The URL can be used to link to this page

20160216 Late CorrespondenceRECEIVED FROM AND MADE A PART F TH , ECORD AT THE COUNCIL MEETING OF v°?D OFFICE OF THE CITY CL RK U�nC CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLERK l�j/1�j?Q Resolution to Protect Citizen's Property Rights The undersigned elected officials anNor community piarmers officially erwged to create plarr>irrg programs for the comriirnityof tom' '`�</� �� 5 5 do hereby agree to the following: • That planning involves and affects reg<.iation of private property rights. • That indimclual property ownership const hAes an asset of Lnque value, as well as the fou-Idation of individual liberty for American citizens, • • I Is, I I V10,•• •a tiu • 1 • • I I I - • . 1 a 0 1 a • r, 1.• • : a • r ••o.�ZIA In the event that any part of the planing and zoning process or reoorrrrrerx tions resulting from the process shall potentially regatively impact any property rights, property am -as or the value of their private property, those affected property owners shall: a) Be provided full, timely dsdosure notifying the property a -er or o+nrtm of the poter ed that their private property rights may in some way be infringed or the value of their private property may be thereby affected, and, b) Be provided fdl disdosr re outlining the rights to be infringed upon, and c) Be provided an opportunity to opt out of any rights' infringing regulation or policy. 010610 0 •i a - .i a• :.moi • • .. • i - .•: .- • • ••� Rrther, affected property owners shall be notified of the potential impairmal to their rights and their individual written approval required before engaging in any of the following: Finally, it is agreed that no gmeTrr>ent representatives or their assigned planning agents, will come on to private property for any planning purpose without the written consertt of the owner. Signed: (Elected Officials) Signed: (Planning Firm) Sustainable Freedom Lab, LLC J SOUTHWEST PIPELINE & TRENCHLESS CORP. License No. A-773662 Corporate Office 22118 S. Vermont Ave. Justin ❑uchalneau Torrance, CA 90502 President Tel: (310) 329-8717 ext. 104 Fax: (310) 329-0981 Cell: (310) 261-1668 www.swpipeline.com Email: Justin@swpipeline.com National Liner v RECEIVED FROM AND MADE A PART OF THE RECORD AT THE /L COUNCIL MEETING OF 5i Ltp,�_�% OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLERK JSOUTHWEST PIPELINE & TRENCHLESS CORP. License No. A-773882 Corporate Office 22118 S. vermont Aue. Rob Bolger - Torrance, CA 90502 Estimator Tel: (310) 329-8717 ext. 103 Fax: (310) 329-0981 Cell: (310) 505-0251 www.swpipeline.com Email: Rbolger@swpipeline.com For more than 40 years, Cured -In -Place Pipe (CIPP) has become the most widely accepted and cost-effective method of repair to damaged and corroded water and sewer pipelines. Over the last decade, significant improvements in liner materials, resin technology, and installation practices, CIPP continues to be the preferred method of trenchless repair of municipal and industrial sewer lines. Its strength, life expectancy, chemical resistance and non -disruptive installation have revolutionized the pipe rehabilitation industry. 7 `c ProdrtcfA/Ah�P►AG Liher@ National Liner consists of two primary components. The first is a precisely fabricated, non -woven and needled polyester felt liner. The second, a thermosetting resin, thoroughly saturates the liner during the manufacturing process. National Liner is not limited in diameter or wall thickness and can he specifically manufactured for pipelines ranging from 6" to 96" in diameter. It also has a 50 -year design life and economically restores damaged pipelines to their original specified operation efficiencies. i War The science of Cured -In -Place Pipe has A� QkAlIfled 6*4t-Aclof-f (leen long studied and well documented. Another key ingredient to a successful installation is the contractor. National Liner is a proprietary system of Since it is a proprietary product, National Liner can only be installed by trenchless pipeline reconstruction and licensed, trained and experienced trenchless rehabilitation contractors. is manufactured and installed to meet Each contractor in the National Liner network has been carefully selected individual project specifications. to ensure each project is completed on time, on budget and mistake free., Critical to any National Liner installation is the t-®oer: ¢D Qh- I�kV *I(¢ M0fI use of accurate design data. National Liner offers 1. After the host pipe has been cleaned, the resin impregnated softlines free Engineering Design Software on its website is readied for insertion into the pipeline from an upstream manhole. (www.nationalliner.com). This online program allows you to input your design criteria to determine z The liner is inverted or winched into place, then expanded using the CIPP liner design thickness specification for a hydrostatic head of water, air or steam pressure to press it firmly your project. against the interior of the host pipe. During this process, excess resin is forced into cracks, joints and irregularities of the host pipe resulting in a permanent bond between new and old pipe. 3. Heat is then introduced throughout the liner to cure [polymerize the resin. Once cured, a new structural pipe is formed within the damaged host pipe. 4. After the cure is complete, lateral lines are re -opened using a remote controlled cutting tool. The pipeline is then video inspected to insure it meets owner specifications. In addition to strengthening the host Upon project completion, National Liner's smooth inner surface actually pipe and halting the infiltration of increases the flow capacity of the pipe and helps reduce turbulence. Here are a few more reasons why you should specify National Liner. ground water, the physical properties of National Liner resist corrosion and perfortr.ance abrasion caused by effluents. or T;tg" • Meets or exceeds installation standards per ASTM F-1216 • Flexural Modulus of Elasticity exceeds 250,000 psi per ASTM 0-790 • Flexural strength exceeds 4,500 psi per ASTM 0-790 • Tensile Strength exceeds 3,000 psi per ASTM 0-638 • Meets or exceeds Resin Corrosion Testing per ASTM C-581 • Meets or exceeds Chemical Resistance Testing per ASTM 0-5813 • Meets or exceeds 50 -year design life criteria per ASTM 0-2990 • L.A. Greenbook qualified • All material components produced in ISO 9002 certified facilities ,br®)14cf 6AfurOf • Can repair damaged pipelines made from any material • Negotiates bends and transitions in both size and shape • Spans missing sections, cracks and offset joints • Jointless construction eliminates root intrusion and groundwater infiltration • Fits tight, allowing for a mechanical lock into existing pipe • Strengthens pipes weakened by cracks and corrosion A ■ 0 a I A vW I I -� to i aim www.AIlk, AII 6 NationaloLiner This online program allows you to input your design criteria to determine the CIPP liner design thickness for your project specification. 0 �� ma rrndmoj. 