1 Mayor Tornek - Pasadena, California€¦ · ·site boundaries and registered neighborhood...

lntroduced1by Mayor Tornek

ORDINANCE NO. _ _.;...7 3;;;..,;3;...;;5 ___ _

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PASADENA AMENDING CHAPTER 12.22 OF THE PASADENA MUNICIPAL CODE (TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES)

WHEREAS, the City Council originally adopted Chapter 12.22 of the Pasadena

Municipal Code in 2009, which regulates telecommunications facilities in the public

right-of-way;

WHEREAS, due to the proliferation of new telecommunications facilities within

the City and the City has received numerous applications and inquiries regarding the

development of new or modification to existing telecommunications facilities within the

City and, given the stro·ng desire of the wireless industry to continue expanding and

enhaf1Cing their coverage, the City anticipates that it will receive additional applications

and inquiries in the near future;

WHEREAS, as a result of laws and regulations passed in recent years, local

governments are now required to approve certain wireless telecommunications facilities

within various time periods;

WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to update Chapter 12.22 of the Pasadena

Municipal Code based on current telecommunications trends and updates in applicable

laws and regulations, in order to protect and promote public health, safety and welfare

1 0000152752C031 - Clean version

to the extent permitted by law, while, at the same time, balance the legal rights of

carriers.

NOW, THEREFORE, the People of the City of Pasadena ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. This ordinance, due to its length and corresponding cost of

publication, will be published by title and summary as permitted by Section 508 of the . '

Pasadena City Charter. The approved summary of this ordinance is as follows:

"Summary

This ordinance amends Chapter 12.22 of the Pasadena Municipal Code

(Telecommunications Facilities). The ordinance establishes a definition of small cells to

conform to a recent Federal Communications Commission decision, and makes other

amendments to conform to laws and regulations passed in recent years that require

local governments to approve certain wireless telecommunications facilities within

various time periods.

Ordinance no. 7335 shall take effect upon publication."

SECTION 2. Pasadena Municipal Code, Title 12, Chapter 12.22, Section

12.22.020 (Definitions), subdivisions (N) and (0) are repealed and replaced with the

following subdivisions (N) through (S):

"N. "Small ceU:' means a wireless telecommunications facility that meets the definition of a small wireless facility, as that term is used by the Federal Communications Commission in FCC 18-133, as may be amended from time to time.

0. "Support structure" means a freestanding structure designed and constructed to solely support an antenna array and that may. consist of a monopole, a selfsupporting lattice tower, a guy-wire support tower, or other similar structure.

2 0000152752C031- Clean version

P. "Telecommunications facility" means and includes any wire or line, antenna, pipeline, pipe, duct, conduit, converter, cabinet, pedestal, meter, tunnel, vault, equipment, drain, manhole, splice box, surface location marker, pole, structure, utility, or other appurtenance, structure, property, or tangible thing used to provide telecommunications and/or video service to the public.

Q. "Tier 1 small cell" means a small cell mounted to an existing support structure or wire or line, where the size of a telecommunications facility (as defined by subdivision (P)) is no greater or equal to one cubic foot. ·

R. "Tier 2 small cell" means a small cell mounted to an existing support structure or wire or line, where the size of ·a telecommunications facility (as defined by subdivision (P)) is greater than one cubic foot, but less than or equal to five cubic feet.

. S. "Tier 3 small cell" means a small cell mounted to an existing support structure or wire or line, where the size of a telecommunications facility (as defined by subdivision (P)) is greater than five cubic feet."


12.22.050 (Permit required) is hereby amended as follows:

"12.22.050 - Permit required.

A.. No person shall install or maintain any telecommunications facility which in whole or in part rests upon, in or over the public right-of-way without first obtaining a permit from the director under this chapter. ·

B. Applications for permits for telecommunications facilities shall be made to the director and shall contain the following: 1. The name, address and telephone number of the owner of the

telecommunications facility; 2. The name, address and telephone number of the responsible person whom the

city may notify or contact at any time concerning the telecommunications facility;

3. A site plan containing the exact proposed location of the facility (including a description of the. location in a format compatible with the city's geographic information system database), and detailed plans created by a qualified · licensed engineer and in accordance with requirements set by the director;

4. A photograph and/or model number of the type of telecommunications facility . being used;

5. A certificate of insurance pursuant to Section 12.22.150; and 6. An application and processing fee, as established by resolution of the city

council.

3 0000152752C031- Clean version .

C. Applications will not be accepted for geographic locations which are then unavailable due to current or proposed public improvements as specified in the current Capital Improvement Program.

D. An applicant shall not submit applications for permits seeking in excess of twenty (20) Tier 1 small cell sites, ten (1 0) Tier 2 small cell sites, and/or five (5) Tier 3 small cell sites at any one time, without the prior written approval of the director.

E. If the applicant is notified in writing that an application is incomplete, the applicant shall have no more than 90 days from the date of notification to revise and resubmit the application. If the applicant fails to revise and resubmit the application within that time, the application shall be deemed withdrawn. Thereafter, an application resubmitted for the same site shall constitute a new application for all purposes.

F. This section does not apply to the terms and conditions of any agreement or permit (or extension thereof) pertaining to telecommunications facilities (issued. by the city or of which the city is a party) that is already in existence at the effective date of this ordinance, provided that the agreement or permit (or extension thereof) does not result in a material change (including, but not limited to, changes in size, shape, color, or exterior material) of the telecommunications facilities covered by such existing agreement."


12.22.070 (Additional findings required for wireless telecommunications facilities),

subdivision (B) is hereby amended as follows:

"B. The applicant has posted a performance bond or othe~ security in an amount rationally related to the cost of removal , based on the director's determination."


12.22.080 (Special notice), is hereby amended as follows:

"12.22.080.- Special notice.

A. Notice of Application Submittal. 1. Residential Districts (Excluding Tier 2 Small Cells). Notice that the application

has been submitted shall be provided pursuant to Section 17.76.020 of this Code in the same form and manner as the notice requirements for minor variances and minor use permits. Additionally, notice that the application has been submitted shall be mailed to occupants of buildings within 300 feet of the


·site boundaries and registered neighborhood associations whose boundaries fall within 300 feet of the site boundary.

2. All Other Zoning Districts, and Tier 2 Small Cells in Residential Districts. Notice that the application has been submitted shall be posted pursuant to Section 17.76.020(B)(2) of this Code in the same form and manner as the posting requirements for minor variances and minor use permits. Additionally, notice that the application has been submitted shall be mailed to abutting property owners.

B. Comment Period. Written comments received by the director during this period shall be considered as part of the staff review. 1 . Residential Districts. For proposed uses located in residential zoning districts,

the comment period shall be 14 days from the date notice is provided. 2. All Other Zoning Districts, and Tier 2 Small Cells in Residential Districts. For

proposed uses located all other zoning districts, the comment period shall be 10 days from the date notice is provided.

