AGENDA ITEM NO. CITY OF SIMI VALLEY MEMORANDUM August 7, City Council. Department of Environmental Services

Transcription

1 AGENDA ITEM NO. 6A TO: City Council CITY OF SIMI VALLEY MEMORANDUM August 7, 2017 FROM: Department of Environmental Services SUBJECT: A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION S DECISION TO DENY WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS PERMIT NO. WTP-87 (WEST SIDE OF SINALOA ROAD, 270 FEET SOUTH OF LOS ANGELES AVENUE) AND CONSIDERATION OF ITS DESIGN AS AN APPROVED TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY DESIGN (ATFD); A DETERMINATION THAT THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA); AND ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council consider the Applicant s appeal of the Planning Commission s decision to deny Wireless Telecommunications Permit No. WTP-87 and its design as an Approved Telecommunications Facility Design (ATFD); evaluate public testimony; and select one of the following alternatives: 1. Adopt a resolution (page 16), OR direct staff to modify the resolution and return to the City Council for final adoption at the next regularly scheduled meeting, denying the appeal making findings in support of this decision, and upholding the Planning Commission s denial of WTP-87 and not adopting WTP-87 as an Approved Telecommunications Facility Design (ATFD); 2. Adopt, or modify and adopt, a resolution (page 19) granting the appeal and reversing the Planning Commission s decision, thereby approving WTP-87 and adopting WTP-87 as an Approved Telecommunications Facility Design (ATFD); making findings in support of this decision; and determining that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act; or 3. Adopt, or modify and adopt, a resolution (page 25) granting the appeal in part, and reversing the Planning Commission s decision, thereby approving WTP-87; not adopting WTP-87 as an Approved Telecommunications Facility Design (ATFD); making findings in support of this decision, and determining that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER S RECOMMENDATION This represents an appeal of the Planning Commission s decision to deny a Wireless Telecommunications Permit No. WTP-87. The City Council should consider the issues presented in this report, as well as those presented by the applicant, and provide direction to staff. P 25/7-17(ks)

2 2 BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW The requests are to install and operate a Wireless Telecommunications Facility located on a proposed fiber optic strand hung between two existing utility poles located on the west side of Sinaloa Road, 270 feet south of Los Angeles Avenue, and determinate that the proposed design qualifies as an Approved Telecommunications Facilities Design (ATFD) for Citywide use. On June 21, 2017, the Planning Commission voted 3:1 to deny Wireless Telecommunications Permit No. WTP-87, and thereby not determining that the proposed design shall be an ATFD. The Applicant, Crown Castle, appealed the Planning Commission s decision (Attachment A, page 30). The proposed Wireless Telecommunications Facility consists of a new wireless node attached to a proposed aerial fiber optic strand (the wire cable strung from pole to pole) within the public right-of-way of the Commercial Planned Development - Los Angeles Avenue Planning Overlay [CPD (LAAPO)] zone. The purpose of the facility is to create a fiber optic network to provide enhanced wireless services in the immediate area. The proposed node is to be placed on the new strand approximately six feet south of an existing Southern California Edison (SCE) pole. Attached to the strand will be two small cell antennas, two Remote Radio Units (RRUs) and two power converters. The plans depict that the node will be placed 20 feet above the ground. The antenna and RRUs are approximately 17 inches wide by 33 inches long and 10 inches in depth. The power converters are approximately 6 inches wide by 10 inches long by 3 inches deep. P 25/7-17(ks)

3 The following images depict the proposed design: 3 Proposed Strand-Mounted Equipment & Proposed ATFD Utility Pole and Proposed Strand Proposed Antenna and RRUs DC Converters Power Proposed Strand-Mounted Wireless Telecommunications Facility & ATFD Proposed Antenna Equipment ATFD and P 25/7-17(ks)

4 4 The City s Wireless Telecommunications Consultant reviewed the application for emissions from the equipment to assure public safety (Planning Commission Staff Report, Exhibit 2, page 5) and recommended special conditions of approval to require safety signage. The full consultant analysis of the project is included in its first report dated March 22, 2017 (Attachment C, page 49) ( First Consultant Report ). Subsequent to the First Consultant Report, the City s Consultant submitted an analysis of the Applicant s alternative site analysis ( Alternative Site Analysis ) (Attachment B, page 31), in a second report dated July 10, 2017 (Attachment D, page 57) ( Second Consultant Report ). The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the Telecom Act ) requires State and local governments to act on a duly filed wireless permit application within a reasonable time. FCC regulations interpret a reasonable time to mean 60 days for an eligible facilities request, 90 days for a collocation application, and 150 days for all other projects. This project is neither an eligible facilities request nor a collocation. Therefore, the City must act on the project within 150 days ( Shot Clock ). Under California law, the project may be deemed approved when the local government fails to act within the applicable timeframe and all notices required for the application have been given. As of August 7, 2017, the Shot Clock is at 127 days and the City Council must act on the project by August 30, 2017, unless the City and Applicant both agree to extend the shot clock deadline. Standard of Review The City Council s review of the planning decision is de novo, that is, the City Council may decide the matter without deference to the decision of the Planning Commission. The Council can review the prior proceedings, the findings of the Planning Commission, and any written or oral testimony provided at the City Council or Planning Commission hearing, and may utilize or adopt any, all or none of them. The Applicant is entitled to a fair hearing, and any decision of the City Council should be made through findings based on substantial evidence, in writing to the extent feasible. Topanga Ass n for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles, 11 Cal.3d 506 (1974). The substantial evidence test in the telecommunication permit context is met by findings that are authorized by applicable local regulations and supported by a reasonable amount of evidence (i.e. more than a scintilla but not necessarily a preponderance.) Am. Tower Corp. v. San Diego, 763 F.3d 1035, 1053 (9 th Cir. 2014). Courts will be deferential to the City s decision if this standard is met. Id. The City Council s review is not limited to the grounds for appeal submitted by the Applicant, but may include all issues surrounding the proposed permit or item. SVMC (D)(2). The ATFD portion of the appeal is discretionary on the part of the City, and thus would be reviewed by Courts under an abuse of discretion standard (which is a lower standard than the substantial evidence test). Approved Telecommunications Facilities Design (ATFD) Under the City Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance [SVMC Title 5, Chapter 35, Section (c)(1)], the Environmental Services Director is allowed to issue a permit for a Wireless Telecommunications Facility that is proposed to be located P 25/7-17(ks)

5 5 in the public right-of-way or on private property when its design is consistent with an ATFD previously approved by the Planning Commission. ATFDs shall be approved for facilities that are determined to constitute a standardized design (i.e. height, diameter of poles, screening or camouflaging, antenna placement, placement of equipment, etc.). In this case, the WTP-87 application was not approved by the Planning Commission and therefore, the ATFD was not approved. If the City Council approves the project they may also choose, at the City Council s discretion, whether to approve it as an ATFD, which would streamline future applications to the extent of not requiring future Planning Commission hearings for significantly matching designs (staff-level hearings may still be conducted depending on site-specific circumstances). The ATFDs approved by the Environmental Services Department are subject to regular review by the Planning Commission on at least a biennial basis. Periodic review allows the Planning Commission to determine whether ATFDs are consistent with currently available designs and technologies, and are designed and installed in such a manner as to constitute the least intrusive design for such facilities. The proposed ATFD being considered is the design shown with WTP-87. This consists of the general size and shape of the equipment attached to a strand strung between two pre-existing utility poles. Support equipment, such as overhead fiber optic strands, certain ground mounted equipment, and certain utility poles in the public right-of-way are approved by the City under the Encroachment Permit process. Planning staff coordinates with Public Works for review pursuant to the City s Wireless Telecommunications Ordinance (SVMC Title 5-35) and concerns related to utility equipment screening and ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) accessibility requirements. If future applications for this type of ATFD include additional groundmounted equipment or other pole or strand-mounted equipment, additional consideration and modification to the ATFD may be required to add the additional equipment. FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES The original Findings for Approval that were presented to the Planning Commission are on pages 6-8 of Exhibit 2. The Planning Commission s 3:1 vote of denial included the following modified Findings 1 and 3 (Refer to the Minutes in Exhibit 1, page 4, and the Denial Resolution in Exhibit 1, page 1): 1. The higher priority locations or designs, as set forth in SVMC Section (b), are either not available or not feasible, in that the proposed small cell antennas on strands between existing power poles is not an acceptable design as a third highest priority location pursuant to SVMC Section (b)(1)(iii) (Existing pole, light standard, or utility tower). This proposal utilizes the existing row of power poles on the west side of Sinaloa Drive within the street right-of-way, located on a proposed fiber optic strand connected between two power poles, but the design is not physically on the utility pole as required by this priority location. Furthermore, the Planning Commission was not provided an alternative site analysis for other possible locations such as light poles or locations behind a parapet of an existing structure. P 25/7-17(ks)

6 6 3. The facility proposed would not be of the least intrusive design and in the least intrusive location, in that the proposed wireless node located on a new fiber optic strand between two existing power poles are fully exposed to viewing by the public are: 1) not camouflaged into an existing structure, such as radome cylinders atop light poles, placement behind rooftop parapets of existing buildings or other ATFDs previously authorized by the Planning Commission; and, 2) pose a blight into the existing neighborhood by adding additional exposed equipment to overhead utility structures that could be located in architecturally pleasing structures. As part of the appeal, staff is providing the Alternative Site Analysis prepared by the Applicant into the record and the response to the analysis by the City s Wireless Telecommunications Consultant in its Second Consultant Report. The Second Consultant Report concludes that the Applicant s proposed alternative sites were not fully justified to be rejected as alternative sites, and did not meet the Applicant s burden of proof required. One of the alternative sites is not a truly realistic alternative. However, the four alternative sites chosen are also in the same vicinity in or adjacent to the public right-of-way, and the design would still involve strand-mounted equipment. Other possible alternatives could include facilities on private property or camouflaged facilities on existing or new utility or light poles. The City Council should decide whether the Applicant s proposed right-of-way design is aesthetically appropriate. Other aesthetically appropriate designs already approved by the Planning Commission include several ATFDs (Attachment E). The only right-of-way ATFD currently approved by the City is the large-scale light pole design with radome antenna top, but other designs may be available to the Applicant. The Planning Commission also commented (refer to Minutes, Exhibit 1, page 4) on the potential for future undergrounding of overhead lines as part of a development project. Pursuant to Simi Valley Municipal Code Section 9-30, the overhead utility lines and utility poles, including the proposed wireless facility, may be required to be removed if the utilities front the future development project, subject to factors such as line voltage and removal costs. Typically, the future developer is required to pay for all utility line removals and pole relocations. The Planning Commission felt that the additional utility (Crown Castle, WTP-87) could burden the future developer with future removal costs. If the City Council chooses to approve the project, staff in response is recommending Condition *A-13 to require the Applicant (Crown Castle) to remove the proposed strand and wireless facility at their expense when the utility poles and lines are proposed for removal as part of a future development project. The Applicant would then be able to apply for a new replacement facility of a non-strand design in the same vicinity. In the Applicant s grounds for appeal (Attachment A, page 30) and correspondence received by the Applicant s legal counsel (Attachment F, page 71), the following statements were made and issues raised (a City analysis is provided after each, in consultation with the City Attorney s Office): 1. Public Utilities Code Sections 7901 and : Crown Castle is a competitive local exchange carrier and therefore a beneficiary of the statewide franchise rights of Public Utilities Code Sections 7901 and The denial violates Crown Castle's rights to install its facilities in the public rights-of-way ("ROW ) of the City under those statutes. P 25/7-17(ks)

7 7 The City analyzes this ground as follows: The City s Wireless Telecommunications Ordinance (SVMC et seq.) is consistent with Public Utilities Code ( PUC ) 7901 and , and the application of the City s rules in this case does not violate Crown Castle s rights under those statutes. Under the State Constitution, the City may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws, often referred to as the police power. Cal. Const., art. XI, 7. Consistent with these principles, courts have held that PUC Section 7901 does not grant telephone corporations unlimited rights to install their equipment within the public right-of-way. T-Mobile West LLC v. City and County of San Francisco (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 334. Further, the local police power generally includes the power to adopt ordinances for aesthetic reasons. Ehrlich v. City of Culver City (1996) 12 Cal.4 th 854, 886. PUC 7901 grants telephone corporations the privilege to construct infrastructure upon the public rights-of-way, as long as that use does not incommode the public s use. PUC and related case law further clarifies the matter, indicating that Cities can regulate telecom providers to use the least intrusive means in the right-of-way, including aesthetic considerations. See Sprint PCS Assets, LLC, v. City of Palos Verdes Estates, 583 F.3d 716, 725 (9 th Cir. 2009). Thus, SVMC et seq. is in compliance with the above law because it regulates telecommunications equipment permits based on the principle of a least intrusive design, including aesthetics. Thus, this grounds for appeal is not valid, by itself, to overturn the Planning Commission s decision. However, consistent with the rest of this staff report, the City Council may find that the project design does not adequately meet the City s design standards, or conversely that the City s requirements have been met. 2. The Planning Commission did not invoke proper "time, place, and manner" criteria to justify its denial. The City analyzes this ground as follows: Consistent with the discussion above, SVMC et seq. is a valid City enactment regulating the time, place, and manner upon which facilities are installed in the City s public right-of-way, which the City s Planning Commission relied upon and made applicable when it denied the Appellant s Wireless Telecommunications Permit on July 21, The Planning Commission s findings are sufficient under these rules, and thus this grounds for appeal is not valid. However, as stated above, the City Council is not bound by the Planning Commission s decision and may issue a decision de novo upon review of the existing record and any evidence introduced at the City Council hearing, and does not have to rely upon the grounds submitted by the Applicant for appeal U.S.C. Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iii): The denial was not based on substantial evidence, as required by 47 U.S.C. Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iii). The Planning Commission's findings concerning "least intrusive design and location were mere conclusory assertions. In fact, the record establishes that the site is in a commercial zone ("CPD") and does not therefore affect residential areas or views. Moreover, the site is minimal in size and located in an area already impacted by power lines, poles and other utilities. P 25/7-17(ks)

8 8 The City analyzes this ground as follows: The substantial evidence test, as set forth earlier in this report, is met by findings that are authorized by applicable local regulations and supported by a reasonable amount of evidence (i.e. more than a scintilla but not necessarily a preponderance.) The findings by the Planning Commission meet this substantial evidence test, and thus the ground for appeal cited by the Applicant is not valid. As set forth in the written findings of the Planning Commission, the City interprets camouflaging requirements to be the same for both residential and non-residential locations. If the site or future ATFD site were within a residential area, the analysis for camouflaging and best location requirements would go even further. In addition, the Planning Commission found that the proposed equipment is not camouflaged at all since it is not encased within an architectural enclosure, screened by faux foliage, or screened by a building parapet. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City Council is able to review de novo the evidence and findings in this matter, and may determine whether the Planning Commission s findings that it is not sufficiently camouflaged will be adopted by the Council, or if its size, shape, and location on utility lines effectively eliminate the need for camouflage U.S.C. Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(ll): The denial results in a prohibition of service and therefore is prohibited by 47 U.S.C. Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(ll). The site serves a significant gap in coverage and represents the least intrusive design and location to fill that gap, notwithstanding the Planning Commission's conclusory findings to the contrary. The City analyzes this ground as follows: Under Federal law, the denial of a single permit is not generally a prohibition of service under 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7), unless the Applicant can prove a significant gap in service. Further, the Applicant is bound to show that the requested equipment permit in the right-ofway represents the least intrusive means of providing the service and remedying the gap in service. Under California law, however, and as noted by the City s Wireless Telecommunications Consultant in the First Consultant Report, the Applicant is not necessarily required to show beyond doubt that there are gaps in service. If the Applicant does not make this showing, the least intrusive means test will continue to apply, along with the City s ability to manage aesthetics. In the Ninth Circuit, case law has indicated that this test refers to evaluating the technically feasible and potentially available design alternatives and locations that most closely conform to the local values as expressed in local law. See e.g., T-Mobile USA v. City of Anacortes, 572 F.3d 987, 995 (2009). A review of the permit application shows that this ground for appeal does not have merit, because one permit application does not constitute a denial of service, the Applicant did not prove a gap in service, and the Applicant s Alternative Site Analysis is insufficient. First, the Applicant s application does not state that the project is to fulfill a significant gap. The Propagation Maps, dated March 6, 2017 also do not indicate a significant gap in coverage. Second, the Planning Commission, through written findings, found that the design of equipment did not result in a least intrusive means in that the other camouflaging options may be more appropriate for the location, such as a radome antenna atop a light pole or an antenna behind and existing wall parapet. P 25/7-17(ks)

9 9 In addition, in response to the Applicant s Alternative Site Analysis, the City s Wireless Telecommunications Consultant submitted a Second Consultant Report, in which all alternative sites provided by the Applicant were carefully evaluated. In the Second Consultant Report, it is found that the alternative site analysis is insufficient to shift the burden to the City of disproving the inaccessibility of the Applicant s proposed sites. In particular, the Second Consultant Report notes that: (A) in Alternative 1, the Applicant has not considered (i) replacing the existing pole with a taller pole, and (ii) the impacts (if any) if the antenna were placed at a lower location; (B) in Alternative 2, the Applicant s assertion that the pole in Alternative 2 cannot be used is inadequate because: (i) an underground conduit could be installed, avoiding overhead cables; and (ii) small cell equipment could be installed on a lateral pole extension arm; (C) in Alternative 3, (i) the equipment could be placed on the wire between the selected pole and an adjacent pole, and (ii) the Alternative may not be a bona fide alternative because it is located north of the desired coverage area ; and (D) in Alternative 4, there has been no technically sufficient justification to exclude the alternative pole location, because (i) the equipment is to be placed on the strand, thus not interfering with the pole, and (ii) the Applicant claims that foliage at the location would block transmissions, but does not provide any analysis of the extent of the potential blockage. Thus, the consultant s Alternative Site Analysis provided is insufficient because it provided only three realistic alternatives (as opposed to the four that were claimed), and the Applicant provided mere assertions rather than objective data to eliminate those alternatives from consideration. However, the City Council retains the ability, based on substantial evidence, to either grant or deny the appeal, depending upon the Council s evaluation of the facts and evidence provided. 5. SVMC Chapter 35: The site is located in a preferred area, since it is outside residential zone (SVMC Section (a)(2)(4)); contrary to the findings, the site utilizes existing poles, insofar as it is mounted to cable supported by existing structures (Id. at Section (b)(1)(3)). The City analyzes this ground as follows: The findings of the Planning Commission noted that the additional cable and antenna equipment is not camouflaged to the greatest extent possible. An antenna mounted to a light pole within a radome atop the pole would be a more camouflaged design. The City interprets camouflaging requirements to be the same for both residential and non-residential locations. If the site or future ATFD site were within a residential area, the analysis for camouflaging and best location requirements would go even further, such as proximity to residences, design obtrusiveness, and placement of accessory equipment. Thus, this grounds for appeal is not valid. 6. The Appeal does not rest on substantial evidence, which is required to support a denial of an application like this (Item 3, page 6 of Attachment F). The City analyzes this ground as follows: In addition to the Substantial Evidence discussion above in Paragraph 3, other substantial evidence exists to support the Planning Commission s denial of the Appellant s application, not identified in Attachment F. For instance, the Planning Commission s resolution has additional written findings included within that support the Planning Commission s prior decision to deny the Applicant s permit. Furthermore, at the conclusion of this Hearing, the City Council can now augment the record herein P 25/7-17(ks)

10 10 to further support its prospective decision. Also, the proposed City Council findings include more factors and evidence for the City Council to consider, than were first presented in the Planning Commission s minutes and resolution. The First Consultant Report and Second Consultant report, described herein are also now part of the record. Taking all of the foregoing together, substantial evidence exists to support a denial of Appellant s application. 7. The Project Qualifies as the Least Intrusive Design (Item A, page 6 of Attachment F). The City analyzes this ground as follows: The Applicant states that the Planning Commission cited no evidence that Crown Castle failed to demonstrate a least intrusive design and location, nor did the Planning Commission identify specific alternative locations or designs for Crown Castle to study and exhaust. As stated in this report, the Applicant s Alternative Site Analysis is inadequate and conclusory; as a result, Applicant cannot shift the burden to the City to disprove the inaccessibility of the Applicant s proposed sites. (Please see discussion above in Paragraph 4). Notwithstanding, for illustrative purposes, Alternative Site No. 2 (as discussed in Applicant s Alternative Site Analysis) can, as a practical matter, utilize a cable under the street to support the site. The Second Consultant Report states that Applicant s s reasoning for rejecting Alternative 2 is unconvincing. First, Applicant routinely installs underground conduits and cables to cross a street like Sinaloa Road. Second, Applicant routinely installs small cell equipment on lateral pole extension arms. Also, the undergrounding of overhead lines and new utility conduits are routinely performed on City streets to support utility systems. This circumstance alone would not exclude Alternative Site No. 2 as an alternative location or alternative design. 8. The project is inherently a right-of-way project; the City cannot preclude use of the right-of-way (Item B, page 9 of Attachment F). The City analyzes this ground as follows: The City does not disagree with the right-of-way assertion, in that a water tank site or locating on and existing wall or roof of a non-right-of-way structure may not be feasible for the intended service area. The proposed City Council project denial resolution (if the City Council chooses this particular alterative) does not rely on excluding the right-of-way as an allowable least intrusive design. Rather, the use of the strand between two utility poles, results in a design that could be considered to not being the least intrusive design due to antennas and related equipment attached to the strand in a non-camouflaged fashion, extending the potential blight of overhead utility structures. In fact, the Applicant does have the option of proposing a different least intrusive design, such as the ATFD radome option contained in Attachment E, or a non-strand-mounted right-of-way design such as an antenna attached to a street light with decorative encasement, still with the potential to be considered a future ATFD option. If the City Council desires to uphold the appeal and approve the project, either as only for the Sinaloa Road location, or to include future locations with the ATFD determination, the Findings for Approval are contained in the June 21, 2017 Planning Commission staff report (Exhibit 2). If the City Council desires to deny the appeal on other grounds than those outlined by the Planning Commission, specific findings must be articulated. P 25/7-17(ks)

