Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-06-08; City Council; 17659; Council policy 64 revisionsCITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL @ AB# 17,659 MTG. 06/08/04 DEPT. CA TITLE: INTRODUCE AND ADOPT URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. NS--707 DISSOLVING THE MORATORIUM, INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE NO. NS-708 DISSOLVING THE MORATORIUM AND APPROVAL OF REVISIONS TO CITY COUNCIL POLICY NO. 64 ON WIRELESS COWMUNICATION FACILITIES DEPT. HD. CITY ATTY. RECOMMENDED ACTION: INTRODUCE AND ADOPT Urgency Ordinance No. Council, pursuant to Government Code sections 65858 and 36937, INTRODUCE Ordinance No. NS-707 , by a four-fifths vote of the City , REPEALING Ordinance Nos. NS-684 and NS-690 and ADOPT Resolution No. 2004- , ADOPTING the Report on Location of Wireless Communication Facilities in the Public Right- of-Way and approving the revisions to City Council Policy No. 64 on wireless communication facilities and directing staff to consider and return with recommendations for amendments to the Carlsbad Municipal Code and further changes to City Council Policy No. 64 to allow for the processing of wireless communication facilities in some preferred locations by administrative permit. NS.-708 182 ITEM EXPLANATION: At its meeting of December 9, 2003, the City Council introduced and adopted Urgency Ordinance No. NS- 684 prohibiting the issuance of permits for the placement of wireless communication facilities in the public right-of-way. That action was predicated upon the fact that the Planning Department had received two preliminary review applications to install wireless facilities in the public right-of-way. Since no wireless communication facilities had been located in the right-of-way previously and neither the Municipal Code nor City Council Policy No. 64 specifically addressed the issue of whether such facilities should be allowed in the public right-of-way, Council adopted an urgency ordinance to prohibit such facilities from locating within the right-of-way until the City had an opportunity to have staff study and return with recommendations regarding construction of wireless communication facilities in the public-right-of-way. Considerations included the state of the law with regard to the right of wireless providers to locate in the public right-of-way, minimization of safety hazards to pedestrians and automobile traffic as well as adjacent properties, aesthetic concerns, and the necessity and/or desirability of location of such facilities within the public right-of-way where other sites within the City are available. During the moratorium, the City Council directed that the City continue to process applications for wireless communication facilities in the public right-of-way and only prohibit actual issuance of the permit for location therein pending the outcome of the staff study and recommendations. On January 20, 2004, the City Council extended the urgency ordinance for up to an additional ten months and fifteen days and authorized the funding for retention of telecommunication experts’ assistance in formulating the proposed policy and recommendations. Thereafter, on April 14, 2004, the City held a public workshop seeking comment from the public and wireless communication providers in the area on all considerations relevant to location of wireless facilities within the public right-of-way. CompComm, Inc., the City’s engineering consultant, developed and Completed propagation studies that show a “typical coverage radius” from a theoretical WCF public right-of-way site for three different scenarios. After careful consideration of the insights gained from the public workshop, review of guidelines and ordinances of other jurisdictions, and technical studies completed by the City’s telecommunications consultants, staff formulated its recommendations for revision of City Council Policy No. 64 attached as Exhibit 5. The major revisions occur on pages four, five, seven and eight as shown on a strikeouthnderlined version of the Policy attached as Exhibit 6. The proposed revisions would provide for PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 17,659 location of wireless communication facilities within the public right-of-way, and identify the priority of preferences with regard to location in the public right-of-way on designated roadways shown on the Circulation Plan contained in the Circulation Element of the City’s General Plan. The recommendation for location of wireless communication facilities on Circulation Element roadways is based upon input from CompComm, Inc., the City’s technical advisor, which concluded that location of such facilities within the public right-of-way only on Circulation Element roadways would provide coverage throughout the City. Guidelines for location and design of wireless communication facilities in the public right-of-way are addressed in the attached Report on Location of Wireless Facilities in the Public Right-of- Way (Exhibit 7). Staff is proposing that accommodation of wireless facilities in the public right-of-way be accomplished by the revisions to City Council Policy No. 64 regarding Wireless Communication Facilities. Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.42 currently provides for location of wireless communication facilities in any zone with a Conditional Use Permit. Typically the public right-of-way is deemed to be zoned in accordance with adjacent property, if not otherwise specified. Staff is also recommending that consideration be given to amending the Municipal Code to provide that the location of stealth wireless communication facilities in some preferred locations pursuant to City Council Policy No. 64 be allowed by administrative permit, without the necessity for a conditional use permit. This could apply to location of such facilities in the public right-of-way as well, where appropriate. The attached resolution includes a provision directing staff to consider and retum with recommendations for amendments to the Carlsbad Municipal Code and City Council Policy No. 64 to allow for the processing of wireless communication facilities in some preferred locations by administrative permit. Since the City Council is taking action regarding staffs’ report and recommendations, including a determination that potential development of wireless communication facilities in the public right-of-way no longer presents a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety and welfare, Urgency Ordinances No. NS-684 and NS-690 can now be repealed. In order for their repeal to take effect immediately, allowing wireless communication facilities to locate in the public right-of-way in preferred locations which minimize safety hazards to pedestrians and automobile traffic, adjacent property, and aesthetic concerns, while providing necessary and desirable coverage and capacity for wireless communication carriers, it is recommended that a new urgency ordinance be adopted to make the dissolution of the moratorium effective immediately. (Exhibit 1 .) The urgency ordinance providing for immediate repeal of the moratorium on issuance of permits for wireless communication facilities in the public right-of-way requires a four-fifths vote of the City Council for approval. Unless extended, this urgency ordinance shall be of no further force and effect forty-five (45) days from its adoption, by which time it is anticipated that the accompanying ordinance dissolving the moratorium which is simultaneously being introduced (Exhibit 2), will have been adopted and become effective. Notice of the public hearing for adoption of an ordinance repealing the moratorium on issuance of permits for location of wireless communication facilities in the public right-of-way (Exhibit 4), included notice of issuance of the Report on Location of Wireless Communications Facilities in the Public Right-of-way, available for review in the offices of the Planning Department. Each of the five local wireless communication providers was also simultaneously mailed a copy of the Report on Location of Wireless Communication Facilities in the Public Rightaf-Way. FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed amendments to City Council Policy No. 64 would encourage location of wireless communication facilities in the public right-of-way on existing structures such as light poles. All light poles within the City are property owned by the City and facilities located thereon would be required to pay fees PAGE 3 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 17,659 to the City as the property owner. Location on non-City-owned structures and new installations would require payment of a right-of-way permit fee. It is difficult to estimate at this time how many providers will be seeking to locate in the public right-of-way and on City facilities. Providers locating in the public right- of-way on existing structures or with new installations will be required to pay all costs of installation, modification to existing structures or utilities, and for repair of the right-of-way upon removal of facilities and accessory equipment. ENVl RON MENTAL REVIEW: The immediate repeal of the urgency ordinance and amendments to City Council Policy No. 64 regarding location of wireless communication facilities within the public right-of-way are exempt from environmental review pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Section 15061(b)(3) in that it, can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the repeal of Ordinances No. NS-684 and NS-690 and revisions to City Council Policy No. 64, may have a significant effect on the environment. Site specific applications for location in the public right-of-way will undergo additional environmental review at the time of their consideration. EXHl BITS: 1. Urgency Ordinance No. NS-707 2. Ordinance No. NS- 708 3. 4. Notice of Public Hearing 5. 6. 7. City Council Resolution No. 2004- 182 Revised City Council Policy No. 64 Strikeouffunderlined version of revisions to City Council Policy No. 64 Report on Location of Wireless Communication Facilities in the Public Rightof-Way. Department Contact: Ronald R. Ball, 434-2891 3 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 ORDINANCE NO. NS-707 AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING URGENCY PERMITS FOR THE PLACEMENT OF WIRELESS ORDINANCE NO. NS-684 PROHIBITING THE ISSUANCE OF COMMUNICATION FACILITIES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF- WAY AND REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. NS-690 WHICH EXTENDED ORDINANCE NO. NS-684. WHEREAS, on December 9, 2003, the City Council approved an urgency ordinance prohibiting the issuance of permits for the placement of wireless communication facilities in the public right-of-way and adopted Resolution No. 2003-321 declaring the City Council’s intention to have staff study and recommend revisions to the Municipal Code and Council Policy No. 64 regarding the placement of wireless communication facilities in the public right-of-way; and WHEREAS, at the City Council meeting of January 20, 2004, the City Council extended Urgency Ordinance No. NS-684 with Urgency Ordinance No. NS-690 and authorized funding for retention of telecommunications consultants to assist in the study of placement of wireless communication facilities in the public right-of-way (Resolution No. 2003-351); and WHEREAS, the City Council directed staff to consider all relevant issues in formulating its recommendations to the City Council, including the desire to have adequate wireless communication services provided in the City which are designed and located to minimize safety and aesthetic concerns; and WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad held a public workshop on April 14, 2004, inviting public input and specifically input from wireless communication providers in San Diego County with regard to the issue of location of wireless communication facilities in the public right-of-way; and WHEREAS, the City’s engineering consultant has completed its propagation studies with regard to the feasibility of coverage and capacity for wireless communication carriers located in the public right-of-way; and 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 WHEREAS, staff subsequently prepared a Report on the Location of Wireless Communication Facilities in the Public Right-of-way with recommended revisions to City Council Policy No. 64 on Wireless Communication Facilities; and WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing for adoption of an ordinance repealing the moratorium on issuance of permits for location of wireless communication facilities in the public right-of-way and recommended revisions to City Council Policy No. 64 was included in the notice of issuance of the Report on Location of Wireless Communication Facilities in the Public Right-of-way, both available for review in the offices of the Planning Department; and WHEREAS, each of the five local wireless communication cell providers was mailed a copy of the Report on Location of Wireless Communication Facilities in the Public Right-of-way; and WHEREAS, the City Council has taken action regarding the staffs’ report and recommendations and has determined that potential development of wireless communication facilities in the public right-of-way no longer presents a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, immediately allowing for the issuance of permits for wireless communication facilities in the public right-of-way in preferred locations will minimize safety hazards to pedestrians and automobile traffic, adjacent property, and aesthetic concerns, while providing necessary and desirable coverage and capacity for wireless communication carriers; and WHEREAS, the immediate repeal of Urgency Ordinance NS-690 and its extension by Ordinance No. NS-684, is necessary to preserve the public health, safety, and welfare by allowing issuance of permits for location of wireless communication facilities in the public right-of-way where appropriate, in accordance with the recommended revisions to Council Policy No. 64, based upon staffs’ study and recommendations during the moratorium. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California does ordain as follows: Ordinance No. NS-707 PAGE -2- 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 1. 2. 