HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-28-13 YPC Packet"O ".C,'.C: ,
C,",O MMUNIT CC S VI' () M ' " ' . ,!,'I'AR7 M',,'IVT RE F1 L E
C � orlh µ:^�;::� n
µWS ��
�'�r� ��� ��4n0,u , ����;'� ���iP:p�"��" li';irn'i��, '1''�",r,�"��'iA"� I�'�`4'P�� 510,81001�(" :m��:e q'" 1�°M51) ,fir," � 5-1518 ���:3' ,':'fix ( Jnr 9) 5751i''?�S'
"'�I:II ��'i'���I�;
City of Yakima Planning Commission
PUBLIC HEARING
City Hall Council Chambers
Monday October 28, 2013
3:30 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.
YPC Members:
Chair Ben Shoval, Co -Chair Dave Fonfara, Al Rose,
Scott Clark, Paul Stelzer, Bill Cook
City PlanningStaff.:
Steve Osguthorpe, Community Development Director/Planning Manager, Jeff Peters, Supervising
Planner, Chris Wilson, Assistant Planner, and Rosalinda Ibarra, Administrative Assistant
Agenda
I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
III. Staff Announcements
IV. General Audience Participation (Not Associated with an Item on the Agenda)
V. Continue Public Hearing - Text Amendments Pertaining to Communication Towers
(TXT#002-13)
(The latest draft ordinance is available online at: mwnwy3x.akiaatamv . of sery o' s lanm in under Quick Links)
VI. Other Business
VII. Adjourn to November 13, 2013 at 3:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers
CITY OF YA__tMA
YAKIMA PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING
City Hall Council Chambers
SIGN -IN SHEET
HEARING DATE: Mondav October 28, 2013
Yakima Planning Commission Public Hearing Sign -In Sheet — 10/28/2013
NAME
ADDRESS
I
ZIP CODE E-MAIL ADDRESS
r
I
x
Yakima Planning Commission Public Hearing Sign -In Sheet — 10/28/2013
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF YAKIMA
In the matter of:
)
Proposed Regulation of Telecommunication)
Towers and Facilities and
Zoning
)
FORTHE
11 ECO R D/F1 LE
Public Hearing: October 23, 2013
and October 28, 2013
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW, AND RECOMMENDATION
THIS MATTER, having come before the Planning Commission of the City of Yakima (hereafter
"Planning Commission") upon public hearing on October 23, 2013 and October 28, 2013, and
the Planning Commission having considered the record herein and all evidence and testimony
presented, hereby makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on October 23, 2013 and
continued to October 28, 2013 pursuant to notice duly published, all in accordance with
applicable procedures of the Yakima Municipal Code and state law.
2. No objection was made to any member of the Planning Commission hearing and
deciding all issues in this matter.
3. The City of Yakima has previously adopted ordinances codified at YMC 15.04.180
pertaining to placement of communications towers in urban areas. Such existing code
does not provide regulations for location of such facilities in different zoning districts,
does not provide specific permit requirements for such facilities, and does not
adequately safeguard the general safety and welfare of the community as it concerns
land use and regulatory controls for such facilities. Moreover, existing code provides no
adequate procedures for wireless service providers in the consideration of applications
for wireless facilities proposed for location within the City of Yakima. In particular,
existing city codes do not provide adequate land use controls for telecommunication
towers and facilities including: (a) lack of standards prioritizing zoning districts or types of
property, so that a telecommunication tower or facility could be located in the vicinity of
more sensitive land uses such as residential zones and neighborhoods, rather than upon
existing public property or facilities; (b) no means to require co -location of
telecommunication facilities on existing towers so as to reduce the number of
telecommunication towers and facilities within the community; (c) no adequate standards
requiring telecommunication towers and facilities to be screened or camouflaged to
preserve and promote quiet use and enjoyment of existing property owners; (d) no
means to deny any application for a new telecommunication tower or facility where no
1
verification of need of such facility exists; (e) no means to limit construction' of
telecommunication towers and facilities within or in the near vicinity of sensitive
community uses such as established historic districts.
4. Within the parameters of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110
Stat. 56 (1996), state law and applicable regulations, the City of Yakima may consider
regulations pertaining to telecommunication towers and facilities in a number of areas,
for example: (a) requiring applicants to provide for expert assistance; (b) verification of
the need for a requested tower or facility; (c) prioritizing preferred locations for
telecommunication towers; (d) verification of minimum height of towers needed to
provide adequate coverage; (e) standards governing appearance and aesthetics; (f)
requiring collocation to minimize number of towers in the community; (g) developing
application forms and establishing appropriate application fees; (h) regulation of lighting,
setbacks, signage and site security; (i) undergrounding of associated utilities; (j)
insurance and indemnification; (k) provisions relating to removal of abandoned
structures.
5. Other cities in the state and region, and elsewhere in the country, have adopted
ordinances regulating wireless service facilities, balancing the needs of the community to
preserve and protect the general safety and welfare with the expectation of fair
procedures to allow industry providers to construct and operate wireless facilities to meet
the communication needs of the community.
6. On April 2, 2013, the City Council of the City of Yakima adopted Ordinance No. 2013-
014 imposing a moratorium from April 2, 2013 through October 1, 2013 on the
acceptance, processing and issuance of land use and building permits for new
telecommunication and wireless service facilities. On May 21, 2013, the City Council
approved Resolution No. 2013-066 adopting Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
supporting the adoption of the moratorium. Following a public hearing duly scheduled
and held on September 3, 2013, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2013-040,
supported by findings of fact, extending the moratorium through midnight December 31,
2013. Such legislative enactments are part of the record before the Planning
Commission and adopted herein by reference.
7. The Planning Commission has held and conducted public hearings and study sessions
pursuant to applicable notice on the following dates: August 7, 2013; August 14, 2013;
September 4, 2013; September 25, 2013; October 9, 2013, October 23, 2013 and
October 28, 2013.
8. The Planning Commission has received and considered all comments, evidence and
testimony presented at such study sessions and public hearings, together with reports
and proposed drafts of comprehensive code provisions prepared and presented by city
staff.
2
9. The Planning Commission finds and determines that the draft comprehensive' code
pertaining to telecommunication and wireless facilities presented and considered by the
Planning Commission on October 23, 2013 and October 28, 2013 adequately addresses
the land use and regulatory needs of the City of Yakima, and that such proposed code
should be recommended to the City Council for adoption, and that such adoption is in
the best interests of residents of the City of Yakima and will promote the general safety
and welfare.
10. Any Finding of Fact, or portion thereof, hereafter determined by a court of competent
jurisdiction to be a Conclusion of Law shall be construed as a Conclusion of Law without
derogation of any other Finding of Fact.
Having made the above Findings of Fact, the Planning Commission makes the following
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
11. The Planning Commission has jurisdiction to receive all evidence and testimony in this
matter, and to make these Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation
concerning all issues herein.
12. There being no objection to any member of the Planning Commission proceeding to
hear and consider all matters herein, any and all objections arising or alleged to arise out
of the appearance of fairness doctrine or provisions related to conflict of interest are
hereby deemed waived.
13. All procedural requirements pertaining to notice, scheduling and conducting the public
hearing have been met and are satisfied.
14. All procedural requirements pertaining to amendment of Title 15 of the Yakima Municipal
Code have been met and are satisfied.
15. The proposed legislation amending Title 15 of the Yakima Municipal Code to add new
Chapter 15.29 entitled "Wireless Communications Facilities" of record herein and
incorporated by reference hereto ("proposed legislation") is a comprehensive code
regulating wireless communication facilities in satisfaction of the City Council's direction
to craft a comprehensive code as set forth in Ordinance Nos. 2013-014 and 2013-040,
the ordinances adopting and extending the moratorium, respectively.
16. The adoption of the proposed legislation constitutes an exercise of the general police
and regulatory powers of the city as authorized by, but not limited to: Washington State
Constitution Article XI, Section 11; Chapter 35.22 RCW, and RCW 35.22.195; Charter of
the City of Yakima, Article I; and the Yakima Municipal Code.
�3
17. The exercise of the city's general police and regulatory power to adopt the proposed
legislation is consistent with land use and police power regulatory authority of the City of
Yakima and laws of the State of Washington, including but not limited to Title 35 RCW
and the Growth Management Act of the State of Washington.
18. The adoption of the proposed legislation is compliant with the moratorium adopted by
the City Council pursuant to Ordinance Nos. 2013-014 and 2013-040, together with
RCW 36.70A.390 and RCW 35.63.200.
19. The adoption of the proposed legislation constitutes a land use control rationally and
reasonably related to control documented secondary effects arising from unregulated
wireless service facilities.
20. The Planning Commission concludes that the adoption of the proposed legislation
incorporated herein establishes reasonable and objective regulations governing land
use, licensing and operation of telecommunication and wireless facilities and uses within
the City of Yakima, and will provide necessary and appropriate land use regulation of
such facilities and uses.
20. Any Conclusion of Law, or portion thereof, hereafter determined by a court of competent
jurisdiction to be a Finding of Fact shall be construed as a Finding of Fact without
derogation of any other Conclusion of Law.
Having made the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Planning Commission
hereby renders its
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL
The Planning Commission of the City of Yakima, having received and considered all evidence
and testimony presented at public hearings, and having received and reviewed the record
herein, hereby recommends that the City Council of the City of Yakima APPROVE the proposed
legislation amending Title 15 of the Yakima Municipal Code to add new Chapter 15.29 YMC
referenced and incorporated herein.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 28th day of October, 2013.
By:
Ben Shoval, Chair
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF YAKIMA
In the matter of: )
Proposed Regulation of Telecommunication)
Towers and Facilities and )
Zoning )
Public Hearing: October 23, 2013
and October 28, 2013
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW, AND RECOMMENDATION
THIS MATTER, having come before the Planning Commission of the City of Yakima (hereafter
"Planning Commission") upon public hearing on October 23, 2013 and October 28, 2013, and
the Planning Commission having considered the record herein and all evidence and testimony
presented, hereby makes the following
1. A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on October 23, 2013 and
continued to October 28, 2013 pursuant to notice duly published, all in accordance with
applicable procedures of the Yakima Municipal Code and state law.
2. No objection was made to any member of the Planning Commission hearing and
deciding all issues in this matter.
3. The City of Yakima has previously adopted ordinances codified at YMC 15.04.180
pertaining to placement of communications towers in urban areas. Such existing code
does not provide regulations for location of such facilities in different zoning districts,
does not provide specific permit requirements for such facilities, and does not
adequately safeguard the general safety and welfare of the community as it concerns
land use and regulatory controls for such facilities. Moreover, existing code provides no
adequate procedures for wireless service providers in the consideration of applications
for wireless facilities proposed for location within the City of Yakima. In particular,
existing city codes do not provide adequate land use controls for telecommunication
towers and facilities including: (a) lack of standards prioritizing zoning districts or types of
property, so that a telecommunication tower or facility could be located in the vicinity of
more sensitive land uses such as residential zones and neighborhoods, rather than upon
existing public property or facilities; (b) no means to require co -location of
telecommunication facilities on existing towers so as to reduce the number of
telecommunication towers and facilities within the community; (c) no adequate standards
requiring telecommunication towers and facilities to be screened or camouflaged to
preserve and promote quiet use and enjoyment of existing property owners; (d) no
means to deny any application for a new telecommunication tower or facility where no
1
verification of need of such facility exists; (e) no means to limit construction of
telecommunication towers and facilities within or in the near vicinity of sensitive
community uses such as established historic districts.
4. Within the parameters of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110
Stat. 56 (1996), state law and applicable regulations, the City of Yakima may consider
regulations pertaining to telecommunication towers and facilities in a number of areas,
for example: (a) requiring applicants to provide for expert assistance; (b) verification of
the need for a requested tower or facility; (c) prioritizing preferred locations for
telecommunication towers; (d) verification of minimum height of towers needed to
provide adequate coverage; (e) standards governing appearance and aesthetics; (f)
requiring collocation to minimize number of towers in the community; (g) developing
application forms and establishing appropriate application fees; (h) regulation of lighting,
setbacks, signage and site security; (i) undergrounding of associated utilities; 0)
insurance and indemnification; (k) provisions relating to removal of abandoned
structures.
5. Other cities in the state and region, and elsewhere in the country, have adopted
ordinances regulating wireless service facilities, balancing the needs of the community to
preserve and protect the general safety and welfare with the expectation of fair
procedures to allow industry providers to construct and operate wireless facilities to meet
the communication needs of the community.
6. On April 2, 2013, the City Council of the City of Yakima adopted Ordinance No. 2013-
014 imposing a moratorium from April 2, 2013 through October 1, 2013 on the
acceptance, processing and issuance of land use and building permits for new
telecommunication and wireless service facilities. On May 21, 2013, the City Council
approved Resolution No. 2013-066 adopting Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
supporting the adoption of the moratorium. Following a public hearing duly scheduled
and held on September 3, 2013, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2013-040,
supported by findings of fact, extending the moratorium through midnight December 31,
2013. Such legislative enactments are part of the record before the Planning
Commission and adopted herein by reference.
7. The Planning Commission has held and conducted public hearings and study sessions
pursuant to applicable notice on the following dates: August 7, 2013; August 14, 2013;
September 4, 2013; September 25, 2013; October 9, 2013, October 23, 2013 and
October 28, 2013.
8. The Planning Commission has received and considered all comments, evidence and
testimony presented at such study sessions and public hearings, together with reports
and proposed drafts of comprehensive code provisions prepared and presented by city
staff.
2
9. The Planning Commission finds and determines that the draft comprehensive code
pertaining to telecommunication and wireless facilities presented and considered by the
Planning Commission on October 23, 2013 and October 28, 2013 adequately addresses
the land use and regulatory needs of the City of Yakima, and that such proposed code
should be recommended to the City Council for adoption, and that such adoption is in
the best interests of residents of the City of Yakima and will promote the general safety
and welfare.
10. Any Finding of Fact, or portion thereof, hereafter determined by a court of competent
jurisdiction to be a Conclusion of Law shall be construed as a Conclusion of Law without
derogation of any other Finding of Fact.
Having made the above Findings of Fact, the Planning Commission makes the following
11. The Planning Commission has jurisdiction to receive all evidence and testimony in this
matter, and to make these Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation
concerning all issues herein.
12. There being no objection to any member of the Planning Commission proceeding to
hear and consider all matters herein, any and all objections arising or alleged to arise out
of the appearance of fairness doctrine or provisions related to conflict of interest are
hereby deemed waived.
13. All procedural requirements pertaining to notice, scheduling and conducting the public
hearing have been met and are satisfied.
