Loading...
CL_AGN_231121_PC_AgendaPacket_F1.CALL TO ORDER 2.ROLL CALL 3.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4.APPROVE ORDER OF THE AGENDA This is the appropriate time for the Chair or Commissioners to approve the agenda as is or reorder. 5.BLUE FOLDER ITEMS (SUPPLEMENTAL) Blue folder items are additional back up material to administrative reports and/or public comments received after the printing and distribution of the agenda packet for receive and file. 6.PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS This section is intended to provide members of the public with the opportunity to comment on any subject that does not appear on this agenda for action. Each speaker will be permitted to speak only once. Written requests, if any, will be considered first under this section. 7.CONSENT CALENDAR Business items, except those formally noticed for public hearing, or those pulled for discussion are assigned to the Consent Calendar. The Chair or any Commissioner may request that any Consent Calendar item(s) be removed, discussed, and acted upon separately. Items removed from the Consent Calendar will be taken up under the "Excluded Consent Calendar" section below. Those items remaining on the Consent Calendar will be approved in one motion. The Chair will call on anyone wishing to address the Commission on any Consent Calendar item on the agenda, which has not been pulled by Commission for discussion. 7.A.APPROVE AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 21, 2023 RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. 7.B.APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR THE OCTOBER 17, 2023, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. 8.EXCLUDED CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 AGENDA Regular Planning Commission Meeting PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, November 21, 2023 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 6:30 PM CL_AGN_231121_PC_AffidavitofPosting.pdf CL_MIN_231017_PC_F.pdf 1 9.PUBLIC HEARINGS ON ITEMS CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS MEETING 9.A.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 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). 10.NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 10.A.ZONING CASE NO. 23-105: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A PORTION OF A RESIDENTIAL ADDITION TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7 PINE TREE LANE (LOT 86-RH) (MIRATOBI), AND FINDING THE ACTION EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT RECOMMENDATION: Open the public hearing, receive public testimony, discuss the project, close the public hearing, and provide direction to staff. 11.OLD BUSINESS ATTACHMENT1_2023-10_PCResolution_WCF_Ordinance_112123_D2.pdf ATTACHMENT2_384_WirelessOrdinance_Updated PC DRAFT 11-14-2023 REDLINE- c1.pdf ATTACHMENT3_PL_WCF_OrdAmend2023_231002_Email_CrownCastle.pdf ATTACHMENT4_PL_WCF_OrdAmend2023_231010_CrownCastlePresentation_2SlidesPerPage.pdf 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_OrdAmend2023_230815_PCStaffReportONLY.pdf ATTACHMENT9_PL_WCF_OrdAmend2023_230912_PCStaffReportONLY.pdf ATTACHMENT10_PL_WCF_OrdAmend2023_231017_PCStaffReportONLY.pdf ATTACHMENT11_PL_ADR_231017_WCF_Presentation_BBK_Givens_Rolling Hills PC Mtg Wireless Ordinance Presentation 10-17-23-c1_2pages.pdf ATTACHMENT 1_PL_ADR_231116_1: Vicinity Map ATTACHMENT2_PL_ADR_231116: Development Table ATTACHMENT3_PL_ADR_231116: Photos ATTACHMENT4_PL_ADR_231116: Resolution No. 2023-14 ATTACHMENT5:_PL_ADR_231116 Development Plans 2 12.NEW BUSINESS 13.SCHEDULE FIELD TRIPS 14.ITEMS FROM STAFF 15.ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION 16.ADJOURNMENT Next meeting: Tuesday, December 19, 2023 at 6:30 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, Rolling Hills City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California, 90274. Notice: In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting due to your disability, please contact the City Clerk at (310) 377-1521 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility and accommodation for your review of this agenda and attendance at this meeting. Documents pertaining to an agenda item received after the posting of the agenda are available for review in the City Clerk's office or at the meeting at which the item will be considered. All of the above resolutions and zoning case items have been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines unless otherwise stated. 3 Agenda Item No.: 7.A Mtg. Date: 11/21/2023 TO:HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM:CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK / EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO CITY MANAGER THRU:DAVID H. READY SUBJECT:APPROVE AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 21, 2023 DATE:November 21, 2023 BACKGROUND: None. DISCUSSION: None. FISCAL IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. ATTACHMENTS: CL_AGN_231121_PC_AffidavitofPosting.pdf 4 Administrative Report 7.A., File # 2096 Meeting Date: 11/21 /202 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING In compliance with the Brown Act, the following materials have been posted at the locations below. Legislative Body Planning Commission Posting Type Regular Meeting Agenda Posting Location 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA 90274 City Hall Window City Website: https://www.rolling-hills.org/government/agenda/index.php https://www.rolling-hills.org/government/city_council/city_council_archive_agendas/index.php Meeting Date & Time NOVEMBER 21, 2023 6:30pm As City Clerk of the City of Rolling Hills, I declare under penalty of perjury, the document noted above was posted at the date displayed below. Christian Horvath, City Clerk Date: November 17, 2023 5 Agenda Item No.: 7.B Mtg. Date: 11/21/2023 TO:HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM:CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK / EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO CITY MANAGER THRU:DAVID H. READY SUBJECT:APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR THE OCTOBER 17 , 2023, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE:November 21, 2023 BACKGROUND: None. DISCUSSION: None. FISCAL IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. ATTACHMENTS: CL_MIN_231017_PC_F.pdf 6 MINUTES – PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, October 17, 202 3 Page 1 Minutes Rolling Hills Planning Commission Tuesday, October 17, 2023 Regular Meeting 6:30 p.m. 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER The Planning Commission of the City of Rolling Hills met in person on the above date at 6:30 p.m. Chair Chelf presiding. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Cooley, Douglass, Vice Chair Kirkpatrick, Chair Chelf Commissioners Absent: Cardenas Staff Present: John Signo, Planning & Community Services Director Christian Horvath, City Clerk / Executive Assistant to the City Manager Scott Shapses, Assistant City Attorney 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Director Signo led the Pledge of Allegiance. 4. APPROVE ORDER OF THE AGENDA Motion by Chair Chelf, seconded by Commissioner Cooley, to approve the order of the agenda. Motion carried unanimously with the following vote: AYES: Cooley, Douglass, Kirkpatrick, Chair Chelf NOES: None ABSENT: Cardenas 5. BLUE FOLDER ITEMS (SUPPLEMENTAL) – NONE 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS – NONE 7. CONSENT CALENDAR 7.A. APPROVE AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 17, 2023 7.B. APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR THE SEPTEMBER 12, 2023, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS 7.C. ZONING CASE NO. 23-003, MODIFICATION NO. 1: MINOR MODIFICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION APPROVING A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR NON-EXEMPT GRADING AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO MODIFY ONE 960-SQUARE-FOOT STABLE WITH 480- SQUARE-FOOT COVERED PORCH TO TWO 384-SQUARE-FOOT STABLES (EACH) WITH NO COVERED PORCHES LOCATED AT 74 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD, (LOT 37-FT) (WILSON), 7 MINUTES – PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, October 17, 202 3 Page 2 AND FINDING THE PROJECT CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT Motion by Vice Chair Kirkpatrick, seconded by Commissioner Cooley, to approve the consent calendar. Motion carried unanimously with the following vote: AYES: Cooley, Douglass, Kirkpatrick, Chair Chelf NOES: None ABSENT: Cardenas 8. EXCLUDED CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS – NONE 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS ON ITEMS CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS 9.A. ZONING CASE NO. 23-049: SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 1,957-SQUARE-FOOT ADDITION TO AN EXISTING RESIDENCE, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ADD 244 SQUARE FEET TO AN EXISTING POOL HOUSE, LOCATED AT 19 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD (LOT 80-RH) (HTJGDB/SIU) Presentation by Planning & Community Services Director John Signo, Motion by Commissioner Cooley, seconded by Commissioner Douglass, to Adopt Resolution No. 2023-13 approving Zoning Case No. 23-049 for a Site Plan Review for a 1,957-square-foot addition to an existing residence, conditional use permit to add 244 square feet to an existing pool house, and finding the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act for a property located at 19 Portuguese Bend Road (LOT 80-RH) (HTJGDB/SIU). Act. Motion carried unanimously with the following vote: AYES: Cooley, Douglass, Chair Chelf NOES: None ABSTAIN: Kirkpatrick ABSENT: Cardenas 9.B. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO WIRELESS FACILITIES; AND FINDING T HE ACTION EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT Presentation by Planning & Community Services Director John Signo, Bennett Givens, Telecommunication Attorney, BB&K Public Comment: Fred Lorig, Ty Bobit, Jim Aichele Motion by Vice Chair Kirkpatrick, seconded by Commissioner Douglass, to continue the item to the November 21, 2023 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried unanimously with the following vote: AYES: Cooley, Douglass, Kirkpatrick, Chair Chelf NOES: None ABSENT: Cardenas 10. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS – NONE 11. OLD BUSINESS – NONE 8 MINUTES – PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, October 17, 202 3 Page 3 12. NEW BUSINESS – NONE 13. SCHEDULED FIELD TRIPS – NONE 14. ITEMS FROM STAFF Planning & Community Services Director Signo reminded the Commission and public about expiring Commission terms and the process for those interested in serving. 15. ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION – NONE 16. ADJOURNMENT : 8:06 P.M. The meeting was adjourned at 8:06 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday, November 21, 2023, beginning at 6:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at City Hall. Respectfully submitted, ____________________________________ Christian Horvath, City Clerk Approved, ____________________________________ Brad Chelf, Chair 9 Agenda Item No.: 9.A Mtg. Date: 11/21/2023 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:November 21, 2023 BACKGROUND: This item was continued by the Planning Commission on August 15, 2023, September 12, 2023, and October 17, 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 discussed the issues and reached out to Crown Castle and the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA) about existing coverage. The proposed Ordinance has been further amended. At the October 17th meeting, the Planning Commission discussed the Ordinance further and advised staff to continue working with RHCA. On October 26th, staff and the City Attorney's office met with RHCA and its attorney. The Ordinance has been amended based on discussions. 10 DISCUSSION: Revised Ordinance Following the October 17th Planning Commission meeting, further revisions to the Ordinance were made: 1. Permit Requirements a. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is now required for Type 4 facilities only. Type 4 facilities are new towers or any other facility that does not fall under the other types. b. Zone Clearance is required for Types 1, 2, 3, and 5 facilities. These facilities are subject to Chapter 17.44 (Zone Clearance) and Section 17.27.040 (Wireless Communication Antennas and Facilities). 2. Subsection E has been amended to include additional location standards addressing further direction by the Planning Commission. The subsection has also been updated to allow the Planning Commission to adopt supplemental design, location, and development standards by resolution from time to time. 3. Preference added for new facilities to utilize existing or replacement poles, structures or street signs to avoid proliferation wherever possible. 4. Facilities cannot obstruct views as defined in Section 17.26.020 (View Preservation). 5. Preference added for new facilities to be located on shared property lines between parcels to the extent 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. 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 30 Crown Castle facilities in the City with several others just outside the City's borders. 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 11 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; 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_112123_D2.pdf ATTACHMENT2_384_WirelessOrdinance_Updated PC DRAFT 11-14-2023 REDLINE-c1.pdf ATTACHMENT3_PL_WCF_OrdAmend2023_231002_Email_CrownCastle.pdf ATTACHMENT4_PL_WCF_OrdAmend2023_231010_CrownCastlePresentation_2SlidesPerPage.pdf 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_OrdAmend2023_230815_PCStaffReportONLY.pdf ATTACHMENT9_PL_WCF_OrdAmend2023_230912_PCStaffReportONLY.pdf ATTACHMENT10_PL_WCF_OrdAmend2023_231017_PCStaffReportONLY.pdf ATTACHMENT11_PL_ADR_231017_WCF_Presentation_BBK_Givens_Rolling Hills PC Mtg Wireless Ordinance Presentation 10-17-23-c1_2pages.pdf 12 65277.00023\41539302.1 RESOLUTION NO. 2023-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES AND FINDING THE ACTION TO BE EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT WHEREAS, the City of Rolling Hills, California (“City”) is a municipal corporation, duly organized under the California Constitution and laws of the State of California; and WHEREAS, the City’s zoning regulations are contained in Title 17 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (“RHMC”). Among other things, Title 17 includes regulations governing wireless communication facilities (“WCF”); and WHEREAS, the City last updated the RHMC’s WCF regulations in 2004. Since then, changes in federal and state law have placed significant procedural and substantive limits on the City’s exercise of local control over matters involving WCFs; and WHEREAS, the ordinance (“Ordinance”) attached as Exhibit “A” will amend the RHMC’s RCF regulations to comply with changes in state and federal law governing the same; and WHEREAS, on August 15, 2023 September 12, 2023, and October 17, 2023, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing and considered the staff report, recommendations by staff, and public testimony concerning this Ordinance. Thereafter, the Planning Commission: (i) provided direction to staff regarding amendments to the Ordinance; and (ii) continued the public hearing to its November 21, 2023 meeting. Staff subsequently revised the Ordinance in accordance with the Planning Commission’s instructions. The Planning Commission held a continued public hearing at its November 21, 2023 meeting. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rolling Hills does hereby resolve, determine, find, and order as follows: Section 1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein as substantive findings of this Resolution. Section 2. CEQA. The Planning Commission finds that this 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” 13 65277.00023\41539302.1 Page 2 of 4 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). Section 3. General Plan. This Ordinance’s amendments to RHMC Title 17 are consistent with, and in further of, the City’s adopted General Plan. Specifically, General Plan Safety Element Policy 5.10: Support the development and further implementation of a peninsula-wide disaster plan; and 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; and Policy 5.16: Increase access to essential resources and facilitate effective communication in the community to accelerate recovery following such a disaster; and Land Use Goal 2: Accommodate development which is compatible with and complements existing land uses. This Ordinance furthers these goals, policies, and actions by updating the City's regulations to achieve consistency with federal and state law and making certain refinements to ensure that Title 17 is consistent and clear and provides for streamlined approval processes for wireless communication facilities. Therefore, the Ordinance is consistent with the General Plan. Section 4. Recommendation. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve and adopt the Ordinance attached as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by reference. Section 5. Certification. The Planning Commission Chair shall sign and the Secretary shall attest to the adoption of this Resolution. Section 6. Effective Date. This Resolution takes effect immediately upon its adoption. 14 65277.00023\41539302.1 Page 3 of 4 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 21st DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023. BRAD CHELF, CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: ____________________________________ CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 17.54.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code and Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. 15 65277.00023\41539302.1 Page 4 of 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2023-10 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES AND FINDING THE ACTION TO BE EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on November 21, 2023, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. __________________________________ CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK 16 65277.00023\41809994.2 -1- ORDINANCE NO. 384 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 WHEREAS, California Government Code, section 65800 et seq., authorizes the City of Rolling Hills (“City”) to adopt and administer zoning laws, ordinances, rules and regulations as a means of implementing the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City’s zoning regulations are contained in Title 17 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (“RHMC”). Among other things, Title 17 includes regulations governing wireless communication facilities (“WCF”); and WHEREAS, Title 17’s WCF regulations were most recently amended in 2004. Since then, changes in federal and state law—including various court decisions and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) orders and regulations—have placed significant procedural and substantive limits on the City’s exercise of local control over matters involving WCFs. This ordinance (“Ordinance”) amends Title 17 to comply with these changes in the law; and WHEREAS, California Government Code sections 65854 and 65856(a) require the Planning Commission and the City Council, respectively, to conduct public hearings on proposed amendments to Title 17 (i.e., zoning code amendments). The Planning Commission’s action serves as a recommendation to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on August 4, 2023, the City gave public notice of a Planning Commission public hearing to consider this Ordinance by advertisement in a newspaper of general circulation; and WHEREAS, on August 15, 2023 and September 12, 2023 and October 17, 2023, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing and considered the staff report, recommendations by staff, and public testimony concerning this Ordinance. Thereafter, the Planning Commission: (i) provided direction to staff regarding the amendments to the Ordinance; and (ii) continued the public hearing to its November 21, 2023. Staff subsequently revised the Ordinance in accordance with the Planning Commission’s direction. The Planning Commission held a continued public hearing at its November 21, 2023 meeting and thereafter, recommended that the City Council adopt the Ordinance; and WHEREAS, on [DATE], the City gave public notice of a City Council public hearing to be held to consider this Ordinance by advertisement in a newspaper of general circulation; and EXHIBIT “A” 17 65277.00023\41809994.2 -2- WHEREAS, on [DATE], the City Council considered the staff report, recommendations by staff, and public testimony regarding this Ordinance. WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of the Ordinance have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Recitals. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the Recitals above are true and correct and are incorporated herein. SECTION 2. California Environmental Quality Act. The City Council finds that this 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). SECTION 3. General Plan. The City Council hereby finds that this Ordinance’s amendments to RHMC Title 17 are consistent with, and in further of, the City’s adopted General Plan. Specifically, General Plan Safety Element Policy 5.10: Support the development and further implementation of a peninsula-wide disaster plan; and 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; and Policy 5.16: Increase access to essential resources and facilitate effective communication in the community to accelerate recovery following such a disaster; and Land Use Goal 2: Accommodate development which is compatible with and complements existing land 18 65277.00023\41809994.2 -3- uses. This Ordinance furthers these goals, policies, and actions by updating the City's regulations to achieve consistency with federal and state law and making certain refinements to ensure that Title 17 is consistent and clear and provides for streamlined approval processes for wireless communication facilities. Therefore, the Ordinance is consistent with the General Plan. SECTION 4. Code Amendment. Section 17.27.040 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code is amended to read in its entirety as follows: “17.27.040 Wireless communication antennas and facilities. A. General. This Section establishes standards and procedures for the development and operation of wireless communications facilities, including, but not limited to, personal wireless services facilities, non-exempt satellite antennas, and single pole/tower amateur radio antennas. The requirements of this Section apply to all wireless communication facilities on public and private property and within the right of way that transmit and/or receive electromagnetic signals, including, but not limited to, personal wireless services, satellite, and radio and television broadcast facilities. 1. Application Types. a. Type 1 – Collocation of a small wireless facility on an existing structure. Type 1 applications shall be limited to applications wherein an applicant seeks to place a new small wireless facility upon an existing structure and either (i) the structure is not an existing tower or base station (as defined for Eligible facilities request purposes) or (ii) the structure is an existing tower or base station (as defined for Eligible facilities request purposes) but the proposed facility does not qualify as an Eligible facilities request. If the completed facility would still meet the physical limits and requirements to meet the definition of a small wireless facility after the installation of the new equipment, then the application to install such new equipment is a Type 1 application. b. 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 2 applications shall be limited to applications wherein an applicant is seeking to place a new personal wireless service facility upon an existing structure which does not meet the definition of a small wireless facility or which will not meet the definition of a small wireless facility if and when the proposed new personal wireless service equipment is installed upon the existing facility and/or structure and either (i) the structure is not an existing tower or base station (as defined for Eligible facilities request purposes) or (ii) the structure is an existing tower or base station (as defined for Eligible facilities request purposes) but the proposed facility does not qualify as an Eligible facilities request. c. Type 3 – New small wireless facility on a new or replacement structure. Type 3 applications shall be limited to applications seeking to install and/or construct a new small wireless facility that involves placement of a new or replacement structure. 19 65277.00023\41809994.2 -4- d. Type 4 – New tower or any other wireless facility that is not a Type 1, 2, 3, 5, or 6 application. Type 4 applications shall include any applications for the installation of a new personal wireless service facility which does not meet the criteria for Type 1, 2, 3, 5, or 6 applications. e. Type 5 – Eligible facilities requests. Type 5 applications shall include any applications that purport to meet the criteria for an eligible facilities request under federal law and FCC regulations. f. Type 6 – Temporary facilities. Type 6 applications shall include any applications for a temporary facility to provide wireless services on a temporary or emergency basis. 2. Permit Requirements. No wireless communication facility shall be constructed, erected, placed, or modified anywhere within the City without first obtaining a permit pursuant to the requirements of this Section and without obtaining all permits required under any other applicable state, federal, or local laws or regulations. a. Conditional Use Permit Required. A conditional use permit shall be required for Type 4 applications, which shall be reviewed and processed in accordance with Chapter 17.42 of this Code and the requirements of this Section 17.27.040. b. Zone Clearance Required. A zone clearance shall be required for Type 1, 2, 3, and 5 applications, which shall be reviewed and processed in accordance with Chapter 17.44 of this Code and the requirements of this Section 17.27.040. c. Temporary Use Permit Required. A temporary use permit shall be required for Type 6 applications, which shall be reviewed and processed in accordance with Chapter 17.48 of this Code and the requirements of this Section 17.27.040. 3. Exempt Wireless Communication Facilities. The following wireless communication facilities are exempt from the requirements of this Section: a. Wireless facilities operated by the City for public purposes. b. Hand-held mobile, marine, and portable radio transmitters and/or receivers which are not affixed to land or a structure. c. Traditional terrestrial radio and television mobile broadcast facilities. d. A single ground-mounted or building-mounted antenna not exceeding the maximum height permitted by this Section, including any mast, subject to the following restrictions: (1) Satellite Dish 39.37 inches (one meter) or Less. A satellite dish antenna 39.37 inches (one meter) or less in diameter and (a) intended for the sole 20 65277.00023\41809994.2 -5- use of a person occupying the same parcel to receive direct broadcast satellite service, including direct-to-home satellite service, or to receive or transmit fixed wireless signals via satellite or (b) a hub or relay antenna used to receive or transmit fixed wireless services that are not classified as telecommunications services, is permitted anywhere on a lot, provided it does not exceed the height of the ridgeline of the primary structure on the same parcel. (2) Non-Satellite Dish 39.37 inches (one meter) or Less. A dish antenna 39.37 inches (one meter) or less in diameter or diagonal measurement and (a) intended for the sole use of a person occupying the same parcel to receive video programming services via multipoint distribution services, including multichannel multipoint distribution services, instructional television fixed services, and local multipoint distribution services, or to receive or transmit fixed wireless signals other than via satellite or (b) a hub or relay antenna used to receive or transmit fixed wireless services that are not classified as telecommunications services, is permitted anywhere on a lot. e. Amateur radio antennas meeting the following requirements: (1) That are completely enclosed within a permitted building; or (2) That consist of a single wire not exceeding one-fourth of an inch in diameter, and such wire antennas may be located in setback areas, provided the antenna does not extend above the maximum building height in the district; or (3) That consist of a single ground-mounted vertical pole or whip antenna not exceeding 50 feet in height, measured from finish grade at the base of the antenna, and not located in any required setback area. Support structures or masts for pole or whip antennas shall conform to standards set out in the California Building Standards Code. A building permit may be required for the support structure or mast. B. Definitions. For the purpose of this chapter, certain words and terms are hereby defined. Words used in the singular shall be deemed to include the plural and the plural the singular; unless more specifically defined in this chapter, the word “building” is interchangeable with the word “structure,” and the word “shall” is mandatory and not discretionary. All equipment not specifically described herein shall be regulated in conformity with that equipment described herein which is most substantially similar, from a functionality standpoint. Reference to “facility” is interchangeable with “wireless communications facility,” unless otherwise noted. 1. “Antenna” shall mean any system of wires, poles, rods, reflecting discs, or similar devices used in wireless communications for the transmission or reception of electromagnetic waves when such system is operated or operating from a fixed location. 2. “Applicant” or “provider” shall mean the person or entity applying for a permit to install wireless communications facilities. 3. “Base Station” shall have the same meaning as defined by 47 C.F.R. Section 1.6100(b)(1), or any successor provision. 4. “Colocation,” “Co-location,” and “Collocation” shall mean the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. § 1.6002(g), which means (1) Mounting or installing an antenna facility on a pre-existing structure; and/or (2) Modifying a structure for the 21 65277.00023\41809994.2 -6- purpose of mounting or installing an antenna facility on that structure. For eligible facilities requests (Type 5), “Colocation,” “Co-location,” and “Collocation” shall mean the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(b)(2), which means the mounting or installation of transmission equipment on an eligible support structure for the purpose of transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency signals for communications purposes. 5. “Eligible Facilities Request” shall mean any request for modification of a legally existing tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station as defined in 47 C.F.R. section 1.6100(b)(3), or any successor provision. 6. “Monopole” shall mean a free-standing pole, like a slim line, flagpole, or similar structure. 7. “Personal Wireless Services” shall mean those services as defined in 47 U.S.C. section 332(c)(7)(C)(i), or any successor provision, current examples of which include, but are not limited to, commercial mobile services, unlicensed wireless services, and common carrier wireless exchange access services. 8. “Roof-mounted” shall mean any type of facility in which antennas are mounted on the roof, parapet, or similar feature of a structure. 9. “Small Wireless Facility” shall mean the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. section 1.6002(l), or any successor provision. 10. “Support structure” shall mean any structure capable of supporting a base station, as defined in 47 C.F.R. section 1.6002(m), or any successor provision. 11. “Temporary facility” shall mean any wireless communication facility intended or used to provide wireless services on a temporary or emergency basis, such as a large-scale special event in which more users than usual gather in a single location or following a duly proclaimed local or state emergency, as defined in Government Code section 8558, requiring additional service capabilities. 12. “Tower” shall mean the same as defined in 47 C.F.R. section 1.6100(b)(9), or any successor provision. This definition does not include Utility Poles. 13. “Utility pole” shall mean any structure designed to support electric, telephone, and similar utility lines. A Tower is not a utility pole. 14. “Wireless communications facilities” and “facilities” shall mean any transmitters, antenna structures, equipment cabinets, concealment, meters, switches, cabling, and other types of facilities used for the provision of wireless services at a fixed location, including, without limitation, any associated tower(s), support structure(s), and base station(s). C. Application Requirements. An applicant seeking to install, construct, modify, replace, or place a wireless communications facility shall complete and submit an 22 65277.00023\41809994.2 -7- application to the Planning and Community Services Department for review and processing, upon the form published by the Director of the Planning and Community Services Department, which may be updated from time to time. In addition to any requirements specified by the application form, all applications shall, at minimum, require submission of the following: 1. Name of applicant, contact information, location of proposed site, description of the application type sought, and the name and contact information of the user/ provider that will use the facility. 2. A brief narrative accompanied by written documentation and a site plan or map together with photo simulations that explain the project. 3. A narrative and scaled map(s) that precisely disclose the geographic area(s) within the City proposed to be serviced by the proposed facility. 4. A radiofrequency (RF) environmental evaluation report certifying that the proposed wireless communications facility meets FCC regulations and standards for construction, maintenance and operations. D. Findings for Approval. 1. Findings for Approval of a Conditional Use Permit required by this section (Type 4). Approval of any Conditional Use Permit required by this section is subject to the following findings: a. All findings for approval required for Conditional Use Permits as specified in Section 17.42.050; and b. The facility complies with all applicable requirements of Section 17.27.040, including all requirements for the requested permit; all application requirements; and all applicable design, location, and development standards, or has a waiver exception thereof; and c. The facility meets applicable requirements and standards of federal and state law, including all applicable general orders of the California Public Utilities Commission; and d. The project has received approval from the Rolling Hills Community Association. 2. Findings for Approval of a Non-Eligible Facility Request Zone Clearance required by this section (Types 1, 2, and 3). Approval of any Non-Eligible Facility Request Zone Clearance required by this section is subject to the following findings: a. The proposed facility is consistent with the provisions of Title 17; and 23 65277.00023\41809994.2 -8- b. The facility complies with all applicable requirements of Section 17.27.040, including all requirements for the requested permit; all application requirements; and all applicable design, location, and development standards, or has a waiver exception therefrom; and c. The facility meets applicable requirements and standards of federal and state law, including all applicable general orders of the California Public Utilities Commission; and d. The project has received approval from the Rolling Hills Community Association. 3. Findings for Approval of a Zone Clearance for an Eligible Facilities Request required by this section (Type 5). No zone clearance shall be approved for an eligible facilities request unless, on the basis of the application and other materials or evidence provided in review thereof, the following findings are made: a. The proposed collocation or modification meets each and every one of the applicable criteria for an eligible facilities request stated in 47 C.F.R. sections 1.6100(b)(3)–(9), or any successor provisions, after application of the definitions in 47 C.F.R. section 1.6100(b). The reviewing City authority shall make an express finding for each criterion; and b. The proposed facility complies with conditions associated with the siting approval of the construction or modification of the eligible support structure or base station equipment, except to the extent preempted by 47 C.F.R. sections 1.6100(b)(7)(i)–(iv), or any successor provisions; and c. The proposed facility will comply with all generally applicable laws. 4. Findings for Approval of a Temporary Use Permit required by this section (Type 6). Approval of any Temporary Use Permit required by this Section is subject to the following findings: a. The proposed temporary use is allowed within the applicable zoning district with the approval of a temporary use permit and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Zoning Ordinance and the Municipal Code; and b. The proposed temporary use would not unduly impair the integrity and character of the zoning district in which it is located; and c. Appropriate measures have been taken to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare to minimize detrimental effects on adjacent properties; and d. The facility complies with all applicable requirements of Section 17.27.040, including all requirements for the requested permit; all application 24 65277.00023\41809994.2 -9- requirements; and all applicable design, location, and development standards, or has a waiver exception thereof; and e. The facility meets applicable requirements and standards of federal and state law, including all applicable general orders of the California Public Utilities Commission; and f. The project has received approval from the Rolling Hills Community Association. E. Design, Location, and Development Standards. 1. In addition to the design, location, and development standards outlined in this subsection 17.27.040(E), the Planning Commission is authorized to develop and adopt from time to time supplemental design, location, and development standards for all wireless communications facilities subject to this Section 17.27.040 by resolution. 