11 11 The following alternatives are available to the City Council in its consideration of the appeal of the Planning Commission s decision to deny WTP-87 and determination that the project design shall not qualify as an ATFD, after its evaluation of public testimony: 1. Adopt a resolution (page 16), OR direct staff to modify the resolution and return to the City Council for final adoption at the next regularly scheduled meeting, denying the appeal, making findings in support of this decision, and upholding the Planning Commission s denial of WTP-87 and not adopting WTP-87 as an Approved Telecommunications Facility Design (ATFD); 2. Adopt, or modify and adopt, a resolution (page 19) granting the appeal and reversing the Planning Commission s decision, thereby approving WTP-87; adopting WTP-87 as an Approved Telecommunications Facility Design (ATFD); making findings in support of this decision; and determining that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act; 3. Adopt, or modify and adopt, a resolution (page 25) granting the appeal in part, and reversing the Planning Commission s decision, thereby approving WTP-87; not adopting WTP-87 an Approved Telecommunications Facility Design (ATFD); making findings in support of this decision; and determining that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act; 4. Refer the matter back to staff or the Planning Commission; 5. Provide staff with other direction. Staff recommends that the City Council consider the Applicant s appeal of the Planning Commission s decision to deny WTP-87 and the ATFD determination; evaluate public testimony, and select Alternative No. 1, 2, or 3. SUGGESTED CITY COUNCIL MOTION To deny: (Alternative No. 1) I move to adopt a resolution denying the appeal, [or direct staff to modify the resolution and return to the City Council for final adoption at the next regularly scheduled meeting, denying the appeal] making findings in support of this decision, and upholding the Planning Commission s denial of WTP-87 and that the design shall not qualify as an Approved Telecommunications Facility Design (ATFD). OR To approve: (Alternative No. 2) I move to adopt, or [modify and adopt] a resolution granting the appeal and reversing the Planning Commission s decision, thereby approving WTP-87, that the design shall qualify as an Approved Telecommunications Facility Design (ATFD), and that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. OR (Alternative No. 3) I move to adopt, or [modify and adopt] a resolution granting the appeal and reversing the Planning Commission s decision, thereby approving WTP-87, that the design shall not qualify as an Approved Telecommunications Facility Design (ATFD), and that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. P 25/7-17(ks)

12 12 SUMMARY On June 21, 2017, the Planning Commission denied Wireless Telecommunications Permit No. WTP-87 and did not find that the project design qualifies as an Approved Wireless Telecommunications Design (ATFD) to install and operate a Wireless Telecommunications Facility located on a proposed fiber optic strand hung between two existing utility poles located on the west side of Sinaloa Road, 270 feet south of Los Angeles Avenue. The Planning Commission found that the design is not an acceptable attachment to a utility pole, that an alternative site analysis was not provided, that the equipment is not camouflaged similar to the ATFDs previously authorized by the Planning Commission, and that the equipment poses a blight into the existing neighborhood by adding additional exposed equipment to overhead utility structures that could be located in architecturally pleasing structures. The request was subsequently appealed by the Applicant, Crown Castle. Staff has subsequently reviewed and provided the Applicant s Alternative Site Analysis and the City Consultant s response into the record, which found that the alternative sites were not fully justified and should be rejected from consideration. However, since the Alternative Site Analysis only showed locations to accommodate the same design type, alternative equipment/locations within structures should have been provided for consideration. It is recommended that the City Council consider the Applicant s appeal of the Planning Commission s decision to deny WTP-87 and not qualify the design as an ATFD, evaluate public testimony and the Planning Commission s comments, make certain findings and either deny or grant the appeal with or without the ATFD determination. Prepared by: Sean Gibson, Senior Planner Peter Lyons, Director Department of Environmental Services INDEX Page Public Hearing Procedure Resolution Denying the Appeal and Upholding the Denial of WTP Resolution Granting the Appeal and Approving WTP-87 and the ATFD Resolution Granting the Appeal and Approving WTP-87 without the ATFD Attachment A - Appeal Application Attachment B - Alternative Site Analysis prepared by Crown Castle Attachment C - March 22, 2017 Memorandum from Telecom Law Firm (City s Consultant) addressing WTP-87 application Attachment D - July 10, 2017 Memorandum from Telecom Law Firm (City s Consultant) addressing the Alternative Site Analysis Attachment E - Approved City of Simi Valley ATFDs Attachment F - Correspondence from Newmeyer & Dillion LLP, dated August 1, Exhibit 1 - Planning Commission Resolution and Meeting Minutes Exhibit 2 - Planning Commission Staff Report and Supplemental Staff Report P 25/7-17(ks)

13 13 PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURE HEARING DATE: August 7, MAYOR: This is the time and place set for a public hearing to consider an appeal filed by Crown Castle on the decision of the Planning Commission to deny Wireless Telecommunications Permit No. WTP-87 (West side of Sinaloa road, 270 feet south of Los Angeles Avenue) and consideration of its design as an Approved Telecommunications Facility Design (ATFD); a determination that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and adoption of a Resolution 2. CLERK: (Reads resolutions) May I have a reading of the proposed resolutions? 3. MAYOR: Are there any ex-parte communications to report? 4. MAYOR: May we have an oral report on this matter by staff? 5. STAFF: (Report) 6. ANY COUNCIL MEMBER : (Questions of staff and staff responses) 7. MAYOR: Does the Appellant wish to be heard on this matter? 8. APPELLANT: (Comments) 9. MAYOR: Is there anyone in the City Council Chamber wishing to be heard on this matter? 10. AUDIENCE: (Comments) 11. MAYOR: Does staff desire to respond to any comments or issues raised? 12. STAFF: (Response to comments and additional City Council questions) 13. MAYOR: Does the Appellant desire any rebuttal? 14. APPELLANT: (Rebuttal) P 25/7-17(ks)

14 MAYOR: The hearing is closed. Are there any comments or questions from members of the City Council? (Note: If the City Council has any further questions of staff or the appellant at this time, the Public Hearing may need to be re-opened.) 16. ANY COUNCIL MEMBER : (Comments) 17. MAYOR: May I have a reading of the resolutions? 18. MAYOR: The Chair will now entertain a motion. 19. ANY COUNCIL MEMBER : (If the appeal from the decision of the Planning Commission is to be denied, thereby denying WTP-87): (1) I move adoption of Resolution No denying the appeal, [or direct staff to modify the resolution and return to the City Council for final adoption at the next regularly scheduled meeting, denying the appeal] thereby upholding the decision of the Planning Commission to deny WTP-87 and determining that the project design does not qualify as an ATFD. (Requires a second and a vote) - OR - (If the appeal from the Planning Commission decision is to be upheld in its entirety, or modified, thereby approving WTP-87 with any modified conditions and): (2) I move adoption of Resolution No upholding the appeal, and reversing the decision of the Planning Commission (as modified), thereby approving WTP- 87; determining that the project design qualifies as an ATFD; and that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act based upon the findings in the staff report and those presented at the public hearing. (Requires a second and a vote) - OR - (3) I move adoption of Resolution No upholding the appeal, and reversing the decision of the Planning Commission (as modified), thereby approving WTP- 87; determining that the project design does not qualify as an ATFD; and that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act based P 25/7-17(ks)

15 ANY COUNCIL MEMBER : Second 21. MAYOR: (Call for vote) 22. MAYOR: Proceed to the next item. upon the findings in the staff report and those presented at the public hearing. (Requires a second and a vote) * Any action to refer the matter back to the Planning Commission or staff, or continue the matter, requires a second and a vote. P 25/7-17(ks)

16 16 RESOLUTION NO [DENY APPEAL] A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SIMI VALLEY DENYING THE APPEAL, AND UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY WTP-87 THEREBY DENYING WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS PERMIT NO. WTP-87, FOR THE PURPOSE OF INSTALLING AND OPERATING A WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY LOCATED ON A PROPOSED FIBER OPTIC STRAND HUNG BETWEEN TWO EXISTING UTILITY POLES LOCATED IN THE WEST SIDE OF THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ON SINALOA ROAD 270 FEET SOUTH OF LOS ANGELES AVENUE, AND NOT ADOPTING WTP-87 AS AN APPROVED TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES DESIGN (ATFD) WHEREAS, the Applicant, Crown Castle has requested approval for a Wireless Telecommunications Permit (WTP-87) located in the west side of the public right-of-way on Sinaloa Road 270 feet south of Los Angeles Avenue for the purpose of installing a Wireless Telecommunications Facility located on a proposed fiber optic strand hung between two existing utility poles; and WHEREAS, the City of Simi Valley has initiated a request to consider and determine the design of the fiber optic strand-mounted facility of WTP-87 as a standardized design under an Approved Telecommunications Facilities Design (ATFD) per Simi Valley Municipal Code Section (c)(1); and WHEREAS, on June 21, 2017, the Planning Commission of the City of Simi Valley considered evidence and testimony on WTP-87 and whether WTP-87 also would qualify as an ATFD, and denied the requests by a 3:1 vote; and WHEREAS, on August 7, 2017, the City Council considered the Applicant s appeal, including additional evidence presented by staff; considered the Planning Commission s comments and findings; and heard the evidence and testimony on the proposed project and appeal. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SIMI VALLEY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: follows: SECTION 1. The findings for denial of WTP-87 are hereby adopted as 1. The higher priority locations or designs, as set forth in SVMC Section (b), are either not available or not feasible, in that the proposed small cell antennas on strands between existing power poles is not an acceptable design as a third P 25/7-17(ks)

17 17 RES. NO highest priority location pursuant to SVMC Section (b)(1)(iii) (Existing pole, light standard, or utility tower). This proposal utilizes the existing row of power poles on the west side of Sinaloa Drive within the street right-of-way, located on a proposed fiber optic strand connected between two power poles, but the design is not physically on the utility pole as required by this priority location. Furthermore, the Alternative Site Analysis failed to provide for other possible designs such as radome-type installations on light poles, or locations behind a parapet of an existing structure. In addition, the City s Wireless Telecommunication Consultant, in its Second Consultant Report of July 10, 2017, noted that the Alternative Site Analysis was insufficient to show elimination of the alternative sites, and the City Council adopts the evidence of the this insufficiency in the Second Consultant Report as to each alternative as though set forth fully herein.. 2. The facility proposed would not be of the least intrusive design and in the least intrusive location, in that the proposed wireless node located on a new fiber optic strand between two existing power poles is: 1) fully exposed to viewing by the public; 2) not camouflaged on the pole or strand, into an existing structure, such as radome cylinders atop light poles, placement behind rooftop parapets of existing buildings or other Approved Telecommunications Facilities Design (ATFD) previously authorized by the Planning Commission; 3) designed so that the equipment is not encapsulated, which exacerbates the negative appearance existing utility equipment on the utility poles; 4) located on a proposed strand within an area that does not have a demonstrated significant gap in coverage to warrant a less decorative design; and, 5) a blight into the existing neighborhood by adding additional exposed equipment to overhead utility structures that could be located in architecturally pleasing structures. 3. The lack of such a facility would not result in a significant gap of coverage, in that the Applicant s application does not state that the project is needed to fulfill a significant gap. The Propagation Maps, dated March 6, 2017, also do not indicate that there is a significant gap in coverage. Lastly, the applicant s August 1, 2017, comment letter (Attachment F), which states that the project is designed to relive capacity from an older site to the north to fulfil capacity, also fails to submit any significant gap in coverage analysis. 4. "Slim Jim" monopoles, new standard monopoles, or lattice towers shall only be permitted when they are determined to be the only necessary means available to provide service. These types of facilities are not proposed with this application. SECTION 2. Based on the evidence and testimony presented, including without limitation the Staff Report accompanying this Resolution, the First Consultant Report and the Second Consultant Report, and the findings contained in Section 1, the City Council hereby denies the appeal, upholding the Planning Commission s decision to deny WTP-87 and that WTP-87 does not qualify as an ATFD. P 25/7-17(ks)

18 18 RES. NO SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the Office of the City Clerk. Attest: PASSED and ADOPTED this 7 th day of August Ky Spangler, Deputy Director/City Clerk Robert O. Huber, Mayor of the City of Simi Valley, California Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content: Lonnie J. Eldridge, City Attorney Eric J. Levitt, City Manager Peter Lyons, Director Department of Environmental Services P 25/7-17(ks)

19 19 [GRANTING APPEAL AND APPROVE WTP-87] RESOLUTION NO A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SIMI VALLEY UPHOLDING THE APPEAL, AND REVERSING THE PLANNING COMMISSION S DECISION THEREBY APPROVING WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS PERMIT NO. WTP-87, FOR THE PURPOSE OF INSTALLING AND OPERATING A WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY LOCATED ON A PROPOSED FIBER OPTIC STRAND HUNG BETWEEN TWO EXISTING UTILITY POLES LOCATED IN THE WEST SIDE OF THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ON SINALOA ROAD 270 FEET SOUTH OF LOS ANGELES AVENUE; ADOPTING WTP-87 AS AN APPROVED TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES DESIGN (ATFD); AND A DETERMINATION THAT THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT WHEREAS, the Applicant, Crown Castle has requested approval for a Wireless Telecommunications Permit (WTP-87) located in the west side of the public right-of-way on Sinaloa Road 270 feet south of Los Angeles Avenue for the purpose of installing a Wireless Telecommunications Facility located on a proposed fiber optic strand hung between two existing utility poles; and WHEREAS, the City of Simi Valley has initiated a request to consider and determine the design of the fiber optic strand-mounted facility of WTP-87 as a standardized design under an Approved Telecommunications Facilities Design (ATFD) per Simi Valley Municipal Code Section (c)(1); and WHEREAS, on June 21, 2017, the Planning Commission of the City of Simi Valley considered evidence and testimony on WTP-87 and whether WTP-87 also would qualify as an ATFD, and denied the requests by a 3:1 vote; and WHEREAS, on August 7, 2017, the City Council considered the Applicant s appeal including additional evidence presented by staff; and considered the Planning Commission s comments and findings; and heard the evidence and testimony on the proposed project and appeal; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Section of the California Environmental Quality Act, the project qualifies as Categorically Exempt and a Notice of Exemption was prepared. P 25/7-17(ks)

20 20 RES. NO NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SIMI VALLEY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The findings, for approval, for Wireless Telecommunications Permit No. WTP-87, contained in the Planning Commission staff report dated June 21, 2017, and incorporated herein by reference, and as modified by the City Council in the August 7, 2017 City Council Staff Report, are hereby adopted. SECTION 2. The City Council hereby grants the Appeal, and reverses the June 21, 2017, Planning Commission decision, thereby approving Wireless Telecommunications Permit No. WTP-87, subject to compliance with all the conditions, attached hereto as Exhibit A; and approves the small cell antenna and equipment design for wireless telecommunications antennas per the City Council staff report dated August 7, 2017 as an ATFD, in accordance with SVMC Section (c)(1). SECTION 3. This approval does not constitute a vested entitlement or vesting of rights to construct any of the land uses or improvements described in WTP- 87. No existing provisions of state law, or provisions of state law as may hereafter be adopted, amended or judicially interpreted, will be construed as authorizing WTP-87 to constitute a vested entitlement or vesting of rights to construct. Approval of WTP-87 will in no way impair the power or the right of the City Council to initiate a general plan amendment, specific plan amendment, zone change or other action to consider alternative land use designations and zoning for the subject property prior to the issuance of building permits and the construction of substantial improvements in good faith reliance thereon, or prior to the vesting of rights to the extent provided by Government Code Section et seq. or by the express terms of a development agreement adopted pursuant to Government Code Section et seq. SECTION 4. The time within which judicial review must be sought for administrative decisions is governed by California Code of Civil Procedure Section P 25/7-17(ks)

21 21 RES. NO SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the Office of the City Clerk. Attest: PASSED and ADOPTED this 7 th day of August, Ky Spangler, Deputy Director/City Clerk Robert O. Huber, Mayor of the City of Simi Valley, California Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content: Lonnie J. Eldridge, City Attorney Eric J. Levitt, City Manager Peter Lyons, Director Department of Environmental Services P 25/7-17(ks)

22 22 RES. NO CASE NO.: APPLICANT: WTP-87 CROWN CASTLE EXHIBIT A PROJECT PERMIT CONDITIONS The conditions marked with an asterisk (*) are Special Conditions applicable specifically to this permit. These conditions of approval will supersede any conflicting notations, specifications, dimensions, and typical sections that may be shown on a development plan or exhibit. Unless otherwise stated, all conditions of approval must be complied with prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance. Applicant will assume all costs incurred in complying with the conditions contained herein. All facilities and uses other than those specifically approved by the approving authority are prohibited. In consideration of the benefits conferred by this Permit, Applicant, on behalf of him/herself, intending to be bound hereby for the life of this permit, consents to City Personnel entering the Project property during daylight hours without a warrant and with written notice to verify compliance with the terms and conditions of this Permit. "Applicant" or "Developer" or "Owner" as used in these conditions means all applicants, developers, permittees, and all owners of the subject property and all successors and assigns thereto. These conditions are deemed to touch and concern the real property, which is the subject hereof, and will run with the land. Compliance with these conditions must be maintained for the life of the permit. The Simi Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) contains penalty provisions for the violation of development conditions, which could result in any available administrative, civil, or criminal remedies that could include one or more of the following: 1) revocation of the development permit; 2) penalties of up to $1,000 in fines and/or six months in jail for each day of violation; and 3) the prohibition of further violations through court injunction. Applicant must comply with all of the conditions. A. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CONDITIONS: Planning Division: A-1 This permit is granted for all of the buildings, roadways, parking areas, landscaping, lighting, colors and materials, and other features which must be as shown on the formal application and exhibits specifically labeled as Exhibits: Project Plans, dated April 27, 2017, and Photosimulations 1 & 2 dated March 6, A-2 If this permit has not been use inaugurated prior to thirty-six (36) months following this approval, the permit will automatically expire. A-3 Applicant must defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its agents, officials, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officials, or employees in any action to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this permit. The City will promptly notify Applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding; and the City will cooperate P 25/7-17(ks)

23 23 RES. NO fully in the defense. The City shall also have the right to consult and participate with Applicant in the development of litigation strategy. Further, Applicant must select an attorney, acceptable to the City, who will defend such proceeding. Such approval of an attorney will not be unreasonably withheld. A-4 During the lifetime of the permit, Applicant must comply with all applicable laws and regulations of every local, state, and federal entity; and all such requirements and enactments will be incorporated by reference as conditions of this permit. The duty of inquiry as to such requirements and any amendments thereto will be upon Applicant and his or her transferees or successor in interest. A-5 Applicant agrees that if any of the conditions or limitations of this permit are held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, that holding will render this permit to be null and void. A-6 Applicant must provide to the Deputy Director/City Planner a copy of all conditions of approval recorded with the Ventura County Recorder's Office. A-7 Prior to the time of final inspection, Applicant must provide to the Deputy Director/City Planner and the Building Official written certification from the project architect or engineer that the project has been constructed in accordance with the approved plans. A-8 Applicant must continually maintain and repair, and replace if damaged beyond repair, all improvements within the project described in the approved plans. A-9 The Director of Environmental Services may require post-installation testing to determine whether to require future mitigation of radio-frequency emissions. The cost of any such testing or mitigation must be borne by Applicant. A-10 Within 30 calendar days after the wireless site is activated, Applicant must conduct a field measurement of its radio frequency emissions while the site is operating at maximum output power. Notwithstanding the above, the City reserves the right to require the same testing during the life of this permit, should it have a reasonable basis to believe that the facility is not operating in compliance with FCC rules. The measurements must be performed to demonstrate Applicant s compliance with FCC rules at 47 CFR et. seq. and the FCC OET Bulletin 65. Within 10 business days after the completion of any testing, Applicant must submit a report to the Director of Environmental Services detailing the results. Actual compliance with FCC rules is an initial and ongoing condition of this permit. P 25/7-17(ks)