C. Notice of Installation. After issuance of a permit, and no later than 48 hours prior to . installation, written notice shall be provided to the same persons who originally received notice pursuant to subdivision (A) of this section.

D. This section shall not apply to applications for Tier 1 small cells."


12.22.100 (Appeals), is hereby amended as follows:

"12.22.1 00 - Appeals.

A. Any interested person may appeal the decision of the director pursuant to this chapter, with the exception of decisions on Tier 1 small cell applications, which may not be appealed.

B. Any appeal shall be filed with the director within seven (7) days after the decision by the director from which the appeal is being taken by filing a written statement of appeal, clearly setting forth all facts upon which the appellant believes the appeal should be granted.

C. The city manager (or designee) shall consider all appeals of decisions of the director on Tier 2 and Tier 3 small cell applications. The appellant may request a conference with the city manager (or designee) prior to the rendering of a decision, during which the appellant (and applicant, if applicable) may present any information relevant to the appeal. Unless the applicant, agrees to a longer period of time, the conference (if any) shall occur within seven (7) days of the director's receipt of the appeal. The appeal shall be resolved by way of the city manager (or


designee) issuing a written decision containing the resolution of the matter and the reasons therefor. ·

D. All other appeals shall be heard by the city council, which shall hear from the appellant (and applicant, where applicable), staff, and all relevant evidence, and shall determine the merits of the appeal.

E. Appeals shall be decided in accordance with time periods and procedures established by applicable laws and regulations, including, but not limited to, decisions of the Federal Communications Commission."


12.22.120 (Additional installation standards applicable to wireless telecommunications

facilities), subdivision (B) is hereby amended as follows:

B. No wireless telecommunications facility shall be located on a pole that is less than 21 feet in height.


12.22.140 (Hold harmless agreement), is hereby amended as follows:

"12.22.140- Permittee indemnification.

The holder of any permit issued under this chapter shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the city of Pasadena, its city council, officers, and employees to the maximum extent permitted by law, from any loss or liability or damage, including expenses and costs, for bodily or personal injury, and for property damage sustained by any person as a result of the installation, use, or maintenance of the permittee's facilities subject to this chapter."


12.22.210 (Effect on other ordinances), is hereby amended as follows:

"12.22.21 0 - Effect on other ordinances.

A. Compliance with the provisions of this chapter shall not relieve a person from complying with any other applicable provision of the Pasadena Municipal Code.

B. In the event of a conflict between any provision in this chapter and chapter 12.24 of this Code (Excavations), this chapter shall control.

6 0000152752C031 - Clean version

C. Nothing contained in this chapter shall be deemed to supersede or modify the following: 1. Standards and size limitations (and exemptions thereon) for sign displays in

chapter 17.48 (Signs) of the Zoning Code; 2. Section 17.50.310 of the Zoning Code, which regulates wireless

telecommunications facilities located outside of the public right-of-way; and/or 3. Fixed electric rates available for unmetered wireless telecommunications

facilities available through Sections 13.04.085 (Unmetered rates - Nondemand) and 13.04.087 (Unmetered rates- Demand)."

SECTION 10. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this ordinance and shall

cause this ordinance to be published by title and summary.


SECTION 11. This ordinance shall take effect upon publication.

Signed and approved this 28th day of January '2019.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing ordinance was adopted by the City

Council of the City of Pasadena at its meeting held this 28th day

of January 2019, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Gordo, Hampton, Masuda, McAustin, Wilson, Vice Mayor Kennedy, Mayor Tornek

NOES: None

ABSENT: Councilmember Madison

ABSTAIN: None

Date Published: January 31, 2019

ApprovE}Q as to form: .1/ i

'; /1 L> Java~ ~.f. ~ap1

'-

'Chief .... Assi&ant City Attorney


Ordinance Fact Sheet

TO: CITY COUNCIL DATE: January 14, 2019

FROM: CITY ATTORNEY

SUBJECT: . P·ROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES ORDINANCE

TITLE OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE

ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PASADENA AMENDING CHAPTER 12.22 OF THE PASADENA MUNICIPAL CODE (TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES)

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the City CounCil: 1. Find that this action is exempt from review under the California Environmental

Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b)(3), the "general rule" that CEQA only applies to projects which have the potential for . causing a significant effect on the environment, and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines

. ·Section 15303 (Class 3- New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures), and that there are no features that distinguish this project from others in the exempt class

· and, therefore, there are no unusual circumstances; and . 2. Introduce an ordinance amending Chapter 12.22 of the Pasadena Municipal Code

.(Telecommunications Facilities), and conduct first reading ofthe ordinance.

PURPOSES OF THE ORDINANCE

The purpose of this ordinance is to amend the process for considering wireless facilities proposed in the public right-of-way.

REASONS WHY LEGISLATION IS NEEDED

At its December 17, 2018 meeting, the City Council directed the City Attorney to prepare this ordinance. This ordinance bec~me necessary as a result of the Federal

01128/2019 9-1:-J.l4-J.2a-l-9

MEETING OF------

-1-J.- 20 AGENDA ITEM NO. ----

Communications Commission's Declaratory Ruling and Report and Order, which seeks to accelerate deployment of 5G wireless infrastructure. The FCC adopted its decision in September 2018 and, following publication in the Federal Register, the decision becomes effective this month. The FCC's decision is currently being challenged in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, but the decision still remains effective, even though litigation is pending.

Significant features of this ordinance include the following amendments to Chapter 12.22 of the Municipal Code:

1. Provides for a definition of small cells to conform to the Federal Communications Commission's September 2018 Declaratory Ruling and Report and Order accelerating deployment of 5G wireless infrastructure, and the creation of three separate tiers for the processing of small cell applications, Since the time .of the December 17, 2018 Council meeting, Public Works staff has communicated with. wireless carriers and their representatives about the volume limitations for each of the three tiers. Staff has concluded that the volume limitations should remain intact, and as originally proposed.

Tier 1

Tier2 One (1) to five (5) cubic feet

Tier 3 More than five (5) cubic feet

• No special notice. • No appeal • Maximum 20 a lications • Special notice tracking non

. residential zoning districts • Appeal to City Manager • Maximum 10 a lications • Special notice • Appeal to City Manager • Maximum 5 a lications

2. Provides that incomplete applications not re-submitted 90 days after an incomplete notice are deemed withdrawn;

3. Clarifies the appeal process for the City Manager and City Council (which is proposed to only hear non-small-cell appeals); and

4. Makes technical and conforming changes:

PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED

The Public Works Department will be affected by this ordinance.

FISCAL IMPACT

.The actual fiscal impact associated with enforcement of the ordinance is currently unknown, but is not expected to be significant.

2

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION

The Council is asked to find this proposed action exempt from environmental review before taking action on the ordinance. The proposed action is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b )(3), the "general rule" that CEQA only applies to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment, and pursuant to CEQA Guideline~ Section 15303 (Class 3 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures), and that there are no features that distinguish this project from others in the exempt class and, therefore, there are no unusual circumstances.