2. This subsection E(2) establishes generally applicable design and development standards for all wireless facilities, except Type 5 eligible facilities requests. a. The facility shall be erected, located, operated, and maintained at all times in compliance with this section and all applicable laws, regulations, and requirements of the California Building Code, as modified by the City, and every other code and regulation imposed or enforced by the City, the State of California, and the United States Federal Government. Applicants are separately required to obtain all applicable building and construction permits that may be required prior to erecting or installing the facility. b. State-of-the-art stealth design technology shall be utilized as appropriate to the site and type of facility so that the proposed wireless facility will look like something other than a wireless facility. Wireless communications facilities that are mounted on buildings or structures shall be designed to match existing architectural features, incorporated in building design elements, camouflaged, painted, or otherwise screened to achieve a stealth design in a manner that is compatible with the architectural design of the building or structure and compatible with the appearance and character of the surrounding neighborhood. New standalone or replacement facilities shall use designs that are compatible and blend in with the surrounding area. For example, faux trees should be of the same type and size as nearby real trees. All finishes shall be non- reflective. c. The facility shall not bear any signs or advertising devices other than certification, public safety, warning, or other legally required seals or signage. d. Any and all accessory equipment, or other equipment associated with the operation of the facility, including but not limited to transmission cables and wires, shall be screened, located within an enclosure or underground vault in a manner that, if aboveground, is visually compatible with the surrounding area and either 25 65277.00023\41809994.2 -10- (1) shrouded by sufficient landscaping to screen the equipment from view, or (2) designed to match the architecture of adjacent buildings and (3) shall not interfere with equestrian activities or easements. e. The facility exterior shall be comprised of non-reflective material(s) and painted or camouflaged to blend with surrounding materials and colors. All exterior surfaces shall be painted, colored, and/or wrapped in flat, muted, subdued, non-reflective hues that match the underlying structure or otherwise blend in with the surrounding environment. All exterior surfaces on wireless facilities shall be constructed from, or coated with, graffiti-resistant materials. All finishes shall be subject to the reviewing City authority’s prior approval. f. All wireless facilities must be compliant with all applicable noise regulations, which includes, without limitation, any noise regulations in this code. The reviewing City authority may require the applicant to incorporate appropriate noise- baffling materials and/or noise-mitigation strategies to avoid any ambient noise from equipment reasonably likely to exceed the applicable noise regulations. g. Wireless facilities may not include exterior lights other than as may be required under Federal Aviation Administration, FCC, other applicable federal or state governmental regulations. All exterior lights permitted or required to be installed must be installed in locations and within enclosures that mitigates illumination impacts on other properties to the maximum extent feasible. Any lights associated with the electronic equipment shall be appropriately shielded from public view. Any light beacons or lightning arresters shall be included in the overall height calculation. h. To prevent unauthorized access, theft, vandalism, attractive nuisance or other hazards, reasonable and appropriate security measures, such as fences, walls and anti-climbing devices, may be approved. Security measures shall be designed and implemented in a manner that enhances or contributes to the overall stealth, and the reviewing City authority may condition approval on additional stealth elements to mitigate any aesthetic impacts, which may include, without limitation, additional landscape or hardscape features. Barbed wire, razor ribbon, electrified fences, or any similar security measures are prohibited. Alarm systems shall not include any audible sirens or other sounds. i. All wireless facilities shall be designed by qualified, licensed persons to provide the maximum protection that is technically feasible to prevent electrical and fire hazards. All wireless facilities should be proactively monitored and maintained to continue and, if possible, improve the safety design. 3. This subsection E(3) establishes additional design and development standards for all wireless facilities, except Type 5 eligible facilities requests, proposed to be located upon a rooftop or attached to an existing building. a. Any screening used in connection with a wall-mounted and/or roof-mounted facility, shall be compatible with the architecture, color, texture, and 26 65277.00023\41809994.2 -11- materials of the building or other structure to which it is mounted. b. The facility shall be placed to the centermost location of the rooftop to screen it from view from the street and adjacent properties, or incorporate façades to create a stealth facility that is designed to look like something other than a wireless facility. c. Wireless communication antennas and facilities shall not be located on roofs or walls of any structures on private residential property, but may be located on commercial buildings and properties, and on publicly owned properties or buildings. 4. Temporary facilities shall be subject only to the following design and development standards in this Section 17.27.040(E)(4). Temporary facilities include, without limitation, cells on wheels (also referred to as COWs), sites on wheels (also referred as SOWs), cells on light trucks (also referred to as COLTs), or other similar wireless facilities: a. That will be in place for no more than six months, or such other longer time as the City may allow in light of the event or emergency; b. For which required notice is provided to the FAA; c. That do not require marking or lighting under FAA regulations; d. That will not exceed fifty (50) feet in height; and e. That will either involve no excavation or involve excavation only as required to safely anchor the facility where the depth of previous disturbance exceeds the proposed construction depth (excluding footings and other anchoring mechanisms) by at least two (2) feet. 5. All wireless communications facilities, except Type 5 eligible facilities requests, shall not be located on private residential property outside of the right-of-way or outside a roadway easement, but may be located on existing utility poles. 6. This subsection E(6) establishes generally applicable location standards for all wireless communications facilities, except Type 5 eligible facilities requests, inside of the right-of-way or inside a roadway easement: a. Wireless communications facilities shall utilize existing poles, structures, street signs or utilize the replacement of existing structures, poles, and street signs in the right-of-way or within a roadway easement to avoid the proliferation of new poles and structures in the right-of-way and roadway easements; b. Wireless communications facilities shall not be located in the right-of-way or within a roadway easement in a manner which obstructs the view, as the term is defined in Section 17.26.020 of this Code, of any residential primary building; 27 65277.00023\41809994.2 -12- c. To the maximum extent technically feasible, wireless communications facilities shall be located on shared property lines separating two residential parcels. F. Infrastructure Controlled by City. The City, as a matter of policy, will negotiate agreements for the use of City-owned property. The placement of wireless facilities on those structures and property shall be subject to one or more negotiated agreements. The agreements shall specify the compensation to the City for use of the structures. The person seeking an agreement shall, in addition to any consideration paid, reimburse the City for all costs the City incurs in connection with its review of and action upon that person’s request for an agreement. G. Standard Conditions of Approval. In addition to all other conditions adopted by the applicable approval authority, all permits issued in accordance with this section, whether approved by the approval authority or deemed approved by the operation of law, shall be automatically subject to the conditions in this section. The approval authority (or the appellate authority on appeal) shall have discretion to modify, supplement, or amend these conditions on a case-by-case basis as may be necessary or appropriate under the circumstances to protect public health and safety or allow for the proper operation of the approved facility consistent with the goals of this section. 1. Permit Term. For any non-eligible facilities request, this permit will automatically expire 10 years and one day from its date of issuance. Any other permits or approvals issued in connection with an application subject to this section, which includes without limitation any permits or other approvals deemed-granted or deemed- approved under federal or state law, will not extend this term limit unless expressly provided otherwise in such permit or approval or required under federal or state law. 2. Strict Compliance with Approved Plans. Permittee must incorporate this permit, all conditions associated with this permit, and the approved photo simulations into the project plans (the “approved plans”). The permittee must construct, install and operate the wireless communication facility in strict compliance with the approved plans. Any alterations, modifications or other changes to the approved plans, whether requested by the permittee or required by other departments or public agencies with jurisdiction over the wireless communication facility, must be submitted in a written request subject to the Director of the Planning and Community Services Department’s prior review and approval. 3. Permit Expiration. This permit will automatically expire if construction or installation activities authorized herein do not commence within one (1) year from the date of this permit’s issuance. 4. Maintenance Obligations – Vandalism. The permittee shall keep the site, which includes without limitation any and all improvements, equipment, structures, access routes, fences, and landscape features, in a neat, clean, and safe condition in accordance with the approved plans and all conditions in this permit. The permittee shall keep the site area free from all litter and debris at all times. The permittee, at no cost to 28 65277.00023\41809994.2 -13- the City, shall remove and remediate any graffiti or other vandalism at the site within 48 hours after the permittee receives notice or otherwise becomes aware that such graffiti or other vandalism occurred. 5. Property Maintenance. The permittee shall ensure that all equipment and other improvements to be constructed and/or installed in connection with the approved plans are maintained in a manner that is not detrimental or injurious to the public health, safety, or general welfare, and that the aesthetic appearance is continuously preserved and substantially the same as shown in the approved plans at all times relevant to this permit. The permittee further acknowledges that failure to maintain compliance with this condition may result in a code enforcement action. 6. Compliance with Laws. The permittee shall maintain compliance at all times with all federal, state, and local statutes, regulations, orders, or other rules that carry the force of law (“laws”) applicable to the permittee, the subject property, the wireless facility, or any use or activities in connection with the use authorized by this permit, which includes without limitation any laws applicable to human exposure to RF emissions. The permittee expressly acknowledges and agrees that this obligation is intended to be broadly construed and that no other specific requirements in these conditions are intended to reduce, relieve, or otherwise lessen the permittee’s obligations to maintain compliance with all laws. In the event that the City fails to timely notice, prompt, or enforce compliance with any applicable provision in the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, any permit, any permit condition, or any applicable law or regulation, the applicant or permittee will not be relieved from its obligation to comply in all respects with all applicable provisions in the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, any permit, any permit condition, or any applicable law or regulation. 7. Adverse Impacts on Other Properties. The permittee shall use all reasonable efforts to avoid any and all undue or unnecessary adverse impacts on nearby properties that may arise from the permittee’s or its authorized personnel’s construction, installation, operation, modification, maintenance, repair, removal and/or other activities at the site. Impacts of radio frequency emissions on the environment, to the extent that such emissions are compliant with all applicable laws, are not “adverse impacts” for the purposes of this condition. The permittee shall not perform or cause others to perform any construction, installation, operation, modification, maintenance, repair, removal, or other work that involves heavy equipment or machines, except during normal construction hours as set forth in the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. The restricted work hours in this condition will not prohibit any work required to prevent an actual, immediate harm to property or persons, or any work during an emergency declared by the City. The Director of Planning and Community Services, or the Director’s designee, may issue a stop work order for any activities that violate this condition. 8. Inspections – Emergencies. The permittee expressly acknowledges and agrees that the City’s officers, officials, staff, and other designees may enter onto the site and inspect the improvements and equipment upon reasonable prior notice to the permittee; provided, however, that the City’s officers, officials, staff, or other designees may, but will not be obligated to, enter onto the site area without prior notice to support, 29 65277.00023\41809994.2 -14- repair, disable, or remove any improvements or equipment in emergencies or when such improvements or equipment threatens actual, imminent harm to property or persons. The permittee will be permitted to supervise the City’s officers, officials, staff, and other designees while any such inspection or emergency access occurs. 9. Permittee’s Contact Information. The permittee shall furnish the Director of Planning and Community Services with accurate and up-to-date contact information for a person responsible for the wireless facility, which includes without limitation such person’s full name, title, direct telephone number, facsimile number, mailing address, and email address. The permittee shall keep such contact information up-to-date at all times and immediately provide the Director with updated contact information in the event that either the responsible person or such person’s contact information changes. 10. Indemnification. The permittee and, if applicable, the owner of the property upon which the wireless facility is installed shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, officials, employees, and volunteers from and against any and all (1) damages, liabilities, injuries, losses, costs, and expenses and from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs, and other actions or proceedings (“claims”) brought against the City or its agents, officers, officials, employees, or volunteers to challenge, attack, seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul the City’s approval of this permit; and (2) other claims of any kind or form, whether for personal injury, death, or property damage, that arise from or in connection with the permittee’s or its agents’, directors’, officers’, employees’, contractors’, subcontractors’, licensees’, invitees’, volunteers’, or customers’ acts or omissions in connection with this permit or the wireless facility. In the event the City becomes aware of any third-party claims concerning this permit, the City will use best efforts to promptly notify the permittee and the private property owner and shall reasonably cooperate in the defense. The permittee expressly acknowledges and agrees that the City shall have the right to approve, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City’s defense, and the property owner and/or permittee (as applicable) shall promptly reimburse City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of the defense. The permittee expressly acknowledges and agrees that the permittee’s indemnification obligations under this condition are a material consideration that motivates the City to approve this permit, and that such indemnification obligations will survive the expiration or revocation of this permit. 11. Performance Bond. Prior to the issuance of any construction permit in connection with this permit, the permittee shall post a performance bond from a surety and in a form acceptable to the director in an amount reasonably necessary to cover the cost to remove the improvements and restore all affected areas based on a written estimate from a qualified contractor with experience in wireless facilities removal. The written estimate must include the cost to remove all equipment and other improvements, which include, without limitation, all antennas, radios, batteries, generators, utilities, cabinets, mounts, brackets, hardware, cables, wires, conduits, structures, shelters, towers, poles, footings, and foundations, whether above ground or below ground, constructed or installed, in connection with the wireless facility, plus the cost to completely 30 65277.00023\41809994.2 -15- restore any areas affected by the removal work to a standard compliant with applicable laws. 12. Recall to Approval Authority – Permit Revocation. The approval authority may recall this permit for review at any time due to complaints about noncompliance with applicable laws or any approval conditions attached to this permit. At a duly noticed public hearing and in accordance with all applicable laws, the approval authority may revoke this permit or amend these conditions as the approval authority deems necessary or appropriate to correct any such noncompliance. 13. Record Retention. The permittee must maintain complete and accurate copies of all permits and other regulatory approvals issued in connection with the wireless facility, which include, without limitation, this approval, the approved plans and photo simulations incorporated into this approval, all conditions associated with this approval, and any ministerial permits or approvals issued in connection with this approval. In the event that the permittee does not maintain such records as required in this condition, any ambiguities or uncertainties that would be resolved through an inspection of the missing records will be construed against the permittee. The permittee may keep electronic records; provided, however, that hard copies kept in the city’s regular files will control over any conflicts between such hard copies and the permittee’s electronic copies, and complete originals will control over all other copies in any form. 14. Permit Renewal. Any application to renew this permit must be tendered to the Director of Planning and Community Services within one (1) year prior to the expiration of this permit, and shall be accompanied by all required application materials, fees and deposits for a new application as then in effect. The approval authority shall review an application for permit renewal in accordance with the standards for new facilities as then in-effect. The Director of the Planning and Community Services Department may, but is not obligated to, grant a written temporary extension on the permit term to allow sufficient time to review a timely submitted permit renewal application. 