Agenda packet — Rolling Hills City Council, December 14, 2023 (part 2 of 2)

I strongly oppose additional cell sites and the implementation of 5G in Rolling Hills. Thanks We need cell service improved particularly along main roads like Portuguese Bend Road from Crest down to the gate.

It’s ridiculous that everyone has to pull over at Acacia because any further is a dead zone.

Same thing on Crest, there is only service by the fire station.

No cell towers please
No cell towers.

Thank you for your efforts to improve our cell service - hopefully the community will support some additional, camouflaged sites to allow for improvements We can barely have a conversation on our wireless home phones. The cell phone service stinks and I need it for work!
Both TMobile and Verizon are offering 5G internet service for around $50 a month. Currently my address is not covered but I assume that good 5G service will be needed to provide this internet service. I am tired of having to pay over $300 a month to COX for internet service (and cable).

At home we have cell service, but mostly use Wi-Fi if using cell phone at home. Plus, we also have Land Lines at home.

At home we actually mostly use WIFI not the cellular connection which is a bit weak on our property and in most of the house - except when during our rather frequent power outages - need rely on the cellular network. TMOBILE has no coverage holes here and there inside the gates - particularly the middle of Crest and most of PB. It would be nice to have solid 5G coverage - then we'd have something other than Cox for internet connections.

It's long overdue. Cell service is essentially to daily life. We can't function for 5 minutes without a cell phone. We need to get cell service upgraded to first world country. Some remote villages in Asia have better cell service when I'm there to call home than using cell phone in Rolling Hills to call Asia. IT'S TIME. NO FURTHER DEBATE ON THIS MATTER.

IT'S THE NUMBER ONE COMPLAINT IN ROLLING HILLS.

One of the most important issue that needs to be improved in our city! Need to enter 21st century and have cell phones service available at all times and places in Rolling Hills
We keep loosing calls made with our cell phones.

Cell service is very spotty on different parts of my property. Using either T Mobile or ATT there is no coverage in many areas. My children cannot get a hold of me on their cellular device in case of emergency. This is a big problem.

Cell service at home is VERY POOR and when at home we use cell phone wi-fi calling (Cox internet). Cell service is unreliable when out of wi-fi range. 245

Page 18 of 24 ends

The RHCA, should consider providing wi-fi throughout the city to avoid blind spots and also accommodate the residents.

Wi-Fi access is more critical than more cell phone antennas.

My assumption is that most of the residents in RH are working professionals. At least half the people I interact with outside of RH solely use their mobile devices for primary source of communication. Here we are in 2023 and I cannot make or receive a phone call via my mobile device as if it were 1980. God forbid I find myself in a situation where a 911 call is necessary while I am on my own property away from my desktop phone. I have been in the middle of Montana in the middle of nowhere and had unrestricted cellular service. Lack of cellular service in my neighborhood has become comical.

Although I'd love better service in RH, I'd be curious of any possible physical health dangers of having multiple small cell sites along our roads, particularly anywhere near my home. I have no idea if these devices emit harmful waves or if there's a negative, synergistic effect if there are multiple units around a small area.

As strongly as we feel about improving cell service, we feel far stronger about improving access to competitively priced high-speed internet in the neighborhood. This would include bringing in FIOS as an option as well as competitors to Cox.

We need better cell service for the safety of our children and families.

I am highly sensitive to the EMF. It has caused me alot of Medical problems and have spent alot of money trying to reduce the EMF in and around my home I dont. want anything near my residence [ ]
making use of stop sign posts or other existing elements seems attractive; I don't like the idea of introducing new towers that will impact the rural and natural atmosphere of our community; I don't see why we would need to address cell service in my home when we have existing choices with telephone and cable service
Cell service for Verizon is not available on large portions of Portuguese Bend Road and Crest Road
Cell service coverage in our community parallels that which one might see in a Third World country. I strongly support the efforts of the board to improve our cell service coverage. I further encouraged the improvement of cell coverage using currently available aesthetically pleasing options.

Cell phone service is generally fine in most places in the community. Each provider has different coverage holes. The trails are particularly uncovered because of the steep hills, so cell phones are often useless without moving to high ground in emergencies but not sure there is a cost effective solution to cover all the trails. Recommend priority be to get widespread 5G coverage enabling high speed wireless Internet acres for as much of the community as possible. This will eliminate the Cox cable monopoly and should lead to competition and better service for all.

This is a MUST for safety of our Residents, for the attractiveness of our community and the livelihood of our residents. An absolute MUST!
246

Page 19 of 24 ends

Must not adversely impact aesthetics
When power/internet lines are down, we're isolated as it stands. Cell service would make us feel safer and better prepared for emergencies.

I like the fact i cant be reached while i am out walking so in that case its nice but if i ever needed help on some of the trails id have an issue. At home my coverage is fine but when i visit friends in the neighborhood its spotty. So im sort of ambivalent on this whole topic.

I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say small cell sites so I can't make a decision on that matter.

I believe I am with every other resident to say that I would like improved cell service but refuse to have a cell tower near my house. I had adequate coverage and if the choice is between current service or having a cell tower on my property, I would choice current service.

I will never support having a cell tower on or near my property.

I have had to maintain a land line since cell service is poor at my home. Also lower Eastfield has poor cell service so calls cannot be made or are dropped Thank you this is critical to us
We have good service in our home but the service is not good on the roads, specially on Crest road. Please do not consider adding the cell sites in Rolling Hills as there are health issues associated with such towers, specially 5G. Thank you.

Aesthetics must be considered. I would not appreciate tall unsightly structures on our major streets.

My cell phone stops working at least once in about one call out of three. I have too redial. Sometimes redialing doesn't work.

I sometimes get the message No Service.Often get only one small bar.

I can only make calls and hear caller in two rooms of my home.

At home both ATT and T mobile are USELESS! NO signal.

Once I drive out of the gates, signal.

Our family would feel much safer with cell service.

This is much needed and we have been waiting for it for a long time. Happy to see this is prioritized at the beginning of the year!
With further reliance on cell phones only over land lines, it is extremely important to have access to service. Wifi can only cover so much around the home. We also have potentially hazardous roads and in the event of a crash, cell service is a necessity.

Our cell phones only work at our home if they are connected to wifi. Our phones don't work when the wifi is down or power is out. It is a huge safety concern for us and our neighbors. 247

Page 20 of 24 ends

Really depends on what the cell sites look like and how they match the surroundings before I can express a real opinion on this matter. Please show us what the new ones would look like in our area.

Why was this not done 10-15 years ago?
would be really wonderful to have better cell reception. thanks for working on this. small boosters should suffice. Should be agnostic like Crown Castle rather than just a single provider
When our internet service provider junction box went down, we bought a booster for cell service. The booster was of no use because we have zero to minimal cell service in our home and only if we stand outside towards the canyon. "Landline" also does not work if there is no internet (Frontier).

I believe access to reliable cell service is an expectation for safety and to accommodate necessary work to be done effectively. The addition of small cell sites can also be done in a very aesthetically pleasing manner.

Service at the Crest road entrance - near St. John Fisher is terrible. Any improvement in that area would be much appreciated
Not only do our cell phones not work dependably in Rolling Hills but our land line also drops frequently.

I canNOT continue a phone call while driving from my home to main gate, or while driving from the main gate to my house without significant interruption and/or complete dropout.

We have ZERO cell service at our home with ATT and Verizon.

It is untenable, dangerous, and thoroughly baffling why this is the case.

Thank you for putting this survey together.

Cell phone service in RH is worse than any community I've visited or lived in even with WIFIAsist. .

Thank you for addressing this!!
Both my wife and I work from home using our cell phones exclusively, and outside of using wifi calling inside the home, we get almost no cell phone reception with either AT&T or Sprint.

We support improving cell service inside the gates.

We need good cell phone service within our city for everyday convenience and for all emergency services - 911 and catastrophe notifications. It's time to provide residents with the available technology that will help keep us safe.

Time to come to grips with the need to make tradeoffs if we want high tech lifestyle. But we do not really need to go all the way to 5G if that requires much more and much taller poles.

Just better coverage throughout the city is what we want. 248

Page 21 of 24 ends

We would appreciate having uninterrupted cell service from the gates to our home. It is difficult for medical professionals like doctors to be answering or returning calls that come in during driving. Likewise, cell service is non existent at our home on Maverick Lane other than wifi which can sometimes have issues.

We need better cell service inside gate and at our home.

Please address this quickly.Thank you.
we have kept a land line simply because we do not use the cell phones for an important call.

While wifi calling works well, when our internet goes down, we are truly on an island. Zero cell service.

We are relying on our wifi for our mobile phone to work. Recent years, the landline also becomes inoperable during power failure.

For medical emergency during an outage, we have no way to connect to outside for help.

We get service at our house but walking on Crest or driving through Rolling Hills we loose service.

When I'm at home, I use wifi (for calling, texting, internet) so cell service doesn't matter. It's only on the roads that it's an issue. But seriously... I can be outside the gate within excellent cell range within 5 minutes. To say we all need immediate/constant cell service is a bit dramatic. I see this as a non-issue. Perhaps boosting self importance with the idea we need to be constantly connected or available. I'm likely in the minority but cell service is a luxury... not a necessity.

Cell service is more important that ever as land lines disappear. Also, Cell towers are a source of income for the RHOA. The cell providers should be willing to pay monthly rents for providing the cell towers. This could be a significant source of income opportunity. The right to provide RH with towers should not be given for free. Towers, like the sirens, can be hidden, and may be able to be placed on the SAME towers.

The current lack of cell service requires that we have multiple work-arounds that are less secure and less robust to disruption (e.g., connecting calls from cell phones to routers and internet service providers). More importantly, it is a significant safety concern every day - whenever we leave the range of our routers, like when we are on roads or trails with no reliable coverage.

We need better cell service!
Reliable & consistent cell phone service is an absolute necessity in our community for our safety & sanity.

Cell service is non-existent at our home. We had to purchase an AT&T Cell booster that works with Wifi, and it is spotty. All improvements in Cell Service would be welcome with one caveat - I would not want a new Cell tower too close to my house. I would hope that it would be placed in a location that provides enough cell service without dealing with the health consequences that a cell tower in close proximity would create.

Just make the cell towers look like trees so no one fusses 249

Page 22 of 24 ends

There is certain roadways that you know cell service will disappear. Choosing locations could cause a tower to not be appreciated if in their view of a homeowner.

We also need better internet. Fiber optic is what we need for more robust internet. taking too long to get this done
Compared to the eyesores of numerous large electrical posts, a few more phone towers is trivial.

Very frustrating when calls kept on being dropped
The cell service at my home is completely unreliable and I need to keep a landline active to support my business and life. People call on the cell and I tell them I will call you back on the land line when we get disconnected
I recently did an extensive renovation of an old home, everything is new. Cell reception at the home was terrible, my contractor installed a "cell phone booster", it works great, I paid extra to make sure it would it is barely visible. If the decision is made to install a booster type system, pay the extra money so it is not an eye sore. I don't mind contributing.

Cell service is essentially non existent driving around, and at our house. If wifi goes out, our phones do not work, and we won't be able to emergency call 911. Also, we have to reset our phones constantly to reconnect to a signal. It's terrible. Please fix.

Enough is enough, the BOARD should make the decision, this has been a issue for too long! Good Cell Communications is more important than spending funds on Emergency Alert System
When our power goes out we have no Wi-Fi which means no cell at all. Cannot call 911 if power goes out! We have a land line because cell service is non existent in RH. When power is out landline is also out. We have ATT and verizon and neither works! Recently had a real world example of limited access to emergency service. [ ] we had trouble calling 911 until someone in the group that stopped to help her was able to get a call through.

