Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-051 Wireless Communication Facilities; YMC Amendment Title 15; Adding 15.29, Repealing 15.04.180AN ORDINANCE ORDINANCE NO. 2013-051 relating to wireless communication facilities; amending Title 15 of the Yakima Municipal Code to add new Chapter 15.29 regulating wireless communication facilities, and repealing Section 15.04.180 of the Yakima Municipal Code. WHEREAS, the City Council has previously adopted ordinances zoning and regulating land uses within the City of Yakima, all as codified at Title 15 of the Yakima Municipal Code ("YMC"), including YMC 15.04 180 pertaining to placement of communications towers; and WHEREAS, on April 2, 2013, the City Council 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; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Yakima has scheduled and conducted study sessions and public hearings regarding wireless communication facilities on August 7, 2013, August 14, 2013; September 4, 2013; September 25, 2013; October 9, 2013, October 23, 2013 and October 28, 2013; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, having received and considered all evidence and testimony presented at such sessions and hearing, together with the record herein, adopted findings of fact, conclusions and recommendation dated October 28, 2013, wherein the Planning Commission recommended adoption of a comprehensive code regarding wireless communication facilities as new Chapter 15.29 YMC; and WHEREAS, the City Council has scheduled and held a public hearing on November 5, 2013 to receive the recommendation of the Planning Commission and public comment; and WHEREAS, the City Council, having received and considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the record herein, and all evidence and testimony produced at the public hearing, finds and determines that the findings, conclusions and recommendation of the Planning Commission should be accepted and that Title 15 YMC should be amended to add new Chapter 15.29 YMC as attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference, and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the purposes of the moratorium adopted pursuant to Ordinance No 2013-014 and extended pursuant to Ordinance No. 2013-040 have been met and that the moratorium adopted pursuant to such ordinance should 1 terminate upon the date Chapter 15.29 YMC adopted herein becomes effective, that current YMC 15.04.180 should be repealed; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that adoption of Chapter 15 29 YMC as set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto is in the best interests of residents of the City of Yakima and will promote the general safety and welfare; now, therefore BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF YAKIMA: Section 1. The findings and conclusions of the City of Yakima Planning Commission as referenced in the recitals above are affirmed and adopted by the City Council as its own findings and conclusions. Section 2. Title 15 YMC is hereby amended to add new Chapter 15.29 YMC entitled "Wireless Communications Facilities" is hereby amended to read as set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein Section 3. The moratorium implemented pursuant to Ordinance No. 2013- 014 and extended pursuant to Ordinance No. 2013-040 shall terminate on the date Chapter 15.29 YMC adopted pursuant to this Ordinance becomes effective as set forth in Section 4 below. Section 4. YMC 15 04.180 is hereby repealed effective on the date Chapter 15.29 YMC adopted pursuant to Section 2 above becomes effective. Section 5 This ordinance shall be in full force and effect 30 days after its passage, approval, and publication as provided by law and by the City Charter. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, signed and approved this 5th day of November, 2013. ATTEST: \1_ L 4 r A: Publication Date: November 8, 2' ��3, . Effective Date. December 8, 2013 2 Micah Cawley,/Mayor BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YAKIMA, WASHINGTON AGENDA STATEMENT Item No. For Meeting of: 11/5/2013 ITEM TITLE: SUBMITTED BY: SUMMARY EXPLANATION: Public hearing to consider the Yakima Planning Commission's recommendation regarding an amendment to the Yakima Municipal Code Title 15 and adopting an ordinance pertaining to a new Chapter 15.29 YMC establishing a comprehensive code for the regulation of communication towers. Steve Osguthorpe, AICP, Community Development Director Mark Kunkler, Senior Assistant City Attorney, Legal Department On April 2, 2013,, the City Council imposed a moratorium on new telecommunication and wireless communication facilities in the City of Yakima, which was subsequently extended through December 31, 2013. The Yakima Planning Commission has conducted several study sessions and public hearings, and has received valuable information and assistance from the community and the wireless communication industry. As a result, the Planning Commission on October 28, 2013 adopted findings, conclusions and a recommendation that the City Council adopt a new Chapter in the YMC establishing a comprehensive code for wireless communication facilities within the City of Yakima. The attached ordinance adopts a set of regulations that incorporates new application requirements for wireless facilities, establishes an approval process that includes administrative approvals of certain installations and a conditional use permit and variance procedures for other installations. The new code, while drawing on existing codes in other jurisdictions, has been tailored to address the needs of the Yakima community and the needs of the wireless communication industry. Some of the more salient provisions of the code include: 1. Definition of permit types, including modification permits, administrative permits, conditional use permits and variances. Types of permits required depends upon location, height and whether the application is to build a new tower or co -locate on an existing tower. 2. Co -location provisions and standards. 3. Development, design and locational standards for new towers, including acceptable methods of screening, camouflage and stealth designs. 4. Procedural standards for review including, where appropriate, balloon tests and visual impact assessments that allow the public to better visualize how the structure will be seen from multiple vantage points 5. A prioritization of preferred locations for new installations, ranging from co -location on existing structures and towers, to more protected locations such as residential zones and historic districts 6. Height limits based upon location with opportunity for height variances subject to compliance with all variance criteria. Council will note that there is one section titled, "Utility Pole Installation" that is shown as "reserved" That section is a placeholder for future, yet -to -be -developed standards for micro cells on utility poles As we attempted to develop Ianguage for this with the current proposal, both staff and the Planning Commission realized that there were too many questions and issues that required further analysis and that it would be better to develop language for that section later and not delay the rest of the document. In ounnnoary, the document reflects the input of staffPlanning Connnnioaion, industry representatives and concerned residents from the Barge/Chestnut neighborhood Each provided valuable and helpful information in developing the document. Staff believes the proposed standards strike an appropriate balance between protection of neighborhoods, the requirements of the industry, and the need to respond to current and expected demands for wireless service in the City of Yakima. Resolution: Ordinance: X Other (: Contract: Contract Term: Start Date: End Date: Item Budgeted: Amount: Funding Source/Fiscal Impact: Strategic Priority: Improve the Built Environment Insurance Required? No Mail to: Phone: APPROVED FOR RECOMMENDATION: City Manager Staff recommends approval and adoption of the Ordinance ATTACHMENTS: Description El Ordinance Cell Tower Text Amendments Exhibit "A" YMC15.29V0,e|aouCommunication Facilities Upload Date Type YPC Findings of Fact - Ceii Tower Text Amendments El Council Record - Cell Towers - TXT#002-13 i4•Vq..! EXHIBIT A 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 Wireless Conditional Use Permit Criteria 15.29 110 Wireless 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 15.29.010 Purpose. 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 2 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 1502YMC "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 3 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 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 or 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 mounting or installation of an antenna or antennas on an existing tower or wireless facility for the purpose of transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency signals for communications purposes "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 "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 to 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 5 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 36th Avenue, on the north by Summitview Avenue, on the east byl6th 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/or 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 6 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, and facilities necessary for governmental purposes The city shall act on an application within a reasonable period of 7 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 8 15.29.030 Exemptions. 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, including direct -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 applicable standards 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 9 15.29.040 Permits Required. The following table summarizes the permits required for the various types of personal wireless service facilities that meet the standards of this chapter Table 29-1 Permit Table* Type of Use Permit Type Approval Type Co-location/minor modification (No Substantial Change) Modification Administrative (if minor modification) Co-location/major modification (Substantial Change in Height) Same as New Towers (depending on location) Same as New Towers (depending on location) New antenna (existing non -cellular structures, industrial and commercial zoning districts) Standard Wireless Administrative New Tower (Public or City -owned Property) Standard Wireless Administrative / Lease New Tower (commercial or industrial zoning district, more than 300 feet from residential or protected area) Standard Wireless Administrative New Tower (in or within 300 feet of residential zoning district,) Standard Wireless - if camouflaged by stealth Wireless CUP** - if not camouflaged by stealth Administrative or Hearing Examiner New Tower (in or within 300 feet of protected area) Wireless CUP Hearing Examiner Any tower, antennae or modification not meeting standards of this Chapter Wireless Variance Hearing Examiner * Applicable permits include building permits and other permits required for installation ** Wireless Conditional Use Permit 10 15.29.050 Application Submittal / Fees. A. Standard Wireless 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 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 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 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 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 14 Applicable fees 15 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 in the city b The approximate distance between the proposed tower and the nearest residential unit, residentially zoned properties, and protected areas c A statement by the applicant that the design of the tower will accommodate co -location of additional antennas for future users d An affidavit stating 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. 12 e 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 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 f A landscape and irrigation plan showing all methods to landscape, irrigate, and screen the base of new facilities g 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, technological, leasing, or other valid constraints, no more appropriate location is available 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 13 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 landscape and irrigation plan showing all methods to landscape and screen the base of the modified telecommunication facility; c 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 d 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 ) 4 Wireless CUP (Conditional Use Permit) 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 wireless 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 5 Wireless Variance a A statement from the applicant describing how he/she believes the proposal addresses the criteria for a wireless 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 For wireless conditional uses or variances, the city may 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 14 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 minor) $300 00 Modification (if major) $500 00 Standard Wireless $500 00 Wireless Variance $1,500 00 Wireless Conditional Use Permit $3,500 00 * Separate fee required for each permit type associated with application For an application requiring a wireless variance and a wireless conditional use permit, both the variance fee and the conditional use permit fee are required 15.29.060 Development Standards. A. Modifications to an existing wireless facility or base station 1 Minor Modification 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. 2 Major 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 15 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 Requirement 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, or 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, or b The number of existing and potential licenses without wireless telecommunications facilities spaces/sites, or 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 Provide a written statement affirming 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 16 b Provide a written statement affirming 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 towers and structures 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 a suitable 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. Adequate parking shall be required for maintenance workers E Balloon Test. A balloon test is required for any application requiring a wireless conditional use permit or variance Additionally, the administrator may require a balloon test for any new wireless facility for 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 Due Diligence Requirements Applications to place antennas and towers in residential zoning districts or within 300 feet of residential zoned districts shall demonstrate that the requirements of Section 15.29 050(6)(2) have been met. 17 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 Required 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 11 62 YMC prior to the issuance of any permit for the construction, installation or major modification of wireless facilities in such areas G Building Permits Required Issuance of wireless facility 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 1 Utility Pole Installations. Reserved 15.29.070 Design 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 property line of the parcel on which it is located Except as otherwise set forth below, 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 18 b Protected Areas In protected areas or where a proposed tower is on property abutting a protected area, towers shall be set back from all property lines a distance equal to one hundred ten (110%) percent of tower height as measured from ground level c Residential Zoned Districts In residential zoned districts or where a proposed tower is on property abutting a residential zoned district, towers shall be set back a minimum of one-half the tower height. d Minor Modifications Any expansion of a base station or extension of height of an existing wireless facility that constitutes a minor modification shall be considered in compliance with the setback requirements previously approved for the existing wireless facility e Existing Wireless Facility on Established Lot — Exception The setback requirement is not applicable if the antenna and antenna support structure were constructed, or application for such construction vested, on a parcel created pursuant to RCW 59 17 040(8) prior to the effective date of this code Wireless facilities constructed on and after the effective date of this code on parcels created pursuant to RCW 59 17 040(8) are subject to the setback requirements 2 Tower and Antenna Height. The maximum height of a wireless facility is as follows 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 district in which the facility is located, except that if the facility is camouflaged by stealth pursuant to Section 15.29 070(8), the maximum height is sixty (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 applicant shall have the burden of demonstrating that the tower is the minimum height required to meet the proven communications need e Structures that exceed the above height limits may be permitted by variance pursuant to the cellular height variance provisions of Section 15.29 110 3 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 19 4 Lights, Signals and Skins 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 Device All support structures shall be fitted with anti -climbing devices, as approved by the manufacturers 7 Camouflage 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 the least visually and physically intrusive facility that is not technologically 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 b 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 20 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 To the extent feasible, the tower or mount shall be placed amongst and adjacent to 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 — Recording of Conditions To ensure that trees associated with camouflaging and screening is preserved, the following note shall be recorded on the property title 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 Requirements 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 Wireless 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, 21 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. 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 i 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 22 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 Equipment Structures The standards for equipment structures (base stations) are as follows a Ground Structure 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 Ground level buildings shall be screened from view by landscape plantings, fencing, or other appropriate means, as specified herein or in other city ordinances iii 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 23 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 36th Avenue, on the north by West Summitview Avenue, on the east by 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. B Discouraged Areas in B-2 and SCC Zoning Districts. New antenna and antenna support structures should be avoided in the following locations within the B-2 Local Business and SCC Small Convenience Center zones when possible 1 Within 300 feet of residential areas 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 Co -location (See Sections 15.29 060(B) and 15.29 060(C)) 2 Industrial zoning districts 3 Public property (See Section 15.29 080(E)) 24 4 Existing structures — Industrial and commercial zoning districts (e g , buildings, towers, and water towers) 5 Local Business District (B-2) and Small Convenience Center (SCC) zoning 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 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 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 25 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 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, and 26 c Before personal wireless service facilities may be located in public parks, visual impacts and disruption of normal public use shall be mitigated, 15.29.090 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 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 27 15.29.100 Wireless Conditional Use Permit Criteria. A. Uses Requiring Cellular Conditional Use Permit. Any wireless facility listed in Table 1 as a Wireless Conditional Use Permit (Wireless CUP) requires submittal of a Wireless CUP application as described in Section 15.29 050 Wireless 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, and 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 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 2 and 3 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 28 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 15.29.110 Wireless Height Variance. A. Applicability. A cellular height variance is required for any major modification to an existing tower, antennae, or base station or construction of a new tower, antennae, or base station that requires a height in excess of height limits defined in Section 15.29 070(2) B Criteria for Granting Wireless 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 wireless height variance is subject to 1 Compliance with Standard Wireless Permit standards of Section 15.29 120(D), 2 Standard variance procedures in Chapter 15.21 YMC (not including review criteria), and 3 All of the following criteria must be met: a The additional height is necessary to provide adequate service to the residents of the city and no other alternative is available, 29 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; i 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. 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 coll4ar wireless height variance meets all of the criteria in Section 15.29 110(B) 30 15.29.120 Application Review Process. 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 major or 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 2 Finding of No Substantial Change — 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 45 days after receipt and approval of a complete application for a modification permit. 3 Finding of Substantial Change — Major 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 31 D Standard Wireless Permit Review. Standard wireless applications apply to all new wireless facilities and base stations and to major modification of all existing wireless facilities and base stations Standard wireless 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 wireless 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, or other period of time deemed reasonable by the administrator considering the scope and complexity of the required revision, revised plans to address the compliance issue, or direct the Administrator to render a decision on the application as submitted 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 Wireless Conditional Use Permit Review. Wireless conditional use permit applications shall be reviewed as follows 32 1 Submittal of application 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 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 Additional Reports and Third -party 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 of 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 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 Wireless Height Variance Review. A wireless height variance shall be processed as follows 1 Procedures & Applicable Criteria A wireless 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 33 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 Party 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 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 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 34 1 Zone of Visibility Map 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 Description of Visual Impact. 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 15.29.140 Third Party Review. 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 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 35 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. 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 36 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 15.29.180 Violation — Penalty. 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 15.29.190 Relief, Waiver, Exemption. 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 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 15.29.200 Severability. 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. 37 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 38 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF YAKIMA In the matter of: Public Hearing: October 23, 2013 Proposed Regulation of Telecommunication) and October 28, 2013 Towers and Facilities and FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS Zoning ) 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 . 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 communily; (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 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. 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 Shovel, Chair 4 ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT — C • PTER 15.29 WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES TXT#002-13, SEPA#011-13 City Council Public Hearing November 5, 2013 EXHIBIT LIST Applicant: City of Yakima Planning Division File Numbers: TXT#002-13, SEPA#01 1 -1 3 Site Address: Citywide Staff Contact: Jeff Peters, Supervising Planner Table of Contents TER A Yakima Pl. ing Commission Findings & Staff Report TER B Previous Council Adopted Legislation TER C Public Co ents TER D Public Notices TER E SEPA Checklist ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT PTER 15.29 WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES TXT#002-13, SEPA#011 13 EXHIBIT LIST C PTER A Findings & Staff Report DOC ir A), „ ;if DOCU 'NT DATE A -i Staff Report to Ya ti a Planning Commission 08/07/2013 A-2 Yakima Planning Commission Findings of Fact (Unsigned D 10/28/2013 In the matter of: BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF YAKIMA ) ) 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 FINDINGS OF FACT 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 INDEX 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 INDEX 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 faimess 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. DOC. INDEX # A -g 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 28`h day of October, 2013. By: en Shoval, Chair 4 DOC. INDEX A *rn City of Yakima Planning Division's Recommendation on a Zoning Text Amendment to the City's Urban Area Zoning Ordinance Regarding Communication Towers TO: City af Yakima Planning Commission FROM: Mark Kunkler, City Attorney SUBJECT: Communication Tower Zoning Text Amendmen( FOR PUBLIC HEARING OF: August 7, 2013 ISSUE: Yakima Flanning Commission (YPC) public hearing on a text amendments tnthe Citvof Yaki,nm'sUrban Area Zoning Ordinance (UAZ{))YakinneK4un}cipa|Code (Y��C)Ti|'15 adding onevv<�hapter15.29VVine|enn<�onnnnunicotionFaci|iUes. The nechapter proposes language to: 1. Enhance the abIity 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; 4. Encourage personal wireless service providers to locate towers and antennas, to the extent posaib|e, 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 rninimizes any significant adverse visual impact; and 6. Provide for the wireless communications needs of governmental entities. In addition, the draft ordinance provides for a hierarchy of preferred locations, site UeaiQn, height restrictions, proximity limitations from residential and historic districts, and aesthetic criteria which apply to new wireless facilities prior to locating in a residential zone, or historic district. The proposed ordinance aliows wireless communicatjor-i towers in all city zoning districts, however siting criteria and other development standards apply to residentially zoned property, and historic districts STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The City of Yakima Planning Division recommends that the YPC discuss and take public input regarding the proposed Zoning Ordinance addition, suggest appropriate revisions to the draft amendrnent as necessary, and provide a final recommendation to the Yakima City Council. INDEX Page 1 HISTORY OF AMENDMENT: On April 2, 2013. the Yakima City Council after hearing concerns from the Barge Chestnut Neighborhood Association about o proposed celI tower declared an emergency six month moratorium, on the C/ty receiving any new app/ications for cel/ tower installations white the City reviewed regulatory control.s on siting standards, and set a public hearing for public input unthe moratorium for May ZY'2013et7p.n7. On May 21, 2013, the Yakima City Council held the appropriate hearing taking into account the concerns of the general public with regard to the Iocation of communication towers within the [ity, and approved the accompanying resolution adopting findings of fact in support of moratorium regarding telecommunications towers and facilities. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (SEPA) On June 27, 2013, the City of Yakima issued a Notice of Application, Environmental Review, Public Hearing, and Determination of Non -Significance for this project. Foliowing the required 20 -day public comnient period where all interested parties and agencies had the right tocomment, and three public comments were received. The Qk/ ofYokinnannade son�eminor annendnnents tothe dro�ordinance addressing sonneofthe commenters cnnuernS, and issued a Notice of Retention Regarding its Determination of Non -Significance for SEPA File #011-13, on July 19, 2013. The 14 -day appeal period for this environmental determination Iapsed on August 2, 2013, with no appeals filed. PUBLIC NOTICE Notice of Application Legal Ad Publication Notice of Public Hea ring Notice of SEPA Determination Retention Department of Commerce Notice of Intent to Adopt DATE ACCOMPLISHED June 27, 2013 June 27, 2013 June 27, 2013 July 19, 2013 June 24, 2013 COMMENTS FROM AGENCIES AND INTERESTED PARTIES The City of Yakima has received, and continues to receive, comments from agencies and interested parties. The Barge Chestnut Neighborhood Association (�(�NA>�nd representativesfrfromv�a �AT & T Services, |no. haYe metvvith sCa�and provi' ed ' observations and recommendations. In addition, the City has received comments from interested agencies, particularly the Aviation Division of Washington State Department of Transportation reiterating that the requiremens and restrictions of the City's Airport Safety Overlay (ASO) would apply specifically to tower heights within the overlay. It should be emphasized that the proposed document may see further changes prior to the scheduled hearing before the Planning Commission on August 7, 2013. City staff also anticipates that further changes may be recommended by the Planning Commission following the August 7, 2013 public hearing. Page 2 DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: . Overview. The attached material crates new Chapter 1 5.29 within the zoning code of (he City of Yakima. The City's current code consists of the following section: 15.04.180 Communication towers. The following provisions shall govern the placement of communication towers within the urban growth area: 1. Communiction towers Iess than thirty-five feel in height require a Type (1) review to ensure compInce with minimum setbacks and building code 2. Communication towers thirty-five teet or greater n heighl require a Type (2) review to ensure compliance with setback provisions and that other permit procedures are reviewed and met; and 3. Communication towers more than fifty-fJve feet in height shall foIIow the review procedures for Class (3) uses and shall meet all the provisions and Ihe building code. (Ord. 2008-46 § 1 (part), 2008: Ord. 2947 § 1 (part), 1086. Formerly 15.04.130). AddbkznaUy, some provisions are found in the City's building codeo, but these deal almost exclusively with structural elements of tower facilities and installation requirements. It is apparent that the Iimited land use controls under existing City codes do not adequately address the land use needs of the community. As noted above, the City Council adopted a six-month moratorium on April 2, 2013 in order to allow for development of a comprehensive land use code pertaining to telecommunication facilities. The current moratorium is set to expire on October 1, 2013. 11. Summary of Proposed Code Sections. 15.29.010 Purpose. A portion of this section was quoted at the beginning of this report. The section also describes the applicability of the code tm"new uses."and 'existing uses" which would be considered as pre-existing nonconforming. — 15.29'020 Definitions. The definitions are extensive and comprehensive. 11 has been suggested that some definitions can be eliminated as they are not mentioned in the text of the proposed code. This has some merit, and some definitions have been removed which are never referenced in the actual code. Other definitions, while seemingly of Iittle use, may be retairied because they may be useful in defining terms or conditions in the perrnitting process. DOC. INDEX Page |3 15.20.030 Exemptions. The exemptions are fairly self-explanatory and reflect other provisions of laws governing the telecommunications industry. For example, "licensed mnnahwu, (ham) radio stations are exempt from Iegislation governing the telecommunications industry. 15.29.035 Modification of Existing Wireless Tower or Base Station. This section was added to address recent federal Iegislation that provided that "modifications" of existing telecommunication towers and base ntmdona, consisting of oo'|ocaUon, rmrnova|, or replacement of transmission equipnment, that do not constitute a "substantial change" to the existing faoi|ity. must be approved. The Fedeal Communicalions Commission (FCC) has also issued a decision clefining the concept of what constitutes a "substantial chnge This definition and terminology has been incorporated into lhis section The section also includes a review and permitting process within a 90 -day "shot clock." The FCC had also ruled that a city may require submissior-i of an application and issuance of a permit for these modificntionm, within a maximum 90 -day processing period 15.29.040 Site selection criteria. This section states general principles applicable to site location, including identification of any alternate sites and effects on adjacent neighborhoods, 15.29'045 Protected areas. This section was added to define certain designated areas whee effects of telecommunication facilities would likely have significant adverse impact. "Protected areas" are defined to include: Protected areas are: (a) established federal, state or local historic districts or historic district overlay zones; (b) proposed federal, state or local historic districts or historic district over(ay zones filed for record with the federal, slate or Iocal agency with jurisdiction (hereafter "pending" historic district or overlay zones); (c) sites, buildings, structures or objects listed in the National Register of Historic Places; (d) state and Iocal wildlife retuges, and permanently protected archeological sites; and (e) designa(ed areas subject to preservation or protection through recorded conservation easement, Except as provided in 15.29.050, antennas and antenna support facilities are not permitted in or within 300 feet of any prolected area. INDEX # 4 Page 4 15.29.050 Priority of locations. The "priority oflocations" section is an important part of the proposed code. This section Iists different types of Iocation ranging from "most favored' (Ieast anticipated impac) to Ieast favored (most anticipated impact). In order of phor(hv, these Iocations are: a. Co -location onexisting facilities; b. Public properties; c. Placement on existing structures/buildings in industrial and commercial zonao, with appropriate camouflage and/or stealth; U. Placement in industrial znnes, more than 300 feet from residential districts and more than 800 feet from protected areas; e. Local Business District (B-2) and Large Convenience Center (LCC) zones, more than 300 feet from residential districts and more than 300 feet from protected areas. (If within 300 feet of a residential district, or within 300 feet of a protected area, administrative approval is allowed if there is a showing that alternate location is not avai|ab|e, and imposition of camouflage and/or stealth.) f In or within 300 feet of a residentially zoned district (other than within the 6-2 or LCC znnen), conditional use permit required, including appropriate camouflaging and/or steallh. 9. In or within 300 feet of a protected area (other than within the 8'2 or LCC zonem), conditional use permit required, including appropriate camouflaging and/or stealth. 15.29.060 Siting priority on public property. This section prioritizes types of "public property" that may be considered for siting of telecommunication facilities. These priorities are: a. City -owned property (subject to Airport Safety Overly (ASO) zoning restrictions and requirements). b. Property owned by other public safety entities, Iaw enforcement, fire prevention, ambulance entities. c. Property owned by other governmental agencies (not related to police, fire, ambulance services). d. Property owned by telecommunication service providers. INDEX # Page 5 This section also requires use of a lease instrument, subject to listed conditions. Special provisions are included for any proposed location within a public park, including review by the Parks Commission. 15.29J070 Required submittals and testing. This section describes the etements ofgnapplication for a telecommunication facility, including photo -simulations (plus balloon (est for any proposed location within 800 feet of an environmentally sensitive area). 15.29.080 Co -location. This section requires consideration of possible co -location options and states components of such consideration, 15.29'090 Design criteria. Addressed here are requirements for setbacks, incorporation of provisions allowing forno'|ocation of future faoi|iUea, tower sepana1kzn, color of facilities, soneenlng, tower location, parking, and other eFements, 15.29'100 Permits required. There are three types of approval included here: (a) administrative review and permit; (b) conditional use permit; and (c) variance. a. Administrative Permit. The following are subject to administrative review and permit, unless otherwise noted: 1. Modificitions to eligible existing facilities pursuant 10 1 529.035 and 15,29080 that do not constitule a substantial change; modifications that constitute a substantial change require a variance; 2. Antennas, towers and related facilities Iocated within or upon government-owned property or structres where such antennas, towers and related facilities are disguised by camouflage and/or stealth measures approved by the city; 3. Am8annon, towers and related facilities located on appropriate rights- of-way and ihbs'of-woyand existing ,tnuotu,wo, such as bui|dinga, towmm, and water towers, in industrial and commercial zoning districts where such antennas, towers and related facilities are disguised by camouflage and/or stealth measures approved by the city; Page 6 4. Anlennas, lowers and related facilities ocated within ndustrial zones of the city, including proposed Iocat,ons within 300 feet of residential zoneci districts, where such antennas, towers and related facilities are disguised by camouflage and/or stealth measures approved by the city; 5. Antennma, towers and related facilities located within the Local Business District (B'2)and Large Convenience Center (LCC) zoning districts where such proposed site is (a) more than 300 feet from residentially zoned districls and more than 300 feet from an environmentally sensitive area, and (b) such structures are camouflaged and/or disguised by stealth measures approved by the city. An applicant that wishes to locate a new antenna, antenna support structure or tower within the B-2 or LCC dinhicb, and within 300 feel from residential zoned districts or within 300 feet of a protected area, shall demonstrate that a diligent effort has been made to locate the proposed communications facilities on a site, private institutional struc(ure, or other appropriate existing structures more than 300 feel from residenaI zoned districts or niore 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 anlennas, towers and retated facililies may approved by the administrator, subject to the adminislrators approval of camouflage or disguise by stealth. Such proposed structures are also subject 10 the bailoon test and/or photo - simulation requiromuntnuf162&.O7Uinordor(oaosint1headminintraborin determining appropriate camouflage and/or stealth requirements. b. Conditional Use Permit. The section provides that, except as listed mbuve, all other proposed facilities would require a conditional use permit. c. Variances. Variances are expecled to arise in the arena where a proposed "modification" of an existing tower or base station constitutes a 'substantial change." The section includes a "Permit Table" summarizing the type of permit or approval required for each proposed development. Page 7 15.29.110 Inspection requirements. This section requires annual inspection and reports. 15.29.120 Non-use/abandonment. The section requires notification of abandonment and removal of the facility within six months. 15.29.130 Third party review. If it is determined that a more detailed analysis of technical issues is required, this section authorizes the use of an independent party or agency to conduct a third-pariy review. The applicant and the city may cooperate in the selection of the third -party reviewed, but the applicant pays the costs. 15.29.140 Conditional use 0e — Procedures — Conditions for an A conditional use permit process in created for telecommunication facility approvals. Briefly, the Hearing Examiner would make determinations, findings and a decision regarding the application and impose conditions upon the project. The parameters of the Hearing Examiner's authority and duties is described in this section, together with the types of conditions that can be imposed. 15,29.150 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 16.06.030." 15.29.160 Application form. The forms used for applications and other permits will be created by the City. 15.29.170 Filing fees. Filing fees are required, but not yet established. 15.29.180 Notice of hearing — Conditional use permits. "Notice of all public hearings shall be given and prepared as required by Chapter 16.05 YMC." 15.29.190 Reapplication. "Upon final action as set forth in this chapter in denying an application for a conditional use permit, the city shall not accept further filing of an application for Page 8 substantially the same matter within one year from the date of any final denial of an application." 