HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.4 WirelessCommFacAmend
&
-- ...
C I TV
File #
.
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 19,1998
SUBJECT:
EXHIBITS ATTACHED:
RECOMMENDATION:
1.)
2.)
3.)
4.)
5.)
. ~
6.)
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None
BACKGROUND:
PUBLIC HEARING: PA 97-046 Wireless Communication
Facilities - Zoning Ordinance Amendment Cl<0
(Report Prepared by: Carol R. Cirelli, Senior Planner)
1.
Draft Wireless Communication Facilities - Zoning Ordinance
Amendment
Planning Commission Resolution Recommending City
Council Adoption ofPA 97-046 Wireless Communication
Facilities - Zoning Ordinance Amendment
April 28, 1998 Planning Commission Public Hearing
Minutes
Photos of Antennas, Monopoles and Lattice Towers
2.
3.
4.
Open public hearing.
Receive staff presentation and public testimony.
Question staff and the public.
Close public hearing and deliberate.
Waive reading and introduce ordinance approving PA 97-
046 Wireless Communication Facilities - Zoning Ordinance
Amendment.
Continue public hearing to the June 2, 1998 City Council
meeting for the second reading and adoption of the
ordinance.
The City's recently amended Zoning Ordinance became effective in early October, 1997. The Ordinance
includes a section reserved for wireless communication facilities. Staff was researching the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 (new federal legislation governing wireless communication) while the
revised Zoning Ordinance was proceeding through the public hearing process.
.
Exhibit 1 of the staff report is the draft zoning ordinance amendment that establishes zoning provisions
for the development and installation of wireless communication facilities. Wireless communication
- - - -------- - -..........-- - - - - - ~............... - -- -............... - -............... - - - - - ---
COPIES TO: In-House Distribution
g:\telecomm\ccsrl
ITEM NO.
6.4
facilities are antennas, ham radio antennas, radio and television antennas, lattice towers', monopoles2 and
personal wireless service facilities3 that transmit and/or receive radio frequency communication signals.
Wireless communications falls under the general category of telecommunications.
Telecommunications Act of 1996
.
In January of 1996, the President signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act) and it became
effective in February of 1996. The term "telecommunications" means the transmission of information
through some distance, usually by means of electronic or electromagnetic media. Two broad classes of
telecommunication categories are wired (e.g., fiber optic cable) and wireless (e.g., antennas).
In general, the 1996 Act redefines the telecommunications industry reflecting the changes and rapid
growth oftelecommunications technologies in recent years. The 1996 Act also deregulates the
telecommunications industry stimulating competition among all telecommunication service providers, and
permitting and encouraging the entry of providers into new service areas.
Section 704 of the 1996 Act is of specific interest to cities and counties because it addresses the issue of
local zoning authority over personal wireless service facilities, such as cellular, personal communication
services (PCS) and specialized mobile radio (SMR) services by:
I. Establishing the general principle that local zoning authority is preserved, subject to certain
conditions.
2. Listing the conditions that local zoning requirements must satisfy.
..,
;).
Establishing that FCC standards for radio frequency (RF) emissions supersede any local or State .
environmental regulations. That is, while the 1996 Act does not preclude California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or National Environmental Protection Act (NEP A) review of
RF emissions, it does preclude local jurisdictions from using standards that are stricter than the
FCC's in regulating wireless facilities.
4. Identifying which disputes will be handled by the courts and which will be handled by the FCC.
Local Government Zoning Decisions
Local government zoning decisions regarding personal wireless service facilities must satisfy five
conditions in order to take advantage of the 1996 Act's general principle of preserving local zoning
authority:
1. Local zoning requirements may not unreasonably discriminate among personal wireless service
providers that compete against one another. This provision does not mean that competitive
, A self-supporting (freestanding), or guyed structure, erected on the ground, which consists of metal
crossed strips or bars to support antennas and related equipment.
2 A facility that supports antennas for wireless communication with a monopolar structure erected on the
ground, terminating in one or more connecting appurtenances.
3 A facility generally consisting of transmitters, antenna structures and other types of installations which
receive and/or transmit radio frequency signals for the provision of wireless communication services. .
Common examples of personal wireless services include specialized mobile radio services (offered by Nextel),
personal communication services (PCS) (offered by Pacific Bell Mobile Services and Sprint), cellular
radiotelephone service (offered by GTE Mobilnet and Cellular One), and commercial paging service.
-- ;A-
. 2.
.
.
providers need to be treated exactly the same if their proposed facilities present different zoning
concerns. That is, it is recognized that a 45-foot high monopole in a residential district presents
different concerns than a similar monopole in a commercial district, even if the monopoles would
offer services that compete with one another.
Local zoning requirements may not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of
personal wireless service. This provision is intended to prevent cities and counties from imposing
outright bans on personal wireless service facilities, or requirements that have substantially the
practical effect of a prohibition. At the same time, local governments have the ability to limit the
number and placement of facilities as long as those limits do not have the effect of precluding a
personal wireless service provider's ability to offer service.
3.
Local governments must act on application requests within a reasonable period oftime. If denied
by a local government. denial must be in writing and based on evidence in a written record. The
time taken to act on an application will be considered reasonable if it is no longer than the time it
usually takes to act on other requests of comparable magnitude that do not involve personal
wireless service facilities. The 1996 Act does not require local governments to give preferential
treatment to applications involving personal wireless service facilities.
4.
As long as wireless communication facilities meet standards to be set by the FCC. a local
!!overnment may not base anv decision denying a request to construct such facilities on the 2:round
that radio frequency emissions from the facilities will be harmful to the environment or health of
residents. As noted above, as long as the facilities conform to federal emission standards set by
the American National Standard Institute (ANSI) and the FCC, concerns about the effects of
emissions from radio towers on the health of nearby residents is not a permissible reason for
making zoning decisions about the placement of personal wireless service facilities.
Dublin's Draft Zoninl! Ordinance Amendment
As a result of the 1996 Act, a growing number of wireless communication service providers are using
antennas to transmit signals for cell phones and other forms of wireless communication services. In
addition, newer wireless communication systems, such as PCS, require mOTe antenna sites for adequate
service. For example, a PCS system offers a method of communication similar to cellular, but with higher
quality reception that allows for the transmission of data and voice. PCS uses higher frequencies than
cellular, which results in PCS signals traveling shorter distances than cellular signals. For this reason, a
typical PCS system will require more sites than a typical cellular system.
Dublin has not yet been inundated with antenna applications (four PCS antenna applications were
processed within the last year). However, the number of antenna applications could increase dramatically
especially since the FCC just recently auctioned off rights to use radio airwaves for wireless
communication providers and these providers continue to report steep increases in wireless customers.
Potential land use impacts could result from this type of wireless facility development, particularly visual
impacts and compatibility issues associated with proximity to residential neighborhoods.
Before an influx of applications occurs, staff recommends that a zoning ordinance regulating wireless
communication facilities be adopted that allows the City to maintain some control over the location and
design of these antenna facilities through a discretionary permit process. This ordinance would ensure
that the development of a wireless communication facility conforms with City requirements and is
compatible with its surrounding neighborhood and uses.
-3-
Staff conducted e),.'tensive research before preparing the draft zoning ordinance amendment. This research
included attending seminars, interviewing wireless communication service providers, researching other
city ordinances, reviewing FCC reports, and also working closely with the City Attorney's office.
It is important to note that future changes may occur with telecommunications technology and that a
definitive interpretation of the 1996 Telecommunication Act probably will not be achieved for some .
years. Until the 1996 Act is more clearly defined, there will remain some degree of uncertainty with
respect to the limits of local authority over telecommunications providers and facilities. As a result, the
City should expect that amendments to this ordinance may be necessary to reflect future
telecommunications industry changes and future court interpretations as well as changes to the 1996 Act.
ZONING ORDINANCE
Overview
The draft wireless communication facilities zoning ordinance would be applicable to all zoning districts,
including Planned Development Zoning Districts. The ordinance defines the different types of wireless
communication facilities and applicable planning permits depending on where these facilities are
proposed for location.
The wireless communication facilities, or antennas, range from familiar TV/radio and ham radio antennas,
to the new PCS or SMR antennas. The antennas are typically mounted on buildings, 25- to 100- foot
monopoles, 5- to 10- foot posts or masts attached to a roof of a building, public right-of-way standards, or
on the ground, and they usually require the installation of ancillary equipment, such as power generators,
conduits, etc., (see photos, Exhibit 4).
The main intent of the zoning ordinance amendment is to provide regulations that are designed to protect .
and promote public health, safety, community welfare and the aesthetic quality of Dublin as set forth
within the Dublin General Plan, while at the same time not improperly restricting the development of
needed wireless communication facilities.
Most important, the ordinance promotes the protection of Dublin's aesthetic qualities. The regulatory
sections encourage the placement of wireless communication facilities in areas where they can be visually
unobtrusive and easily screened, such as behind existing tall buildings within commercial areas and
industrial areas.
The ordinance encourages the location of wireless communication facilities within industrial districts
because they are more compatible with industrial-type uses and would be less noticeable and aesthetically
acceptable; and discourages placement of these facilities in residential and open space areas, especially
areas along designated scenic corridors and ridgelines in east and west Dublin that are generally more
sensitive to visual impacts.
The ordinance also encourages the co-location of antennas on new and existing monopole and tower sites,
precluding the potential for the multiple siting of monopoles and towers throughout the City.
Plannifi!! Permit Requirements
The intent of this section of the draft ordinance is to encourage the placement of wireless communication .
facilities where adverse impacts on the community are minimal. With reduced visual impacts of these
facilities, the wireless communication service providers are subject to reduced levels of permitting
~'I-
.
.
.
reguirements and with increased visual impacts, they are subject to increased levels of permitting
requirements.
The draft ordinance's planning permit framework provides an incentive for the providers of wireless
communication service to conceal their facilities as much as possible, or locate them within industrial
zoning districts. The placement of wireless facilities that are totally concealed 'within structures, or that
are located within industrial zoning districts, are either permitted, require minimal level of staff review, or
require minor planning permits.