24 24 RES. NO A-11 Prior to use, Applicant must obtain final inspection from the Department of Environmental Services. *A-12 Applicant must install and at all times maintain in good condition a permanent RF Caution sign on the strand approximately 4 feet on both sides of the antenna location. The signs must be permanently affixed to the strand and hang downwards. The signs required under this condition must be installed so that a person can clearly see the sign as he or she approaches the strand, and of a size acceptable to the Deputy Director/City Planner. Applicant must ensure that all signage complies with FCC OET Bulletin 65 or ANSI C95.7 for color, symbol, and content conventions. In addition, all signage must provide a working local or tollfree telephone number to its network operations center that reaches a live person who can exert transmitter powerdown control over this site as required by the FCC. *A-13 Applicant must remove at its own expense the fiber optic strand and all strand and pole-mounted equipment if the poles supporting the facility are scheduled for removal pursuant to Simi Valley Municipal Code Undergrounding of Utilities. Applicant must cooperate with developer or property owner coordinating the undergrounding and complete the facility removal within 90 days of a written request by certified mail. Applicant may apply to the City of Simi Valley for a replacement location or facility pursuant to Simi Valley Municipal Code Title 9-35 or subsequent amendments. END OF CONDITIONS P 25/7-17(ks)

25 25 RES. NO [GRANTING APPEAL IN PART, APPROVING WTP-87 AND NOT APPROVING (ATFP)] RESOLUTION NO A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SIMI VALLEY UPHOLDING THE APPEAL IN PART, AND REVERSING THE PLANNING COMMISSION S DECISION IN PART, THEREBY APPROVING WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS PERMIT NO. WTP-87, FOR THE PURPOSE OF INSTALLING AND OPERATING A WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY LOCATED ON A PROPOSED FIBER OPTIC STRAND HUNG BETWEEN TWO EXISTING UTILITY POLES LOCATED IN THE WEST SIDE OF THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ON SINALOA ROAD 270 FEET SOUTH OF LOS ANGELES AVENUE, AND A DETERMINATION THAT THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT WHEREAS, the Applicant, Crown Castle has requested approval for a Wireless Telecommunications Permit (WTP-87) located in the west side of the public right-of-way on Sinaloa Road 270 feet south of Los Angeles Avenue for the purpose of installing a Wireless Telecommunications Facility located on a proposed fiber optic strand hung between two existing utility poles; and WHEREAS, the City of Simi Valley has initiated a request to consider and determine the design of the fiber optic strand-mounted facility of WTP-87 as a standardized design under an Approved Telecommunications Facilities Design (ATFD) per Simi Valley Municipal Code Section (c)(1); and WHEREAS, on June 21, 2017, the Planning Commission of the City of Simi Valley considered evidence and testimony on WTP-87 and whether WTP-87 also would qualify as an ATFD, and denied the requests by a 3:1 vote; and WHEREAS, on August 7, 2017, the City Council considered the Applicant s appeal including additional evidence presented by staff; considered the Planning Commission s comments and findings; and heard the evidence and testimony on the proposed project and appeal; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Section of the California Environmental Quality Act, the project qualifies as Categorically Exempt and a Notice of Exemption was prepared. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SIMI VALLEY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The findings, for approval, for Wireless Telecommunications Permit No. WTP-87, contained in the Planning Commission staff report dated P 25/7-17(ks)

26 26 RES. NO June 21, 2017, and incorporated herein by reference, and as modified by the City Council in the August 7, 2017 City Council Staff Report, are hereby adopted. SECTION 2. The City Council hereby grants a portion of the Appeal, and reverses the June 21, 2017, Planning Commission decision, thereby approving Wireless Telecommunications Permit No. WTP-87, subject to compliance with all the conditions, attached hereto as Exhibit A. SECTION 3. Based on the evidence and testimony presented, the City Council hereby denies a portion of the appeal, upholding the Planning Commission s decision to not adopt WTP-87 as an ATFD. SECTION 4. This approval does not constitute a vested entitlement or vesting of rights to construct any of the land uses or improvements described in WTP- 87. No existing provisions of state law, or provisions of state law as may hereafter be adopted, amended or judicially interpreted, will be construed as authorizing WTP-87 to constitute a vested entitlement or vesting of rights to construct. Approval of WTP-87 will in no way impair the power or the right of the City Council to initiate a general plan amendment, specific plan amendment, zone change or other action to consider alternative land use designations and zoning for the subject property prior to the issuance of building permits and the construction of substantial improvements in good faith reliance thereon, or prior to the vesting of rights to the extent provided by Government Code Section et seq. or by the express terms of a development agreement adopted pursuant to Government Code Section et seq. SECTION 5. The time within which judicial review must be sought for administrative decisions is governed by California Code of Civil Procedure Section SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the Office of the City Clerk. Attest: PASSED and ADOPTED this 7 th day of August, Ky Spangler, Deputy Director/City Clerk Robert O. Huber, Mayor of the City of Simi Valley, California Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content: Lonnie J. Eldridge, City Attorney Eric J. Levitt, City Manager Peter Lyons, Director Department of Environmental Services P 25/7-17(ks)

27 CASE NO.: APPLICANT: WTP-87 CROWN CASTLE 27 RES. NO EXHIBIT A PROJECT PERMIT CONDITIONS The conditions marked with an asterisk (*) are Special Conditions applicable specifically to this permit. These conditions of approval will supersede any conflicting notations, specifications, dimensions, and typical sections that may be shown on a development plan or exhibit. Unless otherwise stated, all conditions of approval must be complied with prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance. Applicant will assume all costs incurred in complying with the conditions contained herein. All facilities and uses other than those specifically approved by the approving authority are prohibited. In consideration of the benefits conferred by this Permit, Applicant, on behalf of him/herself, intending to be bound hereby for the life of this permit, consents to City Personnel entering the Project property during daylight hours without a warrant and with written notice to verify compliance with the terms and conditions of this Permit. "Applicant" or "Developer" or "Owner" as used in these conditions means all applicants, developers, permittees, and all owners of the subject property and all successors and assigns thereto. These conditions are deemed to touch and concern the real property, which is the subject hereof, and will run with the land. Compliance with these conditions must be maintained for the life of the permit. The Simi Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) contains penalty provisions for the violation of development conditions, which could result in any available administrative, civil, or criminal remedies that could include one or more of the following: 1) revocation of the development permit; 2) penalties of up to $1,000 in fines and/or six months in jail for each day of violation; and 3) the prohibition of further violations through court injunction. Applicant must comply with all of the conditions. A. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CONDITIONS: Planning Division: A-1 This permit is granted for all of the buildings, roadways, parking areas, landscaping, lighting, colors and materials, and other features which must be as shown on the formal application and exhibits specifically labeled as Exhibits: Project Plans, dated April 27, 2017, and Photosimulations 1 & 2 dated March 6, A-2 If this permit has not been use inaugurated prior to thirty-six (36) months following this approval, the permit will automatically expire. A-3 Applicant must defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its agents, officials, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officials, or employees in any action to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this permit. The City will promptly notify Applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding; and the City will cooperate fully in the defense. P 25/7-17(ks)

28 CASE NO.: APPLICANT: WTP-87 CROWN CASTLE 28 RES. NO The City shall also have the right to consult and participate with Applicant in the development of litigation strategy. Further, Applicant must select an attorney, acceptable to the City, who will defend such proceeding. Such approval of an attorney will not be unreasonably withheld. A-4 During the lifetime of the permit, Applicant must comply with all applicable laws and regulations of every local, state, and federal entity; and all such requirements and enactments will be incorporated by reference as conditions of this permit. The duty of inquiry as to such requirements and any amendments thereto will be upon Applicant and his or her transferees or successor in interest. A-5 Applicant agrees that if any of the conditions or limitations of this permit are held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, that holding will render this permit to be null and void. A-6 Applicant must provide to the Deputy Director/City Planner a copy of all conditions of approval recorded with the Ventura County Recorder's Office. A-7 Prior to the time of final inspection, Applicant must provide to the Deputy Director/City Planner and the Building Official written certification from the project architect or engineer that the project has been constructed in accordance with the approved plans. A-8 Applicant must continually maintain and repair, and replace if damaged beyond repair, all improvements within the project described in the approved plans. A-9 The Director of Environmental Services may require post-installation testing to determine whether to require future mitigation of radio-frequency emissions. The cost of any such testing or mitigation must be borne by Applicant. A-10 Within 30 calendar days after the wireless site is activated, Applicant must conduct a field measurement of its radio frequency emissions while the site is operating at maximum output power. Notwithstanding the above, the City reserves the right to require the same testing during the life of this permit, should it have a reasonable basis to believe that the facility is not operating in compliance with FCC rules. The measurements must be performed to demonstrate Applicant s compliance with FCC rules at 47 CFR et. seq. and the FCC OET Bulletin 65. Within 10 business days after the completion of any testing, Applicant must submit a report to the Director of Environmental Services detailing the results. P 25/7-17(ks)

29 CASE NO.: APPLICANT: WTP-87 CROWN CASTLE 29 RES. NO Actual compliance with FCC rules is an initial and ongoing condition of this permit. A-11 Prior to use, Applicant must obtain final inspection from the Department of Environmental Services. *A-12 Applicant must install and at all times maintain in good condition a permanent RF Caution sign on the strand approximately 4 feet on both sides of the antenna location. The signs must be permanently affixed to the strand and hang downwards. The signs required under this condition must be installed so that a person can clearly see the sign as he or she approaches the strand, and of a size acceptable to the Deputy Director/City Planner. Applicant must ensure that all signage complies with FCC OET Bulletin 65 or ANSI C95.7 for color, symbol, and content conventions. In addition, all signage must provide a working local or tollfree telephone number to its network operations center that reaches a live person who can exert transmitter powerdown control over this site as required by the FCC. *A-13 Applicant must remove at its own expense the fiber optic strand and all strand and pole-mounted equipment if the poles supporting the facility are scheduled for removal pursuant to Simi Valley Municipal Code Undergrounding of Utilities. Applicant must cooperate with developer or property owner coordinating the undergrounding and complete the facility removal within 90 days of a written request by certified mail. Applicant may apply to the City of Simi Valley for a replacement location or facility pursuant to Simi Valley Municipal Code Title 9-35 or subsequent amendments. END OF CONDITIONS P 25/7-17(ks)

30 30 APPEAL ATTACHMENT A TO: City Council, City Hall City of Simi Va lley, 2929 Tapo Canyon Road Simi Va lley, Ca lifornia Name of Appellant Crown Castle - Scott Longhurst Address of Appellant 200 Spectrum Center Dr. Irvine, CA Received by City Clerk's Office Telephone No. of Appellant (310) Case No. _W_T_P_-_87 In accordance with the provisions of law, I hereby appeal the decision of the Planning Commission on _J_u_n_e_2_1, The decision was as follows: Denial of WTP and denial of Approved Telecommunications Facilities Design (ATFD) The specific grounds of appeal are as follows (Give applicable Code Sections and relevant facts to support each ground of appeal): Public Utilities Code Sections 7901 and : Crown Castle is a competitive local exchange carrier and therefore a beneficia,y of the statewide franchise rights of Public Utilities Code sections 7901 and The denial violates Crown Castle's rights to install its fa cilities in the public rights-of-way ("ROW) of the City under those statutes. The Planning Commission did not invoke proper "time, place and manner" crileria to justify its denial. 47 U.S.C. Section 332(cX7)(B)(iii): The denial was not based on substantial evidence, as required by 47 U.S.C. section 332(c)(7XB)(iii). The Planning Commission's findings concerning "least intrusive design and location were mere conclusory assertions. In fact, the record establishes that the site is in a commercial zone ("CPD") and does not therefore affect residential areas or views. Moreover, the site is minimal in size and located in an area already impacted by power lines, poles and other utilities. 47 U.S.C. Section 332(cX7XB)(i)(II): The denial results in a prohibition of service and therefore is prohibited by 47 U.S.C. Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II). The site serves a significant gap in coverage and represents the least intrusive design and location to fill that gap, notwithstanding the Planning Commission's conclusory findings to the contrary. SVMP Chapter 35: The site is located in a preferred area, since it is outside residential zone (SVMC section (a)(2), (4)); contrary to the findings, the site utilizes existing poles, insofar as it is mounted to cable supported by existing struc!ures (id. at section (b)(1 X3)). D I [il We request that the City Council take the following action: Reverse the denial of WTP-87 and the request for an ATFD designation, and approve as per the findings and Conditions of Approval "Resolution NO. SVPC " articulated in the project staff report. Is the appellant the applicant? _Y_E_S i~ By: (Date) All sections of this form must be completed by the appellant and filed with the City Clerk's Office of the City of Simi Valley not later than 5:00 p.m. on the below indicated number of calendar days after the date of decision by the Planning Commission (SVMC Sec ). The Clerk shall forward a copy of this appeal to each member of the City Council, the City Manager, the City Attorney, and the Director of Environmental Services. 15 days for Time Extensions to Tentative Maps (Gov't Code ) 14 days for Time Extensions to Tentative Maps, Sign Permit, Planned Development Permit, Special Use Permit, Variance, Sign Variance, Modification Permit, Revocation of Permit, Cluster Development Permit, and Civic Center Permit. 10 days for Land Divisions and Tentative Tracts (Must be heard within 30 days from date appeal is filed.) 5 days for General Plans, Specific Plans, amendments thereof, zone changes, and pre-zoning in anticipation of annexation. This appeal will be heard on the date scheduled below or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, as determined by the City Council. Testimony will be taken, and failure of the appella nt or his representative to present evidence may be cause of denial. No new information or facts may be raised at an appeal which were not raised at the prior hearing. Date and time of scheduled City Council public hearing: Fee: Rev. 11/14

31 r'r' CROWN \..,/~ CASTLE 31 ATTACHMENT B Crown Castle 300 Spectrum Center Drive Suite 1200 Irvine, CA Crown Castle NG West LLC Site Justification Narrative Submitted to City of Simi Valley (Submitted Pursuant to City of Simi Valley Municipal Code Chapter 35 - Wireless Telecommunications Facilities)

32 32 1. CROWN CASTLE. INTRODUCTION Crown Castle NG West LLC ( Crown Castle ) provides wireless carriers with the infrastructure they need to keep people connected and business running. With approximately 40,000 towers and 15,000 small cell nodes supported by approximately 16,000 miles of fiber, Crown Castle is the nation s largest provider of shared wireless infrastructure, with a significant presence in the top 100 US markets. Crown Castle s small cell solution (SCS) represents the state-of-the-art in wireless telecommunications network technology. It is a low-profile telecommunications system capable of delivering wireless services to customers of multiple carriers such as Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, Metro PCS and T-Mobile. The elements of Crown Castle s SCS are small-scale and can be attached to standard streetlight sign poles that take up little space in the public rights-of-way ( ROW ) or, where feasible, onto existing elements in the ROW such as streetlights, traffic signals, and wooden utility poles. Crown Castle SCS therefore allows one aesthetically unobtrusive system to take the place of multiple antennas or macro-sites constructed by individual carriers -- a single, streamlined solution that avoids the prospect of multiple carrier-constructed antenna facilities servicing a given area. Put another way, Crown Castle SCS is the equivalent of a collocation system, as it permits many carriers to provide their services over one system with only a single series of vertical elements. 2. THE PROJECT. A. The Network. Crown Castle proposes to develop a SCS network with twenty (20) strand-mounted nodes 1 to be located in the ROW in the City of Simi Valley( Network ). The Network will provide needed wireless broadband and telecommunications services and the addition of critical network capacity to various targeted areas throughout the city ( Service Area ). (For a more detailed discussion of the significant gap in the Service Area, see Section 7A, infra). Each of the 20 nodes comprising the Network, including 1 A SCN node, as used herein, is a small-format antenna facility mounted to the top of a streetlight or integrated into existing Crown Castle aerial fiber.

33 33 r'r' CROWN \..,/~ CASTLE Crown Castle 300 Spectrum Center Drive Suite 1200 Irvine, CA the subject facility of this application, will utilize existing, and new, Crown Castle aerial fiber on which to mount the nodes. Each Network node receives an optical signal from a central hub and distributes the signal to the antenna nodes via fiber optic cable. The optical signal is then propagated from the Network nodes in the form of radio frequency (RF) transmissions. Distribution of signal from the hub to the low-power, low-profile antenna nodes, allows carriers to provide wireless telecommunications and data services to areas otherwise difficult to reach with conventional wireless telecommunications facilities. The proposed node location included in this request is located adjacent to an existing SCE wood utility pole on Sinaloa Road (adjacent building address is 1879 Sinaloa Road) approximately 270 south of the intersection with Los Angeles Avenue. By using the proposed strand-mounted design, the Project seeks to reduce the addition of new vertical elements, thereby minimizing intrusions into the ROW. B. The Features of the Network Facilities. The nodes will consist of two (2) Ericsson 2203 radios with integrated antennas and two (2) power converters attached with a bracket to the fiber optic cables. The overall dimensions of the node are approximately 33 long by 17 wide. 3. THE APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL. Crown Castle presents this analysis pursuant to the City of Simi Valley Municipal Code Chapter 35 (Wireless Telecommunication Facilities). Specifically, this narrative demonstrates the demands and rationale that led to the selection of a particular location and design for the wireless telecommunication facility proposed herein. A. Applicable State Law. (1) Public Utilities Code Sections 7901 and Crown Castle is a competitive local exchange carrier ( CLEC ). CLECs qualify as a public utility and

34 34 therefore have a special status under state law. By virtue of California Public Utilities Commission ( CPUC ) issuance of a certificate of public convenience and necessity ( CPCN ), CLECs have authority under state law to erect poles, posts, piers, or abutments in the ROW subject only to local municipal control over the time, place and manner of access to the ROW. (Pub. Util. Code, 1001, 7901; ; see Williams Communication v. City of Riverside (2003) 114 Cal.App. 4th 642, 648 [upon obtaining a CPCN, a telephone corporation has the right to use the public highways to install [its] facilities. ].)= The CPUC has issued a CPCN which authorizes Crown Castle to construct the Network pursuant to its regulatory status under state law. Crown Castle s regulatory status as a CLEC gives rise to a vested right to use the ROW in the City to construct telephone lines along and upon any public road or highway, along or across any of the waters or lands within this State and to erect poles, posts, piers, or abutments for supporting the insulators, wires, and other necessary fixtures of their lines, in such manner and at such points as not to incommode the public use of the road or highway[.] (Pub. Util. Code, 7901.) The nature of the vested right was described by one court as follows: [I]t has been uniformly held that [section 7901] is a continuing offer extended to telephone and telegraph companies to use the highways, which offer when accepted by the construction and maintenance of lines constitutes a binding contract based on adequate consideration, and that the vested right established thereby cannot be impaired by subsequent acts of the Legislature. [Citations.] Thus, telephone companies have the right to use the public highways to install their facilities. (Williams Communications v. City of Riverside, supra, 114 Cal.App.4th at p. 648 quoting County of L. A. v. Southern Cal. Tel. Co. (1948) 32 Cal.2d 378, 384 [196 P.2d 773].) While Public Utility Code section grants local municipalities the limited right to exercise reasonable control as to the time, place, and manner in which roads, highways, and waterways are accessed[,] such controls cannot have the effect of foreclosing use by Crown Castle of the ROW or otherwise prevent Crown Castle from exercising its right under state law to erect poles in the ROW. The Foundation for a Wireless World. CrownCastle.com

35 35 r'r' CROWN \..,/~ CASTLE Crown Castle 300 Spectrum Center Drive Suite 1200 Irvine, CA That is because the construction and maintenance of telephone lines in the streets and other public places within the City is today a matter of state concern and not a municipal affair. (Williams Communication v. City of Riverside, supra, 114 Cal.App.4th at p. 653.) On the basis of Crown Castle s status as a CLEC, and its concomitant rights to the ROW, the Network is designed as an ROW system. With respect to the siting and configuration of the Network, the rights afforded under Public Utilities Code section 7901 and apply. Crown Castle reserves its rights under section 7901 and , including, but not limited to, its right to challenge any approval process, that impedes or infringes on Crown Castle s rights as a CLEC. (2) Government Code Section Government Code section also applies to telephone corporations seeking to install their facilities in the public rights-of-way. That section provides that a city cannot require payment for entry into its ROW beyond what is necessary to address the reasonable costs of providing the service for which the fee is charged. (Williams Communications v. City of Riverside, supra, 114 Cal.App.4th at p. 648.) Section constitutes a legislative determination that any fee or exaction that exceeds the cost of addressing actual impacts arising from the construction of a telephone network is unlawful because it fails to satisfy the nexus and rough proportionality requirements under the dual Supreme Court cases of Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987), and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994). (3) Government Code Section Government Code section became effective on January 1, Under section , an application for a new wireless facility is deemed approved if: (a) the city --including a charter city -- or county fails to approve or disapprove the application within the time periods established in the Federal Communications Commission s ( FCC ) 2009 Declaratory Ruling (24 FCC Rcd ) (90 days for collocation facilities and 150 days for stand-alone facilities), and (b) all public notices regarding the application have been provided. (Gov. Code, , subd. (a).) The new statute also contains an express finding that wireless telecommunications facilities are a matter of statewide concern, not a

