Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCLOSE FILEcoun6'utte't LAND . OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY a DIRECTOR'S OFFICE ' r. DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES " 7 COUNTY•CENTER DRIVE ! OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 . TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 www.buttecounty.net March 2, 2001 Kim Seidler; -Planning Director City of Chico P.O. Box 3420:. Chico, CA, 95927 RE: ALUC File No. A 00-08 Dear Mr. Seidler: Enclosed .is Receipt No. 192.64 in the amount of $319.50 for the above -referenced file. As'of this date, the account has a zero balance and is closed. Your quick response is greatly appreciated. Thank you. Sincerely, Thomas. A. Parilo. Director of Development Spices TAP:jb ". Enclosure. j:`,ducs\rcFunds\thank's.\vpd Date 03/02/01 f eveio'pment Services Departm It Time -10:42 am Applicant -.Billing Worksheet Page 2 A 00-08 * City of Chico P.O. Box 3420 Chico, CA 95927 In reference to. A 00-08. Rounding.. None Full Precision :'No Last bill Last charge 09/15/00 Last payment / / Amount $0.00 Date/Slip# Description HOURS/RATE AMOUNT _ 09/04/00 Craig.S. / P 10.50 619.50 431976 Processing 59.0-0 TOTAL BILLABLE TIME,CHARGES-r. 10.50 $619.50 TOTAL BILLABLE COSTS $0.00 TOTAL NEW CHARGES $619.50- PAYMENTS/REFUNDS/CREDITS E 09/18/00'beposit - Receipt 418783 (300.00) 03/02/01 Deposit - Receipt #19264. ;(319.50) TOTAL PAYMENTS/REFUNDS/CREDITS ($619.50)' NEW BALANCE TOTAL NEW BALANCE •$0.00 TOTAL 01 I t( j , jiifl!3� +kxJ � J>n. February 5, 2001 Kim Seidler, Planning Director City of Chico P.O. Box 3420 Chico, CA 95926 RE: ` ALUC File No, A 00-08 Dear Mr. Seidler: The total cost for the processing of the above -referenced application which was found inconsistent by the Airport Land Use Commission on September 20, 2000, is $619.50. As of September 18, 2000, a deposit was made in the amount of $300.00. The costs exceeded the deposit by $319.50. Below is a breakdown: Deposit on 9-18-00, Receipt No. 18783 $300.00 Professional Planner $619.50 Total _ $619.50 Total Amount Due & Payable, $319.50 Please make a check payable -to the Butte County Treasurer in the amount of $319.50 and remit it with the application file number, as referenced above, to the Department of Development Services, Planning Division at 7 County Center Drive, Oroville; CA 95965 within 30 calendar days. Should you have any questions, please contact Brian Larsen in this office Monday thrti Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., at 538-7601. Sincerely, Thomas A. Parilo Director of Development Services TAP. Jb RI.Ealy® MAR -.2 2001 BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA -614to Count LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY DIRECTOR'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 www.buttecounty.net The total cost for the processing of the above -referenced application which was found inconsistent by the Airport Land Use Commission on September 20, 2000, is $619.50. As of September 18, 2000, a deposit was made in the amount of $300.00. The costs exceeded the deposit by $319.50. Below is a breakdown: Deposit on 9-18-00, Receipt No. 18783 $300.00 Professional Planner $619.50 Total _ $619.50 Total Amount Due & Payable, $319.50 Please make a check payable -to the Butte County Treasurer in the amount of $319.50 and remit it with the application file number, as referenced above, to the Department of Development Services, Planning Division at 7 County Center Drive, Oroville; CA 95965 within 30 calendar days. Should you have any questions, please contact Brian Larsen in this office Monday thrti Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., at 538-7601. Sincerely, Thomas A. Parilo Director of Development Services TAP. Jb RI.Ealy® MAR -.2 2001 BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA -COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING CITYorCHICO 411 Main Street INC. 1972 P.O. Box 3420 Chico, CA 95927 (530) 895, 4851 FAX (530) 895-4726 ATSS 459-4851 February 23, 2001 Mr. Brian A. Larsen Butte County Department of Development Services 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965-3397 Re: Draft Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance ALUC File No. A 00-08 Dear Mr. Larsen: Enclosed please find City of Chico Check No. 120060 in the amount of $319.50 representing payment A the balance due for review. of the above -referenced document. A copy of your letter dated February 5, 2001, is also enclosed for your reference. Sincerely, Kim Seidler Planning Director, - jls Enclosures S:\JS\Cell Towers\Larsen Ltr.wpd R E lF I V E D FEB '2.8 2001 . BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION a �)ROVILLE, CALIFORNIA (� Made From Recycled Paper 0 OFFICIAL RECEIPT COUNTY OF BUTTE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF PLANNING RECEIPT 19264 Mod i ico+ ���� C�hclurc min;; DATE RECEIPT NO. TOTAL RECEIVED PUBLIC WORKS LAFCO PLANNING PUBLIC SALES ENV. HEALTH FIRE NOE/NOD F/G FEE OTHER APPLICANT RECEIVED FROM OFFICIAL RECEIPT COUNTY OF BUTTE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF PLANNING RECEIPT 19264 FA -v L February 5, 2001 _ :. u to Count LAND OF NATURAL, WEALTH AND BEAUTY DIRECTOR'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601. FAX: (530) 538-7785 www.buttecounty.net Kim Seidler, Planning Director City of Chico P.O. Box 3420 Chico, CA 95926 RE: ALUC File No.A 00-08 Dear Mr. Seidler: The total cost for the processing of the above -referenced application which was found inconsistent by the Airport Land Use Commission on September 20, 2000, is $619.50. As of September 18, 2000, a deposit was made in the amount of $300.00. The costs exceeded the deposit by $319.50. ' Below is a breakdown: Deposit on 9-18-00, Receipt No. 18783 $300.00 Professional Planner %619.50 Total $619.50 Total Amount Due & Payable $319.50 Please make a check payable to the Butte County Treasurer in—th% amount of.$319.50 and remit it with the application file number, as referenced-abovwr-thl-"` Development Services, Planning Division at 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 within 30 calendar days.' Should you have any questions, please contact Brian Larsen in this office Monday thru Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., at 538-7601. Sincerely, Thomas A. Parilo, Director of Development Services TAP:jb ` IN.... blot) low ' + k :30,0 o or, CAW - . At- ' DATE - RECEIPT NO. TOTAL RECEIVED PUBLIC WORKS LAFCO PLANNING PUBLIC SALES ENV. HEALTH FIRE NOE/NOD F/G FEE OTHER APPLICANT RECEIVED FROM RECEIPT 18783 OFFICIAL RECEIPT COUNTY OF BUTTE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF PLANNING ISSUED BY Al Height.Data Height abo round of Tallest bbject.(including an as & trees) 100 ft. by administrative permit; higher as needed to provide service with a use permit Highest Elevation (above sea level) of'Any Object or -Terrain on Site , Ordinance is Ci wide: -Flight Hazards - Does the project, involve any -characteristics which could create Yes ❑.No : Electrical interference, confusing -lights, glare, smoke, or other Electrical`or;'visual hazards to aircraft flight? ' Does the project have the pgtential for,attracting birds? : 0 Yes ❑ No If yes -to either, The ordinance pertainsto the siting of and develobriient standards for wireless telecommunications facilities, Date Received', Type of project 'Agency Name �i " 7 ❑ General Plan Amendment ❑ Zoning Amendment or , w Variance Staff Contact- Subdivision Approval . " Phone Number ❑ Use Permit Agency's Project No. 0 Public.Facility F - Othery ✓�d w Signature Date (Appli ant r Age _. T BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION Minutes of September 20, 2000 4. ALUC File No. A00-08 Consistency Finding for the City of Chico Draft Wireless -Telecommunications Ordinance: The draft ordinance contains zoning regulations and development standards for wireless. communications facilities located within the incorporated limit of the City of Chico. Mr. Sanders summarized the proposed ordinance along with the recommended additions and deletions, which would then make it consistent with the CLUP currently being prepared. Commissioner Grierson said that cell towers are concerns of many people and in regard to an industrial, park by the airport; there are certain limitations that one needs to realistically approach. The hearing was opened to the public. Mr. Kim Seidler, City of Chico Planning Director, clarified the CityOs proposed language that in airport zones only, towers shall be painted and lit with a beacon in accordance with FAA standards. He also said they want to eliminate, to the extent possible, the public concerns about the way the tower looks. The hearing was closed to the public. Mr. Seidler said the portion of the language that is of concern is Oshall be painted and litO. Mr. Sanders said the wording could be amended. ' .The wording was discussed and amended. Mr. Seidler agreed with the amended wording. It was moved by Commissioner Grierson, seconded by .Commissioner Harp and unanimously carried to shall be demarcated with lighting or painting as, deemed necessary during the ALUC review.' 0 0 Airport Land Use Commission D Minutes of Meeting of September 20, 2000 0 Page 5 0 i AGENDA ITEM -. EA. TO: Honorable Chair and Airport Land Use Commission FROM: ALUC Staff DATE: September 13, 2000 ITEM: ALUC File No. A00-08 Consistency Finding for the City of Chico Draft Wireless Telecommunications Ordinance: The draft ordinance contains zoning regulations and development standards for wireless communications facilities located within the incorporated limits of the City of Chico,. . FOR: Airport Land Use Commission Meeting of September 20, 2000 SUMMARY: Staff recommends that ALUC find the project inconsistent with the 1978 Chico Municipal Airport CL UP as amended on. October 21, 1998, and December 29, 1999, but may be made consistent subject to recommendations and conditions contained in this report. ANALYSIS: The project is a draft ordinance regulating the,placement'and design characteristics of wireless telecommunications facilities. While it is applicable to all land within the incorporated limits of the City of Chico, ALUC's jurisdiction is limited to the airport area of influence. The City's ordinance is similar to Butte County's telecommunications ordinance adopted on December 7, 1999, but -does contain differing -elements that could affect tower design and location within airport areas of influence. The Butte County ordinance requires all new facilities .located within the boundary of a Comprehensive Land Use Plan or an Airport Area of Influence be submitted to ALUC for review regarding consistency with adopted plans and to address potential impacts to navigable airspace. This type of review allows ALUC to make recommendations and impose conditions. The City's ordinance only provides for review by the City Airport Manager as follows: "All use permit and wireless telecommunications permit applications shall be reviewed by the airport manager for a determination as to whether the proposed facility will encroach into navigable airspace as defined by Part 77 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations." As proposed, ALUC will not have any opportunity for review and it appears the airport manager's review is limited to whether a tower will encroach into Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77 imaginary surfaces. Staff considers, this review inadequate. The Cal Trans handbook acknowledges that, depending upon location, objects that do not pierce an imaginary surface could still be a hazard to aircraft navigation. The County's ordinanceAoes not address lighting or the'tower color when located within an Airport Area of Influence. These issues are addressed as part of ALUC's required review. The City's proposed language states that towers within an Airport Area of Influence shall be painted and lit with • Butte County !Airport Land Use Commission • a beacon in accordance with FAA standards. FAA standards for beacon lighting only apply to structures 200 feet or greater in height or structures that penetrate any imaginary surface described in Part 77. The same criteria are applicable to marking towers with alternating orange and white stripes. The City has the following zones in the airport area: A - Aviation; AC - Airport Commercial. AM - Airport Manufacturing, and AP - Airport Public Facilities. The following table lists the permit requirements and height limitations for wireless communications facilities in each of these zones. Zone New tower or Monopole Co -Location Building facade or roof mounted antenna Aviation NP WTFP WTFP - Building -mounted UP - Roof mounted Airport UP WTFP WTFP - Building -mounted and roof -mounted Commercial with a maximum height of 65" UP - Roof -mounted over 65' in height Airport WTFP - for maximum height of WTFP WTFP - Building -mounted and roof -mounted Manufacturing 65'' with a maximum height of 65' . UP for facilities exceeding 65' UP - Roof -mounted over 65' in height Airport Public UP WTFP WTFP - Building -mounted and roof -mounted Facilities with a maximum height of 65' UP - Roof -mounted over 65' in height NP=Not permitted UP= permitted with a use permit WTFP=permitted with a wireless telecommunications facilities pen -nit (Administrative) These provisions which allow, new towers near the airport conflict with the current 1999 CLUP. amendment which prohibits new communications towers in all CLUP zones except zone 7 - Airport Area of Influence. For example, a significant amount of land on both sides of the airport zoned is currently zoned AM. This land is in a safety Zone 6 which prohibits new towers. Other property within the city, particularly southeast of the airport could also allow new towers: Some of these properties are- in the Inner Safety Zone, Inner Turning Zone, and Outer Safety Zone which also prohibit new tower facilities. Where allowed by the current CLUP, free-standing towers are required to have alternate orange and white paint starting at 30 feet above the ground and a strobe light at the top of the tower that is shielded from striking the ground for 1 mile. Towers with guy wires, must have blinking lights along the guy wires at 20 foot intervals and three foot diameter orange balls at 20 foot intervals, beginning at 30 feet above the ground. The proposed ordinance does not include these provisions and would therefore be inconsistent with the current CLUP. Until the new CLUP is adopted for the Chico Municipal Airport, all applications for new towers must be submitted to ALUC for review. This submittal requirement shall be in effect until consistency is' made between the CLUP and the City ordinance or an override is necessary. Since the Draft CLUP •Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • 2 is substantially completed which proposes significant changes to regulations on towels in the airport _ area, it recommended that'the Commission focus on changes to the ordinance that would bring it into. conformity with the Draft CLUP rather than the current CLUP. Consistency. with the proposed 2000 CLUP: '• } 'The Draft CLUP has -height limitations within the various zones as follows: - Zone'A Prohibits objects exceeding FAR Part 77 requirements u Zone B 1 Airspace review required for objects > 35 feet tall , Zone B2 Airspace review required for objects > 70 feet tall . Zone Cl'; Airspace review required for objects > 100 feet tall Zone C2 t Airspace review -required for objects > 100 feet tall :} Zone D Airspace review required for objects > 1,00 feet tall The language proposed by the City is inconsistent with the Draft CLUP in that it would allow towers higher than the above recommendations without ALUC review. -If the CLUP is'adopted in its present form; the City will either have to amend their ordinance to become_ consistent with the CL -UP or successfully override'the new-CLUP... RECOMMENDATION: To make the proposed ordinance -consistent with the CLUP currently being prepared, it is recommended that the following changes be made to Section 19.78.080 and. 19.78.110 of the City's proposed ordinance' Additions are in shaded text,` deletions are in strikeout. T . 19.78.080 Review by airport manager' All use permit and wireless telecommunications facilities permit applications gtliin the;are . subject to;the'Comtirehensive'LandxUse'�Plan`�(CLUP)tfof �theLChico Municipal,Airpo shall.- be reviewed by the airport manager.for a determination as,to whether the proposed facility j LU�andonfeuirementofconformsogndardsfof the CP•cor& r ' Part 77 of title 14 of.the Code of Federal - Regulations. TEM a lieations for facilities that exceed the height;sfandards•of the CLUP' MER be`submitted to the'Butte County=Airport Commission,to_address,potential impacts,to, - navigable airstiace. • s 19.78.110 Development Standards A. New Towers and Monopoles 1. Unless otherwise required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), or unless ^ stealthing has been required, monopoles and towers located in all non -airport zones. shall be painted a *single, neutral, non -'glossy colordesigned -to minimize visual impacts. New towers and monopoles located within.tWboundary ofthe Comprehensive Land Use Plan «LLTPn for'Ithefhico'MuniciM.