HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-10-02; City Council; 16380; Policy On Wireless Communication FacilitiesCITY OF CARLSBAD -AGENDA BILL
g
AB# lk!38(l TITLE: DEPT. HD.
MTG. lo-a-o1 POLICY ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES CITY ATTY.
DEPT. PLN CITY MGR
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council ADOPT Resolution No. SC0 j - 305, adopting Council Policy Statement No.
, Wireless Communication Facilities, dated September 21, 2001; and ADOPT Resolution bq
No. @/ - 30 7 declaring its intention to consider amending Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code
to incorporate the guidelines contained in the Council Policy Statement on Wireless Communications
Facilities.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
Since the mid-1990s Carlsbad has processed dozens of applications for wireless communication
facilities, more commonly known as “cell sites” or “cellular antennas.” Wireless communication
facilities, or WCFs, refer to the many installations with antennas and supporting equipment that
receive and transmit signals and together enable mobile or other “wire-free” communication.
Despite the number of applications processed in the past and likely to be considered in the future,
the City has no specific review criteria for WCFs. The purpose of the attached policy is to provide
criteria to assist the public, applicants, and the City in reviewing the placement, construction, and
modification of WCFs. The goal of the policy is to assure WCFs in Carlsbad:
l Are reviewed and provided within the parameters of law.
l Are encouraged to locate away from residential and other sensitive areas, except in
limited circumstances.
l Represent the fewest possible facilities necessary to complete a network without
discriminating against providers of functionally equivalent services or prohibiting the
provision of wireless services.
l Use, as much as possible, “stealth” techniques so these facilities are not seen or easily noticed.
l Operate consistent with Carlsbad’s quality of life.
Staff has structured the attached policy into five parts: the purpose and goal of the policy; an overview on wireless communication system technology and features; review restrictions placed on
the city by federal law; health concerns and safeguards; and, finally, review and approval guidelines.
To prepare the policy, staff:
l Extensively researched the policies and ordinances of other cities, including the ordinance
recently considered by the City of Encinitas;
l Reviewed the applicable requirements and guidelines of the Federal Communications
Commission, including the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and a variety of literature on the subject of wireless communications, and;
l Reviewed a number of WCF applications processed in Carlsbad.
Two recommended resolutions are attached. The first resolution would adopt the proposed Council
Policy Statement. The second resolution would declare the City Council’s intention to consider
amending the zoning ordinance to incorporate the guidelines contained in the Policy. The
amendment is necessary to effectively administer the policy, carry out its intent and purpose, and
ensure its guidelines are communicated to the public, applicants, and the City. Should the City Council adopt the resolution of intention, staff will schedule the proposed amendment and policy for
public hearing before the Planning Commission and City Council.
I
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 16 I380
ENVIRONMENTAL:
The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under the general rule
provision of CEQA (Guidelines §I5061 (b)(3)). This provision states CEQA applies only to projects
having the potential to cause a significant effect on the environment. If adopted, the attached policy
does not have the potential to significantly affect the environment. Possible significant effects
associated with wireless communication facilities include appearance, noise, safety, and location
concerns. The policy has a number of built-in environmental protections to address these concerns,
such as complying with federal and local regulations, restricting maintenance hours, and thoroughly
screening, disguising, or hiding WCFs. Furthermore, this policy will not interfere with the separate,
site-specific environmental review that must be conducted for each proposed WCF.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Wireless communication facilities require staff review, public noticing, and public hearing of
conditional use permits and, in the coastal zone, coastal development permits. Accordingly, filing
and other fees are collected to partially offset city expenses. While it will not alter the review
process, adoption of this policy may have a positive fiscal impact because it will provide direction
and thus potentially reduce the time it takes to process these projects.
EXHIBITS:
1. Resolution NO. a00 I - 30s adopting Council Policy Statement No.
Communication Facilities, dated September 21, 2001.
b4 , Wireless
2. Resolution of Intention No.dOo/ - JO? declaring the intention to consider amending Title 21
of the Carlsbad Municipal Code to incorporate the guidelines contained in the Council Policy
Statement on Wireless Communications Facilities.