15. Eligible facilities requests conditions of approval. In addition to compliance with the requirements of this Section, all facilities shall be subject to each of the following conditions of approval, as well as any modification of these conditions or additional conditions of approval deemed necessary by the decision-making authority: a. Permit subject to conditions of underlying permit. Any permit granted in response to an application qualifying as an eligible facilities request shall be subject to the terms and conditions of the underlying permit. b. No permit term extension. The City’s grant or deemed grant by operation of law of an eligible facilities request permit constitutes a federally-mandated modification to the underlying permit or approval for the subject tower or base station. Notwithstanding any permit duration established in another permit condition, the Town’s grant or grant by operation of law of an eligible facilities request permit will not extend the permit term for the underlying permit or any other underlying regulatory approval, and its term shall be coterminous with the underlying permit or other regulatory approval for the 31 65277.00023\41809994.2 -16- subject tower or base station. H. Limited Exceptions for Personal Wireless Service Facilities. 1. The applicable review authority may grant waivers of the design and location standards for wireless communications facilities subject to this section 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 c. Require a technically infeasible location, design, or installation of a wireless facility. 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.” SECTION 5. Code Amendment. Section 17.44.020 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code is hereby amended to add a new subsection (G), which shall read in its entirety as follows: “17.44.020 Applicability. . . . G. The installation, construction, modification, replacement, or placement certain wireless communications facilities requiring a zone clearance, as specified by Section 17.27.040.” SECTION 6. Code Amendment. Section 17.48.040 the of Rolling Hills Municipal Code is hereby amended to add a new subsection (B)(4), which shall read in its entirety as follows: “17.48.040 Allowed Temporary Uses. . . . B. Temporary Structures for Non-Active Construction Sites and Time Periods. . . . 4. Temporary Wireless Facilities. The installation, construction, modification, replacement, or placement certain temporary wireless communications 32 65277.00023\41809994.2 -17- facilities requiring a temporary use permit, as specified by Section 17.27.040.” SECTION 7. Code Amendment. Subsections “C” and “F” of Section 17.16.200 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code are hereby amended in their entirety to both state the following: “Reserved”. SECTION 8. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance or any part hereof is for any reason held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council of the City of Rolling Hills hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared invalid. SECTION 9. Effective Date. This Ordinance takes effect 30 days after its adoption. SECTION 10. Certification. The City Clerk is hereby directed to certify to the passage of this Ordinance and cause the same, or a summary thereof, to be published or posted in the manner required by law. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this __ day of _______, 2023. _________________________________ Patrick Wilson, Mayor ATTEST: Christian Horvath, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Patrick Donegan, City Attorney 33 65277.00023\41809994.2 -18- STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) I, Christian Horvath, City Clerk of the City of Rolling Hills, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. _____ was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills held on the ___ day of __________, 2023, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 34 65277.00023\41809994.1 -1- REDLINE VERSION SHOWING CHANGES MADE SINCE OCTOBER 17, 2023 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. ORDINANCE NO. 384 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 WHEREAS, California Government Code, section 65800 et seq., authorizes the City of Rolling Hills (“City”) to adopt and administer zoning laws, ordinances, rules and regulations as a means of implementing the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City’s zoning regulations are contained in Title 17 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (“RHMC”). Among other things, Title 17 includes regulations governing wireless communication facilities (“WCF”); and WHEREAS, Title 17’s WCF regulations were most recently amended in 2004. Since then, changes in federal and state law—including various court decisions and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) orders and regulations—have placed significant procedural and substantive limits on the City’s exercise of local control over matters involving WCFs. This ordinance (“Ordinance”) amends Title 17 to comply with these changes in the law; and WHEREAS, California Government Code sections 65854 and 65856(a) require the Planning Commission and the City Council, respectively, to conduct public hearings on proposed amendments to Title 17 (i.e., zoning code amendments). The Planning Commission’s action serves as a recommendation to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on August 4, 2023, the City gave public notice of a Planning Commission public hearing to consider this Ordinance by advertisement in a newspaper of general circulation; and WHEREAS, on August 15, 2023 and September 12, 2023 and October 17, 2023, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing and considered the staff report, recommendations by staff, and public testimony concerning this Ordinance. Following the public hearingThereafter, the Planning Commission: (i) provided direction to staff regarding the amendments to the Ordinance; and (ii) continued the public hearing to its November 21, 2023. Staff subsequently revised the Ordinance in accordance with the Planning Commission’s direction. The Planning Commission held a continued public hearing at its November 21, 2023 meeting and thereafter, recommended that the City Council adopt the Ordinance; and WHEREAS, on [DATE], the City gave public notice of a City Council public hearing to be held to consider this Ordinance by advertisement in a newspaper of general circulation; and EXHIBIT “A” 35 65277.00023\41809994.1 -2- WHEREAS, on [DATE], the City Council considered the staff report, recommendations by staff, and public testimony regarding this Ordinance. WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of the Ordinance have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Recitals. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the Recitals above are true and correct and are incorporated herein. SECTION 2. California Environmental Quality Act. The City Council finds that this 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). SECTION 3. General Plan. The City Council hereby finds that this Ordinance’s amendments to RHMC Title 17 are consistent with, and in further of, the City’s adopted General Plan. Specifically, General Plan Safety Element Policy 5.10: Support the development and further implementation of a peninsula-wide disaster plan; and 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; and Policy 5.16: Increase access to essential resources and facilitate effective communication in the community to accelerate recovery following such a disaster; and Land Use Goal 2: Accommodate development which is compatible with and complements existing land 36 65277.00023\41809994.1 -3- uses. This Ordinance furthers these goals, policies, and actions by updating the City's regulations to achieve consistency with federal and state law and making certain refinements to ensure that Title 17 is consistent and clear and provides for streamlined approval processes for wireless communication facilities. Therefore, the Ordinance is consistent with the General Plan. SECTION 4. Code Amendment. Section 17.27.040 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code is amended to read in its entirety as follows: “17.27.040 Wireless communication antennas and facilities. A. General. This Section establishes standards and procedures for the development and operation of wireless communications facilities, including, but not limited to, personal wireless services facilities, non-exempt satellite antennas, and single pole/tower amateur radio antennas. The requirements of this Section apply to all wireless communication facilities on public and private property and within the right of way that transmit and/or receive electromagnetic signals, including, but not limited to, personal wireless services, satellite, and radio and television broadcast facilities. 1. Application Types. a. Type 1 – Collocation of a small wireless facility on an existing structure. Type 1 applications shall be limited to applications wherein an applicant seeks to place a new small wireless facility upon an existing structure and either (i) the structure is not an existing tower or base station (as defined for Eligible facilities request purposes) or (ii) the structure is an existing tower or base station (as defined for Eligible facilities request purposes) but the proposed facility does not qualify as an Eligible facilities request. If the completed facility would still meet the physical limits and requirements to meet the definition of a small wireless facility after the installation of the new equipment, then the application to install such new equipment is a Type 1 application. b. 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 2 applications shall be limited to applications wherein an applicant is seeking to place a new personal wireless service facility upon an existing structure which does not meet the definition of a small wireless facility or which will not meet the definition of a small wireless facility if and when the proposed new personal wireless service equipment is installed upon the existing facility and/or structure and either (i) the structure is not an existing tower or base station (as defined for Eligible facilities request purposes) or (ii) the structure is an existing tower or base station (as defined for Eligible facilities request purposes) but the proposed facility does not qualify as an Eligible facilities request. c. Type 3 – New small wireless facility on a new or replacement structure. Type 3 applications shall be limited to applications seeking to install and/or construct a new small wireless facility that involves placement of a new or replacement structure. 37 65277.00023\41809994.1 -4- d. Type 4 – New tower or any other wireless facility that is not a Type 1, 2, 3, 5, or 6 application. Type 4 applications shall include any applications for the installation of a new personal wireless service facility which does not meet the criteria for Type 1, 2, 3, 5, or 6 applications. e. Type 5 – Eligible facilities requests. Type 5 applications shall include any applications that purport to meet the criteria for an eligible facilities request under federal law and FCC regulations. f. Type 6 – Temporary facilities. Type 6 applications shall include any applications for a temporary facility to provide wireless services on a temporary or emergency basis. 2. Permit Requirements. No wireless communication facility shall be constructed, erected, placed, or modified anywhere within the City without first obtaining a permit pursuant to the requirements of this Section and without obtaining all permits required under any other applicable state, federal, or local laws or regulations. a. Conditional Use Permit Required. A conditional use permit shall be required for Type 2, 3 and 4 applications, which shall be reviewed and processed in accordance with Chapter 17.42 of this Code and the requirements of this Section 17.27.040. b. Zone Clearance Required. A zone clearance shall be required for Type 1, 2, 3,, 2, 3, and 5 applications, which shall be reviewed and processed in accordance with Chapter 17.44 of this Code and the requirements of this Section 17.27.040. c. Temporary Use Permit Required. A temporary use permit shall be required for Type 6 applications, which shall be reviewed and processed in accordance with Chapter 17.48 of this Code and the requirements of this Section 17.27.040. 3. Exempt Wireless Communication Facilities. The following wireless communication facilities are exempt from the requirements of this Section: a. Wireless facilities operated by the City for public purposes. b. Hand-held mobile, marine, and portable radio transmitters and/or receivers which are not affixed to land or a structure. c. Traditional terrestrial radio and television mobile broadcast facilities. d. A single ground-mounted or building-mounted antenna not exceeding the maximum height permitted by this Section, including any mast, subject to the following restrictions: (1) Satellite Dish 39.37 inches (one meter) or Less. A satellite dish antenna 39.37 inches (one meter) or less in diameter and (a) intended for the sole 38 65277.00023\41809994.1 -5- use of a person occupying the same parcel to receive direct broadcast satellite service, including direct-to-home satellite service, or to receive or transmit fixed wireless signals via satellite or (b) a hub or relay antenna used to receive or transmit fixed wireless services that are not classified as telecommunications services, is permitted anywhere on a lot, provided it does not exceed the height of the ridgeline of the primary structure on the same parcel. (2) Non-Satellite Dish 39.37 inches (one meter) or Less. A dish antenna 39.37 inches (one meter) or less in diameter or diagonal measurement and (a) intended for the sole use of a person occupying the same parcel to receive video programming services via multipoint distribution services, including multichannel multipoint distribution services, instructional television fixed services, and local multipoint distribution services, or to receive or transmit fixed wireless signals other than via satellite or (b) a hub or relay antenna used to receive or transmit fixed wireless services that are not classified as telecommunications services, is permitted anywhere on a lot. e. Amateur radio antennas meeting the following requirements: (1) That are completely enclosed within a permitted building; or (2) That consist of a single wire not exceeding one-fourth of an inch in diameter, and such wire antennas may be located in setback areas, provided the antenna does not extend above the maximum building height in the district; or (3) That consist of a single ground-mounted vertical pole or whip antenna not exceeding 50 feet in height, measured from finish grade at the base of the antenna, and not located in any required setback area. Support structures or masts for pole or whip antennas shall conform to standards set out in the California Building Standards Code. A building permit may be required for the support structure or mast. B. Definitions. For the purpose of this chapter, certain words and terms are hereby defined. Words used in the singular shall be deemed to include the plural and the plural the singular; unless more specifically defined in this chapter, the word “building” is interchangeable with the word “structure,” and the word “shall” is mandatory and not discretionary. All equipment not specifically described herein shall be regulated in conformity with that equipment described herein which is most substantially similar, from a functionality standpoint. Reference to “facility” is interchangeable with “wireless communications facility,” unless otherwise noted. 1. “Antenna” shall mean any system of wires, poles, rods, reflecting discs, or similar devices used in wireless communications for the transmission or reception of electromagnetic waves when such system is operated or operating from a fixed location. 2. “Applicant” or “provider” shall mean the person or entity applying for a permit to install wireless communications facilities. 3. “Base Station” shall have the same meaning as defined by 47 C.F.R. Section 1.6100(b)(1), or any successor provision. 4. “Colocation,” “Co-location,” and “Collocation” shall mean the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. § 1.6002(g), which means (1) Mounting or installing an antenna facility on a pre-existing structure; and/or (2) Modifying a structure for the 39 65277.00023\41809994.1 -6- purpose of mounting or installing an antenna facility on that structure. For eligible facilities requests (Type 5), “Colocation,” “Co-location,” and “Collocation” shall mean the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(b)(2), which means the mounting or installation of transmission equipment on an eligible support structure for the purpose of transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency signals for communications purposes. 5. “Eligible Facilities Request” shall mean any request for modification of a legally existing tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station as defined in 47 C.F.R. section 1.6100(b)(3), or any successor provision. 6. “Monopole” shall mean a free-standing pole, like a slim line, flagpole, or similar structure. 7. “Personal Wireless Services” shall mean those services as defined in 47 U.S.C. section 332(c)(7)(C)(i), or any successor provision, current examples of which include, but are not limited to, commercial mobile services, unlicensed wireless services, and common carrier wireless exchange access services. 8. “Roof-mounted” shall mean any type of facility in which antennas are mounted on the roof, parapet, or similar feature of a structure. 9. “Small Wireless Facility” shall mean the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. section 1.6002(l), or any successor provision. 10. “Support structure” shall mean any structure capable of supporting a base station, as defined in 47 C.F.R. section 1.6002(m), or any successor provision. 11. “Temporary facility” shall mean any wireless communication facility intended or used to provide wireless services on a temporary or emergency basis, such as a large-scale special event in which more users than usual gather in a single location or following a duly proclaimed local or state emergency, as defined in Government Code section 8558, requiring additional service capabilities. 12. “Tower” shall mean the same as defined in 47 C.F.R. section 1.6100(b)(9), or any successor provision. This definition does not include Utility Poles. 13. “Utility pole” shall mean any structure designed to support electric, telephone, and similar utility lines. A Tower is not a utility pole. 14. “Wireless communications facilities” and “facilities” shall mean any transmitters, antenna structures, equipment cabinets, concealment, meters, switches, cabling, and other types of facilities used for the provision of wireless services at a fixed location, including, without limitation, any associated tower(s), support structure(s), and base station(s). C. Application Requirements. An applicant seeking to install, construct, modify, replace, or place a wireless communications facility shall complete and submit an 40 65277.00023\41809994.1 -7- application to the Planning and Community Services Department for review and processing, upon the form published by the Director of the Planning and Community Services Department, which may be updated from time to time. In addition to any requirements specified by the application form, all applications shall, at minimum, require submission of the following: 1. Name of applicant, contact information, location of proposed site, description of the application type sought, and the name and contact information of the user/ provider that will use the facility. 2. A brief narrative accompanied by written documentation and a site plan or map together with photo simulations that explain the project. 3. A narrative and scaled map(s) that precisely disclose the geographic area(s) within the City proposed to be serviced by the proposed facility. 