Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
11/05/2013 10 Wireless Communication Facilities; YMC Amendment Title 15; Adding 15.29, Repealing 15.04.180
BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YAKIMA, WASHINGTON AGENDA STATEMENT Item No. For Meeting of: 11/5/2013 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 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 language 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 summary, the document reflects the input of staff, Planning Commission, 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 (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 Staff recommends approval and adoption of the Ordinance. ATTACHMENTS: Description ❑ Ordinance - Cell Tower Text Amendments Exhibit "A" - YMC 15.29 Wireless Communication Facilities Upload Date 10/29/2013 10/29/2013 Type Ordinance Ordinance YPC Findings of FacCell Tower Text Amendments Council Record Cell Towers TxT#002'13 10/29/2013 10/2 /2013 IBackup IMaterliall 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 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 51h day of November, 2013. ATTEST: Micah Cawley, Mayor City Clerk Publication Date: Effective Date: 2 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 15.02 YMC. "Abandonment" means to cease operation for a period of sixty or more consecutive days. "Administrator" means the director of the city's department of community development and his or her designees. "Antenna" means any exterior apparatus designed for telephonic, radio, data, internet, or television communications through the sending and/or receiving of electromagnetic waves, and includes equipment attached to a tower, structure or building for the purpose of providing wireless services, including unlicensed wireless telecommunications services, wireless telecommunications services utilizing frequencies authorized by the Federal Communications Commission for "cellular," "enhanced specialized mobile radio" and "personal communications services," telecommunications services, and its attendant base station. "Antenna height" means the vertical distance measured from the base of the antenna support structure at natural grade to the highest point of the structure even if said highest point is an antenna. Measurement of tower height shall include antenna, base pad, and other appurtenances and shall be measured from the natural grade of the parcel at the lowest elevation point of the support structure's perimeter. "Antenna support structure" means any pole, telescoping mast, tower, tripod, or other structure which supports a device used in the transmitting or receiving of radio frequency signals. "Applicant" means any provider or any person, partnership, company, or government agency that files an application for any permit necessary to install, maintain, or remove a personal wireless service facility within the city. "Balloon test" means a test for a reasonable period of time to fly, or raise upon a temporary mast, a brightly colored balloon, that is representative in size of the initial antenna array including all standoffs, at the maximum height of the proposed tower. "Base station" is defined as a facility or support structure consisting of radio transceivers, antennas, coaxial cable, a regular and backup power supply, and other associated electronics, including a structure that currently supports or houses an antenna, transceiver, or other associated equipment that constitutes 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 VVCF/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 fora 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.0 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. I. 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 1. A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on October 23, 2013 and continued to October 28, 2013 pursuant to notice duly published, all in accordance with applicable procedures of the Yakima Municipal Code and state law. 2. No objection was made to any member of the Planning Commission hearing and deciding all issues in this matter. 3. The City of Yakima has previously adopted ordinances codified at YMC 15.04.180 pertaining to placement of communications towers in urban areas. Such existing code does not provide regulations for location of such facilities in different zoning districts, does not provide specific permit requirements for such facilities, and does not adequately safeguard the general safety and welfare of the community as it concerns land use and regulatory controls for such facilities. Moreover, existing code provides no adequate procedures for wireless service providers in the consideration of applications for wireless facilities proposed for location within the City of Yakima. In particular, existing city codes do not provide adequate land use controls for telecommunication towers and facilities including: (a) lack of standards prioritizing zoning districts or types of property, so that a telecommunication tower or facility could be located in the vicinity of more sensitive land uses such as residential zones and neighborhoods, rather than upon existing public property or facilities; (b) no means to require co -location of telecommunication facilities on existing towers so as to reduce the number of telecommunication towers and facilities within the community; (c) no adequate standards requiring telecommunication towers and facilities to be screened or camouflaged to preserve and promote quiet use and enjoyment of existing property owners; (d) no means to deny any application for a new telecommunication tower or facility where no 1 verification of need of such facility exists; (e) no means to limit construction of telecommunication towers and facilities within or in the near vicinity of sensitive community uses such as established historic districts. 4. Within the parameters of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996), state law and applicable regulations, the City of Yakima may consider regulations pertaining to telecommunication towers and facilities in a number of areas, for example: (a) requiring applicants to provide for expert assistance; (b) verification of the need for a requested tower or facility; (c) prioritizing preferred locations for telecommunication towers; (d) verification of minimum height of towers needed to provide adequate coverage; (e) standards governing appearance and aesthetics; (f) requiring collocation to minimize number of towers in the community; (g) developing application forms and establishing appropriate application fees; (h) regulation of lighting, setbacks, signage and site security; (1) undergrounding of associated utilities; (j) insurance and indemnification; (k) provisions relating to removal of abandoned structures. 5. Other cities in the state and region, and elsewhere in the country, have adopted ordinances regulating wireless service facilities, balancing the needs of the community to preserve and protect the general safety and welfare with the expectation of fair procedures to allow industry providers to construct and operate wireless facilities to meet the communication needs of the community. 6. On April 2, 2013, the City Council of the City of Yakima adopted Ordinance No. 2013- 014 imposing a moratorium from April 2, 2013 through October 1, 2013 on the acceptance, processing and issuance of land use and building permits for new telecommunication and wireless service facilities. On May 21, 2013, the City Council approved Resolution No. 2013-066 adopting Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law supporting the adoption of the moratorium. Following a public hearing duly scheduled and held on September 3, 2013, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2013-040, supported by findings of fact, extending the moratorium through midnight December 31, 2013. Such legislative enactments are part of the record before the Planning Commission and adopted herein by reference. 7. The Planning Commission has held and conducted public hearings and study sessions pursuant to applicable notice on the following dates: August 7, 2013; August 14, 2013; September 4, 2013; September 25, 2013; October 9, 2013, October 23, 2013 and October 28, 2013. 8. The Planning Commission has received and considered all comments, evidence and testimony presented at such study sessions and public hearings, together with reports and proposed drafts of comprehensive code provisions prepared and presented by city staff. 2 9. The Planning Commission finds and determines that the draft comprehensive code pertaining to telecommunication and wireless facilities presented and considered by the Planning Commission on October 23, 2013 and October 28, 2013 adequately addresses the land use and regulatory needs of the City of Yakima, and that such proposed code should be recommended to the City Council for adoption, and that such adoption is in the best interests of residents of the City of Yakima and will promote the general safety and welfare. 10. Any Finding of Fact, or portion thereof, hereafter determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be a Conclusion of Law shall be construed as a Conclusion of Law without derogation of any other Finding of Fact. Having made the above Findings of Fact, the Planning Commission makes the following CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 11. The Planning Commission has jurisdiction to receive all evidence and testimony in this matter, and to make these Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation concerning all issues herein. 12. There being no objection to any member of the Planning Commission proceeding to hear and consider all matters herein, any and all objections arising or alleged to arise out of the appearance of fairness doctrine or provisions related to conflict of interest are hereby deemed waived. 13. All procedural requirements pertaining to notice, scheduling and conducting the public hearing have been met and are satisfied. 14. All procedural requirements pertaining to amendment of Title 15 of the Yakima Municipal Code have been met and are satisfied. 15. The proposed legislation amending Title 15 of the Yakima Municipal Code to add new Chapter 15.29 entitled "Wireless Communications Facilities" of record herein and incorporated by reference hereto ("proposed legislation") is a comprehensive code regulating wireless communication facilities in satisfaction of the City Council's direction to craft a comprehensive code as set forth in Ordinance Nos. 2013-014 and 2013-040, the ordinances adopting and extending the moratorium, respectively. 16. The adoption of the proposed legislation constitutes an exercise of the general police and regulatory powers of the city as authorized by, but not limited to: Washington State Constitution Article XI, Section 11; Chapter 35.22 RCW, and RCW 35.22.195; Charter of the City of Yakima, Article I; and the Yakima Municipal Code. 3 17. The exercise of the city's general police and regulatory power to adopt the proposed legislation is consistent with [and 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: , (1114, $ Ben Shoval, Chair 4 6413,1R Ppick g / `rh`D 011 ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT — CHAPTER 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#011-13 Site Address: Citywide Staff Contact: Jeff Peters, Supervising Planner Table of Contents CHAPTER A Yakima Planning Commission Findings & Staff Report CHAPTER B Previous Council Adopted Legislation CHAPTER C Public Comments CHAPTER D Public Notices CHAPTER E SEPA Checklist ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT — CHAPTER 15.29 WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES TXT#002-13, SEPA#011-13 EXHIBIT LIST CHAPTER A Findings & Staff Report A-1 ,� , %,,,,, ;� ,�, �� ,,,,,,�� iii , Staff to Ya 'n a PlanningCommission 0817/2013 3 A-2 Ya _' o PIanning Commission Findings of Fact (Unsigned Draft) 10/28/2013 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 i THIS MATTER, having come before the Planning Commission of the City of Yakima (hereafter "Planning Commission") upon public hearing on October 23, 2013 and October 28, 2013, and the Planning Commission having considered the record herein and all evidence and testimony presented, hereby makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT 1. A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on October 23, 2013 and continued to October 28, 2013 pursuant to notice duly published, all in accordance with applicable procedures of the Yakima Municipal Code and state law. 2. No objection was made to any member of the Planning Commission hearing and deciding all issues in this matter. 3. The City of Yakima has previously adopted ordinances codified at YMC 15.04.180 pertaining to placement of communications towers in urban areas. Such existing code does not provide regulations for location of such facilities in different zoning districts, does not provide specific permit requirements for such facilities, and does not adequately safeguard the general safety and welfare of the community as it concerns land use and regulatory controls for such facilities. Moreover, existing code provides no adequate procedures for wireless service providers in the consideration of applications for wireless facilities proposed for location within the City of Yakima. In particular, existing city codes do not provide adequate land use controls for telecommunication towers and facilities including: (a) lack of standards prioritizing zoning districts or types of property, so that a telecommunication tower or facility could be located in the vicinity of more sensitive land uses such as residential zones and neighborhoods, rather than upon existing public property or facilities; (b) no means to require co -location of telecommunication facilities on existing towers so as to reduce the number of telecommunication towers and facilities within the community; (c) no adequate standards requiring telecommunication towers and facilities to be screened or camouflaged to preserve and promote quiet use and enjoyment of existing property owners; (d) no means to deny any application for a new telecommunication tower or facility where no 1 verification of need of such facility exists; (e) no means to limit construction of telecommunication towers and facilities within or in the near vicinity of sensitive community uses such as established historic districts. 4. Within the parameters of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996), state law and applicable regulations, the City of Yakima may consider regulations pertaining to telecommunication towers and facilities in a number of areas, for example: (a) requiring applicants to provide for expert assistance; (b) verification of the need for a requested tower or facility; (c) prioritizing preferred locations for telecommunication towers; (d) verification of minimum height of towers needed to provide adequate coverage; (e) standards governing appearance and aesthetics; (f) requiring collocation to minimize number of towers in the community; (g) developing application forms and establishing appropriate application fees; (h) regulation of lighting, setbacks, signage and site security; (i) undergrounding of associated utilities; (j) insurance and indemnification; (k) provisions relating to removal of abandoned structures. 5. Other cities in the state and region, and elsewhere in the country, have adopted ordinances regulating wireless service facilities, balancing the needs of the community to preserve and protect the general safety and welfare with the expectation of fair procedures to allow industry providers to construct and operate wireless facilities to meet the communication needs of the community. 6. On April 2, 2013, the City Council of the City of Yakima adopted Ordinance No. 2013- 014 imposing a moratorium from April 2, 2013 through October 1, 2013 on the acceptance, processing and issuance of land use and building permits for new telecommunication and wireless service facilities. On May 21, 2013, the City Council approved Resolution No. 2013-066 adopting Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law supporting the adoption of the moratorium. Following a public hearing duly scheduled and held on September 3, 2013, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2013-040, supported by findings of fact, extending the moratorium through midnight December 31, 2013. Such legislative enactments are part of the record before the Planning Commission and adopted herein by reference. 7. The Planning Commission has held and conducted public hearings and study sessions pursuant to applicable notice on the following dates: August 7, 2013; August 14, 2013; September 4, 2013; September 25, 2013; October 9, 2013, October 23, 2013 and October 28, 2013. 8. The Planning Commission has received and considered all comments, evidence and testimony presented at such study sessions and public hearings, together with reports and proposed drafts of comprehensive code provisions prepared and presented by city staff. 2 DOC. 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 fairness doctrine or provisions related to conflict of interest are hereby deemed waived. 13. All procedural requirements pertaining to notice, scheduling and conducting the public hearing have been met and are satisfied. 14. All procedural requirements pertaining to amendment of Title 15 of the Yakima Municipal Code have been met and are satisfied. 15. The proposed legislation amending Title 15 of the Yakima Municipal Code to add new Chapter 15.29 entitled "Wireless Communications Facilities" of record herein and incorporated by reference hereto ("proposed legislation") is a comprehensive code regulating wireless communication facilities in satisfaction of the City Council's direction to craft a comprehensive code as set forth in Ordinance Nos. 2013-014 and 2013-040, the ordinances adopting and extending the moratorium, respectively. 16. The adoption of the proposed legislation constitutes an exercise of the general police and regulatory powers of the city as authorized by, but not limited to: Washington State Constitution Article XI, Section 11; Chapter 35.22 RCW, and RCW 35.22.195; Charter of the City of Yakima, Article I; and the Yakima Municipal Code. 3 DOG`. INDEX 17. The exercise of the city's general police and regulatory power to adopt the proposed legislation is consistent with land use and police power regulatory authority of the City of Yakima and laws of the State of Washington, including but not limited to Title 35 RCW and the Growth Management Act of the State of Washington. 18. The adoption of the proposed legislation is compliant with the moratorium adopted by the City Council pursuant to Ordinance Nos. 2013-014 and 2013-040, together with RCW 36.70A.390 and RCW 35.63.200. 19. The adoption of the proposed legislation constitutes a land use control rationally and reasonably related to control documented secondary effects arising from unregulated wireless service facilities. 20. The Planning Commission concludes that the adoption of the proposed legislation incorporated herein establishes reasonable and objective regulations governing land use, licensing and operation of telecommunication and wireless facilities and uses within the City of Yakima, and will provide necessary and appropriate land use regulation of such facilities and uses. 20. Any Conclusion of Law, or portion thereof, hereafter determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be a Finding of Fact shall be construed as a Finding of Fact without derogation of any other Conclusion of Law. Having made the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Planning Commission hereby renders its RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL The Planning Commission of the City of Yakima, having received and considered all evidence and testimony presented at public hearings, and having received and reviewed the record herein, hereby recommends that the City Council of the City of Yakima APPROVE the proposed legislation amending Title 15 of the Yakima Municipal Code to add new Chapter 15.29 YMC referenced and incorporated herein. ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 28th day of October, 2013. By: Ben Shoval, Chair 4 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 of Yakima Planning Commission FROM: Mark Kunkler, City Attorney SUBJECT: Communication Tower Zoning Text Amendment FOR PUBLIC HEARING OF: August 7, 2013 ISSUE: Yakima Planning Commission (YPC) public hearing on a text amendments to the City of Yakima's Urban Area Zoning Ordinance (UAZO) Yakima Municipal Code (YMC) Title 15 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. In addition, 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 ail 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 amendment as necessary, and provide a final recommendation to the Yakima City Council. DOC. INDEX Page 1 HISTORY OF AMENDMENT: On April 2, 2013, the Yakima City Council after hearing concerns from the Barge Chestnut Neighborhood Association about a proposed cell tower declared an emergency six month moratorium, on the City receiving any new applications for cell tower installations while the City reviewed regulatory controls on siting standards, and set a public hearing for public input on the moratorium for May 21, 2013 at 7 p.m. 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 location of communication towers within the City, 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. Following the required 20 -day public comment period where all interested parties and agencies had the right to comment, and three public comments were received. The City of Yakima made some minor amendments to the draft ordinance addressing some of the commenters concerns, 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 lapsed on August 2, 2013, with no appeals filed. PUBLIC NOTICE Notice of Application Legal Ad Publication Notice of Public Hearing 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 (BCNA) and representatives from AT & T Services, Inc. have met with staff and provided 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 requirements 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. DOC. INDEX # ,4-i Page 2 DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: I. Overview. The attached Yakima. The material creates new Chapter 15.29 within the zoning code of the City of 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. Communication towers less than thirty-five feet in height require a Type (1) review to ensure compliance with minimum setbacks and building code requirements; 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). Additionally, some provisions are found in the City's building codes, but these deal almost exclusively with structural elements of tower facilities and installation requirements. It is apparent that the limited 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. II. 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 to "new uses," and "existing uses" — which would be considered as pre-existing nonconforming. 15.29.020 Definitions. The definitions are extensive and comprehensive. It 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 little use, may be retained because they may be useful in defining terms or conditions in the permitting process. DOC. INDEX # Page 1 3 15.29.030 Exemptions. The exemptions are fairly self-explanatory and reflect other provisions of laws governing the telecommunications industry. For example, "licensed amateur (ham) radio stations" are exempt from legislation governing the telecommunications industry. 15.29.035 Modification of Existing Wireless Tower or Base Station. This section was added to address recent federal legislation that provided that "modifications" of existing telecommunication towers and base stations, consisting of co -location, removal, or replacement of transmission equipment, that do not constitute a "substantial change" to the existing facility, must be approved. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has also issued a decision defining the concept of what constitutes a "substantial change." This definition and terminology has been incorporated into this section. The section also includes a review and permitting process within a 90 -day "shot dock." The FCC had also ruled that a city may require submission of an application and issuance of a permit for these modifications, 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 where 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 overlay zones filed for record with the federal, state or local 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 local wildlife refuges, and permanently protected archeological sites; and (e) designated 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 protected area. DOC. INDEX # Page14 15.29.050 Priority of locations. The "priority of locations" section is an important part of the proposed code. This section lists different types of location ranging from "most favored" (least anticipated impact) to "least favored" (most anticipated impact). In order of priority, these locations are: a. Co -location on existing facilities; b. Public properties; c. Placement on existing structures/buildings in industrial and commercial zones, with appropriate camouflage and/or stealth; d. Placement in industrial zones, 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 available, and imposition of camouflage and/or stealth.) f. In or within 300 feet of a residentially zoned district (other than within the B-2 or LCC zones), conditional use permit required, including appropriate camouflaging and/or stealth. g. In or within 300 feet of a protected area (other than within the B-2 or LCC zones), 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, law 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. DOC. INDEX it, A -i Page 1 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. 15.29.070 Required submittals and testing. This section describes the elements of an application for a telecommunication facility, including photo -simulations (plus balloon test 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 for co -location of future facilities, tower separation, color of facilities, screening, tower location, parking, and other elements. 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. Modifications to eligible existing facilities pursuant to 15.29.035 and 15.29.080 that do not constitute a substantial change; modifications that constitute a substantial change require a variance; 2. Antennas, towers and related facilities located within or upon government-owned property or structures where such antennas, towers and related facilities are disguised by camouflage and/or stealth measures approved by the city; 3. Antennas, towers and related facilities located on appropriate rights- of-way and existing structures, such as buildings, towers, 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; DOC. INDEX # AH Page 1 6 4. Antennas, towers and related facilities located within industrial zones of the city, including proposed locations within 300 feet of residential zoned districts, where such antennas, towers and related facilities are disguised by camouflage and/or stealth measures approved by the city; 5. Antennas, 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 districts 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 districts, and within 300 feet 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 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 15.29.070 in order to assist the administrator in determining appropriate camouflage and/or stealth requirements. b. Conditional Use Permit. The section provides that, except as listed above, all other proposed facilities would require a conditional use permit. c. Variances. Variances are expected 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. DOC. INDEX # 4 . Page 1 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 -party 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 permits — Procedures — Conditions for granting. 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 16.08.030." 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 DOC. INDEX Page 1 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 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." 15.29.220 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." RECOMMENDATION It is staff's 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 representatives of the telecommunications industry. As mentioned above, we have already benefited from comments provided by stakeholders and interested parties. DOC. INDEX # A -I Page 1 9 Staff's recommendation is that the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the new code by the City Council, with any changes identified by the Planning Commission. Following the public hearing, any appropriate findings of fact and conclusions will be presented. Page # H 10 ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT — CHAPTER 15.29 WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES TXT#002-13, SEPA#011-13 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 EXHIBIT LIST CHAPTER B Council Legislation Ordinance No. 2013-014 Adopting Six -Month Moratorium for Communication Towers Resolution No. R-2013-066 Adopting Findings of Fact Supporting a Six -Month Moratorium Ordinance No. 2013-040 Extending Moratorium Draft Ordinance - Adopting Regulation for Communication Towers 04/02/2013 05/21/2013 09/03/2013 11/05/2013 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, ail as codified at Title 15 of the Yakima Municipal Code (UYMCn), 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: Micah Cawley, Mayor City Clerk Publication Date: Effective Date: 2 DO. IND 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 December 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 received 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 December 31, 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. (c) City staff has participated in neighborhood meetings with members of the Barge -Chestnut 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 recommended by representatives of the wireless industry. (1) 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. Q) On August 14, 2013, the Planning Commission adopted a motion revising its previous recommendation, which new motion recommended 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 proposed 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 # 5-3 (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 proposed revisions, public hearings and final adoption; and WHEREAS, 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 pursuant to Ordinance No. 2013- 14, originally set to expire October 1, 2013, is hereby renewed 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 according to its terms. 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. 3 1111111111111, PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, signed and approved this 3r° day of September, 2013. ATTEST: City Clerk Publication Date: Septemb Effective Date: October 6, 2013 4 77A,i Micah Caw y, Mayor '1011„„ii idlilllll,lll�i iii�iljtl1u BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YAKIMA, WASHINGTON AGENDA STATEMENT anin.u������������ra��n e��a mmrcmrMw a uazz= mnx; luno � w�m�ra�wmr�nmmmmmrumwa. sauu „arm .; uw n unnis, ,mwaim�mamir�mimwmoimuuuwioi $101111 ITEM TITLE: SUBMITTED BY: Item No. For Meeting of: 9/3/2013 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 SUMMARY EXPLANATION: 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: Ordinance: X Other (Specify): Contract: Contract Term: Start Date: End Date: Item Budgeted: NA Amount: Funding Source/Fiscal Impact: Strategic Priority: Improve the Built Environment Insurance Required? No Mail 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 Wireless CommttnicAtion FacIities MORATORIUM EXTENSION Sent j 2213 MORATORIUM -Telecommunication Towers -4- 2013 OIRDIINANCE.Celi Towers„MORATORIUM EXTENSION,Seot.3,2013 R-2013-066 Telecommunications Towers Six - Month Moratorium - Findings of Fact Tale -Communications -Cell Towers- DIRAFTRIEViSED.Aug us1.8.2013 El 8/23/2013 8/23/2013 8/23/2013 8/23/2013 8/23/2013 Cover Memo Backup Material Ordinance Backup Material Backup Material 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 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 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 1. 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 telecommunication 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; 1 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 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. 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 telecommunication towers 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 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 determines 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; (B) 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 determines that the moratorium adopted and implemented pursuant to Ordinance No. 2013-14 should remain in effect according 3 DEX 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 21st day of May, 2013. 4 Micah Caw -y, Mayor m1mmm MIUMmimm 111111111 11i11111 BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YAKIMA, WASHINGTON AGENDA STATEMENT Item No. For Meeting of: 5/21/2013 :IMdm011mRm;m ptlm,Nmga mnmumummwa4ME MIR mmioama:uw:OrAVAISVAINAMITIUMNIVIIIMM11111111111111111111141111111K014111111111111111111111111111111111110INVEMMOMMItefillMIIIIININNWEI11111111111111111111111111111111WOMMESOMMIIII �waaeMO@VVI' ITEM TITLE: SUBMITTED BY: SUMMARY EXPLANATION: 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. Resolution: 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: El Memo MORATORIUM CELL TOWER$ Findings Mav 21 2013,doc El Resolution FINDINGS MOIRATORIUM Celli Towers Mav (2).doc EJ MORATORIUM -Telecommunication Towers-4-2013401ex E FC Iii irelaion 13 d Description: Memo -Moratorium Cell Towers Findings May 21 2013 21 2013 REVISED Resolution -Findings Moratorium CeII Towers May 21 2013 REVISED(2) MORATORIUM -Telecommunication Towers -4-201 3 FCC Interpretation (1-25-2013) ORDINANCE NO. 2013-014 AN ORDINANCE of the City of Yakima, Washington, adopting a six-month moratorium on the fling 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; declaring an emergency in the passage of this ordinance providing for immediate effective date; and setting Mav 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 specifically 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, determines and concludes that an emergency exists, to wit: (a) the City of Yakima has Teamed 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 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 codes 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 permit, tenant improvement, business license, business registration, nonprofit license, permit, 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 towers" and 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 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 according 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, Mav 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 governing 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 codes 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 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. ATTEST: 1464 Micah Caw y, Mayor ity Clerk Effective Date: April 2, 2013 Publication Date: April 5, 2013 Ordinance Approved by Unanimous Vote of Council Members: April 2, 2013 4 Ili C. INDEX ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT — CHAPTER 15.29 WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES TXT#002-13, SEPA#011-13 EXHIBIT LIST CHAPTER C Public Comments t'vvX";� F. ,,,, , rr , �,,, r� , /r/// �, j//i /r I/z/ j// // i ,,,r,,,,,, ,%i,,, #iii /o / r, ,,, C-1 Comment Letter from Robert Bass, AT&T 05/16/2013 C-2 Comment Letter from Nancy Kenmotsu Ph. D., Yakima 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 11111111111 111II1,011111111111111111111111111111111111tllll1111h1111141111)111:1 1111 11 �� "x°° """"0000V"'"'" " """ """" October 28, 2013 BUSCH1...,,AVV1If IIu<, PLLC City of Yakima Planning Commission c/o Steve Osguthorpe, Community Development Director 129 N. 2"d Street 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 incorporate some of our comments into the current draft of regulations, but continue to have concerns with the current draft ordinance. We offer the following comments and redline of the current draft ordinance so that the City can better achieve its stated policy goals and the ordinance is consistent with federal law. Siting Restrictions: There are a number of troublesome provisions that, in aggregate, may constructively prohibit the siting of new wireless facilities in many parts of the City. Among them: • §15.29.080.A: In conflict with Table 29-1, facilities are prohibited in and within 300 feet of "protected areas" which is broadly defined and includes "proposed" historical districts is too broad. In addition, there is no standard for submitting a request to protect a historical resource. LCC and B-2 zones are not the only zoning districts within 300 feet of these areas. As written, new facilities would be prohibited in every zone except for LCC and B-2 zones. We recommend that these provisions be rewritten. Further, the City does not have a map available showing the distribution of all existing and potential historic districts, overlays, structures, critical areas, conservation easements, and other protected areas. We request that the City provide a map to fully disclose the effect of this provision. 22525 SE 64th Place, State 288 Issaquah, WA 98027 425.458.3940 206.2 t 9.6717 www.WirelessCounsel.com BUSCH LA:, if p II'y C°,li PLLC • §15.29.070.7.b.iii: "Towers... shall be placed amongst and adjacent to the drip line (within 20 feet) of three or more evergreen trees at least seventy-five percent of the height of the facility." Yakima does not have adequate density or height of evergreen trees to support this requirement. Further, even a height variance would not remedy this deficiency because one of the criteria requires that existing evergreen trees screen a significant portion of new towers. We suggest this requirement be removed or modified to limit its application to what is feasible. • §15.29.050.B.2.b, §15.29.060.F.1: Before a new tower can be built within 300 feet of residential zones or protected areas, a carrier has to demonstrate that it wasn't "physically" or "technologically" possible to locate on government/institutional, or other "appropriate structures" within a nonresidential zone. This is too restrictive. Siting candidates can be excluded for a variety of valid reasons, such as a property owner's refusal to lease space to a carrier, or refusal to lease at a reasonable market rate. Further, a carrier has to demonstrate why it isn't possible to build a network of shorter facilities on buildings at least 35 feet in height within a half mile of the proposed facility, regardless if the structures are available or feasible to use. It is unreasonable to assume that several short facilities — which may not provide meaningful coverage, creates multiple sets of visual impacts, requiring multiple land use process subject to the same requirements, and is very costly to deploy and maintain — is better than a single facility that otherwise complies with all the requirements of this ordinance. We suggest these sections be removed or modified to include some reasonable economic and network considerations. • §15.29.070.7, 8.c: As we have commented on several occasions, it is simply not possible for some stealth structures to mimic the dimensions of the structures they intend to resemble. For example, a typical 60 -foot flagpole is approximately ten inches in diameter, but in order to conceal all of the antennas and associated equipment within the pole the diameter must increase to 36 inches. Another example is light standards which must be must be wider and much taller to accommodate wireless equipment and provide quality service. Further, when considering what type of stealth structure might be appropriate for the area, anything nonconforming or "contributing the visual clutter" of an area cannot be considered under the proposed ordinance. The only stealth design that appears to meet these resultant requirements is a concealed evergreen tree design ("mono -pine"), which, we understand from previous discussions with Staff, is likely not appropriate for most parts of Yakima because of a lack of sufficient evergreen tree density. Effectively, this means carriers face the threat of having sites denied simply because the code requires designs that are not appropriate, workable, or achievable in most of Yakima. Accordingly, these requirements should be removed. • §15.29.110.B: While we generally support the concept of having wireless -specific variance criteria, this provision only applies to the height of the facility, and not design requirements that may not be possible to meet (as noted above). We recommend that the criteria be rewritten to allow for non -height related design variances. In addition, we suggest the design criteria be rewritten to provide administrative "relief valves" to allow for more flexibility and reduce the need for variances. 