facilities.
m. No Right, Title, or Interest. The permission granted by a wireless encroachment permit shall not in any event constitute an easement on or an encumbrance against the public rights-of-way. No right, title, or interest (including franchise interest) in the public rights-of-way, or any part thereof, shall vest or accrue in Permittee by reason of a wireless encroachment permit or the issuance of any other permit or exercise of any privilege given thereby.
n. No Possessory Interest. No possessory interest is created by a wireless encroachment permit. However, to the extent that a possessory interest is deemed created by a governmental entity with taxation authority, Permittee acknowledges that City has given to Permittee notice pursuant to California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 107.6 that the use or occupancy of any public property pursuant to a wireless encroachment permit may create a possessory interest which may be subject to the payment of property taxes levied upon such interest. Permittee shall be solely liable for, and shall pay and discharge prior to delinquency, any and all possessory interact taxes or other taxes, fees, and assessments levied against Permittee’s right to possession, occupancy, or use of any public property pursuant to any right of possession, occupancy, or use created by this permit.
o. General Maintenance. The site and the facility, including, but not limited to, all landscaping, fencing, and related transmission equipment, must be maintained in a neat and clean manner and in accordance with all approved plans. All graffiti on facilities must be removed at the sole expense of the Permittee within forty-eight (48) hours after notification from the City.
p. RF Exposure Compliance. All facilities must comply with all standards and regulations of the FCC and any other state or federal government agency with the authority to regulate RF exposure standards. After transmitter and antenna system optimization, but prior to unattended operations of the facility, permittee or its representative must conduct on-site post-installation RF emissions testing to demonstrate actual compliance with the FCC OET Bulletin 65 RF emissions safety rules for general population/uncontrolled RF exposure in all sectors. For this testing, the transmitter shall be operating at maximum operating power, and the testing shall occur outwards to a distance where the RF emissions no longer exceed the uncontrolled/general population limit.
Wire-USA: But such RF Exposure Compliance testing is meaningless, once we all recognize the meaning of the Aug 13, 2021 Ruling in Case 20-1025, EHT/CHD v FCC:
“The Commission failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect against the harmful effects of exposure to radiofrequency radiation . . .””
q. Testing. Testing of any equipment shall take place on weekdays only, and only between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except that testing is prohibited on holidays that fall on a weekday. Testing is prohibited on weekends.
r. Modifications. No changes shall be made to the approved plans without review and approval in accordance with this Section.
s. Agreement with City. If not already completed, Permittee shall enter into the appropriate agreement with the City, as determined by the City, prior to constructing, attaching, or operating a facility on Municipal Infrastructure. This permit is not a substitute for such agreement.
t. Conflicts with Improvements. For all facilities located within the public rights-of-way, the Permittee shall remove or relocate, at its expense and without expense to the City, any or all of its facilities when such removal or relocation is deemed necessary by the City by reason of any change of grade, alignment, or width of any public rights-of-way, for installation of services, water pipes, sewer pipes, drains, storm drains, power or signal lines, traffic control devices, public rights-of-way improvements, or for any other construction, repair, or improvement to the public rights-of-way.
u. Abandonment. If a facility is not operated for a continuous period of ninety (90) days (or, if good cause exists, a longer period of time that the Public Works Director / City Engineer sets in their sole discretion), the wireless encroachment permit and any other permit or approval therefor shall be deemed abandoned and terminated automatically, unless before the end of the ninety (90) day period the Public Works Director / City Engineer has received an application to transfer the permit to another service provider. No later than ninety (90) days from (i) the date the facility is determined to have æased operation or (ii) the date the Permittee has notified the Public Works Director I City Engineer of its intent to vacate the site, the Permittee shall, unless otherwise directed by the Public Works Director I City Engineer, remove all equipment and improvements associated with the use and shall restore the site to its original condition to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director I City Engineer. The permittee shall provide written verification of the removal of the facilities within thirty (30) days of the date the removal is completed. If the facility is not removed within thirty (30) days after the permit has been discontinued pursuant to this subsection, the site shall be deemed to be a nuisance, and the City may cause the facility to be removed at permittee’s expense or by calling any bond or other financial assurance to pay for removal. If there are two (2) or more users of a single facility or support structure, then this provision shall apply to the specific elements or parts thereof that were abandoned, but will not be effective for the entirety thereof until all users cease use thereof.
