SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING RESOUTION 16-3PC RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO THE WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES POLICY

Transcription

1 CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: May 19, 2016 ITEM # 5 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING RESOUTION 16-3PC RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO THE WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES POLICY INITIATED OR REQUESTED BY: [] Commission [X] Staff REPORT COORDINATED OR PREPARED BY: Seamus Laffey, Junior Planner [] Other ~~ Charline Hamilton, Director Community Development Department ATTACHMENT [X] Yes [ ] No [X] Information [] Direction [X] Action OBJECTIVE The objective of this item is to conduct a public hearing on Resolution 16-3PC regarding proposed amendments to the Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Policy. RECOMMENDED ACTION It is respectively recommended that the Planning Commission: 1. Conduct the public hearing; 2. Find that the Class 5 Categorical Exemption is the appropriate level of environmental review for the project under the California Environmental Quality Act and finds the Exemption represents the independent judgment of the City; and 3. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 16-3PC, recommending that the City Council approve amendments to the Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Policy BACKGROUD The City's Wireless Telecommunications Policy guides how wireless facilities are to be sited and developed within the City. The policy was originally adopted in 1997 and last amended on June 4, 2014 to reconcile the Policy with Federal law via Council Resolution Since the most recent amendments to the Wireless Policy in 2014, new state legislation has taken effect with the passing of AB 52, which adds Tribal Cultural Resources as a new resource section, and AB 57 which limits the time period cities have to regulate a Wireless Facility after an application is deemed complete. Taken together, AB 52 and 57 create new time constraint challenges that the current wireless policy does not address. On April 21, 2016, staff brought draft wireless policy changes to the Planning Commission in a workshop format for comment and discussion. The draft changes brought forward also included minor changes to clean up the policy for clarity purposes and the addition of new design requirements. The Planning Commission expressed support for the proposed changes and also had ideas for additional changes, including: (1) emphasizing what is preferred over what is not permitted; (2) not allowing chain link fencing with barbed/razor wire; (3) requiring undergrounding of equipment; (4) reiterating that signage is not permitted on wireless facilities; (5) fixing grammatical errors; and, (6) emphasizing contextual design options and designs that could become community features. Staff attempted to incorporate as many of these comments regarding minor changes as possible into this round of proposed wireless amendments. Some of the comments will require more substantive research and review and staff will include these in a further and more comprehensive wireless update in the near future. AB 57 (Cell Tower Permitting) Effective January 1, 2016, AB 57 provides that an application for a wireless telecommunications facility is automatically deemed approved if the local agency fails to specifically disapprove the application within the reasonable time periods specified in Federal Communications Commission (FCC's) 2009 Shot Clock Order (150 days for new site builds and 90 days for collocations), all required public notices have been provided regarding the application, and the applicant has provided a notice to the city or county that the reasonable time period has lapsed (see Attachment 2, AB: 57 A Brave New World for Cell Antennas and Towers in California).