1VAydpAt National Liner consists of two primary components. The first is a precisely fabricated, non -woven and needled polyester felt liner. The second, a thermosetting resin, thoroughly saturates the liner during the manufacturing process. National Liner varies indiameter orwall thickness and can bespecifically manufactured for pipelines ranging from 6^to9G^indiameter. Italso has aSU-year design life and economically restores damaged pipelines to their original specified operation efficiencies. ~ Meets nrexceeds installation standards per ASTM F-1216 ~ Flexural Modulus ofElasticity exceeds 2SO.OUO psi per ASTM O-790 , Flexural strength exceeds4.5OO psi per ASTM D-790 Tensile Strength exceeds 3.000 psi per ASTM D-638 ~ Meets or exceeds Resin Corrosion Testing per ASTM [-58l ° Meets orexceeds Chemical Resistance Testing per ASTM D -58l3 ^ Meets nrexceeds SO -year design life criteria per ASTM D -299O ^ ° L&6menbookqualified , All material components produced |nISO 8O02certified facilities vVu/w.OatiOna!line[IOPD ~ The Experienced & Qualified Contractors ~ (800)547-l235 1-1 A cured -in-place pipe is a structural liner that is manufactured on site inside of an existing buried pipe or conduit. The liner consists ufaflexible tube manufactured from a polyester felt flber material, fiberglass, ora combination u[the two that issaturated with aresin system that will harden. The length and thickness o{the liner issized and engineered according to the pipe length, diameter and load requirements. The liner isinstalled either bypulling itinto position orbyinverting hinto position using air orwater pnssuve[shuwnbe|ow].Dncein place, the liner is inflated with a constant pressure to conform to the existing pipe's shape. It is then hardened by the application of heat (via hot water nrsteam].exposure tuUVlight, orambientairtempemtumdependingontheinitiadnnchemica|scontainedinthe resin system. Once fully cured. service laterals to homes or businesses must be reinstated by cutting a hole in the liner at these connections. If the pipe diameter is too small for man -entry and the use of hand held cutting tools, the laterals are reinstated using a camera and a remote controlled cutting device. Smooth interior reduces friction andusuaUg increases flow capacity. Now, monolithic pipe eliminates joints where roots and groundwater can enter National Liner stops leaks wh|chcan wash away sidefill support and lead to pipe collapse. Resin forms amechanical loc-P with the host pipe. This National Liner spans missing adds strength and holds both pipes firmly inplace. sections, codsand offset joints. National Li ner (9) National Liner adds strength mpipe weakenUbVcorrosion orcracks and open ww"w,OatiOOall|Oe[[OFO ` The Experienced & Qualified Contractors ~ [8001547-1235 El CITY OF ARANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: FEBRUARY 15, 2016 SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, February 16, 2016 City Council meeting: Item No. 3 5 Respectfully submitted, Carla Morreale Description of Material Email from Alys Pyun Emails from: John Freeman; Jeff Calvagna W:\AGENDA\2016 Additions Revisions to agendas\20160216 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.doc From: Carla Morreale Sent: Monday, February 15, 2016 5:24 PM To: Carla Morreale Subject: FW: Trump National Golf Course Flag From: lanikai555@aol.com [mailto:lanikai555@aol.com] Sent: Monday, February 15, 2016 5:18 PM To: Leza Mikhail <LezaM@rpvca.gov>; lanikai555@aol.com Subject: Trump National Golf Course Flag Dear Leza, I would appreciate it if my notes below regarding the Trump flag could be distributed to the concerned parties at city hall. To whom it may concern: Our American flag deserves the utmost respect and care. There is a number known as the Golden Mean. It is used to describe aesthetically pleasing proportioning. It goes by many names, the Golden Ratio, the Golden Section, the Divine Proportion. Its numerical value is: 1.618... This ratio has been known for over 2000 years. Great minds, mathematicians, artists, musicians, historians, architects and biologists have been inspired by its properties and ubiquitous use in nature and human made endeavors. In philosophy the Golden Mean is the desirable middle between two extremes, one of excess and the other of deficiency. For example, in the Aristotelian view, courage is a virtue, but if taken to excess would manifest as recklessness, and, in deficiency, cowardice. Trump National's flag is too large for its setting and out of proportion. Excessive size does not equate with respect. Especially when Trump's neighbors' concerns and needs and our laws are not honored. It is important to note that Trump's flag is not affecting the views of Catalina for Trump National Estates or for the Guests at the restaurant. It is shameful how the inappropriate placement of this flag has caused such discord. Our cherished American flag should help unite us not divide us. Alternatively, there has been no upheaval regarding the American flag at Terrenea. This is because they have hung our flag with dignity, grace and in perfect proportion to its surroundings. 1 The Trump National flag begs for a more appropriate and dignified placement. We must balance the beauty of a flag created by our founders and the beauty of nature of which Rancho Palos Verdes is blessed with. Sincerely, Alys Pyun From: John Freeman <jrfree@cox.net> Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 6:21 PM To: CC Cc: Carla Morreale Subject: Wireless Workshop #2 comments (for council meeting 2/16/2016) Attachments: Wireless Summary Guide for residents.pdf Dear Mayor Dyda and City Council members, I attended both wireless workshops (12/6/2015 and 2/1/2016). Many thanks to everyone for participating in this constructive outreach, and special thanks to Mayor Pro Tem Campbell and Councilman Duhovic for attending. The new urgency ordinance now in effect as of January 19, 2016 is a great improvement and I endorse it completely. It updates the older municipal code ordinance taking into account new technology and clearer definitions of the process. This helps both residents and wireless applicants. At the February 1St workshop, however, many of the audience comments and questions were not about the ordinance. They were about therop cess, not the municipal code: How will I be notified? When will I be notified of new cell antenna? What can I do if I don't like it? Can I appeal? How many days do I have? Who approves it? Why did they pick this location? There's already another cell tower two blocks away. etc. etc. These questions and answers previously were loosely defined; previously there was no prior written communication to property owners within the 500 feet as far as I know, just the mock-up. There is an easy solution: I'd like to suggest (ask) that you direct the Public Works Department to include a short summary of the wireless process with the now -required written notification letter to residents. This doesn't require any modification to the ordinance, but I believe that it could be brought back to the Council in two weeks for your review and final approval along with the final reading of the new ordinance. See the attached simple 7 -step Wireless Summary Guide for RPV Residents which I think summarizes the process. Most residents are not familiar (have never read) the municipal code. We can't blame them for not understanding all the nuances and timelines. But we can provide a simple 7 -step guide to help them. This guide or something similar to this would help. Thank you, John Freeman IJ Wireless Summary Guide for RPV Residents With the 500 -foot written notification letter, include a separate summary page such as this sample informing residents of the wireless process and their rights: 1. The wireless vendor/applicant intends to install a wireless temporary mock- up in the next five days for a period of at least 30 calendar days. (12.18.050 step 22) 2. The mock-up shall demonstrate the height and mass of the facility, including all interconnecting cables of the proposed wireless facility. (12.18.050 step 22) 3. During this 30 -day mock up period, residents or interested parties should contact the Public Works Department to review the detailed application, and/or or to place their name, mailing (and email address if applicable) on file for this application. This will ensure the resident is notified of any decision (17.80.040) of the Director or other agency. 4. Residents are encouraged to submit comments to the Public Works Department during the mock-up period or at any time during the application review period. 5. The Director, or Planning Commission if applicable, may approve or conditionally approve the application after it makes the findings required in section 12.18.0990. If the matter is heard by the Planning Commission, residents may attend and address the Planning Commission with their comments. 