14 - Laserfiche WebLink

3. Application Requirements Staff has revised section 18.110.040 (Submittals) to better reflect what information is needed from an applicant in order for city staff, or the City's peer-review consultant, to evaluate a carrier's application. This section makes clear that the carrier is responsible for paying the costs for the City to hire an expert to review the carrier's submittals and do an independent analysis on such things as the carrier's RF emission report, its analysis of coverage gaps, alternative site analysis, etc. 4. Length of Permit Approvals In 2006, state law changed to require that permits issued to a carrier be a minimum of 10 years. (The current ordinance requires carriers to renew their permits every five years.) The ordinance has been modified to comply with the change in law. 5. Public Noticing The current ordinance requires staff to provide notice to all property owners within 600 feet of a proposed facility. Staff proposes to change the public noticing requirements to 300' to be consistent with what is required by state law and to be consistent with the 300' "buffer zones". Additionally, staff proposes a clarification in the ordinance which is consistent with how other design review applications are handled. Specifically, the proposed ordinance clarifies that notice not be provided where the facility will be "concealed", e.g., hidden on the roof of a building and concealed by a screenwall. 6. Changes to Other Sections of the Zoning Code There are eight sections of the Zoning Code that prohibit certain uses from locating within 300 feet of a wireless facility. Those uses include, but are not limited to, convalescent hospitals, rest homes, nursing homes and senior care/assisted living facilities, private schools, nursery schools, childcare centers, parks, playgrounds, golf courses, and zoos. Staff recommends removing language in the code which limits one of the listed businesses or uses above from being able to locate in proximity to a wireless facility. Under the current zoning code, for example, staff has had to deny an application for a nursery school that sought to locate in a building that was within 300 feet of another building where a wireless facility was concealed on the roof. Staff suggests that the City's zoning code should not prevent certain businesses or uses from being able to locate near an existing wireless facility. Accordingly, staff proposes those amendments shown in Exhibit D. PUBLIC NOTICE Notice of this application has been published in The Valley Times and in the Pleasanton Weekly as an upcoming agenda item for the December 17, 2013 City Council meeting. Staff received two comments prior to this item being heard by the Planning Commission on November 17. The first was an e-mail from James Paxson on behalf of Hacienda Owners' Association and the second was a letter from an attorney representing Verizon Wireless. Both letters requested additional changes to the ordinance. Staff has reviewed those letters and has made additional changes to the proposed wireless ordinance (included in Exhibits A and B.) Page 9 of 10