15.29.200 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, 15.29.210 Vacation of permits. ^A. Any conditional use permit issued pursuant to this chapter may be vacated upon approval by the current Iandowner; 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.' 15.29.32DViolation —Penalty. "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 inYMC0.O2.O5U. Additionally, any violalion of the provisions of this ohaotmr, 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." RECOMMENDATION It is staffs desire that the Planning Commission review the proposed code and provide observations, suggested revisions and its recommendation. We also welcome the comments of those participating in the public hearing, representatives of the BCNA and represeritatives of the telecommunications industry. As mentioned above, we have already benefited from comments provided by stakeholders and interested parties. DOC. INDEX""�m�m=�� # Page 1 9 Staffs recommendation is that the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the new code by the City Council, with any changes identified by the Planning Commission. Foliowing the public hearing, any appropriate findings of fact and conclusions will be presented. Page 10 ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT CHAPTER 15.29 WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES TXT#002-13, SEPA#011-13 t B - EXHIBIT LIST CHAPTER B Council Legislation DOC UMEN1 Ordinance No. 2013-014 Adopting SiMonlh Moratorium for Communication Towers 04/02/2013 B - B-3 Resolution No. R-2013-066 Adopting Findings of Fact Suppo g a Six -Month Moratorium Ordinance No. 2013-040 Extending Moratorium 05/21/2013 -4 Draft Ordinance - Adopting Regulation for Communication Towers 09/03/2013 05/2013 AN ORDINANCE ORDINANCE NO. 2013 - relating to wireless communication facilities; amending Title 15 of the Yakima Municipal Code to add new Chapter 15.29 regulating wireless communication facilities, and repealing Section 15.04.180 of the Yakima Municipal Code. WHEREAS, the City Council has previously adopted ordinances zoning and regulating land uses within the City of Yakima, all as codified at Title 15 of the Yakima Municipal Code ("YMC"), including YMC 15.04.180 pertaining to placement of communications towers; and WHEREAS, on April 2, 2013, the City Council 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; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Yakima has scheduled and conducted study sessions and public hearings regarding wireless communication facilities on August 7, 2013; August 14, 2013; September 4, 2013; September 25, 2013; October 9, 2013, October 23, 2013 and October 28, 2013; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, having received and considered all evidence and testimony presented at such sessions and hearing, together with the record herein, adopted findings of fact, conclusions and recommendation dated October 28, 2013, wherein the Planning Commission recommended adoption of a comprehensive code regarding wireless communication facilities as new Chapter 15.29 YMC; and WHEREAS, the City Council has scheduled and held a public hearing on November 5, 2013 to receive the recommendation of the Planning Commission and public comment; and WHEREAS, the City Council, having received and considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the record herein, and all evidence and testimony produced at the public hearing, finds and determines that the findings, conclusions and recommendation of the Planning Commission should be accepted and that Title 15 YMC should be amended to add new Chapter 15.29 YMC as attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the purposes of the moratorium adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 2013-014 and extended pursuant to Ordinance No. 2013-040 have been met and that the moratorium adopted pursuant to such ordinance should INDEX terminate upon the date Chapter 15.29 YMC adopted herein becomes effective, that current YMC 15.04.180 should be repealed; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that adoption of Chapter 15.29 `NC as set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto is in the best interests of residents of the City of Yakima and will promote the general safety and welfare; now, therefore BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF YAKIMA: Section 1. The findings and conclusions of the City of Yakima Planning Commission as referenced in the recitals above are affirmed and adopted by the City Council as its own findings and conclusions. Section 2. Title 15 YMC is hereby amended to add new Chapter 15.29 YMC entitled "Wireless Communications Facilities" is hereby amended to read as set forth in Exhibit "K attached hereto and incorporated herein. Section 3, The moratorium implemented pursuant to Ordinance No. 2013- 014 and extended pursuant to Ordinance No. 2013-040 shall terminate on the date Chapter 15.29 YMC adopted pursuant to this Ordinance becomes effective as set forth in Section 4 below. Section 4. YMC 15.04.180 is hereby repealed effective on the date Chapter 15.29 YMC adopted pursuant to Section 2 above becomes effective. Section 5. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect 30 days after its passage, approval, and publication as provided by law and by the City Charter. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, signed and approved this 5th day of November, 2013. ATTEST: Micah Cawley, Mayor City Clerk Publication Date: Effective Date: 2 DOC. INDEX #2) ORDINANCE NO. 2013-040 AN ORDINANCE of the City of Yakima renewing and extending moratorium regarding telecommunication and wireless communication facilities adopted April 2, 2013 pursuant to Ordinance No. 2013- 14, from October 1, 2013 through midnight of D mber 31, 2013, adopting findings of fact in support of such renewal and extension and affirming moratorium through December 31, 2013. WHEREAS, the City Council has previously adopted Ordinance No. 2013-14 on April 2, 2013 establishing a six-month moratorium on the filing and acceptance of development applications for, the installation of, and issuance of permits and approvals for, telecommunication towers, cell towers, communication towers, and facilities related to such uses, within the City of Yakima; directing development of comprehensive zoning and business regulations pertaining to such towers and related facilities; providing that the moratorium shall be in effect for six months, through October 1, 2013; and WHEREAS, the City Council has ived a recommendation from the Planning Commission, supported by the wireless communication industry, residents of the City of Yakima, and City staff, to extend the moratorium for a period of at least one month, and a further recommendation from the Planning Commission for extension of such moratorium through December 31, 2013; and WHEREAS, RCW 35.63.200 and RCW 36.70A.390 provide that a moratorium, may be renewed for one or more six-month periods if a subsequent public hearing is held and findings of fact are made prior to each renewal; and WHEREAS, the City Council has scheduled and conducted a public hearing, pursuant to notice duly published, on September 3, 2013, to consider the requests for renewal of such moratorium by extension for at least one month, through November 1, 2013, or through December3l 2013; and WHEREAS, the City Council, having received the recommendations of the City of Yakima Planning Commission, and having considered all comments and testimony presented at the public hearing, now makes the following findings of fact: (a) Since the adoption of the moratorium on April 2, 2013, city staff has: reviewed laws, municipal codes of other cities and municipal corporations; has prepared drafts of proposed comprehensive code provisions relating to the regulation of wireless communication facilities; and has worked with representatives of the community and the wireless communication industry to consider possible revisions. (b) Public hearings have been scheduled and held before the Planning Commission on August 7 and August 14, 2013, with a further study session currently scheduled for September 4, 2013. INDEX (c) City staff has participated in neighborhood meetings with members of the Barg hestnut Neighborhood Association (BCNA) and representatives of the wireless communication industry on August 29, 2013. (d) While significant work has been accomplished to review and compile draft provisions, a significant portion of work remains to be done, including further study sessions with the Planning Commission, public hearings before the Planning Commission and public hearing before the City Council to consider the Planning Commission's recommendation for adoption of a telecommunications ordinance. (e) As stated above, a study session is currently set of September 4, 2013 by the Planning Commission to consider updated revisions to the draft code, with further public hearing(s) to be set in September. (f) Additional time is warranted per provisions of the Yakima City Charter Article VI, Section 2, that provide that an ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after adoption and publication, thereby compressing the time available for consideration and adoption of a new comprehensive code prior to the scheduled expiration of the current moratorium. (g) City staff has presented a work plan supporting and justifying an extension of the moratorium for at least two months, with a foreseeable likelihood that additional time may be necessary to accommodate sufficient review by interested parties, further review by the Planning Commission, and review and adoption by the City Council. (h) An extension of the moratorium for one month has been r mmended by representatives of the wireless industry. (i) On August 7, 2013, the Planning Commission adopted a motion recommending that the City Council extend the moratorium for an additional month, through November 1, 2013. * (j) On August 14, 2013, the Planning Commission adopted a motion revising its previous recommendation, which new motion r- 'mmended that the City Council extend the moratorium for a period expiring December 31, 2013. (k) Representatives of the wireless communications industry object to any extension beyond November 1, 2013, and contend that the additional time between October 1 and November 1 should be sufficient to accomplish review and adoption. (1) Members of the community and the BCNA contend that, given the comprehensive nature of the propo • code, more time should be provided to assure adequate opportunity for the community, industry, staff, Planning Commission and City Council to review, comment and revise the proposed code. 2 DOC. INDEX (m) The City Council finds and determines that an extension of the moratorium through December 31, 2013 is warranted and supported, and that such extension is in the best interests of residents of the City of Yakima and will promote the general safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, the City Council, having adopted the above findings of fact, hereby makes the following conclusions: (a) The City Council has jurisdiction to consider and decide all issues herein, including an extension of the moratorium, all pursuant to RCW 35.63.200 and RCW 36.70A.390. (b) There being no objection to any Council member hearing and deciding such issues, any objection thereto is hereby deemed waived. (c) The work performed to date has been necessary and appropriate to prepare a proposed comprehensive code pertaining to regulation of wireless communication facilities, but additional time is necessary and appropriate to accommodate further review and ultimate adoption. (c) The moratorium adopted pursuant to Ordinance No 2013-14 should be renewed by extension from October 1, 2013 through midnight of December 31, 2013. Such extension is warranted and supported by the scope of work to be done, including accommodation of time necessary for review of the proposed code, submission of comments and prop. -d revisions, public hearings and final adoption; and EREAS, the City Council finds and determines that the above findings and conclusions support the requested extension of the moratorium adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 2013-14, and that such extension will promote the general safety and welfare; now, therefore BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF YAKIMA: Section 1. The moratorium adopted and imposed pursuantto Ordinance No. 2013- 14, originally set to expire October 1, 2013, is hereby rene to extend through midnight of December 31, 2013. - . Section 2. The City Manager is hereby directed to continue to perform the duties imposed pursuant to Ordinance No. 2013-14. Section 3. Except as amended, renewed and extended herein, the provisions of Ordinance No. 2013-14 shall remain in full force and effect a rding to its terrns. Section 4. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect 30 days after its passage, approval, and publication as provided by law and by the City Charter. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, signed and approved this and day of September, 2013. ATTEST: Publication Date: Septemb Effective Date: October 6, 20 4 DOC. INDEX ITEM TITLE: SUBMITTED BY: SUMMARY EXPLANATION: BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YAKIMA, WASHINGTON AGENDA STATEMENT Item No. For Meeting of: 9/3/2013 ::•:40zari,• .,,04.0,4.:74.01,12.14..,:.• Public Hearing to consider ordinance extending moratorium concerning wireless communication facilities and adopting findings of fact in support thereof. Mark Kunkler, Senior Assistant City Attorney City staff is currently working on a comprehensive code for wireless communication facilities and cell towers. A moratorium was adopted in April 2013 to allow for such work, and to allow for public comment and participation from residents, the wireless industry and the Planning Commission. On August 7, 2013, at the request of the wireless industry, the Planning Commission adopted a motion recommending an extension of the current moratorium for one month, through November 1, 2013. During the succeeding meeting on August 14, 2013, the Planning Commission revised its recommendation to ask that the moratorium be extended through December 31, 2013 in order to provide ample time for continuing review and discussion. It was observed that the moratorium could be lifted before December 31, 2013 upon enactment of a new comprehensive code, but the extension through December 31 would provide more opportunity for discussion and review, as well as accommodate the 30 -day "effective date" requirement imposed on ordinances pursuant to the Yakima City Charter, Article VI, Section 2. The proposed extension through December 31, 2013 was supported by representatives of the community and the Barge Chestnut Neighborhood Association, but was opposed by representatives of the industry. The industry countered that a one-month extension would extend the moratorium through November 1, 2013 which should be sufficient to accomplish enactment. Staff is recommending a two month extension, through December 1, 2013. Pursuant to state law, a moratorium may be extended upon the City Council's adoption of an ordinance and findings following a public hearing. RCW 35.63,200 and RCW 36.70A.390. The attached ordinance is presented for Council consideration, but the period of extension is left for Council determination. Also included in the agenda materials is a memorandum discussing next steps in the review process and a copy of the draft code delivered to the Planning Commission for its August 14, 2013 meeting. Additional changes are currently in process based on suggestions and comments received from the Planning Commission, community and industry. DOC. INDEX # F- 3 Resolution: Other (Specify): Contract: Contract Te Start Date: End Date: Item Budgeted: NA Amount: Funding Source/Fiscal mpact: Strategic Priority: Improve the Built Environment Ordinance: X insurance Required? No ail to: Phone: APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL: City Manager RECOMMENDATION: Conduct public hearing, adopt ordinance extending moratorium for a period determined appropriate by the City Council. Staff recommends an extension of the moratorium for two (2) months, from October 1, 2013 through December 1, 2013. ATTACHMENTS: Description Upload Date Type Memo WireIess, COMm OniC4Ori FiLtfr•1 MORATOMUM EXTENSION Sept 3 2013 MGRATORIUM-Talscommunicalicrr Tvmirs.4- 2013 Ot) NANCE,C&1 T�WeFLMORATORIUM EXTENSI0N.Sept.3.70 R-2013-066 Telecummunicalions Month Moratorium - Findings of Fact. Tee-Communicallons-Cell Towers- DRAFTREVISED,August.8,2013 8/23/2013 8/2312013 8/23/2013 8)23/2013 8/23(2013 Cover Memo Backup Material Ordinance Backup Material Backup Material DOC. INDEX RESOLUTION NO. R-2013-066 A RESOLUTION adopting Findings of Fact supporting a six-month moratorium, enacted April 2, 2013 pursuant to emergency Ordinance No. 2013-14, prohibiting the filing and acceptance of development applications for, the installation of, and issuance of permits and approvals for, telecommunication towers, cell towers, communication towers, and facilities related to such uses, within the City of Yakima; and authorizing the City Manager to study and develop appropriate comprehensive land use, licensing or registration regulations addressing such issues for consideration by the City Council. WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36 70A.390 and RCW 35 63.200, the City Council of the City of Yakima by unanimous vote of those present on April 2, 2013 adopted Ordinance No. 2013-14 imposing a moratorium for six months prohibiting the filing and a ptance of development apptions for, the installation of, and issuance of permits and approvals for, telecommunication towers, cell towers, communication towers, and facilities related to such uses, within the City of Yakima; and WHEREAS, RCW 36.70A.390 and RCW 35.63.200 require the City Council to hold a public hearing within sixty days after imposition of a moratorium to receive evidence and testimony regarding imposition of the moratorium, to consider whether such moratorium should be modified or continue in effect as originally adopted, and to adopt findings of fact supporting such decision; and WHEREAS, the City Council has held the required public hearing on May 21, 2013 pursuant to notice duly published, and having considered all evidence and testimony presented, hereby makes the following: Findings of Fact The City Council of the City of Yakima has authority pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390 and RCW 35.63.200 to adopt a moratorium to preserve the status quo pending development of comprehensive land use controls and regulations, health and safety regulations, and business licensing or registration regulations and procedures, concerning tel- •mmunication towers, cell towers, communications towers, and facilities related to such uses 2. Existing land use regulations in the Yakima Municipal Code consist of the provisions of YMC 15.04.180 which provide: 15.04,180 Communication towers. The following provisions shall govern the placement of communication towers within the urban growth area: 1. Communication towers less than thirty-five feet in height require a Type (1) review to ensure compliance with minimum setbacks and building code requirements; INDEX 2. Communication towers thirty-five feet or greater in height require a Type (2) review to ensure compliance with setback provisions and that other permit procedures are reviewed and met; and 3. Communication towers more than fifty-five feet in height shall follow the review procedures for Class (3) uses and shall meet all the provisions and the building code (Ord. 2008-46 § 1 (part), 2008: Ord. 2947 § 1 (part), 1986 Formerly 15.04 130). Additional provisions are found within the international building codes pertaining to structural engineering and issuance of building permits for such uses. Existing codes and procedures in the Yakima Municipal Code do not adequately address appropriate priority of zoning, site screening, camouflaging of towers and related telecommunication facilities, collocation requirements, application requirements, provisions addressing secondary effects of such facilities upon the quiet use and enjoyment of property, and other factors as described in Finding 3 below 3. 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 n- -4 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. 4. Secondary effects arising from inadequate land use controls for telecommunication towers and facilities include: (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 collocation 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 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. 5. The City Council finds and determines that the City of Yakima needs time to consider additional zoning regulations, health and safety regulations, and business licensing regulations which would deal specifically with tel- •mmunication to rs and related facilities within the City of Yakima, and the City Council therefore finds and determines that the moratorium for the term of six months adopted and implemented in Ordinance No 2013-14, commencing on April 2, 2013 and extending through 2 DOC. INDEX October 1, 2013, is necessary and appropriate in order to study the issues and to consider adopting appropriate regulations. 6. The City Council finds and deterrnines that certain exemptions from the moratorium are warranted as set forth in Ordinance No. 2013-14, including applications for telecommunication towers and facilities that vested prior to the effective date of the moratorium As required by Section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (H.R. 3630) ("Act"), also excluded from the moratorium are eligible facilities' requests for a modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station. For purposes of this subsection, the term "eligible facilities request" means any request for modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that involves— (A) collocation of new transmission equipment; (8) removal of transmission equipment; or (C) replacement of transmission equipment. Application and administration of the moratorium adopted and implemented pursuant to Ordinance No. 2013-14 shall be consistent with such provisions and with the interpretation of Section 6409(a) of the Act as issued by the Federal Communications Commission on January 25, 2013 (DA 12-2407). 7. The City Council finds and determines that imposition of the moratorium adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 2013-14 is necessary to (a) provide the City with an opportunity to study the issues regarding siting, zoning and regulation of telecommunication towers, cell towers, communications towers, and related facilities within the City of Yakima and to prepare appropriate revisions to the City's codes and regulations; (b) to protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Yakima by avoiding and ameliorating negative impacts of the proliferation of new telecommunication towers and related facilities; and (c) to avoid applicants possibly establishing vested rights contrary to and inconsistent with any revisions the City may make to its regulations and codes as a result of the City's study of this matter. 8 The City Council finds, determines and concludes that an emergency exists justifying emergency adoption of Ordinance No 2013-14, to wit: (a) existing city codes and procedures are inadequate to provide for the receipt and processing of applications for telecommunication towers and related facilities, designation of appropriate zoning districts or priority of zoning districts for such uses, and protection of the general health, safety and welfare of residents of the City of Yakima; (b) neither City staff nor the Planning Commission have had sufficient opportunity to review the effects of permitting telecommunication towers and facilities or to formulate, prepare and recommend appropriate zoning regulations, health and safety regulations, and business licensing regulations which would deal specifically such uses within the City of Yakima; and (c) the immediate imposition of this moratorium pursuant to Ordinance No. 2013-14 will preserve the status quo to enable the City to further study the effects of such uses and to devise appropriate zoning and regulatory controls to address the effects of such uses 9 The City Council finds and deterrnines that the moratorium adopted and implemented pursuant to Ordinance No. 2013-14 should remain in effect according 3 INDEX 01_5 to its terms, and that such is in the best interests of residents of the City of Yakima and will promote the general health, safety and welfare, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YAKIMA: 1. The Findings of Fact set forth above are hereby adopted as the Findings of Fact supporting the adoption, implementation and continuation of the moratorium adopted April 2, 2013 pursuant to Ordinance No 2013-14 according to its terms, with application and administration of such moratorium consistent with Finding of Fact No. 6 above, pertaining to Section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (H.R. 3630). 2. The City Manager of the City of Yakima is hereby authorized and directed to perform those duties and functions set forth in Ordinance No. 2013-14, including but not limited to, development of proposed comprehensive land use, licensing, and health and safety regulations pertaining to telecommunication lowers and related facilities and any issues ancillary thereto. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 21 day of May, 2013. 4 ayor DOC® INDEX ITEM TITLE: SUBMITTED BY: SUMMARY EXPLANATION: BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YAKIMA, WASHINGTON AGENDA STATEMENT • Item No, For Meeting of: 5/21/2013 4.1•72,-ari:giafi,...magag;:;7:711; Public Hearing, and consideration of a Resolution adopting findings of fact in support of moratorium regarding telecommunications towers and facilities. Jeff Cutter, City Attorney Mark Kunkler, Senior Assistant City Attorney On April 2, 2013, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2013-14 imposing a moratorium on receipt, processing and issuance of permits for placement and erection of telecommunication towers and facilities within the City of Yakima, subject to certain exceptions for vested applications and collocation, repair and replacement of telecommunication equipment. State law requires that a public hearing be held within 60 days after adoption of the moratorium. The purpose of the public hearing is to receive public testimony and evidence as to whether the moratorium should remain unchanged or modified. Following the public hearing the City Council is asked to adopt a resolution setting forth findings of fact supporting the moratorium as originally adopted or as modified. The attached resolution sets forth proposed findings in support of the moratorium as originally adopted, but incorporating findings regarding compliance with new federal legislation pertaining to telecommunications facilities. Reso ution: X Ordinance: Other (Specify): Contract: Contract Term: Start Date: End Date: Item Budgeted: Amount: Funding Source/Fiscal Impact: Strategic Priority: Insurance Required? No Mail to: Phone: DOC. INDEX APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL: City Manager RECOMMENDATION: Conduct Public Hearing, adopt Resolution, ATTACHMENTS: Name: Description; Memo -Moratorium Ce# Towers Findings Meo MORATORI'JM CELL TOWER $ Findingf_MaY 21 2L13.doc May 21 2013 Eli Resolubon FINDINGS MORATORIUM CJI Tcv,fers May 21 2013 REVISED Resclution-Findings Moratorium Cell (2).doc Towers May 21 2013 REVJSED(2) MORATORIUM-Telecommunicalion Towers -4-2011 E FCC Interpreiation ;1-25-20131.Pdf FCC Inlerpretatpon (1-25-2013) 7 P fUMT 00 T DOC. INDEX ORDINANCE NO. 2013-014 AN ORDINANCE of the City of Yakima, Washington, adopting a six-month moratorium on the tiling arid acceptance of development applications for, the installation of, and issuance of permits and approvals for, telecommunication towers, cell towers, communication towers, and facilities related to such uses, within the City of Yakima; directing development of comprehensive zoning and business regulations pertaining to such towers and related facilities; providing that the moratorium shall be in effect for six months, through October 1. 2013; declaring an emergency in the passage of this ordinance providing for immediate effective date; and setting May 21. 2013 as the date for the public hearing on the moratorium. WHEREAS, RCW 36.70A.390 and RCW 35.63.200 authorize the City Council to adopt an ordinance imposing a moratorium and provide a process for public hearing which must be held within sixty days of the date of adoption of the moratorium; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that the City of Yakima needs time to consider additional zoning regulations, health and safety regulations, and licensing regulations which would deal s. ifically with the location, design, construction, maintenance and operation of telecommunication towers, cell towers, communication towers, and facilities related to such uses (hereinafter collectively referred to as telecommunication towers") within the City of Yakima, and the City Council has therefore decided to impose a moratorium for the term of six months, commencing on the effective date of this ordinance and extending through October 1, 2013, in order to study the issue as determined by the City Council and to adopt appropriate regulations and WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that imposition of a moratorium is necessary to (a) provide the City with an opportunity to study the issues regarding siting, zoning and regulation of telecommunication towers within the boundaries of the City of Yakima; (b) to protect the health, safety and welfare of residents of the city, and to preserve and promote development of comprehensive regulations for siting, zoning, screening and maintenance of telecommunication towers within the city; and (c) to avoid applicants possibly establishing vested rights contrary to and inconsistent with any revisions the City may make to its regulations and codes as a result of the City's study of this matter; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds, deterrnines and concludes that an emergency exists, to wit: (a) the City of Yakima has leamed of recent inquiries and proposals being discussed with regard to locating telecommunication towers within the city, including proposals for locating such uses within or in close proximity to residential neighborhoods; (b) neither City staff nor the Planning Commission have had sufficient opportunity to review the effects of telecommunication tower uses with regard to concerns for economic development, preservation and/or promotion of site compatibility, preservation and protection of the rights of residents to the quiet use and enjoyment of their residential property and neighborhoods, and safety within the city, and development of a comprehensive plan, program or regulation coordinating the preservation and 1 DOC. INDEX #0.-A,Z.,140P.OPPOMS3333M promotion of residential, commercial and industrial districts with the needs and uses of the telecommunication industry; and (c) the immediate imposition of this moratorium will preserve the status quo to enable the City to further study the effects of such uses and to devise appropriate zoning and regulatory controls to address the effects of such uses; and WHEREAS, the City Council authorizes and directs the City Manager to 1) review existing City ..es and zoning regulations affecting telecommunication tower siting, 2) further study the effects resulting from locating telecommunication towers within the boundaries of the city, 3) prepare comprehensive proposed amendments to the City codes and zoning regulations to address the effects of such uses, 4) to confer with community members, City advisory commissions and telecommunication providers in accord with the requirements of RCW 35.99.050, as shall be necessary and appropriate, and 5) to present recommended legislation addressing such issues to the City Council for consideration, public comment and action; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that a public hearing on this moratorium should be held on Mav 21, 2013, whereupon the City Council may adopt findings of fact in support of the adoption of this moratorium, or modify the terms thereof; and WHEREAS, notwithstanding the term of six months set forth above for the moratorium adopted herein, this moratorium may at any time hereafter be (a) modified by the City Council in accordance with applicable law; (b) extended for additional term(s) of six months upon action following public hearing and adoption of findings in support thereof; (c) terminated by the City Council upon adoption of appropriate zoning and regulatory codes; or (d) terminated by the City Council for any reason deemed necessary or appropriate; now, therefore: BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF YAKIMA: Section 1. Moratorium Established. From and after the effective date of this ordinance, the City shall not allow the filing of or accept any application for a building perrnit, tenant improvement, business license, business registration, nonprofit license, perrnit, subdivision, short subdivision, site plan review, or any other development for any telecommunication tower, cell tower, communication tower, and related facilities, land, structure or use, within the boundaries of the City of Yakima As used in this ordinance, the following terms have the meanings set forth below: A. "Telecommunication tower ° includes a "communication tower" as defined in YMC 15.04.180 and Chapter 15.04 YMC, and "personal wireless service facilities" defined and regulated by Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. Law 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996), and Section 302(c) thereof, codified at 47 U.S.0 Section 302(c). The term includes towers and facilities commonly known as "cell towersand other towers or structures consisting of freestanding or monopole construction. B. "City" means the City of Yakima and all zoning districts within such city. 2 DOC INDEX In addition to the above definitions and as necessary to interpret or apply this Ordinance, the City hereby adopts those definitions and provisions of the Yakima Municipal Code pertaining to land use, zoning, design and regulation. Section 2. Exemptions — Vested Rights — Repair and Mandated Safety Improvements — Collocation. The moratorium shall not apply to applications for new telecommunication towers and related facilities, or permits for relocation of existing telecommunication towers and facilities, that have vested prior to the effective date of this ordinance, permit applications to conduct repair of existing telecommunication towers and facilities, permit applications to implement safety improvements for existing telecommunication towers and facilities as mandated by state or federal standards, or permit applications for collocation on any existing telecommunication tower or facility that do not extend the height or area of such existing facility. Applications which are legally vested as of the effective date of this ordinance shall continue to be processed as provided in the Yakima Municipal Code and a rding to the land use regulations in effect on the date of vesting. Section 3. Public Hearing. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390 and RCW 35.63.200, a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, May 21, 2013, for the purpose of taking testimony and, if this ordinance is passed, adopting written findings and conclusions justifying the moratorium established by this ordinance. Section 4. Effective Period of Moratorium. The moratorium adopted by this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon passage and approval of the City Council, and shall remain in effect for six months, through October 1, 2013, subject to adoption of findings and conclusions as provided in Section 3 above. This moratorium shall also terminate upon the adoption of permanent regulations goveming the location, land use and regulation of telecommunication towers and facilities. Notwithstanding the above, this moratorium may be extended as provided in RCW 36.70A.390 and RCW 35.63.200. Section 5. Directive to City Manager. The City Council hereby authorizes and directs the City Manager to review existing City codes and zoning regulations; to study the effects resulting from the siting of telecommunication facilities; to prepare comprehensive proposed amendments to the City es and zoning regulations to address the effects of such uses; to confer with community members, City advisory commissions as appropriate and with members of the telecommunication industry that wish to take part in the review and code development process in accord with the requirements of RCW 35.99.050; and to present recommended legislation addressing such issues to the City Council for consideration and action. Section 6. Declaration of Emergency. Pursuant to Article VI Section 2 of the Charter of the City of Yakima, the City Council finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is an emergency ordinance to provide for the immediate preservation of the public peace, property, health or safety. The unanimous vote of the City Council shall be necessary for the passage of this emergency ordinance. Section 7. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance. 3 DOC INDEX Section 8. Ordinance to be Transmitted to Department. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, this Ordinance shall be transmitted to the Washington State Department of Commerce as required by law or otherwise posted, published or recorded as permitted by law. Section 9. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its passage and approval as provided by law and the City Charter. PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THE CITY COUNCIL, signed and approved this 2nd day of April, 2013. Effective Date: April 2, 2013 Publication Date: April 5, 2013 Ordinance Approved by Unanimous Vote of Council Members: April 2, 2013 4 icah Caw -y, Mayor DOC INDEX ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT C PTER 15.29 WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES TXT#002-13, SEPA#011-13 EXHIBIT LIST C PTER C Public Comments DOC DOCL Ni. DATE C-1 Comment Lefter from Robert Bass, AT&T 05/16/2013 C-2 Comment Letter from Nancy Kenmotsu Pb. D., Ya a Historic Preservation Commission 05/21/2013 C-3 Comment Letter from Leslie Wahl, Barge -Chestnut Neighborhood Association 07/09/2013 C-4 E-mail Comment from Carter Timmerman, Dept. of Transportation 07/17/2013 C-5 Comment Letter from Carol Tagayun, AT&T 07/18/2013 C-6 Comment Letter from E. Michael Connors, Hathaway Koback Connors LLP, Verizon Wireless 07/19/2013 C-7 E-mail Comment from Mike Davison 08/14/2013 C-8 E-mail Comment from Ken Lyons 08/14/2013 C-9 E-mail Comment from Ralph Call 08/17/2013 C-10 Comment Letter from Carol Tagayun, AT&T 08/20/2013 C-11 Comment Letter from Michael Connors, Hathaway Koback Connors LLP, Verizon Wireless 10/22/2013 C-12 Comment Letter from Ken Lyons 10/28/2013 BUSCH October 28, 2013 City ofYakima Planning Commission c/o Steve Osguthorpe, Community Development Director 1IBN.2'mStreet Yakima, WA 98901 VIA EMAIL 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 incorpwratesnmp 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 fulty disclose the effect ofthis prc,vision. 22825m;;t.10,e268 Issaquah, w^*S0� 42f.:.458.394w o*z.s1r In-ww.Wirele,sst=our!sel corn ° §15I9.070.7.bjii: "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 teasible. ° §25.29.050.8.Ib, §15.39.060.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 consideratjons. = §15.I9.O78],8.c:Asvvehave commented onseveral occasions, itis 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 dutter" 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. [ffecLive|y, 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, = 015.29.110.8: 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 fiexibility and reduce the need for variances. 12525�6.11i-,Place, Sol,:ez.3h ynacp*..VIA �n:17 425,4583940 7e.n9.s`xr DOC. k����Q��� ""���~~ ~ 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 abui|dinQpermitisrequirewLthedraftimpoueuapre'app|icntiunmeedng(#l5.2912O.A),a45' day "determination process" (§15.29.120.[l), and a 90 -day approval process (§15.29.120I.I) 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 installation VVenreconcernedthatthe|ate,tdraftofthcondinanceomitsud|itypo|esasash|nBupuion.Co- locating facilities o'|ocadngtaci|ides on utility poles can be a viable, ne|aUve|y|mwinnpact 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 "spm" 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 ordiriance 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 rea|istic. Accordingly, we request that these is5ues 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 15 the title ofthe Chapter. FCC Declaratory Ruling, FCC oy*os(November zuaooy). 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, 2252cs»+thm�e,xuile 2F)2, 9m27 'o5mr.1rm 2n6np.'7r www, \VirciessCounsel.-:.:2rn Doc. INDEX"o���°=°~ �� � BUSCH LLC o Existing towers should not be considered "nonconforming uses" (§15.I9.010.[). Section 6409 effectively supersedes the City's nonconforming rules to the extent there isn't a "substantial change." o The definition of "co -location" (§15.29.020) should match the FCC definitinn, which encompasses existing towers, buildings, and other structures, regardless of the number of carriers. o The submittal requirements (#1529.050.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.[ 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 (§15.29.070.3) 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-Iocation 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, Ken Lyons Jurisdictional Relations Director, PNW, LTE cc: Mark Kunkler, City of Yakima, Senior Assistant City Attorney Carol Tagayun, AT&TDirector, External Affairs - Washington File 22525xs,.Su/tezRii u�~ zxsao27 ou5.5.5ms 216,2,9.6717 Hathaway Koback Connors up October 22, 2013 VIA EMAIL & U.S. MAIL Planning Commission City of Yakima 129 North 2nd Street Yakima. Washington 98901 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) mikeconnorsAhkollp corn RECEIVED OCT 2 8 2013 CfTY OF YAKIMA PLANNIAI 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 comments 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 communication facilities on the corrununity.1 We belie' ome of the changes adopted by the Planning 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 arc 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), DOC. INDEX # October 22, 2013 Page 2 SPECIFIC COMMENTS . Thc Proposed Ordinance should broaden the opportunities for co -locating antennas on all existing structures, not just towers. Although the Proposed Ordinance provides incentives for co -locating antennas, it restricts co - location to existing towers.