22525 SE 64th Place, Suite 288 Issaquah, WA 98627 425:458.3946 7.66.219.6717 www.WirelessCounseLcorn 11111191Il11111uiiijiiiiiipiipiiiup!iuIIIIIIII�lII�II1'1'1up�d��CI(V1�9V�1� 11111111011 BuscH11 ,4„1„,,v PLLc Compliance with Federal Law: In addition to concerns about the ordinance's compliance with the Telecommunications Act, we are concerned that the process for streamlining reviews for co -locations and upgrades to existing sites under Section 6409 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 is unnecessarily complex and conflict with the FCC Shot Clocks. Where most jurisdictions have exempted minor modifications and upgrades altogether, so only a building permit is required, the draft imposes a pre -application meeting (§15.29.120.A), a 45 - day "determination process” (§15.29.120.C.1), and a 90 -day approval process (§15.29.120.C.2) that, in aggregate, violate the FCC Shot Clock. Further, under Section 6409 no jurisdiction can deny these proposals. We recommend that the proposed ordinance (§15.29.120) be modified to incorporate the time limits associated with the FCC Shot Clock for all permit types and procedures. Utility Poles and Small Cell Installations: We are concerned that the latest draft of the ordinance omits utility poles as a siting option. Co - locating facilities on utility poles can be a viable, relatively low impact option under certain conditions. We suggest that the utility pole provisions be re-inserted and modified to allow for adequate separation required by the electrical codes and the pole owners. We are also concerned that small cells have been removed from the latest draft of the ordinance. Small cells differ from regular sites in many important respects — they tend to be much smaller than regular sites, have far less visual impacts than regular sites, have much smaller range, are deployed in bulk on existing structures, including utility poles, buildings, light poles, etc. As noted in previous drafts, small cells do not obviate the need for regular facilities, but are needed to provide additional capacity or "spot" coverage. We recommend that a provision be added to the draft ordinance that allows the City to approve a network of small cells at multiple locations through an administrative process. We understand that the language proposed in previous drafts was removed with the intent to doing a separate ordinance in the future. However, given the busy work calendar of the City, we don't believe that fixing this omission in the short term is realistic. Accordingly, we request that these issues be addressed in the proposed ordinance. Miscellaneous Comments: The following is a list of suggested design, process, and submittal requirement changes to make the proposed Ordinance more workable and efficient: • The term "cellular" is outdated. We recommend that this term be replaced by "wireless" or "wireless communications facility" which is the title of the Chapter. 1 FCC Declaratory Ruling, FCC 09-099 (November 18, 2009). The Shot Clock imposes presumptively reasonable time limits for reviewing applications — 90 days for co -location applications and 150 days for non -co -location applications. 22525 SE 64th Place, Suite 288 Issaquah, WA 98027 425.58.3940 206.219.6717 www.Wire1essCounsel.com DOC. G.._- 111��`ImmIpp°'I i N IllUllll11'1"'. 911)1 BUSCH 11., ANVI f II1,.,' ;°k LLc • Existing towers should not be considered "nonconforming uses” (§15.29.010.C). Section 6409 effectively supersedes the City's nonconforming rules to the extent there isn't a "substantial change." • The definition of "co -location" (§15.29.020) should match the FCC definition, which encompasses existing towers, buildings, and other structures, regardless of the number of carriers. • The submittal requirements (§15.29.050.8) require carriers to produce a map showing the location of protected areas that are within a mile of the proposed facility or upgrade to an existing facility. This is not workable or necessary, respectively, because the City has not produced a map for carriers to reference to show where protected areas are located, and additional siting restrictions only apply to proposals that are within 300 feet of a protected area. • §15.29.050.0 appears to require unlimited notice at the discretion of the City at the expense of the applicant. This is not required for any other type of development or applicant within the City — we request that this requirement be modified to be more reasonable. • We request that the height limit for Downtown Commercial, Professional Office, and all residential (including multifamily) zones (§15.29.070.2) be at least 75 feet. Sixty feet is too short to allow for reasonable coverage in most areas and categorically too short to provide co -location opportunities. We appreciate this opportunity to comment on the proposed Ordinance. Please let us know if you have any questions or if we can be of assistance in reviewing any proposed changes. Sincerely, Ken Lyons Jurisdictional Relations Director, PNW, LTE cc: Mark Kunkler, City of Yakima, Senior Assistant City Attorney Carol Tagayun, AT&T, Director, External Affairs - Washington File 22525 SE 64th Place, Suite 288 Issaquah, WA 58027 425.458.3940 206,259.6717 www.WirelessCounsel.com Da 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) mikeconnors(rhkcllp.com RECEIVED OCT 2 8 2013 MY OF YAK PLANNING IMA Div 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 community.' We believe some 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 are additional changes necessary to strike the right balance and promote the objective of facilitating the development of a wireless communications infrastructure sufficient to serve the City's wireless needs, as well as insure that the Proposed Ordinance is fully consistent with the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and other applicable federal law. We identified the most significant concerns with the Proposed Ordinance below and recommended proposed changes where appropriate. Section 15.29.010(A)(1). October 22, 2013 Page 2 SPECIFIC COMMENTS 1. The Proposed Ordinance should broaden the opportunities for co -locating antennas on all existing structures, not just towers. Although the Proposed Ordinance provides incentives for co -locating antennas, it restricts co - location to existing towers.2 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 are required to be located and designed to minimize any significant adverse impact on residential property values and be placed in locations where the existing topography, vegetation, buildings, or other structures provide the greatest amount of camouflage.4 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). 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). October 22, 2013 Page 3 should be 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 be subject to these restrictions. The Proposed Ordinance should not list specific areas as protected areas if they do not meet the definition. The Proposed Ordinance includes the entire Barge -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 and onerous. The requirements to demonstrate that the antenna or tower cannot be located in another zone based solely on physical constraints and technological feasibility (economic feasibility is specifically excluded from consideration), and to contact every owner of a 35 -ft plus buildings within a one-quarter mile of the site and demonstrate they refused to lease space, are too onerous and will significantly delay the application process.6 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.8 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 5 Sections 15.29.020 (Definition of "protected areas") and 15.29.045. e Sections 15.29.050(F) and 15.29.050(G). 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). October 22, 2013 Page 4 facilities into another structure such as a flagpole, light pole or faux tree is not always the best means for minimizing the impacts of the facility, and therefore some flexibility should be built into the standards. Photo simulation should not be required for every residential proposal because they are very time consuming and expensive. These standards are so restrictive and onerous that it will be too difficult to site new facilities and in some areas may effectively preclude carriers from providing necessary coverage. 5. The requirement to site new towers in areas surrounded by tall trees is too restrictive. The requirement to place new towers amongst or adjacent to "the drip line of three or more evergreen trees at least seventy five percent of the height of the facility" is too restrictive.9 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.1) The balloon test requirement should be deleted.' 1 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:2 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.13 This information is unnecessary for the City to evaluate a proposal for a single site and would be overly burdensome to produce for every application. More importantly, this 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. `' Section 15.29.090(8)(9). 1° Section 15.29.070. " Section 15.29.070(1)). 2 Section 15.29.070(E) 13 Section 15.29.070(M). October 22, 2013 Page 5 7. The design criteria are still too vague and excessive. Although the City agreed to certain changes to the design criteria, there are still several problems.t4 The antenna and tower height requirements are problematic.15 Tower and antenna heights in residential, Downtown Commercial and Professional Office zones should be at least 75 feet since 60 feet is too short. A carrier should not be required to demonstrate that the height of an antenna is the minimum height necessary, especially when proposed on existing towers or structures. Such antennas should not be required to undergo this requirement provided they do not exceed the height of the existing tower or structure. New towers should not be required to demonstrate they are the minimum height in higher priority areas, such as commercial and industrial zones, especially when they are within the height restrictions of the applicable zones. It is our experience that demonstrating that an antenna or tower is the 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. t6 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.17 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 on roof mounted antennas for buildings 30 feet or less are too great and will discourage the use of existing structures which often times require use of the roof to provide for sufficient height.'9 S. The application fees and costs must be reasonable. The Proposed Ordinance allows the City to hire a material at the applicant's sole expense without Ordinance should include a cap on these fees and at The application fee amount in Section 15.29.170 reasonable application fee. 14 Section 15.29.070. 15 Sections 15.29.040(a) and 15.29.090(B)(3). 16 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)(I0)(h). 20 Section 15.29.130. third party expert to review the application any limit on the costs.20 The Proposed least require that they be reasonable. is still blank. It should be filled in with a 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 vague and open-ended» This provision is unnecessary and should be deleted because the City already provides for recovery of costs associated with the use of public property in the form of application fees, 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 with this requirement. CONCLUSION We appreciate your incorporation of previous comments and consideration of these additional comments. If the City takes these comments seriously and ensures an adequate opportunity to address these issues during the public process, we firmly believe that the City can strike a better balance between providing wireless communication services throughout the City and minimizing potential adverse impacts on the community. Very truly yours, HATHAWAY KOBACK CONNORS LLP E. Michael Connors EMC/df cc: Heather Campbell, Verizon Wireless Peter Mauro, Verizon Wireless Ed McGah, Verizon Wireless 21 Section 15.29.060(B)(6). 22 FCC Declaratory Ruling FCC 09-099 (November 18, 2009). 23 City of Arlington v. FCC, 133 S. Ct. 1863 (2013). atsct August 20, 2013 Mayor Micah Cawley City of Yakima 129 North 2'd Street Yakima, WA 98901 Carol Tagayun AT&T T: 425.580.4694 Director 16631 NE 72nd Way F: 425.580.8652 External Affairs Room 11738 carol.tagayun@att.com Redmond, WA 98052 www.att.com RE: Proposed Amendment to Yakima's Zoning Ordinance for Wireless CeII 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. While 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 and colocation opportunities for individual sites. As a result, the tradeoff with employing "stealth" is generally that more cell 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. • Extension of the moratorium: While 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&T, we look forward to continuing to provide customers in Yakima coverage, reliable service and access to the latest and fastest network technology. ^.+Irne°ti v v� Nrtr� '.t t saw, DOM INDEX at&t Sincerely, CAAA-640‘61 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 Sarah Bristol, Council Rich Ensey, Council Bill Lover, Council Maureen Adkinson, Asst. Mayor Kathy Coffey, Council Dave EttI, Council i- ,. R ,,.' IG",w4r Sµernxum r d' mu, IW 1,4. ip Cprrmq„rr4 Team RECEIVED AUG 202013 CITY .ANNING DIY DOC lbarra, Rosalinda From: lbarra, Rosalinda Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 1:43 PM To: Al Rose; Alfred A. Rose (silvrfx40@bmi.net); Benjamin W. Shovel (ben.shoval@shoval.com); Dave Fonfara; Ensey, Rick; lbarra, Rosalinda; Kunkler, Mark; Paul Stelzer; Ron Anderson (rondedicatedrealty@hotmail.com); Scott Clark (scott.clark@charter.net); William Cook (cook.w@charter.net) Subject: 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. R.os .11l:ia:t.::u t.harr°rt.. Adrain i tra:fiive Assistant rosalirarlOdbarrati +rid i tutivsi,znv (509) 575-61 83 From: Ralph [mailto:ralphcall@charter.net] Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2013 11:32 AM To: Peters, Jeff Cc: Walt Ranta Subject: CeII tower regulation comments to be forwarded to planning commission Dear Jeff - Here are the items BCNA feels must be changed. A. Balloon test — reinstate language of first draft. Tower will be there for 20 plus years — need good test. B. Camouflage delete "that is not technologically or commercially impracticable". There is no clear definition of these terms. C. Commercial impracticability — "reasonable in commerce" is so vague as to be meaningless. Section 15.29.040 — D. 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 30 feet" - 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. 1 DOC. INDEX 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 Delete "Technologically or commercially impracticable" Too vague - who determines? The courts? B. 11 f. Delete "to the extent feasible" vague — leave original statement 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 possible co -location." There must be a maximum size stated. Section 15.29.140 B. 1. e. Remove "reasonable and commercially practicable" —vague language, invites lawsuits. 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 need to make sure they don't go down a path that is bad for the city. Ralph Call 2608 W. Chestnut Ave. ph 509-453-8150 2 C. From: Ken Lyons{mailto:ken.lyons@wirelesscounsel.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 12:26 PM To: Kunkler, Mark Cc: Osguthorpe, Steve; TAGAYUN, CAROL; BASS, ROBERT; Cutter, Jeff; Peters, Jeff; Mike Connors Subject: Yakima Wireless Code - AT&T Comments Good morning 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: o 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. I 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 certain designs that the City deems as acceptable up front. o Utility poles: I suggest changing the priority for "small cell" sites to "utility pole" sites in general. Most "small cell" 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 in residential zones: • As discussed in the hearing last week, I believe that many of the "stealth" options available to carriers are not appropriate for the context/climate of Yakima. However, 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. Accordingly, if the City want trees, flagpoles, light poles in residential zones, they should incentivize them 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 them 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 of camouflage is acceptable until the final decision Illllmlllllllllllllllllllllllll from the Hearings Examiner ismade, regardless of the opinion/recomrnendatjon of staff. = I suggest changing the code language such that more extensive "camouflage" designs (stealth trees, flagpoles, light poles, etc.) in residential zones would only require administrative permits. It is important to note that public notke 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 unchanged — a CUP would required for all site desigris. ° 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 not otherwise require zoning permits at all. Accordingly, suggested limiting the variance for substantial changes in height only (>20' above an existing tower). o Height —|suQgest increasing the base height in residential/downtown zones to75'. GO' is too low to provide for collocation (the second carrier on the tower would be at the 45' We appreciate your consideration of these changes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best regards, Ken Lyons Jurisdictional Relations Director, AmN/ Busch Law Firm PLLC (2O6)ZZ7'OUZOmobile (425) 483-1070 fax kon]yons@wire|esscounseicom Ibarra, Rosalinda From: CDMaxMD@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 2:47 PM To: Osguthorpe, Steve Cc: Peters, Jeff Subject: (no subject) Steve Osguthorpe, AICP Community Development Manager City of Yakima, Department of Community Development Hi 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" Commercially 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 B. 1. e, Delete 15.29.230 Relief, Wavier,,, Exemption Delete 1 July 17, 2013 Hathaway Koback Connors up VIA EMAIL & U.S. MAIL Steve Osguthorpe. Community Development Manager Department of Community- Development City of Yakima 129 North 2nd Street Yakima. Washington 989() l Re: Proposed Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance Chapter 15.29 of the Urban Area Zoning Ordinance Verizon Wireless - Written Comments Dear Mr. Osguthorpe: E. Michael Connors 520 SW Yamhill St. Suite 235 Portland, OR 97204 503-205-8401 (Dir) 503-205-8406 (Fax) mikeconnors( hkcllp corn RD JUL may, oF 192013 PLA jADiiteA Dill, 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 infrastructure 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 1 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 are 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. We 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 1. 