Wireless Subcommittee Meeting

MINUTES WIRELESS SUBCOMMITTEE Wednesday, September 12, 2018 1:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Members Present: Dawson, Nine, Breedlove, Hansen, Olsen, Peterson Members Absent: Brassfield Staff Members Present: Community Development Director Cole, Recording Secretary Doherty Staff Members Absent: Davi CALL TO ORDER Subcommittee Chair Dawson called the meeting to order at 1:06 p.m. ***End of Consent Agenda*** PUBLIC COMMENTS  Nina Beety alerted the Subcommittee about pending FCC regulation changes. She reported that the public comment ends soon. She recommends the Subcommittee recommend the City request the FCC to postpone action until November.  Sandra Collingwood, resident at 999 Johnson Street, asked the Subcommittee to stay on course fighting against FCC. The City needs to rise up and fight the FCC.  PUBLIC APPEARANCE 1. Recommend Planning Commission Adopt Amendments to Monterey City Code Chapter 38, Article 17, Section 38-112.4 Personal Wireless Service Facilities Ms. Cole presented a timeline for ordinance amendments to come into effect and the proposed amendments to the short-term ordinance. The Subcommittee asked questions about the timeline. Under Public Comment, Nina Beety emphasized urgency to extend the FCC public comment deadline. She recommended that all submittal requirements be listed on the City website. The Ordinance amendment should contain requirements to ensure that all City residents (property owners and renters) be notified of a project. She also commented that if the FCC decides to allow more public comment time, the Subcommittee should go back to its original approach which is a slower process reviewing City ordinance changes. Sandra Collingwood recommended that small cities join forces. She asked if there is a small cities organization. She recommends the City change the color of its notice cards to bright yellow with black writing to ensure residents see the public notice in the mail. Ms. Cole responded that the League of California Cities assists organizing local governments and provides sample letters of opposition. After public comment, the Subcommittee reviewed the proposed ordinance amendments presented by staff and discussed another four ideas for the short-term ordinance amendment. Wireless Subcommittee Minutes Wednesday, September 12, 2018 Subcommittee Member Hansen made motion to recommend 10 principals and recognized that items that are more difficult may take longer to undergo legal review. Subcommittee Member Peterson seconded. 1. Applicant distributes (mails) public notice to property owners (before application submittal unless it reduces shot clock). If it reduces the shot clock, the notice shall occur by a specific date (first or up to fifth day) 2. Submittal Requirement (Not in Ordinance – Resolution) - Mockup will be part of City’s submittal requirements to update prior to Ordinance adoption. - Verification of pole integrity - Verification of pole ownership approval 3. Improve timelines based on FCC potential ruling - Can City staff immediately deny or reject applications if incomplete? - 6409 - Explain City discretionary ability. Planning Commission to City Council (60 days) - Small Cell/Co-location? – Planning Commission to City Council (60 days) How does FCC definition of co-location be dealt with? Is it the same as a 6409 application? Need FCC definition of small wireless facility. - Macro – Planning Commission to City Council (150 days) 4. Fire Hazard Zone: (b.) Hazard Compliance Certification (i) If the applicant proposes to deploy a wireless facility in a “High Hazard Zone” (“HHZ”) (as demarcated on the current version of the California Public Utility Commission Fire- Threat Map) on a structure that applicant contends is or will be under the jurisdiction of General Order (“GO”) 95 (“GO 95”) or GO 165, or GO 166, the applicant must submit a sworn statement by qualified experts who must attest in which specific HHZ the wireless facility will be located; whether the structure has been inspected; whether the structure and any existing facilities comply and whether any planned structures and facilities would comply with standards for placement on structures in an HHZ; and whether all required Fire Prevention Plans are in place. If existing or proposed structures or facilities are or will be non-compliant in any respect, the application must identify steps proposed to ensure the structure and existing and proposed facilities are compliant, (ii) For any application to deploy a wireless facility in an HHZ on a structure that applicant contends is not under the jurisdiction of GO 95, GO 165, and GO 166, the applicant must submit documentation showing: (1) the specific HHZ in which the wireless facilities will be located as demarcated on the current version of the California Public Utility Commission Fire-Threat Map; (2) a description of the steps the applicant has taken to reduce hazards to public safety, including fire safety hazards that may be caused by the proposed wireless facility and (3) the steps applicant proposes to take to maintain the safety of the wireless facility, which steps must be at least as rigorous as if GO 95, GO 165 and GO 166 applied. 2 Wireless Subcommittee Minutes Wednesday, September 12, 2018 ( c ) Electronic Copy of Application. The applicant must provide an electronic copy of all application materials in a searchable format that can be posted online. The applicant may mark any sections as “confidential” for purposes of the online, publicly available application copy, subject to state and federal law regarding public records. 