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-30 5
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTIING A POLICY
ESTABLISHING GUIDELINES FOR THE REVIEW OF
WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES.
WHEREAS, wireless communication facilities, or WCFs, refer to the many
antenna installations, commonly known as “cell sites,” that transmit and receive signals to
enable mobile phone, wireless Internet, and other “wire-free” communication and information
services; and
WHEREAS, since the mid-1990s the City of Carlsbad has processed dozens of
applications for WCFs; and
WHEREAS, as the popularity and variety of wireless services grow, and the
City’s population increases, additional WCFs are expected to be installed; and
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad has reviewed WCFs without the benefit of any
specific review criteria; and
WHEREAS, if not properly located and designed, WCFs can negatively affect the
City of Carlsbad’s quality of life; and
WHEREAS, the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 imposes restrictions on
the review of WCFs by local agencies; and
WHEREAS, in response to the need for review criteria that seeks to maintain
Carlsbad’s quality of life and is consistent with federal law, the Planning Department has
prepared a proposed policy establishing guidelines for the review of wireless communication
facilities; and
WHEREAS, based on the information and evidence presented at the public
meeting on this matter, the City Council finds:
1. That the policy is necessary and will guide the public, applicants, and the
City in reviewing the placement, construction, and modification of WCFs;
and
2. That the policy is consistent with the Telecommunications Act of 1996;
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
/ 17 :
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does
hereby resolve as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct; and
2. That City Council Policy Statement No. 64 , attached hereto and
incorporated herein, is hereby adopted.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the 2nd day of October 2001, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Finnila, Nygaard, Hall
NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Aember Kulchin
ATTEST: /+
-.UXf%VNE M. WO$ID, City Clerk
(SEAL)
_/
-2- 4-
I CITY OF CARLSBAD
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT
DATED: September 21, 2001
Page 1 of 9
Policy No. 64
Date Issued October 3, 2001
Effective Date October 3. 2001
Cancellation Date
Supersedes No.
3 General Subject: WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITI
Specific Subject: Review and operation guidelines for wireless communication facilities
I 1 Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department Heads and Division Heads, ;
Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
PURPOSE AND GOAL:
Wireless communication facilities, or WCFs, refer to the many facilities with antennas and sup.potting
equipment that receive and transmit signals and together enable mobile or other “wire-free”
communication and information services. Unlike ground-wired telecommunications, such as the land-
based telephone system, wireless communication technologies, by their operational nature, require a
network of antennas mounted at various heights and attached typically to buildings, structures and poles.
A common name for a WCF is “cell site.”
WCF proposals to the city became commonplace in the mid-1990s. Since then, Carlsbad has processed
dozens of new WCF applications and numerous permit renewals for existing facilities, all without benefit of
specific review criteria. As the City’s population and the popularity and variety of wireless services grow,
providers are expected to install more facilities to improve coverage and gain user capacity.
This policy’s purpose is to guide the public, applicants, boards and commissions, and staff in reviewing
the placement, construction, and modification of WCFs. The goal is to assure WCFs in Carlsbad:
. Are reviewed and provided within the parameters of law.
l Are encouraged to locate away from residential and other sensitive areas, except in limited
circumstances.
l Represent the fewest possible facilities necessary to complete a network without
discriminating against providers of functionally equivalent services or prohibiting the
provision of wireless services.
. Use, as much as possible, “stealth” techniques so they are not seen or easily noticed.
. Operate consistent with Carlsbad’s quality of life.
This policy applies to all commercial providers of wireless communication services. It does not apply to
amateur (HAM) radio antennas and dish and other antennas installed on a residence for an individual’s
private use.
BACKGROUND:
To secure the right to provide wireless services to a region, companies obtain airwave licenses that are
auctioned by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the federal agency that regulates the
telecommunications industry. The FCC mandates the licensees establish their service networks as
quickly as possible.