684 and NS-690. That the above recitals are true and correct. That this ordinance hereby repeals in their entirety Ordinance Nos. NS- EFFECTIVE DATE: This urgency ordinance shall be effective immediately upon passage and shall remain in full forces and effect for forty-five (45) days from its date of adoption, unless the City Council extends the interim ordinance pursuant to Government Code section 65858(a). INTRODUCED, PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City Council on the 8th day of Juns , of 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: None Council Members Lewis, Finnila, Kulchin, Hall and Packard ABSENT: None APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY n RONALD R. BALL, City Attorne CLAUDE Oh(E A. LEW ,S, ayor ATTEST: SEAL Ordinance No. NS-707 PAGE -3- 6 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 ORDINANCE NO. NS-708 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING URGENCY PERMITS FOR THE PLACEMENT OF WIRELESS ORDINANCE NO. NS-684 PROHIBITING THE ISSUANCE OF COMMUNICATION FACILITIES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF- WAY AND REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. NS-690 WHICH EXTENDED ORDINANCE NO. NS-684. WHEREAS, on December 9, 2003, the City Council approved an urgency ordinance prohibiting the issuance of permits for the placement of wireless communication facilities in the public right-of-way and adopted Resolution No. 2003-321 declaring the City Council’s intention to have staff study and recommend revisions to the Municipal Code and Council Policy No. 64 regarding the placement of wireless communication facilities in the public right-of-way; and WHEREAS, at the City Council meeting of January 20, 2004, the City Council extended Urgency Ordinance No. NS-684 with Urgency Ordinance No. NS-690 and authorized funding for retention of telecommunications consultants to assist in the study of placement of wireless communication facilities in the public right-of-way (Resolution No. 2003-351); and WHEREAS, the City Council directed staff to consider all relevant issues in formulating its recommendations to the City Council, including the desire to have adequate wireless communication services provided in the City which are designed and located to minimize safety and aesthetic concerns; and WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad held a public workshop on April 14, 2004, inviting public input and specifically input from wireless communication providers in San Diego County with regard to the issue of location of wireless communication facilities in the public right-of-way; and WHEREAS, the City’s engineering consultant has completed its propagation studies with regard to the feasibility of coverage and capacity for wireless communication carriers located in the public right-of-way; and 3 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 WHEREAS, staff subsequently prepared a Report on the Location of Wireless Communication Facilities in the Public Right-of-way with recommended revisions to City Council Policy No. 64 on Wireless Communication Facilities; and WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing for adoption of an ordinance repealing the moratorium on issuance of permits for location of wireless communication facilities in the public right-of-way and recommended revisions to City Council Policy No. 64 was included in the notice of issuance of the Report on Location of Wireless Communication Facilities in the Public Right-of-way, both available for review in the offices of the Planning Department; and WHEREAS, each of the five local wireless communication cell providers was mailed a copy of the Report on Location of Wireless Communication Facilities in the Public Right-of-way; and WHEREAS, the City Council has taken action regarding the staffs' report and recommendations and has determined that potential development of wireless communication facilities in the public right-of-way no longer presents a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety and welfare, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California does ordain as follows: 1. 2. 684 and NS-690. That the above recitals are true and correct. That this ordinance hereby repeals in their entirety Ordinance Nos. NS- EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty (30) days after its adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad within fifteen (15) days after its adoption. Ill ill Ordinance No. NS-708 PAGE -2- 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 INTRODUCED, AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City Council on the 1 day of June , of 2004, and thereafter PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the day of AYES: NOES: ABSENT: , 2004, by the following vote, to wit: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY RONALD R. BALL, City Attorney CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor ATTEST: LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk SEAL Ordinance No. NS-708 PAGE -3- 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. 2004 - 182 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE REPORT ON THE LOCATION OF WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES IN THE COUNCIL POLICY NO. 64, AND DIRECTING STAFF ON FURTHER ACTION ON AMENDMENTS TO THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE AND CITY COUNCIL POLICY NO. 64 PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AND APPROVING REVISIONS TO CITY WHEREAS, on December 9, 2003, City Council approved an urgency ordinance prohibiting the issuance of permits for the placement of wireless communication facilities in the public right-of-way and adopted Resolution No. 2003-321 declaring the City Council’s intention to have staff study and recommend revisions to the Municipal Code and Council Policy No. 64 regarding the placement of wireless communication facilities in the public right-of-way; and WHEREAS, at the City Council meeting of January 20, 2004, the City Council extended Urgency Ordinance No. NS-684 with Urgency Ordinance No. NS-690 and authorized the funding for retention of telecommunications consultants to assist in the study of placement of wireless communication facilities in the public right-of-way (Resolution No. 2003-351); and WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad held a public workshop on April 14, 2004, inviting public input and specifically input from wireless communication providers in San Diego County with regard to the issue of location of wireless communication facilities in the public right-of-way; and WHEREAS, the City’s engineering consultant has completed its propagation studies with regard to the feasibility of coverage and capacity for wireless communication carriers located in the public right-of-way; and WHEREAS, staff subsequently prepared a Report on the Location of Wireless Communication Facilities in the Public Right-of-way with recommended revisions to City Council Policy No. 64 on Wireless Communication Facilities, WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing for adoption of an ordinance repealing the moratorium on issuance of permits for location of wireless communication facilities in the public right-of-way and recommended revisions to City Council Policy No. 64 included notice of 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 issuance of the Report on Location of Wireless Communication Facilities in the Right-of-way, available for review in the ofices of the Planning Department; and WHEREAS, each of the five local wireless communication cell providers was mailed a copy of the Report on Location of Wireless Communication Facilities in the Public Rig ht-of-Way. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct; 2. That the Report on the location of Wireless Communication Facilities in the Public Right-of-way is hereby adopted. 3. That the proposed revisions to Policy 64 regarding Wireless Communication Facilities are hereby approved. 4. That staff is directed to consider and return with recommendations for amendments to the Carlsbad Municipal Code and City Council Policy No. 64 to allow for processing wireless communication facilities in preferred locations by administrative permit. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad held on the 8th day of June , 2004 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Lewis, Finnila, Kulchin, Hall and Packard NOES: None A ATTEST: n LORRAINE M. W~D, City Cler (SEAL) Resolution No. 2004-182 PAGE -2- EXHIBIT 4 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO p.m. on Tuesday, June 8, 2004, to consider repealing an Urgency Ordinance prohibiting the issuance of permits for the placement of wireless communication facilities in the public right-of-way, adopting the Report on the location of wireless communication facilities in the Public Right-of-way and approving revisions to the City Council Policy No. 64 regarding Wireless Communication Facilities. Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the Report are available in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008 and copies of the agenda bill will be available on and after June 4,2004. If you have any questions, please call Gary Barberio in the Planning Department at (760) 602- 4606. The time within which you may judicially challenge this extension of the urgency ordinance, if approved, is established by state law and/or city ordinance, and is very short. If you challenge the urgency ordinance in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing. CASE NAME: Repealing Urgency Ordinance prohibiting the issuance of permits for the placement of wireless communication facilities in the public right-of-way PUBLISH: North County Times: May 28,2004 Union-Tribune: May 28,2004 CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL CITY OF CARLSBAD COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT DATED: September 21,2001 General Subject: WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILIT EXHIBIT 5 Page 1 of 10 Policy No. 64 Date Issued Effective Date Cancellation Date Supersedes No. 3 I Specific Subject: Review and operation guidelines for wireless communication facilities I 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 supporting 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: 0 Are reviewed and provided within the parameters of law. 0 Are encouraged to locate away from residential and other sensitive areas, except as allowed by Section A. of this policy - Location Guidelines for the Placement of WCFs. 0 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. 0 0 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 10 Policy No. 64 Date Issued Effective Date Cancellation Date Supersedes No. - COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT I DATED: September 21,2001 Technology ~ General Subject: WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACIL17 Cellular ESMR PCS Analog, converting to digital Digital Network 'Overage Frequency 1 Specific Subject: Review and operation guidelines for wireless communication facilities Analog: Established Developing Digital: Developing 800 MHz 1900 MHz Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department Heads and Division Heads, Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File , L i SYSTEM I ATTRIBUTES I Features 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.) Transmission Cell Size Radius Antenna Types Antenna Support 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. Average 5 miles 0 - 1 mile Dish, Panel (or sector), and Whip Lattice towers, Monopoles, Building or Structure-Attached I In structures generally under 500 square feet Supporting Equipment Provider Nextel Verizon, AT&T, Cingular Wireless In cabinets about the size of vending machines Sprint PCS Table Notes More facilities may be needed to complete a PCS network since its higher operating frequency limits The antennas for all three systems function on a line of sight transmission. 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 the range of its antennas and consequently the size of its cells. 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. 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. CITY OF CARLSBAD COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT DATED: September 21,2001 Page 3 of 10 Policy No. 64 Date Issued Effective Date Cancellation Date I 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 WCFs 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. 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. 0 0 0 0 In Airtouch Cellular v. City of El Caion (gth Cir. 2000) 83 F. Supp. 2d 1158, 1166, the court ruled that a city may consider factors such as community aesthetics and noise in regulating the placement, construction, or modification of WCFs. HEALTH CONCERNS & SAFEGUARDS: Possible health risks from exposure to the radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic fields generated by WCFs are a significant community concern. Accordingly, the FCC requires facilities to comply with RF exposure guidelines published in the Code of Federal Regulations (see 47 CFR 51.1307 and 47 CFR §1.1310). 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 having the potential to cause adverse health effects. Both the Environmental Protection Agency and Food and Drug Administration have endorsed the FCC’s exposure limits, and courts have upheld the FCC rules requiring compliance with the limits. CITY OF CARLSBAD COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT DATED: September 21 , 2001 General Subject: WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FAClLlT Page 4 of 10 Policy No. 64 Date Issued Effective Date Cance Hat ion Date Supersedes No. :c 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 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(16) allows WCFs in all zones with the approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) and subject to this policy. 