5. Can fire safety for underground vaults be considered: m. Underground vault and venting plans. The underground vault and venting plans including manufacturer’s specifications for cover, color, materials, dimensions, and reveal at the sidewalk, evidence that all enclosures will comply with NEMA 6 standards, and evidence that vaulted enclosures are fire-rated a period of 60-120 minutes to contain a fire. c. Undergrounded Equipment. To conceal the non-antenna equipment, applicants shall install all non-antenna equipment underground when proposed in an area where utilities or other equipment or in the right-of-way is primarily located underground. In all other areas, applicants shall underground its non-antenna equipment to the extent feasible, subject to the City’s standard archaeological sensitivity practices. Equipment vaults must be designed to contain a fire for a period of 60 minutes or 2 hours based on the national standards – NEMA & NFPA. Applicant or service provider must provide the capability to remotely, 24/7 1) control, monitor, and diagnose the condition of health of each cell site in operation; 2) remotely switch off the equipment in the event of a malfunction, fire, or danger to the environment; 3) have an automatic switch-off feature in the case of fire or water damage. City review of underground vaulting may include but not be limited to: safe clearance from other utilities, ADA compliance, aesthetic impact and quiet mechanical heating, air conditioning or ventilation systems. Additional expense to install and maintain an underground equipment enclosure does not exempt an applicant from this requirement, except where the applicant demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that this requirement will effectively prohibit the provision of personal wireless services. Nothing in this subsection (F)(6)(c) is intended to require the applicant to install any electric meter required by the applicant’s electrical service provider underground 6. General Design Preferences. All applicants should shall, to the extent feasible and appropriate for the proposed location, design new towers according to the following preferences, ordered from most preferred to least preferred: 7. Obtain legal opinion on significant coverage/capacity gap. Change wording to effective prohibition. Can significant gap still be used as a reason for approval or denial? 8. Can we add? Revocation When the city finds reason to believe that grounds for permit revocation exist, the city shall send written notice by Certified U.S. Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to the permittee at the permittee’s last known address that states the nature of the noncompliance as grounds for permit revocation. The permittee shall have a reasonable 3  Wireless Subcommittee Minutes Wednesday, September 12, 2018 time from the date of the notice to cure the noncompliance or show that no noncompliance ever occurred. If after notice and opportunity to show that no noncompliance ever occurred or to cure the noncompliance, the permittee fails to cure the noncompliance, the city council shall conduct a noticed public hearing to determine whether to revoke the permit for the uncured noncompliance. The permittee shall be afforded an opportunity to be heard and may speak and submit written materials to the city council. After the noticed public hearing, the city council may revoke or suspend the permit when it finds that the permittee had notice of the noncompliance and an enforceable permit, permit condition or law applicable to the facility. Written notice of the city council’s determination and the reasons therefore shall be dispatched by Certified U.S. Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to the permittee’s last known address. Upon revocation, the city council may take any legally permissible action or combination of actions necessary to protect public health, safety and welfare. 9. Liability Insurance – is it legal and amount? 10. If a pole falls over (wind sail) or start a fire, who is responsible? Pole owner? Cell facility? Who can you sue?: Subcommittee Member Olsen suggested amending the motion to include an eleventh principal: 11. What happens if too many applications are submitted at once? Subcommittee Members Hansen and Peterson concurred with the amendment. On a motion by Subcommittee Member Hansen, seconded by Subcommittee Member Peterson and carried by the following vote, the Wireless Subcommittee voted to recommend 11 principals be included in the short-term ordinance amendments: AYES: 6 COMMISSIONERS: Dawson, Nine, Hansen, Peterson NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Brassfield, Breedlove, Olsen ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None Break from 3:20PM to 3:28PM 2. Discuss Comprehensive Amendments to Monterey City Code Chapter 38, Article 17, Section 38-112.4 Personal Wireless Service Facilities No discussion occurred. 3. Identify Subcommittee Information Needs from Staff 4  Wireless Subcommittee Minutes Wednesday, September 12, 2018 No discussion occurred. 4. Discuss the Meeting Schedule and Future Agenda Items The Subcommittee discussed that tomorrow’s meeting would be held on Thursday, September 13th from 9am-noon. Ms. Cole offered to schedule a meeting with Chair Dawson, Vice Chair Nine, and City Attorney’s Office. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 3:47 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Kimberly Cole Chair Community Development Director Wireless Subcommittee 5