Concurred by:

Steve Mermell City Manager

0009152699C031

Respectfully submitted,

Michele Seal Bag City Attorney

3

Introduced by Mayor Tornek

ORDINANCE NO. 7 3 3 5 -------

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PASADENA AMENDING CHAPTER 12.22 OF THE PASADENA MUNICIPAL CODE (TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES)"

WHEREAS, the City Council originally adopted Chapter 12.22 of the Pasadena

Municipal Code in 2009, which regulates telecommunications facilities in the public

right-of-way;

WHEREAS, due to the proliferation of new telecommunications facilities within

the City and the City has received numerous applications and inquiries regarding the

development of new or modification to existing telecommunications facilities within the

City and, given the strong desire of the wireless industry to continue expanding and

enhancing their coverage, the City anticipates that it will receive additional applications

and inquiries in the near future;

WHEREAS, as a result of laws and regulations passed in recent years, local

governments are now required to approve certain wireless telecommunications facilities

within· various time periods;

WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to update Chapter 12.22 of the· Pasadena

Municipal Code based on current telecommunications trends and updates in applicable

laws and regulations, in order to protect and promote public health, safety and welfare

1 0000152791 C031 - Summary

to the extent permitted by law, while, at the same time, balance the legal rights of

ca~riers.


SECTION 1. This ordinance, due to its length and corresponding cost of

publication, will be published by title and summary as permitted by Section 508 of the

Pasadena City Charter. The approved summary of this ordinance is as follows:

"Summary

This ordinance amends Chapter 12.22 of the Pasadena Municipal Code

(Telecommunications Facilities). The ordinance establishes a definition of small cells to

conform to a recent Federal Communications Commission decision, and makes other

amendments to conform to laws and regulations passed in recent years that require

local governments to approve certain wireless telecommunications facilities· within


Ordinance no. 7335 shall take effect upon publication."


cause this ordinance to be published by title and summary.


Signed and approved this 28th day of January , 2019.

2 0000152791C031- Summary

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing ordinance was adopted by the City

Council of the City of Pasadena at its meeting held this 28th day

of January 2019, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Gordo, Ha~pton, Masuda, McAustin, Wilson, Vice Mayor Kennedy, Mayor Tornek

NOES: None

ABSENT: Councilmember Madison

ABSTAIN: None

Date Published: January 31, 2019 :;

0000152791 C031 - Summary 3

Mar City

,•

~at&t

Via E-Mail

City of Pasadena City Council City Hall 1 00 North Garfield A venue Pasadena, CA 911 01

MICHAEL VAN ECKHARDT

Assistant Vice President Senior Legal Counsel

January 14,2019

AT&T Services, Inc. 16631 NE 7200 Way RTC 1 Redmond, WA 98052

425.580.7033 Phone [email protected]

Re. AT&T' s Initial Comments on Proposed Amendment to Pasadena Municipal Code Chapter 12.22 · ·

Dear Mayor Tomek, Vice Mayor Kennedy, and Councilmembers Gordo, Hampton, Madison, Masuda, McAustin and Wilson:

I write on behalf of New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC d/b/a AT&T Mobility (AT&T) to provide initial comments on the city's proposed ordinance to amend Municipal Code Chapter 12.22, regulating telecommunication facilities in the public rights-of-way. AT&T recognizes the need for the city to update its regulations given advances in wireless technologies and changes to applicable state and federal laws, including the Federal Communications Commission's Infrastructure Order. 1 And with AT&T's selection by the federal First Responder Network Authority, FirstNet, as the wireless service provider to build and manage the nationwide first responder wireless network,. each new or modified facility will strengthen first responder communications. Unfortunately, the proposed permitting process risks hampering deployment of small wireless facilities by establishing a permitting framework at odds with feqerallaw.

Key Issues With Proposed Ordinance

Application Timing Issues

The proposed ordinance likely will violate the FCC's Infrastructure Order. For example, real-world small wireless facilities will be larger than five cubic feet, and thus would be processed under proposed Tier 3 review. Many of these applications will be requests to collocate on existing structures in residential districts, subject to the FCC's 60-day shot clock under the Infrastructure Order. But the proposed Tier 3 review would require a 14-day advanced public notice, a 14-day publi.c comment period, and an appeal right. The notice and comment period alone will take up 28 days, leaving only 32 days for the city to decide the application, handle an appeal (which would be subject to 7-day.appeal period), make a final decision and issue all

1 See Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order, FCC 18-133 (September 27, 20l8) ("Infrastructure Order")(eff. Jan. 14, 2019).

01/28/2019 Item 20

City of Pasadena City Council December 13, 2018 Page 2 of4

necessary permits. In addition, this timeline means that the city's 10-day period to review an application for completeness2 will expire even before the comment period opens.

AT&T recommends that the city dispense with or significantly shorten the public comme.nt period. After all, small wireless facilities will need to be approved under the FCC's Infrastructure Order if they meet objective and appropriate approval criteria.

AT&T also questions the application of the special notice requirement under Pasadena Municipal Code Sections 12.22.080(A) and 17.76.020. PMC Section 17.76.020(B)(I)(a) requires the notice to be mailed to residents within a 500-foot radius "at least 14 days before the hearing." But Chapter 12.22 does not require a hearing. Moreover, the notice requirement is too broad as it is very unlikely a small wireless facility will be visible to residents so far away. To the extent such notice for Tier 3 fac ilities is needed, AT&T recommends reducing the notice period to 5 days and limiting the notice distribution radius to 100 feet.

The appeal right for small wireless facilities is also unnecessary. Again, small wireless facilities will need to be approved under the FCC's Infrastructure Order if they meet objective and appropriate approval criteria. And the appeal period will almost certainly prevent the city from meeting a 60-day shot clock. AT&T recommends eliminating the appeal provision with respect to all small wireless facilities.

Other Process Issues

AT&T objects to the limitations on number of applications that can be consolidated, or hatched, to be processed together. This is inconsistent with the FCC's Infrastructure Order and the corresponding rule, which do not allow hatching limitations.3 And, as a practical matter, allowing hatching of only five (or ten or twenty) small wireless facilities may burden deployment efforts and will impose additional burdens on City Staff. Rather than to set arbitrary limits, the proposed ordinance should be tailored to allow hatching to the extent applications propose similar designs for small wireless facilities.

The city should establish and publish objectively reasonable cost-based application fees to comply with the FCC's Infrastructure Order. More specifically, AT&T directs the City to the relevant FCC standard for adopting lawful fees: "( 1) the fees are a reasonable approximation of the state or local government's costs, (2) only objectively reasonable costs are factored into those fees, and (3) the fees are no higher than the fees charged to similarly-situated competitors in similar situations. "4

The city must eliminate its requirement, in PMC Section 12.22.070(A), for a justification study to demonstrate "the rationale for selecting the proposed use, a detailed explanation of the coverage gap that the proposed use would serve, and how the proposed use is the least intrusive means for the applicant to provide wireless service." First, we note that the city cannot require

2 See 47 C.F.R. § l.6003(d}(l}. 3 See 47 C.F.R. § l.6003(c)(2)(iii). 4 See Infrastructure Order at~ 50.

,.