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. A. Location Guidelines For Placement of WCFs 1. Preferred Locations - WCFs are encouraged to locate on existing buildings and structures. In addition, WCFs should locate in the following zones and areas, which are listed in order of descending preference: a. Industrial zones. b. Commercial zones. C. d. Other non-residential zones, except open space. Public right-of-way of roads adjacent to industrial and commercial zones and identified on the Circulation Plan contained in the Circulation Element of the city’s General Plan. Public property (e.g., city facilities) not in residential areas. Major power transmission towers in non-residential zones or areas. Public and private utility installations (not publicly accessible) in residential and open space zones (e.g., water tanks, reservoirs, or the existing communication towers near Maerkle Reservoir). Parks and community facilities (e.g., places of worship, community centers) in residential zones or areas. Public right-of-way of roads adjacent to residential zones and identified on the Circulation Plan contained in the Circulation Element of the city’s General Plan. e. f. g. h. i. 3 General Subject: WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT DATED: September 21,2001 Policy No. 64 Date Issued Effective Date Cancellation Date Specific Subject: Review and operation guidelines for wireless communication facilities I Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department Heads and Division Heads, Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File B. 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. a. b. C. d. Environmentally sensitive habitat. e. f. On vacant land. Open space zones and lots (except as noted in Location Guideline A.l .). Residential zones or areas (except as noted in Location Guideline A.l). Major power transmission towers in corridors located in/or next to a residential zone or area. Public right-of-way of roads not identified on the Circulation Plan contained in the Circulation Element of the city’s General Plan. 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 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. CITY OF CARLSBAD COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT DATED: September 21,2001 General Subject: WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FAClLlT Page 6 of 10 Policy No. 64 Date Issued Effective Date Cancellation Date Supersedes No. ES 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 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. 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. 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. 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. b. c. 6. Building or Structure-Mounted WCFs: a. b. C. Antennas and their associated mountings should generally not project outward more than 18 inches from the face of the building. 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. 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. CITY OF CARLSBAD COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT DATED: September 21 , 2001 Page 7 of 10 General Subject: WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FAClLlT Policy No. Date Issued Effective Date Cancellation Date 'IES 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 8. 9. IO. 11. 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. When possible and in compliance with these guidelines, monopoles should be placed next to tall buildings, structures, or tall trees. d. Lattice Towers a. b. New lattice towers should not be permitted in the City. On existing lattice towers, all antennas should be mounted as close as possible to the tower so they are less noticeable. 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. WCFs in Public Right-of- Way a. Antennas for facilities shall be attached to existing poles (e.g. street lights), substantially similar replacement poles in the same location, or vertical structures already located in the right-of-way. The installation of new poles or vertical structures shall only be permitted if it can be demonstrated that a new pole or structure is essential to providing coverage. The antenna assembly may not exceed the height of the existing pole. The use of an existing pole, replacement pole or other existing vertical structure shall require the authorization of the owner of the pole or structure. If a city street light or other city-owned structure is used, fees shall be paid to the city as the owner. If a private pole or structure is used, a right-of-way permit shall be obtained from the city. Panel antennas shall be vertically mounted to a pole or structure in compliance with any applicable separation requirements and shall not exceed eight-inches in distance from the pole to the front side of the panel. No more than four Panel Antennas or two omni-directional Antennas shall be mounted on any utility pole or structure by any one provider. Antennas shall be painted to match the color of the surface of the pole on which they are attached or shall otherwise be screened to reduce their visibility. All other equipment associated with the facility shall be placed underground wherever possible. If it can be demonstrated that complete undergrounding of associated equipment is not possible or preferable, landscaping or other screening b. c. d. e. f. g. CITY OF CARLSBAD COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT DATED: September 21 , 2001 Page 8 of 10 General Subject: WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FAClLlT Policy No. Date Issued Effective Date Cancellation Date 'IES s Su ersedes No. 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 C. techniques shall be considered. All equipment not placed underground shall be setback at least 2.5 feet from the back of the curb. All equipment associated with the facility shall be located so as to minimize impacts to pedestrian access and vehicular site distance and safety. h. Performance Guidelines 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@) 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 Planning Director either verification that the WCF is categorically excluded from having to determine compliance with the guidelines per 47 CFR $1 .I 307(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 ANSVIEEE 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 ANSMEEE standards. If, on review, the Planning Director finds the project does not meet ANSVIEEE standards, the City may revoke or modify the conditional use permit. 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 COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT DATED: September 21,2001 General Subject: WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FAClLlT Policy No. Date Issued Effective Date Cancellation Date ’IES Specific Subject: Review and operation guidelines for wireless communication facilities I Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department Heads and Division Heads, Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File D. 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. Application and Review Guidelines 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. A description or map of the applicant‘s existing and other proposed sites. A description of the wireless system proposed (e.g., cellular, PCS, etc.) and its consumer features (e.g., voice, video, and data transmissions). 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 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. b. c. d. e. 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.l. 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. 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 CITY OF CARLSBAD COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT DATED: September 21,2001 I Policy No. 64 Date Issued Effective Date Cancellation Date Supersedes No. ‘Q .3 General Subject: Specific Subject: W I RE LES S CO M M U N I CAT ION FAC I L I1 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 (“existing facility”) could accommodate 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. The applicant demonstrates to the Planning Commission’s satisfaction that there are other limiting factors that render an existing facility unsuitable. d. 4. In considering a Conditional Use Permit for a WCF, the Planning Commission should consider the following factors: a. Compliance with these guidelines. b. Height and setbacks. C. Proximity to residential uses. d. e. Surrounding topography and landscaping. f. g. h. The nature of uses on adjacent and nearby properties. Quality and compatibility of design and screening. Impacts on public views and the visual quality of the surrounding area. 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. EXHIBIT 6 CITY OF CARLSBAD Page 1 of 10 COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT DATED: September 21,2001 General Subject: WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FAClLlT Policy No. 64 Date Issued Effective Date Cancellation Date Supersedes No. ES 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 PURPOSE AND GOAL: Wireless communication facilities, or WCFs, refer to the many facilities with antennas and supporting 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: .. 0 Are reviewed and provided within the parameters of law. 0 Are encouraged to locate away from residential and other sensitive areas, except iwltmkd as allowed by Section A. of this policy - Location Guidelines for the Placement of WCFs. 0 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. 0 0 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 COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT DATED: September 21,2001 Page 2 of 10 Policy No. 64 Date Issued Effective Date Cancellation Date I Supersedes No. General Subject: WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES I 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 SYSTEM ATTRIBUTES I Cellular I ESMR I PCS Technology I Analog, converting to digital I Digital Developing Analog: Established Network 'Overage I Digital: Developing Freauencv I 800 MHz I 1900 MHz Features Transmission Cell Size Radius 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. Average 5 miles 0 - 1 mile Antenna Types Antenna Support Dish, Panel (or sector), and Whip Lattice towers, Monopoles, Building or Structure-Attached Supporting Equipment feet of vending machines In tx&Mgs structures generally under 500 square In cabinets about the size Verizon, AT&T, Cingular Wireless Provider Nextel Sprint PCS Table Notes 0 More facilities may be needed to complete a PCS network since its higher operating frequency limits The antennas for all three systems function on a line of sight transmission. 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 the range of its antennas and consequently the size of its cells. 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. 0 0 0 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. CITY OF CARLSBAD COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT DATED: September 21 , 2001 Page 3 of 10 Policy No. 64 Date Issued Effective Date Cancellation Date I Supersedes No. General Subject: WIRE LESS CO M M U N I CAT1 0 N FAC I LIT I E S 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. e e 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 WCFs 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. 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. e e e In Airtouch Cellular v. City of El Caion (gth Cir. 2000) 83 F. Supp. 2d 1158, 1166, the court ruled that a city may consider factors such as community aesthetics and noise in regulating the placement, construction, or modification of WCFs. HEALTH CONCERNS & SAFEGUARDS: Possible health risks from exposure to the radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic fields generated by WCFs are a significant community concern. Accordingly, the FCC requires facilities to comply with RF exposure guidelines published in the Code of Federal Regulations (see 47 CFR 91.1307 and 47 CFR §1.1310). 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 having the potential to cause adverse health effects. Both the Environmental Protection Agency and Food and Drug Administration have endorsed the FCC’s exposure limits, and courts have upheld the FCC rules requiring compliance with the limits. CITY OF CARLSBAD COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT DATED: September 21,2001 General Subject: WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILIT Page 4 of 10 Policy No. 64 Date Issued Effective Date Cancellation Date Supersedes No. is 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 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(16) allows WCFs in all zones with the approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) and subject to this policy. 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. A. Location Guidelines For Placement of WCFs 1. Preferred Locations - WCFs are encouraqed to &wId locate on existinq buildings and structures, -. In addition, WCFs should locate in the following zones and areas, which are listed in order of descending preference: a. Industrial zones. b. Commercial zones. - c.4 Other non-residential zones, except open space. d. Public riqht-of-wav of roads adiacent to industrial and commercial zones and identified on the Circulation Plan contained in the Circulation Element of the citv’s General Plan. Public property (e.g., city facilities) not in residential areas. . .. - e.& Major power transmission towers in non-residential zones or areas. Public and private utility installations (not publicly accessible) in residential and open space zones (e.g., water tanks, reservoirs, or the existing communication towers near Maerkle Reservoir). Parks and community facilities (e.g., places of worship, community centers) in residential zones or areas. - h.+ i. Public riqht-of-wav of roads adiacent to residential zones and identified on the Circulation Plan contained in the Circulation Element of the citv’s General Plan. COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT DATED: September 21,2001 Policy No. 64 Date Issued Effective Date Cancellation Date I Supersedes No. General Subject: WIRE LESS CO M M U N I CAT1 0 N FAC I LIT I E S Specific Subject: Review and operation guidelines for wireless communication facilities I Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department Heads and Division Heads, Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File 3. 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. a. b. C. d. Environmentally sensitive habitat. Open space zones and lots (except as noted in Location Guideline A.1.). Residential zones or areas (except as noted in Location Guideline A.1). Major power transmission towers in corridors located in/or next to a residential zone or area. e. mn -.Public riqht-of-wav of roads not identified on the Circulation Plan contained in the Circulation Element of the city’s General Plan. f. On vacant land. 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 ewawdw * , 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. CITY OF CARLSBAD COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT DATED: September 21,2001 General Subject: WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILIT Page 6 of 10 Policy No. 64 Date Issued Effective Date Cancellation Date is ; 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 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. 