In Carlsbad, there are three common types of wireless communication systems: Cellular, PCS (Personal
Communications Services), and ESMR (Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio). The table below provides
the relevant similarities and differences between the three.
CITY OF CARLSBAD Page 2 of 9
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT
DATED: September 21, 2001
General Subject: WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES
Specific Subject: Review and operation guidelines for wireless communication facilities
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department Heads and Division Heads,
Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
ATTRIBUTES
Technology
Network Coverage
Frequency
Features
Transmission
Cell Size Radius
Antenna Types
Antenna Support
Supporting Equipment
Provider
Tab/e Notes
I SYSTEM
I I
Cellular I ESMR PCS 1
1 Analoa. convertina to diaital 1 Diaital
Analog: Established
Digital: Developing Developing
800 MHz 1900 MHz
Telephone, call waiting, voice mail, caller ID, paging, e-mail, and Internet access
(Notes: Analog cellular does not provide all of these features. ESMR also offers
dispatching and two-way radio. PCS also has video transmission ability.)
A network of interconnected WCFs carries signals across a city and beyond. Each
WCF contains antennas that transmit and receive signals over a small geographic
area known as a “cell.” As the user travels from one cell to another, the signal is passed from one WCF to another in the next cell.
1 Average 5 miles I 0 - 1 mile I
Dish, Panel (or sector), and Whip
Lattice towers, Monopoles, Building or Structure-Attached
In buildings generally under 500 square feet In cabinets about the size
of vending machines
Verizon, AT&T, Cingular
Wireless I Nextel I Sprint PCS
. More facilities may be needed to complete a PCS network since its higher operating frequency limits
the range of its antennas and consequently the size of its cells. . The antennas for all three systems function on a line of sight transmission. Antennas need to be
placed at specific heights in relation to one another in order to transmit and receive signals. As a
result, height is a determining factor in the design and location of WCFs. . Monopole antenna supports may be installed on buildings or on the ground.
. A single wireless communication facility may consist of two or more antennas and antennas of
different types. A facility may also include the antennas and supporting equipment of more than one
provider. This is known as “collocation.” Collocation also refers to a WCF placed together with utility
structures such as water tanks, light standards, and transmission towers.
. WCFs are usually unmanned and require maintenance visits once or twice each month
. This table is based on current information that is subject to change.
i
CITY OF CARLSBAD Page 3 of 9
Policy No. 64
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT Date Issued October 3, 2001
DATED: September 2 1, 2001 Effective Date October 3, 2001
Cancellation Date
Supersedes No.
General Subject: WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES
Specific Subject: Review and operation guidelines for wireless communication facilities
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department Heads and Division Heads,
Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
REVIEW RESTRICTIONS:
The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TCA) preserves the City’s ability to regulate the placement,
construction, and modification of wireless communication facilities subject to the following restrictions, as
contained in TCA Section 704.
0 The City may not favor any carrier.
Regulations may not unreasonably discriminate among competitive providers.
. The City may not prevent completion of a network.
Regulations may not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless
communication services.
. Applications are to be processed in a reasonable time.
A city must act on an application for vVCFs within a “reasonable” amount of time, roughly
the same time as for any similar application.
. The City cannot deny an application because of perceived radio frequency health
hazards.
If federal standards are met, cities may not deny permits or leases on the grounds that
radio frequency emissions are harmful to the environment or to the health of residents.
However, local governments may require wireless carriers to prove compliance with the
standards. The FCC has established procedures to enforce compliance with its rules.