-7 rpo , shall be painted and lit with a beacon in accordance with thetrecommendations-of,he.Butte` *Butte County *Airport Land Use Commission*' r Y } 3 ` EXHIBIT A BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION CONSISTENCY FINDINGS FOR: ALUC File No. A00-08 Consistency Finding for the City of Chico Draft Wireless Telecommunications Ordinance. The Airport Land Use Commission has prepared the following findings based on data contained within the 1978 Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the Chico Municipal Airport, as amended on October 21, 1998, and December 29, 1999; the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook; and the Butte County Airport Facilities Manual. These data are based on the findings of a number of studies, documents, and reports generated by individuals, firms, and agencies recognized as having expertise in the field of Airport Land Use Planning and land use compatibility (refer to Exhibit B, List of References). The following findings have been prepared at the direction of the ALUC and are for the consideration of the Lead Agency.(County of Butte) when making a decision on the project. SECTION 1: ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS A. Environmental documentation was submitted at the time of project review. SECTION 2: CONSISTENCY FINDINGS FOR PROPOSED PROJECT A. The proposed ordinance regulating the location and development standards for wireless telecommunications facilities is inconsistent with the 1978 Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the Chico Municipal Airport, as amended on October 21, 1998, and December 29, 1999,provided as follows:. 1. The 1999 CLUP amendment prohibits new communication towers in all airport safety zones except zone 7 - Airport Area of Influence. The proposed ordinance would allow new towers in other safety zones including Safety Zone 2 - Inner Safety Zone, Safety Zone3 - Inner Turning Zone, Safety Zone 4 Outer' Safety Zone, and Safety .Zone 6 ; Traffic Pattern Zone. B. Approvalof the.project as proposed would necessitate the adoption of Overriding Findings by a 2/3 vote of the governing body. Overriding Findings by the governing body can only be made based on substantiated facts and must be supported by new substantial factual evidence introduced into the public record that the proposed action is consistent with the State. Aeronautics Act as stated in Section 21670. Overriding Findings cannot be adopted as matters of opinion, heresay, or upon the unsubstantiated fears and desires of the governing body. • Butte County *Airport Land Use Commission • 5 r: SECTION 3: PROJECT REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSISTENCY Bringing the proposed ordinance into conformity with the requirements of the 1978 Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the Chico Municipal Airport, as amended on October 21, 1998, and December 29, 1999, as well as the CLUP currently being considered for adoption requires the incorporation of the following modifications: Revise the wording of Section 19.78.080 - "Review by airport manager" as follows: All use permit and wireless telecommunications facilities permit applications within the area subject to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the Chico Municipal Airport shall be reviewed by the airport manager for a determination as to whether the proposed facility conforms to the height standards of the CLUP and to the requirements of Part 77 of title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Permit applications for facilities that exceed the height standards of the CLUP shall be submitted to the Butte County Airport Commission to address potential impacts to navigable airspace. 2. Revise the wording of Section 19.78.110 - "Development Standards," A. New Towers and Monopoles, to read: 1. Unless otherwise required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), or unless stealthing has been required, monopoles and towers located in all non -airport zones shall be painted a single, neutral, non - glossy color designed to minimize visual impacts. New towers and monopoles located within the boundary of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the Chico Municipal Airport shall be painted and fit -with a beacon in accordance with the recommendations of the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). When ALUC review is not required, the new tower or monopole shall be painted and lit with a beacon in accordance with FAA standards. Until the new CLUP is adopted .for the Chico Municipal Airport, all applications for new wireless communications facilities within the 1999 CLUP Airport Area of Influence boundary shall be submitted to the Butte County ALUC for- review, prior to consideration for approval by the City of Chico. *Butte County *Airport Land Use Commission • 6 �. EXHIBIT B List of References Data supporting the ALUC's findings'have been generated from studies and reports prepared by recognized professionals and agencies with expertise in Airport Land Use Planning and land use compatibility. These include, but are not limited to; R. Dixon Speas Associates - Prepared Butte County Airport Facilities Plan and Map of FAR Part 77 Surfaces for the, Chico Municipal Airport. Caltrans -Division of Aeronautics - 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. Hodges and Shutt - Prepared accident scatter data presented in Chapter 8 of the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. -University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Transportation Studies (1993) - Prepared accident scatter data presented in Figure 9E on page 9-.13 of the, 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. ' K:\ALUC\MEETINGS\2000\09-20-OO.MTG\E4.RPT , Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • • 7 4. 19.78.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a uniform and comprehensive set of standards for the development of wireless telecommunications facilities. The regulations contained herein are intended to protect and promote public health, safety, community welfare and the aesthetic quality of the city while at the same time providing reasonable opportunities for providers of wireless telecommunications services to provide such services in a safe, effective and efficient manner. These regulations are further intended to: A. Require the location of new monopoles, towers and antennas in non-residential zoning districts unless technically necessary for provision of the service. B. Ensure that new monopoles and towers are located in or near residential and open space zones only when alternative locations or building mounts are not feasible. C. Require telecommunications facilities to be designed in a way to minimize adverse visual impacts. D. Encourage co -location of facilities at new and existing monopoles. E. Protect the public's interest in the safe operation of public safety, emergency and medical services. F. Protect the public from exposure to NEIR (nonionizing electromagnetic radiation) in excess of federal standards. 19.78.020 Definitions. A. Antenna - Any system of wires, poles, rods, panels, reflecting. discs or similar devices used for the transmission or reception of radio frequency electromagnetic waves when such system is external or attached to the exterior of a structure. B. Building -Mounted Antenna - Any antenna, other than an antenna with its supports resting on the ground, directly attached or affixed to a building, tank, tower or structure other than a monopole or tower. C. Co -location - The practice of two or more wireless telecommunications facilities service providers sharing one support structure or building for the location of their facilities. D. FAA - Federal Aviation Administration. E. FCC - Federal Communications Commission. F. Ground -Mounted Antenna - An antenna with its support structure placed directly on the Wtf.ord September 13, 2000 1. DRAFT ground. G. Lattice Tower - a three or more. legged open structure designed and erected to support wireless telecommunications antennas and connecting appurtenances. H. Monopole a single pole structure designed and erected to support wireless telecommunications antennas and connecting appurtenances. ; I. NEIR- Nonionizing electromagnetic radiation. J. Roof -Mounted Antenna - an antenna directly attached to the roof of an existing building, water tank, tower or structure other than a telecommunications tower. K. Satellite Dish Antenna - any device incorporating a reflective surface that is solid, open mesh or bar configured, that is shallow dish, cone, horn, bowl or cornucopia shaped and is used to transmit and/or receive electromagnetic or radio frequency communication/signals in a specific directional pattern. L. Telecommunications Tower - A monopole or lattice tower. M. Wireless Telecommunications Facility - Any structure, antenna, pole, equipment and related improvements the primary purpose of which is to support the wireless telecommunications industry in the transmission and/or reception of electromagnetic signals, including, but not limited to, monopoles and lattice towers. 19.78.030 Application. This ordinance shall apply to all wireless telecommunications facilities for the transmission and/or reception of wireless radio, television, and other telecommunications signals including, but not limited to commercial wireless communications systems such as cellular and paging systems except those facilities defined in.this chapter as exempt facilities. 19.78.040 Exempt facilities. The following wireless telecommunications facilities are exempt from the requirements of this chapter provided that they meet the location and design requirements set forth below: A. Interior and exterior facilities accessory to a residential use of a site which meet the requirements set forth below. 1. One ground- or building -mounted receive -only radio or television satellite dish antenna which does not exceed 36 inches in diameter per dwelling unit. Such satellite dishes shall not extend above the roof peak or parapet of the primary structure on the parcel. 2. A single ground- or building -mounted receive -only radio or television antenna including any mast. Such antennas shall not exceed a maximum height of 40 feet measured from the ground and shall not be located in front or side yard setbacks. 3. A ground- or building -mounted citizens band radio antenna, including any mast, which does not exceed a maximum height of 40 feet measured from the ground. Such antennas shall not be located in front or side yard setbacks. 4. A ground- or building -mounted antenna which does not exceed a maximum height of 40 feet and which is operated by a federally -licensed amateur radio operator. Such antennas shall not be located in front or side yard setbacks. Wtf.ord September 12, 2000 2 DRAFT B. Government-owned communications facilities used primarily to protect public health, safety and welfare. C. Facilities operated by providers of emergency medical services including hospital, ambulance and medical air transportation services. D. Any facility specifically exempted under federal or state law. E. Temporary facilities erected and operated for use in emergency situations which are approved in writing in advance of installation by the planning director. Use of such facilities shall 'not exceed two weeks.unless an extension is granted by the planning director. F. Two-way radio communications systems operated only as an internal business communications system by owners/operators and not made available to third parties, which do not exceed a maximum height of 40 feet measured from the ground. G. Repair or replacement of a lawfully-established existing facility so long as the repair or replacement does not involve modifications to the facility which add height, change the.. appearance or increase.the effective radiated power: The exemptions set forth in this section shall apply only to facilities demonstrating radio- frequency emission compliance with FCC regulations pursuant to FCC Office of Engineering Technology (OET) Bulletin No. 65 entitled "Evaluating Compliance With FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields" (August 1977 or later revisions or successors thereto) and shall not apply to any facility not categorically exempt from FCC regulation pursuant to FCC, OET65, or to any facilities operated, leased to, or used by common carriers or wireless telecommunications service providers or to television and/or radio broadcast facilities. 19.78.050 Location Preferences - New monopoles and towers. To the maximum extent feasible, new monopoles and towers shall be located according to the following preferences, with the most preferred sites listed first: A. Sites zoned ML,'MP, MG and AM which are located at least 100 feet from residentially - zoned property; B. Sites zoned OC, CC and CS, and which do not permit residential uses as of right and which are at least 100 feet fromresidentially-zoned property; C. Sites zoned ML, MP, MG and AM but which are within 100 feet of residentially -zoned property; D. Sites zoned OC, CC and CS, but which are within 100 feet of residentially -zoned property; 19.78.060 Permit Requirements. No wireless telecommunications facility shall be constructed or modified without first obtaining a use permit or a wireless telecommunications facilities permit, as specified below. Wtf.ord September 12, 2000 3 DRAFT Zoning District New Tower or Monopole Co-location'on existing tower or monopole Building facade or roof mounted antenna RR NP WTFP NP RS NP WTFP NP RI NP WTFP NP R2 NP WTFP NP R3 NP WTFP ,. WTFP R4 NP WTFP "' WTFP RD NP WTFP WTFP OR NP WTFP WTFP OC UP WTFP WTFP CN NP WTFP WTFP CC UP WTFP WTFP CD NP WTFP WTFP CS UP WTFP WTFP ML WTFP WTFP WTFP MG WTFP WTFP WTFP MP WTFP " WTFP WTFP A NP WTFP WTFP - Building -mounted UP - Roof mounted AC UP WTFP. WTFP - Building -mounted and roof mounted with a maximum height of 65' UP - Roof -mounted over 65' in height AM WTFP - for maximum height of 65' UP for facilities exceeding 65' WTFP WTFP - Building -mounted and roof -mounted with a maximum height of 65' UP - Roof -mounted over 65' in height AP UP WTFP WTFP - Building-mounied and roof -mounted with a maximum height of 65' UP - Roof -mounted over 65' in height PMU NP WTFP WTFP PQ WTFP WTFP WTFP OSI _.. — NP WTFP NP OS2 NP WTFP NP NP=Not permitted UP= permitted with a use permit WTFP=permitted with a wireless telecommunications facilities permit Wtf.Ord September 12, 2000 4. DRAFT In all zones in which a new monopole or tower is listed as NP (not permitted), such a facility may nevertheless be permitted by use permit if the planning commission makes the findings required by sectionl9.78.090. Facilities which would otherwise be exempt from the requirements of this chapter but which do not meet the size, height, setback or other requirements of section 19.78.040,'above, may be permitted by a use permit. Facilities which would otherwise be permitted with a wireless telecommunications --facilities permit, but which do not meet the design standards required for such permits, may be permitted with a use permit. ' 19.78.070 Application requirements. The following items shall be required for each permit for a wireless telecommunications facility. A. Use Permits. n 1. All application materials generally required for a use permit; and 2. All materials listed below as required for a wireless telecommunications facilities permit application. B. Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Permits. 1. A site plan which includes the location of all structures and equipment to be located on the site; 2. Elevations of all proposed wireless telecommunications structures and appurtenances and composite elevations from the streets showing the proposed project and all buildings on the site. 3. Photo simulations, elevations or other visual or graphic illustrations necessary to determine potential visual impact of the proposed project. Visual impact demonstrations shall include accurate scale and coloration of the proposed facility. 4. A landscape_ plan that shows existing vegetation, vegetation to be removed and proposed plantings by type, size and location. 5. A geographic service area map showing: a. The applicant's wireless telecommunications network within 20 miles in all directions of the proposed site, including all facilities which exist at the time and for which applications are pending; b. The hand off sites within the above area; c. The geographic area the facility could be located in; d. All other existing sites that could be used for the proposed antenna location; and e. All wireless telecommunications facilities of all other telecommunications services providers within 1,000 feet of the proposed site. 6. An alternative height analysis for all new monopoles or towers proposed to be over 100 feet in height; 7. An analysis of and supporting information regarding alternative, site selection and co - location opportunities in the service area; 8. A statement of how the proposed facility satisfies the locational preferences established by this chapter, or, if the proposed location is not preferred location, a description of the Wtf.ord September 12, 2000 5 DRAFT • preferred location sites within the geographic service area and a statement of why each alternative site was rejected. 