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 (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 2 Section 15.29.040(A). 3 Section 15.29.070(F). 4 Sections 15.29.040(a) and 15.29.090(B)(3). RECEIVED JULY 9 2013 CITY OF YAKIMA DOC. PLANNING DIV. INDEX July 17, 2013 Page 3 reference to the desire to encourage locating antennas on all types of existing structures, many of the substantive provisions reference only collocation on existing towers. 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 Iocal 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,8 it would be more appropriate to include this statement in the section that specifically addresses the public property where wireless facilities can be located. FC&Ito 3. The standards for new towers are too restrictive, subjective and onerous. JUL CITY 9 2413 While Verizon Wireless understands the City's desire to discourage new towers, there will l y'�X1 4174 some instances where a new tower is the only means for providing wireless service to a N1Nt o, f. particular area. Several standards for new towers are so restrictive and onerous that it will be too s Section 15.29.060(B). 6 The sole exception is the waiver of the setback requirement under Section 15.29.090(B)(2). 7 Section 15.29.060. s 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 permitted 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 them 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) alI 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 types 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). to Section 15.29.040(A). 11 Section 15.29.040(C). RECEIVED JUL 1 9 2013 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIY. INDEX #.e -(o 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 implementing 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 are 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 the 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," 3 but there is no mention of new towers in these zones. This provision should be clarified. 12 Sections 15.29.040 through 15.29.060. 1' Section 15.29.050(A). RECEIVED JUL 1 9 2013 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING UIY. 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.14 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, the 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.15 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 are 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 14 Section 15.29.050(C). 15 Section 15.29.060(B)(6). 16 Section 15.29.045. 17 Section 15.29.070. 1g Section 15.29.070(F). RECEIVED JUL 1 9 2013 (XIV OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. 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.20 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). 23 Section 15.29.070. 24 Sections 15.29.040(a) and 15.29.090(B)(3). 23 Section 15.29.080(B)(8). JUL 1 9 2013 CITY OF YAK IWA PLANNING DIV. DOC. 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 limit 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 criteria have several problems.28 All antennas must be "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 Iess 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 the 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 blank. It should be filled in with a reasonable application fee. 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 26 Section 15.29.080(B)(9). 27 Section 15.29.080(B)(10). "a Section 15.29.080(13)(11). 29 Section 15.29.080(13)(12). 3o Section 15.29.130. RECEIVED JUL 1 9 2013 CITY OF YAIUMA PLANNING ON DOC. 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 term 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 are 90 days for collocation applications and 150 days for non -collocation applications.32 The Proposed Ordinance does 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 31 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 CITY 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, HATHAWAY K BACK CONNORS LLP 16 �J E. Michael Connors EMC/df Cc: Heather Campbell, Verizon Wireless Peter Mauro, Verizon Wireless Ed McGah, Verizon Wireless ate July 18, 2013 Carol Tagayun AT&T T: 425.580.4694 Director 16631 NE 72nd Way F: 425.580.8652 External Affairs Room 1173B carol.tagayun@att.com Redmond, WA 98052 www.att.com Steve Osguthorpe Community Development Manager City of Yakima Department of Community Development 129 North 2nd 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 certain 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 Proun pill �.0..*Y.. V:,AllpnnrugpdC 1'�IIIIUIIIi at&t 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 diameter. 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 1.5.29.0901 requirements for screening. BB 7J Num o�w��l„I�r u,rV the VIII uV IOX.p°nnpoc; V4.rvo nm0000mom000wum Peters, Jeff From: Timmerman, Carter <Timmerc@wsdat.wa.gov> Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 3:35 PM To: Peters, Jeff Subject: SEPA#011-13: Wireless Communications 15.29 draft Hi Jeff, I just want to follow up on the message l 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 15.30 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 15.29.070 (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, • Washington State Department of Transportation Aviation Minton a Steward for Washington's Aviation System" Carter Timmerman Aviation Planner / GIS Analyst Tumwater, WA 360.709.8019 ",vrmninn mimnnni onnnnnninii mmmnnnnnn0000nm000w Steve Osguthorpe, AICP Community Development Manager City of Yakima, Department of Community Development 129 N. 2"d Street Yakima, WA 98901 RE: Chapter 1529, Wireless Communication Facilities - Draft Dear Mr. Osguthorpe, July 9, 2013 CITY OF YAKIMA 00DE ADMIN. DIVISION UL 1 12013 EC'VD FAXED❑ ❑PAID FYI ❑ 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. 1 hold the opinion that cell towers are intrinsically incompatible within residential areas, 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 established 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 least 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. DOC. INDC�pC 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. 1 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 reljwahl@msn.com nom+....� IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII118. Nancy Adele Kenmotsu, 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: I write to you both as a member of the Yakima Historic Preservation Commission 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 example, the cell tower proposed at the southwest comer of 16t 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 at&t May 16, 2013 Yakima City Council c/o Mayor Micah Cawley City of Yakima 129 N. 2"d Street Yakima, WA 98901 VIA EMAIL AND FIRST CLASS MAIL Bob Bass AT&T Services, inc. T: 425-580-5836 President 16331 NE 72'4 Way M: 425-786-8816 External Affairs, WA •.m 1217C robert.bassOatt.com Redmond, WA 90052 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 1 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.com/Ken/press- room?pid=23878 G ,��� � fiu�inri.i�wirui 116ppnro�'11�9� n w" 111110 III/ &. INrril^Iva, r'eor 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 8,00096.3 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. 11111111 111111111111111115115 ��� 0�DIIS''" 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, abf 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 0,:„ � 1101,,,,K:11!'!1,9)001'ye Oil M',l"vu I„ s, n u°:W9yu'nio,Yim, ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT — CHAPTER 15.29 WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES TXT#002-13, SEPA#011-13 EXHIBIT LIST D-1 D-2 D-3 D-4 D-5 D-6 D-7 CHAPTER D Public Notices iii'///%% %////%////'%/ mo ,,, % err r / /iii/%////� ii .. ,,,,,/,,,�ioi//,%/ .:.,,,,,ter//%/ /�/i �'�/ � /�! Notice of Application, Environmental Review, and Public Hearing D -la: Legal Notice and Press Release D -lb: Parties and Agencies Notified D -lc: Affidavit of Mailing Documentation from Dept. of Commerce RE: Receipt of Intent to Adopt Determination of Non -Significance/ Notice of Retention D -3a: Parties and Agencies Notified D -3b: Affidavit of Mailing Letter of Transmittal to City Clerk: City Council Hearing (Mailing Labels to City Clerk) Letter of Transmittal to City Clerk: Set Date for City Council Public Hearing to Extend Moratorium (Mailing Labels to City Clerk) D -6a: D -6b: D -6c: Notice of YPC Public Hearing Legal Notice and Press Release Parties and Agencies Notified Affidavit of Mailing Letter of Transmittal to City Clerk: Set Date for City Council Public Hearing (Mailing Labels to City Clerk) 06/27/2013 07/02/2013 07/19/2013 08/14/2013 08/22/2013 10/10/2013 10/16/2013 CITY OF YAKIMA, PLANNING DIVISION LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 1, Rosalinda Ibarra, 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: 1. Mailing labels for ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT - COMMUNICATION TOWERS (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. _b aA .1../\_ R•s.linda Ibarra Community Development Administrative Assistant Received By: Date: /07(0 Rod Michaelis Verizon Wireless 1411 E Pinecrest Rd Spokane, WA 99203 rmichaelis@prolandlic.com Ralph Call Barge -Chestnut 2608 W Chestnut Ave Yakima, WA 98902 ralphcall©chartennet Don Blenker T -Mobile Don.blenke Dblenke59© -rnobile.com loom Ken Lyons AT&T 17533 47th Ave NE Lake Forest Park, WA 98155 ken.lyons@wirelesscoun.sel.corn Stephen Meadows Sprint 10545 Willows Rd NE Redmond, WA 98052 stephen@quantumcontractingnw.co Carol Tagayun AT&T 11324 182nd P1 NE Redmond, WA 98052 Ct1417@att.com Walt Ranta Barge -Chestnut 5 S 32nd Avenue Yakima, WA 98902 teachemup@charter.net Maria Emig T -Mobile Maria.erriig@t-mobile.com Nancy Kenmotsu Geo -Marine, Inc. nkenmotsu@geo-marine.corn Paul Nagle -McNaughton 211 5 24th Ave Yakima, WA 98902 pa • c:ri@: .com Michael Connors Hathaway, Mark, & Connors LLP 520 SW Yamhill Street, Ste#235 Portland, OR 97204 rnikeconnors@hkcilp.com Bill Duerr 3206 W Yakima Ave Yakima, WA 98902 wr_duerr@ho !is .com Rod DeLaRosa T -Mobile Rod.delarosal@t-mobile.com Leslie Wahl 2403 W. Yakima Ave Yakima, WA 98902 reljwahll)msn.com H.D. McDonald 16 N 16th Ave Yakima, WA 98902 Artice Riehl 1701 W Yakima Ave Yakima, WA 98902 Mike Davison 1716 W Yakima Ave Yakima, WA 98902 c' . xmd@aol.com Dana Dwinell 1809 W Chestnut Ave Yakima, WA 98902 Susan LaRiviere 8 N 36th Ave Yakima, WA 98902 Scott Clark 7506 Barge Court Yakima, WA 98908 Scott.dark@charter.net Dave Fonfara 8708 Cameo Court Yakima, WA 98903 dpfonfara@q.com Benjamin Shoval 123 E Yakima Ave #210 Yakima, WA 98901 Ben.shovaleshoval.com Alfred Rose 1006 Westbrook Place Yakima, WA 98908 Silvrfx40@bmi.net William Cook 7701 Graystone Court Yakima, WA 98908 Cook. €charter.net Odour) pUbAC. 7--x7-4t0o - /3 /op 5/73 Paul Stelzer 6402 Scenic Drive Yakima, WA 98908 pstelzer@neilwalter.com INDEX 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. 2nd Street, Yakima, WA. 98901"; or, 2) E-mail your comments to ccouncil@a 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 16`" day of October, 2013. Sonya Claar Tee City Clerk 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 Attorney 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: Improve the Built Environment RECOMMENDATION: 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 Page 1 of 1 Tuesday, October 15, 2013 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON CITY OF YAKIMA RE: TXT#002-13 City of Yakima Text Amendment - 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 . re111111111111111111111E Rod, Michaelis Verizon Wireless 1411 E Pinecrest Rd Spokane, WA 99203 rmichaelis(prolanclilc.com Ralph Call large -Chestnut 2608 W Chestnut Ave Yakima, WA 98902 ralphcall@charter.net Stephen Meadows •Sprint 10545 Willows Rd NE Redmond, WA 98052 stephen*uaniumcontractingnw.com Don Bleaker T -Mobile Don.blenkerat-mobile.corn Dblenke59agmail.corri Ken Lyons AT&T 17533 47th Ave NE Lake Forest Park, WA 98155 ken.lyons@wireEesscounsel.com Walt Ranta Barge -Chestnut 5 S 32nd Avenue Yakima, WA 98902 teache u charternet Maria Emig T -Mobile Maria.emi, t- obide.com Carol Tagayun AT&T 11324 182nd PINE Redmond, WA 98052 Ct 14 17@att.com Rod DeLaRosa T -Mobile Rod.delarosal bi e.com Nancy Kenmotsu Geo -Marine, Inc. flcnmotsugeO-H1al1necon Michael Connors Hathaway, Mark, & Connors LLP 520 SW Yamhill Street, Ste#235 Portland, OR 97204 mikeconnorsa,hkcIlp.com Leslie Wahl 2403 W. Yakima Ave Yakima, WA 98902 reljwahl(0,msn,com Paul Nagle -McNaughton 211 S 24th Ave Yakima, WA 98902 paulnmcn Bill Duerr 3206 W Yakima Ave Yakima, WA 98902 wr duerrl hotmaiLcorn HD. McDonald 16 N 16th Ave Yakima, WA 98902 Artice Riehl 1701 W Yakima Ave Yakima, WA 98902 Mike Davison 1716 W Yakima Ave Yakima, WA 98902 cdmaxmd@aoLcom 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 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: 0 1 I 0 1 3 •0 INDEX Name Debbie Cook Dana Kallevig Dan Riddle Mark K er Jeff Cutter Archie Matthews Mark Soptich Jerry Robertson Royale Schneider Glenn Denman Suzanne DeBusschere Dave Brown In -House Distribution Division Engineering Engineering Engineering Legal Dept Legal Dept ONDS Fire Dept Code Administration Code Administration Code Administration Code Administration Water/Irrigation E-mail List E-mail Address Debbie.cook@yakimawa.gov dana.kalleviggyakimawa.gov dari.riddle@yakimawa.gov Mark.kunkleryakimawa.gov jeff.cutter(&,yakimawa.gov archie.matthews(&,vakimawa.gov mark. soptichayakimawa. gov jerry.robertson(&,yakimawa.gov royale.schneiderAyakimawa. gov glenn.denman@yakimawa.gov Suzanne.debussehere(&,yakimawa.gov dave.brownyakimawa.gov Mike Shane Carolyn Belles Shelley Willson Scott Schafer J es Dean James Scott Kevin Futrell Steve Osguthorpe For the Record/File Binder Copy Water/Irrigation Wastewater Wastewater Public Works Dept Utilities Refuse Division Transit Division Community Development Type of Notice: mike.shane@yakimawa.gov earolyn.bellesyakimawa.gov Shelley.willson@yakimawa.gov scottschaferayakimawa.gov James.dean@yakimawa.gov James.scott@yakimawa.gov kevin.futrelE(&,yakimawa.gov steve.osguthorpea akimawa.gov pi( ‘4 LC &qc File Number(s): X1-4-00 -/ 3 Date of Mailing: Revised 07/2013 icjio/13 Ibarra, Rosalinda From: Ibarra, Rosalinda Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 3:48 PM To: 'rmichaelis@prolandlIc.com',;,'Ralph Call';'stephen@quantumcontractingnw.com'; 'Don.blenker@t-mobile.com',; 'Dblenke59@gmail.com'; 'ken.lyons@wirelesscounsel.com; 'ct1417@att.com'; 'Walt Ranta'; 'Maria.emig@t-mobile.com'; 'Rod.delarosal @t-mobile.com'; 'nkenmotsu@geo-marine.com'; 'Mike Connors'; 'reljwahl@msn.com'; 'paulnmcn@gmail.com'; 'wr duerr@hotmail.com'; 'cdmaxmd@aol.com' Cc: Beehler, Randy; Al Rose; Alfred A. Rose (silvrfx40@bmi.net); Benjamin W. Shoval (ben.shoval@shoval.com); Dave Fonfara; Ensey, Rick; Ibarra, Rosalinda; Kunkler, Mark; Paul Stelzer; Scott Clark (scott.clark@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 Community Development Administrative Assistant rosalinda.ibarra(a vakinuma.r.tov City of Yakima Planning Division 129 North 2nd Street, Yakima WA 98901 p: (509) 575-6183 f: (509) 575-6105 1 # D Ibarra, Rosalinda From: Simon Sizer [ssizer@yakimaherald.com] Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 5:10 PM To: Ibarra, Rosalinda Subject: Re: 10-23-2013 Legal Notice: YPC Communication Towers Public Hearing Notice Attachments: IBARRA-16-369869-1.pdf I've scheduled this legal notice for 10/9, for a cost of $81.08. On 10/7/13 4:04 PM, "Ibarra, Rosalinda"<U ; alVunlda.ibarra@yakumav0,a,jrr,ov> wrote: Simon, please publish only once on Wednesday October 9, 2013. Send affidavit of publication and invoice to: Account 11002 City of Yakima, Planning Division 129 North 2nd Street, Yakima, WA 98901 Rosalinda Ibarra Community Development Administrative Assistant irosaliiInda„iIbarra /yakimawa,,gov City of Yakima 1 Planning Division <httur://wvofw,t.valkimawa,dgov/services/iplann > 129 North 2nd Street, Yakima WA 98901 p: (509) 575-6183 * f: (509) 575-6105 Simon Sizer 1 Legal & Obituary Clerk Yakima Herald -Republic 114 North 4th Street, Yakima, WA 98901 Phone: (509) 577-7740 1 Fax: (509) 577-7766 www..+ akinna-herald. om Reaching 73% of Yakima County adults every week in print and online 2012 Scarborough Report Yakima/Pasco/Richland/Kennewick R2, (Fall 2011 - Fall 2012) Yal CITY OF YAKIMA NOTICE OF FINAL PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN DRAFT AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF YAKIMA'S TITLE 15 URBAN AREA ZONING ORDINANCE. PERTAINING TO REGULATIONOF COMMUNICATION TOWERS 114)1FICE°. ;Ns tilFfittiN GWEN Oily Yakima Planning Own- miw3lon wilts ln$ideo,�rlrh 11to i'thwww1:10 .CO .. M YEklrrre” 'row 1kUrban Area Zonwig -OrclinornM n eitaininllrip tllA iif9wil 4 horn Ontn . grOnalk M The final °Planning Com- mission public hearing will be held on, Wednes- day, October 23, 2013 at 3:30 pm., or soon thereafter, in the Council Chambers at Yakima City Hall, 129 N. 2nd Street.' Yakima, Washington. Any citizen wishing to comment on the plan is welcome to attend the public hearing or contact the City of Yakima Plan- ning Division at: 1) Send a letter via regu- lar mail to "City of Yakima Planning Division, /29 N. 2nd Street, Yakima, WA 98901", or, 2) E-mail your com- ments id askplanning@ yakimawa.gov. Include in the e-mail subject line, "Communication Tow - era" Please also include your ,name and mailing address. DATED this 'g'ih daffy' AIP' October, 2013. Ihh u' s trbb0o'1'), 20t+Y DOC. INDEX M A da ly part of your life 1 '10 yakima-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. Dine: 10/07/13 Account it: (Amman) Name: PLANNING 110358 CITY OF YAKIMA/YAKIMA Contact: ROSALINDA II3ARRA Address: DEPT OF COIV1M/ECON DEVELOPEMENT 129 N 2N1) STREET YAKIMA. WA 98901-2720 Ad ID: 369869 Start: 10/09/13 Stop: 10/09/13 C'ost.: $81.08 Agate Lines: 80 0 of Inserts: 2 Ad Class: 6021 Account Rep: Simon Sizer Phone # (509) 577-7740 Email: ssizerti,yakimaberald.com 1 Run Dates: Yakima 1 lerald-Republic 10/(19/13 Yakimallerald.com 1(1/09/13 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 OF COMMUNICATION TOWERS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Yakima Planning Com- mission will consider an amendment to the City of Yakima's Title 15 Urban Area Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the regula- tion of Communication Towers. The final Planning Corn - mission public hearing will be held on Wednes- day. October 23, 2013 at 3:30 p.m. or soon thereafter, in the Council Chambers at Yakima City Hall, 129 N. 2nd Street, Yakima, Washington, Any citizen wishing lo comment on the plan is welcome to attend the public hearing or contact the City or Yakima Plan- ning Division al: 1) Send a letter via regu- lar mail to "City of Yakima Planning Division, 129 N. 2nd Street, Yakima, WA 98901'1 or, 2) E-mail your com- ments to askplanning6 yakirnavva.gov. Include in the e-mail subject line, 'Vommunication Tow- ers." Please also Include your name and mailing address. DATED this 9th day of October, 2013. (369869) October 9, 2013 INDEX la ;ring Divivion 129 hone th (50.9) 575-6183 ^ gad �r � Fax �ufa4 ��d° ma, f'r �attw; to 98'.91' OS k.171 ll.g( ^: aa6�aa�a����i"' ai ,.N Y'IP°fl��,V„g Pvali"' „.,V1i4,11111v y aA'la= ns.P1«N'�1,„'�.'