2 Public Hearing on Proposed Amendments to Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Policy May 19, 2016 Page 2 The "deemed-approval" provision makes no exceptions for required public meetings, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review, appeal issues, or complexity of the project. Because of this, it is conceivable that new wireless facilities that do not qualify for a CEQA exemption would likely run out of time. A facility might be automatically deemed approved and built even if the environmental review had not been completed. The same could also be said for other requirements such as those of the Permit Streamlining Act (PSA). In essence, if an action has not been made on a wireless project within the FCC's reasonable time periods (150 days for new site builds and 90 days for collocations) a wireless facility is automatically deemed approved and the applicant would no longer be subject to any conditions or requirements that might have otherwise existed with a use permit. The shot clock begins when an application is first submitted and only pauses when a local agency provides a written letter indicating that the application is incomplete. Once a project is resubmitted, a local agency has 10 days to determine if the submitted materials are complete, otherwise the clock continues. The other way to pause the clock is if the wireless carrier and the local agency mutually agree to a tolling agreement to extend the clock, which can be until a certain date, a certain metric is met, or indefinitely. Adhering to the FCC shot clock is not completely new, however prior to AB 57 the FCC shot clock only provided wireless telecommunications carriers with a rebuttable presumption to be used in court if a local agency failed to act in a timely manner. Cities could still go over the FCC reasonable time periods for particular cases if it could be shown that more time was required. Prior to AB 57 the burden was on wireless carriers to bring suit against cities to prove there was an unreasonable delay. Now with the adoption of AB 57 a wireless facility is automatically deemed approved and the burden of proof has been shifted to local governments to file suits to prevent automatic approval. Due to most applications going through a few rounds of review by staff before being deemed complete, and the noticing requirements involved in going to Planning Commission, it is likely that many wireless applications for new facilities could have a third or more of their shot clock time used up prior to being heard by the Planning Commission under the current wireless policy. AB 52 (Tribal Cultural Resources) The legislature added a new resource section to CEQA that became effective July 1, 2015 regarding tribal cultural resources. AB 52 requires lead agencies to formally consult with Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) listed California Native American Tribes that have requested consultation prior to and during the CEQA process to determine if a proposed project will have a significant effect on a Tribal Cultural Resource (TCR). Tribal Cultural Resources are sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places and objects with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe. This new resource section is in addition to the already existing cultural resource section which looks at historical, archeological and paleontological resources. Under AB 52 California Native American Tribes are the experts and TCR's may not be readily apparent. The addition of TCR's to CEQA and the requirement to consult with Native American Tribes has lengthened the time it takes to produce an environmental document and take a project before Planning Commission. AB 52 requires that within 14 days of determining that a project application is complete, a lead agency must provide formal notification to tribes that have requested notification of proposed projects. If a tribe wishes to consult on the project they have 30 days to respond to the lead agency. The lead agency must begin the consultation process with the tribes requesting consultation within 30 days of receiving the request to consult. Once the consultation begins it could last a while, as it only concludes when either: 1) the parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect, if a significant effect exists, on a tribal cultural resource, or 2) a party, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached. Until consultation is completed the environmental document cannot be certified. So far AB 52 consultations are taking at least a few months to complete. ANALYSIS The proposed amendments are primarily in response to new state legislation, specifically AB 57 and AB 52. These two laws taken together create enormous time constraint challenges for wireless projects not eligible for a CEQA exemption. This is because AB 57 limits the time available before an action must be taken on a project (150 days for new site builds and 90 days for collocations) and AB 52 adds a new CEQA resource section requiring tribal consultation which will add to the time is takes to complete an environmental document. Taken together these two laws could pose significant challenges when reviewing wireless projects not exempt from CEQA because one law shortens the time available to review the application and the other law adds requirements increasing the time it takes to prepare an environmental document. Additional amendments to the policy are also proposed. They are meant to clarify certain sections and add additional design requirements. Staff anticipates returning with a more comprehensive wireless update at a later time and if there is any disagreement or requested changes to these additional amendments staff recommends

3 Public Hearing on Proposed Amendments to Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Policy May 19, 2016 Page 3 striking them from this round of amendments and holding off until the next wireless update in order to expedite the amendments relating AS 52 and AS 57. The proposed major additions to the Wireless Policy are below. The first three (L, M and N) are AS 52/AS 57 related. The last four (H1-0, H1-G, J9 and J10) are not related to AS 52/AS 57. Additional minor changes are reflected on the strike through copy of the wireless policy (see Attachment 2, Draft Wireless Policy). H. MINIMUM APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS The following additions to the minimum application requirements (in italics) are proposed: (change to align with letters in policy) H1-L. Cultural Resources Report. Analysis: With the adoption of AS 52 and the addition of tribal cultural resources to CEQA, all projects subject to CEQA and not exempt may need to go through the tribal consultation process. In order to expedite this process as much as possible a cultural resources report is being added to the minimum application requirements of all discretionary permit application packets. A cultural resource report will not be needed for some projects and if this is the case staff will not require it. H1-M. Discussion of all ground disturbance in conjunction with the project. Analysis: Similar to the Cultural Resource Report above, this item is being added in response to AS 52. If a project is determined to not be exempt from CEQA then the lead agency has 14 days after determining an application to be complete to send out a letter to tribes to see if they would like to consult. The letter sent to the tribes needs to include a discussion of the ground disturbance associated with the project. H1-N. A public workshop before Planning Commission to receive preliminary feedback for wireless facilities ultimately requiring Planning Commission approval. The workshop may take place either before or after application submittal but must have commenced for an application to be deemed complete. Analysis: This requirement is proposed in response to AS 57 which automatically deems approved an application for a wireless telecommunications facility if an action has not been made on it within the reasonable time periods specified in FCC's 2009 Shot Clock Order (150 days for new site builds and 90 days for collocations). The shot clock starts when an application is first submitted and is only paused when an application is deemed incomplete. Adding the requirement that a project go to Planning Commission for preliminary feedback before being deemed complete would allow for more review time of an application and would give the Planning Commission an opportunity to weigh in on potential design options in the beginning of the process rather than the end of the process when the shot clock end is on the immediate horizon. H1-0. Photo simulations from two angles for each proposed design. Analysis: This would codify a requirement that is already commonly requested of the applicant. H1-G. Multiple contextual design options. Analysis: Due to federal pre-emption one of the few remaining areas the Planning Commission retains authority over is the aesthetics of wireless facilities. Currently, the policy does not specify how many design options must be considered and what freestanding designs are preferred. Adding this requirement would help to get alternative design options beyond the standard monopole and monopine. J. Structural, Design and Environmental Standards The following additions to the design standards (in italics) are proposed. 9. Wireless facilities, lease areas and ground equipment shall be screened by an aesthetically pleasing and durable material such as wrought iron or CMU block. Chain link fencing is not permitted. 10. Barbed and/or razor wire is not permitted. Analysis: The current wireless policy only requires wireless facilities be screened with landscaping and there are no standards for fencing beyond what exists in the Municipal Code Section , which allows for chain