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. 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. 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. b. c. 6. Building or Structure-Mounted WCFs: a. b. C. Antennas and their associated mountings should generally not project outward more than 18 inches from the face of the building. 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. 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. b. All antennas should be mounted as close as possible to the monopole to improve facility appearance. 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. CITY OF CARLSBAD COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT DATED: September 21,2001 Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department Heads and Division Heads, Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File page 7 of IO I Policy No. 64 Date Issued Effective Date Cancellation Date Supersedes No. a. 9. IO. 71. 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. When possible and in compliance with these guidelines, monopoles should be placed next to tall buildings, structures, or tall trees. d. Lattice Towers a. b. New lattice towers should not be permitted in the City. On existing lattice towers, all antennas should be mounted as close as possible to the tower so they are less noticeable. 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. WCFs in Public Riuht-of- Wav a. Antennas for facilities shall be attached to existinq poles (ea street IinhtsL substantiallv similar replacement poles in the same location, or vertical structures alreadv located in the riqht-of-wav. The installation of new Doles or vertical structures shall onlv be permitted if it can be demonstrated that a new pole or structure is essential to providinq coveraqe. The antenna assemblv may not exceed the heiqht of the existinq Dole. The use of an existinq pole, replacement pole or other existinq vertical structure shall require the authorization of the owner of the pole or structure. If a citv street liqht or other city-owned structure is used, fees shall be paid to the citv as the owner. If a private pole or structure is used, a riqht-of-way permit shall be obtained from the citv. Panel antennas shall be verticallv mounted to a pole or structure in compliance with any applicable separation requirements and shall not exceed eiqht-inches in distance from the pole to the front side of the panel. e. No more than four Panel Antennas or two omni-directional Antennas shall be mounted on any utilitv pole or structure bv anv one provider. f. Antennas shall be painted to match the color of the surface of the pole on which thev are attached or shall otherwise be screened to reduce their visibilitv. 9. wherever possible. If it can be demonstrated that complete underqroundinq of associated equipment is not possible or preferable, landscapinq or other screeninq b. C. d. All other equipment associated with the facilitv shall be placed underqround CITY OF CARLSBAD Policy No. Date Issued Effective Date Cancellation Date General Subject: WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES e Su ersedes No. COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT DATED: September 21,2001 Page 8 of 10 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 C. techniques shall be considered. All equipment not placed underqround shall be setback at least 2.5 feet from the back of the curb. All equipment associated with the facility shall be located so as to minimize impacts to Dedestrian access and vehicular site distance and safety. h. Performance Guidelines 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 Planning Director either verification that the WCF is categorically excluded from having to determine compliance with the guidelines per 47 CFR §1.1307(b)( 1 ) 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 ANSIAEEE 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 ANSIAEEE standards. If, on review, the Planning Director finds the project does not meet ANSIAEEE standards, the City may revoke or modify the conditional use permit. 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 3.d CITY OF CARLSBAD COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT DATED: September 21,2001 Page 9 of 10 Policy No. 64 Date Issued Effective Date Cancellation Date I Supersedes No. General Subject: W I RE LESS CO MM U N I CAT1 0 N FAC I LIT I ES 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. 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. Application and Review Guidelines 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. A description or map of the applicant’s existing and other proposed sites. A description of the wireless system proposed (e.g., cellular, PCS, etc.) and its consumer features (e.g., voice, video, and data transmissions). 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 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. b. c. d. e. 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. 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 CITY OF CARLSBAD COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT DATED: September 21,2001 ; General Subject: WIRE LESS COMMUNI CATION FACl LIT1 ES Page 10 of 10 Policy No. 64 Date Issued Effective Date Cancellation Date Specific Subject: Review and operation guidelines for wireless communication facilities I Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department Heads and Division Heads, Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File (“existing facility”) could accommodate 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. The applicant demonstrates to the Planning Commission’s satisfaction that there are other limiting factors that render an existing facility unsuitable. d. 4. In considering a Conditional Use Permit for a WCF, the Planning Commission should consider the following factors: a. Compliance with these guidelines. b. Height and setbacks. C. Proximity to residential uses. d. e. Surrounding topography and landscaping. f. g. h. The nature of uses on adjacent and nearby properties. Quality and compatibility of design and screening. Impacts on public views and the visual quality of the surrounding area. 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. EXHIBIT 7 Report on Location of Wireless Communication Facilities in the Public Riqht-of-Way Report on Location of Wireless Communication Facilities in the Public Riqht-of-Way Introduction Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65858(d), this report describes the measures taken to alleviate the condition which led to the adoption of Urgency Ordinance No. NS-684 and Urgency Ordinance No. NS-690, which temporarily prohibited the issuance of permits for the placement of wireless communication facilities (WCFs) in the public right-of-way (PROW). Backaround At its meeting of December 9, 2003, the City Council introduced and adopted Urgency Ordinance NS-684 to prohibit the issuance of permits for the placement of wireless communication facilities (WCFs) in the public right-of-way (PROW). In addition, the City Council also adopted Resolution No. 2003-321 declaring the City Council’s intention to have staff study and recommend revisions to the Municipal Code and City Council Policy No. 64 regarding the placement of WCFs in the PROW. At the City Council meeting of December 16, 2003, the City Council granted authority to the Planning Director to expend up to $50,000 for telecommunication consultants to assist in the study of placement of WCFs in the PROW (Resolution No. 2003-351). On January 20, 2004, the City Council introduced and adopted Urgency Ordinance NS-690, to extend Urgency Ordinance No. NS-684, by four-fifths vote of the City Council, pursuant to Government Code sections 65858 and 36937, for up to an additional (IO) ten months and (15) fifteen days, to prohibit the issuance of permits for the placement of WCFs in the PROW. The City Council’s actions were predicated upon the fact that the Planning Department had received two preliminary review applications for WCFs in the PROW. Up to that date, no WCFs had been located within the PROW and neither the Municipal Code nor City Council Policy No. 64 specifically addressed the issue of whether such facilities should be allowed in the PROW and, if they should, under what guidelines. The above actions were temporarily necessary to provide Planning Department staff, with the assistance of the Public WorkdEngineering Department, the Telecommunications Policy Team, outside telecommunications consultants, and the wireless provider companies, with sufficient time to complete its study and provide appropriate recommendations to the City Council. Measures Taken During the period of the moratorium City staff, together with its consultants, undertook and completed all of the following measures: -Prepared an Agenda Bill and a Resolution for City Council adoption granting authority to the Planning Director to expend up to $50,000 for telecommunication consultants to assist in the study of placement of WCFs in the PROW. -Prepared an Agenda Bill and an Urgency Ordinance for City Council adoption, which extended Urgency Ordinance No. NS-684 for up to an additional (1 0) ten months and (1 5) days. 1 33 -Hired Comp Comm, Inc., a wireless communications engineering consulting firm, and Miller & Van Eaton, a law firm with national wireless communications expertise, to assist the City in the study of placement of WCFs in the PROW. -Solicited and reviewed existing and proposed standards, guidelines, ordinances, regulations, etc. for the placement of WCFs in the PROW from other jurisdictions in the County of San Diego, including the Cities of Oceanside, San Diego, Encinitas, and San Marcos and the County of San Diego. -Researched and reviewed applicable case law related to the placement of WCFs in the PROW. -Reviewed and analyzed the City’s current permitting procedures and guidelines for WCFs citywide. -Prepared for and held a public workshop on April 14, 2004, obtaining significant input and comment from the public and wireless communication providers in the area on all considerations relevant to the placement of WCFs in the PROW. The workshop was attended by representatives from AT&T Wireless, Cingular, and Sprint PCS, three of the five wireless providers doing business within the City. -Comp Comm, Inc., developed and completed propagation studies that show a “typical coverage radius” from a theoretical WCF PROW site for three different scenarios. -The City developed GIS mapping, utilizing input from Comp Comm, Inc., to conservatively predict (utilizing a .5 mile radius) the theoretical citywide coverage achieved by allowing for the placement of WCFs within the PROW only along General Plan Circulation Element Circulation Plan roadways. -Comp Comm, Inc., completed a “white paper” titled “Trends in Mobile Wireless Usage and Implications for Wireless Facilities Siting” for use by the City in developing appropriate public policy for the placement of WCFs within the PROW. -Prepared draft revisions to City Council Policy No. 64 (attached) for the consideration of the City Council. The proposed revisions would allow for the accommodation of WCFs in the PROW as a preferred location along General Plan Circulation Element Circulation Plan roadways. Specifically, revisions are proposed to the Purpose and Goal section of Policy No. 64 and sections A. Location Guidelines and B. Design Guidelines. -Prepared an Agenda Bill, Ordinance, and Resolution for the consideration of the City Council to repeal Urgency Ordinance NS-684 and No. NS-690, adopt the Final Report on the Location of Wireless Communication Facilities in the Public Right-of-way, approve revisions to City Council Policy No. 64, and direct staff to consider and return with recommendations for amendments to the Carlsbad Municipal Code and further revisions to City Council Policy No. 64 to allow for the processing of “stealth” WCFs in some preferred locations by administrative permit. 2 3Y- Future Measures -Expeditiously prepare draft revisions to the Carlsbad Municipal Code and further revisions to City Council Policy No. 64 to allow for the processing of “stealth” WCFs in some preferred locations by administrative permit. -Prepare an Agenda Bill, an Ordinance, and a Resolution for the consideration of the Planning Commission, City Council, and the California Coastal Commission to allow for the processing of “stealth” WCFs in some preferred locations by administrative permit. Attachments 1. Revisions to City Council Policy No. 64. 2. Trends in Mobile Wireless Usage and Implications for Wireless Facilities Siting, dated May 24,2004. 3. Theoretical Citywide Coverage GIS Map, City of Carlsbad GIs, dated May 17, 2004.‘ ’ Maps are available for review at the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA, 92008. 3 ATTACHMENT I Revisions to City Council Policy No. 64 (included as Exhibits 4 and 5 to Agenda Bill) 3-1, ATTACHMENT 2 Trends in Mobile Wireless Usage and Implications for Wireless Facilities Siting Trends in Mobile Wireless (AKA Cellular) Usage And Implications for Wireless Facilities Siting Prepared For The City of Carlsbad, CA May 25,2004 Prepared By Christine A. Malone President, Comp Comm, Inc. 0 2000-2004 Comp Corn, Inc. Comp Comm, Inc. 465 Haddon Ave. 0 Collingswood, New Jersey 80108-1334 856.833.9188 0 800.774.1525 0 Fax 856.833.9189 compcomm@compcomminc.com 0 www.cornpcorninc.com COMP COMM. INC. Trends in Mobile Wireless Usage and ImDlications for Wireless Facilities Siting Table of Contents Section page I Introduction and Overview 3 I1 Subscribers Evolution 4 4 I11 Usage Evolution 5 Figure 1 - CTIA: Estimated Wireless Subscribers 1985-2003 Figure 2 - CTIA: Wireless Minutes of Use (MOU) 1993-2003 5 6 IV Networks Evolution 7 7 V Summary 9 Appendix I Service Types and Associated Issues 10 Appendix I1 Propagation Fundamentals 11 Figure 3 - CTIA: Average Local Call Length 1994-2003 Figure 4 - CTIA: Cell Sites in Service 1985-2003 Appendix I11 CTIA: Annualized Wireless Industry Survey Results 1985-2003 13 2 0 2000-2004 Comp Comm, Inc. 37 COMP COMM. INC. Trends in Mobile Wireless Usage and Imdications for Wireless Facilities Siting I. Introduction & Overview Wireless communications is a rapidly changing industry. The users of mobile communications have changed dramatically over the past 20 years. And how andfor what mobile services are used has changed radically: mobile devices are not just cell phones and pagers anymore, but encompass all sorts of personal communications devices, including phones with text messaging and cameras, BlackberriesTM which allow users to send and receive e-mail, and devices such as the Palm TreoTM which incorporate phone, web browser, e-mail device and organizer all in one. And the future promises even greater change as new services and devices are developed. Because the users and usage of wireless services have grown and changed, the networks that provide these services have grown and changed as well. Base station equipment (computers, transmitters, antennas, etc.) is regularly upgraded to accommodate new services and provide new functionality. And this new demand has not only increased the number of cell sites needed, but where these sites are typically needed has changed as well. Where once companies were concerned about providing service along the major roads and thoroughfares, now customers are requiring service where they live and work. One key result of all this is that local governments will continue to see requests for new sites for wireless facilities. And this trend shows no sign of abating in the near future. 