4. A radiofrequency (RF) environmental evaluation report certifying that the proposed wireless communications facility meets FCC regulations and standards for construction, maintenance and operations. D. Findings for Approval. 1. Findings for Approval of a Conditional Use Permit required by this section (Types 2, 3 and 4). Approval of any Conditional Use Permit required by this section is subject to the following findings: a. All findings for approval required for Conditional Use Permits as specified in Section 17.42.050; and b. The facility complies with all applicable requirements of Section 17.27.040, including all requirements for the requested permit; all application requirements; and all applicable design, location, and development standards, or has a waiver exception thereof; and c. The facility meets applicable requirements and standards of federal and state law, including all applicable general orders of the California Public Utilities Commission; and d. The project has received approval from the Rolling Hills Community Association. 2. Findings for Approval of a Non-Eligible Facility Request Zone Clearance required by this section (Typess 1, 2, and 3, 2, and 3). Approval of any Non- Eligible Facility Request Zone Clearance required by this section is subject to the following findings: a. The proposed facility is consistent with the provisions of Title 17; and 41 65277.00023\41809994.1 -8- b. The facility complies with all applicable requirements of Section 17.27.040, including all requirements for the requested permit; all application requirements; and all applicable design, location, and development standards, or has a waiver exception therefrom; and c. The facility meets applicable requirements and standards of federal and state law, including all applicable general orders of the California Public Utilities Commission; and d. The project has received approval from the Rolling Hills Community Association. 3. Findings for Approval of a Zone Clearance for an Eligible Facilities Request required by this section (Type 5). No zone clearance shall be approved for an eligible facilities request unless, on the basis of the application and other materials or evidence provided in review thereof, the following findings are made: a. The proposed collocation or modification meets each and every one of the applicable criteria for an eligible facilities request stated in 47 C.F.R. sections 1.6100(b)(3)–(9), or any successor provisions, after application of the definitions in 47 C.F.R. section 1.6100(b). The reviewing City authority shall make an express finding for each criterion; and b. The proposed facility complies with conditions associated with the siting approval of the construction or modification of the eligible support structure or base station equipment, except to the extent preempted by 47 C.F.R. sections 1.6100(b)(7)(i)–(iv), or any successor provisions; and c. The proposed facility will comply with all generally applicable laws. 4. Findings for Approval of a Temporary Use Permit required by this section (Type 6). Approval of any Temporary Use Permit required by this Section is subject to the following findings: a. The proposed temporary use is allowed within the applicable zoning district with the approval of a temporary use permit and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Zoning Ordinance and the Municipal Code; and b. The proposed temporary use would not unduly impair the integrity and character of the zoning district in which it is located; and c. Appropriate measures have been taken to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare to minimize detrimental effects on adjacent properties; and d. The facility complies with all applicable requirements of Section 17.27.040, including all requirements for the requested permit; all application 42 65277.00023\41809994.1 -9- requirements; and all applicable design, location, and development standards, or has a waiver exception thereof; and e. The facility meets applicable requirements and standards of federal and state law, including all applicable general orders of the California Public Utilities Commission; and f. The project has received approval from the Rolling Hills Community Association. E. Design, Location, and Development Standards. 1. In addition to the design, location, and development standards outlined in this subsection 17.27.040(E), the Planning Commission is authorized to develop and adopt from time to time supplemental design, location, and development standards for all wireless communications facilities subject to this Section 17.27.040 by resolution. 1.2. This subsection E(21) establishes generally applicable design and development standards for all wireless facilities, except Type 5 eligible facilities requests. a. The facility shall be erected, located, operated, and maintained at all times in compliance with this section and all applicable laws, regulations, and requirements of the California Building Code, as modified by the City, and every other code and regulation imposed or enforced by the City, the State of California, and the United States Federal Government. Applicants are separately required to obtain all applicable building and construction permits that may be required prior to erecting or installing the facility. b. State-of-the-art stealth design technology shall be utilized as appropriate to the site and type of facility so that the proposed wireless facility will look like something other than a wireless facility. Wireless communications facilities that are mounted on buildings or structures shall be designed to match existing architectural features, incorporated in building design elements, camouflaged, painted, or otherwise screened to achieve a stealth design in a manner that is compatible with the architectural design of the building or structure and compatible with the appearance and character of the surrounding neighborhood. New standalone or replacement facilities shall use designs that are compatible and blend in with the surrounding area. For example, faux trees should be of the same type and size as nearby real trees. All finishes shall be non- reflective. c. The facility shall not bear any signs or advertising devices other than certification, public safety, warning, or other legally required seals or signage. d. Any and all accessory equipment, or other equipment associated with the operation of the facility, including but not limited to transmission cables and wires, shall be screened, located within an enclosure or underground vault in a manner that, if aboveground, is visually compatible with the surrounding area and either 43 65277.00023\41809994.1 -10- (1) shrouded by sufficient landscaping to screen the equipment from view, or (2) designed to match the architecture of adjacent buildings and (3) shall not interfere with equestrian activities or easements. e. The facility exterior shall be comprised of non-reflective material(s) and painted or camouflaged to blend with surrounding materials and colors. All exterior surfaces shall be painted, colored, and/or wrapped in flat, muted, subdued, non-reflective hues that match the underlying structure or otherwise blend in with the surrounding environment. All exterior surfaces on wireless facilities shall be constructed from, or coated with, graffiti-resistant materials. All finishes shall be subject to the reviewing City authority’s prior approval. f. All wireless facilities must be compliant with all applicable noise regulations, which includes, without limitation, any noise regulations in this code. The reviewing City authority may require the applicant to incorporate appropriate noise- baffling materials and/or noise-mitigation strategies to avoid any ambient noise from equipment reasonably likely to exceed the applicable noise regulations. g. Wireless facilities may not include exterior lights other than as may be required under Federal Aviation Administration, FCC, other applicable federal or state governmental regulations. All exterior lights permitted or required to be installed must be installed in locations and within enclosures that mitigates illumination impacts on other properties to the maximum extent feasible. Any lights associated with the electronic equipment shall be appropriately shielded from public view. Any light beacons or lightning arresters shall be included in the overall height calculation. h. To prevent unauthorized access, theft, vandalism, attractive nuisance or other hazards, reasonable and appropriate security measures, such as fences, walls and anti-climbing devices, may be approved. Security measures shall be designed and implemented in a manner that enhances or contributes to the overall stealth, and the reviewing City authority may condition approval on additional stealth elements to mitigate any aesthetic impacts, which may include, without limitation, additional landscape or hardscape features. Barbed wire, razor ribbon, electrified fences, or any similar security measures are prohibited. Alarm systems shall not include any audible sirens or other sounds. i. All wireless facilities shall be designed by qualified, licensed persons to provide the maximum protection that is technically feasible to prevent electrical and fire hazards. All wireless facilities should be proactively monitored and maintained to continue and, if possible, improve the safety design. 2.3. This subsection E(32) establishes additional design and development standards for all wireless facilities, except Type 5 eligible facilities requests, proposed to be located upon a rooftop or attached to an existing building. a. Any screening used in connection with a wall-mounted and/or roof-mounted facility, shall be compatible with the architecture, color, texture, and 44 65277.00023\41809994.1 -11- materials of the building or other structure to which it is mounted. b. The facility shall be placed to the centermost location of the rooftop to screen it from view from the street and adjacent properties, or incorporate façades to create a stealth facility that is designed to look like something other than a wireless facility. c. Wireless communication antennas and facilities shall not be located on roofs or walls of any structures on private residential property, but may be located on commercial buildings and properties, and on publicly owned properties or buildings. 3.4. Temporary facilities shall be subject only to the following design and development standards in this Section 17.27.040(E)(43). Temporary facilities include, without limitation, cells on wheels (also referred to as COWs), sites on wheels (also referred as SOWs), cells on light trucks (also referred to as COLTs), or other similar wireless facilities: a. That will be in place for no more than six months, or such other longer time as the City may allow in light of the event or emergency; b. For which required notice is provided to the FAA; c. That do not require marking or lighting under FAA regulations; d. That will not exceed fifty (50) feet in height; and e. That will either involve no excavation or involve excavation only as required to safely anchor the facility where the depth of previous disturbance exceeds the proposed construction depth (excluding footings and other anchoring mechanisms) by at least two (2) feet. 5. All wireless communications facilities, except Type 5 eligible facilities requests, shall not be located on private residential property outside of the right-of-way or outside a roadway easement, but may be located on existing utility poles. 6. This subsection E(65) establishes generally applicable location standards for all wireless communications facilities, except Type 5 eligible facilities requests, inside of the right-of-way or inside a roadway easement: a. Wireless communications facilities shall utilize existing poles, structures, street signs or utilize the replacement of existing structures, poles, and street signs in the right-of-way or within a roadway easement to avoid the proliferation of new poles and structures in the right-of-way and roadway easements; b. Wireless communications facilities shall not be located in the right-of-way or within a roadway easement in a manner which obstructs the view, as the term is defined in Section 17.26.020 of this Code,the front façade of any residential 45 65277.00023\41809994.1 -12- primary building; c. To the maximum extent technically feasible, Wwireless communications facilities shall not be located within ten (10) feet of any on shared property lines separating two residential parcelsin the right-of-way or within a roadway easement. F. Infrastructure Controlled by City. The City, as a matter of policy, will negotiate agreements for the use of City-owned property. The placement of wireless facilities on those structures and property shall be subject to one or more negotiated agreements. The agreements shall specify the compensation to the City for use of the structures. The person seeking an agreement shall, in addition to any consideration paid, reimburse the City for all costs the City incurs in connection with its review of and action upon that person’s request for an agreement. G. Standard Conditions of Approval. In addition to all other conditions adopted by the applicable approval authority, all permits issued in accordance with this section, whether approved by the approval authority or deemed approved by the operation of law, shall be automatically subject to the conditions in this section. The approval authority (or the appellate authority on appeal) shall have discretion to modify, supplement, or amend these conditions on a case-by-case basis as may be necessary or appropriate under the circumstances to protect public health and safety or allow for the proper operation of the approved facility consistent with the goals of this section. 1. Permit Term. For any non-eligible facilities request, this permit will automatically expire 10 years and one day from its date of issuance. Any other permits or approvals issued in connection with an application subject to this section, which includes without limitation any permits or other approvals deemed-granted or deemed- approved under federal or state law, will not extend this term limit unless expressly provided otherwise in such permit or approval or required under federal or state law. 2. Strict Compliance with Approved Plans. Permittee must incorporate this permit, all conditions associated with this permit, and the approved photo simulations into the project plans (the “approved plans”). The permittee must construct, install and operate the wireless communication facility in strict compliance with the approved plans. Any alterations, modifications or other changes to the approved plans, whether requested by the permittee or required by other departments or public agencies with jurisdiction over the wireless communication facility, must be submitted in a written request subject to the Director of the Planning and Community Services Department’s prior review and approval. 3. Permit Expiration. This permit will automatically expire if construction or installation activities authorized herein do not commence within one (1) year from the date of this permit’s issuance. 4. Maintenance Obligations – Vandalism. The permittee shall keep the 46 65277.00023\41809994.1 -13- site, which includes without limitation any and all improvements, equipment, structures, access routes, fences, and landscape features, in a neat, clean, and safe condition in accordance with the approved plans and all conditions in this permit. The permittee shall keep the site area free from all litter and debris at all times. The permittee, at no cost to the City, shall remove and remediate any graffiti or other vandalism at the site within 48 hours after the permittee receives notice or otherwise becomes aware that such graffiti or other vandalism occurred. 5. Property Maintenance. The permittee shall ensure that all equipment and other improvements to be constructed and/or installed in connection with the approved plans are maintained in a manner that is not detrimental or injurious to the public health, safety, or general welfare, and that the aesthetic appearance is continuously preserved and substantially the same as shown in the approved plans at all times relevant to this permit. The permittee further acknowledges that failure to maintain compliance with this condition may result in a code enforcement action. 6. Compliance with Laws. The permittee shall maintain compliance at all times with all federal, state, and local statutes, regulations, orders, or other rules that carry the force of law (“laws”) applicable to the permittee, the subject property, the wireless facility, or any use or activities in connection with the use authorized by this permit, which includes without limitation any laws applicable to human exposure to RF emissions. The permittee expressly acknowledges and agrees that this obligation is intended to be broadly construed and that no other specific requirements in these conditions are intended to reduce, relieve, or otherwise lessen the permittee’s obligations to maintain compliance with all laws. In the event that the City fails to timely notice, prompt, or enforce compliance with any applicable provision in the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, any permit, any permit condition, or any applicable law or regulation, the applicant or permittee will not be relieved from its obligation to comply in all respects with all applicable provisions in the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, any permit, any permit condition, or any applicable law or regulation. 7. Adverse Impacts on Other Properties. The permittee shall use all reasonable efforts to avoid any and all undue or unnecessary adverse impacts on nearby properties that may arise from the permittee’s or its authorized personnel’s construction, installation, operation, modification, maintenance, repair, removal and/or other activities at the site. Impacts of radio frequency emissions on the environment, to the extent that such emissions are compliant with all applicable laws, are not “adverse impacts” for the purposes of this condition. The permittee shall not perform or cause others to perform any construction, installation, operation, modification, maintenance, repair, removal, or other work that involves heavy equipment or machines, except during normal construction hours as set forth in the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. The restricted work hours in this condition will not prohibit any work required to prevent an actual, immediate harm to property or persons, or any work during an emergency declared by the City. The Director of Planning and Community Services, or the Director’s designee, may issue a stop work order for any activities that violate this condition. 8. Inspections – Emergencies. The permittee expressly acknowledges 47 65277.00023\41809994.1 -14- and agrees that the City’s officers, officials, staff, and other designees may enter onto the site and inspect the improvements and equipment upon reasonable prior notice to the permittee; provided, however, that the City’s officers, officials, staff, or other designees may, but will not be obligated to, enter onto the site area without prior notice to support, repair, disable, or remove any improvements or equipment in emergencies or when such improvements or equipment threatens actual, imminent harm to property or persons. The permittee will be permitted to supervise the City’s officers, officials, staff, and other designees while any such inspection or emergency access occurs. 9. Permittee’s Contact Information. The permittee shall furnish the Director of Planning and Community Services with accurate and up-to-date contact information for a person responsible for the wireless facility, which includes without limitation such person’s full name, title, direct telephone number, facsimile number, mailing address, and email address. The permittee shall keep such contact information up-to-date at all times and immediately provide the Director with updated contact information in the event that either the responsible person or such person’s contact information changes. 