14. All procedural requirements pertaining to amendment of Title 15 of the Yakima Municipal
Code have been met and are satisfied.
15. The proposed legislation amending Title 15 of the Yakima Municipal Code to add new
Chapter 15.29 entitled "Wireless Communications Facilities" of record herein and
incorporated by reference hereto ("proposed legislation") is a comprehensive code
regulating wireless communication facilities in satisfaction of the City Council's direction
to craft a comprehensive code as set forth in Ordinance Nos. 2013-014 and 2013-040,
the ordinances adopting and extending the moratorium, respectively.
16. The adoption of the proposed legislation constitutes an exercise of the general police
and regulatory powers of the city as authorized by, but not limited to: Washington State
Constitution Article XI, Section 11; Chapter 35.22 RCW, and RCW 35.22.195; Charter of
the City of Yakima, Article I; and the Yakima Municipal Code.
Cl
17. The exercise of the city's general police and regulatory power to adopt the proposed
legislation is consistent with land use and police power regulatory authority of the City of
Yakima and laws of the State of Washington, including but not limited to Title 35 RCW
and the Growth Management Act of the State of Washington.
18. The adoption of the proposed legislation is compliant with the moratorium adopted by
the City Council pursuant to Ordinance Nos. 2013-014 and 2013-040, together with
RCW 36.70A.390 and RCW 35.63.200.
19. The adoption of the proposed legislation constitutes a land use control rationally and
reasonably related to control documented secondary effects arising from unregulated
wireless service facilities.
20. The Planning Commission concludes that the adoption of the proposed legislation
incorporated herein establishes reasonable and objective regulations governing land
use, licensing and operation of telecommunication and wireless facilities and uses within
the City of Yakima, and will provide necessary and appropriate land use regulation of
such facilities and uses.
20. Any Conclusion of Law, or portion thereof, hereafter determined by a court of competent
jurisdiction to be a Finding of Fact shall be construed as a Finding of Fact without
derogation of any other Conclusion of Law.
Having made the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Planning Commission
hereby renders its
e
The Planning Commission of the City of Yakima, having received and considered all evidence
and testimony presented at public hearings, and having received and reviewed the record
herein, hereby recommends that the City Council of the City of Yakima APPROVE the proposed
legislation amending Title 15 of the Yakima Municipal Code to add new Chapter 15.29 YMC
referenced and incorporated herein.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 28th day of October, 2013.
0y. �AL
Ben Shoval, Chair R
4
1"OR 1' I I E
1� C;01111 / FILE
Chapter 15.29
WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES
Sections:
15.29.010
Purpose.
15.29.020
Definitions.
15.29.030
Exemptions.
15.29.040
Permits required.
15.29.050
Application Submittal / Fees
15.29.060
Development Standards
15.29.070
Design Criteria
15.29.080
Site Selection Standards
15.29.090
Safety and Industry Standards
15.29.100
Cellular Conditional Use Permit Criteria
15.29.110
Cellular Height Variance
15.29.120
Application Review Process
15.29.130
Balloon Tests — Visual Impact Assessments,
15.29.140
Third Party Review
15.29.150
Non-use / Abandonment
15.29.160
Transfer of Ownership
15.29.170
Vacation of Permits
15.29.180
Violation - Penalty
15.29.190
Relief, Waiver, Exemption
15.29.200
Severability
The purpose of this chapter is to establish general guidelines for the siting of wireless telecommunication
facilities, including towers, antennae and support structures.
A. Goals. The goals of this chapter are to:
1. Enhance the ability of personal wireless service providers to provide such services throughout
the city quickly, effectively, and efficiently;
2. Encourage personal wireless service providers to locate towers and antenna in nonresidential
areas;
3. Encourage personal wireless service providers to co -locate on new and existing tower sites;
1
4. Encourage personal wireless service providers to locate towers and antennas, to the extent
possible, in areas where the adverse impact on city residents is minimal;
5. Encourage personal wireless service providers to configure towers and antennas in a way that
minimizes any significant adverse visual impact; and
6. Provide for the wireless communications needs of governmental entities.
Accordingly, the city council finds that the promulgation of this chapter is warranted and necessary:
1. To manage the location of towers and antennas in the city;
2. To protect residential areas and land uses from potential adverse impacts of towers;
3. To minimize adverse visual impacts of towers through careful design, siting, landscape screening,
and innovative camouflaging techniques;
4. To accommodate an increased need for towers to serve the wireless communications needs of
city residents;
5. To promote and encourage co -location on existing and new towers as an option rather than
construction of additional single -use towers, and to reduce the number of such structures needed
in the future;
6. To consider the public health and safety of towers to the extent permitted by the
Telecommunications Act of 1996; and
7. To avoid potential damage to adjacent properties through sound engineering practices and the
proper siting of antenna support structures.
B. New Uses. All new telecommunication towers, antennas and support structures shall comply with this
chapter after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter.
C. Existing Uses. All telecommunication towers and antennas existing on the effective date of the
ordinance codified in this chapter that are not in compliance with this ordinance shall be allowed to
continue as they presently exist, but will be considered nonconforming uses. Routine maintenance
shall be permitted on existing towers and antennas. However, new construction other than routine
maintenance on existing towers, antennas, buildings or other facilities shall comply with the
requirements of this chapter.
D. Facilitation of Wireless Service. These standards were designed to comply with the
Telecommunications Act of 1996. The provisions of this chapter are not intended to and shall not be
interpreted to prohibit or to have the effect of prohibiting personal wireless services. This chapter shall
not be applied in such a manner as to unreasonably discriminate between providers of functionally
equivalent personal wireless services.
E. Conflict with other standards. To the extent that any provision of this chapter is inconsistent or
conflicts with any other city ordinance this chapter shall control. Otherwise, this chapter shall be
construed consistently with the other provisions and regulations of the city.
15.29.020 Definitions.
For the purpose of this chapter, the following terms shall have the meaning ascribed to them below.
Additional definitions pertaining to the Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance can be found in Chapter
15.02 YMC.
"Abandonment" means to cease operation for a period of sixty or more consecutive days.
"Administrator" means the director of the city's department of community development and his or her
designees.
"Antenna" means any exterior apparatus designed for telephonic, radio, data, internet, or television
communications through the sending and/or receiving of electromagnetic waves, and includes equipment
attached to a tower, structure or building for the purpose of providing wireless services, including
unlicensed wireless telecommunications services, wireless telecommunications services utilizing
frequencies authorized by the Federal Communications Commission for "cellular," "enhanced specialized
mobile radio" and "personal communications services," telecommunications services, and its attendant
base station.
"Antenna height" means the vertical distance measured from the base of the antenna support structure at
natural grade to the highest point of the structure even if said highest point is an antenna. Measurement
of tower height shall include antenna, base pad, and other appurtenances and shall be measured from
the natural grade of the parcel at the lowest elevation point of the support structure's perimeter. "Antenna
support structure" means any pole, telescoping mast, tower, tripod, or other structure which supports a
device used in the transmitting or receiving of radio frequency signals.
"Applicant" means any provider or any person, partnership, company, or government agency that files an
application for any permit necessary to install, maintain, or remove a personal wireless service facility
within the city.
"Balloon test" means a test for a reasonable period of time to fly, or raise upon a temporary mast, a
brightly colored balloon, that is representative in size of the initial antenna array including all standoffs, at
the maximum height of the proposed tower.
"Base station" is defined as a facility or support structure consisting of radio transceivers, antennas,
coaxial cable, a regular and backup power supply, and other associated electronics, including a structure
that currently supports or houses an antenna, transceiver, or other associated equipment that constitutes
part of a base station, and encompasses such equipment in any technological configuration, including
distributed antenna systems and small cells.
"Camouflage" means to minimize adverse aesthetic and visual impacts on the land, property, buildings,
and other facilities adjacent to, surrounding, and in generally the same area as the requested location of
such wireless telecommunications facilities, which shall mean using the least visually and physically
intrusive facility that is not technologically or commercially impracticable under the facts and
circumstances, The term includes, without limitation: (a) the use of structures, design, colors,
landscaping and location to disguise, hide, blend, or integrate with an existing structure that is not a
monopole or tower; (b) placement of a wireless facility or component thereof within an existing or new
structure; (c) "stealth structures" in which the antenna or other wireless facility component is disguised or
concealed within a structure designed to appear as another structure (such as a church steeple of
flagpole) or another natural form (such as a tree, rock or other natural feature); and (d) placement of a
wireless facility or component thereof upon a site where the topography and existing trees, landscaping,
evergreen trees, design, and colors of the facility so that such facility is significantly screened from view or
designed to resemble or blend with surrounding natural features.
"Cell site" or "site" means a tract or parcel of land that contains wireless service facilities including any
antenna, support structure, accessory buildings, and parking, and may include other uses associated with
and ancillary to personal wireless services.
"City" means the city of Yakima.
"City property" means all real property owned by the city whether in fee ownership or other interest.
"Co -location" means the use of a personal wireless service facility or cell site by more than one wireless
service provider.
"Conditional use permit" or "CUP" means a process and approval as described in this chapter and in
YMC Title 15, Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance
"COW" means 'bell on wheels." A cell on wheels or other temporary wireless communications facility.
"Design" means the appearance of wireless service facilities, including such features as their materials,
colors, and shape.
"EIA" means the Electronics Industry Association.
"Equipment enclosure" means a structure, shelter, cabinet, or vault used to house and protect the
electronic equipment necessary for processing wireless communication signals. Associated equipment
may include air conditioning, backup power supplies and emergency generators.
4
"Excess capacity" means the volume or capacity in any existing or future duct, conduit, manhole,
handhold or other utility facility within the right-of-way that is or will be available for use for additional
telecommunications facilities.
"Facilities" means all of the plant, equipment, fixtures, appurtenances, antennas, and other facilities
necessary to furnish and deliver telecommunications services and cable television services, including but
not limited to poles with cross -arms, poles without cross -arms, wires, lines, conduits, cables,
communications and signal lines and equipment, braces, guys, anchors, vaults, and all attachments,
appurtenances, and appliances necessary or incidental to the distribution and use of telecommunications
services and cable television services.
"FCC" or "Federal Communications Commission" means the federal administrative agency, or lawful
successor, authorized to regulate and oversee telecommunications carriers, services and providers on a
national level.
"Governing authority" means the city council of the city of Yakima.
"Governmental entity" means the state of Washington, Yakima County, the city, municipally owned
utilities, and special purpose districts including the school, fire and library districts.
"Hearing examiner" means the duly appointed hearing examiner of the city.
"Major modification" means a co -location or other modification that constitutes a substantial change to an
existing wireless facility or base station as set forth'in 15.29.060(A)(2)
"Minor modification" means a co -location or other modification that does not constitute a substantial
change to an existing wireless facility or base station as set forth in 15.29.060(A)(1).
"Modification" or "modify" means, the addition, removal or change of any of the physical and visually
discernible components or aspects of a wireless facility, such as antennas, cabling, equipment shelters,
landscaping, fencing, utility feeds, changing the color or materials of any visually discernible components,
vehicular access, parking and/or an upgrade or change -out of equipment for better or more modern
equipment. Adding a new wireless carrier or service provider to a telecommunications tower or
telecommunications site as a co -location is a modification. A modification shall not include repair and
maintenance as defined by this chapter.
"Mount" means the structure or surface upon which personal wireless service facilities are mounted.
There are three types of mounts:
1. Building Mounted. A personal wireless service facility mount fixed to the roof or side of a
building.
2. Ground Mounted. A personal wireless service facility mount fixed to the ground, such as a
tower.
3. Structure Mounted. A personal wireless service facility fixed to a structure other than a
building, such as light standards, utility poles, and bridges.
"Natural grade" means the topographic condition and level of ground in place for the past five years or
more, or the approved finished grade of land platted through the subdivision process.
"Occupy" means to construct, install, maintain, own, or operate telecommunications facilities located
within city rights-of-way. The mere passage of electronic signals over, under, or through rights-of-way via
telecommunications facilities owned by another telecommunications provider does not constitute
occupying the rights-of-way.
"Overhead facilities" means utility facilities and telecommunications facilities located above the surface of
the ground, including the underground supports and foundations for such facilities.
"Person" means corporations, companies, associations, joint stock companies, firms, partnerships, limited
liability companies, other entities and individuals.
"Personal wireless service," "wireless service facilities," "wireless facilities" and "facilities" used in this title
shall be defined in the same manner as in Title 47, USC, Section 332(c)(7)(C), as they may be amended
now or in the future, and includes facilities for the transmission and reception of radio or microwave
signals used for communication, cellular phone, personal communications services, enhanced
specialized mobile radio, and any other wireless services licensed by the FCC and unlicensed wireless
services.
"Protected areas" are: (a) the area commonly known as the Barge -Chestnut Neighborhood situated within
the area bounded on the west by South 36`h Avenue, on the north by Summitview Avenue, on the east by
South 16th Avenue, and on the south by Tieton Drive; (b) established federal, state or local historic
districts or historic district overlay zones; (c) proposed federal, state or local historic districts or historic
district overlay zones filed for record with the federal, state or local agency with jurisdiction (hereafter
"pending" historic district or overlay zones); (d) sites, buildings, structures or objects listed in the National
Register of Historic Places; (e) state and local wildlife refuges, and permanently protected archeological
sites; and (f) designated areas subject to preservation or protection through recorded conservation
easement.
"Provider" means every corporation, company, association, joint stock company, firm, partnership, limited
liability company, other entity and individual that provides personal wireless service over wireless service
facilities.
"Repairs and maintenance" means the replacement of any components of a wireless facility where the
replacement is identical to the component being replaced or for any matters that involve the normal repair
and maintenance of a wireless facility without the addition, removal or change of any of the physical or
visually discernible components or aspects of a wireless facility that will add to the visible appearance of
the facility as originally permitted.
"Rights-of-way" means land acquired or dedicated for public roads and streets, as further defined in
15.02.020, but does not include (a) structures, including poles and conduits, located within the right-of-
way; or (b) federally granted railroad rights-of-way acquired under 43 USC, Section 912, and related
provisions of federal law, that are not open for motor vehicle use.
"Right-of-way use permit" means the authorization by which the city grants permission to a service
provider to enter and use the right-of-way at a specific location for the purpose of installing, maintaining,
repairing, or removing identified facilities.
"Screening" means an opaque fence and/or evergreen landscaping that fully conceals the property it
encloses.
"Service provider" means every corporation, company, association, joint stock association, firm,
partnership, person, city, or town owning, operating or managing any facilities used to provide and
providing telecommunications or cable television services for hire, sale, or resale to the general public.
Service provider includes the legal successor to any such corporation, company, association, joint stock
association, firm, partnership, person, city or town.