Wireless communication facilities with increased visual impacts and adjacent neighborhood compatibility
impacts would require a higher level of planning permit and public noticing requirements. For example,
locating a 75-foot tall monopole within a residential district, park or open space area, would require a
public hearing and Site Development Review/Conditional Use Permit approval. If this same facility was
located within a industrial district, it would only require Site Development Review approval and a public
notice without a public hearing.
Public notices for wireless communication facilities that exceed 70 feet in height and that require a
Conditional Use Permit are required to be mailed to all adjacent property owners within 500 feet of the
facilities. The standard noticing requirement for a Conditional Use Permit application is noticing property
owners within 300 feet of the project.
The permitting section of the ordinance refers to the number of antennas that would be allowed, or
permitted, depending on the zoning district in which they are located. For example, 12 building, ground
or roof-mounted antennas (e.g., directional, or "panel" antennas, typically 4 feet long and 1 foot wide for
PCS systems), exclusive of satellite dish antennas, are allowed within commercial and industrial districts
with minor planning permit approval. Based on all the research conducted, staff determined that many
wireless communication service providers require 9 to 12 antennas for properly serving customers, and
the number of antennas required depends on topography and technical parameters. To alleviate concerns
regarding the potential visual impacts of placing 12 or more antennas on a site, the ordinance includes
setback and screening requirements that would reduce the levels of visual impacts.
The permitting section of the ordinance also takes into consideration the potential health-sensitive issues
associated with locating wireless communication facilities within residential districts, or at schools, or
large and small community care facilities as described in the following section of the staff report. In
addition, the ordinance includes a provision under Section 8.92.100 Standards for Monopoles and Towers
stating that monopoles and towers shall be located more than 75 feet away from the nearest residential
dwelling unit.
Permitted Uses and Uses Reouirin!! Onlv Site Development Review Waiver Approval
The "Permitted Uses" section of the draft ordinance describes the wireless facilities that are permitted, as
long as they comply with the general requirements of the ordinance and building permit requirements.
Part A of this section provides an incentive for wireless communication providers to conceal these types
of facilities as much as possible, thereby alleviating any aesthetic issues. Planning permits are not
required for antennas that are concealed within structures or buildings within commercial or industrial
zoning districts. This provision applies only to antennas that are proposed for non-residential areas,
excluding schools and small and large community care facilities, making any potential health concern not
a major Issue.
-5-
Any pre-existing and pre-approved wireless communication facilities that are replaced by facilities that
are identical or smaller in size would only require Site Development Review Waiver approval. The same
would apply to building mounted antennas regardless of number, that are camouflaged, or undetectable by
way of design and/or placement on buildings within commercial and industrial zoning districts, or
antennas placed on utility poles, reservoirs, public right-of-way street light standards, or other public
infrastructurelbuildings. If more than one antenna is placed on a public facility within a residential zonin.
district, the antennas are required to be set back more than 75 feet away from any residential dwelling
unit.
Parks/Open Space/Historical Sites
Parks, agricultural districts, and other open space areas are visually sensitive areas similar to residential
districts. The ordinance requires wireless communication facilities that are located within these areas to
be subject to the same zoning regulations established for the nearest residential zoning district.
In order to discourage placement of wireless facilities on historical buildings and sites within Dublin, the
ordinance requires a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review for all wireless facilities that
are located on historic sites (e.g., the Heritage Center) in any zoning district. Federal law (FCC rule)
permits cities to continue to enforce zoning regulations that preserve historic sites. As a result, cities are
able to either restrict or prohibit wireless facilities within historically designated areas.
Location
The draft ordinance restricts placement of wireless facilities in areas that are visible from the 1-580/1-680
freeways, scenic corridors, public parks and trails, etc., unless they blend with the surrounding existing
natural and man-made environment so that the facilities are unnoticeable.
.
This section also regulates the distances between wireless facilities. For example, wireless facilities
cannot be located closer than one half mile from any existing monopole or tower, unless technologically
required or visually preferable.
This section also includes setback requirements for monopoles and towers. Monopoles and lattice towers
are required to be setback at least twenty percent (20%) ofthe monopole/tower height from all property
lines, and at least 100 feet from any public park, trail, or outdoor recreation area, unless they blend with
the surrounding existing natural and man-made environment so that the facilities are unnoticeable.
In cases where new monopoles are necessary, the ordinance specifies that poles and antennas should be
designed and located to minimize visibility and additional landscaping, or other visual amenities should
be considered to compensate for visual impacts of the use.
Satellite Dish Antennas Greater than Four Feet in Diameter
The draft ordinance includes separate zoning standards for satellite dish antennas that are greater than 4
feet in diameter within any district. Unlike PCS and other newer forms of antennas, satellite dish
antennas can be rather large (8 feet or more in diameter) and the multiple siting of these facilities could
present major visual impact issues.
.
-~-
Desi2:n Standards and Conditional Use Permit Criteria
.
The ordinance contains design review criteria that regulate the design ofthe wireless communication
facilities, especially for monopoles and lattice towers so that they blend with the existing natural or built
surroundings. The draft ordinance also contains Conditional Use Permit criteria that serve as findings for
granting use permits. These [mdings cover screening, design criteria, heights of facilities, co-location,
landscaping, etc.
Application Reauirements
This section of the ordinance requires planning application submittals that are necessary for evaluating the
potential impacts of wireless communication facilities. This comprehensive list includes such items as
visual analysis, alternative site analysis, master plan for related facilities (for determining potential future
city-wide impacts), documentation for compliance with NEPA, and special tower and monopole
application requirements. Applicants are also required to submit electromagnetic radiation exposure study
information demonstrating that emissions from the wireless communication facilities are within the limits
established by the FCC.
Maintenance/FaciIitv Removal A2:reement
.
This provision of the ordinance requires the applicant proposing to install certain kinds of wireless
communication facilities to enter into a maintenance/facility removal agreement with the City. The
purpose of this provision is to ensure that the exterior appearance of a wireless communication facility is
properly maintained and its ultimate removal properly achieved. This provision binds the applicant to pay
all costs for monitoring compliance with, and enforcement of, the agreement and to reimburse the City for
all costs incurred to perform the required work of the agreement if the applicant fails to do so.
The applicant would be required to post a financial security, such as a letter of credit, to guarantee the
proper removal of the facility if it has been inoperative or abandoned for a 2 year period, or upon
expiration of the permit applications.
Mappin2:rrrackin2: System
This provision would provide the City an overall mapping and tracking database for wireless
commlli1ication facilities that would indicate the total physical impact of these facilities in the City,
especially those that occupy the public rights-of-way. This system would be most helpful to the Planning
and Public Works departments for conducting wireless communication facility research and the decision-
makers (planning Commission and City Council) when evaluating such projects. The Commission and
COlli1cil can base their actions on a comprehensive evaluation of the total impact of wireless
communication facilities in the city.
Re2:istration
.
The draft ordinance requires the registration of all wireless communication service providers, whether
they need planning permit approval or not, and a registration fee. The City COlli1cil can choose not to
have this provision since we already require a business license and wireless communication service
providers would be subject to obtaining and paying for this license. However, there are some positive
aspects of requiring registration. This system would 1) provide the most current and accurate information
concerning all wireless communication service providers who offer or provide service within the City; 2)
-1-
assist the City in enforcement of the ordinance; 3) assist the City in the collection and enforcement of any
license fees or charges that may be due to the City; and lastly, 4) assist the City in monitoring compliance .
with local, state and federal laws.
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE
Direct Broadcast Satellite Antennas
.
Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) is a new communications technology that transmits programming from a
satellite directly to the subscribers' homes. These new DBS satellite dishes are much smaller in diameter
(:t 3') than what they were in the past (:t 10 feet in diameter).
According to federal regulations, local jurisdictions cannot regulate DBS satellite dish antenna facilities
that are one meter (39 inches) in diameter or less in residential areas, and two meters or less in non-
residential areas. The only exceptions are if a DBS antenna is proposed for a historical facility, or if it
might pose a public safety hazard.
Amateur (Ham) Radio Antennas
The draft ordinance addresses the requirements for ham radio antennas within all zoning districts.
According to federal regulations, zoning requirements regulating ham radio antennas must accommodate
reasonable amateur communications and must represent minimum practicable regulation that accomplish
a local jurisdiction's zoning intent and general plan goals and objectives. Many localjurisdictions have
utilized ham radio antennas during emergency situations.
Typical heights for ham radio antennas range from 35 feet to 70 feet. The draft ordinance states that in
residential districts, one ham radio antenna not exceeding 35 feet when fully extended is a permitted use, .
but that one ham radio antenna exceeding 35 feet, but less than 70 feet requires Site Development Review
approval, which involves noticing for all property owners within 300 feet of the project. More than one
ham radio antenna exceeding 35 feet but less than 70 feet requires Conditional Use Permit and Site
Development Review approval within residential districts, and ham radio antennas greater than 70 feet
when fully extended are not permitted within residential districts.
Ham radio antennas with greater height limits are allowed within commercial and industrial districts with
Site Development Review approval, and a greater number of ham radio antennas are allowed with
Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review approvaL
Since ham radio antermas do not present multiple-siting issues as other wireless facilities (e.g., PCS
antennas), the draft ham radio antenna permitting requirements could be changed to allow less stringent
planning requirements. For example, one ham radio antenna greater than 35 feet but less than 70 feet
within residential districts would require Site Development Review Waiver approval instead of Site
Development Review approval.
In addition, some cities exempt ham radio antennas from zoning ordinance regulations. The City could
include provisions that exempt ham radio antennas under 70 feet within any district; or exempt all ham
radio antennas that are used exclusively as receive-only antennas within any district. The City Council
should be aware that all proposed ham radio antennas are reviewed by the Building Department and that a
building permit must be obtained prior to construction of the antenna. .
-g-
.
.
.
