Item 3.1 - Additional Material posted 8-20-19°F P°``"�r Cityof Poway
MEMORANDUM
CITY IN TH£
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
(Agenda Related Writings/Documents provided to City Council or Staff after distribution of the
Agenda Packet for the August 20, 2019 Council Meeting)
DATE: August 20, 2019
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Faviola Medina, CMC, City Clerk �'
CONTACT: (858) 668-4535 or FMedina(c�poway.org
SUBJECT: Item 3.1 - Resolution Amending the Master Fee Schedule to Establish Fees
for Wireless Communication Facilities
Attached please find correspondence received on Tuesday August 20, 2019, after the distribution
deadline.
Reviewed/Approved By
Wendy Kaserman
Assistant City Manager
Reviewed By -
Alan Fenstermacher
City Attorney
Approved By-
&W��
Chris Haze[VOW
City Manager
1 of 3 August 20, 2019, Item #3.1
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
From: agendadocs resource
Subject: FW: Item 3.1 Resolution Amending the Master Fee Schedule to Establish Fees for Wireless Communication Facilities
Attachments: Crown Castle Comments - City of Poway Item 3.1 Master Fee Schedule Udate.pdf
Hello,
Please find Crown Castle's comments on this item below and on the attached PDF.
Thank you,
ADRIAN SALAS
Government Affairs Manager, San Diego
T:(858) 935-3831
M:(619) 917-6116
CROWN CASTLE
10301 Meanley Dr. Ste. 200 San Diego, CA 92131
CrownCastle.com
Re: City Council Meeting 8/20/19 Item 3.1 Resolution Amending the Master Fee Schedule to Establish Fees for Wireless
Communication Facilities Pursuant to Chapter 17.56 of the PMC
Dear Mr. Hazeltine,
Crown Castle appreciates the opportunity to address and comment on the suggested changes to the Master Fee
Schedule. While we feel the proposed changes are overall reasonable, we do have the following comments:
Pertaining to the requirement for an annual inspection: does the City inspect all Right -of -Way (ROW) permits/developments on
an annual basis? If not, is there justification for this requirement that specifically applies to small wireless facilities? Our
recommendation is to drop the yearly inspection requirement and maintain a yearly fee of $270/year.
Secondly, we recommend that a replacement pole should have an application fee set between collocation and new pole fees. A
replacement pole does require engineering review but not to the level of planning/engineering time required for a brand-new
pole installed in the ROW where no pole/utilities existed before.
In addition, a "batch rate of replacement existing poles" for up to "X" sites at a reduced rate commiserate with staff review time
would be streamlined and beneficial. This would encourage collocation on existing infrastructure, instead of offering a
disincentive to providers to collocate.
Lastly, and to clarify based on our understanding of shot clocks, the City would still have to process replacement poles in 60 days
and only NEW poles get 90 days.
We are happy to answer any questions, and we look forward to continuing our great relationship with the City of Poway.
Thank you,
Adrian Salas
This email may contain confidential or privileged material. Use or disclosure of it by anyone other than the recipient is
unauthorized. If you are not an intended recipient, please delete this email.
2 of 3 i August 20, 2019, Item #3.1
Adrian Salas
Government Affairs Manager, San Diego
Crown Castle
10301 Meanley Dr. Ste. 200 San Diego, CA 92131
(858) 935-3831
a_drian_salasPcrwncastle_coni
Tuesday, August 20, 2019
City of Poway City Council
Attn: City Manager
CC: City Clerk
13325 Civic Center Dr, Poway, CA 92064
Re: City Council Meeting 8/20/19 Item 3.1 Resolution Amending the Master Fee Schedule to
Establish Fees for Wireless Communication Facilities Pursuant to Chapter 17.56 of the PMC
Dear Mr. Hazeltine,
Crown Castle appreciates the opportunity to address and comment on the suggested changes to the
Master Fee Schedule. While we feel the proposed changes are overall reasonable, we do have the
following comments:
Pertaining to the requirement for an annual inspection: does the City inspect all Right -of -Way (ROW)
permits/developments on an annual basis? If not, is there justification for this requirement that
specifically applies to small wireless facilities? Our recommendation is to drop the yearly inspection
requirement and maintain a yearly fee of $270/year.
Secondly, we recommend that a replacement pole should have an application fee set between
collocation and new pole fees. A replacement pole does require engineering review but not to the level
of planning/engineering time required for a brand-new pole installed in the ROW where no pole/utilities
existed before.
In addition, a "batch rate of replacement existing poles" for up to "X" sites at a reduced rate
commiserate with staff review time would be streamlined and beneficial. This would encourage
collocation on existing infrastructure, instead of offering a disincentive to providers to collocate.
Lastly, and to clarify based on our understanding of shot clocks, the City would still have to process
replacement poles in 60 days and only NEW poles get 90 days.
We are happy to answer any questions, and we look forward to continuing our great relationship with
the City of Poway.
Thank you,
Adrian Salas
3 of 3 August 20, 2019, Item #3.1