-- Any proposals to mount, antennas on other existing 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.' 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. That is why most cities and counties include these other 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(B) limits small cell installations to street utility poles. Although small cells will be primarily mounted 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 arc 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, vegetation, buildings, or other structures provide the greatest amount of camouflage:I 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 2 Sections 15.29.020 (Definition of Co -location), 15.29.050(A) and 15.29.080(A). Under Section 15.29.040(A), any applicant proposing to mount 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 for 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). DOC, MEM October 22, 2013 Page 3 should bc encouraging the use of small cells, not imposing additional requirements and restrictions. 3. Protected areas are too broad defined. While 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 for protected areas, they should be more narrowly defined in two important respects. Protected areas should not include "proposed" historical districts.5 Only those areas that are actually listed or designated as historic areas should bc 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 -Chestnut neighborhood, a large approximate 16 by 10 block area. While we understand that all or part of the neighborhood may eventually be designated an 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, B-2 and LCC zoning standards are too restrictive and onerous. We understand the City's desire to minimize the impacts of wireless facilities in certain zones, but there will be some instances where a facility is required in these areas in order to provide wireless service. The standards for demonstrating that an antenna or tower must be located in or within 300 feet of the residential. B-2 and LCC zones are too restrictive arid 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 the site and demonstrate they refused to lease space, are too onerous and will significantly delay the application process.Since economic considerations have been intentionally omitted, presumably a building owner's demand of an exorbitant amount of rent would not be a legitimate basis for 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.R The 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 Sections 15.29.020 (Definition of "protected areas") and 15.29,045. 6 Sections 15.29.050(F) and 15.29.050(G), 7 The Telecommunications Act of 1996 prohibits any state or local regulations that "prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services," 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II). Section 15.29.100(A)(7). INDEX #jJ 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 arc 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. • The requirement to site new towers in areas surrounded by tall trees is too restrictive. The requirement to place new towers amongst or adjacent to "the drip line of three or more evergreen trees at least seventy live percent of the height of the facility" is too restrictive.9 This requirement should be removed because it will significantly limit 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 the City agreed to certain changes to the application submittal and testing requirements, there are still several problems." The balloon test requirement should be deleted.' I Balloon tests are outdated, unreliable and costly. They 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, surveys, maps, technical reports, or written narratives" is too open-ended and should not be required for simpler co -location proposals.I- The Proposed Ordinance should include 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." This information is unnecessary for the City to evaluate a proposal for a singlc site and would be overly burdensome to produce for every application. More importantly, this information 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. 9 Seciion 1.5.29.090(B)(9). Section 15.29.070. Section 15.29.070(D). I'Sectiun 15.29.070(E) Sectiun 15.29.070(M), DOC INDEX # C October 22, 2013 Page 5 7. The design criteria arc still too vague and excessive. Although the City agreed to certain changes to the design criteria, there are still several problems.I4 The antenna and tower height requirements are problematic.1) 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 bc 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 minimum height in higher priority areas, such as commercial and industrial zones, especially when they arc within the height restrictions of the applicable zones. It is our experience that demonstrating that an antenna or tower is the minimum 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." 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 -ft 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 sites.I7 Parking should not be required for maintenance workers when the facility is fully automated." Requiring parking is unnecessary and results in an additional impact. The restrictions an 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 sufficient height.° 8. The application fees and costs must be reasonable. The Proposed Ordinance allows the City to hire a third party expert to review the application material at the applicant's sole expense without any limit on the costs. -0 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. 14 Section 15.29.070. 15 Sections 15.29.040(a) and 15.29 090(3)(3). 1(1 Section 15.29.090(13)(7). 17 Section 15.29.090(B)(8). 18 Section 15.29.090(B)(9). 19 Section 15.29.090(B)(10)(h), 20 Section 15.29.130 DOC. INDEX C October 22, 2013 Page 6 For publically owned property, the requirement that carriers reimburse for "any related costs that the city incurs because of the presence of the applicant's facility" is too \'ague and open-ended.2I 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 form of application fccs. franchise fees and rent for leases, 9. The Proposed Ordinance must incorporate the Shot Clock Order requirements. The Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") adopted what is commonly known as the Shot Clock Order in 2009.22 The United 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 ith 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 KOBACK CONNORS LLP E. Michae EMC/df Connors cc: Heather Campbell, Verizon Wireless Peter Mauro, Verizon Wireless Ed McGah, Vcrizon Wireless 21 Section 15,29.060(B)(6). FCC Declaratory Ruling FCC 09-099 (November 18, 2009). 23 City qfAriingtoti v FCC, 133 S. Ct. 1863 (2013). DOC. INDEX at&t August 20, 2013 Mayor Micah Cawley City of Yakima %I9North 2~Street Yakima, WA 98901 Carol Tagayun AT&T T: 425.580.4694 Director z000zmerz"Way F: 425.580.8652 External Affairs Room 1173B capp|.tagavun@^u.o,m Redmond, WA 98052 www.att.com RE: Proposed Amendment to Yakima's Zoning Ordinance for Wireless Cell Siting We appreciate the time and effort that is being undertaken by City of Yakima officials to establish wireless code changes that protect your most sensitive areas, but also allow Yakima residents access to faster mobile broadband service and the reliable wireless coverage that they depend upon for business, connecting with family and friends, and in emergency situations. WhiIe the most recent draft of code changes still contains provisions that are problematic, we are confident that a balance can be struck to establish a reasonable siting process that allows for the Communications service Yakima residents deserve. In general terms, the remaining unresolved issues with the most recent draft of code changes from the August 14, 2013 commission meeting: Predictability: The wireless industry needs a predictable process for siting in residential zones, with the option for administrative approval of designs that meet the criteria established in code. Stealth: It is important to recognize that the design for "stealth" towers tend to reduce the capacity, coverage arid colocation opportunities for individual sites. As a result, the tradeoff with employing "stealth" 15 generaily that more ceII sites are required to provide the same coverage that a more traditional tower would provide. Still, where It is the City of Yakima's objective to encourage "stealth" options, again we would encourage Yakima to actually incentivize the use of "stealth" by providing an easier process for administrative approval of desired designs. Protections for historic districts: Establishing more stringent requirements for siting in historic districts is workable. Extending those more stringent requirements across most or all of the City of Yakima is not. Exten5ion of the moratorium: Wt'iiIe we agree it is important to use the time provided by the moratorium to develop workable code, we believe that this can be accomplished with a one-month extension, rather than a 3 -month extension. At AT&Twe look forward to continuing to provide customers in Yakima coverage, reliable service and access to the latest and fastest network technology. INDEX - /atg Sincerely, Carol Tagayun Director, External Affairs — Washington State cc: Mark Kunkler, Senior Assistant City Attorney Robert Bass, AT&T External Affairs Michael Van Eckha-dt, AT&T Legal Ken Lyons, Bu5ch Law Firm PLLC Sarah Bristol, Council Rich Ensey, Council Bill Lover, Council Maureen Adkinson, Asst. Mayor Kathy Coffey, Council Dave EttI, Council RECEIVED AUG 2 0 -~'w CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV INDEX /�� lbarra, Rosalinda Fromm: Sent: To: |ba,na.Rosm|inda Friday,16, 2013 1:43 PM Al Rose; Alfred A. Rose' ~ '; Dave Fonfara; Ensey, Rick; |bono. Rosalinda; Kunk|er, Mark; Paul Stelzer; Ron Anderson (nzndedioa1mdreaKy@hohnaiioom);Scott Clark (mcott— rtmcnmt); William Cook FW: Cell tower regulation comments to be forwarded to planning commission FYI — please see Walt's written comments below as requested by the Planning Commission at the August 14, 2013 meeting. .%;...��^ fr' 4:* -T poia8tida.|barraii.vmliimumn41.zny From: Ralph [maiIto:ra1phcII@charter.net] Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2013 11:32 AM To: Peters, Jeff Cc: Walt Ranta Subj : Cell tower regulation comments to be forwarded to planning commission Dear Jeff - Here are the items BCNA feels must be changed. A. Bailoon test — reinstate Ianguae of first draft. Tower will be there for 20 plus years — need good test. B. Camouflage de|ete"thatisnottauhno|ogica|lyorconmrnercioUVinnpracticab|g". There is no clear defiriition of these terms. C. [onlmnerdal|rnpracticabi||ty—"rmasonab/eincornrnerce°issovagueastobenneaning|ess. Section 15.39.040—Q. Remove "Technologically or commercially impracticable" - could mean almost anything, Section 1529.50 1. "Street utility poles The structure — pole and antenna - may be raised by a mount to accommodate the separation requirement, not to exceed 3Ofeet" - We believe 30 feet on top of an existing pole is unacceptably high. GF 1. Remove "within a quarter mile radius of the proposed site" — leave in first draft language Section 15,29.080 C. Delete "within 1/4 mile of proposed facility" D. Delete "commercially impracticable or creates an unnecessary and unreasonable burden" This statement is vague and invites lawsuits. INDEXn"���m=w� # F. Leave in 3rd party tech study at expense of applicant. Section 15.29.090 A. Delete "commercially impracticable" vague. B. 3 "Additional height may be permitted to accommodate co -location of other providers "there needs to be a hard and fast height limit. The way it is now written, the tower could be 300 feet high. B. 9 De/ele^Techno|ogicoUymromnnnnenciaUyirnpracUcab|g" Too vague - who determines? The courts? B. 11. f. Delete "to the extentfeazib|e" vague — leave original statennent B. H. ii Remove "substantially" and put in a word that means something specific. B. i. Remove "to the extent feasible" — vague - who decides? B. 12. b. Remove "unless the applicant demonstrates that a larger area and/or height is reasonably necessary to accommodate proposed facility and possibleco'|ocati¢n.° There must be a maximum size stated. Section 15.29.140 B. 1. e. Remove "reasonable and commercially p[acticab|e" — vague language, invites I hope these comments will help you to come up with a regulation that works for the city and industry. As I said at the planning commission meeting, the city must look out for the residents of the city. The industry will look out for itself. In the end, if they want to participate in Yakima's growth, they will comply with reasonable and predictable restrictions. We also agree with Bill Cook's statement that we want to create a path to go down that the city wants and create incentives for them to do so.we also rieed to make sure they dori't go down a path that is bad for the city. Ralph Call 2608 W. Chestnut Ave. ph 509-453-8150 2 �� �� ��~���= INDEX From; Ken Lyons fmaiIto:ken.IyonswireIesscounseI.com] Sent: Wednesday, August l4,ZOl3 12:26 PM To: Kunkler, Mark Cc: OsguLhorpe, Steve; TAGAYUN, CAROL; BASS, ROBERT; Cutter, Jeff; Peters, Jeff; Mike Connors Subject: Yakima Wireless Code - AT&T Comments Good mornin Mark: I left you a voicemail as well, Carol Tagayun will be representing AT&T at the Planning Commission meeting this afternoon — I won't be there due to another Planning Commission commitment in the opposite side of the state. Attached are some redlines to the proposed ordinance. Due to time constraints, I wasn't able to provide as thorough comments as the last draft or make sure the changes are referenced consistently in the code. Here are the high points: ° Small Cells: n Small cells do not replace the need for regular sites, and shouldn't be used as an alternative when evaluating an application for a regular site. I suggest changing the definition of "small cell" in the code to clearly state this. | also suggested changing the "small cell" section of the priorities so we wouldn't have to show why small cells wouldn't work before proposing a regular site (more on this below). • Predictable processes in residential zones: o We need to have a more predictable process in residential zones, including administrative options for certairi designs that the City deems as acceptable up front. � Utility poles: | suggest changing the priority for "small ceU" sites to "utility po|e" sites in general. Most 'smaIl ceII" designs do not look much different than regular utility pole sites. If small cells are allowed administratively in all zones (except historic districts), regular utility pole sites should be as well. The only real difference is the size/location of the equipment cabinets, which is not used as a process determinant elsewhere in the code. It appears that the language you used (from Woodinville, Bellevue) was originally intended for regular utility pole sites. Utility pole sites in residential zones are administrative processes in most jurisdictions in Washington State (including Woodinville & Bellevue). o Incentivize stealth facilities inresidential zones: o As discussed in the hearing last week, believe that many of the "stealth" options available to carriers are not appropriate for the context/climate of Yakima, *mwever, it seems clear that the City is determined to require them regardless in most cases, whether by their own discretion or by virtue of the extensive CUP process. According|y, if the City want trees, flagpoles, light poles in residential zones, they should incentivize thern with easier process. • As I explained last week, these types of facilities have limited capacity/collocation opportunity, meaning that more of these sites would be necessary to fill gaps in a network. Requiring carriers to split up sites, disguising tbem with expensive designs (both cost and network optimization) and then penalizing carriers with a CUP for each one is not workable. It also creates a perverse incentive — carriers would likely submit for their optimal design (monopoles) every time because there is no advantage to go with a more stealth option up front, A carrier wouldn't have any idea what type af camouflage 15 acceptable uritil the final decision from the Hcrings Examiner is rnc1e, reardIess of tie opinioii/recommendaticjn or staff. | suggest changing th code language such that more extensive "camouflage" designs (stealth trees, flagpoles, light poles, etc.) in residential zones would only require adrninistrtive permits. It is importari to note that pi.blic notice through SEPA would still be required. Non -stealth camouflage designs would require a conditional use permit in residential zones. The process in historic areas is unchangcd — a CUP woulrl required for all site designs ° Some other miscellaneous changes o A variance shouldn't be required for all of the FCC definitions of "substantial change" under 6409. For example, adding more than 4 equipment cabinets inside an existing compound does riot otherwise require zoning permits at all. Accordingly, 1 suggested limiting the variance for substantial changes in height only (>20' above an existing tower). o Height — | suggest increasing the base height in residcntiaVdmwntow/n zones to /S'. GO' is too low to provide for collocation (the second carrier on the tower would be at the 45' elevation), Vie appreciate your consideration of these changes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Rost/p8pds' Ken Lyons junjdictioo&Relations Director, FNW Busch Law Firm PLLC (2O6)lD'O82Omobile (^25)483'1O/0fax Ibarra, Rosalinda From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: CDMaxMD@aol,com Wednesday, August 14, 2013 2:47 PM Osguthorpe, Steve Peters, Jeff (no subject) Steve Osguthorpe, AICP Community Development Manager City of Yakima, Department of Community Development 1 -ii Steve, We didn't have much time to digest all of the major changes in this most recent draft but some of the most obvious areas of concern (with suggested changes) are below. We believe this draft significantly reduces the effectiveness of the ordinance and what we think the city was trying to accomplish. Sincerely. Mike Davison 15.29.020 Definitions. Balloon test: replace back to prior draft version 3 consecutive business days Camouflaged: rework and remove "commercially impracticable" Commercialfy Impracticable: remove 15.29.035 Modification of existing wireless tower, add: conditional use for residential 15.29.050 Priority of Locations. G and H: remove: pay a market rate remove: meet the coverage/capacity objectives of the facility in the applicant's network replace with: missing coverage/capacity 15.29.070 Required submittals and testing. A. Use prior draft landowner, is co -applicant D. Balloon lest, use prior draft 15.29 080 Co -location F. use prior draft to help insure co -location 15.29.090 Design criteria. B. 4. Tower separation, needs some standards, to allow denial in residential zones if too close together B. 11. g. Use prior draft , The effectiveness of mitigation techniques must be evaluated by the city, in the city's sole discretion 15.29.100 Permits required A. 2. Small cell installations in any non-residential 15.29.140 Conditional use permits 8.1. e, Delete 15.29.230 Relief, Wavier, Exemption Delete 1 DOC, INDEX July 17, 2013 Hathaway Koback Connors up VIA EMAIL & U.S. MAIL Steve Osguthorpe, Community Development Nlanager Department of Community Development City of Yakima 129 North 2nd Street Yakima. W ashin i21 on 98901 Re: Proposed Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance Chapter 15.29 of thc Urban Arca Zoning Ordinance Verizon Wireless - Written Comments Der ]\r. ()sguthorpe: E. Michael Connors 520 SW Yamhill St. Suite 235 Portland, OR 97204 503-205-8401 (Dir) 503-205-8405 (Fax) mikeconnorst@,hkcIlp com This firm represents Verizon Wireless with respect to the above -referenced Proposed Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance (the "Proposed Ordinance"). We appreciate the opportunity to submit comment on the Proposed Ordinance and look forward to discussing these issues further with the City during the public process. INTRODUCTION We understand the City's desire to adopt new regulations for the siting of wireless communication facilities given that the City does not currently have any such regulations. 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 communication facilities on the community.The need to strike the right balance is even more critical today given the increasing demands for wireless communication services both in quantity and quality throughout the City. While the Proposed Ordinance provides a good framework for addressing the various issues inherent in siting wireless communication facilities, we believe it does not strike the right balance and will undermine the objective of facilitating the development of a wireless communications intiastructure sufficient to serve the City's wireless needs, Although the Proposed Ordinance encourages the use of existing towers, it imposes many of the same rigorous requirements on collocation proposals that are typically reserved for new towers and does not Section 15.29.010(A)(1). DOC INDEX July 17, 2013 Page 2 adequately promote the use of' existing buildings, utility poles and other structures for collocation opportunities. Several standards for new towers are so restrictive, subjective and onerous that it will make it extremely time- consuming and difficult to site any new towers, and in some areas may effectively preclude carriers from providing necessary coverage. The Proposed Ordinance should provide a separate process and standards for new small cell technology which includes substantially smaller antennas and equipment cabinets for certain areas that will significantly reduce the visual impacts, noise and need for additional equipment space. Some of the proposed provisions are overly broad and ambiguous, and need to be clarified to ensure that the standards arc sufficiently objective and clear for the City regulators, the providers and the community. Finally, the Proposed Ordinance is inconsistent with various federal laws that govern wireless communication facilities. Wc identified our specific concerns with the Proposed Ordinance below and recommended proposed changes where appropriate. Given that these written comments are part of the beginning of this public process for the Proposed Ordinance, some comments are more general in nature. SPECIFIC COMMENTS The requirements for collocating antennas on existing structures are too rigorous and restrictive. Although the Proposed Ordinance aims to encourage the use of existing towers, buildings and other structures, as opposed to constructing new towers, it includes a number of provisions that will undermine this goal by imposing overly rigorous and restrictive requirements on these collocation proposals. There are two primary problems. First, the Proposed Ordinance imposes many of the same rigorous requirements on collocation proposals that are typically reserved for new towers. For example, the Proposed Ordinance imposes the following requirements on all proposals to site antennas on existing structures: (1) demonstrate that the proposed site is the best site for screening and camouflaging opportunities, and explain why the antenna must be located at the proposed site;- (2) provide multiple photo simulations of the antenna to address the impacts on surrounding properties and the public rights- of-way;3 and (3) demonstrate that the height of the antennas is the minimum height necessary.4 These are only a few examples. If the City truly wants to encourage the collocation of antennas on existing structures, it must streamline the process for these proposals and not impose the same type of rigorous standards as new towers. Otherwise, carriers will not have sufficient incentive to pursue these collocation opportunities if a mere antenna proposal triggers many of the same requirements as a new tower. Second, the collocation provisions in the Proposed Ordinance are too narrow and specific to collocation proposals on existing towers. Although the Proposed Ordinance makes passing Section 15.29,040(A). 3 Section 15.29.070(F). Sections 15.29,040(a) and 15.29,090(B)(3), RECEIVED JUL 1 9 2013 YAKIMA DOC INDEX # C_/1 July 17, 2013 Page 3 reference to the desire to cncourage locating antennas on all types of existing structures, many of the substantive provisions reference only collocation on existing Lowers. For example, Section 15.29.080(A) provides that collocating on "existing towers" is permitted without a conditional use permit approval, but it says nothing about other existing structures, such as buildings, water towers, utility poles, etc. Given the limited number of towers and available space on existing towers, these other structures are providing the bulk of the collocation opportunities. As a result, most cities and counties encourage the use of all existing structures, including buildings, water towers, utility poles, etc., for collocation opportunities and streamline these proposals to provide sufficient incentives for the carriers to pursue these opportunities. The Proposed Ordinance should be revised to sufficiently promote the use of all existing structures. 2. The Proposed Ordinance does not adequately encourage the use of public rights-of- way, especially existing utility poles, street lights, etc. Most cities and counties strongly encourage the collocation of antennas on existing utility poles, street lights, etc., since these structures already impose many of the same impacts as wireless communication facilities and provide a source of revenue for the local government. Most jurisdictions significantly streamline these types of proposals, many requiring mere building permits. In contrast, the Proposed Ordinance imposes additional requirements on the use of public property, which appears to include public rights-of-way. All proposals on "city owned property" must demonstrate that "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."5 These requirements apply to proposals on existing structures, including utility poles, street lights, etc., and are in addition to the typical requirements. Therefore, the Proposed Ordinance provides a disincentive for using public rights-of-way.6 These additional requirements should be removed, or at a minimum, excluded from application to existing utility poles, street lights, etc., since many of the impacts already exist at these locations. Finally, the siting priority on public property section should expressly provide that wireless facilities are permitted on utility poles and street lights in the right-of-way.7 Although this type of language is included in the design criteria section,5 it would be more appropriate to include this statement in the section that specifically addresses the public property where wireless facilities can be located. 3. The standards for new towers are too restrictive, subjective and onerous. While Verizon Wireless understands the City's desire to discourage new towers, there wi some instances where a new tower is the only means for providing wireless service to a particular area. Several standards for new towers are so restrictive and onerous that it will be too 5 Section 15.29.060(B). 6 The sole exception is the waiver of the setback requirement under Section 15.29.090(BX2). 'Section 15.29 060, Section 15.29 090(B)(2), which is the Right -of -Way Setback Exception section of the Design Criteria, provides that "Wireless facilities attached to utility poles are pennitted in all zones." DOC. INDEX # July 17, 2013 Page 4 difficult to site new towers, and in some areas may effectively preclude carriers from providing necessary coverage. New towers are required to "be significantly screened by placing thcm in trees to the extent it does not result in significant signal degradation" and must be placed amongst or adjacent to "the drip line of three or more trees at least seventy five percent of the height of the facility. -9 These requirements should be removed because they will significantly limit 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. Section 15.29.040 requires providers to evaluate "different sites to determine which site will provide the best screening and camouflaging," and if the best site is not selected, demonstrate why the facility must be sited at the proposed site.10 This requirement is too ambiguous because it is unclear how to determine the "best site for screening and camouflaging" since there are no standards. In our experience, these types of "best site" requirements are highly problematic because no site is acceptable to all property owners in the surrounding area. Neighbors in closer proximity to one site will always prefer an alternative site that is further away. This dynamic leads to competing sites in which the wireless carrier is caught in the middle and results in significant delays to the process. The standards for demonstrating that a new tower must be located in the residential areas are extremely onerous. It requires a demonstration that the tower cannot be located in any nonresidential zones based solely on physical constraints and technological feasibility (economic feasibility is specifically excluded from consideration), and the provider must contact every owner of a 30 -ft plus buildings within a quarter mile of the site and demonstrate they refused to lease space." Since economic considerations have been intentionally omitted, presumably a building owner's demand of an exorbitant amount of rent would not be a legitimate basis for eliminating that alternative. These requirements are unprecedented. At a minimum, the requirement to contact building owners within a quarter mile must be removed. Finally, the conditional use permit approval criteria that apply to new towers appear to be the most subjective and rigorous standards of any proposed development in the City. Section 15.29.140(B)(1) requires a demonstration that the tower will: (1) not be "injurious" to the property, improvements in the vicinity or the district in which it is located; (2) be compatible generally with the surrounding land uses; and (3) all measures have been taken to minimize possible adverse impacts. These standards will be extremely difficult to satisfy. Since these are the only conditional use permit standards that apply in the City, no other development is subject to such rigorous standards even though other typcs of development have far greater impacts on the surrounding area, While wireless communication facilities may cause impacts, their impacts are minimal compared to the impacts of larger industrial and commercial developments. 9 Sections 15.29.040(D) and 15.29.080(B)(9). 10 Section 15.29.040(A). 11 Section 15.29 040(C). RECEIVED JUL 1 9 2013 YAKIMA N DPI DOC. INDEX # July 17, 2013 Page 5 4. The Proposed Ordinance should provide a separate process and standards for new small cell technology. For years local governments have been pushing the wireless industry to reduce the size and impact of wireless facilities. The wireless industry has begun hnplementing a new technology called small cells that substantially reduces the size of antennas, equipment cabinets and related equipment. Verizon Wireless is currently in the process of introducing small cells in the Northwest region and working with local jurisdictions to amend their wireless facility standards to account for this new technology. The City should take advantage of this opportunity and address this new technology now as part of the Proposed Ordinance. Small cells will be used predominately to fill in gaps in areas where there is insufficient capacity to meet the wireless needs of businesses and residents in the surrounding area. The small cells consist of antennas and equipment cabinets that are a fraction of the size of the existing macro facilities. Both the antennas and equipment cabinets will be mounted almost exclusively on existing utility poles, light poles, buildings and other structures. Given the different technology and the fact that small cells will substantially minimize the visual, noise and related impacts, they require a different regulatory approach and standards that significantly streamline the process. The Proposed Ordinance needs to recognize and encourage this new technology, We propose that the City include a separate section in the Proposed Ordinance that recognizes small cells and provides separate standards for addressing them. We are happy to provide the City more details about the small cell technology in order to develop a more appropriate approach for these types of facilities. 5. The priority of locations sections need to be modified and/or clarified. There are several provisions in the priority of locations sections that need to be modified and/or clarified.12 The most significant concern is that it is unclear how the City will implement these priorities since they arc not part of the site selection standards and there are no standards for determining when the City will deem higher priority sites unavailable. This ambiguity will create uncertainty, invite opponents to challenge the compliance with these priorities and significantly delay the overall siting process. Since antennas and towers are allowed in all zones, these standards should not be used in a way that complicates thc process and review standards. While it does not appear to be intended, the Proposed Ordinance suggests that new towers are not allowed in the commercial and industrial zones. It provides that the highest priority is to "place antennas and towers on appropriate rights-of-way and existing structures" in the commercial and industrial zone,"13 but there is no mention of new towers in these zones. This provision should be clarified. " Sections 15.29.040 through 1529.060. /1 Section 15.29.050(A). RECEIVED JUL 1 9 2013 MA N DOC. INDEX # July 17, 2013 Page 6 Classifying residential zones or any area within 800 feet of residential zones as the lowest priority will create problems." The personal use of wireless devices is one of the largest growing segments of the industry and therefore wireless facilities need to be increasingly located in residential areas to provide the required service. As previously explained, the standards for siting a new tower in these areas are extremely difficult. At a minimum, these provisions should not discourage antenna collocation on existing structures in these areas. This is especially necessary for small cells because they are the most efficient and least intrusive way to fill in coverage and capacity gaps in residential areas. Moreover, an 800 -foot buffer area is unnecessarily large. The buffer area should be reduced to 400 feet, which is more standard in other jurisdictions. For publically owned property, thc requirement that carriers reimburse for "any related costs that the city incurs because of the presence of the applicant's facility" is too vague and open-ended,I5 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 form of application fees, franchise fees and rent for leases. Additionally, the process for siting in a public park is so extensive and time-consuming since it requires the additional approval of both the City Parks commission and the City Council that it will discourage the use of parks. The City should not make it so difficult to site wireless facilities in parks because they offer unique opportunities for screening trees, open space and buffers from adjacent properties. If the City truly wants to discourage the use of public parks, they should not be listed in the higher priority public sites. Finally, antennas should not be completely prohibited within 800 feet of historic districts, wildlife refuges or protected archeological sites.16 The Proposed Ordinance should at least provide for some exceptions if services arc required in these areas. Additionally, the 800 -foot buffer area should be reduced to the more typical 400 foot standard. 6. The application submittal and testing requirements are too vague and excessive. There are several problems with the application submittal and testing requirements." As previously explained, the photo simulation requirement should not be imposed on collocation proposals on existing structures." Photo simulations are very expensive and require a great deal of lead time to generate. If carriers want to propose multiple site options, it would be extremely cumbersome and costly to prepare these photo simulations for each option. Additionally, the requirement to take photo simulations from "affected residential properties and public rights-of- way at varying distances" is too vague, The Proposed Ordinance should include more specific and objective standards. The "other related requests" requirement which allows the City to require "any combination of site plans, surveys, maps, technical reports, or written narratives" is too open-ended and should " Section 15.29.050(C), 13 Section 15.29.060(B)(6), '' Section 15.29.045. 17 Section 15,29.070. Section 15.29.070(F). RECEIVED JUL 1 9 2013 Of YAKIMA PLANNING WV_ DOC. INDEX July 17, 2013 Page 7 not be required for simpler collocation proposals on existing structures.19 The Proposed Ordinance should include 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 and areas close enough to impact services in the City is highly problematic.2° This information is unnecessary for the City to evaluate a proposal for a single site and would be burdensome to produce for every application. More importantly, this information 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. The provision requiring that abandoned facilities be removed upon the receipt of a notice from the City must account for those instances in which the carrier contests the City's claim.21 A carrier cannot be required to remove facilities upon the mere receipt of a notice claiming that they have been abandon or are in violation if the carrier disagrees and wishes to contest the claim. The collocation section is also problematic.22 The carrier's requirement to consent to future collocation opportunities on a proposed tower must expressly account for technical feasibility, necessary separation of antennas and equipment, and the load bearing capacity of the tower. 7. The design criteria are too vague and excessive. There are several problems with the design criteria.23 As previously explained, wireless carriers should not be required to demonstrate that the height of the antennas are the minimum height necessary in all zones and the public right-of-way.24 Antennas proposed on existing structures should not be required to undergo this onerous requirement in any zone or right-of-way. Nor should it be required for new towers proposed in higher priority areas, such as commercial and industrial zones, where there is not the same need to minimize the height of the tower, It is our experience that demonstrating that an antenna is the minimum height necessary is costly, time- consuming and subject to extensive second-guessing. The landscaping requirements are onerous and it should be clarified so it is clear they only apply to towers.25 Since this provision only exempts flush -mounted antennas and equipment housed in an existing structure from the landscaping requirement, whip antennas and small cell equipment cabinets would be subject to this requirement even though it would be ridiculous to require landscaping in these instances. Even for towers, the landscaping requirements are too onerous RECEIVED 19 Section 15.29.070(E) 20 Section 15.29.070(K). 21 Section 15.29.070(B). 22 Section 15.29.070(B). " Section 15.29.070. 24 Sections 15.29.040(a) and 15.29.090(B)(3). 25 Section 15.29.080(B)(8). JUL 1 9 2013 YAKIMA V. DOC. INDEX July 17, 2013 Page 8 since they require a fence, a row of 6 -ft 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 limil the available sites, and at a minimum should not apply to antennas.26 Parking should not be required for maintenance workers when the facility is fully automated,27 Requiring parking is unnecessary and results in an additional impact. The antenna critcria have several problems.28 All antennas must bc "camouflaged," which is defined as "disguised, hidden or integrated within the existing structure" or within trees. As previously explained, the use of substantially smaller antennas should be recognized as an acceptable alternative mitigation measure since they will mitigate the impacts greater than the traditional camouflage techniques. The restrictions on roof mounted antennas for building 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 sufficient height. The requirement that equipment be no more than 200 feet from thc tower or antenna will create significant problems.29 There will be several instances where the equipment will be required to be more than 200 feet from the antennas. If the antennas are located on a rooftop, often times the equipment is located in the basement more than 200 feet away. It is also unclear if these standards apply only to equipment buildings and shelters, or equipment cabinets as well, This needs to be clarified so these standards do not apply to mere equipment cabinets. It also should be clarified that equipment cabinets qualify as screening for ground level equipment. 8. The application fees and costs must be reasonable. The Proposed Ordinance allows the City to hire a third party expert to review the application material at the applicant's sole expense without any limit on the costs.3° 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 bl application fee, It should be filled in with a reasonable 9. The Proposed Ordinance does not adequately exempt existing wireless communication facilities from the new regulations. While we understand the City's desire to adopt new regulations governing the siting of future wireless communication facilities. these regulations certainly should not apply to existing facilities that were sited before the regulations go into effect. The Proposed Ordinance attempts .RECEIVED 26 Section 15.29.080(8)(9). 27 Section 15.29.080(13)(10), 28 Section 15.29.080(8)(11). 29 Section 15.29.080(B)(12). 