Small Cell Ordinance
City of Santa Cruz
Small Cell Ordinance - Santa Cruz Municipal Code
Small Cell Ordinance - Chapter 15.38
| small_cell_ordinance.pdf |
Note: Section 15.38.030 APPLICABILITY
B. This chapter shall not apply to the following facilities:
The following item has been deleted:
4. Small cell wireless facilities that are suspended, whether embedded or attached, on communication cables or lines that are strung between existing utility poles in compliance with applicable safety codes.
B. This chapter shall not apply to the following facilities:
The following item has been deleted:
4. Small cell wireless facilities that are suspended, whether embedded or attached, on communication cables or lines that are strung between existing utility poles in compliance with applicable safety codes.
Appeal Fee Waiver - adopted 11/26/2019
| appeal_fee_waiver.pdf |
Small Cell Permit Guidelines
| permit_guidelines_-_dec_10.pdf |
Small Cell Standards and Guidelines
| small_cell_standards_and_guidelines_policy.pdf |
Amendment to Zoning Ordinance
| zoning_ordinance.pdf |
PART 15: Wireless Telecommunications Facilities
24.12.1400 - 24.12.1465
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaCruz/#!/html/SantaCruz24/SantaCruz2412.html%2324.12.1400
Ordinance Highlights
Small cell facilities are now processed by the Public Works Department, and no longer require any public hearings. Appeals may be made to the City Council within 5 days of approval. Appeal fees are waived. Appeals premised on environmental effects from RF emissions that are compliant with all applicable FCC regulations will not be considered.
Ordinance Amendment - 2/11/2020
1) Deletion of Item F. from Purpose and Intent Section
2) Delete exclusion of wireless facilities on line or strand - these facilities are currently prohibited.
(4) Site location restrictions. (Small Cell Standards & Guidelines Policy)
In addition to the orders of preference specified in the preceding subsections, the following location prohibitions shall be applicable to all applications for installations of small cell facilities in the public rights-of-way.
a) All small cell facility locations shall be outside driveway and intersection sight lines. Where feasible, locations shall be located near property corners or side property lines and not directly in front of residences and businesses.
b) In Residential and Commercial Zoning Districts, only one (1) small cell facility and associated equipment shall be permitted within the public right-of-way within a 1500-foot radius; provided, however, that this restriction may be waived by the Director of Public Works upon a demonstration that the refusal to allow an additional facility within a 1500-foot radius will result in the creation of a significant coverage gap for the applicant and/or that such refusal will otherwise violate an applicable state or federal law;
c) Wireless on strand or overhead lines shall be prohibited;
IV. Public Notification (Permit Guidelines)
5. The City will post notice of the Permit Application on the Public Works "Small Cell" website page within 1-3 business days after an application is received, consisting of:
1) the applicant's identification and contact information;
2) a general project description;
3) the location of the project site in text and/or diagram.
As part of the application submittal, the applicant shall, within 24 hours of submitting a Permit Application, provide notices as follows:
a) by first class United States mail, to all property owners and occupants of buildings within 1000 feet of the project; and
b) post the notice in at least three locations near the project site - - posting on barricades, utility poles, etc., is acceptable.
The notice shall include:
f) a statement that the City will conduct a preliminary review of the project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as part of the application process;
g) a statement that a reasonable accommodation request pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act or other applicable law may be directed to the City within 5 calendar days of the date of notice.
Note: A potential legal pathway for persons who are extremely EMF sensitive - allowing them to stay in their homes, should a cell tower be proposed nearby. The FHAA also guarantees each person the right to enjoy and safely live in their home. There are several other references to compliance with ADA, elsewhere in the ordinance.
We are currently working with Council and Staff to remove the 5 calendar day time limit for submitting these requests - which does not allow adequate opportunity, and could present an additional access barrier.
h) instruction to the property owners and occupants to provide notice to its employees by posting the applicant's notice at the workplace.
Appeals - Section 15.38.100
Appeal fees are waived
Any interested person or entity may appeal any decision by the Public Works Director under this chapter to the city council in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 1.16. Appeals must be filed within ten (10) days of the Public Works Director’s decision. As section 332(c)(7) of the Telecommunications Act preempts local decisions premised directly or indirectly on the environmental effects of radio frequency (RF) emissions to the extent such facilities comply with the FCC’s regulations, appeals premised on environmental effects from RF emissions that are compliant with all applicable FCC regulations, will not be considered.