"State" means the state of Washington.
"Surplus space" means that portion of the usable space on a utility pole which has the necessary
clearance from other pole users, as required by the orders and regulations of the Washington Utilities and
Transportation Commission, to allow its use by a telecommunications carrier for a pole attachment.
"Secondary use" means a use subordinate to the principle use of the property, such as commercial,
residential, utilities, etc.
"Security barrier" means a wall, fence, or berm that has the purpose of sealing a personal wireless service
facility from unauthorized entry or trespass.
"Telecommunications carrier" includes every person that directly or indirectly owns, controls, operates or
manages plant, equipment or property within the city, used or to be used for the purpose of providing
telecommunications services to locations outside the city.
"Telecommunications service" means transmission of information, except cable television service, by
wire, radio, optical cable, electromagnetic, or other similar means, for hire, sale, or resale to the general
public. For the purposes of definition "information" means knowledge or intelligence represented by any
form of writing, signs, signals, pictures, sounds, or any other symbols. Telecommunications service
excludes the over -the air transmission of broadcast television or broadcast radio signals, facilities
necessary for governmental purposes. The city shall act on an application within a reasonable period of
time, taking into account the nature and scope of the application. Any decision to deny an application
shall be in writing, supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. The city shall approve,
approve with condition, or deny the application in accordance with the time frames set forth in specific
sections of this chapter, YMC Title 16, Administration of Development Permit Regulations, and in
accordance with other applicable ordinances.
"Telecommunications service provider" includes every person that directly or indirectly owns, controls,
operates or manages plant, equipment or property within the city, used or to be used for the purpose of
offering telecommunications services, except cable television service, to residents, businesses or other
locations within the city.
"Tower" means any structure that is designed and constructed primarily for the purpose of supporting one
or more antennas, including self-supporting lattice towers, guy towers, or monopole towers. The term
encompasses personal wireless service facilities including radio and television transmission towers,
microwave towers, common -carrier towers, cellular telephone towers or personal communications
services towers, alternative tower structures, and the like. "Tower" also includes any structure built for the
sole or primary purpose of supporting FCC -licensed antennas and their associated facilities.
"Underground facilities" means utility and telecommunications facilities located under the surface of the
ground, excluding the underground foundations or supports for overhead facilities.
"Usable space" means the total distance between the top of a utility pole and the lowest possible
attachment point that provides the minimum allowable vertical clearance as specified in the orders and
regulations of the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission.
"Utility facilities" means the plant, equipment and property including, but not limited to, the poles, pipes,
mains, conduits, ducts, cables, wires, plant and equipment located under, on or above the surface of the
ground within rights-of-way and used or to be used for the purpose of providing utility or
telecommunications services.
"Utility pole" means any pole used primarily for the support and provision of lighting and/or transmission of
power, telecommunications services, telephone, cable television, and other similar utilities and related
fixtures, whether located within or outside the public right-of-way. Utility poles are subject to rights of
ownership, applicable franchise provisions, applicable regulation by the Washington Utilities and
Transportation Commission (WUTC), and statutes governing location and relocation.
"Unlicensed wireless services" means commercial mobile services that operate on public frequencies and
do not need an FCC license.
"Visual Impact Assessment" means visual impact assessment with photo -simulation of the proposed
facility.
The following are exempt from the provisions of this chapter and shall be permitted in all zones:
A. Industrial processing equipment and scientific or medical equipment using frequencies regulated by
the FCC.
B. Antennas and related equipment no more than ten feet in height that are being stored, shipped, or
displayed for sale.
C. Radar systems for military and civilian communication and navigation.
D. Wireless radio utilized for temporary emergency communications in the event of a disaster.
E. Licensed amateur (ham) radio stations.
F. Satellite dish antennas less than two meters in diameter, includingAirect-to-home or site satellite
services, when used as a secondary use of the property.
G. Routine maintenance, replacement or repair of a personal wireless service facility and related
equipment that does not constitute a modification, provided that compliance with the standards of this
chapter is maintained. Structural work or changes in height, type or dimensions of antennas, towers,
or buildings are subject to the provisions of 15.29�060(A).
H. Subject to compliance with all other applicablestandards of this chapter, a building permit application
need not be filed for emergency repair or maintenance of a personal wireless service facility until
thirty days after the completion of such emergency activity.
I. A COW or other temporary personal wireless telecommunications facility shall be permitted for a
maximum of ninety days in any three hundred sixty-five day period or during an emergency declared
by the city.
J. Telecommunications facilities of the City located upon City property and City utility poles and fixtures.
15.29:040 Permfts re uired.
The following table summarizes the permits required for the various types of personal wireless service
facilities that meet the standards of this chapter:
A. Standard Cellular Application - A complete application shall consist of the following;.
1. A complete application form as provided by the Community Development Department.
2. The name, address, signature and contact information of the applicant:
a. If the applicant is not the landowner, applicant shall provide written authorization signed
by the landowner authorizing the applicant to submit for permits on the landowner's
10
Table 29-1
Permit Table*
...........
Type of Use
Permit Type
Approval Type
Co-location/minor modification
Modification
Administrative
(No Substantial Change)
(if minor modification)
_..-.._........................-._................................................... .............. ......... ............. ............
Co-location/major modification
...............................................................................
Same as New Towers
Same as New Towers
(Substantial Change in Height)
(depending on location)
(depending on location)
New antenna (existing non -cellular
Standard Cellular
Administrative
structures, industrial and commercial
zoning districts)
.�o..r...Ci.ty_o ..w.n�e�d.�..�....�.�.�.�.......�.�..
New Tower (Public
�.�.........�...�.�.�.�.Standard... Cellular
ellular
Administrative /Lease
Property)
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................Standard
New Tower (commercial or industrial
Cellular....................__...._....._.......Administrative_.
. ..................
zoning district, more than 300 feet from
residential or rot�ected areal �...
m
New Tower (in or within 300 feet of
Standard Cellular - if
Administrative
residential zoning district,)
camouflaged by stealth
or
Cellular CUP** - if not
camouflaged by stealth)
Hearing Examiner
New Tower (in or within 300 feet of
Cellular CUP
Hearing Examiner
protected area). .._.._.____ _.. ................ .._._.
___.........
Any tower, antennae or modification
Cellular Variance
Hearing Examiner
not meeting standards of this Chapter
* Applicable permits include building permits and other permits required for installation.
** Cellular Conditional Use Permit
A. Standard Cellular Application - A complete application shall consist of the following;.
1. A complete application form as provided by the Community Development Department.
2. The name, address, signature and contact information of the applicant:
a. If the applicant is not the landowner, applicant shall provide written authorization signed
by the landowner authorizing the applicant to submit for permits on the landowner's
10
behalf. The written authorization signed by the landowner shall contain a statement and
acknowledgement by the landowner that the landowner shall be deemed a co -applicant
by virtue of such authorization.
b. If any applicant or co -applicant is a corporation, trust, association, or other organized
group or legal entity, it shall provide the date of such creation, and, if a foreign
corporation, a copy of the certificate of authority filed with the state of Washington,
Secretary of State's Office.
3. Evidence that the applicant is an FCC -licensed telecommunications provider or that it has
agreements with an FCC -licensed telecommunications provider for use or lease of the
support structure.
4. Legal description of the parcel,
5. Site plan, drawn to scale, clearly indicating the location, type and height of the current or
proposed wireless facility, accessory buildings, fencing, trees, landscaping, topographic
contours of the site at two -foot intervals, location of utility easements, on-site land uses and
zoning, adjacent land uses and zoning, adjacent roadways, proposed means of access,
setbacks from property lines, and all other items required in this chapter.
6. Elevation drawings of the proposed wireless facility, drawn to scale and showing dimensions
of the height and width of the facility.
7. Proposed colors and materials of all components of the proposed wireless facility and of any
fencing materials associated with the wireless facility.
8. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) checklist, if required.
9. A signed statement that the proposed installation will not cause physical or RF interference
with other telecommunications devices.
10. A copy of the FCC license for the intended use of the wireless telecommunications facilities..
11. Method of proposed illumination, including a lighting plan showing the location of all proposed
outdoor lighting fixtures, including direction and intensity of light, and including manufacture's
"cut -sheets" of all outdoor luminaries.
12. The location of existing or proposed structures, trees, and other significant site features
intended to camouflage the facility,
11
13. A letter signed by the applicant stating the wireless facility will comply with all FAA regulations
and EIA Standards and all other applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations.
14. The applicant, if not the wireless service provider, the applicant shall submit proof of lease
agreements with an FCC licensed telecommunications provider if such wireless service
provider is required to be licensed by the FCC.
15. Signed documentation such as the "Checklist to Determine Whether a Facility is Categorically
Excluded" to verify that the wireless telecommunication facility with the proposed installation
will be in full compliance with the current FCC RF Emissions guidelines (Non -ionizing
Electromagnetic Radiation — NIER). If not categorically excluded, a complete RF Emissions
study is required to provide verification.
16. A signed statement that the proposed installation will not cause physical or RF interference
with other telecommunications devices.
17. Applicable fees
18. Other information for each permit and structure type as specified in subsection B below..
B. Application by Permit Type, Structure Type and Location. In addition to the information required
for a standard permit in subsection A, the following information shall be provided for each specified
permit type or structure type:
1. New Towers and Base Stations.
a. A current map and aerial showing the location of the proposed tower and/or base station, a
map showing the locations and service areas of other personal wireless service facilities
operated by the applicant, or sites acquired by applicant for the benefit of, or on behalf of, any
other personal wireless service facility operator, and those proposed by the applicant that are
close enough to impact service within the city.
b. The approximate distance between the proposed tower and the nearest residential unit and
residentially zoned properties.
c. A map showing the location of any properties that are within one mile of the proposed site that
are protected areas.
d. A statement by the applicant that the design of the tower will accommodate co -location of
additional antennas for future users.
12
e. A signed statement indicating that (1) the applicant and landowner agree they will allow co -
location of additional personal wireless service facilities by other providers on the applicant's
structure or within the same site location, subject to good faith negotiation of compensation
according to market rates, and (2) the applicant and/or landlord agree to remove the facility
within 90 days after abandonment.
f. An affidavit signed by the applicant, landowner (co -applicant), and the antenna support
structure owners, if different, indicating that:
i. They, together with their heirs, successors and assigns, agree to be jointly and
severally responsible to dismantle and remove the WCF/antenna support structure
and restore the site to its approximate original pre -structure condition within the
applicable time limits set forth in YMC 15.29.150 following receipt of a letter from the
city indicting that the facility is deemed abandoned or in violation of this chapter; and
ii. They consent to co -location, at reasonable terms, of as many antennas and related
equipment as feasible, including those of other communication providers, on the
applicant's structure/site, and
iii. In the event a permit is issued pursuant to this chapter, they authorize the city to
record such affidavit or a memorandum thereof with the Yakima County Auditor
against title to the property for which the permit was issued.
g. A landscape and irrigation plan showing all methods to landscape, irrigate, and screen the
base of new facilities.
h. A statement from the applicant explaining and demonstrating how the proposed site fits into
its overall network within the city.
i. An explanation of proposed methods of camouflaging (including stealth if applicable) and how
the proposed camouflaging reflects conditions of the surrounding site and area.
2. Facilities in Residential Zoning Districts and Protected Areas.
a A statement describing the applicant's effort to first locate the proposed communications
facilities on a government facility, a private institutional structure such as a hospital or school,
or other appropriate existing structures outside the residential zone or protected area and
within a half -mile radius of the proposed site, and explaining why, based upon valid
considerations including physical constraints, and technological feasibility, no more
appropriate location is available.
13
b. A description of any existing buildings taller than 35 feet within a half -mile of the proposed
tower or antenna which from a location standpoint could provide part of a network to provide
transmission of signals.
c. A statement describing the applicant's effort to first contact the owners of structures in excess
of thirty-five feet within a one-quarter mile radius of the site proposed and which from a
location standpoint could meet the coverage/capacity objectives of the facility in the
applicant's network. The statement shall, if applicable, confirm whether the applicant asked
for permission to install the antenna on those structures and whether he or she was denied
permission of use for reasons other than the ability or refusal of the applicant to pay a market
rate for use of the alternative structures.
3. Modification Permit.
a. Elevation drawings of the existing wireless facility, drawn to scale and showing dimensions of
the height and width of the facility. (This drawing is required in addition to elevation drawing
of proposed facility described under subsection "A" above);
b. A map showing the location of any properties that are within one mile of the proposed site that
are protected areas;
c. A landscape and irrigation plan showing all methods to landscape and screen the base of the
modified telecommunication facility;
d. A computation and description of proposed modification establishing whether or not such
modification constitutes a substantial change in the physical dimensions of the existing facility
(if the application is for modification of an existing facility); and
e. Written authorization signed by the owner of said facility authorizing its modification.
(Required if the applicant is not the owner of the existing wireless facility).
a. An explanation of proposed methods of camouflaging and how the proposed camouflaging
reflects conditions of the surrounding site and area.
b. A statement from the applicant describing how he/she believes the proposal addresses the
criteria for a conditional use permit prescribed in Section 15.29.100.
c. A list of owners of property within 300 feet of the site and their associated mailing addresses.
14
5. Cellular Variance
a. A statement from the applicant describing how he/she believes the proposal addresses the
criteria for a cellular height variance prescribed in Section 15.29.110.
a. A statement describing the requested variance and why it is needed.
b. A list of owners of property within 300 feet of the site and their associated mailing addresses.
C. Applicant to provide Notice. The city may also require applicant to post notice at a location or
locations deemed appropriate by the city, and will provide notice to the governing body of any
affected historic district association or organization. Applicant shall provide an affidavit that all
required notices have been posted and published as required. Additionally, and without limitation, the
city may use any other means deemed advisable to provide advance notice to the public.
D. Fees. The application for a permit listed above shall be accompanied by a filing fee in the amount set
forth in Table 29-2 below.
Table 29-2
Application Fees*
Permit Type Fee
Modification if minEL ___ _ _ _$300.00
ification jif maJpr)................... s....s__ _ s____ $500.00
Mod .
Standard Cellular $500.00
Cellular Variance $1,500.00
Cellular Conditional Use Permit $3,500.00
*
Separate fee required for each permit type associated with application
15.2,9.;960 Development ,Standards
A. Modifications to an existing wireless facility or base station.
Minor Mg,dification. Any modification of or co -location on an existing wireless facility that does not
substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station (as defined in
subsection 2 below), even if it exceeds the underlying standards of the zoning district, shall be
deemed a "minor modification" and shall be administratively approved under a modification
permit.