36 36 municipal affair as that term is used in section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. (Id., , subd. (c).) B. Applicable Federal Law. The approval of the Network also is governed by the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No , 110 Stat. 56 (codified as amend in scattered sections of U.S.C., Tabs 15, 18, 47) ( Telecom Act ). When enacting the Telecom Act, Congress expressed its intent to promote competition and reduce regulation in order to secure lower prices and higher quality services for American telecommunications consumers and encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies. (110 Stat. at 56.) As one court noted: Congress enacted the TCA to promote competition and higher quality in telecommunications services and to encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies. Congress intended to promote a national cellular network and to secure lower prices and better service for consumers by opening all telecommunications markets to competition. (T-Mobile Central, LLC v. Unified Government of Wyandotte, 528 F.Supp. 2d 1128, (D. Kan. 2007). One way in which the Telecom Act accomplishes these goals is by reducing impediments imposed by local governments upon the installation of wireless communications facilities, such as antenna facilities. (47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(A).) Section 332(c)(7)(B) provides the limitations on the general authority reserved to state and local governments. Those limitations are set forth as follows: (a) State and local governments may not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services ( 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(I)). (b) State and local governments may not regulate the placement, construction or modification of wireless service facilities in a manner that prohibits, or has the effect of prohibiting, the provision of personal wireless services (better known as the effective prohibition clause ) ( 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II)). (c) State and local governments must act on requests for authorization to construct or modify wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time ( 332(c)(7)(B)(ii)). The Foundation for a Wireless World. CrownCastle.com

37 37 r'r' CROWN \..,/~ CASTLE Crown Castle 300 Spectrum Center Drive Suite 1200 Irvine, CA (d) (e) Any decision by a state or local government to deny a request for construction or modification of personal wireless service facilities must be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record ( 332(c)(7)(B)(iii)). Finally, no state or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction or modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the perceived environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with federal communications commission s regulations concerning such emissions ( 332(c)(7)(B)(iv)). In addition to the above, other federal enactments and policies also guide local governmental actions, including the following: (a) The Shot Clock Rule: On November 18, 2009, the Federal Communications Commission ( FCC ) adopted the Shot Clock Rule, placing strict time limits on local governments to act on applications for the siting of wireless telecommunications facilities. The Shot Clock Rule was intended to promote[] deployment of broadband and other wireless services by reducing delays in construction and improvement of wireless networks. (b) White House Broadband Initiative: On February 10, 2011, the White House called for a National Wireless Initiative to make available high-speed wireless services to at least 98 percent of Americans. The initiative would free up spectrum through incentive auctions, spurring innovation, and create a nationwide, interoperable wireless network for public safety with a fiscal goal of catalyzing private investment and innovation and reducing the deficit by $9.6 billion, help the United States win the future and compete in the 21st century economy. (47 U.S.C. 1455(a)(1), emphasis added.) An eligible facilities request Modifications includes a request to collocate a facility. (Id. at 1455(a)(2)(A).) As discussed further below, because it is a qualifying collocation facility, an argument may be made that the Project qualifies for ministerial approval under the Spectrum Act. Further, the Federal Communications Commission recently provided clarification to the Spectrum Act in a recently published order. The FCC noted in its order: We take important steps in this Report and Order to promote the deployment of

38 38 wireless infrastructure, recognizing that it is the physical foundation that supports all wireless communications. We do this by eliminating unnecessary reviews, thus reducing the costs and delays associated with facility siting and construction. Specifically, the order (dated October 17, 2014), makes provisions for the following: Clarifies key terms in the Act such as Base Station, Eligible Facility Request, what is deemed Existing, and Tower; What constitutes Substantial Change - For Towers and Base Stations sited within the public right-of-way, a change to an existing facility is less than substantial, and must be approved if the height increase is less than 10% increase or 10-feet, whichever is greater, or has a protrusion of less than 6- feet from the edge of the structure, or if the change would defeat concealment elements of the structure. Governing authority may only require documentation that is reasonably related to whether the request is covered under the rules; Governing authority may not require submission of any other documentation, including proof of need. 4. VISUAL COMPATIBILITY This is an application for one (1) strand-mounted node to be reviewed by the Planning Commission for the intent of approving the design for inclusion on the city s Approved Telecommunications Facilities Design list. The proposed node is to be located approximately 6 south of an existing SCE wood utility pole (Pole # E) and will be attached to new Crown Castle aerial fiber at a height of approximately 20-6 above grade. The proposed node will provide increased network capacity for T- Mobile south along Sinaloa Road from the intersection with Los Angeles Avenue (Service Area). As discussed more fully below, the Service Area currently experiences a lack of network capacity to meet the demands of T-Mobile customers resulting in dropped calls, calls that are unable to be initiated and other connectivity issues. To address the lack of network capacity, Crown Castle proposes the least The Foundation for a Wireless World. CrownCastle.com

39 39 r'r' CROWN \..,/~ CASTLE Crown Castle 300 Spectrum Center Drive Suite 1200 Irvine, CA intrusive means, as articulated by the Ninth Circuit in T-Mobile U.S.A., Inc. v. City of Anacortes, 572 F.3d 987, 995 (9th Cir. 2009). The standard, as the court noted in that case, requires that the provider show that the manner in which it proposes to address this lack of service is the least intrusive on the values that the denial sought to serve. (Ibid.) This allows [F]or a meaningful comparison of alternative sites before the siting application process is needlessly repeated. It also gives providers an incentive to choose the least intrusive site in their first siting applications, and it promises to ultimately identify the best solution for the community, not merely the least one remaining after a series of application denials. (Id. at 995.) In this case, because Crown Castle is a CLEC entitled to construct its systems in the ROW, its SCS networks are inherently ROW systems. On that basis, Crown Castle examined those alternatives theoretically available to it in the ROW. The analysis below demonstrates why the Project qualifies as the least intrusive means of addressing the lack of network capacity described above. A. Height of the Proposed Facility. The antenna height and location of the proposed SCS node was chosen to provide the minimum signal level needed to meet critical coverage and capacity needs in the Service Area. Despite the technical limitations of a low-profile system, Crown Castle seeks to maximize the coverage of each node location, since maximization of the node performance equates to a lower overall number of facilities for the Network and a less intrusive system. Accordingly, the proposed location was chosen to provide an effective relay of signal from the adjacent nodes, so that ubiquitous coverage of the minimum signal level is provided throughout the Service Area. Ultimately, the proposed node will be part of the overall Network that Crown Castle is proposing to construct in Simi Valley. B. Location of the Proposed Facility. The selected node location maximizes the RF coverage of the node and minimizes interference/overlap

40 40 with the other nodes of the system, resulting in a lower overall number of facilities for the Network and a less intrusive system. Each node provides an effective relay of signal from the adjacent node, so that ubiquitous coverage is provided throughout the Service Area. Because each node is locationally dependent on the other nodes of the Network, moving a node too far from its proposed location will result in an inability meet coverage objectives and thereby impair the Network. In selecting the proposed node location on Sinaloa Road, Crown Castle sought out existing utility poles and street sign pole sites that could serve as a potential host site for alternative locations. Specifically, Crown analyzed five (5) locations prior to selecting the primary candidate. These locations are shown on the map below: Proposed Node Locations on Sinaloa Road

41 41 Primary Candidate Primary Candidate Location with Node to Left of Pole The primary candidate was selected based on its location and ability to meet the coverage and network capacity objectives set by T-Mobile s RF engineers. The location is directly adjacent to an existing SCE wood utility pole (Pole # E) and is in front of a commercially-zoned parcel that is improved with a bowling alley and café (see photo below). There are existing electrical and

42 42 communications wires as well as transformers on the pole. The Crown Castle node will be located approximately 6 south of the pole and be attached to Crown Castle aerial fiber. The addition of the node will not result in any negative aesthetic impacts and will appear similar to other equipment deployed within the ROW. Alternative Candidate 1 Crown Castle reviewed the pole located directly to the west of the primary candidate and determined that this candidate was located on private property and not within the public ROW which would require an easement from the underlying property owner. Furthermore, the pole does not have space for new communication lines (fiber optic) and there are electrical transformers at the height at which the node is proposed to be located. New anchor lines would also be required and the lines would

43 43 encroach onto the private property. Alternative Candidate 2 A second possible location for the node was an existing wood utility pole located on the east side of Sinaloa Road just south of the primary candidate location. This pole was rejected due to the lack of existing communication lines and that new aerial lines would need to be placed across Sinaloa Road which would result in additional visual impacts. Furthermore, if the proposed node were attached to new aerial fiber above Sinaloa Road, it would be much more visible to motorists than if it was placed at the primary candidate location.

44 44 Alternative Candidate 3 Crown Castle examined a third alternative pole located north of the primary candidate on the west side of Sinaloa Road as a possible location for the node. This location was rejected due to the fact that the pole is an SCE terminal pole (all lines feed into underground conduit going north) and is also a primary riser pole. This location is also to the north of the coverage objective and closer to the intersection of Sinaloa Road and Los Angeles Avenue. The immediate area around and including the intersection currently has sufficient network capacity and coverage.

45 45 Alternative Candidate 4 A fourth potential candidate was identified and is located south of the primary candidate on the west side of Sinaloa Road. This pole is also an SCE terminal pole with primary risers. Furthermore, at the proposed height of 20-6 (height of new Crown Castle fiber line), the node would be blocked by existing foliage which would impair the signal transmissions and result in substandard performance. At this location, the node would also be more visible to the residential community to the west. C. SCS as Least Intrusive Means Technology. Even apart from the siting of the nodes, SCS itself is inherently minimally intrusive by design. SCS was developed as a smaller-scale solution to the larger macro-site or cell tower. It therefore represents a

46 46 significant technological advance in the development of smaller profile wireless transmission devices. As devices shrink in size, they also, by definition, shrink in power. Accordingly, more facilities are needed and such facilities must be located closer to the user. The nodes are designed to be smaller scale and lower power to allow them to integrate more easily into their surroundings and thereby render them less aesthetically intrusive. The SCS node facilities proposed by Crown Castle combine a smaller scale product with state-of-the-art technology. The nodes are designed to blend into the existing elements of the ROW. Crown Castle s SCS network qualifies as the least intrusive means of filling the identified significant lack of network capacity and coverage for the following reasons, among others: (1) Crown Castle SCS utilizes the latest in wireless infrastructure technology, incorporating smaller, low-power facilities instead of using larger -- and sometimes more obtrusive -- cell towers; (2) Crown Castle SCS utilizes the ROW, thereby avoiding intrusions into private property or undeveloped sensitive resource areas; (3) Crown Castle SCS strikes a balance between antenna height and coverage in order to minimize visual impacts; (5) Crown Castle SCS carefully spaces the nodes to effectively relay signal with a minimum of node locations; and (6) Crown Castle SCS seeks to utilize existing vertical elements in the ROW, such as utility poles and fiber optic strands, thereby minimizing the net number of vertical intrusions in the ROW. 5. HEALTH AND SAFETY/FCC COMPLIANCE The FCC has preempted the field of compliance with RF emission standards. Moreover, section 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) preempts local and state governments from regulating the siting of wireless telecommunications facilities on the basis of the perceived health effects of RF emissions. Nevertheless, the Network, and all equipment associated with the Network, complies with all The Foundation for a Wireless World. CrownCastle.com

47 47 r'r' CROWN \..,/~ CASTLE Crown Castle 300 Spectrum Center Drive Suite 1200 Irvine, CA applicable FCC RF emission standards. A demonstration of the Network s compliance with applicable FCC RF emission standards is included as part of this application. E. Safety and Monitoring Standards The FCC has preempted the field of compliance with RF emission standards. Moreover, section 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) preempts local and state governments from regulating the siting of wireless telecommunications facilities on the basis of the perceived health effects of RF. Nevertheless, the Network, and all equipment associated with the Network, complies with all applicable FCC RF emission standards. 5. DESIGN STANDARDS A. Selection Criteria for Each Node Site. Given the low profile of the nodes, and the resultant limitations of such a low-profile system, Crown Castle seeks to maximize the coverage of each node location, since maximization of the node coverage equates to a lower overall number of facilities for the network and a less intrusive system. Accordingly, each location was chosen to provide an effective relay of signal from the adjacent node, so that ubiquitous coverage is provided throughout the Service Area with the least number of nodes. Each node is locationally dependent on the other nodes of the Network. To move a node too far from its proposed location will result in an inability meet coverage objectives. Moving outside that proposed location will preclude the ability of the node to properly propagate its signal to the other nodes in the larger Network. The further a node is moved from its proposed location, the more the signal from that node will attenuate. In determining other viable locations for a node, moving more than 50 feet from the proposed location may materially impair the coverage objectives for the facility. While Crown Castle is able to install new poles to achieve its RF coverage objectives, Crown Castle made a strategic decision to minimize the installation of new poles where possible -- and locate the Network nodes at the site

48 48 of existing vertical elements, such as street signs and wood utility poles. By approaching a network design in this matter, Crown Castle sought to avoid the risk of proliferation of verticality in the ROW. Crown Castle s approach ensures that it has chosen the least intrusive means of providing service to the Service Area. In many cases, Crown Castle identified alternative locations that are technically feasible. Yet, in each instance, Crown Castle selected the proposed site on the basis of (a) (b) (c) (d) Technical feasibility; Ability to utilize existing vertical elements; Ability to meet RF objectives; and Minimization of visibility/aesthetic impacts. CONCLUSION Crown Castle respectfully presents its application for a Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Permit for the proposed strand-mounted node located on new Crown Castle aerial fiber at a height of 20-6 and 6 south of an existing SCE wood utility pole located at 1879 Sinaloa Road. Crown Castle is requesting approval of the proposed strand-mounted design as an Approved Telecommunications Facilities Design by the Planning Commission. Crown Castle s representatives are on hand to answer any questions. The Foundation for a Wireless World. CrownCastle.com

49 49 ATTACHMENT C WIRELESS PLANNING MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Sean Gibson FROM: Dr. Jonathan Kramer DATE: March 22, 2017 RE: WTP-87 (Crown Castle NG West) Technical Review for New Wireless Site in the Public Right-of- Way Adjacent to 1879 Sinaloa Road Project #: The City of Simi Valley (the City ) requested that Telecom Law Firm review the proposed Crown Castle NG West ( Crown Castle ) project that seeks to construct a new wireless facility in the public right-of-way ( ROW ) adjacent to 1879 Sinaloa Road. This memorandum reviews the application and related materials for technical and regulatory issues specific to wireless infrastructure. Although many technical issues implicate legal issues, the analysis and recommendations contained in this memorandum do not constitute legal advice. 1. Project Background and Description Crown Castle submitted project plans dated August 12, 2016 ( Plans ) to propose a new wireless node to its existing aerial fiber optic strand (the wire rope strung from pole to pole) in the public ROW within a commercial zone. Crown Castle s project documents make it clear there is no existing communications fiber optic strand in this area or attached to the adjacent pole. Crown Castle proposes to place this node on newly-installed strand approximately 6-feet south of an existing Southern California Edison ( SCE ) pole numbered E. Crown Castle proposes to install two antennas, two remote radio units ( RRUs ) and two DC power converters. The Plans depict that the node will be placed at 20-feet above ground level ( AGL ). The application materials submitted by Crown Castle mention that this node will be integrated into Crown Castle s existing fiber optic network and will provide enhanced wireless services in the immediate area. Page 22 of the Wireless Telecommunications Permit Application Packet filled out by Crown Castle mentions that the proposed node should be considered to meet the standard of utilizing a high priority location Section (b)(1)(iii), however we believe that the Simi Valley Municipal Code mentioned by Crown Castle is incorrect. Crown Castle likely intended to reference Municipal Code Section (b)(1)(iii) (emphasis added) S. Barrington Ave. Suite 306 Los Angeles CA T La Jolla Boulevard Suite 204 La Jolla CA T TelecomLawFirm.com

50 50 Mr. Sean Gibson WTP-87 (Crown Castle) March 22, 2017 Page 2 of 8 2. Section 6409 Evaluation Section 6409(a) requires that State and local governments may not deny, and shall approve any eligible facilities request for a wireless site collocation or modification so long as it does not cause a substant[ial] change in [that site s] physical dimensions. 1 FCC regulations interpret key terms in this statute and impose certain substantive and procedural limitations on local review. 2 Localities must review applications submitted for approval pursuant to Section 6409(a), but the applicant bears the burden to show it qualifies for mandatory approval. Here, the City should not process this application as an eligible facilities request because Crown Castle proposes an entirely new wireless facility rather than a collocation or modification at an existing facility. As such, the application does not qualify as an eligible facilities request that could be subject to mandatory approval. Accordingly, the City should review the application under the applicable development provisions in the Simi Valley Municipal Code subject to federal and state law. 3. Shot Clock Considerations The federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the Telecom Act ) requires State and local governments to act on a duly filed wireless permit application within a reasonable time. 3 FCC regulations interpret a reasonable time to mean 60 days for an eligible facilities request, 90 days for a collocation application and 150 days for all other projects. 4 Under California law, the project may be deemed approved when the local government fails to act within the applicable timeframe and all notices required for the application have been given. 5 The FCC defines collocation to mean the installation of transmission equipment on an existing wireless tower or base station. 6 Such collocation qualifies as a collocation application when it meets certain size limitations detailed in the Nationwide Collocation Agreement. Here, the 150-day shot clock applies because the proposed node is not an existing wireless tower or base station. 1 See 47 U.S.C. 1455(a). 2 See In the Matter of Acceleration of Broadband Deployment by Improving Wireless Facilities Siting Policies, Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd (Oct. 17, 2014) [hereinafter Infrastructure Order ]. 3 See 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(B)(ii). 4 See Petition for Declaratory Ruling to Clarify Provisions of Section 332(c)(7)(B) to Ensure Timely Siting Review and to Preempt under Section 253 State and Local Ordinances that Classify All Wireless Siting Proposals as Requiring a Variance, 24 FCC Rcd 13994, (Nov. 18, 2009); see also Infrastructure Order at See CAL. GOV T CODE (a). 6 See 47 C.F.R (b)(2). Telecom Law Firm PC

51 51 Mr. Sean Gibson WTP-87 (Crown Castle) March 22, 2017 Page 3 of 8 4. Significant Gap and Least Intrusive Means Analysis The Telecom Act prohibits State and local governments from actually or effectively prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. 7 In the Ninth Circuit, a single permit denial can cause an effective prohibition when the applicant demonstrates (1) a significant gap exists in its own service and (2) that it proposed the least intrusive means to mitigate that gap. 8 This rule applies with equal force on private property and the public ROW California Public Utilities Code Sections 7901 and State and local governments cannot impose stricter requirements on wireless facilities deployment than contained in the Telecom Act, but state and local laws may require differentbut-less-restrictive alternatives. California state law somewhat modifies the federal effectiveprohibition analysis because it grants certain telephone corporations access rights to the ROW subject to statutory limitations and local time, place and manner control. 10 Under California Public Utilities Code section 7901, CPUC-regulated telephone corporations hold a limited right to use the ROW only to the extent necessary for the furnishing of services to the public. 11 Public Utilities Code section bolsters local authority and requires telephone corporations to conform to reasonable local time, place and manner regulations, which may include aesthetic considerations. 12 Taken together, section 7901 effectively obviates the significant gap question because California localities must allow telephone corporations reasonable access to the ROW whether a gap in the provider s service exists or not. But localities can, pursuant to its authority preserved in section , require wireless telephone corporations to adopt the least intrusive means. 13 Accordingly, localities cannot deny a site in the ROW on the basis that it does not address a significant gap, but localities may require information about an applicant s gap or other technical objectives to better understand potentially less intrusive alternative solutions. 7 See 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II). 8 See MetroPCS, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, 400 F.3d 715, 733 (9th Cir. 2005). 9 See generally Sprint PCS Assets, LLC v. City of Palos Verdes Estates, 583 F.3d 716 (9th Cir. 2009) (applying 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7) et seq. to permit denials for wireless sites in the ROW). 10 See CAL. PUB. UTILS. CODE 7901, (West 2011). 11 See County of Los Angeles v. Southern Cal. Telephone Co., 196 P.2d 773, 779 (Cal. 1948). 12 See Sprint PCS Assets, LLC v. City of Palos Verdes Estates, 583 F.3d 716, 725 (9th Cir. 2009); see also GTE Mobilnet of Cal. Ltd. P ship v. City and County of San Francisco, 440 F. Supp. 2d 1097, (rejecting claim that 7901 preempts local regulation as a matter of law). 13 See Sprint PCS Assets, LLC v. City of Palos Verdes Estates, 583 F.3d 716, 725 (9th Cir. 2009). Telecom Law Firm PC