0 A decision to deny an application must be supported by substantial evidence.
A decision to deny a WCF application must be in writing and supported by substantial
evidence contained in a written record.
n Air-touch Cellular v. Citv of El Cajon (9’” Cir. 2000) 83 F. Supp. 2d 1158, 1166, the court ruled that a city
nay consider factors such as community aesthetics and noise in regulating the placement, construction,
It- modification of WCFs.
iEALTH CONCERNS & SAFEGUARDS:
‘ossible health risks from exposure to the radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic fields generated by
rVCFs are a significant community concern. Accordingly, the FCC requires facilities to comply with RF
txposure guidelines published in the Code of Federal Regulations (see 47 CFR $1.1307 and 47 CFR
il.1310). The limits of exposure established by the guidelines are designed to protect the public health
with a very large margin of safety as they are many times below the levels that generally are accepted as
taving the potential to cause adverse health effects. Both the Environmental Protection Agency and Food
rnd Drug Administration have endorsed the FCC’s exposure limits, and courts have upheld the FCC rules
equiring compliance with the limits.
CITY OF CARLSBAD Page 4 of 9
Policy No. 64
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT Date Issued October 3, 2001
DATED: September 21,200l Effective Date October 3.2001
Cancellation Date
Supersedes No.
General Subject: WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES
I
Specific Subject: Review and operation guidelines for wireless communication facilities
I 1
s Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department Heads and Division Heads, ,
Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
Most WCFs create maximum exposures that are only a small fraction of the limits. Furthermore, because
the antennas in a PCS, cellular, or other wireless network must be in a line of sight arrangement to
effectively transmit, their power is focused on the horizon instead of toward the sky or ground. Generally,
unless a person is physically next to and at the same height as an antenna, it is not possible to be
exposed to the established limits for RF exposure.
The FCC requires providers, upon license application, renewal, or modification, to demonstrate
compliance with RF exposure guidelines. Where two or more wireless operators have located their
antennas at a common location (called “collocation”), the total exposure from all antennas taken together
must be within FCC guidelines. Many facilities are exempt from having to demonstrate compliance with
FCC guidelines, however, because their low power generation or height above ground level is highly
unlikely to cause exposures that exceed the guidelines.
REVIEW AND APPROVAL GUIDELINES:
Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.42.010(2)(J) allows accessory public and quasi-public buildings and
facilities, which include WCFs, in all zones with the approval of a conditional use permit (CUP). These
guidelines should be followed in the review of conditional use permits for new wireless facilities as well as
extensions and amendments to CUPS for existing installations.
I A. Location Guidelines
1. Preferred Locations - WCFs should locate on buildings and structures, not on vacant land.
In addition, WCFs should locate in the following zones and areas, which are listed in order
of descending preference:
E:
Industrial and public utility zones.
Commercial zones.
::
Public property (e.g., city facilities) not in residential areas.
Other non-residential zones, except open space.
e. Public utility installations (not publicly accessible) in residential and open space
zones (e.g., water tanks, existing lattice towers, reservoirs).
f. Parks and community facilities (e.g., places of worship, community centers) in
residential zones.
2. Discouraged Locations - WCFs should not locate in any of the following zones or areas
unless the applicant demonstrates no feasible alternative exists as required by Application
and Review Guideline D.2.
E:
Open space zones and lots (except as noted in Location Guideline A. 1.).
Residential zones. C. Major power transmission corridors next to a residential zone.
CITY OF CARLSBAD Page 5 of 9
Policy No. 64
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT Date Issued October 3, 2001
DATED: September 21, 2001 Effective Date October 3, 2001
Cancellation Date
Supersedes N,o.
General Subject: WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES
Specific Subject: Review and operation guidelines for wireless communication facilities
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department Heads and Division Heads,
Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
3.
d.
e.
Environmentally sensitive habitat.
On vacant land in any zone.
3. Visibility to the Public - In all areas, WCFs should locate where least visible to the public
and where least disruptive to the appearance of the host property. Furthermore, no WCF
should be installed on an exposed ridgeline or in a location readily visible from a public
place, recreation area, scenic area or corridor, or residential area unless it is satisfactorily
located and/or screened so it is hidden or disguised.
4. Collocation - Collocating with existing or other planned wireless communication facilities is
recommended whenever feasible. Service providers are also encouraged to collocate with
water tanks, major power transmission and distribution towers, and other utility structures
when in compliance with these guidelines.