S~ATUS OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS POLICY/ORDINANCE
Dublin has been working with the cities of Livermore, Pleasanton and San Ramon to develop a
telecommunications policy and model ordinance for regulating telecommunications facilities for both the
wired and wireless categories of telecommunications. However, no substantial progress has been made to
date. As a high priority project for next Fiscal year, the City will be hiring a telecommunications
consultant who will prepare draft policies and ordinances as necessary to address public right-of-way
management issues. Such issues may include requiring compensation for use of the public right-of-way,
installing additional conduit that the City will later purchase for its own fiber optic network, over-sizing
cable conduit for future telecommunications providers, joint trenching (i.e., laying fiber optic conduit
when the public right-of-way is trenched for other reasons), franchise fee issues and other issues.
Staff will prepare a telecommunications policy and ordinance based on the consultant's report and City
staff input. This information will then be presented to the City Council for your consideration. The
project is tentatively scheduled for hearing this Fall, 1998.
APRIL 28, 1998 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Staff presented the draft zoning ordinance amendment before the Planning Commission on April 28,
1998. There were no public comments during the public hearing. However, Chairperson Jennings
inquired whether the City could completely prohibit lattice towers within the City. Currently, the draft
ordinance allows lattice towers only within industrial zoning districts with Conditional Use Permit/Site
Development Review approval. Staff consulted with the City Attorney's office and was advised that the
City should not prohibit lattice towers. If lattice towers were prohibited, the City could be accused of
excluding a particular wireless service provider from providing services within the City, which would be
in violation ofthe Telecommunications Act of 1996 (i.e., Local zoning requirements may not prohibit or
have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless service). However, the City can prohibit
lattice towers if they pose public health, safety, and building issues.
The Planning Commission recommended City Council approval of the draft ordinance and directed staff
to research Chairperson Jennings' request.
-1-
.
.
.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ADDING SECTION 8.92 TO THE
DUBLIN ZONING ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING ZONING ORDINANCE
PROVISIONS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND INSTALLATION OF WIRELESS
COMMUNICATION FACILITIES
THE DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1
Chapter 8.92 is added to the Dublin Municipal Code to read as follows:
"TITLE 8. CHAPTER 4. SECTION 8.92
Wireless Communication Facilities
8.92.010
Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to provide a uniform and comprehensive
set of standards for the development and installation of wireless communication
facilities and related facilities. These standards cover the siting, designing and
permitting of wireless communication facilities.
Intent. The intent of the regulations contained herein is to protect and promote
public heal~ safety, community welfare and the aesthetic quality of Dublin as set
forth within the goals, objectives and policies of the Dublin General Plan; while at
the same time not unduly restricting the development of needed wireless
communication facilities and amateur radio installations. The intent of this
Chapter is also to provide a public forum to insure a balance between public and
private interests in establishing wireless communication facilities.
Goals. The goals of this Ordinance are to:
A. Protect the visual character of the City from the potential adverse effects of wireless
communication facilities development and wireless communication facility installation;
B. Insure against the creation of visual blight within or along the City's scenic corridors and
ridgelines;
C. Encourage the location of monopoles, lattice towers, or other similar structures as
determined by the Community Development Director, in non-residential areas and
minimize the total number of monopoles and lattice towers throughout the City;
D. Encourage strongly the co-location at new and existing monopole and tower sites;
E.
Protect the inhabitants of Dublin from the possible health effects associated with high
levels ofNIER (non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation);
EXHIBIT 1
g:\telecomm\ordapr98
F.
Encourage users of wireless communication facilities to locate them, to the maximum
extent possible, in areas where the adverse impacts on the community are minimal;
.
G. Encourage users of wireless communication facilities, which include equipment cabinets
or shelters, to configure them in a way that minimizes the adverse visual impact of the
facilities;
H. Enhance the ability of the provider of wireless communication services to provide such
services to the community quickly, effectively and efficiently;
L Insure that a competitive and broad range of wireless communication services and high
quality wireless communication service infrastructure are provided to serve the business
community; and
J. Encourage managed development of wireless communication service infrastructure to
insure Dublin's role in the evolution of technology.
Section 8.92.020
Applicability.
A.
This Ordinance shall apply to all types of wireless communication facilities within any
zoning district, including Planned Development (PD) Districts, consistent with the
development regulations and planning permit requirements established under this section.
.
B. The Ordinance shall not apply to direct broadcast satellite (DBS) service antennas that are
one meter (39 inches) or less in size within residential zoning districts; and DBS antennas that
are two meters (78 inches) or less in size within industrial zoning districts, provided that:
1. They do not pose a threat to public safety, including, but not limited to, minimum
separation from power lines, compliance with electrical and fire code
requirements, and secure installation;
2. They are not located on sites with historical significance; and
3. To the extent feasible, the antennas are installed in a location where it is not
readily visible from the public right-of-way.
C. Wireless communication facilities shall not be subject to the height requirements of the
zoning district in which they are located.
D. Wireless communication facilities shall not be constructed or installed on a
nonconforming structure.
Section 8.92.030
Definitions. For purposes of these regulations, certain words and phrases
shall be interpreted asset forth in this Chapter unless it is apparent from
.
g:\teJecomm\ordapr98
2
.
.
.
the context that a different meaning is intended. 'Where any of the
definitions in this Chapter may conflict with definitions in Chapter 8.08,
Definitions, the definitions in this Chapter shall prevail for purposes of
this Chapter.
A.
Antenna. The term Antenna shall mean any system of wires, poles, panels, rods,
reflecting disc, or similar devices used for the transmission or reception of radio
frequency signals (or electromagnetic waves) and shall include:
1. Antenna - Building Mounted which is any antenna, other than an
antenna with its supports resting on the ground, directly attached or
affixed to an existing or proposed building or structure, other than a
monopole or lattice tower, and which does not protrude above the highest
point of the existing improvements on the property.
2. Antenna - Directional (also known as "panel" antenna) which transmits
and/or receives radio frequency signals in a directional pattern of less than
360 degrees.
..,
;).
Antenna - Ground Mounted which is any antenna with its base, single or
multiple posts or poles, placed directly on the ground or a mast not more
than fifteen (15) feet tall.
4.
Antenna - Omni~directional which transmits and/or receives radio
frequency signals in a 360 degree radial pattern.
5. Antenna - Roof Mounted which is any antenna that is attached to a
mounting mast, installed on a building or structure, and protrudes above
the highest point of the existing improvements located on the property.
6. Antenna - Satellite Dish (also known as a "parabolic" antenna) which is
any device incorporating a reflective surface that is solid, open mesh, or a
bar configuration that is shallow dish, cone, horn, bowl or cornucopia
shaped and is used to transmit and/or receive electromagnetic or radio
frequency communication signals in a specific directional pattern.
B. Co-Location. The term Co-Location shall mean when more than one wireless
communication service provider mounts equipment on a single support structure.
C. Community Development Director. This term Community Development Director shall
mean the Community Development Director of the City of Dublin and his or her
designee.
D.
Direct broadcast satellite service (DBS). The term direct broadcast satellite service
(DBS) shall mean a system in which signals are transmitted directly from a satellite to a
g:\telecomm\ordapr98
3
small receiving dish whose diameter is less than one meter (30 inches) in residential
zoning districts and two meters (78 inches) in commercial zoning districts. .
E. Equipment Shelter or Cabinet. The terms Equipment Shelter or Cabinet shall mean a
cabinet or building used to house equipment used by wireless communication service
providers to house equipment at a facility.
F. Ham (Amateur) Radio Antenna. The term Ham Radio Antenna shall mean. antennas
and related equipment for the purposes of self-training, intercommunication or technical
investigations carried out by an amateur radio operator who is interested in radio
technique solely for personal interest, and without commercial or pecuniary interest, who
holds a written authorization from the FCC to operate such amateur radio facility.
G. Height. The term Height shall mean, when referring to antennas, monopoles or lattice
towers, or other structures determined by the Community Development Director to be
similar, the distance measured from ground level or building mounted level to the highest
point on the antenna facility, monopole or lattice tower, even if said highest point is an
antenna or piece of equipment attached thereto. In the case of "crank-up" or other similar
towers whose height can be adjusted, the height of the tower shall be the maximum
height to which it is capable of being raised.
H.
Lattice Tower. The term Lattice Tower shall mean a self-supporting (freestanding) or
guyed structure, erected on the ground, which consists of metal crossed strips or bars to
support antennas and related equipment.
.
1. Monopole. The term Monopole shall mean a wireless communication facility that
supports wireless communication service antennas with a monopolar structure erected on
the ground, terminating in one or more connecting appurtenances.
J. NIER. The term NIER shall mean non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation (i.e.,
electromagnetic radiation primarily in the visible, infrared and radio frequency portions
of the electromagnetic spectrum).
K. Personal Wireless Service Facility. The term Personal Wireless Service Facility shall
mean an unstaffed facility, generally consisting of transmitters, antenna structures and
other types of installations which receive and/or transmit radio frequency signals for the
provision of wireless communication services, including ancillary equipment cabinet or
structure, and related equipment. Common examples of personal wireless services
include specialized commercial mobile radio services, personal communications services
(PCS), cellular radiotelephone service and commercial paging. Residential home satellite
services are not considered "personal wireless services."
L.
Related equipment. The term Related Equipment shall mean all equipment ancillary to
the transmission and reception of voice and data via radio frequencies. Such equipment
may include, but is not limited to, cable conduit and connectors.
.
g:\teJecomm\ordapr98
4
.
.
.
M.
Universal Service. The term Universal Service is the public policy goal that Congress
first mandated in the 1934 Communications Act to make telephone service widely
available at affordable prices. As the FCC implements the Telecommunications Act of
1996, the definition of Universal Service will continue to evolve to include public access
to the Internet from every school, hospital, government office, library, post office and
household.
N. Wireless Communication Facilities. The term Wireless Communication Facilities
includes TV and radio antennas, ham radio antennas, antennas, lattice towers, monopoles,
and personal wireless service facilities.
