City of Culver City
Staff Report
Mike Balkman
Council Chambers
9770 Culver Blvd.
Culver City, CA 90232
(310) 253-5851
File #: 24-732, Version: 1 Item #: PH-2.
CC - PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: Appeal of the Administrative Approval of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Encroachment Permit to Crown Castle for 6292 Buckingham Parkway, Culver City Permit Number U23-0278.
Meeting Date: February 26, 2024
Contact/Dept: Sammy Romo/Public Works-Engineering
Phone Number: (310) 253-5619
Fiscal Impact: Yes [ ] No [X] General Fund: Yes [ ] No [X] Public Hearing: Yes [X] No [ ] Attachments: Yes [X] No [ ] Public Notification: E-Mail: Meetings and Agendas - City Council (02/20/2024); E-mail: E.
Scott, Appellant (02/02/2024); Brad Ladua, Crown Castle, Applicant (02/02/2024); Mail: All residents within 500 feet of the subject Wireless Telecommunications Facility (02/15/2024) Department Approval: Yanni Demitri, Public Works Director/City Engineer (02/08/2024) _____________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council consider the appeal by E. Scott (the “Appellant”) of staff’s approval of Crown Castle’s wireless encroachment permit application for a small wireless facility to be located within the public right-of-way in proximity to 6292 Buckingham Parkway, permit number U23-0278, and render a decision by either:
1. (Staff Recommendation) Denying the appeal and approving the wireless encroachment permit application with the same conditions and/or findings as the staff approval or with modified conditions and/or findings, and adopting a finding that the approval is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15303(e); OR
2. Granting the appeal and denying the wireless encroachment permit application based on the findings specified by the City Council.
PROCEDURES
1. Mayor calls on staff for staff report and City Council Members pose questions to staff as City of Culver City Printed on 2/21/2024Page 1 of 5
powered by Legistar™
File #: 24-732, Version: 1 Item #: PH-2.
1. Mayor calls on staff for staff report and City Council Members pose questions to staff as desired.
2. Mayor opens the Public Hearing, providing the Appellant the first opportunity to speak, followed by the Applicant and then the general public.
3. Applicant and Appellant are given one final opportunity to provide rebuttal comments.
4. Mayor seeks a motion to close the Public Hearing after all testimony has been presented.
5. City Council discusses the matter and arrives at its decision.
BACKGROUND
The City regulates the placement of small cell wireless facilities in public rights-of-way pursuant to Culver City Municipal Code Section 11.20.065 and the “Design and Development Standards for Wireless Facilities in the Public Rights-of-Way,” adopted by the City Council on February 28, 2022, by Resolution 2022-R019.
On August 29, 2023, Crown Castle submitted an application to obtain a wireless encroachment permit for the installation of small cell equipment on a city-owned streetlight in the public right-of-way fronting 6292 Buckingham Parkway. Crown Castle proposes to replace the existing streetlight with a stealth-integrated pole design. Per the City’s requirements, Crown Castle submitted site plans, equipment diagrams, integrated street light replacement specifications, and analyses related to visual impact, noise impact, and structural calculations. Crown Castle also submitted Radio Frequency (RF) emission reports prepared and signed by an independent California-registered electrical engineer demonstrating that the RF emissions from the wireless facility comply with the FCC guidelines that limit exposure to RF emissions.
Initially, staff determined the application was incomplete. However, through the submittal and resubmittal-with-changes process, Crown Castle eventually responded with a submittal that was deemed complete. Per the City’s requirements, Crown Castle mailed notification letters via U.S. Post to all property persons within 500 feet of the proposed locations and affixed posters upon the existing streetlight poles of the proposed small cell sites announcing their proposal to install a wireless facility.
In response to the public notifications, one property owner near the subject location voiced concern about the proposed wireless facility.