1.500' minimum spacing between small cell installations in residential and commercial zones.
City Council Meeting - 2/11/2020 - Small Cell Ordinance Update
Two items we requested be deleted at the 12/10/2019 Council Meeting were brought back for consideration as an amendment to the Ordinance. I am happy to report that both of these items were deleted.
One item was an inclusion I had requested, based on wording from the Encinitas Ordinance. Unfortunately this wording was altered by the City Attorney's office before its inclusion and adoption - significantly changing its intended purpose.
I therefore asked that it be deleted in its entirety.
The second item was an exemption for wireless facilities located on cable or line. Although these facilities are prohibited elsewhere in the ordinance, it seemed unnecessary and risky to list them as unregulated in this way.
I requested, once again, that the 5 calendar day limit for reasonable ADA accommodation requests be removed. This is included in the Public Noticing section of the Permit Guidelines.
This time limit does not allow adequate opportunity for a person functionally impaired/disabled by EMF sensitivity to submit an ADA accommodation request.
I urged the city to impose additional access barriers in this way - to a legal process which will hopefully allow persons who are EMF sensitive to continue to live in their homes.
As this item was not on today's agenda, I requested that it be put on the agenda for the next Council Meeting - on 2/25/2020
Meeting video - Item 18 - begins at 2:20:50
https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLo9N9AsVOVvRHxhItEBaP3eI7Rmz8ywBT&time_continue=8459&v=GoXeg9-xV8c&feature=emb_logo
City Council Meeting - 12/10/2019 - Small Cell Ordinance Update
Thank you to everyone who sent emails and attended Tuesday's City Council Meeting!
The Ordinance was approved unanimously on 12/10, with many good provisions, but sadly a major setback to the ADA accommodations procedure, due to last minute changes by the City Attorney at the 11/26 Meeting, which were not reversed.
Councilmember Sandy Brown presented our three requests for items to be deleted from the Ordinance. Unfortunately, the prevailing view of Council and Staff was not to continue the Ordinance, because it had already taken too long. In my opinion, if more community collaboration had been allowed during the process, this would not have been the case. Unfortunately this is the very difficult bureaucratic process that exists in most cities.
A motion was made though, and approved, to bring two of these items back for a hearing in January.
Our request to delete the 5 calendar day time limit for ADA accommodation requests was also denied - despite the fact that it is unlawful for the City to refuse to consider any disability or fair housing request. City Attorney Tony Condotti replied that "the reason why it's important to have a limit is so that our process is able to meet the shot clock clock. Should someone bring an ADA claim outside of that process then that would just be handled as any other claim against the City is being handled".
He further clarified that "a person claiming an ADA violation, or requesting an “accommodation” under the ADA, is not under the same procedural constraints, in so doing, as the City is in processing an application for wireless facility installation under the FCC’s “shot clock.” The 5 day period is intended to assist the City with making all necessary authorizations within the FCC imposed shot clocks. However, if as a result of the installation of a wireless facility, a person’s rights under the ADA are violated, then they may pursue a claim under the ADA against the wireless carrier and would be subject to the rules of Federal Civil Procedure. This ADA claim process would occur irrespective of the FCC shot clocks."
More discussion/clarification is needed on the 5 day time limit, which appears to be only procedural and not legally enforceable by the City.
Our attorney has reminded the City that the Fair Housing Act is even more applicable than ADA, as this affects a person's right to equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling and public and common use areas. Although FHAA was not specifically named in the ordinance it is referenced in "other State and Federal Laws".
When asked about including City contact information in the notices, Public Works responded that this information was available on the website (which also is not listed on the notices). Public Works is allowed from 1-3 business days to post the applications on their website. ADA accommodation requests are allowed only 5 calendar days. I can see that very likely the 5 day ADA time limit could expire before an application was even posted - giving us no opportunity for extra public notification - and 5 calendar days could easily translate to only 3 business days.
Despite all the other good changes included in the Ordinance, the City Attorney's Office has made the process of ADA requests for accommodation much more difficult.