Service is terrible. Often completely unavailable. Zero bars or SOS status much of the time.

Calls initiated drop frequently.

It seems to have gotten worse since the start of summer.

I don't know about access to 911 as I haven't called 911 from my cell phone We desperately need better cell service - not just for work from home, but also for safety, risk, and security. We cannot even alert the city from our homes if incidental need to do so might occur. This is a great attention and I thank you as a [ ] year resident for any improvement to our ability to enjoy this community with safety and confidence. Thank you, so much.

Improve home and road cell service please
I use WiFi calling and get excellent reception. If you have internet service, there is no need for more towers. Tower service will soon be obsolete and all that will be left is expense and 250

Page 23 of 24 ends

ugliness. If residences learned how to use the tools that are available to all, this debate would be over
At my house I use a landline or enable Wifi calling to use my cellphone. When hiking or when riding horses, or when my children are riding horses, we do not have cell services and it safety concern of ours.

Thank you for helping cell coverage— we need it for safety I have Verizon cell service and from [ ] Johns Canyon, I have no service until I reach PV Dr.

North and Portuguese Bend or until I reach Deep Valley Drive to the west. (With the exception of about 300 feet by the fire station on Crest.)
I can be sitting right next to my phone, and get a message for a missed call. My calls drop all the time, and some days it is impossible to make calls from my cell phone. WE absolutely need something to be done immediately.
reception at my house is spotty at best, and once I leave my driveway, I'm in a roughly 8 minute void before I have reception again. It's unacceptable from a safety standpoint.

I am so happy you are working on improving the cell service in RH. It is worse than the cell service in a 3rd world country we recently visited. It's embarrassing to be on important work calls and always lose cell service or an important dr call and lose touch and have to wait days to hear back again, or to be on hold with an airline for an hour and then have cell service dropped and need to start all over again, or need to leave for an appointment but have to disconnect because you know you'll lose the connection driving, or not be able to get through to 911 in an emergency, etc. For all of our safety and well being, much better cell service is needed.

I feel like I live in a 3rd world country
I use Cox Communications for a land line, internet and TV. When that service goes out, I then have no ability to use a mobile phone from my house in the case of an emergency because can't get a good signal. It's scary to think about.

We need more towers.

I think that the need for improved cell service is the most important issue before the RHCA and City. I witnessed a near accident caused by a truck without a flag person. I could not report this dangerous and continuing danger because I had no cell service.

Cell phone service always drops after entering any gate in the RH. There are know areas where residents or guests can pull over to finish a cell phone call. These areas are typically near residents front yards which is surely frustrating for those property owners. In addition delivery drivers and shuttle services would have better gps routing to residents homes.

Safety should be a concern and having improved cell service would be prudent! We have very little if any cell service at our home. If we need it we have to go down to the office.
251

Page 24 of 24 ends

My main issue is the circumstance where internet goes down eliminating voice over IP calls.

In that event mobile is all I would have and the signal is very poor at my home.

Let's get into the nineties!
Forget the fifties solution, air raid sirens.

By adding additional cell sites on roadways, does this have any effect to residents health ? Please provide residents with pros and cons of the side effects of adding additional cell sites along roadways! How does it affect us and our families personally based on proximity? There are serious personal harms associated with 5G in particular. We would be better served with fiber optic underground cabling.

If you’re going to add cell sites they need to be very hard to find/see. The large fake tree cell sites are hideous.
oOo
252
Agenda Item No.: 10.A
Mtg. Date: 08/15/2023
TO: HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING

COMMISSION
FROM: JOHN SIGNO, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY SERVICES THRU: DAVID H. READY. ESQ., PH.D
SUBJECT: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA,

AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO WIRELESS FACILITIES; AND FINDING THE

ACTION EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY ACT
DATE: August 15, 2023
BACKGROUND:

The City Council last updated the RHMC’s wireless communication facility (“WCF”) regulations in 2004. Numerous federal and state laws and regulations have since taken effect, which (among other things) significantly restricted local control over the permitting and placement of wireless communication facilities (“WCF”). Noteworthy features of these regulations include the following:

1. Ban on Moratoria
On August 2, 2018, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) adopted a Third Report & Order and Declaratory Ruling, 33 FCC Rcd. 7705 (rel. Aug. 3, 2018) (“Moratoria Order”), that, among other things, contained a declaratory ruling prohibiting express and de facto moratoria for all personal wireless services, telecommunications services and their related facilities under 47 U.S.C. § 253(a) and directed the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and Wireline Competition Bureau to hear and resolve all complaints on an expedited basis. The declaratory ruling in the Moratoria Order was made effective upon release. This means that there can be no pause in accepting or processing applications to allow a city to study and address potential issues.

2. Shot Clocks and Enhanced Remedies
The FCC has adopted shot clocks (i.e., timelines) within which a local government must act on WCF applications. The most recent shot clocks have focused on applications for small WCFs and modifications to existing WCFs.
253
2009 Shot Clocks: In 2009, the FCC adopted a Declaratory Ruling, 24 FCC Rcd. 18994 (rel.

Nov. 18, 2009), to clarify existing federal law requiring local governments to act on WCF applications within a reasonable period of time. In that Declaratory Ruling, the FCC established two shot clocks for local action on wireless facilities applications:(1) a 60-day shot clock for collocations; and (2) a 150-day shot clock for all other types of WCF applications.

The State of California later adopted AB 57 (Gov. Code 65964.1), which that took effect on January 1, 2016, and created a “deemed granted” remedy (effective January 1, 2016 for collocations and “other” applications; effective January 1, 2022 for small cells) if the local government failed to act on an application during the time period allowed under the applicable FCC shot-clocks. This “deemed granted” remedy is available for any application under these shot clocks other than those proposed for placement on fire department facilities.

Eligible Facilities Requests: In 2012, Congress adopted a law (codified as 47 CFR Sec. 1455) requiring that certain applications to modify or add to existing WCFs must be approved at the local level. In 2014, the FCC adopted an implementing Order, including height and size criteria and a 60-day shot clock to process these “eligible facilities requests” (29 FCC Rcd. 12865).

More recently, the FCC adopted clarifications and changes to its rules to further facilitate these types of deployments. A failure to act within this FCC shot clock period can result in the application being deemed approved under federal law.

Small Wireless Facilities Shot Clocks : On September 26, 2018, the FCC adopted a Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order, 33 FCC Rcd. 9088 (rel. Sep. 27, 2018) (“Small Cell Order”), which, among other things:

Created new shorter (60-day and 90-day) shot clocks for small WCFs (as defined in the Small Cell Order);
Interpreted existing shot clock regulations to require local public agencies to issue all relevant permits and authorizations within this period; Established a national standard for an effective prohibition related to small WCFs that replaced the existing “significant gap” test adopted by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; and
Provided that a failure to act within the applicable timeframe presumptively constitutes an effective prohibition.

The Small Cell Order took effect went into effect in part on January 14, 2019, and in part on April 15, 2019. On August 12, 2020, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Moratoria Order and significant portions of the Small Cell Order, including the shorter shot clocks and remedies for failing to meet a shot clock. (City of Portland v. United States, 969 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2020) (“ City of Portland”)). On October 22, 2020, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied a petition for en banc review of the above-referenced panel’s decision.

In 2021, the California legislature enacted AB 537 (Gov. Code 65964.1), which further expanded the reach of AB 57’s deemed granted remedy to apply to all WCF applications subject to FCC shot clocks. Following AB 537, a deemed approved remedy is available for each and every WCF application type—which is triggered when the local government fails to render a final decision on a WCF application and issue all necessary approvals by the applicable FCC shot clock deadline.
254

3. Limits on Design Standards
In addition to the foregoing, the Small Cell Order placed limits on aesthetic regulations for small WCFs, including undergrounding. Under the Small Cell Order, local aesthetic regulations are permissible so long as they are reasonable, no more burdensome than those applied to other types of infrastructure deployments, objective, and published in advance (so that applicants know the applicable WCF aesthetic requirements).

In City of Portland discussed above, the Court invalidated certain portions of the FCC’s Small Cell Order that imposed new rules for aesthetic standards for small wireless facilities. Now, a city’s aesthetic regulations for small wireless facilities will not be preempted if they are (1) reasonable (technically feasible); and (2) published in advance.

4. Limits on Fees
The Small Cell Order declared that all WCF-related fees (including permit fees and rental fees for use of government-owned infrastructure, such as streetlights) must be based on a reasonable approximation of the local government’s costs, such that only objectively reasonable costs are factored into those fees, and fees are no higher than the fees charged to similarly situated competitors in similar situations. The FCC established presumptively reasonable fee levels (called “safe harbors”) that include: non-recurring fees equal to $500 for a single application for up to five collocations, plus $100 for each additional collocation, and $1,000 for each new pole. Recurring fees for attachment to a local government’s poles are presumed reasonable if equal to $270 per facility/per year, including the fee for attachment to the infrastructure and use of the public right-of-way.

DISCUSSION:

Staff and the City Attorney’s Office reviewed the RHMC’s processes and regulations governing WCFs. From this review, it was determined that various amendments to the RHMC are warranted in order to comply with the changes in federal and state law profiled above. The attached ordinance so amends the RHMC.

A. Repealing and replacing Section 17.27.040, ““Wireless communication antennas and facilities”:
a. Clarifies which facilities are exempt from the location, permit requirements, and other provisions of Section 17.27.040;
b. Specifies that either a temporary use permit, zone clearance approval, or a conditional use permit is required all wireless communications facilities subject to Section 17.27.040 and establishes which types of facilities are subject to which type of approval and the procedures for such review;
c. Establishes general standards for wireless communications facilities, such as aesthetics, landscaping, setbacks and lighting;
d. Creates an application process with documentation requirements and a list of standard conditions of approval; and
e. Provides for instances where the requirements provided for in Section 17.27040 may be waived or modified.

B. Amending Section 17.44.020, “Applicability,” to add a new subsection (G), requiring zone clearance for the installation, construction, modification, replacement, or placement of certain wireless communications facilities.

C. Amending Section 17.48.040, “Allowed Temporary Uses,” to add a new subsection (B) 255
(4) related to temporary wireless facilities via a temporary use permit.

Findings:

Section 9-2.1601 of the RHMC provides that the City’s Zoning Chapter “may be amended to reclassify zones, to alter the boundaries of districts, to impose regulations not heretofore imposed, and to remove or modify any regulation heretofore imposed pursuant to provisions of Title 7 of the Government Code of the State.” RHMC Section 9-2.1602 allows City staff to initiate a Zoning Code amendment. Finally, state law provides that city zoning ordinances must be consistent with the general plan of the city, pursuant to Government Code section 65860. Here, the proposed Zoning Code amendments are consistent with the City’s General Plan as follows:

1. General Plan Safety Element Policy 5.10: Support the development and further implementation of a peninsula-wide disaster plan;

2. General Plan Safety Element Policy 5.14: Ensure the reliability of essential facilities such as communications towers, electrical substations, water services, and first-response buildings in the event of an emergency through promoting grid resilience and energy independence. Work to implement on-site power generation through solar photovoltaic systems and battery storage;

3. General Plan Safety Element Policy 5.16: Increase access to essential resources and facilitate effective communication in the community to accelerate recovery following such a disaster; and

4. Land Use Goal 2: Accommodate development which is compatible with and complements existing land uses.

Wireless Application
A draft Wireless Application is included as Attachment 2. The Wireless Application includes a checklist of information needed to deem an application complete. It is meant to guide applicants and ensure proposals meets the City's wireless requirements. Section 17.27.040 (C) of the draft ordinance permits the Director of Planning and Community Services to generate and update the form from time to time as necessary. No action by the Planning Commission is required on the Wireless Application.

