The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12 - NB-1 - Presentation - 10/1/2019DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR SMALL CELL FACILITIES October 1, 2019 City Council v v 2 SMALL CELL TECHNOLOGY IN RESPONSE •Rapid change in technology responding to increased consumer demand for wireless services •Increase network capacity and coverage •Offload traffic from macro cell sites v v 3 BACKGROUND •In 2010, a “macro cell” was installed within public ROW near Tustin Avenue and 20th Street; no code authority for review •The City modified its Code to require a Minor Conditional Use Permit (MCUP) when a wireless facility is proposed in the public ROW that: • Is located within 500 feet of a residential zoning district; • Proposes an aboveground equipment cabinet; or • Includes an antenna or accessory equipment larger than certain specified criteria v v 4 FEDERAL STANDARDS The FCC governs what local jurisdictions may consider in their review of small cell facilities Location and Design • Per 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II), the City may not regulate the placement, construction or modification of wireless service facilities in a manner that prohibits or effectively prohibits the provision of personal wireless services • Federal law does not prohibit the City from considering aesthetics and location under reasonable, objective and published criteria v v 5 FEDERAL STANDARDS The FCC governs what local jurisdictions may consider in their review of small cell facilities •On January 1, 2016, AB 57 became effective establishing a 90-day and 150-day “shot clock” for applications for co-locations and new wireless facilities respectively (including small cell facilities) v v 6 FEDERAL STANDARDS The FCC governs what local jurisdictions may consider in their review of small cell facilities •FCC Order 18-33 became effective in early 2019 • Reduced the “shot clocks” to 60 days and 90 days respectively; • Limited the fees a City could charge to actual, but “reasonable”, costs; “Safe Harbor” fees: $500 total for up to 5 applications ($100 per application after) • Clarified the definition of co-location; • Prohibited aesthetic standards unless they were: Reasonable No more burdensome than those applied to other infrastructure Objective Published in advance v v 7 FEDERAL STANDARDS The FCC governs what local jurisdictions may consider in their review of small cell facilities RF Emissions • Per U.S Code Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv), no state or local government may regulate facilities on the basis of the perceived health effects of radio frequency (RF) emissions, except to ensure compliance with federal RF standards • City requires an RF emissions analysis demonstrating compliance with FCC standards as part of the application • City also requires a field measurement/report post-installation as a standard condition of approval v v 8 PENDING COURT CASES AND LEGISLATION •House Resolution 530 and Senate Bill 2012 • States that the 2018 FCC ruling “shall have no further force and effect” • If passed, would roll back 2018 FCC ruling’s shot clocks and allow cities to charge greater fees • Costa Mesa has signed on to the National League of Cities letter in support •The 2018 FCC ruling is also the subject of 10 local government lawsuits that are ongoing and consolidated in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals v v 9 HTTPS://CQRCENGAGE.COM/NLC/APP/ONESTEP-WRITE-A-LETTER?0&ENGAGEMENTID=495854 v v 10 HISTORY Late 2017 Nov 2018 Oct 2018 •Pre-Design Guidelines • First application for a small cell facility in Costa Mesa • Varying design and configuration •City Council Approves Design Guidelines and Code Amendment •Effective Date of Design Guidelines and Code Amendment v v 11 HISTORY Apr 2019 Apr 2019 •FCC Order 18-33 becomes fully effective •Amended Design Guidelines • City Council amended design guidelines to comply with FCC Order 18-33 • Distance to residential replaced “direct view” as the criterion for determining the decision-making body (PC or ZA) v v 12 REQUEST FOR A STUDY SESSION •On May 28, 2019, the Planning Commission approved MCUPs for seven small cell facilities proposed by AT&T and Verizon • Public comments received regarding RF emissions and visual and economic concerns • Planning Commission expressed frustration with the review process and its limited ability to respond to resident concerns given the regulatory environment v v 13 REQUEST FOR A STUDY SESSION •On May 31, 2019, the MCUPs were called up for City Council review for the following stated purpose: • Consider aesthetics of the installations • Educate the public on the limits of discretion of our deliberative bodies • Educate the City Council on the consequences of mandating Planning Commission review of small cell installations when the Commission’s discretion and scope of review is so severely limited • Consider alternative options and direction •Items agendized for City Council on July 2, 2019 and were continued pending a study session v v 14 STUDY SESSION •Study Session and Community Open House held August 13, 2019 • Eight public comments heard at the meeting • Email correspondence •Staff discussed the potential for modifying the design guidelines to include: • Locational Hierarchy • Residential Setback • Alternatives to SCE Poles •The City Council requested staff return with modified design guidelines and evaluate a number of possibilities v v 15 STUDY SESSION •The City Council specifically expressed interest in the following: • A preferred locational hierarchy and residential setback • Requiring minimum distances between small cell facilities • Ensuring minimal impacts to existing landscaping • Preparing a master plan or map of full build-out of small cell facilities • Incorporating a requirement for periodic post-installation RF emissions measurements • Incorporating a provision allowing for decommissioning of a facility • Requiring applications to be submitted by appointment only • Requiring a pre-application meeting • Other requirements similar to the ordinances of the cities of San Mateo or Calabasas • Creating an infrastructure or technology-related Commission to review