These items will be brought back to the Council in January, with the hope for better results.
Here is a link to the youtube video of the meeting - Item 21 begins at 2:44
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3q7lA154sA0&list=PLo9N9AsVOVvRHxhItEBaP3eI7Rmz8ywBT&index=1
City Council Meeting - 11/26/2019
There is very good news to report from the 11/26 City Council Meeting - 1st reading of the Small Cell Wireless Facilities Ordinance. The meeting video will be posted as soon as it is available.
The Council approved all our requests unanimously, including public noticing of the opportunity to seek reasonable requests for ADA Accommodation, for new small cell antenna applications. This is very good news! We may be the first City to include this in our ordinance.
There is still one correction to be made, regarding the time period for making these requests. The proposed ordinance, allows only 5 days, which is not adequate. The City cannot legally impose any deadlines on the process of receiving/processing ADA/FHAA Accommodations - however, the timing of the request can be factored in when the City decides what is "reasonable" because it will affect the City's burden for compliance.
This request has been communicated to the City Council & City Attorneys. The scheduled 2nd reading of the ordinance is 12/10. Hopefully, this small change (removing the words
"5 days") will not necessitate returning to another 1st reading.
The opportunity to work together with the City, as allies rather than adversaries, is very encouraging. Please remember that the Council and City Staff are on our side and do want to help us in whatever ways are legally possible.
Conversation with the Council in advance of the 12/10 meeting will continue, with updates to follow. The Council also directed the City Manager to issue a press release once the ordinance is final.
Update - On requesting updated copies of the Ordinance, I was unhappy to see a change I had not been told about. I knew that our Item F. had been added to the Purpose and Intent section, but no one told me that the wording I submitted had been significantly changed/amended. The substituted wording will prejudice the ADA accommodation request procedure. Had I known about this change, which was not explained at the meeting, I never would have endorsed its addition. I have asked that the item be deleted.
Meeting Video - Item 16 begins at 4:20 on the video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLo9N9AsVOVvRHxhItEBaP3eI7Rmz8ywBT&v=SxW6wDpBxYk&feature=emb_logo
City Council Meeting - 8/13/2019
The Small Cell Ordinance is still being completed. Here is a link to the 8/13/2019 City Council Meeting. The changes we requested were unanimously approved by the City Council. This item will return to the Council at the November 26 meeting.
Many thanks to Dafna Tachover who met with 5 Councilmembers in two separate meetings on Monday, 8/13.
This discussion begins at 1:44 on the video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HCbp3qn3Jc&list=PLo9N9AsVOVvRHxhItEBaP3eI7Rmz8ywBT&index=6
City Council Meeting - 4/09/2019
1.500' minimum spacing between small cell installations in residential and commercial zones.
Discussion begins at 1:06
https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLo9N9AsVOVvRHxhItEBaP3eI7Rmz8ywBT&time_continue=9120&v=0YD0S69b3iw&feature=emb_logo
Planning Commission Meeting - 3/14/2019
Add clarifying language to Section 24.12.1410 (b) (7):
7. Small Cell Facilities located in the public right-of-way which are subject to the requirements of Chapter 15.38 of the Municipal Code and the Small Cell Standards and Guidelines policy adopted by the City Council.
With respect to the permitting ordinance to be presented to City Council, the Planning Commission recommends inclusion of the following:
· meaningful public notice of proposed installations
· adding a public hearing requirement
· limit the number of applications each carrier can submit per month
The Planning Commission further recommends the Small Cell Standards and Guidelines Policy for small cell facilities in the public right-of-way, Site Locations 4(b) be modified to read:
(4) Site location restrictions. In addition to the orders of preference specified in the preceding subsections, the following location prohibitions shall be applicable to all applications for installations of small cell facilities in the public rights-of-way.
b) In Residential Zoning Districts, only one (1) small cell facility and associated equipment shall be permitted within the public right-of-way within a 1500-foot radius; provided, however, that this restriction may be waived by the Director of Public Works upon a demonstration that the refusal to allow an additional facility within a 1500-foot radius will result in the creation of a significant coverage gap for the applicant and/or that such refusal will otherwise violate an applicable state or federal law;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLo9N9AsVOVvRHxhItEBaP3eI7Rmz8ywBT&time_continue=4&v=F2Jb8E6vrGM&feature=emb_logo
City Council Meeting - 2/11/2020 - Small Cell Ordinance Update
Two items we requested be deleted at the 12/10/2019 Council Meeting were brought back for consideration as an amendment to the Ordinance. I am happy to report that both of these items were deleted.