15
2. Maior Modification. Any modification of or co -location on an existing wireless facility that
substantially changes the physical dimensions of an existing wireless tower or base station shall
be deemed a "major modification". A substantial change occurs if:
a. the mounting of the proposed antenna on the tower would increase the existing height of the
tower by more than 10%, or by the height of one additional antenna array with separation
from the nearest existing antenna not to exceed twenty feet, whichever is greater; or
b. the mounting of the proposed antenna would involve the installation of more than the
standard number of new equipment cabinets for the technology involved, not to exceed four,
or more than one new equipment shelter; or
c. the mounting of the proposed antenna would involve adding an appurtenance to the body of
the tower that would protrude from the edge of the tower more than twenty feet, or more than
the width of the tower structure at the level of the appurtenance, whichever is greater, except
that the mounting of the proposed antenna may exceed the size limits set forth in this
paragraph if necessary to shelter the antenna from inclement weather or to connect the
antenna to the tower via cable; or
d. The mounting of the proposed antenna would involve excavation outside the current tower
site, defined as the current boundaries of the leased or owned property surrounding the tower
and any access or utility easements currently related to the site.
3. Major Modification — Required Permits. A major modification shall be process under the same
permit types as new towers located in the same zone and area. (See Table 29-1 — Permit Table.)
B. Co -Location Capable — New Structures. To reduce the number of antenna support structures
needed in the city in the future, the following standards apply to new towers or base stations:
1. R@guiremignt and Waiver. New proposed support structures shall be designed to accommodate
at least two (2) additional antenna arrays equal to those of the applicant, and located as close to
the applicant's antenna as possible without causing interference. This requirement may be
waived if such design is not feasible for aesthetic reasons necessary to preserve camouflaging or
stealth structures in residential or protected areas, or provided that the applicant, in writing,
demonstrates that the provisions of future shared usage of the tower is not technologically
feasible or creates an unnecessary and unreasonable burden, based upon:
a. The kind of wireless telecommunications facilities site and structure proposed; \
b. The number of existing and potential licenses without wireless telecommunications facilities
spaces/sites;
16
c. Available space on existing and approved towers or other appropriate structures.
2. Owner Certification. The owner of a proposed tower, and his/her successors in interest, shall
either:
a. Certify that a Master License Agreement with another wireless provider or providers exists
stating mutually acceptable terms and conditions for co -location for wireless facilities on the
tower and site; or
b. Certify that the owner and owner's successors will negotiate in good faith for the co -location
and shared use of the proposed tower by other wireless service providers in the future, and
shall allow shared use of the tower if another telecommunications provider agrees in writing
to pay reasonable charges. The charges may include, but are not limited to, a pro rata share
of the cost of site selection, planning, project administration, land costs, site design,
construction and maintenance financing, return on equity, less depreciation, and all of the
costs of adapting the tower or equipment to accommodate a shared user without causing
electromagnetic interference.
C. Co -location Encouraged — Existing Structures. To minimize adverse visual impacts associated
with the proliferation of towers, co -location of personal wireless service facilities on existing is
encouraged as follows:
1, Co -location is permitted by right under a modification permit, unless the modification constitutes a
substantial change to the tower and/or base station pursuant to Section 6409(a) of the Middle
Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012. Changes to tower height that constitutes a
"substantial change" as defined by Section 15.29.060(A)(2) are subject to all provisions
applicable to new towers and base stations described in this chapter.
2. The city may deny an application to construct new facilities if the applicant has not shown by
substantial evidence that it has made a diligent effort to mount the facilities on an existing
structure or tower within one-half mile of the proposed facility.
3. All wireless service providers or lessees or agents thereof shall cooperate in good faith to
accommodate co -location with competitors.
D. Required Parking. If the cell site is fully automated, adequate parking shall be required for
maintenance workers. If the site is not automated, arrangements for adequate off-street parking shall
be made and documentation thereof provided to the city.
E. Balloon Test. A balloon test is required for any application requiring a conditional use permit or
variance. Additionally, the administrator may require a balloon test for any new wireless facility for
17
which the administrator finds that such test will enable the city to better determine appropriate means
of camouflage or other conditions.
F. Facilities in or within 300 feet of Residential Zone or Protected Area. The following standards
apply to wireless facilities within residential zoning districts, and within 300 feet of residential zoning
districts.
1. flue Diligence Requirements. Applications to place antennas and towers in residential zoning
districts or within 300 feet of residential zoned districts shall be subject to the following conditions:
a. The applicant shall demonstrate that a diligent effort has been made to locate the proposed
communications facilities on a government facility, a private institutional structure such as a
hospital or school, or other appropriate existing structures within a nonresidential zone within
a half -mile radius of the proposed site, and that due to valid considerations including physical
constraints, and technological feasibility, no more appropriate location is available.
b. Applicants are required to demonstrate: (i) that they have contacted the owners of structures
in excess of thirty-five feet within a one-quarter mile'radius of the site proposed and which
from a location standpoint could meet the coverage/capacity objectives of the facility in the
applicant's network; (ii) have asked for permission to install the antenna on those structures;
and (iii) were denied permission of use for reasons other than the ability or refusal of the
applicant to pay a market rate for use of the,alternative structures.
c. The information submitted by the applicant shall include (i) a map of the area to be served by
the tower or antenna, (ii) its relationship to other cell sites in the applicant's network, and (iii)
an evaluation of existing buildings taller than 35 feet, within a half -mile of the proposed tower
or antenna which from a location standpoint could provide part of a network to provide
transmission of signals.
2. NEPA Requirements. Antennas and tower facilities proposed to be located in or within 300 feet of
an established or pending federal, state or local historic district or historic district overlay, are
facilities that may affect districts, sites, buildings, structures or objects, significant in American
history, architecture, archeology, engineering or culture, that are listed, or are eligible for listing, in
the National Register of Historic Places. (See 16 U.S.C. 470w(5); 36 CFR part 60 and 800.).
Applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), including but not limited to the Environment Assessment provisions of 47 C.F.R. 1.1307,
et seq. and comply with any mitigations imposed therein.
3. Certificate of Appropriateness Re aired. New wireless facilities, and any modification to existing
wireless facilities that constitutes a "substantial change" pursuant to 15.29.060(A)(2), proposed to
be located in a local historic district, historic district overlay, or other protected historic site, listed
in the City of Yakima registry of historic places, require a certificate of appropriateness from the
Yakima Historic Preservation Commission in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter
18
11.62 YMC prior to the issuance of any permit for the construction, installation or alteration of
wireless facilities in such areas.
G. Building Permits Required. Issuance of cellular permits under this chapter shall authorize issuance
of any necessary and appropriate building permits to accomplish such modification, subject to
compliance with applicable permit requirements and fees. Applicant shall submit complete
applications for all other construction permits necessary to accomplish the construction.
H. Financial Security Required. The applicant shall provide a financial guarantee in the form of a bond
or other financial instrument acceptable to the city in an amount sufficient to reimburse all costs
associated with facility removal should it be necessary.
All facilities shall comply with the following standards:
1. Setback. Setbacks for facilities shall comply with the setback requirements of Chapter 15.05
YMC and Table 5-1.
a. Right -of -Way Setback Exception. The setback requirement is not applicable if the antenna
and antenna support structure are located in the city right-of-way, provided the antenna is
attached to an existing city tower or facility.
OPTION 1:
15.9.00t0esi�n Criteria
All facilities shall comply with the following standards:
1. Setback. A tower's setback shall be measured from the base of the tower to the pr ert line of
he parcel on which it Is located. Except a therwise s t forth elow, setbacks Setbacks for
facilities shall comply with the setback requirements of Chapter 15.05 YMC and Table 5-1.
a, Right -of -Way Setback Exception. The setback requirement is not applicable if the antenna
and antenna support structure are located in the city right-of-way, provided the antenna is
attached to an existing city tower or facility.
b. ProLtpcted Areas, s. In protected ar as or where a ro os d tower is on P.-rolpqrty abu tin a
rote fled area towers shell be set tagk from all groperty Hi-res a disigrigg e ual to one
hundred ten 110%percent of tower height as measured from round level..
19
c. Residential Zoned Districts. In residential zoned districts or where a progosed tower is o�j
property abutting a residential zonedi district, towers shaH be set back a minimum of one-half
the tower height.
Minor Modifications. Any expansion of a base station or extensioni of height of a!Lg��
wireless facility that COM,fitUtes a minor modification shallbe considgred, in, corntoliance with
the setback reguiroments Previously approved for the existing wireless facility.
Z Tower and Antenna Meig hi
and-ar4teop,a4 the -me
or antem— f.111— 0
Wireless fggilily is as 1:-Qlllowg:
20
a In or within 300 feet of a residential zoning district or protected area no wireless facility shall
exceed the height allowed by the underlying height limitation for the zoning distract in which
the facifilyis Igg ted excel?l thal if Jhe fgcility facilityis c mo fN ed i stealth ursuauat to _Section
15.29.070 them ximum height is sdxt 60 feet.
b. In CBD and B-1 zoning districts — the maximum height is sixty 60 feet.
c. In all other zones — the maximum height is one hundred ten 110 feet.
d. In any zoning district the ag2ficant shall have the burden of demonstrating that the tower is
the minimum height re wired to meet the,proven communications need.
e. Structures that exceed the ab ve hei h lin-lit§ cngy be_permitted by variance pursuant to the
ell ul r height variance 'provisions of Section 15.29.110.
Color; Towers shall have a dark color such as forest green, charcoal or dark brown, depending on
the surroundings or background that minimizes their visibility, unless a different color is required
by the FAA. Colors shall be maintained and repainted as necessary to maintain original color, to
repair fading through weathering, and to prevent flaking.
4. Lights, 'Signals and Stens. No signals, lights, or signs shall be permitted on towers unless
required or allowed by the FCC or the FAA. Should lighting be required, in cases where there are
residents located within a distance that is three hundred percent of the height of the tower, then
dual mode lighting shall be requested from the FAA.
5. Fencing & security. The antenna support structure shall be secured against unauthorized entry.
A well -constructed wall or wooden fence not less than six feet in height from the finished grade
shall be provided around each personal wireless service facility. Access to the tower shall be
through a locked gate. The use of chain link, plastic, vinyl, or wire fencing is prohibited unless it is
fully screened from public view by dense vegetative screen at least eight feet in depth along all
visible portions of the fence.
6. Anti -climbing f evioe.. All support structures shall be fitted with anti -climbing devices, as
approved by the manufacturers.
7. Camouf; g_e Requirements. All new towers and base stations, and major modifications to towers
and base stations, must be camouflaged as defined by this chapter. Appropriate camouflaging is
determined on a site-specific basis, taking into account existing structures and natural features
both on and surrounding the site. When considering surrounding features that the facility is
designed to reflect, non -conforming structures shall not be considered; nor shall structures such
as utility poles, signs, smoke stacks, mechanical equipment, utility substations, other wireless -
based structures or similar features that contribute to visual clutter of an area be used to
determine an acceptable camouflage technique. In all zones, towers shall be camouflaged using
21
the least visually and physically intrusive facility that is not technologically or commercially
impracticable under the facts and circumstances, Camouflaging for new towers and base stations
shall include the following:
a. Landscaping. Landscaping is an element of camouflage. Landscaping, as described herein,
shall be required to buffer personal wireless service facilities to soften the appearance of the
cell site. The city may permit any combination of existing vegetation, topography, walls,
decorative fences or other on-site features instead of landscaping, if they achieve the same
degree of screening as the required landscaping. If the antenna is mounted flush on an
existing building, and other equipment is housed inside an existing structure, landscaping
shall not be required.
buffers. The visual impacts of a personal wireless service facility shall be mitigated through
landscaping or other screening materials at the base of the tower and ancillary structures.
Further, existing vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum extent practicable and may
be used as a substitute for or as a supplement to landscaping requirements. The following
landscaping and buffering shall be required around the perimeter of the tower and accessory
structures:
i. A row of evergreen trees a minimum of.six feet tall at planting a maximum of six feet apart
shall be planted around the perimeter of the fence.
ii. A continuous hedge at least thirty-six inches high at planting capable of growing to at
least forty-eight inches in height within eighteen months shall be planted in front of the
tree line referenced above.
iii. The tower or mount shall be placed amongst and adjacent to (within twenty feet) of the
drip line of three or more evergreen trees at least seventy-five percent of the height of the
facility.
iv. An automatic irrigation system providing irrigation as needed according to plant type,
season and maturity of plantings.
c. Continued Maintenance. Applicant shall have a continuing obligation to maintain the
landscaping improvements. In the event that landscaping is not maintained at the required
level, the city after giving thirty days' advance written notice may maintain or establish the
landscaping and bill both the owner and lessee for such costs until such costs are paid in full,
or may seek enforcement through any available remedy.
d. Trees leoordinq of Conditions. To ensure that trees associated with camouflaging and
screening is preserved, the following note shall be recorded on the property title:
22
All trees within 50 feet of the telecommunications facility located on this property, which serve to
screen the telecommunications facility, shall be retained for the life of the telecommunications
facility. Screening trees may only be removed if deemed diseased or dangerous by a certified
arborist. Before any trees can be removed a report from the certified arborist shall be submitted to
the City for review and approval. Unless approved by the City, only that portion of the tree required
to remove the hazard can be removed. The City may require the trees to be replaced by the
telecommunication provider.
8. Stealth Re uirements. Any facility in or within 300 feet of residential zoning district or protected
area must be concealed within a stealth structure unless otherwise approved through a Cellular
Conditional Use Permit. Stealth structures shall be designed as follows:
a. The stealth camouflage structure or facility must be compatible with surrounding development
by being either similar in height to surrounding structures, or a sufficient distance from
surrounding structures to create a significant visual separation;
b. Stealth designs reflect features that are indigenous to the area. For example, towers
designed to look like trees must be tree types that naturally or commonly occur in the
surrounding neighborhood or district. Towers designed to look like buildings or structures
must be of a design that reflects local architecture or structure types;
c. Stealth designs look reasonably similar to the items they intend to mimic. For example,
towers designed to look like flag poles have the common dimensions of flag poles, both in
height and girth. Towers designed to look like steeples on churches are of a height and scale
proportional to the building design. (Other churches in the area can provide examples of
acceptable proportions between the size of the steeple and the size of the church buildings.)
d. After completion of construction, the antennas, towers and related facilities will be maintained
within the stealth structure so as to be concealed from view or be viewed as the camouflaging
stealth structure; and
e. The administrator may impose other conditions or mitigations reasonably related to such
structures as warranted by special conditions of the subject property and the type of
camouflaging structure, including but not limited to additional or supplemental setback
requirements, maintenance requirements, and other measures intended to accomplish the
purposes of this chapter and section.
