The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04/26/2004 B A K E R S F I E L D David Couch,. Chair Sue Benham Mike Maggard Staff: John W. Stinson SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE~ PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE of the City Council - City of Bakersfield Monday, April 26, 2004- 1:00 p.m. City Manager's 'Conference Room, Suite 201 Second Floor - City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA AGENDA 1. ROLL CALL 2. ADOPT FEBRUARY 2, 2004 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendations regarding additional review of issues related to the General Plan Update and EIR a. photovoltaic ~panels -- Hardisty b. bus turnouts -- Gennaro c. cell phone towers-- Hardisty B. Review and .Committee recommendation regarding air quality mitigation fees -- Hardisty 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding request by North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District to change zoning of parks within the District from OS (open space) to RE (Recreation) -- Hardisty 6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS 7. ADJOURNMENT S:~JOHN\Council Committees~p&dO4apr26.doc B' A K- E R' S FI E L D DRAFT Alan Tandy, City.Manager Sue Benham Staff: John W. Stinson Mike Maggard AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SPECIAL .MEETING 'PLANNING AND .DEVELOPMENT*COMMITI~EE Monday, February 2, 2004, 3:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room 1. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 3:05 'p.m. Present: Councilmembers David Couch, Chair; Sue Benham and Mike Maggard 2. ADOPT OCTOBER 6, 2003 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Adopted as submitted. 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS Dave McArthur, North Bakersfield Recreation and Parks District, requested the Committee consider changing the zoning 0f their facilities/parks in the City from OS (Open Space) .to RE (Recreation). Committee Chair Couch requested staff .to meet with North Bakersfield Recreation and Parks District staff. In order to make this a formal referral,' staff will place this issue on the'Council agenda under Consent Calendar with a recommendation to refer to the Planning and Development Committee. 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding review of issues related to the General Plan Update and EIR Development Services Director Jack Hardisty explained during the hearing process to update the General Plan several items were referred for staff follow up and Committee review. Staff prepared a list, which was included in the' COmmittee .packet 'for the Committee's prioritization and direction to staff. Some of the items have already been addressed during the update process. Committee Chair Couch suggested to make the list mom manageable, each Committee member choose items from the list for staff to work on and bring back to the Committee and address the balance of the listlater. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, February 2, 2004 Page 2 The following issues were considered most important by the Committee Members. Committee Chair Couch . Policy on bus stoPs and turnouts to aid traffic flow** ' '. ' Require DevelOpers to offer solar as an option Committee Member Ma.cl.clard · Specific Plan for the Northeast e Minimize light :pollution .to preserve the night sky ...Committee..Member Benham · Alternative 15 and specifically Highway 58 realignments -.would like an update from Public Works on Alternative 15 progress. **City Attorney .Ginny Gennaro explained Golden .Empire Transit (GET) has expressed opposition to turnouts because there is a traffic safety issue when busses attempt to enter back into the flow of traffic. The City Attorney was requested to do an analysis of traffic,related legal .issues for the Committee. Stephan DeBranch, Castle and Cooke, spOke regarding park credits for open space in gated communities, which was discussed at the last. Committee meeting. He Would like to meet with staff to discuss their ideas on .allowing developments to be more creative to enhance their projects. Staff will meet with Castle and Cooke and the park fee credit issue Will be brought back to 'the Committee. Committee Member Maggard spoke regarding a PowerPoint presentation by Castle and Cooke at the Smart Growth Coalition meeting regarding standard livable communities, which included a list of disconnects where smart growth does not seem to mesh with the City's standard set of policies applied to subdivision .developments. The Committee requested staff to view the PowerPoint. presentation. 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion ~ and Committee -recommendation regarding -air 'quality' mitigation fees Development Services Director Jack Hardisty exPlained .the City's current practice has been to mitigate air quality impacts to a level less than significant as defined by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (District); the District's. emissions threshold for subdivision development prOjects is 10 tons/year for both project and cumulative emissions. This process has been challenged by ~the Sierra Club who argues that impacts are still significant and an EIR should be prepared for each project. Under threat of litigation and the delays · PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, February 2, 2004 Page 3 it .causes, developers are settling for' payment of a fee per dwelling unit rather than allowing-the courts to decide if the application of the District's mitigation program complies with CEQA. The Development Services Director provided an .overview on three proposed options to address challenges to .air quality analysis (memorandum in packet). Option 1: Project.Environmental Impact Reports (EIR) The Metropolitan. Bakersfield General Plan EIR addressed .potential environmental impacts that coUld result from build out 'ofthe-plan..Air quality was found to be significant-and unavoidable based on the valley being non-attainment for ozone precursors. With Option 1, any project consistent 'with the general plan' and containing the same unavoidable impacts would have. to make a new separate finding and statement of overriding consideration. To do this a project level EIR would be required. To determine if.a project level-EIR would be required, an initial study would be prepared. If no significant unmitigated impacts were determined, a negative declaration.could be filed; If not, a project EIRwould be required. A project EIR would nOt be as volUminous as the general plan ~EIR but has the same noticing, hearing and review requirements. The process could be as short as six months or as long as one year. This option would require an EIR for all project approvals, .providing a stronger CEQA record should a case be challenged and set for trial. Option ,2: Miti.qation of Proiect Emissions to Zero Based on new information obtained from using the District's air quality model, it may now be possible to find that with mitigation, build out of the.general plan can be accomplished without having significant unavoidable air quality impacts. Staff proposed for the Committee's consideration dropping the current practice to mitigate air quality impacts to a level less than significant, 10 tons/year for both project and cumulative emissions, as defined by the District's emissions threshold for subdivision development projects; and instead, require project non-attainment emissions be miti.qated to zero, thereby reducing, air pollution more than is required by State law. Under this option, air quality analysis using the District's model would be required. Requiring mitigation that offsets all project emissions results in no impact and a mitigated negative declaration cOuld be approved. Theoretically, there can be no requirement for a project EIR due to air quality impacts, if there are no impacts. AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT ~, '~,~'= / PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MondaY, February 2, 2004 Page 4 · Mitigating emissions -to zero would .require more of 'what the developers are .doing now, such as changing out agricultural diesel pump engines, old .diesel tractors, crushing .care, concrete projects, advanced signalization, or other such measures. City Manager 'Alan Tandy explained if a 'developer mitigates their project's .air pollution down to zero, there, is no reason for a .fee, or the collection and administration of a-fee. It is striving to achieve the same end through a more efficient and direct methodology in .lieu of a fee, rather than a .kind of secondary methodology of collecting a fee, and having .programs with a third party charging an adminiStrative fee. O~)tion 3: Supplemental/Subsequent EIR A-supplemental/subsequent EIR comes after completion and certification of a final EIR for a program plan, such as the general plan EIR. The guidelines state that when an ,EIR has been .certified, no subsequent .EIR shall be .prepared unless certain conditions are 'met. One of the conditions is .that "mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on .the 'environment...~' The benefit of Option 3 is the Supplemental/Subsequent EIR would be appliCable to all future projects and remove the need for individual project level EIR's to address air.quality impacts. Based on new.information obtained .from using the District's air quality model, it may now be ;possible to find that with mitigation, build out of the general plan can be accomplished without.having a significant unavoidable air quality impact. Challenges to the City's environmental review process may continue; however, the City's actions would be supported with .an 'EIR enhancing the defensibility of the City's Project approval actions. Dave Dmohowski, Project Design Consultants., spoke regarding the recent settlements of $1,200 per dwelling unit, entities involved, and the need for required mitigati°n efforts to be fair and cost-effective per ton. Arthur Unger from the Sierra Club spoke regarding the recent settlements with developers and air pollution mitigation. Renee D. Nelson spoke regarding air quality mitigation fees. Brian Todd, Building Association of Kern County, spoke regarding imposing fees/regulations on new subdivisions and balancing the price of new more 'energy-efficient homes in an economically depressed area with a Iow to moderate income housing market. . DRAFT AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT. COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, February 2, 2004 Page5 Pauline .Larwood, Smart .Growth Coalition, spoke regarding modeling, which would, quantify air pollution emissions from new develOpment; federal regulations on 'meeting attainment standards for PU~o/ozone; and-working together' on the " best solution. Taking the approach in Option 2 that developers directly fund the' mitigation-to reduce the pounds of emissions .to zero for their new develOpments rather than impose fees was discussed. · Committee Member Maggard explainedrecentstate .Legislation ,requires the Air Pollution Control District to impose an air pollution fee, so it would require amending State ~Legislation. The ~Committee requested staff to analyze the ~costs for Option 2 to require project non-attainment emissions to be mitigated to zero and bring the information 'back .to the 'Committee. B. Discussion and Committee ,recommendation on 2004. Planning and Development.Committee meeting.schedule Committee Member Maggard explained-he had put the meeting schedule ~on his work calendar, which is' now full through April. Committee Chair Couch recommended adoption of the calendar with one agreed-upon change to move the. August 9th .meeting to August 16th. The Committee adopted the Committee meeting schedule with one change-to August 16th. Committee Member Benham was absent for this item. 6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m. Attendance-staff: City Manager Alan Tandy; City Attorney Ginny Gennaro; Assistant City Manager John Stinson; Development Services Director Jack Hardisty; and Planning Director Stan Grady Attendance-others: Pauline Larwood, Smart Growth Coalition of Kern; Stephan DeBranch, Castle & Cooke; Brian Todd, BIA of Kern County; James Burger, reporter, The Bakersfield Californian; Arthur and Lorraine Unger, Sierra Club; Colon Bywater and Dave McArthur, NOR Recreation and Parks District; Renee Nelson; Dave Dmohowski, Project Design Consultants; 'Randy Bergquist, Porter-Robertson Engineering; and Cassie Daniel, Bakersfield.Association of Realtors cc: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers S:UOHN~Council Committees\O4Plannlngand Development Committee~o&d04febO2summarY.doc B. A K E R S F I E L D MEMORANDUM March 5,-2004 ~,.