PC 03/25/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

The ordinance as proposed would permit personal wireless facilities in many azeas of the City. However, they would be set back from the sensitive areas, would be required to be designed appropriately, and would be structurally sound. Ms. Eisenwinter gave a summary of Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act, noting that the effect of this section is to enable personal wireless service providers to establish networks for their services and to preclude local governments from regulating the potential health impacts of wireless facilities. She stated this staff drafted the proposed ordinance based upon Section 704. She also stated that last week staff was surprised to learn that GTE Wireless believed that the locational requirements in the proposed draft ordinance were based too much on health effects. Consequently, GTE Wireless will probably oppose the proposed draft ordinance. Ms. Eisenwinter also reported that unless personal wireless services facilities are appropriately located and designed, staff believes that the perceived health effects could have negative impacts on residential property values, negative visual impacts, noise impacts relating to maintenance, and other safety concerns. Ms. Eisenwinter further stated that under the proposed ordinance, wireless facilities would not be permitted within 300 feet of sensitive areas identified as residences, parks, public and private schools, childcare centers, nursing homes, senior care facilities and undeveloped residential and agricultural zoning districts. The carriers involved in the group have agreed that this setback would allow them to meet their short-term facility needs. At the last group meeting, staff felt that the group had agreed, for the most part, that the compromises were acceptable. One of staffs major goals throughout this process was to draft an ordinance that was acceptable to both the community and the wireless industry. Ms. Eisenwinter noted that the proposed draft ordinance is a compromise of community and industry interests. Ms. Eisenwinter presented a map of the City and identified the 300-foot buffer areas. She also identified the "sensitive areas" designated by the study group where wireless facilities should not be located. She pointed out that the regulations in the proposed ordinance leave several azeas throughout the City where commercial personal wireless services would be permitted uses, including the areas azound Stoneridge Mall, Hacienda Business Park, Stanley Business Pazk, and the Fairgrounds. Ms. Iserson reiterated that the ordinance is very much a compromise and that there were very strong view points from both sides during the review process. Staff felt that there was a consensus reached towazd the end of the project. He also stated that staff was sensitive to make sure that the ordinance was acceptable to the wireless communication companies and that there were sufficient areas in the City given the locational requirements that the companies would still be able to provide facilities for adequate servrce. Mr. Iserson noted that review periods have also been included in the proposed ordinance and that changes will likely occur. He also reported that staff feels that the property value argument is valid and feels there is strong potential that as residents become more aware of the radio frequency emission and health issues, that purchase decisions will be based partly on the location of antennas. However, he emphasized that staff is extremely awaze that the ordinance cannot be justified directly on health issues. Planning Commission Page 8 March 25, 1998