CCMIN121713 - Laserfiche WebLink

a minimum of 300 feet from the uses previously described. The distance refers to the structure itself, rather than the property line described in the current ordinance. It should also be noted that this amendment specifies public or private schools for children whereas the current ordinance does not make such a distinction and applies to all learning institutions, including trade schools and the new University of San Francisco extension. 2) Agricultural or Public and Institutional Zones — Carriers are encouraged but not required to conceal facilities. Again, facilities may not be located within 300 feet of the uses described. 3) Iron Horse Trail between Santa Rita Road and Mohr Avenue — Staff believes this to be an appropriate location for facilities because, although it has no zoning designation, it is bordered on either side by predominately industrial properties. Camouflaged facilities may not be located within 300 feet of an existing dwelling unit. 4) Water tank sites — Allows facilities on or adjacent to parcels housing a City water tank. Carriers are encouraged to conceal, but at minimum must camouflage, facilities. Facilities must be located within 200 feet of the City water tank and at least 200 feet from any existing dwelling unit. The benefits of such location are that it may provide a means to close a significant coverage gap in sections of town that do not contain any of the allowed zoning districts. Southeast Pleasanton, which is zoned almost entirely residential, is one such example. Location at a water tank site also provides lease revenue for the City and allows the City, as the landlord, a greater degree of aesthetic control. In order to comply with state or federal law, staff has included language that allows the decision making body to grant an exception to any requirements of the ordinance including locational priorities if the applicant can show that strict compliance with the code would violate state or federal law. Another key change to the ordinance relates to the application requirements, which staff has amended to clarify that applicants shall pay for peer review and to change the length of permit approval from 10 to 5 years. Staff has also proposed changing the public noticing requirement from 600 feet to 300 feet to be consistent with what state law requires and the City's own 300 foot buffer zone and eliminating the noticing requirement for concealed facilities. Separate from the wireless ordinance, staff is proposing changes to 8 sections of the Zoning Ordinance that prohibit certain uses from locating within 300 feet of a wireless facilities. These are outlined in Exhibit D. These changes would remove that ban and allow businesses to choose where they wish to locate, regardless of proximity to wireless facilities. Councilmember Narum asked, if with regards to this last amendment, the burden would be on the business owner to determine their proximity to a wireless facility. Ms. Harryman explained that there are no disclosure requirements and the business owner would have to request that information of staff. Because wireless facilities are legally allowed to be located there (and in residential districts in most cities) by federal law, there is no liability associated with nondisclosure. Vice-Mayor Cook-Kallio asked if any other jurisdictions use the same 300 foot buffer. Ms. Harryman said that while she was not aware of any and that all surrounding cities do allow facilities in residential zones, it is not the first priority location. Mayor Thorne asked whether the 300 foot buffer is based on any scientific standards, noting that the health effects of RF exposure were debunked years ago. City Council Minutes Page 15 of 20 December 17,2013