~ TO: John Stinson, Assistant City Manager FROM: ,~-"Stanley C. Grady, Planning Director SUBJECT: Planning and Development Committee Solar Photovoltaic Panels The use of photovoltaic panels was agreed to in a settlement agreement between the Sierra Club and LDC Miramonte Investors. The language reads as follows: "LDC agrees to: a) incorporate 2500-watt solar photovoltaic panels into the first model home in the Subdivision; b) offer photovoltaic systems as an option -to homebuyers in the Subdivision; c) use its reasonable best efforts to negotiate discounts on the per-unit.cost of photovoltaic systems with vendors of such systems and to pass on the amount of such discount to homebuyers opting to incorporate such systems; and d) make available to the first purchaser of ..." It is being provided for consideration by the subject Council Committee during their discussion of this matter. P:\Memos\solar photo 3-2-04,doc MEMORANDUM CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 'February 20, 2004 TO: PLANNING AND *DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE FROM: VIRGINIA GENNARO, CITY ATTORNE. ,,~)*t ~.~.~, ..~ ALLEN M. SHAW, DEPUTY CITY ATTOi~I~Y SUBJECT: BUS TURNOUTS ISSUE What are the dsks of building bus turnouts.in futUre developments? ANSWER Risk to both GET and the City of Bakersfield may increase with the construction of Public transit "turnouts." DISCUSSION The City planning process permits GET the opportunity to designate places for bus turnouts and GET exercises that opportunity from time-to-time by designating bus stops and turnouts. GET selects the places to place bus stops. Additionally, bus stops are changed by GET accOrding to ridership patterns. When patterns change, permanently constructed turnouts may be abandoned byGET. No state statute or local ordinance appears to compel a public transit company to use publicly provided turnouts. However, the Vehicle Code favors buses "stopped or standing" for passengers--even though this results in traffic congestion from vehicles stopped behind busses, since turnouts require buses to merge, and merging in and of itself, increases the risk of accidents. Thus, turnouts may increase the number of liability accidents for GET. City Council-approved road designs, including reasonable bus tUrnouts, provide a public entity with some protection from liability for accidents occurring on public entity streets. If there were increased accidents at bus turnouts, either because of GET's failure to use available turnouts, or because of the merging traffic situation, it may be argued that the City does not have its traditional "design immunity". AMS:lsc/alj S:\COUNCIL\MEMOS\BusTurnoutsOpinion.doc B A K E R S F I E L D MEMORANDUM March ,5, :2004 _RECEIVED TO: John Stinson, Assistant City Manager FROM: ~ Stanley C. Grady, Planning Director SUBJECT: Planning & Development Committee Wireless Communications-Regulations The attached material is being provided for consideration by the subject Council Committee. The material includes a copy of Kern County's Wireless CommunicatiOns Facility Ordinance, Model Wireless Communications Ordinance Framework and examples of stealth communication towers. One example is a photo of a redwood tree used in the northeast at · Bernard and Goodman Street. SG:djl Attachment P:\Memos\wireless comm 3-3-04.doc . Page 1 of 1 19,91.01,0' Purpose~,~ .~. and application. ~ (_~.h"{ - ~)Z,_/kl;En°glcno Title 19 ZONING _Chapter 19.91 WI~R_E__L_E_ SS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES 19.91.010 Purpose and application. The purPose of this chaPter is to establish reasonable guidelines and regulations for the siting of wireless communication facilities providing nonbroadcast services and shall include those facilities subject to the Federal Telecommunication Act of 1996, as amended, and shall include commercial wireless cellular radiotelephone . facilities, enhanced specialized mobile radio service facilities, personal communication and paging system service facilities, fixed-point microwave and satellite service facilities, private land mobile radio service facilities, and publicsafety radio systems. Additionally, this chapter shall also apply to nonpersonal wireless facilities, unless specifically excluded. This chapter shall not apply to broadcast service facilities, including television and radio broadcast facilities and amateur radio facilities, nor shall it apply to an antenna mounted onan existing utility pole, provided the antenna addition does not result in an increase in overall height of the pole structure. The sitingof Wireless communication facilities shall be encouragedto minimize the adverse aesthetic impacts on residential areas and other sensitive viewsheds by colocating facilities wherever feasible and through the use of stealth design technologies by disguising the facility so that it is not easily recognizable as telecommunications equipment, or other screening and design treatments, which seek to harmonize tower siting with the natural or built environment This chapter is intended to establiSh objective standards for the placement and design of wireless communication facilities in a manner that recognizes the need for telecommunication providers to establish complete system coverage, while ensuring that the health, safety, and. design impacts of such facilities are minimized. (Ord. G-6966 § 2 (part), 2003) http://ordlink.com/codes/kerncoun/_DATA/TITLE 19/Chapter_ 19_91-WIRFLESS-COMMUN1CATI/19 .... 02/24/2004 ~UDmlttal rcqmrCmcnts. Title 19 ZONING " Chapter 19.91 WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES 19.91.020 Submittal requirements. In those zoning districts where a conditional use permit is required for the installation of wireless communication facilities, the following additional information shall be submitted as part of the conditional use permit application: A. Documentation identifying existing Or proposed communication network design and a description of the need for the proposed facility, including documentation showing possible alternative sites considered for the proposed facility, together with the reasons why those alternative siteswere rejected. B. A written description of the potential for colocation of. the proposed facility at existing communication sites: C. A statement acknowledging the ability of other wireless communication services to potentially colocate at the proposed facility shall be submitted, unless the design of the facility cannot support additional antennas, which shall be supported by adequate evidence. While it is the county's policy to strongly encourage colocation of wireless communications facilities when feasible, the county also recognizes that colocation may not, be feasible for some facilities employing stealth design, Slim-line monopoles, or where the potential for frequency or electronic interference, or network coverage requirements would preclude it. The colocation potential' of a proposed facility can be demonstrated if the tower will be constructed: with excess structural capacity sufficient, certified by the applicant's engineer, to support three (3) or more antennas' and if sufficient ground area is provided to accommodate, three (3) or more equipmentshelters. Except for facilities employing stealth design, proposed towers demonstrating such colocation potential shall be given preference over proposed towers' without such potential. D. If the site is located within one-half (1/2) mile of any residentially or commercially zoned area, or within one- half (1/2) mile of areas zoned A-l- and, RF, a visual impact analysis shall' be submitted consisting of photo mock- ups or digitally enhanced representations shOwing the project site "before' and 'after" installation. For installations in othe~ areas, submit complete facility elevations and photographs of the site. E. Unless the proposed communications tower is a stealth designed tower, submit justification for the design of the tower and supporting-systems and a. description of possible alternate tower designs. F. Submit estimates of the maximum radio frequency radiation and electromagnetic field emissions as measured from the edge of the facility site, and. provide certification that those fields do not exceed federal standards. G. Show the locations of existing freestanding wireless communicatiOn structures towers within one (1) mile from the edge of the facility site. H. Show the location-of all private general purpose and public airstrips within two (2) miles of the facility site. I. If the applicant is not a direct provider of a wireless communications service, a letter of intent shall be · submitted from such a service indicating their intent to. use the proposed facility. Documentation of service providing capacity from the public utilities commission shall, be submitted' in conjunction with the submitted letter of intent if questions arise as to the company's legal ability to provide wireless service to the affected.area. J. Provide a USGS topog[aphical map, with the site indicated. K. Indicate the location of~ the closest, off-site dwelling. L. Provide latitude, longitude, site elevation in relation to mean sea level'(MSL). M. Indicate the proposed tower height and submit elevation drawings. (Ord. G-6966 § 2 (part), 2003) hllP'J/ordlink.corn/codes/kerncoun/_DATA/TITLE19/Chapter_ 19 91 WIRELESS_COMMUNICATU.19 .... 02/24/2004 19~.91.03Q Development standards, l"age iot 2 Title 19 ZONING ~h.apter 19.91 WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILFrlES 19.91.030 Development standards. A. The following development standards shall apply to the siting and design of all' freestanding wireless communication facilities in all zoning, districts, except as otherwise indicated: 1. No new freestanding wireless communication facilities shall be installed on a site located in a residential zoning district that is not already developed with telecommunication facilities unless it blends with the surrounding existing natural and manmade environment in such a manner aZ. to be effectively unnoticeable, nl..I, L0.~.all of the following are provided: a. Technical evidence acceptable to the approving authority showing a clear and convincing need for this facility to achieve adequate service coverage; and b. Documentation demonstrating the infeasibility of colocation on another existing telecommunications facility or the submittal of clear evidence showing that colocation on an existing telecommunications facility would create adverse impacts on the environment; and c. Documentation supporting an inability to stealth-the facility owing to technical or design considerations. 2. communication t.owers located on property within, or within three hundred (300) feet of, any residentially zoned area, area. zoned RF, or area designated for residential development by the applicable gen"-~eral pla6,.sha~l! employ stealth technolog~y, where the tower is camouflaged so as to look like a pine tree (monopine), palm tree (monopalm), or other structure disguising, the facility which is compatible to the area, as determined through the conditional use permit process. 3. Except fo~' communication towers to be located within an M-'2 or M-3 District, freestanding towers located on property within, or within three hundred (300) feet of, an area zoned-CO,. C-1, C-2, or CH District, shall be limited to guy wireless, slim-line monopole towers with flush-mounted vertical'antennas or, as an alternative, shall employ Stealth design featureS This requirement shall also apply to tower installations on properties zoned-M-1 where the tower will be located within three hundred (300) feet of a commercial zone district.. Slimqine monopoles or towers employing stealth design, shall be strongly encouraged, but not required~ on sites located within an A-1 District, unless the applicable hearing body determines that such a design is essential, for making a finding of land use compatibility. A slim-linetower shall measure no more than twenty-four (24) inches in diameter at the base which tapers toward the top. The maximum distance of antenna arrays from the pole shall. be eighteen (18) inches. 4. The maximum overall permitted height of the tower, including appurtenances, shall not exceed, eighty (80) feet in any area zoned R-1, R-2, R-3, E, MP, PL, or RF. In other zone districts~ the maximum permitted, height shall be as indicated in the. applicable base zoning district or one hundred fifty (150) feet, whichever is more restrictiVe. 5. No freestanding tower shall be located within fifty-five (55)-feet from the centerline of any existing or designated public road. Except for freestanding towers to be installed on agriculturally; COmmercially, or industrially zoned property, a minimum setback of twenty-five (25) feet from all prope~ lines shall~ berequired. For towers contiguousto residentially zoned areas and to areas zonedA-1 and RF, a minimum setback of one hundred twenty pement (1'20%) of the overall height of the tower to the affected property shall be required. In no case shall the facility be located withinone hundred (100) feet of any off. site dwelling. 6. A minimum setback of one (1) times the oVerall height of the tower, including appurtenances, shall be observed from any state highway, as measured from the edge of the road right-of-way. 7. Prior to the issuance of. building permits for new towers and antenna facilities 'located on any site easterly of R31 E, MDB&M, or~ easterly of R17W, SBB.