v. Records. The Permittee must maintain complete and accurate copies of all permits and other regulatory approvals issued in connection with the facility, which includes without limitation this approval, the approved plans and photo simulations incorporated into this approval, all conditions associated with this approval and any ministerial permits or approvals issued in connection with this approval. In the event that the permittee does not maintain such records as required in this condition or fails to prcxluce true and cmvlete copies of such records within a reasonable time after a written request from the City, any ambiguities or uncertainties that would be resolved through an inspection of the missing records will be construed against the permittee.
w. Attomey’s Fees. In the event the City determines that it is necessary to take legal action to enforce any of these conditions, or to revoke a permit, and such legal action is taken, the Permittee shall be required to pay any and all costs of such legal action, including reasonable attorney’s fees, incurred by the City, even if the matter is not prosecuted to a final judgment or is amicably resolved, unless the City should otherwise agree with Permittee to waive said fees or any part thereof. The foregoing shall not apply if the Permittee prevails in the enforcement proceeding.
SECTION 4. Eligible Facility Requests.
In addition to the conditions provided in Section 3 of this Resolution and any supplemental conditions imposed by the approving authority, all wireless encroachment permits issued in response to an eligible facility request shall be subject to the following additional conditions, unless modified by the approving authority:
a. Permit subject to conditions of underlying permit. Any permit granted in response to an application qualifying as an eligible facilities request shall be subject to the terms and conditions of the underlying permit.
b. No permit term extension. The City’s grant or grant by operation of law of an eligible facilities request permit constitutes a federally-mandated modification to the underlying permit or approval for the subject tower or base station. Notwithstanding any permit duration established in another permit condition, the City’s grant or grant by operation of law of a eligible facilities request permit will not extend the permit term for the underlying permit or any other underlying regulatory approval, and its term shall be coterminous with the underlying permit or other regulatory approval for the subject tower or base station.
c. No waiver of standing. The City’s grant or grant by operation of law of an eligible facilities request does not waive, and shall not be construed to waive, any standing by the City to challenge Section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act, any FCC rules that interpret Section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act, or any modification to Section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act.
SECTION 5. Small Cell Facilities.
In addition to the conditions provided in Section 3 of this Resolution and any supplemental conditions imposed by the approving authority, all wireless encroachment permits issued for a small cell facility shall be subject to the Following additional conditions, unless modified by the approving authority:
a. No waiver of standing. The City’s grant of a permit for a small cell facility request does not waive, and shall not be construed to waive, any standing by the City to challenge any FCC orders or rules related to small cell facilities, or any modification to those FCC orders or rules.
SECTION 6. Effective Date.
This Resolution shall become effective on the effective date of CCMC Section 11.20.065.
APPROVED and ADOPTED this 10th day 2018.
/s/
THOMAS AUJERO SMALL, Mayor
City of Culver City, California
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CAROL A. SCHWAB
City Attorney
A. Culver City Muni Code
About 50 pages, requiring careful reading and study. (Time tbd)
1. Resolution 2018-R109
- 8 page pdf
- Signed Dec 10, 2018 by Mayor Thomas Aujero Small
- Cannot copy/paste text; must be OCR’ed
2. Ordinance 2019-R002
- 14 page pdf
- Signed Jan 14, 2019 by Mayor Thomas Aujero Small
3. Design and Development Standards
. . . FOR WIRELESS FACILITIES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY
- 15 page pdf with photos
- Objective standards, like this, are longer required as Aug 12, 2020 Ruling in Case-No-18-72689 City of Portland et al. v FCC
- Published Jan 10, 2020
4. Wireless Utility Permit
Public Works Department – Engineering Division Supplemental Conditions of Approval
- 3 page pdf
- Unattributed/Undated_xxx
5. Light Pole Facility Addendum
- 13 page pdf (V3 August 26, 2019)
- Unsigned . . . (what’s the status of this?_xxx)
B. Highest Priority Culver City sWTF Application
Source: Google Drive Here
Documents to Review
6174 Buckingham Parkway
About 250 pages, requiring careful reading and study. (Time tbd)
- First Submittal 10-29-2019 — 125+ pages, requiring careful reading and study
- — 18 pp —
00 - LDRAH 04 - WirelessUtlityApplicationF.pdf
- — 1 p —
03.a.iii - LOA from ATT 2-27-19.pdf
- — 2 pp —
03b - LDRAH 04 - Project Narrative.docx
- — 3 sl —
03g - LDRAH 04 - Visual Impact Analysis.pptx
- — 9 sl —
03J - LDRAH 04 - Alternative Sites Analysis.pptx
- — 3 sl —
CRAN_RLOS_LDRAH_04_Propagation Maps_10252019.pptx
- — 18 pp —
CRAN-RLOS-LDRAH-004 Appendix A.pdf
- — 6 pp —
CRAN-RLOS-LDRAH-004 RF Exposure Study 10282019.pdf by Hammett & Edison
- — 18 pp —
GTCs Facilities and Services Final Fillable.pdf (Contract Unsigned_xxx)
- — 34 pp —
LDRAH 004A [Detailed plans and] Noise Compliance Report 10-27-19.pdf
- — 10 pp —
LDRAH-004 - 100CD - REV 1 - CRAN - 10-25-19.pdf
- — 3 pp —
LDRAH-004 Photosim 10252019.pdf
- — 4 pp —
LDRAH-004- TCP.pdf
- — 18 pp —
- Second Submittal 07-20-2021 — 100+ pages, requiring careful reading and study; page counts in [brackets] are excluded from total; updates of previous submission (what changed?)