30 Section 15.29.130. JUL 1 9 2013 YAKJMA INDEX # (?, - July 17, 2013 Page 9 to address this issue by exempting existing facilities in Sections 15.29.010(C) and 15.29.030(G), but these provisions are too ambiguous and appears to impose the new regulations on activities that should be exempt. Sections 15.29.030(C) and 15.29.030(G) exempt "routine maintenance or repair" of existing facilities, but that tcrm is not defined. The lack of a definition will lead to confusion and disagreement regarding the scope of the exemption. The Proposed Ordinance should include a specific definition for this term. Although Section 15.29.030(G) provides that the routine maintenance or repair of existing facilities is exempt, it includes the following qualification: "provided, that compliance with the standards of this chapter are maintained." This language is ambiguous and could be interpreted to require routine maintenance and repairs to comply with certain portions of the new regulations, and if so it is unclear what requirements would apply. The routine maintenance and repair of existing facilities should be completely exempt. This qualifying language should be deleted, or at a minimum clarified. Finally, it appears that the mere replacement of antennas on an existing facility would trigger the new regulations. Section 15.29.030(G) excludes the following from routine maintenance or repair: "structural work or changes in height, type or dimensions of antennas, towers, or buildings." (Emphasis added). Unless the replacement antenna is identical in height, type and dimension it appears it would be subject to the new regulations regardless of the extent of the difference or whether it is larger or smaller. This exclusion should be limited to replacement antennas that are significantly larger or placed significantly higher than the antenna being replaced. 10. The Proposed Ordinance conflicts with federal law. The Proposed Ordinance runs afoul of several federal regulations. As you know, the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") adopted what is commonly known as the Shot Clock Order in 2009.31 The Shot Clock Order imposes presumptively reasonable time periods for reviewing wireless facility applications, which arc 90 days for collocation applications and 150 days for non -collocation applications.32 The Proposed Ordinance docs not impose time periods for processing the applications consistent with this requirement. The Proposed Ordinance conflicts with the Telecommunications Act of 1996 as well. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides wireless carriers with important procedural due process protections, including the requirement that "the regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality that * * * shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services."33 Given many of the overly restrictive, ambiguous and 3 1 FCC Declaratory Ruling FCC 09-099 (November 18, 2009). 32 The City considers wireless facility proposals in the right-of-way collocation applications. See Amendments to Wireless Right -of -Way Agreements, May 12, 2009, Section 6.D.1. 3347 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II). RECEIVED JUL 1 9 2013 OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. DOC INDEX July 17, 2013 Page 10 extensive standards in the Proposed Ordinance, it could very well have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services if the City does not make the necessary revisions. Finally, the Proposed Ordinance conflicts with Section 6409 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012. Section 6409 preempts State and local governments from denying the collocation of wireless transmission equipment, including the installation, removal or replacement of such equipment. As previously noted, the Proposed Ordinance imposes many of the same rigorous requirements on collocation proposals that are typically reserved for new towers and does not adequately promote the use of existing buildings, utility poles and other structures for collocation opportunities. The City cannot deny such collocation proposals in a manner inconsistent with Section 6409. Requiring wireless carriers to undergo such extensive requirement clearly violates Section 6409. CONCLUSION We appreciate your consideration of our comments and your willingness to seek input from the wireless industry. We truly hope that this public comment period is the start of constructive dialogue between the City and wireless carriers to help improve the Proposed Ordinance. 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, HATIIAWAY K9BACK CO ORS LLP , /1 4 i E. Michael Connors EMC/df Cc: Heather Campbell, Verizon Wireless Peter Mauro, Verizon Wireless Ed McGah, Verizon Wireless DOC. INDU _C? ggVerinvet July 18, 2013 Carol Tagayun AT&T T: 425.580.4694 Director 16631 NE 72^d Way F: 425.580.8652 External Affairs Room 11738 carol.tagayun@att.com Redmond, WA 98052 wwwatt.com Steve Osguthorpe Community Development Manager City of Yakima Department of Community Development 129 North 2" Street Yakima, WA 98901 RE: Proposed Amendment to Yakima's Zoning Ordinance for Wireless Cell Siting Dear Mr. Osguthorpe: At the public hearing on May 21, 2013, the Yakima City Council meeting, the City Council was clear that an ordinance regarding wireless cell siting must be workable for the wireless industry Unfortunately, the new proposed Chapter 15.29, Wireless Communication Facilities ("Proposed Ordinance") does not meet that expectation. The Proposed Ordinance replaces one-page of requirements with twenty-seven, including many provisions that are unnecessary, internally inconsistent, and overly burdensome. The following are a few examples of problematic aspects of the Proposed Ordinance: Section 15.29.045 prohibits antennas and antenna support facilities within "800 feet of any established federal, state or local historic districts or historic district overlay zone..." Practically this means that wireless antennas would not be allowed in a significant portion of the downtown Yakima business district and surrounding areas. This is untenable. Further, Section 15.29.045 conflicts with Section 15.29.050(C) which allows antennas "within 800 feet of...established federal, state or local historic district overlay zones" subject to ce .'n conditions. Section 15.29.050 sets forth the priority for locating new personal wireless service facilities. Section 15.29.050(C) is the last priority for cell siting and includes the vast majority of the City of Yakima. See attached zoning map. As such, it appears that very few, in any places in the City of Yakima are with the preferred zoning areas. Section 15.29.050(C)(1) also groups together and places at the same level of priority single family residential zones with other zones that happen to be within 800 feet of a historic zone. Section 15.29.050(C) requires that a proposed antenna, tower and antenna support structure located in residential zoning districts or within 800 feet of residential zoned districts or "established federal, state or local historic district overlay zones..." which, as discussed above, is the large portions of the City of Yakima, to be DOC. INDEX # C, camouflaged as that term is defined in Section 15.29.020.1 The camouflage requirements will technically not work everywhere and will not necessarily reduce the visual impact. For example, flagpoles/light poles have very limited space for antennas, thereby reducing the overall coverage, capacity, and colocation opportunity for the site. The result is that carriers will need additional sites to provide the same level of service. In addition, a flagpole, typically 6-8" in diameter, would have to be replaced with a rather large looking flagpole 42" in di. eter. We would appreciate the opportunity to have a more detailed discussion about these and other problematic provisions in the Proposed Ordinance, We will provide more detailed suggested revisions at that time. Sincerely, Carol Tagayun Director, External Affairs — Washington State cc: Mark Kunkler, Senior Assistant City Attorney Robert Bass, AT&T External Affairs Michael Van Eckhardt, AT&T Legal Ken Lyons, Busch Law Firm PLLC The definition of "camouflaged" in Section 15.29.020 appears to be inconsistent with Section 15.29.0945MA requirements for screening. LAO' vAITIP '1" Peters, Jeff From: Sent: To: Subject: Hi Jeff, Timmerman, Carter <TimmerC@wsdotwa.gov> Wednesday. July 17, 2013 3:35 PM Peters, Jeff SEPA #011-13: Wireless Communications 15.29 draft I just want to follow up on the message I left earlier. The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), Aviation Division has two recommendations for you regarding the City of Yakima's Wireless Communications 15.29 draft. Staff may want to consider adding a reference to the City of Yakima's Chapter I 5.30 Airport Safety Overlay (ASO). The chapter is intended to protect the airspace around Yakima Air Terminal/ McAllister Field from airspace obstructions and incompatible land uses. Staff should revise section] 5.29.070 (P) "A letter signed by the applicant stating that the tower will comply with all FAA regulations and EIA standards and all other applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations." The responsibility for preventing hazardous obstructions to airport airspace rests with state and local governments and the airport operator. The FAA merely provides technical expertise. It doesn't have land use authority or regulations for the compatibility of towers. Simply because the FAA has issued a Determination of No Hazard indicating that it has no objection to a proposed construction does not mean that the proposal is compatible with the airport. Please feel free to contact me, if you have any questions or concerns. Respectfully yours, "4 SWward WeJFrona A Carter Timmerman Aviation Planner / GIS Analyst Tumwater, WA 360.70943019 INr Steve Osguthorpe, AICP Community Development Manager City of Yakima, Department of Community Development 129 N. 27'd Street Yakima, WA 98901 RE: Chapter 15.29, Wireless Communication Facilities - Draft Dear Mr. Osguthorpe, July 9, 2013 CITY OF YAK MA ODE ADMIN. D VISION UL 1 1 2013 EC'VD FAXEDO OPAID FYIEI I would like to register the following comments regarding the proposed cell tower ordinance that will be discussed over the coming weeks. Unfortunately, I will be out of the country during that time, so would like to put my comments on the record at this time. Overall, I appreciate the work that staff has accomplished in creating this much needed ordinance. My particular interest revolves around protective mechanisms for historic properties and historic districts. I hold the opinion that cell towers are intrinsically incompatible within residential a adjacent to historic properties and adjacent to or within historic districts. With that in mind, I would like to draw your attention to Section 15.29.045 (9) which states, "except as provided in 15.29.045 (A) antennas and antenna support facilities are not permitted within 800 feet of any ablished federal, state or local historic districts or historic district overlay zones, state and local wildlife refuges, and permanently protected archeological sites." A variation of this phrasing is repeated in section 15.29.050 (B), however it says," at 800 feet from residential zoning districts, or established federal, state or local historic district overlay zones, state and local wildlife refuges, and permanently protected archeological sites,The phrase "from residential zoning districts" has been added and the phrase 'local historic districts" has been omitted. The same inconsistent phrasing has been repeated in 15.29.045 (C) and in 15.29.090 (B, 9). It appears these phrases need to be brought into agreement and I suggest the following change: 800 feet from residential zoning districts or established federal, state, or local historic districts, proposed historic districts. established residential historic properties, historic district overlay zones, state and local wildlife refuges, and permanently protected archeological sites." I understand there will be re -consideration of the '800 feet" stipulation. It does indeed appear to be excessive. I would favor 500 feet if that distance would be practical, particularly in the downtown historic district. I have other questions that are too lengthy to recite in a letter. Representatives of the Barge -Chestnut Neighborhood Association will bring those forward to you in the course of the scheduled meeting on July 15m, Thank you for the opportunity to register my comments. I look forward to the adoption of a solid, usable ordinance that will protect our vulnerable residential and historic areas. Sincerely, 2403 W. Yakima Ave. Yakima, WA 98902 509-452-9183 reljwahlemsn.com DOC. INDEX Nancy Adele Ke otsu I Ph . D . 101 N 48th Av, #6B Yakima, WA 98908 May 21. 2013 Mayor and City Council City of Yakima 129 N Second St Yakima, WA 98901 RE: Cell Towers & Neighborhoods Dear Mayor Cawley and Council Members: 1 write to you both as a member of the Yakima Historic Preservation Coinmission and as a resident of the City of Yakima, In both capacities, I am in full support of the current moratorium on cell towers in Yakima. The City needs to develop a process to cite these facilities without adverse effects to existing residential and historic districts. "Adverse effect" is a term defined by the regulations for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36CFR800.5) and it includes introduction of visual elements that diminish the integrity of the property. As an exarnple, the cell tower proposed at the southwest comer of 16th and Yakima avenues would have an adverse effect on the four historic properties surrounding it (all listed on the National Register of Historic Places) and the Barge Chestnut Historic District. Yet, Yakima has other historic neighborhoods not on any local or national register that could also be adversely affected by similar proposals simply because we currently have no means to evaluate the effects of such placement. As well, I live in, and likely some or all of the people in this room, live in pleasant, peaceful residential neighborhoods. We too need a means to avoid the introduction of ugly, unwelcome, intrusive elements out of keeping with the design and scale of our neighborhood. In sum, the moratorium is a prudent measure to seek resolutions of the need for cell towers with the need for quality of life. The moratorium comes at a time when the City seeks to position itself as a destination for visitors and new businesses. Cell towers placed at random, without any plan, do not impress visitors or potential investors. Without the moratorium and rules for cell tower placements, adverse effects to historic properties and historic districts will occur. At the same time, we can also anticipate that citizens in any residential neighborhood will have no voice in the placement of these towers next to their homes. That is not the quality of life that I seek in Yakima. Sincerely, signed by Nancy Kenmotsu Nancy Kenmotsu DOC. INDEX a 8it May 16, 2013 Yakima City Council c/o Mayor Micah Cawley City of Yakima 129 N. 2nd Street Yakima, WA 98901 VIA EMAIL AND FIRST C S MAIL Bob Bass AT&T Services, Inc. T: 425-580-5E136 President 16331 NE 72'd Way M: 425-786-8E116 External Affairs, WA Room 1217C robertbass t, attcom Redmond, WA 98052 www.att.com RE: Moratorium on Telecommunication Towers Ordinance No. 2013-014 Dear Honorable Mayor Cawley: AT&T is concerned about the impact of the six-month moratorium on filing and acceptance of applications and issuance of permits for telecommunication towers and related facilities approved by the Yakima City Council on April 2, 2013 ("Moratorium"). The Moratorium is a significant obstacle to providing the wireless service upgrades that Yakima residents and visitors demand and is in conflict with federal law. While AT&T is eager to work with the City to develop a workable ordinance for wireless service facilities in Yakima, we urge the Council to immediately repeal the Moratorium. Technology in the telecommunications industry is evolving rapidly. The convenience and functionality of wireless devices — especially smartphones — are rendering traditional landline phones nearly obsolete. Wireless customers with access to mobile broadband use their phones to send and receive emails and text messages, browse the Internet, connect with friends and get breaking news via social media, stream video and music, utilize the latest apps and, of course, make phone calls. The National Center for Health Statistics estimates that US residents are increasingly choosing wireless phones as their primary, and often sole, source of communication. In Eastern Washington, 31.4% of residents now live in wireless -only households, compared to 6.3% living in landline -only households,' Likewise, small businesses depend upon wireless service to compete. A recent AT&T survey of small businesses indicated that nearly all (98%) small businesses utilize wireless technologies in their operations. 66% of small businesses responded that they could not survive — or it would be a major challenge to survive — without wireless service.2 CDC. "Wireless Substitution: State -level Estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, 2010-2011." National Health Statistics Report, Number 61, October 12, 2012. 2 AT&T. "2013 AT&T Small Business Technology Poll.AT&T Website. From URL: http://www.att.comigen/Press- room7pid=238713 Rapid adoption of wireless technology is driving demand for a new generation of wireless infrastructure to support it. In the past four years alone, AT&T has seen the demand for data on its network grow by 8,000%.3 AT&T is working to upgrade its network in Yakima to the latest wireless 4G Long Term Evolution ("LTE") technology. LTE is capable of providing data speeds up to ten times faster than 3G, providing a faster, more reliable broadband option for Yakima residents. The Moratorium is a significant obstacle to providing the wireless service upgrades that Yakima residents and visitors demand and is in conflict with federal law. Section 6409(a) of the "Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012" states that a local jurisdiction cannot deny, and must approve, an application for collocation, including removal, replacement and addition of new transmission equipment when the existing tower and/or base station is not being substantially changed. The FCC defines "substantial change" as: 1. 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, except that the mounting of the proposed antenna may exceed the size limits set forth in this paragraph if necessary to avoid interference with existing antennas; or 2. 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 3. 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 4. 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. The Moratorium would not allow AT&T, or any carrier, to add equipment outside of its existing compounds or install upgrades, even those that do not significantly change existing towers/structures pursuant to FCC definitions. Since the recent federal law covers these 3 Matt Hendrickson. "What will they think of next?" AT&T Magazine, Summer 2011. activities, at a minimum, the exemption language in the Moratorium Ordinance (Section 2, Ordinance 2013-014) be modified accordingly. Furthermore, the Moratorium likely violates the FCC "Shot Clock." The FCC Shot Clock requires that jurisdictions process applications in a timely manner — 90 days for collocations and 150 days for new towers. While AT&T does not currently have any new tower applications in the City of Yakima, we expect to submit applications in the near future. Simply refusing to intake and permit applications does not relieve the City of Shot Clock requirements. AT&T urges the City to repeal the Moratorium, but at a minimum it must reduce the length to no more than 90 days and during that time amend and implement code revisions for wireless service facilities in Yakima. Thank you again for your attention to these matters. As the City works to develop Yakima's land use regulations for siting of wireless facilities, we would encourage you to examine those established by the City of Spokane. Again, we look forward to working with the City of Yakima on a solution that works for your residents and our customers in Yakima. Sincerely, Robert Bass External Affairs President, Washington Attachments cc: Yakima City Council Mark Kunkler, City of Yakima, Senior Assistant City Attorney Steve Osguthorpe, City of Yakima, Community Development Director Michael van Eckhardt, AT&T, General Attorney — Network Operations DOC. INDEX ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT — C PTER 15.29 WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES TXT#002-13, SEPA#011-13 E IBITLIST C PTER D Public Notices DM: DOCU NT i DATE D-1 Notice of Application, Environmental Review, d Pub ic Hearing D -la: Legal Notice and Press Release D -lb: Parties and Agencies Notified D -lc: Affidavit of Mailing 06/27/2013 07/02/2013 D-2 Documentation from Dept. of Commerce: Receipt of Intent to Adopt D-3 Determination of Non -Significance/ Notice of Retention D -3a: Parties and Agencies Notified D -3b: Affidavit of Mailing 07/19/2013 D-4 Letter of Transmittal to City Clerk: City Council Hearing (Mailing Labels to City Clerk) 08/14/2013 D-5 Letter of Transmittal to City Clerk: Set Date for City Council Public Hearing to Extend Moratorium (Mailing Labels to City Clerk) 08/22/2013 10/10/2013 D-6 Notice of YPC Public Hearing D -6a: Legal Notice and Press Release D -6b: Parties and Agencies Notified D -6c: Affidavit of Mailing D-7 Letter of Transmittal to City Clerk: Set Date for City Council Public Hearing (Mailing Labels to City Clerk 10/16/2013 CITY OF Y 1 ,PL NING DIVISION LETTER OF T SMITFAL I, Rosalinda Ibarra, as an employee of the City of Y. a, Planning Division, have transmitted to: Son a Claar-Tee, Yakima City Clerk, by hand delivery, the following documents: Mailing labels for ZONING TEXT ENDMENT - COM NICATION TO RS (TXT#002-13, SEPA#011-13); including all labels for agencies and parties of record. Signed this 16th day of October, 2013. The date was set on October 15, 2013 for City Council Public Hearing on November 5, 2013. R6s. inda Ibarra Community Development Administrative Assistant DOC, INDEX Rod Michaelis Verizon Wireless 1411 E Pinecrest Rd Spokane, WA 99203 rmichaelis©prolan c.com Ralph Lail Barge-Cheshni t 2608 W Chestnut Ave Yakima, WA 98902 ralphcall@charter.net Ken Lyons AT&T 17533 47th Ave NE Lake Forest Park, WA 98155 ken.lyons@wirelesscounsei.com Stephen Meadows Sprint 10545 Willows Rd NE Redmond, WA 98052 s [ephen@quanwmcontractingnw.co Don Blenker T -Mobile Don.blenker4t-Ertobile.com Dblertke59@gmail.com Carol Tagayun AT&T 11324 182nd Pi NE Redmond, WA 98052 Cti 417@a tt.com Walt Ranta Barge -Chestnut 5 5 32nd Avenue Ya ° a, WA 98902 tea chemu pcharter.net Maria Emig T -Mobile Maria emi . ' i:- 'An .corn Rod Del .aRosa T -Mobile Rod,delarosalt-mobLie.com Nancy Keruno tsu Geo -Marine, Inc, nkencnotsu©geo-n-iarine.com Michael Connors Hathaway, Mark, & Connors LLP 520 SW Yarnhill Street, Ste#235 Portland, OR 97204 niikeconiiors@hkcllp.com Leslie Wahl 2403 W. Y ' a Ave Yakima, WA 98902 reijwahlgrrisn.com Paul Nagle -McNaughton 211 S 24th Ave Ya ' a, WA 98902 pauinmcrikiigniail.com Bill Duerr 3206 W Yakima Ave Yakima, WA 98902 wr_duerr@ho ° . 'r H.D. McDonald 16 N 16th Ave Yakima, WA 98902 Artice Riehl 1701 W Ya ' I a Ave Yakima, WA 98902 Mil'e Davison 1716 W Yakima Ave Ya' a, WA 98902 - -xindUaol.com Dana Dwinell 1809 W Chestnut Ave Ya ' i a, WA 98902 Susan LaRiviere 8 N 36th Ave Yakima, WA 98902 Scott Clark 7506 Barge Court Ya ' a, WA 98908 Scott.clark@charter .net Dave Fonfara 8708 Cameo Court Yakima, WA 98903 dpfonfara@q.com Benjamin Shoval 123 E Ya ' a Ave #210 Yakima, WA 98901 Be.n,shovalgshoval.corn Alfred Rose 1006 Westbrook Place Yakima, WA 98908 Silvr f-,s(40@bini.net Paul Stelzer 6402 Scenic Drive Yakima, WA 98908 pstelze: eilwalter.com William Cook 7701 Graystone Court Yakima, WA 98908 Cook.wgcharter.net Lkia_et , c j, CtLC, ( i x / #o DOC. INDEX --P CITY OF YAKIMA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Telecommunication Towers NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Yakima City Council will conduct a public hearing to consider the Yakima Planning Commission's recommendation regarding an amendment to the Yakima Municipal Code Title 15 pertaining to the regulation of communication towers. Said public hearing will be held on Tuesday, November 5, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Yakima City Hall, 129 North 2nd Street, Yakima, Washington, for the City Council to receive public testimony and evidence regarding the Planning Commission's recommendation. All interested persons are invited to attend this hearing. Written comments may be submitted to the Council in two ways: 1) Send a letter via regular mail to "Yakima City Council, 129 N. 21d Street, Yakima, WA. 98901"; or, 2) E-mail your comments to ccouncil@ci.yakima.wa.us. include in the e-mail subject line, "Telecommunication towers." Please also include your name and mailing address. Dated and mailed this 16Ih day of October, 2013. Sonya Claar Tee City Clerk DOC. INDEX BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YAKIMA, WASHINGTON AGENDA STATEMENT Item No. 5/4 For Meeting of: 10/15/2013 ITEM TITLE: Set date for a public hearing on November 5, 2013 regarding an amendment to YMC Title 15 regarding regulation of communication towers. SUBMITTED BY: Steve Osguthorpe, AICP (509) 575-3533 Community Development Director Mark Kunkler, Assistant City Attomey Legal Department SUMMARY EXPLANATION: Set November 5, 2013, as the date of a public hearing to consider the City of Yakima Planning Commission's recommendation regarding an amendment to the Yakima Municipal Code Title 15 pertaining to the regulation of communication towers. Resolution: Ordinance: Other (Specify): Contract: Contract Term: Start Date: End Date: Item Budgeted: Amount: Funding Source/Fiscal Impact: Strategic Priority: Insurance Required? No Mail to: Phone: APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL: RECOMMENDATION: Improve the Built Environment City Manager The City of Yakima Planning Division recommends that the Yakima City Council set November 5, 2013, as the date for a public hearing to consider the City of Yakima Planning Commission's recommendation regarding an amendment to the Yakima Municipal Code Title 15 pertaining to regulation of communication towers, ATTACHMENTS: Description No Attachments Available Upload Date Type DOC. iNDEX Page 1 of 1 Tuesday, October 15, 2013 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON CITY OF YAKIMA RE: TXT#002- City of Yakima Text endment - Communication Towers citywide I, Rosalinda Ibarra, as an employee of the Yakima City Planning Division, have dispatched through the United States Mails, a Notice of YPC Public Hearing. A true and correct copy of which is enclosed herewith; that said notice was addressed to the all parties of record and interested parties individually listed on the mailing list retained by the Planning Division, and that said notices were mailed by me on the 10th day of October, 2013. That I mailed said notices in the manner herein set forth and that all of the statements made herein are just and true. R salinda Ibarra Administrative Assistant .4% lAtar44 4*. W „„,a Rod Michaelis Verizon Wireless Ralph Call large -Chestnut 11 .r-11 Stephen Meadows Sprint 1 4 1 I L. 1 111‘....4 'Lai I \ ll Spokane, WA 99203 rmichaelidilc.com C:R) 0 w Lnestnut Ave Yakima, WA 98902 ralphcalla„chariernet 10545 Willows Rd NE Redmond, WA 98052 stephen@quantunic on tracti (le nw.com Don Blenker T -Mobile D(411 lenkerN1L-rnobi le. coin Ken Lyons AT&T 17533 47th Ave NE Lake Forest Park, WA 98155 ken.lyons(Ovirelesscounsel.com Caroi Tagayun AT&T 11324 182nd PINE Redmond, WA 98052 Ct 14 1 7(4!att.com Db1erike59fillgrn ai 1 .corn Walt Ranta Barge -Chestnut 5 S 32nd Avenue Yakima, WA 98902 teachernuocharter.net Maria Emig T -Mobile Maria:ern t-mobilt.:.com Rod DeLaRosa T -Mobile Rod. deb rma 1 (T.1,1-mobt c. i.otri Nancy Kenmotsu Geo -Marine, Inc. nkemnotsu4renriarincom Michael Connors Hathaway, Mark, & Connors LLP 520 SW Y. ill Street, Ste#235 Portland, OR 97204 m ikeconnorsi@hkcItp.com Leslie Wahl 2403 W. Yakima Ave Yakima, WA 98902 re I 1waliticimstl.c.rn H.D. McDonald 16 N 16th Ave Yakima, WA 98902 Dana Dwinell 1809 W ChesMut Ave Yakima, WA 98902 Paul Nagle -McNaughton 211 S 24th Ave Yakima, WA 98902 pauto m cri(mail. co m Artice Riehl 1701 W Yakima Ave Yakima, WA 98902 Bill Duerr 3206 W Yakima Ave Yakima, WA 98902 iNT durrhotrnai1.com Mike Davison 1716 W Yakima Ave Yakima, WA 98902 ctImaxmaii1aol.com Susan LaRiviere 8 N 36th Ave Yakima, WA 98902 Dave Fonfara 8 870Cameo Court Yakima, WA 98903 Benjamin W. Shoval 123 East Yakima Avenue, Ste#210 Yakima, WA 98901 Scott Clark 7506 Barge Court Yakima, WA 98908 Paul Stelzer 6402 Scenic Drive Yakima, WA 98908 William Cook 7701 Graystone Court Yakima, WA 98908 Alfred A. Rose 1006 Westbrook Place Yakima, WA 98908 Ron Anderson 202 N 3rd Avenue Yakima, WA 98902 Type of Notice: File Number: Date of Mailing: 1 0 1 1 DOC. INDEX In -House Distribution E-mail List Name Division E-mail Address Debbie Cook Engineering Debbie.cook@vakimawa.gov Dana Kallevig Engineering dana.kallevigCc:iwakimawa.goy Dan Riddle Engineering dan.riddleavakimawa.gov Mark Kunkler Legal Dept Mark.kunklerr&yakimawa.gov Jeff Cutter Legal Dept jeff.cutter@yakimawa.gov Archie Matthews ONDS archie.matthews a akima a. ov Mark Soptich Fire Dept mark.soptichyakimawa.gov Jerry Robertson Code Adm nistra ion ierry.robertsonri4yakimawa.gov Royale Schneider Code Administration rovale.schneider@yakimawa.gov Glenn Denman Code Administration Lenn.denrnan,yakimawgov S . me DeBusschere Code Administration Suzanne.debusscherc(4yakimawa.gov Dave Brown a e rrigation dave.brown c@yakimawa.gov Mike Shane a er rrigation mike.shane@yakimawa.gov Carolyn Belles Wastewater earolyn.bellesvakimawa.gov Shelley Wilison Wastewater SheIley.wi1isonyakimawa.gov Scott Schafer Public Works Dept scott.schafervakimawa.gov J. es Dean Utilities i ames.dean(yakiniawa,gov James Scott Refuse Division James.sco a, -imawa.gov Kevin Futrell TransitDivision kevimfutre1iyakimawa.gov Steve Osguthorpe Community Development stevemsguthorpe i awa.g0V For the RecordfFile Binder Copy Revised 07/20 13 Type of Notice: File Number(s): Date of Mailing: 0 DOC, INDEX lbarra, Rosalinda From: Sent: To: Ibarra, Rosalinda Thursday, October 10, 2013 3:48 PM 'rmichaelis@prolandlIc.com.- 'Ralph Ca11'; .stephen@quantumcontractingnw.comr; 'Don.blenker@t-mobile,com'• 'Dblenke59@gmail.com.; 'ken.lyons@wirelesscounsel.com.; 'ct1417@att.com.; 'Walt Ranta'; 'Mariaemig@t-mobile.com'; 'Rod.delarosa1@t-mobile.coml; 'nkenmotsu@geo-marine.corn'; 'Mike Connors.; 'reljwahl@msn.com'; 'paulnmcn@gmail.com'; 'wr cluerr@hotmail.corn.; 'cdmaxmd@aol.com' Cc: Beehler, Randy; Al Rose; Alfred A. Rose (silvr-fx40@bmi.net); Benjamin W. Shoval (ben.shoval@shoval.com); Dave Fonfara; Ensey, Rick: Ibarra, Rosalinda; Kunkler, Mark; Paul Stelzer; Scott Clark (scothclark@charter.net); William Cook (cook.w@charter.net): Belles, Carolyn; Brown, David, Cook, Debbie; Cutter, Jeff; Dean, James; DeBusschere, Suzanne; Denman, Glenn; Futrell, Kevin; Kallevig, Dana; Matthews, Archie; Osguthorpe, Steve; Riddle, Dan; Robertson, Jerry; Schafer, Scott; Schneider, Royale; Scott, James; Shane, Mike; Soptich, Mark; Willson, Shelley Subject: Notice of Yakima Planning Commission Public Hearing on Communication Towers. Attachments: Legal Notice of YPC Public Hearing - Communication Towers _10.pdf Please see attached public hearing notice. Thank you! Rosalinda Ibarra Development Administrative Assistant rosalinda.ibarra vakimavv a.gov Cit v of %akima . Planning Division 129 North 2nd Street, ). akima WA 98901 p: (509) 575-6183 * f: (509) 575-6105 DOC®. INDEX # D From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Simon Sizer [ssizer©yakimheraId,com] Monday, October 07, 2013 5:10 PM |bono.Rosu|inda Re: 10-23'2013 Legal Notine:YPC Communication Towers Public Hearing Notice I've scheduJed this legal notice for 10/9, for a cost of $81.08. On 100/13 4:04 PM, "Ibarra, Rosalinda" <,Rosalinclaiba rid c:2ilyakirna vra.gov> wrote: Simon, please publi5h only once on WednesdayOctober 9, 2013. Send affidavit of publication and invoice to: Account 11002 City of Vakima, Planning Division 1Z9North 2nd Street, Yakima, VVA989O1 Rmsa|imdaUbarrm Community Development Administrative Assistant ,00aUnda.ibprrnPvakin`awa.nnv City nfYakima 1 Planning Division«hup://wvnm.vzikimavva.&_pvbervice.qp|anriu/? 129 North 2nd Street, Yakima WA 98901 Simon Sizer 1 Legal & Obituary Clerk Yakima Herald -Republic 114 North 4th Street, Yakima, WA 98901 Phone: (509) 577-7740 | Fax: (509) 577-7766 aid�.cirt Reaching 73% ofYakima County aduIt every week in print and online 2012 Scarborough Report Yakima/Pasco/Richland/Kennewick R2, (Fall 2011 - Fall 2012) Yat LEES RAM' CITY OF YAKIMA NOTICE OF FINL PLANNING COMMISSIONPUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN DRAFTAMENDMENT TO THE CITY OFYAKIMA'S TITLE 15 URBAN AREA ZONING °ROMANCE PERTAINING TO REGULATION OF COMMUNICATION TOWERS Tne pqrwv Corn- (ntssion mil be held or Wednes- day, October 23, 2013 thereafter, the Council Cnambers at Yakima Ciiy Hall. 129 N. 2nd Sireet. Yakima. Wachington. Any citizen ~s^"u to comrnenl or, m* plan is "e/cmnp to attend me public hearing uc"ntau/ m*c/ /Yaw Plan - rano 1'; Send a 'atter via renu lar tu "Ci.ty of Yakima Planning Division. )29 N. 2nd Street. Yakima, WA 2:: E-mail your com- ments 10 askplanninga yakimaivagov, Include in the e-rnail subject line, "Communication Tow- ers.' Plua5e also include your name and mailing DATED this s' "1) October m.3. INDEX A dally part of your life '-,,,, , yaklma-herald.com -Ad Proof This is the proof of your ad scheduled to run on the dates indicated below. Please confirm placement prior to deadline, by contacting your account rep at (509) 577-7740. Account 110358 Coltman!, Name: CI IY (t1 YAK 'NIA, IAKIN1A 1'1 ..1\ NINO Contact: ROSALINDA MARRA Address: DEPT OF COMA1.1-('ON 1)1 \'I.1 011A1l 129 N: 2N1) STREET YAK1N1A. WA 980111-2720 Ad 31» Stun: 10/09/13 Stop: 11110913 Total Cost: Ii81.1114 ,Agate of Inserts: 2 Ad Class: 6021 Account Rcp: Simon Sizer Phone 4 (51)9) 577-7740 ssizeig yakimaherialtLegin Run Dates: Yakima I lore Id -Republic 10119i13 Yakiinallerald,egin 10(09,13 Ad Proof CITY OF YAKIMA NOTICE OF FINAL PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN DRAFT AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF YAKIMA'S TITLE 15 URBAN AREA ZONING ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO REGULATION OP COMMUNICATION TOWERS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN thal Ihe City of Yakima PIE:no:lig Com- mission will consiee,r an amendment to the City of Yakima's Title 15 Urban Area Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the regula- tion ol Commun salion Towers. The final Plannng Com- mission pwilic hearing will be -teal on Wednes- day. October 23, 2013 al 3:30 p.m. or ,soon thereafter, in zhe Council Chambers al Yakima City Hall. 129 N, 2nd Street, Yakinia, Washington. Any citizen wishing In comment on the plan is welcome lo attend the Puelio hearing or contact the City of Yakima Plan - ung Division al: 1) Send a leiter via regu- lar mail to "Cit:„, ot Yakima Planning Ds vision, 129 N. 2nd Street, Yakima. WA 98901', or. 2) E-mail yn.Jr com- ments to askplanning vakimawa.go v. Include in the e-mail subject line, "Communication Tow- ers.." Please also Include your name and mailing address. DATED this 9th day of October, 2013 (369869) October 9, 2013 COA 6 of 4; 44747., /4. 44'; .4kv 4 4: ; 54.11 '44 4 CITY OF YAKIMA NOTICE OF FINAL PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A DRAFT AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF YAKIMA'S TITLE 15 URBAN AREA ZONING ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO REGULATION OF COMMUNICATION TOWERS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Yakima Planning Commission will consider an amendment to the City of Yakima's Title 15 Urban Area Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the regulation of Communication Towers. The final Planning Commission public hearing will be held on Wednesday, October 23, 2013 at 3:30 p.m., or soon thereafter, in the Council Chambers at Yakima City Hall, 129 N. 2'd Street, Yakima, Washington. Any citizen wishing to comment on the plan is welcome to attend the public hearing or contact the City of Yakima Planning Division at: 1) Send a letter via regular mail to 'City of Yakima Planning Division, 129 N. 2nd Street, Yakima, WA 98901"; or, 2) E-mail your comments to askplanning@yakimawagov. Include in the e-mail subject line, "Communication Towers." Please also include your name and mailing address. DATED this 9th day of October, 2013. DOC. INDEX CITY OF y 1 PL• N NG DIVISION LE I"I ER OF TR S ITTAL 1, Rosalinda Ibarra, as an employee of the City of Yakima, Planning Division, have transmitted to: Sonya Claar-Tee, Yakima City Clerk, by h. d delivery, the following documents: . Mailing labels for ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT - COM NICATION TO RS (TXT#002-13, SEPA#011-13); including all labels for agencies and parties of record. Signed this 22nd day of August, 2013. Community Development Administrative Assistant DOC. INDEX #_51/, Rod Michaelis Verizon Wireless 1411 E Pinecrest Rd Spokane, WA 99203 rmichae I is,d2prolandl lc .com Ralph Call Bargc-Chesmut 2608 W Chestnut Ave Yakima, WA 98902 ralnhcallcharter.net Stephen Meadows Sprint 10545 Willows Rd NE Redmond, WA 98052 stephen(Fkmantumcontractimmw,com Don Blenker T -Mobile Don.blenker(dl-mobi1e.corn Dblerike59/ii)mail.com Ken Lyons AT&T 17533 47th Ave NE Lake Forest Park, WA 98155 ken.lyonsLi)wirelesscounsel.com Carol Tagayun AT&T 11324 182nd PINE Redmond, WA 98052 Ct 11 1 7i'alatt.com Walt Ranta Barge -Chestnut 5 S 32nd Avenue Yakima, WA 98902 teachemup@.charter.net Nancy Kenmotsu Geo -Marine, Inc. nkenmotsu(i_zinco-marine,c DM Paul Nagle -McNaughton 211 S 24th Ave Yakima, WA 98902 piaulnmcnP42,niall.com Artice Riehl l701 W Yakima Ave Yakima, WA 98902 Maria Emig T -Mobile Maria.a obile.cum Rod DeLaRosa T -Mobile Rod.delatosal(at-mobilc.com Michael Connors Hathaway, Mark, & Connors LLP 520 SW Yamhill Street, Ste#235 Portland, OR 97204 mikeconnurs@hkcIlp.com Leslie Wahl 2403 W. Yakima Ave Yakima, WA 98902 hl(h)msn.coin Bill Duerr 3206 W Yakima Ave Yakima, WA 98902 wr duerrahotmail.com H.D. McDonald 16N 16th Ave Yakima, WA 98902 Mike Davison 1716 W Yakima Ave Yakima, WA 98902 ccirnazind@aol.com Dana Dwinell 1809 W Chestnut Ave Yakima, WA 98902 Susan LaRiviere 8 N 36th Ave Yakima, WA 98902 Dave Fonfara 8708 Cameo Court Yakima, WA 98903 Benjamin W. Shoval 123 East Yakima Avenue, Ste#210 Yakima, WA 98901 Scott Clark 7506 Barge Court Yakima, WA 98908 Paul Stelzer 6402 Scenic Drive Yakima, WA 98908 Alfred A. Rose 1006 Westbrook Place Yakima, WA 98908 Ron Anderson 202 N 3rd Avenue Yakima, WA 98902 William Cook 7701 Graystone Court Yakima, WA 98908 C DOC. ONDEX Ahtanum Irrigation District Bcth Ann Brulotte Executive Assistant bethhOvahtanum.net Cascade Natural Gas Jim Robinson Field Facilitator J iro robinsoncnac.con Deprent of Ecology Annie Szvetecz SEPA Policy Lead sepauniaecv.wa.ov Department of Fish and Wildlife Eric Bartrand Eric..Hartraneo)dfw_ 3 OV Department of Commerce Growth Management Services evt wtc•Atn ri/commerce.v.ra.gov Department of Natural Resources Linda Hazlett Assistant Land Manager Linr13,haz1ett(rZdnov Department of Social & Health Services Andrew Jenkins all1CITEAV.ienkins@dslis.wa.,2ov Jeanne Rodriguez Jeanne rock i c,ov Dept of Archaeology & Historic Preservation Greg Griffith Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer Gre4.gri ffien04.1.11p, wa .20V Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council - EFSEC Stephen Posner SEPA Officer spDsnerautc.wa.gov Engineering Division Debbie Cook De,bbie.eookPyalzimawa,gov Dana Kallevig Dana.kal ley ie-,(Avaltintawa.gov Dept of Archaeology & Historic Preservation Gretchen Kaehler Local Government Archaeologist Ciretunen.Kaeillergidatip,wmov Nob Hill Water Association Eric Rhoads .ic(2z)nobhillwateLoro. Office of Rural and Farm Worker Housing Marty Miller Martym2@orTh, West Valley School District Angela Watts Asst, Supt. Of Business & Operations %-\ ttsa0ovvs(120 o r_g Yakama Bureau of Indian Affairs Bud Robbins Superintendent Bud .robbinsaibi Yakama Nation Environmental Management Program Kristina Proszek Environmental Review Coordinator enviroreview@yakama.corn Yakima County Commissioners Commissionei s. vieKico.-vi-lk iia. wa.us U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch Karen Urelius Project Manager Karen.M.Urcliusidalsace.annvinil Wastewater Division Shelley Willson, Acting Wastewater Manager Shelley. willsonayakitna cva zov WSDOT Paul Gonseth Planning Engineer g,oriseip@wsclot.gov Yakama Bureau of Indian Affairs Steve Wangemann Deputy Superintendent for Trust Services rngnnija v Yakama-Klickitat Fisheries Project John Marvin jmarvin@wakarna.corn WSDOT Rick Holmstrom Development Services holnistrP w3doi. wa.q,-ov Yakama Bureau of Indian Affairs Rocco Clark Environrnental Coordinator Rocco.clark@bia, goy Yakima Air Terminal Carl Remrnel Airport Asst Manager Car! r vakimaairterminal. corn Yakima County Health District y_lad())co.yakima,wa.iis Yakima County Public Services Vern Redifer Public Services Director Yerp,redifer(d.c o vaidmiLwa. us Yakima Regional Clean Air Agency Hasan Tahat Engineering & Planning Supervisor hastinriD,v-rcaa.org Yakima Greenway Foundation Al Brown Executive Director a Filyakimagreenway.org Yakima County Public Services Steven Erickson Planning Director Steve n.F.ricksoncv CO vakima Wit LS Yakima Valley Conference of Governments Shawn Conrad Planner conrads(cilvvcog.org Yakima Health District Gordon Kelly Director of Environmental Health gordon.kel vRc o.yak ima. wa. us Yakima Valley Museum John A. Baule Director johnffivakiroavalleymuseum.org Manager Century Link 8 South 2nd Ave, Rm#304 Yakima, WA 98902 Chamber of Commerce 10 North 9th Street Yakima, WA 98901 David Spurlock City of Union Gap P.O. Box 3008 Union Gap, WA 98903 Mark Teske Depa ent of Fish & Wildlife 201 North Pearl Ellensburg, WA 98926 Cayla Morgan Federal Aviation Administration Airports District Office 1601 Lind Ave SW Renton, WA 98055-4056 Ray Wondercheck Soil Conservation District 1606 Perry Street, Ste. F Yakima, WA 98902 WA State Attorney General's Office 1433 Lakeside Court, Ste# 102 Yakima, WA 98902 Johnson Meninick Yakama Indian Nation P.O. Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 Kevin Chilcote Charter Communications 1005 North 16th Ave Yakima, WA 98902 Kelly McLain Department of Agriculture P.O. Box 42560 Olympia, WA 98504 Environmental Protection Agency 1200 6th Ave. MS 623 Seattle, WA 98101 Governor's Office of Indian Affairs PO Box 40909 Olympia, WA 98504 Gwen Clear Department or Ecology l5 West Yakima Ave, Ste# 200 Yakima, WA 98902 Federal Aviation Administration 2200 W. Washington Ave Yakima, WA 98903 Mike Paulson Pacific Power 500 North Keys Rd Yakima, WA 98901 Paul Edrnondson Trolleys 313 North 3rd Street Yakima, WA 98901 Christine Collins WA State Dept of Health, Office of Drinking Water 16201 E Indiana Ave, Ste# 1500 Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Jeff McKee United States Postal Service 205 W Washington Ave Yakima, WA 98903 Robert Hodgman WSDOT, Aviation Division 818 79th Avenue, Ste B Tumwater, WA 98504-7335 Ruth Jim Yakama Indian Nation P.O. Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 Robert Smoot Yakima Valley Canal Co 1640 Garretson Lane Yakima, WA 98908 okshareaPlanning\Assignments-Plan Scott Robertson Yakima Waste Systems 2812 Terrace Heights Dr Yakima, WA 98901 g ABELS and FORMSISEPA REVIEW1NG A Type of No tice: File Number: Date u Elaine Beraza Yakima School District 104 North 4th Ave Yakima, WA 98902 Yakima-Tieton Irrigation District Sandra Hull 470 Camp 4 Rd Yakima, WA 98908 NC ES updated 08.14.13 - Form Listdocx !tn.