�"ervices4pla h�f��µ'��/� 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. 2nd 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@yakimawa.gov. Include in the e-mail subject line, "Communication Towers." Please also include your name and mailing address. DATED this 9th day of October, 2013. CITY OF YAKIMA, PLANNING DIVISION LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL I, Rosalinda Ibarra, 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: 1. Mailing labels for ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT - COMMUNICATION TOWERS (TXT#002-13, SEPA#011-13); including all labels for agencies and parties of record. Signed this 22nd day of August, 2013. b a�, Rola 'inda Ibarra Community Development Administrative Assistant Received ;1111110,11/ I Date: *► Rod Michaelis • Verizon Wireless 1411 E Pinecrest Rd Spokane, WA 99203 rrnichaelis@prolandIlc.com Ralph Call Barge -Chestnut 2608 W Chestnut Ave Yakima, WA 98902 ralphcall@chartennet Don Blenker T -Mobile Don])tanker t-mobile.com Dblenke59agmail.com Ken Lyons AT&T 17533 47th Ave NE Lake Forest Park, WA 98155 kert.iyonsAwirelesscounsel.com Stephen Meadows Sprint 10545 Willows Rd NE Redmond, WA 98052 stephena,quantumcontractingnw.com Carol Tagayun AT&T 11324 182nd PINE Redmond, WA 98052 Ct1417@att.com Walt Ranta Barge -Chestnut 5 S 32nd Avenue Yakima, WA 98902 teachemup@charter.net Nancy Kenmotsu Geo -Marine, Inc. nkenmotsu@geo-marine.com Maria Emig T -Mobile Maria.emig@t-mobile.com Michael Connors Hathaway, Mark, & Connors LLP 520 SW Yamhill Street, Ste#235 Portland, OR 97204 mikeconnors@hkellp.com Rod DeLaRosa T -Mobile Rod.delarosal (t-mobilec Leslie Wahl 2403 W. Yakima Ave Yakima, WA 98902 reljwahl@msn.com Paul Nagle -McNaughton 211 S 24th Ave Yakima, WA 98902 paulnmcn@gmail.com Artice Riehl 1701 W Yakima Ave Yakima, WA 98902 Bill Duerr 3206 W Yakima Ave Yakima, WA 98902 wr duerre,hotmail.com Mike Davison 1716 W Yakima Ave Yakima, WA 98902 cdmaxmd aoLcorn H.D. McDonald 16N 16th Ave Yakima, WA 98902 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 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 cV C DOC. DNDEX Ahtanum Irrigation District Beth Ann Brulotte Executive Assistant bethbahtanum.net Department of Ecology Annie Szvetecz SEPA Policy Lead s epaun iecywagpv Cascade Natural Gas Jim Robinson Field Facilitator Jim.robinson@cng,c.com Department of Fish and Wildlife Eric Bartrand Eric.Bartrandgdfw,wa.gov Department of Commerce Growth Management Services reviewtearn@corrimerce.wa.gov Department of Natural Resources Linda Hazlett Assistant Land Manager Linda.hazlett@dnr.wa.gov Department of Social & Health Services Andrew Jenkins andrewjenkins@dshs.wa.gov Jeanne Rodriguez Jeanne.rodriguez ishs.wa.gov Dept of Archaeology & Historic Preservation Greg Griffith Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer Greg.griflith # &h. a.gov Dept of Archaeology & Historic Preservation Gretchen Kaehler Local Government Archaeologist Gretchen.Kaehler@daho.wa.gov. Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council - EFSEC Stephen Posner SEPA Officer sposner outc.wa,gov Office of Rural and Farm Worker Housing Marty Miller M m2Aorib,clrg West Valley School District Angela Watts Asst. Supt. Of Business & Operations wattsaawysd208,org Yakama Bureau of Indian Affairs Bud Robbins Superintendent Bud.robbins@bia.gov Yakama Nation Environmental Management Program Kristina Proszek Environmental Review Coordinator enviroreviewRyakama.com Yakima County Commissioners Cormnissioners.welaco. akirna. a.us Engineering Division Debbie Cook Debble.cook akirnawa.goy Dana Kallevig Dana.kalledrnawa.gov U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch Karen Urelius Project Manager Karen.M.Urelius@usace.arrny.mil WSDOT Paul Gonseth Planning Engineer gonsetiQwsdot.gov Yakama Bureau of Indian Affairs Steve Wangemann Deputy Superintendent for Trust Services Steve.wanemannjgov Yakama-Klickitat Fisheries Project John Marvin imarvinQyakama.com Yakima County Health District yliclfgyakima wads Nob Hill Water Association Eric Rhoads ericnobhilIwater.og Wastewater Division Shelley Willson, Acting Wastewater Manager Shelley.willsoravakimawa,gov WSDOT Rick Holmstrom Development Services holrnstria)wsdotwa. go v Yakama Bureau of Indian Affairs Rocco Clark Environmental Coordinator Rocco.clark Yakima Air Terminal Carl Remmel Airport Asst Manager Carl.remmelpyakimaairterm inal.com Yakima County Public Services Steven Erickson Planning Director Steven.Erickson@co.yakimama.us Yakima County Public Services Vern Redifer Public Services Director Vern sedifer@co ,yak i ma. wa, us Yakima Regional Clean Air Agency Hasan Tahat Engineering & Planning Supervisor hasan@yrcaa.org Yakima Greenway Foundation Al Brown Executive Director al(@,vakimaureenway.org DOC. INDEX Yakima Valley Conference of Governments Shawn Conrad Planner conrads%#vco R.Org Yakima Health District Gordon Kelly Director of Environmental Health ordon.kelly@co.yakirna.wa,us Yakima Valley Museum John A. Baule Director johnRyakimavalleymuseum.org Manager Century Link 8 South 2nd Ave, Rm#304 Yakima, WA 98902 Chamber of Commerce 10 North 9th Street Yakima, WA 98901 Kevin Chilcote Charter Communications 1005 North 16th Ave Yakima, WA 98902 David Spurlock City of Union Gap P.O. Box 3008 Union Gap, WA 98903 Mark Teske Department of Fish & WiIdlife 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 Robert Smoot Yakima Valley Canal Co 1640 Garretson Lane Yakima, WA 98908 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 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# 1500 Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Ruth Jim Yakama Indian Nation P.O. Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 Scott Robertson Yakima Waste Systems 2812 Terrace Heights Dr Yakima, WA 98901 Gwen Clear Department of Ecology 15 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 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 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 11apollo\shared1PlanninglAssignments-Planning\LABELS and FORMSISEPA REVIEWING AGENCIES _updated 08.14.13 - Form List.docx Type of Notice: File Number: Date of qI3 )3 Doc, INDEX #D 5 BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YAKIMA, WASHINGTON AGENDA STATEMENT nn nnuuouomuuuuwumumumwuuuM1i 01-IDuiuimwwuwmmimmuwuummuuuuuuu VIN'MbD4S4 Mb 11119 11i1.1!„„d hWI1„11M'd WM111111N V 1.11VIIIVIU i VlitillblIll9 iJ:109AM111tlW e iq lJ'�41l,0„iif Jx„,,,, e4iVl'WR,;,gRI'Rli,4uuaC1PaP nI!1I:1„1,1Vid4l> IVf ITEM TITLE: mu Item No. For Meeting of: 8/20/2013 wummuuuummmmuuuuumuuuuuwwmiuouuouuuunouuwouunoowouuwwrrwnnmuuuuuuuouuuuuuuumiauuuHnnuowuuuuuuuaauuuua 111111, I diWJN SN �@9d�W ��®OW ON R1'1'1M1,1"; 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. INDl 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 2"d 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. 2nd Street, Yakima, WA. 98901'; or, 2) E-mail your comments to ccouncil@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 22"d day of August, 2013. Sonya Claar Tee City Clerk CITY OF YAKIMA, PLANNING DIVISION LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL I, Rosalinda Ibarra, 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: 1. Mailing labels for ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT - COMMUNICATION TOWERS (TXT#002-13, SEPA#011-13); including all labels for agencies and parties of record. Signed this 14th day of August, 2013. -i) Rosalinda Ibarra Community Development Administrative Assistant Received By: Date: V� lI)III51 Scott Clark 7506 Barge Court Yakima, WA 98908 Dave Fonfara 8708 Cameo Court Yakima, WA 98903 Benjamin W. Shoval 123 East Yakima Avenue, Ste#210 Yakima, WA 98901 Alfred A. Rose 1006 Westbrook Place Yakima, WA 98908 Paul Stelzer 6402 Scenic Drive Yakima, WA 98908 William Cook 7701 Graystone Court Yakima, WA 98908 Ron Anderson 202 N 3Td Avenue Yakima, WA 98902 Michael Connors Hathaway, Mark, & Connors LLP 520 SW Yamhill Street, Ste#235 Portland, OR 97204 mikeconnorsAhkcllp.com Rod Michaelis Verizon Wireless 1411 E Pinecrest Rd Spokane, WA 99203 rmichaelis prolandllc.c Ralph Call Barge -Chestnut 2608 W Chestnut Ave Yakima, WA 98902 raiphcall@charter.net Leslie Wahl 2403 W. Yakima Ave Yakima, WA 98902 ceI"ah1::i�msn.com Ken Lyons AT&T 17533 47th Ave NE Lake Forest Place, WA 98155 ken1 ons :,;wirelesscounsel.com Paul Nagle -McNaughton 211 S 24th Ave Yakima, WA 98902 paulnmcnt'u�gmai7.cotr� Bill Duerr 3206 W Yakima Ave Yakima, WA 98902 Mike Davison 1716 W Yakima Ave Yakima, WA 98902 Stephen Meadows Sprint 10545 Willows Rd NE Redmond, WA 98052 stephenna,quantumcontractingnw.conv H.D. McDonald 16 N 16th Ave Yakima, WA 98902 Dana Dwinell 1809 W Chestnut Ave Yakima, WA 98902 Artice Riehl 1701 W Yakima Ave Yakima, WA 98902 Susan LaRiviere 8 N 36th Ave Yakima, WA 98902 Carol Tagayun AT&T Ct 1417eatt.com Walt Ranta Barge -Chestnut tea.ct emup(?i charter.net Maria Emig T -Mobile Maria.emig�7a,t-mohilecom Rod DeLaRosa T -Mobile Rod.delarosa1(,,t-mobile.com Nancy Kenmotsu Geo -Marine, Inc. pkerwmotsta rine.COM Don Blenker T -Mobile Don.blenker@t-mobile.com Dblenke59 mail ont n4c �F 50941,0/1-12i TXT Sl/L1/13 z;(... i L Ahtanum Irrigation District Beth Ann Brulotte Executive Assistant bethb .net Cascade Natural Gas Jim Robinson Field Facilitator Jimrobinson Department of Commerce Growth Management Services reviewtearnes.ommerce.wa.gov Department of Ecology Annie Szvetecz SEPA Policy Lead icpaunit@ecy.wa. gov Department of Fish and Wildlife Eric Bartrand Eric.Bartrand@df,v.vva.gov Department of Natural Resources Linda Hazlett Assistant Land Manager Mnhazleit� &Irma ov Department of Social & Health Services Andrew Jenkins andrew.'enkins dshs. a.ov Jeanne Rodriguez Jeanne.rodriguezadshs.wa.gar Dept of Archaeology & Historic Preservation Greg Griffith Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer Gre, riffithdah,waoy Dept of Archaeology & Historic Preservation Gretchen Kaehler Local Government Archaeologist G etchen.Kaehler@datawa.gov Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council - EFSEC Stephen Posner SEPA Officer sposner a)utc.wa.gov Engineering Division Doug Mayo City Engineer dmayo@ci.yakima.wa.us Dana Kallevig Danakallevi # yakimggov Nob Hill Water Association Eric Rhoads eric@nobhillwatg,ga Office of Rural and Farm Worker Housing Marty Miller orfh.or U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch Karen Urelius Project Manager Karen.M.ilrelius@uwe.army.mil Wastewater Division Scott Schafer Wastewater Manager sschafer akima.wa.us West Valley School District Angela Watts Asst. Supt. Of Business & Operations wattsa@vvvsd208.org WSDOT Paul Gonseth Planning Engineer onset. # wsdotov WSDOT Rick Holmstrom Development Services holmstr sdot.wa. ov Yakama Bureau of Indian Affairs Bud Robbins Superintendent Bud.robbins b'a.!ov Yakama Bureau of Indian Affairs Steve Wangemann Deputy Superintendent for Trust Services Steve.wan emann bia, ov Yakama Bureau of Indian Affairs Rocco Clark Environmental Coordinator Rocco.clark(@bia.gov Yakama Nation Environmental Management Program Kristina Proszek Environmental Review Coordinator enviroreview@vakama.com Yakama-Klickitat Fisheries Project John Marvin jrnarvin@yakama.com Yakima Air Terminal Carl Remmel Airport Asst Manager Carlsernmel alcimaairterminal.com Yakima County Commissioners Commissioners.web@co.yakima.wa.us Yakima County Health District vhd@co.,yakima.wa.us Yakima County Public Services Steven Erickson Planning Director Steven.EricksonQco.yalcima. wa. us Yakima County Public Services Vern Redifer Public Services Director V em redifer@co y a kima wa.us Yakima Regional Clean Air Agency Hasan Tahat Engineering & Planning Supervisor hasan re Yakima Greenway Foundation Al Brown Executive Director alAyakima een a or, Yakima Valley Conference o Shawn Conrad Planner conrads co or INDEX Yakima Health District Gordon Kelly Director of Environmental Health ,,ordonkeli co. akima. a. akima Valley Museum John A. Baule Director john@yakimavaileymuseurn.org Manager Century Link 8 South 2nd Ave, Rm#304 Yakima, WA 98902 Chamber of Commerce 10 North 9th Street Yakima, WA 98901 Kevin Chilcote Charter Communications 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 Cayla 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 Wondercheck Soil Conservation District 1606 Perry Street, Ste. F Yakima, WA 98902 Paul Edmondson Trolleys 313 North 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 79th Avenue, Ste B Tumwater, 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 Hull 470 Camp 4 Rd Yakima, WA 98908 SEPA REVIEWING AGENCIES Form List _updated 03.13.2013 Type of Notice: File Number )L Date of Mailing: le of Nu a -( -#00.)--/ 3 DCC. INDEX r�* 111,11,11,11,11,11111 BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YAKIMA, WASHINGTON AGENDA STATEMENT faM11110,/imallivigtill11,3111=11AIME 111111111 caanixnn ��.�w-m ., �, �.. .. pow ��uu „..ww um w�wwuw uiw 011 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ITEM TITLE: SUBMITTED BY: omoi o nuow01H Hi Item No. For Meeting of: 8/20/2013 11111111111111111111 iuuiuumimui iumumumu 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 Term: 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: Description: E hllemo.Wireless Communication Facilitiies.MORATORIUIM EXTEINSICN„Auq.20.2013.doc Memo to City Council 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@ci.yakima.wa.us. Include in the e-mail subject line, "telecommunication towers." Please also include your name and mailing address. Dated this 7th day of August, 2013. Sonya Claar Tee City Clerk 111111111111111111111 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON CITY OF YAKIMA RE: SEPA#011-13, TXT#002-13 City Planning Division - Cell Tower Text Amendment City wide I, Rosalinda Ibarra, 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 July, 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 Administrative Assistant Ahtanum Irrigation District Beth Ann Brulotte Executive Assistant Pidltaci..0 „Marvin -11.W Cascade Natural Gas Jim Robinson Field Facilitator .1 irn ,robinsorqi_i:cngc.crn L Department of Commerce Growth Management Services rcya e w lq,agra (a commerce „ yva gov Department of Ecology Annie Szvetecz SEPA Policy Lead ec V. war gov Department of Fish and Wildlife Eric Bartrand Eric )3 grin dfiv „ vva „ go v Department of Natural Resources Linda Hazlett Assistant Land Manager :1[..„irad a „ ha zlett air„ Wa „ gPV Department of Social & Health Services Andrew Jenkins andreythenkinsA.dshs.w.lgoy Jeanne Rodriguez Jearme,rodrjazue.zcishs.wa,,gov Dept of Archaeology & Historic Preservation Greg Griffith Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer r,q „gfiffi thar4)dahp..wa ocv Dept of Archaeology & Historic Preservation Gretchen Kaehler Local Government Archaeologist .cirertcherkEgRhieTiaAlalip..wa..po.v Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council - EFSEC Stephen Posner SEPA Officer o sh erku 42y Engineering Division Doug Mayo City Engineer jrnay.cE4,ciLyakiathELyia..tas Dana Kallevig Nob Hill Water Association Eric Rhoads szr... 0 rg Office of Rural and Farm Worker Housing Marty Miller M a rlign2 (a, orfh .org U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch Karen Urelius Project Manager K lia& sace „a rnly, Wastewater Division Scott Schafer Wastewater Manager E..c.tlaferkr'SdAgilcimil-wa-u51 West Valley School District Angela Watts Asst. Supt. Of Business & Operations ,wattsitO, wvsd 20 o WSDOT Paul Gonseth Planning Engineer .gcanselowsdpj.„Qav Yakama Bureau of Indian Affairs Bud Robbins Superintendent Yakama Bureau of Indian Affairs Steve Wangemann Deputy Superintendent for Trust Services S teve„wan,genaann4J)iagEy- WSDOT Rick Holmstrom Development Services holms trAwaclpt,vva, Yakama Bureau of Indian Affairs Rocco Clark Environmental Coordinator Rocco.bia,,goy Yakama Nation Environmental Management Program Kristina Proszek Environmental Review Coordinator gpvirpireviev4,:wicapp.,..c.grn Yakama-Klicicitat Fisheries Project John Marvin ispalyinckyakanta„com Yakima Air Terminal Carl Remmel Airport Asst Manager Cart re M)IT ald inn rterrninal„ e ohl Yakima County Commissioners Cois.ioners, webAco„ vakinaa„ wa.us Yakima County Health District ylico,yakima„ %.!,/ a w. Yakima County Public Services Steven Erickson Planning Director Steven.f ricksca.ialk co. yakima „wa ;us Yakima County Public Services Vern Redifer Public Services Director Vera -iced feria a: ok ma,v9 „us Yakima Greenway Foundation DOC. INDEX Al Brown Executive Director pityalchnagleerhose Yakima Health District Gordon Kelly Director of Environmental Health dun kefl k a rha Yakima Regional Clean Air Agency Hasan Tahat Engineering & Planning Supervisor ...:Ec a a ,org Yakima Valley Conference of Governments Shawn Conrad Planner corarads. woos,. pail, Yakima Valley Museum John A. Baule Director Manager Century Link 8 South 2nd Ave, Rin#304 Yakima, WA 98902 Chamber of Commerce 10 North 9th Street Yakima, WA 98901 Kevin Chilcote Charter Communications 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 Cayla 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 Wondercheck Soil Conservation District 1606 Perry Street, Ste. F Yakima, WA 98902 Paul Edmondson Trolleys 313 North 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 79th Avenue, Ste B Tumwater, 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 Robert Smoot Yakima Valley Canal Co 1640 Garretson Lane Yakima, WA 98908 Scott Robertson Yakima Waste Systems 2812 Terrace Heights Dr Yakima, WA 98901 SEPA REVIEWING AGENCIES Form List _updated 03.13.2013 Type of Notice: File Number: 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 Date of Mailing: of (-13 Tx-fi1DO2,-13 1/190 DOC. INDEX YPC Members - Tower Text Amendment - TXT#OG 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 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: D S Benjamin W. Shoval 123 East Yakima Avenue, Ste#210 Yakima, WA 98901 William Cook 7701 Graystone Court Yakima, WA 98908 Hathaway, Mark, & Connors LLP Michael Connors 520 SW Yamhill Street, Ste#235 Portland, OR 97204 Leslie Wahl 2403 West Yakima Avenue Yakima, WA 98902 /3 DOC. INDEX # p -?e, Yen:Ain Wireless Bar e -Chestnut T -Mobile Rod Miehanlis Ralph Call Ste hen Meadows Don Blenker interested Parties - CeliTower Moratoriurn list 14 F 1 E Pinecrest Rd 2608 W Chestnut Ave 10545 Willows Rd NE Yakima Redmond 9q203 98902 98052 509 453-8150 425 278-7446 (509) 230-0010 Bar . e -Chestnut T -Mobile T-Mobile Geo -Marine, Inc. Hathaway, Mark, & Connors LLP Ken L ons Carol Ta a n Walt Ranta Maria Erni- (206 227-0020 (425 580-4694 (509) 452-6897 Rod DeLaRosa Nanc Kenmotsu Michael Connors 520 SW Yamhill Street, Ste#235 2403 W. Yakima Ave Portland 97204 (503) 205-8401 rrnictinclis _roIandlle.rom net stephenrivounrinurtninntractinnorworn D oblenkencilionobile corn Dblenke59(ihinall_corn ken.lvonw irele5S-COunseLconi Ci1417Tharicern teactemu chartermet RotrielarosalatAitobile.corn b dir.trint ra I ri Mtn nalliM mikeconnowahkelip.com 98902 509) 452-9183 rawahl msn.com Page 1 of 1 Updated on 05/02/2013 Type of Notice: File Number(s): Date of Mailing: D\LS su(-)4011-1.3 -110113 11111111111111% In -House Distribution E-mail List Name Division E-mail Address Debbie Cook Engineering Debbie.cook(aNakimawa.gov Dana Kallevig Engineering dana.kallevig@yakimawa.gov Dan Riddle Engineering dan.riddle@yakimawa.gov Mark K er Legal Dept Mark.kunkler@yakimawa.gov Jeff Cutter Legal Dept jeff.cutter@yakimawa.gov Archie Matthews ONDS archie.matthewsayakimawa.gov Mark Soptich Fire Dept mark.soptichAyAcimawa.gov Jerry Robertson Code Administration jeny.robertson@yakimawa. gov Royale Schneider Code Administration ro_yale.schneideryakimawa.gov Glenn Denman Code Administration glenn.denman@yakimawa.gov Suzanne DeBusschere Code Administration Suzanne.debusscherea,yakimawa.gov Dave Brown Water/Irrigation dave.brown@yakimawa..gov Mike Shane Water/Irrigation mike.shanea,yakimawa.gov Carolyn Belles Wastewater carolyn.bellesyakimawa.gov Shelley Willson Wastewater Shelley.willson@yakimawa.gov Scott Schafer Public Works Dept scott.schaferyakimawa.gov J. es Dean Utilities James.deanyakimawa.gov James Scott Refuse Division James.scotaNakimawa.gov Kevin Futrell Transit Division kevin.futreWyakimawa.gov Steve Osguthorpe Community Development steve.osguthorpe@yakimawa.gov For the Record/File Binder Copy Revised 0712013 Type of Notice: File Number(s): Date of Mailing: D\LS su(-)4011-1.3 -110113 11111111111111% Ibarra, Rosalinda From: Ibarra, Rosalinda Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 3:00 PM To: 'ct1417@att.com'; 'mikeconnors@hkcllp.com' Subject: FW: NOTICE OF DNS - Cell Tower Text Amendment - SEPA#011-13, TXT#002-13 Attachments: DNS - Cell Tower Text Amdnt - SEPA011-13 TXT002-13.pdf I had entered your e-mail address incorrectly on the previous e-mail I sent (see below). Please reply to this message to confirm receipt of this notice. Thank you! Rosa:Luunda 'Ibar r•a Admot iiiui°muisiral.' m veAssistant 1r'j ati.nda.ib:irryifGC vakirna;V,?n •_ v From: Ibarra, Rosalinda Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 2:56 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; Desgrosellier, Bob; Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council - Stephen Posner; Ibarra, Rosalinda; Kallevig, Dana; Nob Hill Water - Eric Rhoads; Office of Rural & Farmworker Housing - 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 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; Belles, Carolyn; Brown, David; Cook, Debbie; Cutter, Jeff; Dean, James; DeBusschere, Suzanne; Denman, Glenn; Futrell, Kevin; Kunkler, Mark; Matthews, Archie; Osguthorpe, Steve; Robertson, Jerry; Schafer, Scott; Schneider, Royale; Scott, James; Shane, Mike; Soptich, Mark; Willson, Shelley Cc: `rmichaelis@prolandllc.com; 'Ralph Call`;'stephen@quantumcontractingnw,com'; 'Don.blenker@t-mobile.com'; `Dblenke59@gmail.com';'ken.lyons@wirelesscounsel.com'; 'ct1417@att.com'; 'teachemup@charter.net; 'Maria.emig@t- mobile.com; 'Rod.delarosa1@t-mobile.com'; 'nkenmotsu@geo-marine.com; 'mikeconnors@hkelip.com'; 'reljwahl@msn.com'; Al Rose; Alfred A. Rose (silvrfx40@bmi.net); Benjamin W. Shovel (ben.shoval@shoval.com); Dave Fonfara; Ensey, Rick; Paul Stelzer; Ron Anderson (rondedicatedrealty@hotmail.com); Scott Clark (scott.clark@charter.net); William Cook (cook.w@charter.net) Subject: NOTICE OF DNS - Cell Tower Text Amendment - SEPA#011-13, TXT#002-13 Rosalinda Ibarra Community Development Administrative Assistant rosalinda.ibarra(a,yakim awa.gov City of Yakima I Planning Division 129 North 2nd Street, Yakima WA 98901 p: (509) 575-6183 * f: (509) 575-6105 1 oc. 