3 0 2000-2004 Comp Corn Inc. a COMP COMM, INC. Trends in Mobile Wireless Usage and Imdications for Wireless Facilities Siting 11. Subscriber Evolution The biggest changes in subscribers are how many and what type. The number of subscribers has increased dramatically over the last 10 years. There are now more than 160 million US wireless subscribers’, more than twice the number of subscribers than iust 5 Years ago. Estimated Subscribers Figure I - CTIA: Estimated Wireless Subscribers 1985-2003 The type of user has changed as well. “Early adopters” were generally upper-income, professionals or those who spent a great deal of their workday “on the road”, such as doctors, sales people, or real estate agents. As phones and service became more affordable, whole new nrouus began to subscribe: small business people and other mobile workers who don’t spend their workday at an office, such as those in construction. More recently, new users are driven to “go wireless” more for Personal rather than work- related reasons, and so some of the newest and fastest-growing groups of users are families, young adults (many of whom do not even own a traditional landline phone), and teens and children. ’ Cellular Telephone and Internet Association: www.ctia.org. 4 0 2000-2004 Comp Comm, Inc. $ COMP COMM, INC. Trends in Mobile Wireless Usape and Implications for Wireless Facilities Siting 111. Usage Evolution The biggest changes in usage are how much, what for, when and where. Because the cost per minute of wireless service (especially voice) has generally decreased, and with the introduction of plans offering incentives such as “free long distance,” “free nights and weekends,” and “free mobile to mobile,” peoule are using their mobile phones more often, and staying on calls longer when they do. The average number of minutes used per user (“Minutes of Use” or “MOU” in industry parlance) has increased every year. Mare than 800 Billion Wireless Minutes Were Used in 2003 __I____- _____-I__. Figure 2 - CTIA: Wireless Minutes of Use (MOU) 1993-2003 5 0 2000-2004 Comp Cow Inc. Ya COMP COMM. INC. Trends in Mobile Wireless Usage and Implications for Wireless Facilities Siting 3.2 3 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.2 2 Average Local Call Length 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Figure 3 - CTIA: Average Local Call Length 1994-2003‘ (Please note Fig.3 is local culls on& and does not reflect the increase in long distance usage reflected in Fig.2.) New devices and new applications mean why people use mobile communications is changing. Wireless is not iust voice phone calls anymore, but text messaging, e-mails, photos and even short video clips. Soon it will be web browsing and large documents and files (already in limited use through wireless modems). These ever-expanding uses will continue to drive up both minutes of use and bandwidth requirements3. And because of the shift from work-related to personal use, where and when people use their wireless devices has changed dramatically. People once used their mobile phones mostly in their cars. Now phones are carried on the person and are used in the workplace and even more at home. Now usage is not just at the traditional peak drive times (morning and evening rush hours), but all through the day. Currently more than 14% of mobile users use a wireless phone as their primary phone.4 And the “free calling after (X) PM” plans have created new “busy hours” for the carriers, generally at 7 or 9 PM, depending on the carrier and plan5. So the demand bv users for service is now in the evening and at the home. * Data taken from CTIA Table. See Appendix 111. Used with permission. Put simply, bandwidth is a measure of how much of an allotted frequency band (the size of the “slice”) is needed for a particular application or service. Voice and messaging are relatively low-bandwidth services. Photos, video, and web browsing typically require higher data volumes and therefore are considered higher bandwidth applications. When multiple applications (services) are carried in the same frequency band, the bandwidth requirements are effectively cumulative. So, more services, even if they are low bandwidth services, require more bandwidth. In-Stat/MDR, February 2004. See www.cellular-news.com/story/l0738.shtml. This was confirmed at the public workshop in Carlsbad on 4/14/04 when all three carriers in attendance spoke of their new “busy hour.” 0 2000-2004 Comp Comm, Inc. 6 COMP COMM, INC. IV. Network Evolution Trends in Mobile Wireless Usage and Implications for Wireless Facilities Siting All these changes in technology, in subscribership, and in usage patterns has dramatically changed the requirements of the wireless networks that provide these services. Each carrier is provided a limited frequency range for providing their services6. Each site can only serve a finite number of users at any one time within its allocated piece of the frequency range. Increasing numbers of customers, higher-bandwidth services, and the addition of new services, combine to consume a bigger piece of this frequency range. Thus, as customers, usage, services and bandwidth requirements increase, more sites are needed to provide the necessary network capacity and maintain service quality'. Cell Sites L..-3! m -. ' ill? I .I lr+i 1. 7.k4.i 1. I"%.!+ I. h>.Kki XI h4 Cell Silw in Scrvicr sre Lip 17 Yercynl Year Over Year Figure 4 - CTIA: Cell Sites in Service 1985-2003 Because usage is dramatically increasing in residential areas (as customers use their phones and other devices at home), more and more new sites will be needed in residential areas. At the public workshop, As determined by their license(s) from the FCC. considered relevant for this paper. ' This is of course a simplification of the capacity, service quality and frequency re-use issues, but greater detail was not 7 0 2000-2004 COW COIIUII, hc. COMP COMM. INC. Trends in Mobile Wireless Usage and Implications for Wireless Facilities Siting carriers indicated that, in southern California, new sites in residential areas become very busy (near capacity) as soon as they are put into service. These sites can often be smaller (shorter) since they don’t need to cover as large a geographic area. So new structures can be used for supporting cell sites. These “vertical elements” can include new structures beyond the traditional tall buildings and towers, such as residential buildings and streetlights*. Since most of these new sites still need to carry large volumes of traffic, they will likely be “full” sites, with all the equipment, utility and interconnect requirements that that entails, and not “microcells” (with smaller equipment requirements). Furthermore, as new services are added, new (more) equipment may be needed at each site. However, there is also a general technology evolution towards smaller equipment (more miniaturization), that over time may reduce the space needed. This varies greatly by carrier, technology, and frequency. At the workshop, the Sprint representative stated that 80-90% of the time, for requested ROW sites, existing vertical elements in the ROW, such as light stanchions or traffic signals, would be sufficient. They would likely need to be rebuilt, but wouldn’t need to be taller than the existing height. 8 0 2000-2004 Comp Comm, Inc. #5 COMP COMM, INC. Trends in Mobile Wireless Usage and Implications for Wireless Facilities Siting V. Summary The need for new locations is not going to stop any time soon. This is due primarily to the following factors: 0 0 “Market Penetration” (number of subscribers) continues to increase. Minutes of Use (how long each person spends on their cell phone) continues to increase. New services (applications, such as e-mail, photos, etc.) will continue to be developed. All these require increasingly intense use (and re-use) of the frequencies allotted to each carrier. Thus more and more sites will be needed to meet the mowing demand. 0 0 The hilly terrain of Carlsbad makes this all the more the case. However, as the number of sites increase, the average coverage radius (area each site serves) will continue to decrease. Generally this will mean that the heights needed will decrease as well. Many of the new sites will be needed to serve residential areas. Usage has shiftedexpanded from primarily people in cars to people where they live (and work), meaning coverage is important not just along main roads, but also in residential areas. The new “busy hours” are no longer just the major drive- time hours but also the first “free” evening hour (generally 7 PM or 9 PM, depending on the carrier). To a meaningful degree, each carrier has its own requirements, due to the frequencies at which they operate, the type of technology and equipment they use, and the choices they make in the services to offer their customers. Carriers are unable to forecast in detail where and how many sites they will need because: 0 Need is largely driven by customer demand, and they can’t predict where the demand will be (either number of new customers or where those customers are, e.g. new developments). They can’t predict the technology changes (antennas, equipment requirements) that might happen in the future. They can’t predict what new services might be developed and what that would require from a network (site and equipment) perspective. 0 0 9 o 2000-2004 Comp comm, Inc. +,6 COMP COMM, INC. Trends in Mobile Wireless Usage and Imulications for Wireless Facilities Siting APPENDIX I: Service Types and Associated Issues The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) licenses various types of wireless (radio) services all over the US, everything from radio stations to microwave relays to commercial public mobile radio services, commonly referred to as “cellular” (this category also includes paging services). The commercial systems currently being built out are primarily Cellular, Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio (ESMR), and Personal Communications Systems (PCS). New, primarily data, services, typically in the higher frequency ranges, are also being deployed. Each of these service types has certain characteristics affecting system design. An overview of the differences between these services is presented here. Due to their similarities, cellular and SMR will be treated the same in this discussion. The operating frequency is one of the most important differentiators between service types when determining coverage. Cellular and ESMR services both operate in the upper 800 MHz frequency range while PCS operates in the 1900 MHz frequency range. Cellular and ESMR services will encounter very similar properties when operating and will be treated as one entity called 800 MHz. The number of towers will vary according to the setting, with one every 20 miles in a rural environment and as close as every couple of blocks in a dense urban environment to provide acceptable coverage. Long needle pine trees are problematic for the 800 MHz frequency band and the signal will partially penetrate buildings. Typical suburban and urban cellular and ESMR sites operate with transmit power at 200 Watts ERP or less. Per the FCC, their maximum output power is 500 Watts ERP per site. The PCS frequencies are more than twice as high as the 800 MHz frequencies, and therefore have a wavelength half that of the 800 MHz frequencies. This means more energy is required to transmit a comparable signal the same distance as for the 800 MHz frequencies. Since the operating powers for the two bands are comparable, for comparable sites and ERPs, the service is not available as far away as it is for the 800 MHz frequency range. In general, the sites for PCS are placed two to four miles apart compared to the greater distances of three to eight miles for the 800 MHz frequency range. Most foliage can cause problems for PCS and the signal does less well at penetrating buildings. Again, typical suburban and urban PCS sites operate with transmit power at 200 Watts ERP or less. Per the FCC, their maximum output power is 1000 Watts ERP per site. 10 0 2000-2004 Comp Comm, Inc. 4~ 7 COMP COMM. INC. Trends in Mobile Wireless Usage and Implications for Wireless Facilities Siting APPENDIX 11: Propagation Fundamentals Cellular and Personal Communications Systems (PCS) operate by sending a signal from a transmitting antenna to a mobile unit, which transmits back a response to the base station. The transmitted signal travels by spreading out from the source antenna, or propagating, through the air. There are multiple sites in an area and the mobile unit “hands off’ from one site to the next as it travels. The coverage of one site should overlap the coverage of the neighboring site to facilitate this hand off. If there is no overlap, the call will drop and the customer will be dissatisfied. The main issues in the design stage are single site coverage and system coverage. For example, if each cell site can provide coverage out to ten miles in all directions before a call is dropped and the towers are twenty-five miles apart, there is a five-mile coverage hole in the system. Each site may be providing excellent coverage in its ten-mile radius, but outside that limit there is no coverage. This