How to resolve AdBlock issue? LAKEPORT, Calif. – While the federal government has severely limited the kinds of rules local governments can impose on telecommunications facilities, the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday explored what budge room the county still has in determining where towers and equipment can be located.
County staff began working on a review of rules in the spring at the request of Supervisor Rob Brown. On Tuesday, Community Development Director Michalyn DelValle and Anita Grant went over the possibilities with the board, starting with the county’s zoning ordinance.
During the discussion, DelValle said that, as far as she can tell, the county has made no significant changes to the zoning ordinance’s Article 71 – which establishes regulations for communications towers and antennae – since 2008.
In that time, Grant pointed out, the federal government has rolled back what rules local governments can implement.
During the discussion, Grant referenced a September 2018 Federal Communications Commission order regarding small wireless facilities, which she said in her written report “invokes an expansive interpretation of the 1996 Telecommunications Act provisions which preempt any local regulations that prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting wireless facilities. That interpretation is applicable to virtually all local interactions with wireless facilities with very limited exceptions.”
Staff is proposing the expansion of setbacks in residential areas for macro communications towers – defined as those on high towers, masts or antennas – as well as expanded design criteria, and more specific and clarified restrictions for the siting of macro towers in viewshed locations.
For small wireless facilities – small antennas placed on existing existing infrastructure such as utility poles – staff wants to establish “objective and reasonable” regulations for design and location, including concealment and/or screening, height and size, location and mounting.
DelValle explained that the zoning ordinance doesn’t currently call out small wireless facilities, and staff is recommending a new permit process be introduced. She said small wireless facilities are those mounted on structures no more than 10 percent higher than adjacent structures.
The September FCC order established two new “shot clocks” for small wireless facilities – 60 days for collocation on preexisting structures and 90 days for new builds.
“Sixty days is generally not enough time to get a project before the planning commission,” DelValle said.
DelValle said other jurisdictions have incorporated “preferred” location criteria, with the common theme being the location of such structures within rights of way, or commercial and industrial zones. The least-preferred sites are in residential areas.
However, there are still exceptions, as DelValle said the county cannot prohibit telecommunications service. That means a provider can apply for a site that isn’t preferred if it can prove that there isn’t another preferred site within 500 or 1,000 feet of the requested placement.
“There are different rules when it comes to the siting requirements for the small cell facilities and macro towers, so you can’t lump them all in together,” said Grant.
She explained that the effective prohibition standard from the FCC’s September order applies to both small cell and macro towers, and the FCC rulings have the force of law. “They’re not guidelines. They’re legal requirements.”
Grant said the county doesn’t have anything regarding aesthetic requirements for small cell facilities in the zoning ordinance. The county does have some maneuvering possibility for macro facilities, especially in residential areas, when it comes to design review and location. She said it’s much more difficult to mandate restrictions for small cell facilities.
DelValle said the common theme in rules she’s studied from other jurisdictions is that they encourage small cell facilities within rights-of-way, county roads, county-owned streetlights and other existing utilities.
She said they’ve built cell facilities to look like water towers, flag poles and trees; Lake County also has had similar disguised cell facilities here.
DelValle said staff recommends updating the zoning ordinance with new definitions, which will require some research, as she’s not aware of what updates Article 71 has had since 2008.
She recommended that small cell facilities be allowed subject to obtaining a zoning permit with established criteria, such as preferred locations, as that will affect the 60- and 90-day permitting requirements which the county currently can’t meet in getting projects before the planning commission.
Del Valle also suggested updating an abandonment and discontinuance section for telecommunications facilities in county rules. Currently, the county allows companies up to six months to remove unused equipment and towers. Some other jurisdictions limit it to 90 days.
She also mentioned that there are jurisdictions that have put in place communications facilities setbacks from schools ranging from 500 to 1,000 feet, with some exceptions allowed.
Board welcomes alternatives
“I’m the one that asked for this to be on the agenda initially,” Brown said during the board’s subsequent discussion of DelValle’s report.
“It doesn’t come close to what I was hoping for but I think we’ve pushed it as far as we can,” Brown said.
He said he originally had asked for a 2,500-foot setback from residences, but he was happy to do what they can legally rather than putting up a big and expensive fight that the county is likely to lose.
Grant said that distinguishing between the macro towers and the small cell facilities is critical. Preferred site rules wouldn’t prohibit a siting but would certainly streamline the location of a tower. “Time being money for cell tower companies, that may be very attractive to them going forward.”
The height and size of a macro tower doesn’t fall under the 2018 ruling, so Grant said the board has more room to maneuver in terms of setting rules for residential areas, thus the “preferred” status DelValle is suggesting that could situate the facilities in other areas.
Grant said DelValle is proposing to expand the considerations for the planning commission and the Board of Supervisors to the extent it’s possible to do so.
“That’s what I’m asking for,” said Brown.
Supervisor Moke Simon, like Brown, approved of what staff proposed. “If we could go a little farther that would be great, but I think this is a great start.”
Supervisor Bruno Sabatier said he went through Article 71 with a fine-toothed comb and suggested that one section that discourages siting on ridgetops should be reconsidered. He said it could cut down the number of towers because he said ridgetops are the best places to put them and are located away from residential areas.
“I see where you’re going with that,” said Brown, noting every site should be considered equally and that not every ridgetop is sacred. He said he can’t think of a more prominent ridgetop than Mount Konocti, where the county owns communication tower facilities.
Grant suggested that the board could direct that new facilities could be considered in a way so as not to create visual clutter. Brown agreed.
She said the FCC has spoken about such facilities a couple of times since 2008, when the last changes were made to Article 71. As a result, “Some of these areas of discretion truly no longer exist for you in the same way.” she said.
Sabatier also found in Article 71 a rule for a 150-foot maximum height for communication towers, with a requirement that the foundation must be set back at least 100 feet from the property line. He said he wanted the setback to match the tower height.
Grant said another jurisdiction did exactly that, making the setback match the height plus an additional 25 feet. “You’re looking at a fall zone in that case, and that’s a public safety issue.”
The board directed DelValle to take her proposed updates to the zoning ordinance first to the planning commission, which will then send it back to the board.
Email Elizabeth Larson at
