7.9. & 7.10. SR 02-18-1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

10 Planning December 1996 Given that situation, my advice to lo- oaI governments is to get a handle on the _? elements of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which lays out the ground rules for industry and local government in the area of land-use law. \Vhat is required The law creates a presumption that needed wireless facilities can be sited in a com- munity. Flat refusals to grant permit ap- plications are no longer allowed. The law also requires that requests for permis- sion to build must be acted on promptly. It forbids regulations from favoring one sort of wireless service provider over another. And it prohibits local govern- merits from regulating radio fi-equency emissions. A federal standard has been set in this area and demonstrated compli- ance with that s~.andard is all a locality can seek from the permit applicant. Regular communication wittt the car- riers serving a community is also essen- tial. At least once a year every locality should invite the telecommunications car- riers serving the area to a regular meet- ing. Use this time to review the contents of permit applications. Place special em- phasis on the type of information that is expected from the applicants. Identify the parts of the application that can be left blank, which must be filled out, and under what conditions an application will be rejected as incomplete. Also, ask ser- vice providers where they may want to build facilities in the next year. Increasingly telecommunications com- panies are teaming up with locr,', govern- ments to sponsor regional wireless semi- nars. These educational for-ms usually last a full day and bring together local the Wireless Revolution Means this moment, thousands of site acquisition representatives" are standing at planning counters [~"~ everywhere in the U.S., demand- , · ,atoning permits--now. In most com- munities however there is no plan for accommodating the sites over the long haul. Both city and county governments typi- cally categorize personal wireless facili- ties as special or conditional uses. Yet they often rely on outdated radio trans- mission and satellite dish zoning provi- sions to regulate them. But some communities have instituted multitiered review procedures. Under some of these procedures, residential zones get one approach commercial and indus- trial zones another; monopoles require review while mounts 50 feet and less are permitted administratively. The advantage to a zoning ordinance approach is that each cell site is dealt with consistently and uniformly. The dis- advantage is that the jurisdiction deals with cell sites one at a time. As a result, wireless carriers are asking for~ and local governments are approving, vast systems on a site-by-site basis. Some cities and counties--knowing that they are running out of goodcdll Sites -'eview applications in bulk: San Diego, - example, requires annual submissions some communitiek ledsk'public land--including water tanks--to of all cell sites from eackcarrierl Man}; : iuireless carriers. Local governments using that approach have control jurisdictions also encourage or, reqfiire <' -~ ouer ~elt Sites, but they also open themselves up to potential lawsuits. co-location. San Francisco has a book of guideli/f~S thebest guidelines don't provide the cer- fact that some communities are leasing for planning commissioners to use in taintl/of a good plan. public land--water tanks, parkland, rights- reviewing cell site applications. But even -The situation, is complicated by the of-way--towireless carriers. Leasing public