9. Antenna Criteria. Antenna on or above a structure shall be subject to the following:
a. The antenna shall be architecturally compatible with the building and wall on which it is
mounted, and shall be designed and located so as to minimize any adverse aesthetic impact.
23
b. The antenna shall be mounted on a wall of an existing building in a configuration as flush to
the wall as technically possible and shall not project above the wall on which it is mounted
unless it must be for technical reasons. In no event shall an antenna project more than
sixteen feet above the roofline, including parapets.
c. The antenna shall be constructed, painted, or fully screened to match as closely as possible
the color and texture of the building and wall on which it is mounted.
d. The antenna may be attached to an existing mechanical equipment enclosure which projects
above the roof of the building, but may not project any higher than the enclosure.
e. On buildings thirty feet or less in height, the antenna may be mounted on the roof if the
following additional criteria are satisfied:
L The city finds that it is not technically possible or aesthetically desirable to mount the
antenna on a wall.
ii. Roof -mounted antenna and related base stations are screened from view by materials
that are consistent and compatible with the design, color, and materials of the building.
iii. No portion of the antenna may exceed sixteen feet above the height of the existing
building.
iv. If the antenna is placed on the roof or above the top of a building, it shall provide a
minimum setback equal to the height of the panel antenna from the rooftop edge.
v. Antenna, antenna arrays, and support structures shall not extend more than sixteen feet
above the highest point of the structure on which they are mounted. The antenna,
antenna array, and their support structure shall be mounted so as to blend with the
structure to which the antenna is attached. The antenna and its support structure shall be
designed to comply with applicable building code standards. The antenna, antenna array,
and their support structure shall be a color that matches the field or trim color of the
structure on which they are mounted.
10. Guy Wires Restricted. No guy or other support wires shall be used in connection with such
antenna, antenna array, or its support structure except when used to anchor the antenna,
antenna array, or support structure to an existing building to which such antenna, antenna array,
or support structure is attached.
11. pu�Structures. The standards for equipment structures (base stations) are as follows:
a. Ground Structure:
24
i. The maximum floor area is five hundred square feet and the maximum height is twelve
feet, unless the applicant demonstrates that a larger area and/or increased height is
necessary to accommodate the proposed facility and possible co -location.
ii. Except in unusual circumstances or for other public policy considerations the equipment
building may be located no more than two hundred fifty feet from the tower or antenna.
iii. Ground level buildings shall be screened from view by landscape plantings, fencing, or
other appropriate means, as specified herein or in other city ordinances.
iv. In instances where equipment buildings are located in residential zones, equipment
buildings shall comply with setback requirements and shall be designed so as to conform
in appearance with nearby residential structures, including building form, materials and
color.
b. Roof -mounted Structure:
i. Equipment buildings mounted on a roof shall be designed to match and be integrated into
the exterior design and materials of the building. Equipment for roof -mounted antenna
may also be located within the building on which the antenna is mounted.
ii. Equipment buildings, antenna, and related equipment shall occupy no more than twenty-
five percent of the total roof area of the building the facility is mounted on, which may
vary if co -location and adequate camouflage is used.
15.29.080 Site Selection Standards
A. Protected Areas. Protected areas are: (a) the area commonly known as the Barge -Chestnut
Neighborhood situated within the area bounded on the west by South 36th Avenue, on the north by
West Summitview Avenue, on the east by South 16`h Avenue, and on the south by Tieton Drive; (b)
established federal, state or local historic districts or historic district overlay zones; (c) proposed
federal, state or local historic districts or historic district overlay zones filed for record with the federal,
state or local agency with jurisdiction (hereafter "pending" historic district or overlay zones); (d) sites,
buildings, structures or objects listed in the National Register of Historic Places; (e) state and local
wildlife refuges, and permanently protected archeological sites; and (f) designated areas subject to
preservation or protection through recorded conservation easement. Except as provided in Section
15.29.080(B), antennas and antenna support facilities are not permitted in or within 300 feet of any
protected area.
B. Discouraged Areas in B-2 and LCC Zoning Districts. New antenna and antenna support structures
should be avoided in the following locations within the B-2 and LCC zones when possible:
1. Within 300 feet of residential areas
25
2. Within 300 feet of protected areas.
An applicant that wishes to locate in these areas shall demonstrate that a diligent effort has been
made to locate the proposed communications facilities on a site, private institutional structure, or
other appropriate existing structures more than 300 feet from residential zoned districts or more than
300 feet from a protected area, and that due to valid considerations including physical constraints,
and technological feasibility, no more appropriate location is available. Such antennas, towers and
related facilities may approved by the administrator, subject to the administrator's approval of
camouflage or disguise by stealth. Such proposed structures are also subject to the balloon test
and/or photo -simulation requirements of Section 15.29.130 in order to assist the administrator in
determining appropriate camouflage and/or stealth requirements.
C. Priority of locations. The order of priorities for locating new personal wireless service facilities shall
be as follows:
1. Co4ocation. (See Sections 15.29.060(6) and 15.29.060(C))
2. Industrial zoning dgstrji tits.
3. Publicgget. (See Section 15.29.080(E).
4. Existi! structures-- Industrial and commercial zonin disti,ict . (e.g., buildings, towers, and
water towers).
5. Local Business District (B-2,)and Large Coovenience Center tLCCt zonin t districts.
6. Residential zoned districts.
7. Protected areas.
D. Site selection criteria.
1. Any applicant proposing to construct an antenna support structure, or mount an antenna on an
existing structure, shall evaluate different sites within a one-quarter mile radius to determine
which site will provide the best screening and camouflaging while providing adequate service to
satisfy its function in the applicant's system. If the applicant proposes a site that does not provide
the best opportunities for screening and camouflaging then the applicant must demonstrate by
engineering evidence why the facility cannot be located at the site where it can be best screened
and camouflaged and why the antenna must be located at the proposed site.
2. Wireless facility installations, including any low power mobile radio service facilities, shall be
located and designed to minimize any significant adverse impact on residential property values.
Facilities shall be placed in locations where the existing topography, vegetation, buildings, or
other structures provide the greatest amount of camouflage.
26
E. Siting priority on public property.
1. Order of Preference. Where public property is sought to be utilized by an applicant, priority for the
use of government-owned land for wireless antennas and towers will be given to the following
entities in descending order:
a. City of Yakima, except that any facilities proposed for location within the Airport Safety
Overlay (ASO) are further subject to the limitations and requirements of Chapter 15.30 YMC;
b. Public safety agencies, including law enforcement, fire and ambulance services, which are
not part of the city of Yakima and private entities with a public safety agreement with the city
of Yakima;
c. Other governmental entities, for uses that are not related to public safety; and
d. Entities providing licensed commercial wireless telecommunication services including cellular,
personal communication services (PCS), specialized mobilized radio (SMR), enhanced
specialized mobilized radio (ESMR), data, internet, paging, and similar services that are
marketed to the general public.
2. Subject to City Discretion. The placement of wireless service facilities on city -owned property is
subject to the discretion of the city, approval of lease terms that are acceptable to the city, and
must comply with the following requirements:
a. The facilities will not interfere with the purpose for which the city -owned property is intended;
b. The facilities will have no significant adverse impact on surrounding private property, or any
significant adverse impact is mitigated by screening, camouflage or other condition required
by city;
c. The applicant shall obtain adequate liability insurance naming the city as loss payee and
commit to a lease agreement that includes equitable compensation for the use of public land
and other necessary provisions and safeguards. The city shall establish fees after
considering comparable rates in other cities, potential expenses, risks to the city, and other
appropriate factors;
d. The applicant will submit a letter of credit, performance bond, or other security acceptable to
the city to cover the costs of removing the facilities;
e. The lease shall provide that the applicant must agree that in the case of a declared
emergency or documented threat to public health, safety or welfare and following reasonable
notice the city may require the applicant to remove the facilities at the applicant's expense.
Telecommunication facilities serving essential government services and other government
agencies shall have priority over other users.
27
f. The applicant must reimburse the city for any related costs that the city incurs because of the
presence of the applicant's facilities;
g. The applicant must obtain all necessary land use approvals; and
h. The applicant must cooperate with the city's objective to encourage co -locations and thus limit
the number of cell sites requested.
F. Special Requirements for Parks. The use of city -owned parks for personal wireless service facilities
brings with it special concerns due to the unique nature of these sites. The placement of personal
wireless service facilities in a park will be allowed only when the following additional requirements are
met:
a. The city parks commission has reviewed and made a recommendation regarding proposed
personal wireless service facilities to be located in the park and this recommendation has
been forwarded to the city council for consideration and approval;
b. In no case shall personal wireless service facilities be allowed in designated critical areas
(except aquifer recharge areas) unless they are co -located on existing facilities;
c. Before personal wireless service facilities may be located in public parks, visual impacts and
disruption of normal public use shall be mitigated;
'f . g.09,0 Safety and Industry Standards
A. Federal Requirements. All towers must meet or exceed current standards and regulations of the
FAA, the FCC, and any other agency of the federal government with the authority to regulate towers
and antennas. If those standards and regulations are changed, then wireless service providers
governed by this chapter shall bring their towers and antennas into compliance with the revised
standards and regulations within six months of their effective date or the timelines provided by the
revised standards and regulations, whichever time period is longer. Failure to bring towers and
antennas into compliance with the revised standards and regulations shall constitute grounds for
revocation of permit.
B. Building Codes — Safety Standards. To ensure the structural integrity of towers, the owner of a
tower shall ensure that it is maintained in compliance with standards contained in applicable city
building codes and the applicable standards for towers that are published by the Electronic Industries
Association ("EIA"), as amended from time to time. If, upon inspection, the city concludes that a tower
fails to comply with such codes and standards and constitutes a danger to persons or property, then
upon notice being provided to the owner of the tower, the owner shall have thirty days to bring the
28
tower into compliance with such standards. If the owner fails to bring its tower into compliance within
thirty days, the city may remove the tower at the owner's expense.
C. Data Transmission Standards. Towers shall be constructed to applicable Electronic Industry
Association (EIA) Standards, which may be amended from time to time. Further, any improvements
or additions to existing towers shall require submission of site plans stamped by a professional
engineer that demonstrates compliance with the EIA Standards and all other good industry practices.
The plans shall be submitted and reviewed at the time building permits are requested.
No personal wireless service provider or lessee shall fail to assure that its antenna complies at all
times with the current applicable Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Radio Frequency (RF)
Emission standards.
D. Inspection Report Filing. Within 60 days of any required safety inspection performed in accordance
with EIA and FCC standards, the facility operator shall file a copy of the report with the city. Each year
after the facility becomes operational the facility operator shall file with the city a copy of maintenance
reports for the prior twelve months.
15.29.100 Cellular Conditional Use Permit Criteria
A. Uses Requiring Cellular Conditional Use Permit. Any wireless facility listed in Table 1 as a Cellular
Conditional Use Permit (Cellular CUP) requires submittal of a Cellular CUP application as described
in Section 15.29.050. Cellular CUP's require a public hearing before the hearing examiner and final
approval by the hearing examiner.
B. Criteria for Granting Cellular Conditional Use Permit. Before any conditional use may be granted,
the hearing examiner must find that:
1. The proposed use will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the
property or improvements in the vicinity of the proposed use or in the district in which the subject
property is located;
2. The proposed use shall meet or exceed the performance standards that are required in the
zoning district the proposed use will occupy;
3. The proposed development shall be compatible generally with the surrounding land uses in terms
of traffic and pedestrian circulation, building and site design;
4. The proposed use shall be in keeping with the goals and policies of the comprehensive land use
policy plan;
5. All reasonable and practicable measures have been taken to minimize the possible adverse
impacts, which the proposed use may have on the area in which it is located.
29
C. Authority to Impose Conditions. The hearing examiner may impose any conditions necessary to
address identified impacts associated with the proposed wireless facility and ensure that the facility is
compatible with surrounding development. The hearing examiner may:
1. Increase requirements in the standards, criteria or policies established by this title;
2. Stipulate the exact location as a means of minimizing hazards to life, limb, property damage,
erosion, landslides or traffic;
3. Require structural features or equipment essential to serve the same purpose set forth above;
4. Impose conditions similar to those set forth in subsections (ii)(b) and (ii)(c) of this section as
deemed necessary to establish parity with uses permitted in the same zone in their freedom from
nuisance generating features in matters of noise, odors, air pollution, wastes, vibration, traffic,
physical hazards, and similar matters; provided, the hearing examiner may not, in connection with
action on a conditional use permit, reduce the requirements specified by this title as pertaining to
any use or otherwise reduce the requirements of this title in matters for which a variance is the
remedy provided;
5. Assure that the degree of compatibility with the purpose of this title shall be maintained with
respect to the particular use on the particular site and in consideration of other existing and
potential uses, within the general area in which the use is proposed to be located;
6. Recognize and compensate for variations and degree of technological processes and equipment
as related to the factors of noise, smoke, dust, fumes, vibration, odors, and hazard or public
need; and
7. Require the posting of construction and maintenance financial security sufficient to secure to the
city one hundred fifty percent of the estimated cost of construction and/or installation and fifteen
percent maintenance of required improvements.
D. Required Condition of Approval. The decision shall include a condition that building permits not be
issued until financial security is provided pursuant to Section 15.29.060(H) of this chapter. This
requirement applies whether specifically stated in the decision or not.
E. Conditional use permits — Effect of hearing examiner decision. The decision of the hearing
examiner on a conditional use permit shall be final and conclusive with right of appeal to the city
council in accordance with YMC 16.08.030.
A. Applicability. A cellular height variance is required for any modification to an existing tower,
antennae, or base station or construction of a new tower, antennae, or base station that requires a
30
height in excess of height limits defined in Section 15.29.070(2). rafraeilat-.t'iwalatfear-floe
B. Criteria for Granting Cellular Height Variance. The hearing examiner shall have the authority to
grant a variance from the maximum height allowed for a tower, antenna or base station when, in
his/her opinion, the conditions as set forth herein have been found to exist. A cellular height variance
is subject to:
1. Compliance with Standard Cellular Permit standards of Section 15.29.120(D);
2. Standard variance procedures in Chapter 15.21 YMC (not including review criteria); and
3. The following criteria:
a. The additional height is necessary to provide adequate service to the residents of the city and
no other alternative is available.
b. A significant portion of the tower and related facilities are screened by existing evergreen
trees or existing structures.
c. Strict application of current height limits would deprive a tower or antenna operator from
achieving the minimum height required to meet the proven communications need.
d. The structure for which the variance is requested is in harmony with the general purpose and
intent of this chapter.
e. There is evidence that additional height is required to provide adequate service to the
residents of the city and that no other alternative is available;
f. There are special circumstances applicable to the subject property such as shape,
topography, location, or surroundings that prevent the operator from achieving the minimum
height required to meet the proven communications need;
g. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity;
h. Any visual impacts will be mitigated to the greatest extent possible using camouflage, stealth
or screening as defined by this chapter;
The location of the tower and antenna has been chosen so as to minimize the visibility of the
facility from residentially zoned land and to minimize the obstruction of scenic views from
public properties; and
j. The variance is the minimum necessary to grant relief to the applicant.