ENVIRONMENTAL
The proposed ordinance is not a “project” within the meaning of Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines, because it has no potential for resulting in direct or indirect physical change in the environment. The ordinance does not authorize any specific development or installation on any specific piece of property within the City’s boundaries. Moreover, when and if an application for installation is submitted, the City will at that time conduct preliminary review of the application in accordance with CEQA. Alternatively, even if the ordinance is a “project” within the meaning of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15378, the ordinance is exempt from CEQA on multiple grounds. First, the ordinance is exempt CEQA because the City Council’s adoption of the ordinance would covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15061(b)(3)). That is, approval of the ordinance will not result in the actual installation of any facilities in the City. In order to install a facility in accordance with this ordinance, the wireless provider would have to submit an application for installation of the wireless facility. At that time, the City would have specific and definite information regarding 256
the facility to review in accordance with CEQA. And, in fact, the City would conduct preliminary review under CEQA at that time. Moreover, in the event that the ordinance is interpreted so as to permit installation of wireless facilities on a particular site, the installation would be exempt from CEQA review in accordance with either State CEQA Guidelines Section 15302 (replacement or reconstruction), State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (new construction or conversion of small structures), and/or State CEQA Guidelines Section 15304 (minor alterations to land).

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. Open and conduct a public hearing;

2. Find that proposed Ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15302 (replacement or reconstruction), State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (new construction or conversion of small structures), State CEQA Guidelines Section 15304 (minor alterations to land), or, in the alternative, Sections 15378 and 15061(b)(3); and

3. Adopt Resolution No. 2023-10 (Attachment 1), which recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed Ordinance No. 384 (Exhibit "A" to Attachment 1).

ATTACHMENTS:

ATTACHMENT1_2023-10_PCResolution_WCF_Ordinance_081523-c1_F.pdf ATTACHMENT2_PL_WCF_OrdAmend2023_WirelessApplicationDraft_8-8-23-c1.pdf 257
Agenda Item No.: 9.B
Mtg. Date: 09/12/2023
TO: HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING

COMMISSION
FROM: JOHN SIGNO, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY SERVICES THRU: DAVID H. READY
SUBJECT: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA,

AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO WIRELESS FACILITIES; AND FINDING THE

ACTION EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY ACT
DATE: September 12, 2023
BACKGROUND:

This item was continued by the Planning Commission on August 15, 2023. At that meeting, the Planning Commission directed staff to require a conditional use permit (CUP) for Type 3 facilities, which are new small wireless communication facilities (“WCF”) on a new or replacement structure. The proposed Ordinance has been amended to incorporate the Commission's direction.

The City Council last updated the RHMC’s WCF regulations in 2004. Numerous federal and state laws and regulations have since taken effect, which (among other things) significantly restricted local control over the permitting and placement of wireless communication facilities (“WCF”). Noteworthy features of these regulations include the following:

2. Shot Clocks and Enhanced Remedies
The FCC has adopted shot clocks (i.e., timelines) within which a local government must act on WCF applications. The most recent shot clocks have focused on applications for small WCFs and modifications to existing WCFs.
2009 Shot Clocks: In 2009, the FCC adopted a Declaratory Ruling, 24 FCC Rcd. 18994 (rel.

In 2021, the California legislature enacted AB 537 (Gov. Code 65964.1), which further expanded the reach of AB 57’s deemed granted remedy to apply to all WCF applications 259
subject to FCC shot clocks. Following AB 537, a deemed approved remedy is available for each and every WCF application type—which is triggered when the local government fails to render a final decision on a WCF application and issue all necessary approvals by the applicable FCC shot clock deadline.

DISCUSSION:

At the direction of the Planning Commission at the August 15th meeting, the following changes were made to the Ordinance:

Ordinance No. 384, Section 4:

Section 17.27.040
A.2 (Permit Requirements): Type 3 was added to subsection a and removed from subsection b.

D (Findings for Approval): Type 3 was added to subsection 1 and removed from subsection 2.

Additionally, a recital was amended in Resolution 2023-10 and Ordinance No. 384 to reflect the Commission's action at the August 15th meeting. A redlined version of the Ordinance is included as Attachment 2.

Wireless Ordinance
Staff and the City Attorney’s Office reviewed the RHMC’s processes and regulations governing WCFs. From this review, it was determined that various amendments to the RHMC are warranted in order to comply with the changes in federal and state law profiled above. The attached ordinance so amends the RHMC.
260
A. Repealing and replacing Section 17.27.040, ““Wireless communication antennas and facilities”:
a. Clarifies which facilities are exempt from the location, permit requirements, and other provisions of Section 17.27.040;
b. Specifies that either a temporary use permit, zone clearance approval, or a conditional use permit is required all wireless communications facilities subject to Section 17.27.040 and establishes which types of facilities are subject to which type of approval and the procedures for such review;
c. Establishes general standards for wireless communications facilities, such as aesthetics, landscaping, setbacks and lighting;
d. Creates an application process with documentation requirements and a list of standard conditions of approval; and
e. Provides for instances where the requirements provided for in Section 17.27040 may be waived or modified.

C. Amending Section 17.48.040, “Allowed Temporary Uses,” to add a new subsection (B) (4) related to temporary wireless facilities via a temporary use permit.

Findings
Section 9-2.1601 of the RHMC provides that the City’s Zoning Chapter “may be amended to reclassify zones, to alter the boundaries of districts, to impose regulations not heretofore imposed, and to remove or modify any regulation heretofore imposed pursuant to provisions of Title 7 of the Government Code of the State.” RHMC Section 9-2.1602 allows City staff to initiate a Zoning Code amendment. Finally, state law provides that city zoning ordinances must be consistent with the general plan of the city, pursuant to Government Code section 65860. Here, the proposed Zoning Code amendments are consistent with the City’s General Plan as follows:

1. General Plan Safety Element Policy 5.10: Support the development and further implementation of a peninsula-wide disaster plan;

3. General Plan Safety Element Policy 5.16: Increase access to essential resources and facilitate effective communication in the community to accelerate recovery following such a disaster; and

4. Land Use Goal 2: Accommodate development which is compatible with and complements existing land uses.

Wireless Application
A draft Wireless Application is included as Attachment 3 and has been updated since the August 15th meeting. No substantive changes were made; only formatting and spacing issues.

The Wireless Application includes a checklist of information needed to deem an application complete. It is meant to guide applicants and ensure proposals meets the City's wireless 261
requirements. Section 17.27.040 (C) of the draft ordinance permits the Director of Planning and Community Services to generate and update the form from time to time as necessary. No action by the Planning Commission is required on the Wireless Application.

ENVIRONMENTAL
The proposed ordinance is not a “project” within the meaning of Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines, because it has no potential for resulting in direct or indirect physical change in the environment. The ordinance does not authorize any specific development or installation on any specific piece of property within the City’s boundaries. Moreover, when and if an application for installation is submitted, the City will at that time conduct preliminary review of the application in accordance with CEQA. Alternatively, even if the ordinance is a “project” within the meaning of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15378, the ordinance is exempt from CEQA on multiple grounds. First, the ordinance is exempt CEQA because the City Council’s adoption of the ordinance would covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15061(b)(3)). That is, approval of the ordinance will not result in the actual installation of any facilities in the City. In order to install a facility in accordance with this ordinance, the wireless provider would have to submit an application for installation of the wireless facility. At that time, the City would have specific and definite information regarding the facility to review in accordance with CEQA. And, in fact, the City would conduct preliminary review under CEQA at that time. Moreover, in the event that the ordinance is interpreted so as to permit installation of wireless facilities on a particular site, the installation would be exempt from CEQA review in accordance with either State CEQA Guidelines Section 15302 (replacement or reconstruction), State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (new construction or conversion of small structures), and/or State CEQA Guidelines Section 15304 (minor alterations to land).

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. Open and conduct a public hearing;

3. Adopt Resolution No. 2023-10 (Attachment 1), which recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed Ordinance No. 384 (Exhibit "A" to Attachment 1).

ATTACHMENTS:

ATTACHMENT1_2023-10_PCResolution_WCF_Ordinance_091223-c1_F2.pdf ATTACHMENT2_384_WirelessOrdinance_D4_redline.pdf
ATTACHMENT3_PL_WCF_OrdAmend2023_WirelessApplicationDraft_8-29-23.pdf 262
Agenda Item No.: 9.B
Mtg. Date: 10/17/2023
TO: HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING

COMMISSION
FROM: JOHN SIGNO, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY SERVICES THRU: DAVID H. READY
SUBJECT: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA,

AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO WIRELESS FACILITIES; AND FINDING THE

ACTION EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY ACT
DATE: October 17, 2023
BACKGROUND:

This item was continued by the Planning Commission on August 15, 2023 and September 12, 2023.

At the August 15th meeting, the Planning Commission directed staff to require a conditional use permit (CUP) for Type 3 facilities, which are new small wireless communication facilities (“WCF”) on a new or replacement structure.

At the September 12th meeting, the Planning Commission had additional questions about wireless service, existing coverage, and potentially new wireless locations. Staff and the city attorney's office has discussed the issues and staff has reached out to Crown Castle and RHCA about existing coverage. The proposed Ordinance has been further amended.

DISCUSSION:

August 15th Planning Commission Meeting
At the direction of the Planning Commission at the August 15th meeting, the following changes were made to the Ordinance:

Ordinance No. 384, Section 4:

Section 17.27.040
A.2 (Permit Requirements): Type 3 was added to subsection 'a' and removed from subsection 'b'.

D (Findings for Approval): Type 3 was added to subsection 1 and removed from subsection 2.
263
September 12th Planning Commission Meeting
At the September 12th Planning Commission meeting, Stephen Garcia representing Crown Castle, provided comments on the need for wireless communication facilities (WCFs). Crown Castle has a right-of-way (ROW) agreement with the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA) executed in 2012 and amended in 2013. Crown Castle is working with RHCA to find new locations within the City and has provided a “mock up” facility on Portuguese Bend Road just inside the guard gate to give the community an example of what these facilities could look like.

RHCA Manager Kristen Raig commented on the community’s desire to have better wireless coverage. Kristen provided a letter prior to the meeting requesting the Commission consider a “Type 3A” facility which would be pre-approved by RHCA and subject to the City’s administrative approval.

The Commission asked about its role in approving facilities. Staff explained the Ordinance has not been updated since 2004 and new laws warrant the need for an update. The item was continued to the October 17
th meeting.

Revised Ordinance
Following the September 12th meeting, further revisions to the Ordinance were made:

1. Requires CUPs for Type 2, 3 and 4 applications (rather than just 3 & 4 as presented to the Planning Commission on August 15th). This gives the PC review authority over collocations onto existing structures (90 day shot clock), new small cells on new or replacement structures (90 day shot clock) and other facilities (150 day shot clock).

2. Zoning Clearance review by the Director for small cells on existing structures (60 day shot clock) and eligible facilities requests (60 day shot clock).

3. Slight modifications to clarify screening requirements in the design standards.

4. Addition of new location standards:
a. Outside the right-of-way (ROW) and roadway easements: No facilities on private residential properties, except for collocations onto existing utility poles. b. Inside ROW and roadway easements:
i. Preference to utilize existing poles and structures or replacement of existing structures or poles.
ii. No facilities in the front façade of any residential primary building. iii. No facilities within 10 feet of a driveway.
iv. Applicants must avoid new poles to the maximum extent technically feasible.

The revised Ordinance is included as Exhibit "A" to the proposed resolution. A redline version is also included to identify recent changes.