5. Monopoles - No new ground-mounted monopoles should be permitted unless the applicant
demonstrates no existing monopole, building, or structure can accommodate the
applicant’s proposed antenna as required by Application and Review Guideline D.3.
Design Guidelines
1. Stealth Design - All aspects of a WCF, including the supports, antennas, screening
methods, and equipment should exhibit “stealth” design techniques so they visually blend
into the background or the surface on which they are mounted. Subject to City approval,
developers should use false architectural elements (e.g., cupolas, bell towers, dormers,
and chimneys), architectural treatments (e.g., colors and materials), elements replicating
natural features (e.g., trees and rocks), landscaping, and other creative means to hide or
disguise WCFs. Stealth can also refer to facilities completely hidden by existing
improvements, such as parapet walls.
2. Equipment - Equipment should be located within existing buildings to the extent feasible.
If equipment must be located outside, it should be screened with walls and plants. If small
outbuildings are constructed specifically to house equipment, they should be designed and
treated to match nearby architecture or the surrounding landscape.
3. Collocation - Whenever feasible and appropriate, WCF design and placement should,,
promote and enable collocation.
4. Height - WCFs should adhere to the existing height limitations of the zone in which they
are located.
CITY OF CARLSBAD Page 6 of 9
Policy No. 64
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT Date Issued October 3, 2001
DATED: September 21,200l Effective Date October 3, 2001
Cancellation Date
Supersedes No.
General Subject: WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES
Specific Subject: Review and operation guidelines for wireless communication facilities
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department Heads and Division Heads,
Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
5. Setbacks - WCFs, including all equipment, should adhere to the building setback
requirements of the zone in which they are located, with the following clarifications:
a. If on a site next to a residential zone, the WCF should be set back from the
residential zone boundary a minimum distance equal to the above-ground height of
the antenna.
b. If in a residential zone and in a public utility installation, park, or community facility,
the WCF should be set back from the property boundaries of the utility installation,
park, or community facility a minimum distance equal to the above-ground height of
the antenna. C. The Planning Commission may decrease or increase these setbacks if it finds such
changes would improve the overall compatibility of the WCF based on the factors
contained in Application and Review Guideline D.4.
6. Building or Structure-Mounted WCFs:
a. Antennas and their associated mountings should generally not project outward
more than 18 inches from the face of the building.
b. Roof-mounted antennas should be located as far away as possible from the outer
edge of a building or structure and should not be placed on roof peaks. C. If permitted, WCFs on residential buildings should only be allowed if disguised as a
typical residential feature (e.g., a chimney, a dormer) and if all equipment is located
inside, not outside, the building.
7. Ground-mounted Monopoles:
a. All antennas should be mounted as close as possible to the monopole to improve
facility appearance.
b. The placement, screening, and disguise of the monopole should fit with the
surrounding site design, architecture, and landscaping. Tree disguises, such as a
“mono-palm,” may be acceptable depending on their quality and compatibility with
landscaping nearby. C. Landscaping should be provided as necessary to screen, complement, or add
realism to a monopole. Landscaping should include mature shrubs and trees.
Some of the trees should be tall enough to screen at least three-quarters of the
height of the monopole at the time of planting. Sometimes, landscaping may not be
needed because of the monopole’s location or vegetation already nearby.
d. When possible and in compliance with these guidelines, monopoles should be
placed next to tall buildings, structures, or tall trees.
8. Lattice Towers
a. New lattice towers should not be permitted in the City.
C. Performance Guidelines
CITY OF CARLSBAD I Page 7 of 9
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT
DATED: September 21, 2001 1 igfi:;e FiiEz;: z
General Subject: WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES
Specific Subject: Review and operation guidelines for wireless communication facilities
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department Heads and Division Heads,
Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
b. On existing lattice towers, all antennas should be mounted as close as possible to
the tower so they are less noticeable.