City of Pasadena City Council December 13, 2018 Page 3 of 4

such a justification study for AT&T' s installations in the public rights-of-way. AT&T has a state law franchise right under Section 7901 of the Public Utilities Code to place its facilities in the public right-of-way so long as it does not incommode the public way.

Further, the FCC has rejected the "significant gap/least intrusive means" test and requirements for proof of coverage need.6 Instead, under the FCC Infrastructure Order, the city must approve siting applications for small wireless facilities that comply with local criteria that "are (1) reasonable, (2) no more burdensome than those apflied to other types of infrastructure deployments, and (3) objective and published in advance."

Because both state and federal law preempt local requirements that a wireless provider justify need for wireless facility siting requests in the public rights-of-way, the city should delete PMC Section 12.22.070(A).

Additional Issues

As the city works to update its regulations of wireless facilities in the rights-of-way, it should also take this opportunity to address several additional problems with the current code. AT&T recommends that the city take these additional steps in developing the proposed ordinance:

• The city should revise PMC Section 12.22.11 O(D), which requires placing telecommunications facilities below ground where feasible. The FCC's aesthetic cfiteria also applies to uridergrounding requirements. 8 Thus, this provision will only be lawful if . these requirements are reasonable and no more burdensome to wireless infrastructure than the requirements that are applied to other types of infrastructure deployments. 9

Additionally, this section should be limited to avoid unlawfully prohibiting wireless services in portions of the city. Moreover, PMC Section 12.22.100(0) conflicts with PMC Section 13.14.080(F), which excepts from the scope ofundergrounding resolutions "[a]ntennae, associated equipment and supporting structures used by u a utility for furnishing communication services."

• . The city should revise or eliminate landscaping requirements under PMC Section 12.22.110(0). These requirements are unlawful to the extent they materially inhibit deployments or are more burdensome than those imposed on other right-of-way users.

5 See also T-Mobile West, LLC v. City and County of San Francisco, 3 Cal.App.5th 334, 342-43 (1st Dist. 2016) (local requirement conditioning issuance of wireless facility siting permit on technological necessity is preempted under Section 7901). 6 See Infrastructure Order at~ 40, n.94. 7 /d. at~ 86. 8 See id. at ~~ 90-91. 9 See id. at~ 90 ("Further, a requirement that materially inhibits wireless service, even if it does not go so far as requiring that all wireless facilities be deployed underground, also would be considered an effective prohibition of service."). .

City of Pasadena City Council December 13, 2018 Page 4 of4

• The city should eliminate the authority for the Public Works Director to engage a consultant. While AT&T appreciates the city's desire to thoroughly review applications, consultants can unnecessarily increase the cost of deployment and they often slow down the permitting process because it is in their interest to find problems to increase their fees. Any provision that allows the use of consultants should limit review to appropriate and objective criteria, such as a structural safety assessment or compliance with FCC regulations of radio frequency emissions. And the city should be mindful that the cost of a consultant may not pass through to an applicant as the FCC has established threshold fees, and even within those fees only objectively reasonable costs can be imposed.

• The city should eliminate PMC Section l2.22.120(A), which prohibits support structures in the public right of way. Again, AT&T has a state law franchise right to place facilities in the public rights-of-way. While the city may impose reasonable restrictions on AT&T's access, under Section 7901.1, this flat prohibition is unreasonable.

• The city should revise 12.22.l20(C), which restricts antenna height to "7 feet beyond the top of the pole." To be consistent with the FCC's de(lnition for small wireless facilities, 10

and to avoid prohibiting installations, the city should authorize additional height.

Conclusion

AT&T appreciates the city's initial efforts to adapt its wireless facility siting regulations to accommodate new and emerging technologies and changes in law. In this process, the city should make sure to develop an ordinance that will comport with applicable law. By addressing the items we raise here, the city will go a long way toward encouraging responsible deployment of wireless facilities consistent with state and federal policies and to the great benefit ofthe city's residents and businesses. ·

Very truly yours,

Is/ Michael van Eckhardt

Michael van Eckhardt

10 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.6002(1).

CORRESPONDENCE (JANUARY 14, 2019 CITY COUNCIL MEETING) . . .

MACKENZIE & ALBRITTON LLP 155 SANSOME STREET, SUITE 800

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104

VIA EMAIL

Mayor Terry Tomek Vice Mayor John Kennedy Councilmembers Tyron Hampton,

TELEPHONE 415/288-4000 FACSIMILE 415/288-4010

January 11,2019

Margaret McAustin, Gene Masuda, Victor Gordo, Steve Madison and Andy Wilson

City Council City of Pasadena 100 North Garfield Avenue Pasadena, California 91101

Re: Proposed Amendments to Municipal Code Chapter 12.22 Telecommunication Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way Council Agenda Item 13, January 14, 2018

Dear Mayor Tomek, Vice Mayor Kennedy and Councilmembers:

We write again on behalf ofVerizon Wireless regarding proposed amendments to Chapter 12.22 of the Pasadena Municipal Code (the "Proposed Amendments") addressing wireless facilities in the right-of-way. While Verizon Wireless appreciates efforts to expedite permitting of small cell facilities, the Proposed Amendments do not fully comply with a recent order of the Federal Commissions Commission (the "FCC") · regarding small cell approval criteria (the "Infrastructure Order"). 1 As described in our prior correspondence, the FCC requires cities to evaluate small cell applications under reasonable, non-discriminatory and objective criteria. Infrastructure Order, ~ 86. The Proposed Amendments do not fully eliminate conflicts with the Infrastructure Order, and they leave certain unlawful code provisions unchanged. The Council should defer adoption and direct staff to revise the Proposed Amendments.

The Proposed Amendments forgive noticing requirements for Tier 1 small cells (under one cubic foot) and reduce them for Tier 2 (between one and five cubic feet); however, any requirements for public notice and comment windows are inappropriate given the objective review that the FCC requires for small cells. Proposed Amendments § 12.22.080(A). Under objective standards, either a facility complies, or it does not. There is no room for opinion or subjectivity that could be used to deny otherwise-

' See Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order, FCC 18-133 (September 27, 2018)

-

. , ' .

• ' \ .

Mayor and City Council City of Pasadena January 11,2019 Page 2 of3

compliant facilities. Objective review is administrative in nature, and any attempt to sway the Dir~ctor's decision must be disregarded. Simply put, there is no benefit to p4blic input. Instead of scaling notice requirements based on a facility's size, public·· notice shOl:Ild pot be required for qualifying small cells .