Staff’s evaluation of the subject applications now under appeal concluded that Crown Castle complied with all the City’s requirements contained in Culver City Municipal Code (“CCMC”) Section
11.20.065 to obtain a wireless encroachment permit, and without exception, adhered to all of the City’s applicable design and development standards. On September 28, 2023, staff approved the application and notified the applicant and all persons who submitted written comments on the application, which included the Appellant (Attachment 1). The Appellant submitted, in writing, a timely appeal of the approval pursuant to CCMC Section 11.20.065.D.3 (Attachments 2) (the “Appeal”).
DISCUSSION
Section 11.20.065.D.3(a) of the CCMC states:
Any person adversely affected by the decision of the Public Works Director/City Engineer pursuant to City of Culver City Printed on 2/21/2024Page 2 of 5
powered by Legistar™
File #: 24-732, Version: 1 Item #: PH-2.
Any person adversely affected by the decision of the Public Works Director/City Engineer pursuant to this Section may appeal the decision to the City Council, which may decide the issues de novo, and whose written decision will be the final decision of the City. Any appeal shall be conducted so that a timely written decision may be issued in compliance with any legally-required deadline.
THE APPEAL:
Claim:
The Appellant filed a timely request appealing the granting of this wireless permit. While Appellant’s request for appeal of the granting of this wireless permit did not articulate a basis for this appeal, Appellant’s prior contacts with city staff have articulated concerns that the permitted small cell facility will have negative health effects, due to RF emissions, and reduce property values.
Response:
RF Emissions: The FCC is the sole regulatory agency that establishes RF guidelines nationwide to limit public exposure to emissions, and the City refers to those guidelines when evaluating RF emission reports submitted by applicants. As mentioned above, Crown Castle submitted a report for the proposed facility that was evaluated by staff and determined to show compliance with FCC guidelines (Attachment 3).
In addition, this application proposes a facility that is similar to other facilities Crown Castle has installed elsewhere in the City. Staff recently performed a “post-construction” analysis of a random small cell wireless site placed by Crown Castle a few years ago to evaluate RF emissions. Crown Castle was not made aware of this testing beforehand. The analysis showed the greatest amount of RF emissions was 0.7% of the maximum permissible exposure allowed by the FCC.
Reduced Property Values: The Appellant provided no support for the claim about property value reduction. Moreover, whether or not the facility will reduce property values is not a required finding under the CCMC.
To the extent the Appellant’s concerns about property value relate to RF emissions, the City may not deny a wireless facility application based on concern about RF emissions exposure if the facility complies with FCC guidelines.1 As discussed, the evidence in the record is that the proposed facility will comply with the FCC guidelines.
To the extent the Appellant’s concern about property values relates to aesthetics, the City’s adopted Design and Development Standards (“Standards”) require certain aesthetic requirements be observed that mitigate the visual impact small cell equipment may create. The streetlight and matching shroud which Crown Castle is proposing via this wireless application adheres to those Standards. The integrated streetlights will house all the small cell equipment within them and complement the surrounding streetlights by matching their color, material, and finishes.
FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR APPROVAL
CCMC Section 11.20.065(G)(1) provides the following findings are required for approval of a wireless City of Culver City Printed on 2/21/2024Page 3 of 5
powered by Legistar™
File #: 24-732, Version: 1 Item #: PH-2.
CCMC Section 11.20.065(G)(1) provides the following findings are required for approval of a wireless encroachment permit application for a small cell wireless facility:
1. Findings required for approval
a. … the Public Works Director/City Engineer or City Council, as the case may be, shall approve an application if, on the basis of the application and other materials or evidence provided in review thereof, it finds the following:
i. The facility is not detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; ii. The facility complies with this Section and all applicable design and development standards; and
iii. The facility meets applicable requirement and standards of State and Federal law.
All of the above required findings are supported by the administrative record and, therefore, justified.
The Appellant has not, to-date, submitted any evidence to contradict these findings; therefore, staff recommends the City Council deny the appeal and approve the wireless encroachment permit with the same conditions and/or findings as the staff approval.
FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO DENIAL OF WIRELESS PERMIT APPLICATIONS Federal law requires that if a wireless facility application is denied, the denial decision must be “in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record.” 47 U.S.C. Section 332 (c)(7)(B)(iii). The law also requires that the denial and the reasons for denial be issued essentially contemporaneously. T-Mobile South, LLC v. City of Roswell, Ga., 574 U.S. 293 (2015). Thus, if the City Council determines that the appeal should be granted, thereby denying Crown Castle’s permit application, the City Council should explain its denial of such permit application by specifically indicating which finding(s) for approval cannot be made and the reasons such finding(s) cannot be made.
FISCAL ANALYSIS
There is no fiscal impact associated with denying or granting the Appeal.
ATTACHMENTS
· 2024-02-26_ATT1 Notice of Application Approval 6292 Buckingham Parkway · 2024-02-26_ATT2 Appeal 6292 Buckingham Parkway
· 2024-02-26_ATT3 RF Emissions Compliance Report 6292 Buckingham Parkway · 2024-02-26_ATT4 Photo Sims 6292 Buckingham Parkway
· 2024-02-26_ATT5 Standard Conditions of Approval
· 2024-02-26_ATT6 Supplemental Conditions of Approval
MOTIONS
City of Culver City Printed on 2/21/2024Page 4 of 5
powered by Legistar™
File #: 24-732, Version: 1 Item #: PH-2.
That the City Council:
1.A. (Staff Recommendation) Deny the appeal and approve Crown Castle’s wireless encroachment permit application for 6292 Buckingham Parkway, Culver City Permit Number U23-0278, based on the findings set forth in the September 28, 2023, Notice of Application Approval (Attachment 1) and subject to the conditions of approval set forth in Attachments 5 and 6 of the report; ; and adopt a finding that the approval is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15303(e). (Note: If the City Council determines to modify or supplement the conditions of approval, those should be articulated in the record.)
OR
If the Council intends to deny any application:
(Note: If the City Council decides to deny the application, the motion for denial should specifically indicate which finding(s) for approval cannot be made and the reasons such finding(s) cannot be made, based on substantial evidence in the record.)
1.B. Grant the appeal and deny Crown Castle’s wireless encroachment permit application for 6292 Buckingham Parkway, Culver City Permit Number U23-0278, because of the following findings for approval cannot be made for the following reasons: [insert as applicable]
AND
2. Direct Public Works staff to prepare and issue, pursuant to CCMC Section 11.20.065.G.2, a written Notice of Decision, signed by the Mayor, consistent with the City Council’s findings and decision set forth in the February 26, 2024 record. The Notice shall be issued no later than February 28, 2024.
NOTES
1 In AT&T Wireless Servs. v. City of Carlsbad, 308 F. Supp. 2d 1148, 1161 (S.D. Cal. 2003). the city made a finding that the wireless facility would “negatively affect property values of nearby homes based upon the perceived fear of the health effects cause by the RF emissions.” The court held against Carlsbad, ruling that cities may not regulate based on the “direct or indirect concerns over the health effects of RF.” The court explained that a denial could not be based on substantial evidence (as required by law) “…if the fear of property value depreciation is based on concerns over the health effects caused by RF emissions.”
City of Culver City Printed on 2/21/2024Page 5 of 5
powered by Legistar™
9770 Culver Boulevard, Culver City, California 90232
Yanni Demitri, PE, TE, MSCE
Public Works Director and
City Engineer
(310) 253-5600
Mate Gaspar, P.E.
Engineering Services Manager
FAX (310) 253-5626
____________________________
Culver City Employees take pride in effectively providing the highest levels of service to enrich the quality of life for the community by building on our tradition of more than a century of public service, by our present commitment, and by our dedication to meet the challenges of the future.