6. The Director will provide notice to all parties on the "interested -parties" list of the decision for approval or denial within five days of a decision. 7. Any party may file an appeal of a Director's decision. The appeal must be filed in writing within fifteen calendar days after the notice of the Director's or Planning Commission decision. (17.80.050) John Freeman, 2/16/2016 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Dear City Council Members, jcalvagna@netzero.net Saturday, February 13, 2016 5:51 PM CC Carla Morreale; Michael Throne; clopez@awattorneys.com Layman's guide to the wireless ordinance faq_small_cell_streetlight_and_transit_poles.pdf I strongly support the Wireless Facility ordinance and urge you to once again vote to approve at Tuesday's second hearing. The ordinance is extremely comprehensive totaling over 30 pages. This detail is required, as past history demonstrates that any ambiguity regarding wireless facility regulations will be exploited at the city's expense. However, this complexity could make the ordinance difficult to understand for residents near future proposed sites. I strongly recommend that staff develop a layman's FAQ that explains the ordinance (regulations on sites, resident's rights to comment, the approval process, appeals, etc.) to assist our residents going forward. Ideally, this FAQ would be sent out to all residents notified of a proposed site under the new ordinance. This would be extremely beneficial for the community as a whole. I've attached an handout from San Francisco used to inform its residents. As their ordinance and situation is different, it doesn't exactly apply but it's a good example of the type of pamphlet the city could provide. Thanks for considering this, Jeff Calvagna COVJVZ,60 U � w f r +r SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING DEPARTMENT FAQs for Small Cells (wireless) on Steel Light and Transit Poles This flyer is intended to provide answers to Frequently Asked Questions regarding the proposed addition of Personal Wireless Services Facilities (or Small Cells) to Steel Light and Transit Poles • Wireless carriers propose to place a single ("Small Cell") antenna, shrouding, and equipment on 300+ steel light and transit poles primarily in SOMA, and the northeastern part of the City (east of Van Ness Avenue, and north of Market Street) • These systems are referred to as "Small Cells" and are used to provide faster data coverage and capacity for mobile phone and device users. • If a specific pole is tentatively approved, residents within 150 feet (as well as neighborhood groups within 300 feet) of a pole would receive a notice by mail; with a photo simulation and other information. • The photo simulation below shows a proposed antenna on top of the pole; and two equipment enclosures midway down the pole (with signage affixed in front of one of the enclosures). • Various City agencies, including Planning, Public Works, SFPUC, SFMTA (MUNI), and the Department of Technology have been working extensively on this proposed project, to ensure the design and siting is compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. 1650 Mission St. Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94103-2479 Reception: 415.558,6378 Fax: 415.558.6409 Planning Information 415.558.6377 Photo S4mv+400n SQNUOns c.— 4 w5 4 2028507 What is being proposed at this time? Wireless carriers are proposing to add a single antenna & equipment to existing steel light and transit poles, with the first locations in the South of Market Area (SOMA), and the northeastern parts of the City (east of Van Ness Avenue and north of Market Street). An initial concept deployment map is provided further below. 0 0 0 0 Q Q a o° o 0 4 0 Q 0 Flier 23 Cale © 00 Q O Ck.__O 0 0EXPloratoriom 0 0 0 4' 0047 0M 0 �^ 00 D 00 n OO Q O O OCP 0 r- 0 Q J... ay St 0 ° 0 Q House jq'i i '.F+1Q-a J�:c� 0 S, -10 0 0 0 V �Q d 0 b oCJ o wan Oyster CoPPO <) Q at) 0 Q 0 0 Q Q ( 00 Q i': •::... 0boCD 0 0 Q o o& 0 00 a o Q o Jci 0 8 Q o. o Q 00 95. O F 0 0 rM 0 0 CP 00 e: C f, C5 00 cY,f ® 0 OQ. Q, O O O a ? O,. f30 0� 0 N 00 o o 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,O m Q 0 ana+aao Syme hi'w is Qyall 9rancisclp O 0 0 E C$•- . _ .. oC% 1 P i O O `~ Q Q fJ rtm o M3 00 c* o r 'a`y • lofh'ti 0 e s� O Q z C i�Ira�_ p O O o 0 0 0 0 o y Ihath St -011r , 5t t�lar;�osn sr IV. Bi-BHe Creamery 1B,h Sr Initial Steel Pole "Concept" Deployment Map Who owns the poles? Steel poles along public streets that only feature a street light are generally owned by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC)1. Transit poles that support electric lines for buses and light rail vehicles (including those with a street light) are generally owned by the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA, or "MUNI"). Wood poles are not typically owned by the City, but by either the Northern California Joint Pole Association (a consortium of utility providers), or Pacific Gas & Electric (typically wood poles only holding up a street light). Link to FAQs about wireless facilities on wooden poles. Will the antennas & equipment be added to decorative or historic poles? No wireless facilities (antennas and equipment) are proposed on poles which are either historic (e.g. Path of Gold poles along Market Street in Downtown or historic poles along Mission Street & Columbus Avenue); or are decorative in nature (e.g. fluted poles in Jackson Square). Do these systems generate noise or light? No. The antennas themselves do not generate noise or vibration. Noise is typically created by cooling fans; however the proposed equipment I Approximately 30 steel light poles, where Small Cells are proposed, in the northeastern part of the City, are owned by Pacific Gas & Electric. PBLANNING OEPAMIMENT Flyer updated August 2015 2 enclosures use passive cooling, without cooling fans. There are no lights used by the equipment or antennas. Are new cabinets proposed on sidewalks? No new above ground sidewalk cabinets (surface mounted facilities), and no major street trenching is proposed. Fiber-optic cables would connect from the antenna, through the pole, then to existing underground pathways (conduit), and onto centralized switch locations. Did these proposals go through design, historic preservation or environmental review? Yes. The Planning Department went through extensive review and redesign (see photos on last two pages) of these Small Cells. Planning staff worked with City agencies such as SFPUC, and SFMTA, along with wireless carriers on improving the designs so as to ensure they are thoughtfully integrated into our City's streetscapes. In addition, the Architectural Review Committee (ARC), a sub -committee of the Historic Preservation Commission, reviewed the designs with respect to their compatibility within historic conservation and preservation districts. • Link to presentation slides for the proposed Small Cell design, which was shown at the March 4, 2015 ARC hearing (these slides also include examples of designs not supported by Planning, and two wooden pole sites within the Northeast Waterfront Landmark District) • Link to Architectural Review Committee (ARC)staff report, photo simulations, & sample project plans • Link to audio recording of the March 4, 2015 ARC Hearing Lastly, the facilities underwent environmental review and were determined to be categorically exempt (sample link), per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). SAN FRANGISCO PLANNING OEPAMIMENT3 Flyer updated August 2015 Existing Proposed Existing transit pole on the left and a proposed Small Cell (on Columbus Avenue) on the right. The Italian flag tri -colors painted on the existing pole (below sign) would be retained. Does the City receive revenue? Yesz., the City receives a license fee of approximately $4,000 per year, per pole. More information on the lease terms can be found at this link, for SFPUC, and this link, for SFMTA (MUNI). SFGovTV videos of a hearing before San Francisco Board of Supervisors Budget & Finance Committee for SFPUC owned light poles (link); and video of an SFMTA Board hearing, for SFMTA owned poles (link). Why do the conditions of approval include a street tree? The Planning Department typically requests a street tree to be provided by the wireless carrier for each facility mounted on a pole within the public right-of-way; in order to screen the equipment. In the event a tree cannot be planted due to conflicts such as existing trees, driveways or utility infrastructure (link to location requirements), the wireless carrier would be required to pay an in -lieu fee to be used by the SF Bureau of Urban Forestry. Which companies are proposing to add Small Cells? Various carriers are proposing facilities. The initial proposals would include a system operated by Verizon Wireless for those sites in 2 No license fee applies for the subset of steel light poles owned by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). SAN FRANCISCO 4 PLANNING OEPAITIMENT Flyer updated August 2015 SOMA, and another system operated by Extenet Systems, also for Verizon Wireless, for those sites in the northeastern part of the City (east of Van Ness Avenue). Another carrier, Mobilitie, has also signed agreements (with SFPUC & SFMTA) to potentially operate a network for other wireless carriers, but no specific design has been approved as of August 2015. Background: While wireless carriers install and operate their own systems, some companies, such as Extenet Systems, Mobilitie, and Crown Castle (NextG), will often run these small cell systems on behalf of the four primary wireless carriers licensed by the Federal Communications Commission (AT&T Mobility, T -Mobile, Sprint, and Verizon Wireless), to operate in the San Francisco Bay Area. What is the review process for these sites? The pole -owning agency (SFMTA or SFPUC) would provide permission to the carrier, based on the license agreement and specific pole review. The carrier would then apply for a Personal Wireless Services Facility Permit from the Department of Public Works (DPW). These permits are subject to Article 25 of the Public Works Code3. Those permits would be referred to the Department of Public Health and Planning Department for design and preservation (historic resources) review; as well as review by the Recreation and Parks Department for those sites near a public park or plaza. If an approval recommendation is provided by each department, DPW would issue a tentative notice of approval. The carrier would then be required to send a mailed notice out to all residents and property owners within 150 feet of the pole, and all neighborhood groups (registered with the Planning Department) within 300 feet. A notice would also be attached to the pole. If no protests (request for a DPW hearing) are filed within 20 days of mailing, DPW would issue the permit. Would the actual pole be replaced? Not typically. In some limited instances a pole that is worn or damaged may need to be replaced. What exactly is proposed on the pole? The initial Extenet Systems and Verizon Wireless proposals would include an antenna at the top of the pole and two equipment enclosures mounted midway down the pole. In addition a small radio-frequency information and site 3 Wireless facilities on poles situated on lands (map viewer) under the jurisdiction of the Port of San Francisco, would not be subject to Article 25 of the Public Works Code. SAN FRANGISCO PLANNING OEPAMIMENT5 Flyer updated August 2015 identification sticker would be placed near the antenna. A detailed breakdown, for a (wider pole diameter) SFMTA-owned pole is provided further below. What is the range of these systems? That depends on a number of factors (e.g. nearby buildings blocking signals and the presence of hills or trees), but on average, these systems have an approximate range of 150 to 500 feet, due to their low mounting height and low power output (either 66, 100, or 174 watts). For comparison purposes, a typical rooftop -mounted "macro" facility, with higher power usage (e.g. 10,000+ watts), and a higher mounting location; can have a range of between a mile in a rural area, or down to a quarter mile in a more urban area. Do these networks replace the use of wireless antennas on building rooftops? No. These systems are generally intended to complement the existing networks of rooftop sites throughout the City. While most areas of San Francisco have good (mobile) voice coverage, wireless carriers are typically proposing these sites to complement the "macro" rooftop sites and offer improved high-speed data coverage for mobile users with smaller (comparatively lower power) facilities closer to sidewalk and street level. While each carrier has different goals and technologies, the use of Small Cells on steel light and transit poles may lessen the demand for the overall number (or specific size) of larger rooftop sites; allowing for more scale and context appropriate siting and design of wireless infrastructure in San Francisco. Background: There are approximately 700 existing micro or macro (mostly rooftop -mounted) sites in San Francisco, each with between 1 to 16 panel antennas, with each antenna approximately the size of a parking meter. There are also approximately 383 existing wireless facilities mounted to wooden utility poles (which are not owned by the City). Map of 1,000+ existing wireless facilities in San Francisco (map does not include all of the 383 existing facilities mounted on wooden utility poles): New! Wireless Telecommunications Facilities "'A April 2015 Interactive map and Google Fusion Table displaying y a' locations of wireless / cell tower telecommunications facilities (Including cell phone masts) in San Francisco_ C� How long would construction take? Generally, the installation of the antennas and equipment on the pole, and painting (if needed to match equipment to the pole) can be accomplished in a few days. Additional work may be required at sidewalk level to connect power and fiber-optic cables (used to transmit signals) to the pole -mounted equipment and antennas. PLANNING OEPASMMENT Flyer updated August 2015 6 AdvanceSI�� Cnnsaf! 17251'eGiRS�: What if the carrier wants to change the equipment in the future? Because the City owns the majority of steel poles, we can ensure that if any changes are proposed, that they are more closely reviewed to ensure compatibility. Will these Small Cells interfere with my home electronics, or City Wi-Fi on Market Street or in parks and plazas? The City's license agreement with carriers requires the carrier to ensure they do not interfere with other City communication systems. This would include public Wi-Fi systems (such as those at many parks and on Market Street) that are operated by the Department of Technology. The Federal Communications Commission also requires carriers to take steps to eliminate or reduce potential interference with other electronics. To date, the City has generally not seen a pattern of interference created by similar commercial wireless facilities. What is the technical term for these systems? The City refers to systems in the public right-of- way (e.g. on poles along streets) as "Personal Wireless Services Facilities." Antennas and equipment on buildings, for example, are referred to as either "Micro" or "Macro" Wireless Telecommunications Services Facilities (WTS). Micro WTS facilities typically SAN FRANGISCO PLANNING OEPAMIMENT Flyer updated August 2015 7 feature 1 or 2 small antennas (each about the size of a baseball bat). Macro WTS facilities are larger systems (3 to 16 panel antennas and equipment), mostly found on rooftops in San Francisco. Wireless carriers will often refer to Personal Wireless Services facilities on poles as either: "Small Cells, "or "Outdoor Distributed Antenna Systems," or the acronym "oDAS." Are these facilities reviewed by