Existing Facilities
In March 2023, the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA) provided a list of existing Sprint and T-Mobile facilities in Rolling Hills. There are 20 facilities which are managed by Infinigy. The City and RHCA were able to approve upgrades to 15 of the facilities, all of which are located on existing utility poles.
264
At the September 12th Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission asked to see the locations in Rolling Hills managed by Crown Castle. Crown Castle was able to provide a map, which is attached, showing the location of its facilities. There are about 26 Crown Castle facilities in the City with several others just outside the City's borders.

Due to conflicting obligations, Crown Castle is not able to be at the October 17th Planning Commission meeting. As such, they are requesting this item be continued to the November 21st meeting.

ENVIRONMENTAL
The proposed ordinance is not a “project” within the meaning of Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines, because it has no potential for resulting in direct or indirect physical change in the environment. The ordinance does not authorize any specific development or installation on any specific piece of property within the City’s boundaries. Moreover, when and if an application for installation is submitted, the City will at that time conduct preliminary review of the application in accordance with CEQA. Alternatively, even if the ordinance is a “project” within the meaning of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15378, the ordinance is exempt from CEQA on multiple grounds. First, the ordinance is exempt CEQA because the City Council’s adoption of the ordinance would covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15061(b)(3)). That is, approval of the ordinance will not result in the actual installation of any facilities in the City. In order to install a facility in accordance with this ordinance, the wireless provider would have to submit an application for installation of the wireless facility. At that time, the City would have specific and definite information regarding the facility to review in accordance with CEQA. And, in fact, the City would conduct preliminary review under CEQA at that time. Moreover, in the event that the ordinance is interpreted so as to permit installation of wireless facilities on a particular site, the installation would be exempt from CEQA review in accordance with either State CEQA Guidelines Section 15302 (replacement or reconstruction), State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (new construction or conversion of small structures), and/or State CEQA Guidelines Section 15304 (minor alterations to land).

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. Open and conduct a public hearing;

3. Adopt Resolution No. 2023-10 (Attachment 1), which recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed Ordinance No. 384 (Exhibit "A" to Attachment 1).

ATTACHMENTS:

ATTACHMENT1_2023-10_PCResolution_WCF_Ordinance_101723_F.pdf ATTACHMENT2_384_WirelessOrdinance_Updated PC DRAFT 10-17-23-c1_redline.pdf ATTACHMENT3_PL_WCF_OrdAmend2023_231002_Email_CrownCastle.pdf ATTACHMENT4_PL_WCF_OrdAmend2023_231010_CrownCastlePresentation_2SlidesPerPage.pdf 265
ATTACHMENT5_CL_AGN_230912_PC_Item9B_RHCA_PublicComment.pdf ATTACHMENT6_CL_AGN_230912_PC_Item9B_RHCA_CellAntennaMockUp.pdf ATTACHMENT7_CL_AGN_230912_PC_Item9B_RHCA_CellSurveyResults2023.pdf ATTACHMENT8_PL_WCF_230912_PC_StaffReport.pdf
266
BBKLAW.COM © 2023 Best Best & Krieger LLP October 19, 2023

WIRELESS ORDINANCE UPDATE

ROLLING HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Presenter: Bennett A. Givens

TELECOMMUNICATIONS LAW
Background
• The City can exercise its police power to regulate wireless siting, except to the extent that police power is preempted or limited by federal or state law. • Currently, the City’s main regulations applicable to wireless siting are in Zoning Code Title 17, Chapter 17.27, Section 17.27.040 (wireless communications facilities and antennas).
The Wireless Ordinance was last updated in 2004.
• Today’s presentation is intended to:
(1) Provide context with an overview of applicable federal and state law; and (2) Outline updates to the wireless ordinance since last meeting 2 267
BBKLAW.COM

BRIEF OVERVIEW
Federal and State Law
3 National Policy On Wireless
• National deployment policy – no local decision or regulation can prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless service
• National RF emissions guidelines – FCC sets the RF emissions safety standards; localities cannot regulate placement based on RF emissions except to ensure applicant has shown it will comply with FCC guidelines • Timely action required – deadlines for action on applications (known as “shot clocks”) between 60 and 150 days and remedies for failure to timely act on applications • Written Denials – must be in writing and based on substantial evidence in the record • Non-discrimination – no unreasonable discrimination among providers of functionally equivalent services • Expedited appeals
• Some mandatory approvals – modifications to existing wireless facilities that qualify as Eligible Facilities Requests (EFRs) must be approved and there is a deemed granted remedy for failing to timely act 268
5 The Federal Legal Framework
Telecommunications Act (1996) - 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)
Applies to all applications for “personal wireless services facilities” Generally preserves local authority to control placement of person wireless facilities, subject to substantive and procedural limits Telecommunications Act - 47 U.S.C. § 253
Preempts local/state regulations that prohibit or have effect of prohibiting ability of any entity to provide telecom services
Nondiscriminatory RoW management and compensation protected Middle Class Tax Relief Act (2012) - 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a) (Sec. 6409) Applies to all “wireless” applications (broader)
Requires approval of certain collocations/modifications to existing sites (“eligible facilities requests”)
FCC Regulations
Orders, declaratory rulings and regulations interpret federal statutes Carry the force of law
5 2018 Moratoria Ban
August 3, 2018: FCC released In the Matter of Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment By Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, FCC 18-111, Third Report and Order and Declaratory Ruling, WT Docket No. 17-79
De jure moratoria and de facto moratoria on wireless and wireline deployment generally “prohibit or effectively prohibit” provision of telecom services in violation of federal law, and are not saved from preemption as a form of rights-of-way management 269
2018 Small Cell Order
Sept. 26, 2018: FCC Adopts Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order, WT Docket No. 17-79 Establishes special rules for small wireless facilities (SWFs) ¾ Defines “small wireless facility” (SWF) for shot clock purposes ¾ Redefines “effective prohibition” (materially inhibit) ¾ Sets new 60-day and 90-day shot clocks for action
¾ Limits fees and rents that can be charged for use of public right-of-way and municipal infrastructure for placement of small cells to reasonable, cost-based fees, and creates “safe harbors” (permits: $500, $1000, and $270 annual charge for placement on government owned ROW poles) ¾ Adopts new standards for limiting aesthetic regulations Also holds:
¾ All permits/authorizations subject to FCC shot clocks ¾ Collocation does not require existing wireless facilities, only an existing structure Aesthetics
• Local land use authorities aesthetic requirements (including undergrounding and spacing requirements) are not preempted if:
(1) Reasonable,
(2) no more burdensome than those applied to other types of infrastructure deployments, and
(3) objective *and published in advance
*Redlines reflect changes in light of Ninth Circuit ruling in Small Cell Order litigation. City of Portland v.

United States, 969 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2020). Pet. en banc review denied, October 2020. • Moratoria Order was upheld by Ninth Circuit
270
Summary of Wireless Shot Clocks &
Deemed Granted Remedies
9 FCC Category Applicable Shot Clock Deemed Granted Remedy Eligible Facilities Requests (EFR)
Must involve modification to existing wireless facility (tower or base station) and meet size and other requirements to qualify as EFR
60 days Federal
Small Wireless Facility (SWF)
Must be personal wireless services
facility that meets size and other
requirements to qualify as SWF.

Placement on existing structure (need
not be existing wireless facility) 60 days California (effective 1/1/22) New 90 days California (effective 1/1/22)
Collocations
Must involve placement of personal wireless services facility (that does not qualify as EFR or SWF) on existing structure which need not have wireless facility already on it 90 days California
Other
Personal wireless services facility that does not fall in any other category 150 days California California Category Applicable Shot Clock Deemed Granted Remedy Gov. Code 65850.75 State Generator Law (in effect only until 1/1/2024) Must involve qualifying emergency standby generator for macro cell tower site 60 days California Summary of Notice of Incompleteness
Deadlines
10 Category NOI Deadlines
Eligible Facilities Requests (EFR) Initial Submission: 30 days Resubmissions: 10 days
Small Cells (Small Wireless Facility (SWF))
Initial Submission: 10 days*
Resubmissions: 10 days
*First NOI resets shot clock
Collocations Initial Submission: 30 days
Resubmissions: 10 days
Other Initial Submission: 30 days
Resubmissions: 10 days
CA Emergency Generator (AB 2421)
Initial Submission: 10 days*
Resubmissions: 10 days*
*All NOIs reset shot clock
271
Eligible Facilities Requests (6409)
• 2015 Implementation Order: FCC order adopting rule is critical to understanding requirements: In re Acceleration of Broadband Deployment by Improving Wireless Facilities Siting Policies, 29 FCC Rcd. 12865 (Oct. 17, 2014), amended by 30 FCC Rcd. 31 (Jan. 5, 2015).
Upheld, Montgomery County v. FCC 811 F.3d 121 (4th Cir. 2015) • 2020 Clarifications Order: In response to industry petitions FCC adopted “clarifications” to Section 6409 rules. In the Matter of Implementation of State and Local Governments’ Obligation to Approve Certain Wireless Facility Modification Requests Under Section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act of 2012, Declaratory Ruling and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Docket 19-205 (June 9, 2020).
• 2020 Expansions Order: After the rulemaking process, FCC modified rules for towers outside of the public right-ofway. For such towers, a site expansion up to 30 feet in any direction does not constitute a substantial change. In the Matter of Implementation of State and Local Governments’ Obligation to Approve Certain Wireless Facility Modification Requests Under Section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act of 2012, Report and Order, Docket 19-250 (Oct. 27, 2020).