One item was an inclusion I had requested, based on wording from the Encinitas Ordinance. Unfortunately this wording was altered by the City Attorney's office before its inclusion and adoption - significantly changing its intended purpose.
I therefore asked that it be deleted in its entirety.
The second item was an exemption for wireless facilities located on cable or line. Although these facilities are prohibited elsewhere in the ordinance, it seemed unnecessary and risky to list them as unregulated in this way.
I requested, once again, that the 5 calendar day limit for reasonable ADA accommodation requests be removed. This is included in the Public Noticing section of the Permit Guidelines.
This time limit does not allow adequate opportunity for a person functionally impaired/disabled by EMF sensitivity to submit an ADA accommodation request.
I urged the city to impose additional access barriers in this way - to a legal process which will hopefully allow persons who are EMF sensitive to continue to live in their homes.
As this item was not on today's agenda, I requested that it be put on the agenda for the next Council Meeting - on 2/25/2020
Meeting video - Item 18 - begins at 2:20:50
https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLo9N9AsVOVvRHxhItEBaP3eI7Rmz8ywBT&time_continue=8459&v=GoXeg9-xV8c&feature=emb_logo
City Council Meeting - 12/10/2019 - Small Cell Ordinance Update
Thank you to everyone who sent emails and attended Tuesday's City Council Meeting!
The Ordinance was approved unanimously on 12/10, with many good provisions, but sadly a major setback to the ADA accommodations procedure, due to last minute changes by the City Attorney at the 11/26 Meeting, which were not reversed.
Councilmember Sandy Brown presented our three requests for items to be deleted from the Ordinance. Unfortunately, the prevailing view of Council and Staff was not to continue the Ordinance, because it had already taken too long. In my opinion, if more community collaboration had been allowed during the process, this would not have been the case. Unfortunately this is the very difficult bureaucratic process that exists in most cities.
A motion was made though, and approved, to bring two of these items back for a hearing in January.
Our request to delete the 5 calendar day time limit for ADA accommodation requests was also denied - despite the fact that it is unlawful for the City to refuse to consider any disability or fair housing request. City Attorney Tony Condotti replied that "the reason why it's important to have a limit is so that our process is able to meet the shot clock clock. Should someone bring an ADA claim outside of that process then that would just be handled as any other claim against the City is being handled".
He further clarified that "a person claiming an ADA violation, or requesting an “accommodation” under the ADA, is not under the same procedural constraints, in so doing, as the City is in processing an application for wireless facility installation under the FCC’s “shot clock.” The 5 day period is intended to assist the City with making all necessary authorizations within the FCC imposed shot clocks. However, if as a result of the installation of a wireless facility, a person’s rights under the ADA are violated, then they may pursue a claim under the ADA against the wireless carrier and would be subject to the rules of Federal Civil Procedure. This ADA claim process would occur irrespective of the FCC shot clocks."
More discussion/clarification is needed on the 5 day time limit, which appears to be only procedural and not legally enforceable by the City.
Our attorney has reminded the City that the Fair Housing Act is even more applicable than ADA, as this affects a person's right to equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling and public and common use areas. Although FHAA was not specifically named in the ordinance it is referenced in "other State and Federal Laws".
When asked about including City contact information in the notices, Public Works responded that this information was available on the website (which also is not listed on the notices). Public Works is allowed from 1-3 business days to post the applications on their website. ADA accommodation requests are allowed only 5 calendar days. I can see that very likely the 5 day ADA time limit could expire before an application was even posted - giving us no opportunity for extra public notification - and 5 calendar days could easily translate to only 3 business days.
Despite all the other good changes included in the Ordinance, the City Attorney's Office has made the process of ADA requests for accommodation much more difficult.
These items will be brought back to the Council in January, with the hope for better results.