52 52 Mr. Sean Gibson WTP-87 (Crown Castle) March 22, 2017 Page 4 of Least Intrusive Means Evaluation Even when an applicant demonstrates a significant gap, the Telecom Act does not grant the applicant rights to build whatever site in whatever location it chooses. State and local jurisdictions may require wireless applicants to adopt the least intrusive means to achieve their technical objectives. 14 This balances the national interest in wireless services with the local interest in planned development. In the Ninth Circuit, the least intrusive means refers to the technically feasible and potentially available alternative design and location that most closely conforms to the local values a permit denial would otherwise serve. 15 Local values typically refer to policies or norms expressed in the local law. A technically feasible and potentially available alternative means that the applicant can reasonably (1) meet their demonstrated service needs and (2) obtain a lease or other legal right to construct the proposed site at the proposed location. 16 Localities should first evaluate whether or to what degree a proposed wireless site conforms to local law. To the extent that the proposal or some aspect within the proposal conflicts with local law, localities should then look for practical alternatives that either eliminate or reduce the noncompliance Alternative Sites Analysis The process to determine whether a proposal constitutes the least intrusive means involves burden-shifting framework. First, the applicant establishes a presumption that it proposes the least intrusive means when it submits an alternative sites analysis. Localities can rebut the presumption when it proposes other alternatives. Applicants may then rule-out proposed alternatives when it provides a meaningful comparative analysis for why such alternative is not technically feasible or potentially available. 17 This back-and-forth continues until either the jurisdiction fails to propose a technically feasible or potentially available alternative, or the applicant fails to rule-out a proposed alternative See, e.g., American Tower Corp. v. City of San Diego, 763 F.3d 1035, 1056 (9th Cir. 2014). 15 See id.; see also T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. City of Anacortes, 572 F.3d 987, 995 (9th Cir. 2009). 16 See Anacortes, 572 F.3d at See American Tower Corp., 763 F.3d at Compare id. (upholding a permit denial because the applicant failed to rule-out the technical feasibility or potential availability of proposed alternatives), with Anacortes, 572 F.3d at 999 (invalidating a permit denial because the city insisted on an unavailable location). These cases provide a guide for planners on how to evaluate alternative sites analyses. Planners should also note that a strong administrative record is essential to this analysis. Telecom Law Firm PC

53 53 Mr. Sean Gibson WTP-87 (Crown Castle) March 22, 2017 Page 5 of 8 Applicants cannot rule-out potential alternatives on the ground that it believes its preferred site is subjectively better than the jurisdiction s preferred alternative. 19 Only the local government can decide which among several feasible and available alternatives constitutes the best option. Similarly, an applicant cannot rule-out a proposed alternative based on a bare conclusion that it is not technically feasible or potentially available it must provide a meaningful comparative analysis that allows the jurisdiction to reach its own conclusions. 20 Here, Crown Castle did not submit an alternative sites analysis. Therefore, this memorandum cannot assess any alternate locations. We recommend the City require Crown Castle to provide an alternative sites analysis with a meaningful comparative analysis and the factual basis for concluding why each considered alternative would or would not meet the coverage objectives. 5. Planned Compliance with RF Exposure Regulations Under the federal Telecommunications Act, the FCC completely occupies the field with respect to RF emissions regulation. The FCC established comprehensive rules for human exposure to RF emissions (the FCC Guidelines ). 21 State and local governments cannot regulate wireless facilities based on environmental effects from RF emissions to the extent that the emissions comply with the FCC Guidelines. 22 Although localities cannot establish their own standards for RF exposure, local officials may require wireless applicants to demonstrate compliance with the FCC Guidelines. 23 Such demonstrations usually involve a predictive calculation because the site has not yet been built FCC Guidelines FCC Guidelines regulate exposure rather than emissions. 24 Although the FCC establishes a maximum permissible exposure ( MPE ) limit, it does not mandate any specific limitations on 19 See American Tower Corp., 763 F.3d at 1057 (finding that the applicant did not adduce evidence allowing for a meaningful comparison of alternative designs or sites, and the [c]ity was not required to take [the applicant] s word that these were the best options ). 20 See id. 21 See 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(B)(iv); see also 47 C.F.R et seq.; FCC Office of Engineering and Technology, Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, OET Bulletin 65, ed (1997). 22 See 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(B)(iv). 23 See In re Procedures for Reviewing Requests for Relief from State and Local Regulations Pursuant to Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) of the Communications Act of 1934, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd , (Nov. 13, 2000) (declining to adopt rules that limit local authority to require compliance demonstrations). 24 See generally Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Fields: Guidelines for Cellular and PCS Sites, Consumer Guide, FCC (Oct. 22, 2014), available at (discussing in general terms how wireless sites transmit and how the FCC regulates the emissions). Telecom Law Firm PC

54 54 Mr. Sean Gibson WTP-87 (Crown Castle) March 22, 2017 Page 6 of 8 power levels applicable to all antennas and requires the antenna operator to adopt exposuremitigation measures only to the extent that certain persons might become exposed to the emissions. Thus, a relatively low-powered site in proximity to the general population might require more comprehensive mitigation measures than a relatively high-powered site in a remote location accessible only to trained personnel. The MPE limit also differentiates between general population and occupational personnel. Most people fall into the general population class, which includes anyone who either does not know about potential exposure or knows about the exposure but cannot exert control over the transmitters. 25 The MPE limit for the general population is five times lower than the MPE limit for the occupational class. In this case, members of the general population will include other pole line users such as the wired telephone company operator, the cable TV operator, any third-party fiber providers, and the electrical service provider. The narrower occupational class includes persons exposed through their employment and able to exert control over their exposure. 26 This narrower class likely includes only Crown Castle and T-Mobile personnel. Lastly, the FCC categorically excludes certain antennas from routine environmental review when either (1) the antennas create exposures in areas virtually inaccessible to humans or (2) the antennas operate at extreme low power. As a general rule, a wireless site qualifies for a categorical exclusion when mounted on a structure built solely or primarily to support FCClicensed or authorized equipment (i.e., a tower) and such that the lowest point on the lowest transmitter is more than 10 meters (32.8 feet) above ground. 27 Categorical exclusions establish a presumption that the emissions from the antennas will not significantly impact humans or the human environment. Such antennas are exempt from routine compliance evaluations but not exempt from actual compliance. Under some circumstances, categorically excluded sites will require additional analysis, such as when a tower is located in close proximity to general population members or when a tower is a heavily collocated Planned Compliance Evaluation and Recommendations The FCC Guidelines do not categorically exclude Crown Castle s application based on design because the antennas are mounted on a utility pole that was primarily intended to support electrical power lines rather than wireless equipment. Accordingly, an additional analysis is appropriate to determine whether the proposed transmitters demonstrate planned compliance with the FCC Guidelines. 25 See 47 C.F.R , Note See id. 27 See id (b)(1). Telecom Law Firm PC

55 55 Mr. Sean Gibson WTP-87 (Crown Castle) March 22, 2017 Page 7 of 8 Here, Crown Castle filled out and submitted the City s Commercial Wireless Telecommunications Facility Technical Data Summary Form which contains emissions information sufficient to allow an independent planned-compliance analysis. Based on the transmitter frequencies and power levels disclosed, the transmitters would create a controlled access zone that extends approximately 3.6 feet from the antennas. Exposure levels within the controlled access zone may exceed the FCC s limits for the general population depending on how close a person gets to the antennas and how long a person remains within the controlled zone. Beyond the controlled access zone, exposure levels would not exceed the general population limits. A controlled access zone does not necessarily mean that the transmitters violate the FCC Rules. Rather, any carrier that contributes more than five percent (5%) of the emissions in a controlled access zone must adopt mitigation measures to ensure compliance. 28 As the sole carrier at this location, T-Mobile will contribute 100% of the RF emissions, thus it will be 100% responsible for mitigation, presumably with its contractor, Crown Castle. Carriers responsible for mitigation must take steps to ensure that general population members do not unknowingly expose themselves to emissions that exceed the FCC s limits. 29 In this case, T-Mobile and Crown Castle can demonstrate planned compliance with the FCC Guidelines through the use of signage protocols. We recommend that the City impose the following conditions if it decides to approve the proposal in its current or modified form: 1. Permittee shall install and at all times maintain in good condition a permanent RF Caution sign on the strand approximately 4 feet on both sides of the antenna location. The signs shall be permanently affixed to the stand and hang downwards. The signs required under this condition shall be installed so that a person can clearly see the sign as he or she approaches the strand. Permittee shall ensure that all signage complies with FCC OET Bulletin 65 or ANSI C95.7 for color, symbol and content conventions. In addition, all signage must provide a working local or toll-free telephone number to its network operations center that reaches a live person who can exert transmitter powerdown control over this site as required by the FCC. 6. Conclusion The City should request that Crown Castle provide an alternative sites analysis or waive the requirement. 28 See 47 C.F.R (b)(3); see also OET Bulletin 65 at See OET Bulletin 65 at 10 (noting training and signage as examples). Telecom Law Firm PC

56 56 Mr. Sean Gibson WTP-87 (Crown Castle) March 22, 2017 Page 8 of 8 Subject to the recommended condition above, Crown Castle s proposed site will comply with the FCC Guidelines for radiofrequency exposure. In the event that the City or the applicant makes any substantial changes to this proposed site, location, or design, a revised analysis would be appropriate. /jlk Telecom Law Firm PC

57 57 ATTACHMENT D WIRELESS PLANNING MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Sean Gibson FROM: Dr. Jonathan Kramer DATE: July 10, 2017 RE: WTP-87 (Crown Castle NG West) Technical Review for New Wireless Site in the Public Right-of- Way Adjacent to 1879 Sinaloa Road Project #: This memo follows-up on my memo to you dated March 22, 2017 in which I first reviewed the referenced project (the March Memo ). I do not repeat the entire contents of that memo here, but adopt and incorporate its contents in this memo by this reference. 1. Alternative Sites Analysis Document In the March Memo, I noted that Crown Castle did not provide any alternative sites analysis for its project. I recommended that the City direct Crown Castle to provide that analysis. In an undated document titled, LAN128 Justification Letter docx presumably dated April 14, 2017 based on the title and the metadata of the document (the Justification Letter ), Crown Castle described to the City its primary candidate site, plus four alternatives. That alternatives analysis is found in the Justification Letter at Section 4(B) Alternatives Visual Identification The primary candidate and the four alternatives are visually identified in the Justification Letter in Figure 1, on the next page. (Balance of page intentionally left blank) 2001 S. Barrington Ave. Suite 306 Los Angeles CA T La Jolla Boulevard Suite 204 La Jolla CA T TelecomLawFirm.com

58 58 Mr. Sean Gibson WTP-87 (Crown Castle) July 10, 2017 Page 2 of 7 Figure 1: Primary and Alternative Candidates Overhead Photo (Source: Justification Letter, rotated counterclockwise and enlarged for improved clarity) Telecom Law Firm PC

59 59 Mr. Sean Gibson WTP-87 (Crown Castle) July 10, 2017 Page 3 of Alternative Candidate Location 1 Figure 2: Primary and Alternative Candidate 1 Photo (Source: Justification Letter) Alternative 1 is located to the west of the Primary Candidate site. Crown Castle asserts, without more, that Alternative 1 is not located in the public right-of-way, and thus would require an easement from the property owner. This response is incomplete as it does not disclose whether there is an existing utility easement for the referenced pole, which would be easily determined by a review of the County Recorder s records. Moreover, Crown Castle asserts that, the pole does not have space for new communication lines (fiber optic) and there are electrical transformers at the height at which the node is proposed to be located. New anchor lines would also be required and the lines would encroach onto the private property. This analysis is incomplete as it does not analyze (a) replacing the existing pole with a taller pole to allow for the raising of the transformers, and (b) quantifiable impacts of the change in transmission (if any) were the antenna equipment placed at a lower height on the existing pole. As for anchor lines (down guy) concerns raised by Crown Castle, down guys may not be necessary. That cannot be determined without a thorough pole loading analysis which presumably has not been done. Even if down guys are required, and even if the property owner Telecom Law Firm PC

60 60 Mr. Sean Gibson WTP-87 (Crown Castle) July 10, 2017 Page 4 of 7 declines to grant or expand an easement, Crown Castle, as a state-authorized telecommunications provider, may have the power of eminent domain to acquire the private property necessary for the down guys. It is my opinion that Crown Castle has failed to demonstrate that Alternative Candidate 1 is not viable Alternative Candidate 2 Figure 3: Primary and Alternative Candidate 2 Photo (Source: Justification Letter) Alternative 2 is an existing wood utility pole located on the east side of Sinaloa Road to the south of the primary candidate site. Crown Castle asserts that Alternative 2 was rejected because there are no existing communications cables on that pole, and that new overhead cables would be required to be installed over Sinaloa Road. It is Crown Castle s opinion that if Alternative 2 were elected by the City, the new overhead cables would be much more visible to motorists than if it was placed at the primary candidate location. Telecom Law Firm PC

61 61 Mr. Sean Gibson WTP-87 (Crown Castle) July 10, 2017 Page 5 of 7 Crown Castle s reasoning for rejecting Alternative 2 are unconvincing. First, Crown Castle routinely installs underground conduits and cables to cross a street like Sinaloa. Second, Crown Castle routinely installs small cell equipment on lateral pole extension arms. It is my opinion that Crown Castle has failed to demonstrate that Alternative Candidate 2 is not viable Alternative Candidate 3 Figure 4: Alternative Candidate 3 Photo (Source: Justification Letter) Crown Castle asserts that alternative candidate 3, located to the north of the primary candidate, is not viable for two reasons. First, that the pole is an SCE terminal pole (all lines feed into underground conduit going north) and is also a primary riser pole. There is no technically-sufficient justification given by Crown Castle to reject this location. The proposed small cell equipment would be placed on strand (the wire rope between poles), thus not interfering in any way with the pole in question. The second reason Crown Castle rejected Candidate 3 is that it is locate north of the coverage objective and closer to the intersection of Sinaloa Road and Los Angeles Avenue. The Telecom Law Firm PC

62 62 Mr. Sean Gibson WTP-87 (Crown Castle) July 10, 2017 Page 6 of 7 immediate area around and including the intersection currently has sufficient network capacity and coverage. (Emphasis added.) By Crown Castle s admission, it is apparent that Candidate 3 cannot qualify as a true alternative, thus this site should not have been identified as an alternative candidate. It is my opinion that Alternative Candidate 3 does not rise to the level of being a true alternative candidate to the Primary Candidate Alternative Candidate 4 Figure 5: Alternative Candidate 4 Photo (Source: Justification Letter) Crown Castle s alternative candidate 4 is to the south of the Primary Candidate. It is located on the west side of Sinaloa Road. Crown Castle indicates that the pole is, like Alternative 3, a SCE terminal pole with primary power risers. As with Alternative 3, however, there is no technically-sufficient justification from Crown Castle to reject this location. As before, the proposed small cell equipment would be placed on strand (the wire rope between poles), thus not interfering in any way with the pole in Alternative 4. Telecom Law Firm PC

63 63 Mr. Sean Gibson WTP-87 (Crown Castle) July 10, 2017 Page 7 of 7 Crown also indicates that at the proposed height of 20 6 above ground level, the height of new Crown Castle fiber optic cable and strand, the transmissions would be blocked by existing foliage which would impair the signal transmissions and result in substandard performance. Crown Castle does not indicate the extent of the impairment, whether it is 1% or 100%, thus there is no objective evidence in the record to conclude that the substandard performance would be material. Finally, and oddly, Crown Castle asserts that if Alternative Candidate 4 is selected, the equipment at that location would also be more visible to the residential community to the west. This claim is counterintuitive given that Crown Castle s immediately-prior objection was that the foliage would impair the signal. Foliage that impair radio frequency signals are also visual blockages, Crown Castle must settle on whether this Alternative 4 site would be more visible to the community (the nearest location being guest parking spaces) or impair the signal because of blockage to be unusable. 2. Conclusion As set out above, Crown Castle provided three realistic alternative sites rather than the four claimed. Of the three realistic alternatives provided, Crown Castle has provided mere assertions rather than objective data to eliminate those alternatives from consideration. It is my opinion that Crown Castle s Justification Letter fails to justify the rejection of three of the four alternative candidates (Alternative Candidates 1, 2 and 4), and that Alternative Candidate 3 was not truly a realistic alternative. /jlk Telecom Law Firm PC

64 64 ATTACHMENT E CITY OF SIMI VALLEY MEMORANDUM June 18, 2014 TO: FROM: Planning Commission Department of Environmental Services SUBJECT: REVIEW OF APPROVED TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES DESIGNS ("ATFD") RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider and determine the design of previously approved wireless telecommunication facilities in accordance with Simi Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Section (c)(1) under Approved Telecommunications Facilities Design ("ATFD"). BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW Under the City Wireless Telecommunication Facilities ordinance [SVMC Title 5, Chapter 35, Section (c)(1)], the Environmental Services Director is allowed to issue a permit for a wireless telecommunications facility that is proposed to be located in the public right-of-way or on private property when its design is consistent with previously approved screening designs by the Planning Commission. The process of allowing administrative review and approval of Planning Commission approved-standardized design is in accordance with Section (c)(1) under "Approved Telecommunications Facilities Design" (ATFD). FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES Once a standardized design is approved by the Planning Commission as an ATFD, Planning staff and the City consultant review applications for new and modified wireless telecommunication facilities to ensure the design meets the design elements of an ATFD and the required findings in the ordinance. Any proposal that is not consistent with the criteria under an ATFD will be presented to the Planning Commission. The ATFDs approved by the Environmental Services Department are subject to regular review by the Planning Commission on at least a biennial basis. Such review shall determine whether the ATFD is consistent with currently available designs and technologies, and to assure that wireless telecommunications facilities that are eligible for staff level approval are designed and installed in such a manner as to constitute the least intrusive design for such facilities. The following designs have been previously approved by the Planning Commission and are being recommended as "Approved Telecommunications Facilities Designs" for future wireless facilities. P 13/6-14(dw)

65 65 1. Antennas and equipment behind RF panels within existing building roof parapets, walls and roofs. WTP-015; approved February 20, 2008 CUP-S-588; approved September 3, Antennas and equipment behind RF panels within new building roof parapets and walls to ensure complete screening.,,, CUP-S-552; approved March 9, 2005 WTP-040; approved August 17, Antennas and equipment behind RF panels within new building towers and cupolas to ensure complete screening. WTP-008; approved June 4, 2014 CUP-S-632; approved January 4, 2006 P 13/6-14(dw) 2

66 66 4. Antennas and equipment behind RF panels within faux trees such as Italian Cypress, palm, and mono-pine trees to ensure complete screening. CUP-S-621; approved January 19, 2005 WTP-021; approved December 22, 2010 P 13/6-14(dw) 3

67 67 5. Antennas and equipment behind RF panelswithin a Radonne column situated on utility poles in the street right-of-way. 6. WTP-035; approved March 9, 2011 SUMMARY CUP-S-577; approved May 7, 2003 Under the City Wireless Telecommunication Facilities ordinance [SVMC Title 5, Chapter 35, Section (c)(1)], the Environmental Services Director is allowed to issue a permit for a wireless telecommunications facility when its design is consistent with a previously approved design by the Planning Commission in accordance with the above Section under "Approved Telecommunications Facilities Design" (ATFD). The Planning Commission is being requested to consider previously approved various types of designs of wireless facilities for consideration as ATFDs. It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider and determine the design of previously approved Telecommunication Facilities as standardized designs under an Approved Telecommunication Facilities Design ("ATFD") per Simi Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Section ( c)( 1 ). P 13/6-14(dw) 4 \Al = - ~-~-e,...-.-'=-' ~ Director Department of Environmental Services

68 68 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURE HEARING DATE: JUNE 18, 2014 APPROVED TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES DESIGN ("ATFD") CHAIRMAN: STAFF: a) This is the time and place set for a public hearing on the consideration of the Approved Telecommunications Facilities Designs ("ATFDs"). b) Are there any ex parte communications to report? cj May we have an oral report on this matter by staff. (Report) 3. ANY COMMISSIONER: (Questions of staff) CHAIRMAN: CHAIRMAN: AUDIENCE: CHAIRMAN: We will open the public testimony portion of the hearing. Is there anyone in the Chamber wishing to be heard on this matter? (Comments) a) Are there any comments from staff regarding statements made during the public hearing? (Check with Deputy Director/City Planner, Assistant City Attorney, and staff members in the audience.) b) If there are no further questions, we will close the public testimony portion of the hearing. c) Are there any comments or questions from members of the Planning Commission? 8. ANY COMMISSIONER: (Comments) 9. CHAIRMAN: The Chair will now entertain a motion. 10. ANY COMMISSIONER: I move to adopt a resolution adopting the Approved Telecommunication Facilities Designs ("ATFDs"). or P 13/6-14(dw) 5