State Law Limitations (General)
• Deemed Approved Remedy for FCC’s shot clocks, except the EFR shot clock which has a federal deemed granted remedy
Note: this state remedy is not available for proposed placements on fire dept. facilities • Wireless permit may not be less than 10 years (unless “public safety” or “land use” reasons) • Cannot require escrow deposit for removal of a facility (bonds ok) • Cannot require all facilities to be located on sites owned by particular parties • State law recognizes federal authority over RF emissions regulation and prohibits localities from taking into account RF emissions in evaluating proposed wireless facilities, except to the extent authorized by federal law. • AB 2421 temporarily imposes 60 day shot clock and mandatory approval of qualifying emergency generators at macro cell sites; does not apply to small cells, distributed antenna systems, or rooftop facilities. Sunsets on Jan. 1, 2024.
272
State Law Limitations (Wireless in ROW)
Concerning ROW placements:
• Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 7901 –Telephone corporations including wireless companies have a to construct facilities along and upon any public road or highway. . . in such manner and at such points as not to “incommode the public use of the road or highway” T-Mobile W., LLC v. City & Cnty. of. San Francisco (2019) – Discretionary review considering aesthetics ok’d under state law by California Supreme Court • Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 7901.1 – Power to reasonably regulate “time, place, and manner” in which roads are accessed. Must be applied to all entities in an “equivalent” manner. • Cal Pub. Util. Code § 2902 – regulate use and repair of public streets, location of poles, wires, mains, or conduits of any public utility, on, under, or above any public streets (to the extent not preempted by CPUC regulation)
• CPUC regulates safety of electric and communications utility infrastructure in ROW, eg. General Order 95
RF Emissions – FCC Authority
• Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, § 704(b), 101 Stat. 56, 152 (directing FCC to “prescribe and make effective rules regarding the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions”) • 47 USC §332(c)(7)(B)(iv):
“No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions.” 14 273
RF Emissions and ADA/FHA
ADA and FHA Claims
Wolf v. City of Millbrae, 2021 WL 3727072 (N.D. Cal)
• Plaintiff claimed that RF emissions from a cell tower above his housing complex caused him to suffer from "electromagnetic hypersensitivity" (EHS), and requested that City order accommodations be made under the ADA and FHA by either turning the tower off or requiring the company to relocate the tower site • Court held that Plaintiff's claims against the City for violation of the ADA and FHA were unreasonable because his requests would require the City to violate § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv). Court found that “it would be improper under the ADA to subject a defendant to the threat of litigation for the purpose of accommodating a plaintiff under the ADA.” Court applied the same reasoning for Plaintiff's FHA claim—”granting Plaintiff's accommodation request would require the City to regulate RF emissions in violation of the TCA and its implementing regulations. This accommodation would require the City to face liability for violating federal law and is thus not reasonable.”
15 Limitations on Fees under State Law
• Proposition 26 – Voter Approval Required for Tax (New Def of Tax) • Mitigation Fee Act
Government Code section 66014 governs permitting fees (“fees may not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged . . .” • CA Telecommunications Infrastructure Act
Government Code Section 50030 - Cost Based Fees Only) • Public Utilities Code section 7901:
No charge use of ROW by telephone and wireless companies 16 274
BBKLAW.COM
Wireless Ordinance
Updates
17 Draft Ordinance
• Establishes three permit types for wireless facilities: (CUP, Zone Clearance and Temporary Use Permit)
Includes Exemption for Amateur Radio and Satellite Dishes (OTARDs) • Flexible Application Form Requirements
• New Wireless-Specific Findings for Approval
• Imposes New Design, Location and Development Standards • Creates Standard Conditions of Approval (For Deemed Approved) • Creates Exception Process for Design, Location and Development Standards 18 275
Permit Processes
• Current 2004 Code requires CUPs for all wireless facilities:
• First Draft of Wireless Ordinance Update:
CUP for Type 4 (150 day shot clock)
Zone Clearance for Types 1 (SWF Collocation – 60 day), 2 (Collocation on existing structure – 90 day), 3 (SWF on new or replacement structure – 90 day), and 5 (EFRs – 60 days)
• Revised Draft of Wireless Ordinance Update:
CUP for Type 2 (Collocation on existing structure – 90 day), 3 (SWF on new or replacement structure – 90 day), and 4 (150 day shot clock) Zone Clearance for Type 1 (SWF Collocation – 60 day), and 5 (EFRs – 60 days) 19 New location standards
• Outside ROW: No facilities on private residential properties, except for collocations onto existing utility poles.
• Inside ROW:
Preference to utilize existing poles and structures or replacement of existing structures or poles
No facilities in the front façade of any residential primary building. No facilities within 10 feet of a driveway.
Applicants must avoid new poles to the maximum extent technically feasible. 20 276
BBKLAW.COM
Thank you.

Questions?
21 277
278
[DRAFT] POLICY REGARDING DESIGN AND PLACEMENT

OF CELL SITES ON EASEMENTS
I. PURPOSE
A. Policy Basis. The Board of Directors of the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA) conducted a community-wide survey of its residents and determined by overwhelming consensus that wireless services in RHCA are materially deficient.1 Over 74% of the respondents found that access to E-911 emergency services were inadequate along roadways in RHCA and more than 92% of the respondents agreed for the need to improve cell services. The Board received multiple reports of residents unable to reach E-911 in emergencies due to the lack of adequate wireless services in the community. The Board finds that the lack of adequate wireless services in the community requires action to protect residents and visitors.

B. Policy Purpose. The Purpose of this Policy is to create design and installation guidelines (Guidelines) for small cell wireless sites in the community. To that end, a full-sized mock-up was installed in the community and reviewed by residents. That mock-up was evaluated by nearly 200 residents with a design acceptance of approximately 90%.2 II. PROCEDURES
A. Guidelines. It is the intention of the RHCA Board to develop and adopt guidelines to inform the cell service providers, their agents and association members of the parameters and principles the Board will use as a basis for review and approval of proposed cell site design and locations and improvements to the existing network located in the Association’s easements.

The Board values and seeks to preserve the overall rural aesthetic of the community and use of the community’s easements while balancing the community’s need for a reliable communication network.

The Board also recognizes individual owner’s enjoyment and aesthetics of their properties and also takes this into consideration when considering an application for new cell facilities.

Prior to adoption of Guidelines for new cell sites, RHCA members shall be invited to provide comments in connection with the consideration and adoption of the Guidelines. The Guidelines shall provide for an application process to disclose the proposed location of cell sites and their design. An application fee paid by the cell provider shall cover the cost of each application.

B. Procedures. The Manager, upon determining that proposed facilities are consistent with designs approved by the Board, shall work with the cell provider as to the location of the 1 “Rolling Hills Community Association- Public Participation Survey About Cellular Services” conducted from January 4-January 16, 2023.
2 “Rolling Hills Community Association Public Participation Survey About Small Cell Design” conducted from August 8-September 1, 2023.
279
facility. The goal shall be to facilitate the placement of small cells on joint property lines and other locations and to reasonably avoid placement of cells adjacent to the front center of residences. Applicants shall demonstrate that their proposed facilities comply with Federal Communications Commission radio frequency guidelines.3
C. Member Comments. The Manager shall present proposed cell sites to the Board at a regularly scheduled and published meeting to allow RHCA members to provide comments to in connection with such reviews. The Board shall have the final authority over the placement of wireless facilities, balancing the needs of the community and individual members who might be impacted by their placement.

D. Annual Review. The Guidelines shall be further reviewed by the Board at least once every calendar year and each time changes to the Guidelines and/or fees are recommended by the Manager. RHCA members shall be given notice in advance of each such review and invited to provide comments to the Board.

Policy ____ adopted ________, 2023
3 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307 et seq. guidelines for Uncontrolled/General Population. 280
65277.00023\41824594.2

THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS

WIRELESS FACILITY APPLICATION AND SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST

Page 1 of 12 ends

Version 11.27.23
Section 1 – General Project Information for All Applicants:

Applicant/Proposed Operator of Wireless Facility
Name: ______________________________________________________ Company: ______________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ______________________________________________________ City, State, Zip: ______________________________________________________ Phone: ______________________________________________________ E-mail: ______________________________________________________ Applicant’s Authorized Representative:

Name: ______________________________________________________ Company: ______________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ______________________________________________________ City, State, Zip: ______________________________________________________ Phone: ______________________________________________________ E-mail: ______________________________________________________ Site Location and Description
Project Location/Address:_____________________________________________________ Project Name: ______________________________________________________ Zoning Description: ______________________________________________________ Current Use: ______________________________________________________ For Parcels:

Block: ______________________________________________________ Lot(s): ______________________________________________________ Assessor Parcel No(s): ______________________________________________________ For Rolling Hills Community Association Private Right-of-Way:

Pole Coordinates: ______________________________________________________ Pole Number (if applicable): ___________________________________________________ Type of Proposed Facility (Check One)
Type 1 – Collocation of a small wireless facility on an existing structure Type 2 – Collocation on an existing structure which does not qualify as a Type 1 small wireless facility collocation or a Type 5 eligible facilities request
Type 3 – New small wireless facility on a new or replacement structure Type 4 – New tower or any other wireless facility that is not a Type 1, 2, 3, 5 or 6 application Type 5 – Eligible facilities requests
Type 6 – Temporary facilities
Section 17.27.040(H) – Request for Limited Exceptions for Personal Wireless Service Facilities 281
65277.00023\41824594.2

THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS

WIRELESS FACILITY APPLICATION AND SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST

Page 2 of 12 ends

Version 11.27.23
Primary Wireless Facility Provider that will use this wireless communication facility:

Company Name: _____________________________________________________ Name: _____________________________________________________ Email: _____________________________________________________ Phone No.: _____________________________________________________ Proof of Payment of Required Fees. At the time of submittal of any wireless facility application, the Applicant must pay to the City any requires fees. If the applicant has questions regarding the applicable fees, please contact the City’s Planning and Community Services Department.

Other Permits and Authorizations Required:

Below, please either sign the acknowledgment OR identify other permits and/or authorizations which will be needed for this proposed facility:

By signing below, the applicant hereby agrees that, should this application be granted, or granted subject to conditions, the FCC shot clock applicable to this application does not apply to any other permits, regulatory authorizations or agreements needed from the City, and that no work may be undertaken on the applied-for personal wireless services facility until all such permits, regulatory authorizations and agreements required from the City have been applied for and obtained.

Agreed: __________________________
--OR--
Identify any and all additional permits, regulatory authorizations and agreements you contend the City must issue (absent agreement) within the time period that the City must take action on this application under the applicable FCC shot clock. It is the applicant’s responsibility to review the Rolling Hills Municipal Code and to identify all additional permits, regulatory authorizations and agreements that will be needed from the City. The applicant’s failure to identify and list any permits, regulatory authorizations or agreements required from the City below will be deemed a waiver of any claim by the applicant that the City was required to act on any of those permits, regulatory authorizations or agreements not so identified within the FCC shot clock applicable to this application.

For each of the permits, authorizations or agreements you identify below, if you have the required authorization, attach and mark a copy as “Attachment – Other Permits and Authorizations.” If you do not have the required authorization, indicate whether you have applied for it or not, and either submit the application and all fees or submit proof of previous submittal and previous payment of all such fees, as applicable.
282
65277.00023\41824594.2

THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS

WIRELESS FACILITY APPLICATION AND SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 of 12 ends

Version 11.27.23
_______________________
_______________________
_______________________
_______________________
Section 2 – General Application Requirements for All Wireless Communication Facility Types:

All applications for a wireless communication facility or modification including Eligible Facilities Requests (EFRs) shall include the following, except where noted:
□ 2.1 Cover Sheet. A complete cover sheet must include at a minimum:
a detailed project description that specifies the proposed installation and/or modifications.

If the application is for a Small Cell Wireless Facility or an Eligible Facilities Request, explain how the proposed wireless communication facility meets the definition of Small Cell Wireless Facility or an Eligible Facilities Request;
site information that includes the site address, assessor’s parcel number, block, lot(s), site latitude and longitude, zoning description, pole number (if applicable), site map, and project team contact information.
□ 2.2 Survey & Site Development Plan. Only a California Registered Civil Engineer or licensed surveyor may prepare the survey and site development plan. A complete survey and site development plan must include:
a north arrow, date, scale and legend;
plan-view drawings, which include:
the entire property or right-of-way block with the proposed project improvements; detailed before-and-after views of the any and all poles, posts, pedestals, traffic signals, towers, streets, sidewalks, pedestrian ramps, driveways, curbs, gutters, drains, handholes, manholes, fire hydrants, equipment cabinets, antennas, cables, trees and other landscape features;
detailed before-and-after views for each antenna sector; detailed before-and-after views for any equipment pads, shelters, enclosures, rooms, vaults and/or platforms;
all existing and proposed equipment (including the point of origin and point of connection for all power and telco utilities) with all dimensions, labels and ownership identifications clearly called out;
boundaries for all areas leased/licensed in connection with the wireless site with all dimensions clearly shown and called out;
boundaries for all easements, encroachments and/or other rights-of-way for access and utilities in connection with the wireless site with all dimensions clearly shown and called out; all existing and proposed primary and backup utilities, including without limitation all cables, connectors, risers, conduits, cable shrouds, trays, bridges and/or doghouses, transformers, 283
65277.00023\41824594.2

THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS

WIRELESS FACILITY APPLICATION AND SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST

Page 4 of 12 ends

Version 11.27.23
disconnect switches, panels, meters, pedestals, cabinets, vaults, handholes, generators and/or generator sockets;
detailed before-and-after elevation drawings from all four cardinal directions, which include:
detailed before-and-after depictions of the any and all poles, posts, pedestals, traffic signals, towers, streets, sidewalks, pedestrian ramps, driveways, curbs, gutters, drains, handholes, manholes, fire hydrants, equipment cabinets, antennas, cables, trees and other landscape features;
all existing and proposed equipment with all dimensions, labels and ownership identifications clearly called out;
for projects in the Rolling Hills Community Association private street easement, all existing and proposed fiber optic cables, conduits, risers, guy wires, anchors, primary and secondary power lines clearly called out;
callouts and notes for any proposed new or extended concealment elements; depictions of the applicant's plan for electric and data backhaul utilities, which includes the locations for all conduits, cables, wires, handholes, junctions, transformers, meters, disconnect switches and points of connection;
a demonstration that proposed project will be in full compliance with all applicable health and safety laws, regulations or other rules, which includes without limitation all building codes, electric codes, local street standards and specifications, and public utility regulations and orders. (not required for EFRs) all structures or improvements within 100 feet in all directions of the proposed wireless communication facility, including; property boundaries with all bearings, distances, monuments, iron rods, caps or other markers clearly shown and called out;
location of all traffic lanes;
location of all fire hydrants, roadside call boxes and other public safety infrastructure;
location of all streetlights, decorative poles, traffic signals and permanent signage, sidewalks, driveways, parkways, curbs, gutters and storm drains, benches, trash cans, mailboxes, kiosks and other street furniture;
location of all existing trees, planters and other landscaping features, including any trees at least 4 inches in diameter at a point approximately 4.5 feet above ground; (not required for EFRs) all residential dwelling units and or any historical structures within 300 feet in all directions in all directions of the proposed wireless communication facility; approximate topographical contour lines with elevations called out; wet stamp and wet signature from preparer;
general specifications and notes identifying the applicable public health and safety codes and standards.
□ 2.3 Equipment Inventory. All equipment must be inventoried with the following information for each component in a separate cut sheet:
manufacturer and model number;
basic dimensions (height, width, length and weight).
284
65277.00023\41824594.2

THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS

WIRELESS FACILITY APPLICATION AND SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST

Page 5 of 12 ends

Version 11.27.23
□ 2.4 Approval of Rolling Hills Community Association. All proposed new wireless facilities and modifications to existing wireless facilities within the City may require review and approval by the Rolling Hills Community Association. All applicants shall provide documentation demonstrating that the applicant has received approval of the proposed new wireless facility or proposed modification to an existing wireless facility by the Rolling Hills Community Association. If not applicable, check this box □ □ 2.5 Fiber Network Plan. To the extent that the project requires running new fiber optic cables to the proposed wireless facility, the plans must include a street map view that shows all the proposed wireless communication facilities in the deployment, clearly labeled with pole number and/or site ID, the hub or base station that serves the wireless communication facilities in the deployment, all fiber optic cable routes that connect the wireless communication facilities to the hub, and a legend that identifies any symbols, colors or other items on the map. The fiber plans should clearly identify all meet-me points and points of connection. Even if the fiber deployment will be performed by a third-party vendor, the applicant for wireless communication facilities must disclose all known or reasonably foreseeable fiber network elements.

2.6 Fire Safety. All proposed facility plans must include, describe and depict that the facility meets all applicable fire safety and electrical codes and standards.

2.7 Electrical and Structural Safety Information. The following engineering documents prepared under the responsible charge of and sealed by a California licensed Professional Engineer:

A short circuit and coordination study (“SCCS”) calculated pursuant to the IEEE 551-2006:

Recommended Practice for Calculating AC Short-Circuit Currents in Industrial and Commercial Power Systems or the latest version of that standard. The study must demonstrate the protection devices will ensure the equipment enclosure will not be breached. The SCCS must include analysis of Voltage Transient Surges due to contact of conductors of different voltages; A one-line diagram of the electrical system;
Voltage Drop & Load Flow Study;
Load Calculation;
Panel Directories;
A plot plan showing the location of the mounting structure including address, or structure designation, or GPS location on the front sheet;
A plot plan showing the location of the service disconnecting means; An elevation drawing of the equipment and the service disconnecting means

2.8 Structure or Pole Owner Authorization. If the applicant does not own the structure or pole, provide a written authorization executed by the property owner(s) that authorizes the applicant to file the application and perform the work to the extent described in the application. For facilities on utility poles, the applicant may submit the standard authorization form the pole owner or joint utility association uses to demonstrate that the applicant has the authority to perform the installation or modification. For facilities on any structure owned or controlled by the City located within the private Rolling Hills Community Association rights-of-way, the applicant must submit a copy of the executed license agreement with the written authorization from the City to demonstrate that the applicant has the authority to perform the installation or modification. If not applicable, check this box. □
285
65277.00023\41824594.2

THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS

WIRELESS FACILITY APPLICATION AND SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST

Page 6 of 12 ends

Version 11.27.23

2.9 Manufacturing Specifications for Noise Generating Equipment. All manufacturer’s specifications for all noise-generating equipment, such as air conditioning units and back-up generators, including the equipment decibel ratings for both maintenance cycling and continual operation modes. If the manufacturer’s specifications or other information suggest that noise generated by the proposed wireless communication facility would exceed applicable noise standards of the City, provide a noise study or study prepared and certified by an engineer (or other qualified personnel acceptable to the City) confirming compliance with applicable standards and/or demonstrating the maximum noise output for the wireless communication facility. If an applicant has prepared and submitted a noise study for a specific wireless communication facility design, a subsequent noise study is not required for the exact same design (inclusive of all components and technical features).

2.10 Site Photographs, Photo Simulations. Provide site photos and photo simulations that would allow the City to visualize the applicant’s proposed project as constructed. The photo simulations must be in a high-resolution format and show the proposed facility from reasonable line-of-sight locations that would accurately and reliably reflect the appearance of the proposed facility and/or modifications asbuilt. Except as otherwise provided, photo simulations must contain all the following:
□ 2.11.1 Current Site Photos. Current site photos must include:
photos of the existing site from at least three different reasonable line-of-sight locations from public streets or other publicly available areas. These should show perspectives of the properties situated in closest proximity to the location being proposed for the siting of the facility, as well as those properties which would reasonably be expected to sustain the most significant adverse aesthetic impacts due to such factors as their close proximity to the site, their elevation relative to the site, the existence or absence of a “clear line of sight” between the tower location and their location. Applicant should also attempt to get permission from adjacent property owners to take photos that can be used to show potential impacts to their views. If unable to obtain permission to photograph from adjacent properties, applicant shall include a written statement identifying the properties for which consent was requested and not obtained; a map detail showing each location where a photograph was taken, the proposed site and the direction to the site from each photo location.
□ 2.11.2 Photo Simulations. Photo simulations must include:
an accurate and reliable visual representation of the proposed facility from the same reasonable line-of-sight locations used in the current site photos and must include without limitation all interconnecting cables, conduits, brackets, and electronic equipment such as antennas, radio units and powering equipment;
at least one photo simulation depicting the proposed facility from a vantage point approximately 50 feet from the proposed support structure or location; at least one photo simulation that demonstrates the impact of the proposed modification on the all the concealment elements, if any, of the support structure. Concealment elements include 286
65277.00023\41824594.2

THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS

WIRELESS FACILITY APPLICATION AND SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST

Page 7 of 12 ends

Version 11.27.23
but are not limited to screen walls, architectural elements, radomes, landscape features, equipment enclosures and designs and/or techniques intended to mimic the natural or built environment; a map detail showing each location where a photograph was taken, the proposed site and the direction to the site from each photo location.

2.12 FCC Licenses. If the applicant proposes to operate in FCC-licensed spectrum, provide proof of licenses for all planned operating bands in the applicable geographic market(s). Alternatively, the applicant may provide a URL address or written instructions on where to find such licenses in publicly available FCC resources.

2.13 FAA Forms. If the proposed wireless facility requires the applicant to file FAA form 7460 or other documentation under Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77.13 et seq., or under other FCC rules, provide such documentation.

If not applicable, check this box □

2.14 State Regulatory Authorization, For facilities proposed in the private Rolling Hills Community Association rights-of-way, the applicant must submit evidence of the applicant’s regulatory status under California law to provide the services and construct the facility proposed in the application.

Applicants may provide a URL address or written instructions on where to find the regulatory status (e.g., CPCN or WIR) in publicly available resources.

If not applicable, check this box □

2.15 Underground Service Alert Membership. Provide evidence that the applicant is a member in good standing with the Underground Service Alert of Southern California (DigAlert). □ 2.16 Health and Safety Compliance. Provide a description of and documentation demonstrating that the proposed wireless communication facility will comply with generally-applicable health and safety standards of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, City regulations and standards, and state and federal laws and regulations as may be applicable.
□ 2.17 Radio Frequency Emissions Exposure Compliance Report. Provide a radio frequency (“RF”) emissions exposure compliance report prepared and certified by an engineer that certifies that the proposed facility, as well as any collocated facilities, will comply with applicable federal RF exposure standards and exposure limits. The RF compliance report must include:
the actual frequency and power levels (in watts effective radiated power, not effective isotropic radiated power) for all existing and proposed antennas at the site;

Include exhibits that show:
the location and orientation (degree azimuths) of all transmitting antennas; 287
65277.00023\41824594.2

THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS

WIRELESS FACILITY APPLICATION AND SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST

Page 8 of 12 ends

Version 11.27.23
the boundaries of areas with RF exposures in excess of the uncontrolled/general population limit (as that term is defined by the FCC);
the boundaries of areas with RF exposures in excess of the controlled/occupational limit (as that term is defined by the FCC); Note: Each such boundary must be clearly marked and identified for every transmitting antenna at the project site.
an affirmation that the proposed installation will be operated in compliance with 47 U.S.C. § 324.
□ 2.18 Structural Analysis. Provide a report prepared and certified by an engineer (or other qualified personnel acceptable to the City) that evaluates whether the underlying pole, support structure or base station has the structural integrity to support all the proposed equipment and attachments. At a minimum, the analysis must be consistent with all applicable requirements in the most current versions of the CPUC General Order 95 (including, but not limited to, load and pole overturning calculations), the National Electric Safety Code, the California Building Code and any safety and construction standards required by all state and local regulations.
□ 2.19 Hazard Assessment. A full assessment of the hazards posed by the proposed facility in the event of failure due to flood, high wind, high heat, outage, lightning strike or fire must be conducted that includes the presence of nearby vegetation and structures at applicant’s cost. All materials in the proposed facility must be disclosed, including hazardous materials in any and all equipment. The assessment must identify if any tree removal or tree trimming is required or necessary in order to reduce fire hazard.

2.20 CEQA Documentation. Provide an environmental impact assessment to determine whether the proposed project is categorically exempt under Article 19 of the CEQA Guidelines, or whether the proposed project will require a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report. If a request has been made to the CPUC for a CEQA determination for the proposed project (for example, under the CPUC’s 21-day expedited review process in Decision 21-04-006), provide a copy of that submittal and any CPUC staff determination.

2.21 NEPA/NHPA Documentation. Provide confirmation that an environmental assessment, or other application determination, has been completed by or on behalf of the FCC for any facility proposed in a location identified in 47 C.F.R. 1.307 (including a floodplain) or as otherwise required by National Environmental Policy Act or the National Historic Preservation Act.

2.22 Collocation Acceptance. Provide a letter to the City Manager stating the applicant's willingness to allow other carriers to co-locate on its facilities wherever feasible or a written explanation why the subject facility is not a candidate for co-location.

2.23 Coverage Map. Provide a narrative and map that discloses the exact location and nature of any and all existing facilities that are owned (including publicly owned structures), operated or used by the applicant and located within five miles from the geographic borders of the City.