&M, within Kern County, including new towers, tower modifications, antenna additions or new equipment affecting transmission capabilities, facility plans, inclUding the height of all proposed structures and radio frequency specifications, shall be reviewed by the Air Force Flight Test'Center (plans and. policies division) at Edwards Air Force Base and the China Lake Naval Weapons Center. Written documentation of such review shall be required before, permits will be released. 8. Except within commercial and industrial zone districts, freestanding towers which will not be constructed using stealth design or Slim-line monopole design, shall not be located within one (1) mile of any other freestanding wireless communications facility. This requirement shall not apply to roof-mounted antennas, to facade° integrated antennas, to approved sites which contain multiple transmission towers, or to antennas authoriZed by the planning director to be installedon other existing accesso~ structures. 9. A landscape plan shall be required for all new facility locations within a residentially zoned, area, comn3ercially . http://ordlink.com/codes/kerncoun/_DATA/TITLE 19/Chapter_l 9_9 I_WIRELESS_COMMUNICATIJl 9 .... 02/24/200~ 1~..91.03k~ Developmcn[ s[anaan3s. zoned area, RF zoned area, or within one-quarter (1/4) mile of any such areas. LandscaPing plans shall include" · ' perimeter landscaping around the entire communications facility site, excluding acc, ess points into the facility. A water supply shall also be provided, and an automatic means of water delivery to the landscaped areas shall be incorporated as part of any landscape plan. Trees may be required by the approval authority when deemed necessary to ensure compatibility to the surrounding area. 10. Tower and support facilities located entirely within, or within one-half (1/2) mile of, a residentially zoned area shall not be equipped, with external lighting, except as required by the FAA, UBC, or when required as a · condition of approval of an aPproved conditional use permit. Where lighting is otherwise permitted, lighting fixtures shall be 'down-shielded" to limit the potential for off-site lighting and glare impacts. This requirement shall not apply to approved towers employing stealth design by disguising the tower as a flag pole when the Amedcan flag will be flown at night. 11. All eqUipment shelters, poles, towers, antennas, and supporting structures shall be treated with nonreflective colors. 12. Roof-mounted antennas are permitted on buildings within commercial' and industrial zones and within the NR zoning district. The maximum permitted height for roof-mounted antennas shall' be fifteen (15) feet above the roof line of the structure. Facade-integrated antenna systems may also be incorporated into the architectural design of said buildings. Equipment shelters shall be enclosed in housings that are c~)mpatible to the architectural elements of the affected building. B. Notwithstanding the other requirements of this title, the planning director may waive the requirement for obtaining a conditional use permit in instances where the proposed telecommunications facility will not use a conventional tower and will be constructed upon. existing water towers or tanks, petroleum storage tanks~ light fixtureS, and public utility structures if it is. determined that such an installation will not adversely impact surrounding properties and roads. (Ord. G~6966 § 2' (part), 2003) http'd/ordlink.com/codes/kerncoun/_DATA/TITLE 19/Chapter_l 9_9 I_WI'RELESS_COMMUNICATU 19 .... 02/24/2004 19'.91.040 Abandonment. . rage ~ . Title 19 ZONING Chapter 19.91 WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES 19.91.040 Abandonment. Any wireless telecommunications facilities not in operation for a consecutive period of twelve (12) months shall be deemed abandoned and shall be removed within sixty (60) days from the date written notice to the owner of the facility has been sent by the county. If the owner of the wireless communications facility does not remove-the structure(s) identified in said notice within sixty (60) days, the property owner shall be served' with written notice to remove the identified structure(s) within sixty (60) days. If the property owner does not remove the structure(s) within this sixty (60) day period, the county may remove the structure(s)at the property owner's expense and lien the properly to recover all enforcement and removal costs. (Ord. G-6966 § 2 (part), 2003) http://ordlink.com/codes/kerncoun/_DATA/TITLE 19/Chapter_ 19_9 I_WIRELESS_COMMUNICATI/19 .... 02/24/200, · .Model Wireless Communications Ordinance Framework Page 'l of 2{) FAQs ~ RCW ~ WAC I MuniciPal Codes ~ About MRSC I Site Index I Links ~ Help I Contact Us I' Home Municipal Research & Services Cen~,r · Wot'Ring Together ~or Excellence in Locol Government Model Wireless Communications Ordinance Framework Presented by: AirTouch Cellular, AT&T Wireless Services, GTE Wireless Products and Services, Nextel Communications, Sprint PCS and Western Wireless Written by: Lisa Verner, AICP Lisa Verner Strategic Development Services April 15, 1997 Table of Contents Introduction Wireless Communication Ordinance Issues How to Use This Document Framework For a Wireless Communications Ordinance · Purpose/Findings of a Wireless Communications Ordinance · Definitions to be Included in a Wireless Communications Ordinance · ' Development/Performance Standards to be Included in a Wireless Communications Ordinance Conclusion Appendix A Introduction Exciting changes in technology coupled witi~ the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 have brought many zoning and land use challenges to local governments. Numerous communities across the country, working closely with the wireless industry, have adopted wireless telecommunications ordinances. By taking advantage of the work that has been done on this issue, communities and telecommunications-providers can achieve a common goal: namely, the siting of Wireless Communication Facilities (WCFs) to provide effectiye w. ireless services in a manner that is consistent with Community character and local concerns. Assistance to Planners In an effort to give Washington State planners assistance, six wireless service providers have developed a framework for the development of a wireless siting ordinance. The purpose is to share common ground. This framework is designed to assist local planners and wireless representatives obtain an ordinance both favor. The framework consists of 1) the topics that every community's wireless ordinance should address and 2) proposed language. The second part was developed by compiling actual ordinance language from communities which have invested a great deal of time and energy in writing well thought-out ordinances. Copies,of the various documents used to prepare this report are available in this packet. These include ESHB 2828, an FCC Fact Sheet and ordinances from the Cities of Edmonds, Lynnwood, Redmond, Seattle and Spokane, as well as from the At!anta Regional Commission. Additionally, wireless . representatives offer some industry-drafted proposals for ordinance language as well. · Wireless COmmunications Ordinance Issues Common Goals http://www-rnrsc.org/legal/telecomm/WIRELESS.HTM 10/12/2000 A primary concern of the wireless industry is the time it takes to obtain permission from local governments to build facilities. Providers will almost always take the most efficient route to approval if they can meet their technical objecti.ves. Providers have time requirements for service activation ~/ssociated' with their federal licenses which they must meet. They also want to be good neighbOrs as they provide a needed service in the community. The planners and'leaders of each community want to provide an environment where the citizens want to live and work. They are interested in aesthetics, community character, and impact on residential areas. Community leaders and planners also wani to ensure that service providers minimize and mitigate the impacts of their equipment as much as possible without overly restricting, and therefore discriminating against, the business. These goals share common themes. Community leaders and planners can work together with the wireless service providers. Communities can provide incentives that will encourage wireless service providers to design facilities that are consistent with community character. Locating an antenna array on an existing building or structure (like a water tower) rather than on a new tower or pole is a good way to make WCFs consistent with community character and can be encouraged or discouraged by the way a community handles its approval process. Two Examples Here are two examples of permit processing which encourage providers to use less intrusive facilities throughthe incentive of shorter permitting time fi'ames: City of Redmond Ordinance Language: "Generally, collocation on existing broadcast and relay towers is encouraged by fewer standards and less complex permit procedures (refer to Permitted Land Use Charts). Further, attachment of antenna(e) to existing nonresidential structures and buildings primarily within industrial, manufacturing, business park, and commercial zoning districts is preferable to and relay towers or monopoles. The City may request feasibility studies associated with applications for telecommunications facilities which demonstrate that locations on existing structures have been explored as the preferred siting alternative." (City of Redmond) Wireless' Industry Suggested Language: Facilities That Could Be Permitted Outright (Building Permit Only) Permit WCFs outright if the proposed antenna array is collocated on an existin4g tower or located on an existing building or structure, including public rights of way occupied by power lines or public utility properties such as electrical substations and power generation plants, and does not increase building/structure height more than. 10 feet. Administrative Review (Staff Review) Use an administrative approval process when WCFs are proposed on anexisting structure other than a WCF tower (such as a building, sign, light pole, water tower, or other free standing non-residential structure) when the addition of an antenna array (including the placement of equipment facilities) adds up to or less than twenty (20) feet- to the height of the existing . structure. Conditional Use Permit When WCFs are proposed in residential zones or within 150 feet of any existing residential lot, call for a conditional use permit process. A CUP process can also be used when combined support structure and antenna array height is between the height allowed in the zone and a height determined by the community, such as 200 feet. Administrative Review With Comment Period. u'~-b.-ff~i3{n~fii~a~i~Y6~fe~v '~:$~S~W~fi~ublic comment period when a new WCF support structure is proposed and is within the height allowed in the zone. Surrounding property owne~ would receive notice and a 15 day comment period. In cases where substantive Comments are received in opposition to the proposal, a public hearing would be held. In cases where no substantive comments are received, the building permit would be issued after the 15 day comment period. Design Review ~li]'[e~t~l-design review may be necessary in certain circumstances, such as when a facility is proposed in a historic district or on a registered historic structure. In' these circumstances it is important that Regulatory Reform Legislation (HB 1724) regarding combined hearings is followed." http://www.mrsc.org/legal/telecomm/WlRELESS.HTM ,10/12/2000 Mode[ Wireless Communications Ordinance Framework Page ~ 0t 20 In these examples of permit processes, the incentive of obtaining a building permit quickly will strongly encourage providers to locate WCFs on existing buildings and structures rather than on new support (tower) structures. By understanding and using incentives, a community can meet the federal requirement to allow the provision of service while maintaining the character of the community. Both the community and the wireless industry can meet the common goal of siting WCFs in a manner which is consistent with community character and local concerns. Common Siting Issues One siting issue is where to locate WCFs. WCFs are like other utility services in that there needs to be an infrastructure established in a community from which to provide the wireless communications service. Allowing for a range of locations for wire!e~s, co.??u_n!