4 Public Hearing on Proposed Amendments to Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Policy May 19,2016 Page 4 link fencing in all zones and barbed/razor wire in A-1, RRA, RE, M-1, M-2, and M-3 zones. When proposed wireless facilities are taken to Planning Commission it is commonly requested that they do not have chain link and barbed/razor wire. Adding this additional requirement would codify what is already commonly requested for applications requiring PC approval and would also add this requirement to applications requiring only ZA approval. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The proposed amendments to the Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Policy are categorically exempt from CEOA pursuant to Class 5, Section of the CEOA Guidelines. This section of the Guidelines allows for exemptions for changes in minor land use limitations. Alternatives The Planning Commission may choose from the following basic alternatives: Approval 1. Certify that the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the proposed Class 5 Categorical Exemption and adopts the Exemption as presented by staff. (Recommended) 2. Approve Resolution 16-3PC, thereby recommending that the City Council approve the proposed changes to the Wireless telecommunications Facilities Policy. (Recommended) Continuance 1. The Planning Commission could direct staff to further amend the Wireless Telecommunications Facility Policy and come back at a later date. (Not recommended) ATTACHMENT(S) 1. Resolution 16-3PC 2. AB: 57 A Brave New World for Cell Antennas and Towers in California 3. Revised Wireless Telecommunications Policy

5 Attachment 1 RESOLUTION 16-3PC A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS POLICY WHEREAS, the City has created a Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Policy to establish uniform and comprehensive development standards for wireless telecommunication facilities and procedures for review of such facilities; and WHEREAS, the proposed changes to the Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Policy as depicted in attachment 3 of the agenda report; and WHEREAS, a Class 5 Categorical Exemption has been prepared on the proposed amendments to the Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Policy in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on May 19th, 2016 the Planning Commission considered public comments as part of a duly noticed public hearing; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council take the following actions: PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of West Sacramento this 19TH day of May in the year 2016, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: 1. Adopts the recommended amendments to the Wireless Telecommunications Facility Policy 2. Certifies that that the City Council has determined that the Class 5 Categorical Exemption is the appropriate level of environmental review under CEQA and finds the Exemption represents the independent judgment of the City ATTEST: Martha Guerrero, Planning Commission Chair David W. Tilley, Secretary