10. Indemnification. The permittee and, if applicable, the owner of the property upon which the wireless facility is installed shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, officials, employees, and volunteers from and against any and all (1) damages, liabilities, injuries, losses, costs, and expenses and from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs, and other actions or proceedings (“claims”) brought against the City or its agents, officers, officials, employees, or volunteers to challenge, attack, seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul the City’s approval of this permit; and (2) other claims of any kind or form, whether for personal injury, death, or property damage, that arise from or in connection with the permittee’s or its agents’, directors’, officers’, employees’, contractors’, subcontractors’, licensees’, invitees’, volunteers’, or customers’ acts or omissions in connection with this permit or the wireless facility. In the event the City becomes aware of any third-party claims concerning this permit, the City will use best efforts to promptly notify the permittee and the private property owner and shall reasonably cooperate in the defense. The permittee expressly acknowledges and agrees that the City shall have the right to approve, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City’s defense, and the property owner and/or permittee (as applicable) shall promptly reimburse City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of the defense. The permittee expressly acknowledges and agrees that the permittee’s indemnification obligations under this condition are a material consideration that motivates the City to approve this permit, and that such indemnification obligations will survive the expiration or revocation of this permit. 11. Performance Bond. Prior to the issuance of any construction permit in connection with this permit, the permittee shall post a performance bond from a surety and in a form acceptable to the director in an amount reasonably necessary to cover the cost to remove the improvements and restore all affected areas based on a written estimate from a qualified contractor with experience in wireless facilities removal. The written estimate must include the cost to remove all equipment and other improvements, 48 65277.00023\41809994.1 -15- which include, without limitation, all antennas, radios, batteries, generators, utilities, cabinets, mounts, brackets, hardware, cables, wires, conduits, structures, shelters, towers, poles, footings, and foundations, whether above ground or below ground, constructed or installed, in connection with the wireless facility, plus the cost to completely restore any areas affected by the removal work to a standard compliant with applicable laws. 12. Recall to Approval Authority – Permit Revocation. The approval authority may recall this permit for review at any time due to complaints about noncompliance with applicable laws or any approval conditions attached to this permit. At a duly noticed public hearing and in accordance with all applicable laws, the approval authority may revoke this permit or amend these conditions as the approval authority deems necessary or appropriate to correct any such noncompliance. 13. Record Retention. The permittee must maintain complete and accurate copies of all permits and other regulatory approvals issued in connection with the wireless facility, which include, without limitation, this approval, the approved plans and photo simulations incorporated into this approval, all conditions associated with this approval, and any ministerial permits or approvals issued in connection with this approval. In the event that the permittee does not maintain such records as required in this condition, any ambiguities or uncertainties that would be resolved through an inspection of the missing records will be construed against the permittee. The permittee may keep electronic records; provided, however, that hard copies kept in the city’s regular files will control over any conflicts between such hard copies and the permittee’s electronic copies, and complete originals will control over all other copies in any form. 14. Permit Renewal. Any application to renew this permit must be tendered to the Director of Planning and Community Services within one (1) year prior to the expiration of this permit, and shall be accompanied by all required application materials, fees and deposits for a new application as then in effect. The approval authority shall review an application for permit renewal in accordance with the standards for new facilities as then in-effect. The Director of the Planning and Community Services Department may, but is not obligated to, grant a written temporary extension on the permit term to allow sufficient time to review a timely submitted permit renewal application. 15. Eligible facilities requests conditions of approval. In addition to compliance with the requirements of this Section, all facilities shall be subject to each of the following conditions of approval, as well as any modification of these conditions or additional conditions of approval deemed necessary by the decision-making authority: a. Permit subject to conditions of underlying permit. Any permit granted in response to an application qualifying as an eligible facilities request shall be subject to the terms and conditions of the underlying permit. b. No permit term extension. The City’s grant or deemed grant by operation of law of an eligible facilities request permit constitutes a federally-mandated modification to the underlying permit or approval for the subject tower or base station. 49 65277.00023\41809994.1 -16- Notwithstanding any permit duration established in another permit condition, the Town’s grant or grant by operation of law of an eligible facilities request permit will not extend the permit term for the underlying permit or any other underlying regulatory approval, and its term shall be coterminous with the underlying permit or other regulatory approval for the subject tower or base station. H. Limited Exceptions for Personal Wireless Service Facilities. 1. The applicable review authority may grant waivers of the design and location standards for wireless communications facilities subject to this section 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 c. Require a technically infeasible location, design, or installation of a wireless facility. 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.” SECTION 5. Code Amendment. Section 17.44.020 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code is hereby amended to add a new subsection (G), which shall read in its entirety as follows: “17.44.020 Applicability. . . . G. The installation, construction, modification, replacement, or placement certain wireless communications facilities requiring a zone clearance, as specified by Section 17.27.040.” SECTION 6. Code Amendment. Section 17.48.040 the of Rolling Hills Municipal Code is hereby amended to add a new subsection (B)(4), which shall read in its entirety as follows: “17.48.040 Allowed Temporary Uses. . . . B. Temporary Structures for Non-Active Construction Sites and Time Periods. 50 65277.00023\41809994.1 -17- . . . 4. Temporary Wireless Facilities. The installation, construction, modification, replacement, or placement certain temporary wireless communications facilities requiring a temporary use permit, as specified by Section 17.27.040.” SECTION 7. Code Amendment. Subsections “C” and “F” of Section 17.16.200 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code are hereby amended in their entirety to both state the following: “Reserved”. SECTION 8. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance or any part hereof is for any reason held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council of the City of Rolling Hills hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared invalid. SECTION 9. Effective Date. This Ordinance takes effect 30 days after its adoption. SECTION 10. Certification. The City Clerk is hereby directed to certify to the passage of this Ordinance and cause the same, or a summary thereof, to be published or posted in the manner required by law. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this __ day of _______, 2023. _________________________________ Patrick Wilson, Mayor ATTEST: Christian Horvath, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Patrick Donegan, City Attorney 51 65277.00023\41809994.1 -18- STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) I, Christian Horvath, City Clerk of the City of Rolling Hills, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. _____ was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills held on the ___ day of __________, 2023, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 52 1 John Signo From:Garcia, Stephen <Stephen.Garcia@crowncastle.com> Sent:Monday, October 2, 2023 8:19 AM To:John Signo Cc:Garcia, Stephen Subject:RE: Planning Commission Agendas for Tuesday, March 21, 2023 External (stephen.garcia@crowncastle.com)       Report This Email  FAQ  Protection by INKY     Hi John, Re: Planning Commission – October 17th I have corporate all hands meeting on the 17th in Austin, TX, so, I am asking if you can postpone the hearing for the wireless matter until the 31st or the 1st hearing in November. I will have a slides to share with you prior to the hearing and for your staff report, but let me know if you can reschedule it. Thank you, Stephen   Stephen Garcia External Affairs Manager – Los Angeles County 949 676-4766 tel CROWN CASTLE www.CrownCastle.com   From: John Signo <jsigno@cityofrh.net>   Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 1:47 PM  To: Garcia, Stephen <Stephen.Garcia@crowncastle.com>  Subject: RE: Planning Commission Agendas for Tuesday, March 21, 2023      CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    We have an old ordinance that is in need of updating. This will be updating that ordinance.    John F. Signo, AICP Director of Planning and Community Services City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills CA 90274 310.377.1521 jsigno@cityofrh.net   53 2 From: Garcia, Stephen <Stephen.Garcia@crowncastle.com>   Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 12:12 PM  To: John Signo <jsigno@cityofrh.net>  Cc: Garcia, Stephen <Stephen.Garcia@crowncastle.com>  Subject: RE: Planning Commission Agendas for Tuesday, March 21, 2023      Hi John,     I have a few questions, but my first question is simple. Is this the old Ordinance that the City intends to amend or is it a  new ordinance?     Stephen     Stephen Garcia External Affairs Manager Southern California T: (562) 665-9421 CROWN CASTLE 200 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 1700, Irvine, CA 92618 www.CrownCastle.com   From: John Signo <jsigno@cityofrh.net>   Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2023 4:36 PM  Subject: Planning Commission Agendas for Tuesday, March 21, 2023      CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    Greetings! I am including you in this message since you have been involved in the City’s Wireless Ordinance Update. Attached is the Planning Commission agenda for Tuesday, September 12, 2023.   The complete packet is on the City’s website: https://www.rolling- hills.org/government/agenda/index.php The evening meeting will be in-person at City Hall and starts at 6:30 p.m.   Let me know if you have any questions. Regards,   John F. Signo, AICP  Director of Planning and Community Services            CITY OF ROLLING HILLS – CITY HALL          2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills CA 90274          O: 310.377.1521     You don't often get email from jsigno@cityofrh.net. Learn why this is important   54 3 This email may contain confidential or privileged material. Use or disclosure of it by anyone other than the recipient is  unauthorized. If you are not an intended recipient, please delete this email.   This email may contain confidential or privileged material. Use or disclosure of it by anyone other than the recipient is  unauthorized. If you are not an intended recipient, please delete this email.   55 PAGE PROPRIETARY &CONFIDENTIALThe pathway to possible. Crown Castle Rolling Hills October 10,2023 PAGE 3 PROPRIETARY &CONFIDENTIAL CC & RHCA -History CrownCastle founded Small cell solutions business established RHCA and CC execute 1st Amendment to ROW agreement RHCA request Master Plan and multi-carrierdesign solution RHCA’s advises CC and fellow utilities about their Rule 20 plans RHCA andCC execute ROW agreement '94 '02 '12 '13 '14 '15 '16 '17 RHCA request meeting with CC to address complaints about aerial fiber Applications for PV38 modifications & new sites submitted to RHCA RHCA approved 1 new site (ASP09) and modifications, but rejects new PV80 sites, aerial fiber, meters and JPA sites due to proximity of sites to homes. Residents question demand. '18 RHCA and Crown Castle reviewed concepts and locations for new sites at trail- heads. Locations were not ideal, and no carrier showed interest in the trailhead locations. '23 RHCA considering street sign replacement poles in low coverage areas. RHCA request mock-up and additional information. Crown Castle is seeking level of interest by residents if RHCA agrees on a design standard, pole height(s) and identifies location(s) or streets for new sites. 56 PROPRIETARY & CONFIDENTIAL | PAGENOVEMBER, 2021 5G Who is Crown Castle? PROPRIETARY & CONFIDENTIAL | PAGENOVEMBER, 2021 5G Why Crown Castle? 57 PAGE 12 PROPRIETARY &CONFIDENTIAL Network Overview PAGE 7 PROPRIETARY &CONFIDENTIAL Crown Castle fiber in Rolling Hills and surroundings Small Cell fiber routes Peninsula USD fiber routes LEGEND 58 PAGE 7 PROPRIETARY &CONFIDENTIAL Existing small cells in Rolling Hills and surroundings LEGEND (E) Small Cell Existing/proposed small cells in Rolling Hills and surroundings LEGEND (P) Small Cell (E) Small Cell 59 PAGE 12 PROPRIETARY &CONFIDENTIAL Network Service Levels PAGE 13 PROPRIETARY &CONFIDENTIAL Existing Service Levels –95dbm or worse in polygons Carrier 1 Legend: RSRP Legend: data throughput speeds 60 PAGE 14 PROPRIETARY &CONFIDENTIAL Existing Service Level –95dbm or worse in polygons Carrier 2 Legend: RSRP Legend: Throughput PAGE 15 PROPRIETARY &CONFIDENTIAL Existing Service Levels –95dbm or worse in polygons Carrier 3 Legend: RSRP Legend: data throughput speeds 61 PAGE 16 PROPRIETARY &CONFIDENTIAL Existing Service Level –95dbm or worse in polygons All carriers Legend: RSRP Legend: data throughput speeds Small Cell Design Examples Street signs Streetlights and traffic signals for urban settings Pedestrian light pole 62 4G 4G Small cells on replacement street signs Palos Verdes EstatesLos Angeles Small cells on wood utility pole Rolling Hills Palos Verdes Estates 4G 63 PAGE 19 PROPRIETARY &CONFIDENTIAL Rancho Palos Verdes, CA Replacement StreetSign 4G 4G Small cells on replacement street sign Palos Verdes Estates Palos Verdes Estates Small cells on wood utility pole Rolling Hills 4G 64 Small cells on wood utility pole Rolling Hills 4G Small cells on wood utility pole Rolling Hills 4G 65 Small cells on wood utility pole Rolling Hills 4G Small cells on replacement light pole Rolling Hills 4G 66 Small Cells 23 5G5G Small cells on replacement streetlights Long Beach Los Angeles Small Cells 24 CCCCCeeeeeelllllllllllssss 5G4G Small cells on existing traffic signals Santa Monica Santa Monica 67 Small Cells 25 5G5G Small cells on existing traffic signals Santa Monica Santa Monica Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 4G & 5G *Small cell on new pedestrian light Park City, Utah * Design inspiration for Rolling Hills 68 PAGE 6 PROPRIETARY &CONFIDENTIAL 4G/5G Technology The evolution to 5G 1G delivered analog voice 2G introduced digital voice and text messaging 3G brought mobile data 4G ushered in the era of mobile internet PAGE 7 PROPRIETARY &CONFIDENTIAL 69 5G versus 4G: speed, latency, connections. Speeds that are as much as 100x faster than 4G, delivering data rates as high as 1 gigabit per second. Speeds support a 10,000x increase in traffic capacity and network efficiency. 10x decrease in end-to-end latency—as low as 1 millisecond— delivering more instantaneous and real-time access. PAGE 8 PROPRIETARY &CONFIDENTIAL •• •• •• More spectrum and small cells will create significantly more network capacity 70 PAGE 10 PROPRIETARY &CONFIDENTIAL Rancho Palos Verdes, CA PAGE 11 PROPRIETARY &CONFIDENTIAL 71 For further information please contact: 33 Stephen Garcia Stephen.Garcia@CrownCastle.com 949-676-4766 tel CROWN CASTLE 200 Spectrum Center Dr, Suite 1700, Irvine, CA 92618 CrownCastle.com Thank You 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 Page 1 of 24 pages Rolling Hills Community Association- Public Participation Survey About Cellular Services Conducted at the direction of the Board of Directors of the Rolling Hills Community Association Survey Period: January 4, 2023 – January 16, 2023 Responses: 292 total responses 266 unique responses (26 responses from same Internet Protocol address) 85 Page 2 of 24 pages Questions 1 and 2 not displayed; those two questions focused on respondent locational issues by street name and closest cross street. (Balance of page intentionally left blank) 86 Page 3 of 24 pages 87 Page 4 of 24 pages 88 Page 5 of 24 pages (Balance of page intentionally left blank) 89 Page 6 of 24 pages (Balance of page intentionally left blank) 23 113 53 54 25 6 2 1 0 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Q6 How many working mobile or cell phones do you currently use in your household? Answered 284 Skipped 8 90 Page 7 of 24 pages (Balance of page intentionally left blank) 91 Page 8 of 24 pages (Balance of page intentionally left blank) 92 Page 9 of 24 pages (Balance of page intentionally left blank) 93 Page 10 of 24 pages (Balance of page intentionally left blank) 94 Page 11 of 24 pages (Balance of page intentionally left blank) 95 Page 12 of 24 pages (Balance of page intentionally left blank) 96 Page 13 of 24 pages (Balance of page intentionally left blank) 97 Page 14 of 24 pages WORD CLOUD OF RESPONSES TO QUESTION 14: Answered: 136 Skipped: 156 (Balance of page intentionally left blank) 98 Page 15 of 24 pages DE-IDENTIFIED, VERBATIM FULL RESPONSES TO QUESTION 14: Answered: 136 Skipped: 156 Verbatim; de-identification indicated by brackets [ ] Q14 If you would like to provide your Board of Directors with any comments on this topic, please type them here. (Optional.) Should small cells be installed they should be camouflaged and the residents should never be charged for these cells. Our public utility services in our community is unacceptable. Our landlines were out for 5 days this week! Power outages have been unacceptably frequent, although they have improved lately. It's time to get to work with the "authorities." I have poor quality cell phone service inside my home because I only get Moble service through cox internet boosters. If my internet gos off, I get NO cell NO house phone line and NO way of contacting anyone. With a 5G phone and T-Mobile I now get cell phone coverage at my home and on Crest Road but not on Eastfield. Verizon told me they had coverage in RH but I never could get more than 1 or 2 bars thus no reception. How about internet service? Thanks for considering improving the service We really desperately need better cell service. Please improve cell service in our city. We don't get good signals within our property. It's incredibly frustrating to not have adequate cell phone access. Is that the price we pay for living in these amazing hills? Then maybe that's ok!? (Yet, it would be wonderful to be able to rely on our cells phones!!!) Given how much work we are doing remotely I feel it is absolutely imperative to improve cell service in Rolling Hills. It is also a safety issue Why you are not trying to have one company in the entire gate. May be AT&T. It’s so ridiculous that from one street to other the carriers are changing thank you for taking consideration in this much needed matter Don't ruin this beautiful city. It feels calm here. Don't add static by introducing more towers. Please improve cell service. It's dangerous to not have good coverage in many areas. The question re do you “support vs oppose” is so vague as to be unanswerable. What does that mean, or entail? 