. . ·. , · ·with respect to any appeals to the City Manager, the review must be based on · · · re~sonable, objective criteria. Proposed Amendments § 12.22.1 00. Considering this

.· narrow scope, there is no reason to consider new or irrelevant information submitted by · · the· public .. The Proposed Amendments should be revised so the appeal record is limited '· . to materials that were before the Director, with the City Manager confirming the

Diiedm' s conclusions. '~·

! · We note that limiting the number of facilities batched under one application (e.g., to five facilities) is inconsistent with new FCC Shot Clock rules. Proposed Amendments § 12.22.050(D). The FCC does not limit the number of small cells or the specific volume of facilities that can be hatched under one application. 47 C.F.R. § 1.6003(c)(2). Batch limitations should be stricken.

Though certain problematic provisions of the existing code are not addressed by the Proposed Amendments, we emphasize that they continue to contradict state and federal law. As we explained previously, the required justification and coverage gap study violates California Public Utilities Code Section 7901 granting telephone corporations the right to place their equipment in the right-of-way. Code§ 12.22.070(A). It also contradicts the Infrastructure Order, as the FCC disagreed that the federal prohibition of service standard is limited to "protecting only against coverage gaps or the like" as determined through "coverage gap-based approaches." Infrastructure Order,' 38, 40. A facility meeting the FCC's definition of small cell must be approved if it satisfies reasonable, non-discriminatory and objective standards, and justifying the need for a small cell is irrelevant.

The Code's ban on new poles also contradicts Section 7901 that grants telephone corporations the right to erect new poles in the right-of-way. Code§ 12.22.120(A). Further, the Infrastructure Order considers new poles for small cells, which are addressed in newly-codified Shot Clock rules. See 47 CF.R. § 1.6003(c)(l)(iii). Instead of forbidding new poles, the City must provide reasonable and objective criteria for their design.

The Proposed Amendments do not go far enough to address the FCC's directions in the Infrastructure Order, and they do not tackle unlawful existing Code requirements. The Council should decline adoption of the Proposed Amendments and direct staff to make needed revisions.

Ve- ours,

Paul B. Albritton

.-' :;;- ' . Mayor and City Council City of Pasadena January 11,2019 Page 3 of3

cc: Michele Bagneris, Esq. Javan Rad, Esq. Ara Maloyan . Yannie Wu

.~ at&t

Via E-Mail

City of Pasadena City Council City Hall 100 North Garfield Avenue Pasadena, CA 911 0 I

MICHAEL VAN ECKHARDT

Assistant Vice President Senior Legal Counsel

January 14, 2019

AT&T Services, Inc. 16631 NE72ndWay RTC 1 Redmond, WA 98052

425.580.7033 Phone michael. [email protected]

Re. AT&T's Initial Comments on Proposed Amendment to Pasadena Municipal Code Chapter 12.22

Dear Mayor Tomek, Vice Mayor Kennedy, and Councilmembers Gordo, Hampton, Madison, Masuda, McAustin and Wilson: ·

I write on behalf of New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC d/b/a AT&T Mobility (AT&T) to provide initial comments on the city's proposed ordinance to amend Municipal Code Chapter 12.22, regulating telecommunication facilities in the public rights-of-way. AT&T recognizes the need for the city to update its regulations given advances in wireless technologies and changes to applicable state and federal laws, including the Federal Communications Commission's Infrastructure Order. 1 And with AT&T's selection by the federal First Responder Network Authority, FirstNet, as the wireless service provider to build and manage the nationwide first responder wireless network, each new or modified facility will strengthen first responder communications. Unfortunately, the proposed permitting process risks hampering deployment of small wireless facilities by establishing a permitting framework at odds with federal law.

Key Issues With Proposed Ordinance

Application Timing Issues

The proposed ordinance likely will violate the FCC'~ Infrastructure Order. For example, real-world small wireless facilities will be larger than five cubic feet, and thus would be processed under proposed Tier 3 review. Many of these applications will be requests to collocate on existing structures in residential districts, subject to the FCC's 60-day shot clock under the Infrastructure Order. But the proposed Tier 3 review would require a 14-day advanced public notice, a 14-day public comment period, and an appeal right. The notice and comment period alone will take up 28 days, leaving only 32 days for the city to decide the application, handle an appeal (which would be subject to 7-day appeal period), make a final decision and issue all

1 See Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order, FCC 18-133 (September 27, 2018) ("Infrastructure Order")(eff. Jan. 14, 2019).

01/28/2019 Item 20

City of Pasadena City Council December 13, 20 18 Page 2 of4

necessary permits. In addition, this timeline means that the city' s 10-day period to review an application for completeness2 will expire even before the comment period opens.

AT&T recommends that the city dispense with or significantly shorten the public comment period. After all, small wireless facilities will need to be approved under the FCC's Infrastructure Order if they meet objective and appropriate approval criteria.

AT&T also questions the application of the special notice requirement under Pasadena Municipal Code Sections 12.22.080(A) and 17.76.020. PMC Section 17.76.020(B)(l)(a) requires the no~ice to be mailed to residents within a 500-foot radius "at least 14 days before the hearing." But Chapter 12.22 does not require a hearing. Moreover, the notice requirement is too broad as it is very unlikely a small wireless facility will be visible to residents so far away. To the extent such notice for Tier 3 facilities is needed, AT&T recommends re~ucing the notice period to 5 days and limiting the notice distribution radius to I 00 feet.

The appeal right for small wireless facilities is also unnecessary. Again, small wireless facilities will need to be approved under the FCC's Infrastructure Order if they meet objective and appropriate approval criteria. And the appeal period will almost certainly prevent the city from meeting a 60-day shot clock. AT&T recommends eliminating the appeal provision with respect to all small wireless facilities.

Other Process Issues

AT&T objects to the limitations on number of applications that can be consolidated, or batched, to be processed together. This is inconsistent with the FCC's Infrastructure Order and the corresponding rule, which do not allow hatching limitations. 3 And, as a practical matter, allowing hatching of only five (or ten or twenty) small wireless facilities may burden deployment efforts and will impose additional burdens on City Staff. Rather than to set arbitrary limits, the proposed ordinance should be tailored to allow hatching to the extent applications propose similar designs for small wireless facilities.

The city should establish and publish objectively reasonable cost-based application fees to comply with the FCC's Infrastructure Order. More specifically, AT&T directs the City to the relevant FCC standard for adopting lawful fees: "(1) the fees are a reasonable approximation of the state or local government' s costs, (2) only objectively reasonable costs are factored into those fees, and (3) the fees are no higher than the fees charged to similarly-situated competitors in similar situations. "4

The city must eliminate its requirement, in PMC Section 12.22.070(A), for a justification study to demonstrate "the rationale for selecting the proposed use, a detailed explanation of the coverage gap that the proposed use would serve, and how the proposed use is the least intrusive means for the applicant to provide wireless service." First, we note that the city cannot require

2 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.6003(d)(l). 3 See 47 C.F.R. § l.6003(cX2)(iii). 4 See Infrastructure Order at~ 50.