Section 8.92.040
General Requirements. The following requirements shall be met for all
wireless communication facilities in any zoning district:
A. General Plans/Specific Plans. Any applicable General Plan Goals, Objectives, Program
and Policies, Specific Plan, PD District standards, Site Development Review Guidelines,
and the permit requirements of any agencies that have jurisdiction over the project;
B.
Dublin Municipal Code. All the requirements established by the other chapters of the
Dublin Municipal Code that are not in conflict with the requirements contained in this
Chapter;
c.
Uniform Building Code. Requirements of the Uniform Building Code; National
Electrical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, and Uniform Fire
Code, where applicable;
D. Easements. Any applicable easements or similar restrictions on the subject property;
E. Airport Land Use. Any applicable airport land use compatibility criteria/policies and
F ederal Aviation Administration regulations;
F. View Interference. All wireless communication facilities shall avoid any unreasonable
interference with views from neighboring properties;
G. Setback Distances. All setback distances shall be measured from the base of the antenna
monopole, or lattice tower closest to the applicable property line or structure;
H. Location. Where feasible, wireless communication facilities shall be encouraged to be
located on City-owned property, or controlled property, or right-of way, or other public
facilities, such as water tanks and other utility structures;
1.
FCC. All antennas, monopoles and lattice towers must meet or exceed current standards
and regulations of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the California Public
Utilities Commission, and any other agency of the federal or state government with the
g:\telecomm\ordapr98
5
authority to regulate wireless communication facilities. If such standards and regulations
are changed, then the owners of the wireless communication facilities governed by this .
Chapter shall bring such facilities into compliance with such revised standards and
regulations within six (6) months of the effective date of such standards and regulations,
unless a more stringent compliance schedule is mandated by the controlling federal or
state agency. Failure to bring wireless communication facilities into compliance with
such revised standards and regulations shall constitute ground for the removal of such
facilities at the owner's expense;
J. Security. All wireless communication facilities shall maintain in place a security
program when determined necessary by and subject to the review and approval of the
Police Chief that will prevent unauthorized access and vandalism;
K. Satellite Dish Antennas. Satellite dish antennas shall be situated as close to the ground
as possible to reduce visual impact without compromising their function;
L. Registration. All wireless communication service carriers and providers engaged in the
business of transmitting, supplying or :furnishing of wireless services originating or
terminating in the City of Dublin shall register with the City pursuant to Section 8.92.190
of this Chapter;
M.
Anti-Climbing Measures. Sufficient anti-climbing measures shall be incorporated into
all wireless communication facilities, as needed, to reduce potential for trespass and
IDJury;
.
N. Concealing Shelters/Cabinets. All equipment shelters or cabinets must be concealed
from public view or made compatible with the architecture of surrounding structures or
placed underground;
o. Maintaining Shelters/Cabinets. All equipment shelters or cabinets must be regularly
maintained.
P. Noise. All wireless communication facilities shall be constructed and operated in such a
manner as to minimize the amount of noise impacts to the residents of nearby homes and
the users of nearby recreational areas, such as public parks and trails. Back-up generators
shall only be operated during power outages and for testing and maintenance purposes. If
the facility is located within one hundred (100) feet of a residential dwelling unit, noise
attenuation measures shall be included to reduce noise levels to a level of 50 dBA
measured at the property line;
Q.
Front of Principal Structures. Wireless communication facilities shall not be located in
front of principal structures, and/or along major street frontages where they will be
readily visible; and
.
g:\telecomm\ordapr98
6
.
.
.
R.
Property Lines. No portion of an antenna array shall extend beyond the property lines or
into the area in front of the primary building on the parcel, so as to create a negative
visual impact.
Section 8.92.050
Permitted Uses. The uses listed under this Section 8.92.050 are deemed
to be permitted uses and shall not require planning permits unless the
applicant seeks a modification of the basic development standards, design
criteria and conditional use permit criteria set forth in Sections 8.92.080,
8.92.090, 8.92.100 and 8.92.110, or unless located on a historic site. The
following permitted uses shall comply with the general requirements of
Section 8.92.040 and building permit requirements as applicable.
A. Concealed Antennas. Antennas that are totally concealed within structures, i.e., sign
structures, clock towers, bell steeples, and other similar structures as determined by the
Community Development Director to be similar, on commercial and industrial zoned
property, and on public and semi-public facilities and community facility structures and
sites within any district, except school buildings and large or small community care
facilities.
B.
Antennas. Twelve (12) or fewer building, ground or roof-mounted antennas, exclusive
of satellite dish antennas, per parcel within industrial districts, with equipment
shelters/cabinets that are 360 cubic feet or less. Antennas shall not project more than
fifteen (15) feet above the roofline or building parapet.
C. Satellite Dish Antennas - Industrial Districts. No more than three (3), eight (8) foot or
less in diameter satellite dish antennas per parceL
D. Satellite Dish Antennas - Residential Districts. One satellite dish antenna not
exceeding four (4) feet in diameter for sole use of tenant occupying residential parceL
E. TV or Radio Antennas. One TV or radio antenna not exceeding twenty-five (25) feet
for sole use of tenant occupying residential parceL
F. Ham Radio Antenna. One ham radio antenna not exceeding thirty-five (35) feet per
residential parcel; and one ham radio antenna not exceeding seventy (70) feet per
commercial or industrial parceL
Section 8.92.060
Planning Permit Requirements.
A. Residential Districts
1.
The following wireless communication facilities shall only be approved by means
of a Site Development Review Waiver:
g:\telecomm\ordapr98
7
a.
Roof-mounted antennas, exclusive of satellite dish antennas, four
(4) or fewer, when located on multi-family residential buildings
that are at least forty (40) feet in height. Antennas shall not project
more than fifteen (15) feet above the roof line or building parapet.
.
b. One TV or radio antenna exceeding twenty-five (25) feet, but less
than fifty (50) feet for residential tenant use only.
c. One satellite dish antenna greater than four (4) feet in diameter,
with a maximum diameter of eight (8) feet and a maximum height
of seven (7) feet, for residential tenant use only.
d. More than one, but not more than three satellite dish antennas, four
(4) feet or less in diameter with a maximum height of seven (7)
feet, for residential tenant use only.
2. The following wireless communication facilities shall require Site Development
Review approval:
a.
Eight (8) or fewer roof-mounted antennas, exclusive of satellite
dish antennas, when located on multi-family residential buildings
that are at least forty (40) feet in height. Antennas shall not project
more than fifteen (15) feet above the roof line or building parapet.
.
b. More than twelve (12) building, ground, or roof-mounted antennas
located on public and semi-public sites and community facility
sites, except large or small community care facility sites. Antennas
shall be located more than seventy-five (75) feet away from any
residential dwelling unit.
c. No more than three (3) satellite dish antennas, eight (8) feet or less
in diameter with a maximum height of seven (7) feet, when located
on multi-family residential buildings that are at least forty (40) feet
in height.
d. One ham radio antenna exceeding thirty-five (35) feet, but less
than seventy (70) feet.
3. The following wireless communication facilities shall require Conditional Use
PermitlPC (planning Commission) and Site Development Review approval:
a.
Antennas not listed under Section 8.92.050 "Permitted Uses" and
Section 8.92.060 A.I. and A.2. "Planning Permit Requirements -
Residential Districts."
.
g:\telecomm\ordapr98
8
.
.
.
b.
One ham radio antenna exceeding seventy (70) feet.
c.
More than one ham radio antenna exceeding thirty-five (35) feet,
but less than seventy (70) feet.
d. One monopole with a height limit of forty-five (45) feet, only if
located on public, semi-public, or community facility sites, except
school sites and large or small community care facilities.
4. The following wireless communication facilities are not permitted within
residential districts:
a. Lattice towers
B. Commercial Districts
1. The following wireless communication facilities shall require Site Development
Review Waiver approval:
a.
Twelve (12) or fewer building, ground or roof-mounted antelUlas,
exclusive of satellite dish antennas, per parcel, with equipment
cabinets/shelters that are 360 cubic feet or less. Antennas shall not
project more than fifteen (15) feet above the roofline or building
parapet.
b. No more than three (3) satellite dish antelUlas, eight (8) feet or less
in diameter with a maximum height of seven (7) feet, per parcel.
c. More than one ham radio antenna greater than forty-five (45) feet,
but less than seventy (70) feet in height
2. The following wireless communication facilities shall require Site Development
Review approval:
a. More than twelve (12) building, ground or roof-mounted antennas,
exclusive of satellite dish antennas, per parcel, with equipment
cabinets/shelters 360 cubic feet or less. Antennas shall not project
more than fifteen (15) feet above the roof line or building parapet
b. Four (4) satellite dish antennas, eight (8) feet or less in diameter
with a maximum height of seven (7) feet, per parcel.
c.
One ham radio antenna greater than seventy (70) feet in height.
d.
One monopole with a height of fifty (50) feet or less.
g:\telecomm\ordapr98
9
e.
Antennas that are co-located on existing building, ground or Toof-
mounted antennas, monopoles or lattice towers that do not project
more than fifteen (15) feet above the roof line or building parapet.
.
3. The following wireless communication facilities shall require Conditional Use
Permit/PC and Site Development Review approval:
a. Roof-mounted antennas that project above the roof line or building
parapet more than fifteen (15) feet and equipment cabinets/shelters
that exceed 360 cubic feet.
b. More than one ham radio antenna greater than seventy (70) feet.
c. Monopoles that are greater than fifty (50) feet but less than ninety
(90) feet in height to the top of the antennas if the monopole, as
determined by the Planning Commission, is unobtrusive and
cannot be seen from public rights-of-way, parking lots, and other
public view corridors.
4.
The following wireless communication facilities are not permitted within
commercial districts:
a. Lattice Towers
.
C. Industrial Districts
1. The following wireless communication facilities shall require Site Development
Review Waiver approval:
a. More than twelve (12) building, ground or roof-mounted antennas,
exclusive of satellite dish antennas, per parcel, and equipment
cabinets/shelters exceeding 360 cubic feet. Antennas shall not
project mOTe than fifteen (15) feet above the roofline or building
parapet.
b. No more than four (4) satellite dish antennas, twelve (12) feet or
less in diameter with a maximum height of twelve (12) feet, per
parcel.
c. One monopole that is forty-five (45) feet or less in height to the top
of antennas.
d.