~cati~_ns ~ac_i_lities ina varie~..0_f zone_s is the most reasonable way to provide/he'infra~'/~cture system. ' ' Within each zone, a community should provide clear performance standards to minimize potential visual impacts of WCFs. Clear, objective performance standards will assi~-t-n$'~fli);'t-h~-jUi~-di~'ff0h-but the wireless industry and the public in understanding and applying these standards. A community can encourage wireless facilities to locate on existing structures, including utility poles, water towers, existing buildings and othei: W-CF~;-'~Th-~e--f~a~-ibl~.. on¥~a~,-t~-//~'~b-n~'l~li~h~fi'is-{-~ ~0 provide incentives such as height bonuses, expedited processing, and other incentives for shared use of existing structures and utilities. One incentive a city can offer is the use of public property and structures for WCFs, including public rights of way, public buildings and publicly owned land. The~ui']S-dlction¥fifi'-fh-di]-ftfl~-a-//d ~}:~-hr;a~ge'ih-e use of publi~:'property and structures through identification of appropriate publicly owned sites and liaison with other public and governmental entities in the permit approval process. To encourage WCFs to be located on existing structures rather than on new towers or other structures, a jurisdiction can provide clear and expedited permitting processes for WCFs. It can eliminate or minimize the length and complexity of permit approval processes for facilities that meet performance standards (e.g. building permits if antennas are roof, mounted). A local jurisdiction's authority to regulate WCFs is constrained by the Federal Ielecommunications Act of 1996 in some ways. It is also constrained by the W~hington State Legislature's passage of liB 2828 in 1996. A jurisdiction can use a wireless siting ordinance to spell out areas in which it can regulate as well as areas in which· it can not regulate the wireless service providers. A clear identification· of these areas will-improve the community's/the service providers' and the permit decision makers' understanding of wireless communications issues. Applicable Legislation The Federal~Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TCA), and the 1996 enactment of liB 2828 by the Washington State Legislature, state that a City or County's local zoning authority over wireless telecommunications facilitates are subject to certain Conditions, including: 1. Land' use requirements may not unreasonably discriminate among competitive providers, and may not prohibit the provision of personal wireless services (TCA, Section 704); 2. The jurisdiction must act on applications for personal wireless service facilities within a "reasonable"amount of time (TCA, Section 704); 3. If Federal standards are met, local jurisdiction permits or leases may not be denied on the grounds that radio frequency emissions are harmful to the environment or to the health of residents (TCA; Section 704); 4. Incentives may be adopted to promote location of telecOmmunications facilities in certain designated areas, including incentives to collocate facilities (Federal Communications Commission, Fact Sheets I and 2); 5. Local regulation of small satellite dishes (i.e., one meter or less in any land use category and two meters or less in industrial and commercial areas) is substantially preempted by the Act (TCA, Section 702); and 6. Washington State Engrossed Substitute House Bill 2828, which became law on June 6, 1996, requires new sections to http://www.mrsc.org/legal/telecomm/WlRELESS.HTM 10/12/2000 Model Wireless Communications Ordinance Framework l'age 4 ot 20 SEpA which exempt wireless service facilities meeting the following criteria: a. A "microeell" (an antenna(e) four feet high not exceeding 580 square inches, or tubular antenna(e) no more than four inches in diameter not exceeding six feet) to be attached to an existing structure that does not contain a residence or school; b. Personal wireless service antenna(e) attached to an existing structure which is not a residence or school within a commercial, industrial, manufacturing, forest or agricultural zone (including existing towers); and c. A personal wireless service tower less than 60 feet in height located in a commercial, industrial, . manufacturing, forest or agricultural zone. Recognize and acknowledge state and federal preemption in certain areas such as SEPA review and health issues. Recognize Telecommunications Act of 1996 (FTA), recognize l).the federal preemption of radio frequency health and safety issues, 2) the limits in FTA regarding regulations which have the effect of excluding or discrimination against WCFs or carriers, and 3) federal requirements for reasonable processing times. How to Use This Document There are two basic approaches to addressing any new issue requiring a development code amendment. They include the following: I. Distribute the new, pertinent language throughout the code in all the appropriate sections; or II. Develop a stand-alone ordinance that is referenced in all other pertinent sections of the code. It is usually easier to take the second approach and develop a stand~alone ordinance. It allows all parties to address the issue (s) in a comprehensive manner and as a whole. The wireless industry representatives would encourage jurisdictions to use the stand-alone ordinance approach for three reasons. It is easier to understand ordinance objects and intent. It is. easier for all stakeholders (community, planners and industry) to read. It presents a clearer picture of the regulations. This document, will allow the user to understand the issues involved in wireless communi~:ations regulations on a comprehensive basis. Use any or all examples in writing a wireless ordinance or update. Depending on the user's preference, the solutions can then be gathered together into one ordinance document or distributed to amend the appropriate sections. Consultation with the City Attorney or other legal representation will assist in determining the appropriate format. The ordinance language examples include selections from adopted Ordinances from several Puget Sound jurisdictions and from communities in other states. The examples also include language proposed by wireless service providers based on their experiences in many jurisdictions. The source of the text is noted, too {either the particular city or the wireless industry), The text in. italics is general information or an explanation. The following is a brie~'outline of the content-of the rest of this document. The intent is to provide the reader with an overview of the document.. Framework for A Wireless CommuniCations Ordinance I. Purpose/Findings of a Wireless Communications Ordinance (The objective is to establish the need for the ordinanbe and lay'out what is to' be achieved) II. Definitions (Good definitions do not have regulations within them; they simply describe what is meant by the term) III. Development/Performance Standards (This section identifies topics to be included and the standards to be rneO · Specification of zones'and permit processes . · Application requirements http ://www,mrsc.org/legal/telecomm/WIRELESS.HTM 10/12/2000 Model Wireless COmmunications Ordinance Framework Page 5 of 20 · Coordination whit other planning documents · Lighting and Security · Use &public facilities . · Color and Placement ' · · Coordination &permit process and development standards · Noise · Abandonment and Obsolescence · Setbacks · Screening and Landscaping · Height · Collocation/Shared Facilities · Term of permit Framework for a Wireless Communications Ordinance I. Purpose/Findings of- a Wireless Communications Ordinance An ordinance always contains introducto~? paragraphs identifying the histo~T and reasoning that led to its adoption. ' Generally, these are done as "findings of fact" and introduced by the term "Whereas. "Four general findings, or reasons why wireless regulations are needed, are identified in this section; each comrnuni~, may have additional findings. Additionally, findings can describe why the issue has arisen in Comprehensive Plans and Development Regulations. A. Finding: There has been, and continues to be, growth in the demand for wireless services for business and personal use whi-~h--n~s to be addressed by the local jurisdiction. Exa.___m__p~le: "WHEREAS, Wireless Personal Communications Services and Wireless Communication Facilities comprise a rapidly growing segment of the utilities and communications sector and have merit and value for the community and region as a whole; and ...' (City~ of Lynnwood) Example: "WHEREAS, growth in the use of wireless services has grown 20% to 30% annually on a national basis since i-9-91, and it is estimated that half of the number of households will have wireless services by the Year 2000; and" (Wireless Industry Proposed Language)' B. Finding: Wireless services contribute to the public health, safety and welfare in that they provide emergency services communications in the event of accidents and natura~ disasters. Example: "WHEREAS, WCFs are supportive of the public health, safety and welfare in that they provide useful portable communication services for personal convenience, business and emergency purposes; and" (Wireless Industry Proposed Language) Example: "WHEREAS, more and more police, fire, and emergency personnel are using portable, wireless services to communicate in times of emergency and natural disaster; and" (Wireless Industry Proposed Language) C. Finding: Jurisdictions need to allow creation of infrastructure for wireless and other emerging technologies just as jun~ have in the past accommodated utilities. Example: "WHEREAS; the cuixent zoning code of the City of Spokane was adopted-before wireless communication i~ilities were anticipated, and therefore, appropriate siting and development standards do not exist; and ...'" (City of -Spokane) Example: "WHEREAS, the FCC requires license holders to provide coverage to areas within certain, limited time f~m~'where wireless communications licenses have been acquired, and WCFs are required to provide quality communication services to meet the growing needs of the public and businesses for wireless communication and should be accommodated just as infrastructure for Utilities has been accommodated; and" (Wireless Industry Proposed Language) D. Finding: The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 preserves local authority' regarding zoning issues related to http://www.mrsc.org/legal~telecomm/WIRELESS.HTM 10/12/2000 wireless services where local jurisdictions do not unreasonably discriminate among all the service providers, i.e. allow on~ or two carriers rather than all who are in the market. Each jurisdiction must determine how much regulation, ifany, is necessary. Example: "WHEREAs, long delays and uncertainty of the permit process due to lack of clear siting and development s~--n-~:ds is an unreasonable limitation upon the communication companies seeking to provide wireless service; and WHEREAS, the citY Plan Commission and City Council undertook a deliberative public process to establish policy, standards, and procedures related to the siting of tower structures and antenna arrays for wireless communications; and ..." (City of Spokane) Example: "WHEREAS, the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 (FTA) preserves local zoning authority to ~-6ii~bly regulate Wireless Communications Facilities (WCFs), provided, however, that the FTA mandates that localities may not unreasonably discriminate among Federal Communications Commission (FCC) license holders and that localities may not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting WCFs, and that the FTA gives the FCC sole jurisdiction over radio frequency emissions of WCFs so long as WCFs meet FCC standards thereof; and" (Wireless Industry Proposed' Language) II. Definitions to be included in a Wireless Communications Ordinance "Thefirst part of the ordinance should provide, a full and complete definition of what the ordinance intends to covet;" according to the National League of Cities. "Modern technology evolves so rapidly that trying to describe the full array of currently available wireless facilities is difficult. Several major types of facilities have been used for telecommunications transmissions, however. They include broadcasting towers, two-way radio towers, fixed point microwave dishes, commercialsatellites and receiving dishes, and, most recently, cellular and PCS towers. "As the technologv changes rapidly, it is best to use descriptions which describe the item in a general, umbrella-like manner. In general, signals of information~telephone conversations travel on radid fi'equencies (RF) bem,een a mobile phone (or other wireless device) and an antenna. Antenna arrays, or groups of antennas, are designed to send and receive and come in several forms (panel, or directional antenna; whip, or "omni" (all) directional). A dish (parabolic) antenna is used for "point to point" transmission. The antenna arrays can be arranged to provide 360 degrees of coverage, or divided into sections or sectors. The configuration of antennas could be a combination of omni-directional or panel antennas. Therefore, if three sectors are expected to be used, the support structure may hold an antenna array of up to 12panels or 3 whips/omni antennas. A. Wireless Communications Example: "Wireless Communications shall mean any personal wireless services as defined, in the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 which includes FCC licensed commercial wireless telecommunications services including cellular, personal communications services (PCS)? specialized mobile radio (SMR), enhanced specialized, mobile radio 0ESMR), paging, and similar services that currently exist or that may in the future be developed." (Wireless Industry Proposed Language) B. Wireless Communication Antenna Array (Antenna Array) Example: "Any system of poles, panels, rods, reflecting discs or similar devices used for the transmission or reception of radio frequency signals." (King County) Example: "A wireless communication antenna array is one or more rods, panels, discs or similar devices used for the transmission or reception of radio _frequenc~ (RF) signals through electromagnetic energy, which may include omni- directional antenna (whip), directional antenna (panel) and parabolic antenna (dish)." (City of Spokane) Example: "An Antenna Array is one or more whips, panels, discs, or similar devices used' for the transmission or reception of radi¥-~quency signals, which may include omni-directional antenna (whip), directional antenna (panel) and parabolic antenna (disc). The Antenna Array does not include the Support Structure defined below." (Wireless Industry Proposed Language) http://www,mrsc.org/legal/telecomm/WIRELESS.HTM 10/I 2/2000 Model WireleSs Communications Ordinance Framework Page' 7 of 20 C. _w.i_.r_e!e_~s.._Comm.unica~t!