6 Attachment 2 AB 57: A brave new world for cell antennas and towers in California Background and recommendations for city planners and reviewers in public works Omar Masry, AICP, and Robert "Tripp" May Effective January 1, 2016, all wireless permit applications will be subject to an automatic approval rule under either California or federal law. In early 2015, the FCCpromulgated a "deemed-granted" rule for applications for less-than-substantial requests for collocations or modifications to existing facilities pending for more than 60 days. In late 2015, the California legislature adopted AB 57 (Quirk), a new state statute codified Government Code Section (see which deems approved all applications for new sites after 150 days and all collocations not covered under the FCC'srules after 90 days.. AB 57 turns the development process in California upside down to accelerate wireless infrastructure deployment. Whereas applicants must normally submit at least a complete permit application before it becomes entitled to an approval, AB 57 merely requires a submittal without an approval or denial within a specified period. Even the "deemed approval" provisions in the California Permit Streamlining Act required the applicant to complete CEQA review and observe due process, but now AB 57 grants wireless site projects a free pass irrespective of environmental or constitutional concerns. The California legislature adopted this radical departure from orderly and deliberate deployment decisions about more-or-less permanent installations despite a consistent refusal from the FCCto grant the same extraordinary privileges to these applicants. Wireless lobbyists twice petitioned the FCCfor deemed-granted permits for any wireless site application, and twice went home empty handed. In both instances, the FCCfelt that too many complex and important issues are at stake to simply deem any permit granted. Nevertheless, AB 57 is the law in California. Local governments, their planners, public works engineers, officials, and elected representatives must learn to navigate the new law. This article introduces planners to AB 57 and provides some real-world applications. Which Shot Clock? At its core, AB 57 automatically deems approved any application for a new or substantially changed wireless site after the FCC's "shot clock" expires. Those shot clock rules established "presumptively reasonable" times to process an application for a new site (150 days) or a collocation (90 days), after which an applicant could sue to force a decision. The distinction between a new site and collocation seems simple enough, but people often disagree over which clock applies. For example, most municipalities define a collocation to mean two wireless facilities on the same structure, but wireless industry lawyers sometimes claim that new wireless equipment added to any existing structure (whether it has wireless equipment or not) qualifies as a collocation subject to the 90-day clock. In contrast to both definitions, the FCCsaid in 2009 that a 90-day collocation means an application "does not involve a substantial increase in the size of a tower," and a tower means a structure solely or primarily intended to support wireless antennas. So what's a collocation? For AB 57 purposes, the FCC's 2009 rule applies. Unless a shorter shot clock applies (and yes, they exist), municipalities must process less-than-substantial increases in the size of a tower in 90 days or less. New sites, and substantial changes to existing sites, must be processed in 150 days or less.

7 Exceptions to "pause" the Shot Clocks Jhere are two "pause" mechanisms that apply to these 90- and ls0-day clocks. The first exception applies if a carrier submits an application and the local government provides a written letter indicating why the application is incomplete within 30 days. Then, the clock pauses until the carrier re-submits the " application or provides the information requested. Once a project is re-submitted, the local government has 10 days to determine if the submitted materials are comp-iete; otherwise the clock continues. A second exception involves the wireless carrier and the city/county agreeing to a tolling agreement to extend the clock until a certain date, or a certain metric is met, or indefinitely. However, the carrier has to voluntarily agree in writing to such an extension. However, even when the application is "complete," but the design is still not viable {e.g., minimallyintrusive and/or consistent with local development policies/guidelines/ordinances} or not legal {e.g., violates building codes, noise ordinances, CEQA, historic preservation regulations, has no legal access to the site}, the time it takes to make further changes (e.g., revise the design, conduct outreach, perform environmental review and so on) to make the project "viable" (i.e., less-intrusive) counts against the city/county and the clock still runs. Given that 20 to 30 days of the clock will ty ically be used in reviewing the allljlication when it is first submitted -and that in most cities/counties, it takes around days to get a project and neighborhood notification mailed out in advance of the public hearing (assuming the hearing body doesn't take time off in the summer) - the 90 day clock becomes an even greater challenge, especially if there are other recommendation hearing bodies such as Historic Preservation Commission or a public design review board. What happens after a Deemed Approval? Quite frankly, no one knows for sure. Neither the statute nor the legislative record gives any clues about the applicants' or the municipalities' respective rights and obligations. Does the applicant need a physical permit, or can it just go out and build the site? Although the statute permits localities to seek judicial review, that provision hardly authorizes construction without actual permits. Can the applicant build whatever it wants, or must it obey zone height restrictions and setbacks? What if the application involved a variance? Can municipalities attach conditions to permits issued after a deemed approval? What happens when the clock runs out during an appeal? Localities should think about these problems now rather than after they receive the first letter from an applicant declaring its application automatically approved. Perhaps the best approach is to build safeguards into the review process that help prevent applications from falling through the cracks. Given that a deemed approval cannot occur unless the applicant provided all the public notices required for the application, localities should consider requiring the applicant to send public notice that the shot clock is about to expire (and require a copy of the notice to be sent to the planner). has CEQA challenge Unlike existing California "deemed approvals" in the Permit Streamlining Act, AB 57 provides no timing exceptions for complex environmental (CEQA) review. So, if a new hilltop tower (plus access roads and generators) would require an Environmental Impact Report (or similar) and complex studies (e.g., biological sampling for endangered species during the Spring, storm water review for new access roads, or geotechnical and archaeological review), what choice does the local government have? It may hope the wireless carrier will voluntarily request a tolling agreement (to extend the clock for a new facility). But failing that, the locality faces a conundrum: It will want to avoid automatic approvals for incompatible