More than one ham radio antenna not exceeding seventy (70) feet.
.
g:\teJecomm\ordapr98
10
.
.
.
2.
The following wireless communication facilities shall require Site Development
Review approval:
a. More than 1 ham radio antenna greater than seventy (70) feet.
b. Monopoles that are greater than fifty (50) feet up to ninety (90) feet
to the top of antennas if the monopoles are unobtrusive and cannot
be seen from public rights-of-way, parking lots and other public
view corridors.
c. Antennas that are co-located on existing ground or roof-mounted
antennas, monopoles, or lattice towers.
3. The following wireless communication facilities shall require Conditional Use
Permit and Site Development Review approval:
a. Monopoles greater than ninety (90) feet.
b. Lattice Towers, regardless of height.
D.
Other Wireless Communication Facilities Requiring Only Site Development Review
Waiver Approval
1. In any district, Site Development Review Waiver may be granted at the discretion
of the Community Development Director for the replacement of pre-existing
wireless communication facilities installed under a prior approval under this
Chapter, if the pre-existing wireless communication facilities is replaced by
equipment that is identical or smaller in size.
2. Building mounted antennas, which in the opinion of the Community Development
Director, are camouflaged, unobtrusive or undetectable by way of design and/or
placement on the building, regardless of number, when located on commercial
and industrial zoned property, and on public and semi-public or community
facility structures and sites within any district, except school buildings and large
or small community care facilities. The antennas shall be located more than
seventy-five (75) feet away from any residential dwelling unit.
..,
;).
Antennas placed on utility poles, public right-of-way street light standards, public
or semi-public facility light standards, reservoirs, and other public infrastructure,
which, in the opinion of the Community Development Director, are unobtrusive
or undetectable by way of design and/or placement on the public facility structure.
If more than one antenna is placed on these public facilities within a residential
zoning district, or agricultural zoning district, park or open space area adjacent to
a residential zoning district, the antennas shall be located more than seventy-five
(75) feet away from any residential dwelling unit.
g:\teJecomm\ordapr98
11
E.
Planning Permit Regulations Applying to Agricultural Districts, Parks and Other
Similar Open Space Areas
Wireless communication facilities proposed for parks, agricultural districts, and other
similar open space areas shall be subject to the same regulations as set forth in the nearest
residential zoning district.
F. Wireless communication facilities Located on Sites with Historical Significance as
Recognized by the City and Alameda County
1. A Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit/PC is required for all
wireless communication facilities that are located on historic sites in any district.
Section 8.92.070
Location. All wireless communication facilities shall be located so as to
minimize their visibility and the number of distinct facilities present. The
following measures shall be implemented for all wireless communication
facilities:
A.
No wireless communication facilities shall be installed on an exposed ridgeline, or at a
location readily visible from 1-580,1-680, a public trail, public park or other outdoor
recreation area, or the three Eastern Dublin scenic corridors: Tassajara Road, Fallon
Road and the Interstate 580 Freeway within Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, as defined
in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and
Standards document; or on property designated ParksIRecreation, Neighborhood Square,
Open Space, or Stream Corridor on the Dublin General Plan, unless it blends with the
surrounding existing natural and man-made environment in such a manner as to be
effectively unnoticeable and a finding is made that no other location is technically
feasible;
B. No Wireless Communication Facilities shall be installed at a location where special
painting or lighting will be required by the FAA regulations unless technical evidence
acceptable to the Community Development Director or Planning Commission, as
appropriate, is submitted showing that this is the only technically feasible location for this
facility;
c. All wireless communication facilities shall not be located any closer than one half mile
from any existing monopoles or towers unless teclmologically required (technical
evidence must be submitted to the Community Development Director showing a clear
need for this facility, and the infeasibility of co-locating it on one of these former
approved sites), or visually preferable (i.e. blends with the surrounding existing natural
and man-made environment in such a manner as to be effectively unnoticeable).
D.
Wireless communication service monopolesllattice towers shall be set back at least
twenty percent (20%) of the monopole/tower height from all property lines, and at least
g:\telecomm\ordapr98
12
.
.
.
.
.
.
one hundred (100) feet from any public trail, park, or outdoor recreation area, unless it
blends with the surrounding existing natural and man-made environment in such a
manner as to be effectively unnoticeable and a finding is made that no other location is
technically feasible. Guy wire anchors shall be set back at least twenty (20) feet from any
property line.
Section 8.92.080
Basic Development Regulations For Satellite Dish Antennas
A. Residential Districts
1. No satellite dish antennas shall be placed within the required front yard, street side
yard or within five (5) feet of any side or rear property line of any lot within a
residential district.
2. All satellite dish antennas shall have a maximum diameter of eight (8) feet.
3. All ground-mounted satellite dish antennas shall have a maximum height of seven
(7) feet
4. Ground-mounted satellite dish antennas in any residential zoning district shall be
screened from public view from streets and adjacent properties by at least a six (6)
foot high solid wall or fence, or by plants or trees of equal minimum height.
5.
When a satellite dish is attached to a residence, it shall not exceed a diameter of
one meter (39 inches) and to the greatest extent financially and technologically
feasible, in no case shall it be higher than the structure ridgeline of the building on
which it is mounted and shall be located at the fear of the structure. A larger
satellite dish may be roof-mounted if the antenna can be screened from view from
the public right-of-way and the screening material is compatible and consistent
with the materials, color and architectural character of the dwelling.
6. Exceptions to locations may be made by the Community Development Director if
it can be shown that substantial reception would be lost if satellite antennas are
located in prohibited areas. In no case, however, shall a ground-mounted antenna
be allowed within the front yard or street side yard setbacks.
B. Commercial and Industrial Districts
1. Satellite dish anteill1as on any lot within conunercial or industrial districts shall
not be placed within the required front yard or street side yard or within five (5)
feet of any side or rear property line where the parcel ab\lts a residential district
2.
Satellite dish antennas located in commercial or industrial districts shall not be
placed between a building and any right-of-way unless totally screened from
view. Ground-mounted anteill1as shall be screened from public view by being
g;\telecomm\ordapr98
13
located at the rear of a building. Antennas shall not exceed a diameter of eight (8) .
feet and a height of seven (7) feet in a commercial district, and shall not exceed
twelve (12) feet in diameter and a height of twelve (12) feet in an industrial
district unless approved otherwise by the Community Development Director.
3. Ground or platform mounted satellite dish antennas in any commercial or
industrial zoning district that abuts a residential district that are higher than six (6)
feet shall be located one foot back from the setback line adjacent to those districts
for each foot of height above six (6) feet.
4. In a commercial or industrial district, roof-mounted satellite dish antennas shall be
located at the rear of the structure or the area that provides the greatest possible
screening form the public rights-of-way and shall not extend over four (4) feet
above the height of the highest part of the roof.
5. Exceptions to location may be made by the Community Development Director if
it can be shown that substantial reception would be lost if satellite antennas are
located in prohibited areas.
6.
All solid (non-mesh) satellite dish antennas that are not screened from view shall
be painted a color similar to the dominant color at the location where the satellite
dish antenna is installed. If no dominant color can be determined, the satellite
dish antenna shall be painted beige or other approved color determined by the
Community Development Director.
.
Section 8.92.090
Design Review Criteria
A. Blend With Surroundings. Wireless communication facilities shall be located, designed
and screened to blend with the existing natural or built surroundings and existing
supporting structures.
B. Painted to Match Support Structures. Attached antennas (antennas affixed to an
existing structure that is not considered a component of the attached antenna) should be
painted and/or textured to match the existing support structure.
c. Non-Reflective Materials. Wireless communication support facilities (i.e., vaults,
equipment rooms, utilities, and equipment enclosures) shall be constructed out of non-
reflective materials (visible exterior surfaces only) and shall be screened from view by
using landscaping, or materials and colors consistent with surrounding backdrop, or
placed underground to all extent possible.
D.
Equipment Shelter Facilities - One Story. Wireless communication equipment shelter
facilities shall be no taller than one story (fifteen feet) in height and shall be treated to
look like a building or facility typically found in the area.
.
g:\telecomm\ordapr98n
14
.
.
.
E.
Equipment Shelter Facilities - Minimize Visual Impacts. Wireless communication
equipment shelter facilities in areas of high visibility shall, where possible, be sited below
the ridgeline or designed (i.e., placed underground, depressed, or located behind earth
berms) to minimize their profile.
F. "Flat" Painting of Facilities. All buildings, poles, towers, antenna supports, antennas,
and other components of each wireless communication facility site shall be initially
painted and thereafter repainted as necessary with a "flat" paint. The color selected shall
be one that in the determination of the Community Development Director or Planning
Commission, as appropriate, will minimize their visibility to the greatest extent feasible.
To this end, improvements which will be primarily viewed against soils, trees or
grasslands shall be painted colors matching these landscapes while elements which rise
above the horizon shall be painted a blue gray that matches the typical sky color at that
location.
G. Architecturally Significant Structures. Antennas mounted on architecturally
significant structures or significant architectural details of the building should be covered
by appropriate casings which are manufactured to match existing architectural features
found on the building.
H.
Special Design Requirements. The City shall have the authority to require special
design features for the wireless communication facilities where findings of particular
sensitivity are made (e.g., proximity to historic or aesthetically significant structures,
views and/or community features).
L Lighting. Poles, towers and antenna supports shall not be artificially lighted, unless
required by the FAA or other applicable authority. If lighting is required, the Planning
Commission may review the available lighting alternatives and approve the design that
would cause the least disturbance to the surrounding views.
J. Scale/Architectural Integration. Building mounted antennas and any ancillary
equipment should be in scale and architecturally integrated with the building design in
such a manner as to be visually unobtrusive.
