PC 022019 - Laserfiche WebLink

voiced concerns with the 750-foot restriction. He also questioned whether there were any concerns regarding pole support installations, as contained in the letters from AT&T. Mr. May said no, and explained that if taking away options, the City must leave others on the table. Staff has recommended against some support structures noting the trade-off might be that new structures may be installed in certain areas because small cells would not be allowed to be put on decorative poles. Commissioner Brown said his preference was moving towards an agreed upon model that can be fast-tracked and one that looks to be more consistent throughout the City. Chair Allen said she has no expertise in this area and was depending on experts. In evaluating the 750 feet, she suggested distinguishing requirements between 4G and 5G. The second thing that might be helpful for the Council is whether there were other cities that have already adopted ordinances ahead of them and how they have dealt with these issues, letters and response to concerns. Mr. May said regarding the first point of dividing regulation between technologies, it is a difficult path to walk. Just as cities do not regulate health effects from radio frequency emissions that comply with the FCC's rules, the FCC has planning authority over planning and technical decision-making. So, cities get to regulate what small cells look like but not what they are. Regarding what other cities are doing, his firm works with many cities and have refined their approach into this document which is always getting better, and there are many examples. He noted that Hillsboro has a 1,500-foot setback and Cerritos has a 300-foot setback, but those are policy decisions. He thinks 750 feet is about right for the current technology and if they go smaller, the question is at what point is the City sacrificing aesthetic policies for technical ones, and this is a question for policy makers, i.e., the Council. Commissioner Brown said the FAQ states most cells can service an area within approximately 500 to 1,000 feet, and this is what is driving some of his 750-foot concerns. Given Commissioner Balch's concern around making sure there is a public process and communication to the public, Commissioner Brown recognized the FCC has essentially mandated that the City cannot deny based on the various criteria. He asked if Mr. May had any proposed language the City could include in the notice stating the City has received an application and if the public would like to comment or express concerns these are the reasons they can. This would identify what grounds the public could consider an appeal to the City Manager. Commissioner Balch said his position is that it must be an open process and observe what the decision-making process is when appealing to the City Manager versus the City Council. Mr. Beaudin stated the FCC has really superseded the ability for local public process with the 60-day shot clock. On one slide Mr. May showed 850 to 1,700 nodes, times 3 carriers, and the idea of the possibility of opening up a public process to an objective review gives him pause from a staffing perspective. He likened the public processes to State-protected operations which have provided cities regulations for applicants to abide by, such as daycares, and Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 of 12 February 20, 2019 Planning Commission as a workshop before they invest heavily in a design. He Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 5 January 23, 2019