8 designs/locations, but it won't be able to approve a project (or subsequent permits) if it hasn't undertaken complete CEQA review. Due Process AB 57 also deviates from the due process protections that appear in the Permit Streamlining Act. Whereas the PSA prohibits any deemed approval without a public hearing when one is required, AB 57 was worded to avoid as many public hearings as possible. Under the PSA,a permit cannot be deemed granted "the public notice required by law has occurred," which the courts interpret to include a public hearing unless when a project would substantially impact neighboring property rights. AB 57, however, only requires the public notice specified for the application. So if your local code doesn't require a public hearing, but the Constitution would, AB 57 apparently deems the permit approved whether neighbors receive their fundamental rights or not. So how many wireless sites "substantially" impact property rights? That's a good question, and like most good questions it doesn't have a clear answer. However, it's worth mention that the Ninth Circuit in American Tower Corp. v. City of San Diego recently found that the mere renewal of a large tower's permit could substantially impact property rights - so it seems fair to say that an approval for a new tower might require a hearing in some circumstances. Local jurisdictions should look very hard at their notice requirements. AB 57 seems to push localities toward more public hearings rather than more streamlined administrative processes. Wireless sites are already controversial in many cases. Can you imagine how the public might react if it found out that the jurisdiction could have required a hearing but didn't? Conclusion AB 57 presents significant new challenges for public officials and municipal staff members. Not only does it completely change the traditional development process, it also offers few if any clear rules to guide governments and applicants through the new paradigm. The regulatory void leaves ample room for gaming and bad behavior on both sides of the counter. It doesn't have to be that way. Omar Masry has developed an excellent supplement to help guide planners through the wireless permit process: "Supplement: Tools for adapting to AB 57" is available at In addition, the authors encourage local officials and staff members to study AB 57, discuss it with the applicants, and develop thoughtful approaches to fill in its gaps and holes. Omar Masry, AICP, served as a city planner in Los Angeles, Orange, and San Francisco counties. Tripp May is an attorney and partner with Telecom Law Firm. The Supplement: Tools for Adapting to AB 57 (New California Law on Cell Towers)

9 Attachment 3 CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES POLICY A. Purpose and Intent The purpose of this policy is to establish uniform and comprehensive development standards for wireless telecommunication facilities and procedures for review of such facilities. These standards and procedures are intended to provide for the managed development of wireless telecommunication facilities in a manner that recognizes and enhances the community benefits of wireless communication technology, provides for development of wireless infrastructure, and reasonably accommodates the needs of citizens and wireless telecommunication providers in accordance with federal and State rules and regulations. B. Authority Wireless telecommunications facilities are regulated at the federal, state and local level. Section 704 of the 1996 Federal Telecommunications Act specifically preserves the right of the local agency to regulate aesthetics, visual impacts and land use issues. Applicable state law places constraints on a local jurisdiction's exercise of its police power over wireless telecommunications facilities. The Policy and its application may not be applied if they conflict with federal law but any portions of the Policy not in conflict would still be applicable. Compliance with the Policy and federal law would be reviewed with each proposed wireless project. C. Definitions For the purposes of this policy, the following terms and phrases have the meaning ascribed to them in this section: Antenna: Any system of wires, poles, rods, discs, or other similar device used for the transmission or reception of radio frequency electromagnetic waves when such system is external to or attached to the exterior of a structure. Co-Location: The practice of sharing support structures and buildings by wireless telecommunications providers (either public or private). Examples of co-located facilities include but are not limited to those facilities with antenna arrays for two or more wireless carriers. Microcell: A microcell cellular communications facility provides coverage and capacity in areas where there are a high number of users. Service is limited to a small geographic area, typically between % and 2/3 of a mile from each microcell facility. Microcell facilities utilize a small radio transceiver facility comprised of an unmanned equipment cabinet with a total volume of one hundred (100) cubic feet or less, and one omni-directional antenna with a maximum length of five feet (5'), mounted on a single existing or replacement pole, an existing or replacement utility pole or light standard, or some other similar support structure. The unmanned equipment cabinet may not obstruct the minimum required path of travel if located within the public right of way. An example of a typical microcell facility is shown in Exhibit A. Monopole: A structure of single pole design and erected on the ground to support wireless telecommunication antennas and connecting appurtenances. Stealthing: Improvements or treatments added to an improvement that mask or blend the proposed improvement into the existing structure or visual backdrop in such a manner as 1