K. Roof Setbacks. Roof-mounted antennas, exclusive of satellite dish antennas, shall
maintain a 1:1 ratio for equipment setback (example: 10' high antenna requires 10'
setback from facade) unless an alternative placement or design would reduce visual
impact; antennas shall be treated or screened to match existing air conditioning units,
stairs, elevator towers, or other background; and placing roof mounted antennas in direct
line with significant view corridors shall be avoided.
Section 8.92.100
Standards For Monopoles And Lattice Towers
A.
Antennas on monopoles and lattice towers may not extend more than fifteen (15) feet
above their supporting structure.
g:\telecomm\ordapr98
15
B.
The facility shall be located more than seventy-five (75) feet from any residential
dwelling unit.
.
C. No more than one monopole shall be located on any residentially zoned lot.
D. Co-location is to be encouraged when it will decrease visual impact and discouraged
when it will increase negative visual impacts.
E. Monopole siting shall not create visual clutter or negatively affect specific views.
F. Monopoles and lattice towers shall be screened from public view whenever possible.
G. Site location and development shall preserve the preexisting character of the surrounding
buildings and land uses and the zoning district as much as possible. Wireless
communication monopoles and lattice towers shall be integrated through location and
design to blend in with the existing characteristics of the site to the extent practical.
Existing on-site vegetation shall be preserved or improved, and disturbance of the
existing topography shall be minimized, unless such disturbance would result in less
visual impact of the site to the surrounding area.
H.
Wireless communication lattice towers shall be constructed out of metal or other non-
flammable material.
.
Section 8.92.11 0
Conditional Use Permit Criteria for All Wireless Communication
Facilities.
The following fmdings shall be made in addition to those in Section 8.100.060:
A. Screening. All wireless communication facilities shall be substantially screened from the
view of surrounding properties so as not to create substantial visual or noise impacts,
especially in residential zones.
B. Design Criteria. The project must meet special design criteria listed under Sections
8.92.090 and 8.92.100.
c. Independent Technical Expert Review. If a conditional use permit is required for
monopoles or lattice towers, the Community Development Director or Planning
Commission may request independent technical expert review regarding site location, co-
location and facility configuration as required under Section 8.92.030.
D.
Factors Considered in Granting Conditional Use Permits. The following factors shall
be considered when determining whether to issue a conditional use permit, although the
Planning Commission may waive one or more of these criteria if the Planning
Commission concludes that the goals of this Ordinance are better served thereby.
.
g:\teJecomm\ordapr98
16
"
.
.
.
E.
L
Height of the proposed monopole or lattice tower;
2. Proximity of the monopole or lattice tower to residential structures and
residential district boundaries;
3. Nature of uses on adjacent and nearby properties;
4. Surrounding topography;
5. Surrounding tree coverage and foliage;
6. Monopole/lattice tower design, with particular reference to design
characteristics that have the effect of reducing or eliminating visual
obtrusiveness;
7. Proposed ingress and egress; and
8. Availability of suitable existing monopoles and lattice towers and other
structures.
Availability of Suitable Existing Wireless Communication Facilities. No new
wireless communication facilities shall be permitted unless the applicant demonstrates to
the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Commission that no existing antenna facility,
monopole or lattice tower can accommodate the applicant's proposed wireless
communication facility. Evidence submitted to demonstrate that no existing antenna
facility, monopole or lattice tower can accommodate the applicant's proposed wireless
communication facility may consist of any of the following:
1. Geographic Area. No existing antennas, monopoles or lattice towers are
located within the geographic area required to meet the applicant's
engineering requirements.
2. Height. Existing antennas, monopoles or lattice towers are not of
sufficient height to meet applicant's engineering requirements.
3. Structural Strength. Existing antennas, monopoles or lattice towers do
not have sufficient structural strength to support applicant's proposed
wireless communication facility and related equipment.
4.
Interference, The applicant's proposed wireless communication facility
would cause electromagnetic interference with the antenna on the existing
antennas, monopoles or lattice towers, or the antenna on the existing
facilities would cause interference with the applicant's proposed wireless
communication facility.
g:\telecomm\ordapr98
17
5.
.
Unreasonable Fees. The fees, costs, or contractual provisions required by
the owner in order to share an existing antenna facility, monopole or
lattice tower, or to adapt an existing facility for sharing are unreasonable.
Costs exceeding new facility development are presumed to be
unreasonable.
6. Other Limiting Factors. The applicant demonstrates that there are other
limiting factors that render existing towers and structures unsuitable.
F. Security Fencing. Wireless communication facilities that support one or more antennas
shall be enclosed with security fencing not less than six (6) feet in height and shall be
equipped with an appropriate anti-climbing device; provided, however, that the Planning
Commission may waive such requirements, as it deems appropriate.
G. Landscaping. The following requirements shall govern the landscaping surrounding
wireless communication facilities that support one or more antennas for which a
conditional use permit is required; provided, however, that the Planning Commission
may waive such requirements if the goals of this Ordinance would be better served
thereby.
3.
Section 8.92.120
L
Reduced Landscape Requirements. In locations where the visual
impact of the wireless communication facilities would be minimal, the
landscaping requirement may be reduced or waived altogether.
.
2.
Screen Views. Wireless communication facilities shall be landscaped
with a buffer of plant materials that effectively screens the view of the
wireless communication facilities compound from adjacent residential
property .
Preserve Existing Mature Landscape. Existing mature tree growth and
natural land forms on the site shall be preserved to the maximum extent
possible. In some cases, such as towers sited on large, wooded lots,
natural growth around the property perimeter may be sufficient buffer.
Site Development Review Waiver/Site Development Review - Referral
The Community Development Director may refer a Site Development Review Waiver or Site
Development Review to the Planning Commission ifhe/she determines that the public interest
would be furthered by having the Planning Commission review this matter.
Section 8.92.130
Minimum Application Requirements
The following are the minimum criteria applicable to all wireless communication facilities, .
except permitted facilities as defined in Section 8.92.050. In the event that a project is subject to
g:\telecomm\ordapr98
18
.
.
.
discretionary and/or environmental review, mitigation measures or other conditions of approval
may also be necessary. The Planning Department may waive certain application submittal
requirements if determined that said item is not necessary for evaluating the project for planning
permit approval.
A. The Community Development Director shall establish and maintain a list of information
that must accompany every application for the installation of a wireless communication
facilities. Said information shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
1. Definition of Service Area. Definition of the service area needed for
coverage or capacity of a wireless communication facility and service area
maps and information showing that the proposed facility would provide
the needed coverage or capacity.
2. Alternative Site Analysis. Alternative site analysis and map showing all
alternate sites from which the needed coverage could also be provided,
indicating the zoning for all such sites. The analysis shall address the
potential for co-location at an existing or new site.
3. Visual Analysis. Visual impact analysis; photo simulations/montages
and/or visual impact demonstrations including mock-ups.
4.
Noise. Noise impact analysis information for the proposed wireless
communication facility.
6. NIER Studies. The facility shall be operated so that it shall not result in
human exposure to Nonionizing Electromagnetic Radiation (NIER) in
excess of the levels specified in the most current standard governing
human exposure to NlER utilized by the FCC in its licensing decision for
the applicable facility. The applicant shall be responsible for
demonstrating that the proposed facility will comply with this standard
and may do so in anyone of the following ways:
a. Provide evidence in the form of an FCC license or
construction permit that the FCC has accepted the
applicant's certification that the facility meets the FCC
standards.
b. Provide evidence that the FCC has categorically excluded
the applicant from demonstrating compliance with the FCC
standards.
c.
Provide an independent analysis by or on behalf of the
applicant which demonstrates that the facility will comply
with the FCC standard by such calculations and
g:\telecomm\ordapI98
19
g:\telecomm\ordapr98
measurements as may be necessary. The calculations, .
measurements, and all related methods utilized to
determine compliance shall be consistent with FCC policies
and procedures.
d. Post a fmancial security pursuant to Section 8.92.150 D to
fund an independent analysis by the City and/or its
consultant that demonstrates the facility will comply with
the FCC standard by such calculations and measurements
as may be necessary.
7. PlanslDrawings. Plans and drawings for the proposed facility.
8.
Master Plan for Related Facilities. Master plan for all related facilities
currently in the City and planned in the future, including information
about the location, height and design of each facility within the city limits
of Dublin and within one-quarter (1/4) mile therefrom. The Planning
Department may share such information with other applicants applying for
administrative approvals and/or use permits under this Chapter or other
providers/carriers seeking to locate wireless communication facilities
within the jurisdiction of the City, provided, however, that the Planning
Department is not, by sharing such information, in any way representing
or warranting that such sites are available or suitable.
.
9. Design Alternatives. Facility design alternatives to the proposal.
10. Deposits. Deposits for peer review that will be included as part of the
planning application costs.
11. NEP A. NEP A compliance documentation.
12. Monopolerrower Application. Application for Monopoles and Lattice
Towers must include following:
a. Alternative site justification (for structures proposed for residential
and commercial districts, instead of industrial districts).
b. Justification of why proposed height and visual impact of
structures within residential and commercial districts cannot be
lessened on proposed site, or by use of alternate and/or additional
sites.
c.
In all zones, applicant must identify all alternative sites and within
those alternative sites, existing monopoles and lattice towers and
those for which there are applications currently on file with the
.
20
.
.
.
Planning Department. If co-location on any such monopole or
lattice tower would result in less visual impact than the visual
impact of the proposed facility, applicant must justify why such co-
location is not being proposed.
d.
In all zones, applicants must demonstrate that they cannot provide
service without the service of a monopole or lattice tower.
B. The Community Development Director is explicitly authorized at his/her discretion to
employ on behalf of the City an independent technical expert to review any technical
materials submitted including, but not limited to, those required under this Section and in
those cases where a technical demonstration of unavoidable need or unavailability of
alternatives is required. The applicant shall pay all the costs of said review, including any
City staff review costs, which shall be charged against the planning application deposit
for the project. Any proprietary information disclosed to the City or the expert hired shall
remain confidential and shall not be disclosed to any third party.
Section 8.92.140
Term of Permits
A.