( t.CX 11._(Ait u I/LC DOC. INDEX #.1)-5 trt BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YAKIMA, WASHINGTON AGENDA STATEMENT Item No. For Meeting of: 8/20/2013 W•441.***-41eit • '.7.7* ITEM TITLE: Set date for Public Hearing on September 3, 2013 to consider ordinance extending moratorium pertaining to wireless communication facilities and cell towers for one month and adopting findings of fact in support thereof. SUBMITTED BY: Mark Kunkler, Senior Assistant City Attorney SUMMARY EXPLANATION: City staff is currently working on a comprehensive code amendment pertaining to wireless communication facilities and cell towers. A moratorium was adopted in April 2013 to allow for such work, and to allow for public comment and participation from residents, the wireless industry and the Planning Commission, At the request of the wireless industry, the Planning Commission adopted a motion recommending an extension of the current moratorium for one month, through November 1, 2013. This will enable the parties and public to continue to review the proposed code amendments. Pursuant to state law, a moratorium may be extended upon the City Council's adoption of an ordinance and findings following a public hearing. RCW 35.63.200. If the above motion is approved, a public hearing will be scheduled for September 3, 2013 to consider adoption of a moratorium extending the current moratorium through November 1, 2013 (the current moratorium expires October 1, 2013.) Resolution: Ordinance: Other (Specify): Contract: Contract Term: Start Date: End Date: Item Budgeted: Amount: Funding Source/Fiscal Impact: Strategic Priority: Improve the Built Environment Insurance Required? No Mail to: DOC. INDEX Phone: APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL: City Manager RECOMMENDATION: Adopt by motion the public hearing set date, setting public hearing on September 3, 2013. ATTACHMENTS: Name: No Attachments Available Description: Doc. INDEX CITY OF YAKIMA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Extend Moratorium on Telecommunication Towers NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Yakima City Council will conduct a public hearing regarding an extension of the April 2, 2013 adoption of an ordinance imposing a six- month moratorium of the filing and acceptance of development applications for, the installation of, and issuance of permits and approvals for, telecommunication towers, cell towers, communication towers, and facilities related to such uses, within the City of Yakima; directing development of comprehensive zoning and business regulations pertaining to such towers and related facilities; and setting September 3, 2013 as the date for the public hearing on the moratorium extension. The City Council approved the emergency ordinance, effective April 2, 2013, for the purpose of allowing the time necessary to study and to develop appropriate zoning and business regulations related to telecommunication towers. Said public hearing will be held on Tuesday, September 3, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at the Yakima City Hall, 129 North 2nd Street, Yakima, Washington, for the City Council to receive public testimony and evidence regarding the moratorium, and to adopt findings of fact supporting the adoption of this moratorium or modifying the terms thereof, as required by state law. All interested persons are invited to attend this hearing. Written comments may be submitted to the Council in two ways: 1) Send a letter via regular mail to "Yakima City Council, 129 N. 2'd Street, Yakima, WA. 98901" or, 2) E-mail your comments to ccouncll@ci.yakima.wa.us. Include in the e-mail subject line, "Moratorium on telecommunication towers." Please also include your name and mailing address. Dated this 22nd day of August, 2013. Sonya Clear Tee City Clerk DOC,. INDEX CITY OF Y MA, P N NG DIVISION LE 1-1 ER OF T S ITTAL I, Rosalinda Marra, as an employee of the City of Yakima, Planning Division, have transmitted to: Sonya Claar-Tee, Yakima City Clerk, by hand delivery, the following documents: Mailing labels for ZONING TEXT ENDMENT - COMMUNICATION TO RS (TXT#002-13, SEPA#011-13); including all labels for agencies and parties of record. Signed this 14th day of August, 2013. 1/! 1 Rosalinda lbarra Community Development Administrative Assistant Received By: DOC, INDEX Scott Clark 7506 Barge Court Yakima, WA 98908 Dave Fonfara 8708 Cameo Court Yakima, WA 98903 Alfred A. Rose 1006 Westbrook Place Yakima, WA 98908 Benjamin W. Shoval 123 East Yakima Avenue, Ste#210 Yakima, WA 98901 Paul Stelzer 6402 Scenic Drive Yakima, WA 98908 Ron Anderson 202 N 3rd Avenue Yakima, WA 98902 Michael Connors Hathaway, Mark, & Connors LLP 520 SW Y. ill Street, Ste#235 Portland, OR. 97204 11) ikeconnorsr&likap,com Rod Michaelis Verizon Wireless 1411 E Pinecrest Rd Spokane, WA 99203 rmichaelisrd).prolandlIc.com Ralph Call Barge-Chesmut 2608 W Chestnut Ave Yakima, WA 98902 raiphcall(ti)c iarter.net Ken Lyons AT&T 17533 47th Ave NE Lake Forest Place, WA 98155 ken. [vans 4wirelesscounsel coni Paul Nagle -McNaughton 211 S 24th Ave Yakima, WA 98902 paulrimcnmail,com William Cook 7701 Graystone Court Yakima, WA 98908 Leslie Wahl 2403 W Yakima Ave Yakima, WA 98902 reliwaillOmmcorri Stephen Meadows Sprint 10545 Willows Rd NE Redmond, WA 98052 stepherqquan t umcon tract inp,aw.coun Bill Duerr 3206 W Yakima Ave Yakima, WA 98902 Mike Davison 1716 W Yakima Ave Yakima, WA 98902 H.D. McDonald 16N 16th Ave Yakima, WA 98902 Dana Dwinell 1809 W Chestnut Ave Yakima, WA 98902 Artice Riehl 1701 W Yakima Ave Ys a, WA 98902 Susan LaRiviere 8 N 36th Ave Yakima, WA 98902 Carol Tagayun AT&T Ct1417.0),aLt.corri Walt Ranta Barge -Chestnut tenhemuciticharter,net Maria Emig T -Mobile Maria.emiEtidi.t-mobile.com Nancy Kenmotsu Geo -Marine, Inc. Ekstamotsm@geo-marine,com Rod DeLaRosa T -Mobile Roidelarusa101-mobile_com Don Blenker T -Mobile Don.blenker@t-mobile.com DbInkrnjicri /113 7 -At (-A) Ahtanurn Irrigation District Beth Ann Brulotte Executive Assistant Fe 'ihraulnanum.net Cascade Natural Gas Jim Robinson Field Facilitator Jinnrobinsoreora Department of Commerce Growth Management Services iew-tearriPcomm 'a 21ov Department of Ecology Annie Szvetecz SEPA Policy Lead sepaunit a.ecv. wa.gov Departrnent of Social & Health Services Andrew Jenkins andrew.if.:akinsQlshs.wa,gLiv Jeanne Rodriguez Jeanric,rodrtcuiethildshs.w:.Rov Department of Fish and Wildlife Eric Bartrand Eric artrand Firdfw wajzj Department of Natural Resources Linda Hazlett Assistant Land Manager inda.hazlett cz!d_nr.iva..u.ov Dept of Archaeology & Historic Preservation Greg Griffith Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer Gre-- rr° Tridah Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council - EFSEC Stephen Posner SEPA Officer ut Vit OV Office of Rural and Farm Worker Housing Marty Miller Mart-vm2(at.orfh.org Dept of Archaeology & Historic Preservation Gretchen Kaehler Local Government Archaeologist Greichen.Kaehlcqpdanp.wa.gov Engineering Division Doug Mayo City Engineer dniavokei vakima....ya.us Dana Kallevig Dana.kallevi awa..gov Nob Hill Water Association Eric Rhoads eric(72nobhillwater.org U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch Karen Urelius Project Manager Karaii.M.Uretais(:*sace.a Wastewater Division Scott Schafer Wastewater Manager sschaferv(3,.:i:yakimaavaais West Valley School District Angela Watts Asst, Supt. Of Business & Operations wartsagavv3d208 .or Yakama Bureau of Indian Affairs Bud Robbins Superintendent Bed.robbinsabia WSDOT Paul Gonseth Planning Engineer POns.nn(FiAvsdni- gov Yakama Bureau of Indian Affairs Steve Wangemann Deputy Superintendent for Trust Services Sieve.war. emann() Yakama Nation Environmental Management Program Kristina Proszek Environmental Review Coordinator envirorevielvavakoma_enip Yakama-Klickitat Fisheries Project John Marvin jrnarvinPvakama.cora. Yakima County Commissioners Commissiom.a-s,web,Gco.vakima.wa.us Yakima County Health District ybc1(f7No.yakima.wa,.us WSDOT Rick Holmstrom Development Services holmstrawsdra..Nya.7.01' Yakama Bureau of Indian Affairs Rocco Clark Environmental Coordinator R.occo.ctlark@bia,gov Yakima Air Terminal Carl Remmel Airport Asst Manager Carl.rernm.eb.15,'Nakimazitioarininal.corn Yakima County Public Services Steven Erickson Planning Director SueveiLFrjek5unAeu.yakina,W Yakima County Public Services Vern Redifer Public Services Director Vern.rediferriDso.yakima wa.us Yakima Regional Clean Air Agency Hasan Tahat Engineering & Planning Supervisor Itaf„p7i:fry,rrica.nrq Yakima Greenway Foundation Al Brown Executive Director akirnaueeriway.or Yakima Valley Conference Shawn Conrad Planner conrdi)vvcaa uig Yakima Health District Gordon Kelly Director of Environmental Health gordonis Thco.v °k v Lus akima Valley Museum John A. Baule Director h.hrayakimavalleymuseurti.ory, Manager Century Link 8 South 2nd Ave, Rrn#304 Yakima, WA 98902 Chamber of Commerce 10 North 9th Street Yakima, WA 98901 David Spurlock City of Union Gap P.0, Box 3008 Union Gap, WA 98903 Kevin Chilcote Charter Communications 1005 North 16th Ave Yakima, WA 98902 Kelly McLain Department of Agriculture P.O. Box 42560 Olympia, WA 98504 Mark Teske Department of Fish & Wildlife 201 North Pearl Ellensburg, WA 98926 Environmental Protection Agency 1200 6th Ave. MS 623 Seattle, WA 98101 Cayla Morgan Federal Aviation Administration Airports District Office 1601 Lind Ave SW Renton, WA 98055-4056 Ray Wondercheck Soil Conservation District 1606 Perry Street, Ste. F Yakima, WA 98902 Gwen Clear Department of Ecology 15 West Yakima Ave, Ste# 200 Yakima, WA 98902 Federal Aviation Administration 2200 W. Washington Ave Yakima, WA 98903 Governor's Office of Indian Affairs PO Box 40909 Olympia, WA 98504 WA State Attorney General's Office 1433 Lakeside Court, Ste# 102 Yakima, WA 98902 Paul Edmondson Trolleys 313 North 3rd Street Yakima, WA 98901 Christine Collins WA State Dept of Health, Office of Drinking Water 16201 E Indiana Ave, Ste # [500 Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Johnson Meninick Yakama Indian Nation P.O. Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 Ruth Jim Yakama Indian Nation P.O. Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 Mike Paulson Pacific Power 500 North Keys Rd Yakima, WA 98901 Jeff McKee United States Postal Service 205 W Washington Ave Yakima, WA 98903 Robert Hodgman WSDOT, Aviation Division 818 79th Avenue, Ste B Turnwater, WA 98504-7335 Elaine Beraza Yakima School District 104 North 4th Ave Yakima, WA 98902 Robert Smoot Yakima Valley Canal Co 1640 Garretson Lane Yakima, WA 98908 Scott Robertson Yakima Waste Systems 2812 Terrace Heights Dr Yakima, WA 98901 Yakima-Tieton Irrigation District Sandra Hull 470 Camp 4 Rd Yakima, WA 98908 SEPA R_EVIEWTNG AGENCIES Form List _updated 03.13.2013 Type of Notice: File Number: Date of Mailing: DOC. INDEX ITEM TITLE: SUBMITTED BY: BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YAKIMA, WASHINGTON AGENDA STATEMENT *" ""; r • • Item No. For Meeting of: 8/20/2013 A., Public hearing to consider amending YMC Chapter 15 relating to communication tower facilities. Steve Osguthorpe, AICP Community Development Director (509) 575-3533 Mark Kunkler, Senior Assistant City Attorney (509) 575-3552 SUMMARY EXPLANATION: By previous notice, a public hearing had been set to consider the Planning Commission's recommendation for adoption of a new comprehensive code pertaining to wireless communication facilities, However, at its August 7, 2013 public hearing, the Planning Commission responded to a request from the wireless industry for more time to review and respond to ongoing revisions of the proposed code, including exploration of more recent technologies that may help camouflage wireless facilities in residential and commercial districts. By motion, the Planning Commission noted it needs more time and recommended a one-month extension of the existing moratorium (extend through November 1, 2013). City staff has appreciated the comments and suggestions presented by members of the community and representatives of the wireless industry. Many of these comments and suggestions have been incorporated into the most recent drafts of the proposed code and others are under continuing review. City staff joins in the recommendation for an extension of the moratorium for an additional month, and has presented a motion to set a public hearing on September 3, 2013 so that the City Council may consider such extension. The public hearing currently set for August 20, 2013 will stand as scheduled, but would be used as an opportunity to present a status report and to hear from members of the public. We can also provide an update of status based on the Planning Commission's further discussions held on August 14, 2013. Resolution; Ordinance: Other (Specify): Contract: Contract Tem: Start Date: End Date: DOC. INDEX Item Budgeted: Funding Source/Fiscal Impact: Strategic Priority: Insurance Required? No Mail to: Phone: APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL: Amount: Improve the Built Environment City Manager RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends receiving public comment at the public hearing and provide a status report. ATTACHMENTS: Name: Me-no.Wir4less FaciIfti MOR4TDRIUMEXTENSION,Auq.20.2013.doc Description: Memo to City Council DOC. INDEX #, CITY OF YAKIMA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Telecommunication Towers and Facilities NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Yakima City Council will conduct a public hearing to consider an ordinance adding a new Chapter 15.29 to the Yakima Municipal Code pertaining to telecommunication towers and facilities. Said public hearing will be held on Tuesday, August 20, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at the Yakima City Hall, 129 North 2nd Street, Yakima, Washington, for the City Council to receive public testimony regarding telecommunication towers and facilities. All interested persons are invited to attend this hearing. Written comments may be submitted to the Council in two ways: 1) Send a letter via regular mail to "Yakima City Council, 129 N. 2nd Street, Yakima, WA. 98901"; or, 2) E-mail your comments to ccouncil@ciyakima.wa.us. Include in the e-mail subject line, "telecommunication towers."Please also include your name and mailing address. Dated this 7Ih day of August, 2013. Sonya Claar Tee City Clerk AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON CITY OF YAKIMA RE: SEPA#011-13, TXT#002-13 City Planning Division -. Cell Tower Text endment City wide I, Rosalinda lbarra, as an employee of the Yakima City Planning Division, have dispatched through the United States Mails, a Notice of DNS. A true and correct copy of which is enclosed herewith; that said notice was addressed to the applicant, listed SEPA agencies, and all interested parties of record. That said property owners are individually listed on the mailing list retained by the Planning Division, and that said notices were mailed by me on the 19th day of 'Lily, 2013. That I mailed said notices in the manner herein set forth and that all of the statements made herein are just and true. Rosalinda lbarra A trative Assistant DOC. INDEX Ahtanurn irrigation District Beth Ann Brulotte Executive Assistant Cascade Natural Gas Jim Robinson Field Facilitator Department of Commerce Grovilli Maria ernent Services ..,..0);.;-,!!;1) r...cf;. J 1.1:1!.1'0h111,4Yr1.(i 411:`C".: ....-,rn ri-Me '*0-',0.11-Z *(34113:10-.::'.V.1.5„. Department of Ecoloey Annie Szvetecz SEPA Policy Lead ',-..Il...i Y.cE.[I,,j.. f'c-', ..!..,.2,,..-:....-:.L' Department of fish and Wildlife Eric Bartrand F n: ,,,, ;:trr,E....,d;.,•?.di, ,:4,% .,\ ,i p,..,N. Department of Natural Resources Linda Hazlett Assistant Land Manager Li ada 1.l.11.1.r:LI Department of Social & Health Services Andrew Jenkins .r.kii.v.,.0.•ric..tr;.i.y.i)..:..i:ziv Jeanne Rodriguez Dept of Archaeology & Historic Preservation Gree Griffith Deputy Stale Historic Preservation Officer 1....i.:, Dept of Archaeology & Historic Preservation Gretchen Kaehler Local Government Archaeologist CI rer.C.:11,:q1.et:,L,7-2r,a i;JI.In Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council - EFSEC Stephen Posner SEPA Officer L:nic...,..",:he..:-L,' Engineering Division Doug Mayo City Engineer ..!:•;r:1V.:),(:,C.i. , ,...1)P,..i ,.. A... d , Dana Kallevie 1 Nob Hill Water Association Eric Rhoads J.I.,.„.. rIIIIPo.,AL:E• .yr...7., OffiCC 0 1 R ll rii I and Farm Worker Housine Marty Miller U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch Karen Urehus Project Manaeer it h,'L B:•.2 P .11111 \, illi1 Wastewater Division Scott Schafer Wastewater Manager West Valley School District Angela Watts As Supt. Of Business & Operations 1..zu.R.,-4.L, WSDOT Paul Gonselli Planning Engineer 2ifilf.ei.oi...., -,,...i.,,..1i..e,m.- WSDOT Rick Holmstrom Development Services hi .:.Iiiis tr...i—i.; s...li..q. Yakama Bureau of Indian Affairs Bud Robbins Superintendent Es ,ici .ic-:::7iv h1:1:.):;) - Yakama Bureau of Indian Affairs Steve Wangemann Deputy Superintendent for Trust ServicesPc:..c5:;. :,..1. Yakaina Bureau of Indian Affairs Rocco Clark Environmental Coordinator !,1'.2.:11..1.,‘*.!.'...'3-"J Yakima Nation Environmental Management Program Kristina Proszek Environmental Review Coordinator Yakaina-Klickitat Fisheries Project John Marvin - .. f-.)....:!;::::::;:,:-Ar.2:'1 .....c)111 Yakima Air Terminal Carl Remmel Airport Asst. Manager f._ afi,p2;oin,..1.D...„-ikimo..:mt--..dw.i..11 Yakima County Commissioners oriel.... -,-kz.bi. r_i...o yak...n.1-0. itr.:11.1.i.i. Yakima County Health District 2; !.j,!--,*'. C:, `1.6.1:i i n ;A . ,.,,d....)4, Yakima County Public Services Steven Erickson Planning Director r -m-1 iiijf,l,i Yakima County Public Services Vern Redifer Public Services Director Vfi"r11 i....c.:**,)`:.:41.,:nAl *.',:,c,f p..., Yakirna Greenway Foundation DOC. .AI Brown Executive Director IN i-3'.cu.0 31.2ara_c-.:- fr.,' ;:;*.../ 1.1r.,, Yakima Health District Gordon Kelly Director of Environmental Health ..or.i...1- 1,11, . “ \-lbr'l i r' • Yakima Regional Clean Air Agency Hasan Tahat Engineering & Planning Supen.ior..l..1.ill-lq,i. i..a. 'F Yakima Valley Conference of Governments Shawn Conrad Planner 0 L. ag-'1.:.! Yakima Valley Muse -um John A. Baule Director 1-.1m..1.,k.10.1:' -- iiiil t 11:, Manager Century Link 8 South 2nd Ave, Rm#304 Yakima, WA 98902 David Spurlock City of Union Gap P.O. Box 3008 Union Gap, WA 98903 Chamber of Commerce 10 North 9th Street Yakima, WA 98901 Kevin Chilcote Charter Communications 1005 North E6th Ave Yakima, WA 98902 Kelly McLain Department of Agriculture P.O. Box 42560 Olympia. WA 98504 Mark Teske Department of Fish & Wildlife 201 North Pearl Ellensburg, WA 98926 Gwen Clear Department of Ecology 15 Wesi Yakima Ave, Ste # 200 Yakima, WA 98902 Environmental Protection Agency 1200 6th Ave. MS 623 Seattle, WA 98101 Federal Aviation Administration 2200 W. Washington Ave Yakima, WA 98903 Cayla Morgan Federal Aviation Administration Airports District Office 1601 Lind Ave SW Renton, WA 98055-4056 Ray Wooden:heck Soil C'onser-vation District 1606 Perry Street, Ste, F Yakima, NVA 98902 Governor's Office of Indian .Affairs PO Box 40909 Olympia, WA 98504 Mike Paulson Pacific Power 500 North Keys Rd Yakima, WA 98901 Paul Edmondson Trolleys 313 Notill 3rd Street Yakima, WA 98901 Jeff McKee United States Postal Service 205 NV Washington A NT Yakima, WA 98903 WA Stale Attorney General's Office 1433 Lakeside Court, Ste# 102 Yakima, WA 98902 Johnson Meninick Yakama Indian Nation P.0, Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 Robert Smoot Yakima Valley Canal Co 1640 Garretson Lane Yakima, WA 98908 Christine Collins WA State Dept of Health, Office of Drinking Water 16201 E Indiana Ave, Ste tt 1500 Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Ruth Jim Yakama Indian Nation P.O. 13ox 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 Scott Robertson Yakima Waste Systems 2812 Terrace Heights Dr Yakima, WA 98901 Robert Hodgman WSDOT, Aviation Division 818 79i1i Avenue, Ste 13 Tumwater, WA 98504-7335 Elaine Beraza Yakima School District 104 North 4111 Ave Yakima, WA 98902 Yakima-Tieton Irrigation District Sandra Hull 470 Camp 4 Rd Yakima, WA 98908 SEPA REVIEWING AGENCIES Fo updated 03.13.2 Type of Notice: - File Number: Date of Mailing: DOC. INDEX YPC Members - . Tower Text Amendment - TXT#OC 3, SEPA#011-13 Scott Clark 7506 Barge Court Ya "s a, WA 98908 Alfred A. Rose 1006 Westbrook Place Yakima, WA 98908 Ron Anderson 103 S 3rd St Ste#203 Yakima, WA 98902 Dave Fonfara 8708 Cameo Court Ya u a, WA 98903 Paul Stelzer 6402 Scenic Drive Ya ti a, WA 98908 Verizon Wireless c/o Rod Michaelis 1411 E Pinecrest Road Spokane, WA 99203 Barge -Chestnut Neighborhood Assn c/o Ralph Call 2608 West Chestnut Avenue Yakima, WA 98902 Sprint c/o Stephen Meadows 10545 Willows Rd NE Redmond, WA 98052 Type of Notice: File Number: Date of Mailing: Benjamin W. Shoval 123 East Yakima Avenue, Ste#210 Yakima, WA 98901 William Cook 7701 Graystone Court Ya u a, WA 98908 Eiathaway, Mark, & Connors LLP Michael Connors 520 SW Yamhill Street, Ste#235 Portland, OR 97204 Leslie Wahl 2403 West Yakima Avenue Yakima, WA 98902 DOC. tiNDEX VCI110:1 wi.rele;;N 1e-Chestout._ Sprint T -Mobile AT&T AT&T Interested Patties - Cell 1'oNVC1 Moratorium list 1 City , S" talc 1 Zip Lan Name I Addrem Rod Michaelis 1.111 F. Pinectrest Rd Spokane WA q920.; Ralph Call 2608 W Chestnut Ave -r Yakima I WA 1 Stephen Meadows 10545 Willows Rd NE I- Redmond I WA Don Blenker T -Mobile T -Mobile Ken 1 >roils G eo- Ma rin(t, Inc. Hathaway, Mark, & Connors LLP Carol i at.t.a.rin Walt Ranta Maria F,rni8. Rod DeLaRosa Nancy Kenmotsu Micl•tuelConnors Leslie Wahl Contact 98902 .509)453-8150 98052 (4)5)278-7446 (509)230-0010 (.206) 227-0020 (425)580-4694 (509)452-6897 520 SW Yamhill Street, Ste0235 2403 W. Yakima Ave Page 1 of 1 Portland Y akirna OR E -mi 11 3.41.siplt•ED±E.,*Aiitintual uttn rt.t,ctirmtw• t Don hlepl...cri4lt '1'I ken lyoutt,ty, It.-coortsel.4:ont 1 Ti .117f4;t1n .(tittt • tgachcintip±cha_iiet.oct 711ohiie.colo d 97204 ('03)205-8401 98902 009)452-9183 ilkcnirkitt..111.-Li;t4co mikeconnorsraikellp.corn Updated on 05/02/2013 Type of Notice: File Numher(s): Date of Mailing: In -House Distribution E-mail List Name Division E-mail Address Dcbbie Cook Engineering Debbie.cook vakimawa.gov Dana Kallevig Engineering dana.kallevigyakimawa.gov Dan Riddle Engineering dan.riddleriftakimawa.ov Mark K -kr Legal Dept Mark.kunklergyakimawa.gov Jeff Cutter Legal Dept jcti.eutter(&vakimawa.gov Archie Matthews ONDS arehie.inatthewsvakimawa.gov Mark Soptich Fire Dept mark.soptich(6)yakiinawa.gov Jerry Robertson Code Administration jerry.robertsongyakimawa.gov Royale Schneider Code Administration rovale.schneider@vakima.wa.gm G1e Denman Code Administration !cim.denmanyakimawa.gov Code Administration Suzanne.debusschere@yakimawa.g©v Dave Brown Watertlrrigation dave.brown a, -akimawa.gov mike. shaneyak imawa. .,Tov Carolyn Belies Wastewater carolyn.belles,,g,yakimawa.9,ov Shelley Wilison Wastewater Shelley.willsonit4yakimawa.gov Scott Schafer Public Works Dept cott.schafer@yakimawa.gov J es Dean Utilities Jarnes.deanyakimawa.gov James Scott Refuse Division James.scottCa)yakimawa.gov Kevin Futrell Transit Division kevin.futrellic4akimawa.gov Steve Osguthorpe Community Development steve.osguthorpeyakimawa.gov For the Record/File Binder Copy Revised 07(2013 Type of Notice: File Numher(s): Date of Mailing: bRosalinda From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: lbarra, Rosalinda Friday, July 19, 2013 3:00 PM 'd141 kol|p.com' FW: NOTICE OFDNS - Cell Tower Text Amendment 'SEPA#011'13.TXT#O02-13 | had entered your e-mail address incorrectly on the previous e-mail |uent (see below). Please reply to this message to corifirrn receipt of this notce. Thank you! • aNa(md3.1bmrra!iihm�� a. 11V 1.5.0*/���'�l�� From:lbarnn Rosalinda Sent: FridayJuly 19, 2013 2:56 PM To: Ahtanum Irrigation District - Beth Ann Bruiotte; Cascade Natural Gas - Jim Robinson; Department of Commerce (CTED) - Review Team; Department of Ecology - SEPA Unit; Departnent of Fish and Wildlife - Eric Bartrand; Department of Natural Resources - Linda Hazlett; Department of Social & Health Services - Andrew Jenkins; Department of Social & Health Services - Jeanne Rodriguez; Dept Archaeology & Historic Preservation - Greg Griffith; Dept Archaeology & Historic Preservation - Gretchen Kaehler; Desgrosellier, Bob; Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council ' Stephen Posner; Ibarra, Rosalinda; Kallevig, Dana; Nob Hill Water - Eric Rhoads; Office of Rural &FarmnvvorkarHousing - Marty Miller; Riddle, Dan; US Army Corps of Engineers - Karen M. Urelius; Wastewater Division - Scott Schafer; West Valley School District - Angela Watts; WSDOT - Paul Gonseth; WSDOT - Rick Holmstrom; Yakama Bureau of Indian Affairs - Bud Robbins; Yakama Bureau of Indian Affairs - Rocco Clark; Yakama Bureau of Indian Affairs - Steve Wangemann; Yakama Nation Environmental Mgmt Program - Kristina Proszek; Yakama-Klickitat Fisheries - John Marvin; Yakima Air Terminal - Aiport Manager; Yakima County Commissioners; Yakima County Health District; Yakima County Planning Director Steven Erickson; Yakima County Public Services Director, Vern Red|fer; Yakima Greenway Foundation - Al Brown; Yakima Health District - Gordon Kelly; Yakima Regional Clean Air Agency - Hasan Tahat; Yakima Valley Conference of Governments - Shawn Conrad; Yakima Valley Museum - John A. Baule; Belles, Carolyn; Brown, David; [wsk, Debbie; Cutter, Jeff; Dean, James; DeBusschere, Suzanne; Denman, Glenn; Futrell, Kevin; Kunkler, Mark; Matthews, Archie; O5guthorpe, Steve; Robertson, Jerry; Schafer, Scott; Schneider, Royale; Scott, James; Shane, Mike; Soptich, Mark; Willson, Shelley Cc:'nnichae|is@pno|ondUc.cmm'; 'Ralph Call'; 'stephen@quantumcontrmctingnvv.com';'Don.b|enker@kfnobi|e.00mn'; 'Oblenke59@gnnoi|.cnnf; 'ken.lyons@wne|esscounseLconm'; 'ct1417@att.cmmm';'tcachemup@chorter.net';'Mar|m.emig@t- mnobi|e.conn'; 'Rmdzekarosa1@t-nnobi|e.com'; 'nkmnmoLau@gem'nnarine.conn'; 'mmUkeconnors@hkdUp.cmmm% 'nehvvahl@rnsn.00mn'; Al Rose; Alfred A. Rose (silvrfx40@bmi.net); Benjamin W, Shcwm|(ban.shova|@shovmicqm); Dave Fonfara; Ensey, Rick; Paul Stelzer; Ron Anderson (nnnded|catedmealty@hotnaU.com); Scott Clark /scott.c|ark@charter.neM; William [ook(cook.w4Dcharter.net) Subj : NOTICE OF DNS - Cell Tower Text Amendment - SEPA#011-13, TXT#002-13 Rosalinda Marra Community Development Administrative Assistant nnsu|iodaJhurru(kvmbjmawu.uov City of Yakima | Plana ine Division 129 North 2nd Strect, Yakima WA 98901 p: (509) 575-6183 * f: (509) 575-6105 CITY OF YAKIMA DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE NOTICE OF RETENTION July 19, 2013 SEPA File No, 011-13 The City of Yakima Department of Community and Economic Development issued a: (X] Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS), [ ] Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS), [1 Modified DNS/MDNS, on June 27, 2013 for this proposal under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and WAC 197-11-340(2). This retention concerns an amendment to the City of Yakima's Urban Area Zoning Ordinance adding a new Chapter 15 29 which regulates the location and placement of Wireless Communication Facilities. This threshold determination is hereby: [X] Retained [ ] Modified. Modifications to this threshold determination include the following: [ I Withdrawn. This threshold determination has been withdrawn due to the following: [ ] Delayed. A final threshold determination has been delayed due to the following: Summary of Comments and Responses (if applicable): N/A Responsible official: Position/Title: Phone: Address: Steve Osguthorpe, AICP Community Development Director/SEPA Responsible Official (509) 575-6183 129 N 2'd Street, Yakima, WA 98901 Date: July 19, 2013 Signature: You may appeal this determination to Steve Osguthorpe, Cily of Yakima Community Development Director, at 129 N 2"d St., Yakima, WA 98901, no later than August 2, 2013. You must submit a completed appeal application form with the $580 application fee. Be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact the City of Yakima, Planning Division, for information on appeal procedures. DOC. INDEX STATE OF wAsHINGTok [l������V��N�[ OF �.(�YN�������� DEPARTMENT ..,,—.^—..^ .~~,."."`—.`~~"~um Nom Su eer SE PO Box 42525 • Olympia. VVashingrort .96504-2525 • (3E0)725-4000 Nr „Si.4� momwconvnnrcw.via.gnl July 1, 2013 Jeff Peters Associate Planner City of Yakim 128North 2nd Street Yakima, Washington 98901 Dear Mr Peters: Thank you for sending the Washington State Department of Commerce (Commerce) the following materials as required under RCVV3G7OA1O6. Please keep this letter osdocumentation that you have met this procedural require men L City of Yakima - Proposed amendment to the urban area zoning ordinance adding a new Chapter 15.29 Wireless Communication Facilities. These materials were received on June 27, 2013 and processed with the Material |D#1g293. We have forwarded a copy of Ihis notice to other slate agencies. 0 this submitted material is an adopted amendment, then please keep this letter as documentation that you have met (he procedural requirement under RCVV367UA.1OG. if you have submitted this material as a draft amendment, then final adoption may occur no earlier than sixty days foliowing the date of receipt by Commerce. Please remember to submit the final adopted arneridment to Commerce within ten days of adoption. 11 you have any questions, please contact Growth Managernent Services at reviewteamecommerce.wa.gov, or call Dave Andersen (509) 434-4491 or Paul Johnson (360) 725-3048. Sincerely, Review Team Growth Management Services AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON CITY OF YAKIMA RE: SEPA#011-13, TXT#002-13 City Planning Division - Cell Tower Text endment City wide I, Rosalinda Ibarra, as an employee of the City of Yakima Planning Division, have dispatched through the United States Mails, a Notice of Application, Environmental Review, and Yakima Planning Commission Public Hearing. A true and correct copy of which is enclosed herewith; that said notice was addressed to the applicant; and SEPA reviewing agencies. That said are individually listed on the mailing list retained by the Planning Division, and that said notices were mailed by me on the 27th day of Tune, 2013. That I mailed said notices in the manner herein set forth and that all of the statements made herein are just and true. Rosalinda Ibarra Community Development Administrative Assistant DOC. InEX Alitanum Irrigation District Cascade Natural Gas Department of Commerce tient Ann orthotte txecutive Assistant pup2[1.0:3e1c,,y-0..,:gp.:k. Jim ttooinson 1-1e10 taco itator Growth Management Services Department of Ecology Annie Szvetecz SEPA Policy Lead m..F;aLil:31i.*C tL **, ..,.% a .,.!,r3-,:- Department of Fish and Wildlife Eric Bartrand 1..Fic r,Prlrp:)v.:iL.,,41?.. ',.,.Q.'.;.,.., Department ofNatural Resources Linda Hazlett Assistant Land Manager j.: ,tu.41!.K:i in Department of Social & I lealth Services Andrew .lenkins Jeanne Rodriguez 10;:lli.11(. -700i..l1!).!iiclH!!,:.\^,ii,Es) Dept of Archaeology & Historic Preservation Greg Griffith Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer ( 3.,....,,,i..z,r I ill; :' S::: allp \V::1 :2.:,(..2', Dept of Archaeology & Historic Preservation Gretchen Kaehler Local Govenuuent Archaeologist .(.. TS1;;;..S!1.N....! I 0 t'• ::::(.!;..ciql.:67. Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council - EFSEC Stephen Posner SENA Officer a., !..i1P.'12r klU: y.,:‘,,•lpy Engineering Division Doug Mayo City Engineer cria.P!i[i ?-,4 Wii)Ilill. ,‘ a. kj',' Dana Kallevig pc.i.roj:.q.-,,-iol-, ya, Nob I -bit Water Association Eric Rhoads ('*!**.cV!‘..P.(:-?.t-)!).!..1.fS*.i:!'i Office of Rural and Farm Worker Housing, Marty M i I ler kl.'....Z 01 111.-.7u. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Regulatory Branch Karen Urelius Project Manager Kai 1,! Jr.....f,Iku:-.;,e_i l.1 Wastewater Division Scott Schafer Wastewater Manager '..b•oM f-,i.p);:!.:wg,',,.t.-K, West Valley School District Angela Watts Asst. Supt. Of Business & Operations .j,di,,:i(i2!',2 .l!f•I WSDOT Paul Gonseth Planning Engineer i.2,0*.tfipio v.•.!..c.ii...t.i.; -, WSDOT Rick Holmstrom Development Services :ic:;isilst'ij "f .-**.C.k.:1: \V..,2g‘:... Yakama Bureau of Indian Affairs Bud Robbins Superintendent UJ ruHurt,c; tul.v Yakama Bureau of Indian Affairs Steve Wangernann Deputy Superintendent for Trust Services Sct-ce A .tiwy.ruanofel 'Yakama Bureau of Indian Affairs Rocco Clark Environmental Coordinator Roox.c.:Jork.:(_,:, b'; Yakama Nation Environmental Management Program Kristina Proszek Environmental Review Coordinator kn.-, kn. T.,', 3: •',,',. V ,.' ' ..!4:...ii:C,..:1 'f T.P. Yakama-Kliekitat Fisheries Project John Marvin 11105V111Aq ',7)1,.ii..70.1::1.....;!+!.11 Yakima Air Terminal Carl Remmel Airport Asst Manager c..1%.• 1 1.'‘!!)):!.!11...21,A..i.;1!.il*..1irli.I.M nca.crp.1 Yakima County Commissioners ..; i,',U( 1- ,), er,i?1,.... , ahiiii.., d u,.. Yakima County Health District ...'0:lio- • i,-,1!...,;lw .,_...., y,.-.. Yakima County Public Services Steven Erickson Planning Director C;'Rn 1•L;1.ErICk:,C,1),...,,.cv-rxinya.),%a.us Yakima County Public Services Vern Rcdiier Public Services Director v(To redicmyr L'o i,alotira 'OTt li:,,, Yakima Greenway Foundation Al Brown Executive Director a -« .h1•_ 'r.1.*:J. .. _ Yakima Health District Gordon Kelly Director of Environmental Health Yakima Regional Clean Air Agency Hasan Tahat Engineering & Planning Supervisor 11.a.sa11.V.1 'VI,: i.l. Yakima Valley Conference of Governments Shawn Conrad Planner .--l`.r.r.*.N!:A.j -i*, ,.'?.L.' ,i!:, Yakima Valley Museum John A. Baule Director L:thrmliakinyn al LeVill'UNL'Llra or!! Manager ,Thamber of Commerce Kevin C'hilcote 8 South 2nd Ave, Km#304 Yakima, WA 98902 10 North 9th Street Yakima, WA 98901 1005 North 16th Ave Yakima, WA 98902 David Spurlock City of Union Gap P.O. Box 3008 Union Gap, WA 98903 Kelly McLain Department of Agriculture P.O. Box 42560 Olympia, WA 98504 Gwen Clear Department of Ecology 15 West Yakima Ave, Ste# 200 Yakima, WA 98902 Mark Teske Department of Fish & Wildlife 201 North Pearl Ellensburg, WA 98926 Environmental Protection Agency 1200 6th Ave. MS 623 Seattle, WA 98101 Federal Aviation .Administration 2200 W. Washington Ave Yakima, WA 98903 Layla Morgan Federal Aviation Administration Airports District Office 1601 Lind Ave SW Renton. WA 98055-4056 Governor's Office of Indian Affairs PO Box 40909 Olympia, WA 98504 Mike Paulson Pacific Power 500 North Keys Rd Yakima, WA 98901 Ray Wondereheck Soil Conservation District 1606 Perry Street, Ste, F Yakima, WA 98902 Paul Edmondson Trolleys 313 NO1111 3rd Street Yakima, WA 98901 Jeff McKee United States Postal Service 205 W Washington Ave Yakima, WA 98903 WA State Attorney General's Office 1433 Lakeside Court. Ste# 102 Yakima, WA 98902 Christine Collins WA State Dept of Health, Office of Drinking Water 16201 E Indiana Ave, Ste# 1500 Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Robert Hodgman WSDOT, Aviation Division 818 79111 Avenue, Ste B Immvater, WA 98504-7335 Johnson Meninick Yakama Indian Nation P.O. BOX 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 Ruth Jim Yakama Indian Nation P.O. Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 Elaine Beraza Yakima School District 104 North 4th Ave Yakima, WA 98902 Robert Smoot Yakima Valley Canal Co 1640 Garretson Lane Yakima, WA 98908 Scott Robertson Yakima Waste Systems 2812 Terrace Heights Dr Yakima, WA 98901 Yakima-Tieton Irrigation District Sandra [-lull 470 Camp 4 Rd Yakima, WA 98908 SEPA R EVII-WING AGENCIES Enrtn List _updated 03.13,2013 Type of Notice: File Number: Date of Mailing: c DOC. INDEX Interested Parties - CellTower Moratorium Verizon Wireless 13arp-Chestnut Sprint T -Mobile AT&T LAO Name Rod Michaelis Ralph Call Stephen Meadows Don Bleaker Ken Lyons Address 1411 E Pinecrest Rd 2608 W Chestnut Ave 10545 Willows Rd NE City Sine 1 Zip Con ban Spokane WA 99203 Yakima WA 98902 Redmond WA 98052 (509) 453-8150 (425) 278-7446 (509) 230-0010 Earge-C :s alt Ranta T -Mobile T -Mobile ia Lrni .:206) 227-0020 (509) 452-6897 Rod DeLaRosa °co -Marin, Inc. c Kenmotsu ralphcallPeharter.net stepI1er))g Don,hlen ker@t-ni obil e.com Dblerike59mail.com ken.lyons(c-)wirelesscounsel,com teachemu*'charter net Mar/a.emigra\a-mobile.coin Rod.delarosalt:mobile,com k o ageo-marine.corn Page 1 of 1 Updated on 05/02/2013 YPC Members - .1 Tower Text Amendment - TXT#OL .3, SEPA#011-13 Scott Clark 7506 Barge Court Yakima, WA 98908 Alfred A. Rose 1006 Westbrook Place Yakima, WA 98908 Ron Anderson 103 S 3rd St Ste#203 Yakima, WA 98902 Dave Fonfara 8708 Cameo Court Yakima, WA 98903 Paul Stelzer 6402 Scenic Drive Yakima, WA 98908 Type of Notice: File Number: Date of Mailing: Benjamin W. Shoval 123 East Yakima Avenue, Ste#210 Yakima, WA 98901 William Cook 7701 Graystone Court Ya i.aqWA 98908 House Distribution E-mail Name Division E-mail Address Dana Kallevig Engineering dana,kallevig,@yakimawa.gov Doug Mayo Engineering doug.mavogyakimawa.gov Dan Riddle Engineering dan.riddletyakiniawa.gov Jeff Cutter Legal Dept jeff.cutterigimawa.gov Archie Matthews ONDS archie.inatthewswa.g0V Mark Soptich Fire Dept vakimawa.gov Jerry Robertson Code Administration ierry.robertsonrgyakimawa.gov Royale Schneider Code Administration rovale.schneidergyakimawa.gov Glenn Denman Code Administration gjnn.denrnanyakirnawagov Nathan Thompson Code Administration nathan.thompson/civakimawa.gov Dave Brown a er rrigation dave.brownl 'mawa Gov .. Mike Shane Waterflrrigation mike. shanc(D.t.yak i mawa.gov Carolyn Belles Wastewater carol yn.becaro] yn.be1iesyakimawa.gov Scott Schafer Wastewater scott.schafer@r,yakimawa.gov James Dean Refuse Division jarnes.deanyakirnawa.gov Kevin FutrellTransit Division kevin.fulre , ' mawa.gov Steve Osguthorpe Community Development steve.osguthorpeyakimawa.gov For the Record/File Binder Copy Rcvise 1_ Type of Notice: r File Number(s): TD)5E.aA41 - Date of Mailing: DOC. iNDEX # '12) - 1 lbarra, Rosalinda From: Ibarra, Rosalinda Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 3:18 PM To: Ahtanum Irrigation District - Beth Ann Brulotte; Cascade Natural Gas - Jim Robinson; Department of Commerce (CTED) - Review Team; Department of Ecology - SEPA Unit; Department of Fish and Wildlife - Eric Bartrand; Department of Natural Resources - Linda Hazlett; Department of Social & Health Services - Andrew Jenkins; Department of Social & Health Services - Jeanne Rodriguez; Dept Archaeology & Historic Preservation - Greg Griffith; Dept Archaeology & Historic Preservation - Gretchen Kaehler; Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council - Stephen Posner; lbarra, Rosalinda; Kallevig, Dana; Mayo, Doug; Nob Hill Water - Eric Rhoads; Office of Rural & Farmworker Housing - Marty Miller; Riddle, Dan, US Army Corps of Engineers - Karen M. Urelius; Schafer, Scott; West Valley School District - Angela Watts; WSDOT - Paul Gonseth; WSDOT - Rick Holmstrom; Yakama Bureau of Indian Affairs - Bud Robbins; Yakama Bureau of Indian Affairs - Rocco Clark; Yakama Bureau of Indian Affairs - Steve Wangemann; Yakama Nation Environmental Mgmt Program - Kristina Proszek; Yakama-Klickitat Fisheries - John Marvin; Remmel, Lee; Yakima County Commissioners; Yakima County Health District; Yakima County Planning Director - Steven Erickson, Yakima County Public Services Director, Vern Redifer; Yakima Greenway Foundation - Al Brown; Yakima Health District - Gordon Kelly; Yakima Regional Clean Air Agency - Hasan Tahat; Yakima Valley Conference of Governments - Shawn Conrad; Yakima Valley Museum - John A. Baule; Al Rose; Alfred A. Rose (silvrfx40@bmi.net); Benjamin W. Shoval (ben.shoval©shoval.com); Dave Fonfara: Ensey, Rick; Kunkler, Mark; Paul Stelzer; Ron Anderson (rondedicatedrealty@hotmail.com); Scott Clark (scott.clark@charter.net); William Cook (cook w@charter.net); Belles, Carolyn; Brown, David, Cutter, Jeff; Denman, Glenn; Futrell, Kevin; Matthews, Archie; Osguthorpe, Steve; Robertson, Jerry; Schafer, Scott; Schneider, Royale; Scott, James; Shane, Mike; Soptich, Mark; Thompson, Nathan Cc: 'rmichaelis@prolandlIc.corn'; 'Ralph Call'; 'stephen@quantumcontractingnw.com'; 'Don.blenker@t-mobile.com'; 'Dblenke59@gmail com'; 'ken.lyons@wirelesscounsel.com% iteachernup@charter.net'; 'Maria,emig@t-mobile.com'; Rod.delarosal@t-mobile.corn'; 'nkenmatsu©geo-marine.com' Subject: NOTICE OF APPLICATION, SEPA, AND YPC PUBLIC HEARING - Cell Tower Text Amendment - SEPA#011-13, TXT#002-13 Attachments: NTC OF APP, SEPA, YPC HEARING - Cell Tower Text Amdt - SEPA011-13 TXTOO2-13.pdf Rosalinda Ibarra Community Development Administrative Assistant rosalinda. 1 ba rra(iivakimawa.gov City of Yakima Planning Division 129 North 2nd Street, Yakima WA 98901 p: (509) 575-6183 * f: (509) 575-6105 DOC. INDEX Pete s, To: reviewteam@commerce.wa.gov Subject: City of Yakima 80'day Adoption Notice for CeII Tower Oridinance Attachments: City of Yakima Cell Tower GyNS'P|an'Dev'Rag'Rovinw'Connmerce-No1ioe-60'Dmy.doo; Ordinance DRAFT CELL TOWERS April 42O13(2).docn To whom it may concern, The City of Yakima is in the process of adding a new Chapter 15.29 Wireless Communication Facilities to its Urban Area Zoning Ordinance. The new chapter proposes language 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- locateonnewandexisdng tower sites; 4) Encourage personal wireless service providers to Iocate 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. In accordance with the requirements of the state department of Commerce the City of Yakima is transmitting the required 60 -day Notice of Intent to Adopt and accompany ordinance on this dayiurie 27, 2013. Should you or any of your staff have questions about the attached documents, please feel free to contact me Jeff Peters at (509) 575-6163. Sincerely, Jeff Peters Associate Planner City af Yakima DOC. INDEX ,, ' / A dally part of your life -Ad Proof - ..„1 yaklma-herald.com This is the proof of your ad scheduled to run on the dates indicated below. Please proof read notice carefully to check spelling and run dates, if you need to make changes Date: 06/26/13 Account #: 110358 Company Name: CITY OF YAKIMA/YAKIMA PLANNING Contact: ROSALINDA IBA It • , Address: DEPT OF COMMIECON DEVELOPEMENT 129 N 2ND STREET YAKIMA, W.4 98901-2720 Telephone: (509) 575-6164 Account Rep: Phone # Email: Simon Sizer (509) 577-7740 ssizer@yakimaherald.com Ad ID: 336587 Start: 06/27/13 Stop: 06/27/13 Total Cost: $246.75 Agate Lines: 244 h of Inserts: 1 Ad Class: 6021 Run Dales: Yakima Herald -Republic 06/27/13 DOC. INDEX Ibarra, Rosalinda From: ssizer@yakimaherald.com Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 3:51 PM To: Ibarra, Rosalinda Subject: Ad: 336587, CITY OF YAKIMA NOTICE OF APPLICATION Attachments: IBARRA-46-336587-1.pdf Legal Here's the revised copy. CETY OF YAKiblA rt110E OF .APPLICATtOet. flOTFDF Or PUBLIC tA1NG AND DETERtalleetICrielFelON-StGeitFtCANCE D.A1 Ss* G lig., TO: Etit. ett.iineittberbgee_40?ecie:,,, t !meta -ante ralete FROM. ::31.43339 013. tecAciet.t. Crt-crttuctey ;ftcreleitrient 1,21000102,200 SUftstEct Notice: et Application. Public Floartng and Determination et Nencrtiontitcance: elgur,LE QF APPetDATictrt: Protect Lot:Alton:: rt,,,y,55,tm Dtolect Applicant. :eel. 5.1 eat yea. Pia: mittir :)nettirctn eternettre: SEFA 12°, 11 ° r10140, of Applirtat tea ' 2120,0, 204 0. Date of Oteterettnation C ample! e - nese: :Mee 75f, 2,5'25 pflogt:712aciiippott 11,e i**303::31•31 r211,0112,21220021 01,02122.01{1 a22.1,221,, 20,1'0 1,233,e Cily k ...VE itten A tea Zell r•t;o aam..e...0t1.31..:„ g ”Ev„, 15.2tt R,2,1111.110,202, f 3122121,00 Th,: 313E33 g '13331'1hr 1,) Tc; fl.ro 1rtt, Itb,berle; wife re": eiteetce :enter .14.1.5 tit Qt.:twice. 