Here is a link to the youtube video of the meeting - Item 21 begins at 2:44
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3q7lA154sA0&list=PLo9N9AsVOVvRHxhItEBaP3eI7Rmz8ywBT&index=1
City Council Meeting - 11/26/2019
There is very good news to report from the 11/26 City Council Meeting - 1st reading of the Small Cell Wireless Facilities Ordinance. The meeting video will be posted as soon as it is available.
The Council approved all our requests unanimously, including public noticing of the opportunity to seek reasonable requests for ADA Accommodation, for new small cell antenna applications. This is very good news! We may be the first City to include this in our ordinance.
There is still one correction to be made, regarding the time period for making these requests. The proposed ordinance, allows only 5 days, which is not adequate. The City cannot legally impose any deadlines on the process of receiving/processing ADA/FHAA Accommodations - however, the timing of the request can be factored in when the City decides what is "reasonable" because it will affect the City's burden for compliance.
This request has been communicated to the City Council & City Attorneys. The scheduled 2nd reading of the ordinance is 12/10. Hopefully, this small change (removing the words
"5 days") will not necessitate returning to another 1st reading.
The opportunity to work together with the City, as allies rather than adversaries, is very encouraging. Please remember that the Council and City Staff are on our side and do want to help us in whatever ways are legally possible.
Conversation with the Council in advance of the 12/10 meeting will continue, with updates to follow. The Council also directed the City Manager to issue a press release once the ordinance is final.
Update - On requesting updated copies of the Ordinance, I was unhappy to see a change I had not been told about. I knew that our Item F. had been added to the Purpose and Intent section, but no one told me that the wording I submitted had been significantly changed/amended. The substituted wording will prejudice the ADA accommodation request procedure. Had I known about this change, which was not explained at the meeting, I never would have endorsed its addition. I have asked that the item be deleted.
Meeting Video - Item 16 begins at 4:20 on the video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLo9N9AsVOVvRHxhItEBaP3eI7Rmz8ywBT&v=SxW6wDpBxYk&feature=emb_logo
City Council Meeting - 8/13/2019
The Small Cell Ordinance is still being completed. Here is a link to the 8/13/2019 City Council Meeting. The changes we requested were unanimously approved by the City Council. This item will return to the Council at the November 26 meeting.
Many thanks to Dafna Tachover who met with 5 Councilmembers in two separate meetings on Monday, 8/13.
This discussion begins at 1:44 on the video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HCbp3qn3Jc&list=PLo9N9AsVOVvRHxhItEBaP3eI7Rmz8ywBT&index=6
City Council Meeting - 4/09/2019
1.500' minimum spacing between small cell installations in residential and commercial zones.
Discussion begins at 1:06
https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLo9N9AsVOVvRHxhItEBaP3eI7Rmz8ywBT&time_continue=9120&v=0YD0S69b3iw&feature=emb_logo
Planning Commission Meeting - 3/14/2019
Add clarifying language to Section 24.12.1410 (b) (7):
7. Small Cell Facilities located in the public right-of-way which are subject to the requirements of Chapter 15.38 of the Municipal Code and the Small Cell Standards and Guidelines policy adopted by the City Council.
With respect to the permitting ordinance to be presented to City Council, the Planning Commission recommends inclusion of the following:
· meaningful public notice of proposed installations
· adding a public hearing requirement
· limit the number of applications each carrier can submit per month
The Planning Commission further recommends the Small Cell Standards and Guidelines Policy for small cell facilities in the public right-of-way, Site Locations 4(b) be modified to read:
(4) Site location restrictions. In addition to the orders of preference specified in the preceding subsections, the following location prohibitions shall be applicable to all applications for installations of small cell facilities in the public rights-of-way.
b) In Residential Zoning Districts, only one (1) small cell facility and associated equipment shall be permitted within the public right-of-way within a 1500-foot radius; provided, however, that this restriction may be waived by the Director of Public Works upon a demonstration that the refusal to allow an additional facility within a 1500-foot radius will result in the creation of a significant coverage gap for the applicant and/or that such refusal will otherwise violate an applicable state or federal law;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLo9N9AsVOVvRHxhItEBaP3eI7Rmz8ywBT&time_continue=4&v=F2Jb8E6vrGM&feature=emb_logo