9. Noise and acoustical information for the base transceiver stations, equipment buildings and associated equipment such as air conditioning and back-up generators. . 10. A statement by the applicant of whether it is willing to allow other carriers to co -locate on their facilities wherever technically and economically feasible and aesthetically desirable. 11. A report, signed by a qualified radio frequency engineer and prepared pursuant to FCC OET 65, stating the maximum radio frequency radiation/electromagnetic radiation (RF/EN4F) to be emitted by the proposed facility and whether emissions conform to safety standards adopted by the FCC. Such reports shall take into account all other facilities within 2,000 feet, both existing and known future facilities, the cumulative effects of co -located facilities, and existing nearby buildings and structures, and shall be written in plain English. C. The city may, in its sole, discretion, retain an independent consultant to review either individual elements of, or the entire application, and advise the city at the applicant's sole expense. 19.78.080 Review by airport manager. All use permit and wireless telecommunications facilities permit applications shall be reviewed by the airport manager for a determination as to whether the proposed facility will encroach into navigable air space as defined by part 77 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. 19.78.090 Action on use permit applications. All use permits for wireless telecommunications facilities shall be acted upon by the planning commission. A. Use permits may be granted for wireless telecommunications facilities only if all of the, following findings are made: 2. All findings otherwise required for a use permit pursuant to chapter 19.24. 2. The facility to be permitted will not generate electromagnetic radio frequency or radio frequency radiation in excess of the FCC adopted standards for human exposure. 3. The facility has been designed to minimize its height and other visual effects. 4. The facility does not encroach into navigable airspace as defined by Part 77 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. 5. For a wireless telecommunications facility which will be located in any zoning district in which such a facility is generally not permitted: a. The permit applicant. has demonstrated, based on technical requirements, that the facility must be located within one of those zoning districts in order to provide the service; and b. The denial of a. use permit to allow a facility in one of those zoning districts would constitute a prohibition of the affected wireless telecommunications services in violation of federal law; and Wtf.ord September 12, 2000 6 DRAFT c. If the facility is proposed to be located in a residentially -zoned district, the permit applicant has demonstrated, based on technical requirements, that the service cannot be provided by locating the facility in a non-residential zone. 6. For a new monopole or tower which is proposed to be located within 1,000 feet of an existing monopole or tower: a. The cumulative visual impacts are not significant; and b. Location within 1,000 feet of the existing tower or monopole is necessary to provide services not possible with co -location on an existing tower or pole or structure in the service area. B. Use permits issued for new towers or monopoles in residential or open space zones may be conditioned upon the use of stealthing techniques to disguise the facility and make it less visually intrusive. C. Use permits for facilities which will generate 80% or more of the maximum permissible EMF/RF emissions as set by Federal regulation shall be conditioned upon the submission to the City of an annual certification from a licensed engineer expert in the field of EMF/RF emissions verifying that the facility is and has been operated within the then current federal standards for such emissions. The report shall consider nearby buildings and structures and . the cumulative effects of co -located facilities and other nearby facilities and be written in plain English. D. Use permits for wireless telecommunications facilities shall be approved or denied by resolution. A resolution granting a use permit shall contain all of the findings required. by this section and all conditions applicable to the use permit. A resolution denying a use permit application for a wireless telecommunications facility shall state the reasons for denial, which reasons must be based on evidence before the commission at the time the decision to deny was reached. 19.78.100 Actions on wireless telecommunications facilities permits. Wireless telecommunications facilities permits shall be acted upon by the planning director. A. Wireless telecommunications facilities shall be issued when all of the following requirements are met: 2. The facility meets the design standards set forth in this chapter; 2. The facility will not generate electromagnetic radio frequency or radio frequency radiation in excess of the FCC adopted standards for human exposure; 3. If the facility is a new tower or monopole, it does not exceed 85 feet in height if located within 100 feet of a residentially -zoned district or100 feet in height if located 100 feet or more from a residentially -zoned district; and 4. The facility does not encroach into navigable airspace as defined by Part 77 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. B. Wireless'telecommunications facilities permits for facilities which will generate 80% or more of the maximum permissible EMF/RF emissions as set by Federal regulation shall be conditioned upon the submission to the City of an annual certification from a licensed engineer expert in the field of EMF/RF. emissions verifying that the facility is' and has been operated within the then current federal standards for such emissions. The report shall consider nearby Wtf.ord September 12, 2000 7 DRAFT 0 • buildings and structures and the cumulative effects of co=located and other nearby facilities and be written in plain English. C. The planning director shall act on all applications for wireless telecommunications facilities permits within 90 days of the submission of a completed application. D. Wireless telecommunications facilities permits shall be approved or denied in writing.. All denials shall state the reasons for the denial. Reasons for denial shall be limited to a finding by the planning director that one of the requirements for issuance, as set forth in A., above, has not been met. 19.78.110 Development standards. A. New Towers and Monopoles. 1. Unless otherwise required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), or unless stealthing has been required, monopoles and towers located in all non -airport zones shall be painted a single, neutral, non -glossy color designed to minimize visual impacts. Now towers and monopoles located in any airport zone shall be painted and lit with a beacon in accordance with FAA standards. 2. All towers and monopoles in non -airport zones `shall be unlit unless lighting is required pursuant to FAA regulations. When lighting is required, it shall be shielded or directed in such a manner as to minimize the amount of light that falls onto nearby properties. _ 3. New monopoles and towers shall generally not be permitted within 1,000 feet of an existing monopole or tower. New monopoles and towers which would otherwise be permitted with a wireless telecommunications facilities permit, but which are located within 1,000 feet of an existing monopole or tower, shall require a use permit which may be granted upon a finding that cumulative visual impacts are not significant and that the tower is necessary to provide services not possible with co -location on an existing tower or structure in the 'service area. 4. Ground -mounted equipment shall be undergrounded or screened from view. 5. Parking and access shall be on an improved surface. 6. If the tower or monopole is more than 100 feet in height, it must be designed at the minimum height functionally required. This determination shall be based on the alternative height analysis submitted as part of the application for the facility or on an independent analysis obtained by the City pursuant to section 19.78.070. 7. No facility or combination of facilities shall generate electromagnetic frequency radiation (EMF) or radio frequency radiation (RF) in excess of the FCC adopted standards for human exposure. 8. Each tower and monopole shall be identified by a sign placed on or near the tower or monopole, or any accessory building, which sets forth the name, address and a 24-hour telephone number of the facility's operator. 9. Monopoles and towers for which a wireless.telecommunications facilities permit is issued shall be set back from all property lines by at least 25 feet. Setbacks for monopoles and towers subject to a use permit shall be determined by the planning commission'as part of the use permit. approval. B. Additional facilities to be -co-located on an existing tower or monopole. Wtf.ord September 12, 2000 8 DRAFT 1... The original tower or monopole was constructed and is operating in accordance with the requirements of the wireless telecommunications facilities or use permit originally issued for that facility. 2. The type and size of the new antennas are consistent with the requirements of the original wireless telecommunications facilities or use permit. 3. The new antenna array does not exceed the height of the existing monopole or tower. 4. The' new antenna array is the second or third grouping on the tower or monopole. 5. The proposed array fits within the three dimensional envelope of the existing tower and arrays. 6. The combined level of radio frequency radiation for all arrays does not exceed the maximum permissible exposure level set by the FCC. C. Building -mounted antennas. Building mounted antennas shall be located and designed to appear an integral part of the structure. To this end, they must comply with the following standards. 1. The lowest part of the antenna shall be a minimum of 15 feet above grade. 2. The antenna and mountings shall not project more than 18 inches from the building surface to which it is mounted. 3. Antennas, connections and. supports shall be treated to match the color scheme of the building or structure to which they are attached. 4. Antennas and connections shall not project above the mounting facade. 5. Antennas placed on water towers shall not project above the height of the water tower. 6. Exterior electrical lines serving the equipment cabinet or building shall be undergrounded. 7. All equipment shelters, cabinets or other structures utilized or built in connection with the facility shall be located inside the building being utilized for the facility, on the ground outside the setback area or any required parking area, or on the roof if screened from view. D. Roof -mounted antennas. 1. Roof -mounted antennas shall not exceed the maximum building height for the zoning district by 20 feet and shall be set back at least 20 feet from the front and side edges of the roof upon which it is mounted. 2. All equipment shelters, cabinets or other structures utilized or built in connection with the facility shall be located inside the building being utilized for the facility, on the ground outside the setback area or any required parking area or on the roof if screened from view. 19.78.120 Term and renewal of permits. All use permits for wireless telecommunications facilities, all wireless telecommunications facilities permits, and all renewals of such permits, shall be issued for a 10 -year period. Upon written request by the permittee, a review shall be scheduled for no later than 90 days prior to the termination of that period in.order to consider whether the permit should .be renewed. Grounds for non -renewal of a permit'shall be limited to one of the following: A. The use is no longer allowed in the applicable zoning district and the applicant has not demonstrated that location of the facility.in that zone is technically necessary to provide the service. Wtf.ord . September 12, 2000 9 . . DRAFT B. The facility fails to comply with the relevant requirements of this chapter as they exist at the time of review and the permittee has failed to supply assurances that the facility will be brought into compliance within 120 days. C.' The permittee has failed to comply with the conditions of the existing use or wireless telecommunications facilities permit; The renewal of a use permits or a wireless telecommunications facilities permit may be conditioned upon modification of facility to incorporate technology that has become available since the time the original permit.was issued and which will minimize the facility's impacts, including aesthetic impacts. 19.78.130 Abandonment: The permittee under any wireless telecommunications facilities permit or use permit for a wireless telecommunications facility shall notify the city in writing within 30 days of the cease of operation of the permitted facility.. Any wireless telecommunications facility which is not operated for continuous period of six months or for which the permit has expired, shall be considered abandoned and shall be removed by the facility owner within thenext six months. 19.78.140 Severability. If any part of this chapter is, for any reason, held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this chapter. 19.78.150. Appeals. A. Appeals from decisions regarding wireless telecommunications facilities permits issued by the planning director may appealed to the planning commission with a further appeal to the city council. The issues to.be reviewed on the appeal of a wireless telecommunications facilities permit shall be limited to whether the planning director appropriately determined whether the requirements for the issuance of.such a permit, as set forth in section 19.78.100, have been met. B. Appeals from decisions of the planning commission regarding use permits for wireless telecommunications facilities shall be to the city council. in accordance with the procedures set forth in chapter 2.80 of this Code. Wtf.ord September 12, 2000 10 DRAFT • • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RECEIVED DEPARTMENT PLANNING cc nn SEEP 0 12000 411 Main StreetBUTTE .. CITYorCHICO P.O. Box 3420 I�.187Z Chico, CA 95927 ' P COUNTY LANNING DIVISION (530) 895-4851 FAX (530) 895-4726 ATSS 459-4851 : • i . r CITY OF CHICO PLANNING COMMISSION •.: _ . - PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE AND. A. . - NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION :r September 1, 2000 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Chico Planning Commission will conduct it public hearing on Thursday, September 21, 2000, at 6:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Chico Municipal Center, 421 Main Street, Chico, CA, for the following projects: - Parcel Map 004 and Variance 00-3 (Hawley)1835 Locust Street: A request to approve a parcel map to create two residential lots and a request to approve a variance to allow two residential lots with 44 foot widths, one foot less than the required 45 foot lot width. The property is located at 1835 Locust Street, approximately 45 feet north of the intersection of Locust and 19th Streets. The site is identified as Assessor's Parcel Number,005-246- 007. The project site is designated on the Chico General Plan as Low Density Residential and is zoned R1 Low Density Residential. An Initial Study for environmental review has been prepared for the proposed project and is available for review in the Chico Planning Division. Based upon the information within the initial study, the Planning Division is recommending that a negative declaration be adopted for the project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A "negative declaration" is a determination that a project will not have a significant impact on the environment. Also pursuant to CEQA, a 20 -day public review period is being conducted on the proposed negative declaration, to begin on Friday, September 1, and end on Wednesday, September 20 at 5:00 p.m. Comments relating to environmental concerns and the proposed negative declaration should be filed in writing to the City of Chico Planning Division, P.O. Box 3420, Chico, CA 95927 during that time period. The City of Chico will review all comments, and either uphold the negative declaration or determine that a "mitigated negative declaration" or an Environmental Impact Report is required. The Planning Commission will consider the project and the proposed negative declaration for approval at the hearing on September 21, 2000. Questions regarding this project may be directed to Senior Planner Ed Palmeri, who can be contacted at (530) 895-4795. Rezone 00-10 Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance - Amendment to Title 19 of the Chico Municipal Code (,City of Chico): A request by the City of Chico to adopt an ordinance