|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The Pleasanton City Council unanimously approved a new ordinance and three new policies last week to remove restrictions for wireless service providers in the hopes of making it easier for them to build new facilities — big and small — and modify existing ones.
While there are some caveats within the policies that discourage the construction of bigger facilities in certain neighborhoods and guardrails for residents to make their voices heard on future applications, the overhaul of city policy generally opens up more locations for service providers to come in and improve wireless coverage throughout Pleasanton.
“I’ve, over the last decade, heard many, many residents concerned about our coverage and I think we all support (and) we welcome better coverage,” Councilmember Julie Testa said during the April 21 council meeting. “This is an important step for doing that.”
For years, residents have been raising concerns over notable coverage gaps in Pleasanton. Councilmember Jeff Nibert noted how he was at the dentist office the day before the meeting and the office texted him a form to fill out but nothing came through.
Two residents who spoke during public comment also pointed out how there are several areas in Pleasanton where they have zero or only one bar of service on their phones, which not only affects their ability to do work but also causes concerns for kids who wouldn’t be able to make calls in the case of an emergency.
“There is a demonstrated wireless coverage gap, or gaps, throughout the city of Pleasanton,” Derek Farmer, assistant director of community and economic development, said during the meeting. “These negatively impact residents, businesses and visitors and — even more importantly — they potentially impact emergency situations where the public and service providers need alerts and information.”
Because of these impacts, the city conducted a comprehensive review of its current wireless ordinance and application processes, which showed that the main contributor to the wireless coverage issues is in fact that same wireless ordinance. Farmer said the current ordinance is outdated, overly restrictive and generally discourages wireless providers from installing any new facilities in the city.
“It does hinder carriers from coming in because there are so many areas that it currently precludes them from coming,” said Julie Harryman, Pleasanton’s assistant city attorney, adding that since 2013 the city has had very few applications.
That’s why the city developed the new ordinance and policies.
The ordinance, according to staff, removes most of the regulatory standards from that old ordinance and instead refers applicants to follow the new policies related to different types of wireless facilities, which staff said are easier to update, when needed, to keep up with evolving state and federal regulations.
“(The policies) would have the same weight as they would if they were in an ordinance; they would just be outside that ordinance so we could address specific concerns at different kinds of wireless applications,” Farmer said.
The policies specifically cover macro and micro wireless facilities as well as any modifications to existing facilities.
Macro facilities refer to large-scale wireless facilities like free-standing towers and support structures. These macro facilities, which typically provide a coverage radius between one to three miles, can also be located on rooftops or other buildings.
Micro facilities are smaller facilities that are usually attached to streetlights and utility poles and provide a coverage radius of anywhere from a few hundred feet to 1,000 feet within high-traffic, dense urban or suburban areas.
While the ordinance does remove a lot of the restrictions put in place by the previous city code, these policies, according to staff, have a considerable amount of guardrails that stipulate how and where these wireless facilities can be located.
“These changes really change the landscape for the ability to approve a site in town, but don’t necessarily strip away the regulations and what that’s going to look like for our community,” Councilmember Craig Eicher clarified with staff.
According to the city’s wireless legal consultant David Nagele, the principal attorney at Coastal Tower Law, there are underlying design guidelines that required the facilities to be incognito. That means that, even the large facilities, will have to be built in a way where they are stealthy and concealed wherever possible.
Staff also worked with the consultant to determine location preferences that aim to keep the larger facilities away from dense residential areas but also open them up to other locations where the facilities can be concealed.
The city policy for macro wireless facilities specifically discourages service providers from building facilities within 100 feet from a residence. It also discourages providers from building within 500 feet of an existing tower, from somewhere where the facility can be seen from nearby highways, or within 200 feet of an historic resource.
Places that are preferred include industrial, commercial, office, mixed-use, agriculture, public and institutional, and public park parcels. Other preferred locations also include city-owned water tanks, school or religious institutions and rooftops where they can be well-hidden.
Residents who live within 500 feet of a proposed macro wireless facility application will have a 30-day notice period where they can voice their concerns or input on these projects.
For smaller facilities, the policy states that local roads within industrial, commercial, office or mixed-use and open space zoning areas would be the most preferred locations followed by other open spaces and community facilities. Roads located in residential areas, along Main Street, within a scenic corridor or historic resource, or within 100 feet of a residence are locations where these smaller facilities will be discouraged for construction.
However, Nagele noted that if service providers have no other option but to apply for building a facility — that is not well-concealed — in a discouraged location in order to appropriately service an area, they can still do so. They would just have to go through additional steps to provide information and evidence that supports their request.
From there, the city and its consultant will determine whether it should make those special exceptions.
“I think this strikes the right balance,” Nibert said. “Protecting neighborhoods from not being overrun with cell towers and facilities but on the other hand providing the type of coverage that is really necessary for the city.”
The council also approved a master fee schedule that establishes wireless facility fees, which will require service providers to pay over $3,000 to apply for both micro and macro facilities — per site — and just over $800 for modifications to an existing facility. There will also be a deposit required for consultant review of the wireless permits.
“We’ve been hearing from our community (about this) for years, so hopefully this will encourage the carriers to come and correct those gaps,” Testa said.
Newport Academy received numerous state citations before closing Pleasanton clinicsApril 28, 2026 6:00 am