69 69 I move to adopt a resolution denying the Approved Telecommunication Facilities Designs ("ATFDs"). [Staff will prepare the resolution for the Planning Commission to ratify at the next meeting.] 11. CHAIRMAN: 12. RECORDING SECRETARY: 13. CHAIRMAN: A motion was made by Commissioner (Reads Number and Title of Resolution) May I have a Second. 14. ANY COMMISSIONER: I second the motion. 15. CHAIRMAN: 16. CHAIRMAN: 17. CHAIRMAN Call for the vote. The motion (passes or fails). There is no Appeal period for the Approved Telecommunication Facilities Designs and the item) will proceed to the City Council with the Planning Commission's recommendation. 18. ANY COMMISSIONER: I move continuation of the matter until the meeting of or 19. ANY COMMISSIONER: I move continuation of the matter to a date uncertain. 20. CHAIRMAN: Proceed to the next item. P 13/6-14(dw) 6

70 70 RESOLUTION NO. SVPC A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SIMI VALLEY ADOPTING APPROVED TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES DESIGNS ("ATFD") WHEREAS, the City of Simi Valley has initiated a request to consider and determine the design of previously approved Telecommunication Facilities as standardized designs under an Approved Telecommunication Facilities Design ("ATFD") per Simi Valley Municipal Code Section (c)(1). NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SIMI VALLEY DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The designs to screen wireless telecommunications antennas and accompany equipment, per the staff report dated June 18, 2014, are hereby approved as Telecommunications Facilities Designs (ATFD), in accordance with SVMC Section (c)(1). SECTION 2. The time within which judicial review must be sought for administrative decisions is governed by California Code of Civil Procedure Section Attest: PASSED and ADOPTED this 18th day of June, Vivienne Deluca Recording Secretary Ken Rice, Chairperson Planning Commission Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content: David Caceres Assistant City Attorney Paul Drury Deputy Director/City Planner Department of Environmental Services P 13/6-14(dw) 7

71 71 RES. NO. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Simi Valley, California, at a regular meeting held on June 18, 2014, by the following vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: Vivienne Deluca Recording Secretary P 13/6-14(dw) 8

72 71 ATTACHMENT F MICHAEL W. SHONAFELT Michael.Shonafelt@ndlf.com File No.: August 1, 2017 VIA (BHUBER@SIMIVALLEY.ORG) Bob Huber, Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Simi Valley 2929 Tapo Canyon Road Simi Valley, CA Re: Crown Castle: Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of WTP-87 Dear Mayor Huber, This office is legal counsel for Crown Castle NG West LLC ( Crown Castle ) in the above-referenced appeal ( Appeal ) of the City Planning Commission s ( Planning Commission ) June 21, 2017, denial of Crown Castle s application for a wireless telecommunications facility. This letter presents Crown Castle s legal rights under both federal and state law and presents an analysis of those rights as they pertain to the Appeal. 1. INTRODUCTION. The Appeal centers on the Planning Commission s denial of Crown Castle s application for a small wireless telecommunications facility consisting of a new wireless antenna node attached to a proposed aerial fiber optic strand, or cable ( Project ). The Project would be located entirely within the public right-of-way ( ROW ) of the City of Simi Valley ( City ) at the west side of Sinaloa Road, approximately 270 feet south of Los Angeles Avenue. The Project site is in the Commercial Planned Development - Los Angeles Avenue Planning Overlay [CPD (LAAPO)] zone. The proposed antenna node would be installed on a new fiber optic cable approximately 20 feet, six-inches, above the ground and approximately six feet south of an existing Southern California Edison ( SCE ) utility pole. Attached to the strand would be two small cell antennas, two remote radio units ( RRUs ) and two power converters. The antenna and RRUs are approximately 17 inches wide by 33 inches long and ten inches in depth. The power converters are approximately six inches wide by ten inches long by three inches deep. (See Project Construction Drawings, Exhibit A.) The fiber optic strand would not exceed three-quarters of an inch in diameter N. CALIFORNIA BLVD SUITE 600 WALNUT CREEK, CA T F DOVE STREET 5TH FLOOR NEWPORT BEACH, CA T F HOWARD HUGHES PKWY SUITE 700 LAS VEGAS, NV T F

73 Bob Huber, Mayor August 1, 2017 Page 2 72 The Project setting is Sinaloa Road, a designated collector street, and Los Angeles Avenue, a designated primary arterial. The Project setting is in a commercial zone, and is already heavily impacted with existing utilities, such as SCE powerlines and communications facilities, as can be seen below and in the photo-simulations enclosed as Exhibit B: The Project is part of a larger telecommunications network in the City ( Network ). The Network would provide critical telecommunications and broadband services to residents, visitors and other mobile users of telecommunications services. Such services are critical for the

74 Bob Huber, Mayor August 1, 2017 Page 3 73 following reasons, among others: (a) In a recent international study, the United States dropped to fifteenth in the world in broadband penetration, well behind South Korea, Japan, the Netherlands and France. 1 (b) Over 50 percent of all American homes are now wireless only. 2 (c) (d) More and more civic leaders and emergency response personnel cite lack of a robust wireless network as a growing public safety risk. The number of 911 calls placed by people using wireless phones has significantly increased in recent years. It is estimated that about 70 percent of 911 calls are placed from wireless phones, and that percentage is growing. 3 Data demand from new smartphones and tablets is leading to a critical deficit in spectrum, requiring more wireless antennas and infrastructure. According to a 2011 report, wireless data traffic was 110 percent higher than in the last half of Similarly, AT&T reports that its wireless data volumes have increased 30- fold since the introduction of the iphone. 4 (e) Wireless data traffic grew by a factor of 300 percent between 2010 and Global mobile data traffic is expected to reach a seven-fold increase by APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL. A. STATE LAW. Crown Castle is a competitive local exchange carrier ( CLEC ). CLECs qualify as a public utility and therefore have a special status under state law. By virtue of the CPUC s issuance of a certificate of public convenience and necessity ( CPCN ), CLECs have authority under state law to erect poles, posts, piers, or abutments in the ROW subject only to local municipal control over the time, place and manner of access to the ROW. (Pub. Util. Code, 1001, 7901; ; see Williams Communication v. City of Riverside (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 642, 648 [upon obtaining a CPCN, a telephone corporation has the right to use the public highways to install [its] facilities. ].) As the courts have observed, and as recently declared by the California Legislature, the rights of CLECs to install their facilities in the ROW is a matter of statewide concern. (See, e.g., id. at p. 653; Gov. Code, , subd. (c).) The CPUC has issued a CPCN which authorizes Crown Castle to construct the Project 1 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Directorate for Science, Technology, and Industry, Broadband Statistics, (June 2010): < 2 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics (Released 05/2017); 3 Federal Communications Commission (2012) 4 Executive Office of the President Council of Economic Advisors (White House, Feb. 2012) at

75 Bob Huber, Mayor August 1, 2017 Page 4 74 pursuant to its regulatory status under state law. Crown Castle s special regulatory status as a CLEC gives rise to a vested right under Public Utilities Code section 7901 to use the ROW in the City to construct telephone lines along and upon any public road or highway, along or across any of the waters or lands within this State and to erect poles, posts, piers, or abutments for supporting the insulators, wires, and other necessary fixtures of their lines, in such manner and at such points as not to incommode the public use of the road or highway[.] (Pub. Util. Code, 7901.) The nature of the vested right was described by one court as follows: [I]t has been uniformly held that [section 7901] is a continuing offer extended to telephone and telegraph companies to use the highways, which offer when accepted by the construction and maintenance of lines constitutes a binding contract based on adequate consideration, and that the vested right established thereby cannot be impaired by subsequent acts of the Legislature. [Citations.] Thus, telephone companies have the right to use the public highways to install their facilities. (Williams Communications v. City of Riverside, supra, 114 Cal.App.4th at p. 648 quoting County of L. A. v. Southern Cal. Tel. Co. (1948) 32 Cal.2d 378, 384.) 7 Given the vested nature of the section 7901 right, Crown Castle contends that a discretionary use permit -- like the Wireless Telecommunications permit (a conditional use permit) required by the City in this case -- constitutes an unlawful precondition for a CLEC s entry into the ROW. (See, e.g., Michael W. Shonafelt, Whose Streets? California Public Utilities Code Section 7901 in the Wireless Age, 35 HASTINGS COMM. & ENT. L. J. 371 (2013).) In a recent case, T-Mobile West LLC v. City and County of San Francisco (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 334 [208 Cal.Rptr.3d 248], the First Appellate District, Division Five, determined that aesthetic considerations are appropriate in determining whether a facility incommodes the ROW. That case is being appealed to the California Supreme Court. The court did not decide the specific issue of whether obtaining a discretionary use permit is a lawful precondition to exercising the section 7901 franchise rights. Public Utility Code section a sister statute to section grants local municipalities the limited right to exercise reasonable control as to the time, place, and manner in which roads, highways, and waterways are accessed[,]. Nevertheless, such controls cannot have the effect of foreclosing use of the ROW or otherwise prevent the company from exercising its right under state law to erect poles in the ROW. That is because the construction and maintenance of telephone lines in the streets and other public places within the City is today a matter of state concern and not a municipal affair. (Williams Communication v. City of Riverside, supra, 114 Cal.App.4th at p. 653.) Moreover, section specifies that such controls, to be reasonable, shall, at a minimum, be applied to all entities in an equivalent 7 Notwithstanding the submittal of this application, Crown Castle reserves its rights under Public Utilities Code sections 7901 and , including the right to proceed with construction of its networks without having to obtain a local franchise and/or discretionary grant of entry in to the ROW.

76 Bob Huber, Mayor August 1, 2017 Page 5 75 manner. (Ibid., emphasis added.) Accordingly, to the extent that other public utilities are authorized to use the ROW in the City without having to obtain a discretionary land use permit, such disparate treatment may run afoul of the equivalent manner provision of Public Utilities Code section On the basis of Crown Castle s status as a CLEC, and its concomitant rights to the ROW, the Project is designed as part of an ROW telecommunications system. With respect to the siting and configuration of the Project, the rights afforded under Public Utilities Code section 7901 and apply. Crown Castle reserves its rights under section 7901 and , including, but not limited to, its right to challenge any approval process, that impedes or infringes on Crown Castle s rights as a CLEC. B. FEDERAL LAW. The approval of the Project also is governed by the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No , 110 Stat. 56 (codified as amend in scattered sections of U.S.C., Tabs 15, 18, 47) ( Telecom Act ). When enacting the Telecom Act, Congress expressed its intent to promote competition and reduce regulation in order to secure lower prices and higher quality services for American telecommunications consumers and encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies. (110 Stat. at 56.) As one court noted: Congress enacted the TCA to promote competition and higher quality in telecommunications services and to encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies. Congress intended to promote a national cellular network and to secure lower prices and better service for consumers by opening all telecommunications markets to competition. (T-Mobile Central, LLC v. Unified Government of Wyandotte, 528 F.Supp. 2d 1128, (D. Kan. 2007). One way in which the Telecom Act accomplishes those goals is by reducing impediments imposed by local governments upon the installation of wireless communications facilities, such as antenna facilities. (47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(A).) Section 332(c)(7)(B) provides the limitations on the general authority reserved to state and local governments. Those limitations are set forth as follows: (1) State and local governments may not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services ( 332 (c)(7)(b)(i)(i)). (2) State and local governments may not regulate the placement, construction or modification of wireless service facilities in a manner that prohibits, or has the effect of prohibiting, the provision of personal wireless services (better known as the effective prohibition clause ) ( 332 (c)(7)(b)(i)(ii)). (3) State and local governments must act on requests for authorization to construct or modify wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time ( 332 (c)(7)(b)(ii)). (4) Any decision by a state or local government to deny a request for construction or modification of personal wireless service facilities must be in writing and

77 Bob Huber, Mayor August 1, 2017 Page 6 76 supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record ( 332 (c)(7)(b)(iii)). (5) Finally, no state or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction or modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the perceived environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with FCC regulations concerning such emissions ( 332 (c)(7)(b)(iv)). 3. THE APPEAL DOES NOT REST ON SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, WHICH IS REQUIRED TO SUPPORT A DENIAL OF AN APPLICATION LIKE THIS. Both state and federal law require that a decision to deny a permit application must be based on substantial evidence. (47 U.S.C., 332 (c)(7)(b)(iii); Code Civ. Proc., ) Speculation and conjecture do not qualify as substantial evidence. (See, e.g., Robinson v. City and County of San Francisco (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 950 [146 Cal.Rptr.3d 1] [court rejection of conjectural argument of cumulative impacts based on possible future approvals of wireless networks]; Hines v. California Coastal Com. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 830, [112 Cal.Rptr.3d 354] [same principle cited]; Pub. Resources Code, 21080, subd. (e)(2); [ [s]ubstantial evidence is not argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, [or] evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous ].) The minutes of the June 21, 2017, Planning Commission reveal that the Planning Commission based its denials on two grounds: (a) a purported failure to qualify as the least intrusive design and location; and (b) a purported failure to utilize the higher priority sites identified at Simi Valley Municipal Code ( SVMC ) section (b). (See SVMC (d); see Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting (June 21, 2017) ( Minutes ) at pp. 2-3.) No evidence, substantial or otherwise, was proffered to support the Planning Commission s findings of denial. On that basis alone, the denial cannot stand. (See e.g., Los Alamitos Gen. Hosp., Inc. v. Lackner (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 417, 426 [149 Cal.Rptr. 98] [for evidence to be substantial it must bridge the analytical gap between the raw evidence and the ultimate administrative decision. ].) A. The Project Qualifies as the Least Intrusive Design. The Planning Commission s first ground for denial was a purported failure by Crown Castle to to demonstrate least intrusive design and location. Again, the Planning Commission cited no evidence for this finding. Nor did it identify specific alternative locations or designs for Crown Castle to study and exhaust. Having failed to do so, the City did not meet its burden to rebut Crown Castle s assertion of least intrusive means. (See T-Mobile U.S.A. Inc. v. City of Anacortes (9th Cir. 2009) 572 F.3d 987.) Contrary to the Planning Commission s finding, the analysis below demonstrates why the Project qualifies as the least intrusive means of filling the significant gap in service. (1) Height and Location of the Project. The antenna height and location of the Project were chosen to provide the minimum signal level needed to meet critical coverage and capacity needs in the service area. Despite the

78 Bob Huber, Mayor August 1, 2017 Page 7 77 technical limitations of a low-profile, small-cell system, Crown Castle seeks to maximize the coverage of each node location, since maximization of the node performance equates to a lower overall number of facilities and a less intrusive system. Accordingly, the Project location was chosen to provide an effective relay of signal from adjacent sites, so that ubiquitous coverage of the minimum signal level is provided throughout the service area with the minimum number of facilities. The selected location maximizes the RF coverage of the Project and minimizes interference/overlap with the other facilities, resulting in a lower overall number of facilities and a less intrusive system. The ROW is ideal for the Project from an aesthetic standpoint because the ROW is already impacted with utilities and similar features typical of developed roadways. As for the specific location, this Project is located in the Commercial Planned Development zone. As noted above, the Project site is already heavily developed with existing utilities and it is not located near residences. The City s own municipal code identifies a preference for nonresidential zone presumably for this same reason. (See SVMC (a)(2), (4).) The Project blends into the built environment and has negligible view impacts. (See Exh. B.) (2) Small Cells and DAS as Least Intrusive Means Technology, by Design. Even apart from the careful siting of the Project, the technological configuration of small cells and DAS nodes is inherently minimally intrusive by design. Small cells and DAS were developed as a smaller-scale solution to the larger macro-site or cell tower. It therefore represents a significant technological advance in the development of reduced- profile wireless transmission devices. The nodes are designed to be smaller scale and lower power to allow them to integrate more easily into their surroundings and thereby render them less aesthetically intrusive. While it is impossible to make the facilities invisible, each facility will be designed to blend with existing features in the road to the extent feasible. Crown Castle s small cell network qualifies as the least intrusive means of filling the identified significant gap for the following reasons, among others: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) Crown Castle small cells utilize the latest in wireless infrastructure technology, incorporating smaller, low-power facilities instead of using larger -- and sometimes more obtrusive -- cell towers; Crown Castle small cells utilize the ROW, thereby avoiding intrusions into private property or undeveloped sensitive resource areas; Crown Castle small cells generally allow for collocation by multiple carriers, thereby avoiding proliferation of nodes; Crown Castle small cells strike a balance between antenna height and coverage in order to minimize visual impacts; Crown Castle small cells carefully are carefully spaced to effectively relay signal with a minimum of facilities; and Crown Castle small cells utilize existing vertical elements in the ROW, such as utility poles, or slim-profile new poles, thereby minimizing intrusions into the ROW.

79 Bob Huber, Mayor August 1, 2017 Page 8 78 In this case, Crown Castle s strand-mount design represents the smallest profile available, even or small cells. It avoids the need for installing a new pole, and uses existing infrastructure for its support. The antennas are small (17 x 33 x 10 ) and do not require ground-mounted appurtenances. Moreover, because the impacts are so minimal, it is commonplace for other utilities, such as cable companies, to install their facilities on existing aerial cables as a matter of course, without the need to obtain a discretionary (or even ministerial) permit. In fact, strand-mounted facilities like this one exist all over the City. Attached as Exhibit C is a series of photos of strand-mounted facilities within the vicinity of the Project site. Also included in Exhibit C is an aerial photo identifying where each photograph was taken. This category of project is already a common facility in the City and therefore serves as a perfect template for an Approved Telecommunications Facilities Design ( ATFD ). Crown Castle submits that the City should render an approval of the Project as an ATFD on that ground. Notably, no findings were made concerning whether or not the Project fills a significant gap in service. In this case, the Project is designed to relieve capacity from distant, older macro sites to the north and address growing demand in the City s heavily traveled arterials and collector streets. It is important to note that a telephone network may reveal adequate coverage but inadequate capacity. The distinction between coverage and capacity may be better understood in terms of transportation infrastructure. A two-lane road may provide coverage, but once that two lane road experiences high-levels of urban rush-hour traffic, coverage becomes irrelevant, since the road does not have sufficient capacity to handle the higher traffic volumes. In other words, a network may have adequate coverage, but inadequate capacity, which results in the same problem: an impermissibly high level of dropped and blocked calls. The need to address capacity demands is being identified by the courts, which have endorsed a broader interpretation of the definition of significant gap. The interpretation of the term must progress with the rapid development of wireless broadband technologies in order to advance the larger goals of the Telecom Act to encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies. On that basis, the courts have counseled against mechanical or fixed formulas that become outdated and therefore impede technological advancement. (See, e.g., see T-Mobile Northeast LLC v. Fairfax Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors (4th Cir., 2012) 672 F.3d 259, 267 [ reviewing courts should not be constrained by any specific formulation, but should conduct a fact-based analysis of the record, as contemplated by the [Telecom Act]. ].) As the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals noted in a recently published decision: The technology of 10 years ago may have only supported wireless service that had substantial gaps in coverage and high dropped call rates. But the technology of today supports increased wireless coverage with reduced rates of dropped calls. On this trajectory, the technology of tomorrow may support 100% coverage with no dropped calls, and the focus may instead be on subtler issues about the nature and strength of signals for particular uses. The [TCA] clearly intends to encourage this technological development and, to

80 Bob Huber, Mayor August 1, 2017 Page 9 79 that end, to protect such development from interference from state and local governments when approving the design and location of facilities. This is manifested in 332(c)(7)(B). Thus, in construing the level of service protected by 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II), we must take a contextual approach and cannot rely on any specific formula. (T-Mobile Northeast LLC v. Loudoun County Bd. of Supervisors, supra, 748 F.3d at p. 198.) B. The Project Is Inherently a ROW Project; the City Cannot Preclude Use of the ROW. The Planning Commission s second ground for denial rests on the Project s purported failure to satisfy priority one and two locations under SVMC section (b)(1), (VCWWD water tank sites, and [w]all, roof, or existing co-location structure or site[s], respectively. (See Minutes at p. 3.) Notably, the Planning Commission staff did provide pertinent information as to why the first two priority levels could not be met. (See Staff Report for Planning Commission Hearing (June 21, 2017) at p. 6.) Regarding water tanks, Staff revealed that the nearest tank site was 4,900 feet to the north -- well outside the radio frequency objectives of the Project. (Id. at p. 7.) Staff also observed that the Project was a ROW project and therefore could not utilize second-priority building sites on private property. (Ibid.) The Staff determined that the Project does satisfy the third highest priority location pursuant to SVMC (b)(1)(iii), since the Project utilizes an existing pole. (See id., at p. 6.) The Project is inherently a ROW project; it derives from Crown Castle s status as a CLEC and its rights under state law to erect poles, posts, piers, or abutments in the ROW subject only to local municipal control over the time, place and manner of access to the ROW. (Pub. Util. Code, 1001, 7901; ; see Williams Communication v. City of Riverside, supra, 114 Cal.App.4th at p. 648 [upon obtaining a CPCN, a telephone corporation has the right to use the public highways to install [its] facilities. ].) The Planning Commission denied Crown Castle s application because Crown Castle failed to demonstrate the ability to use water tanks and building sites -- both of which are outside the ROW. The upshot of the Planning Commission s decision is to penalize Crown Castle for invoking its statewide rights to use the ROW and to preclude the use of the ROW if water tanks and building structures have not first been exhausted as alternatives. Such actions by the City effectively constitute a blanket ban on the use of the ROW and far exceed the limited time, place and manner controls allowed by Public Utilities Code section and therefore are unlawful under state law. 4. CROWN CASTLE RESERVES THE RIGHT TO SUPPLEMENT THIS CORRESPONDENCE WITH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. Crown Castle submits that it has the right to submit supplemental information and evidence up to the public hearing of this Appeal, in furtherance of the basic principles of due process, First Amendment freedom of speech, and exhaustion of administrative remedies. (See, e.g., Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1109, [71 Cal.Rptr.2d 1] [applicant has right to present comments prior to the close of the public hearing on the project. ]; Coalition for Student Action v. City of Fullerton (1984) 153

