WIRELESS PLANNING MEMORANDUM TO: Andrew Cohen-Cutler FROM: Robert C. May REVIEWER: Jonathan L. Kramer DATE: RE: Technical Review for Proposed Modification to Rooftop Wireless Site (File No. 160002523) Applicant: Site Address: Site ID: Verizon Wireless 23586 Calabasas Road Hopper The City of Calabasas (the City ) requested a review for the proposed Verizon Wireless ( Verizon ) upgrade to its rooftop wireless site located at 23586 Calabasas Road. This memorandum reviews the application and related materials for technical and regulatory issues specific to wireless infrastructure. Although many technical issues implicate legal issues, the analysis and recommendations contained in this memorandum do not constitute legal advice. 1. Project Background and Description On March 4, 1996, the Planning Department issued Minor Development Permit No. 94-3 and authorized AirTouch Cellular (Verizon s predecessor-in-interest) to install 28 panel antennas on parapet walls, a tripod-mounted microwave dish antenna and equipment within a room on the second floor. No other approvals were submitted with the application. On November 21, 2014, Verizon submitted an application that would have increased the overall height from 44 feet to 52 feet above ground level ( AGL ). On May 19, 2015, the Communications and Technology Commission denied the application without prejudice. 1 On July 8, 2016, Verizon submitted this new application for a modification that does not involve any increase in the overall height. The project plans dated June 16, 2016, show that Verizon currently operates 21 panel antennas in four arrays mounted to either to the facade or behind parapet walls. Verizon proposes to remove 15 panel antennas, relocate antennas in the north-facing array and install 9 replacement antennas and four remote radio units ( RRUs ). In addition, Verizon proposes to install new fiber reinforced plastic ( FRP ) screen walls, painted and textured to match the building finishes, to conceal the antennas. 1 See CTC Resolution No. 2015-038 (May 19, 2015). 2001 S. Barrington Ave. Suite 306 Los Angeles CA 90025 T 310-312-9900 6986 La Jolla Boulevard Suite 204 La Jolla CA 92037 T 619-272-6200 TelecomLawFirm.com
Page 2 of 5 2. Section 6409 Evaluation Section 6409(a) requires that State and local governments may not deny, and shall approve any eligible facilities request for a wireless site collocation or modification so long as it does not cause a substant[ial] change in [that site s] physical dimensions. 2 FCC regulations interpret key terms in this statute and impose certain substantive and procedural limitations on local review. 3 Localities must review applications submitted for approval pursuant to Section 6409(a), but the applicant bears the burden to show it qualifies for mandatory approval. Here, the City should not process this application as an eligible facilities request because Verizon did not request approval under Section 6409. Even if Verizon did request a Section 6409 review, the relocation, changes in site appearance and deployments in new areas on the rooftop would likely trigger a substantial change. 4 The application would also require a review into whether Verizon obtained all the permits and other approvals required at the time Verizon deployed its equipment, which the application does not currently contain. 5 Accordingly, the City should conclude that Section 6409 does not govern this application. To promote an efficient and transparent process, the City should notify Verizon that it does not believe Section 6409 applies and confirm the applicable review process under the Calabasas Municipal Code. 3. Design Comments and Recommendations Verizon s proposal generally conforms to the preferences and requirements in CMC 17.12.050.B.3 and D.2 because it involves collocation on existing facility in a commercial zone and the antennas would be fully screened in a manner that is compatible in color, texture and type of material with the architecture of the building. The proposed relocation will also improve the overall site appearance because new FRP screens will conceal the antennas most visible from Calabasas Road and I-5 to the north and Park Sorrento to the south and southwest. However, the City may wish to consider some design changes for closer conformance with the purposes in the municipal code. First, given that the facades on which the antennas are mounted are relatively small and segmented from other portions, the screens should be conditioned to cover the entire facade to create a seamless design. This will also create space for future modifications without the need to alter or expand the screens. Second, the RRUs proposed on the rooftop should be relocated to within the adjacent screen box as required in CMC 17.12.050.D.2.b. 2 See 47 U.S.C. 1455(a). 3 See In the Matter of Acceleration of Broadband Deployment by Improving Wireless Facilities Siting Policies, Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd. 12865 (Oct. 17, 2014) (codified as 47 C.F.R. 1.40001, et seq.) [hereinafter Infrastructure Order ]. 4 See 47 C.F.R. 1.40001(b)(6), (b)(7)(iv) and (b)(7)(v). 5 See id. 1.40001(b)(1)(iii), (iv); see also Infrastructure Order at 174 (describing rule that a base station does not exist unless the developer obtained all the regulatory permits and approvals required at the time the construction or deployment occurred to ensur[e] that a facility that was deployed unlawfully does not trigger a municipality s obligation to approve modification requests under Section 6409(a) ).