the Planning Commission? No. While, many wireless facilities, such as those on building rooftops are typically reviewed by the Planning Commission; wireless facilities on wooden or steel poles in the public right-of-way are not reviewed by the Planning Commission. The Planning Department (staff) reviews wireless facilities on wooden or steel poles, with the permits administered by the Department of Public Works. How do these systems conform with the City's General Plan or Master Plan (Section 101.1 of the Planning Code)? By providing robust communications that are well-designed, these systems can improve connectivity for residents, visitors, and businesses, including neighborhood -serving retail. In addition: • The design of these facilities would not detract from streetscapes, historic districts or other areas that define individual neighborhoods and the City as a whole. • These facilities would not impede MUNI transit service and would provide additional revenue to SFTMA (MUNI) and SFPUC. • These facilities would enhance connectivity in the event of an emergency. • The facilities would not affect the use of parks or open space, nor would they impair access to sunlight or detract from scenic vistas. What about safety from radio-frequency emissions? All Personal Wireless Facilities proposed in San Francisco are reviewed by the San Francisco Department of Public Health (DPH1.This review looks at both the radio-frequency (RF) emissions report created for each type of system; as well as field testing from the antenna during operations, if approved and installed. Field testing is required each time a modification (change of equipment or antenna) is proposed that may change the RF emissions, and every time the permit is renewed. A sample copy of the RF report and DPH approval for these systems can be found at this link. Residents near an operating system can request testing of their dwelling units, at no charge (free). The City has not seen a pattern of non-compliance with FCC -established standards, for these small cell systems. SAN FRANGISCO PLANNING OEPAMIMENT8 Flyer updated August 2015 Due to their low power output (either 66, 100, or 174 watts) the general public should remain between 4 to 8 feet (depending on wattage of the specific antenna) away from the face of the antenna at the top of the pole. This distance does not apply when underneath the antenna, because of the directional nature of these systems. For comparison purposes, a typical large "macro" (10,000+ watts, and larger antennas) rooftop - mounted system may have a public stay -away distance of 30 to 65 feet from the face of the antennas. The antennas are typically mounted no closer than 8 feet from the nearest window, deck, or other publicly -accessible area. In addition, while the antenna shape is akin to a rounded cone, these antennas are directional in nature with the signal primarily focused up and down streets, and not directly into the residence behind the pole. How do the antenna energy levels from these systems compare to what is allowed both in the US and overseas? The limits set by the FCC for frequencies used for mobile phone operators are very similar to those limits used for mobile phone operators in most of the European Union. Furthermore, when antennas such as these are producing radio frequency exposures of around 1% of the FCC's standards, that is also generally compliant with even the most restrictive standards found in a few countries, such as Switzerland. When the City has conducted in -the -field testing, using our own calibrated radio-frequency meter, for similar pole -mounted antennas; we have typically seen "actual" RF exposure levels within adjacent upper level dwellings (or at ground level) at, or near 1% of the limits set by the FCC. These systems generate an effective maximum radiated power (ERP) of between 66 to 174 watts (depending on antenna model at a given location). This is considered "low" when compared, for example to typical rooftop -mounted "macro" wireless facilities, with maximum ERPs of around 7,000 to 10,000+ watts (e.g. a site approved on the roof of a residential building at 2001 Sacramento Street, in Pacific Heights, or for an existing facility on the roof of 725 Greenwich Street in North Beach). The maximum ERP wattage assumes the antenna is operating at maximum capacity to generate a worst-case scenario in determining compliance with standards set by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). That is not a typical operating condition. The City has not seen a pattern of non-compliance for pole -mounted facilities, with radio-frequency exposure standards. How does the radio-frequency (RF) exposure from these antennas compare to the RF output from a mobile phone, baby monitor, or Wi-Fi router in a persons home? RF exposure is highly dependent on factors like distance and orientation from the antenna (so being below or SAN FRANGISCO PLANNING DEPARTMENT9 Flyer updated August 2015 behind these antennas generates significantly lower RF exposure). Generally, any person within their home (even if on an upper story dwelling unit at the same level as the antenna), or at ground level would be subject to higher RF exposure levels from a cell phone in their hand (if they own one) than the RF exposure typically seen from these antennas. This is due to the distance between the antenna and any publicly accessible areas, as well as the orientation of the antennas. The antennas on steel poles are directional (meaning they have a specific beam pattern) so the RF exposure at a dwelling right behind the antenna is significantly lower than being directly in front of the antenna. Are wireless facilities on poles banned in Europe or other California cities, including Berkeley? No. Wireless systems can be found on poles and buildings in Europe, and on other California cities, including Berkeley. Berkeley recently passed an ordinance to require that when people purchase cell phones that they are made aware that the mobile device itself generates radio-frequency (RF) emissions, and provide relevant information (link). The ordinance is currently subject to legal challenge. Are these systems safe for birds? These systems have not been shown to affect birds or other wildlife. How is this different from services such as Comcast, Sonic, or AT&T U-Verse/Lightspeed? Those services primarily deliver "wired" internet, cable television and landline phone service without antennas; though some cable strand (antenna) modems (providing Comcast Wi-Fi service) can be found on overhead communication lines, strung between wooden utility poles. These proposed Small Cells on City -owned poles would provide wireless mobile voice and data coverage. Do other cities have these small cell systems? Yes. Wireless carriers have proposed similar networks in varying cities ranging from places like New York City to San Diego, and smaller communities throughout California. The City looked at various deployments from other cities while developing this project (examples on slides 7 and 8) . Can I protest the installation of a wireless facility on my block? Yes. If you have received notice that a wireless facility has been proposed to be installed on your block it means DPW has tentatively approved the application. It also means that the Planning Department, DPH, and possibly the Recreation and Park Department have recommended that DPW grant the permit. While you may protest the issuance of the permit, you must do so in the time set forth in the notice, which will be 20 days after the notice is postmarked. DPW will not consider an untimely protest. If your protest is timely, DPW will hold a hearing to determine whether to issue the permit. DPW will notify you of the date and time for the hearing. You will be given the opportunity during the hearing to explain the reasons for your protest. Contact information for protests can be found on the DPW web site (link). SAN