_0n Fa_ci!i~y_(W_C.F) Example: "A wireless communication facility is any unstaffcd facility for thc transmission and/or reception of radio fr~21uency (RF) signals through electromagnetic energy usually consisting of an equipment shelter or cabinet, a support tower or other structure used to achieve thc necessary elevation,, and the transmission and reception devices or antenna." (City of Spokane) ' ............Example: An unstaffed facility for the transmission and/or reception of radio signals, consisting of antennae (and related equipment), as well as any transmission structures or equipment shelters. (King County) Example: "A WCF is any unstaffed facility for the transmission and/or reception of wireless communications services, ~i~i~illy Consisting of an Antenna Array, transmission cables, and Equipment Facility, and a Support Structure to achieve the necessary elevation." (Wireless Industry Proposed Language) D..At__t_a~!~_e_d_.W_i_?.e!.e_s_S. _c_0_m~m_u__n~i.c.a_t_i0_n_.[~i~ity (Attached WCF) .E_xa___m~_pl._e: "Attached wireless communication facility is a wireless communication facility that is affixed to an existing structure ..." (City of. Edmonds) Example: "An Attached WCF is an Antenna Array that is attached to an existing building or structure (Attachment which structures shall include but not be limited to utility poles, signs, water towers, with any accompanying pole of device (Attachment Device) which attaches the Antenna Array to the existing building or structure, transmission cables, and an Equipment Facility which may be located either inside or outside of the Attachment Structure." (Wireless Industry Proposed Language) E. Collocation (there is a lack of agreement on spelling: co-location, collocation, colocation) Example: "Co-location exists, when more than one wireless communications provider mounts equipment on a single support structure (i.e., building, monopole, lattice tower)'." (City of Edmonds) Example: "Collocation/Site Sharing shall mean use of a common WCF or common site by two or more wireless license ho-6l-d~-r~ or by one wireless license holder for more than one type of communications technology and/or placement ofa WCF on a structure owned or operated by a' utility or other public entity." (Wireless Indusiry Proposed Language) F. Wireless Communication Support Structure (Support Structure) Example: "Transmission tower is a freestanding structure, other than a building, on which communications devices are mounted. Transmission towers may serve either as a major or minor communication facility. Examples include, but are not limited to: 1: Monopoles, 2. Lattice Towers, and 3. Guyed Towers." (City of Edmonds) Example: "A SupPort Structure is a structure designed and constructed specifically to support an Antenna Array, and may include a monopole, self-supporting (lattice) tower, guy-wire support tower and other similar structures. Any device (Attachment Device) which is used to attach an Attached WCF to an existing building or structure (Attachment Structure) shall be excluded from-the definition of and regulations applicable to Support Stmctures.'~ (Wireless Industry Proposed Language) G. Equipment Facility ........Example: "Equipment shelter or cabinet is a room, cabinet, or building used to house equipment for utility or service providers." (City of Edmonds) Example: "An Equipment Facility is any structure used to contain ancillary equipment for a WCF which includes cabinets, ~-l~i~rs,~a buildout of an existing structure, pedestals and other similar structures." (Wireless !ndustry .Proposed Language) H. Microc?_il (as defined, for SEPA !exemption in HB 2828) http ://www.mrsc.org/legal/telecomm/WIRELESS.HTM 10/12/2000 Model Wireless CommuniCations Ordinance Framework Page 8 of 20 ExamPle: "Mieroeell means a wireless communications facility consisting of an antenna that is either: (i) Four feet in height ~-fi-ff~v-i-th' an area of not more than five. hundred eighty square inches; of(ii) ifa tubular antenna,.no more than fOur inches in diameter and no more than six' feet in length." (1996 State Legislature HB 2828) Example: ............. "When referring to a WCF, Height shall mean the distance measured from ground level to the highest point on the WCF Support Structure, not. including the Antenna Array." (Wireless IndustrY PrOposed Language) Example: "For the purposes of measuring the height of any structure located on a communication facility site, all antenna mounted on a structure shall be considered part of the structure and shall be included in measurements to determine overall (i.e. combined) height.''· (King County) Example: "The following standards shall be applied to all wireless equipment, such as antenna(e) and equipment shelters, ~X~ifi~'i'V~ of the broadcast and relay tower .... 3. The combined antenna(e) and supporting structure shall not extend' more than 15 feet above the existing or proposed roof structure." (City of Redmond) J. Setbacks Example: "When referring to a Support Structure, Setback shall mean the required distance from the support structure to the property line of the parcel on which the WCF is located." (Wireless Industry Proposed Language) Example: "Broadcast and relay towers reviewed under this Section shall not be located within any. required building setback areas." (City of Redmond) K. Temporary Wireless Communication Facility (Temporary WCF) _E_x_a~._p_l_e: "Temporary Wireless Communication Facility shall mean a WCF which is to be placed in use for a limited period. of time, is not deployed in a permanent manner, and does not have a permanent foundation." (Wireless Industry Proposed Language) IlL DEVELOPMENT/PERFORMANCE STANDARDS TO BE INCLUDED IN A WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS ORDINANCE Development standards which.follow several principles should be written for inclusion in the ordinance. Several main principles are suggested below: 0 Provide for a hierarchy ofreviewprocesses so that permits are issued easily and routinely for }VCFs in desired areas and permit issuance included an increasing amount of scrutiny as IVCFs are proposed for low priority areas: For example, the reviewprocess could be as simple as obtaining a building permit where the [VCFs are exempt from SEPA review, the location is on public properly, or the permitted uses are more intense (i.e., industrial, commercial), lVhere the }VCFs exceed height standards, areproposed in residential areas, or are otherwise outside what is allowed in the zoning code, the review process could, involve more scrutiny through an Administrative Review or Hearing Body Review. 2) Allow minor modifications such as the addition and/or replacement of a certain number and type of antenna without full permit review (i.e.,. administrative review). 3) Place emphasis on objective performance standards where possible, with flexibilityfor modifications on a case-by-case b a~i~' W-ti ~e'-[[ -~-n"-b~-d b f~ -o-ns i~ [ed ~h [~ ~-fi 'ex~b~ft~--i -s-i~ a r r a n t ed. · Always require a written record, writtenjqndings and articulation of reasonable bases for conditions and denial. A. _S_pe_cify._z.o_.n__es_ i.n_w__hi_c.h .W.._C_F_s_._a.re_a!lowed and the applicable permit processes in a clear, manner. Allow }VCFs in the broadest range of zones possible with appropriate permitting mechanisms and performance standards. http ://www.mrsc.org/legal/telecomm/WIRELESS.HTM 10/12/2000 Model Wireless Communications Ordinance Framework Page 9 of 20 Example: "The following are exempt from the provisions of this chapter and shall be permitted inall zones: ... J. Wireless ~;d~-fi?iiennas and point-to-point microwave dishes, which are not located on a transmission structure. Examples include the mounting of antenna and dishes upon buildings, water towers, or poles or towers supporting above-ground distribution or transmission lines for utility services providers; and ... "(King County) Example: "Wireless communication antenna arrays are permitted in any zone as long as they are located upon an existing ~fii~:~i:e (except a sign structure) that provides sufficient elevation for the array's operation without the necessity of constructing a tower or other apparatus to extend the antenna array more than fifteen feet above the structure .... Any &luipment shelter or cabinet and other ancillary equipment is subject to the site development standards of SMC 11.19.4554." (City of Spokane) Example: "A. Wireless communication support towers are allowed in non-residential zones if the site is located at least three iiUi~l'i'~Td'feet from the nearest existing residential lot (a residential lot is any lot upon which a dwelling unit may be co~istructed as an outright permitted use). Such towers are also allowed on all City property if sited at least three hundred feet fi'om the nearest existing residential, lot. Installation requires onlY the granting of development permits prescribed in SMC · 11.02.0345, and, if on City property, the execution of necessary agreements. Towers are subject to the site development standards of SMC 11.19.4554. B. Wireless communication support towers located in residential zones or within three hundred feet· of an existing residential lot require the granting ora special permit from the hearing examiner. The hearing examiner utilizes the decision criteria prescribed in SMC 11.02.0452. Towers are subject to the site development standards of SMC 11.19.4554." (City of Spokane) B. Encourage the use of public facilities and sites for location of WCFs. Example: "The City of Seattle ("City") should encourage the use of City real property and/or facilities in siting wireless f~e31i-/i~ for commercial mobile services and wireless common carrieraccess exchange services, as defined by Federal law and Federal {egulation, when appropriate and when there will be minimal disruptive impacts on neighborhoods." (City of Seattle) Example: ',The following sites shall be Considered by applicants as the preferred order to location of proposed wireless f~cilities including antenna(e), equipment, and equipment shelters. As determined feasible, and in order of preference, the sites are: 1. Existing Broadcast and Relay Towers: ... 2. Industrial, Manufacturing: ... 3. Publicly-Used Structures: Attached to existing public facilities suchas water towers, utility structures, fire stations, bridges, and other public buildings within all zoning districts not utilized primarily for recreational uses. (Refer to Telecommunications Ordinance for rules and regulations specific to facilities located on City-owned land, buildings, or public rights-of-way). 4. Business, Commercial, and City Center Zoned Sites: ... 5. Residential Zones: ;.. 