31
C. Decision. Based upon the information provided by the applicant, the results of the balloon test and
visual impact analysis, and findings of compliance or non-compliance with the criteria set forth herein,
the examiner may:
1. Approve an application for a variance, which may include additional requirements above those
specified in this title or require modification of the proposal to comply with specified requirements
or local conditions; or
2. Deny a variance if the proposal does not meet or cannot be conditioned or modified to meet
subsection (c) of this section,
D. Burden of Proof_ The applicant has the burden of proving that the proposed cellular height variance
meets all of the criteria in Section 15.29.110(B).
A. Pre -application Meeting. To expedite review of applications, a pre -application meeting with the
Administrator is strongly encouraged. The pre -application meeting will help the applicant determine
what permits may be required for his or her proposed wireless facility, what additional information or
studies may help in the review of the application, and what stealth and/or camouflaging techniques
might be appropriate for the site. The administrator may help to identify protected areas and may
also suggest vantage points from which a visual impact assessment should be based.
B. Review for Completeness. The administrator shall review each application for completeness as
specified in Section 15.29.050. After review of the application, the administrator shall issue a
determination of completeness or incompleteness in accordance with Chapter 16.05 YMC. In
addition to information required for a complete application, the Administrator may request additional
information from the applicant to review the proposal and determine compliance with the provisions of
this chapter. Except for the timelines specified in Section 15.29.120(C) for applications to modify an
existing wireless facility or base station, such administrative review, processing and issuance of
administrative permits shall comply with the city's timelines and procedures governing review and
issuance of administrative permits in Section 16.04 YMC..
C. Modification Permit Review —Applications for modifications to existing wireless facilities or base
stations shall be reviewed as follows:
1. Determination of mayor minor modification. Within 45 days of receipt of a complete application
for modification, the administrator shall review and issue a written determination as to whether the
requested modification is deemed a major or minor modification under the provisions of Section
15.29.060(A). The administrator may request additional information from the applicant or any
other entity to assist in this determination.
32
2. Finding of No Substantial Chan e — Minor modification, If the modification is deemed by the
administrator to be a minor modification under the provisions of Section 15.29.060(A), he shall
issue a modification permit, which may include conditions necessary to achieve compliance with
the provisions of this section. Issuance of the modification permit shall occur within 90 days after
receipt and approval of a complete application for a modification permit.
3. Finding of Substantial Change -- Ma"or modification. If the administrator determines that such
application constitutes a substantial change to the physical dimensions of an existing wireless
tower or base station, he shall issue a written determination that the change is a major
modification and direct the applicant to submit the appropriate application.(s) as specified in
Section Table 29-1 and Section 15.29.050.
D. Standard Cellular Permit Review — Standard cellular applications apply to all new wireless facilities
and base stations and to major modification of all existing wireless facilities and base stations.
Standard cellular applications shall be reviewed as follows:
1. Administrative Decision. All standard cellular applications shall be subject to administrative
review and decision unless they require an associated cellular conditional use permit or variance
as specified in Table 29-1
2 Camouflaging/Stealth Review, The Administrator shall review the proposed method of
camouflaging or stealth against conditions on or surrounding the site as follows:
a. The Administrator shall consider how proposed design of the tower, placement on the site,
topography of and surrounding the site, color, structures on and surrounding the site, and
natural features on and surrounding the site help to blend the wireless facility into its setting.
b. The Administrator may require a visual impact assessment as described in Section
15.29.130based upon lines of site or vantage points identified by the Administrator.
c. The Administrator shall determine if the proposed camouflaging or stealth reasonably
integrates the wireless facility into its setting. The Administrator may impose conditions to
ensure that the facility achieves this objective.
3. Compliance with Standards. The Administrator shall review the proposal against all other
standards of this chapter including, but not limited to, height, setbacks, color, design, lighting,
landscaping, screening, and co -location capacity, If any items are found to be not in compliance,
the Administrator shall notify the applicant and direct him or her to either submit within two weeks
revised plans to address the compliance issue, or direct the Administrator to render a decision on
the application as submitted.
33
4. Written Decision. The Administrator shall issue a written decision on the application within the
time frame specified in Section 16.07 YMC, identifying any items not in compliance with this
chapter, and including any conditions necessary to achieve compliance. The decision shall
include a condition that building permits not be issued until financial security is provided pursuant
to Section 151.29.060(G) of this chapter.
5. Appeals. The determination or decision of the administrator on any application under this chapter
shall constitute an administrative decision subject to appeal pursuant to Chapter 16.08 YMC.
E. Cellular Conditional Use Permit Review. Conditional use permit applications shall be reviewed as
follows:
1. Submittal of gppliqatign. An application for a conditional use permit under this chapter shall be
submitted to the administrator, who shall review such application for completeness and
compliance with filing requirements under this chapter and applicable codes of the city, in
accordance with the provisions and procedures of YMC 1.43.090 and Title 16 YMC.
2. Balloon Tests and Visual Impgct Assessment. The administrator shall instruct the applicant on
the requirements for both a balloon test and visual impact assessment. The administrator may
provide input on both the timing of the balloon test and the desired vantage points from which the
visual impact assessment will be based. Both the balloon test and visual impact assessment
shall be completed prior to the scheduled public hearing.
3. Additional Reports and Third -per review. The administrator shall have authority to request
additional information and reports from the applicant necessary to facilitate analysis of the
proposal, including but not limited to third party review in accordance with YMC 15.29.100 and
reports, surveys and tests as provided in this chapter, when the administrator , in his or her sole
discretion, deems such additional information necessary or appropriate to fully assess the impact
of the proposal and any reasonable alternatives, to address mitigation measures identified in
SEPA, NEPA or other environmental reviews, to address issues of site screening or other
measures to mitigate impacts upon the surrounding neighborhood, or to address any other impact
,to the life, health, safety or persons, or quiet enjoyment of property, identified by the administrator
as likely, with reasonable probability, to result from the proposed project.
4. Scheduling for _Hearing. Upon the administrator's determination that the application is complete
and in compliance with filing requirements of this chapter, and that required balloon tests, visual
impact assessments and other required reports have been finalized, the administrator in
coordination with the hearing examiner shall be responsible for assigning a date for and assuring
due notice of public hearing for each application, which date and notice shall be in accordance
with the provisions of Title 16 YMC.
34
5. Hearing Examiner _ Procedures -- Factors . When considering an application for a conditional
use permit, the hearing examiner shall consider the applicable standards, criteria and policies
established by this title as they pertain to the proposed use and may impose specific conditions
precedent to establishing this use.
F. Cellular Height Variance Review. A cellular height variance shall be processed as follows:
1. Procedures & Applicable Criteria. A cellular height variance shall be reviewed under the
procedures described in Chapter 15.21, except that the hearing examiner shall apply the criteria
for review and approval defined in this chapter.
2. Balloon Tests and Visual Impact Assessment. The administrator shall instruct the applicant on
the requirements for both a balloon test and visual impact assessment. The administrator may
provide input on both the timing of the balloon test and the desired vantage points from which the
visual impact assessment will be based. Both the balloon test and visual impact assessment
shall be completed prior to the scheduled public hearing.
3. Third Part Review. Applications for variance may also require third party review as described in
Section 15.29.140.
4. Hearing Examiner Decision. The hearing examiner shall determine whether the proposed
variance complies with the criteria for a variance in Section 15.29.110, and that the proposed
wireless facility complies with all other standards of this chapter. If the examiner finds that the
proposal does not comply with the criteria for a variance he shall deny the variance and
associated wireless facility. If the examiner finds that the proposal complies with the criteria for a
variance and with all other development standards of this chapter, he shall approve the variance
and the associated wireless facility. The Examiner may impose any conditions necessary to
ensure compliance with all standards.
G. Reapplication. Upon final action as set forth in this chapter in denying an application for a permit,
the city shall not accept further filing of an application for substantially the same matter within one
year from the date of any final denial of an application.
15.29.130 Balloon Tests — Visual Impact Assessments.
A. Balloon test. Where a balloon test is required, the applicant shall, prior to the public hearing on the
application, hold a balloon test. The applicant shall arrange to fly, or raise upon a temporary mast, a
brightly colored balloon, that is representative in size of the initial antenna array including all
standoffs, at the maximum height of the proposed tower. The dates, (including a second date, in case
of poor visibility on the initial date) times and location of this balloon test shall be advertised by the
35
applicant seven (7) and fourteen (14) days in advance of the first test date in a newspaper with a
general circulation in the City. The applicant shall inform the City, in writing, of the dates and times of
the test, at least fourteen (14) days in advance. The balloon shall be flown for at least seventy-two
(72) consecutive hours on the dates chosen. At least twenty-four (24) hours of this time shall be on a
weekend. No trees shall be removed to conduct the balloon test. A report with pictures from various
locations of the balloon shall be provided with the application. Photos of the balloon test from three
(3) locations located approximately three hundred feet from the base of the proposed tower and
spaced evenly in a circumference around the proposed tower, and three (3) locations located
approximately one-quarter mile from the base of the proposed tower shall be submitted within two
weeks after the commencement of the balloon test.
B. Visual Impact Assessment. A Visual Impact Assessment with photo -simulation of the
proposed facility is required for all applications that require a conditional use permit or variance, and
may be required by the administrator for any other application deemed necessary by the
administrator to assess visual impacts associated with such application. As part of such application,
the applicant shall furnish a visual impact assessment, which shall include:
1. Zone of Visibilit ,p. If a new tower or substantial modification increasing the height of an
existing structure is proposed, a computer generated "Zone of Visibility Map" at a minimum of one
mile radius from the proposed structure, with and without foliage shall be provided to illustrate
locations from which the proposed installation may be seen.
2. Photo Simulations. Pictorial representations of "before and after" (photo simulations) views from
key viewpoints within the Zone of Visibility. Guidance will be provided, concerning the appropriate
key sites at the pre -application meeting, as required. Provide a map showing the locations of
where the pictures were taken and distance from the proposed structure.
3. Clescrietign of Vis�act;. A written description of the visual impact of the proposed facility
including; and as applicable, the tower base, guy wires, fencing and accessory buildings from
abutting and adjacent properties and streets as relates to the need or appropriateness of
camouflaging.
Oup# 11 1«
Personal wireless service providers use various methodologies and analyses, including geographically -
based computer software, to determine the specific technical parameters of their services and low power
mobile radio service facilities, such as expected coverage area, antenna configuration, topographic
constraints that affect signal paths, etc. In certain instances, a third party expert may need to review the
technical data submitted by a provider. The city may require a technical review as part of a permitting
36
process for a variance or conditional use permit. The costs of the technical review shall be borne by the
provider.
The selection of the third party expert may be by mutual agreement between the provider and the city, or,
at the discretion of the city, with a provision for the provider and interested parties to comment on the
proposed expert and review its qualifications. The expert review is intended to address interference and
public safety issues and be a site-specific review of technical aspects of the facilities or a review of the
providers' methodology and equipment used and not a subjective review of the site that was selected by
a provider. Based on the results of the expert review, the city may require changes to the provider's
application. The expert review shall address the following:
1. The accuracy and completeness of submissions;
2. The applicability of analysis techniques and methodologies;
3. The validity of conclusions reached; and
4. Any specific technical issues designated by the city,
15.29.150 Non-use/abandonment.
A. Notice of Abandonment. No less than thirty days prior to the date that a personal wireless service
provider plans to abandon or discontinue operation of a facility, the provider must notify the city of Yakima
by certified U.S. mail of the proposed date of abandonment or discontinuation of operation. In the event
that a licensed carrier fails to give notice, the facility shall be considered abandoned upon the city's
discovery of discontinuation of operation. Upon such abandonment, the provider shall have sixty days or
additional period of time determined in the reasonable discretion of the city within which to:
1. Reactivate the use of the facility or transfer the facility to another provider who makes actual use
of the facility; or
2. In the event that abandonment as defined in this chapter occurs due to relocation of an antenna
at a lower point on the antenna support structure, reduction in the effective radiated power of the
antenna or reduction in the number of transmissions from the antennas, the operator of the tower
shall have six months from the date of effective abandonment to co -locate another service on the
tower. If another service provider is not added to the tower, then the operator shall promptly
dismantle and remove the portion of the tower that exceeds the minimum height required to
function satisfactorily. Notwithstanding the foregoing, changes which are made to personal
wireless facilities which do not diminish their essential role in providing a total system shall not
constitute abandonment. However, in the event that there is a physical reduction in height of
substantially all of the provider's towers in the city or surrounding area then all of the towers
within the city shall similarly be reduced in height.
37
3. Dismantle and remove facility. If the tower, antenna, foundation, and facility are not removed
within the sixty-day time period or additional period of time allowed by the city, the city may
remove such tower, antenna, foundation, and related facility at the provider's expense. If there
are two or more providers co -locating on a facility, except as provided for in the paragraph above,
this provision shall not become effective until all providers cease using the facility.
B. Expiration of Approval. At the earlier of sixty days from the date of abandonment without
reactivating or upon completion of dismantling and removal, city approval for the facility shall
automatically expire.
15.29.160 Transfer of ownership.
A conditional use permit runs with the land; compliance with the conditions of any such permit is the
responsibility of the current owner of the property, whether that is the applicant or a successor. No permit
for which a financial security is required shall be considered valid during any time in which the required
financial security is not posted.
15.29.170 Vacation of permits.
A. Any permit issued pursuant to this chapter may be vacated upon approval by the current landowner;
provided, that:
1. The use authorized by the permit does not exist and is not actively being pursued; or
2. The use has been terminated and no violation of terms and conditions of the permit exist.
B. Requests to vacate a permit shall be made in writing to the zoning code administrator who shall
determine if the above conditions are present prior to authorizing the vacation. Vacation of any permit
shall be documented by the filing of a notice of land use permit vacation on a form provided by the
community development department with the city.
;,N
Compliance with the requirements of this code shall be mandatory. Any violation of the provisions of this
chapter shall be a misdemeanor subject to the penalties and remedies established in YMC 6.02.050.