FRANGISCO PLANNING OEPAMIMENT Flyer updated August 2015 10 Can I appeal DPW's issuance of a wireless permit? Yes. Whether or not you protested the permit you may appeal DPW's issuance of the permit to the Board of Appeals. As with protests, you must file your appeal in the time required by City law, which is generally 15 days after the permit is issued. More information about filing an appeal can be found on the Board of Appeals web site (link). Only the environmental determination may be appealed to the Board of Supervisors (link). Who do I contact if I have additional questions? Please contact the Planning Department's Wireless Planner, Omar Masry, at (415) 575-9116, or Omar.Masry@sfgov.org Common Terms: DAS - Acronym for a Distributed Antenna System. A network of small antennas and equipment enclosures usually attached to steel or wooden poles in in the public right-of-way. "Macro" Wireless Telecommunication Services (WTS) Facility - Typically three to sixteen panel antennas mounted on the roof of a building, along with multiple equipment cabinets. Permits reviewed by the Planning Department, Fire Department, DPH, and Department of Building Inspection (DBI); subject to the City's Wireless Guidelines, and Planning Code. Macro WTS facilities typically require Planning Commission approval in most residential, neighborhood commercial, and mixed-use zoning districts. A photo simulation of a previously approved Macro WTS Facility can be found on Pages 37 and 38 of this link. "Micro" Wireless Telecommunications Services (WTS) Facility - Typically one or two antennas mounted on the roof of a building. Permits reviewed by the Planning Department, Fire Department, DPH, and Department of Building Inspection (DBI); subject to the City's Wireless Guidelines, Planning Code, and review by the Zoning Administrator. Example link. Personal Wireless Services Facility Permit - Permit for wireless facilities mounted on poles in the public right-of-way. Permits administered by the Department of Public Works. Public Right of Way - Typically streets and sidewalks, where light and utility poles are placed. Radio Relay Unit - Equipment enclosures which functions akin to a computer; and routes power and signal through wires (inside the pole) to the transmitting antenna. Small Cells - Similar to DAS. SAN FRANGISCO PLANNING OEPAMIMENT Flyer updated August 2015 11 i; 0 I 14 inch wide antenna enclosure* on wide transit poles Small RIF Warning Sticker Cabling located inside pole (2) Radio Relay Units (computers for power and communications) No fan noise, lights, Iogos or decals No major street trenching required In some instances a 2x 3' sidewalk -flush vault is required *. ? US inch wide antenna enJosure would be used on slimmer fight poiies 1 of 3 5 FMTA 0 weed TEWi i`r—p65 Ta edrrnq c -d -b rd- he Pole Types support overhead electric lines for buses and light rail Previous Site Design Examples rr cl�E PUCH :'Are PC. le elo 0>Proposed Extenet r0„r Antennas & Equipment 000 t. . ■ I`r . t� Pg lop i Example of a design that was disapproved by Planning, and is no longer proposed. In this example the antenna is mounted on a side-arm. Example of a design that was disapproved by Planning, and is no longer proposed. In this example equipment and cabling below the antenna is not shrouded SAN FRANGISfO PLANNING DEPARTMENT Flyer updated August 2015 13 Example of an initial mockup (not proposed). This example featured unpainted antenna shrouding with an alternate design; extra stickers on the pole and wider cabling sweeps below the two unpainted computers midway down the pole. SAN FRANGISfO PLANNING DEPARTMENT Flyer updated August 2015 14 From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Dear City Council members, jcalvagna@netzero.net Sunday, February 14, 2016 12:42 PM cc Fw: Proposed wireless ordinance process documentation wireless process and guidelines r3.pdf I realize you are probably receiving substantial material for Tuesday's City Council meeting and I apologize in advance for adding to it. I've forwarded below an email and wireless ordinance process package I compiled and provided to Director Throne during the week. I believe this level of process documentation and forethought is absolutely required to ensure the city effectively manages the critical timelines and process steps of the new wireless facility ordinance. The Director graciously acknowledged receipt of this material and promised to consider it. This is provided for your consideration; please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or comments. Best Regards, Jeff Calvagna From: "j calvagna@netzero. net" <j calvagna@netzero. net> To: MichaelT@rpvca.gov Cc: nicolej@rpvca.gov, clopez@awattorneys.com, CharlesE@rpvca.gov Subject: Proposed wireless ordinance process documentation Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 16:32:53 GMT Director Throne, With passage of the City's new wireless ordinance, it is critical that the City have detailed process documentation as to how the new ordinance is applied and executed. The process must be implemented in a methodical, repeatable, impartial, and timely manner. Failure to do so will likely result in inadvertent approval of non-compliant sites, automatic approval of non-compliant sites under state law, and potential litigation against the City under both state and federal law. I was very gratified to find out the Christy Lopez will be assisting the City with the first batch of applications. This will be very helpful in navigating this complex process and ensuring all steps are completed in a timely manner. I have given this process extensive thought and compiled process documentation based on the ordinance that is included with this email. The City is welcome to use as much or as little of this material as it sees appropriate, but it is imperative that the City adopt process documentation with comparable detail. The attached process material includes the following: J • • Process timelines — shows key process milestones and process cadence needed to meet shot clock time limits • • Process flow diagrams — shows process tasks, key decision points, task interrelationships, and decision algorithms • • RRAAs — Shows roles, responsibility, authority, and accountability for City staff or City bodies with key tasks in the permit application process • • Site architectural compatibility guidelines — provides proposed guidance for applicants and staff regarding site implementation to ensure architectural compatibility is maintained and that the site is implemented using the least intrusive means possible The attached file is in a PDF format, source material is available if needed. I will be following up with the City Council and residents regarding the importance of this, and will immediately forward any feedback received. I look forward to assisting the City in any way possible. Regards, Jeff Calvagna Wireless Facility Permit Approval Process Documentation and Recommended Guidelines Jeff Calvagna 11 February 2016 Wireless Process Timeline Shows key milestones and process cadence needed to meet shot clock time limits prixt-'N Step 1"Wallor cvopcvec� New Site Process Milestones (typical) pte-application MOW It I rMoth 2 Moath 3 MOTIth 4 tArtnth S po�t permitapproval Submittal Pabuc commert per wd Complete, Pei mmt 'vv�m ovv Appet Wal. jdapplyaw, A oxmi �C <0 s�te' NOTE: need to clarify if appeal must fall within the shot dock window, rulings are contradictory and ambiguous `2 ...... . ... .. ze -.,na',Ches apvtoved des jr a-,,, cvs,,, 150 days maximum unless paused by applicant delays or extended by written mutual agreement mforma! pinur Wonalvar QVI webo:q, Pr Pf vou�p JAMANnent Perot! fQ009st 410 ;Wowl Wn"en PUNM renhaza- W me: Sint a: May I �pp I W W d lid; A& ApphCown subonsvor. SO: MY stans cm�n�p � ;% A =s-, ..le c� Comm, Wah" ®^-16T wondw davolmmse- Avpwaven wepted Cr tquind c'! e d Z i'lu wohn 141T4RRi cawndardaysol mfoavo-, Apopmen"o 0a"f shm cock aamg Updres reedw: PC Pabuc commert per wd Complete, Pei mmt 'vv�m ovv Appet Wal. jdapplyaw, A oxmi �C <0 s�te' NOTE: need to clarify if appeal must fall within the shot dock window, rulings are contradictory and ambiguous `2 ...... . ... .. ze -.,na',Ches apvtoved des jr a-,,, cvs,,, 150 days maximum unless paused by applicant delays or extended by written mutual agreement Co -location Site Process Milestones (typical) Process step Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Post -p r pit approval satllmittat _ } be, it ,s.» n<,d .rr" e -x, C. ': .,� ox K .. Ay ..,k'x' n r .