- — 16 pp —
1. LDRAH-004 - 100CD - REV 3 - CRAN - 06-16-21.pdf
- — 2 pp —
2. LDRAH - 04 - Sims - Rev1 - 6.27.21[72196].pdf
- — 38 pp —
3. LDRAH-04_Noise Report.pdf
- — 1 pp —
4. CRAN_RLOS_LDRAH_004A Appendix A 06302021.pdf
(Hammett & Edison) - — 6 pp —
4. CRAN_RLOS_LDRAH_004A RevRF Exposure Study 06302021.pdf
(Hammett & Edison) - — 1 p —
4. CRAN_RLOS_LDRAH_004A Supplemental Figure 06302021.pdf
(propagation map) - — [27 pp] —
5. 500_ OCC LIST IN LABEL FORMAT (2).pdf
- — [13 pp] —
5. 500_ OWN LIST IN LABEL FORMAT (2).pdf
- — 1 p —
5. 500_ RADIUS MAP (2).pdf
- — [1 p] —
5. LIST AFFIDAVIT (2).pdf
(blank_xxx) - — 1 p —
5. VICINITY MAP (2).pdf
- — 1 p —
6. LDRAH-004_Notification Letter.pdf
- — 34 pp –
7. Structural Calcs (2).pdf
- — 16 pp —
- Third Submittal 8-17-2021 — 18 pages, requiring careful reading and study; updates of previous submission (what changed?)
- — 16 pp —
1. LDRAH-004 - 100CD - REV 4 - CRAN - 08-03-21.pdf
- — 1 p —
2. LDRAH-004A.pdf
- — 1 p –
3. Cert. Of Posting-LDRAH-004A.pdf
- — 16 pp —
- First NOI_AT_T LDRAH-004A_6174 Buck Pkwy_U19-0443.docx (11/4/2019, not a letter)
- Notice of Incompleteness 7-29-2021.pdf (7/29/2021, brief letter)
C. Other Culver City sWTF Applications
Source: Google Drive Here
Page Counts not completed as of 10:15 am
>>> On Sep 5, 2021, at 1:13 PM, [Culver City resident] wrote:
Documents to Review
5770 Uplander Way
- First Submittal 10-29-2019
- —
00 - LDRAH 05 - WirelessUtlityApplicationF.pdf
- —
03.a.iii - LOA from ATT 2-27-19.pdf
- —
03b - LDRAH 05 - Project Narrative.docx
- —
03g - LDRAH 05 - Visual Impact Analysis.pptx
- —
03J - LDRAH 05 - Alternative Sites Analysis.pptx
- —
CRAN_RLOS_LDRAH_05_Propagation Maps_10252019.pptx
- —
CRAN-RLOS-LDRAH-005 Appendix A.pdf
- —
CRAN-RLOS-LDRAH-005 RF Exposure Study 10282019.pdf
- —
GTCs Facilities and Services Final Fillable.pdf
- —
LDRAH 005A Noise Compliance Report 10-27-19.pdf
- —
LDRAH-005 - 100CD - REV 1 - CRAN -10-25-19.pdf
- —
LDRAH-005 Photosim 10252019.pdf
- —
LDRAH-005- TCP.pdf
- —
- Second Submittal 7-20-2021
- —
1. LDRAH-005 - 100CD - REV 3 - CRAN -06-15-21.pdf
- —
2. LDRAH - 05 - Sims - Rev1 - 6.27.21[72197].pdf
- —
3. Noise Report LDRAH-005A 6-27-21[72200].pdf
- —
4. CRAN_RLOS_LDRAH_005A Appendix A.pdf
- —
4. CRAN_RLOS_LDRAH_005A RevRF Exposure Study 06302021.pdf
- —
4. CRAN_RLOS_LDRAH_005A Supplemental Figure 06302021.pdf
- —
5. 500_ OCC LIST IN LABEL FORMAT (3).pdf
- —
5. 500_ OWN LIST IN LABEL FORMAT (3).pdf
- —
500_ RADIUS MAP (3).pdf
- — LIST AFFIDAVIT (3).pdf
- —
VICINITY MAP (3).pdf
- —
LDRAH-005_Notification Letter.pdf
- —
Structural Calcs (3).pdf
- —
- Third Submittal 8-17-2021
- —
LDRAH-005 - 100CD - REV 4 - CRAN -08-04-21.pdf
- —
LDRAH-005A.pdf
- —
Cert. Of Posting-LDRAH-005A.pdf
- —
- First NOI_AT_T LDRAH-005A_5770 Uplander Way_U19-0441.docx
- Second Notice of Incompleteness 7-29-2021.pdf
5839 Green Valley Circle
- First Submittal — missing
- Second Submittal 7-19-2021