is an example of good single site coverage but poor system coverage. Cell sites rarely, if ever, provide such geographically symmetrical coverage. The real world presents too many problems to a radio signal trying to propagate from the transmitting antenna. This is easiest to understand by comparing radio signals to light. Much as a radio system “covers” a geographic area, we use light to illuminate a room. If the room is devoid of objects such as furniture, the best way to light it is with a lamp in the middle. If there are obstacles, such as furniture, in the room, it can still be lit from the center, but now there will be shadows in some locations. Height is a very important criterion in radio communications design. The height of a site, as a combination of ground elevation (above mean sea level - AMSL) and the tower height (above ground level - AGL), must be high enough to provide the desired coverage. To understand this, think of the light example with obstacles (furniture) in the room. If the source of light is a twelve-inch high lamp placed on the floor, there will be many shadows. For example, the area on the opposite side of a chair will have a shadow. If on the other hand, the source is a ceiling lamp hung in the center of the room, there will still be shadows, but they will be contained to perhaps less important areas of the room. For example, the shadow will now be under the chair. Imagine the difference in trying to read a book while sitting on a chair. The lamp on the floor will make this task very difficult, since the source of light is below the book and the bottom will shadow the top of the book, while the ceiling lamp will improve the readability drastically. The height issue for the radio designer is one of trade-offs: there will always be shadows, but the challenge is to vary the height and location to force the location of those shadows to less important coverage areas. Shadows in the real world are not caused by pieces of furniture that can easily be re-arranged. They are the result of obstacles that are much more irregular in shape and harder to design around. These obstacles include mountains, foliage, buildings, water towers, in short, anything standing between the 11 0 2000-2004 Comp Comm, Inc. d$;g* COMP COMM, INC. Trends in Mobile Wireless Usage and Implications for Wireless Facilities Siting transmitting antenna and the mobile unit. Considering the type of obstacles mentioned above, it is obvious why height is so important in a tower site. If designing in a town, the site should be higher than the surrounding buildings or the signal will be severely impaired. Similarly, if the obstacle is a mountain, the site should be above the mountain and be able to “see” the desired coverage location. Location is very important in radio system design. If you wish to provide light to a room for reading purposes, you would obviously choose to locate in the center of the room rather than one of the corners. If the center is not available, the best way to light the room is probably to place lamps in different parts of the room, for example one table lamp on each side of the room. A person walking across the room looking for something on the floor will be using the light from lamp A on one side of the room and the light from lamp B on the other side of the room. Somewhere in the middle of the room, this individual will switch from the lamp A to lamp B light - this is hand off! This also demonstrates the importance of system design. The final issue with system design is capacity. This is the amount of radio traffic, in this case telephone calls, a system can handle simultaneously. A common example of a capacity issue is the check out area of a grocery store. A typical grocery store will have perhaps ten checkout areas. Most of the time only two or three are open and the lines are small. Occasionally the lines increase and more registers are opened to handle the additional traffic. The store is probably designed so that at the busiest time and with all the registers open, no customer will be more than third in line. This time of the day is known as the busy hour and probably occurs at the same time every day or every week. The capacity is defined by the blocking rate, which is the desire of the store manager to never have a customer further than, for example, third in line. In this case the actual capacity is thirty patrons at the checkout area at the same time. As an area grows and more customers come into the grocery store, more checkout areas must be added to accommodate them and maintain the no more than three in line quality of service. This same concept applies to mobile communications. Systems are generally designed to handle the busy period each day with a maximum predetermined blocking rate (for example so that no more than 2% of the calls at peak times will not have a channel when one is requested) given a set number of customers. As more customers come on the air, the service provider strives to maintain the same quality of service. Since radio spectrum is a finite quantity, the provider accomplishes this by adding sites and reusing frequencies. The cell sites are made smaller (antennas placed closer to the ground or downtilted), average power is reduced, and more “fill-in” sites are added. 12 0 2000-2004 Comp Comm, Inc. 48 COMP COMM, INC. Trends in Mobile Wireless Usage and Implications for Wireless Facilities Siting APPENDIX 111: CTIA Wireless Industry Survey Results 1985-2003 2.727 4.334 7,347 1 I.4M 15.927 11.382 26,327 .?4.248 39.810 qt,91): 68.165 S4,lbl 504,387 171.7v 1 SS,Rl 7 181.119 203,580 liJ2.410 N,'X M-.4 2.33 2.26 1.48 2.20 2-38 2-58 2.4 1 2.24 2.15 1.311 2.3 1 1.39 2.38 2.% 2.T.l 7 '1 L. I. This graph and other charts and graphs used in this document are from the CTIA web site at www.ctia.ordpublic policv/statistics/index.cfm/AID/10030 or have been derived from this information, and are used with permission. 13 0 2000-2004 Comp Comm, Inc. ATTACHMENT 3 Theoretical Citywide Coverage GIS Map (Previously distributed) Circulation Element Roads Buffered 2500 Feet c Francine Joy Lane Attorney At Law (Active SM96505) 301 1 Garboso Street Carlsbad CA 92009 E-mail: powerplant5@sbcglobaI.net June 8,2004 AGENDA ITEM # b Mayor City Manager City Attorney City Clerk c: city Councfl Hon. Claude A. "Bud" Lewis, Mayor Hon. Ramona Finnila, Council Member Hon. Matt Hall, Council Member Hon. Ann J. Kulchin, Council Member Hon. Mark Packard, Council Member Re: Agenda, June 8,2004, Public Hearing Item No. 6, AB#17,659 -Dissolution of Moratorium and Approval of Revisions to City Council Policy on Wireless Communication Facilities Attached are comments on the proposed revisions to the City County Policy No. 64 and suggestions for other changes to the Policy. I commend the Council and City Staff on the earlier adoption of Policy 64 and on your continuing efforts to insure that wireless facility siting is consistent with the interests of city residents. I plan to attend the hearing, but will not be there until after 7:30 PM because our grandson is playing baseball in the La Costa Youth Organization post-season playoffs between 5-7 PM. I would appreciate your consideration of the attached comments if I cannot present them to you in person. Thank you. Yours truly, Francine J. Lane Att . cc: Ronald R. Ball, City Attorney Raymond R. Patchett, City Manager Gary Barbiero, Principal Planner, Planning Department 1 . COMMENT ON CITY COUNCIL POKCY NO. 64 INTRODUCTION The proposed amendments are focused on the placement of wireless The following comment will address both the proposed right-of-way communication facilities within the public right-of-way amendments and other provisions of the Policy. THE GUIDELINES SHOULD BE MADE MANDATORY AND ENFORCEABLE The proposed section 11, WCFs in Public Right-of-way, is worded as an However, most of the existing guidelines, and the new Location Guidelines enforceable directive because the word "shalP is used. in Section A, are advisory and unenforceable. For example, "WCFs are encouraged to locate on existing buildings . . . (A. 1 .) "WCFs should not locate in any of the following zones or areas unless the applicant demonstrates no feasible alternative exists.. . " (2). RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ISSUANCE OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES IN ALL LOCATIONS, INCLUDING THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY The City's Ordinances and Policies should be amended to provide additional public protection, as follows: 1. LOCATION All wireless communication facilities, including "stealth" installations, shall be located at least 1.000 feet from the boundary of any residence; public or private school: dav-care center: and hospital, medical care facility, or nursing home or similar facilitv where medical devices or eauipment are in use. 2 . 2. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice of any permit applications for wireless communication facilities shall be mailed to the occupant and owner of any property located within 1.000 feet of the proposed facility a minimum of 30 days prior to any public hearings or action on the application. 3. SIGNS FOR ALL FACILITIES, INCLUDING “STEALTH” LOCATIONS All wireless communication facilities, especially “stealth” locations, shall include a readily visible and readable sian that includes sufficient information about the facility to permit people with health and safety concerns, such as cardiac pacemakers, to take personal protective measures. 4. IDENTIFICATION OF ALL EXISTING AND PROPOSED SITES All WCF applications shall include a description or map of the applicant’s existing and other proposed sites. In addition, all WCF applications shall include a map of sites, existing and proposed, owned or managed by other WCF owners or providers within a ten-mile radius of the proposed facility so the City may evaluate the cumulative imDact of wireless communication facilities in the community. 5. NEED FOR THE FACILITY The burden shall be on the applicant or proponent to prove by substantial evidence that there is a need for the proposed facility and that no reasonable combination of locations, techniques or technologies will meet that need. 6. PROOF OF CO-LOCATION EFFORTS a. The burden shall be on the applicant to prove that it has made all b. The burden shall be on the applicant to prove that it has made all reasonable efforts to procure antenna space on existinq facilities. reasonable efforts to co-locate any proposed facilities. 3 c. The applicant shall submit evidence to the city demonstrating that a genuine effort has been made to solicit additional users for the proposed new tower. 5. BOND FOR ABANDONED FACILITIES The owner of any wireless communication facility shall establish a $10,000 cash security fund or bond to secure the cost of removing an antenna, antenna array, or tower that has been abandoned. Attachment to Letter from Francine J. Lane June 8, 2004 4 PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2010 & 2011 C.C.P.) This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of San Diego I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to or interested in the above- entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of Proof of Publication of North County Times Formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been adjudicated newspapers of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of California, for the City of Oceanside and the City of Escondido, Court Decree number 171349, for the County of San Diego, that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpariel), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and coirect. Dated at SAN MARCOS California This ay Day of May, 2004 I -I Crry OF CARLSBAD NOTICE OF PUBUC HEARING I I CASE NAME: RepeaIi3 Urgcy Ordinance prohibE i theisauanceofpe its theplacementofwire- I% communication fa~lmk~ in the pu~ic rigt+c+way Signature NORTH COUNTY TIMES Legal Advertising NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Courrcil Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO p.m. on Tuesday, June 8,2004, to consider repealing an Urgency Ordinance prohibitih the issuance of permits for the placement of wireless communication facilities in the public right-of-way, adopting the Report on the location of wireless communication facitities in the Public Right-of-way and approving revisions to the City Council Policy No. 64 regarding Wireless Communication Facilities. Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the Report are available in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008 and copies of the agenda bill will be available on and after June 4,2004. If you have any ques- tions, please call Gary Barberio in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4606. The time within which you may judicially challenge this extension of the urgency ordinance, if approved, is established by state law and/or city ordinance, and is very short. If you challenge the urgency ordi- nance in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you'or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad, Attn: My - Clerk, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or prior to the public hearing. WE NAME: Repealing Urgency Ordinance prohibiting-the issuance of permits for the placement of wireless communication facilities in the public right-of-way PUBLISH: May 28,2004 I CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL I The San Diego Union-Tribum 1 -3 I Friday, May 28,2004 June 8,2004 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: City Attorney -ljlas- h)a. b FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL v-’ CITY ATTORNEY I COUNCIL ITEM NO. 6 (AB 17,659) - REVISIONS TO COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT 64 ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES There are a few minor corrections to the proposed amendments to City Council Policy No. 64 as follows: I. 2. 