� .m8>h .I ri .__...4 CE _ >< ?k_.. �.._ _� z '-'r ,.-_ _,. .. _. _v.�i _, ,.. ., " S _, ...> ._ s,'.� w ,„r4 t":k:•. . �.-- �, _ Su. € ssio , -,hct i j ,- ..'ar` n �� t/33i pph'ca >_C+v, rI,,#,,e .., a.. .,a3Y SiS ;recc-'[ .ak- ded ar need' dj, Refer "n c .r Otdmi—.s-rative perm, lon,neannei ..., �, ..;t_ t.�`; : er nn 3. .. ',eta „i azvivnMvvcn "'000 l m t r � i t l 5Pos'n l+ s' _ S iF,eC fn e ri at a C', e .;;';' tfi=a 1 7s'fi4 ,„ i'If aa'p s c,3 btau; P NOTE: need to clarify if appeal must fall within 90 days maximum unless paused by applicant delays or extended by written mutual agreement the shot clock window, rulings are contradictory and ambiguous Wireless Facility Application Process Flow Diagram Shows major process steps, key decision points, and process step relationships Wireless Facility Application Process Recommended YI Mock-up Mock-up Yes Wireless omplies wit Public Presubmittal Encroachment Installation site city ordinance notification conference Permit request and 30 day proposed d guideline sent and issuance period No Application Yes Application requirements met? accepted No Application rejected Permit type determination See separate detail page Public comments to Planning Commission Ordinance compliance assessment � ministratYesive Public Permit? comments to PW Director No No Compliant ordinance? Yes Request correction and resubmission Application submitted Corrections made? Yes No Non-compliant applications not eligible for administrative permit defer to P No Director option to refer based on findings? applications to the Planning Commission Yes PW Director Planning Commission or Lo. makes permit City Council as appropriate decision Yes iAppeal authority Decision makes permit Planning Appealed? decision Planning Commission — Commission makes permit No hearings p Final permit decision decision See separate detail page Permit Type Determination Detail Per RPV Code 12.18.040(C) Per RPV Code 17.02.040 Per RPV Code 12.18 (all) I Master No Location No View No Requires Application Deployment restriction protection ordinance Plan? applies? applies? xceptions? Yes 4 Yes Yes Yes Master Deployment Major Permit C Permit i i Per RPV Code 12.18.200 Local street per RPV general plan New pole, not a replacement Within 100 feet to residential structure (proposed) No Administrative Permit Permit Decision Detail Per RPV Code 12.18.090 Application findings Met required 7indings? No /Ordinance exception applies? /14 No Yes Yes / / / / I Per RPV Code 12.18.190 J Met Yes required findings? No Findings and IPermit decision in ` approve writing i\ decision Findings and Permit decision in deny writing decision Wireless Facility Application Process - Shows process roles, responsibility, authority, and accountability (RRAAs) Director of Public Works (1/3) • Roles - Manage overall wireless application process within the required "shot clock" time period - Provide permit approve/deny decision for administrative permits • Responsibilities - Accept installation proposals, encourage presubmittal conference - Provide informal public notification via city website once site is proposed - Conduct presubmittal conference if requested, provide applicant guidance regarding city application requirements and site design and location regulations, engage assistance of wireless technical consultant as needed - Formally notify residents in writing within 500 feet of proposed site 5 business days prior to mock-up installation - Review proposed mock-up, issue mock-up encroachment approval as required, ensure mock-up as constructed accurately represents proposed site, ensure mock-up is in place for 30 days - Receive application and initiate shot clock with application submittal. Manage shot clock including pauses as required by applicant delays or extensions by written mutual agreement. - Perform application completeness assessment to ensure provided documentation meets ordinance requirements. Complete assessment within 14 (TBR) calendar days for new sites, 7 (TBR) days for co -locations. Engage assistance of wireless technical consultant in assessment. Director of Public Works (2/3) • Responsibilities (cont'd) - Accept or reject application based on completeness, rejections to be in writing listing application shortfalls. - Perform compliance and installation justification assessment to ensure proposed site meets ordinance requirements. Complete assessment within 14 (TBR) calendar days for new sites, 7 (TBR) days for co -locations. Engage assistance of wireless technical consultant in assessment - Work with applicant to correct non-compliant applications - Determine wireless application permit type, notify applicant and Planning Commission if type is non -administrative and public hearings are required - If site is eligible for an administrative permit: • Receive and consider public comments • Determine if new findings or other or considerations warrant permit type change and/or transfer to Planning Commission • Make findings required by ordinance in writing with decision to accept or deny facility permit - If site is not eligible for an administrative permit: • Assist Planning Commission with site history and earlier assessment findings - Perform post -installation inspection of approved site, ensure installation matches approved design and complies with all applicable regulations. Director of Public Works (3/3) • Authority - Mock-up encroachment permit approval - Application completeness assessment, decision to accept application - Application compliance assessment and permit type determination - Administrative permit approve/deny decision - Final inspection approval • Accountability - The People of Rancho Palos Verdes - ensure ordinance is fully applied and enforced within required time limits to protect the city's aesthetics and character and its resident's quality of life - Applicant - ensure ordinance is executed in a fair and equitable manner within required time limits Planning Commission • Role - Manage and conduct public hearings as required to provide permit approve/deny decisions within the required time constraints • Responsibilities - If site is not eligible for an administrative permit: • Obtain relevant documentation, prior findings, and history from the Director of Public Works • Receive and consider public comments • Conduct public hearing(s) to review site design, installation justification, and resident comments • Determine if any requested exception is warranted under the ordinance (if applicable) • Make findings required by ordinance in writing with decision to accept or deny facility permit - Conduct appeal hearings for administrative permits (if required) • Authority - Non -administrative permit approve/deny decision - Administrative permit appeal approve/deny decision (if required) Accountability - The People of Rancho Palos Verdes - ensure ordinance is fully applied and enforced within required time limits to protect the city's aesthetics and character and its resident's quality of life - Applicant - ensure ordinance is executed in a fair and equitable manner within required time limits City Council - Manage and conduct appeal public hearings as required to provide permit approve/deny decisions within the required time constraints • Responsibilities - Conduct appeal hearings for non -administrative permits (if