10 to render the improvement "minimally visible" to the casual observer. Stealthing may utilize, but does not require, concealment of any component of the wireless facility. Examples include but are not limited to "monopines", flagpoles or windmills designed to conceal wireless communication equipment and those applications where wireless communication equipment is contained within another structure such as a scoreboard or sign. Wireless Telecommunications Facility: A facility that transmits and/or receives electromagnetic signals for the purpose of transmitting digital voice or data communications including monopoles, lattice towers, building mounted equipment, and stealth facilities. D. General Requirements It shall be the policy of the City of West Sacramento to encourage the development of wireless telecommunications infrastructure where the siting and construction of such facilities is consistent with the City's General Plan policies and goals, the City's Municipal Code all applicable specific plans, and all other applicable rules and regulations governing the construction of a wireless telecommunications facility. Applications for wireless telecommunications facilities approval shall be processed according to the findings contained in the Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Policy and Section "Zoning Administrator". E. Exempt from City Review The following facilities are exempt from City review provided that if the primary use of the property is not a wireless telecommunications facility and that the antenna use is accessory to the primary use of the property: 1. No more than one satellite dish or support structure for licensed amateur radio operators on a single parcel; 2. Mobile services providing public information coverage of a news event of a temporary nature; 3. A single ground or building mounted receive only radio or television antenna per parcel not exceeding the maximum allowable height for the land use zone in which it is located; 4. Emergency wireless telecommunications facilities activated in response to a city-wide catastrophic event, in concert with the City's Emergency Operations Center. 5. Facilities that have been exempted from local agency review by actions of the California Public Utilities Commission and/or the Federal Communications Commission. F. Approval Process 1. Zoning Administrator Approval The Zoning Administrator shall consider and approve requests for the following, and shall forward the results of said review to the Planning Commission as an information item. These facilities shall comply with all development regulations of the applicable land uses zone in which it is located, except as noted below: a. New building mounted wireless telecommunications facilities where stealthing is employed to mask the proposed wireless facility so that it is architecturally complementary to the original building facade. b. New roof mounted wireless telecommunications facilities where a proliferation of antennae and support equipment does not result on a particular building to the 2

11 extent that the wireless improvements become a dominant feature when viewed from the adjacent public street, adjacent buildings, or which impede views from adjacent residential units or public view corridors. c. New wireless telecommunications facilities where all antennae arrays are located within another structure (sign, building etc.), all ground equipment is screened from view, and the proposed facility is able to comply with City noise standards. d. Microcell facilities in any zoning designation. e. Wireless telecommunications facilities located in the M-1, M-2, M-3, ML, BP, or CH land use zones where the maximum height of the structure does not exceed the allowable height limit for such structures in the applicable land use zone. Wireless telecommunications facilities in these zones may be located at a minimum distance of no less than twice the height of the wireless facility from the nearest residentially zoned property with an approved Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Permit. The maximum distance from residentially zoned property required for a Wireless Telecommunications Facility Permit will be 500 feet provided the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed facility would eliminate or substantially reduce one or more significant gaps in the applicant's carrier network and improve service to the City, that the facility utilizes stealthing in its design, and that there are no viable and technically feasible equivalent or superior potential alternative sites. f. Facilities on City, and Port of West Sacramento owned where the height of the proposed facility does not exceed the allowable height limit for such structures, and where all other applicable development standards (such as setbacks and parking) are complied with. Wireless telecommunications facilities in these zones may be located at a minimum distance of no less than twice the height of the wireless facility from the nearest residentially zoned property with an approved Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Permit. The maximum distance from residentially zoned property required for a Wireless Telecommunications Facility Permit will be 500 feet provided the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed facility would eliminate or substantially reduce one or more significant gaps in the applicant's carrier network and improve service to the City, that the facility utilizes stealthing in its design, and that there are no viable and technically feasible equivalent or superior potential alternative sites. 2. Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Permit (Planning Commission Approval): The Planning Commission shall consider and approve requests for the following: a. Wireless telecommunications facilities not located in one of the land use zones identified in section F1(e) above. b. Wireless telecommunications facilities located within 1,000 feet of an existing monopole or tower mounted wireless telecommunications facility with no collocation capacity or within 1,500 feet of an existing wireless telecommunication facility with collocation capacity still available. c. All wireless telecommunications facilities located on properties zoned for Open Space and Parks and Recreation, or facilities proposed in any of the City's Community Gateway locations. d. Any other proposed wireless facility that is not listed in Section F(1) as requiring Zoning Administrator approval. e. Wireless telecommunication facilities located at a distance between twice the height of the facility and 500 feet from any residential land use zone subject to paragraph(s) F1(e&f) above. 3