small cell applications so as to ameliorate the number of applications reviewed by the Planning Commission • Resident notification for equipment upgrades at existing facilities • Posting a list of approved and/or constructed facilities online v v 16 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS • General concerns regarding safety, health, property values, and aesthetics • 500-foot setback from residential, schools and playgrounds • 150-foot setback for “fall zone” • 1,500-foot separation between facilities from any provider • Recognize electromagnetic sensitivity as an ADA issue • 1,000-foot Notice for residents to provide input/avoid radiation; Notice of changes in technology • RF emissions testing by a third party at application/post-installation/annually • Demonstration of capacity or coverage gap • Maintain existing trees/landscaping • Underground equipment • RF emissions insurance and bonds for liability; indemnification to City/insurance for general liability • Master Plan • Signage on each pole • Online map • Cost recovery • Overturn permits if 2018 FCC Order is invalidated v v 17 MULTI-PART EFFORT 1.Revisions to the Design Guidelines • Location • Design Standards 2.Code Amendment (pending Council direction) • Process/Notice • Application Requirements • Standard Conditions 3.Update materials, internal practices v v 18 PROPOSED DESIGN GUIDELINES •Preferred Support Structures •Location Hierarchy •Additional Location Standards •Design Guidelines • Finish • Noise • Landscaping • Streamlined design • Underground equipment v v 19 PREFERRED SUPPORT STRUCTURE 1.Light standards (Existing or new replacement) 2.City traffic signal poles (Existing or new replacement) 3.Utility poles (Existing or new replacement) 4.Standalone poles (New camouflaged) 5.Any other poles approved by the Director More Preferred Less Preferred v v 20 PREFERRED LOCATION 1.Non-Residential Zoning Districts 2.Residential Overlays (e.g. Newport, Mesa West, 17 West, SoBECA, etc.) 3.Residential Zoning Districts More Preferred Less Preferred v v 21 ADDITIONAL LOCATION STANDARDS 35 ft 35 ft 10 ft 10 ft 20 ft 5 ftA B C D A.Setback from dwelling • 25 feet B.Sight Distance Triangle • 35 feet by 35 feet C.Setback from Driveways • 10 feet from any driveways • 50 feet from driveways of K-12 schools, police stations, fire stations, or other public / private emergency responder facilities D.Near Property Lines • As close as feasible • No more than 5 feet from PL v v 22 PREFERRED LOCATION Evaluation of all potential support structures within 500 feet of a proposed facility location to demonstrate through clear and convincing evidence that “more preferred” structures within “more preferred” locations do not exist or are infeasible because they result in an effective prohibition of wireless service. v v 23 DESIGN STANDARDS Existing Proposed v v 24 RECOMMENDED REVIEW PROCESS •The Municipal Code mandates an MCUP for wireless antennas in the public right-of-way under certain circumstances •To modify the process, a Code Amendment would be required (pending City Council direction) • Planning Commission – Recommendation • City Council – First Reading • City Council – Second Reading • Effective 30 days after second reading v v 25 EXISTING REVIEW PROCESS v v 26 RECOMMENDED REVIEW PROCESS •Ministerial staff-level approval if the design guidelines are met •Discretionary review if the design guidelines are not met • Director-level decision • Public notice 10 days prior • 100 foot radius for public notice • Decision appealable to the City Manager v v 27 RECOMMENDATION •Adopt a Resolution modifying and approving the Design Guidelines •Provide staff direction to prepare a Code Amendment modifying the process, application requirements, and standard conditions v v 28 HTTPS://CQRCENGAGE.COM/NLC/APP/ONESTEP-WRITE-A-LETTER?0&ENGAGEMENTID=495854 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR SMALL CELL FACILITIES October 1, 2019 City Council BACK UP SLIDES October 1, 2019 City Council v v 31 DESIGN STANDARDS - SHROUD •Pole-Top Mounted: Preferred • Maintain vertical alignment • Avoid top heavy poles with varying volumes • Antenna & RRU integrated and contained within shroud • Shroud height less than 66 inches • Width less than 120% of pole diameter • Overall pole/shroud height not to exceed adjacent pole heights or 35 feet, whichever is more restrictive v v 32 DESIGN STANDARDS - SHROUD •Side-Mounted • Antenna & RRU contained within shroud • Volume less than 6 cubic feet • No more than 4 feet, point to point • Projection no more than 24 inches from pole (or no more than allowed by law) v v 33 DESIGN STANDARDS - UTILITIES •Utility equipment must be underground •Reduce impediments to pedestrian path of travel •Installed flush within sidewalk and ADA compliant •Maintain parkway landscaping v v 34 DESIGN STANDARDS - UTILITIES •Wires • To reduce the visual clutter of tangled conduit • Contained within shroud • Run inside pole (aggregate) • Single external conduit w/ matching color as underlying pole (wood) •Meters • Underground • Accommodated by SCE upon City request v v 35 APPLICATION STATUS 68 Applications Submitted •42 approved (31 MCUPs, 11 encroachment permits) •16 in process (MCUPs) •7 withdrawn •3 denied To date, no small cell facilities have been constructed. v v 36 APPLICATION STATUS 68 Applications Submitted •56 subject to approval of an MCUP • 31 approved • 16 in-progress • 3 denied • 6 withdrawn •12 subject to issuance of an encroachment permit • 11 approved • 1 withdrawn v v 37 APPROVAL PROCESS 68 Applications Submitted •56 subject to approval of an MCUP •12 subject to issuance of an encroachment permit v v 38 SMALL CELL CARRIERS v v 39 SMALL CELL – PROXIMITY TO RESIDENTIAL v v 40 OTHER CITIES Tustin, CA (Approved and Installed) Venice, CA (Approved and Installed) Costa Mesa, CA (Proposed and Denied) Newport Beach, CA (Approved) v v 41 v v 42 v v 43 v v 44 CONDITIONS Standard conditions from the City’s Engineering Division related to: • Prohibiting pull boxes in planted parkways • Prohibiting above-ground equipment • Requiring utilities to be reflected on plans • Protecting existing street trees • Other conditions related to submittal requirements