Pleasanton planners back rewrite of wireless rules, add bigger public notice for large towers

The Pleasanton Planning Commission on March 25 recommended that the City Council replace the citys wireless ordinance and adopt three new policy documents intended to ease deployment of macro and small wireless facilities and clarify review of modifications covered by federal law.

Staff told the commission the existing ordinance is out of date and has discouraged wireless providers from siting facilities in Pleasanton, contributing to persistent coverage gaps that affect residents, schools and businesses. Staff said the proposal would repeal and replace chapter 18.110 of the Pleasanton Municipal Code and move most locational regulations into three policy documents tailored to (1) large or —macro' facilities, (2) small wireless facilities typically attached to poles, and (3) modifications of existing facilities regulated under FCC section 6409(a).

The staff presentation emphasized goals to improve coverage, preserve aesthetics through —stealth' and concealment standards, and make it easier to update policy as state and federal rules evolve. Staff recommended the commission adopt Resolution PC-2026-07 forwarding a recommendation that the council find the ordinance statutorily exempt from CEQA and approve the repeal-and-replace.

Commissioners pressed staff on numbers, siting preferences and the legal time limits for review. Consultant David Nagel, introduced by staff as the project's outside advisor, warned that federal —shot-clock' rules can require short review timelines for small wireless applications and new poles — "the FCC has established presumptively reasonable time periods to act on those applications," he said — and that missed deadlines can expose the city to requests that applications be deemed approved or to litigation if the city does not act in the required window.

Justin Brown, a former planning commissioner who said he serves on the local school board but was speaking as a resident, urged the commission to remove barriers that have limited coverage. "We think of it as a phone. It's really not a phone. It's a computer in your pocket," Brown said, adding that weak cellular service harms safety at school pickup and complicates business use.

On CEQA, staff told the commission the proposed ordinance itself is statutorily exempt because it does not authorize any physical change; project-level CEQA review would be performed on a case-by-case basis when specific site projects are proposed. Staff also described a preferred-to-discouraged location framework rather than absolute prohibitions, and described aesthetics standards aimed at concealment.

After deliberation the commission approved staff's recommendation but adopted two amendments specific to macro (large) wireless facilities: extending the public response period from 10 days to 30 days after mailed notice, and increasing the mailed-notice radius from 300 feet to 500 feet. Chair and commissioners voted unanimously to send the amended recommendation to the City Council for its April 21 meeting.

Next steps: the Planning Commission's recommendation and the revised resolution will go to the City Council on April 21, 2026, where councilors will consider the ordinance repeal-and-replace and the three policy documents.

Speakers quoted or paraphrased in this article are identified in the Planning Commission record and include staff, consultant David Nagel and public commenter Justin Brown.