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 (MONS), [ ] 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: [ ] 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: Date: July 19, 2013 Steve Osguthorpe, AICP Community Development Director/SEPA Responsible Official (509) 575-6183 129 N 2nd Street, Yakima, WA 98901 Signature: You may appeal this determination to Steve Osguthorpe, City of Yakima Community Development Director, at 129 N 2nd 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. STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 101 T Plum Street SE • PO Box 42525 • Olympia. Washingrori 98504-2525 '; (360) 725-4000 www.commerce.wa.gov 0 2 201, July 1, 2013 Jeff Peters Associate Planner City of Yakima 129 North 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 RCW 36.70A.106. Please keep this letter as documentation that you have met this procedural requirement. 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 ID # 19293. We have forwarded a copy of this notice to other state agencies. If this submitted material is an adopted amendment, then please keep this letter as documentation that you have met the procedural requirement under RCW 36.70A.106. If you have submitted this material as a draft amendment, then final adoption may occur no earlier than sixty days following the date of receipt by Commerce. Please remember to submit the final adopted amendment to Commerce within ten days of adoption. 11 you have any questions, please contact Growth Management Services at reviewteam@commerce.wa.gov, or call Dave Andersen (509) 434-4491 or Paul Johnson (360) 725-3048. Sincerely, Review Team Growth Management Services DSC. INDEX AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON CITY OF YAKIMA RE: SEPA#011-13, TXT#002-13 City Planning Division - Cell Tower Text Amendment 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. r;f, Rosalinda Ibarra Community Development Administrative Assistant Ahtanum Irrigation District Cascade Natural Gas ,Department of Commerce b em Ann tsmotte Executive Assistant kethha Jahignilm,pet; Jim Kobinson Held Facilitator Iiip„rgbinsoag cn ge .e um Growth Management Services rev i ewe:am ' ., rinmerce,wa , : — Department of Ecology Annie Szvetecz SEPA Policy Lead :igiatErlitia jiNy:Nyill., goy. Department of Fish and Wildlife Eric Bartrand c.. arqrand (it difwA 11,.' ay Department of Natural Resources Linda Hazlett Assistant Land Manager Li ndla..hazieill .,s.ld,nrdo,'ra,, L7101( Department of Social & Health Services Andrew Jenkins andrew.,ienkinsir,dshs.,wn„ g,,gv Jeanne Rodriguez Jenne „ rod ri exue&,,d sits Nr,':!.,,gcriv Dept of Archaeology & Historic Preservation Greg Griffith Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer G Ng ,,gri flith(i-i,d ahliLy.(.2gpv. Dept of Archaeology & Historic Preservation Gretchen Kaehler Local Government Archaeologist Gretchen:Kathie 0 dah . . N ?a,,,:pv Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council - EFSEC Stephen Posner SEPA Officer , 22sner,y lite,. wtLgov Engineering Division Doug Mayo City Engineer drna , l'ati.....vakima.waAls Dana Kallevig adllg.14,1123LiLii,YlkinDYYJIg2,Y Nob Hill Water Association Eric Rhoads .silki ci nohhi 11 wa teL or,: Office of Rural and Farm Worker Housinu, Marty Miller J::.1411Yll22.2..21 U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch Karen Urelius Project Manager M.,12niillusac, e - arn1Y-mi I Wastewater Division Scott Schafer Wastewater Manager sschaferrii Lyalim a „ wa,,us West Valley School District Angela Watts Asst. Supt. Of Business & Operations wattsa (a. wysd2 08 .orq WSDOT Paul Gonseth Planning Engineer gon.set .; ' ch 11,,, 1.7c, ' , WSDOT Rick Holmstrom Development Services N:4,P.hiltiiLE,Ogt, vgLgov Yakama Bureau of Indian Affairs Bud Robbins Superintendent IBud sobbinyA b iia,gav Yakama Bureau of Indian Affairs Steve Wangemann Deputy Superintendent for Trust Services Stevangernann@bia gry Yakama Bureau of Indian Affairs Rocco Clark Environmental Coordinator Rgc2g,cikkiLhia.iz,ov Yakama Nation Environmental Management Program Kristina Proszek Environmental Review Coordinator emir° relri enyi.yiji.k.arna c ILI m Yakarna-Klickitat Fisheries Project John Marvin con Yakima Air Terminal Carl Remmel Airport Asst Manager Ca Ill zermme lkyakirn a airterminaLcoug Yakima County Commissioners commissioners.wthgco„yak i ma ,. wa.,,u,. Yakima County Health District y.A121.CQ,.Y.A.ichILWI.W.i Yakima County Public Services Steven Erickson Planning Director 51g,ven... Friths an (4: co , yakinli a„..:E1 us Yakima County Public Services Vern Redifer Public Services Director V ern,. red ler a C la, y41‹:i ma,:w :a. us. Yakima Greenway Foundation o Al Brown Executive Director 141.11.:„ pEci yakima :reen wa v. Or 2 littryg 1 e , Yakima Health District Gordon Kelly Director of Environmental Health gordonlelly@myaki Ma.. Wa . UN Yakima Regional Clean Air Agency Hasan Tahat Engineering & Planning Supervisor 112,9.,9.(a Yakima Valley Conference ofGovernments Shawn Conrad Planner con.ra0s(LacQg..org Yakima Valley Museum John A. Baule Director blin(0,:yalldir.illqyyjkyilini,521:g Manager Chamber of Commerce Kevin Chilcote 8 South 2nd Ave, Rm#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 Environmental Protection Agency 1200 6th Ave. MS 623 Seattle, WA 98101 Gwen Clear Department of Ecology 15 West Yakima Ave, Ste# 200 Yakima, WA 98902 Federal Aviation Administration 2200 W. Washington Ave Yakima, WA 98903 Mark Teske Department 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 Governor's Office of Indian Affairs PO Box 40909 Olympia, WA 98504 Mike Paulson Pacific Power 500 North Keys Rd Yakima, WA 98901 Ray Wondercheck Soil Conservation District 1606 Perry Street, Ste. F 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# 1500 Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Ruth Jim Yakama Indian Nation P.O. Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 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 Elaine Beraza Yakima School District 104 North 4th Ave Yakima, WA 98902 WA State Attorney Generar s Office 1433 Lakeside Court, Ste# 102 Yakima, WA 98902 Johnson Meninick Yakama Indian Nation P.O. Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 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 REVIEWING AGENCIES Form List updated 03.13.2013 Type of Notice: File Number: ;6)0,-±i01 VI 1y-r4tuu a- 13 Date of Mailing: L 1 ) DOC. INDEX Rod Michaelis Interested Parties - CellTower Moratorium rmichaelis • •rolandllc.com Ste•hen Meadows ste shell . • uantumcontractin . nw.com ken.1 ons • wirelesscounsel.com 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 Yakima, WA 98908 r‘1,41 A-8,1sfl9i- 1 (` 6019 Ir -1 T O -I3 DOC. --7/J3 INDEX#T 1/9 Name Dana Kallevig In -House Distribution E Division Engineering -mail List E-mail Address dana.kallevig@yakimavva.goy Doug Mayo Dan Riddle Jeff Cutter Archie Matthews Engineering Engineering Legal Dept ONDS doug.mayoyakimawa. gov dan.riddle(&,yakimawa.gov jeff.cutter@yakimawa.gov archie.matthews@yakimawa,gov Mark Soptich Fire Dept mark.soptieh@yakimawa.gov Jerry Robertson Royale Schneider Glenn Denman Nathan Thompson Dave Brown Mike Shane Carolyn Belles Scott Schafer J. es Dean Kevin Futrell Steve Osguthorpe For the Record/File Binder Copy Code Administration Code Administration Code Administration Code A • *nistration Water/Irrigation Water/Irrigation Wastewater Wastewater Refuse Division Transit Division Community Development ierry.robertson@yakimawa.gov royale.schneider@yakimawa.gov glenn.denman@yakimawa.gov nathan.thompson@yakirnawa.gov dave.brownyakimawa.goy mike.shane@yakimawa.goy carolymbelles@yakimawa.gov scott.schafervakimawa.goy james.dean(4akimawa.gov kevin.futreliyakimawa.gov steye.osguthorpe(4akimawa.Roy Revised 04/2013 Type of Notice: ITC if AFP, 9.11 (pp( r19 File Number(s): 5144O) 1 — (3Ar---it oc 0 -13 Date of Mailing: Lep 7/3 Ibarra, 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; Ibarra, 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 - AI 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.com'; 'Ralph Call';'stephen©quantumcontractingnw.com'; 'Don.blenker@t-mobile.com'; 'Dblenke59@gmail.com';'ken.lyons@wirelesscounsel.com'; 'teachemup@charter.net; 'Maria.emig@t-mobile.com'; 'Rod.delarosal @t-mobile.com'; 'nkenmotsu@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 TXT002-13.pdf Rosalinda Ibarra Community Development Administrative Assistant rosalinda. ibarrayakimawa.gov City of Yakima Planning Division 129 North 2nd Street, Yakima WA 98901 p; (509) 575-6183 * f: (509) 575-6105 INCE( Aly V b n Peters, Jeff To: reviewteam@commerce.wa.gov Subject: City of Yakima 60 -day Adoption Notice for Cell Tower Oridinance Attachments: City of Yakima Cell Tower GMS-Plan-Dev-Reg-Review-Commerce-Notice-60-Day.doc; Ordinance DRAFT CELL TOWERS April 4 2013 (2).docx 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 - 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. 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 day June 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 of Yakima t ID C. INDEX A da ly part of your life -Ad Proof - 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: Account #: Company Name: Contact: Address: Telephone: 06/26/13 110358 CITY OF YAKIMA/YAKIMA PLANNING ROSALINDA IBARRA DEPT OF COMM/ECON DEVELOPEMENT 129 N 2ND STREET YAKIMA, WA 98901-2720 (509) 575-6164 Account Rep: Phone # Email: Ad ID: Start: Stop: Total Cost: Agate Lines: # of Inserts: Ad Class: Simon Sizer (509) 577-7740 ssizer@yakimaherald.com 336587 06/27/13 06/27/13 $246.75 244 1 6021 Run Dates: Yakima Herald -Republic 06/27/13 Doc. INDEX Ibarra, Rosalinda From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: ssizer@yakimaherald.com Wednesday, June 26, 2013 3:51 PM Ibarra, Rosalinda Ad: 336587, CITY OF YAKI I BARRA-46-336587-1.pdf Here's the revised copy. MA NOTICE OF APPLICATION Bill „r44 001 F Y. q ilA 14 T1 N: APp0 A11O' , PTP PtJHu tll d10 r�cT MAN QJ NQrJ•s tiiot Ao and ItaGar roe Iiar1be° QOM: f o oavolhoto, . clr7.iml.'Yuawlrhm .r uurnIunrlN . N"1 wv l� rn ?�rAnattort,, q r Jgpr,!: 1"Notk pat 00110ati0 q� Puta116 E ni 4mSN Iaa 411,00 tatl0n xrt 140641 111100 Fil �.�: ProlopCr �M Ji�o�9mi ri Filo I mtd rc!.'l� p � Jl 'T 1 r � ilitle'per,,A0119cIttnin+ 4hlnprl2kiim d 'I alo,:of r irualNa3!t'at o411,00 ��taM�rrptl15:1tN,t;� i.;. m Thi w.«1mm uJ 1rOir0. ,14r t p i 104pri o; t,U'. lK�rw pli 0rro akrOei drliuwmml mtn A It1 mNl: 4 Grin'a iwan d rap oh- 1wiPp ariiwranr+a41.104110',A.n� glut%�J e irrelre . ^iWimNiroo9 aNirm 1.00000'.0s,. I n4�1 4 ik1; 11 n°rlr rrip4i14a 00101 m tlO!9n..i 1 w ii3o. Iepa a i,-prp:u� 00 ro4 iv�uRu .ara4�r " pr is litre ligh m'1 Lr9Bkn rl Ljiektlry;`��TPiJorl%rOhr,-,Liuret,IidI N YwJR ; tnl rrolpurap p,ai;,„urrtnlli v(rttRE 1 apri+Ya„u,p maiii0-0 tlrr.' gu ai, rr`isisulla clwi� n 4 l�nt; Ibarra, Rosalinda From: Ibarra, Rosalinda Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 3:25 PM To: 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/DMVW/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 - Cell Tower Text Amendment - SEPA#011-13, TXT#002-13 Attachments: NTC OF APP, SEPA, YPC HEARING - Cell Tower Text Amdt - SEPA011-13 TXT002-13.pdf Rosalinda Ibarra Community Development Administrative Assistant rosaiinda.ibarra(a,yakimawa.gov City of Yakima 1 Planning Division 129 North 2nd Street, Yakima WA 98901 p: (509) 575-6183 * f: (509) 575-6105 1 �i 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. C. INDEX 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.qoviservices/planning/posicard, or http://www.yakimawaspv/services/planning (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 43.21G.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: Date: June 27, 2013 Steve Osquthorre, AICP SEPA Responsible Official (509) 575-6163 129 N. 2nd Street, Yakima, WA 98901 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 Permits — 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 jeff.peters yakimawa.gov. 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. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT — CHAPTER 15.29 WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES TXT#002-13, SEPA#011-13 EXHIBIT LIST CHAPTER E SEPA Checklist E-1 Environmental Checklist (SEPA Application) 06/24/2013 ' -, /^.\ ���� �! • LAND 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 INSTRUCTIONS —PLEASE READ FIRST Please type or print your answers clearly. Answer all questions complelel) . If) ou have any questions about this form or the application process. please ask a Planner. Remember to bring all necessary attachments and the required tiling tee when the application is submitted. 'Me Planning Division cannot accept an application unless it is complete and the filing fee paid. Filing fees are not refundable. This application consists of four parts. PART 1 - GENERAL INFORMATION AND PART IV — CERTIFICATION are on this page. PART 11 and III contain additional information specific to your proposal and MUST he attached to this page to complete the application. PART 1 GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Applicant's Name, Address. And Phone Number Name City of Yakima Planning Department Street 129 North Second Street City Yakima ST WA Zip 98901 Phone (509) 575-6183 2. Applicant's Property Interest Check One ■ °miter 0 Agent 0 Purchaser 0 Other: Local Government 3. Propert) Onner's Name, Address. And Phone Number (If Other Than Applicant) Name Street City ST Zip Phone ( ) -I. Subject Property's Assessor's Parcel Number(s): Parcels within the boundaries of the Cit) of Yakima city ECEIVED 5. Propert) Address: N/A JUN 242013 6. Legal Description of Property. (if length). please attach it on a separate document) N/A CITY OF YAKIMA 7. Property's Existing Zoning: PI1NItII�DIV 0 S 0R-1 0R-2 0R-3 0 B-1 013-2 e1113 @SCC 0 LCC 0CI3D 0 G 0 A 0 RD M-1 M-2 8. T. pe Of Application: (Check All That Apply) • • • • D ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ Administrative Adjustment Type (2) Revie\% Type (3) Revie« Short Plat Long Plat Admin. Modification Appeal Home Occupation Short Plat Exemption: 0 • • • ❑ ■ 0 0 Environmental Checklist Right -of -Way Vacation Transportation Concurrency Non -Conforming Structure/Use Type 3 Modification Interpretation by Nearing Temporary Use Permit Comp Plan Amendment oil (SETA) ❑ Easement Release ■ Rezone ■ Shoreline ■ Critical Areas • Variance Examiner • Amended Plat ❑ Binding Site Plan • Planned Development Other: Zoning Ordinance Amendment PART II — SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION, PART III -- REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS, & PART IV --NARRATIVE 9. SEE ATTACHED SHEETS PART V -- CERTIFICATION 10. 1 certify that the information on this application and the required attachments are true and correct to the hest of my knowledge. ,� „' �.. PROPROr RTY OWNER;OrGNATURE DATE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE USE ONLY Revised 12-08 Notes: FILE # DATE FEE PAID RECEIVED BY Amount Receipt No. Hearing Date 'KIRK ;5 ' t , _ " , "OFCI-1F`C"KLIST ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) (AS TAKEN FROM WAC 197-11-960) YAKIMA MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 6.88 The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RCW Ch. 43.21 C, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all 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 done) and to Ibr I p the tt, enc° decide whether an EIS is 1 equired, NS" R MC"TIONS I,'OR A ',P LICANTS This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to detennine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are 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 to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, 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 later. Some questions ask about govenunental 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 if you 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 may be significant adverse in! uct, USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NONPROJIE .,"T PROPOSALS Complete this checklist for 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"proposal," proposa ," "proposer." _and "affected gee+gmalthia.° area,' rcTvcttvely 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 Amendment. RCEiveD 2. Applicant's Name & Phone: City of Yakima Planning Department, 509-575-6183. JUN 2 4 2013 3. Applicant's Address: 129 North Second Street, Yakima, WA 98901. CITY of YAKIMA PLANNING DIV 4. Contact Person & 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 8. 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 time. DOC. INDEX 9. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal: None. 10. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain: None pending 11. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known: SEPA detennination, City of Yakima Planning Commission Public Hearing, and City Council Approval. 12. Give a brief, but complete description of your proposal, including the 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 Area 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 f. 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 draft ordinance for more information). RECEIVED JUN 2 4 2013 OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. immwnmm�nnnn 13. 