3. Change the word “fees” to “compensation” in paragraph 11 $. ’ Change the second sentence in paragraph 1 1 .g. to read: “If it can be demonstrated that complete undergrounding of associated equipment is not possible waiver requests involving landscaping or other screening techniques or visual mitigation will be considered.” Change the last sentence in paragraph 11 .g. to read: “All equipment not placed underground, shall be setback at least 2.5 feet from the back of the curb and within the parkway or greenway or 2.5 feet back from the edge of the sidewalk when it is contiguous to the curb.” Should you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact me. RONALD R. BALL City Attorney c: City Manager Community Development Director Planning Director Principal Planner Barberio MACKENZIE & ALBRITTON LLP ONE POST STREET, SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 AGJWDAiTEMIt b 1 ct Mayor CIty couadl City Manager Clty Attorney Crty Clerk TELEPHONE415/288~ FACSIMILE415 /288-4010 SENDER’S EMAIL: JHEARD@MALLP.COM June 7,2004 VIA EMAIL AND FACSIMILE Hon. Claude A. “Bud” Lewis, Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Proposed repeal of urpency ordinance prohibiting wireless telecom- munications facilities in the public rights-of-way, and revisions to City Council Policy No. 64 repardinp wireless telecommunications facilities Dear Mayor Lewis and Members of the Council: communications law, particularly real estate, access, and land use issues. I am writing to offer our client’s comments on the following two items you are scheduled to consider on June 8,2004: (a) repeal of the urgency ordinance which currently prohibits wireless tele- communications facilities in the public rights-of-way (“ROW’); and (b) proposed revi- sions to your Policy No. 64, under which the City regulates all wireless facilities. At the outset, I should note that we did not learn of this hearing until Friday, June 4, 2004, only two business days before the hearing. With such limited time for review, these comments are necessarily both summary and preliminary. We therefore reserve the right to submit additional comments as necessary. Briefly stated, we urge you to repeal the urgency ordinance, which we believe violated both California and federal law from its inception. We also have significant concerns regarding the proposed revisions to Policy No. 64 (the “Policy”) and its impact on proposed facilities in the ROW.’ As we explain in more detail below, both Section 7901 of the California Public Utilities Code (‘‘8 7901”) and the federal Telecommunica- tions Act of 1996 (the “TCA”) place significant limits on the City’s regulation of wireless facilities in the ROW. The proposed Policy exceeds these limits in several respects, in- cluding, but not limited to, the following: We are counsel to AT&T Wireless, with our principal area of practice in tele- 0 it discriminates against wireless carriers by subjecting them to unique regu- latory burdens not imposed on other utilities, such as discretionary review and a presumption against their use of large parts of the ROW; and it presumes that all equipment in the ROW, other than antennas, will be in- stalled underground, without regard to other methods of screening that may be equally effective, or other factors that may make undergrounding unde- sirable. 0 ’ While certain aspects of the existing Policy regulating sites outside the ROW are also objectionable, we have, given the limited time available, restricted our comments to the proposed revisions and their impact on sites proposed in the ROW. ’! Mayor Lewis and Council Members City of Carlsbad June 7,2004 Page 2 of 4 I. The Policy would violate state and federal law by imposing unique regulatory burdens on wireless carriers. The Policy would impose several unique burdens on wireless carriers, including requirements for discretionary conditional use permits, proof of need for their facilities in certain locations, a presumption against their use of large parts of the ROW (those in or adjacent to residentially zoned property, with limited exceptions, and any road not identi- fied in the Circulation Element of the General Plan), and periodic review of their permits. None of these burdens are imposed on any other user of the ROW, including the wire-line telephone carriers who compete directly with wireless carriers and maintain above- ground poles. Neither state nor federal law permits such discrimination against wireless carriers. AT&T Wireless is a “telephone corporation” as defined under the California Pub- lic Utilities Code. As a telephone corporation, AT&T Wireless is entitled as a matter of law under Section 7901 of the California Public Utilities Code to install wireless facilities “along any public road and highway,” subject only to reasonable local restriftions as to the time, place and manner in which such roads and highways are accessed. Such local controls “to be reasonable, shall, at a minimum, be applied to all entities in an equivalent manner.” 8 7909.1(b), Cal. Pub. Util. Code. By singling out wireless carriers for unique regulatory burdens, the Policy would certainly not qualify as reasonable time, place, and manner regulation. This requirement of equal treatment is mirrored in federal law, which prohibits unreasonable discrimination between providers of functionally equivalent services (such as wireless and wire-line carrier^).^ In addition, while the TCA preserves the City’s le- gitimate authority to manage its ROW, it also requires that ROW regulations be applied “on a competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory ba~is.”~ Federal courts have held that by imposing more burdensome ROW regulations on wireless carriers than their incum- bent wire-line competitors, local governments discriminate in violation of the TCA. See TC Systems, Znc. v. Town of Colonie, 263 F. Supp. 2d 471,489 (N.D.N.Y. 2003) (holding that town violated TCA by imposing franchise fee and related requirements on new tele- communications carriers seeking to use ROW, but not on incumbent wire-line provider; ‘‘a municipality may not ... impose a host of ... provisions on one service provider without placing any on another”) (quoting TCG New York, Inc. v. City of White PEains, 305 F.3d 67, 80 (2d Cir. 2002)). In short, neither state nor federal law permits the unique burdens on wireless carriers contemplated in the proposed ordinance. goes beyond legitimate management of the ROW, and is inconsistent with both state and federal law. Furthermore, quite apart from the issue of discrimination, discretionary review Under 0 7901, The California Public Utilities Commission (“PUC”) has ruled that a local government has no authority to deny a wireless carrier use of the public ROW for an antenna site. In In re: GTEMobilNet of San Jose, L.P., etc., 22 C.P.U.C. 2d 25,1986 Cal. PUC LEXIS 568 (Cal. Pub. Util. Comm. 1986), the PUC held: The local agency, under the guise of denying a Conditional Use or other permit, cannot attempt to determine whether, where, or what utility con- Public Utilities Code § 7901.l(a). 47 U.S.C. Section 332(c)(7)(B)(I)(i): 47 U.S.C. 0 253(c). Mayor Lewis and Council Members City of Carlsbad June 7,2004 Page 3 of 4 stmctions may be made. It is well settled that no city has power to prevent a State-regulated utility from commencing its business or extending its plant (Pac. Tel & Tel. Co. v. City of Los Angeles, supra). When consid- ered in conjunction with P.U. Code Section 7901, this legal principle has particular applicability to a situation such as that initially presented to us in this proceeding, where the facility involves erection of a pole to support an antenna -- a necessary fixture for radiotelephone cellular communica- tions . . . . Any other result would defeat the very purpose of P. U. Code Section 7901, as it would interfere substantially with the ability of com- munication utilities to provide necessary mobile radiotelephone cellular service to the people of this State in the local vicinity at issue. 1986 Cal. PUC LEXIS 568, at *18 - *19 (emphasis added). In addition, the California Supreme Court has held that under 0 7901, local juris- dictions cannot exclude telephone corporations from installing equipment in the ROW: Applying the above stated rules of law to the facts of the present case, it is apparent that because of the interest of the people throughout the state in the existence of telephone lines in the streets in the city, the right and obli- gation to construct and maintain telephone lines has become a matter of state concern. For this reason the city cannot today exclude telephone lines from the streets upon the theory that “it is a municipal affair.” Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Co., v. City and County of Sun Francisco, 51 Cal. 2d 766,774 (1959) (emphasis added). The discretionary review contemplated in the pro- posed Policy is premised on the right to exclude. It is thus inconsistent with the franchise granted under Section 7901. Under federal law, the TCA dictates the same result. In City of Auburn v. Qwest Corporation, 260 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2001), the Ninth Circuit held that discretionary re- view in the public ROW violates the TCA, and singled out public hearing requirements as one of the features of such review which run afoul of the Act. The court identified several features of the local ordinances under review that violated the TCA. (260 F.3d at 1177-78). As an example of such an “objectionable” provision, the Court cited a re- quirement for a public hearing before granting a local franchise to use the public right-of- way. (See 260 F.3d at 1179, Fn. 19.) In Qwest Communications Corp., v. City Of Berkeley, 146 F. Supp. 1081 (N.D. Cal. 2001), the court reached the same conclusion with respect to a City of Berkeley ROW ordinance. In granting a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the ordi- nance, the court held that several features of the ordinance violated the TCA, including its requirement for a public hearing prior to granting a permit, and the fact that it “vests sig- nificant discretion in the City to grant or deny permission to use its public rights-of-way.” 146 F. Supp. 2d at 1097. The court concluded that such discretion “is not permissible” under the Telecommunications Act. 146 F. Supp. 2d at 1099. In short, neither state nor federal law countenance discretionary review in the ROW. The appropriate procedure is to issue non-discretionary encroachment or excava- tion permits just as the City would do for any other public utility seeking to place infra- structure in the public ROW. AT&T Wireless has installed facilities pursuant to such administrative permits in numerous jurisdictions throughout California. Mayor Lewis and Council Members City of Carlsbad June 7,2004 Page 4 of 4 11. Blanket undergrounding of equipment is unduly burdensome and un- necessary. The Policy would require that all equipment in the ROW, other than antennas, be installed underground “wherever possible.” This standard is unduly burdensome and in- flexible, as some sites include equipment mounted on the pole or other support structure, and do not require ground-mounted equipment. Furthermore, even with ground-mounted equipment, it is not always aesthetically desirable to install the equipment underground. Undergrounding is in many cases a bad solution, from both from the City’s and provider’s perspectives. The standard should not simply be technological feasibility, but whether undergrounding is justified in each given case based upon aesthetic, technologi- cal, economic and logistical factors. In many cases a small cabinet can be successfully hidden among existing shrubs or may be so unobtrusive that there is no aesthetic benefit, and the huge cost of under- grounding is simply unjustified. Undergrounding of a cabinet will require displacement, by backhoe, of a much larger underground area. Suddenly the reliability of an under- ground vault becomes an issue, and moisture seepage and periodic access for mainte- nance become serious problems. There is also the danger that existing underground pipes, conduit and wiring will be adversely affected, not to mention the inherent disrup- tion of a significant excavation in the ROW. Even where a cabinet can successfully be placed underground, certain portions must remain above-ground, including metering and cooling systems. cabinet can be placed in an unobtrusive setting above-ground and where undergrounding will have an adverse impact on traffic, street degradation and other operating utilities. If wireless providers are to provide the service demanded by the citizens of Carlsbad, the economic reality is that not all facilities can be placed underground. There must be spe- cific justification, and the development standards should therefore include aesthetic, eco- nomic, and logistical justification for undergrounding - as well as technological feasibil- ity. In sum, the end may not justify the means, particularly in a situation where a *** Thank you very much for your time and consideration of these comments. We look forward to working with City staff in an effort to produce an ordinance that meets the City’s needs while accommodating the concerns of our client and others in the wire- less industry. Please feel free to contact me or Sarah Burbidge of this office with any questions or concerns. Sincerely, fames A. Heard cc (via email): Daniel E. Smith, Esq. Kevin McGee Sarah L. Burbidge, Esq. RONALD R. BALL CITY ATTORNEY JANE MOBALDI ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY SUSANNE M. PARSONS DEPUTY CITY AITORNEY RONALD KEMP DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF CARLSBAD 1200 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008-1 989 (760) 434-2891 FAX: (760) 434-8367 June 8,2004 RANDEE HARLIB ARDlS SEIDEL SECRETARY TO CITY ATTORNEY LEGAL SECRETARYPARALEGAL James A. Heard Mackenzie & Atbritton LLP One Post Street, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94104 RE: YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 7,2004 TO MAYOR AND COUNCIL Dear Mr. Heard: The Mayor and Council of the City of Carlsbad have asked that I reply to the referenced letter. Let me say, first, that we appreciated the participation of AT&T Wireless (“AT&lW”) in the public workshop conducted April 14, 2004, at which wireless providers, consultants and City staff discussed how Policy 64 might be revised to accommodate placement of wireless communication facilities (‘WCFs”) in the public right-of-way (“PROW”). I am sorry that you did not learn until June 4* of the Council’s intent to take up the termination of the moratorium and revision of Policy 64 at its regular meeting of June 8, 2004. The matter was noticed in our normal course and procedures for Public Notice as well as special notice to interested parties in this matter. To respond to your specific points, in summary, the City is not willing to extend the moratorium on wireless siting in the public rights-of-way any longer than necessary. And the City must make changes to Policy 64 effective prior to