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
September 28, 2023
Brad Ladua
Sure Site Consulting Group
200 Spectrum Drive, Suite 1700
Irvine, CA 92618
Email: [email protected]
SUBJECT: Notice of Approval of Application for Crown Castle Small Cell CULVER_17-E – 6292 Buckingham Parkway, Culver City Permit Number U23-0278 Dear Mr. Ladua:
Upon review of Crown Castle’s application and supporting materials, we make the following findings:
1. Per the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City above-referenced wireless facilities qualifiy as categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15303(e), New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures;
2. The above-referenced wireless facilities are not detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare;
3. These facilities comply with all applicable provisions of CCMC Section 11.20.065 and with all applicable design and development standards; and
4. These facilities meet applicable requirements and standards of state and federal law.
As a result, we approve Crown Castle’s above-referenced application. This approval will be contingent upon Crown Castle complying with all con ditions of the related Wireless Utilty Permit, wh ich can be found here: Wireless Conditions .
Sincerely,
Sammy Romo, P.E.
Senior Civil Engineer
From: sco e sco <forsco [email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 11:14 PM To: Romo, Sammy Subject: Re: Response Correc on. Proposed Cell Site in Fox Hills, thank you
EXTERNAL: This email originated from outside of the organiza on. Do not click links or open a achments unless you confirm the content is safe.
Corrected email
Hello Mr. Romo,
Thank you for your note, and me to have a brief conversa on. As men oned to you, I would like to appeal the approval. I understand that the appeal will be taken before the City Council at one of their mee ngs. Please send any informa on regarding this to sco [email protected] .
Thank you once again for your me.
Sco
On Oct 3, 2023, at 11:07 PM, sco e sco <forsco [email protected]> wrote:
Hello Mr. Romo,
Thank you for you your note, and time to have a brief conversation. As mentioned to you, I would like to appeal the approval. I understand that the appeal will be taken before the City Council at one of their meetings. Please send any information regarding this to [email protected] .
Thank you once again for your time.
Scott
18 Morgan Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92618
www.mobilenet.net
Report Date: 8/16/2023
RF Emissions Compliance Report
SITE – SCL Culver 17 • 6292 Buckingham Pkwy. Culver City, CA 90230
Prepared For
Crown Castle
200 Spectrum Center Drive. Irvine, CA - 92618
Irvine, CA • 949-951-4444 Page 3
Proprietary & confidential
Executive Summary
Crown Castle has contracted MobileNet Services to evaluate the Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Compliance of the proposed site below. Compliance is based on the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) Rules and Regulations for human exposure to electromagnetic fields.
Site Name: SCL Culver 17
Latitude: 33.982173°
Longitude: -118.386072°
Structure Type: Metal Streetlight Pole
Address: 6292 Buckingham Pkwy. Culver City, CA 90230
Irvine, CA • 949-951-4444 Page 4
Proprietary & confidential
FCC RF Exposure Guidelines
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has provided standards (FCC 96-326) for RF exposure which are derived from recommendations of two expert organizations, the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) Section 17.4.5 Report No. 86 and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 C95.1-1992. The FCC consulted with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and obtained their support for the guidelines that the FCC is using. The exposure guidelines incorporate prudent margins of safety.
The FCC has classified Radio Frequency (RF) exposure limits into two tiers - General Population or “Uncontrolled Environment” and Occupational or “Controlled Environment”. These limits apply to accessible areas where workers or the general public may be exposed to RF electromagnetic fields. The General Public limits are generally five times more restrictive than the Occupational limit.
• General Population/Uncontrolled – Exposure limits apply in situations in which the general public may be exposed, or in which persons that are exposed as a consequence of their employment may not be fully aware of the potential for exposure or cannot exercise control over their exposure. • Occupational/Controlled – Exposure limits apply in situations in which persons are exposed as a consequence of their employment and are fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over their exposure.
Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) – FCC OET Bulletin 65 Table 1 of 47 C.F.R. § 1.1310
where f = frequency in MHz
In situations where the predicted MPE exceeds the General Population threshold in an accessible area because of emissions from multiple transmitters, FCC licensees that contribute greater than 5% of the aggregate MPE share responsibility for mitigation per 47 C.F.R § 1.1307(b)(3).