81 Bob Huber, Mayor August 1, 2017 Page Cal.App.3d 1194, 1197 [200 Cal.Rptr. 855] [same principle].) On that ground, Crown Castle hereby reserves the right to supplement its comments and evidence up to the date of the public hearing on the Appeal. 5. CONCLUSION. For the foregoing reasons, the City Council should grant the appeal and overturn the Planning Commission s denial of the Project Very truly yours, MWS/mws Michael W. Shonafelt cc: Peter Lyons, Director, Department of Environmental Services Sean Gibson, Senior Planner Carver Chiu, Manager, Government Relations, Crown Castle Scott Longhurst, Project Manager, Crown Castle Daniel Schweizer, Director, Government Relations, West Region, Crown Castle Joshua Trauner, Esq., Government Relations Counsel, Crown Castle Enclosures

82 81 EXHIBIT A

83 Team Member's Review RF Engineering Product Management Network Real Estate Team Utility Team Implementation Operations Reviewed/Date CROWN CASTLE NG WEST PROJECT # INDEX TO SHEETS C-01. TITLE, LOCATION MAP C-02. GENERAL NOTES C-03. EQUIPMENT DETAILS C-04. PROPOSED NODE LAN128 / 1879 SINALOA RD. HUB: HUB# SV11026D NODE LIST LAN128 / SV0168B / PS- Jurisdiction: CITY OF SIMI VALLEY Proposed Small Cell Nodes UTILITY CONTACTS: - NETWORK OPERATION - CROWN CASTLE POWER - SCE PROJECT TEAM: CROWN CASTLE - PROJECT MANAGER - MORTEN MUNSER PROJECT TEAM: CROWN CASTLE - GOVERNMENT RELATIONS MANAGER - SCOTT LONGHURST ENGINEER: NODE# LAN128 PROJECT TEAM: CROWN CASTLE - CONSTRUCTION MANAGER - RC GIEHM PROJECT SCOPE OF WORK: - BRING UG FIBER TO WOOD POLE VIA ENCROACHMENT PERMIT - INSTALL RRUS ON EXISTING WOOD POLE - RUN FIBER AND POWER ON WOOD POLE TO RRUS Sepulveda Blvd. Suite 1, Mission Hills, CA Phone No.: (818) Fax No.: (818) OWNER/DEVELOPER: PRESCOTT COMMUNICATIONS INC. C.E.S. PROJECT NO.: HUB# SV11026D PROJECT DESCRIPTION: THIS PROJECT IS FOR THE INSTALLATION AND OPERATION OF A SMALL CELL NETWORK 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR. SUITE 1200 IRVINE, CA JOB# N REVISIONS REV DATE DESCRIPTION BY FOR CC REVIEW C.E.S. HUB NODE LOCATION MAP Latitude: N Longitude: W PROJECT NUMBER: FILE NAME: DATE DRAWN: SCALE: SHEET: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: APPROVED BY: MD JM PS COMM. SPACE ENG. STD. DWG N.T.S. C-01

84 CROWN CASTLE NG WEST GENERAL NOTES 83 HUB: HUB# SV11026D ENGINEER: PRESCOTT COMMUNICATIONS INC Sepulveda Blvd. Suite 1, Mission Hills, CA Phone No.: (818) Fax No.: (818) C.E.S. PROJECT NO.: OWNER/DEVELOPER: 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR. SUITE 1200 IRVINE, CA JOB # REVISIONS REV DATE DESCRIPTION BY FOR CC REVIEW C.E.S. DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: APPROVED BY: MD JM PS PROJECT NUMBER: FILE NAME: DATE DRAWN: SCALE: COMM. SPACE ENG. STD. DWG N.T.S. SHEET: C-02

85 CROWN CASTLE NG WEST EQUIPMENT DETAILS 84 HUB: HUB# SV11026D 19" 14" 6" 1.9" 2" STRAND MOUNT DETAIL 1 POWER CONVERTER DETAIL 2 ENGINEER: PRESCOTT COMMUNICATIONS INC Sepulveda Blvd. Suite 1, Mission Hills, CA Phone No.: (818) Fax No.: (818) C.E.S. PROJECT NO.: OWNER/DEVELOPER: 8"± 8"± 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR. SUITE 1200 IRVINE, CA " JOB # "± REVISIONS REV DATE DESCRIPTION BY FOR CC REVIEW C.E.S. 8"± DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: APPROVED BY: MD JM PS 17"± BOTTOM VIEW DETAIL 3 STRAND MOUNTED EQUIPMENT SPACING DETAIL 4 PROJECT NUMBER: FILE NAME: DATE DRAWN: SCALE: SHEET: COMM. SPACE ENG. STD. DWG N.T.S. C-03

86 85 CROWN CASTLE NG WEST LAN128 / 1879 SINALOA RD., SIMI VALLEY, CA HUB: HUB# SV11026D NODE LIST LAN128 / SV0168B / PS- ENGINEER: 166' 2'-6"± 265'± Sepulveda Blvd. Suite 1, Mission Hills, CA Phone No.: (818) Fax No.: (818) OWNER/DEVELOPER: PRESCOTT COMMUNICATIONS INC. C.E.S. PROJECT NO.: ' N 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR. SUITE 1200 IRVINE, CA JOB # ELEVATION LOOKING WEST ELEVATION NOT TO SCALE SCALE: 1" = 40' 1879 Sinaloa Rd. 2nd wood pole south of Los Angeles Ave. on the west side of Sinaloa Rd. Pole #: E Latitude: N Longitude: W Jurisdiction: City of Simi Valley NODE PLACEMENT REV DATE DESCRIPTION BY FOR CC REVIEW C.E.S. PROJECT NUMBER: FILE NAME: DATE DRAWN: SCALE: SHEET: REVISIONS DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: APPROVED BY: AH JM PS COMM. SPACE ENG. STD. DWG AS SHOWN C-04

87 86 EXHIBIT B

88 LAN Sinaloa Road ~ Simi Valley, CA View 1 Applicant Crown Castle 300 Spectrum Center Drive Suite 1200 Irvine, CA Contact Cable Engineering Services Sepulveda Boulevard, Suite 1 Mission Hills, CA (818) Notes: Looking north west at proposed project Existing Proposed Revision Date: Mar. 2, :32:22

89 LAN Sinaloa Road ~ Simi Valley, CA View 2 Applicant Crown Castle 300 Spectrum Center Drive Suite 1200 Irvine, CA Contact Cable Engineering Services Sepulveda Boulevard, Suite 1 Mission Hills, CA (818) Notes: Looking south west at proposed project Existing Proposed Revision Date: Mar. 2, :32:22

90 89 EXHIBIT C

91 Vorale Avenue

92 Royal Avenue

93 Appolo Court

94 Darrah Avenue

95 94

96 EXHIBIT 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION AND MEETING MINUTES June 21, 2017 WTP-87 INDEX PAGE Planning Commission Resolution SVPC Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 21,

97 1

98 RES. NO. SVPC NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SIMI VALLEY DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The findings for WTP-87 contained in the staff report dated June 21, 2017 and as modified herein are hereby adopted. SECTION 2. WTP-87 is hereby denied. SECTION 3. The time within which judicial review must be sought for administrative decisions is governed by California Code of Civil Procedure Section Attest: PASSED and ADOPTED this 21st day of June, K!i /'.\cw,,,j fvi Recording Secretary as to Form: --9Ll- David Caceres Assistant City Attorney Approved as to Content: o k Deputy Director/City Planner 2

99 RES. NO. SVPC I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Simi Valley, California, at a regular meeting held on June 21, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners King and Mann and Chairperson Hodge Vice Chairperson Rice None Commissioner Bibb ATTEST: KaenSth Recording Secretary 3

100 Planning Commission Meeting Mobile Home Rent Mediation Board Tree Advisory Board Minutes - Page 2 June 21, NEW BUSINESS A. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. PD-S-1045 and TP-S-685; AMG & Associates, LLC: A request for a Planned Development Permit and Tentative Parcel Map to redevelop a commercial center to construct a 278 unit four-story apartment complex including an affordable housing component; retain and remodel 8,100 square feet of commercial retail space; and consolidate parcels to create two lots; and intent to adopt the project Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program Location: The northeast corner of Tapo and Alamo Streets Staff Contact: Lorri Hammer (805) Deputy Director/City Planner Stratis Perros stated the Applicant has requested that the item be continued to allow time for more public outreach. It was the consensus of the Commission to continue the item to a date uncertain. 2. WTP-87; Crown Castle: A request for a Wireless Telecommunications Permit to install and operate a Wireless Telecommunications Facility ( Small Cell Antennas ) located on a proposed fiber strand hung between two existing utility poles, adopt the design of WTP-87 as an Approved Telecommunications Facilities Design (ATFD), and a determination that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act Location: The west side of the public right-of-way on Sinaloa Road, 270 feet south of Los Angeles Avenue Staff Contact: Sean Gibson (805) There were no ex parte communications to report. Sean Gibson, Senior Planner, gave a presentation of the staff report. Chairperson Hodge asked for the diameter of the fiber optic strand; Mr. Gibson deferred to the Applicant. Chairperson Hodge inquired if the power emitted for this project would be the same for the anticipated projects that would be applied for under the ATFD. Mr. Gibson stated the power may be similar but could be different for each separate project, indicating each project would be analyzed individually. Chairperson Hodge inquired if there were other previously approved ATFDs that could have been used at this location, Mr. Gibson deferred to the Applicant. Chairperson Hodge brought up the City s Undergrounding Ordinance asking if approving this technology could bring additional costs or issues for future applicants to underground. Mr. Gibson stated the future developer would need to contact the utility companies to coordinate undergrounding the utilities and that, if and when the wires come down, Crown Castle would need to look for an alternate facility. 4

101 Planning Commission Meeting Mobile Home Rent Mediation Board Tree Advisory Board Minutes - Page 3 June 21, 2017 Chairperson Hodge opened the public testimony portion of the hearing. The Applicant s representative, Peter Hilger, gave a brief presentation about the project. Mr. Hilger advised the facility could be installed on street lights; however, there would be a delay due to the City s lengthy process of purchasing Southern California Edison s street light poles. Commissioner King asked how the gap of coverage was determined. Mr. Hilger responded that heat maps indicate where usage starts to bleed off and also T- Mobile customer complaints in the neighborhood signify where there might be gaps. Mr. Hilger explained that the right-of-way location was selected, rather than on private property, to avoid additional costs such as rent, fees, and property tax. Mr. Hilger stated if undergrounding is required in the future, then an alternate site would be considered, possibly installing a small monopole in the right-of-way or placing the facility on a street light. Mr. Hilger mentioned the fiber optic strand would have no more than a 3/4" diameter and would be about 20 feet in the air. He also indicated that electric meters would need to be placed in strategic locations on the ground, generally adjacent to a transformer, to provide power to the facilities. When asked if there were alternative solutions to service the T-Mobile complaints in the area if cost were not a factor, Mr. Hilger responded that it might be possible to put the facility in another location on a strand across the street, if there is a street light pole. Chairperson Hodge closed the public testimony portion of the hearing. Commission comments: Members of the Commission discussed visual clutter, future undergrounding of utilities, other less intrusive facility designs, and the option of approving the facility at the subject site without approving the Citywide ATFD. Chairperson Hodge stated that findings would need to be identified if the Planning Commission were to deny the project and he specified that the project does not meet Findings 1 and 3. Chairperson Hodge explained that the project does not meet Finding 3, the facility proposed would be of the least intrusive design and in the least intrusive location, in that there are less intrusive designs available; therefore, it is not the least intrusive design in the subject location. He further described that the project does not meet Finding 1, the higher priority locations or designs, as set forth in SVMC Section (b), are either not available or not feasible, in that when the Applicant s representative was asked whether or not there were feasible alternatives, Mr. Hilger had responded that he didn t know. COMMISSIONER KING MOVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SIMI VALLEY ADOPT A RESOLUTION DENYING WTP- 87, INCLUDING DENYING WTP-87 AS AN APPROVED TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES DESIGN 5

102 Planning Commission Meeting Mobile Home Rent Mediation Board Tree Advisory Board Minutes - Page 4 June 21, 2017 Commissioner Mann seconded the motion. AYES: Commissioners King and Mann and Chairperson Hodge NAYS: Vice Chairperson Rice ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Commissioner Bibb The appeal period for WTP-87 and the ATFD Design is 14 calendar days. B. OTHER None 12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND REPORTS A. STAFF Mr. Perros noted that Administrative Officer Patty Hufford-Farmer will be retiring after 42 years of service to the City, thanking her for her service and the support that she provides to the Environmental Services Department. Mr. Perros stated the next meeting is scheduled for July 26, B. PLANNING COMMISSION None C. MOBILE HOME RENT MEDIATION BOARD None D. TREE ADVISORY BOARD None 13. ADJOURNMENT The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Simi Valley was adjourned at 7:32 p.m. The next scheduled Planning Commission meeting is on July 26, Minutes prepared by: Karen Smith 6

103 EXHIBIT 2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 21, 2017 WTP-87 INDEX Page Project Findings Public Hearing Procedure... 9 Original Unadopted Resolution Resolution Exhibit A: Conditions for WTP Attachment A - Reduced Project Exhibits Attachment B - Notice of Exemption WTP-87 Supplemental Staff Report... S-1

104 AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.A.2 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CASE NO.: WTP-87 AND CONSIDERATION HEARING DATE: June 21, 2017 OF ITS DESIGN AS AN APPROVED TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES DESIGN ( ATFD ) STAFF CONTACT: Sean Gibson (805) REQUESTS: RECOMMENDATION: APPLICANT: GENERAL PLAN / ZONING: Install and operate a Wireless Telecommunications Facility ( Small Cell Antennas ) located on a proposed fiber strand hung between two existing utility poles, and adopt the design of WTP-87 as an Approved Telecommunications Facilities Design (ATFD) Approve WTP-87, determine that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, and determine the design of the Wireless Telecommunications Facility depicted in WTP-87 to be an Approved Telecommunications Facilities Design (ATFD) Crown Castle 300 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 1200 Irvine, CA Attn: Scott Longhurst (310) General Commercial/Commercial Planned Development-Los Angeles Avenue Planning Overlay [CPD (LAAPO)] LOCATION: West side of the public right-of-way on Sinaloa Road, 270 feet south of Los Angeles Avenue WTP0087 PC Staff Report(ks)

105 CASE NO.: APPLICANT: WTP-87 CROWN CASTLE PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant proposes to construct and operate a wireless telecommunications facility consisting of a new wireless node attached to a proposed aerial fiber optic strand (the wire cable strung from pole to pole) within the public right-of-way of the Commercial Planned Development - Los Angeles Avenue Planning Overlay [CPD (LAAPO)] zone on Sinaloa Road. The purpose of the facility is to create a fiber optic network to provide enhanced wireless services in the immediate area. Pursuant to Simi Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Section (c)(2), the Planning Commission is required to review new Wireless Telecommunications Permit applications for sites within the public rightof-way. The node is proposed to be placed on the new strand approximately six feet south of an existing Southern California Edison ( SCE ) pole. Attached to the strand will be two small cell antennas, two Remote Radio Units ( RRUs ) and two power converters. The plans depict that the node will be placed 20 feet above the ground. The antenna and RRUs are approximately 17 inches wide by 33 inches long and 10 inches in depth. The power converters are approximately 6 inches wide by 10 inches long by 3 inches deep. The following images depict the proposed design: WTP0087 PC Staff Report(ks) 2

106 CASE NO.: APPLICANT: WTP-87 CROWN CASTLE Proposed Strand-Mounted Equipment & Proposed ATFD Utility Pole and Proposed Strand Proposed Antenna and RRU s DC Power Converters Proposed Strand-Mounted Wireless Telecommunications Facility & ATFD Proposed ATFD Antenna WTP0087 PC Staff Report(ks) 3

107 CASE NO.: APPLICANT: WTP-87 CROWN CASTLE Proposed Strand-Mounted Wireless Telecommunications Facility & AFTD WTP0087 PC Staff Report(ks) 4

108 CASE NO.: APPLICANT: WTP-87 CROWN CASTLE The City s wireless telecommunications consultant indicated that the application materials contained adequate information on RF data to analyze the emissions from the proposed antennas. Based upon the frequency and proposed power emitted from the panel antennas, the City s consultant determined that controlled access zones extend 3.6 feet outward from the antennas at roughly the height of the antenna. Exposure levels within the controlled access zone may exceed the FCC s limits for the general population depending on how close a person gets to the antennas and how long a person remains within the controlled zone. Beyond the controlled access zone, exposure levels would not exceed the general population limits. Although the airspace is inaccessible to the general population, under the FCC rules, the applicant must post RF Notice Signage to comply with the rules. Condition *A-12 requires the applicant to post RF Notice Signs on either end of the strand equipment. The size of the signage depicted on the applicant s plans can be significantly reduced due to its location on the strand, to make them less intrusive. The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the Telecom Act ) requires State and local governments to act on a duly filed wireless permit application within a reasonable time. FCC regulations interpret a reasonable time to mean 60 days for an eligible facilities request, 90 days for a collocation application, and 150 days for all other projects. This project is neither an eligible facilities request or collocation. Therefore, the City must act on the project within 150 days ( Shot Clock ). Under California law, the project may be deemed approved when the local government fails to act within the applicable timeframe and all notices required for the application have been given. As of July 21, 2017, the Shot Clock is at 80 days. Approved Telecommunications Facilities Design (ATFD) Under the City Wireless Telecommunications Facilities ordinance [SVMC Title 5, Chapter 35, Section (c)(1)], the Environmental Services Director is allowed to issue a permit for a wireless telecommunications facility that is proposed to be located in the public right-of-way or on private property when its design is consistent with an Approved Telecommunications Facilities Design (ATFD) previously approved by the Planning Commission. In this case, the WTP-87 design is proposed to be considered by the Planning Commission as an ATFD design. The Planning Commission shall determine if the design of the facility is eligible for approval as an ATFD. ATFDs shall be approved for facilities that are determined to constitute a standardized design (i.e., height, diameter of poles, screening or camouflaging, antenna placement, placement of equipment, etc.). After an ATFD determination, projects can be approved at the staff level provided all other findings and requirements of SVMC Title 5-35 are satisfied. Once a design is an ATFD, Planning staff and the City ensure the proposal meets the design elements of an ATFD and the required findings in the ordinance. Any proposal that is not consistent with the criteria under an ATFD will be presented to the Planning WTP0087 PC Staff Report(ks) 5

109 CASE NO.: APPLICANT: WTP-87 CROWN CASTLE Commission. The ATFDs approved by the Environmental Services Department are subject to regular review by the Planning Commission on at least a biennial basis. Periodic review allows the Planning Commission to determine whether ATFD designs are consistent with currently available designs and technologies, and are designed and installed in such a manner as to constitute the least intrusive design for such facilities. The proposed ATFD being considered is the design shown with WTP-87 (Attachment A, pages 17 22). This consists of the general size and shape of the equipment attached to a strand strung between two pre-existing utility poles. Support equipment, such as overhead fiber strands, certain ground mounted equipment, and certain utility poles in the public right-of-way are approved by the City under the Encroachment Permit process. Staff coordinates with Public Works for review pursuant to the City s Wireless Telecommunications Ordinance (SVMC Title 5-35) and concerns related to utility equipment screening and ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) accessibility requirements. If future applications for this type of ATFD include additional groundmounted equipment or other pole or strand-mounted equipment, additional Planning Commission consideration and modification to the ATFD design may be required to add the additional equipment. Pursuant to SVMC Section (b)(2), locations in the public right-of-way within residential districts or adjacent to the property line of a residential structure require special approval findings [SVMC Section (b)(3)], in addition to the findings in Section (d) for all locations. Should the Planning Commission approve the proposed ATFD, staff would determine the impact to the adjacent residential uses, and may hold an Administrative Public Hearing or defer the action to the Planning Commission. ISSUES No issues have been identified. ANALYSIS Wireless telecommunications facilities are permitted in the CPD Zones, upon approval of a Wireless Telecommunications Permit per Chapter 5-35 of the SVMC. For WTP-87, the proposed project is consistent with the findings per SVMC Sections (d) as follows: (No Special Findings are required for the ATFD determination) 1. The higher priority locations or designs, as set forth in SVMC Section (b), are either not available or not feasible, in that the proposed small cell antennas on strands between power poles are the third highest priority location pursuant to SVMC Section (b)(1)(iii) (existing pole) and highest available design at this location as follows: (i) Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8 water tank site: The intended service area is located in area surrounding the west side of the public WTP0087 PC Staff Report(ks) 6

