CCMIN121713 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Harryman reviewed the current ordinance, which creates large areas where wireless facilities are prohobited. Without regard to aesthetics, the ordinance prohibits facilities in or within 300 feet of all of the following: property lines of all residential and agricultural zones, existing or approved public or private schools and childcare centers, existing or approved senior care and assisted living facilities and nursing homes, and all parks. Even if completely hidden from view, the ordinance prohibits these facilities in all of these locations depsite the underlying zoning designation. Because the ordinance is so broad, many sectors of the City have few if any locations for a carrier to locate which results in large gaps in coverage. Ms. Harryman provided an overview of current telecommunications law which is largely controlled by the federal government. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 stipulates three things: 1) local government shall not regulate the placement and construction of wireless facilities on the basis of environmental effects, including radio frequency (RF) emissions. These standards are dictated by the FCC, although cities may hire peer review consultants to confirm that facilities will in fact meet these standards. 2) Local governments shall not unreasonably discriminate against providers of functional equivalent services, which means one carrier cannot be favored over another. 3) Local governments shall not prohibit or have the effect of such on the provision of wireless services or the closing of a significant gap in coverage. In 2002, President Obama signed the Middle Class Tax Relief and Jobs Creation Act which included an important provision that affects wireless law. This provision states that a state or local government may not deny and shall approve any request for colocation, removal or replacement of a facility that does not substantially changes the physical dimensions of the tower base station. In September 2013 the FCC released a notice of proposed rulemaking with the stated goal of reducing, where appropriate, the cost and delay associated with the deployment with such infrastructure. In short, federal law removes local control in stating that cities cannot regulate RF emissions but may consider aesthetics in reviewing an application and that local governments cannot prevent a wireless carrier from closing a significant gap in coverage. While the 1998 amendments to the City's current ordinance that created the current restrictions were well intended, staff notes certain unintended consequences. The restrictions may have resulted in actually creating more cellular facilities in town than are necessary by not allowing carriers to design their systems based on a logical pattern. The restrictions may also have resulted in odd siting or applications that yielded unattractive architecture because the facility was not allowed to locate on a structure more conducive to concealment. Finally, the current ordinance does expose the City to lawsuits if carriers are unable to close a significant gap in coverage. She noted that in being overly restrictive, the ordinance also potentially forces carriers to look to other technologies such as small cell facilities or DAS which ultimately require many more installations to achieve the same coverage. Ms. Harryman reviewed the key proposed changes to the ordinance the first of which relates to legal nonconforming uses. The City currently has 29 locations in town with one or more carrier, 6 of which are considered legal but nonconforming as a result of changes to the ordinance in 1998. The proposed amendments would make 2 of those 6 sites, located at 4683 Chabot Drive in Hacienda Business Park and 57 Stoneridge Mall Road, legal. 4 sites, located at 3333 Busch Road, 519 Kottinger Drive, 3830 Old Santa Rita Road and 4440 Willow Road, would remain legal but nonconforming. The heart and bulk of the proposed changes relate to location. Staff reviewed many ordinances including those of the neighboring cities of Livermore, Dublin, Danville and Walnut Creek. All allow facilities to be located in residential zones although they are subject to closer scrutiny. Staff is proposing that Pleasanton utilize a system that requires carriers to look to locate facilities in certain areas of town based on the following priority: 1) Commercial, Office, Industrial or Mixed Use zones — Carriers would be required to conceal the facility, which is defined as not visible to persons at ground level or contained within new or existing architectural details of a building. If concealed, the facility may be placed anywhere on the property without regard to separation from other uses. If not concealed, the facility must be camouflaged or designed to be compatible with its surroundings and located City Council Minutes Page 14 of 20 December 17, 2013