4.5,50,0,5as, "ieeertrel4r.ety 5mck, ate et:tea:Mc 2,220,1021110023;1(2, 2'! 2,2192 22,10 3v3-ee R.0.1212,12 020.2112iii t rt ,u02121222 1220010 22, 0011 .3.cri3r33.:3 P 2 1,02,220 21,021,01 210000 222 qs,--,020, 2200 01E0 002,00 0020 11,22,10S 1E3V:2- '2001° 0'0,4 ar31 01005 21,1 E f13.: 0 1,33g E3 20n221 430,3w3t3 33E3* vii:a 03:y33403. 1,222.0016 Er200,11128 2E1121 ,22,22.021102 tri SG 03,021 202,1222101101. 20022, Gra ,:civ 01,020020 555.te?a nett:ate.; teetterec 12,0021100 ettwidere t.urrtttr °I, cam s 0121,31322P021,002 2 2032,1 lot ri :in, ;022.00, 121a .331333 !,e. 3*i 02,112111212,2222. . I ti Pre:Wee t7Pi 1102 22,4011,012 :3-ort,g13ogia. 421110,112, 22eF.irti 20022.2121- 100,22122,1 EGErigs; 11F 317311 7,w,fi,row 3,3•3303 12t 121,210,0210° 20,1 [11202212202:, 12:02,202,202 5,,te 11G:iSgs. reergrsi 4 2111) pp0oxi71,111,00,02.212,02 fret-. e F.41-0:1 4.0%.11V. a7.)Piy lork222220 in 0 0,20,00:20 441 4-4-44n4F4 4.4:-4:4°114.1-4 rrti, wi-102002222220 221,02' 110.21,22100 01110 0112 ce5 ri SPINS: 444444YrfeK44. 4.444414-g0202012, Egg sthar;ilerveiss srgri risiglEstisr31.4; 20 2, recititentistet ecistorptsts •3^.±.1 l•I'vErrtg rigg Errs ;gig: itter rereee:mal tc.rie,tobbi .Pu1 1. let MI Met teram ;roe eeici ettotertatier .7711,:” ,3 0:31 7g az. 333 t 00000 220 'a t 011.51.'12100,22ar21) S'Er; .14V: 4;4414444jW.4ia:4Oti:441V444.4 g 33e.4111E110 Plat or, (0220ii L. t.tet ;;: EtitiktiQ r4IMENT,4f.Y.Y.4 74-444:4 0401 1%.4i.414:443 t:414S'443v:-1:lif,4 LifCp4:45,S1 1„:Alli 0141 hrr s irSiarsiEr• R40-4:4:444. (44.1 or4 1,12110002 ril 0i1 0104 2.2% arid nee -crecerre:rto.:51 Moto, one. err:Pm. :I r.,0,..:3,3b39 c133,313:itrzi .33131.3.3? 314-3.8137 4 Ho 044.44: t2,1,4orcorwm4,41.4 ;Ix "43!i47:4,74:1L:t ii:ritE•r•Eirg ISA rgi r• gsrg,grog ssorE sirggry ;12 SS:E.Cgrl rsr The .sgErnrssicar; toiiei sp.:5n in gig ging s gagers* Er; 1; grEErrEsis rrr 0f220.!:111C 0220T02 40 202 17.211y112 4e4,4444411):41 3ti314 -Aryl Di444174:00 '3'19. it, •tetetett 202,3® 22,20200 02, **"71'. 24(2), the 0.2224 02,124020,1 011, 001 021 .01 ;Ms oraftneet et: en ,tavattern trie care bete iv. 41.f PM -fa -FOR .Y;f9fl.ftEett....00fAeltbrit.S. .0,0-,toc. 010 e ere:51150,5 re etriee :bet 20011102,,1114.1VP r- %r( 22,212,2201oraricss- tre713 Jirry 17, 7013, 311.be ::::,51551.51atti reer tesear,:te L.! fetal rreature ttreetreleation. P12122.100 0,200 2,22102,10,222,221,20100101 02,11,22.100,0220011222,002. 1:5111051 21,2. 120004r .1- .2- -fp Mar 01,22',2t, C ut Yar i tea 2,2 '22,22,20.229022021,, 129 Nom, 2,551 D'e ea: Veaard: 002;r :21.-81.2021:00,3,11,0tot u ILO it 144 eca.ree, y:a.‘; be beet nevem Ve.'4.1 44444 b4r4444`. :444 Xt. 4'44; 414444 414,7. firq14.44.1iLiZ14441 123122,0221 1112211102011 21011220 11,22 .1.10 022,21,21,011011.2112, oror 0,311;'cal.'40 3130:313f(21-3, f'DY Dilt :10,122:rep at r f'.4./ ,711e1,11°1:13 i'7;303407,7, 11.,iF71 t01, 2r1*. 00020 e110 1220 110°112 21221 tr:Itt,55 *raterro tteectetegcbr, be,: Lem am; cue irt;'2.'''ii14!i44e 377.1p ar aintecte ball itettre. 0,0220 2022 27°,1110,022 10.r2.5, tIctetri tett ter ,r51 22221221 0. 02 2, 201 —1 3 0012 trz,t5 N,QTPCO" Of t'ueLtr, !lfAB.114.O. :,poi.:4.!i#.41 11.icE444,,o4.44,4 444444t,„41S44.:44r:Ilty,i, :31,3 0334.3..:4C4,147,4a tie:5rue !tee 11E4 :4..444:44 .44 :44414P'0,44144 t :444;4444.444.:4;.:11,4,1.1 fl.. 4.4V 444.44; G3R- 4.4* -4414 4-44:44iO4.4 4'.4..A44.14"4.1 r.444441144, 21222 20,721,220.2 :fey (5,5.55 'he -5,:35. neetire tr,37,74,77.CII7,Af 1221 70E200 flI1 li110scrteaulari tet. August, 7, 21113,117,J71173.3 312 03 pm oggisenence 1tia.51555, Cfact 124 :ttel frt. )1310703 1/4A .4: 3. 130:33; 1333a. ggi- m.g,gr- 1.31t 213, 102 02 22011021 1,, 0112201,1 R11,2 (17j, y,:rr't 0- emenit true ctettfrr ,20.0"20102 10 C* ctemeneu r2.5:15,:151 2:29 'W.?: • 3, 7,1331r...a Wis LiI471 A zope rate palette rratrire will be beborbeat too trif. 1103309 beirne the Yr443103 CEty CD:LODC:a (336587) June 27, 2013 DOC, INDEX Ibarra, Rosalinda From: Sent: To: Ibarra, Rosalinda Thursday, June 27, 2013 3:25 PM Brown, Michael; Crockett, Ken; Daily Sun News - Bob Story; Ibarra, Rosalinda; KAPP TV News; KBBO-KRSE Radio - manager; KCJT TV News; KDNA Radio; KEPR TV News; KIMA TV - Jim Niedelman; KIMA TV News; KIT/KATS/DM /KFFM - Lance Tormey; KNDO TV - Julie Stern; KNDO TV News; KUNS-TV Univision; KVEW TV News; Lozano, Bonnie: NWCN News; NWPR - Anna King; Randy Luvaas - Yakima Business Times; Tu Decides - Albert Torres; UNIVISION TV - Marta Isabel Sanchez; Yakima Herald Republic - Adriana Janovich; Yakima Herald Republic - Chris Bristol; Yakima Herald Republic - Craig Troianello; Yakima Herald Republic - Erin Snelgrove; Yakima Herald Republic - Mai Hoang; Yakima Herald Republic - Mark Morey; Yakima Herald Republic Newspaper; Yakima Valley Business Times; Yakima Valley Business Times - George Finch; Beehler, Randy Cc: Peters, Jeff Subject: FW: NOTICE OF APPLICATION, SEPA, AND YPC PUBLIC HEARING - CeII Tower Text Amendment - SEPA#011-13, TXT#002-13 Attachments: NTC OF APP, SEPA, YPC HEARING - CeII Tower Text Arndt - SEPA011-13 TXT002-13.pdf Rosalinda Ibarra Community Development Administrative Assistant rosalinda.ibarravakirnawa.gov City of Yakima I Planning Division 129 North 2nd Street, Yakima WA 98901 p: (509) 575-6183 * f: (509) 575-6105 DOC. INDEX CITY OF YAKIMA NOTICE OF APPLICATION, NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: June 27, 2013 SEPA Reviewing Agencies, and Interested Parties Steve Osguthorpe, Community Development Manager Notice of Application, Public Hearing and Determination of Non - Significance NOTICE OF APPLICATION Project Location: Citywide. Project Applicant: City of Yakima, Planning Division File Numbers: SEPA #011-13 Date of Application: June 24, 2013 Date of Determination of Completeness: June 25, 2013 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The City of Yakima Planning Department is proposing an amendment to the City of Yakima's Urban Area Zoning Ordinance adding a new Chapter 15.29 Wireless Communication Facilities. The new chapter proposes language 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; 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. The draft ordinance provides for a hierarchy of preferred locations, site design, height restrictions, proximity limitations from residential and historic districts, and aesthetic criteria which apply to new wireless facilities prior to locating in a residential zone, or historic district. The proposed ordinance allows wireless communication towers in all city zoning districts, however siting criteria and other development standards apply to residentially zoned property, and historic districts (See Environmental Checklist SEPA#011-13 for further description and explanation online at: http://www.yakimawa.goviservices/planninclipostcard, or http://www.vakimawa 0v/services/ nnin • (Quick Links) ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The City of Yakima has reviewed the proposed project for probable adverse environmental impacts, and has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030 (2) (c). The information relied upon in reaching this determination is available to the public upon request at the City of Yakima Planning Division. This DNS is issued under WAC § 197-11-340(2), the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 20 days from the date below. Responsible Official: Position/Title: Phone: Address: Steve Osguthorpe, AICP SEPA Responsible Official (509) 575-6163 129 N, 2nd Street, Yakima, WA 98901 Date: June 27, 2013 Signature - REQUEST FOR WRITTEN COMMENTS: Agencies, tribes, and the public are encouraged to review and comment on the proposed application. All written comments received by July 17, 2013, will be considered prior issuance of the final threshold determination. Please send written comments to: Steve Osguthorpe, Community Development Manager; City of Yakima, Department of Community Development; 129 North 2nd Street, Yakima, Washington 98901. The following conditions have been identified that may be used to mitigate the adverse environmental impacts of the proposal: No impacts identified. Required Pe its — None. Required Studies — None, Existing Environmental Documents: SEPA/GMA Integrated Environmental Summary. Preliminary determination of the development regulations that will be used for project mitigation and consistency: N/A NOTICE OF DECISION Decisions and future notices will be sent to anyone who submits comments on this application or request additional notice. The file containing the complete application is available for public review at the City of Yakima Planning Division, 2nd floor City Hall, 129 North 2nd Street, Yakima, Washington. If you have any question on this proposal, please call Jeff Peters, Associate Planner at (509) 575-6163 or e-mail at ieff.petersavakimawa.qov. DOC. INDEX NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING This application will require two public hearings; one closed record hearing before the City of Yakima Planning Commission to be followed by an open record public hearing before the Yakima City Council. The public hearing before the City of Yakima Planning Commission has been scheduled for August 7, 2013, beginning at 2:00 pm, in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 129 N 2nd Street, Yakima, WA. Any person desiring to express their views on this matter is invited to attend the public hearing or to submit their written comments to: City of Yakima, Planning Division, 129 N 2nd St., Yakima, WA 98901. A separate public notice will be provided for the public hearing before the Yakima City Council. DOC. 1NDEY ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT — CHAPTER 15.29 WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES TXT#002-13, SEPA#011-13 E-1 EXHIBIT LIST CHAPTER E SEPA Checklist DOCUMENT DATE Environmental Checklist (SEPA Application} 06/24/2013 .1 1 .:. •,. ,. ... 1,1, '... AND USE APPLICATION CITY OF YAKIMA. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 129 NORTH SECOND STREET, 2ND FLOOR, YAKIMA, WA 98901 VOICE: (509) 575-6183 FAX: (509) 575-6105 INSTRIJCTIONS PLEASE READ H IS1 llcse t>pe or print our a swers cleariy. completel), 11)ou have an) questions about this thnii or e applicationprocess, please ask a PIamur, Remernher attachments and the required filing lee when the application is submitted. The Planning Division cannot accept an it is complete and the tiling fee paid. Filing fees are not refundable. of Ibur parts. PAR l 1 - GENERAL INFORMATION ANI) PART IV — CERTIFICATION are on this page. additional inlbrmation specific Lo your proposal and MUST he a ached to this page to complete the application. Answer all ucstions to bring a 1 necessur) application unless This application consists 'ART 11 and 111 contain PARTI GENERAL IN '0 ' AT ON . Applicant's Name. Address. And Phone Number Name (.'it} of Yakima I'Ianning Department Street 129 Norlh Second Street CU) Yakima ."I WA Zip 98901 Phone 09)57 - 2. Applicant's Property Interest Check One Oner 0 Agent 0 1 Purchaser Other. LoaI Government 3. Proper1) Or Illef.ti Narile. Address. And Phone Ntunher (If Other I han Applicant) Name Street 'ilk S Zip , PhorijS• -I. Snhject Properl) 's Assess 's Parcel Number(s)- please 11-2 Parcels NI iihin the houndaries ol'he Chi) of Yakima cit E 5. )roper1 Address: N/A (irlm,•,:111). UN 2 4 2013 6. 1.cgil Description of Property. attach 4 1113 ) it on a separate document) SCC 4 LCC ' NA cffY QF YAKIMA --.1,• : ' l' 7. Properb 's Existing Zoning: 4 B-1 SR R-1 R-2 R-3 GC : S- „ fill M-2 8. ipc Of Application: (Check All 1hit Appl% Examiner Other: 0 / rninistrati‘e Adjustment Type (2) Re N ie % T)pe (3) Revieiv 0 Short Plat 0 Long Plal 0 Admin. Modification 0 Appeal 0 Home Occupation o Short Plat Exemption: Environmental Right-of-Wa) Transportation Non -Conforming Type 3 Modification Interpretation h) Temporary Use Comp Plan Amendment Checklist (SEPA) Vacation Concurrency Structure/Use [tearing Permit 0 Easement Release 0 Rezone 0 Shoreline 0 Critical Areas 0 Variance 0 Amended Plat 0 Binding Site Plan 0 Planned Development Zoning Ordinance Amendment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PART 11— SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION, PART 1 REQUIRED .ATTACHMENTS, & PART IV NARRAT1VE 9. SEE A'l'l A('UED SIIEETS PART V — CERTIFICATION .. 1 ccrtif thatthe information on tis application J__ and the required attachments are true and correct to the hest of in) knowledge, - DATE 'RO RTY OWNER; NA'FLIRE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE USE ON Y R ised 12-08 Notes: FILE# , 1)A IF FEl PAID R E 'ED 13Y T Amount Rcjpt No. 11cariqg Dale DOC® INDEX # E - . -. ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC IST STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SENA) (AS TAKEN FROM WAC 197-11-960) YAKIMA MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 6.88 P I P .17_ 0 E .- .. ST The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). RCW Ch. 43.21C, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for II proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be dune) and to hely) the ai4e2%.:k decide whether an EIS is re4i1ved `..— -RucrioNs FOR APPLICANTS This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic informaIon about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal arc significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can, You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases. you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need w hire experts. If you really do not know the ariswer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, Write "do not know'' or "does not apply", Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays laier. Some questions ask about g,ovenunental regulations, such as zoning. shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even ifyou plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there iia‘ be skip' ficant adverse iripao USE or. C 11 FCb.1.1.S'i FOR NON PROJECT P ROPOSAlS Complete this checklistfor non -project proposals. even though questions may be answered "does not apply," IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For non -project actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project." "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "e •osal," " o r," and "affected geogwli:c :r -c:1," rc, loci A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION (To be completed by the applicant.) 1. Name Of Proposed Project (If Applicable): City of Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance Wireless Communication Amendment2. RIE**.EIVEL. . Applicant's Namc & Phone: City of -Yakima Planning Department. 509-575-6183. . JUN 24 20/3 . Apph n ' Address: 129 North Second Street, Yakirna, WA 98901. CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. 4. Contact Persn & Phone: Mark Kunkler (509) 575-3552, or Jeff Peters at (509) 575-6163 _ ..... _ . 5. Agency Requesting Checklist: City of Yakima 6. Date The Checklist Was Prepared: June 24. 2013. 7. Proposed Timing Or Schedule (Including Phasing, If Applicable): N/A , Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain: Not at this lime. DOC. INDEX environmentalenviroiiinenta informationhas been prepared, or will be prepared, direc related to this proposal: None. 0. Do you know whether applications arc pending for governmental approvals of other proposalsdirec the propertycovered by your proposal? If yes, explain: None pending List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known: SEPA de ennination, City of Yakima Planning Commission Public Hearing, and City Council Approval, 1 Give a brief, but complete description of your proposal, including Ihe proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.): This proposal includes an amendment to the City of Yakima's Urban Arca Zoning Ordinance adding a new Chapter 15.29 Wireless Communication Facilities. The new chapter proposes language to: a. Enhance the ability of personal wireless service providers to provide such services throughout the city quickly. effectively, and efficiently: b. Encourage personal wireless service providers to locate towers and antenna in nonresidential areas: c. Encourage personal wireless service providers to co -locate on new and existing tower sites: d, 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; e. Encourage personal wireless service providers to configure towers and antennas in a way- that minimizes any significant adverse visual impact; and C. Provide for the wireless communications needs of uovemmental entities. The draft ordinance provides for a hierarchy ofpreferred locations, site design, height restrictions, proximity limitations from residential and historic districts, and aesthetic criteria which apply to new wireless facilities prior to locating in a residential zone, or historic district, The proposed ordinance allows wireless communication towers in all city zoning districts, however siting criteria and other development standards apply to residentially zoned property, and historic districts (sec draft ordinance for more information). RECEIVED JUN 2 4 2 013 OF YAKIMA PLANNING OW. DOC, INDEX Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your pro- posed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. Ilia proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably. available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist.: City limits. RECEIVED JUN 2 4 2013 OF YAKIMA CANNING UIV. . ENV N NTA EMENT.To be nupIeted by ttir pphcnflp . ek-ved for Ageuey Cornmens . Earth a. General description ofthe site (V one): tlat LJ roflrng • , IJ steep slopes noui1tainous Iliother b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? NIA. . Wtiat general types of soils are found on the site(for x p e, clay, sand, grave, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. See United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey of Yakima County Area Washington d. Are there surface indications or history of unstableunstabk soils in the immediatevicinity? If so, describe. See United States Department olAgriculture Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey of Yakima County Area Washine.ton e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. None f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use'? If so, generally describe. N/A g. About hat percent of the site will he covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? N/A h. Proposed measureso reduce or eontrol erosion, or other irnpacts to the earth, i ny: N/A 2. Air a, What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, and industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. N/A. DOC. INDEX E B. ENVtRONMENTU ELEMENTS (To coin dVthe p1iliint) pac A t) Reserved fo Comments b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal?I so, generally describe. N°A. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other N/A a. Surface: p ts Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into, N/A 1. the project require ° work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. N/A 3. Estimate the amount of 1111 and dredge material that would be placed in or re moved from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. NIA Wili e proposal requirc surface water withdrawals or diversions? Cisc general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? Ifso, note ocation on the si plan. N/A 6. Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface wa so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. N/A b. Ground: I. Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground wa Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. N/A Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general sizc of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. N,A c. Water Runoffincluding stormwater): RECEIVED JUN 2 4 2013 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. DOC. INDEX #._ B. ENVIRONMENTAL E ENTs onIrkkd b lh applicant Spice Resery el A enc Comme I. Describe the source of runoff(including storm water) and method ofcoHection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. N/A Could waste materials enter ground or sur N/A o, generally describe. Proposed measures to reduce or control conlrol surfaee, ground, and runoff runoffwater impacts, if any: N/A , Plants: a. Check (V) types of vegetation found on the site: Deciduous Tree: Alder Maple Ed Aspen ID Other Evergreen Green: FirCedar Pine Other El Shrubs Grass Ei Pasture Crop Or Grain Other Other Types Of Vegetation: b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? None c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. There are minor amounts of threatened or endangered species know to live in or around the city limits of Yakima, however this proposal does not involve any change to the land or habilat. and is considered none-proect . Proposed landscaping, use of vegetation on the site, if any: N/A Animals: 'e plants, o ures (0 preserve or enhance a. Check (V) any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: Hawk Heron Z Eagle Songbirds fl Other Mammals: Deer 111 Bear E Elk [Z] Beaver EfOther Fish: Bass Salmon Trout Li llerdiig LJ Shellfish Other b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site, There arc minor amounts of threatened or endangered species know to live in or around the city limits of Yakima, however this proposal does not involve any change to the land or habitat, and is considered none -project, c. Is (he site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Migratory birds may utilize property within the City limits; however this proposal does not involve any change to the land or habitat, and is considered none -project. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: N/A Energy and Naturat Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will he used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. N (A RECEIVED JUN 2 4 2013 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. 11,6111 111011'111111 B. ENVIRONMENTAL E F, FATS an he co1u1pkkd hy he lippf a Wouki your project affect the potential use ofsolarenergy by adjacent proper so, generally describe. N/A c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: N /A . EnvironmentalHealth a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste that could occur as a result of this proposal? Ifso, describe. N/A Deseribe special emergency services that might be required. N/A Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: NIA b. Noise What types of noise exist in the area, which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? NIA What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the pr on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. N!A • Proposed measures to reduce or contro noise impacts, if any: N/A Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? N/A b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe, Many of the properties within the City of Yakima have been used for agriculture purposes in the past. c. Describe any structures on the site. N/A wm any s ctures be demolished? If so, what? e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The current zoning classifications which are effected by these amendments are as follows: SR, R -I , R-2, R-3, B- I, B-2, HB, SCC, LCC, AS, GC, CBD, RD, and WI What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? The Comprehensive Plan designations within the City of Yakima area as follows: Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, High Density Residential, Professional Office, Neighborhood Commercial, Community Commercial, General Commercial, Regional Commercial, CBD Core Commercial, and Industrial, Space Reservec Agency Comme 0 RECEIVED JUN 24 2013 CRY OF YAKIMA PLANNING OIV. DOC. B. E LRONMENTAL Ll,r411A I S iTio he rumpletcd by the applicant) *pace Reserved for Agency 14. If appticable, what is the current shoreline master program designationof hc site? NIA RECEIVED N24 2013 an' OF YAK111/14 PLANNING DIV. h, Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so specify. N/A — Non -Project Action i. Approximately how many people would reside orwork ' the co p d project? NA J. Approximately, how many people would the compkted project displace? isliA k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any. N/A 1 . Proposed measures to ensure the proposal compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The existing proposal will modify the above mentioned Cite of Yakima regulations nd land use pians. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. N/A b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate : h hig , middle, or low-income housing. N/A c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: N/A 10. Aestheiics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structures, not uding antennas, what are the principal exterior building materials proposed? The tallest height that this ordinance allows for an antenna in the residential and historic districts is sixty feet. In all other zones 100 feet is the maximum allowed height. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? NIA c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aestheticpacts, if any: The draft ordinance proposes to iinpose screening and other site design criteria to reduce the aesthetic impacts of wireless communication facilities (see draft ordinance for additional information). 11. Light and Clare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? None, however the ordinance does provide regulation of lighting. b. Could light or glare from the finished p *et be a safety hazardo ne e with views? N/A c. What existingoff-sitc. u ces ofhglit or glare may affect :our proposal? None d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None, however the ordinance does provide regulation of lighting. ,,..... a INDEX B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS (To be eoinpteted by the applican 2. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the irnrnedia vicinity? N/A h. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. N/A c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: NIA Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. N/A b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeotogica, c or cultural important known to be on or next to the site. N/A c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: The draft ordinance provides language to regulate, limit, and reduce the impacts of wireless communication towers within residential and historic districts. 4. Transportation a. tdcntiry public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. N'A b. Is site currently serviced by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distanc to the nearest transit stop? N'A c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? N/A How many would the project eliminate? N/A . Will the proposat require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). N'A e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) wa transportation? If so, generally describe. N/A How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed pro) known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. N/A pace R -en CU 14 Agency Comments RECEIVED JUN 2 4 2013 OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. B. E RONM ENTAL ELEM EN IS ( lo b tumpktvd Lw the appIkinfl i Space Reserved for Agency 0 g. Proposed measures to reduce or contro trnsportation impacts, 'fan: NIA 15. Publlc Services a. Would thc project resull in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe: NIA RECEIVErt Le UN 24 2013 O b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utilityproviding the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity., which might be needed. N/A VAKiiiii4 P AWING 011, . . 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities current') available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utitiiy providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity•, which might he needed. N/A Z. S G A 'URL bi. unnpLeted b the applieant) The above answers are true and coniplete to the best ofmy knowledge. t understand that the Iead agency 15 relying on them to niats d ion. —77 67 —./j. Propv Owner or A. • Signature Dale Submitted PLEASE COMPLETE SECTION " ON THE NEXT PAGE IF THERE IS NO PROJECT RELAI'ED TO THIS ENVIRON N1ALREVIEW D. SUPPLEMENT SHEET FOR N NPROJECT ACTIONS (To by completed I-) lhc the :pace Reser% ed For Agency ii .1e�ts applicant.) (DO NOT USE E FOLLOWING FOR PROJECT , : ONS) Because these questions are very general. it may be helpful 10 read thein in eonjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal or the types of activities that would likely result from the proposal and how it would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than lithe proposal were not impleinented. nECEIVED JUi 2 4 2 013 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING Div I. How would the proposal be likely 10 ncrease discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Thc proposed Zoning Ordinance change will not affect how land uses discharge to water, emissions to the air, storage. or release of toxic or hazardous substances, or the production of noise. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: As the proposal will not increase any of the above environmental conditions, no measures to avoid or reduce these conditions have been proposed. . How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The proposed zoning changes will not affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life as all the proposed changes will not change any existing environmental regulations, a. Proposed measures to protect ur conserve plants, anirnals, or marine - are: As the proposal will riot effect any of the above animal life, no measures to protect or conserve plant and animal life has been proposed. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The proposed zoning amendments do not involve regulations dealing with energy or natural resources. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natura resources are: None proposed. . How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under s(udy) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? The proposed zoning amendments do not propose any change to regulations for environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated for governmental protection. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid ur reduce impacts are: None proposed. _ . 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? No change to land and shoreline uses are proposed. Proposed measures to avoid ur reduce shoreline and land use iznpacts are: None proposed 6. How would the proposal be tikety to inerease demands on transportation or public services and utilities? The proposed zoning changes would not be likely to increase demand on the transportation or public service system and utilities as the regulatory changes only address processing of various land use applications. Proposed measures duce or respond to such demand(s) are: None proposed. D. SUPPLEMENT SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (To be completed by the applicant.) (DO NOT USE TIIE FOLLOWING FOR PROJECT ACTIONS) Space Reserved For Agency Comments 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The proposed zoning amendments will not conflict with any local, state, or federal laws, or requirements for the protection of the environment. RECEIVED JUN 2 4 2013 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING OIV. Doc. INDEX # (jr Too. So ya Distributed at the. Meeting boob bosaiirsta Tuesday Nbvem der Ob 2.0'1 3 d 4 t;ftil 3Naar Ted tattnya Phan CNN konisler. Mark. FAN* C.,*ornm!„iniciAic,Lns Pas:Nacos Ordinance ',Nankai. Wobess (son orients r, tut Noundi 11 34 '13 pdi' stOVV Resinas CPI -Nu -wilts on: tub Tower Ord FINAL Format Oct Mt 2013 dor-d • ;4. ' tHr," c.f.);Jricil 1.1 J;.;:‘ • From: Mike Coons:as f.mattrallikeNtannorstatattakoksorni Sent: Monday, November nut 2013 Stat To: Ask Nanning Co: Odeuthorde, Staub, puolOok, Marks Thal -Y.:3., Rosaknitin; Campbeln Heather beinatheroCaropteNtspberiattrattablettswon Muni ft), fabler A Satibb Mourottablert nottspentat coon Pciwasal,Mababasentonwirelessaasitt Subject: Proposed Shutiess Communications Istabitas Ordinancs Verizon Wireless Comments rpt ;;(;;;;,r.:A.," ; 'Pen' i ******: k. .;• '41 l''''.;f•qif•-.;4;n1.1**1\*.%';' ie.*** .014 ttle' 0..1! a I. itif!.rt *** %.** i;p1Tt.••*: !tr 1,0; 1:•;:1, i -;;;;;i. ;;;;;;I.,..;;1(frf.i.,;;;; joi;;i• ; ' n- tan Snow 0 wan nub taco:Nab- T.4.1 ..; '; .. f-* j ; • .;. twanint cap cora 4 't *•*;1. ;..-.1.‘;;'.;***•.;ifl,..; 7;1. t ; ••• • • • ;,; „ • •••• ; • ; , ••• V • !• 5;i .;„.;. ; :; : it • •.; .5q *1!*5 55:i 5'5 5;5 ; • 5. , ,C5 :;,. ';.:1*.!.,...*? t :5 :" 5;.•5; ; , , ; 5 • •:.• ; **, Chapter 15.29 WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS F -ACI TIES Sections 15'90i0 Purpose 15 29 020 Definitions 15 29.030 Eq -notions 1025 040 Permits Rebored 15 29 n50 Application Submittal/Fees 15.29 060 Development Standards 15 79 070 Design Criteria 15 2.9 080 Site Selection Standards 15 29 090 S;3fety 311d !ndusthy Standards. 15 59 100 Wireless Conditicinal Use Permit Criteria 15 29 110 Wireiess Height Variance 1 29 120 ,-,47ip icon ni RevloW Pocess 15 29 130 Balloon Tests it Visual impact. Assessments. 1iff 29 140 Third Pan), R hviirsw 15 29 150 Nbrimise 1A.*;yaririoniinrit 1.5 29 160 Transfei Ownersthri 1529 170 Vacation irt Permits 15.29 180 'Violation Ptinaity lb 29 190 Relief. Waives texemption 15 25 500 Severabrity PY.F1?9§e. The purpose of this chapter is to establish fleneral guidelines for the siting of wireless telecommunication facilities inclodino towers antennae and suppmt structures A Goa. The goals of this chapter are to Enhance the abilily of personal wireless service providers to prop e such services throughout the city quiciSly, effectively and efficientiy, 2 Frtirage personal weers service providers to locate towers and antennei in nonresidential Fricourage p Sonat w eess se nnt avirierS to ocelphate on new and existing twer Site:5 4 Encourage persenai, wiieiess service providers to locate toweirs and antennas to the eY.tent possibie, areas where the adversts4mpact city reek:lents is minimal 5. Erouraoe. personal SeniiCie plityvideits to configure towers arid ,antennas n a way that cropyrnizes aily significant adverse \uncial imeect and 6 Provide ley the wiritiless condrnunications need.3 of govelniinental entities Accordingry the city couniciii finds that tine ort)rtuiigation of this chapter is warranted anti 'necessary To manage the iodation of towers and antennas in the city; 2 1 o protect residential areas and land uses trate potential adverse impacts of towers 3. TO minimize adversie visual impacts of towers through ca rettii design siting landscape screening and iiiinovative catinonfieging feciiiniqued3, 4 To accommloCate an increased need for towers to serve the wireless municatiOnS needs of city residents 5 To promote and enoourage co -location or, existing and new towers as an option oi:Jther than construction of additional sinpie-use tavvers, and to reduce the norther of ii3LICh struit;tures ileecied the future, C-4 To COnSider trie dultilic health and satiety of towiets to the exlent permitted Telecomirmunications Act.. of 1996, ;arid: 4.)y the To avoid doter:hat (damage to adjacent properties through sound en esering practices and the proper sliong of antenna support structures E- New Uses Ail new taiecomitturication towers, antennas and support structures shall oornpiv with this onapt er efter the effective date at the ordinance 'codified in this chapter Existing Uses Ail teleuommunication towers and antennas existing on the effective date of the ordinance podified in this unispfor thit are not in opmgliance with this ordinanCe shati be allowed to continue as they prese.htly exist. but will be, opnnsidered noneonforrning uses. ii;ubject to Section (6409. of the ivliddle it:4'4Th 5;p Id?, fiZtiiiiie4arictl dolt; dilresititan Act. cig Routine mainteintance, stiail be permitted CM vtewiars and antennas However new construction other than routine, maintenance on (i4ixisfing towers antennas Puddings or other shah comply 'with the requiremierts of chiaptor Facilitation of Wireqess Service Tni-,;se wtore designed to4:-.4omply with the: Teleocrndiunications Act of 19!.36-cjiiiityd diaj,Y44jepolilitijiif 1rik4j4pra or u ls chapter are not inteiinded to carer snarl not Pe interpreted to prohibit or le have the effect o *prohibiting personal wireless services This stiapter snail not be applied in swift'. a manner- as to unreasobiably discriminate between providers of fundionally equivalcifint personal iviireless servoes. L f' Conflict with Other Standards. To the extent that any provision of this, chapter ls inconsistent or rficiritiibits With any other city of Ji ance this Ct.ii-;:letel. Shati control Otherwise this chapter shall be •onstrueci consistently tiyitrl the other provons and regulations of the city 15.29.020 Definitions. For the purpose of iblie Chaptef the ffrillowing terms „shall have the meaning ascribed to them below. Additional definitions pertersinfi to the Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance can be fc.)unO Chacter 1 5 02 Y "Adam:fly:in-fent means to cease operation for a, period of sixty or more C-OrlSecutive bays Administrator' means the director* of Me city's department of coporonity development and his or her designees Anterfna means any crxterior appiaratos designed for telephonic, radio, data, Internet of television communications flirt:y.9h the sending sisidlipr receiving of electromagnetic wafies and includes equipment attaichcri rc a tower. structure Or Ltuildiriig for ;i1E.' purpose. of omviOing yyireless services, inn:lading urilici..frised wireless telecominunications services viiireles telecommunications services utilising frequencies authorized by the lifecieraf Communications Cornmisz;ion for fee,liuiar.—ennanced specialized roue radio* and 'persona! ocimmunicatiods services, telecommunications services, and its attendant bfirse station "fritnterina heir.intd means the vertical disriance Measured from the base of the 'InfernoSUF.).port structure at riaturzi grade to the highest point of the St, u cLr e even if said highest point is an antenna ri,leasurerrent of tower height sholi include antenna, base pad, and other appurterianCeS and shah be Measured from the hat Jr.a grade Of the barn& the I»v-St c point of the support structure's perimeter fAritenrsa support- structure Means any Tye, telescoping mast, flower, trIpod, or other structure, witien SLipports device used in the transmitting dr ioceiving radio free hen- iv signals 'Applicant' rrleanS any provider or ttirryf pert)On partnerShiP dornpony, or goverrinent agency that flies an application for any permit f' eCe.SSJ y to inStaY:' maintaft) r_r remove a persor,ai wireless service fateility vothin the rifity Sibtaiform test" means a test for a reasonable period of time to fly oi raise upon a temporary mast, a brightly colored balloon that is her:dieser:tat:ye in sibs of the initial antenna array including ell standoffs, at the rflax4rnuril height of the proposed tower Base station is defined as a flaciiify or support structure consisting of radio, transceivers antennas. coaxial oable, a regobar end backup power sciopiy. arid other associated electronics including a structure that ourbentiy supports or houses an antenna, bentsceiver oi other associated equipment that constitutes part of a base station, and ittncatiribasses such equiprrient in any technological configuration. including distributed antenna systems Ttd small cells "Camouflage** moans to minimize adverse aesthetic and v sual tiripacts or the land, property, buildings, and other facilities adjacent to 3i.irruunding. and in generalty the same area as the requested location of such wireless f.eki00rntIlLiniCatiOr:S Wt".iCh ShaPi mean usmg, the ieast trisually and physically intrusive. fahiiity that is not. tehlithelogicallii impaticticaltso urtider the, facts and oirceitristansies The term includes, without !imitation tett the use of structures, design eciica 5, landscaping and icteatier ta disguise, hide blend, or integrate taiitti an existing structure that fS riot a monopeie or tip\tyer (b) piaherrient of a wireless facility Ompanent nyereof within LYI existing; or o istructure aci "stealth stout:Naas' in whkials, the antenna or other wireless fahility component he disguised or conettailitid within itit structure designed to appear as another structure isurin as a enLIFCri steepie or flagpole) or another natural. form (such as a tree iti)ick or other naturai feature) and (d) dlarteinent of a wireless facty or component thereof Upon a site where the topography and existing trees landscaping, evergreen trees design; anct i.tolors of the, facility so that supin facility is sionificartly screened from siewi ittr designed to ;resemble or blend with surmunding natural features, CeII site or 'site" means a *tract or paircel of land that an wireless service facilities inciuding any antenna; support StRILAUle accessory buildings and pa:siting, and may inciitge other USes associated with, and arscillary to personal ,hirf:leSS SC:rViCS attity" means thie k ay of Yakima 'city properly means al! real property owned by the (sty whethei ih fee ownership or other interest. "Cotlocation means the mounting or installation of irantenna or. Jr':Er n eatisting tower or; wireless facilltytatiitity statist I igttifits. titatei towers pri tr c.n ev for the, buractsta 0 transmitting anitlicir receiving radit) frequency Signals for COmmunications oui-ooses "Condonal use permit' or •cu P" MC-2:aq11.:, a process and approval as desorihed,. in intS ishapter arid in trlYittt Tifie1 Yakfiritt.t t.irttan Area Zoning Ordinancle *ICADVV" means eel! ort wheels or other temporary' wireless communications faci!Ity *Design" means the appearance of vereiess service facilities including such features as Meir materials, colors, and shape "HA* means the Eilientronics industry Association lectstiorrient enclosure" means a struceire sheites, cabinet or theuit used to house anciI to protect the electronic eqiiipmektt neiseesary for processing wireless corrimuniceticirt sidnala Assiticiated e,quiprilent may incitticte air* conditioning backup pipviatir supplies and entiergency ;generators 4 'Excess eagadity' means the VOkiMe or capacity in any existing or future duct, conduit, manhole, hominoid of other utility facility within tee adhere way Mat is or \mil be available for use for additional telecommunications racithies. thiacilities" means ail or the giant equipment, fixtures., appurtenances, antennas, and other facilthes necessary to furnish and deliver trnecomitiuniciations services arid cable television services, including but not limited to pekes with Gross -arms, poles WIthOUt CT(...:SSe—arlaS. wires lines, conduits. cables. cornmunications and signal lines and equipment besides guys, anchors vaults and ail attachments appurtenances, and apoliancies necessary or incidental to the distobution and use of telecornmanicetioris services and eabie television services ICC or 'Federal Communications Conenissiatie rneens Pm federal administrative attempt or lawful successor authorized to regulate and oversee tolecorreminicabons carriers SeiVICeS end providers on a: nationsi levei Governing authority' means the city counted of the city of Yakima eintity" rneans the statd of Vklasnittgtoneina County, the city, municipally owned utilities arid soecial purpose- districts including tnu school, fiie and iibrary districts Heating examiner' means link; duly appointed hearing oxaminez of the city 'Major modification" means a co -location or other rnodthcation that constitutes substan a change to an existing wireless facility or ha station as set totth in 15 29' C60(1:0(4 .1 no modification means a co -location or other modification that does not constitute, a substantial change to an existing wireless facility or base stationiSset forth 16 2 c)60(A)(1) 'Modification or "MC-riify means the 'addition, rernovai or change of any of v physical arid visually discernible oprinponents ;1: -:.'Spec ts of wireless facility, such as antennas, cabling, equipment sheltie's, landscaping, fencing, ittility feeds, changing rmateriais of any visually discernible cOmbonents vehicular access, parking anditer an upgrade.r -nq€- c)ult of equipment tor butt& or more modern equiptment. Adding a rigpie wireless carrier or service, provider to a teler ornmtrnit,ations tower or teiecorrimunicaticths, site as a r,,.; iS modification A rile-bit:libation shia11 not include re.pair and mairtteniiince as defined by this chapter *Mount' means the structui-e or :surface upon which persdnai wireless set -vibe facilities are mounted. There are three types rtf mounts Braiding Mounted A personal wireiess service fa lily mount fixed to the roof or sage er a building 2 Ground Mciuriti?d personal WIreles!..i. serviCtie facility mount fixed to the ground. such as a 3 Structure Mounted A personal wireless service facility fixed to a structure other than a setch as iight 'standards, bodes, and bridges Natural grade' means 't topographic c,oriditio.n and level of ground in plane for the past five years or more, or the approved finished grade of land platted through the subdivision process. Occupyin to construct, instali: maintain, own, c)iii operate telecommunic,ations facilifieS located within city rightsiiot-way The mere passage of electronic sigheis aver, under, or through rights-of-way tie iteiecommuniciations facilities owned by .