6. Residential Structures: ...' (City of Redmond) C. Coordinate the permit approval process and development standards for WCFs $o that incentives (such as a speedy or reduced review process) are used to direct WCFs to desired locations. Distinguish between installation of an antenna or antenna array and the installation of a tower or monopole; in 6ases where an antenna array will be located on a building or eXisting structure, the permit process can be much shorter than ifa tower or other supporting structure is needed too. Appendix A includes three charts which give a concise overview of how the permit process works in conjunction with ~l~,~;ib~[n-e-fit standards across most zones. The charts are compilations of the regulations found in the ordinance teXts and were done for ease of use in p)-esenting examples here. http ://www ,mrsC.org/legal/telecomm/WIRELESS.HTM 10/12/2000 Model Wireless Communications Ordinance Frameworlc Page 10 Of 20 They are "snapshots" and intended to convey the message that where regulations are clear, the permitting can be simplified. The CiO, of Lynnwood and City of Red. mond examples shown in Appendix A are good because they recognize attached WCFs as "permitted" uses and WCFs with support structures as needing additional scrutiny. Generally, the ordinances use existing zoning requirements for landscaping, setbacks, and height. The wireless industry wouM prefer greater heights to be permitted outright for support structures, which increases the opportuniO, for collocation. Additionall): each community must identify where WCFs and support structures may be located. Most communities allow them in all zones with varying levels of permit review. Consult with the service providers concerning'their topographic, facilities separation, and other needs in order to help determine appropriate locations. A communio' can also increase the level of review necessa~:v for permitting of locations which are not encouraged. Example: "a. Broadcast and Relay Towers. Broadcast and relay towers including monopoles shall be minimized by collocating wireless facilities on existing towers. New broadcast and relay towers are most appropriately located in industrial areas followed in order of preference by manufacturing, business, commercial and residential areas (Zones. I, MP, BP, CO. CB, GC, PA, RC, NC, GDD, CC, and R-30 through R-2). Broadcast and relay towers are not allowed in urban recreation. rural, and large-lot residential zones (A, UR, RA-5 and R1), unless reviewed through the Essential Public Facilities Process (RCDG 20C.80.750). "b. Wireless Communications Facilities. The following sites shall be considered by applicants as the preferred order to location of proposed wireless facilities including antenna(e), equipment, and equipment shelters. As determined, feasible, and in order of preference, the sites are: 1. Existing Broadcast and. Relay Towers: ... 2. Industrial, Manufacturing: ... 3. Publicly-Used Structures: ... 4. Business, Commercial, and City Center Zoned Sites: ... 5. Residential Zones: Structures or sites which are not wholly residential use, including residential accessory structures (e.g. detached garages). Where the installation complies with all FCC regulations and standards, institutional structures, places of worship, and other non-residential sites may be considered. 6. Residential Structures: Wireless communications facilities attached to residential structures are not permitted in any zoning districts except R-20 and' R-30. A Special development Permit (Type IV) is. required to attach a wireless communication facility to a residential structure within the R-20 and R-30Zoning Districts." (City of Redmond) Example: "A. Micro facilities (antennaSfi'om 0 to 4feet in height) are'permitted in alt zones. "B. A micro facility shall be located-on existing buildings, poles, or other existing support structures. A micro facility.may locate on buildings and structures, provided, that the interior wall or ceiling immediately adjacent to the facility is not designated residential space .... "A. Mini/Macro facilities (antennas from 0 to lO feet or 0 to 15feet in height, respectively) are permitted in all zones, except single-family residential (RS) zones. "B. The mini/macro facility may be located on buildings and structures, provided, that the immediate interior wall or ceiling · adjacent to the facility is not designated residential space." (City of Edmonds) _Es_am~p_!_e.: "B. Attached WCFs are permitted as follows: "1. Attached WCFs in the M&I, R, C-BO, NC/MU, and MFR zones that meet the Development Standards are permitted outright. Attached WCFs in the M&I, R, C-BO, NC/MU, and MFR zones that exceed the Development Standards shall be permitted through an Administrative Review. "2. Attached WCFs in the SFR zone on Non-residential stmciures that meet the Development Standards are permitted http://www.mrsc.org/legal/telecomm/WIRELESS.HTM 10/12/2000 Model Wireless Communications Ordinance Framework Page 1'i' Of 20 through an Administrative Review. Attached WCFs on Residential structures that meet the Development Standards are permitted through a Hearing Body Review. Attached WCFs in the SFR zone on Non-residential structures that exceed the · Development Standards shall be permitted through a Hearing Body Review. Attached WCFs on Residential structures that exceed the Development Standards are permitted through a Special Use Permit. "C~ WCFs with Support Structures are permitted as follows: "1. WCFs with Support Structures in the M&I, R, and C zones that meet the Development Standards are permitted outright. WCFs with Support Structures in the M&I, 1L and C zones that exceed the Development Standards shall be permitted through an Administrative Review. "2. WCFs with Support Structures in the NC/MU, and MFR zones that meet the Development Standards shall be permitted through an Administrative Review. WCFs with Support Structures in the NC/MU; andMFR zones that exceed the Development Standards shall be permitted through a Hearing Body Review: "3. WCFs with Support Structures in the SFR~zone that meet the Development Standards shall be permitted through a Hearing Body Review. WCFs with Support Structures in the SFR zone that exceed the Development. Standards shall be permitted through a Special Use Permit." (Wireless Industry Proposed Language) D. Performance Standards: Setbacks Designate an appropriate distance from single family residential dwellings (vs. zones) to allow for appropriate screening (not based upon faul.ty assumptions about structure stability or health risks). Example: "Antenna arrays for attached WCFs are exempt from the setback standards of this section and from the setbacks for the zone ~n which they are located. An attached WCF antenna army may extend up to five (5) feet horizontally beyond the edge of the attachment structure so long as the antenna array does not encroach upon an adjoining parcel. (Wireless Industry Proposed Language) Example: "Support tower structures that do not exceed the height limit of the zone in which located need only meet the setback requirements for that zone, as long as the required landscaping and screening in accommodated." (City of Spokane) Example: "Support tower structures that do exceed the height limit of the zone in which located shall be set back from all property lines s required by that zone or one foot for every ten feet of total tower height which ever produces the greater setback, as long as they are constructed to the Electronic Industries Association/Telecommunications Industries Associhtion (EIA/TIA) 222 Revision E Standard entitled "Structural Standards for SteelAntenna Towers and Antenna Supporting Structures." Otherwise, the setback from all property lines ~hall be a minimum of fifty feet or one foot for every foot of tower height, which ever. produces the greater setback." (City of Spokane) Example: "All equipment shelters, cabinets, or other on-the-groundanciilary equipment shall meet the setback requirements ~ zone in Which located." (City of Spokane) · E. Performance Standards: Screening. and' Landscaping Use reasonable performance standards which are consistent with the underlying zoning. Have flexibility provisions for situations where it can be demonstrated that exceptions are warranted;for example, there may not be a need for landscaping for WCFs located in an industrial zone. Where additional landscape is required, have requirements stated in terms of result to be abhieved rather than specific numeric quantities of plant material, width of landscape strips or types of landscape. Recognize that total obscuring.of faciff(ies may not be technically or practically achievable; speak in terms of minimizing visual impacts to the extent practical and feasible. Fencing can be used as a technique to. an screen equipment shelter. Recognize that other techniques for making WCFs and equipment shelters unobtrusive (such as placement in less visible locations, painting to blend in, and other techniques) can be substitutes for traditional landscaping and screening methods. Example: "Tower facilities shall be landscaped with a buffer of plant materials that effectively screens the. view of the' tower compound, from adjacent residential.property. The standard buffer shall consist ora landscaped strip at least four (4) feet wide outside the perimeter of the compound. In locations where the visual impact of the tower would be minimal, the http://www,mrsc.org/legal/telecomm/WIRELESS.HTM 10/12/2000 landscaping requirement may be reduced or waived altogether. Existing mature tree growth and natural land fOrms on the'site shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible. In some cases, such as towers sited on large, wooded'lots, natural growth around the property perimeter may be' sufficient buffer." (Atlanta Regional Commission) Example: ........... "In non-residential zones other than "limited" or "design" zones or on sites that do not adjoin an existing lot, landscaping shall be provided as required for the zone in which Iocated.'"(CitY of Spokane) Example: "When a security fence is used: 1) In the NB, CB, RB, O, or I zone, wood slats shall be woven into the security fe~6~-i~ made of chain-link material; 2) In the R, UR, or RA zone, climbing evergreen shrubs or vines capable of growing on the fence shall supplement any landscaping required pursuant to KCC 21A.26.060.A." (King County) Example: "WCFs shall be landscaped in accordance with the landscape requirements contained in Section (insert code ~-~f67e~-~), except that the antenna array for an attached WCF is'exempt." (Wireless Industry Proposed Language) .........Example: "Existing vegetation on site may be used in lieu of required landscaping where approved by the appropriate official." (Wireless Industry Proposed Language) F. Performance Standards: Noise Provide that if WCFs have generators or other equipment, and these meet state noise standards, these shall, be permitted without additional conditions related to noise. During emergency.situations, state noise standards ma), be exceeded for the duration of the emergency. Maximum environmental noise levels are identified in Chapter 173-60, WAC.. Example: "Noise levels shall not exceed 5 dBA above ambient levels or 55 dBA Sound Pressure Level (SpL) on adjacent rural zoned properties, and 5 dBA above ambient levels or 60 dBA SPL on adjacent residential zoned properties, whichever is greater. Operation of a back-up power generator in the event of power failure or the testing ora back-up generator between 8 a.m. and 9 p.m. are exempt from this standard. No testing of back-up power generators shall occur between the hours of 9 p.m. and 8 a.m." (King County) G. Performance Standards: Collocation/Shared Facilities Encourage WCF~ to-attach to existing buildings, structures (such as utiliO,poles and water towers), emergency communication antennas, and tO share these locations with other providers. ,4s provided above, create incentives fo~- collocation such as allowing increased height or expedited processing when collocation is planned for or demonstrated. Recognize that collocation may not be practically o~ technically feasible in certain location~ or circumstances..41so, recognize antitrust limitations on requirements that various industry providers share proprietary information regarding proposed site locations, coverage areas and scheduling. Example: "FCC Licensed Wireless Communications providers proposing a new WCF with a support structure shall em~]-~m-b-fi~-trate that it make a reasonable attempt to find a collocation site acceptable to engineering standards and that none was practically or economically feasible. The City/County shall defer to the applicant's judgment regarding whether collocation is feasible or not. (Wireless Industry Proposed Language) Example: "It is the policy of the City of Spokane to minimize the number of wireless communication support towers and to encourage the co-location of antenna arrays of more that one wireless communication service provider on a single support tower. The City wiilpursue all reasonable strategies, to promote co-location and will act as facilitator to bring about co- location agreements between multiple wireless communication service providers." (City of Spokane) Example: "No new tower shall be permitted unless the applicant demonstrates to the reasonable satisfaction of the governing authority that no existing tower or structure can accommodate the applicant's proposed antenna. Evidence submitted to demonstrate that no existing tower or structure can accommodate the applicant's proposed antenna may consist of any of the following: 1. No existing towers or structures are located within the geographic area required to meet applicant's engineering . requirements. http://www.mrsc-°rg/legal/telecomm/WIR-ELESS.HTM' ' 10/12/2000 Model Wireless Communications Ordinance Framework Page' 13 of 20. 