modifying development procedures and standards applicable to the siting and installation of wireless telecommunications facilities consistent with federal 03 G& Made From Recycled Paper ROUTE TO: [ X ] City of Chico - City Attorney's. Office [ X ] Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) [ X ] City of Chico Airport Commission [ X ] Federal Aviation Administration [ X ] Butte County Development Services Department 1. Project Description A. Project Name: Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinanoe B. Project Location: City-wide C. Type of Application(s). Amendments to Chapters 19:76 and 19.78 of the Land Use Regulations of the City of Chico Municipal Code (zoning ordinance) relative to .Wireless Communications Facilities D. Assessor's Parcel Number(s): City-wide E. Current Zoning: various General Plan Designation: various F. Environmental Setting: City-wide G. Project Description: The City of Chico proposes to adopt an ordinance modifying development procedures and standards applicable to the siting and installation of wireless communications facilities consistent with federal regulations. Please see section II A. Aesthetics for a summary of proposed permitting procedures and development regulations. H. Surrounding Land Uses: City-wide . i L' Public Agency Approvals: Consistency finding from Butte County ALUC; Chico Airport Committee recommendation; Chico Planning Commission recommendation; City Council approval J. Applicant: City -initiated Address: P.O. Box 3420, Chico, CA 95926 K. initiated By: City -initiated Contact: Lori Barker, Assistant City Attorney or Ci of Chico Initial Stud • • City Y Project - Page 2 Kim Seidler, Planning Director Prepared By: Stacey Jolliffe, Senior Planner ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact' as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [ J Aesthetics [ ] Geology /Soils [ ] Open Space/ Recreation [ ] Air Quality [ ] ` Hazards /Hazardous Materials [ ] Public Services [ X] Biological Resources [J Hydrology/ Water Quality [ ] Population/ Housing [ ] Cultural Resources [ .] Land Use and Planning [ ] Transportation/Circulation [ ] Energy and Natural Resources [ ] Noise/Light and Glare [ ] Utilities PLANNING DIRECTOR DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: [ J I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [ X ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or,agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ( ] I find that the proposed project MAY have, a potentially significant impact or have a potentially significant impact unless mitigated, but at least one effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed: [ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. No further study is required. ignature Stacey Lynn Jolliffe J'85D-do Date For Kim Seidler, Planning Director City of Chico Initial Study • • Project - Page 3 2. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS • Responses to the following questions and related discussion indicate 'if the proposed project will have or potentially have a significant adverse impact on the environment. • A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants based on a project -specific screening analysis. • All answers must take account of the whole action involved , including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operation impacts. Once it has been determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there is at least one "Potentially Significant Impact" entry when the determination is made an EIR is required. • Negative Declaration: "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated" applies when the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The initial study will describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 4, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). • Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to tiering, a program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration [Section 155063(c)(3)(D)]. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 4 at the end of the checklist. Initial studies may incorporate references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. the general plan or zoning ordinances, etc.). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted are cited in .the discussion. • The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question: and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. City of Chico Initial Study • Project - Page 4 DISCUSSION: The proposed ordinance will not introduce new cellular towers to the City, but rather proposes regulations to guide the placement, height, setbacks, visual quality, and other characteristics of towers that will be placed in the City in the future. The Federal Communications Act, as administered by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), preempts local land use authority in that it requires communication towers be accommodated as necessary to satisfy service needs. However, the City may regulate the aesthetic qualities of the towers as long as adequate service can be provided. Type of Permit and Review Required While the type of permit required for telecommunications facilities does not directly affect aesthetics, it will determine the process within which future land use decisions -are made. Proposed code amendments would utilize a tiered permitting process, with some facilities exempt from review, some permitted ministerially ( without discretion as long as development standards are met), and others requiring a use permit as under the existing regulations. All structures erected in the City require architectural review,, with the exception of single-family residential structures, and appurtenant facilities. The following telecommunications facilities appurtenant to residential use would be exempt from permit requirements as well as architectural review under the proposed regulations: Satellite dish antennae which do not exceed thirty-six inches (36") in diamete r and 'do not extend above the roof peak or parapet of the primary structure. ♦ Ground- or building -mounted antennae which do not exceed 40 feet in height and which are not located in the front or side setback areas. This would include receive -only radio or television antennae, citizens band radio antennae, or antennae for a federally -licensed amateur (ham) radio operator. Other facilities are also exempt from permit requirements, including: government-owned facilities and emergency medical facilities used primarily to protect public health, safety, and welfare, temporary facilities, replacement facilities, and other facilities specifically exempted under federal or state law, amongst others. These non- residential facilities would be subject to architectural review. The new regulations establish a non -discretionary permit. process for wireless communications facilities, known as a wireless telecommunications facilities permit, for those facilities proposed within manufacturing zones and for those co -locating on existing structures, as long as development standards are met. This will provide incentive for facilities to be located outside of residential, open space, and commercial districts where aesthetic issues are of greatest concern. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than A. Aesthetics: Will the project or its related Significant Mitigation Significant No activities: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 1. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X 2. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, X but. not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? 3. Substantially degrade the existing visual character X or quality of the site and its surroundings? 4. Create,a new source of substantial light or.glare X which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? DISCUSSION: The proposed ordinance will not introduce new cellular towers to the City, but rather proposes regulations to guide the placement, height, setbacks, visual quality, and other characteristics of towers that will be placed in the City in the future. The Federal Communications Act, as administered by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), preempts local land use authority in that it requires communication towers be accommodated as necessary to satisfy service needs. However, the City may regulate the aesthetic qualities of the towers as long as adequate service can be provided. Type of Permit and Review Required While the type of permit required for telecommunications facilities does not directly affect aesthetics, it will determine the process within which future land use decisions -are made. Proposed code amendments would utilize a tiered permitting process, with some facilities exempt from review, some permitted ministerially ( without discretion as long as development standards are met), and others requiring a use permit as under the existing regulations. All structures erected in the City require architectural review,, with the exception of single-family residential structures, and appurtenant facilities. The following telecommunications facilities appurtenant to residential use would be exempt from permit requirements as well as architectural review under the proposed regulations: Satellite dish antennae which do not exceed thirty-six inches (36") in diamete r and 'do not extend above the roof peak or parapet of the primary structure. ♦ Ground- or building -mounted antennae which do not exceed 40 feet in height and which are not located in the front or side setback areas. This would include receive -only radio or television antennae, citizens band radio antennae, or antennae for a federally -licensed amateur (ham) radio operator. Other facilities are also exempt from permit requirements, including: government-owned facilities and emergency medical facilities used primarily to protect public health, safety, and welfare, temporary facilities, replacement facilities, and other facilities specifically exempted under federal or state law, amongst others. These non- residential facilities would be subject to architectural review. The new regulations establish a non -discretionary permit. process for wireless communications facilities, known as a wireless telecommunications facilities permit, for those facilities proposed within manufacturing zones and for those co -locating on existing structures, as long as development standards are met. This will provide incentive for facilities to be located outside of residential, open space, and commercial districts where aesthetic issues are of greatest concern. City of Chico Initial Study • • Project - Page 5 A use permit is required for new towers or monopoles proposed within the following zones: Office -Commercial, Community Commercial, Commercial Services, Airport Commercial, and Airport Public Facilities. It shou Id also be noted that in all zones for which a new monopole or tower is listed as not permitted, such a facility may nevertheless be permitted by use permit if the. planning commission makes necessary findings, acknowledging in effect that the facility is necessary to provide service and comply with requirements of the Federal Communications Commission, (FCC). Similarly, facilities not meeting the development standards may be permitted by use permit as necessary to provide service.and comply with FCC regulations. Development Standards The new regulations generally utilize the same development standards as existing regulations; however, some variations are proposed. Under existing regulations in residential zoning districts, antennae must be 5 feet from rear property lines, and antennae that are taller than adjacent property fences must be located away from the side or rear property line by a distance equal to or greater than the height of the antenna. These development standards have been omitted from the proposed regulations. Also under current regulations, the height of roof -mounted antennae generally conforms to restrictions in the underlying zone, though the Planning Director can modify that height restriction with the approval of a use permit if the height restrictions in the zone result in no or poor service. Under the proposed regulations, roof -mounted antennae shall not exceed the maximum height for the underlying zoning district by 20 feet and shall be set back at least 20 feet from front and side edges of the roof upon which it is located. Roof- and ground -mounted facilities are required under current regulations to provide screening under current regulations. This is not required under proposed regulations, though it should be noted that the availability of screening techniques to obscure facilities the height of most telecommunications facilities (40't 105') is limited. Conclusions Existing regulations require a use permit process for virtually all telecommunications facilities, which may provide an additional opportunity to offset the visual impacts of residential satellite facilities as compared to the proposed process. However, under proposed regulations the City would continue to perform architectural review on most applications, which would provide similar opportunities to offset visual impacts from such facilities to the extent practicable.. Additionally, the ministerial permitting process for facilities within manufacturing zoning districts and for co -location on existing facilities provides a market incentive for facilities to be located outside of residential, open space, and commercial districts where aesthetic issues are of greatest. concern. While the aesthetic impacts of cell towers may continue to be an issue in the future, proposed ordinance changes will neither cause nor significantly enhance those aesthetic impacts. City of Chico Initial Study • Project - Page 6 DISCUSSION: The proposed ordinance will regulate the placement and visual characteristics of wireless communications facilities; no change to air quality will result. Potentially Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than B. Air Quality: Will the project or its related Significant.. Mitigation Significant No activities result in: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 1. Generating pollutants (hydrocarbon, thermal, odor, X smoke, radiation, etc.) which would deteriorate Biological Resources: Will the project or its Significant ambient air quality? Significant No 2. Exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial X pollutant concentrations? Impact Impact 3. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or X - temperature, or any change in climate locally or regionally? or animal officially listed as threatened or 4. Inconsistency with air quality related plans (e.g., X Northern Sacramento Valley Air. Basin 1994 Air endangered? Quality Attainment Plan„ Chico Urban Area CO Attainment Plan, and Butte County Air Quality Substantial loss or degradation of any habitat Management District Indirect Source Review Guidelines)? identified as sensitive in the MEA? DISCUSSION: The proposed ordinance will regulate the placement and visual characteristics of wireless communications facilities; no change to air quality will result. DISCUSSION: The proposed ordinance would require enhanced application materials for wireless telecommunications facilities and contains only minor modifications to development standards. These changes, themselves, would have no effect on biological resources as compared to existing practices. Changes in permitting practices, however, could potentially lead to significant effects to biological resources. Current regulations for wireless communications facilities require a use permit, a discretionary permit requiring environmental review, in all zones: Under proposed regulations, new facilities could be permitted and constructed with a wireless telecommunications facility permit within manufacturing zones, a ministerial permit Potentially ` Significant Potentially Unless Less Than C. Biological Resources: Will the project or its Significant Mitigation Significant No related activities result in: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 1. Removal or degradation of critical habitat of a plant X or animal officially listed as threatened or endangered? .2. Substantial loss or degradation of any habitat X identified as sensitive in the MEA? 3. Substantial interference with the movement of any X resident or migratory fish or wildlife species? . .4. Substantial reduction or degradation of habitat for a X fish, wildlife, or plant species? 5. Substantial fragmentation of large areas of X contiguous wildlife habitat? 