12 In granting a Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Permit, the Planning Commission shall find the following general conditions fulfilled: 1. To the maximum extent which is reasonably feasible, the proposed wireless telecommunications facility has been designed to be compatible with the community. 2. For facilities located within 500 feet of residentially zoned property, the applicant is able to demonstrate that the proposed wireless telecommunications facility is necessary to close a significant gap in coverage and improve service to the City. 3. The facility utilizes a stealth design. 4. The applicant has submitted a statement of willingness to allow other carriers to collocate on the proposed wireless telecommunications facility and has represented to the City that the facility is designed to accommodate such collocations. 5. The wireless telecommunications facility is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. 6. The wireless telecommunications facility complies with all requirements of state and federal laws, regulations and orders. 3. Building Permit Required The installation of any wireless telecommunication facility shall not occur until a building permit including associated related permits has been issued. 4. Revocation lin the event the conditions of a Wireless Telecommunications Facility Permit have not been, or are not being complied with, the Community Development Department shall give the permittee and property owner notice of intention to revoke the Wireless Telecommunications Facility Permit at least ten (10) days prior to a Planning Commission review thereon. After the conclusion of the review, the Planning Commission may revoke the Wireless Telecommunications Facility Permit. 5. Expiration In the event the project or use for which the Wireless Telecommunications Facility Permit was granted has not commenced within the time limit set by the Planning Commission, or within one year after the date of final approval, if no specific time has been set, the Wireless Telecommunications Facility Permit is deemed to be null and void without further action. G. Prohibited Facilities The following facilities are prohibited: 1. Wireless telecommunication facilities that are not designed to accommodate collocations or able to conceal the equipment within another structure. 2. More than one wireless telecommunications facility on a parcel, except on parcels zoned for industrial use or those larger than thirty acres at the time of application for a Wireless Telecommunications Facility Permit. 3. Wireless telecommunications facilities located at a distance of less than twice the height of the tower/pole from the nearest residentially-zoned property. H. Minimum Application Requirements 4

13 1. Each application for a wireless telecommunications facility permit shall include the following minimum items: a. Completed General Application Form. b. Statement of Justification. i. Description of the proposed facility, including the type of facility being requested (monopole, building mount, microcell); height from ground to top of antenna installation; support equipment required; etc. c. Payment of non-refundable application fees including deposits for third party review if such review is determined to be necessary. d. Preliminary Title Report. e. Ten sets of plans including a site plan, elevations and landscape plan (if required). f. A discussion on alternative site selection including co-location opportunities, and a statement as to why these alternative sites were rejected. g.,a,lternative facility design options considered and rejected (i.e. monopole ys. windmill). g. Multiple contextual design options. h. Service area map with and without the proposed facility showing "hand-off" sites both within the City and in adjacent jurisdictions. i. Evidence that adequate access to the lease site has been or will be secured prior to construction. l Public notice map and mailing labels for property owners within 500 feet of the subject parcel. Individual project applications may require a greater public notification radius. k. Statement from the project architect or engineer that the facility has been designed to structurally support more than one wireless carrier's necessary equipment and that the owner of the facility is willing to permit such collocations except as allowed in this policy. I. Cultural Resource Report m. A discussion of all ground disturbance in conjunction with the project n. A public workshop before Planning Commission to receive preliminary design feedback for wireless facilities ultimately requiring Planning Commission Approval. The workshop may take place either before or after application submittal but must have commenced for an application to be deemed complete. o. Photos--simulations from two angles for each proposed design. I. Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Design To limit the amount of aesthetic impact that wireless telecommunication facilities have within the City, the order of preference for facility types is as follows: microcell, roof mounted, facade mounted, and freestanding tower. Should a freestanding tower be proposed, the applicant shall provide evidence showing why no other alternative is practical or technologically feasible. The City shall require all new wireless telecommunication facilities to be designed to accommodate co-locations unless all equipment and antenna arrays are concealed within another structure. Single purpose monopoles are prohibited. Prior to issuance of building permits for the project, the applicant must submit a signed letter of intent for at least one collocation on the facility. 5