99 Page 16 of 24 pages It is a safety issue. If there is an emergency, one needs the ability of having a working cell phone. We would like to have cell service throughout the city. There are too many dead zones. You are asking us if we oppose or support with no pro/con information. Is the only pro better service, or is there another? Is the only con the appearance of towers, or is there cost involved? Educate us a bit on the issues briefly in the blue newsletter, please. We need better cell service in Rolling Hills. I need to stay with Verizon Wireless for work reasons. It is dangerous not to be able to have any means to contact outside in case of emergence when power down or loss of internet We have figured out how to navigate through the terrible cell coverage in RH. However guests, family members, contractors and workers have tremendous issues with coverage and safety is an issue for these people behind the gates This is one of the most important issues in the city. From both a quality of life and a safety issue on the trails while hiking and riding. Cell service is critical!!!! Please help us. We have been suffering unnecessarily for years without proper cell phone capability-ridiculous! I have both T mobile and ATT. Got rid if Verizon. All three are near useless. Regarding 911, would be safer to call with a smoke signal! All cities in LA County have better daily cell coverage than RH. Poor coverage affects us DAILY. The City's Emergency Notification is Alert Southbay. Everyone is the community is at risk in the event of an emergency. We keep a landline, which is outdated and an additional cost, to communicate daily and in the event of an emergency. But many folks do not. We have tried all sorts of signal booster products with minimal success. We DRIVE somewhere when we have to count on a call not dropping. This is a top priority for us. We have given up our landline and our cell service is very unreliable. I do not feel safe knowing my phone might not work when we have an emergency. Please proceed with any means to improve service. I get virtually no cell service at my location. This is dangerous when there is an emergency and makes completing necessary tasks very difficult. I would support cell towers in any location that would help. The cell coverage is beyond terrible throughout our City and certainly near our home on Johns Canyon Rd. It's not just a question of convenience or business need but also safety, security, visitors having a connection for GPS or communication, etc. Let's please get this addressed The members of my household are strongly opposed to additional cell sites and the implementation of 5G in Rolling Hills. Thank you. 100 Page 17 of 24 pages 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. 101 Page 18 of 24 pages 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! 102 Page 19 of 24 pages 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. 103 Page 20 of 24 pages 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. 104 Page 21 of 24 pages 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 105 Page 22 of 24 pages 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 106 Page 23 of 24 pages 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. 107 Page 24 of 24 pages 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 108 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. 109 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. 110 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) 111 (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 112 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 113 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: 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. 114 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. 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 115 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. 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: 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. 116 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) (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 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 117 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; 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_091223-c1_F2.pdf ATTACHMENT2_384_WirelessOrdinance_D4_redline.pdf ATTACHMENT3_PL_WCF_OrdAmend2023_WirelessApplicationDraft_8-29-23.pdf 118 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. 119 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 17th 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. 120 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; 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_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 121 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 122 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). ƒThe Wireless Ordinance was last updated in 2004. •Today’s presentation is intended to: ƒ(1) Provide context with an overview of applicable federal and state law; and ƒ(2) Outline updates to the wireless ordinance since last meeting 2 123 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 124 5 The Federal Legal Framework Telecommunications Act (1996) - 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7) ƒApplies to all applications for “personal wireless services facilities” ƒGenerally preserves local authority to control placement of person wireless facilities, subject to substantive and procedural limits Telecommunications Act - 47 U.S.C. § 253 ƒPreempts local/state regulations that prohibit or have effect of prohibiting ability of any entity to provide telecom services ƒNondiscriminatory RoW management and compensation protected Middle Class Tax Relief Act (2012) - 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a) (Sec. 6409) ƒApplies to all “wireless” applications (broader) ƒRequires approval of certain collocations/modifications to existing sites (“eligible facilities requests”) FCC Regulations ƒOrders, declaratory rulings and regulations interpret federal statutes ƒCarry 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 ƒDe 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 125 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 ƒEstablishes special rules for small wireless facilities (SWFs) ¾Defines “small wireless facility” (SWF) for shot clock purposes ¾Redefines “effective prohibition” (materially inhibit) ¾Sets new 60-day and 90-day shot clocks for action ¾Limits 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) ¾Adopts new standards for limiting aesthetic regulations ƒAlso holds: ¾All permits/authorizations subject to FCC shot clocks ¾Collocation 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 126 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 127 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). ƒUpheld, 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-of- way. 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 ƒNote: 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. 128 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” ƒT-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.” 14 129 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). ƒCourt 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.” ƒCourt 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 ƒGovernment 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 ƒGovernment Code Section 50030 -Cost Based Fees Only) •Public Utilities Code section 7901: ƒNo charge use of ROW by telephone and wireless companies 16 130 BBKLAW.COM Wireless Ordinance Updates 17 Draft Ordinance •Establishes three permit types for wireless facilities: (CUP, Zone Clearance and Temporary Use Permit) ƒIncludes 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 18 131 Permit Processes •Current 2004 Code requires CUPs for all wireless facilities: •First Draft of Wireless Ordinance Update: ƒCUP for Type 4 (150 day shot clock) ƒZone 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: ƒCUP for Type 2 (Collocation on existing structure – 90 day), 3 (SWF on new or replacement structure – 90 day), and 4 (150 day shot clock) ƒZone 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: ƒPreference to utilize existing poles and structures or replacement of existing structures or poles ƒNo facilities in the front façade of any residential primary building. ƒNo facilities within 10 feet of a driveway. ƒApplicants must avoid new poles to the maximum extent technically feasible. 20 132 BBKLAW.COM Thank you. Questions? 21 133 Agenda Item No.: 10.A Mtg. Date: 11/21/2023 TO:HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM:STEPHANIE GRANT, ASSISTANT PLANNER THRU:DAVID H. READY SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 23-105: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A PORTION OF A RESIDENTIAL ADDITION TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7 PINE TREE LANE (LOT 86-RH) (MIRATOBI), AND FINDING THE ACTION EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DATE:November 21, 2023 BACKGROUND: The lot is a wide-shaped parcel zoned RAS-2, and has a net lot area of 6.14 acre (267,832 square feet). The property includes a 25-foot-wide roadway easement along Pine Tree Lane. The lot is approximately 900 feet wide by 290 feet deep. There are two building pads: a main residential building pad (Pad 1) and stable pad (Pad 2). The lot is developed with a 3,912- square-foot main residence, 600-square-foot attached garage, 965-square-foot stable, 1,418- square-foot chicken coop, 690-square-foot pool/spa, 24-square-foot pool equipment, 88- square-foot breezeway, 377-square-foot storage sheds, 175-square-foot basement, and 160- square-foot service yard. The property is accessible from a driveway apron that fronts onto the east side of Pine Tree Lane. The long driveway extends all around the north and east of the main residence leading into the 3,800-square-foot motor court and three car garage. DISCUSSION: Applicant Requests On August 14, 2023, an application was duly filed by Azam and Mostafa Mirtorabi (“Applicants”) with respect to real property located at 7 Pine Tree Lane, Rolling Hills (LOT 86- RH) requesting a Variance for a portion of an 770-square-foot addition to encroach into the 134 50-foot front yard setback. More specifically, the Applicants are requesting a Variance for approximately 280 square feet (32%) of the proposed addition to encroach 18.3 feet into the 50-foot front yard setback. The proposed addition has a maximum height of 13.4 feet. Variance Since the proposed addition is only 770 square feet, it would typically be approved administratively without Planning Commission review because it is under 1,000 square feet. However, because a portion encroaches into the front yard setback, a variance request is required subject to Planning Commission approval. The Rolling Hills Municipal Code requires a Variance application and approval for the proposed portion of the addition to encroach into the required 50-foot front yard setback. The project includes other items that are part of the Ministerial Review that include the total 770-square-foot addition, 390-square-foot new walkway and 10 cubic yards of grading to be balanced onsite (5 CY cut and 5 CY fill). MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE Setbacks The project complies with all of the required setbacks in the RAS-2 Zone. Lot Coverage and Building Pad Coverage The Project complies with the Development Standards in the Rolling Hills Municipal Zoning Code. The existing structural coverage is 7,272 square feet or 2.72%, and the project proposes a net of 770 square feet or 0.29%, for a total of 8,042 square feet or 3.00%. This is still under the maximum allowed 20% structural coverage. The existing flatwork coverage is 19,906 square feet or 7.43%, and the project proposes 390 square feet, for a total of 20,296 square feet or 7.57%. This is still under the maximum allowable 15% structural coverage. The existing structural and flatwork coverage is 28,338 square feet or 10.58%, and the project increases that by 1,160 square feet or 0.43%. The total overall structural and flatwork coverage will result in 28,580 square feet or 10.6%, which is still well under the maximum allowed 35% structural and flatwork coverage. The existing residential building pad (Pad #1) is 4,889 square-feet or 18.04%. The project proposes an increase of 770-square-feet or 2.84%. The total proposed building pad coverage of Pad #1 is 5,569 square feet or 20.88% which is still below the 30% maximum guideline. The stable building pad will remain the same at 5,066 or 50.4%, this exceeds the maximum 30% guideline, but there no proposed changes. Disturbance The existing disturbed area is 90,573 square feet or 33.82% which is still below the maximum allowed 40%. There is no increase of disturbance because the proposed project is in an area that is already disturbed. Neighbor Concerns 135 No public comments have been received on the date of publication of this Agenda item. Review by RHCA The Rolling Hills Community Association has already reviewed the project. Field Visit On November 21, 2023 at 7:30 a.m., the Planning Commission viewed the project in the field, opened the hearing to enable brief public testimony and continued the meeting to the evening meeting of the Planning Commission. It is recommended that the Planning Commission provide direction to staff. Environmental Review The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303(e) (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines, which exempts accessory structures. CRITERIA FOR VARIANCE 17.38.050 - Required findings. In granting a variance, the Commission (and Council on appeal) must make the following findings: A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone; B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the property in question; C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; E. That the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant; F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; and G. That the variance request is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills. H. (Ord. 239 §11(part), 1993). FISCAL IMPACT: None. 136 RECOMMENDATION: Open the public hearing, receive public testimony, discuss the project, close the public hearing, and provide direction to staff. ATTACHMENTS: ATTACHMENT 1_PL_ADR_231116_1: Vicinity Map ATTACHMENT2_PL_ADR_231116: Development Table ATTACHMENT3_PL_ADR_231116: Photos ATTACHMENT4_PL_ADR_231116: Resolution No. 2023-14 ATTACHMENT5:_PL_ADR_231116 Development Plans 137 City of Rolling Hills TITLE VICINITY MAP CASE NO. ZONING CASE NO. 23-105 VARIANCE OWNER MIRTORABI ADDRESS 7 PINE TREE LANE, ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 SITE 1,000 ft. 138 Development Table Zoning Case No. 23-105 7 Pine Tree Lane VARIANCE EXISTING PROPOSED TOTAL RA-S- 2 Zone SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE , ATTACHED GARAGE POOL/SPA, POOL EQUIPMENT, STABLE, TRELLIS, SERVICE YARD, CHICKEN COOP BASEMENT AND SHEDS 770 SF RESIDENTIAL ADDITION TO MAIN HOUSE, 390 NEW WALKWAYS, AND 10 CY GRADING Net Lot Area 267,832 SF 267,832 SF Residence 3,912 SF 770 SF 4,512 SF Attached Garage 600 SF 0 SF 600 SF Swimming Pools/Spa 769 SF 0 SF 769 SF Pool Equipment 24 SF 0 SF 24 SF Pool House ADU Stable minimum: 450 SF Corral minimum: 550 SF 965 SF 0 SF 965 SF New Planter Box Recreation Court Attached Covered Porches Detached Sheds 377 SF 0 SF 377 SF Attached Trellis 88 SF 0 SF 88 SF Water features Service Yard 160 SF 0 SF 160 SF Primary Driveway 12,220 SF 0 SF 12,220 SF Paved walkways 640 SF 390 SF 1,030 SF Patios Pool Deck 3,246 SF 0 SF 3,246 SF Parking Pads 3,800 SF 0 SF 3,800 SF Grading (balanced onsite) Structural Lot Coverage (20% maximum with deductions) 7,272 SF (2.72%) 770 SF (0.29%) 8,042 SF (3.0%%) Flatwork Lot Coverage (15% maximum) 19,906 SF (7.43%) 390 SF (0.14%) 20,296 SF (7.572%) Total Lot Coverage (Structures and Flatwork) (35% maximum with deductions) 27,178 SF (10.15%) 1,160 SF (0.43%) 28,338 SF (10.58%) Total Disturbed Area (40% maximum) 90,573 SF (33.82%) 0 SF (0%) 90,573 SF (33.82%) Building Pad 1 (30% Maximum Guideline) 4,889 SF (18.04%) 770 SF (2.84%) 5,659 SF (20.88%) Building Pad 2 (30% Maximum Guideline) 2,577 SG (50.47%) 0 SF 2,557 (50.47%) 139 Zoning Case No. 23-105 7 Pine Tree Lane Attachment 3: Photos 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 RESOLUTION NO. 2023-14 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF ZONING CASE NO. 23-105 FOR A VARIANCE FOR A PORTION OF A RESIDENTIAL ADDITION TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT SETBACK, LOCATED AT 7 PINE TREE LANE (LOT 86-RH) (Mirtorabi) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. On August 14,2023, an application was duly filed by Azam and Mostafa Mirtorabi (“Applicants”) with respect to real property located at 7 Pine Tree Lane, Rolling Hills (LOT 86-RH ) requesting a Variance for a portion of a residential addition to encroach into the 50- foot front yard setback. More specifically, the Applicants are requesting a Variance for approximately 280-square-feet (31%) of the proposed addition to encroach 20 feet into the 50- foot required front setback. The total proposed addition is 770-square-feet and maximum 13.4¼ in height. Section 2.The lot is a long narrow shaped parcel zoned RAS-2, and has a net lot area of 6.14 acre (267,832 square feet). The property includes a 25-foot-wide roadway easement along Pine Tree Lane. The lot has two building pads, a main residential building pad (Pad 1) and stable pad (Pad 2). The lot is developed with a 3,912-square-foot main residence, 600-square- foot attached garage, 769 square-foot swimming pool, 965-square-foot stable with an attached unpermitted 1,418-square-foot chicken coop, 690-square-foot pool/spa, 24-square-foot pool equipment, 88-square-foot breezeway, 700-square-foot storage sheds, 175-square-foot basement, and160-square-foot service yard. The existing hardscape includes a 3,800-square- foot motor court. The overall Project includes one item subject to Discretionary Review: portion of a residential the addition to encroach into the 50-foot front yard setback. There are other items that are part of the Administrative Review that include the total 770-square-foot addition, 390- square-foot new walkway and 10 cubic yards of grading to be balanced onsite (5 CY cut and 5 CY fill). Section 4.The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the application at its field trip meeting and regular meeting on November 10, 2023. Neighbors within a 1,000-foot radius were notified of the public hearings and a notice was published in the Daily Breeze on November 10, 2023. The applicants were notified of the public hearings in writing by first class mail and the applicants were in attendance at the hearings. Section 5.The Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures), which exempts the construction and location of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures, including accessory structures, including but not limited to garages, carports, patios, swimming pools and fences. Here, the proposed Project includes an 770- square foot residential addition, 390-square foot walkway, and 10 cubic yards of grading. 