-ttnother telecommunications provider does not constitute occupying the, rightsiiof Aker; 'Overhead faciitities" means utility facilities and telecommunications faciiities lcoeted above the surface of the ground including ttrie underground supports and foundations for seitth facilities. 'Pei or moans corperatioiris companies, a.ssociations joirt stock companies firms, partnershipt5, !limited liability companies, other entities and indlyiduiiis 'Personal wireless service *wireless serer- ce facilities wireiess fealties' and "facilities' used this title snail be defined in itie sarnE.,, Fier:rimier as in Title 17, LJSC, Seefion 332(cul KC) as they may be amended nOW or in trio. future and inciudes facitities. tor the transmission and reception LA radio or microwave signals used for communication cellular phone pe,rsonal corniinunications services: enhanced spealized rift:toe and any other iflitieie,ss servioes licensed ID y the PCC and Unila,3nsed wireless services 'Protecitod areas' are. (a) the area commoniy rAS the Barge -Chestnut Neighborhood siftiated within the area bounded on the west by 36'1' Avenue oh the ricirth by Surnmitview Avenue, r..rti the east byl6Llii Avenue; and on the south hv7.7e.tori Drive (lb) iestablished federal. stEite or locul historic districts or historic gistrict overlay- zones ic) proposed fecieiral, state or local historic ti s lets or historic distrit.„1 overlay zone.s filed for record with The federal, state or loco.i agenc.y with jurisdiction thereafter "pfinding" historic, district OF OVeray zones); rd) sites. buildings., structures or objects listed in the National Register trlistriitic Places !le) state ano local widife refuges and permanently protected arctteologicel sites, and (r) designated areas subtect to i)i-triiserviation cr protection through recorded conservatiOn easement. "Provider' means every corporation, company nssociation, stobk cbmpany firrit, partnership limited liability company, othe,r entity Endlor individual that provides personal wireieSS .5i-...f.rvIce over viiiitless service facilities "Repairs.. tand rriairitrii.nitincis• means the replacement of any components of a eiriureless facility where ,h€ itepiact?,mentii is idehticai ttii.; the component being replaced or fcir any matters that involve the normal repair and mainte,nancie, of a wiroless facility without the addition, removal or charge or any of the physical OF 6 visually discernible, nornoonents or aspects of wireless facility that wili add to the visible appearance of the tacillify raw originally permitted ghtsiolsway'l rrut-f' d a:spoof:id or dedicated tor pubiin rbads and streets as further defined in `15 02 Offirb but does not incifrde re) structures, including poles and C;oniduits kricaited within the right -of !way- or ap) deraliv granted ratiroad rights-ofiwiagy acquired under 43 LiSfit. Section 912 -arid related pica,. is:ions of liege:in:ail. ivy that arra riot c; pia n fib: motor v i I e "Rightiiiitsvihay tise permit means the authonizziAtion by which the city grants permission to a service provider t( antbri and use, the right -cif -way at a specific location for the purpose of installing. maintaining repairing or removing ickintified tTJC "Screening means 3 opaque fence andror evergreen landscaping that furry conceals the property it encloses. ":Si provider. rn eat -is ez,!eray corporation. company asseciatn, joint stock association, firrn, partnership person hey loyyri or managing any* facilities used to provide and providing telerforrirrunruations cr cable television services, for hire sale or resale to the geriural pubiic Service prioii,rider includes Ina legal SULiiCeSSLiiii any such corporation company association joint stook association firm, partnership person, city or town "effete* iirreariiii Hie state of Vgaristiii iron licrin "Surplus space' means that portion cif 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 rise by a telecommunications carrier for a pole attachment Secondary user means a use subordinate to the prim= tilt use of thy! property such as commerciar resckot -i ii etc iSecuriry barrier ewers a wail fence iii berm.; that hes the purpose of searing a perSana.1 wireless service facility from unauthorized entry or trespass lifehricorrimunications camer ihrilucies every person teal directly or indirectly owns controls operates or !reneges Plant entitlement of groggily iffnier the city used Or ito be used he the purpose. of prowling telecommunications services to locations outside the city Telecommunicatichs service** means transmission off information, except cable tele:fusion service, by wire, radio optical cable eiecitromagnetic coheir similar means. for hire, sale, or resale to the general public For the purposes of definition, informatiore means; knowledge or intelligence represented by arty forte or writing signs signals pictures; sounds Or any other symbols Telecernariunioarions service exclunes the overrthie air transmission of oroaricast teievision or broadcast radio signals and facilities necessary fur governmental purposes Trip city shall aryl on an application within a. reasonable period of time, talking into account the nature and si_itioei of the application Any Ce ,o to'e an applicatich Shall de in wilting, supported by 5u1stan1 al conlainirei in a written re..cord The city shall approve:, approve with condition, or deny the application in accordancie 'with the tintie frames set forth in specific sections c this chapter, 'TWO Title 16 Administration Of Development Permit Regulations: and In accordance with other appiicabie ordinances Notwittisfitanding:: anyhin:It° the contrary the city shall issue any decision frit) approve or dens pri vvithiin 90 days of receipt of a co -location applictgiori rici 15U cii*:?ys of tt"Celpt. heti moil of:tali:oft! app !flora n Telecommunications service provider' includes every person that directly or indirectly owns controls: operates or manages plant equipment or property within Um city. used or to be used for the purpose of &timing telecommunications services except cable television service to residents businesses or ether locations within the city 'Tower' .71:::3n.5 any structure that 1'3 designed and constructed primarily for the pumose of supporting one or more antennas iriciuding self arepporting lattice towers, guy t.owers, or menopicie towers Tile term encompasses personal wireless service facilities including radio and television transmission towers, microwave towers Cr..0ernOrl harrier towers reilitiar teierrinone towers or personal communications 'service's towers, 'arive towe,r striyictures, and the like.F also illOilides any structure built ter l sole Or primary purpose of supporting F CC. licensed antennas arisi their associateri facilities Undardround facifitieisl ;hears utility and teiecommunicatiCOS lapiiities located under the surface of the ground, excluding the underground foundations or supports for overhead facilities 'Us:able space' rnen s the total distance between the top of i utility pole and the lowes.it possible attachment point that proyides the rninimurrt ci v0k. vciirtical clearance ns specified in title orders and regulations tit' the Vlv'ashington Utilities and Transportation Commission. Jo lity facilities' mearis the 'i '11 erAii,arrient and of riperty including. but not limited to the poles, cioes rnj c%":741,,Ii.iits: ducts cables: wires, parit are' equipment locateityt yinder, on of above thie surface of the V.:wild within rih,hts.ofeiNay and used or to Ps LiSed for the purporrie of providing utilits teiecomrnunications serve:es ritttility tittile means any pole tined primarily for the support arid provision el lightirig and/or transmission o' power, telecommunications sertscus telephcirre cable television and other siinilar ititilifies and 'LdG fixtures whether Idr.iten: Weir! ni..itsicie the public right-of-way tiality poles: ale subject to rights of ownership, applicable frarichireri provisions, apcilitable regulation by the. Washington Utties and Transportation Commission r \i'VUTC:i and stiatutrtis governing iocation and relocation Uniicerised iitereiess F.ier\eiCeS means commermai mobiie services that operate en public frequencies and i not need Eid FC,C irripact Asses.smentl means visuni impact assessment with photrwsirnulation of the proposed facility 8 .15.29.030 Exemptions, r following are exempt. front The pro:visions of this chapter and unali be permitted in ail zones A industrial prdcessing equipment and scierilltic or medical equipment using frequencies, regulated by the MCC, Antennas and taloned equipment no more than ten feet in hetght that are being stored snipped, or displayed for sale 0 Radar systems for mtary and civilian communisation and navigation Mt Wireless r3diC uted fOr temporary emergency communications in the event of a (11.53S1.6.1 E. Licensed amateur ado Satellite dish antennas less tnan two riefen diameter, including direct...to-Moine or isite ratite siervices. when iised 3s a secondary srd the property lRiputirie maintenamoc, replacement cm reptiiii of e biftrscinal voireless sen.i ice faciiity ano elated equiprrient that does. not CO n StO:Ut.e, a modcation provided triat compliance wig.' The standards of This chapter is maintained Strucituriai work di changes in hEiight, type o gtmensionti (if iiiimefavis, or buildings aria siiblect to the provisions d15 29 06CiA) ubject to ;compliance with all othet applicable standards of this chapter a building permit application need not be filed for erneigenpy repair or ituainitenarice of a personal voteless service facility until thirty days 3 fterthe completion o uer', emergency activity A IcOlic\ii of other temporary persenal wireless telecommunications facility shall be pernilitted for a 11X.in.IUM of ninety davsn any three hundred sixtyfive day period or during an emergency declaied thia city Teiecornmunications facilities cit the City located upon isjilify prodistly and City utty pdes and fixtures 9 15.29.040 Permits Required. f foIlowing t -ie ;;-iurrirnarizrei3 the permits redi wed tor the various types r*;t personal wireless service fasiiitles that meet tl.e standards of this chaotor Type of Use Co-locationmnoi modification k Nr Substantial Change; Goiilocatioremajor modification (Substantial Charge in Height:, irri g1P1. r 4 :44 X4444.t.-.4 r rev ore ri '11}1r4,..1.4 ir.12zjr New ,over r Purilik., Ciky•owned Property) Now Tower (norrenercial or irdristrial zoning district, mere. than 300 root frorri resdential or protecteci area) New Tower or within 300 feet ce residentiai zeiterie district(); New Tower (in Or wither 300 feot of protected area) Any Iowief antonnac(i rriUdit!Cd'OCO not meetirta standards of this Chapter /Applicable permits include building fl"Wiretirso Condirionai Use Permit oble 2931 Perralt Table* Permit 'fype m ci ift.caticin Sarrer..(i as NoiAr I feopeneing on location) iterrod StalldarTi Wlreless Sta rare Velireless Staiodard cPilirele‘ss - it okt(irnoufrarlee by stealth "/ --&s OUP" if not camouflaged by stealte Wireless CUP Wireless Variance Approval Type Administrative rif (rumor nide ficaticirer • Same as No 10 - (depending on location) Adniinistrative r ease. Admiimstrative Adrninistoativo I -tearing Examiner Hearinq Examiner- Heanrf,-3 Exan-nner permits and other permits required for ins.allation 10 15.29,050 Application Submittal Fees. A Standard Wireless Application. A complete application shall const of the. following - 1 A oomplete appliCL:ati00 for as provided by the Cornirtinity Deveiopment Department 2 The name, anclress, signature and contact information of the applicant: If the applicant is not. the landowner applicant shall ptC)Vide Wntten authorization signed by the lariplow ter attithf)rizing the applicant to submit for perrnits on me landevYner $ behalf The written authorization sighed by the landowner shall contain a statement and acknowledgement by the landowner that the iandowner snail be deemed a co -applicant by virtue of St.g,h aUthOriZaticir If any apoinsant or co applicdtint is a corporation, trorst associatien, er ether organized group Pr leigntity it shall provide the date of such creation stod if a foreign corporation iatithe cl.fc.:.tte the cert;ficate uf 'authc.,•Tity '.yim5tiled with the state of Washington; Secretary of iSitatels 3 Evidence that the shah:tarn is an EEC .licensed telecommunications provider or that it has agreements inith an FCC thensen telecommunications provider for use or lease of the support structure Legal riescription of the paroei 5 Site plan drawn to sisale, dead,/ indicating the location type and height of the current or ptoposed wireless facility, accessory buildings, fencing, trees landscaping, topographic contours of the site at t‘.6.10 foot intervals location of utility easements or site land uses and zoning; adjsiicent .and uses and ZONing. arijac.;ent roadways proposed rneans of access setbacks from properly lines. and oil °trier ;terns Paquin:9J in this chapter 6 Elevation drawings of he proposed wire of the height and width of the facility pse, facility drawn tO scale and showing dimensions Proposed colors and materials cif all components of the ...imposed wk-Tie.55 fadility and of any fencing materials associated yylth the wirniess facility 6 State Environmental Policy Act iSERE,) checklist. tf required, 9 A signed. statement that the proposed instaliation wib not cause physical or RE interference i.dith other telecommunications; devices .11 10 A dopy of the lii CC litiense fof the intended use of the wireless telecommunications facii4les. 11 MethOP Of Proposed illumination: including a lighting pian shovong the location of ail proposed outdoor lighting f including direction and intensity of light and incluCtrig mahufacture's 'cut-sh _:s jl:1 or luminarles 12 "Ole- i0Gat1011 at -existing or proposed structures. trees, and otnei sgriiificant site features intended to camouflage theJL IV 13 A. letter signed by the applicant si:ating the wireless facility will cinimply with all I -AA regulations and EIA Standen:hi, and all other apnlicabie. fecierai, state and local laws and regulations 14 Signed dectgnentation such as the rt.Thieeklist to Determine lArriether a Facility is Categorically Excluded" to Vefii'y that the wirelees tt)leicommunication facility with the prpposed thistallation will be rei all compliance with the Lercent FCC RF Emissions guidelines (Non -ionizing Electromagnetic Radiation MFR.). 11 not categorically extriuded. a complete RE' LtniSSIOn$ study is required to provide verification 14 Apolicabid fees Other ;irlfr. imaticri for each permit arr.,: '-u type type a:s specified in subsection B below. B Application by Permit Type; Structure Type and Location. In addition to the information required for a standard pe..rmit F.-Nit:seri:lion A, 'The following information s 1 hcprOvs.Cied tilt each pe ed permit tyrye or Sfri.n.lciture, type *I New NoviNers a d Base StaNicats a A current mae and aerial sindwind the location of the proposed tower anclici7- ease station: a map showing the locations. and 1 o1cPelSOrlai *wireless service facilities operated by tine aopticiant in. the city b the approximate. ttstance between the proposed tower -and t,e nearest resident ai unit rostdentially zoned urcpertes, and. pNLJected areas A statement ey the adpir,:;ant that the '1;anof the triwer 'lit accommodate co -location of additidnal anteilrliaii, tot fatura dseis d An affidavit 5tating1 (1 t'- appiicanf and lariddv,rner agree they. 1. ailiow coadcation01 additii)nial personal wireless servide redihies by one providers. on the applicants strJr.r.ture or within. the same site iocaticiri subieot to good faith n gotiation of hompensat on according to market rates and (2 the applicant andtsir rant* lord agree te remove the facility within 90 days after adaniggrintent An affidavit signed by the applicant landowner (c( applicant), and thct antenna pport slgaiture owners, if different, inclgtesfirtg t.hat. They, together \vitt": their netits successors and assigns agree to be jointly and severally responsible to dismantle and remove. the Wellidantenna support structure and restois the site to its adrizoximate origina pre. structure, condition -within the :applicable time limits set forth YfV1C 15 29 150 following receipt ritt a letter* from the; city indicting that the facility is deemed abandoned or in violation of this chapter it shitP1 1 ifithatitSchtl91115...iield iiti.Pdaticii. and lin the event a permit is issues pursuant to this chapteh they authonse the shy to record stash affidavit or a memerancturn thereof with then/diode County Auditor against tits to the property for which the permit was issued f A farldsfiiiiPs and irr';gatIO,nO.-an .shoveng all mettieds to landscape irrigate., and screen the base of new fatalities g An explanation cif proposed methods of camouflaging (inciuding stealth if applicable) and *flow the proposed camouflaging leflects condidons of the surrounding site and area st it, halo asts and Protected Areas a A statement describing the appticant's effort to first locate the propttise.d ttir.”-nimunicatirins facilities en a government tachity PriVat's !qstitutional structure, (such as a hospital. or sehooh or caner onorooriate existtop structures outside the: residential zone or aret.orstecl area 333.3 wawa 3:ugh:fa tastats itsiessistito Wee ,,,, dice and explaininig witty, based uttscri valid cionsitterations inducting etsysisati, tonitipologinalt,wthelatuisty; letooling; Or other valid constraints, no metre odecourrate location to avallobto Is, Awlessitiotiewhaganyiestratinsaistieldisigestattezdadraddifisettievittfisowagsattaiettesatithenaitopatiasti towes entednaddisiddfroded....isdaleadatoreduotainessilititeradidenosessidesinettiadriatandissitas tonere: ISSion -signals.1 MC:10.*; A statement describing the eopligant a effort to first contact the owners c;f structures in excess fl thirty five 'feet within a )ne...quirt.ei hills radius isif the site propostsd and which from C71 1.C.),:t1Cir: standpoint' could nueet the cipvertr,igeloapacIty ObjeCtiVeS of this factlity tn tise applicant's network The statement shalt, if applicable, cr..*;nlifirn whether the applicant asiced for pernitission to instali the. antorina cm those StrUCTUFC'S ano wnether he or shr.,. was crenieci 13 permission of use for reasorfs othei th;:iD the iatr rcifusei of the air pliharit to pay a market hate for use of the alternative structeir'S Mortifica + Permit a. Elevation drawxisted) wifeless tactility dran to scale and showing tii!mensioris of the height and viiidth of the facility Willis. drawing is r,e..=c,uwed in addition to elevation dra\Arina. o proposed facility described Under suersertiition A above+, b A landscape and irrigator+ hliah showing ail niethc.As to landsitiape and screcin the base of ',.re rhodifiEtd telechrnmuntratiph facjilty ct A computation and description of proposed modification establishino whether or not sic h modifictation denstitiftes a substantial change id the physical (amens ohs of the existinq facihiy (if the application tor modification of existind facitity) and d. `itilritten authanzatIon signed by the owner of said facility authorizing its modification i,Required if the applicant is not the owner cif the eixisting wireless facility 4 tAiiinititiess CUP it„Condttionsi Use Perrystit expetnation proonsed methods of camouflaging add bow the 'op)sifel cfamoulleging reflects conditions of thtt surrounding site and alea. b A statement froth thei applicant describir ohelshe bitilieves the proposal addresses the criteria for a wireless porditierioi pe ri-rr t ci FOSc rted Section 15 29 100 c A list of owners o pioberty vethin '300 feet et the ,.5-te and their associated mating addresses 5 44thebritti0410141-5004 A statement from the ace:Acerb iteseribing hew hdeshe believes the proposal addresses the criteria for a where:es height variance prescribed in Section 15 29 110 A sfatement describing he iteettested variance and -pithy it is needed ; list of owners of property within 300 feet of the site and their asso tated mailing addresses Applicant to Prov de Notice :'*:)1 wireless conditional uses o variances, the city may require applicant to post notice at a locatiou or locations deemed appropriate by the city. and mil provide Flat Ce to the. gionsPriana body of any affected historic district associatton or ordanization Applicant shall provide an affidavit that all required notices have beer posted and published os required Additionally, and without limitatton, the tab,- may use 4:;in'y' othei means dif3erned advisable lo provide advance notice tr.) the public J Fees. The application t'or permil listed cibeve, shall be accompanied by a filing fee in the amount set forth In Table 2;2. 2 below Application Fees' Permit Type Fee Modification tit minor" $300 00 Modification i,af majot $500 00 ; Standat Wireless $500 00 \Aiireless Variance $1 .500 00 Wireless Conditional Use P'0Frnit, $3.!500 00 Separate fee required for tfach permit type associated vitith application For an application requinitg a wireless variance and o wireless conditional use periatit. both the i iroe fee and the ceinditional use permit fee are requirPO 15 29M60 PfA(q19271e9t St.P.r1(4.0r0§, A Modifications to an ex 9 e es s facility or base station Minor Modification Artv modification of or co tociation on an existing wireless facility or tothei stintaafturtiltminitltra does not substantially change t -w physical dimensions of such tower or base stattion ;as defined in subsection 2 below.), even if it exceeds the underlying standard's of the zoning district shall be deemed a itanbit modificatior'. and shall be administratively approved under a moditication permit 2 bleier ryloblitinatipri Any modification of dr dotiocation on an E.,,xiStiny timeless facility abet:her filltitifialfilltarvictin that substantially shaposs the physical dimensions of an Paistind wireless tower or base station snail ne deurned a brialor rnockficationt A substantial onsitige OCCUIS 15 a The mounting of the gropc,*,sed antenna on the tower or structure would increase the existino height Of theil to by mcire than 10%, or by the, height of one addntenna. array with separation from the nearest existing antenna not to exceed twenty feet. ‘,vhichever is greater. b The moiinting of the proposer1 rtntenria would involve the instaliation of more than the standard number of rlieW egtHbrritent cabinets for the teichnolcigy involved, not to exceed four, or more than one tileW equipment shuPer c. The mounting of 1.he proposed. -antenna woutd involve adding an appurte.harice to the body of tne tower dr ititinintin c* that would protrude frgrn the edge ot the tower more than twenty feet., or more thr the Wlitith Off the tower* structure at the levei of th.e appurtenance whichever is greater* exce.ipt that trie mounting: of the. pii)posed antenna may eicgeoct; the size limits set forth in this paragraph rf necessary to sheliter the antenna frorri inclement 'weather or to connect the antennn to the tower -ma eriebte, The rhounting or the proposed antenna wouid irivc,rive etikCaVatl0h- outside the current tower or struggifinii. site defined as the current boundaries of the leased or owned property surrounding the to*wer and any access oi utility easements currently related to the site Major Modification g Roduired Permits int mator rriodificaton shall be process under *the same permit tgpes ai9 rieW tO-011i-C located in the same zone and area tSee Tabie 29-1 Permit rablea Co -Location Capable New Structures. 1 reduce the nunfitier of aiitenno support structures needed in the uity in the future the fdilowing standards ap:*.,i'y to new towers or base stations FON•pirement arid \yry:aiyer New proposed support structures shall be designed f..o accommodate at least two (2.i additional antenna arrays equal to those r the applicant, and iocated as close to the applicant* s antenna as possible without causing interference This requirement may trfe waived if such design is !riot feasible for aesthetic reasons or necessary' to preserve camouflaging Or istraakil. :structures: in rcisidential or protecteci :9reas Oit provided that the applicant: writing cieracinstiates that the prim:unions of future shared usage of the tower is riot techmgcpgcagy feasible or creates all unnecessary and urceasonabie burden: based ucon a The king veretass tetedorrimitritinations facilities sige end, structure proposed or b The nurriber trif existing arid potential trappees egreigiss tetergionginggigations facilities spauestsites or Avaliable, space on exit,' ng end approved; togirers rod dither appropriate struutures (.1.)whr: Cerlid re:a tiion The owner of a proposed to‘aver, and hher sucnessors in interest sneli either 1.6 a Provide a vvritten staterrient affirming that a Master License Agreement with another wireless provider C:i providers erxists stating rnuttially acceptable terms and conditions for oorlenatlon fTE&PS 1I t TPthe tower and site, or Providri a written statriment affirming t..a.t the owner and owner's successors will negotiate in good faith for the Delegation and snared use of trer. proposed tower by other wireless service providers in the future and share eiluw shared psi? of the tower if another telepornmunicatioris provider agrees iri writing to pay rearveriable charges The charges trey Delude totearernat te, a pro rDita sinciireioriirtiieiiiiii06kryilisiters:rtec4forindi4p4:11.crg, proiect artirvinistratiorr lanid oosts inaintenanr: tlina -return- on regret. yn14$!*:,;. defrreGijaM701-; encivornatirthensestraraftedeptragithretrawernoirrederometattoraceentenocle re a Shia:Teri liSer interfeterneer MC131, Co -location Encouraged - Existing Structures. To minimrze adverse visual impacts associated with the proiiferation of towers. cc :r of personal wireless service facilities on existing towers and structures is encouraged a,s- fellows Corloo-ation is permitted by right under a modification permit. uitiless the modification: constitutes a substantial charge, to the tower anCior base station pursuant to Section 6•409ta) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and rich Creation Act of 2012 Changes to tower height that constitutes a **.SUbStahtial change" as defined by Section 15.29 0E30(A)r2l; are subject to all provisions apple:able to nee,/ towers and base stations .described in this gnapter The city may deny an application to coristruct new facilities it thre applicant has not shown by substantial evidence that it has :made a diligent effort tr...) mount the facilities ori. a suitable euro strtiotore or tower virithernereerriaterratieventherproparsenteacrilittetleet riarinergeorlaPily satisfy thie aPetilllanre fleiTEDDE Arretiferellfill DADAT DerierricliTn [441714j 'V Ali wire.less service providers or lessees or agents thereof shall riooperate in good faith to ancomimodate cpricpation Cr)rrlpet3tors D.. Required Park ire% Ade:um:ate E 8 -al -leen Test A baltoon teat istrefeutreditter any rearairoatranufeetieringterwiriveresevesinektrarrial use pemrit or: -variance Adel r.iitiriaity, rtharanturritesVatOi7 ffn.:.;:li.legirl re balloon test for any new iwirereserfaertrierfor welviretheredielnistrator firerts that such- test volt -enable itera retry feted& nervireintivre acteepriate fre'.1anS,i's of-nerniierrelagenervateerrearriatitrearefMC.If..:; E Facilities in or within 300 feet of Residential Zone or Protected Area The following 5tanciards apply to •INireless. facilit;es within residentialrqdistricts and within '300 feet of residentiai z.oning districts. Applications toplaceco-iprolte antennas. andthat rhodificattop, or place iviclimowersi41It-7".:5Identia zoning districts OF within 300 feet of residential zoned districts shall demonstrate that the requirements of Section 15 29 050(6)(2) have. been met 2 NEPA Recuirernents Antennas and tower facilities proposed to ti.e located in or within 300 feet of an established -or pie:h4the iimcmjfederal. state or ocaoric district. or historic district overlay. are facilities that iinaty affebli districts sites, buildings structures or objects, significant in American history ti:irchitecture archeoiogy engineenn.g or culture, that are listed or are eligible tor listing in the Naticinal Registei of Historic Places (See .16U S C 4 liwi 5 36 CFR partruand 800 ) A.pplicant sheil comply with applicable provisions of the Nationai anvironmental Polley Act NEP/1,i including bot not limited to the Environment Assessment provisions of 47 R 1 1307, S."L'17.1. and con-)biy with irtny mitigations imposed therein 1:1) Certificate of A.probriateness ROCILJIled New wireless facilities, and arty modification to existing wireless facilities that constitutes a lisubstantiai change,' pursuant to 15 29 0600)(2) proposed :o be located in a local historic district. :historic district overlay or other protected historic site listed in the City of Ya.kirna registry of historic pieces require a certificate of appropriateness from the Yakima Historic; Preserviation Commission in accordance %vittri the procredures set forth in Chapter -11 `NC: prior to the issuance of any permit ft.',1* the construction installation or rhajcir modificritiort of wireiess facilities in sodh aierarf Building Peri -ruts Required issuance oli voilreless tadiiity perrnits undi.v* this hap:'i stali authorize issuance :ix' any necessary ant:J appropriate building tiyerrnits to dCcorpilsh such modification subject to compliance with appliciable permit requirements and fees Applicant shall F,ubrdit complete applications for ali other construction pe:rmits, necessary to accomplish, the construction H Financial Security Required The aboliztant shraU provide a rr'% *guarantee in tine form of a bond or other financial instrument acc;eptable :c the city an. amount strent to reimburse all costs associated wth facillty rerroviaf necess3ry 1 Utility Pole Installations. Reserii;ed /5.29.070 Design Criteria All facilities shall cierribly vt1 the followf standards ,..A tower s setback, s,hall Pe measured from the base of the tower tc, the property line, of the parcel Oil 'hiCh It3 located Eli:xcept as. otherwise set forth beiow,, setbacks for facilities shail cimply with the setback. requirements oil: ELM:Linter 15-15 Yroc and Table 5i 1 18 a Rightiof Way Setback Exception The setback requirement is not applicable if the antennci and antenna support structure. aT.E. located in the city right-oleway, provided bile antenna is attactiieri to. an existing city tower or faciiity b r 3JCLa,r*eaS n protected areas or where ei proposed tower is on ordperty abutting protected area. towers shall be Sc. back from all property lines-, a distance equal to one; nut-lei-et:I ten CI *I percent of tower height as measured from ground level. Residential ?aimed Distiiicts In residential 'zoned districts orwhiere a proposed tower is on property abutting a residential zoned district. towers sh'all be SEq beck a minimum of one-helf the tower height 1 Minor Modifiriations Any expansion ctif a base station Cr extension of height of an existing w!reless facility that constitolos a minor Inod,eficaton snail be considered in compliance the setback requirements previously apureyed tor the existing wireless facility. Existing Wireiess baciiity on Established Lot Exception The setback requirement is not appiicabie If the antenna iaTWA anteniki ...iiipport structure 0,..e.re constuicted, or application SUCh constri lotion vested: ore a PaiCei created pursuant to ROtiAil 59.1 040(8) prior to the eflective date of this cc.iide 'Wireless facilities constructed on and after the elifectivei date., ot this code Oil parcels created pursuant TO ROA, 59 17 )40(5) are subject to the setback requirements 2 owes and Antenna Iiiiiejrijit The maximum height of a wireless tatv is 3S fbii0WS In iot within 300 feet of a residential ionc utrict or protected .i-Jrea. no wireless facility shall exceed the h ailcd by the underlying helq,nt limitation for the zoning district in which. the facility is f.c.,...7;i:71ted except. that if the facility is paratbuflageid by stealth pursuant to Section 1.5 29 0 7. 8 ) th(': height is siiiidtiiiiii9Oseverity fiive i2d)tivicitid feet. c... -,BE) and Bidrnq d.u;tricts ft.0:1Z3XIITiorn !noir.; is iiiixity-ii6Caddietiltyiiiiiviviiy75)iivicidi feet all other zones the maximum liieignthundreui ten ;110) feet snyresibenfiel iiiisittidtdistricts or protacteti the applicant shall have ihe burden of dernonstratmg that tine tower is the minimum height required to riteetthe proven 20291.9019.929iiiilis 2;1299 5191929,2 9229.9292 ibiraddl22.2.21 cir 29P2192.21. apci 5ptisfy 441.53 location euipable ractuiitterierits under Secticiri 15.29 061,9,131avicati e. Structures that exceed the above height limits may be permitted by variance pursuant to the 9E:baiter height vieriarice provisions of Section 15 2 c4: 1 10 19 3 Color Towers snail have a dark c<plor such as forest careen charcoal or riarK brown; depending on the surreiJridings or background that minirrilizes their visibillty unieSS a different color is required by tne FAA Colors shall be maintained and repainted as necessary to maintain original color, to repair fading through, weat'nering. 31 'C to prevent flaking tggtittin Syanals and Signs. Ne siortais. illghts or signs shall be perrnItd on tcnveris unless required or allowed by the FCC: or tl-:,E3 c. AA Should tighting be required in cases where there are d7sidents locatred within a distance that is three hundred percent of the height ') the tower then dual riode ilviqshall he equested from tile Fi AA. 5 ning P ,(Jellogirtilly, The antenoa support stiucture shall be secur<iiird against unaurricarized entry wllul-constructeviall ywcidtien fence: not iess than six feet in height from the itinished grade be provided wound each raersonal wireless sciirvice facility Access to the tower shalibe itrough a locked gate The k7i* Ci'l?..11r1 link plastic, vinyl kin- wire fencing is prohibited <iniess it is Fully screened from r);JbC. vieVV Lry. dT6t-2 veqatative surer,:tri at ast eight ieet in depth along ail visible portions Of the fence 6 Anti -climbing Devitie ppoiuctures shall be fred with antnclimbing devices, as approved by the manufacturers 7 Camouflage Requirements Ail neW tOVVeli5 and base stationsn.arld hitat,or modifidatiorts-tirtetlltwerts. -u base stations- wriiiiiimust be ':::rnoufiageci as defined by this chapter Appropriate camouflaging is esitermined on a sitct,..-specific basis; taking into ac.:diourit existing structures and daturag features both d surnoundinq the site When considering s „ii*.ri);;;.nd.i.179.features that the-faciirittygrinesstgeeninto reflect, non- nonfarm inrig isnructures- shalt not be,-4.3,014Si4e-l.e.d.e.f.W.N:istitaiiit strusitistesiough as untiry pates- nugget, ahnoingstantes, neesnanicai equipment; ;Minty spastistiores dtheir fiviitaiessobaseili istoustimmis similar Seatistessithatiocistatiostagoississidissionter bin an area be osesistedigefeatisseditimotioetstabia, dernoiniege tocamicsie .1;t45.1;.,41 in ail dories towers shalt be camouflaged using the least visualiy and physically intrusive facility that is not technotegically fin impracticable under the facts end, circumstances: Camouflaging for new towers and base stations shall include the following a. Landscaping I.. ands:cap:Ind is an eiement 1camouflage Landscaping as describedtireni.,illn rede.ired to bLiffer +be si,<- w eie'Le Se-ReGe.---fe-Gfii-g.,eGnP,41* tO soften Mentes appearance; taistaimistittiiedis The city re:3.Y pterred any COMbinanen of existing vegetation topography ,Afiails deccirative rcimees Or other orettite features instead of landscaping, if they +achieve the salfle degree ot screening as the recauiired landscapincj. tfi the antenna is rnounteri flush on sin existing building; di svcroturg. and other equipment is housed inside a ri existing ininiiiding. +dr StrUi.,;ti.4e landscaping shail not tje required+. 81,iffnlls obsigi brigading of seamy bid Wileieb& tO‘NfFiF ..;73n.t14: Mato -atm shall be mitigated through landscaping or other screening materiais at the base. of 20 the tovr.er and anthilary structures urtner eryern,ting vegetation shall he pa.-rserved to the Inaxil.nurn extc practicable and mai be USt5j as a St.ihr2Sti1LIte for or aS a supplement te landscaping requirements ht2. fOliCAAM19 lencasearang and buffeting ,Sne:045035 be required around ale heretic:der of the tOwer ,50.01 accessory structures e far:resale ,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. A continuous hedgc-= at least thirty-six inches high at planting capabie of grown° to at least forty-eight inches in height within elipteen months shall be, planted in front of the tree line referenced above rrvir.,:itd To the extent feasible unci aytairablcir. en the sitethe tower or mount shall be placed amongst a rd adjacent to th.terdirjelin.er-of-thtree-crr-moreexistfrrig evergreen trees recetted ran viror,i. she user. ,Dreir, art feast sieventy-five percent of trie height of the fabilityrmmi. iv An aUtOinaiA; irrigation SyStern providing irrigation as needed art -cording to plarn type, season and maturity .ref plantings cantinued Maintenance Applicant snali have a continuing obligation to maintain the landscaping improvementb. ln the event that landscaping is not maintained at the reque.ed level.. the r7itY after giving third/ days' advanhe written not :e mav maintain or establish the lanciscanrng and hid Petri the chviirm and lessee forsuch dcs.sts until such cost, are paid in full or may seen enforcement through any available remedy (.11 re.z Rederdipa al cr..-2h4honsr, Ida ernsure that trees assertiated with camouflaging and screen:int) pre.serv'edth,e foiloveng ngte shali remoter:1 on the ororrenty title All trees witt5t1 50 teE:q. of the teteccrrimunicaticns faciay toceied inis oroperty, which sewe screen the t6ecorhrnunicattons facility shear be retstried Fre the life bathe. telecomerstnicatiorra facility Soreening treet-:. rriay .5:my be removed if deenled diseed or dangerous by a certif....d arborist. Before any trees Can removed a te,port from th.,..C.ertit)e.cl arborist snail be s:..ibotlitted to the rEwiew aiv:1 appicivai approved by the 10ily ;.-.1nly that portion of tl-ie tree required to remove the can he removed The un.tq cequire the 1:e be r J by the teledommoni0at“.115 providei 8 Ste. teReouiremerjts Any facility in or wrthrn 300 feet of residential e?.a z 1- rordteCted area must be conttealed within a t;tealtti structury unless otherwise approved through a Wirele5iS `0,oridtiona Use ;-,010t. Steatn st0_0:tzileS Shdii Lo deSiCinOd as fOliOwS. a. Tile stealth camouflage structurte or facility must be compatible with stirrounciirrg develuptnent y being -either srEnflar.lrhlrreignriatcr ';.1 f.1i0ie-nt liir efrOin serrrorriodocratrircaurrerrertoraterratenarsigrrlfrarrihatearsuarraerparrat,r,crmmcdrri Stealth designs r' cc, features that are indidenous to the area to theextent feat,.-abielmtrei. or example, towers designed to lroc,k. like trees must be tree types that naturally or iii;Cin 1 In Ci n (Cu:. trie, surrounding neighborhood or district to tric extii2nt fesisiolly *dwells designed to look like buildings or structures must be ot a design that reflects local architecture or structure types tealtlt designs look. reasonably similar to tile items they intend to rnirnic PO;eS, LCAiMin height -and gilt, Towers designed to iock like steeples on churches are of a height and scale proportionai tct h building design (.C.-.)ther cl-turches in the areia can provide ut acceptattie proportions between the size of the steeple and the size i:.)f the. c.hurch buildings) After completion of the anteirinas, frawers and related facilities will be nrciriantainruct within the stealth structure so as to be curt Pea led fixtrn vi taw rat be vieweirturs the cart '<Cid fiat:hog stealth etructurs. arida-hello! hut The. adininistrator Tria.y impose, other reareiritapie conditions or natigations reasonably related to such structures as warranter'. by special conditions of the si.lbject property and trie type c camouflaging sfrentui iricluCinr. but not iirnited to additional cill- supplemental setback requirements. miiiiritenance reduireme.ints, and ;other measures intended to anoorhiblish the purposes of this nnapter arid sechon 9 /Anton it a (9liter:re ;till -rte. a fir tllin f;i:p iiiii4pli:ieininiP54 on titi Xi.: Si n..g. rilF)Qr rn.Q.01*kii41(:)ny.....1c.311, ante f.''