Initial Five (5) Year Period. All use permit approvals for wireless communication
facilities shall be valid for an initial maximum period offive years. The permit approvals
may be administratively extended for subsequent five year terms by the Community
Development Director upon verification of continued compliance.
B. Costs. Costs associated with the review process shall be borne by the wireless
communication facilities owner/provider.
'.,c. Revocation. Grounds for revocation of the conditional use permit, pursuant to Section
8.96.020 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, shall be limited to a finding that:
1. The use involved is no longer allowed in the applicable zoning district;
2. The facility fails to comply with the relevant requirements of this Chapter
as they exist at the time of renewal and the permittee has failed to supply
assurances acceptable to the Community Development Director that the
facility will be brought into compliance within one hundred twenty (120)
days;
3. The permittee has failed to comply with the conditions of approval
imposed;
4. The facility has not been properly maintained; or
5.
The facility has not been upgraded to minimize its impact, including
community aesthetics, to the greatest extent permitted by the technology
g:\telecomm\ordapr98
21
that exists at the time of renewal and is consistent with the provisions of
universal service at affordable rates.
.
D. Appeal. The grounds for appeal of issuance of a renewal shall be limited to a showing
that one or more of the situations listed above do in fact exist, or that the notice required
under Section 8.92.160 was not provided.
E. Use Permit Not Renewed. If a use permit or other entitlement for use is not renewed, it
shall automatically become null and void without notice or hearing, five (5) years after it
is issued, or upon cessation of use for a continuous period of twelve (12) months,
whichever comes first.
F. Restoration of Site. All improvements installed, including their foundations down to
three (3) feet below ground surface, shall be removed from the property and the site
restored to its natural preconstruction state within ninety (90) days of non-renewal or
abandonment. Any access road installed shall also be removed and the ground returned to
its natural condition unless the property owner establishes to the satisfaction of the
Community Development Director that these sections of road are necessary to serve some
other allowed use of the property that is permitted or is currently present or to provide
access to adjoining parcels.
Section 8.92.150
Maintenance/Facility Removal Agreement
.
A. Facility Removal Agreement. A maintenance/facility removal agreement signed by the
applicant shall be submitted to Community Development Director prior to approval of the
use permit or other entitlement for use authorizing the establishment or modification of
any wireless communication facilities that includes a monopole or lattice tower, one (1)
or more new buildings/equipment enclosures larger in aggregate than three hundred (360)
square feet, more than three (3) satellite dishes of any size, or a satellite dish larger than
eight (8)feet in diameter.
B. Purpose of Agreement. Said agreement shall require that the wireless communication
facilities lessors (property owners leasing property to wireless communication facility
service providers) and the wireless communication service providers be jointly and
severally responsible and liable for the maintenance and removal of any wireless
communication services facilities. Said agreement shall also bind applicant and the
applicant's successors-in-interest to properly maintain the exterior appearance of and
ultimate removal of the facility in compliance with the provisions of this Chapter and any
conditions of approval. It shall further bind them to pay all costs for monitoring
compliance with, and enforcement of, the agreement and to reimburse the City for all
costs incurred to perform any work required of the applicant by this agreement that the
applicant fails to perform.
.
g:\telecomm\ordapr98
22
.
.
.
C.
Agreement Provisions. The standard agreement required by Section 8.92.150 A. shall
include, but not be limited to, the following provisions:
1. The wireless communication facilities lessees shall be strictly liable for
any and all sudden and accidental pollution and gradual pollution resulting
from their use within the City of Dublin, except that the lessee shall not be
liable for any damages attributed to the negligent acts of the City. This
liability shall include cleanup, intentional injury or damage to persons or
property .
2. The wireless communication facilities lessees shall be responsible for any
sanctions, fines, or other monetary costs imposed as a result of the release
of pollutants from their operations, except that the lessee shall not be liable
for any damages attributed to the negligent acts of the City. Pollutants
means any solid, liquid, gaseous or thermal irritant or contaminant,
including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals,
electromagnetic waves and waste. Waste includes materials to be
recycled, reconditioned or reclaimed.
..,
;).
The wireless communication service provider shall defend, indemnify, and
hold harmless the City or any of its boards, commissions, agents, officers,
and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City, its
boards, commission, agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside,
void, or annul, the approval of the project. The City shall promptly notify
the wireless communication service provider(s) of any such claim, action
or proceeding. The City shall have the option of participating in the
defense.
4. Said agreement shall also specifically authorize the City and/or its agents
to enter onto the property and undertake said work so long as the
Community Development Director has first provided the applicant the
following written notices:
a. An initial compliance request identifying the work needed to
comply with the agreement and providing the applicant at least
forty-five (45) calendar days to complete it; and
b. A follow-up notice of default specifying the applicant's failure to
comply with the work within the time period specified and
indicating the City's intent to commence the required work within
ten (10) working days;
and the applicant has riot filed an appeal pursuant to Chapter 8.132 Notice
and Hearings and Chapter 8.136 Appeals of the Zoning Ordinance within
g:\telecomm\ordapr98
23
ten (l0) working days of the notice required under Section 8.92.150 AI.
above_ If an appeal is filed the City shall be authorized to enter the .
property and perform the necessary work if the appeal is dismissed or final
action on it taken in favor of the City;
D. Posting of Financial Security. The applicant shall post a financial security, such as a
letter of credit, bond or corporate guarantee, which is acceptable to the City to guarantee
that the facility is dismantled and removed from the premises if it has been inoperative or
abandoned for a two-year period, or upon expiration of the permit applications.
Posting of a financial security may also be required as a condition of approval to pay the
cost for preparation of electromagnetic frequency radiation reports evaluating the
conformance of approved and operative facilities with applicable health standards
adopted by the FCC. The applicant may post a single financial security in an amount not
to exceed $ 25,000.00 to satisfy electromagnetic frequency radiation reports for buildout
of the applicant's network facilities plan.
E. Costs Incurred. All costs incurred by the City to undertake any work required to be
performed by the applicant pursuant to the agreement referred to in Section 8.92.150
including, but not limited to, administrative and job supervision costs, shall be borne
solely by the applicant.
1.
The applicant shall deposit within ten (10) working days of written request
therefore such costs as the City reasonably estimates or has actually
incurred to complete such work. When estimates are employed, additional
moneys shall be deposited as needed within ten (l0) working days of
demand to cover actual costs.
.
2.
The agreement shall specifically require the applicant to immediately
cease operation of the wireless communication facility involved if the
applicant fails to pay the moneys demanded within (l0) working days. It
shall further require that operation remain suspended untij such costs are
paid in full.
Section 8.92.160
Notice Requirements
Public notices for wireless communication facilities requiring conditional use permits shall be
mailed to all adjacent property owners within five-hundred (500) feet when facilities exceed
seventy (70) feet in height.
Section 8.92.170
Modification of Requirements
A.
Major modifications of the requirements specified in this Chapter may be granted through
issuance of a Variance by the Planning Commission. Such a variance may only be
approved if the Planning Commission finds, after receipt of sufficient evidence, that
.
g:\telecomm\ordapr98
24
.
.
.
failure to adhere to the standard under consideration in the specific instance will not
increase the visibility of the facility or decrease public safety.
B.
Antenna, antenna facility, monopole and lattice tower setbacks may be reduced under any
of the following circumstances:
1.
The facility is proposed to be co-located onto an existing legally
established antenna, antenna facility, monopole or lattice tower; and
2.
Overall, the reduced setback enables further mitigation of adverse visual
and other environmental impacts than would otherwise be possible.
Section 8.92.180
Mappingffracking System for All Approved Wireless
Communication Facilities
A system for mapping the location of approved and pending public and private wireless
communication facility projects, excluding those that are for tenant use only within residential,
commercial or industrial districts, will be established by the Planning and Public Works
departments. The mapping system shall also include locations of City-owned properties that
may be suitable for siting wireless communication projects; and a marketing plan shall be
established by the City to encourage utilization of appropriate City-owned sites for wireless
communication facility projects.
Section 8.92.190
Registration of Wireless Communication Providers
A. Registration Required. All wireless communication service providers that offer or
provide any wireless communication services for a fee directly to the public, either within
the City of Dublin or outside the corporate limits from wireless communication facilities
within the City, shall register with the City pursuant to this Chapter on forms to be
provided by the Community Development Director, which shall include the following:
1. The identity and legal status of the registrant including any affiliates.
2. The name, address and telephone number of the officer, agent or employee
responsible for the accuracy of the registration statement.
3. A narrative and map description of registrant's existing or proposed
wireless communication facilities within the City of Dublin.
4. A description of the wireless communication services that the registrant
intends to offer or provide, or is currently offering or providing, to
persons, firms, businesses or institutions within the City.
5.
Information sufficient to determine that the applicant has applied for and
received any certificate of authority required by the California Public
g:\telecomm\ordapr98
25
Utility Commission to provide wireless communication services or install
wireless communication facilities within the City. .
6. Information sufficient to determine that the applicant has applied for and
received any construction permit, operating license or other approvals
required by the FCC to provide wireless communication services or install
wireless communication facilities within the City.
7. Such other information as the Community Development Director may
reasonably require.
B. Registration Fee. Each application for registration as a wireless communication services
provider shall be accompanied by a fee as set forth by Resolution of the City Council.
C. Purpose of Registration. The pmpose of registration under this Section is to:
1. Provide the City with accurate and CUTrent information concerning the
wireless communication service providers who offer or provide wireless
communication services within the City, or that own or operate wireless
communication facilities within the City;
2.
Assist the City in enforcement of this Chapter;
.
3.
Assist the City in the collection and enforcement of any license fees or
charges that may be due the City; and
4. Assist the City in monitoring compliance with local, State and Federal
laws.
D. Amendment. Each registrant shall inform the City, within sixty (60) days of any change
of the information set forth in Section 8.92.190.
Section 8.92.200
Public rights-of-way
No approval granted hereunder shall be effective until applicant has received an encroachment
permit pursuant to Chapter 7.04 of the Dublin Municipal Code that sets forth the particular terms
and provisions under which the approval to occupy and use the public rights-of-way of the City
will be granted if occupancy of the public right-of-way is desired or required.