- —
1. LDRAH-001- 100CD - REV 3 - CRAN - 07-15-21.pdf
- —
2. LDRAH - 01 - Sims - Rev1 - 6.14.21.pdf
- —
3. LDRAH-01_Revised Noise Report.pdf
- —
4. CRAN_RLOS_LDRAH_001A Appendix A 06222021.pdf
- —
4. CRAN_RLOS_LDRAH_001A RevRF Exposure Study 06222021.pdf
- —
4. CRAN_RLOS_LDRAH_001A RevSupplemental Figure 06292021.pdf
- —
5. 500_ OCC LIST IN LABEL FORMAT.pdf
- —
5. 500_ OWN LIST IN LABEL FORMAT.pdf
- —
5. 500_ RADIUS MAP.pdf
- —
5. LIST AFFIDAVIT.pdf
- —
5. VICINITY MAP.pdf
- —
6. LDRAH-001_Notification Letter.pdf
- —
7. Structural Calcs.pdf
- —
- Third Submittal 8-16-21
- —
1. LDRAH-001- 100CD - REV 4 - CRAN - 08-03-21.pdf
- —
2. Cert. Of Posting-LDRAH-001A.pdf
- —
3. LDRAH-001A_Photo.pdf
- —
- First NOI_AT_T LDRAH-001A_5839 GVC_U19-0439.docx
- Second Notice of Incompleteness 7-28-2021.pdf
- 6174 Buckingham Parkway is across the street from homes, so please start with this one.
- 5839 Green Valley Circle is missing the first submission documents. We requested it, but have not received it yet.
- These are the links to the applications.
- https://www.culvercity.org/files/assets/public/documents/building-development/wirelessutlityapplicationf.pdf
- https://www.culvercity.org/Services/Building-Development/Wireless-Utility-Permit
6205 Green Valley Circle
- First Submittal 10-29-2019
- —
00 - LDRAH 02 - WirelessUtlityApplicationF.pdf
- —
03.a.iii - LOA from ATT 2-27-19.pdf
- —
03b - LDRAH 02 - Project Narrative.docx
- —
03g - LDRAH 02 - Visual Impact Analysis.pptx
- —
03J - LDRAH 02 - Alternative Sites Analysis.pptx
- —
CRAN-RLOS-LDRAH-002 Appendix A.pdf
- —
CRAN-RLOS-LDRAH-002 RF Exposure Study 10282019.pdf
- —
GTCs Facilities and Services Final Fillable.pdf
- —
LDRAH 002A Noise Compliance Report 10-27-19.pdf
- —
LDRAH-002_TCP.pdf
- —
LDRAH-002A - 100CD - REV 1 - CRAN - 10-25-19.pdf
- —
LDRAH-002A Photosim 10252019.pdf
- —
- Second Submittal 7-19-2021
- —
1. LDRAH-002A - 100CD - REV 3 - CRAN - 07-15-21.pdf
- —
2. LDRAH - 02 - Sims - Rev1 - 6.14.21.pdf
- —
3. Noise Report LDRAH-002A 6-15-21[70945].pdf
- —
4. CRAN_RLOS_LDRAH_002A Appendix A 06222021.pdf
- —
4. CRAN_RLOS_LDRAH_002A RevRF Exposure Study 06222021.pdf
- —
4. CRAN_RLOS_LDRAH_002A Supplemental Figure.pdf
- —
5. 500_ OCC LIST IN LABEL FORMAT (1).pdf
- —
5. 500_ OWN LIST IN LABEL FORMAT (1).pdf
- —
5. 500_ RADIUS MAP (1).pdf
- —
5. LIST AFFIDAVIT (1).pdf
- —
5. VICINITY MAP (1).pdf
- —
6. LDRAH-002_Notification Letter.pdf
- —
7. Structural Calcs (1).pdf
- —
- Third Submittal 8-16-21
- —
1. LDRAH-002A - 100CD - REV 4 - CRAN - 08-03-21.pdf
- —
2. Cert. Of Posting-LDRAH-002A.p df
- —
3. LDRAH-002A.pdf
- —
- Notice of Incompleteness 7-28-2021.doc
- Notice of Incompleteness 7-28-2021.pdf
2021-0903-New-Docs
- 5990 Green Valley Circle.pdf
- 6201 Bristol parkway.pdf
- 6666 Green Valley Circle.pdf
- Plan checklist 5839 Green Valley Circle.pdf
Links re: the Culver City ordinance:
- https://www.culvercity.org/files/assets/public/documents/building-development/resolutionestablishingstan.pdf
- https://www.culvercity.org/files/assets/public/documents/building-development/culvercitymunicipalcodesec.pdf
- https://www.culvercity.org/files/assets/public/documents/building-development/wirelessfacilitiesdesignan.pdf
- https://www.culvercity.org/files/assets/public/documents/building-development/wirelessutilitypermitsuppl.pdf
Links re: light poles:
- https://www.culvercity.org/files/assets/public/documents/building-development/wirelessutilitypermit-lightpolefacilityaddendum8-26-19-added2020-11.pdf
- https://www.culvercity.org/files/assets/public/documents/building-development/lightpolefacilityaddendumo.pdf
Email regarding the shot clock
From: Romo, Sammy <sammy.romo@culvercity.org>
To: [Culver City Resident]
Sent: Friday, September 3, 2021, 02:17:39 PM PDT
Subject: RE: Urgent meeting request regarding AT&T small cell installation
The shot clock is very complex and I have to admit I don’t understand it completely. When we receive an application, we need to review it and respond within 10 days. If we do not respond within 10 days, then we need to make a final determination within 90 days or 60 days (depending on the type of small cell application – new structure vs. collocation vs. “eligible facility request”). Before the 60 or 90 day shot clock expires, the two entities (City and applicant) can agree to toll the shot clock which basically pushes the review date further out.
For the 4 applications below, the 10 day review period came and went but the applicant agreed to postpone the review until after the meeting Wednesday night.
Hope this helps.
Sammy Romo, P.E.
Senior Civil Engineer, City of Culver City, Dept. of Public Works/Engineering
Office: 310-253-5619
Cell Phone: 310-487-0211
Email: Sammy.romo@culvercity.org
City Hall Address: 9770 Culver Boulevard, Culver City, CA 90232
From: [Culver City Resident]
Sent: Friday, September 3, 2021 2:01 PM
To: Romo, Sammy <sammy.romo@culvercity.org>
Subject: Re: Urgent meeting request regarding AT&T small cell installation
What is the actual shot clock in these?
>>> On Sep 3, 2021, at 1:57 PM, Romo, Sammy <sammy.romo@culvercity.org> wrote:
Evelina, I assume you are referring to these permits
- 5839 Green Valley Circle
- 6205 Green Valley Circle
- 6174 Buckingham Parkway
- 5770 Uplander Way
Of the four, only the first one listed above was “approved” in the City’s permitting system, but the applicant was never notified of this approval. Upon discussing with the applicants, they agreed to postpone any approvals or comments until after the community meeting this coming Wednesday night, essentially tolling the shot clock.
Sammy Romo, P.E.
Senior Civil Engineer, City of Culver City, Dept. of Public Works/Engineering
Office: 310-253-5619
Cell Phone: 310-487-0211
Email: Sammy.romo@culvercity.org
City Hall Address: 9770 Culver Boulevard, Culver City, CA 90232