Additionally, any violation of the provisions of this chapter, and any installation and/or operation of any
structure in violation of the provisions of this chapter, shall be deemed a public nuisance and violation
subject to penalties and remedies available under state law and city codes. The enforcement actions
authorized under this code shall be supplemental to those general penalties and remedies of Chapter
6.02 YMC and the public nuisance penalties and remedies available under state law and city codes.
Any applicant desiring relief, waiver or exemption from any aspect or requirement of this chapter may
request such, pursuant to and in compliance with the applicable provision on general variances as
38
contained in Chapter 15.21 YMC, provided that the relief or exemption is contained in the submitted
application for permit or, in the case of an existing or previously granted permit, a request for modification
of its tower and/or facilities. Such relief may be temporary or permanent, partial or complete. No such
relief or exemption shall be approved unless the applicant demonstrates by clear and convincing
evidence that, if granted the relief, waiver or exemption will have no significant affect on the health, safety
and welfare of the City, its residents and other service providers.
15. 9. 00 Severabilff
a. If any word, phrase, sentence, part, section, subsection, or other portion of this chapter or any
application thereof to any person or circumstance is declared void, unconstitutional, or invalid for any
reason, then such word, phrase, sentence, part, section, subsection, or other portion, or the proscribed
application thereof, shall be severable, and the remaining provisions of this chapter, and all applications
thereof, not having been declared void, unconstitutional, or invalid, shall remain in full force and effect.
b. Any permit issued under this chapter shall be comprehensive and not severable. If part of a permit is
deemed or ruled to be invalid or unenforceable in any material respect, by a competent authority, or is
overturned by a competent authority, the permit shall be void in total, upon determination by the City.
9
•NMI.
�'
Comm P
October 22, 2013
VIA EMAIL & U.S. MAIL
Planning Commission
City of' Yakima
121 North 2nd Strect
Yakima, Ak'ashinoton 98001
Re; Proposed Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance
Chapter 15.29 of the Urban Area Zoning Ordinance
Verizon Wireless - Written Comments
Dear Commissioners:
E. Michael Connors
520 SW Yamhill St
Suite 235
Portland, OR 97204
503-205-8401 (Dir)
503-205-8406 (Fax)
nnikeconnorS hkc _com
As you know, this firm represents Verizon Wireless with respect to the above -referenced
Proposed Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance (the "Proposed Ordinance"). We are
submitting these continents in response to the October 9, 2013 draft of the Proposed Ordinance
for your consideration at the October 23. 2013 public hearing.
INTRODUCTION
We appreciate the work the Planning Commission has done to date and its willingness to
incorporate some of the previous comments we provided. As noted in the purpose section of the
Proposed Ordinance, it is important for the City to adopt regulations that balance the need to
promote quick. effective and efficient wireless communication services throughout the City with
the desire to minimize the potential adverse impacts of wireless comr°111.1 lication facilities on the
community.' We believe some of the changes adopted by the PlanninLj, Commission strike a
better balance than the original draft of the Proposed Ordinance.
While the Planning Commission has certainly improved the Proposed Ordinance, we believe
there are additional changes necessary to strike the right balance and promote the objective of
facilitating the development of a wireless communications infrastructure sufficient to serve the
City's wireless needs, as well as insure that the Proposed Ordinance is fully consistent with the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 and other applicable federal law, We identified the most
significant concerns with the Proposed Ordinance below and recommended proposed changes
where appropriate.
' Section 15.29.010(A)( I ).
October 22, 2013
Page 2
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
1. The Proposed Ordinance should broaden the opportunities for co -locating antennas
on all existing structures, not just towers.
Although the Proposed Ordinance provides incenti\,os for co -locating '11,11crinas, it restricts Co -
location to existiri�c iowers.' Any proposals to mount antennas on other exisling, structures, such
as buildings, water towers, utility poles and street lights, does not qualify for the same
preferential treatment. In fact, the Proposed Ordinance requires proposals to mount antennas on
other types of structures to satisfy many of the same restrictive requirements that apply to new
tower. 3
As we have previously explained, the City should broaden the types of structures that qualify for
co -location to include buildings, water towers, utility poles, street lights and similar structures.
Given the limited number of' existing towers and available space on existing towers, the City
should not limit co -location to existing towers. The co -location of antennas on these other types
of structures serves the same purpose by minimizing impacts and avoiding the need for new
towers. 1'hat is why most cities and counties include these Offiff Structures in the definition of
co -location and provide the same incentives.
2. The Proposed Ordinance is too restrictive with respect to small cells.
We appreciate the City's willingness to address small cells in the Proposed Ordinance, but the
proposed regulations are too restrictive in two important respects. First, the Proposed Ordinance
should not limit small cells to street utility poles. Section 15.29.050(13I) limits small cell
installations to street utility poles. Although small cells will be primarily rriounted on utility
poles, they can also be Mounted on a variety of other structures, including buildings, street lights,
water towers, etc. Since small cells have much lower ranges and are designed predominately to
fill in gaps in specific areas where there is insufficient capacity and coverage, there will be times
where there are not available utility poles that can be used. The Proposed Ordinance should
allow the installation of small cells on other Structures.
Second, the Proposed Ordinance imposes additional requirements on small cells that are not
necessary or appropriate. Small cells are required to be located and designed to minimize any
significant adverse impact on residential property values and be placed in locations where the
existing topography, vegetaticoi, buildings, or other Structures provide the greatest amount Of
CaRIOUffi,,'C,_' No other proposals are required to meet this requirement. including proposals to
mount macro antennas. Given that small cells and their equipment will be a fraction of the size
of the macro facilities, and therefore will substantially minimize the Visual, noise and related
impacts, it does not make sense to impose more rigorous requirements on small cells. The City
Sections 15.29.020 (Definition ofCo-location), 15.29.050(A) and 15.29M0(A).
Under Section 15,29.040(A), any applicant proposing to rnMint an antenna on an existing StrUCtUre (other than a
tower) must evaluate alternative sites within a one-quarter mile radius, demonstrate that the proposed site is the best
site hor screening and camouflaging opportunities, and explain why the antenna must be located at the proposed site,
These same requirements apply to new tower proposals,
4 Section 15.29 040(C).
0 c t o h c r 22, 2013
Page ')
should be encouraging the use of small cells. not imposing additional requirements and
restrictions.
3. Protected areas are too broad defined.
White We Understand the City's desire to provide more rigorous requirements for particularly
sensitive areas. the protected areas are too broadly defined. Given how restrictive the
requirements are ror protected areas, they Should be more narrowly defined in two important
respects.
Protected areas Should not include "proposed" historical districts.' Only those areas that are
actually listed or designated as historic areas should be subject to these restrictions.
The Proposed Ordinance should not list specific areas as protected areas if they do not meet the
definition. The Proposed Ordinance includes the entire Barge-ChestriLit neighborhood, a large
approximate 16 by 10 block Lit -ca. While we understand that all or part of` the neighborhood may
eventually be designated all historic district in various phases, it Should not be deemed a
protected area until such designations are formally adopted. The City should not establish a
precedent of' allowing neighborhoods to be specifically designated for protected area status
regardless of whether or not they are formally designated historical districts.
4. The residential, 13-2 and LCC zoning standards are too restrictive and onerous.
We understand the City's desire to minimize the impacts ol'wireless facilities in certain zones,
but there will be some instances where a facility is required in these areas in order to provide
wireless set -vice. The standards for demonstrating that all antenna or tower must be located in or
within 300 feet of the residential. B-2 and LCC zones are too restrictive and onerous.
The requirements to demonstrate that the antenna or tower cannot be located in another zone
based solely on physical constraints and technological feasibility (economic feasibility is
specifically excluded from consideration), and to contact every owner of a 35 -ft plus buildings
within a one-quarter mile of t1le site and demonstrate the),, r6lised to lease space, arc too onerous
and will significantly delay the application process. 6 Since economic c�,)nslderations have been
intentionall), omitted, presumably a building owner's demand of an exorbitant amount of rent
would not be a legitimate basis far eliminating that alternative. The omission of these economic
considerations could result in the prohibition of' service in violation of' federal law. 7 These
requirements are unprecedented and overly restrictive.
The new requirements specific to residential zones are particularly onerous.8 '['he stealth and
camouflage requirements are too limiting and restrictive in several respects. These requirements
should not apply to co -location proposals on existing towers or structures. Incorporating
5
sections
1529.020 (Defiiiitioii of -protected areas") and 15.29.045.
Sections 15.29.050(1) and 15.29,050(G),
I Fhe Telecommimicatiom Act of 1996 prohibits any state or local regulations that "prohibit or have the effect of
prohibiting the provision ()fpersoiial wireless services," 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(11),
8 Section 15229JOQ(A)(7).
October 22, 2013
Page 4
facilities into another structure Such as a flagpole, light pole or faux tree is not always the best
means for minimizing the impacts of the facility, and therefore some flexibility should be built
into the standards. Photo simulation should not be required for every residential proposal
because they are very time consuming and expensive.
These standards are so restrictive and onerous that it will be too difficult to site new facilities and
in some areas may effectively preclude carriers from providing necessary coverage,
5. The requirement to site new towers in areas surrounded by tall trees is too
restrictive.
'Clic requirement to place new towers amongst or adjacent to "the drip line of three or more
evergreen trees at least seventy five percent of the height of the facility" is too restrictive. 9 'Chis
requirement should be removed because it will significantly lit -nit the number of available sites
since many available sites, especially those in the preferred commercial and industrial zones, are
not surrounded by trees of that size. Additionally, this requirement will result in taller towers to
avoid the interference of the trees.
6. The application submittal and testing requirements are still too vague and excessive.
Although d -le City agreed to ce:rtain changes to the application submittal and testing
NLIUIM) I I CIIAS, dleliC cWC sJ11 several problenis.10 "Che balloon test reqitircment should be
deleted. 110110011 IeSIS ',ArC OLH&Ited. unrelialfle and costly. 'Flicy do not provide an accurate or
true perspective for the tower height or antenna array. For example, if there is any rain or wind at
all it will skew the test.
The "other related requests" requirement which allows the City to require "any combination of
site plans, SUr VeN'S. maps, technical reports. or written narratives" is too open-ctided and should
not be required 101- Simpler co -location proposals. 12 , Flic Proposed Ordinance should incktdc
more specific and objective requirements that reasonably relate to the specific proposal.
The requirement to provide a current map and aerial of all current and proposed facilities
operated by the applicant in the City, as well as areas close enough to impact services in the City,
is highly problematic. 13 '['his information is Unnecessary for the City to evaluate a proposal for a
single site and would be overly burdensome to produce for every application. More importantly,
this inron-nation is proprietary and highly confidential. Wireless carriers cannot be required to
disclose confidential and proprietary information. especially if it is not relevant to the approval
standards.
Scction V 5,29,09()(B)(9),
Scc6on V5,29.070,
Secflon 115.29,070(f)).
Section 11 5,29,070(F")
Sed on V 5.?9,070(M),
October 22. 2013
Page 5
7. The design criteria are still too vague and excessive.
Although the City agreed to certain changes to [lie design criteria, there are still several
problenis. 14 The antenna and towor height requirements are problomatic. 15 "Tower and antenna
heights in residential, Downtown Commercial and Professional Office Zones should be at least
75 feet since 60 feet is too short. A carrier should not be required to demonstrate that the height
of an antenna is the minimum height necessary, especially when proposed on existing towers or
structures. Such antennas should not be required to undergo this requirement provided they do
not exceed the height of the existing tower or structure. New towers Should not be required to
demonstrate they are the inininu,1111 height in higher priority areas, such as commercial and
industrial zones, especially when they are within the height restrictions of the applicable zones.
It IS our experience that demonstrating that an antenna or tower is the rninirnurn height necessary
is costly, time-consuming and Subject to extensive second-guessing.
The landscaping requirements are onerous and it should be clarified to apply only to towers. 16
Although this provision exempts flush -mounted antennas and equipment housed in an existing
structure, whip antennas and small cell equipment cabinets should also be exempt. Even for
towers, the landscaping requirements are onerous since they require a fence, a row of 6-11
evergreen trees, a continuous 36 -inch high hedge, and automatic sprinklers.
As previously explained, the screening requirements to place the facilities amongst or adjacent to
large trees Should be removed because it will significantly limit the available S i teS. 17
Parking should not be required for maintenance workers when the facility is Cully automated., 8
Requiring parking is unnecessary and results in an additional impact.
'I'lic restrictions on roof' mounted antennas for buildings 30 feet or less are too great and will
discourage the use Of existing structures which often times require use of the roof to provide for
SLI11"icient height. IQ
8. The application fees and costs must be reasonable.
fhe Proposc(l Ordin,,,tnce allows the City to hire a third party expert to rc\'Ie\v the application
imilcrial at the applicant's sole expense \�Athout any limit on the costs. 20 The Proposed
Ordinance should include <a cap on these fees and at least require that they be reasonable.
The application fee amount in Section 15.29.170 is still blank. It Should be filled in with a
reasonable application fee.
Section 1 5,)9.070
Sections 13 29 040(a) and 15 29 090(13)(3),
Section I 5,29M,91)(B)(7).
17 Section 15.29,090(13)(8).
18 Section 15.29.090(13)(9),
9 Section I 5.29.090(B)( 10)(h)
2" Section 15.29.130.
Lo
October 22, 2013
Page 6
For pLiblically owned property, the requirement that carriers reimburse for "any related costs that
21
the city incurs because of the presence of the applicant's facility" is too vague and open-ended.
This provision is unnecessary and should be deleted because the City already provides for
recovery of costs associated with the use of public property in the for of application fees,
franchise fees and rent for leases.
9. The Proposed Ordinance must incorporate the Shot Clock Order requirements.
The Federal Communications oinmission ("FCC") adopted what is commonly known as the
Shot Clock Order in 2001). 12 I'lie (Jn led States Supreme Court recently upheld the FCC's
authority to issue the Shot Clock Order, 23 The Shot Clock Order imposes presumptively
reasonable time periods for reviewing wireless facility applications, which are 90 days for
collocation applications and 150 days for non -collocation applications, The Proposed Ordinance
does not impose time periods for processing the applications consistent with this requirement.
CONCLUSION
We appreciate your incorporation of' previous comments and consideration of these additional
comments. If the City takes these comments seriously and ensures an adequate opportunity to
address these issues during the public process, we firmly believe that the City can strike a better
balance between providing wireless communication services throughout the City and minimizing
potential adverse impacts on the community.
Very truly yours,
HATHAWAY 1<013ACK CONNORS LLP
E. Michael Connors 'S
cc: Heather Campbell, Verizon Wireless
Peter Mauro, Verizon Wireless
Ed McGah, Verizon Wireless
21 d5�,
22 DedartJtoL\ Rtlhiw FCC 09-099 (Noveinber 18, 2009),
23
Cav olArliqgfew v / 133 S. Ct. 1863 (2013).