Irvine, CA • 949-951-4444 Page 5
Proprietary & confidential
Analysis
Based on the information provided by Crown Castle, the proposed site will contain an (3) 5G panel type integrated antennas mounted atop an existing metal streetlight pole in the public right-of-way of Culver City, California. The predictive RF power density resulting from each transmitter at any location is expressed as a percentage of the FCC limit. It is assumed that all antenna specified channels are transmitting simultaneously, and that the radio transmitters are operating at maximum power. As predicted by RoofMaster™ the maximum permissible exposure (MPE) values for both ground and antenna levels as well as any other applicable reference planes are shown in the table below.
From all provided and gathered information there are currently no existing neighboring transmitters that contribute to the MPE levels for SCL Culver 17. The predictive exposure levels listed below are solely based on the proposed equipment for said site and should be mitigated accordingly.
Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) at Ground Level/General Public Accessible Areas & Antenna Level Reference Plane
Maximum Permissible Exposure
(MPE) Level:
General Population (%)
Maximum Permissible Exposure
(MPE) Level:
Occupational (%)
Ground Level 0.07 0.01
Antenna Level 354.01 70.80
From Figure 2 in the Elevation Detail Plots, the following keep-back distances to the FCC limits is determined to be as follows:
Distance to FCC 100% MPE Limits at the Antenna Level
• Vertical Stand-off Distance (General Population) 2.2 feet • Vertical Stand-off Distance (Occupational) N/A
• Horizontal Stand-off Distance (General Population) 5.3 feet • Horizontal Stand-off Distance (Occupational) N/A
Distance to FCC 100% MPE Limits at Ground Level
• Horizontal Stand-off Distance (General Population) N/A • Horizontal Stand-off Distance (Occupational) N/A
Irvine, CA • 949-951-4444 Page 6
Proprietary & confidential
Elevation Detail
Figure 1: Predicted MPE level in relation to the center of a 6-foot vertical space that a person(s) can occupy at Ground Level
Irvine, CA • 949-951-4444 Page 7
Proprietary & confidential
Figure 2: Top-Down Detailed view at Antenna Level
Irvine, CA • 949-951-4444 Page 8
Proprietary & confidential
Figure 3: Top-Down Detailed view at Ground Level
Antenna Inventory
Antenna
Number
Antenna
ID Operator Antenna
Mfg. Antenna Model Freq.
(MHz)
Azimuth
(deg)
M. Tilt
(deg)
HBW
(deg)
Antenna
Aperture
(ft)
TPO (W)
per Path Paths Loss (db) Antenna Gain
(dbd) EIRP (W) ERP (W) RAD Center
AGL (ft)
1 1 Verizon Wireless ERICSSON SON SM6705 CM1 02.07.22 28GHz VZW 28000 0 0 4 1.31 0.6 2 0 26.14 809 493 36.4 2 2 Verizon Wireless ERICSSON SON SM6705 CM1 02.07.22 28GHz VZW 28000 120 0 4 1.31 0.6 2 0 26.14 809 493 36.4 3 3 Verizon Wireless ERICSSON SON SM6705 CM1 02.07.22 28GHz VZW 28000 240 0 4 1.31 0.6 2 0 26.14 809 493 36.4
Irvine, CA • 949-951-4444 Page 9
Proprietary & confidential
Evaluation
Ground Level - For any person standing at accessible areas such as the ground level, calculations resulted in exposure levels well below (< 1%) the FCCs General Population MPE limit.
Antenna Level – Any areas exceeding 100% of the General Population Limits are displayed as Blue. As seen in Figures 1 and 2 the FCC's general population limit may be exceeded within 6ft of the antenna. Any personnel accessing the pole and working within the area exceeding 100% of the limit should coordinate with the wireless operator or work should be performed by personnel trained in proper RF safety. Any work on the pole where the area is displayed as either Green or shows no color does not exceed hazardous exposure levels and requires no action to maintain a safe working environment.