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. If a 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 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. II: ENVIRONMENTAL ELE d ENTS tiro l e v.o i leted,byf c a plleau ( Space Reserved for Agency Comments _ . Earth a. General description of the site (✓ one): ❑ flat ❑ rolling ❑ hilly ❑ steep slopes ❑ mountainous • other b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? N/A. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, 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 unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. See United States Department of Agriculture Soii Conservation Service Soil Survey of Yakima County Area Washington 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 what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? N/A h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: 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. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS (To Ike cos qp ki 1y lite mt I) leant) - Space Reserved for Agency Comments b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. N/A. RECEIVED JUN 2 4 2013 0� Y�K1�� PLANNING Dly, c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: N/A 3. Water a. Surface: I. 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)? [ryes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. N/A 2. Will the project require any 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 Fill 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 f111 material. N/A �4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No 5. Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. N/A ................ 6. Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. N/A b. Ground: 1. Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. N/A 2. 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 size 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. c. Water Runoff (including stormwater): DOC. 111111 E7-./ B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS ('1"0 be completed d b v tht ppli tin Space Reserved for Agency Comments i. Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection 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 RECEIVED JUN 2 4 2013 OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIY, 2. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. NIA 3. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: N/A 4. Plants: a. Check (1) types of vegetation found on the site.................................................................................... Deciduous Tree: ►:1 Alder E1 Maple 1Z Aspen ❑ Other Evergreen Green: Fir 1 Cedar ® Pine ❑ Other ►5 Shrubs ® Grass ® 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 habitat. and is considered none -project. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: N/A 5. Animals: 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: ►Zi Hawk ® Heron ® Eagle ElSongbirds ❑ Other Mammals: ❑ Deer ❑ Bear ❑ Elk ® Beaver • Other Fish: ® Bass ►/ Salmon ® Trout ❑ Herring ■ Shellfish ❑ Other b. List any 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 habitat, and is considered none -project. c. is the 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 b. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. N/A IIIA C�IIIIII 0II IIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIng/ZON11111llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll110 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS (To be completed llghe ttppli nnt(` _. SpaceReserved for Agency g y Comments b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If 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 RECEIVED JUN 2 4 2013 CRY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. 7. Environmental Health 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 1. Describe special emergency services that might be required. N/A ?. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: NIA b. Noise 1. What types of noise exist in the area, which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? N/A 2. What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a Tong -term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. N/A 3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: N/A 8. 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 d. Will any structures be demolished? Ifso, what? N/A 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-1, R-2, R-3, B-1, 13-2, HB, SCC, LCC, AS, GC, CBD, RD. and M-1 f. 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. 111111111111111101114 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS qj.l"tt lac completed Itv lire a pli nt) Spare Reserved for Agency Comments g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? N/A :ENCE�VEDi. CITYk. �fNG �jy� h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so specify. N/A — Non -Project Action Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project?24N/A203 j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? N/A Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any.N NIA 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The existing proposal will modify the above mentioned City of Yakima regulations and land use plans. 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 whether high, middle, or low-income housing. N/A c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: N/A 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structures, not including 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? N/A c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: The draft ordinance proposes to impose screening and other site design criteria to reduce the aesthetic impacts of wireless communication facilities (see draft ordinance for additional information). 11. Light and Glare 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 project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? N/A c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None, however the ordinance does provide regulation of lighting. —....„... -vim■ INDEX #�� B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS (To be completed by the applicant) Spare " esea114 for Agency Comments 12. Recreation RECEIVED JUN 2 4 2013 cITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? N/A b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. NIA c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: N/A 13. 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? 1f so, generally describe. N/A b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, 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. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to 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 distance 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 d. Will the proposal 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). NIA e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. N/A f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. N/A B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELFEN°roS(.1.n 1te convict tlbY the nPplicahiI); I I Space for Agency Comments g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: N/A RECEIVED Y JUN 2 4 2013 CITY OF Y,KIARA PLANNINGwin Div 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe: N/A b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity, which might be needed. N/A 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities curreu'ril° available at the site: electricity, natural gas, \l°ater, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity, which might be needed. N/A I C. SIGNATURE (To he completed by the applicant.) The above answers are true Id complete to the best of my knowledge. 1 understand that the lead agency is relying on them to ma its d • . ion. _�G_ r A _e Prope y Owner or A rr Signature Date Submitted PLEA C " IF THERE IS E III -�•-��mm�����mnnnooniiwwwwnmm D. SUPPLEMENT SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (To be completed by lbi applicant.) (DO NOT USE THE FOLLOWING F OR PROJECT ACTIONS) Space Rescr 'ed For Agency Comments Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction 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 if the proposal were not implemented. RECEIVED JUN 2 4 2013 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING Div 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? The 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. 2. 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 or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: As the proposal will not 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 natural resources are: None proposed. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) 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 or 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 or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: None proposed 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase 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 to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: None proposed. D. SUPPLEMENT SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (To be completed by the applicant.) (DO NOT USE TI F )I'LL W1NC FOR PROJEI'"f' 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 DIV. Co Claar Tee, Sonya Distributed at the Meeting /1 - From: (- From: Ibarra, Rosalinda Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 9:43 AM To: Claar Tee, Sonya; Price, Cally Cc: Kunkler, Mark Subject: FW: Proposed Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance - Verizon Wireless Comments Attachments: City Council 11-4-13.pdf; VZW Redline Comments on Cell Tower Ord FINAL Format Oct 29 2013.docx Hi Sonya/Cally — please see Mr. Connors comment letter attached. He would like this forwarded to City Council for their consideration. Please disregard this e-mail if you've already received it from another source. Thank you! Rosalinda Ibarra Administrative Assistant rosalinda.ibarra(&yakimawa.2ov (509) 575-6183 From: Mike Connors [mailto:MikeConnors@hkcllp.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 4:29 PM To: Ask Planning Cc: Osguthorpe, Steve; Kunkler, Mark; Ibarra, Rosalinda; Campbell, Heather (Heather.Campbe113@VerizonWireless.com); Mauro, Peter A (Peter.Mauro@VerizonWireless.com); Edward.McGah@verizonwireless.com Subject: Proposed Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance - Verizon Wireless Comments Mr. Osguthorpe: As you know, this firm represents Verizon Wireless with respect to the City's above -referenced Proposed Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance (the "Proposed Ordinance"). Please forward the attached letter and redline comments on the Proposed Ordinance to the City Council for their consideration at the November 5th public hearing. We also intend to testify at the November 5th public hearing to explain our concerns and answer any questions from the City Council. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Proposed Ordinance and look forward to discussing these issues further with the City. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Mike E. Michael Connors Hathaway Koback Connors LLP 520 SW Yamhil! Street, Suite 235 Portland, OR 97204 503-205-8401 (direct) 503-205-8400 (main office) 503-781-0280 (mobile) mikeconnors(a�hkcllp.com www.hkcllp.com Please be advised that this e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential attorney-client communication or may otherwise be privileged or confidential and are intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy or retransmit this communication but destroy it immediately. Any unauthorized, dissemination distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. 1 Hathaway Koback Connors LLP November 4, 2013 VIA EMAIL City Council c/o Steve Osguthorpe Community Development Manager 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 Comments Dear Mayor & Councilors: E. Michael Connors 520 SW Yamhill St Suite 235 Portland, OR 97204 503-205-8401 (Dir) 503-205-8406 (Fax) mikeconnors(W.hkcIlp com This firm represents Verizon Wireless with respect to the above -referenced Proposed Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance (the "Proposed Ordinance"). We have been involved in the Planning Commission process from the beginning, submitting written comments and suggested revisions to the Proposed Ordinance throughout the process. We appreciate the Planning Commission and the Planning staff's hard work and diligence throughout the Proposed Ordinance process, including their willingness to incorporate some of the previous comments we provided. As a result of these efforts, we believe the Planning Commission's recommended Proposed Ordinance is a significant improvement over the original draft. Nonetheless, we continue to believe that additional changes are necessary. 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.' We believe additional changes are necessary strike a better balance and ensure that the Proposed Ordinance does not unreasonably restrict or delay carriers from providing necessary wireless communication services to the City. We identified our primary concerns with the Proposed Ordinance in our comment letters, dated October 22 and October 28, 2013. Although the Planning Commission incorporated some of our Section 15.29.010(A)(1). November 4, 2013 Page 2 suggested changes at their October 29, 2013 public hearing, most of the concerns expressed in the October 22"a and October 28th letters remain. To better assist the City Council in its review of the Proposed Ordinance, we attached a redline version of the Proposed Ordinance that includes our specific comments and suggested revisions. We also intend to testify at the November 51h public hearing to explain our concerns and answer any questions from the City Council. We hope our comments will assist the City Council in its review and adoption of this important ordinance. We appreciate your consideration of our comments and look forward to discussing them further at the November 5th public hearing. Very truly yours, HATHAWAY KOBACK CONNORS LLP 6.2/1-1-4-0/ E. Michael Connors EMC/df Enclosure cc. Heather Campbell, Verizon Wireless Peter Mauro, Verizon Wireless Ed McGah, Verizon Wireless 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.- subject to Section 6409 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 ("Tax Relief Act")[Mci]. 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- and the Tax Relief Act [MC2]. The provisions of this chapter are not intended to and shall not be interpreted to prohibit or to have the effect of prohibiting personal 2 wireless services. This chapter shall not be applied in such a manner as to unreasonably discriminate between providers of functionally equivalent personal wireless services. E. Conflict with Other Standards. To the extent that any provision of this chapter is inconsistent or conflicts with any other city ordinance this chapter shall control. Otherwise, this chapter shall be construed consistently with the other provisions and regulations of the city. 15.29.020 Definitions. For the purpose of this chapter, the following terms shall have the meaning ascribed to them below. Additional definitions pertaining to the Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance can be found in Chapter 15.02 YMC. "Abandonment" means to cease operation for a period of sixty or more consecutive days. "Administrator" means the director of the city's department of community development and his or her designees. "Antenna" means any exterior apparatus designed for telephonic, radio, data, internet, or television communications through the sending and/or receiving of electromagnetic waves, and includes equipment attached to a tower, structure or building for the purpose of providing wireless services, including unlicensed wireless telecommunications services, wireless telecommunications services utilizing frequencies authorized by the Federal Communications Commission for "cellular," "enhanced specialized mobile radio" and "personal communications services," telecommunications services, and its attendant base station. "Antenna height" means the vertical distance measured from the base of the antenna support structure at natural grade to the highest point of the structure even if said highest point is an antenna. Measurement of tower height shall include antenna, base pad, and other appurtenances and shall be measured from the natural grade of the parcel at the lowest elevation point of the support structure's perimeter. "Antenna support structure" means any pole, telescoping mast, tower, tripod, or other structure which supports a device used in the transmitting or receiving of radio frequency signals. "Applicant" means any provider or any person, partnership, company, or government agency that files an application for any permit necessary to install, maintain, or remove a personal wireless service facility within the city. "Balloon test" means a test for a reasonable period of time to fly, or raise upon a temporary mast, a brightly colored balloon, that is representative in size of the initial antenna array including all standoffs, at the maximum height of the proposed tower. "Base station" is defined as a facility or support structure consisting of radio transceivers, antennas, coaxial cable, a regular and backup power supply, and other associated electronics, including a structure that currently supports or houses an antenna, transceiver, or other associated equipment that constitutes 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 -o wireless facility, utility pole, street lights, buildings, water towers or similar existing structurestMc31 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. 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. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, the city shall issue any decision to approve or deny an application within 90 days of receipt of a co -location application and 150 days of receipt of a non -co -location application.rmcal "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) - -• - Standard Wirelcs.[Mcsi Adminictrotive _ _ _ _- . _ z- istrista} 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--Gopy-ofthe date the certificate of authority was filed with the state of Washington, Secretary of State's Office[Mc6}. 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. 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. 11 10. A copy of the FCC license for the intended use of the wireless telecommunications facilities. 11. Method of proposed illumination, including a lighting plan showing the location of all proposed outdoor lighting fixtures, including direction and intensity of light, and including manufacture's "cut -sheets" of all outdoor luminaries. 12. The location of existing or proposed structures, trees, and other significant site features intended to camouflage the facility. 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 nearby[Mc7l_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 12 market rates, and (2) the applicant and/or landlord agree to remove the facility within 90 days after abandonment. 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 unless the applicant, landowner or owner contests such city determination pursuant to Section 15.29.130 rMcsl; 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 - • _ _ •• - _.. -,,[Mc91 and explaining why, based upon valid considerations including physical, technological, availability, 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 transmion of signals. [Mcio) 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 13 permission of use for reasons other than the ability or refusal of the applicant to pay a market rate for use of the alternative structures. 