Laserfiche WebLink
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL <br />5 <br /> <br />exists, “least intrusive means” are used, ground-mounted equipment is <br />screened, and front-yard placement should be prohibited unless no other <br />feasible alternative exists. <br />A. Staff believes the proposed policies adequately address each of these <br />areas, including requiring screening, adherence to front yard setback <br />standards, and requiring use of least intrusive methods, in addition to the <br />separation standards noted above. No additional changes to the policies <br />are recommended with respect to residential areas or zoning districts. <br /> <br />3) Noticing: Suggestion to include the following public noticing requirements: <br /> Macro Facilities – 1,000 feet [Proposed Policy requires 500 feet] <br /> Small Wireless Facilities – 500 feet [Proposed policy requires 300 feet] <br /> “Neighborhood meeting” be required for all macro wireless applications <br />prior to decision. <br />A. Increasing the required noticing radii as suggested would increase the <br />cost of processing these applications, due to the costs and staff time to <br />process and mail a greater number of notice cards.1 <br />A requirement to conduct a neighborhood meeting for all macro facilities <br />would exceed the requirements of both the existing wireless ordinance <br />and the proposed policies. In both cases, a public hearing or meeting is <br />only required if requested by neighbors or interested parties in response to <br />a mailed notice, not as an automatic requirement. Staff does not <br />recommend adding this additional requirement, since the current <br />procedures have proven effective in balancing opportunities for <br />neighborhood notification and feedback, while avoiding the risk of missing <br />critical shot-clock deadlines that could result in a project being “deemed <br />approved” if violated. <br /> <br />6. Additional Public Comments Received from Brandon Baranco, AT&T Wireless. <br /> <br />Mr. Baranco raised concerns about the proposed ordinance and policies, <br />including that it would jeopardize a project currently in design development and <br />that the proposed deposit-based approach for third-party consulting services <br />would contribute to shot-clock delays and result in unreasonable costs. <br /> <br /> <br />1 For example (based on a hypothetical cell site at 200 Old Bernal Avenue), a 300-foot radius <br />mailing would go to approximately 40 owners and occupants; a 500-foot radius mailing would go <br />to 161 owners and occupants; and a 1000-foot radius mailing would go to more than 800 <br />owners and occupants)