BUSCH�_. a: H�', PLLC
October 28, 2013
City of Yakima
Planning Commission
c/o Steve Osguthorpe, Community Development Director
129 N. 2nd Street
Yakima, WA 98901
VIA FAAA11
RE: Proposed Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance — YMC Chapter 15.29
October 28, 2013 Public Hearing
Dear Steve:
This letter provides comments regarding the City of Yakima's proposed Wireless
Communications Facilities ("WCF") Ordinance, which is scheduled for public hearing with the
Planning Commission on October 28, 2013. These comments are provided on behalf of AT&T.
We appreciate the City's careful consideration of new WCF regulations to achieve the City's
stated policy goals and to allow the ability for the continued installation and upgrade of wireless
facilities to bring service to the residents, businesses, and visitors in the City of Yakima.
AT&T desires to work with the City to design well -integrated wireless infrastructure. We
appreciate the City's willingness to incorporate some of our comments into the current draft of
regulations, but continue to have concerns with the current draft ordinance. We offer the
following comments and redline of the current draft ordinance so that the City can better
achieve its stated policy goals and the ordinance is consistent with federal law.
Siting Restrictions:
There are a number of troublesome provisions that, in aggregate, may constructively prohibit
the siting of new wireless facilities in many parts of the City. Among them:
• §15.29.080.A: In conflict with Table 29-1, facilities are prohibited in and within 300 feet
of "protected areas" which is broadly defined and includes "proposed" historical
districts is too broad. In addition, there is no standard for submitting a request to
protect a historical resource. LCC and B-2 zones are not the only zoning districts within
300 feet of these areas. As written, new facilities would be prohibited in every zone
except for LCC and B-2 zones. We recommend that these provisions be rewritten.
Further, the City does not have a map available showing the distribution of all existing
and potential historic districts, overlays, structures, critical areas, conservation
easements, and other protected areas. We request that the City provide a map to fully
disclose the effect of this provision.
22525 SE 64th Place, Suite 288
Issaquah, WA 98027
425.458.3940
206.219.6717
www.WirelessCounsel.com
r
BUSCHI `\NN If III N°'N.PLLC
• §15.29.070.7.b.iii: "Towers... shall be placed amongst and adjacent to the drip line
(within 20 feet) of three or more evergreen trees at least seventy-five percent of the
height of the facility." Yakima does not have adequate density or height of evergreen
trees to support this requirement. Further, even a height variance would not remedy
this deficiency because one of the criteria requires that existing evergreen trees screen
a significant portion of new towers. We suggest this requirement be removed or
modified to limit its application to what is feasible.
• §15.29.050.B.2.b, §15.29.060.F.1: Before a new tower can be built within 300 feet of
residential zones or protected areas, a carrier has to demonstrate that it wasn't
"physically" or "technologically" possible to locate on government/institutional, or
other "appropriate structures" within a nonresidential zone. This is too restrictive.
Siting candidates can be excluded for a variety of valid reasons, such as a property
owner's refusal to lease space to a carrier, or refusal to lease at a reasonable market
rate. Further, a carrier has to demonstrate why it isn't possible to build a network of
shorter facilities on buildings at least 35 feet in height within a half mile of the
proposed facility, regardless if the structures are available or feasible to use. It is
unreasonable to assume that several short facilities — which may not provide
meaningful coverage, creates multiple sets of visual impacts, requiring multiple land
use process subject to the same requirements, and is very costly to deploy and
maintain — is better than a single facility that otherwise complies with all the
requirements of this ordinance. We suggest these sections be removed or modified to
include some reasonable economic and network considerations.
• §15.29.070.7, 8.c: As we have commented on several occasions, it is simply not possible
for some stealth structures to mimic the dimensions of the structures they intend to
resemble. For example, a typical 60 -foot flagpole is approximately ten inches in
diameter, but in order to conceal all of the antennas and associated equipment within
the pole the diameter must increase to 36 inches. Another example is light standards
which must be must be wider and much taller to accommodate wireless equipment and
provide quality service. Further, when considering what type of stealth structure might
be appropriate for the area, anything nonconforming or "contributing the visual
clutter" of an area cannot be considered under the proposed ordinance. The only
stealth design that appears to meet these resultant requirements is a concealed
evergreen tree design ("mono -pine"), which, we understand from previous discussions
with Staff, is likely not appropriate for most parts of Yakima because of a lack of
sufficient evergreen tree density. Effectively, this means carriers face the threat of
having sites denied simply because the code requires designs that are not appropriate,
workable, or achievable in most of Yakima. Accordingly, these requirements should be
removed.
• §15.29.110.B: While we generally support the concept of having wireless -specific
variance criteria, this provision only applies to the height of the facility, and not design
requirements that may not be possible to meet (as noted above). We recommend that
the criteria be rewritten to allow for non -height related design variances. In addition,
we suggest the design criteria be rewritten to provide administrative "relief valves" to
allow for more flexibility and reduce the need for variances.
22525 SE 64th Place, Suite 288
Issaquah, WA 98027
t 425.458.3940
j 206.219.6717
www.WirelessCounsel.com
BUSCH IL_.AW M PLLC
Compliance with Federal Law:
In addition to concerns about the ordinance's compliance with the Telecommunications Act, we
are concerned that the process for streamlining reviews for co -locations and upgrades to
existing sites under Section 6409 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 is
unnecessarily complex and conflict with the FCC Shot Clock'.
Where most jurisdictions have exempted minor modifications and upgrades altogether, so only
a building permit is required, the draft imposes a pre -application meeting (§15.29.120.A), a 45 -
day "determination process" (§15.29.120.C.1), and a 90 -day approval process (§15.29.120.C.2)
that, in aggregate, violate the FCC Shot Clock. Further, under Section 6409 no jurisdiction can
deny these proposals. We recommend that the proposed ordinance (§15.29.120) be modified to
incorporate the time limits associated with the FCC Shot Clock for all permit types and
procedures.
Utility Poles and Small Cell Installations:
We are concerned that the latest draft of the ordinance omits utility poles as a siting option. Co -
locating facilities on utility poles can be a viable, relatively low impact option under certain
conditions. We suggest that the utility pole provisions be re-inserted and modified to allow for
adequate separation required by the electrical codes and the pole owners.
We are also concerned that small cells have been removed from the latest draft of the
ordinance. Small cells differ from regular sites in many important respects — they tend to be
much smaller than regular sites, have far less visual impacts than regular sites, have much
smaller range, are deployed in bulk on existing structures, including utility poles, buildings, light
poles, etc. As noted in previous drafts, small cells do not obviate the need for regular facilities,
but are needed to provide additional capacity or "spot" coverage. We recommend that a
provision be added to the draft ordinance that allows the City to approve a network of small
cells at multiple locations through an administrative process.
We understand that the language proposed in previous drafts was removed with the intent to
doing a separate ordinance in the future. However, given the busy work calendar of the City, we
don't believe that fixing this omission in the short term is realistic. Accordingly, we request that
these issues be addressed in the proposed ordinance.
Miscellaneous Comments:
The following is a list of suggested design, process, and submittal requirement changes to make
the proposed Ordinance more workable and efficient:
The term "cellular" is outdated. We recommend that this term be replaced by "wireless"
or "wireless communications facility" which is the title of the Chapter.
1 FCC Declaratory Ruling, FCC 09-099 (November 18, 2009). The Shot Clock imposes presumptively reasonable time
limits for reviewing applications — 90 days for co -location applications and 150 days for non -co -location applications.
22525 SE 64th Place, Suite 288
Issaquah, WA 98027
t 425.458.3940
1206.219.6717
www.WirelessCounsel.com
�5
BUSCHL,),,;VV ; I �, P���v�,i.PLLC
• Existing towers should not be considered "nonconforming uses" (§15.29.010.C). Section
6409 effectively supersedes the City's nonconforming rules to the extent there isn't a
"substantial change."
• The definition of "co -location" (§15.29.020) should match the FCC definition, which
encompasses existing towers, buildings, and other structures, regardless of the number
of carriers.
• The submittal requirements (§15.29.050.B) require carriers to produce a map showing
the location of protected areas that are within a mile of the proposed facility or upgrade
to an existing facility. This is not workable or necessary, respectively, because the City
has not produced a map for carriers to reference to show where protected areas are
located, and additional siting restrictions only apply to proposals that are within 300
feet of a protected area.
• §15.29.050.0 appears to require unlimited notice at the discretion of the City at the
expense of the applicant. This is not required for any other type of development or
applicant within the City — we request that this requirement be modified to be more
reasonable.
• We request that the height limit for Downtown Commercial, Professional Office, and all
residential (including multifamily) zones (§15.29.070.2) be at least 75 feet. Sixty feet is
too short to allow for reasonable coverage in most areas and categorically too short to
provide co -location opportunities.
We appreciate this opportunity to comment on the proposed Ordinance. Please let us know if
you have any questions or if we can be of assistance in reviewing any proposed changes.
Sincerely,
M
Ken Lyons
Jurisdictional Relations Director, PNW, LTE
cc; Mark Kunkler, City of Yakima, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Carol Tagayun, AT&T, Director, External Affairs - Washington
File
22525 SE 64th Place, Suite 288
Issaquah, WA 98027
1 425.458.3940
j 206.219.6717
www.WirelessCounsel.com
300
PAVE,
1 inch = 2,400 feet��7r�'�
W
1+1�nr�7mu�rr
FRUITVAI
BLVD
112 N
��a1 F1' AVE
,200
70T
1
rN � �' v 131�Af1 t"lPa ^ uR"k�rh�nY7Yrld �+2%C�r�faiMp�,� �
�111- .0300 Ft Buffer �r
GBarge Historic District Zoning Category R-2 Two Family f_ .( B-2 Local Business
�%%��� LCC Large Convenience Center M-1 Light Industrial MON�jj: AS Airport Support
S-1 Suburban Residential R-3 Multi -Family HB Historical Business � Towers
CBD Central Business District n� M-2 Heavy Industrial
R-1 Single Family B-1 Proressional Business SCC Small Convenience Center
GC General Commercial RD Regional Development
r
V
w�
1
rN � �' v 131�Af1 t"lPa ^ uR"k�rh�nY7Yrld �+2%C�r�faiMp�,� �
�111- .0300 Ft Buffer �r
GBarge Historic District Zoning Category R-2 Two Family f_ .( B-2 Local Business
�%%��� LCC Large Convenience Center M-1 Light Industrial MON�jj: AS Airport Support
S-1 Suburban Residential R-3 Multi -Family HB Historical Business � Towers
CBD Central Business District n� M-2 Heavy Industrial
R-1 Single Family B-1 Proressional Business SCC Small Convenience Center
GC General Commercial RD Regional Development
1 inch _ 2,400 feet g� 13300 FI Buffer fay,- i� R-2 Two Family ��II�II������IUII�LW, g �, g ASAir ortSu ort
a
Barge Historic District Zoning Category y B-2 Local Business LCC Lar e Convenience Cenler M-1 Light Industrial
"'° yy
SR Suburban Residential L�� G R-3 Multi -Family � HB Historical Business ��>aa �� CBD Central Business District M-2 Heavy Industrial
R-1 Single Family B-1 Professional Business € SCC Small Convenience Center ��,; GC General Commercial dw� RD Regional Development Cell Towers
Parcels Greater- ..
1inch = 3,000 feet 4j
N RIPPEE
W+E
S .
NAHFS HTS RD's
/10th acre��
El �a
E.E 7 L�„ti r t
r f
ARBLE RD .✓�� (y,.
w
o >
l/
w tri i
z Ir 0
N ¢,�
Z
O
U z J
_._ ..�., , . m e . .. _ .✓, f
SUMMIT"tl9FXT'h"
5 0 r
N Lu
p ..
r
2 lair /r
._
0
LU
R Z _
H
ETT
.m,,.��, � WIDE
LM: CT HOLLOW
_.
DOUGLAS RD
FISK RD � , �"
FLINTSTON RD
e_.
Q
w,. ON
w
-'wOT m _....ro.,. w .. _ p
CIO
Lu STUMP RD
Q
Co
HUBBARD RD �.' o 11 fp
as Q
OHURC RD U)
1
w ,
zr,ji U) U)
0
z
N
(O
' RACQUET
9 1
ui
>
Q
W N
A
-I
0
zEMMA
= U)
LN.v
Ivo,.._..
co
INIURIAL WY
OULLOUGH RD
ASPEY LN
ST j.
..,w '.
Q
2'
F—
W I ST
m
0
2
x!
C)
Q
zr,ji U) U)
0
z
N
(O
' RACQUET
z
Im
r
ui
>
Q
W N
A
-I
0
zEMMA
= U)
LN.v
Ivo,.._..
co
INIURIAL WY
OULLOUGH RD
z
Im
SR 1� HWY
SR 12 RAMP,
a.�
z
INIURIAL WY
YER ,RO:'"
ASPEY LN
ST j.
..,w '.
Q
2'
F—
W I ST
z
Im
Q
INIURIAL WY
ASPEY LN
>
LRD
Q
2'
F—
mGILB
w'
Q
m
0
2
U)
Parcels Greater-1111�
1 inch = 3,000 feet
N RIPP E E
W+ E
S
LM CT
DOUGLAS RD
FISK RD
000
Co
0
HUBBARD RD —
/10th acre Es HTS '.R ' D ' )
E LER RD
z
,IT
w
z
0
Lij
LM CT
DOUGLAS RD
FISK RD
000
Co
0
HUBBARD RD —
/10th acre Es HTS '.R ' D ' )
E LER RD
w
O
WAC
U)
U)
F-
C,
CF) Lu
U)
CY)
MEADOWBROO RD u)
CO
U)
04
Z
C14
U) z
C\j , 'EMMA LN rn
T
M'17CULLOUGH RD
Sp 12 R_Rr
Z�
L>U
W J STI
=1mfWAST
.............. ... .........
U)
IN US RIAL WY
ASPEY' LN
uj _GIL4T RD
ui
�2
,IT
Lij
Lu
FX U)
LL Lu
WIDE HOLLOW
FLINTSTON RD
w
Lu
w
-1
0
0
Co
S2
cn
STUMP RD
w
O
WAC
U)
U)
F-
C,
CF) Lu
U)
CY)
MEADOWBROO RD u)
CO
U)
04
Z
C14
U) z
C\j , 'EMMA LN rn
T
M'17CULLOUGH RD
Sp 12 R_Rr
Z�
L>U
W J STI
=1mfWAST
.............. ... .........
U)
IN US RIAL WY
ASPEY' LN
uj _GIL4T RD
ui
�2