14 1. Co-locations may be permitted on existing wireless towers, water tanks, electric transmission towers, and similarly scaled public utilities and facilities. 2. Additions or modifications to existing legally established wireless telecommunication facilities may be permitted where the height of the structure increases by no more than 30% of the originally approved wireless telecommunication facility the maximum height allowed pursuant to Municipal Code Section Design review may also be required if the proposed facility is located in an area subject to design guidelines. J. Structural, Design and Environmental Standards The following standards shall apply to the design and construction of wireless facilities: 1. Advertising of any kind is prohibited on a wireless facility including logos or other identifying feature that represents the carrier being serviced on that site, as well as advertising for activities unrelated to the primary use. 2. Sufficient anti-climbing measures shall be incorporated into the facility, as needed, to reduce the potential for trespass and injury. 3. Unless otherwise required by FAA regulations, all equipment, antennas, poles or towers shall either be constructed or treated with a non-reflective finish to minimize visual impacts. Antennas, which will be viewed primarily against the skyline (such as whip or stick antennas), shall be painted to blend into the visual backdrop. 4. Telecommunications support equipment and buildings shall not exceed one story in height, shall be designed to blend with existing architecture on the property or shall be screened from the public view by mature landscaping, shall not encroach into any required setback, and shall be located or designed to minimize visual intrusion. 5. Unless approved otherwise, all wireless telecommunications facilities shall be constructed in such a manner as to maintain and enhance existing native vegetation and shall include suitable mature landscaping to screen the facility, when deemed necessary. For purposes of this policy, "mature landscaping" means trees, shrubs, or vegetation of a size and character that will provide an appropriate level of visual screening within one year of installation. The owner/operator of the facility shall be responsible for regular maintenance and replacement of all required landscaping. 6. Unless approved otherwise, all telecommunications towers shall be constructed out of metal or other non-flammable material. All ground mounted facilities shall be selfsupporting monopoles except where the appropriate decision making body has determined that a guyed/lattice tower is required. 7. Adequate access roads serving the site shall be installed at the time of issuance of the building permit in accordance with the City's minimum standards for such access roads and shall be maintained in good condition at all times. Evidence of access easements shall be provided to the City's engineering division prior to issuance of a building permit. 8. All obsolete or unused facilities must be removed by the carrier within twelve months of cessation of operations on the site. 9. Wireless facilities, lease areas and ground equipment shall be screened by an aesthetically pleasing and durable material such as wrought iron or CMU block. Chain link fencing is not permitted. 10. Barbed and/or razor wire is not permitted. K. Periodic Review Required The City may conduct a periodic review of each facility not located on lands zoned for industrial use to consider how the facility could be integrated with emerging land uses approved under the applicable master or specific plan. If the City concludes that adverse 6

15 impacts to emerging land uses can be reduced using new technology, or through the relocation of the current facility, the carriers shall work with the City to develop a plan for achieving these mitigating goals. The City may impose a condition limiting the duration of any permit for a wireless telecommunications facility located on property zoned other than industrial. As part of such a conditions, the City shall specify the development threshold that could trigger termination of the permit following a duly noticed public hearing. L. Transfer of Operation Any carrier/provider operating a specific wireless telecommunications facility may assign the operation of the facility to another carrier licensed by the FCC for that radio frequency provided that the operation is a legally established use; that the Zoning Administrator is in receipt of a written statement of the proposed assignment prior to the transfer; and that all applicable conditions of approval for the subject installation are carried out by the new carrier/provider. M. Use of Outside Consultants The Community Development Department may utilize the services of a qualified outside consultant to supplement City staff at the applicant's sole expense to review and make appropriate recommendations on issues including, but not limited to, (a) compliance with radio frequency emissions standards, and (b) identification of alternative solutions when the Community Development Director believes that the proposed facility may create a significant impact to the surrounding area. Priorto hiring outside consultants, the applicant shall be provided with a copy of the scope of work and costs for the services to be provided. If the applicant is not in agreement with the proposed work to be completed, the applicant shall have the right to amend or withdraw the application request. N. Appeals Any person dissatisfied with the decision to either approve or deny a requested wireless telecommunications facility may file an appeal with the City Clerk in accordance with Section 1.08 of the Municipal Code. 7

16 EXHIBIT A This is an example of a typical microcell facility. Microcell facilities may come in other forms as well but this photo is generally representative of the concept. 8