110 CASE NO.: APPLICANT: WTP-87 CROWN CASTLE right-of-way on Sinaloa Road, 270 feet south of Los Angeles Avenue. The nearest water tank site is approximately 4,900 feet to the north, which is outside of the intended service area and range of the small-cell antennas. (ii) (iii) Wall, roof, or existing co-location structure or site: Under the applicant s plans, they propose to utilize the public right-of-way to create many networks in the City, which do not entail use of private structures. Existing pole, light standard, or utility tower: This location utilizes the existing row of power poles on the west side of Sinaloa Drive within the street right-of-way. 2. The lack of such a facility would result in a significant gap of coverage, in that the purpose of the strand-mounted facilities, which are a type of Small Cell technology, is to add network capacity to improve service to customers. In this case, it is anticipated that the applicant, Crown Castle, will provide this service to T-Mobile, which will benefit T-Mobile customers. The applicant s intention is to improve service to areas which do not necessarily have significant gaps in service. 3. The facility proposed would be of the least intrusive design and in the least intrusive location, in that the proposed wireless node will be located on a new fiber strand (wire) between two existing power poles. It is very typical for utility companies to place assorted equipment on the poles and wires. This additional equipment is grouped with other existing wires, cables, and equipment associated with traditional electrical and communications equipment found on overhead lines, which are authorized by the City and State. Refer to the attached photosimulations for before and after images of the WTP-87 project site (Attachment A, page 17). 4. "Slim Jim" monopoles, new standard monopoles, or lattice towers shall only be permitted when they are determined to be the only necessary means available to provide service. These types of facilities are not proposed. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND CEQA REQUIREMENTS The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section of the state CEQA Guidelines, which reads as follows: Existing Facilities. Class 1 consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency s determination. The types of existing facilities itemized below are not intended to be all-inclusive of the types of projects that might fall within Class 1. WTP0087 PC Staff Report(ks) 7

111 CASE NO.: APPLICANT: WTP-87 CROWN CASTLE The key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of an existing use. The project would add a node to an aerial fiber optic strand on an existing power pole. The addition of the equipment would constitute a negligible expansion of the use of the site. Therefore, the project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section of the State CEQA Guidelines. A Notice of Exemption has been prepared and is attached to this report (Attachment B, page 23). INDEX Page Public Hearing Procedure... 9 Resolution Attachment A: Reduced Project Exhibits Attachment B: Notice of Exemption WTP0087 PC Staff Report(ks) 8

112 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURE HEARING DATE: June 21, 2017 WTP-87 and ATFD Review 1. CHAIRMAN: a) This is the time and place set for a public hearing on the consideration of Wireless Telecommunications Permit No. WTP-87, a determination that the project is exempt from CEQA, and of WTP-87 as an Approved Telecommunications Facilities Design ( ATFD ). 2. STAFF: (Report) 3. ANY COMMISSIONER: (Questions of staff) b) Are there any ex parte communications to report? c) May we have an oral report on this matter by staff? 4. CHAIRMAN: We will open the public testimony portion of the hearing. 5. CHAIRMAN: Would the applicant like to present the project? 6. CHAIRMAN: Are there any questions for the applicant? 7. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone in the Chamber wishing to be heard on this matter? 8. AUDIENCE: (Comments) 9. CHAIRMAN: a) Are there any comments from staff regarding statements made during the public hearing? (Check with Deputy Director/City Planner, and staff members in the audience.) b) Would the applicant like to respond to any of the comments regarding statements made during the public hearing? c) If there are no further questions, we will close the public testimony portion of the hearing. d) Are there any comments or questions from members of the Planning Commission? WTP0087 PC Staff Report(ks) 9

113 10. ANY COMMISSIONER: (Comments) 11. CHAIRMAN: May I please have a reading of the Resolution? 12. RECORDING SECRETARY: (Reads Number and Title of Resolution) 13. CHAIRMAN: The Chair will now entertain a motion. 14. ANY COMMISSIONER: I move to adopt a resolution approving WTP-87, determining the project is exempt from CEQA, and approving WTP-87 as an Approved Telecommunications Facilities Design. or I move to adopt a resolution denying the project. [Staff will prepare the resolution for the Planning Commission to ratify at the next meeting.] 15. CHAIRMAN: A motion was made by Commissioner. 16. CHAIRMAN: May I have a Second? 17. ANY COMMISSIONER: I second the motion. 18. CHAIRMAN: Call for the vote. 19. CHAIRMAN: The motion (passes or fails). 20. CHAIRMAN: The appeal period for WTP-87 and the ATFD Design is 14 calendar days. or 21. ANY COMMISSIONER: I move continuation of the matter until the meeting of. or 22. ANY COMMISSIONER: I move continuation of the matter to a date uncertain. 23. CHAIRMAN: Proceed to the next item. WTP0087 PC Staff Report(ks) 10

114 RESOLUTION NO. SVPC A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SIMI VALLEY APPROVING WTP-87 FOR THE PURPOSE OF INSTALLING AND OPERATING A WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY LOCATED ON A PROPOSED FIBER STRAND HUNG BETWEEN TWO EXISTING UTILITY POLES LOCATED IN THE WEST SIDE OF THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ON SINALOA ROAD 270 FEET SOUTH OF LOS ANGELES AVENUE, ADOPTING WTP-87 AS AN APPROVED TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES DESIGN ( ATFD ), AND A DETERMINATION THAT THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT WHEREAS, the applicant, Crown Castle, has requested approval for a Wireless Telecommunications Permit (WTP-87) located in the west side of the public right-of-way on Sinaloa Road 270 feet south of Los Angeles Avenue for the purpose of installing a Wireless Telecommunications Facility with located on a proposed fiber strand hung between two existing utility poles; and WHEREAS, the City of Simi Valley has initiated a request to consider and determine the design of the fiber strand-mounted facility of WTP-87 as a standardized design under an Approved Telecommunications Facilities Design ( ATFD ) per Simi Valley Municipal Code Section (c)(1). WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Section of the California Environmental Quality Act, the project qualifies as Categorically Exempt and a Notice of Exemption was prepared. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SIMI VALLEY DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The findings, for approval, for Wireless Telecommunications Permit No. WTP-87, contained in the staff report dated June 21, 2017, and incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted. SECTION 2. Wireless Telecommunications Permit No. WTP-87 is hereby approved, subject to compliance with all the conditions, attached hereto as Exhibit A. Violation of any such condition will be grounds for revocation of the permit, as well as any other remedy, which is available to the City. SECTION 3. The small cell antenna and equipment design for wireless telecommunications antennas per the staff report dated June 21, 2017, are hereby approved as an Approved Telecommunications Facilities Design (ATFD), in accordance with SVMC Section (c)(1). WTP0087 PC Staff Report(ks) 11

115 RES. NO. SVPC SECTION 4. This approval does not constitute a vested entitlement or vesting of rights to construct any of the land uses or improvements described in WTP- 87. No existing provisions of state law, or provisions of state law as may hereafter be adopted, amended or judicially interpreted, will be construed as authorizing WTP-87 to constitute a vested entitlement or vesting of rights to construct. Approval of WTP-87 will in no way impair the power or the right of the City Council to initiate a general plan amendment, specific plan amendment, zone change or other action to consider alternative land use designations and zoning for the subject property prior to the issuance of building permits and the construction of substantial improvements in good faith reliance thereon, or prior to the vesting of rights to the extent provided by Government Code Section et seq. or by the express terms of a development agreement adopted pursuant to Government Code Section et seq. SECTION 5. The time within which judicial review must be sought for administrative decisions is governed by California Code of Civil Procedure Section Attest: PASSED and ADOPTED this 21st day of June, Karen Smith Recording Secretary Tim Hodge, Chairperson Planning Commission Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content: David Caceres Assistant City Attorney Stratis Perros Deputy Director/City Planner WTP0087 PC Staff Report(ks) 12

116 RES. NO. SVPC I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Simi Valley, California, at a regular meeting held on June 21, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: Karen Smith Recording Secretary WTP0087 PC Staff Report(ks) 13

117 CASE NO.: APPLICANT: WTP-87 CROWN CASTLE RES. NO. SVPC EXHIBIT A PROJECT PERMIT CONDITIONS The conditions marked with an asterisk (*) are Special Conditions applicable specifically to this permit. These conditions of approval will supersede any conflicting notations, specifications, dimensions, and typical sections that may be shown on a development plan or exhibit. Unless otherwise stated, all conditions of approval must be complied with prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance. Applicant will assume all costs incurred in complying with the conditions contained herein. All facilities and uses other than those specifically approved by the approving authority are prohibited. In consideration of the benefits conferred by this Permit, Applicant, on behalf of him/herself, intending to be bound hereby for the life of this permit, consents to City Personnel entering the Project property during daylight hours without a warrant and with written notice to verify compliance with the terms and conditions of this Permit. "Applicant" or "Developer" or "Owner" as used in these conditions means all applicants, developers, permittees, and all owners of the subject property and all successors and assigns thereto. These conditions are deemed to touch and concern the real property, which is the subject hereof, and will run with the land. Compliance with these conditions must be maintained for the life of the permit. The Simi Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) contains penalty provisions for the violation of development conditions, which could result in any available administrative, civil, or criminal remedies that could include one or more of the following: 1) revocation of the development permit; 2) penalties of up to $1,000 in fines and/or six months in jail for each day of violation; and 3) the prohibition of further violations through court injunction. Applicant must comply with all of the conditions. A. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CONDITIONS: Planning Division: A-1 This permit is granted for all of the buildings, roadways, parking areas, landscaping, lighting, colors and materials, and other features which must be as shown on the formal application and exhibits specifically labeled as Exhibits: Project Plans, dated April 27, 2017, and Photosimulations 1 & 2 dated March 6, A-2 If this permit has not been use inaugurated prior to thirty-six (36) months following this approval, the permit will automatically expire. A-3 Applicant must defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its agents, officials, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officials, or employees in any action to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this permit. The City will promptly notify Applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding; and the City will cooperate WTP0087 PC Staff Report(ks) 14

118 CASE NO.: APPLICANT: WTP-87 CROWN CASTLE RES. NO. SVPC fully in the defense. The City shall also have the right to consult and participate with Applicant in the development of litigation strategy. Further, Applicant must select an attorney, acceptable to the City, who will defend such proceeding. Such approval of an attorney will not be unreasonably withheld. A-4 During the lifetime of the permit, Applicant must comply with all applicable laws and regulations of every local, state, and federal entity; and all such requirements and enactments will be incorporated by reference as conditions of this permit. The duty of inquiry as to such requirements and any amendments thereto will be upon Applicant and his or her transferees or successor in interest. A-5 Applicant agrees that if any of the conditions or limitations of this permit are held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, that holding will render this permit to be null and void. A-6 Applicant must provide to the Deputy Director/City Planner a copy of all conditions of approval recorded with the Ventura County Recorder's Office. A-7 Prior to the time of final inspection, Applicant must provide to the Deputy Director/City Planner and the Building Official written certification from the project architect or engineer that the project has been constructed in accordance with the approved plans. A-8 Applicant must continually maintain and repair, and replace if damaged beyond repair, all improvements within the project described in the approved plans. A-9 The Director of Environmental Services may require post-installation testing to determine whether to require future mitigation of radio-frequency emissions. The cost of any such testing or mitigation must be borne by Applicant. A-10 Within 30 calendar days after the wireless site is activated, Applicant must conduct a field measurement of its radio frequency emissions while the site is operating at maximum output power. Notwithstanding the above, the City reserves the right to require the same testing during the life of this permit, should it have a reasonable basis to believe that the facility is not operating in compliance with FCC rules. The measurements must be performed to demonstrate applicant s compliance with FCC rules at 47 CFR et. seq. and the FCC OET Bulletin 65. Within 10 business days after the completion of any testing, Applicant must submit a report to the Director of Environmental Services detailing the results. Actual WTP0087 PC Staff Report(ks) 15

119 CASE NO.: APPLICANT: WTP-87 CROWN CASTLE RES. NO. SVPC compliance with FCC rules is an initial and ongoing condition of this permit. A-11 Prior to use, Applicant must obtain final inspection from the Department of Environmental Services. *A-12 Applicant must install and at all times maintain in good condition a permanent RF Caution sign on the strand approximately 4 feet on both sides of the antenna location. The signs must be permanently affixed to the strand and hang downwards. The signs required under this condition must be installed so that a person can clearly see the sign as he or she approaches the strand, and of a size acceptable to the Deputy Director/City Planner. Applicant must ensure that all signage complies with FCC OET Bulletin 65 or ANSI C95.7 for color, symbol, and content conventions. In addition, all signage must provide a working local or tollfree telephone number to its network operations center that reaches a live person who can exert transmitter powerdown control over this site as required by the FCC. END OF CONDITIONS WTP0087 PC Staff Report(ks) 16

120 Team Member's Review RF Engineering Product Management Network Real Estate Team Utility Team Implementation Operations Reviewed/Date CROWN CASTLE NG WEST PROJECT # INDEX TO SHEETS C-01. TITLE, LOCATION MAP C-02. GENERAL NOTES C-03. EQUIPMENT DETAILS C-04. PROPOSED NODE LAN128 / 1879 SINALOA RD. HUB: HUB# SV11026D NODE LIST LAN128 / SV0168B / PS- Jurisdiction: CITY OF SIMI VALLEY Proposed Small Cell Nodes UTILITY CONTACTS: - NETWORK OPERATION - CROWN CASTLE POWER - SCE PROJECT TEAM: CROWN CASTLE - PROJECT MANAGER - MORTEN MUNSER PROJECT TEAM: CROWN CASTLE - GOVERNMENT RELATIONS MANAGER - SCOTT LONGHURST ENGINEER: 17 NODE# LAN128 PROJECT TEAM: CROWN CASTLE - CONSTRUCTION MANAGER - RC GIEHM PROJECT SCOPE OF WORK: - BRING UG FIBER TO WOOD POLE VIA ENCROACHMENT PERMIT - INSTALL RRUS ON EXISTING WOOD POLE - RUN FIBER AND POWER ON WOOD POLE TO RRUS PRESCOTT COMMUNICATIONS INC Sepulveda Blvd. Suite 1, Mission Hills, CA Phone No.: (818) Fax No.: (818) C.E.S. PROJECT NO.: OWNER/DEVELOPER: HUB# SV11026D PROJECT DESCRIPTION: THIS PROJECT IS FOR THE INSTALLATION AND OPERATION OF A SMALL CELL NETWORK 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR. SUITE 1200 IRVINE, CA JOB# N REVISIONS DATE DESCRIPTION REV BY FOR CC REVIEW C.E.S. HUB NODE LOCATION MAP Latitude: N Longitude: W PROJECT NUMBER: FILE NAME: DATE DRAWN: SCALE: SHEET: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: APPROVED BY: MD JM PS COMM. SPACE ENG. STD. DWG N.T.S. C-01 ATTACHMENT A

121 CROWN CASTLE NG WEST GENERAL NOTES HUB: HUB# SV11026D 18 ENGINEER: PRESCOTT COMMUNICATIONS INC Sepulveda Blvd. Suite 1, Mission Hills, CA Phone No.: (818) Fax No.: (818) C.E.S. PROJECT NO.: OWNER/DEVELOPER: 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR. SUITE 1200 IRVINE, CA JOB # REVISIONS DATE DESCRIPTION REV BY FOR CC REVIEW C.E.S. DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: APPROVED BY: MD JM PS PROJECT NUMBER: FILE NAME: DATE DRAWN: SCALE: SHEET: COMM. SPACE ENG. STD. DWG N.T.S. C-02

122 CROWN CASTLE NG WEST EQUIPMENT DETAILS HUB: HUB# SV11026D 14" 19" 2" 19 STRAND MOUNT DETAIL 1 POWER CONVERTER DETAIL 2 RF SIGNAGE DETAIL 3 ENGINEER: PRESCOTT COMMUNICATIONS INC Sepulveda Blvd. Suite 1, Mission Hills, CA Phone No.: (818) Fax No.: (818) C.E.S. PROJECT NO.: OWNER/DEVELOPER: 8"± 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR. SUITE 1200 IRVINE, CA " JOB # "± REVISIONS REV DATE DESCRIPTION BY FOR CC REVIEW C.E.S. 8"± DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: APPROVED BY: MD JM PS 17"± BOTTOM VIEW DETAIL 4 STRAND MOUNTED EQUIPMENT SPACING DETAIL 5 PROJECT NUMBER: FILE NAME: DATE DRAWN: SCALE: SHEET: COMM. SPACE ENG. STD. DWG N.T.S. C-03

123 CROWN CASTLE NG WEST LAN128 / 1879 SINALOA RD., SIMI VALLEY, CA HUB: HUB# SV11026D NODE LIST LAN128 / SV0168B / PS- ENGINEER: ' 265'± PRESCOTT COMMUNICATIONS INC Sepulveda Blvd. Suite 1, Mission Hills, CA Phone No.: (818) Fax No.: (818) '-6"± C.E.S. PROJECT NO.: OWNER/DEVELOPER: 300 SPECTRUM CENTER DR. SUITE 1200 IRVINE, CA ' N JOB # ELEVATION LOOKING WEST REVISIONS ELEVATION NOT TO SCALE SCALE: 1" = 40' 1879 Sinaloa Rd. 2nd wood pole south of Los Angeles Ave. on the west side of Sinaloa Rd. Pole #: E Latitude: N Longitude: W Jurisdiction: City of Simi Valley NODE PLACEMENT DATE DESCRIPTION REV BY FOR CC REVIEW C.E.S. DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: APPROVED BY: PROJECT NUMBER: FILE NAME: DATE DRAWN: SCALE: SHEET: AH JM PS COMM. SPACE ENG. STD. DWG AS SHOWN C-04

124 LAN Sinaloa Road ~ Simi Valley, CA View 1 21 Applicant Crown Castle 300 Spectrum Center Drive Suite 1200 Irvine, CA Contact Cable Engineering Services Sepulveda Boulevard, Suite 1 Mission Hills, CA (818) Notes: Looking north west at proposed project Existing Proposed Revision Date: Mar. 2, :32:22

125 LAN Sinaloa Road ~ Simi Valley, CA View 1 22 Applicant Crown Castle 300 Spectrum Center Drive Suite 1200 Irvine, CA Contact Cable Engineering Services Sepulveda Boulevard, Suite 1 Mission Hills, CA (818) Notes: Looking south west at proposed project Existing Proposed Revision Date: Mar. 2, :32:22

126 NOTICE OF EXEMPTION ATTACHMENT B To: County Clerk County of Ventura 800 S. Victoria Avenue Ventura, CA From: City of Simi Valley 2929 Tapo Canyon Road Simi Valley, CA Project Title:... VVT a...:..a.p_-=87... Project Location - Specific: Adjacent to 1879 Sinaloa Road, in the public right-of-way Project Location - City: Simi Valley Project Location - County: _V_e_nt~u_ra~----- Description of Project: Installation of a wireless node to an aerial fiber optic strand on an existing power pole. The node will be located approximately six feet south of an existing Southern California Edison owned utility pole and will be approximately 20 feet above grade. The node will be incorporated into an existing fiber optic network and will provide enhanced wireless service in the immediate area. Name of Public Agency Approving Project:...;C:;;..;i=ty-'o:;;..;f...;S;;..:.i.;..;.m.;..;..i _,_V_:=;:a=lle;;;..y, _ Date of Approval Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: _C_r_o_w_n_C_a_s_t_le Exempt Status: (check one) Ministerial [Sec (b)(1); 15268]; Declared Emergency [Sec (b)(3); 15269(a)J; Emergency Project [Sec (b)(4); 15269(b)(c)]; X Categorical Exemption - State type and section number Class 1, Section Statutory Exemptions - State code number General Rule [Sec (b)(3)] Text of exemption and reasons why project is exempt: Section of the State CEQA Guidelines, titled "Existing Facilities," reads as follows: "Class 1 consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination. The types of "existing facilities" itemized below are not intended to be allinclusive of the types of projects that might fall within Class 1. The key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of an existing use. " The project would add a node to an aerial fiber optic strand on an existing power pole. The addition of the equipment would constitute a negligible expansion of the use of the site. Therefore, the project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section of the State CEQA Guidelines. Lead Agency Contact Person: se an Gibson Area Code!Telephone: (805) Signatur~ Lauren Funaiole Date: ~ Title: -=S-=e.;..;.n=io..;...r..;...P..;..;;la=n.;..;..n;;..;;e"'""r Dept. of Environmental Services _x_ Signed by Lead Agency 23