2. Existing towers or structures are not of sufficient height to meet applicant's engineering requirements. 3. Existing towers or structures do not have sufficient structural strength to support applicant's proposed antenna and related equipment. 4. The applicant's proposed antenna would cause electromagnetic interference with the antenna on the existing towers or structures, or the antenna on the existing towers or structures would cause interference with the' applicant's proposed antenna. 5. The fees, costs, or contractual provisions required by the owner in order to share an existing tower or structure to adapt an · existing tower or structure for sharing are unreasonable. Costs exceeding new tower development are presumed to be unreasonable. 6. The applicant demonstrates that there are other limiting factors that render existing towers and structures unsuitable." (Atlanta Regional Commission) Example: "No new wireless communication support towers may be constructed within one mile 0fan existing support tower, unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the hearing examiner that the existing support tower is not available for co-location of an additional wireless communication facility, or that its specific location does not satisfy the operational requirements of apPlicant." (City of Spokane) Example: "Broadcast- and Relay Towers - Development Standards "a. Development Standards for All Zoning Districts. "1. The applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed location was selected pursuant to the siting criteria of Section 20C.80.7415 (general siting criteria with preference for use of existingfacilities first). Placement of a broadcast and relay tower shall be denied if an alternative placement of the antenna(e) on a building or other existing structure can accommodate the communications needs. Applications shall be required to provide documentation that reasonable efforts to identify alternative locations were made. "2. Owners and operators ora proposed broadcast and relay tower shall provide information regarding the opportunity for the collocation of other antenna(e) and related equipment. If feasible, provision for.future collocation may be required. 3 .... "(City of Redmond) H. Performance Standards: Lighting and Security Lighting of the antenna shouM not be required unless required by F/M standards. Lighting is not necessary for security and is generally not desired by neighbors or industry. Fencing should be allowed for security reasons. Example: "Towers shall not be artificially lighted, unless required by the FAA or other applicable authority. If lighting is req~ the governing authority may review the available lighting alternatives and approve the design that would cause the least disturbance to the surrounding views." (Atlanta Regional Commission) ExamPle: "or~ support towers only such lighting as is necessary to satisfy FAA requirement~ is permitted. Security lighting for the equipment shelters or cabinets and other on-the-ground ancillary equipment is also permitted, as long as it is down shielded to keep light within the boundaries of the site." (City of Spokane) Example: "When a security fence is used: 1) In the NB, CB, RB, O, or I zone, wood slats shall be woven into the security ~'i/i~-~e-l-f-made of chain-link material; 2) In the R, UR, or RA zone, climbing evergreen shrubs or vines capable of growing on the fence shall supplement any landscaping required pursuant to KCC 21A.26.060.A." (K!ng County) Example: "Except as specifically required by the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") or the FCC, transmission ~t-ixi~i--es shall.: A) ... B) Not be illuminated, except transmitter equipment shelters may use lighting for security reasons which is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood." (King County) http://www.mrse.org/legal/telecomm/WlRELESS.HTM .10/12/2000 Model Wireless Communications Ordinance Framework Page i4 of 20 I, Performance Standards: Color and Placement Enact clear performance standards that require use of muted or blended colors. This will avoid design review process which inherently have delays and subjectivity. Encourage creative placement and color solutions to minimize visual impacts where practical and technically feasible. Consider in placement requirements items such as access needs, landlord limitations, screening requirements, site constraints, and other constraints. Example: "At a tower site, the design of the buildings and related structures shall, to th, e extent possible, use materials, colors, textures, screening, and landscaping that will blend the tower facilities to the natural setting and built environment." (Atlanta Regional Commission) Example: "If an antenna is installed On a structure other than a tower, the antenna and supporting electrical and mechanical equipment must be of a neutral color that is identical to, or closely compatible with, the color of the supporting structure so as to make the antenna and related equipment as visually unobtrusive as possible." (Atlanta Regional Commission). Example: "Except as specifically required by the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") or the FCC, transmission structures shall: A) Use colors such as gray, blue or green which, reduce their visual impacts; provided, wooden slats do not have to be painted; and ..." (King County) Example: "Antenna arrays located on an existing structure shall be placed in such a manner so as to not be visible from a ground level view adjacent to the structure. If, however, circumstances do not permit such placement, the antenna array shall be placed and colored to blend into the architectural detail and coloring of the host structure." (City of Spokane) Example: "Support towers shall be painted in a color that best allowS it to blend into the surroundings. The use of grays, blues and greens might be appropriate, however, each case should be evaluated individually...'.' (City of Spokane) J. Performance Standards: Abandonment and Obsolescence Allow a reasonable time period to remove equipment after cessation of use. This will avoid the need for reconstruction of sites which may be re-utilized. Allow po'mits for WCFs to run in perpetuity or until the WCF is no longer used. Example: "Any wireless communication facility that is no longer needed and its use is discontinued shall bereported immediately by the service provider to the Planning Director. Discontinued facilities shall be completely removed within six months and the site restored to its pre-existing condition." (City of Spokane) Example: "A wireless communications facility or attached wireless communications facility shall be removed by the facility owner within six months of the date it ceases to be operational or if the facility falls into disrepair." (City of Edmonds) Example: "Any WCF that is not operated for a continuous period of twelve (12) months shall be considered abandoned, and the owner of such' WCF shall remove the WCF within ninety (90) days of receipt of notice fi.om the governing authority notifying the owner of suchabandonment. If such WCF is not removed within said ninety (90) days, the governing authority may remove the WCF at the owner's expense. If there are two or more users of a single WCF, then. this provision shall not become effective until all users cease using the WCF." (Wireless Industry Proposed Language) K. Performance Standards: Height Clearly identify how height is calculated and what is exempt from height requirements. Example: "WCFs with support structures: - a. Manufacturing/Industrial zone. In any Manufacturing or Industrial zone the maximum height, for a WCF shall be 140 feet: b. Resource zone. In any Resource zone the maximum height for aWCF shall be 200 feet: c. Commercial zone. In any Commercial zone the maximum height for a WCF shall be 120 feet. http://www.mrsc.org/legal/telecomm/WIRELESS.HTM 10/12/2000 .Model Wireless Communications Ordinance Framework Page 15 of 20 d. Neighborhood Commercial zone. In any Neighborhood Commercial zone the maximum height for a WCF shall be 60 feet. e. multi-family Residential zone. In any Multi-family Residential zone the maximum height for a WCF shall be 60 feet. f. Single-family Residential zone. In any Single-family Residential zone the maximum height for a WCF shall be 60 feet." (Wireless Industry Proposed Language) Example: "The combined height ora broadcast and relay tower and antenna(e) shall not exceed 85 feet (in commercial and -Frid~i;li~i zones) except when collocation is specifically provided for, the broadcast and relay tower shall not exceed 100 feet. ... An applicant ora proposed wireless communications facility that exceeds the height limit shall be required to meet the Special Exception Criteria." (City of Redmond) Example: .......... "Antennas equal to or less than 15 feet in height or up to four inches in diameter may be a component ora monopole I facility. Antennas which extend above the wireless communications support structure shall not be calculated as part of the height of the monopole I wireless communications support structure. For example, the maximum height for a monopole I shall be 60 feet and the maximum height of antennas which may be installed on the support structure could be 15 feet, making the maximum permitted height of the support structure and antennas 75 feet (60 feet plus 15 feet)." (City of Edmonds) L. COordinate with other planning documents, such as Critical Area Ordinances and Shorelines Master Programs. Amend thd'ShD~l~i~"Ma~-e-r' P~¥~-t'O"i-h~itjd~-~W-[izkle~s communication facilities as allowed uses. Recognize the low level of impact and activity related to WCFs and provide for reasonable exceptions to critical areas regulations where buffer setbacks and other requirements are not appropriate or feasible. Specifically cross-reference exceptions for WCFs in critical areas ordinances. Make exceptions for attached facilities to nonconforming structures in or near critical areas and their buffet's. Example: "The intent of the special permit and (shoreline) conditional use permit criteria procedure is to determine the conditions under which a use may be permitted .... A special permit or (shoreline) conditional use permit may be granted only if the following, facts and conditions are found to exist: 1. The use is listed as requiring a zoning special permit ora shoreline conditional use permit in those respective regulations; ... 7. For shoreline conditional use permits the following additional criteria apply: a. The proposed use will not interfere with the normal public use of public shoreline; b. The cumulative impact' ' ' of several additional conditional use permits on the shoreline in the area will not preclude achieving the goals of the shoreline master program." (City of Spokane) M. Application requirements for permits can aid the communi~ in directing WCFs to desired locations. If community policy is that the preferred locati6-n--of ~d~3' is on existing buildings or structures such as water towers rather than on new support towers or structures, then the permit application form for Attached WCFs can be simple, such as a building permit application"with notification to the planning department of application submittal and recitation of zoning, height, and building location. Ifa permit for a new support structure or tower is requested, the application may be more complex: The following is a list of submittals which could be required for a new support structure or tower: I. Site and land,~capingplans drawn to scale; 2. A description, of the tower with documentation establishing its structural integrity for the proposed uses; 3. A statement describing excess space, if any, and whether it will be leased; 4. Proof of ownership of the proposed site or authorization to utilize it; 5. Copies of any easements necessary.,; 6. An area map identifying an.¥ existing wireless telecommunications towers: and 7. An analysis of the area containing existing topographical contours, tall buildings, and other factors influencing the tower http://www.mrsc.org/legal/telecomm/WIRELESS.HTM 10/12/2000 Model Wireless L;ommunlcat~ons Uralnance l~ramewor~c t'age 1 o Ol location. This information will assist the community determine if the proposal meets current development regulations, is structurally sound, and is a candidate for collocation in the area. CONCLUSION Representatives of the wireless service carriers which provide service in the Puget Sound area are very interested in working with staff planners and local decision makers on wireless siting ordinance issues. They area available to answer questions or provide additional information on wireless services and facilities. Please contact any one of the representatives listed below regarding questions on this document or other issues regarding wireless communications. AirTouch Cellular Susan L. Reagan 3350 161st Avenue SE PO Box 7329 Bellevue, Washington 98008. (206) 949-0024 telephone (206) 603-2888 fax sreagan~uswnvg.com AT&T Wireless Services Ross C. Baker - 617 Eastlake Avenue E. PO Box 9159 Seattle, Washington 98109 (206) 389-5301 .telephone (206) 389-5382 fax ross.baker~attws.com GTE Wireless Products and Service Kate Stephens · 2821 Northup Way, Suite 200' 5808 Lake Washington Blvd., Suite 400 Bellevue, Washington' 98004 Kirkland, Washington 98033 (206) 739-5053 telephone (206) 803-3722 telephone (206) 739,5099 fax (206) 803-3729 fax kestephens~mobilnet.gte.com Nextel Communications Mary Murdoch mary.murdoch@nextel.com s__~pri~nt_p._cs. _W_e s_t_e m_W ! r_e_l_e ~? Stephen Bennett, AICP Cydly'L. Smith http ://www..mrsc.org/legal/teleeomm/WIRELESS.HTM 10/12/2000 .Model Wlreless Commumcat~ons L~rcllnance l~rameworK ~'age ~ 1' / 'ol Z~) 11000 NE 33rd Place, Suite 200 330 120th Avenue NE, gl 10. Bellevue, Washington 98004 Bellevue, Washington 98005 (206) 602-2304 telephone (206) 451-3440 telephone (206) 602-2250 fax (206) 484-0835 mobile sbenne0 l{~sprintspectrum.com (206)451-4739 fax cydly.smith~wwireless.com Independent Con~._u_l..ta?