CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL 4-21-26

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL 4 A. It’s important to note that the purpose of separation requirements is to address potential aesthetic impacts to neighboring uses (e.g., residential) since health concerns related to Radio Frequency (RF) are not considered a valid basis for denial of a wireless application so long as the RF meets the standards set forth by the FCC. The City Council could consider amending the policy as suggested for aesthetic purposes. Doing so would likely reduce the number of small cells installed but would also potentially offer less robust wireless coverage. 2) Residential Protections:  Macro facilities: Suggestion to require a 500-foot separation from residential structures [Proposed Policy requires 100 feet] A. City Council could consider increasing the minimum separation beyond 100 feet due to aesthetic concerns, but staff does not recommend increasing the separation to 500 feet. As shown in Attachment 1, using the Vintage Hills neighborhood, which has extremely poor cell-phone coverage, as an example, a 500-foot radius would preclude siting a macro facility at either Vintage Hills Park or Vintage Hills School since almost any location on either site would be within 500 feet of a residential structure. Increasing the residential structure separation from 100 to 200 feet (which would be in line with the existing Wireless Ordinance’s separation standard), would still provide options for locations within park and school sites such as the above two locations, but would be less flexible than the 100 feet distance suggested in the draft policy, and may preclude certain smaller sites and locations from being considered altogether. (See diagrams in Attachment 1.)  Small Cells: Suggested “maximizing” separation from residential structures, and disallowing facilities from being located within 100 feet if feasible. A. The suggested approach does not differ substantially from the content of the draft small cell policy, which discourages/makes “least preferred” small cell sites located within 100 feet of residential structures. Therefore, no change is recommended. Staff also notes that the draft policy includes measures to protect or minimize impacts to residential uses, such as avoiding placing small cells in front of doors and windows and siting facilities between rather than directly in front of homes.  Additional Standards for Facilities in Residential Areas: Suggested wireless facilities should only be permitted if no other feasible location