Section 2
Effective Date and Posting of Ordinance
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after the date of its
final adoption. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to be posed in at .
least three (3) public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 39633 of the
Government Code of California.
g:\telecomm\ordapr98
26
.
.
.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
DUBLIN on this _ day of _, 1998, by the following votes:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
g:\telecomm\ordapr98
27
~r ~.tjf ,-
RESOLUTION NO. 98 - 16
.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COM:MISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCa ADOPT P A 97-046 .WIRELESS
COMMUNICATION FACll..ITIES - ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
WHEREAS, the City recognized the need to provide a uniform and comprehensive set of
standards for the development and installation of wireless communication facilities (e.g.,
antennas, personal wireless service facilities, etc.); and
WHEREAS, on September 2, 1997, the City Council adopted the revised Zoning
Ordinance that added new Chapters 8.04 through 8.144 to Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code;
and
WHEREAS, the revised Zoning Ordinance reserved a section for Wireless
Communication Facilities; and
WHEREAS, the City is proposing a Zoning Ordinance Amendment that includes zoning
ordinance provisions for the development and installation of wireless communication facilities. .
These standards cover the siting, designing and permitting of wireless communication facilities;
and
WHEREAS, the purpose and intent of the Wireless Communication Facilities - Zoning
Ordinance Amendment is to protect and promote the public health, safety, community welfare
and aesthetic qualities for the City of Dublin; and
WHEREAS, one of the goals of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is to encourage
providers of wireless communication facilities to locate their facilities, to the maximum e>.'tent
possible, in areas where the adverse impacts on the community are minimal; and
WHEREAS, another goal of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is to encourage managed
development of wireless communication service infrastructure to insure Dublin's role in the
evolution of technology; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the Dublin General
Plan to the extent that the amendment promotes the protection of public health, safety,
community welfare and aesthetic qualities for the City of Dublin; and
WHEREAS, according to Section 15061 (a)(3) of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), the project is exempt from CEQA because the project will not have the potential .
for causing a significant effect on the environment. All discretionary permits which are based on
the Zoning Ordinance will receive environmental review pursuant to CEQA; and
EXHIBIT 2
.
.
.
~7 rr/ c(z
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the P A 97-
046 Wireless Communication Facilities - Zoning Ordinance Amendment on April 28, 1998, and
considered all written and oral testimony submitted at the public bearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission
recommends City Council adoption ofPA 97-046 Wireless Communication - Zoning Ordinance
Amendment adding Section 8.92 to the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, attached as Attachment I-A
and incorporated herein by reference.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 28th day of April, 1998.
AYES:
Cm. Jennings, Johnson, Hughes, Musser, and Oravetz
NOES:
ABSENT:
Planning Commission Chairperson
AITE)~HI ~
Community Development Director
g:\tdccomm\pcreso
RESOLUTION NO. 98 - 18
36 rj i/.$
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT PA 98-029 URBAN OPPORTUNITY
AREA GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
.
,g..a 8.3 P A 97-046 Wireless Communication Facilities - Zoning Ordinance Amendment The City of Dublin
is proposing an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that involves the regulation of wireless
communication facilities. The purpose and intent of this ordinance is to provide a uniform and
comprehensive set of standards for the development and installation of wireless communication facilities
(e.g., antennas, personal wireless service facilities, monopoles, lattice towers, etc.) and related facilities,
and to protect and promote public health, safety, community welfare and aesthetic qualities for the City
of Dublin.
Cm. Jennings asked for the staff report.
Carol Cirelli, Senior Planner presented the staff report. Staff is proposing an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
that includes zoning provisions for the development and installation of wireless communication facilities. These
provisions cover the siting, designing and permitting of wireless communication facilities. The City's main
purpose for establishing these zoning standards is to protect and promote public health, safety, community
welfare and the aesthetic quality of Dublin as set forth within the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan.
With the emergence of new wireless communication facilities, such as pes systems and specialized mobile radio
services, and the need for a greater number of these facilities to be located throughout service areas; and with the
passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Staff,determined an immediate need to establish zoning
regulations for wireless communication facilities. AmendJIlents to this ordinance may be necessary to reflect
industry changes, 1996 Act changes and any future court interpretations of the Act. The draft ordinance covers
the planning permit requirements for all wireless communication facilities, basic develop regulations for satellite .
dish antennas, design review criteria and CUP criteria for wireless communication facilities, standards for
monopoles and lattice towers, application requirements, maintenance/facility removal agreement, and
registration of wireless communication providers. The draft ordinance is based on staffs extensive research of
other city ordinances and interviews with wireless communication services providers. Ms. Cirelli showed
overheads of the different types of antennas and locations. She concluded her presentation and recommended
approval of the project.
Cm. Musser asked if the telecommunication providers were notified.
Ms. Cirelli stated that she worked with telecommunication providers and that she has copies of ordinances they
have given her. One carrier did make comments on a previous draft.
Cm. Musser was surprised that no one was here on the project.
Ms. Cirelli stated that if a provider currently had a wireless communication project within the City, they may
have been here th"is evening. Dublin has not been inundated with project applications because there is not a lot of
office building developments within the City.
Cm. Oravetz asked, if the School District could charge a fee if an antenna is placed on their location.
Ms. Cirelli responded yes; a leasing fee.
em. :Johnson asked about how residential areas with antennas in their back yard were treated.
.
Regular Meeting
[4-28 pcmi]
41
April 28, 1998
EXHIBIT 3
.
.
2/4;/%
Ms. CireIlistated they were treated as accessory structures and were dealt with on a case by case basis.
Cm. Jennings suggested that lattice towers not be allowed in Dublin.
Ms. Cirelli stated that the City should be careful about totally prohibiting them. If an application came in for a
lattice tower, staff could legally recommend denial if the project did not comply with the ordinance and resulted
in negative impacts.
Cm. Oravetz stated that he agreed and highly recommended lattice towers not be allowed.
Cm. Musser agreed, except there are companies mounting antennas on PG&E towers.
Ms. Cirelli stated staff could check with the City Attorney about prohibiting them in any district. She stated that
Dublin does not have a lot of industrial areas where monopoles and lattice towers can be hidden.
Cm. Johnson asked iflattice towers were not permitted within commercial districts.
Ms. Cirelli stated that was correct. They are not permitted in commercial or residential areas.
Cm. Jennings asked who sets the fee.
Mr. Peabody stated the Council.
On motion by Cm. and seconded by Cm. , with a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 98 -16
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCn.. ADOPT P A 97-046 WIRELESS COMMUNICATION
FACILITIES - ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
9.1
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was ,adjourned at 10:35 p.m..
ATTEST:
. Community Development Director
Regular Meeting
[4-28 pcmi]
42
April 28, 1998
3J2- -d' fit
.
.
Parapet Mounted Panel Antennas
two Sprint PCS antennas mounted onto a building parapet,
painted to blend, off Hwy 580 in Dublin, CA. .
ExmBIT 4
? g r! IS
.
.
Sled-Mount Antennas
.
panel antennas mounted to a sled on a roof in Hayward,
CA.
'-
ROOF MOUNT ON BUILDING WITH PANEL ANTENNAS
.
...
.
.
- --,"." -~... .-~""
.
..
III
s:;:---
s:;:
lD
C
III
:
...
. .":':~' :}-~".
.
.
~
- -
- -
-,""
.'
"":".;,'
.. '-
.:.:...::~,'
,. '';'.~:. ~~.~.
...,. '':' >i~-"~::-:' .;..=;:
-~ ".
PANEL ANTENNAS MOUNTED TO STADIUM LIGHTS
5& ~ yf
it
.
.
Ground-Mount Antennas
.
a pair of ground-mount antenna installations, the taller is
26 feet high, backdropped by an evergreen tree in
Walnut Creek, CA.
:;; '7 c6" :;2
~
.
.
Panel Antennas on a Church Steeple
several panel antennas mounted directly to a concrete .
church steeple along Hwy 580 in Oakland, CA
;;7 ~ tJ(
.
.
.
39' ,(
t/f
-,-::.;"
EXTERIOR MOUNT
:~'-~~~~~~f~~~~~~~~Y:~j~:~~:.dl_:
--
STEALTH SIGN SITES
INTERIOR MOUNT
Lib 0( f%
antennas inside sign
.
.
"Stealth" Antennas
panel antennas hidden behind the plastic of a sign alongside
Hwy 580 in Livermore, CA.
.
9/ eft/?
.
.
.
4 Carrier Co-Location Monopole
a steel monopole with space for four different carriers,
located behind a shopping center in Citrus Heights, CA.
'51 fljj~
9~ ~ vsr
:~
~
- "~
. i
:~ '
-}
Co-Location Monopole
standard co-location with two carriers on a steel monopole
alongside Hwy 80 in Roseville, CA.
74 I N/jh
.
.
.
.
straight arm
platform
.
T:3 ~ i/f
cantilever
crows nest
. "..;,
'1'
.~;L
Monopole Tophat Designs
various ways to mount antennas to the top of the monopole
.
f'f/ ::f 1"$
Tree Pole
a single-carrier monopole, disguised as a pine tree
overlooking Napa, CA, by Nextel.
.
.
.
tj:; ~ yg
.
guyed lattice tower
i
"
i
,
~ .
I
17
:~. '
.
tJfree-standlng lattice tower
I:
I
" . .
:,.,..; -.
steel monopole . 1 ' -
~
I
I
I
I.
I.
r
I
I
,.
!'
I.
Antenna Structure Types
a cluster of various radio and telecommunication antenna
support structures along Hwy 50 near Cameron Park, CA.
tit ~c; ff
.
. tJce/lUlar whip antennas
.
Lattice Tower
a cluster of microwave dishes and whip antennas on a free-
standing steel lattice tower near Stockton, CA.
.
tjJ~ #
.
.
.
Equipment Cabinet
a free-standing PCS equipment cabinet Oust over four feet
tall) operated by PBMS near Cordelia, CA