.;rla Or above a structure shall: be subject to itite following The antenna shall be arcititerturaity compatible with the tii,'LM mg and waii which it is mouiTted arra shall to tripit try. fruit:hair air, designed and boated sat as to itriinimize any adverse aesthetic impact The aritenni3 shall be mounted c9i. a wail of an existing bull:ding iT1 a ponfiguration as- Is lc the wali reatuxictiv technically pcissible and shall not project above the wail on which iS mounted unless it must be foot technical reasons. In no event shall an antenna project more than sixteen feet above the rot -Aline, ilICRICiIng parapets c The antenirta sitar be, cionstructed painted or hilt,' screeited ta match as closely as possiblia. the color arta tertuie of the bunch; id end thrall ori which it is. mounted ci The antenrra hely be attached to an ex sting mechanical equipment enclosure which molests above the roof of the buiiding but may hot broiect any higher than the enclosure 1:9it bullitlings thirlh,r feet or less in height. the antenna may be mutinied on the roof if the fallowitio additional CI ileFia ate. satisfied' 2i rite sax, tureitssurrqiiherrit riemenst rtes. tltrat it is not tennnicaliv !possible or aestnetwaity desireiste to rimurit the arrtenna aa a wall, Pr the buskins:go owner writ mot aripw antennas tu SST nitirthrthiSTStitittrisui (xi a wail itroxibmpunted antenna and !elated basis stations are spreered from! view erytise materiais (hat are consistent arid reorripatinie with the. design oder, and materiars of the building ittfernertion. theraintenna may exceed sixteen! te:et aboveithe height of the- ex:rating tarstriringrisrpcstri ',lie antenna is placed art the roof or above the to cf buildirtig.1 snail to tits Tit...tent ferstrotiplirs pirquirdrir! a minimum setback equal to the ;height of the panel antenna from the rrtoftob. edae Antenna, antenna arrays, arid rirupprout structures shall r.1*)1 extenil more than sixteen feet above the tilighest point of tte structure on Which they ore mounted The antenna, antenna array arid their support structure snail be mounted so as to blend with the structure to which the antenna attached The antenna and its support. structure snail be designed to cons* with appircabie building code standards The antenna, antenna array and their support structure snail be a color that matches the nekt or trim beim* of the. structure on which they are mounted 10 No guy nr other Sal ppuft wires shall be used rit connection vvith such antenna antenna array, ; 1supsod strurtture except when used to anchor the antenna, antenna alUaY, or support 'structure to an exisiTng building to virturrin strait antenna, antenna array, or support strirIcture is attached firrquirprnerpt ciTtructiwes, Thu standards tor ecittiornent structures (base rstationst are as forlows a. Ground Stint Clailaa The maximum floor area is five hundred square feet and the maxtrinum height is tweitire feet unie.ss the applicant demonstrates that a larger area andlor increased height. is necessary to accommodate the proposed' facility and possible, co -location Ground terve! erthrismishist buildings. or! base station's sisal! be screened front Thew by landscape qrsintings tending, ci. other appropriate means, as specified herein or irt other city cwt.:stances sr in instainess serruire tqui.ornent burtraings see iodated in residential zones equipment buildings strait numbly with setback requirernents and shall be designed so as to conform in appearance pistil neferby residential structures ins:feuds-1g building form materials ante °Pier t; Roof l'ivirtsined Eigffipmerif buildings mounted on a roof shall be designed Y) match rd be integrated into ite extenne design and materials of the building Equipment for roof MOUnted Ite,nrla may' aief,i be lclefeel wimin the building on .‘Nbleri the alitehra ;s mounted fiffinfslifooffersesempleseseffegeffeeeteinefai fattemelateesequiptiftent snail onnuey no mete titan; tiefersty-; WilLeil;;;;;Pay 14;;;;3-P/;;;;4.eettettatectreaeteettetteetteatte camensfinclesisemege me es 15 29,080 Site Selection Standards, A Protected Areas, Protected areas are ;en the -area dosemciclly km:Avg:as- theff5a-rgee:', hestaut RItitififffh:bcfflPf3clid:::Mulf0;sclfsAiltfl:llffi:nfiliilleoffiffifeaffcl.sefelfsiff;:off; the-we-EAR:iffy ifftitlf Ar' 04.3; 011 ti"oe rortb by A' •t SUrr111tVi€4,4*;;;ANG,F1*.ii4. O;;;I;;tt?.. eastitcly Aveftesoandoerifithefsclutitiecly; Tiei4**41 (b.)..es.ta b I is h e. d federal, state or local historic districts or historic district overlay zones: feeprop-oseedefedseeffiAestfittes-gr iclemisclietesesseffiststetessosteseennecifeiffennevesiayesteteentcleclefesseetese seen the fecierat, state or iotfail apessoyesiteclesteefetesseiclesteaftesti leminefenigfeetatersistesilasclos oveteasseioneelit penviC35)b) Sites, buildings structures Of cements iisted tne National Register of Historic Places: fete) state: and local wildlife refuges arid siermonently protected archeological sees: and finicl itiesignateg areas subject to preservation or protection through recooied conservation easement ..0isc,owa-9ed-Areas io-B-2-and.SCC-ZoniruLtaistrk.rts, -Newetifite nine- and- ant-eft:ma socliclpfl. strffstt.freis sinouid be avoided in the toll:owing loefitheres withifietcle ;5-2 looffisselifiAteinessfand;;;;SCC;;;;5resel Consenissiose Center mimes; when; clossitie ; flefthee Hicleofeeentiviefs isessetinil fiscleien Anissenseesseriffetemenesincles;;;;Himegateofteecleseentsfesseessesitencleffestratesticlaft Relitscleencleffeertgassiseen madestocloclelesteameropoonsitsfestiereffseestesiesesenettie.sessea; site; ;cleclatesiostiffutiocleestsenteffei for otteemappriommatefeeisting-stesiclesseefreitereffents300-feestesommasfeeffeclancloned-gestrintsferitesseseenne- Reinefeet ffiterima ;p1;0;teu,:t4;;;;;Xj; a '0.'4**,4 a.; fen (Met t Milo; tit) v3iid-Pf4restetteetteerifisorminfeirnsersiessinaimentstresiretsi tetifiRulogiefattea54,Atity. no tif )(ire efffitfit,,f)!.. i.8tetn8Nraflabi;e;;;;81A,;14;;;ari;t4;F:44FlaS;:;;;;;t0;Wie;f3S;;;;i4ild felateelefeeffitiessemefeenessoffesinovetteemetecleateclatee fiesecleeintestRessfeficliatemeteffempesovaclef 24 cianneurfiage..0...c.dregrasestay. stead:is ..5.patispaatiase stip atiassiesevalso striblegated sots tiodists is it analog photetsim u lationarestateartestetel -Sestrandl.5.2.9. 1.55.-insesities rievasaist thetadirainistrator a ate irn. Pp p pro pria t e...oa uftr.age-anittitOr. ister-tittri g Eiiitaariyasts C.. -P-riority..otslop.atons iTtge order Cif. fore ii iW p ilities...strit4 -Coraistaattiart- BeentEsseti one 1.5-.29...06:0i. Ent. an dal 43.75.5.060.1.134.) isigusthavarratinidatiriegirraist 3; tititalaitypoptippitagy; Estriction 1.5.29 Ortiatititas 4 pit s *prig rag ti itir - toe q.„ ding ty drateartervivasey 5. Lipp& B se....Distinatagraiati ern. psystirappai nained D Site selection criteria eft:, and. .Arty...applittarti pr.(irrittaingiritioggsaits to construct an. agtearri4taitipportystrusittatieta navy tigyver dr nritotEllEit.B3e. titriititrPrit 5PailiC.4.4te an antenna on ,55 eXiSting Shail dateptitinia wh4,.*1 prOyfr.1030 *:**1!..0. account the bestsite s screening and camouflaging While prowling adequate service to satisfy its function in the applicant's system...1-talti-e...apiiiirlipan1 ersposesta isite-thei -does nottystadatedgassisiestscatipastranitatterdreseeseerearignerstavernarafiapindattert tarepartgasaitingisstateraigisstitate tatty Pte. tacitity cannot be fiesated at grarinsitedpheriesitioarsheyerest tydgeggyeid...asiti.deditiputteddiri arts why the antenna ra. St ne.iirtio::ited t he-gassrased sae! mc3t5- 2 VVireless fardity astir irriappowisintarabgetragiedeentagedisterstitisies atinatatie itagateguartirtatesigiveasy.sitiatinnait.arty..elptittarigeartteilverissadittagarritorairessistridattereptisty valtaitisittotra S.:4S Sh a placed in its:rations witere the op:listing todography vegetation bailer:pa. or eine structures pi cadge the greatest a 1110 LI rl oarnouriage L Siting priority on public property. Orgei of Preference Whirre putnid property is sought to be utilized by an applicant priority to! the: use of government pitinert iand fOr Mrek.:5.5 antennas arid towers yviii be given to the following entities in :descending order 25 a City of tSakirrita, except that any fabihties poi:loosed for location viiilthin the Airport Safety _)'tray(Si)("N.SC) are further siiblect tr.*: thitt iirstations: and requirements of Chapter 15 30 \CVOS, br safety „a:genet:es including law enforcernent. tre and ambulance services. iiivIntich are not part of the city of 'Yakima and private entities with a. public safety agre.ement itiiith the city of Yak:Tsai ci Other governmental entities tor uses that tare not related to publlic safety-, and Tyne:des Tireviclints tiffertsetriviestremerritieltweetesetteliettommurtication servicestinietuditegyseitteas reoseriattesissortstrocatiori services (PCS), speciaitzecit fintiehiletectstactiosi,SIVIRetroollarteted spectiatierreclesteistlesed- radio Sit,SIVIP, tr, data, irtiteritsat g fy ; -a rid- irsi iliac services that tore sterseted to the genertatteeistiosivictis Styldiesetcycrty Stiristestitsitt The. placement of wireless service facitittes on pitytownedi property is :3 bi eCt tO the (lists! ettor of thty city, approvat of lease tentris tnat are riettisonstityy acceptabte to the city, arid must cettioly with the following isimiirements The facitities will net nterfere with the purpose for -which the oily -owned pricperty is intended. ty, Thestactittiesseitichaverreveistosfiretiseaterversto stseatestes SU r tog private propefitypoi any ..s.canihnant .ads-VerSE2 ..1.414*:1B t; rriiitiortited by screening, careseftedistoptatleastsiostratistaystred koi red byrottylrocsiti- The, :appli,:.art shall obtain adeilitatety nhurance rnairing the city as liz,sis payeE., and commit to a ease agreement that dUdeS corripensti-kleo for the use of pubiic d and other necessary provisions and safeguesds The city shall establish fees after considering comparable coyote rates in other cities potential, expenses- tostscrestinesetto arid °tiler appropriate factors tee apreetrient teitiU referee a letter of credit., perfornlance bond or oft. er sere:errs. aceerettiede to the city to cover the costs if th C htieS, The leasie shall provide that tire appliC9ni: must a g reE, that in the case of a declared emergency dr documented. thi eat to public health, safety or iNetfare and tollowino reasonable notice the city itriay require the applicant rerriove the facilities at thei applicant. s expense, Telecommunication facilities serving essential ggyerbrnient services and ether governittent agencies snail have priority over other users Tine applicant roust reirstiserstettiosestoyffestarevaretatettettookethettettetottlistensiscessocauseverfothe dress -rice of the artortcariterfacelitteei roes f g The applicant must obtain ali nisrerite,;,iry lard usye: approvals; and Z. 0 h The appiivant must cooperate wirtin tne cpity s objective: to encourage CO. locations ard tiles the nip -nicer of cc!! sites requested Special Requirements for Parks. The of i:.•,iiy•ow..ned parks tor personal wireless iservpie facilities brinys with !i ispittoriai concerns due to the ipnique nature of triese sites The placerrient persona! wireless service facilities in a park be aliowed only when the following adciitienal reconernents are met. a Tilt ctity pa -kits commission: nap reviewed and made a recornmendation regarding proposed persorptil wireless service tracilities to be located iri the park and this recommendation has been forwarded to the. city council for considertion and approval; b In no case snail SeNiCefaeitie..5 fallowed in Oesipated etritical areas ppxciebt aquifer repriarge areas! uniess they are do. located on existing 1 os anci c Before personal wireless service facilities may be located in !public barks /BABB impacts and disruption of normal nubile tisci shpli ne mitigated, 15.29.090 Safety and Industry Standards, A. Federal Requirements. Ail towers must or exceed current standards and reguiatiOr15 of the FAA, the FCC and any other agency of the rederal goiiitrfrnerit with1Jauthority to regulate towers and antennas if tihose Star,Clads and regulations ii3:: chandedher wireless sen. ;e providers doverriee by this chapter ,shail bring their towers and antennas intc. compliance with the revised standards 9n(ii regulations vv ithiii six rrii.)iltilS thti.::1* effective date or the timplines prittvided by the revised standards and Ftgdiatii)71S, ,h'v'' time period is iceiger Failure to bring towers and antennas into compliance witn theL'iLJi n Ll Ci Sand regulations shall constitute grounds: for revocaiicn of permit Building Codes Safety Standards. To ensure the structural integrity et towers. the owner of a tower shall ensunti that it is cbaintairied in compliance ytiith standards containcto in applicable city buildinp bodes and the irtrippileritttile standards for towers that are bittlishect by the Electronic Industr es Assoniration tl*Ell.AB, arnerideci from time to time 1 pon inspection the city concilICiCS Llnat a tower fails to comply with. sucin riodeiti, and standards and coniiitifittes a danger tc) pit:pi-ionsar birporittrity, then tipen noticie being provided to the oNN'T!f.';'r the tower the owrier shall have thirty days to bring the. tower into compliance with such standards. lf the owner fails to bring its OWent() compliance ,A'ithin thirty days the city may remove the toWer 3the OWnerS Data Transmission • Towers slink dF.i)di ie Filcitritrionic Industry Assort:B:11:10n tEiA) Standards whien rffaiy 17.2,t :2 ardent:led from time to time F. Urther, any iriiproverrents or additicins to exit:tilting iowtirs shall require submission of site plans stamped lb,/ a professional 27 er:gincei that demonstrates oompliance with the Eli; Standards and all Other good industry prances The- plans shall be submittea ,7.1nd reviewirid at the time building *permits are requested No personal wireless service proVidei or lessee shall fail to a SSei e flrier. its antennacornplii,ris at all times with the current applicable Feck-,ral Communications COMMi3510:1 (FCC) Radio Frequency rr Ernission standards. D inspection Report Filing Vveit.nn 60 days of anyreC11.111.ed safety inspection ponfornied in accordance with EiA and C C 1- t; oper.; i shall file a bop,/ of the report viiith the city P.;7.irch irear re.zuest the faciliteto e with the city a copy maritenance reports foi the paCki twelve months 15.29.100 Wireless Conditional Use Permit A Uses Requiring Cellular Conditional Use Permit. Any wireless *Facility ;sted In Table 1 as a Wireless Concilbonal Use Pernat (VVireless CUP) red urjS submittal of e VVireless CUP application as described in Section 15 050 Wireless (3 UP's require a oubilc hearing before: the hearing examiner and finer approval by the nand examiner B Criteria for Granting Cellular Condition Use Permit. Before .any conditional use may be granted thc hearing examiner must find that. ifiriseripirapesedistserwriiiiiiiiestesessoarieroartyrioaterdierstati tar theopuitiad -Nettie re- r kijkiincrus to the e. perty rn pm verrents :;iri the yin ity of the pi 4.)h0Sed...:....i.Seel:: izt the: stir b t property is -iodated I lei,: 14j The proposed use shall meet or exceed the performance standards that are required in the zoning distinct the proposed use Prii occupy 3 The proposed developizzent shall tie comparibie generaily with the surrounding laial uses in terms of traffic and pedestrian :emulation buiiding and site design, The proposed ese shr3ll be In keeping v,;..tth the goals aind polnbes of the comprehenslve land use poliirty plan arid 5 Ali reason:ebbs, arid practicable rrieaSU reS have been taken to minimize the possible adverse impacts which the proposed USE!: may have on the area in which it is irzoateh .28 C Authority to impose Conditions, The hearing examiner n-iay impose any res:sonsbrit conditions necessary to addre.ss identified imci.-3hts associated with Th propose.d wireless facility and ensure that the facility is crsirripetidirri wit surrounding development rile hearing examiner may. iii-notreasireirequiriorracints lir: the strisrigards oritena F2040O.S...O.St-lbt.i-Shos-S4-b9-.411+S.-fifi-a,ftvfLii.c) 2 Sticuiate the exact location as a ineariS Cif minimizing hazards: to life limb property darinse erosion, landslides or traffic; li3crictrire structural features or equipment essential to serve rise scree purpose set torth above, impose conditiois. sir-I:tar thosie set forth in subsections 2 and 5 of this section rcm deemed neccissairy to establish witin uses permitted in the Saffi;f:: zone rn their freedom from nuisance generating tealises rnattEiirs t*1;.).tie, Odors, air pollution, wastes vibration traffic„ physical hazards and simrliar matters, provided, the hearing examiner may not. in connection with action on a conditional Lise permit reduce. the rerements specified by this title ss pertaining to any use or othrsii*5; Fecf;31.f:e the reduirsiinents i.)f this title in matters t. which 3 Vanalice is the FernedY Provided 5 Assure that the degree of compatibility with tlto purpose of this title shall be maintained wit rusperit to i.' particular use CO the particular ::4,1*e arid in consideration ot other existirig and potential uses:, 'within the general tares in which the use is proposed to be located. FrieErogriJ7e and cornp:.:0;Isate,fO varEatIoniii, and dei:3i-C.:` Of technclog process:sirs and equipment as related to the factors of noise, smoke dust. flE7eS vibration odors. and riazialO cr public heed, arid iiRecititirrectineriscistinig o.f construction and main terrianne isofficrent to -secure-to trio citryi irrotiensurtdred- fifty percent of the estimated octet of constructioccandiarcicaticliatiociicadrififterec percent Maiflter anicectifirectictincticincurcyroicirectisciinc461 D Required Condition of Approval.. The decision shall inciude a condition that building F.)errnits not, be issued until financial security is provided pursuant. to Section 15 29 060(H) of this chapter This ao.plies v,tether specifically stated in the fi eciston cirri net. nditional use permits Effect of hearing examiner decision. The ;*.)f the hearing examiner- Jr: 3 conditional use cermiit snail be final 'and conducive with right of appeal to the city counittil accordance with 16,08 C;30 9.110 Wireless l4etEint lance. A Applicability. A oelkilarileig.ntwirelii,s. variance is reduireid for any mor modification to an exi t Err tower antennae, or base station, or construction of a new tower. antennae or base station that 2c) requires a liticidtittyprieriitt,ie firchri thr,i, applicable starioards cat fortt excess -cif iineigictiiiiiiihniticiiiciefined in Slectiliontrils ti.lincinter 15 29 94992) Criteria for Granting Wireles:: Height Variance. The hearing x- 1'U shall hrirve the authority to grant a variance tirom the maximum height ailowed for a tower, antenna Of h2- St.,:it(Jr. .`-,iiiection 15 ;99 .999C21 when in his9rier opinion., the conditions as set forth nerein have been tci exist. A wireless height variance is Subject to Compliance with Standard lwiVreiesis Plcrrnit i,i3Lacidares of Section 15 29 1200D) Standard variance procedures in r.linitlbtei 5 1 Yi\fiC ,riot including review criteria) and 3 AKcir 9"199;:l of the followlng riiriteria ITIUst be met. a. The additional height is necessary to provide adequate service to the residents of the city and no other alternative is. available b A sidniticant portion of the tower and :related facilities are screened by existing evergreen trees or existing structures, c. Strict application of current height iirnits would deprive a tower or antenna operator from achieving the minimum height required to meet the proven corrimunications need, d Tie structure for which the variance is requested is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this chapter* e. There is evidence that adcliticinal height is required to provide adequate service to the residents of the city and that no other alternative i$ There are special circumstances applicable to the sLib3eict property such as shape, topography location, or surroundings that prevent the operator from achieving the ir,inimum height required to meet the proven (..orrimunications neoi' Ctoti. Ittre 414.eceenet.P111:40..e i9999 eretetrectr.,pre t:£(.*:.h. the v.,:a.rier:cee s in harp. 0. rty wite thepteneretperpose arca 44Cent t4f 0.44 444.P.I44 That the granting of SIJCII variance. will not be materraily detrimental to the public eifare or injurious tc the property or irriprovements in the vicinity; Co Any visual impacts will be mitigated to the greatest extent ;sing camouflage., stealth or screening as defined by this chapter; 30 id. The location of the tower and antenna has been chosen so as to minimize the visibility of the facility from, residentlaily zoned and ;-:.rind to minimize the obstruction of scenic, views from pubiic properties, and f.( The v nce is the minimum neCeSsary to grant relief to the applicant tivic4at Decision. pasted iipi ',lie information provirled by the applirwant, the results of the balloon test and visual impact analysis and findings; or compliance or non-cornpiiance with the, criteria set forth herein, the ;examiner inayi 1 Approve 4:3r1 application for a variance, which Ud .e a ciciftional requireinents abovc-? those spedifled in this titie or requite modification of the proposal to cotnply with specified requirements iocai concitti-pris 2 Deny a variance if Me proposal does. not meet or cannot be conditioned or modified to meet subsection rcti ot this section D. Burden of Proof[ha applicant has Ittisi our of proving that the preposed-prettfatei: wireless height variance meets all of the; cotena in Section 5 09 15.29.120 Application Review Process. A Pre-applicahon Meeting. To expedite review of applicatrons. bretaitipiipation meeting with the Administrator is strongly encourart,ed 1 premi,,i.neting will heip the applicant deterrnine what permits may he required for his or her proposed wireless facility, what additional information or studies may t'co in the review of the, application, and vitait stealth andier camouflaging techniques might be ape.ropriate for tine site; Tlte. administrator may heir;20 identify protected areas and inay also suggest ventage points from 'which a visual impact assessment should be based S. Rf.iview for Completeness. The .w:Jrrinistrator shall review each application for completeness as specified in Section 15 29 5450 After review ot the application; the agrwrastratc.4 shall fSSUe determination ot completeness or incompleteness in accordance with Chanter 16 05 Yroc in addition to information required itry o taftmolete opnliearion, the Administrator may riedist additional informatien ff',,a7n the applicant to reVitNi the *proposal and determine compliance with the provisions. of this (Warner Except for its. timettines specified in SaCtiCal 'lb 29.120(54 for applications to modify an existing wireless facility Of base station such administrative review processing and issuance of administrative permits shell comply ;wilt the eity's timeiines and procedures governing review and issuance of administrative pen -nits in Section 16 04 YIVIC Nitixtwithistanding; anything tip the ttroPITiqffy, the city soak a0:y da(caaan (:((„Trava (a cieq,?.y an wpoliftotion withi • , it • ,-.41,t al a (aa ionation application arii5 15(5 flaws of receipt of a nowirooticioation applicationrnocsi4 31. C Modification Permit Review. A:optic:at oris for rd c' to existing wireless facilities or basii:i StatiOPIS shall be reviewed as follows Determination ofiimajor or minor modification Within 457iP days of receipt of a complete app . for modification. the aptimiristrator shall review and issue a written determination as to win:ether the requested modification is deemed as major or minor modification Under the provision:is of Section 15,29 060090 The aOrninistragg may ci u s t additional informatron from 1he applicant pi any other entity assist in this determination Finding of No ,pubstantial Charge - roinw modification It the modification is iJecimed by the radniiinistrator to re. a minor modification under the provisidinEi of Section 15 29 060(A) he she!! s e a itYlod tic ti on per mi t. wit i C: Ode c...;(*) rid PiiPeceis ry titicactiniaigoiiie:DI:r1pare7,6-114th 17,5Uar)C..:e el roodifiicittion permit occur within 45 days after receipi arid eg:tprovai o' a compiete application for a modification perrnit. F nc no rfdibstantial Chanigie -- Mater rectification If the administrator determines that such application constitutes a substantial change to the physical iiiimersions of an exlsting wireless tower or base station, he snail i.eSee writtnn detoormination that the. change is a major rtiodification and direct the applicant, tst subitnit the aftipropriate applicationks`; es specified in SectionFable 2901 and Section 15.29 050 [) Standard Wireless Permit Review. Standard wireless applications apply to all new facciiitiersitiowipts and base stations and to Mi3,101: nedifir:ation of ail existing wireless facilities end base staitons Standard wireless; applicatioils shalt de reviewed fuildvn 1 Administrative eon All etandaid ceilular iapplications shall be subject to administrative review and ttecon unless they require an assaxtiated wireless conditional use permit dr variance as specified in Table 29i 1 garnpuitileging Stisaitic Review f nee PoodeThie!Sieretel. shier: review the proposed metitiod of glal9039.19911103 of 3331g11.9 fc,1**;.0 ri).440,..**Ink81.N. r'10iP:r f.T.,4:...iti.Or:Spvic5.,:i against rionnitioris on oi '..:3urroundinr4thiiii site as fr.:11103gs a. The iiii\dininistrator ciprisidit now proposed design of the t.,..)%isa..1, placernent on the site topography of arid si_irrititinictinii.i the site color structures oh and Iiilereunding te site, arid natural features on and surrounding the site nein to blond the wireless facility into its setting b &Pelf theigicoosal requires a conclitional Pise permit Cr varidrice linehvicssi Administrator may require a yisuai impact assesscitterit riiis described ici &Poetical 15 29 Mitittiusiiiiiii030 biased upon kites of site or vantage poirtts ideutitied by the Administrate; 32 The Administrator shall k' 'r if the proposed camouflaging orsteaith reasonably integrates the yvireless facility into its eettind The Administrator May impose conditions to ensure that the facility aialtii:,,ves this objective ti Cornelia..nor? yylth Stanclards The Administrator shall review the proposal against a1l other 'standards of this r..:11apter lndluding, but not ii;ilited to height. setacks or be,sigh, Itghtiitg landscaping. screening and corloeation capacity If einy items are turd to be not in camdilance the Administrator shall notify the applicant and direct him ror her to either submit wirltin two 'Weeks or other period et time irieerned reasonable byi the atirninistri,:ittc.-ir eonsirjeling the scope ;1 -id Complexity of the required revisron, revised plans to address the compliance issuei a; direct the iter to render a ;lea:sign on the. application as :*,:ubmitted 4 ritten Decision The Aiimiristrator shall issue a v,iritten dedisrisin on the application within t'' tirne frame specified iit Section 16 0? Yr, and. 1 SnLq CV)ci; Frcie, dentifying rshy items not ir con-iplience with thrs chapter*, and incloding -any conditions necessary lc) achieve compliance:. The decision shati :rrichde conontir.m that Puliding or', ts nct be issued until; fInsincitiirl tiny is providi.rant to Secti‘on 151:29 060(G) of this chapter ,A,clieals The determination or decision of the admim5tra.tor on any apptication Linder this chabter shall constitute. an..i.:dit-iirristrativa 1.clslon subject to appeal pursuant to Chapter 16 013 Ymc Wireless Conditional Use Permit. Review, Viiireless o diti, ial use per applications shall be reviewed as follows l5uhmIttal of ;:ipplication A 101icaticifi1 tor a conditional use permit under this chapter shall be submitted lo the administrator who shall review suiditt application for completeness and compliance Yvlth teduitir...ments rirder thiS chapter and applicable ocirJes of the olty, aucorjence with the ptc.wisions ant1 fl '111 of YMC, 1 43.090 and Title 16 YM: 2 23 ;lo•art-333sts-and-Visdal impact Assessment *The administrator shall instruct the applicant en the requirements fo' both a bfalloon test and visual impact assessment. The administrator may provide input on ttiot.,tigne....ti3114i39.-@11.ti32:3-Oall.2on test tre. desire.d vantap,e points f Torn which the visual impact assessment will it,id based ;:i.u1.34.11.ie 141 1 wist Th.1 1 L rviciirtrivisual impact assessment shall r dr*_griplated prier he, the scheduled: purl R h ;rig Additiunai Repors and Third2party .,e--.32icr,.)! The administrator shall have authority to red:Jest additional inforrbationiiJiepotts from the applicant necessary to facilitate analysis of the proposal. including but not 1rnto third party review in accordance with 'MC 15 29 10)0 and re.ports, surve.iys and tests as proviciod ( MS Cj)apteir yytiron; the t5drointstrator in his or her soti.ereasenablis discretion deems such ridditiorlal infctmation necessary or appropriate to fully iitissess the impact of the proposal and any reasonable alternatives to addres:3 rnitipation measure!'s identified in SEPA. NEPA 32 other lailvirenrnental reviews to address issues of site screening or other rilei.tisures tO Illitig3te impacts upon the Sliriounding rieighbOMOSid or tO other impact to trie life health, satety cif persons. or quiet enjoyment of propery identified by the administrhioi like!y*,vt asonable probability tin reFfult from iiie. proposed pfoject. 4 Schedulirater eartni. port the administrator s determination that the applichation is complete and in f;orrypliance ii.-thth filing requirements of this chapter and that required baiiooff fyishal impact assessments and other Cegliired reports nave been finaliztri.d the administrator ir cordinatiifin with the nearilfg examiner shail be responsible tor assigning a date for and assuring due FlOtiCe, 13f pubilc fiettring for *.26.C.1": apptic,;.t.qiort fvhich date and notice Shal be in accordance with be provisions of Title )(MC 5 Frfteedures. Fahfois When considering an application for a conditional use permit the ha ring examiner shaU consider the applicable standards, onterle and policies established by this title as they pertain to the proposed use and may impose specific conditions precede:hit ton establishing this use. l- Wireless Height Variance Review A wire;e$5; height ifiarianc'-L hu irjctsd aft follows Procedures; itf, .1:t!Ittplicatfile criteria A wireless height -variance stiaH be reviewed under the brocociuces described in Chapter .15.21 exoeot that the hearing examiner shalt apply the criteria for review and AbhfC.Nal fjC•;f1ried U'IiS C;h8ptel" &goon. Tests and Visual Impact Assessirent. The administrator shall istruct *the applicant on the requirements for both-a-OalWG:74..tes.t.ai*:ida visual i.rnpact assessment. The adrhihistrator may provide input on .1oth-r.4rie.tiTiing-of the ballooF1 teFA-and-the desire,d vantage points from which the visual impact assessment wik: be based. .Fiot..h-theba5r4on-test an.dT0e itocs5rvisuai impact assesstment sheli thcot completed or lor tn the scheduled public. hearing J-fildfferty Rhylpfy Appl5fatiffris fio veneer:to may high require third harty review as described in Section 1,5.29.14u tr-learing.Examiner pedision The heaiing eX0.1.7"hiler Shall determine 'Athether th-e proposed variance oomplies with tie: 'criteria tof variance in 'Section 15 2f,J 110. and that the prolposed wifeless facility i.-fornplies with ail ether standards of this chapter it tile examiner finds that the propofJal does not cioltriply w:ith the cnterra for a variance he shag deny the., variance and associated wireless faniiity If the examiner finds that the propesal complies with the ontefia for 3 vaiianhe "and iwith ether development standards ct this c:ifiaptoffii, he shad approve the vanance and the aissociated wireiess faciiity Tile Examiner may impose any r:ondons necessary to ensure. c3np,'' wTh1.7:11 standards 15.29.130 BaVingniiiiiiests Visual Impact Assessments. y Balloorethest boa .the. apohGant. shali. poor to...3443.333443..334341-ng off..4.33 application, thatthethaltoonetiest, Theseryptideraparail 3433.33.9....33.4.3.yoof 333343 of4off-affeffnporary most, a brag ritt yati airy tierthba ioth a donde riebasseraratitverneetheyothherinitia33.3333333.4.33333....443fifoling 3.4 slandrofirs. at the firiewortern Weight of _the- pincioasedteAAter 44333.34ateof 44r4ciudfog-3.44333344.34433, .4e -case of -poor Wathitittheratheintiatresiatiateetrates and icicarearettartiothatitooratest serateparoWyersterayesvania abotiother. severearity. and titherteranaggyathyst. eclearthear lithe tit st testatiatisereaarevasoaperi with -a pastristatormulatieheirethe...thery. Ithe apoltaaniestrailanitairm the City, ..in.Writing of thateeresandamethof Vie -testi athearafearteen t idaysereadvarice, rthethaltocaositaii. be gown fosat tritest severeythwe (72.)..thatrappeave wastwortalleariartes- othasermAtthast twerity.theity24.enareisartethis totoonati be evit wateraystra No seesysithil be rerni:Ned.iteirsoradiact the. belloothareat Aniewartorttlytotaturreparceri varrops theatitarterefahatettelleran shaii terepowided with theappacatioh- Papitostoriagenballoomtestelthreethree Nateloyetrons boated -af.704:Wc...441.atieq three ..*.I.U.r.f.ciritri feet fresearetbasespirythe thaposethrower rand swathed eatentythitthosseraterforiewaroartelethethoorthethieweat and triteeathattcationthieseted approxinitiaterytioneraparter noire thernetheartase oraitheroposertthower itheateiternitted wahrinthate weratt wafter cornitnettherthentor.the batiethattestaiNT5b1 re Visual Impact Assessment. A Viseat impact Assessment with photo salutation of the proposed faciiity is required for ali artalicarions that require a cenditionat use permit OT \radiance area may be NthitilthlittqlthlittNtlitiNteltthilwtittittithithq thathith arthatitthwiraWitterther necessary by Me ritarrentstratatetto astir -ow withet n*.npargs- aiSS.i4C:4a.ted EtP 0.3,5* As part of such appithation, the raspier...a fit snail furnish a. visual evident assessment: which snail inctiede '1 Zone of Visibility Map if nevi, towi.ifir or substantial mc)difiniation increasing the fleight of an exlsting striJoturc ;-;e1, conlputer gerie aft:2d "Zone of Visibility Map' at a rininirr,LirT1 mite radius froiiin the proposed structure, witiniiarraiiiimtnetrififoliadie iirvic571shali be provided to iliustrate which the ph.icosed iinstaidaticr riay be seen z Photo Pictoi ;al rep, •' !'r of before and aFter (photo simulations) wews from key v p » w ty Ci;uidance will be provideicr concerning the appropriate key :.•7,7.ril':.!•S at ;he r' pc meeting as rEi.,iquired fi'rovide arlaPSh OW g IaCa tl fl S of lne pictures were taken end distance from the proposed structure Descrintiii?n of Visuai lfincact. A written description of the visual idact of Vile proposed facility including; and as appiicabliiii the fDwi,r biase guy wires fencing and accessory buddings from abettirip and adjacent propertes and streets aS reiateS ft the need oi ppropriateneTaf camoufracidc 35 15.29,140 Third Party Review. Personal wireless service providers use Jianirrits methodologies arid anayses, inciuCing geographically based computer softwt?re to determine Ina specific technical parameters of their services nr-.I low power mobile radio sierVic-e. tar:Bites, such as expected coverage area, antenna uorifigtration. topogiaphic *tonstiraints that affect sionai t'attis etc In certain instances, a third' party expert may heed to review The technical data submitted by a piovider The city may require a technical review as part of a permitting process for a variance or conditional use permit The reasonable costs of the technirrit.:21 review shall be borne by the provide.r The fie:lector!. Of the third panty expert may be by nutu1 agreUfTlent betweeii the provider and the city or at the discretion ut the city, with a provision for the provider and infere.steci parties to comment on the proposed expert and review its qualifications The expert Feview is intended to address interference and ottottint eattetytonseestanG be a site specific review of technical aspects of the facilities or a review of the providers' methodology add equipment used and not a subjective review of the site that was selected by a provider Based on the resuds of the expert review, the city may require changes to the provider s apdYcation nster '0,;r1 1w ds set ftrillt thic dinatibrir 15 29 Idle expert review shall address the followindi x The accuracy and comoleteriess of suixmissions The applicability dif anysys techniques and metnodolodies 3 The validity of conclusions, rEirached. and 4 Any specidc. technical issues designetr.-Jd by the city 15.29.150 Non-use/abandonment. A Notice of Abandonment. No ieS;:i than tnntyda.ps prirxto t;Jatc.--, that a personal wireless service provider plans to abandon iJ';' c.ii:3(MinUe operation cif a facility the provider Frlust ritot4 the city of 'Yakima n • cf.,g•tilleci U s mail of the proposed date of abandonment er discontinuation of operation In the. event that a licensed carrier fans tu give notice the facility shall be considered abandoned upon the city s discovery of discontinuation of operation 'er prod f slirJity or mora consieggtiver days; iis ii Upon sirloin abandonment, the provnier shall have sixty days OF artcitonat period of time determined in the ieasonabie dis'c,;retion C,,f the orgy within r.A.rhintri ta 1 Reactivate the L!:5E1 of lhe facility or trans:ley the, facility to another provider ‘A'ho makes actual use or the faciiity er I ri Cr-eteiviehitiithetiiiatairlidenttineet 't d€ :i (‚t On the an ten ri a so pport strLCJre; t C."(i Gtit,30.....The..4..i'f:4:30tiVe .1: adiated. power • ;..) tt. artiliertinaidit 4,er:fuel:lc) ih nurnbet of trarisirniG61(7r!ti trirJraiiiittriEtitairitteartiriast itinetioperiater id:tithe-tower. 'Thatitilitat,ie six tricin this from the date of effectrviettabandiorwheritirott;)...00pkitiGateiianciioeitisietivrcim...or,...lirle tiwei aOU1 se Qn*Qt--Eid'jerj- shal-pirienAptly diisrhantleitatt-ditireirriGVG.P.,17e...12-0{440n...Gf-Oi.10W:Filitiettietirtiteeetistit;heti heightirequrired to ttrintstktiritisaltiefectority. Notryv4ihstand-inq the fittresjoting carigeettwNchiiiarierrniadeit.G-peristoaal n 51; ito teitab ritizie:trt niter:4. owe vie etieiveihti titiat ith e re is. p hi y s dal the, ait all: of the praivrdertsitrtwershintitthetiartidor isuirrictoihdling alteret then atil of line -towers withitreittetiarty-ishalir-s.“711-itartytteiiiretiloaeitiiiiiiiiiiiiiheigatimt..59iDerneristrare le the ilv that the faciliti has not beep abandoned. inititsoi Dismantle and rerninviiiii faciiity It the tower, antenna, foundation, and facility aro not remove -id V ithin thtit sixty-day time it.)Piritird additicinal period of time allowed by the city the city may rive such tower. antenna, flouridation and related facty at the providers expense.. If there are two ci more providers co -locating on a. fruoilay, except as drovided for in the paragraph above this ttrovn shall rirtit become effective until all providers cease using the: facility B Expiration of Approval. At the eEirtier of sixty days frorn the date of abarritionment without reactivating or upon completion of dismantling and removal city approval fOr tile facility s. ail automaticallV eXPire 15..29.160 Transfer of Ownership. A ;conditional use permit tlitIS landi COIrlpi!.ance with the conditions er any such permit is the responsibility ot the current owner of the propertyvhiii,:ther that is tlmi ai)plicarit or a Sticcessor No permit for which a financial SeCUTity IS required shall be considered valid during any time in which. the required financiai security is not posted 15.29,170 Vacation of Permits, A. Any derrnit issued sursuare S :headier may be vacated upon tilooroval by the current landowner, provided; that. The use auth.orized try the permit does not exist and is not aativEdy being pursued or The use has 'goon terrhinated and no violaticio of terms and conditions of the permit exist f3 Requests to vacate a permit shali be made in writing to the zoning code administrator who shall determine if the above rtonditliens are present prior to autincrizini,r4 the vacation Vacaticin of any permit shall de documented by thrit 8 notice of land tESe Vaceorion a form provided by the dontimunity development department with Whit ctty 15.29,180 Violation — Penalty. Compliance with the reroirements of itits code shall be mandatory fliiiny ‘iiiolation °tithe provisions of this uhapter shall be a 1ms:demeanor subtent to the penalties and remedies establi.shed ymc (.3 d2 0( Additionaily any Viola -den of the f.drcivirsions of this chapter, and on inn:Oaten and(or operation. of any structure in violation al he provisions of this chapter shall be deemed a public nuisar,ce and violation subject to penaities and remedies a under state lay,' and city :'odes The enforcement actions authorized ondei this node sh5Ali suppiementtA to tltose general penalties and remedies of Chapter 6.02 y roc and the public: rusarice penalties; arid remeidies available under state law and city codes '15.29,190 Reliet„Waiver, Exemption, Any applicant desiriinG ,..vaiyer or dxeniutiori from any aspecr. or requirement of this chapter may request such pursuant, to one' in ottennhanee with the edblicable prevision on general variances as contairise in Chapter 1O.2.1 Yrk/IC provided that the relief or exemption is contained in the submitted, applioation for perricit or. in the nese ot existina T.Ne‘Nousiy granted permit a request for rnodification of its tower anclior fealties Such erne& may be temporary or heerhanent; partial or complete. No such retell ot ex:emotion shall be aehroved unless the appletant demonstrates by dear and convincing evide,nce that. it granted the relief, waiver or exemption will have no sighilipant affect on the hea' safety and welfare. of the City, its residents and other service ntovetlere 15.29.200 Severability, a if 'any word: phrase; sentericcitt p3.t. suction subsect cn, other portion of this Gitapt er ,Jr any appiH'ton thereof to any person c.)r dircurnstanoe UL cd void, unconstitutional or invalid*can/ reason then St.lt7t1 Word, phos- sentence, ,dart,, sectionn subsectionor other portion, or the 'rescribeti application thereof shaji be severable, and the remaining provisions pi this chapter and nt! applications thereof; not having been dePlered voRti, unconstitutional of invalici, shall remain in full force and effect. ri Anrtermit issued: under this chapter stitql be iidornurenenseie and (toot. severahie If part nt a permit deemed or ruleici to be. inyailoi tinenfeiceable .any material respect. by a compEitent authority, or is overturned lay 21 Cornpeter.t authority the permit sttaiii be void in totF,11, upon determination ty the City 38