9.
10.
Undergrounding - All utilities should be placed underground.
Regulatory Compliance - WCFs should comply with all FCC, FAA (Federal Aviation
Administration), and local zoning and building code requirements.
1. Noise - All equipment, such as emergency generators and air conditioners, should be
designed and operated consistent with the City noise standards.
2. Maintenance - All facilities, related equipment, and landscaping should be maintained in
good condition and free from trash, debris, graffiti, and any form of vandalism. All required
landscaping should be automatically irrigated. Damaged equipment and damaged, dead,
or decaying landscaping should be replaced promptly. Replacement of landscaping that
provides facility screening should be, as- much as possible, of similar size (including
height), type, and screening capability at the time of planting as the plant(s) being replaced.
3. Maintenance Hours - Except in an emergency posing an immediate public health and
safety threat, maintenance activities in or within 100 feet of a residential zone should only
occur between 7 AM (8 AM on Saturdays) and sunset. Maintenance should not take place
on Sundays or holidays.
4. Lighting - Security lighting should be kept to a minimum and should only be triggered by a
motion detector where practical.
5. Compliance with FCC RF Exposure Guidelines - Within six (6) months after the issuance
of occupancy, and with each time extension or amendment request, the developer/operator
should submit to the Plannin,g Director either verification that the WCF is categorically
excluded from having to determine compliance with the guidelines per 47 CFR
§l.l307(b)(l) or a project implementation report that provides cumulative field
measurements of radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic fields of all antennas installed at
the subject site. The report should quantify the RF emissions and compare the results with
currently accepted ANSI/IEEE standards as specified by the FCC. The Planning Director
should review the report for consistency with the project’s preliminary proposal report
submitted with the initial project application and the accepted ANSI/IEEE standards. If, on
review, the Planning Director finds the project does not meet ANSI/IEEE standards, the
City may revoke or modify the conditional use permit.
.
CITY OF CARLSBAD Page 8 of 9
Policy No. 64
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT Date Issued October 3. 2001
DATED: September 21, 2001 Effective Date October 3, 2001
Cancellation Date
Supersedes No.
General Subject: WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES
Specific Subject: Review and operation guidelines for wireless communication facilities
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department Heads and Division Heads,
Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
D. Application and Review Guidelines
6. Abandonment - Any WCF that is not operated for a continuous period of 180 days will be
considered abandoned. Within 90 days of receipt of notice from the City notifying the
owner of such abandonment, the WCF owner must remove the facility and restore the site,
as much as is reasonable and practical, to its prior condition. If such WCF is not removed
within the 90 days, the WCF will be considered a nuisance and in addition to any other
available remedy, will be subject to abatement under Chapter 6.16 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code. If there are two or more users of a single WCF, then this provision will not
become effective until all users stop using the WCF. The provider or owner must give
notice to the City of the intent to discontinue use of any facility before discontinuing the
use.
1. Besides the typical submittal requirements for a conditional use permit (including plans,
landscape details, and color and material samples, as appropriate), all WCF applications
should include the following items:
a. A description of the site selection process undertaken for the WCF proposed.
Coverage objectives and the reasons for selecting the proposed site and rejecting
other sites should be provided.
b. A description or map of the applicant’s existing and other proposed sites. C. A description of the wireless system proposed (e.g., cellular, PCS, etc.) and its
consumer features (e.g., voice, video, and data transmissions).
d. Verification that the proposed WCF will either comply with the FCC’s guidelines for
human exposure to radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic fields or will be
categorically excluded from having to determine compliance with the guidelines per
47 CFR $1,1307(b)(l). If WCFs are proposed for collocation, the verification must
show the total exposure from all facilities taken together meets the FCC guidelines
e. Color photo-simulation exhibits, prepared to scale, of the proposed WCF to show
what the project would look like at its proposed location and from surrounding
viewpoints. The Planning Director may waive the requirement to provide the
exhibits if he determines they are unnecessary.