288
65277.00023\41824594.2

THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS

WIRELESS FACILITY APPLICATION AND SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST

Page 9 of 12 ends

Version 11.27.23
Section 3 – Design and Location Information (not required for Eligible Facilities Requests)

3.1 Compliance with Design Standards. Describe how the application adheres to and is designed consistent with the Design Standards, as outlined in Section 17.27.040. All applicants shall, to the extent feasible, design a wireless communication facility to be a Stealth Facility. Include at least the following information:

3.1.2 Design Requirements. Does the proposed wireless communication facility comply with all design requirements in Section 17.27.040?
Yes
No
If the answer above is no, identify all items of non-compliance and identify the basis for making an exception request pursuant to Section 17.27.040(H) for each item listed. The information must include at a minimum:
a map identifying the search area used to identify the proposed location a minimum of two alternative designs
the information required to demonstrate the type of exception requested pursuant to Section 17.27.040(H) (e.g. effective prohibition claim, violation of applicable law claim, technical infeasibility claim, minor non-compliance claim)

3.2 Compliance with Location Standards & Alternative Site Analysis. Describe how the application adheres to and is designed consistent with the Location Standards, as outlined in Section

17.27.040. Provide an analysis supporting the applicant’s assertion that no alternative sites are available technically feasible to provide commercially adequate signal propagation in the target service area. The City may require independent verification of this analysis at the applicant's expense.

Section 4 – Supplemental Application Requirements for Eligible Facilities Requests Only:

4.1 Qualification as Eligible Facilities Request (EFR). Provide a detailed description of the proposed project and how it qualifies as an Eligible Facilities Request. The project description must address all of the following items as applicable to the proposed project:

For existing towers outside the private Rolling Hills Community Association rights-of-way:

The overall height of the existing tower will increase by _____________(must be less than 10% or the height of 1 additional antenna array with separation from the nearest existing antenna not to exceed 20 feet (whichever is greater)).

Any added appurtenance to the body of the existing tower will protrude from the edge of the tower by _____________(must be not exceed 20 feet or the width of the tower at the level of the appurtenance (whichever is greater)).

The number of equipment cabinets for the technology involved is ________ (must not exceed the standard number of new equipment cabinets for the technology involved or exceed 4 cabinets).

Excavation or deployment is within the current boundaries of the leased or owned property surrounding the existing tower or is outside the current boundaries by no more than 30 feet in any 289
65277.00023\41824594.2

THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS

WIRELESS FACILITY APPLICATION AND SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST

Page 10 of 12 ends

Version 11.27.23
direction. The site boundary from which the 30 feet is measured excludes any access or utility easements currently related to the site.

For existing towers in the private Rolling Hills Community Association rights-of-way and for all existing base stations:

The overall height will increase by ____________ (must not exceed 10% or 10 feet (whichever is greater)).

Any added appurtenance to the body of the base station will protrude from the edge of that structure by _______________ (must be less than 6 feet).

Any ground cabinets to be installed are _______________ in size (must not exceed 10% larger in height or overall volume than any other ground cabinets associated with the base station).

There will be _____ new equipment cabinets installed on the ground (if there is no preexisting ground cabinet associated with the base station, no new equipment cabinets may be installed on the ground). Provide cabinet dimensions on plans.

There is no excavation or deployment outside the current site.

For all EFR applications:

The modification does not defeat the preexisting concealment elements of the eligible support structure.

The proposed modification does not violate a prior condition of approval, provided however that it need not comply with any prior condition of approval related to height, width, equipment cabinets or excavation that is inconsistent with the permitted thresholds for a non-substantial change described above.

NOTE: The thresholds for height increases are cumulative limits. □ 4.2 Prior Regulatory Authorizations and Approvals. Provide true and correct copies of all permits and/or other regulatory approvals issued by the City (or other local public agency with jurisdiction over the subject wireless tower or base station) in connection with the initial construction or installation and any subsequent collocations, modifications or permit renewals of the subject wireless tower or base station.

Alternatively, the applicant may submit a written justification that sets forth reasons why prior permits or other regulatory approvals were not required for the wireless tower or base station at the time it was constructed or modified.

Section 5 – Requests for Limited Exceptions for Personal Wireless Service Facilities Pursuant to Section 17.27.040(H):
□ 5.1 The applicable review authority may grant waivers of the design and location standards for wireless communications facilities subject to Section 17.27.040, if it is determined that the applicant has established that denial of an application or strict adherence to the location and design standards would:
a. Prohibit or effectively prohibit the provision of personal wireless services, within the meaning of federal law; or
b. Otherwise violate applicable laws or regulations; or 290
65277.00023\41824594.2

THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS

WIRELESS FACILITY APPLICATION AND SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST

Page 11 of 12 ends

Version 11.27.23
c. Require a technically infeasible location, design or installation of a wireless facility.

5.2. If that determination is made, said requirements may be waived, but only to the minimum extent required to avoid the prohibition, violation, or technically infeasible location, design or installation. □ 5.3 Exceptions must be requested at the time an application is initially submitted for a permit.

The request must include both the specific provision(s) from which exception is sought and the basis of the request, including all supporting evidence on which the applicant relies. A request for exception from one or more requirements does not relieve the applicant from compliance with all other applicable requirements.

Section 6 – Applicant Certification
By signing and submitting this application, the applicant agrees to the following:

1. At its sole expense, to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its public officials, officers, employees, and assigns, from any liability; and shall reimburse the City for any expense incurred, resulting from, or in connection with any project approvals. This includes any appeal, claim, suit, or other legal proceeding, to attack, set aside, void, or annul any project approval. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any legal proceeding, and shall cooperate fully in the defense. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate in any such legal action, but participation shall not relieve the applicant of any obligation under this condition. Should any party bring any legal action in connection with this project, the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, California, shall be the situs and have jurisdiction for the resolution of all such actions by the parties hereto.

2. That all materials submitted as part of this application package are considered to be public information, may be posted on the internet, distributed to the necessary Committees, Commissions and Board of Commissioners as part of the approval process, and reviewed by the public.

3. To comply with all City regulations and State laws relating to building construction for any and all aspects of the project proposed in this application and authorizes representatives of the City and Advisory Agencies to enter the above mentioned property at reasonable times for inspection purposes related to the project for which this application is submitted.

4. The City’s review relies on the written and/or oral statements by applicant and/or persons authorized to act on applicant’s behalf. In any matter before the City in connection with the application, neither the applicant nor any person authorized to act on applicant’s behalf shall, in any written or oral statement, intentionally provide material factual information that is incorrect or misleading or intentionally omit any material information necessary to prevent any material factual statement from being incorrect or misleading.

291
65277.00023\41824594.2

THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS

WIRELESS FACILITY APPLICATION AND SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST

Page 12 of 12 ends

Version 11.27.23
I declare under penalty of perjury that I am the owner or authorized agent for this property and that the foregoing statements and answers and all data information, documents and evidence herewith submitted are to the best of my knowledge and belief, true and correct. ________________________________________________
Applicant’s Signature/Authorized Representative’s Signature ___________________________
Printed Name
___________________________
Date
Printed Name: __________________________________________________ Title: __________________________________________________________ Signature: ______________________________________________________ Phone Number: _________________________________________________ Date: ______________________
The City of Rolling Hills reserves the right to rescind any approval made under Section 6409(a) or the Spectrum Act should any portion of Section 6409(a) or the Spectrum Act, or the FCC’s interpretation thereof, be deemed unconstitutional by a court of law”
292
Agenda Item No.: 12.A
Mtg. Date: 12/14/2023
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK / EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO

CITY MANAGER
THRU: KARINA BAÑALES
SUBJECT: RECEIVE AND FILE AN UPDATE FROM SITELOGIQ REGARDING THE

BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE AND SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC

PROJECT FOR THE CITY HALL CAMPUS BACK-UP POWER /

RESILIENCY AND TIMELINE TOWARDS A PUBLIC HEARING
DATE: December 14, 2023
BACKGROUND:

A diesel back-up power generator served the City Hall campus for many years, but the unit became inoperable in 2019. In late 2020, the City Council commissioned professional expertise to offer options for providing reliable back-up power to the City Hall campus, including the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA) building and operations.

Between October 2020 and March 2023, the City Council reviewed options provided by a professional architectural and engineering team working on the City Hall ADA project. In 2021, the architectural and engineering team provided a solar panel and battery back-up solution with estimated installation costs, based on the following requirements, to be approximately $250,000:

Current City Hall campus demand based on electric bills for 2020/2021 Supply 24 hours of backup power
16 kWh battery backup
75 kW Solar Photovoltaic system
The City Council subsequently assigned further exploration to the RHCA. After some time, the RHCA requested city staff take back ownership of a project, whereupon City staff brought it to the City Council. On March 27, 2023, the City Council directed staff to explore the solar/battery back-up power option. With this direction, city staff could approach the project conventionally by preparing an engineering design and advertising for construction bids or considering other alternatives as presented to the former City Manager.

On April 24, 2023, at the invitation of the former City Manager, SitelogIQ, an energy solutions 293
company, presented an alternate approach to delivering the solar/battery backup power solution to the City Council. SitelogIQ is a licensed General Contractor delivering energy infrastructure programs for State and local governments. SitelogIQ discussed available funds from the Federal government, including the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) that could offset local government expenditures on energy projects. Such projects involve the installation or modification of improvements to an energy-efficient or renewable energy system.

Via the IRA, the Federal government allows the city to obtain a federal tax credit in the form of a direct payment (i.e., rebate) for energy storage (battery), electrical infrastructure, solar, and microgrid controllers. The rebate could be as high as 30% of the project cost, provided the project is completed within a specific timeframe.

In the previous four years, City staff had many successes securing grant funds or other fund sources to offset the use of the General Fund for city projects. To move forward and execute a backup power project, the City Council was presented with two options: 1) to set aside a projected budget surplus or 2) use savings from the General Fund Reserves. In the SitelogIQ approach, the City could potentially save on design engineering costs by solely sourcing the project to SitelogIQ, thereby offsetting General Fund expenditures with SitelogIQ assisting the City in utilizing the Federal government's IRA rebate.

In May 2023, SitelogIQ provided City staff with a Letter of Agreement (LOA) for consideration.

The LOA outlined SitelogIQ's scope of services to develop an energy project that satisfies the city's requirements for a design/engineering cost of $28,500. If the city ultimately chooses to enter into a contract with SitelogIQ for project implementation within 60 days after receiving a formal presentation of the proposed project, SitelogIQ's design and engineering fee would be waived. Beyond the aforementioned 60 days, the fee paid would be credited toward the project's total implementation cost.

Per SitelogIQ, the California Government Code 4217.10 provides the ability for public agencies to sole source the project delivery to SitelogIQ as long as the requirements of the code section are met.

Given the past year's staff vacancies, the lack of technical expertise on energy projects, the current workload to deliver the CalOES/FEMA Hazard Mitigation Program grants, and the possibility to offset General Fund expenditures for the backup power project, staff recommended at the June 12, 2023 City Council meeting, the City Council accepted staff's recommendation and directed staff to engage the services of SitelogIQ.

On June 26, 2023, the City Council approved a Professional Services Agreement with SitelogIQ.

DISCUSSION:

On April 24, 2023, City staff and SitelogIQ provided a preliminary presentation to the Council on the battery energy storage and solar photovoltaic project. The Council approved SitelogiQ to work with staff under a Professional Services Agreement towards the development of a comprehensive project.