6. Increase in the danger of fire hazard in areas, with X flammable grass, brush, or trees? DISCUSSION: The proposed ordinance would require enhanced application materials for wireless telecommunications facilities and contains only minor modifications to development standards. These changes, themselves, would have no effect on biological resources as compared to existing practices. Changes in permitting practices, however, could potentially lead to significant effects to biological resources. Current regulations for wireless communications facilities require a use permit, a discretionary permit requiring environmental review, in all zones: Under proposed regulations, new facilities could be permitted and constructed with a wireless telecommunications facility permit within manufacturing zones, a ministerial permit City of Chico Initial Study S Project - Page 7 not subject to future environmental review. Additionally, several types of new facilities are exempt from any permit requirement. At least three sites within manufacturing zoning districts have a Resource Management Area overlay which indicates that sensitive habitats or rare, threatened, or endangered species exist on these sites. By making the use permit process a ministerial one for new towers and monopoles in manufacturing areas, the city would no longer have the authority to'perform environmental review to ensure that impacts to biological. resources have been avoided to. the extent practical, or mitigated as appropriate if avoidance'is.not possible. Exempt facilities . could be located on numerous biologically sensitive sites throughout the City without environmental review and mitigation. To offset this potential impact to biological resources, staff proposes mitigation to add language to section 19.78.100 A. such that the proposed wireless communications facilities permits for new towers and monopoles require the submittal of biological resource surveys demonstrating that the facility and associated construction zone would avoid all sensitive habitats and rare, threatened, and endangered species. -This requirement could be waived pursuant to written verification by the Planning Director that existing information. available to him/her verifies the lack of such biological resources. Mitigation Measure #1:Add language to section 19.78.100 A. of the proposed ordinance such that the proposed wireless communications facilities permits for new towers and monopoles require the submittal of biological resource surveys demonstrating that the facility and associated construction zone would avoid all sensitive habitats and rare, threatened, and endangered species. This requirement could be waived pursuant to written verification by the Planning Director that existing information available to him/her verifies the lack of such biological resources. Monitoring: The City Attorney's office shallconfirm compliance with this mitigation prior to final adoption of the ordinance. Mitigation Measure #2: Add language to section 19.78.040 clarifying that exemptions from apply only to projects constructed on already developed site. Monitoring #2: The City Attorney's office will ensure that this mitigation is met prior to final adoption of the ordinance. City of Chico Initial Study • • Project - Page 8 DISCUSSION: The proposed ordinance would require enhanced application materials and additional development standards, which would have .no effect on cultural resources. However, changes in permit requirements would eliminate future environmental review for exempt facilities and those requiring a (ministerial) wireless telecommunications permit. This would eliminate opportunities for, individual project review to identify, analyze, and off -set any impacts to cultural resources. Roof -mounted and building -mounted facilities on historically -designated properties could be permitted with a wireless telecommunications permit. However, a building permit and architectural review would be required, which would address structural issues and aesthetic issues, respectively. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than E. Energy and Natural Resources: Will the project Significant Mitigation - Significant' No or its related activities: Impact 'Incorporated Impact Impact 1. Affect the use, extraction or conservation of any, X natural resources? 2. Use. anexcessive amount of fuel or energy or X require development of new sources of energy? DISCUSSION: The proposed ordinance would require enhanced application materials and additional development standards which would have no effect on energy or natural resources. Potentially Significant Potentially, Unless Less Than. D. Cultural Resources: Will the project or its . Significant Mitigation Significant No related activities: Impact Incorporated Arripact Impact 1. Disrupt or adversely affect historical buildings or X sites? 2. Disrupt or adversely affect a prehistoric or historic X archaeological site or a property or historical or . cultural significance to a community or ethnic or social group? . I. Disrupt or adversely affect a paleontological site X except as part of a scientific study? DISCUSSION: The proposed ordinance would require enhanced application materials and additional development standards, which would have .no effect on cultural resources. However, changes in permit requirements would eliminate future environmental review for exempt facilities and those requiring a (ministerial) wireless telecommunications permit. This would eliminate opportunities for, individual project review to identify, analyze, and off -set any impacts to cultural resources. Roof -mounted and building -mounted facilities on historically -designated properties could be permitted with a wireless telecommunications permit. However, a building permit and architectural review would be required, which would address structural issues and aesthetic issues, respectively. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than E. Energy and Natural Resources: Will the project Significant Mitigation - Significant' No or its related activities: Impact 'Incorporated Impact Impact 1. Affect the use, extraction or conservation of any, X natural resources? 2. Use. anexcessive amount of fuel or energy or X require development of new sources of energy? DISCUSSION: The proposed ordinance would require enhanced application materials and additional development standards which would have no effect on energy or natural resources. City of Chico Initial Study • • Project - Page 9 DISCUSSION: Circumstances particular to an individual project site regarding geology and soils will be addressed through the building permit process when specific projects are proposed. Applicable Uniform Building Code requirements will ensure soil stability adequate for construction of the proposed facilities. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than G. Hazards/ Hazardous Materials: Will the project Significant Mitigation Significant No or its related activities: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 1. Present a hazard to people or property from risk of X explosion or release of hazardous substances either on site or in transit, in the event of accident or otherwise? 2. Result in the creation of health hazards, or potential X health hazards, or in the increased exposure of people to existing or potential health hazards?. 3. Increase the danger of fire hazard in areas with X flammable grass, brush or trees? 4. Expose people or property to wind hazards? X DISCUSSION: Section 704(a)(7)(B)(iv) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 prohibits local jurisdictions from disapproving or conditioning wireless communication facilities to reduce ElectroMagnetic Fields (EMFs) if projects meet standards cited therein. Federal regulations have been set to avoid or minimize human health standards, and local jurisdictions are explicitly preempted from establishing more rigorous standards. The proposed wireless telecommunications facilities ordinance establishes procedures to ensure that federal regulations are met, as follows: Permitting exemptions set forth by section 19.78.040 apply only to facilities demonstrating radio- frequency emission compliance with FCC regulations and shall not apply to any facility not categorically exempt from FCC regulation, or to any facilities operated, leased to, used by common carriers or Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than F. Geology/Soils: Will the project or its related Significant Mitigation Significant No' activities result in: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 1. Substantial change in topography or unstable soil X conditions due to excavating, grading or filing? 2. The destruction, covering, or modification of any X unusual or unique geologic or physical features? 3. Any changes in wind or water erosion of soils or X sands -or any erosion which may modify the channel of a waterway or other body of water? (Water Quality is discussed in Section C.) 4. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards X such as earthquakes, expansive soils, volcanic hazards, liquefaction hazards, land subsidence, slope instability, or similar hazards? DISCUSSION: Circumstances particular to an individual project site regarding geology and soils will be addressed through the building permit process when specific projects are proposed. Applicable Uniform Building Code requirements will ensure soil stability adequate for construction of the proposed facilities. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than G. Hazards/ Hazardous Materials: Will the project Significant Mitigation Significant No or its related activities: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 1. Present a hazard to people or property from risk of X explosion or release of hazardous substances either on site or in transit, in the event of accident or otherwise? 2. Result in the creation of health hazards, or potential X health hazards, or in the increased exposure of people to existing or potential health hazards?. 3. Increase the danger of fire hazard in areas with X flammable grass, brush or trees? 4. Expose people or property to wind hazards? X DISCUSSION: Section 704(a)(7)(B)(iv) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 prohibits local jurisdictions from disapproving or conditioning wireless communication facilities to reduce ElectroMagnetic Fields (EMFs) if projects meet standards cited therein. Federal regulations have been set to avoid or minimize human health standards, and local jurisdictions are explicitly preempted from establishing more rigorous standards. The proposed wireless telecommunications facilities ordinance establishes procedures to ensure that federal regulations are met, as follows: Permitting exemptions set forth by section 19.78.040 apply only to facilities demonstrating radio- frequency emission compliance with FCC regulations and shall not apply to any facility not categorically exempt from FCC regulation, or to any facilities operated, leased to, used by common carriers or City of Chico Initial Study • • Project - Page 10 wireless telecommunications service providers or to television and/or radio broadcast facilities (section 19.78. 040). Applicants for both use permits and wireless telecommunications facilities permits are required to submit a report, signed by a qualified radio frequency engineer and prepared pursuant to applicable FCC requirements, stating the maximum radio frequency radiation/electromagnetic radiation to be emitted by the proposed facility and whether emissions conform to safety standards adopted by the FCC. Such reports shall take into account all other facilities within- 2,000 feet, both existing and known future facilities, the cumulative effects of co -located facilities, and existing nearby buildings and structures, an d shall be written in plain English (section 19.78.070) Use permits for facilities. which will generate 80% or more of the maximum permissible EMF/RF emissions as set by Federal regulation shall be conditioned upon the submission to the City of an annual certification from a licensed engineer expert in the field of EMF/RF emissions verifying that the facility is and has been operated within the then current standards for such emissions. The report shall take into account nearby buildings and structures and the cumulative effects of co -located facilities, and other, nearby facilities and be written in plain English (19.78.090) No other potentially hazardous materials or substances are produced by cell towers. Therefore, for the purposes of exercising the City's available discretion, the project is found to have a less than significant hazardous materials impact. Wireless communications towers could conflict with airport operations; however, conformance with existing regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration protecting Part 77 airspace would reduce this potential to a less -than -significant level. Sections 19.78. 090 and 19.78.100 of the proposed ordinance provide that use permits and wireless telecommunications facilities will be granted only if the proposed facility doe snot encroach into naviQable_airspace.as_defined by Part 77 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations.. Wireless communications facilities are engineered to avoid wind hazards, consistent with the Uniform Building Code. Wireless communications facilities do not represent a fire hazard. DISCUSSION: Proposed telecommunications facilities will have minimal effect on hydrology or water quality. Minimal impervious surfaces will result from the facilities, and they will not generate substantial pollutants associated with roadway use, lawn care, pet wastes, or other sources. Construction will be subject to the City's Grading provisions of the Chico Municipal Code, which requires erosion -control measures during construction. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than H. Hydrology/ Water Quality: Will the project or its Significant Mitigation Significant No related activities result in: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 1. Changes in the course or direction of water X movements,> 2. Generation of runoff from new development that X exceeds the capacity of Planning Area storm drains or substantial obstruction to groundwater recharge? 3. Exposure of people or property to flood hazard? X 4. Generation of pollutants or sedimentation which X would affect surface or subsurface water quality? 5. Development of five acres or more as defined by X the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Permitting Process (NPDES)? DISCUSSION: Proposed telecommunications facilities will have minimal effect on hydrology or water quality. Minimal impervious surfaces will result from the facilities, and they will not generate substantial pollutants associated with roadway use, lawn care, pet wastes, or other sources. Construction will be subject to the City's Grading provisions of the Chico Municipal Code, which requires erosion -control measures during construction. City of Chico Initial Study • Project 7 - Page Page 11. • DISCUSSION: Land use conflicts can generally be classified into two categories: aesthetic incompatibility and health concerns with radio frequency electomagnetic fields (EMFs). The proposed ordinance provides incentives directed at locating and developing wireless communications facilities within manufacturing zoning designations to minimize land use/aesthetic conflicts with residential, commercial and open space uses. Consistent with federal mandates to site adequate facilities as needed provide service, the proposed ordinance discourages the, siting of wireless telecommunications facilities within residential districts, but provides for this possibility•should more suitable sites provide poor service. Three General Plan policies relate to the: health effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs): S -G-10 Protect residents from the potential health dangers of electric and magnetic fields generated by power transmission lines and other sources, and hazards associated with agricultural spraying and wind -shear. S-1-27 Amend the Zoning ordinance to incorporate review criteria, and where appropriate, provisions for homeowners and renter disclosure requirements and setbacks for uses adjacent to high voltage power transmission lines, including schools, parks, residential development, and child care facilities. S-1-28 Monitor research on the health effects of electric and magnetic fields, and take additional appropriate action, as warranted, to reduce hazardous exposure. For a discussion of the aesthetic, impacts of wireless telecommunications facilities, please see section II A. Aesthetics of this initial study. For a discussion of EMFs, please see Section II G. Hazards/Hazardous Materials. As noted in these sections of the initial study the proposed ordinance would implemented these policies consistent with federal law. Less than significant impacts would result. Potentially Signifcant Potentially , Unless Less Than I. Land Use and Planning: Will the project or its related activities be inconsistent with: .Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 1. General Plan or Specific Plan policies, or zoning X regulations? 2. General Plan population growth rates for its X planning areas in conjunction with other recently . approve development? ' 3. Result in substantial conflict with the established X . . character, aesthetics or functioning of the surrounding community? 4. Be a part of a larger project, involving a series of X cumulative actions? 5. Result in displacement of people or business X activity? 