•

City of Pasadena City Council December 13, 2018 Page 3 of 4

such a justification study for AT &T's installations in the public rights-of-way. AT&T has a state law franchise right under Section 7901 of the Public Utilities Code to place its facilities in the public right-of-way so long as it does not incommode the public way.

Further, the FCC has rejected the "significant gap/least intrusive means" test and requirements for proof of coverage need.6 Instead, under the FCC Infrastructure Order, the city must approve siting applications for small wireless facilities that comply with local criteria that "are (I) reasonable, (2) no more burdensome than those apflied to other types of infrastructure deployments, and (3) objective and published in advance."

Because both state and federal law preempt local requirements that a wireless provider justify need for wireless facility siting requests in the public rights-of-way, the city should delete PMC Section ·12.22.070(A).

Additional Issues

As the city works to update its regulations of wireless facilities in the rights-of-way, it should also take this opportunity to address several additional problems with the current code. AT&T recommends that the city take these additional steps in developing the proposed ordinance: ·

• The city should revise PMC Section 12.22.11 0(0), which requires placing telecommunications facilities below ground where feasible. The FCC's aesthetic criteria also applies to undergrounding requirements. 8 Thus, this provision will only be lawful if these requirements are reasonable and no more burdensome to wireless infrastructure than the requirements that are applied to other types of infrastructure deployments. 9

Additionally, this ~ection should be limited to avoid unlawfully prohibiting wireless services in portions ofthe city. Moreover, PMC Section 12.22.100(0) conflicts with PMC Section 13.14.080(F), which excepts from the scope ofundergrounding resolutions "(a]ntennae, associated equipment and supporting structures used by u a utility for furnishing communication services."

• The city should revise or eliminate landscaping requirements under PMC Section 12.22.110(0). These requirements are unlawful to the extent they materially inhibit deployments or are more. burdensome than those imposed on other right-of-way users.

5 See also T-Mobile West, LLC v. City and County of San Francisco, 3 Cai.App.Sth 334, 342-43 (I st Dist. 2016) (local requirement conditioning issuance of wireless facility siting permit on technological necessity is preempted under Section 7901 ). 6 See Infrastructure Order at~ 40, n.94. 7 !d. at~ 86. 8 See id. at ~~ 90-91 . 9 See id. at~ 90 ("Further, a requirement that materially inhibits wireless service, even if it does not go so far as requiring that all wireless facilities be deployed underground, also would be considered an effective prohibition of service.").

City of Pasadena City Council December 13,2018 Page 4 of4

• The city should eliminate the authority for the Public Works Director to engage a consultant. While AT&T appreciates the city's desire to thoroughly review applications, consultants can unnecessarily increase the cost of deployment and they often slow down the permitting process because it is in their interest to find problems to increase their fees. Any provision that allows the use of consultants should limit review to appropriate and objective criteria, such as a structural safety assessment or compliance with FCC regulations of radio frequency emissions. And the city should be mindful that the cost of a consultant may not pass through to an applicant as the FCC has established threshold fees, and even within those fees only objectively reasonable costs can be imposed.

• The city should eliminate PMC Section 12.22.120(A), which prohibits support structures in the public right of way. Again, AT&T has a state law franchise right to place facilities in the public rights-of-way.- While the city may impose reasonable restrictions on AT&T's access, under Section 7901.1 , this flat prohibition is unreasonable.

• The city should revise 12.22.120(C), which restricts antenna height to "7 feet beyond the top of the pole." To be consistent with the FCC's definition for small win~less facilities, 10

and to avoid prohibiting installations, the city should authorize additional height.

Conclusion

AT&T appreciates the city's initial efforts to adapt its wireless facility siting regulations to accommodate new and emerging technologies and changes in law. In this process, the city should make sure to develop an ordinance that will comport with applicable law. By addressing the items we raise here, the city will go a long way toward encouraging responsible deployment of wireless facilities consistent with state and federal policies arid to the great benefit of the city's residents and businesses.

Very truly yours,

Is/ Michael van Eckhardt

Michael van Eckhardt

10 See 47-C.F.R § 1.6002(1).

Introduced by _____ _

AMENDED BY STAFF AND FIRST READING CONDUCTED ON JANUARY 14, 2019

ORDINANCE NO.------

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PASADENA AMENDING THE PASADENA MUNICIPAL CODE. (TELECOMMUNICATI

APTER 12.22 OF S FACILITIES)

WHEREAS, the City Council originally adopted Ch ter 12.22 of the Pasadena

Municipal Code in 2009, which regulates telecommun· ations facilities in the public

right-of-way;

WHEREAS, due to the proliferation of w telecommunications facilities within

. the City and the City has received numero applications and inquiries regarding the

development of new or modification to xisting telecommunications facilities within the

City and, given the strong desire o he wireless industry to continue expanding and

enhancing their coverage, the ity anticipates that it will receive additional applications

and inquiries in the near f

WHEREAS, as result of laws and regulations passed in recent years, local

governments are w required to approve certain wireless telecommunications .facilities

EAS, the City Council wishes to update Chapter 12.22 of the Pasadena

Munic' al Code based on current telecommunications trends and updates in applicable

and regulations, in order to protect and promote public health, safety and welfare

1 0000152788C031- Blackline version \

\

to the extent permitted by law, while, at the same time, balance. the legal

carriers.

NOW, THEREFORE, the People of the City of Pasadena

SECTION 1. This ordinance, due to its length and cor spending cost of

publication, will be published by title and summary as pe itted by Section 508 of the

Pasadena City Charter. The approved summary oft ordinance is as follows:

This ordinance amends Cha.pter 12.2 f the Pasadena Municipal Code

{Telecommunications Facilities). The o~ · ance establishes a definition of small cells to

conform to a recent Federal Commu · ations Commission decision, and makes other

amendments to conform to laws d regulations passed in recent years that require

local governments to approv ertain wireless telecommunications facilities within


1--- shall take effect upon publication."

SECTION . Pasadena Municipal Code, Title 12, Chapter 12.22, Section

12.22.020 (D 1nitions), subdivisions (N) and (0) are repealed and replaced with the

bdivisions (N) through (S):

'Small cell" means a wireless telecommunications facili that meets the definition of a small wireless facility, as that term is used by the Federal Communications Commission in FCC 18-133, as may be amended from time to time.

2 0000152788C031- Blackline version

NO. "Support structure" means a freestanding structure designed and cons cted to solely support an antenna array and that may consist of a monopole selfsupporting lattice tower, a guy-wire support tower, or other similar ructure.

OP. "Telecommunications facility" means and includes any wire or li , antenna, pipeline, pipe, duct, conduit, converter, cabinet, pedestal, me r, tunnel, vault, equipment, drain, manhole, splice box, surface location m er, pole, structure, utility, or other appurtenance, structure, property, or tan · e thing used to provide telecommunications and/or video service to th ublic.