RF Signage Recommendation
For the facility to be classified as Occupational/Controlled environment the following actions are recommended in accordance with the FCC's and Crown Castle's RF safety guidelines:
• Install NOTICE sign(s) near the bottom of the pole or on the shroud any time there is a zone near the antenna that exceeds the General Population limit. This sign should be mounted where it is easily visible to workers on the ground as they approach the pole. Recommend placing on pole about 7-9’ above ground level (AGL).
• Install CAUTION sign(s) on or near the antenna(s) with a Keep Back Distance of 6ft. Keep Back distance must be filled in on the sign. This sign must be mounted on or just below the radiating antenna where it is visible to workers approaching the antenna in a lift or bucket truck. Recommend placing on pole at 29ft above ground level (AGL).
Irvine, CA • 949-951-4444 Page 10
Proprietary & confidential
Calculation Methodology
MobileNet Services has performed theoretical modeling using RoofMaster™ developed by Waterford Consultants, LLC to predict the overall maximum permissible exposure (MPE) possible at any particular location given the spatial orientation and operating parameters of multiple RF sources. The input data for the calculations is based upon information provided by the client.
RoofMaster™ predictive models comprise of the Far Field model as specified in OET-65 as well as use of the OET-65 Cylindrical Model (Sula09). These models utilize several operational specifications for different types of antennas to produce a plot of spatially averaged power densities that can be conveyed as a percentage of the applicable exposure limit.
The power density in the Far Field of an RF source is described by OET-65 Equation (4) as the following equation:
𝑆 =
𝐸𝐼𝑅𝑃
4⋅𝜋⋅𝑅2 (𝑚𝑊 𝑐𝑚2⁄ ),
where EIRP is the Effective Radiated Power relative to an isotropic antenna and R is the distance between the antenna and the point of study. At any location, the predicted power density in the Far Field is the spatial averaging of points within a 0-to-6-foot vertical space that a person would occupy.
The Near field power density is described by OET-65 Equation (20) is represented as the following equation:
𝑆 = (
180
𝜃𝐵𝑊
) ∙
100∙𝑃𝑖𝑛
𝜋∙𝑅∙ℎ (𝑚𝑊 𝑐𝑚2⁄ ),
where 𝑃𝑖𝑛 is the power input to the antenna, ℎ is the aperture length and 𝜃𝐵𝑊 is the beam width of the antenna in degrees.
Conclusion
The proposed site will be COMPLIANT with the FCC guidelines limiting public exposure to RF energy. These limits apply for continuous exposures and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. The RF exposure levels from the proposed site will be well below the maximum permissible levels and complies with Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure Limits of 47 C.F.R § 1.1307(b)(3) and 47 CFR § 1.1310.