6. Conversion of viable prime agricultural land to non- X agricultural use, or substantial conflicts with existing agricultural operations? (Viable agricultural land is defined as land on Class I or Class II agricultural soils of 5 acres or greater, adjacent on no more than one side to existing urban development.) DISCUSSION: Land use conflicts can generally be classified into two categories: aesthetic incompatibility and health concerns with radio frequency electomagnetic fields (EMFs). The proposed ordinance provides incentives directed at locating and developing wireless communications facilities within manufacturing zoning designations to minimize land use/aesthetic conflicts with residential, commercial and open space uses. Consistent with federal mandates to site adequate facilities as needed provide service, the proposed ordinance discourages the, siting of wireless telecommunications facilities within residential districts, but provides for this possibility•should more suitable sites provide poor service. Three General Plan policies relate to the: health effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs): S -G-10 Protect residents from the potential health dangers of electric and magnetic fields generated by power transmission lines and other sources, and hazards associated with agricultural spraying and wind -shear. S-1-27 Amend the Zoning ordinance to incorporate review criteria, and where appropriate, provisions for homeowners and renter disclosure requirements and setbacks for uses adjacent to high voltage power transmission lines, including schools, parks, residential development, and child care facilities. S-1-28 Monitor research on the health effects of electric and magnetic fields, and take additional appropriate action, as warranted, to reduce hazardous exposure. For a discussion of the aesthetic, impacts of wireless telecommunications facilities, please see section II A. Aesthetics of this initial study. For a discussion of EMFs, please see Section II G. Hazards/Hazardous Materials. As noted in these sections of the initial study the proposed ordinance would implemented these policies consistent with federal law. Less than significant impacts would result. City of Chico Initial Study • Project - Page 12 DISCUSSION: Wireless communications facilities generate negligible noise, and the proposed ordinance would not modify any of the circumstances or regulations relative to noise. As is'the case with current regulations, construction of cell towers with the. proposed amendments would continue to generate construction - related nosie which would be regulated by provisions in the Chico Municipal Code limiting hou rs of construction. Light and glare impacts associated with most future facilities will be negligible. The development standards for proposed ordinance prohibit new towers and monopoles from being lit, unless otherwise required pursuant to FAA requirements (19.78.110). FAA requirements to light wireless telecommunications facilities would come to bear in two instances. In Part 77 airspace, in proximity to the airport and away from residential uses that would be sensitive to light and glare impacts, facilities would likely be lit. Secondly, towers approximately 200+ feet ma y be required to be lit; these facilities are require the issuance of a use permit. Exempt facilities would not be subject to these development standards regarding lighting. Potentially Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Potentially Unless Less Than J. Noise/Light and Glare: Will the project or its Significant Mitigation Significant No related activities result in: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 1. Exposure , of residents in new hotels, motels, X apartment houses, and dwellings (other than single- family dwellings) to interior noise levels (CNEL) X higher than 45 dBA in any ,habitable room with windows closed? X 2. Exposure of sensitive receptors (residential, parks, X hospitals,' schools), to exterior noise levels of 60 dBA L or higher? 3. Significant new light or glare impacts on the site or X surrounding area? DISCUSSION: Wireless communications facilities generate negligible noise, and the proposed ordinance would not modify any of the circumstances or regulations relative to noise. As is'the case with current regulations, construction of cell towers with the. proposed amendments would continue to generate construction - related nosie which would be regulated by provisions in the Chico Municipal Code limiting hou rs of construction. Light and glare impacts associated with most future facilities will be negligible. The development standards for proposed ordinance prohibit new towers and monopoles from being lit, unless otherwise required pursuant to FAA requirements (19.78.110). FAA requirements to light wireless telecommunications facilities would come to bear in two instances. In Part 77 airspace, in proximity to the airport and away from residential uses that would be sensitive to light and glare impacts, facilities would likely be lit. Secondly, towers approximately 200+ feet ma y be required to be lit; these facilities are require the issuance of a use permit. Exempt facilities would not be subject to these development standards regarding lighting. DISCUSSION: Please see section II A. Aesthetics. No other open space or recreational issues would be affected by the proposed ordinance as compared to existing regulations. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than K. Open'Space/Recreation: Will the project or its Significant Mitigation Significant No related activities: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 1. Affect an officially designated scenic vista -point, X scenic highway or corridor or other unique aesthetic value? 2. Affect an important existing or potential community X recreation area? 3. Affect lands preserved under an agricultural, scenic, X or open space contract or easement? DISCUSSION: Please see section II A. Aesthetics. No other open space or recreational issues would be affected by the proposed ordinance as compared to existing regulations. City of Chico Initial Study • • Project - Page 13 DISCUSSION: Wireless communication facilities would generate a nominal need for fire and police protection, if any, and would generate no demand for schools, parks, public maintenance, or other governmental services. Potentially Potentially L. Public Services: Willi the project or its related Significant M. Population and Housing: would the project or its Potentially Unless Less Than activities have an effect upon or result in a need Potentially Unless Less Than No Impact for altered governmental services in any of the Significant Mitigation Significant No X following areas: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 1. Fire protection? through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 2. Police protection? X X 3. Schools? X 4. Parks and recreation facilities? (See Section G. necessitating the construction of replacement X housing elsewhere? Open Space/Recreation) 5. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads, X canals, etc.? 6. Other government services? X DISCUSSION: Wireless communication facilities would generate a nominal need for fire and police protection, if any, and would generate no demand for schools, parks, public maintenance, or other governmental services. DISCUSSION: By its nature, the proposed ordinance would not displace any existing housing, nor would it induce growth or generate demand for additional housing within the city. Potentially Significant M. Population and Housing: would the project or its Potentially Unless Less Than related activities: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 1. Induce substantial population growth in an area, X either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 2. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, _ X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 3. Displace substantial numbers of people, X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? DISCUSSION: By its nature, the proposed ordinance would not displace any existing housing, nor would it induce growth or generate demand for additional housing within the city. City of Chico Initial Study • • Project - _ Page 14 f Potentially I Significant Potentially Unless Less,Than N. Transportation/Circulation Factors: Will the .,Significant 'Mitigation : Significant No projector its related activities result in: Impact Incorporated `::Impact Impact 1. Traffic'volumes which exceed established Level.of X Service (LOS) standards on roadway segments or at intersections, or which do not meet applicable safety standards? Based ori General Plan policies, significant impacts would generally result if traffic exceeded LOS C on residential streets, LOS D on arterial and collector streets/intersections, and (under specific circumstances) LOS E in built -out areas served by transit. 2. The absence of bikeway facilities in the general �: X locations identified in the General Plan, consistent . . with guidelines in the Chico Urban Area Bicycle Plan, or failure to meet applicable design requirements and safety standards? 3.. Travel characteristics which are not consistent with X standards established in the Butte County . Congestion Management Plan. (CMP), or other General Plan policies related to. Transportation Systems Management (TSM)? 4.. Substantial impact on existing or proposed public X transit systems including waterborne, rail and air traffic? 5. ,Effects on existing parking facilities or demand for X new parking not provided for by the project? 6. Increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicycles, X pedestrian or other traffic? DISCUSSION: The proposed ordinance would not generate traffic or demand for parking, transit or bicycle facilities. f I City of Chico Initial Study • • Project - Page 15 DISCUSSION: The proposed code amendments would not alter the use of electricity or other forms*of energy and would not alter or hinder the ability of wireless telecommunications facilities to provide service. 3. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Pursuant to Section 15382 of the State EIR Guidelines, a project shall be found to have a significant effect on the environment if any of the following are true: Potentially Potentially Significant O. Utilities: Will the projector its related activities Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact have an effect upon or result in a need for new Potentially Unless Less Than of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat systems or substantial alterations to the Significant ' Mitigation Significant No population to. drop below self sustaining levels, following utilities: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 1. Sewer or septic systems? endangered plant or animal or eliminate important ;,X 2. Water for domestic use and fire protection? or prehistory. X 3. Natural gas, electricity, or telephone? which are individually limited but cumulatively X 4. Storm water drainage? (See Section C. that the. incremental effects of an individual project X are considerable when viewed. in connection with Hydrological Factors) the effects of past, current and probable future 5. Solid waster disposal? 3. The environmental effects of a project will cause X 6. Communication systems? directly or indirectly. X 7. Plant facilities for any of the above (sewer plants, X microwave station, water, etc.)? DISCUSSION: The proposed code amendments would not alter the use of electricity or other forms*of energy and would not alter or hinder the ability of wireless telecommunications facilities to provide service. 3. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Pursuant to Section 15382 of the State EIR Guidelines, a project shall be found to have a significant effect on the environment if any of the following are true: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 1. The project has the potential to degrade the quality X of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to. drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. 2. The project has possible environmental effects X which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. (Cumulatively considerable means that the. incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed. in connection with the effects of past, current and probable future projects. 3. The environmental effects of a project will cause X substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. City of Chico Initial Study . • Project - Page 16 DISCUSSION: The proposed ordinance establishes procedures and development standards for the siting of wireless telecommunications facilities, consistent with federal regulations. With proposed mitigation to ensure facilities are not constructed on 4. EARLIER ANALYSES.- Earlier NALYSES:Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to tiering, a program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration [Section- 15063(c)(3)(D)]. In this casea discussion should identify the following: a. Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analysis and.state where it is available for review. b. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether'such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. C. Mitigation measures. For effects that are °Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they'address site-specific conditions for the project. 5. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND FEASIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES All significant or potentially significant impacts indicated in Section'2 above have been described and feasible mitigation measures recommended wherever possible. Any participant of the Initial Study may also make a recommendation as to whether a Negative Declaration, a Negative Declaration with mitigation measures, more study in a particular area, or an, EIR should be prepared. Please indicate any source date relied upon and your name and date of comments in the space indicated. Use additional pages.if necessary. Reviewed by: on (date) Department: Reviewed by: on (date) Department: 6. PROJECT APPLICANT'S INCORPORATION OF MITIGATION INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT: I have reviewed the Initial Study for Amendments to Title 19 of the Chico Municipal Code Relative to Wireless Telecommunications .Facilities and any mitigation measures identified herein. I hereby modify the, project on file with the City of Chico Community Development Department to include and incorporate all mitigation set forth in this Initial Study. Pr ican Date City of Chico Initial Study Project - Page 17 REFERENCES: • City of Chico General Plan, 1994. • City of Chico Master Environmental Assessment, Blaney Dyett/Michael Brandman Associates - January, January, 1994. • City of Chico Sanitary Sewer Master Plan, Brown and Caldwell; December 1985. • Final EIR for Adoption of the Chico Urban Area Draft Sanitary Sewer and Storm Drainage Master Plans, Northwest annexation, and General Plan Amendments North of Lindo Channel, Jones & Stokes,. November 1992. • California Natural Diversity Data Base Map, California Department of Fish and Game. Note: The above referenced information is available for public review at the City of Chico Planning Division, 411 Main Street, Chico, California. From: Stacey Jolliffe To: Csanders@buttecounty.net Date: Tue, Sep 12, 2000 3:01 PM Subject: ALUC application for wtc Pro Please find attached an electronic copy of the ALUC application for consistenty determination for the City;s,proposedtwireless..telecommunications ordinance. V_ -sending aTsigned,,7 d_copy.of the application-tomorrow-via-interagency_maiLalong_with the following materials: 1. Proposed Wireless Telecommunications Ordinance 2. Airport Map (Clean copy of the map FAXed to you today) 3. Check in the amount of $300. Should you have questions regarding the proposed ordinance, the best contacts are Planning Director Kim Seidler at 895-4851 and Asst City Attorney Lori Barker, who prepared the draft ordinance, at 895-2826. When the staff report is finished, would you please mail or FAX a copy to Kim Seidler, as appropriate. He would very much appreciate receiving it by the afternoon of Tuesday 9/19. Thank you for your assistance,'again CC: Kim Seidler; Lori Barker RECEIVED SEP 14 1000 PLANNING DIIWS ON 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10- 11 12 13 1 14 1 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 1 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHICO AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF TITLE .19, ENTITLED ".LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS" OF THE CHICO MUNICIPAL CODE, IN RELATION TO WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES. BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City. of Chico as follows: Section 1. The definition of "Telecommunications Facilities (land use.)"set forth in Subsection "T" of Section 19.04.020 entitled "Definitions of Specialized Terms and Phrases," of the Chico Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: Telecommunications Facilities (land use). Any wireless telecommunications facility, as defined by Section 19.78.020. Public, connnercial, and. ate electromagnetic and radio, televi.sion, telegi *i, telephone, cellular , , including cormnercial earth stations fbL satellite -based eonun=ieation�. includes imp antennas, tovvers, connnercial satellite dish antennas, and equipment baildings. Does rnot include. "Residential Accessory Uses and Stmetures." 