Q. "Tier 1 small cell" means a small cell mounted t as

R.

s.

icipal Code, Title 12, Chapter 12.22, Section

12.22.050 (Permit required) is ereby amended as follows:

A.. No person shall i all or maintain any telecommunications facility which in whole or in part rests up , in or over the public right-of-way without first obtaining a permit from the direc r under this chapter.

B. Application or permits for telecommunications . facilities shall be made to the director a shall contain the following: 1 . The name, address and telephone number of the owner of the

te communications facility; 2. e n~me, address and telephone number of the responsible person whom the

city may notify or contact at any time concerning the telecommunications facility; A site plan containing the exact proposed location of the facility (including a description of the location in a format compatible with the city's geographic

3 0000152788C031 - Blackline version

C.

D.

E.

information system database), and detailed plans created by a licensed engineer and in accordance with requirements set by the dire

4. A photograph and/or model number of the type of telecommunicaf being used;

S. A holc:t harmless agreement pursuant to SeGtion 12.22.140; 6~. A certificate of insurance pursuant to Section 12.22.150; and

constitute a new a licati for all ur oses. Df. This section does not apP. to the terms and conditions of any agreement or

permit (or extension th of) pertaining to telecommunications facilities (issued by the city or of whic h~ city is a pa~y) that is already in existence at the effective date of th" ordinance, provided that the agreement or permit (or extension there does not result in a material change (including, but not limited to, changes in 1ze, shape, color, or exterior material) of the telecommunications facilities CO\l red by such existing agreement."

4. Pasadena Municipal Code, Title 12, Chapter 12.22, Section

dditional findings required for wireless telecommunications facilities),

subdi\l. ion (B) is hereby amended as follows:


"B. The applicant has posted a performance bo"nd or other security in an amount rationally related to the cost of removal, based on the director's determination."

SECTION 5. Pasadena Municipal Code, Title 12, Chapter 12.22, Sectio

12.22.080 (Special notice), is hereby amended as follows:

"12.22.080.- Special notice.

A. Notice of Application Submittal. 1. Residential Districts (Excluding Tier 2 ·Small Cells). No· e that the application

has been submitted shall be provided pursuant to S tion 17.76.020 of this Code in the same form and manner as the noti requirements for minor variances and minor use permits. Additionally, no · e that the application has been submitted shall be mailed to occupants of ildings within 300 feet of the site boundaries and registered neighborhood ssociations whose boundaries fall within 300 "feet of the site boundary.

2. All Other Zoning Districts, and Tier 2 S I Cells in Residential Districts. Notice that the application has been s mitted shall be posted pursuant to Section 17.76.020(B)(2) of this Code · the same form and manner as the posting requirements for minor varia es and minor use permits. Additionally, notice that the application has b n submitted shall be mailed to abutting property owners. ·

B. Comment Period. _Written comment eceived by the director during this period shall be considered as part of the s ff review.

1. Residential Districts. For pr: osed uses located in residential zoning districts, the comment period shall 30-14 days from the date notice is provided.

2. All Other Zoning Distric , and Tier 2 Small Cells in Residential Districts. For proposed uses locate all other zoning districts, the comment period shall be 10 days from the date tice is provided.

C. Notice Oof lnstallatio After issuance of a permit, and no later than 48 hours prior to installation, writt notice shall be provided to the same persons who originally received notice p uant to subdivision (A) of this section.

D. This sections I not a I to a licatior1s for Tier 1 small cells."



12.22.100 (Appeals), is hereby amended ~s follows:

"12.22.1 00 - Appeals.

c.

D.

E.

12.22.120 (Addition nstallation standards applicable to wireless telecommunications

facilities), subdiv· on (B) is hereby amended as follows:

B. ess telecommunications facility shall be located on a pole that is less 21 feet in height.


SECTION 8. Pasadena Municipal Code, Title 12, Chapter 12.22,

12.22.140 (Hold harmless agreement), is hereby amended as follow ·

"12.22.140 Hold harmless agreement Permittee indem

The holder of anv A c;ondition of issuanc;e of a pe chapter shall · , , defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the city of Pasade , its city council, officers, and employees to the maximum extent permitted by law, fr any loss or liability or damage, including expenses and costs, for bodily or rsonal injury, and for property damage sustained by any person as a result of the · stallation, use, or maintenance of the appllc;ant's permittee's facilities subject tot · Subdi~isionchapter."

SECTION 9. Pasadena Municipal Co , Title 12, Chapter 12.22, Section

12.22.210 (Effect on other ordinances), is ereby amended as follows:

"12.22.21 0 - Effect on other ord' ances.

A. Compliance with the provisi s of this chapter shall not relieve a person from complying with any other a icable provision of the Pasadena Municipal Code.

B. In the event of a conflict tween any provision in this chapter and chapter 12.24 of this Code (Excavations his chapter shall control.

C. Nothing contained in 1s chapter shall be deemed to supersede or modify the following: 1.:. Sstandards a

chapter 17 .


use this ordinance to be published by title and summary.


7 0000152788C031- Blackline v~rsion

Signed and approved this. ____ day of ______ .....;.

Terry To ek Mayor the City of Pasadena

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing ordina was adopted by the City

Council of the City of Pasadena at its meeting hel ____ day

of _____ __:2019, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Date Published:


Mark Jomsky City Clerk

City of Pasadena CITY CLERK'S DEPT-ADMIN 100 N. Garfield Ave., Rm 5228 Pasadena, CA 91109

PROOF OF PUBLICATION (201 5.5 C.C.P.)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, County of los Angeles

I om o citizen of the United States ond o resident of the County oforesoid; I om over the oge of eighteen yeors; ond not o porty to or Interested In the obove entitled matter. I om the principal clerk of the printer of the Posodeno Weekly, o newspaper of general circulation, printed and published weekly in the Oty of Posodeno, County of los Angeles, and which newspaper hos been adjudged o newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of los Angeles, Stote of California, under the dote of February 19, 1988, Case No. C 655 062; thot the notice, of which the annexed Is o printed copy (set in. type no smaller thon nonpareil), hos been published in eoch regular ond entire issue of soid newspaper ond not in ony supplement thereof on the following dotes, to wit:

1/31/19

I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Doted ot Posodeno, Collfornio

This 31 st Dey of Jonuory, 2019

{21L~Jz Signature c

weekly 50 South De Lacey Ave. Suite 200 Pasadena, CA 91105 v: (626) 584-1500 x1 00 f: (626) 795-0149

lntoduced by Mayor T Q"l1dt

ORDINANCE NO. 7335

AN ORDINANGE OF THE art OF PASAOENA AMENDING CHAPTER 12..U OF THE PASAOEH.A MUNICIPAl CODE (TELfCOMMUNICATIONS FAC1unES)

WHEREAS; the City Coord originally adopted Chaptef 12.22 of the Pasadena Municipal Code In 2009, which regiAates lelecommunlea11ons facilities in the public ~ght-of.way;

WHEREAS, due lo the prclilet3tion of new telec:ommu~ lacities wilhin the City and the City has received nutnelllU$

appicllions and ~ regarding the dMiopmertofnewormocl6c:alionlo ulslng ~ facfies .., the City and, given the s.-ong desQ of the wlrelw indUSlry lo continue expanding and enhancing their coverage, the City an~m that ~ wil receive ad611onai applications and inqui~ in the new future;

WHEREAS, as a resu~ or laws and regula11ons passed in recent yews, local govenvnents are now required 1o approve certain wireless telecon'mlnicalions lacilles witNn various tme periods;

WHEREAS, the City Couneil wislles 1o updale Chapter 12.22 of the Pasadena ~ Code based on CUTent ~tends iMid updates in appicable laws and ~in order lo proect iMid PfU'OOI8 public heallh, safety and we11we 1o the ment pem'itled by taw, whit, 11 the same lme, balano:e the legal ~Ill$ of~.