2. For WCFs proposed in a zone or area that is a discouraged WCF location as listed in
Location Guideline A.2., the applicant should provide evidence that no location in a
preferred zone or area as listed in Location Guideline A.1. can accommodate the
applicant’s proposed facility. Evidence should document that preferred zone or area
locations do not meet engineering, coverage, location, or height requirements, or have
other unsuitable limitations.
CITY OF CARLSBAD Page 9 of 9
Policy No. 64
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT Date Issued October 3, 2001
DATED: September 21, 2001 Effective Date October 3, 2001
Cancellation Date
Supersedes No.
General Subject: WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES
Specific Subject: Review and operation guidelines for wireless communication facilities
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department Heads and Division Heads,
Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
3. For proposed new ground-mounted monopoles, the applicant should also provide evidence
to the City’s satisfaction that no existing monopole, building, structure, or WCF site
(“existing facility”) could accom’modate the proposal. Evidence should demonstrate any of
the following:
a. No existing facility is located within the geographic area or provides the height or
structural strength needed to meet the applicant’s engineering requirements.
b. The applicant’s proposed WCF would cause electromagnetic interference with the
existing antennae array or vice versa. C. The fees, costs, or contractual provisions required by the owner to locate on an
existing facility or to modify the same to enable location are unreasonable. Costs
exceeding new monopole development are presumed to be unreasonable.
d. The applicant demonstrates to the Planning Commission’s satisfaction that there
are other limiting factors that render an existing facility unsuitable.
4. In considering a Conditional Use Permit for a WCF, the Planning Commission should
consider the following factors:
Compliance with these guidelines.
;: Height and setbacks.
Proximity to residential uses.
:: The nature of uses on adjacent and nearby properties.
Surrounding topography and landscaping.
7 Quality and compatibility of design and screening.
9, Impacts on public views and the visual quality of the surrounding area.
h. Availability of other facilities and buildings for collocation.
5. Conditional Use Permits for WCFs should be granted for a period not to exceed five years.
Upon a request for either an extension or an amendment of a CUP, the WCF should be
reevaluated to assess the impact of the facility on adjacent properties, the record of
maintenance and performance with reference to the conditions of approval, and
consistency with these guidelines. Additionally, the City should review the appropriateness
of the existing facility’s technology, and the applicant should be required to document that
the WCF maintains the technology that is the smallest, most efficient, and least visible and
that there are not now more appropriate and available locations for the facility, such as the
opportunity to collocate or relocate to an existing building.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-307
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO
CONSIDER A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT INCORPORATING
THE CITY COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT ON WIRELESS
COMMUNICATION FACILITIES.
WHEREAS, wireless communication facilities, or WCFs, refer to the many
antenna installations, commonly known as “cell sites,” that transmit and receive signals to
enable mobile phone, wireless Internet, and other “wire-free” communication and information
services; and
WHEREAS, since the City of Carlsbad lacks any specific criteria for the review of
WCFs, the City Council has adopted a Council Policy Statement on Wireless Communication
Facilities; and
WHEREAS, to effectively administer this Policy Statement, carry out its intent
and purpose, and ensure its guidelines are communicated to the public, applicants, and to the
staff, boards, and commissions of the City, amendment of Title 21 (Zoning Ordinance) of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code to incorporate the Policy Statement is necessary; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad, California that:
A) The foregoing recitation are true and correct.
B) Pursuant to Section 2152.020 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, this City Council
hereby declares its intention to consider an amendment to Title 21 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code to incorporate the adopted Council Policy Statement on
Wireless Communication Facilities.
Cl The Planning Director is directed to prepare said zonecode amendment and set
the matter for public hearing before the Planning Commission and this City
Council.
/I/
//I
Ill
Ill
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 :
13
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the 2nd day of October 2001, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Finnila, Nygaard, Hall
NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Member Kulchin
ATTEST:/1
MRRAINlj M. WOOD, City Clerk
(SEAL) 1
-2-