~ Lisa Verner, AICP Lisa Verner Strategic Development Services PO Box 70372 Seattle, Washington 98107 (206) 286-8575 te!ephone (206) 286-8426 fax Isverner~aol.com APPENDIX A Appendix A includes three charts which give a concise overview of how the permit process works in,conjunction with development standards across most zones. The charts are compilations of the regulations found in the ordinance texts and were done for ease of use in presenting examples here. They are "snapshots" and intended to convey the message that where regulations are clear, the permitting can be simplified. The City of Lynnwood and City of Redmond examples shown in Appendix A are good because they recognize attached WCFs as ~'permitted" uses and WCFs with support structures as needing additional scrutiny. Generally, the ordinances use existing, zoning requirements for landscaping, setbacks, and height. The wireless industry would prefer greater heights to be permitted outright for support structures, which increases the opportunity for collocation. Example 1: Wireless Industry Proposed Language for Permit Processing and Development Regulations Neighborhood Multi-Family Single Family Manufacturing Resource Commercial Commercial/Mi & Industrial xed Use Residential Residential City Owned Property or (M&I) (R) (C) (NC/MU) (MFR) (SFR) Structure Non- residential structure Facility p P P P P AR(see H-I) P Type: Attached WCF AR- 1 AR- 1 AR- 1 AR- 1 AR- 1 Residential AR- 1 structure H (see SUP- l) Facility p P P AR AR H ~P Type: WCF w/support structure AR-I AR-I !AR-I H-I H-1 SUP-I AR-1 200' for new C°nstruction http ://www.mrse.org/legal/telecomm/WIRELESS.HTM 10/12/2000 MoOel Wlreless tZommumcauons t)rmnance e rameworK t~age 1 ~ ol 20 20' above Height-2 140' 200' 120' 60' 60' 60' existing structure New 10' front 20' front 35' front Construction ~10' front; 5' side; 5' rear Setbacks-3 5' side 20' 10' side 20' 20' !20' side No setbacks 5' rear 10' rear 20' rear for existing structures Underlying zone Underlying Underlying . Underlying ' Underlying Underlying requirement + zone zone Landscaping zone zone !zone additional requirement requirement Underlying requirement requirement requirement maximum 5' additional additional zone buffer maximum 10': maximum 10' requirement buffer buffer P= Permitted Outright H= Hearing Body Review AR = Administrative Review SUP= Special Use Permit 1= If the WCF exceeds the Development Standards of the zone, the WCF shall be reviewed through this process 2= Attached WCFs in any zone are iimited in height to 20' from the top of the attachment structure. 3= The Antenna Army for an attached WCF is exempt froTM the setback requirements of this section and. from the setbacks for the zone in which they are located, provided, no such Antenna Array shall extend more than 5' horizontally from the attachment structure. Example 2: City of Lynnw0od Requirements for Permit Processing and Development Regulations Manufacturing & Neighborhood Ci Industrial Resource Commercial Commercial/M Multi-Family Single Family txed Use Residential Residential O' Pr or 0VI&I) (R.) (C) CNC/MU) (MFR) (SFR) St Non-residential structure - Facility Permitted Type: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Attached .................. WCF Residential structure- Not Permitted CUP (less than' CUP (less, than CUP (less than- Facility 300' from resid) 300' from resid) 300' from resid) http://www..mrsc.org/legal/telecomm/WIRELESS.HTM 10/12/2000 Model Wireless Communications Ordinance prameworK rage ;1 vot 20 structure Wustify proposed Justify proposed Il Justify proposed ]]Justify prop°sea Justify pr°p°sed height; city can height; city can IIheight; city can ]lheight; city can ][height; city can Height approve height approve height I[approve height I]approve height I[approve height Ilabove allowed by above allowed by Ilabove allowed by I]above allowed by ][above allowed by IlSame as Same as Same as IlSame as Same as ;etbacks i]underlyingzone anderlyingzone underlying zone Ilunderlyingzone underlying zone Use of Use of Use of /se of Use of landscaping and landscaping and landscaping and mdscaping and landscaping and privacy screening privacy screening privacy screening privacy screening privacy screening Landscaping to buffer · to buffer to buffer to buffer to buffer faCilities/activities facilities/activities facilities/activities facilities/activities facilities/activities from surround from surround from surround from surround from surround area area area area area _E_x_a~_p_l?..3:' City of Redmond Development Requirements for Permit Processing and Development Regulations Business, ' Commercial City Manufacturing Urban Multi-Family Single & Industrial Recreation (or Center/Mixed Residential Family City Owned successor (NC,GC,RC, Use Residential Property or Structure Agriculture (MFR) (BP, MP, I, zone) (UR) CO) (CC1-4) (SFR) PA-B, PA-C) Non- Non- residential residential structure: structure: Permitted only Permitted Permitted ?ermitted Facility if bldg not ............ _ Type: ?ermitted :used for Permitted Permitted Attached- residential' :Residential Residential (Encouraged) WCF uses ~structure: structure: Permitted w/Special Devel Permit Not (TypelV) Permitted General Special' Special Special Special Facility Development Development Development Development Development Permitted Type: WCF Not permitted Permit (Type Permit (Type Permit (Type Permit (Type w/support Permit (Encouraged) structure (Type II) IV) IV) IV) W) Same as Same as Same as Same as Same as Same as underlying underlying Same as under-lying, under-lying under-lying under-lying under-lying zone; for zone; for zone;' for zone:; for zone; for zone; for zone; for attached ~ttached attached attached attached attached WCF, no WCF, no :WCF, no attached WCF, WCF, no WCF, no WCF, no more than more than more than 15' Height nomorethan morethan 15? morethan 15' morethan 15' 115' above 15' above 15' above 'above above above above exist/proposed exist'proposed exist/proposed exist/proposed exist/' exist/ exist/proposed - proposed :~roposed roof- ' roof roof roof roof roof roof []Same as ][Same as IlSame as [ISame as []Same as [ISame as Ilsame as http://www.mrsc.org/legal/telecomm/WIRELESS.HTM 10/12/2000 Moael wireless communlcauons tJrolnance rr~uncwm~, s a~ ~.v ui au I[under-lying Ilunder-lying under-lying under-lying Ilunderlying underlying under-lying Setbacks ilzone ilzone one zone Ilzone zone zone i ' Screen Screen Screen Screen as facility; Type Screen as Screen as facility; Type facility; Type Screen as much as I visual screenmuch as much as I visual visual much as practicable practicable screen ,creen practicable Landscaping practicablefrom street around equip ' from street from street around equip xound equip from street shelters shelters shelters FAQs I RCW [ WAC [ Municipal Codes [ AboutMRSC ] Site Index I Links I Help I Contact Us [ Home http://www.mrsc.org/legal/telecomm/WIRELESS.HTM 10/12/2000 Water Tower Monopine Church Tower "' ~*~ , >:~: .... ". SOLAR COMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL T Water Tower Sign Extension Date Monopalm Fan Monopaim 8885 A~o 5an D~ego D[~ve Sude 207 . . SanD,ego, CA g2108 'ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT I MEc. HNG DAily: -February 11, 2004 AGENDA SECTION: 'Consent Calendar ITEM: TO: Honorable Mayor and'City Council APPROVED. FROM: John W, Stinson, Assistant City Manager .DEPARTMENT'HEAD DATE: January 30,'2004 ' CiTY ATTORNEY/~~(- CITY 'MANAGER SUBJECT: Request ,frOm North Bakersfield Recreation and 'Park District to change zoning ~of .parks within the district from OS (Open Space) to .RE (Recreation) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends referral to Planning and Development Committee. BACKGROUND': The .North Bakersfield 'Recreation and Park District-has made.a request that the City consider changing the zoning .all parks located within the district from OS (Open Space) to RE (Recreation). They. feel the Recreation zoning better defines the parks and park uses. Staff from the district appeared at the .February 2"d Planning and Development Committee meeting and requested that the 'Committee review their proposal. Staff is reviewing their request to determine if there are any issues or-concerns related .to the .proposed change. Staff recommends referral to the Planning and Development Committee. - · February 4, 2004, 8:28AM S:~Adrnln Rpts~OO4~Park' Zoning 021104.dot JWS:al Page 1 ,North Bakersfield Recreations& Park District 405 .Galaxy Avenue, Bagersfield, California 93308 (661) .392-2000 February 3, 2004 David Couch, Chair Planning and Development Committee of the City Council 1501 Truxtun Ave, C~ty of Bakersfield Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Mr. Couch: Please consider our request .that all parks located in North Bakersfield .Recreation and Park District'boundaries, .that are also local~l in the City.of Bakersfield, be .zoned RE (Recreation) instead of-OS (Open.Space). -Most of the uses and facilities planned for District parks are better defined with RE zoning-than with:OS zoninff, and if a.park.sit~ were to be developed ata more passive level, it'would still be compatible with the RE zone. Thank you .for your attention t~ tiffs request Either Colon Bywai~r or myself will be available for further information 'or questi°ns. Sincerely, David McArthur General Manager DM/eh B A K E R S F I E L D MEMORANDUM April 23, 2004 TO: Planning and Development Committee FROM: Jack Hardisty, Development Services Director SUBJECT: North Bakersfield Recreation & Park District (NBRPD) Proposal to Zone Parks as Recreational Zone Rather than Open Space Zone. The City zones parks Open Space (OS). Uses Permitted in an Open Space zone: A. Agricultural use; B. Parks for passive recreational use; C. Wildlife preserves; D. Riding and hiking trails; E. Permanent unlighted recreation facilities for small-scale, unorganized use such as softball diamonds, soccer or football fields, playground equipment and tennis courts. The County does not have a specific zone for parks but approves them through the conditional use .permit process. NBRPD has proposed that the City adopt Recreation Zones for its parks. Uses permitted in a Recreation Zone: A. Archery ranges; B. ~ Baseball, football, soccer, track, field or basketball stadiums or facilities; C. Equestrian facilities; D. Golf courses; E. Gun clubs or shooting ranges; F. Automotive, cycle or horse racetracks; G. Racquetball facilities; H. Swimming pools; I. Tennis clubs or courts; J. Support uses to commercial recreation listed herein, including, but not limited to, offices, restaurants, motels and gift and apparel shops. NBRPD would like to avoid the requirements of public notice, hearing, conditions of approval and compliance by use of the RE Zone. Planning and Development Committee April 23, 2004 Page 2 The RE Zone ordinance was adopted years ago in anticipation of a proposed expansion of Mesa Marin into multiplex of intense recreational venues that might include the uses listed as permitted. No such development has occurred there or elsewhere in Bakersfield which would necessitate adoption of an RE district. It was not intended for scattered use throughout the City in residential areas. The City also adopted an OS ordinance for parks which are much less obtrusive. This was done to facilitate the development of parks over time without having to obtain a conditional use permit for each improvement covered by the list of permitted uses. Before then, the City required all parks and any changes to them to go through the conditional use permit process as the County still does. The City's experience has demonstrated that residents are more interested in being notified and being involved in reviewing such intense public facilities near their homes, not less. Staff, having met with representatives of NBRPD and considering the likely impacts of zoning parks in northwest Bakersfield RE, recommends against changing park zones from OS to RE. JH:djl CC: Alan Tandy, City Manager Virginal Gennaro, City Attorney C:\Documents and Settings\iwstinson\Local Settings\Temp\P & D committee.doc