the termination of the moratorium in order to assure adequate standards and regulations are in place to protect public safety and traffic flows in the rights-of-way. Nevertheless, the Council action today is not the end of the City’s consideration of possible additional amendments to Policy 64 or to the City’s related ordinances and regulations. You suggest that the City use encroachment permits rather than Conditional Use Permits to authorize wireless facilities. I realize that you have not had a chance to familiarize yourself with the applicable ordinances that currently restrain the City’s ability to use encroachment and excavation permits. Without commenting on the merits of using such permits for wireless right-of-way facilities, I note that the Resolution pending before the City Council at the June 8‘h meeting contains the following instruction: 2 4. That staff is directed to consider and return with recommendations for amendments to the Carlsbad Municipal Code and City Council Policy No. 64 to allow for processing wireless communication facilities in preferred locations by administrative permit. It is not possible for the City to go further in this meeting because various state and local procedural requirements for amendment of our municipal code requires detailed coordination under the state coastal zone management rules. This coordination is possible, but time-consuming and will likely to make an effort to substitute encroachment permits for CUPS an extended process. Thus, the City is amending Policy 64 in a way that will allow immediate processing of applications for WCF placement in the PROW. If this process is inadequate in your view, we are open to your suggestions on possible improvements that do not create unnecessary delays and which adequately protect the respective interests of all affected parties. As in the April 14" workshop, we will continue to work with all wireless carriers, their agents and the public as we consider further revisions to the Municipal Code and Policy 64. We hope AT&W will remain a contributor to that process. You also express a concern that AT&W would be unfairly burdened by an undergrounding requirement. Undergrounding is a general requirement for all utilities, including telephone companies, in the City. Wireless companies are receiving special beneficial treatment by the City allowing above-ground antennas. We certainly feel this is a reasonable classification which does not discriminate against utilities which must be totally underground within the rights-of-way. Nevertheless, the pending amendment to Policy 64 has provided an additional benefit for wireless companies by providing for a waiver process through which the undergrounding requirement can be adjusted in certain circumstances. Again, as the City staff better understands the limits and requirements of AT&TW's technology of choice, we will consider further possible changes to Policy 64. It is beyond the scope of this letter to respond in detail to your legal arguments. However, let me state briefly the following: We do not quarrel with the general proposition that a city cannot exclude telephone lines from the streets, provided that the telephone company has complied with permissible local restrictions on time, place and manner of installation of these lines. The exact status of wireless service providers under Section 7901 remains in flux under state law, as we see it. The legislative history and case law to date does not interpret the term "lines" in Section 7901, nor include connections established by radio transmission. We note that this issue is under review in both state and federal court in challenges against a wireless zoning ordinance of San Diego County as well as other communities in the State. 3 Federal law since 1986, the year of the GTE Mobilnet case before the CPUC, which you cited in your letter, has preempted California's jurisdiction over licensing wireless carriers and the rates they charge. Moreover, Congress in 1996 asserted local governments have the central role in zoning and siting of wireless facilities. Most recently, the local federal district court has emphasized the importance of the City's role in protecting the public's safety, preserving community aesthetics, and preventing disruption to other rights-of-way users in wireless facility siting. I hope this letter gives you a better understanding of the City's purpose and actions in amending Policy 64 and ending the moratorium. We look foward to AT&TW's continued participation in our ongoing examination of WCF placement in the PROW. While we believe that the City's treatment of such placements under revised Policy 64 is fully lawful, we offer our further cooperation and interest in learning your company's real needs regarding right-of-way siting. I appreciate your cooperation and courtesy in this regard. RONXD R. BALL City Attorney rmh c: Mayor and City Council City Manager Community Development Director Planning Director Assistant City Attorney Principal Planner Barberio RONALD R. BALL JANE MOBALDI CITY ATTORNEY ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY SUSANNE M. PARSONS DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF CARLSBAD 1200 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008-1989 (760) 434-2891 FAX: (760) 434-8367 RANDEE HARLIB ARDIS SEIDEL SECRETARY TO CllYAlTORNEY LEGAL SECRETARWPARALEGAL RONALD KEMP FAX TRANSMITTAL DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY FAX NO.: RE: FROM: CITY AlTORN EY 'S OFF1 C E SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED OR OBVIOUS FROM THE NATURE OF THE TRANSMITTAL, THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE MESSAGE IS ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE TO DELIVER IT TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, COPYING OF THE COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR OR ARE NOT SURE WHETHER IT IS PRIVILEGED, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY COLLECT TELEPHONE, AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE AT OUR EXPENSE. THANK YOU WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES (WCFs)IN THEPUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY (PROW) WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES (WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES (WCFsWCFs))IN THEIN THEPUBLIC RIGHTPUBLIC RIGHT--OFOF--WAY (PROW)WAY (PROW)Recommended ActionsRecommended Actions„„Urgency Ordinance No. NSUrgency Ordinance No. NS--707707„„Ordinance No. NSOrdinance No. NS--708708„„Resolution No. 2004Resolution No. 2004--182182 WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES (WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES (WCFsWCFs))IN THEIN THEPUBLIC RIGHTPUBLIC RIGHT--OFOF--WAY (PROW)WAY (PROW)Urgency Ordinance No. NSUrgency Ordinance No. NS--707707„„Repeals Urgency Repeals Urgency OrdOrd. No. NS. No. NS--684 and 684 and OrdOrd. No. NS. No. NS--690690„„Immediately dissolves moratoriumImmediately dissolves moratorium„„Effective for 45 days, unless extendedEffective for 45 days, unless extended WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES (WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES (WCFsWCFs))IN THEIN THEPUBLIC RIGHTPUBLIC RIGHT--OFOF--WAY (PROW)WAY (PROW)Ordinance No. NS Ordinance No. NS ––708708„„Repeals Urgency Repeals Urgency OrdOrd. No. NS. No. NS--684 and 684 and OrdOrd. No. NS. No. NS--690690„„Effective 30 days after adoptionEffective 30 days after adoption„„Dissolves moratorium permanentlyDissolves moratorium permanently WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES (WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES (WCFsWCFs))IN THEIN THEPUBLIC RIGHTPUBLIC RIGHT--OFOF--WAY (PROW)WAY (PROW)Resolution No. 2004Resolution No. 2004--182182„„Adopts “Report on the Location of Adopts “Report on the Location of WCFs WCFs in the PROW”in the PROW”„„Approves revisions to City Council Policy No. 64Approves revisions to City Council Policy No. 64„„Directs staff to return with additional recommended CMC Directs staff to return with additional recommended CMC and Policy 64 amendmentsand Policy 64 amendments WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES (WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES (WCFsWCFs))IN THEIN THEPUBLIC RIGHTPUBLIC RIGHT--OFOF--WAY (PROW)WAY (PROW)Report on Location of Report on Location of WCFs WCFs in the PROWin the PROW„„Describes measures taken to alleviate moratorium Describes measures taken to alleviate moratorium conditions (CGC 65858(d))conditions (CGC 65858(d))‹‹Measures takenMeasures taken‹‹Future measuresFuture measures‹‹Attachments (Policy 64 revisions, White Paper, GIS Attachments (Policy 64 revisions, White Paper, GIS Map)Map) WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES (WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES (WCFsWCFs))IN THEIN THEPUBLIC RIGHTPUBLIC RIGHT--OFOF--WAY (PROW)WAY (PROW)Measures TakenMeasures Taken„„Consultant assistance (Comp Consultant assistance (Comp CommComm, Inc., and Miller & , Inc., and Miller & Van Eaton)Van Eaton)„„Researched existing ordinances of other jurisdictionsResearched existing ordinances of other jurisdictions„„Held Public Workshop (April 14, 2004)Held Public Workshop (April 14, 2004) WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES (WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES (WCFsWCFs))IN THEIN THEPUBLIC RIGHTPUBLIC RIGHT--OFOF--WAY (PROW)WAY (PROW)Public Workshop FollowPublic Workshop Follow--upup„„Comp Comp CommComm, Inc., “white paper”, Inc., “white paper”‹‹“Trends in Mobile Wireless Usage and Implications for “Trends in Mobile Wireless Usage and Implications for Wireless Facilities Wireless Facilities SitingSiting””„„Comp Comp CommComm, Inc., propagation studies, Inc., propagation studies„„GIS mappingGIS mapping WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES (WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES (WCFsWCFs))IN THEIN THEPUBLIC RIGHTPUBLIC RIGHT--OFOF--WAY (PROW)WAY (PROW)Revisions to City Council Policy 64Revisions to City Council Policy 64„„Major RevisionsMajor Revisions‹‹Location Guidelines pages 4 and 5Location Guidelines pages 4 and 5‹‹Design Guidelines pages 7 and 8Design Guidelines pages 7 and 8 WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES (WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES (WCFsWCFs))IN THEIN THEPUBLIC RIGHTPUBLIC RIGHT--OFOF--WAY (PROW)WAY (PROW)Location Guidelines RevisionsLocation Guidelines Revisions„„Added the placement of Wireless Communication Added the placement of Wireless Communication Facilities (Facilities (WCFsWCFs) in the Public Right) in the Public Right--ofof--Way (PROW) on Way (PROW) on Circulation Element roads as a Circulation Element roads as a Preferred LocationPreferred Location WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES (WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES (WCFsWCFs))IN THEIN THEPUBLIC RIGHTPUBLIC RIGHT--OFOF--WAY (PROW)WAY (PROW)Location Guidelines RevisionsLocation Guidelines Revisions„„Locating in the PROW on the Circulation Element Roads Locating in the PROW on the Circulation Element Roads adjacent to industrial and commercial zones has a higher adjacent to industrial and commercial zones has a higher preference than PROW adjacent to residential zonespreference than PROW adjacent to residential zones WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES (WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES (WCFsWCFs))IN THEIN THEPUBLIC RIGHTPUBLIC RIGHT--OFOF--WAY (PROW)WAY (PROW)Location Guidelines RevisionsLocation Guidelines Revisions„„Added the placement of Added the placement of WCFs WCFs in the PROW on Nonin the PROW on Non--Circulation Element roads as a Circulation Element roads as a discouraged locationdiscouraged location––can can still be considered with alternative site analysisstill be considered with alternative site analysis WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES (WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES (WCFsWCFs))IN THEIN THEPUBLIC RIGHTPUBLIC RIGHT--OFOF--WAY (PROW)WAY (PROW)Design Guidelines RevisionsDesign Guidelines Revisions„„Added Section 11 which contains specific design Added Section 11 which contains specific design guidelines for guidelines for WCFs WCFs in the PROWin the PROW WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES (WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES (WCFsWCFs))IN THEIN THEPUBLIC RIGHTPUBLIC RIGHT--OFOF--WAY (PROW)WAY (PROW)Design Guidelines Revisions continuedDesign Guidelines Revisions continued„„Design FeaturesDesign Features‹‹Use of existing poles and structuresUse of existing poles and structures‹‹Cannot exceed height of existing poleCannot exceed height of existing pole‹‹Pole/Structure owner authorization Pole/Structure owner authorization ––compensation for compensation for City ownershipCity ownership‹‹Vertical Mounting Vertical Mounting ––maximum 8” from polemaximum 8” from pole‹‹Maximum number of antennas per poleMaximum number of antennas per pole‹‹Painted to match color of polePainted to match color of pole‹‹Undergrounding Undergrounding of equipmentof equipment‹‹Minimize pedestrian/vehicular impactsMinimize pedestrian/vehicular impacts WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES (WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES (WCFsWCFs))IN THEIN THEPUBLIC RIGHTPUBLIC RIGHT--OFOF--WAY (PROW)WAY (PROW)Future MeasuresFuture Measures„„Resolution No. 2004Resolution No. 2004--182182‹‹Directs staff to return with additional recommended Directs staff to return with additional recommended CMC and Policy 64 amendmentsCMC and Policy 64 amendmentsConsider allowing stealth Consider allowing stealth WCFs WCFs in some preferred in some preferred locations by administrative permitlocations by administrative permitConsider allowing Consider allowing WCFs WCFs in PROW by in PROW by administrative permitsadministrative permits WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES (WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES (WCFsWCFs))IN THEIN THEPUBLIC RIGHTPUBLIC RIGHT--OFOF--WAY (PROW)WAY (PROW)Recommended ActionsRecommended Actions„„Urgency Ordinance No. NSUrgency Ordinance No. NS--707707„„Ordinance No. NSOrdinance No. NS--708708„„Resolution No. 2004Resolution No. 2004--182182 Oceanside Golf Course Oceanside Golf Course Oceanside Golf Course Espola Road, Poway Settle Road, Santee Alpine Heights Road, Alpine Lomas Santa Fe Drive, Solana Beach Del Dios Highway, San Dieguito Merced Drive, Oceanside