required) • Authority - Non -administrative permit appeal approve/deny decision (if required) • Accountability - The People of Rancho Palos Verdes - ensure ordinance is fully applied and enforced within required time limits to protect the city's aesthetics and character and its resident's quality of life - Applicant - ensure ordinance is executed in a fair and equitable manner within required time limits Non -Utility Pole Wireless Facility Architectural Guideline Recommendations (Streetlights, traffic signals, etc.) Non-utility pole Wireless Installation Architectural Compatibility Guidelines (1/5) • Panel -style antennas on an existing or replacement pole - Antenna installation not to extend height of existing pole - Maximum two antenna panels per pole - Antennas located as close to top of pole as possible to minimize conspicuousness - Antenna panels not to exceed the following sizes, larger antennas require technical justification demonstrating clear need: • Antenna panel surface area not to exceed 2.0 square feet • Antenna panel height not to exceed 2'6" • Antenna panel depth not to exceed 7". - Antenna to be installed flush mount against pole, back of antenna spacing to pole not to exceed 2" - Antennas to be professionally painted to match pole with durable, non -fading paint, no on-site spray can painting Non-utility pole Wireless Installation Architectural Compatibility Guidelines (2/5) • Pole -top antenna on an existing or replacement pole - Antenna installation not to exceed the following sizes, larger antennas require technical justification demonstrating clear need: 12 • Antenna extension not to increase pole height more than 2A • Antenna diameter including any canister cover not to exceed existing pole diameter at attachment point • A narrow pole -top whip antenna with less that 2" diameter may exceed height limit above but to not exceed 3'6" in height - Antenna and/or enclosing canister to be designed to architecturally match pole, design and attachment to appear as a natural extension of the pole - Antennas and/or canister to be professionally painted to match pole with durable, non -fading paint, no on-site spray can painting Non-utility pole Wireless Installation Architectural Compatibility Guidelines (3/5) Cables and Routing - Cables to be located fully within pole except for short length of RF cable(s) for attachment to panel antennas - Pole -top antenna installations to keep cables entirely within the pole/antenna/canister assembly - No service loops or excess cable outside pole - Installation to utilize right angle adapters for panel antenna attachment when feasible to minimize external cable length - Installation to utilize minimally sized cable egress holes to reduce visibility - Cables and egress grommets to be professionally painted to match pole with durable, non -fading paint, no on-site spray can painting except small touch ups as needed - Cable routing between pole and support equipment to be fully underground Non-utility pole Wireless Installation Architectural Compatibility Guidelines (4/5) • Signs/Decals - RF radiation warnings to be placed only next to antenna, not at ground level - RF radiation warnings installed to be no larger than minimum size required by law - All visible manufacturer stickers or labels to be removed from any pole mounted equipment - Any required site identification (owner, phone number, etc.) to be placed in an inconspicuous fashion away from casual view Utility pole Wireless Installation Architectural Compatibility Guidelines (5/5) 0 Support Equipment - All support equipment to be located off the pole and hidden from sight. Only antennas are allowed on the pole. - All support equipment to be underground unless infeasible as determined by the city. Underground equipment to use the minimal size, height, and quantity of ventilation stacks required to meet air flow needs. - If allowed by the city, above ground equipment to be screened from view using methods architecturally compatible with the existing environment (foliage, stone walls, etc.). Foliage to be maintained. - If required, visible electric meters to be the smallest size possible and placed inconspicuously and away from casual view - Encourage use of passive (silent) equipment cooling methods to meet ordinance noise requirements Utility Pole Wireless Facility Architectural Guideline Recommendations (Wooden "telephone" poles) Utility pole Wireless Installation Architectural Compatibility Guidelines (1/4) • Panel -style antennas on a utility pole - Antenna installation to comply with all aspects of CPUC General Order 95 - Maximum two antenna panels per utility pole - Surface area of each panel area not to exceed 2.0 square feet with antenna depth not to exceed 7". Larger antennas require technical justification demonstrating clear need. - For antennas located below existing circuits on cross -arms, antenna spacing not to exceed 3'2" from the utility pole surface - Cross -arms are to be mounted orthogonal to the pole and level with respect to the horizon. Cross arms are not to sag over time. Antennas to be mounted to the cross arm parallel to the pole. - For antennas located above all existing circuits, antennas are to be flush mounted to the pole. Back of antenna to be spaced no more than 2" from pole surface. - Antennas to be professionally painted to match pole with durable, non -fading paint, no on site spray can painting Utility pole Wireless Installation Architectural Compatibility Guidelines (2/4) • Cables and Routing Cable installation to comply with all aspects of CPUC General Order 95 - Cables to be routed through conduit mounted to utility pole surface. Conduit diameter to be the minimum size required to accommodate cables. - No service loops or excess cable outside of conduit. No free cable routing outside of conduit unless as required for antenna attachment. Any free cable routing to be fully supported and attached to structure such as cross arms or mounting brackets. - Installation to utilize right angle adapters for panel antenna attachment when feasible to minimize unsupported cable length - Conduit and visible cables to be professionally painted to match pole with durable, non -fading paint, no on-site spray can painting except small touch ups as needed - Cable routing between pole and support equipment to be fully underground Utility pole Wireless Installation Architectural Compatibility Guidelines (3/4) • Signs/Decals - Signage to comply with all aspects of CPUC General Order 95 - RF radiation warnings to be placed only next to antenna, not to be placed at ground level unless required by law RF radiation warnings installed to be no larger than minimum size required by law - All visible manufacturer stickers or labels to be removed from any pole mounted equipment - Any required site identification (owner, phone number, etc.) to be placed in an inconspicuous fashion away from casual view Utility pole Wireless Installation Architectural Compatibility Guidelines (4/4) • Support Equipment - All support equipment to be located off the pole and hidden from sight. Only antennas, support structures such as cross arms, and conduit -routed cable are allowed on the pole. Passive power dividers or couplers may be mounted flush with cross arms if the location and cable routing is inconspicuous. - All support equipment to be underground unless infeasible as determined by the city. Underground equipment to use the minimal size, height, and quantity of ventilation stacks required to meet air flow needs. - If allowed by the city, above ground equipment to be screened from view using methods architecturally compatible with the existing environment (foliage, stone walls, etc.). Foliage to be maintained. - If required, visible electric meters to be the smallest size possible and placed inconspicuously and away from casual view - Encourage use of passive (silent) equipment cooling methods to meet ordinance noise requirements