2-. Telephone, telegiaph, and cable telev.ision transmission facilities utilizing hard=wired or direct cable'comiections, which are .1nded under "Pipelines mid Utility hines." Section 2. That portion of Table 4-6, entitled "Transportation and Communication Uses," set forth in Chapter 19.44 of the Chico Municipal Code, and the notes referenced therein are hereby amended to read as follows: H H H H SAJulie\DraRs\wirelessord September 12, 2000 .1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 i r , �;,,;3„PERMIT RE,�QUIREMENT�BY ZONE t t ,1� LAND USE (1) ORs K OC CN( r 4 j uc r ;Standards to . TRANSPORTATION & COMMUNICATION r1.CF.S Section/Chaote Alternative fuel/recharging facilities UP UP UP P Broadcast studios P UP UP(2) P Heliports Parking facilities/vehicle storage P Up Parking facilities/vehicle storage Pipelines and utility lines UP UP UP Pipelines and utility lines P P P P P P Telecommunications facilities L6) UP l61 UP L61 BP .(6) UP L6) UP +"646019.78 Transit stations and terminals UP UP UP UP P Truck stops Up Notes: (1) See Chapter 19.04 for definitions of the listed uses. (2) Use allowed only on second floor or above. A use permit is required for ground level occupancy. (3) Businesses which operate 24 hours or allow amplified music within 300 feet of a residential district require use permit approval. (4) Use permit required within a Mixed -Use Neighborhood Core identified by the General Plan. (5) Applications for approval of buildings larger than 50,000 square feet shall include visual simulations for use in architectural review. See Chanter 19.78 for districts in which telecommunications facilities are permitted Section I That portion of Table 4-8, entitled "Transportation and Communication Uses" set forth in Chapter 19.46 of the Chico Municipal Code, and the notes referenced therein are hereby amended to read as follows: PERMIT_REQU14CE T BY ZONE Sub�ect,to° sia�aaiasia: LAND USE (1) ML, MG ME TRANSPORTATION & COMMUNICATION USES Alternative fuel/recharging facilities P P UP Broadcast studios P P UP Heliports UP UP Parking facilities/vehicle storage P P Pipelines and utility lines P P P Telecommunications facilities f!41 OP L4) UP fAj UP 19.78 19.76 f 60 Transit stations and terminals P P P Truck stops P P Vehicle and freight terminals P p S:Vulie\Drafts\wirelessord September 12, 2000 2 I 2 3 4 5 6 7. 8 9i 10 11 12 13 14 -15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 .27 28 Notes: (1) See Chapter 19.04 for definitions of the listed land uses. (2) Businesses which operate 24 hours or allow amplified music within 300 feet of a residential district require, use permit approval. (3) Applications for approval of buildings larger than 50,000 square feet shall include visual simulations for use in architectural review. .f!jj See Chapter 19.78 for districts in which telecommunications facilities are permitted . Section 4. That portion of Table 4 -10 entitled, "Transportation and Communication Uses,"set forth in Chapter 19.48 of the Chico Municipal Code, and the notes referenced therein are hereby amended to read as follows: ' 3 PE�RMIT:�R'EQ LANDIUSE 1 (« iwxF S iC a +rAM(2�} i� 3 {in Sectio�Cha terys TRANSPORTATION & COMMUNICATIONS Airports UP UP UP UP Heliports 'UP UP UP UP. Parking facilities/vehicle storage UP :UP UP UP Pipelines and utility lines UP P P P Telecommunications facilities M UP M ydP M UP M UP 19.78 19.76.160- 9:, 6:169Transit Transitstations and terminals UP Truck stops Up, Vehicle and freight terminals UP Notes: (1) See Chapter 19.04 for definitions of the listed land uses. (2) See Chapter 19.48 regarding additional uses that may be allowed in.the AM zone with use permit approval. M See Chapter 19.78 for districts in which telecommunications facilities are permitted Section 5. Section 19.76.160 the Chico Municipal Code is hereby repealed. Section 6. Chapter 19.78, entitled "Wireless Telecommunications Facilities" is hereby added to the Chico Municipal Code to read as follows: Chapter 19.78 Wireless Telecommunications Facilities 19.78.010 'Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a uniform and comprehensive set of standards for 'the development of wireless telecommunications facilities. The regulations contained herein are intended to protect and promote public health, safety, community welfare and the aesthetic quality of the city while at the same time providing reasonable opportunities for providers of wireless telecommunications services to provide such services in a safe, effective and efficient S:Uulie\Drafts\wirelessord September 12, 2000 3 �1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 .11 .12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 manner. These regulations are further intended to: A. Require the location of new monopoles, towers and antennas in non-residential zoning . districts unless technically necessary for provision of the service*. B. Require telecommunications facilities to be designed in a way to minimize adverse visual impacts. C. Encourage co -location of facilities. D. Protect the public's interest in the safe operation of public safety, emergency and medical services. E. . Protect the public from°exposure to electromagnetic frequency or radio frequency'radiation in excess of.federal standards. 19.78.020 Definitions: . A. Antenna -Any system of wires, poles, rods, panels, reflecting discs or similar devices used for the transmission or reception of radio frequency electromagnetic "waves when such system is external or attached to the exterior of'a structure: B. Building -Mounted Antenna = Any. antenna, other than an antenna with its supports resting on the ground, directly attached or affixed to the side of a building, .tank, tower or structure other than a monopole or tower. •C. Co -location - The practice of two or more wireless telecommunications facilities service _ providers sharing one support structure or building for the locaiion'of their facilities. D. EMF/RF -. Electromagnetic radio frequency/radio frequency E. FAA - Federal Aviation Administration. F. FCC - Federal Communications Commission. ' G. Ground -Mounted Antenna- An antenna with its support structure placed directly on -the ground. H. Lattice Tower - A three or more legged open structure designed and erected to support wireless telecommunications antennas and connecting appurtenances. I. Monopole - A single pole structure designed an'd`erected to support wireless telecommunications antennas and connecting appurtenances. SAJulie\Drafts\wirelessord September 12, 2000 4 Iv 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1.0 1.1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 J. Roof -Mounted Antenna -.An antenna directly attached to the roof of an existing building, Water tank, tower or structure other than a telecommunications tower. K. Satellite Dish Antenna - Any device incorporating a reflective surface that is solid, open mesh or bar configured, that is shallow dish, cone, horn, bowl or cornucopia shaped and is used to transmit and/or receive electromagnetic or radio frequency communication/signals in a specific directional pattern. L. -Telecommunications Tower - A monopole or lattice tower. ! M. Wireless Telecommunications Facility - Any structure, antenna, pole, equipment and related improvements the primary purpose of which is to support the wireless telecommunications. industry in the transmission and/or reception of electromagnetic signals, including, but not limited to, monopoles and lattice towers. 19.78.030 Application. This ordinance shall apply to all wireless telecommunications facilities for the transmission and/or reception of wireless radio, television, and other telecommunications signals including, but not limited to, commercial wireless communications systems such as cellular and paging systems, except those facilities defined in this chapter as exempt facilities. 19.78.040 Exempt facilities. The following wireless telecommunications facilities are exempt from the requirements of this chapter provided that they are constructed on already developed sites and that they meet the requirements set forth below; A. Facilities accessory to a residential use of a site which meet'the requirements set forth below. 1. One ground- or building -mounted receive -only radio or television satellite dish antenna which does not exceed 36 inches in diameter per dwelling unit. Such satellite dishes shall not extend above the roof peak or parapet of the primary structure on the parcel. 2. A -single ground- or building -mounted receive -only radio or television antenna including any mast. Such antennas shall not exceed .a maximum height of 40 feet measured from the ground and shall not be -'located in front or side yard setbacks. 3. A ground- or building -mounted citizens band radio antenna, .including any mast,:which S:Vulie\Drafts\wirelessord September 12, 2000 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1� 0 does not exceed a maximum height of 40 feet measured from the ground. _ Such antennas shall not be located in front or side yard setbacks. 4. A ground- or -building -mounted antenna which does not exceed a maximum height of 40 feet and which is operated by a federally -licensed amateur radio operator. Such antennas shall not be located in front or side yard setbacks. B. Government-owned communications facilities used primarily to protect public health, safety and welfare. C. Facilities operated by providers of emergency medical services, including hospital, ambulance and medical air transportation services, for use in the provision of those services. D. Any facility specifically exempted under federal or state law. E. Temporary facilities erected and operated for use in emergency situations which are approved in writing in advance of installation by the planning director. Use of such facilities shall not exceed two weeks unless an extension is granted by the planning director. F. Antennas for two-way radio communications systems operated only as an internal business communications system by owners/operators and not made available to third parties. Such facilities shall not be located within any required setbacks and shall not exceed a maximum height of 40 feet measured from the ground. G. Repair or replacement of a lawfully -established existing facility so long as the repair or replacement does not involve modifications to the. facility which add height, change the appearance or increase the effective radiated power. H. Receive only radio ontelevision antennas incidental to other than a residential use if the antenna meets the development standards set forth in Section 19.78.110, does not require• issuance.of a building permit for its installation, and is solely for the use of the occupants of the site on which it is located. The exemptions set forth in. this section shall apply only to facilities demonstrating radio- frequency emission compliance with FCC regulations pursuant to FCC Office of Engineering Technology (OET) Bulletin No. 65 entitled "Evaluating Compliance With FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields" (August 1977 or later revisions S:Uulie\Drafts\wirelessord September 12, 2000 6 or successors thereto) and shall not apply to any facility not categorically exempt from FCC regulation pursuant to FCC OET65, or to any facilities operated, :leased to, or used by common carriers or wireless telecommunications service providers'or to television and/or radio broadcast facilities. •• 19.78.050. Location Preferences - New monopoles and towers. To the maximum extent feasible, new monopoles and towers shall be located according to the following preferences, with -the most preferred sites listed first" `_ ' A. Sites zoned ML, MP, MG and AM which are located at least 100 feef from residentially- zonedrope P m'; B. ' Sites zoned OC, CC and CS which are at least 100 feet from residentially -zoned property; C. Sites zoned ML, MP, MG and AM but which - 'are within 100 feet of residentially -zoned property; . D. Sites zoned OC, CC .and CS, -but which are within 100 feet of residentially -zoned property; 4 L 19.78.060 Permit Requirements. Y A. No wireless telecommunications facility shall be constructed,or modifiedwithout first . t obtaining a use permit or a wireless telecommunications facilities permit, as specified below. Zoning District New Tower or Monopole Co -location on existing tower or monopole "Building facade or roof mounted antenna RR NP WTFP NP RS NP WTFP NP RI NP WTFP NP R2 NP WTFP NP NP , WTFP WTFP R4 NP WTFP WTFP RD NP, WTFP WTFP OR NP WTFP WTFP OC UP ;; WTFP WTFP S:\Julie\Drafts\wirelessord. September 12;2000 '" 7 I 4 0. CN NP WTFP WTFP CC UP WTFP WTFP CD NP WTFP WTFP CS UP WTFP WTFP ML WTFP LIJ Q WTFP WTFP MG WTFP L L2) WTFP WTFP MP WTFP LI I Q WTFP WTFP A NP WTFP WTFP - Building -mounted UP - Roof mounted AC UP WTFP WTFP - Building -mounted and roof -mounted with a maximum height of 65' UP - Roof -mounted over 65' in height AM WTFP- for maximum height of WTFP WTFP - Building -mounted and 65' roof -mounted with a maximum UP for facilities exceeding 65' height of 65' UP - Roof -mounted over 65' in height AP. ,UP WTFP _ WTFP - Building -mounted and roof -mounted with a maximum height of 65' UP - Roof -mounted over 65' in height PNM NP WTFP WTFP PQ WTFP' WTFP WTFP OS 1 NP WTFP NP OS2 NP- WTFP NP tqr=iNot, perrmrtea UP= permitted with a use permit WTFP=permitted with a wireless telecommunications facilities permit (1) Facilities within 100 feet of a residential zone which exceed 85 feet in height require a use permit. (2)' New monopoles or towers within 1000 feet or an existing monopole or tower require a use permit. B. Iif all zones in which a new .monopole or tower is listed as NP (not permitted), such a facility may nevertheless be permitted by use permit if the planning commission makes the findings required by section 19,78.090. C. Facilities which would otherwise be exempt from the re.quirements of this chapter but which do not meet the size, height, setback or other requirements of section 19.78.040, above, may S:\Julie\Drafts\wirelessord September 12, 2000 8 1 2 3 4' 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 be permitted by a use permit. D. Facilities which would otherwise be permitted with a wireless telecommunications facilities permit, but which do not meet the design standards required for such permits, may be permitted with a use permit. 19.78.070 Application requirements. •r The following items shall be required for each permit for a wireless telecommunications facility. A. Use Permits. 1. All application materials generally required for a use permit; 2. All materials listed below as required for a wireless telecommunications facilities permit application; 3.. An alternative height analysis for any facility exceeding the height standards set forth in Section 19.78.100. This analysis shall demonstrate that the proposed height is designed at the minimum height necessary" and shall specifically include an analysis comparing the operation.of the facility at its proposed height with its operation at the maximum height in the $tandards set forth in Section 19.78.1:10. 'It shall also address whether the additional height would be required if the facility were located at a different site. The purpose of this analysis is to ensure that additional height is permitted only when technically necessary for the provision of services. ` 4. An alternative site analysis. This analysis shall identify all reasonable, technically feasible, alternative locations,"including facilities which could be"used for co -location. The analysis.shall also explain the rationale for the selection of the proposed site in view of the relative merits of any feasible alternatives. The purpose of this analysis" is to present alternative strategies for the minimization of the- number and impacts of facilities necessary to provide the service. B". Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Permits. r , 1. A site plan which includes the location of all structures and equipment to be located on the site; S:Vulie\Drafts\wirelessord September 12, 2000 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. 9' 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19' 20 21 22 23 24 25 .26 27 28 2. Elevations of all proposed wireless telecommunications structures and appurtenances and composite elevations from the streets showing the proposed project and all buildings on the site. 3. Photo simulations, elevations or other visual or graphic illustrations necessary to determine potential visual impact of the proposed project. Visual impact demonstrations shall include accurate scale and coloration of the proposed facility. 4. A landscape plan that shows,existing vegetation, vegetation to be removed and proposed plantings.by type, size and location. 