SECTION t. This ordinance, due to G lengUl and cornesponding cost of publiealion, will be publi$hed by IHie and sunrnary as pemitled by Section 508 of the Pasadena City cn.w. The appiOYell surrmary of this ordinance i$ as t>lows:

"SuiMIIfY

Ttl$ orblce amends Chapter 12.22 of the Pasadena ~ Code (T~ Far:ities). The ordinance estabishes a definition or sma1 eels 1o conlilnn 10 a recent Federal Comnunicalions ConTrission decision, and makes othet amendments to conlilnn to laws and reguldons passed in recent years that require local governments to approve ce~n wireless teiecormlunica11ons faciities within various time periods.

Ordinance No. 7335 shall take e11ect upon pu~n.·

SECOON 2. The City Clelt shall certify llle ldopeon of tis otdinance OW1d shall cause tis crinance lo be puli$hed by tile and sunmaty.

SECTION 3. Tlla Otdinance shall take ellec1 upon publicalion. $ivned and approved this 28Ulllay ol Januwy, 2019.

TenyT«nek Mayor of the City of Pasadena

I HEREBY CERTIFY 1hat the foregoing ordinance was adopted by the City Counca of the City of Pasadena at its meeting held tis 28th day of Januwy 2019, by the blowing vote:

AYES: ~Gordo.~ Masuda. McAustn. Wlson, VIce Mayor Kennedy, Mayor T Q"l1dt

NOES: None

ABSENT:~Madison

ABSTAIN: None

Date Publslled: Januwy 31 , 2019 PasadenaWeel<ly

Mar'< Jornsky City Cieri<

THEPASADENAJOURNALNEWS 1541 N. LAKE AVE., SUITE A PASADENA, CA 91 104 (626)798-3972

PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2025.5 C.C.P.)

This space is for Clerk's filing Stamp

ORDINANCE NO 7335

STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Los Angeles

I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the printer of the Pasadena Journal, a newspaper of general circulation printed and published weekly in the city of Pasadena, County of Los Angeles and which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, under the date of April 16, 1991, Case Number CO I3336, that the notice of which is annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil) has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any

· supplement thereof on the following dated to-wit

January 31.2019.

I certify and declare under penalty perjury that the Foregoing is true and correct.

3 1 2019.

Signature

Amber Hudson

PROOF OF PUBLICATION

[see attached]

ORDINANCE NO. 7335 .

AN ORDiNANGE OF .THE CITY O F PASA DENA AM EN DING CHA P TER '12.22 O F T HE PASADENA MUNICI PAL CODE (TE L EC O MMUN I C ATIO NS FACILITIES)

wHER£AS,theCityCouncuoriginallyodopl<od Cbopter 12.22 oflhc Pu.tdena Municipal Code in 2009, \Obich n:gullllcs tcle<>Otnmunic•tions f•citities in the

_ pub6c right-of-way, WHEREAS, doc to the proliferation of new

telecommunications f .. ilitios within the City and the City hu ~ived numerous applications and inqumco regarding the dcvelopnent of now or mo<lifielllion to existing telecommunications facilities within the City and, given U>• strong dcoire of the wireless induotry to continue upandina sn4 enhancin& their coversge, 'the Cilymticipatcs thlll it will recaye sd4itiooahpplicatioas and inquiries in the ....,. future;

WHER£As. uaresultoflawsandregularioos Passed in re«m yean. 1ocll SO''Cfllfl)ed$ are now requitedtoaPPfO'-eoetuinwiRlesstc~ons f"!'ilitia wilhin various time period>;

WHEREAS. the City Council wishes to update Chopter 12.22 of the Puadena Municipal Code bued on CUJTCnt telecommunications trends and updates in applicable laws and re&~~lations, in order ro prote<t and 'promote public health, s,.Ccty and welfare to the extent pennitted by taw, while, at the same time, balance·t.be legal righrs of carriers.· ·

NOW, THEREFORE. the People ofthe City of p;,.adeoa ordain u follows:

SECTION I . This ordinance, due to its knglh and corrupondinl cool of publicstion, wiit be publisbod by title ond summary u permitted by Section S08 of !be Pasadcoa City Qwler. The approved~ of !his ordinance io u follow$:

•Sw:nma.ry

'This ordilwK• amends Chapter 12.n of the P•udcna Municipal Code (Telecornmuoi~tions Facilities} TbeordiM>oeootablish .. adcfuiitiooofsmall cells to oonform to a reoeot Federal Communications Commission decision, and milk .. other amendmeniS to oonform to lAw> and reaulationa passed in reeeol years !bill require lo<'ll governments to approVe cer1Ain wireless telecomnumic&tions f&eilitics within various time periods.

Ordinance No. 733S shall tal<e effect upon publication. •

SECTION l . The City Cledc. sliall cerlify the adoption oCthisordl,.,.,. and sliall ca.,.. tru.oidinancc to be published by tile and summary. ·

SECTION 3. This ordinonce oball take effect upon public:alion. .

Si&ood ond spprovod this 28lh dsy <!{January,

2019. Tony Tomek

Mayor of the City of Puadena .

1 HEREBY CERTIFY thot the foregoing ordinance wu adol!led by rhe Ciry Council ofthe Cily ofPASodenaat its n1<cting held this 28th day of JmuM)' 2019, by !be following vote:

AYES:

NOES: ABSE!re ABSTAIN:

Counc:ilmembers Gordo, Kampton, M11111d1, McAus1in, Wilson, Vice M•Yor Kennedy, Mayor Tomek Nor.e Conl<ilmernber Madison Noae

Mart<Jomoky City Cieri<

o..tc Publiobed: Janu.vy ll: 2019 Pasadena Journal

1 Mayor Tornek - Pasadena, California€¦ · ·site boundaries and registered neighborhood...

Documents

Transcript of 1 Mayor Tornek - Pasadena, California€¦ · ·site boundaries and registered neighborhood...