8A Public Hearings - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

16 expressing willingness to host a cell site on the portion of his property that would avoid interference with residential uses, clearly the applicant cannot demonstrate that denial of this site would result in an “effective prohibition.” The Staff Presentation states: “If provider’s documentation shows proposed facility would close a significant coverage gap, City must allow facility if provider demonstrates it made a good faith effort to identify and evaluate feasible alternative locations.” AT&T did not demonstrate that there is any gap in LTE coverage, it did not demonstrate that LTE coverage is a form of “personal wireless services” under federal law or that it cannot meet the proposed gap through other means, such as small cells or the neighboring property. As a result, the City is not forced by federal law to approve this application. IX. The Staff presentation is incorrect that the FCC prohibits the City from considering RF emissions in this situation. The Staff presentation states that “Cities are prohibited from establishing different standards or denying a project due to RF emissions concerns if project complies with the FCC’s standards.” This is not fully descriptive of the instant situation. Applicant concedes that the tower will result in exceedance of the FCC limits in buildable areas of adjacent properties. Typically, cities have run afoul of federal law by considering diminution in property values that are a proxy for fear of health impacts of FCC-compliant levels of RF emissions.34 But, a city may properly consider the reduction of property values that are caused by RF emissions that exceed FCC regulations and impact the realistic usability of the site. As discussed above, those exceedances will reliably and foreseeably diminish property values. 34 See, e.g., California RSA No. 4 v. Madera County, 332 F. Supp. 2d 1291, 1310 (ED Cal. 2003); Sprint Spectrum LP v. Willoth, 176 F. 3d 630, 646-47 (2d Cir. 1999). Att B - Page 36 of 46