3. Modification Permit. a. Elevation drawings of the existing wireless facility, drawn to scale and showing dimensions of the height and width of the facility. (This drawing is required in addition to elevation drawing of proposed facility described under subsection A above); b. A 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. 14 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. 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 Applicat'on 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 or other structure[Mcii] 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 or other structure[Mci2ithat substantially changes the physical dimensions of an existing wireless tower or base station shall be deemed a "major modification". A substantial change occurs if: 15 a. The mounting of the proposed antenna on the tower or structure would increase the existing height of the tower by more than 10%, or by the height of one additional antenna array with separation from the nearest existing antenna not to exceed twenty feet, whichever is greater; or b. The mounting of the proposed antenna would involve the installation of more than the standard number of new equipment cabinets for the technology involved, not to exceed four, or more than one new equipment shelter; or c. The mounting of the proposed antenna would involve adding an appurtenance to the body of the tower or structure 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 or structure 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: 16 shared user without causing electromagnetic interferencc[Mc13]- 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 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 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 • • - - - •• - - • - - - - - - - that can reasonably satisfy the applicant's network, coverage and/or capacity objectives.[Mc14] 3. All wireless service providers or lessees or agents thereof shall cooperate in good faith to accommodate co -location with competitors. [MC15] 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 of camouflage or other conditions. [Mc16] 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. 17 1. Due Diligence Requirements. Applications to plaseco-locate antennas andthat constitute a major modification or place [mai]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. 2. NEPA Requirements. Antennas and tower facilities proposed to be located in or within 300 feet of an established -or -pending [Mas]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.0 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. Budding 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. I. Utility Pole Installations. Reserved. 15.29.070 Design Criteria AH facilities shall comply with the following standards: 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. 18 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. 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 sixt-y-(60seventy five (75)[Mci9J feet. b. In CBD and B-1 zoning districts — the maximum height is sixty (60seventy five (75)[Mczol feet. c. In all other zones — the maximum height is one hundred ten (110) feet. d. In anyresidential zoning dastr-ietdistricts or protected areas[Mc2ii, the applicant shall have the burden of demonstrating that the tower is the minimum height required to meet the proven satisfy its network, coverage or capacity objectives and satisfy the co - location capable requirements under Section 15.29.060(B).[Mc22] 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. 19 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. 4. Lights, Signals and Signs. 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 base stations, [Mc23]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. - - - - the facility is -designed to reflect, non conforming structures shall not be considered; nor shall mechanical equipment, utility substations, used to determine an acceptable camouflage technique.,[Mc24]-In all zones, towers shall be camouflaged using the least visually and physically intrusive facility that is not technologically unreasonable or 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 facilitiesnew towers and base stations to soften thetheir 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 or structure, and other equipment is housed inside an existing building or structure, landscaping shall not be required. b. Buffers. The visual impacts of a personal wireless service facilitynew towers and base stations shall be mitigated through landscaping or other screening materials at the base of 20 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 shallmay be required around the perimeter of the tower and accessory structures if feasible: 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.[Mc25] iii. To the extent feasible and available on the site, the tower or mount shall be placed amongst and adjacent to the drip line of three or morcexistinq evergreen trees located on the site that are at least seventy-five percent of the height of the facility[Mc26]. 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 [MC27); 21 b. Stealth designs reflect features that are indigenous to the area to the extent feasible[Mc2sl. For example, towers designed to look like trees must be tree types that naturally or commonly occur in the surrounding neighborhood or district.- to the extent feasible. Towers designed to look like buildings or structures must be of a design that reflects local architecture or structure types; c. Stealth designs look reasonably similar to the items they intend to mimic. For example, towers designed to look like flag poles have the common dimensions of flag poles, both in height and girth. [Mc29]-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 • [Mc30]• and e. The administrator may impose other reasonable 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. AntennaExcept for co -location of antennas on existing structures that constitute a minor modification[Mc3il, 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 to the extent feasible 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 reasonably and 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: 22 i. The city-fi dsapplicant demonstrates that it is not technically possible or aesthetically desirable to mount the antenna on a wall, or the building owner will not allow antennas to be mounted[Mc32] on a wall. ii. Roof -mounted antenna and related base stations are screened from view byuse 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 b1lFldi41g-[MC33] iv. If the antenna is placed on the roof or above the top of a building, it shall to the extent feasible 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 equipment buildings or base stations shall be reasonably screened from view by landscape plantings, fencing, or other appropriate means, as specified herein or in other city ordinances. iii. In instances where ground level equipment buildings are located in residential zones, equipment buildings shall comply with setback requirements and shall be designed so as 23 1. Within 300 feet of residential areas to conform in appearance with nearby residential structures, including building form, materials and color. b. Roof -Mounted Structure. 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. vary if co location and adequate camouflage is used.IMc34i 15.29.080 Site Selection Standards. A. Protected Areas. Protected areas are: (a) the area commonly known as the Barge Chestnut 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 agency with jurisdiction (hereafter "pending" historic district or overlay zones); (d[Mc35]b) sites, buildings, structures or objects listed in the National Register of Historic Places; (ec) state and local wildlife refuges, and permanently protected archeological sites; and (fd) designated areas subject to preservation or protection through recorded conservation easement. Convenience Center zones when possible: made to locate -the -pre -posed communications facilities on a site, private institutional structure, or other appropriate existing structures more than 300 feet from residential zoned districts or more than .. __•. _ . and technological feasibility, no more appropriate location is available. Such antennas, towers and related facilities may approved by the administrator, subject to the adm-in-istrator's approval of 24 1. Co location:--(See-Sectiens 15.29.060(B) and 15.29.060(C)) 7. Protected areas.[Mc37] camouflage or disguise by stealth. Such proposed structures are also subject to the balloon test be as feHews: 2. Industrial zoning districts. 3. P blc p perty. (See Section 15.29.080(E)). service facilities shall '1– €misting structures Industrial and commercialz^istricts. (e.g., buildings, towers, and water towers) 5. Local Business -District (B 2) and Sm tricts. 6—Residential zoned di,triets. D. Site selection criteria. 1. Any applicant proposingProposals to construct an antenna support structure,a new tower or mountbase station, or co -locate an antenna on an -existing structurestructures that constitute a minor modification![MC38], shall take into account the bestsite's screening and camouflaging while providing adequate service to satisfy its function in the applicant's system. If the applicant proposes a site that -lees, the applicant must demonstrate why the facility cannot be located at the site where it can be best 2. Wireless facility installations, [MC39]- valueb[Mcao]. Fad -lit -los 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: 25 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 person specialized mobilized radio (ESMR), data, internet, paging, and similar services that are marketed to the general public.[Mc43.] 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 reasonably 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 by G ty[Mc42h c. The applicant shall obtain adequate liability insurance naming the city as loss payee and commit to a lease agreement that includes equitablomarket rate compensation for the use of public land and other necessary provisions and safeguards. The city shall establish fees after considering comparable market rates in other cities, potential expenses, risks to the city, and other appropriate factors; 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 facilitics[Mc43]; g. The applicant must obtain all necessary land use approvals; and 26 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 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 27 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 operationalUpon request, the facility operator shall file with the city a copy of maintenance reports for the prior twelve months. 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-ioGated [ M C44J ; 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. 28 1. Increase requirements in the standards, criteria or policies established by this title;[Mcas] C. Authority to Impose Conditions. The hearing examiner may impose any reasonable 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: 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 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 city one hundred fifty percent of the estimated cost of construction and/or installation and fifteen - - [MC46] 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 eetlular-heightwireless 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 29 3. AllOne or more of the following criteria must be met: requires a helghtvariance from the applicable standards set forth in Seetionthis Chapter 15 29.0-70(2), [Mc471 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 in Section 15.29.070(2) 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 a. The additional height is necessary to provide adequate service to the residents of the city and no other alternative is available; b. A significant portion of the tower and related facilities are screened by existing evergreen trees or existing structures; c. Strict application of current height limits would deprive a tower or antenna operator from achieving the minimum height required to meet the proven communications need; d. The structure for which the variance is requested is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this chapter; e. There is evidence that additional height is required to provide adequate service to the residents of the city and that no other alternative is available; or 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,.IMc48] g4. All of the following criteria must be met: a. The structure for which the variance is requested is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this chapter; b. 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; hc. Any visual impacts will be mitigated to the greatest extent poc.-iblefeasible using camouflage, stealth or screening as defined by this chapter; 30 je. The variance is the minimum necessary to grant relief to the applicant.[Mc49] id. 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 C. Decision. Based upon the information provided by the applicant, the results of the balloon test and visual impact analysis, and findings of compliance or non-compliance with the criteria set forth herein, the examiner may: 1. Approve an application for a variance, which may include additional requirements above those specified in this title or require modification of the proposal to comply with specified requirements or local conditions; or 2. Deny a variance if the proposal does not meet or cannot be conditioned or modified to meet subsection (c) of this section. D. Burden of Proof. The applicant has the burden of proving that the proposed cellular wireless height variance meets all of the criteria in Section 15.29.110(B). 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-. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, the city shall issue any decision to approve or deny an application within 90 days of receipt of a co - location application and 150 days of receipt of a non -co -location application.jMcsoi 31 C. Modification Permit Review. Applications for modifications to existing wireless facilities or base stations shall be reviewed as follows: Determination of major or minor modification. Within 4515 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, • - the provisions of this section.[Mcsi.l, days after receipt and approval of a complete application for a modification permit. Issuance of the modification permit shall occur within 45 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. D. Standard Wireless Permit Review. Standard wireless applications apply to all new wireless faciliticstowers 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 for all new towers and base stations, and major modifications to towers and base stations[McszLagainst 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. Thclf the proposal requires a conditional use permit or variance, the[Mcs3] Administrator may require a visual impact assessment as described in Section 15.29.1-30based130 based upon lines of site or vantage points identified by the Administrator. 32 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 and the FCC Shot Clock Rule, 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: 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. Balloon Tests and Visual Impact Assessment. The administrator shall instruct the applicant on the requirements for both a visual impact assessment. The administrator may provide input on both th ;ming of the balloon test and the desired vantage points from which the visual impact assessment will be based. Both the balloon test andThe IMcs4lvisual 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 selereasonable 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 33 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. 2. Balloon Tests and Visual Impact Assessment. The administrator shall instruct the applicant on the requirements for both a balloon test anda 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 andThe [Mcss]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. 34 • 15.29.130 Visual Impact Assessments. applicant seven (7) and fourteen (14) days in advance of the first test date in a newspaper with a II inform the City, in writing, of the dates and times of (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 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, a ay be required by the administrator for any other application deemed necessary by the administrator to assess -visual impacts associated with such application.. As part of such application, the applicant shall furnish a visual impact assessment, which shall include: 1. Zone of 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 onea half mile radius from the proposed structure, • - - - [Mcs7ishall 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. 35 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 reasonable 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.- consistent with the standards set forth in this Chapter 15.29. The expert review shall address the following: 1. The accuracy and completeness of submissions; 2. The applicability of analysis techniques and methodologies; 3. The validity of conclusions reached; and 4. Any specific technical issues designated by the city. 15.29.150 Non-use/abandonment. A. Notice of Abandonment. No less than thirty days prior to the date that a personal wireless service provider plans to abandon or discontinue operation of a facility, the provider must notify the city of Yakima by certified U.S. mail of the proposed date of abandonment or discontinuation of operation. In the event that a licensed carrier fails to give notice, the facility shall be considered abandoned upon the city's discovery of discontinuation of operation.- for a period of sixty or more consecutive days.[Mcss] 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 36 2. In the event that abandonment as defined in this chapter occurs due to relocation of an antenna shall have six months from the date of effective abandonment to co locate another service on the tower. If another service provider isnot added to the tower, then the operator shall promptly not been abandoned.[Mc6o1 �Mc59iDemonstrate to the city that the facility has 3. Dismantle and remove facility. If the tower, antenna, foundation, and facility are not removed within the sixty-day time period or additional period of time allowed by the city, the city may remove such tower, antenna, foundation, and related facility at the provider's expense. If there are two or more providers co -locating on a facility, except as provided for in the paragraph above, this provision shall not become effective until all providers cease using the facility. B. Expiration of Approval. At the earlier of sixty days from the date of abandonment without reactivating or upon completion of dismantling and removal, city approval for the facility shall automatically expire. 15.29.160 Transfer of Ownership. A conditional use permit runs with the land; compliance with the conditions of any such permit is the responsibility of the current owner of the property, whether that is the applicant or a successor. No permit for which a financial security is required shall be considered valid during any time in which the required financial security is not posted. 15.29.170 Vacation of Permits. A. Any permit issued pursuant to this chapter may be vacated upon approval by the current landowner; provided, that: 1. The use authorized by the permit does not exist and is not actively being pursued; or 2. The use has been terminated and no violation of terms and conditions of the permit exist. B. Requests to vacate a permit shall be made in writing to the zoning code administrator who shall determine if the above conditions are present prior to authorizing the vacation. Vacation of any permit shall be documented by the filing of a notice of land use permit vacation on a form provided by the community development department with the city. 37 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. 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