Page 3 of 5 Although the antennas in the Alpha sector remain merely painted to match the facade, the drawbacks from other potential concealment techniques do not present any clearly superior designs. For example, Verizon could possibly install an FRP screen over these antennas, but the screen would need to extend over the entire parapet, would overhang the mansard roof and would likely require an increase in height to ensure the wood frames do not obstruct the signal from the antenna. Accordingly, the most appropriate approach at this time appears to be additional maintenance to ensure the antennas and all associated cables and hardware are properly painted to blend with the parapet wall. Accordingly, and to the extent the City approves this project, the City may wish to consider the recommended conditions to promote the purposes in its applicable municipal code provisions: 1. The permittee shall install all screen walls shall cover the entire facade on which the antennas and other equipment are mounted to seamlessly blend with existing building such that it appears to the average observer that the screen walls were included with the original construction. 2. The permittee shall paint and texture all surfaces on all screen walls to match the off-white stucco finish on the existing building with paint and materials approved by the Zoning Administrator. The permittee shall maintain the screen walls in good condition at all times. 3. The permittee shall install all antennas, cables, connectors and associated hardware for the Beta and Gamma sectors completely within and behind the screen walls with no protrusions above or below whatsoever. 4. The permittee shall install the remote radio units for the Gamma sector antennas completely within and behind the screen wall. 5. The permittee shall remove any unused equipment, mounts, brackets, hardware or other improvements from the Alpha sector. The permittee shall be permitted to re-install any previously approved equipment, mounts, brackets, hardware or other improvements removed pursuant to this condition, provided that the permittee submits the appropriate application to the City and its installation complies with all applicable public health and safety regulations. 6. The permittee shall paint all antennas, cables, connectors, mounts, hardware and other improvements in the Alpha sector to match the parapet with paint approved by the Zoning Administrator. The permittee shall maintain the paint on all equipment and improvements associated with the Alpha sector in good condition at all times. 4. Planned Compliance with RF Exposure Regulations Under the federal Telecommunications Act, the FCC completely occupies the field with respect to RF emissions regulation. The FCC established comprehensive rules for human exposure to RF
Page 4 of 5 emissions (the FCC Guidelines ). 6 State and local governments cannot regulate wireless facilities based on environmental effects from RF emissions to the extent that the emissions comply with the FCC Guidelines. 7 Although localities cannot establish their own standards for RF exposure, local officials may require wireless applicants to demonstrate compliance with the FCC Guidelines. 8 Such demonstrations usually involve a predictive calculation because the site has not yet been built. 4.1. FCC Guidelines FCC Guidelines regulate exposure rather than emissions. 9 Although the FCC establishes a maximum permissible exposure ( MPE ) limit, it does not mandate any specific limitations on power levels applicable to all antennas and requires the antenna operator to adopt exposuremitigation measures only to the extent that certain persons might become exposed to the emissions. Thus, a relatively low-powered site in proximity to the general population might require more comprehensive mitigation measures than a relatively high-powered site in a remote location accessible only to trained personnel. The MPE limit also differentiates between general population and occupational people. Most people fall into the general population class, which includes anyone who either does not know about potential exposure or knows about the exposure but cannot exert control over the transmitters. 10 The narrower occupational class includes persons exposed through their employment and able to exert control over their exposure. 11 The MPE limit for the general population is five times lower than the MPE limit for the occupational class. Lastly, the FCC categorically excludes certain antennas from routine environmental review when either (1) the antennas create exposures in areas virtually inaccessible to humans or (2) the antennas operate at extreme low power. As a general rule, a wireless site qualified for a categorical exclusion when mounted on a structure built solely or primarily to support FCC-licensed or authorized equipment (i.e., a tower) and such that the lowest point on the lowest transmitter is more than 10 meters (32.8 feet) above ground. 12 6 See 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(B)(iv); see also 47 C.F.R. 1.1307 et seq.; FCC Office of Engineering and Technology, Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, OET Bulletin 65, ed. 97-01 (1997). 7 See 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(B)(iv). 8 See In re Procedures for Reviewing Requests for Relief from State and Local Regulations Pursuant to Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) of the Communications Act of 1934, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd. 22821, 22828 22829 (Nov. 13, 2000) (declining to adopt rules that limit local authority to require compliance demonstrations). 9 See generally Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Fields: Guidelines for Cellular and PCS Sites, Consumer Guide, FCC (Oct. 22, 2014), available at https://www.fcc.gov/guides/human-exposure-rf-fieldsguidelines-cellular-and-pcs-sites (discussing in general terms how wireless sites transmit and how the FCC regulates the emissions). 10 See 47 C.F.R. 1.1310, Note 2. 11 See id. 12 See id. 1.1307(b)(1).
Page 5 of 5 Categorical exclusions establish a presumption that the emissions from the antennas will not significantly impact humans or the human environment. Such antennas are exempt from routine compliance evaluations but not exempt from actual compliance. Under some circumstances, such as a heavily collocated tower or when in close proximity to general population members, even a categorically excluded site will require additional analysis. 4.2. Planned Compliance Evaluation and Recommendations The FCC Guidelines do not categorically exclude Verizon s application based on design because the antennas are mounted on a commercial building rather than a structure solely or primarily intended to support FCC-licensed or authorized equipment. As such, an additional verification would be appropriate. CMC 17.12.050.C.2 requires wireless applicants to submit a letter signed under penalty of perjury that the emissions from the antennas will be in compliance with the FCC Guidelines. Here, the application contains the appropriate certification that the proposed emissions from the antennas will be compliant with the FCC Guidelines and is signed under penalty of perjury. 13 Accordingly, the City should find that Verizon s application meets the RF certification requirement in CMC 17.12.050.C.2. 5. Conclusion Subject to the recommended conditions in this memorandum, the City may wish to consider approval for this application. Although the proposed project is not an eligible facilities request, the location and design generally conform to the applicable provisions in CMC 17.12.050 et seq. and Verizon submitted the appropriate certification for compliance with the FCC Guidelines. RM/jlk 13 See Letter from Emran Elyas, Verizon Wireless, to Calabasas Planning Division (Jan. 21, 2015).