NODE INFORMATIONCROWN NODE ID:SLID:SCL CULVER 17 - ESL-L9-02LATITUDE:33.982173°NLONGITUDE:-118.386072°WNEAREST ADDRESS:6292 BUCKINGHAM PKWYPOLE OWNER:CITY OF CULVERHUB ID:124780 (MARINA MTSO)CLUSTER/AREA:PRP_VZW_VCA2-RELOOK_FIBER_MARINA MTSO_35 NODESPOWER PROVIDER:CITY OF CULVER
REVDATEDESCRIPTIONBY
ENGINEER:
OWNER/DEVELOPER:
TITLE:
DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:
CROWN CASTLEPOLE #: SL-L9-02REVISIONS200 SPECTRUM CENTER DRIVE, 19TH FLOORIRVINE, CA 92618 CROWN CASTLE FIBER LLCSCL CULVER 17 - E
JAPROJECT NUMBER:SHEET NAME:DATE DRAWN:SCALE:
NODE ID:
0007/05/202390% CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGSJA-------------------------------- P-1
G.A.G.A.07/05/2023
ramiraPARCHITECTURAL & ENGINEERING SERVICES
0107/26/202395% CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGSJR
SCL CULVER 17 - EPHOTOSIMULATIONS
PHOTOSIMULATIONS
AS SHOWNEXISTING PHOTO LOOKING SOUTH12PROPOSED PHOTOSIM LOOKING SOUTH
NODE INFORMATIONCROWN NODE ID:SLID:SCL CULVER 17 - ESL-L9-02LATITUDE:33.982173°NLONGITUDE:-118.386072°WNEAREST ADDRESS:6292 BUCKINGHAM PKWYPOLE OWNER:CITY OF CULVERHUB ID:124780 (MARINA MTSO)CLUSTER/AREA:PRP_VZW_VCA2-RELOOK_FIBER_MARINA MTSO_35 NODESPOWER PROVIDER:CITY OF CULVER
REVDATEDESCRIPTIONBY
ENGINEER:
OWNER/DEVELOPER:
TITLE:
DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:
CROWN CASTLEPOLE #: SL-L9-02REVISIONS200 SPECTRUM CENTER DRIVE, 19TH FLOORIRVINE, CA 92618 CROWN CASTLE FIBER LLCSCL CULVER 17 - E
JAPROJECT NUMBER:SHEET NAME:DATE DRAWN:SCALE:
NODE ID:
0007/05/202390% CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGSJA-------------------------------- P-2
G.A.G.A.07/05/2023
ramiraPARCHITECTURAL & ENGINEERING SERVICES
0107/26/202395% CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGSJR
SCL CULVER 17 - EPHOTOSIMULATIONS
PHOTOSIMULATIONS
AS SHOWNEXISTING PHOTO LOOKING NORTHEAST12PROPOSED PHOTOSIM LOOKING NORTHEAST
Effective 02-28-2022
WIRELESS UTILITY PERMIT
Public Works Department – Engineering Division
Supplemental Conditions of Approval
Authority: This permit is issued pursuant to Chapter 11.20.065.D.1 of the Culver City Municipal Code (CCMC), which governs the permitting, installation, and regulation of personal wireless services facilities in the City’s public rights-of-way.
Standards: All work shall be performed in accordance with i) the current edition of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Greenbook) and any amendments hereto, ii) the Design and Development Standards for Wireless Facilities governing placement and modification of wireless facilities adopted pursuant to Chapter
11.20.065.D.1 of the CCMC, and iii) the Standard Conditions of Approval adopted by Resolution of the City Council pursuant to Chapter 11.20.065.H.1 of the CCMC, and iv) other City standards to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Certificate of Insurance: Contractors or subcontractors that permittee engages for any or all of the work to be completed by this permit shall have a City business license, liability insurance, automotive insurance and workers compensation insurance. The commercial general liability policy shall be maintained for the term of this permit in an amount not less than five million dollars ($5,000,000) per occurrence for personal injuries (including accidental death) to any one person, in an amount not less than five million dollars ($5,000,000) per occurrence for property damage and shall contain a combined single limit in an amount not less than five million dollars ($5,000,000). The automobile liability policy shall be endorsed for all owned and non-owned vehicles, contain a combined single limit of at least three million dollars ($3,000,000) per occurrence for personal injuries (including accidental death) to any one person and shall also cover property damage. The limits required of this paragraph may be satisfied with umbrella coverage. The worker’s compensation insurance shall be in the statutorily required amount.
In addition to the insurance requirements contained in Section 3.h of Resolution No. 2022- R020 , the commercial general liability policy shall contain or be endorsed to include: (i) a provision that this policy is primary to the coverage of the City of Culver City; (ii) a provision that neither the City of Culver City nor any of its insurers shall be required to contribute to any loss; and (iii) a severability of interest clause.