5. A geographic service area map showing: a. The applicant's wireless telecommunications network within 20 miles in all directions of the proposed site, including all facilities which exist at the time and for which applications are pending; b. The hand-off sites within the above area; P. The geographic area the facility, could be located in; d. All other existing sites that could be used for the proposed antenna location; and e. All wireless telecommunications facilities of all other telecommunications services providers within 1,000 feet of the proposed site. 6. A statement of how the proposed facility satisfies the locational preferences established by this chapter or, if the proposed location is not a preferred location, a description of the preferred location sites within the geographic service area and a statement of why each alternative site was'rejected. 7. Noise and acoustical information for the base transceiver stations, equipment buildings and associated equipment such as air conditioning and back-up generators. 8. A statement by the applicant of whether itis willing to allow other carriers to co -locate on their facilities whenever technically and economically feasible and aesthetically desirable. 9. A report, signed by a qualified radio frequency engineer and prepared pursuant to FCC OET 65,.stating the'maximum (EMF/RF) radiation to be emitted by the proposed facility and whether those emissions conform to safety standards adopted by the FCC. Such S:Vulie\Drafts\wirelessord September 12, 2000 1U 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 14 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 reports shall take into account all ,other facilities within 2,000 feet, bothexisting and known future facilities, the cumulative effects of co -located facilities, and existing nearby buildings and structures, and shall be written in plain English. 10. For new towers and monopoles, a biological resource survey demonstrating that the facility and construction of the facility will avoid all sensitive habitats and rare, threatened and endangered species. This requirement may be waived by the planning director based on.a finding by the planning director that existing information verifies the lack of such biological resources on the site. C. The city may, in its sole discretion, retain an independent consultant to review. either individual elements of, or the entire application, and advise the city at the applicant's sole expense: 19.78.080 Review by airport manager. All use permit and wireless telecommunications facilities permit applications shall be reviewed by the airport manager for a determination as to whether the proposed facility will encroach into navigable air space as defined by part 77 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. 19.78.090 Action on use permit applications. All use permits for wireless telecommunications facilities shall be acted upon by the planning commission. A. Use permits may be granted for wireless telecommunications facilities only if all of the following findings are made: 1. All findings otherwise required for a use permit pursuant to chapter 19.24. 2. The facility to be permitted will not generate EMF/RF radiation in excess of the FCC adopted standards for human exposure. 3. If the height of the facility.exceeds the standards set forth in Section 19.78.1.10, that the facility has been designed to minimize its height and other visual effects: 4. The facility does not encroach into navigable airspace as defined by Part 77 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. S:Vulie\Drafts\wirelessord September.12, 2000 11 1 5. For a wireless telecommunications facility which will be located in any zoning district in 2 which such a facility is generally not permitted: 3 a. The permit applicant has demonstrated, based on technical requirements, that the 4 facility must be located within one of those zoning districts in order to provide the 5 service; and 6 b. The denial of a use permit to allow a facility in one of those zoning districts would 7 constitute a prohibition-of the affected wireless telecommunications services in 8 violation of federal law; and 9 c. ,If the facility is proposed to be located ina residentially-zoned district, the permit 10 applicant has demonstrated, based on technical requirements, that the service cannot 11 be provided by locating the facility in a non-residential zone. 12 6. For a new monopole or tower which is proposed to be located within 1,000 feet of an 13 existing monopole or tower: 14 a. The cumulative visual impacts are not significant; and 15 b. Location within 1,000 feet of the existing tower or, monopole is-necessary to provide 16 services not possible with co-location on an existing tower-or pole or structure in the 17 service area. 18 B. Use permits issued for new towers or monopoles in residential or open space zones may be 19 conditioned upon the use of stealthing techniques to disguise the facility and make it less 20 visually intrusive. 21 C. Use permits for facilities which, will generate 80% or, more of the maximum permissible 22 EMF/RF emissions as set by Federal regulation shall be conditioned upon the submission to 23 the City of an annual certification from a licensed engineer expert in the field of EMF/RF 24 emissions verifying that the facility is and has been operated within the then current federal 25 standards for such emissions., The report shall consider nearby buildings and structures and 26 the cumulative effects of co-located facilities and other nearby facilities and be written in 27 plain English. 28 D. Use permits for wireless telecommunications facilities shall be approved or denied by S:Uulie\Drafts\wirelessord September 12, 2000 12 2 3 4 5 6 7 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 f� 11 resolution. A resolution granting a use permit shall contain all of the findings required by this section and all conditions applicable to the use permit. A -resolution.denying a use permit application for a wireless telecommunications facility shall state the reasons for denial, which reasons must be based on evidence before the commission at the time the decision to deny was reached. 19.78.100 Actions on wireless telecommunications facilities permits. Wireless telecommunications facilities permits shall be acted upon by the planning director. A. Wireless telecommunications facilities shall be issued when all of the following requirements are met: . 1. The facility meets the design standards set forth in this chapter. 2. The facility will not generate EMF/RF radiation in excess of the FCC adopted standards for human exposure. 3. If the facility is a new tower or monopole, it does not exceed 85 feet in height if located within 100 feet of a residentially -zoned district, 100 feet in height if located 100 feet or more from a residentially -zoned district, or 65 feet in height if located in the AM zoning district. 4. The facility does not encroach into navigable airspace as defined by Part 77 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. 5. If the facility is anew tower or monopole; that the facility, and construction thereof, will avoid all sensitive habitats and rare, threatened and endangered species which may be on the site. , 13. Wireless telecommunications facilities permits for facilities which will generate 80% or•more of the maximum permissible EMF/RF emissions as set by Federal .regulation shall be conditioned upon the submission to the City of an annual certification from a licensed engineer expert in the field of EMF/RF verifying that the facility is and has been operated within the then current federal standards for such emissions. The report shall consider nearby buildings and structures and,the cumulative effects of co -located and other nearby facilities and be written in plain English. S:Uulie\Drafts\wirelessord September 12, 2000 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16. 17 18 19 20 21 22 1 23 24 25 26- 27 UM 0 C. The planning director shall act on all applications for wireless telecommunications facilities permits within 90 days of the submission of a completed application. D. Wireless telecommunications facilities permits shall be approved or denied in writing. All denials shall state the reasons for the denial. Reasons for denial shall be limited to a finding, by the planning director that one of the requirements for issuance, as set forth in A., above, has not been met. 19.78.110 Development standards. A. New Towers and Monopoles. 1. Unless otherwise required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), or unless stealthing has been required, monopoles and towers located in all non -airport zones shall be painted a single, neutral,- non -glossy color designed to minimize visual impacts. New towers. and monopoles located in any airport zone shall be painted and lit with a beacon in accordance with FAA standards. 2. All towers and monopoles in non -airport zones'shall be unlit unless lighting is required pursuant to FAA regulations. When lighting is required, it shall be shielded or directed in such a manner, as to minimize the amount of light that falls onto nearby properties. 3. New monopoles and towers shall generally not be permitted within 1;000 feet of an existing monopole or tower. New monopoles and. towers which would otherwise be permitted with a wireless telecommunications facilities permit, but which are located within 1,000 feet of an existing monopole or tower, shall require a use permit which may be granted upon a finding that cumulative visual impacts are not significant and that the tower is necessary to provide services not possible'with co -location on an existing tower or structure in the service area. 4. Ground -mounted equipment shall be undergrounded or screened from .view. 5. Parking and access shall be on an improved surface. 6. If the tower or monopole is more than 100 feet in height, or more than 85 feet in height when located within 100 feet of a residential zone, it must be designed at the minimum height functionally required. This determination shall be based on the alternative height SAJulie\Drafts\wirelessord September 12, 2000 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28. analysis submitted as part of the application for the facility or on an independent analysis obtained by. the City pursuant to section 19.78.070. 7. No facility or combination of facilities shall generate EFNM in excess of the FCC adopted standards for human exposure.: 8. Each tower and monopole shall be identified by a sign placed on or near the tower or monopole, or any accessory building, which sets forth the name, address and a 24-hour telephone number of the facility's operator. 9. Monopoles and towers for which a wireless telecommunications facilities permit is issued shall be set back from all property lines by at,least 25 feet. Setbacks for monopoles and towers subject to a use permit shall be determined by the planning commission as part of the use permit approval. B. Additional facilities to be co -located on an existing tower or monopole. 1. The original tower or monopole was constructed and is operating in accordance with the requirements of the wireless telecommunications facilities or use permit originally issued for that facility. 2. The type and size of the new antennas are consistent with the requirements of the original wireless telecommunications facilities or use permit. 3. The new antenna array does not exceed the height of the existing monopole or tower. 4. The new antenna array is the second or, third grouping on the, tower or monopole: 5. The proposed array fits within the three dimensional envelope of the existing tower and arrays. 6. The combined level of EMF/RF radiation for all arrays does not exceed the maximum permissible exposure level set by the FCC. C. Building -mounted antennas. Building mounted antennas shall be located and designed to appear an integral part of the structure. To this end, they must comply with the following standards. 1. The lowest part of the antenna shall be a minimum of 15 feet above grade. 2. The antenna and mountings shall not project more than 18 inches from the building S:Vulie\Drafts\wirelessord September 12, 2000 15 I surface to which it is mounted. 2 3. Antennas, connections and supports shall be treated to match the color scheme of the 3 building or structure to which they are attached. :4 4. Antennas and connections shall not project above the mounting facade. 5 5. Antennas placed on water'towers shall not project above the height of the side of the 6 water tower. 7 b. Exterior electrical lines serving 'the equipment cabinet or building shall be 8 undergrounded. 9 7. All equipment shelters, cabinets or other structures utilized or built in connection 1.0 with the facility shall be located inside the building being utilized for the facility, on the 11 ground outside the setback area or any required parking area, or on the roof if screened 12 from view. 13 D. Roof -mounted antennas.' 14 1.. Roof -mounted antennas shall not exceed the maximum building height for'the zoning 15 district by 20 feet and shall be set back at least 20 feet from the front and side edges of the 16 roof upon which it is mounted. 17 2. All equipment shelters, cabinets or other structures utilized or built in connection with the 18 facility shall be located inside the building being utilized for the facility, or on the ground 19 outside the setback area or any required parking area, or on the roof, if.screened from 20 view. 21 19.78:120 Term and renewal of permits.' 22 All use permits for wireless telecommunications facilities, all wireless telecommunications 23 facilities permits, and all renewals of slzch.permits, shall be issued for a'10 -year period. In the 24 event a permit is issued for co,46cation on a facility, the original use permit or wireless 25 telecommunications facility permit shall be deemed to be extended to a date 10 years from the 26 date of thepermit for the co -location.' Upon written, request by the permittee, a review shall be 27 scheduled for no later than 90 days prior to the termination of that period in order to consider 28 whether the permit should be renewed. Grounds for non -renewal -of a permit shall be limited to - S:\Julie\Drafts\wirelessord September 12, 2000 16 I one of the following: 2 A. The use is no longer allowed in the applicable zoning district and the applicant has not 3 demonstrated that location of the facility in that zone is technically necessary to provide the 4 service. 5 B. The facility fails to comply wiff the relevant requirements of this chapter as they exist at the 6 time of review and the permittee has failed to supply assurances that the facility will be 7 brought into compliance within 120 days. 8 C. The permittee has failed to comply with the conditions of the existing use or wireless 9 telecommunications facilities permit; 10 The renewal of a use permit may be conditioned upon modification of the facility to 11 incorporate technology that has become:available since the time the original permit was issued 12 and which will minimize the facility's impacts, including aesthetic impacts. 13 -Any use permit or wireless telecommunications facility -permit which is not renewed prior to 14 the expiration of ten years shall become null and void and the facility which was permitted 15 thereunder shall be removed by the facility's_ owner. 16 19.78.130 Abandonment. 17 The permittee under any .wireless telecommunications facilities permit or use permit for a 18 wireless telecommunications facility shall notify the city in writing within 30.days of the cease of 19 operation of the permitted facility. Any wireless telecommunications facility which is not 20 operated for a continuous period of six months or for which the permit has expired, shall be 21 considered abandoned and shall be removed by the facility owner within'the next six months. 22 19.78.140 Severability. 23 If any part of this chapter is; for any reason, held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be 24 invalid for any, reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this 25 chapter. 26 19.78.150, Appeals. 27 A. Appeals from decisions 'regarding wireless telecommunications facilities permits issued by 28 the planning director may be appealed to the planning commission with a further appeal to Salulie\Drafts\wirelessord Septemb& 12, 2000. 17 the city council The issues which may be reviewed on the appeal of a_wireless . telecommunications facilities permit shall.be limited io whether the planning director appropriately determined whether the requirements for the issuance. of such a permit, as set forth in section, 19.78.100, have been met. B. Appeals from decisions of the planning commission regarding.use permits for wireless d telecommunications facilities or wireless telecommunications facilities permits shall be to the city council in accordance -with the procedures set forth in chapter 2.80 of this Code. The foregoing ordinance was adopted by the City Council of the City of Chico at its meeting held on the day of by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: , ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Deborah R. Presson, City Clerk Lori J. Barker, Assistant City Attorney