148 2 Resolution No. 2023-14 7 Pine Tree Lane (Miratobi) Accordingly, the Project qualifies for the exemption pursuant to Section 15303. Further, no exceptions to the exemption apply; there is no reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. The site has already been graded and existing structures are on site. Section 6. Variance Findings. Section 17.38.050 sets forth the required findings for granting a variance for a portion of a proposed residential addition, approximately 280-square- feet (total 770-square-feet) to encroach 18.2 3/4-feet into the required 50-foot front yard setback. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A.That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone. There are extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property. Unlike most properties in the RAS-2 Zone, the existing west portion of the residence already encroaches into the front setback and front yard. The proposed addition is in an expansion of area that is already developed, disturbed, and encroaches into the required setback. The main residence is accessible by a driveway entrance off Pine Tree Lane. The existing west section of the residence already encroaches into the front setback and front yard, meaning the addition will be consistent with the appearance of the existing property. B.That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the property in question. The addition in the setback will result in a minor encroachment into the setback area and other properties in the vicinity have been granted additions in the past. C.That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Granting a variance for the addition to encroach into the required front 50-foot setback will not be detrimental to the public welfare and will not be injurious to properties in the vicinity because it is a minor encroachment which is consistent with the encroachments by the existing residence. Further, the project will not be visible from Pine Tree Lane or private properties. The addition is screened from the trees located along fence line on Pine Tree Lane. D.That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed. The granting of the variance will allow for a development that is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the propose addition is visually harmonious with adjacent properties and in scale with adjacent residential development. E.That the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant. 149 3 Resolution No. 2023-14 7 Pine Tree Lane (Miratobi) The variance does not grant special privileges for the Applicants, the proposed addition is just an expansion of the west section of the residence that is already encroaching into the front setback. The project, together with the variance, will be compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the General Plan. F.That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities. Granting a variance for the project will be consistent with the applicable portions of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan related to siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities. The project site is not listed on the current State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List. The proposed addition would not constitute a hazardous waste facility. G.That the variance request is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills. Approvals granting the variance to allow a portion of the addition to encroach into the required setback will be consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills, which encourages residential uses. Section 7.Based upon the foregoing findings, and the evidence in the record, the Planning Commission hereby approves Zoning Case No. 23-105 subject to the following conditions: A. The Variance approval shall expire within two years from the effective date of approval as defined in RHMC Section 17.38.070 of the Zoning Ordinance unless otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of this section. B. If any condition of this resolution is violated, the entitlement granted by this resolution shall be suspended and the privileges granted hereunder shall lapse and upon receipt of written notice from the City, all construction work being performed on the subject property shall immediately cease, other than work determined by the City Manager or his/her designee required to cure the violation. The suspension and stop work order will be lifted once the Applicant cures the violation to the satisfaction of the City Manager or his/her designee. In the event that the Applicant disputes the City Manager or his/her designee’s determination that a violation exists or disputes how the violation must be cured, the Applicant may request a hearing before the City Council. The hearing shall be scheduled at the next regular meeting of the City Council for which the agenda has not yet been posted; the Applicant shall be provided written notice of the hearing. The stop work order shall remain in effect during the pendency of the hearing. The City Council shall make a determination as to whether a violation of this Resolution has occurred. If the Council determines that a violation has not occurred or has been cured by the time of the hearing, the Council will lift the suspension and the stop work order. If the Council determines that a violation has occurred and has not yet been cured, the Council shall provide the Applicant with a deadline to cure the violation; no construction work shall be performed on 150 4 Resolution No. 2023-14 7 Pine Tree Lane (Miratobi) the property until and unless the violation is cured by the deadline, other than work designated by the Council to accomplish the cure. If the violation is not cured by the deadline, the Council may either extend the deadline at the Applicant’s request or schedule a hearing for the revocation of the entitlements granted by this Resolution pursuant to Chapter 17.58 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (RHMC). C.All requirements of the Building and Construction Ordinance, the Zoning ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with unless otherwise a variance to such requirement has been approved. D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file at City Hall and approved by the Planning Commission on November 21, 2023 except as otherwise provided in these conditions. The working drawings submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check review shall conform to the approved development plan. All conditions of the Variance approval shall be incorporated into the building permit working drawings, and where applicable complied with prior to issuance of a grading or building permit from the building department. The conditions of approval of this Resolution shall be printed onto a separate sheet and included in the building plans submitted to the Building Department for review and shall be kept on site at all times. Any proposed modifications and/or changes to the approved project, including resulting from field conditions, shall be discussed with staff so that staff can determine whether the modification is minor or major in nature. Minor modifications are subject to approval by the City Manager or his or her designee. Major modifications are subject to approval by the Planning Commissioner after a public hearing. Applicant shall not implement modifications or changes to the approved project without the appropriate approval from the City Manager or designee or the Planning Commission, as required. E.Prior to submittal of final working drawings to Building and Safety Department for issuance of building and grading permits, the plans for the project shall be submitted to City staff for verification that the final plans are in compliance with the plans approved by the Planning Commission. F.A licensed professional preparing construction plans for this project for Building Department review shall execute a Certificate affirming that the plans conform in all respects to this Resolution approving this project and all of the conditions set forth herein and the City’s Building Code and Zoning Ordinance. Further, the person obtaining a building and/or grading permit for this project shall execute a Certificate of Construction stating that the project will be constructed according to this Resolution and any plans approved therewith. G.Structural lot coverage of the lot shall not exceed 8,042 square feet or 3.0% of the net lot area (20% maximum). The existing flatwork coverage is 20,296 square feet or 7.5%. The 151 5 Resolution No. 2023-14 7 Pine Tree Lane (Miratobi) total lot coverage proposed, including structures and flatwork, shall not exceed 28,338 square or 10.58% (35% maximum). H.The lot is already disturbed at 90,573 square-feet or 33.8% (maximum 40%). Grading for this project shall not exceed 5 cubic yards of cut and 5 cubic yards of fill for a total of 10 cubic yards balanced on site. I.The existing residential building pad (Pad #1) is 4,889 square-feet or 18.04%. The project proposes an increase of 770-square-feet or 2.84%. The total proposed building pad coverage of Pad #1 is 5,569 square feet or 20.88% which is still below the 30% maximum guideline. The stable building pad will remain the same at 5,066 or 50.4%, this exceeds the maximum 30% guideline, but there no proposed changes. J. A driveway access shall be provided per the Fire Department requirements and the driveway shall be roughened and the first 20 feet of the driveway shall not exceed 7% in slope. K.Access to the stable and to the corral shall be decomposed granite or 100% pervious roughened material; it shall not be wider than 12 feet. L.A minimum of five-foot level path and/or walkway, which does not have to be paved, shall be provided around the entire perimeter of all of the proposed structures, including the detached garage and stable, or as otherwise required by the Fire Department. M.The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Low Impact Development requirements for storm water management on site (RHMC Chapter 8.32). N.Hydrology, soils, geology and other reports, as required by the Building and Public Works Departments, and as may be required by the Building Official, shall be prepared. O.Prior to issuance of a final construction approval of the project, all graded slopes shall be landscaped. Prior to issuance of building permit, the landscaping plan shall meet the requirements of the City, shall be submitted to the City in conformance with Fire Department Fuel Modification requirements, and shall be approved by the City’s landscape consultant. P.The project shall be landscaped, and continually maintained in substantial conformance with the landscaping plan on file approved by the City’s landscape consultant. A detailed landscaping plan shall provide that any trees and shrubs used in the landscaping scheme for this project shall be planted in a way that screens the project development from adjacent streets and neighbors, such that shrubs and trees as they mature do not grow into a hedge or impede any neighbors views and the plan shall provide that all landscaping be maintained at a height no higher than the roof line of the nearest project structure. In addition, the landscaping plan shall provide for screening of development with vegetation not to exceed 10 feet in height, and that the vegetation used for screening shall be planted in an off-set manner, so as to prevent it, as it grows from forming a solid hedge. The landscaping plan shall utilize to the maximum extent feasible, plants that are native to the area, are water-wise and are 152 6 Resolution No. 2023-14 7 Pine Tree Lane (Miratobi) consistent with the rural character of the community. Plants listed as high hazardous plants under RHMC Section 8.30.015 are prohibited. Q.The applicant shall submit a landscaping performance bond or other financial obligation, to be kept on deposit by the City, in the amount of the planting plus irrigation plus 15%. The bond shall be released no sooner than two years after completion of all plantings, subject to a City staff determination that the plantings required for the project are in substantial conformance with approved plans and are in good condition. R.The landscaping shall be subject to the requirements of the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, (Chapter 13.18 of the RHMC). S.Pursuant to Chapter 8.30 of the RHMC, the property shall at all times be maintained free of dead trees and vegetation. T.The setback lines and roadway easement lines in the vicinity of the construction for this project shall remain staked throughout the construction. A construction fence may be required. U.Perimeter easements, including roadway easements and trails, if any, shall remain free and clear of any improvements to advance equestrian use and emergency preparedness for evacuation within the City. Where RHCA has demonstrated authority over the easement, the City’s Planning Director may grant relief from this condition upon satisfactory proof of permission from RHCA and a legitimate showing that there is no need for the condition to advance equestrian uses and emergency preparedness. V.Minimum of 65% of any construction materials must be recycled or diverted from landfills. The hauler of the materials shall obtain City’s Construction and Demolition permits for waste hauling prior to start of work and provide proper documentation to the City. W. During construction, conformance with the air quality management district requirements, storm water pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, objectionable odors, landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence shall be required. X. During construction, to the extent feasible, all parking shall take place on the project site, on the new driveway and, if necessary, any overflow parking may take place within the unimproved roadway easements along adjacent streets, and shall not obstruct neighboring driveways, visibility at intersections or pedestrian and equestrian passage. During construction, to the maximum extent feasible, employees of the contractor shall car-pool into the City. To the extent feasible, a minimum of 4’ wide path, from the edge of the roadway pavement, for pedestrian and equestrian passage shall be available and be clear of vehicles, construction materials and equipment at all times. Y.During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and regulate construction and relate traffic noise throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM and 153 7 Resolution No. 2023-14 7 Pine Tree Lane (Miratobi) 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and mechanical equipment noise is permitted, so as not to interfere with the quiet residential environment of the City of Rolling Hills. Z.Prior to demolition of the existing structures, an investigation shall be conducted for the presence of hazardous chemicals, lead-based paints or products, mercury and asbestos- containing materials (ACMs). If hazardous chemicals, lead-based paints or products, mercury or ACMs are identified, remediation shall be undertaken in compliance with California environmental regulations and policies. AA.The property owner and/or his/her contractor/applicant shall be responsible for compliance with the no-smoking provisions in the Municipal Code. The contractor shall not use tools that could produce a spark, including for clearing and grubbing, during red flag warning conditions. Weather conditions can be found at: http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/lox/main.php?suite=safety&page=hazard_definitions#FIRE. It is the sole responsibility of the property owner and/or his/her contractor to monitor the red flag warning conditions. AB.Development shall drain in accordance with the approved grading and drainage plan. Drainage dissipaters shall be constructed outside of any easements. The drainage system shall be approved by the Department of Building and Safety. If an above ground swale and/or dissipater is required, it shall be designed in such a manner as not to cross over any equestrian trails or discharge water onto a trail, shall be stained in an earth tone color, and shall be screened from any trail, road and neighbors’ view to the maximum extent practicable, without impairing the function of the drainage system. AC.During construction, dust control measures shall be used to stabilize the soil from wind erosion and reduce dust and objectionable odors generated by construction activities in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District, Los Angeles County and local ordinances and engineering practices. AD.During construction, an Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth in Section 7010 of the 2022 County of Los Angeles Uniform Building Code shall be followed to minimize erosion and to protect slopes and channels to control storm water pollution. AE.The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of storm water drainage facilities and septic tank. AF.The applicant shall pay all of the applicable Building and Safety and Public Works Department fees and Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District fees, if any. AG.Prior to final inspection of the project, “as graded” and “as constructed” plans and certifications shall be provided to the Planning Department and the Building Department to ascertain that the completed project is in compliance with the Planning Commission approved plans. In addition, any modifications made to the project during construction, shall be depicted on the “as built/as graded” plan. 154 8 Resolution No. 2023-14 7 Pine Tree Lane (Miratobi) AH.The applicants shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of the Variance approval, or the approval shall not be effective. AI. All conditions of this Resolution, when applicable, must be complied with prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit from the Building and Safety Department AJ.Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 17.54.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. AK.To the extent permitted by law, Permittee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Rolling Hills, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside, or void any permit or approval for this project authorized by the City, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorney’s fees and costs in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its choice. The permittee shall reimburse the City for any court and attorney's fees which the City may be required to pay as a result of any claim or action brought against the City because of this permit. Although the permittee is the real party in interest in an action, the City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of the action, but such participation shall not relieve the permittee of any obligation under this condition. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 21 st DAY OF November 2023. BRAD CHELF, CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: ____________________________________ CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 17.54.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code and Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. 155 9 Resolution No. 2023-14 7 Pine Tree Lane (Miratobi) STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2023-14 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF ZONING CASE NO. 23-105 FOR A VARIANCE FOR A PORTION OF A RESIDENTIAL ADDITION TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT SETBACK, LOCATED AT 7 PINE TREE LANE (LOT 86-RH) (Mirtorabi) was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on November 21, 2023, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. __________________________________ CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164