Inspection: At least two (2) working days prior to start of construction or street occupancy, the contractor shall schedule a pre-construction field meeting with the City inspector to discuss construction and/or occupation in the public right-of-way. Contact the Culver City Public Works/Engineering Permit Counter at (310) 253-5600 for initial and any subsequent inspection meeting, including final sign off and approval.
Contractor’s License: Applicant performing work in the public right-of-way, including street occupation, shall have the appropriate valid contractor license issued by the State of California. The required license class shall correspond to the specific type of work being performed, i.e. A-General Engineering. C8-Concrete, C36-Plumbing, C42-Sanitation Effective 02-28-2022
Systems, etc. Applicant shall present a valid proof of license prior to issuance of any permits.
Permit on Site: A copy of this permit shall be kept at the jobsite at all times and should be available upon the request of any City official, including any law enforcement officer.
Underground Service Alert (Dig Alert): Permittee must notify the Underground Service Alert (USA) at (800) 422-4133 at least 48 hours in advance of start of work for any undergrounding and excavation work in the public right-of-way.
Construction Staging and Traffic Control: Prior to start of construction, construction staging and traffic control requirements (if any) shall be reviewed and approved by the City. All material and work shall conform to the Latest Edition of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD).
Temporary Bus Stop Relocations: Contact the Transportation Department at least 48 hours prior to affecting existing bus stops (310) 253-6535.
Construction Notification Letter: Permittee shall notify all properties within a 500-foot radius at least fourteen (14) calendar days prior to start of work. Notification letters shall contain the scope of project, proposed driveway or access closures, construction duration, engineering permit number, and the contact information of the Construction Manager and Construction Superintendent. Notice shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer or their designee prior to distribution. Failure to distribute said notices at least fourteen calendar days prior to start of work may result in revocation of this permit. NOTE: These Notification letters are separate, apart from and for a different purpose than the notifications which applicants are required to send at the start of our wireless application process.
Emergency/Local Access: Access to fire hydrant(s) shall be maintained at all times and construction equipment is not allowed to be attached to fire hydrant(s). Unless otherwise directed by the Engineer, local and emergency vehicular access shall be maintained through the construction area.
NPDES Requirements: Permittee shall comply with all National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Regulations and Requirements. All drain inlets shall be protected from construction debris.
Sewer Location: Permittee shall be responsible for determining the horizontal and vertical location of mainline sewers.
Clean up of Right-of-Way: Upon completion of work, all brush, timber, scraps and other construction materials and debris shall be entirely removed and the right-of-way left in a condition satisfactory to the City Engineer.
Effective 02-28-2022
Repairs in the Public Right-of-Way: Permittee shall promptly make any and all repairs to the existing public right-of-way or utilities that are damaged by performing the work authorized by this permit. All work proposed in the public right-of-way will require a Effective 02-28-2022
separate construction plan submittal for review, approval, and issuance of permit by the Engineering Division of the Public Works Department. This repair work shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer in accordance with current standards.
Storage of Materials: Absolutely no stockpiling of construction materials shall be allowed in the public right-of-way unless otherwise approved and authorized by the City Engineer.
Excavation: All excavations in the public right-of-way shall be backfilled and fully restored within three (3) calendar days unless otherwise authorized by the City Engineer.
Concrete Specification: Unless otherwise specified, all concrete place for public improvements shall achieve a minimum of 3250 psi compressive strength at 28 days.
Asphalt Concrete Specifications: Unless otherwise specified, all asphalt concrete placed in the public right-of-way shall be a design mix of “PG-C2-64-10”.
Performance Bond: Prior to issuance of this permit, the permittee shall file with the City, and shall maintain in good standing throughout the term of the approval, a performance bond in accordance with Section 3.j of Resolution No. 2018-R109.
Permit Duration: This permit shall expire 10 years after its issuance, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. If a Light Pole Facility Addendum has been executed in conjunction with issuing this permit, then the term of this permit shall coincide with the term of the Light Pole Facility Addendum.