Over the summer and fall of 2023, SitelogIQ conducted an initial site walk to determine the scope and scale of the program. Their work has included the following:
294
Compiled utility tariff and reviewed historical utility usage/bill analysis for the City Hall campus / tennis courts;
Modeled future use and operation of a distributed energy resource composed of solar photovoltaic and battery energy storage and performance using industry-leading software platform, Energy Toolbase;
Evaluated/selected products and equipment. The electrical load and service voltage limited SitelogIQ to four primary products/manufacturers. These were benchmarked against each other, with the selected product meeting the following criteria: cost, efficiency, and application;
Hosted contractors on-site to walk through the scope and existing conditions. Validated equipment, material quotes, and labor bids;
Developed cashflow and identified funding pathways;
Met with City staff to review preliminary project scope; Conducted internal review to identify risks and challenges; Reviewed the application process for the IRA and calculated the “elective pay” tax incentive based on total eligible costs
SitelogIQ's project team has developed a comprehensive scope of work around resiliency that provides a turn-key design-build solution to the City. They compiled a 20-year program cash flow incorporating ongoing maintenance and operations that was reviewed by the former Interim City Manager and current City Manager / staff.

Attached are an updated presentation and proformas. Included are a utility summary and two program financial options:

Option 1 – Cash deal for the entire scope of work
Option 2 (No EV) – Cash deal for a scope of work without EV Charging SiteLogIQ is also exploring a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) for the entire project. If that exploration provides a positive option for consideration, SiteLogIQ will provide those numbers to the Council at a future Public Hearing.

If the City Council chooses to continue moving forward, staff will bring this item to the Planning Commission on December 19, 2023 and at a Rolling Hills Community Association Board meeting in late December or January.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The total fiscal impact of the project would be $685,000. At the June 12, 2023 City Council meeting, the FY 2023-2024 budget was approved, including an allocation of $250,000 to the City Hall campus back-up power project. SiteLogIQ's proforma assumes rebates of up to $213,836. This would leave the unfunded portion of the potential project at $221,164.

RECOMMENDATION:

Receive and file, provide direction to staff and SiteLogIQ to bring the project presentation to the Planning Commission and RHCA Board before returning for a formal Public Hearing with the City Council.

ATTACHMENTS:

CL_AGN_231214_CC_SiteLogiQ_SolarBattery_Presentation.pdf 295
CL_AGN_231214_CC_SiteLogiQ_SolarBattery_ProgramProForma.pdf 296
City of Rolling Hills
Renewable & Reliency
February 28, 2023
City of Rolling Hills
Resiliency & Energy Interdependency
297
Proprietary and Confidential

PROGRAM OBJECTIVES

SCOPE OF WORK

UTILITY SUMMARY
PROGRAM FINANCIALS – OPTION 1
PROGRAM FINANCIALS – OPTION 2 (NO EV)

PATHWAY TO IMPLEMENTATION
2982
Proprietary and Confidential

PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
3  Safety: Back-up power, battery energy storage
 Resiliency: Withstand & rapidly recover from power outages  Invest: Renewable Power
 Budget: Reduce SCE utility cost
 Future: EV Charging Network
 Community Awareness: Complement on-going initiatives
 Public Leadership: Ribbon cutting ceremony & awards
299
Proprietary and Confidential

SCOPE OF WORK
4 City Campus
• Solar Photovoltaic
• Roof top Solar – 27kW
• Battery Energy Storage
• Microgrid Controller
• Electric Vehicle Charging
• (1) Dual Port Level 2
300
Proprietary and Confidential

UTILITY SUMMARY
0 5
10 15
20 25
Category 1
Utility Cost ($ x 1,000)
Current Proposed
5 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
Category 1
Utility Usage (kWh x 1,000)
Current Proposed
 Proposed is equal to today’s SCE rates
301
Proprietary and Confidential
PROGRAM FINANCIALS – OPTION 1
6 Project Implementation Value $682,120
Year 1 SCE Utility Cost Savings $13,081
30-year Overall Electricity Cost Avoidance $869,097
Potential 10-year EV Charging Revenue $37,734
EV Utility Incentive $9,200
IRA – Investment Tax Credit (Direct Pay) $204,636
30-year Program Savings $1,142,066
Simple Payback 15.5 Years
302
Proprietary and Confidential
PROGRAM FINANCIALS – OPTION 2 (NO EV)
7 Project Implementation Value $607,120
Year 1 SCE Utility Cost Savings $13,081
30-year Overall Electricity Cost Avoidance $869,097
IRA – Investment Tax Credit (Direct Pay) $182,136
30-year Program Savings $911,042
Simple Payback 13.5 Years
303
Proprietary and Confidential
Planning Commission &
RHCA Review
City Council Meeting
Public Hearing
Contract Execution/
Notice to Proceed
Groundbreaking
Ceremony

ROADMAP TO IMPLEMENTATION
8 November –
December 2023
12/13/23 01/12/24 March 2024
304
Thank You
Josh Steeber
Local Government Relations Executive
M 949.432.0689
E [email protected]
Jonathan Brown
Senior Director
M 626.676.8601
E [email protected]
305
Proprietary & Confidential
$682,120
$204,636
$9,200 Solar PV Rooftop
$213,836 Energy Storage
EV Charger System
Utility Escalation: 5.00%
2 3 4 5
Year
Utility Cost
Avoidance
Facility
Replacement
Cost Savings
Incentives,
Grants
& Rebates
EV Charging
Revenue
Maintenance
Services
Energy
Management
Services
Program
Savings
Cumulative
Savings
1 $13,081 $204,636 $3,000 ($2,250) ↓ optional ↓ $218,467 - 2 $13,735 $9,200 $3,150 ($2,340) $23,745 $242,212
3 $14,422 $3,308 ($2,434) $15,296 $257,509
4 $15,143 $3,473 ($2,531) $16,085 $273,594
5 $15,900 $3,647 ($2,632) $16,915 $290,509
6 $16,695 $3,829 ($6,237) $14,287 $304,796
7 $17,530 $4,020 ($2,847) $18,703 $323,499
8 $18,407 $4,221 ($2,961) $19,667 $343,165
9 $19,327 $4,432 ($3,079) $20,680 $363,845
10 $20,293 $4,654 ($3,202) $21,745 $385,590
11 $21,308 $4,887 ($3,331) $22,864 $408,454
12 $22,373 $5,131 ($6,964) $20,540 $428,994
13 $23,492 $5,388 ($3,602) $25,278 $454,272
14 $24,666 $5,657 ($3,746) $26,577 $480,849
15 $25,900 $5,940 ($3,896) $27,944 $508,793
16 $27,195 $6,237 ($4,052) $29,380 $538,172
17 $28,555 $6,549 ($4,214) $30,889 $569,062
18 $29,982 $6,876 ($4,383) $32,475 $601,537
19 $31,481 $7,220 ($8,058) $30,643 $632,180
20 $33,055 $7,581 ($4,740) $35,896 $668,076
21 $34,708 $7,960 ($4,930) $37,738 $705,815
22 $36,444 $8,358 ($5,127) $39,674 $745,489
23 $38,266 $8,776 ($5,332) $41,709 $787,199
24 $40,179 $9,215 ($5,546) $43,848 $831,047
25 $42,188 $9,676 ($9,267) $42,597 $873,644
26 $44,297 $10,160 ($5,998) $48,459 $922,103
27 $46,512 $10,668 ($6,238) $50,942 $973,045
28 $48,838 $11,201 ($6,488) $53,551 $1,026,597
29 $51,280 $11,761 ($6,747) $56,294 $1,082,890
30 $53,844 $12,349 ($7,017) $59,176 $1,142,066
Totals $869,097 - $213,836 $199,324 ($140,191) - $1,142,066 - Notes By Column:
(1) Fiscal year after project completion with an anticipated NTP in December 2023. (2) Utility Cost Avoidance - Utility cost escalated at 5% per year. (3) Facility Replacement Cost Savings. [PLACEHOLDER]
(4) Incentives, Grants & Rebates: EV Charging Grants and SGIP (Self-Generation Incentive Program). (5) Revenue from EV Charging. Utility Cost to Revenue Charge difference of $0.12 per kWh. (6) Operation and Maintenance cost to maintain the Solar-PV systems. (7) Energy Management (MySiteIQ). [Optional]
(8) Total Program Savings; sum of Columns (2) through (7). (9) Cumulative Savings.
--D R A F T--
Financial Proforma
Renewable Energy Resiliency Program
November 13, 2023
Program Implementation Cost: Program Scope of Work:
1 8 9
Inflation Reduction Act Rebate (Year 1):

Utility Incentive (Year 2):

Program Savings & Contributions
6 7
Includes turn-key design, engineering, permitting,
procurement, project/construction management, safety,
and utility and site coordination, etc.:

Additional Funding Sources
306
Proprietary & Confidential
$607,120
$182,136
- Solar PV Rooftop
$182,136 Energy Storage
EV Charger System
Utility Escalation: 5.00%
2 3 4 5
Year
Utility Cost
Avoidance
Facility
Replacement
Cost Savings
Incentives,
Grants
& Rebates
EV Charging
Revenue
Maintenance
Services
Energy
Management
Services
Lease
Payment
Program
Savings
Cumulative
Savings
1 $13,081 $182,136 ($2,250) ↓ optional ↓ $192,967 -
2 $13,735 ($2,340) $11,395 $204,362
3 $14,422 ($2,434) $11,988 $216,351
4 $15,143 ($2,531) $12,612 $228,963
5 $15,900 ($2,632) $13,268 $242,231
6 $16,695 ($6,237) $10,458 $252,689
7 $17,530 ($2,847) $14,683 $267,372
8 $18,407 ($2,961) $15,446 $282,817
9 $19,327 ($3,079) $16,248 $299,065
10 $20,293 ($3,202) $17,091 $316,156
11 $21,308 ($3,331) $17,977 $334,133
12 $22,373 ($6,964) $15,409 $349,542
13 $23,492 ($3,602) $19,890 $369,432
14 $24,666 ($3,746) $20,920 $390,352
15 $25,900 ($3,896) $22,004 $412,356
16 $27,195 ($4,052) $23,143 $435,498
17 $28,555 ($4,214) $24,340 $459,839
18 $29,982 ($4,383) $25,599 $485,438
19 $31,481 ($8,058) $23,423 $508,861
20 $33,055 ($4,740) $28,315 $537,176
21 $34,708 ($4,930) $29,778 $566,955
22 $36,444 ($5,127) $31,316 $598,271
23 $38,266 ($5,332) $32,933 $631,205
24 $40,179 ($5,546) $34,633 $665,838
25 $42,188 ($9,267) $32,921 $698,759
26 $44,297 ($5,998) $38,299 $737,058
27 $46,512 ($6,238) $40,274 $777,332
28 $48,838 ($6,488) $42,350 $819,683
29 $51,280 ($6,747) $44,533 $864,215
30 $53,844 ($7,017) $46,827 $911,042
Totals $869,097 - $182,136 $0 ($140,191) - $0 $911,042 - Notes By Column:
(1) Fiscal year after project completion with an anticipated NTP in December 2023. (2) Utility Cost Avoidance - Utility cost escalated at 5% per year. (3) Facility Replacement Cost Savings. [PLACEHOLDER]
(4) Incentives, Grants & Rebates: EV Charging Grants and SGIP (Self-Generation Incentive Program). (5) Revenue from EV Charging. Utility Cost to Revenue Charge difference of $0.12 per kWh. (6) Operation and Maintenance cost to maintain the Solar-PV systems. (7) Energy Management (MySiteIQ). [Optional]
(8) Total Program Savings; sum of Columns (2) through (7). (9) Cumulative Savings.
8 9 10
Utility Incentive (Year 2):
1 Program Savings & Contributions
6 7
--D R A F T--
Financial Proforma
Renewable Energy Resiliency Program
November 13, 2023
Program Implementation Cost: Program Scope of Work:

Includes turn-key design, engineering, permitting, procurement, project/construction management, safety,
and utility and site coordination, etc.:

Additional Funding Sources
Inflation Reduction Act Rebate (Year 1):
307

Rolling Hills City CouncilDecember 14, 2023

Rolling Hills City Council
December 14, 2023