Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09151998 - C38 .,� Centra Costa TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS �'� jam;' '' yCounty FROM DENNIS M. BARRY, AICD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: September 15, 1998 SUBJECT: Proposed Wireless Communications and Safety Act of 1995 SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RE MI ENDATIONS 1, Recommend that the Beard of Supervisors take position in opposition to Bill HR3844 (Tauzin, R-LA) 2e Authorize the Chair of the Board of Supervisors to sign a letter to the authors of the Wireless Communications and Safety Act of 1998 and our congressional delegation expressing opposition to the proposed bill. FISCAL IMPACT_ None. BAC GROi_jam/REASQ S FQ , RECQMMENDATIONS The Board of Supervisors on June 23 , 1998 adopted the 1998 Telecomnunications Policy to regulate the placement and design of conmercial wireless communication facilities that preserve the Unique visual character of the county. The adopted policy provides guidance to staff and telecommunication providers as to the criteria that will be used in reviewing land use permits and/or development plan applications. Ball HR 3844 would allow towers as a matter of rightwithout any zoning regulations on Federal properties (e.g. , post offices) in the unincorporated County without the benefit of a land use permit and/or development plan and review under the adopted Policy. This could 'lead to the proliferation of towers and/or commercial wireless telecommunications site on Federal properties which may be inconsistent with the desires of the local community and the County General Plan. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE-I,,� z RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : ACTION OF BOARD ON Z''` `.`"' APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AWES: WOES: ACTION TAKENAND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS N THE DATE SHOWN. Contact:Debbie Chamberlain - 335-1213 Oram: Community Development Departnent ATTESTET�D R cc: PHIL BATCE , CLERK OF THE BOA4D OF SUPERVISORS AND COL-fkTY ADMINISTRATOR BY �, ! ,� .,� DEPUTY REQ Co VARI�UM, RIDDERING, SCHMIDT & HO LES '�i...�.��. ATTORNEYS A ? L A W JUL� 3 1 19"� RRII)GEWATER PLACF POST OFFICE BOX 351 GRAND RAPIDS,MICHIGAN 94501.0352 TELEPHONE 616 16036.6000 - FAX 616/336-7000 „ p'RA C 0 S i > l.4ME.S N.DrBOER,JR. BRUCE.A BARNHART ERIC).SCHNEIDEWIN11 MICHAEL f.`X'OOLDR X3E RICHARD D.FRIES HARVEY KONING Ca:ruei A111 LAM K.V447 HOF TREDRIC A SYTSMA TERESA S.DECKER TiMOTH1J.TORNGA JAMES R.STADLER LINDA L.BUNGE WILLIAM,".HALLIDAY.JR. HILARY F.SNELL IAC:K D.SAGE JEFFREY R.HUGHES, FIRKIN RYNDERS RICHARD R.SYMONS AN7'•iCNY R.COMD£N I ERRANCE R.BACON PETER ARMSTRONG SEsTREY L SCI-.AD WCHARP W.BUTLER,1R MARS:S.ALLARD JEFFERY S.CRAMPTON BEVERLY HOLADAY PETER VISSERMAN KENT!VANA THOMASG.DSN1LINL; LAWRENCE F BURNS TIMOTHY E.EAGLE MAUREEN frY,,T'-R ERIC C.F'LEFTHAM FRED M.WOODRUFF CARL E VER BEEK KsHN W FEF%E LE MATTHEW D.ZIMMERMAN DAVID A.RHEM ANDREW J KOK RICHARD B.EVANS H.RAYMOND ANDREWS JON F.'D,J'iTT ROBERT?COOPER K"ILLJAM E ROHN DONALD P LAWLESS PATRICK A MILES.JR, PAMELA H.BOUWMAN DAVID L POR:EOUS E'SNN C.CARLYLE FRANK G.DUNTEN JOHN PATRICK WHITE MICHAEL S.McELWEE ERIC)CUERIN --ILESr E R.GILT. DONALD L JOHNSON NYAL D DEEMS CHARLES M.DENTON GEORGE R DAVIS STEVEN J.MORREN RICHARD A.SAMDAL Of C-1 11ANiEL C MOLHOEK i'cFCHARD.4.NC70XER PAUI.M.K.4RA JAC{2UELINE D.SCOTT KEVIN ABRAHAM RYN?RANDY ANDREW P PILLSBURY JOHN L.Wl£RENvU.JR THOMAS T HUFF KANDALL W.KKAKER JEFFREY D.SMITH N.STEVENSON IENNE?TE III MICHAEL X.HIDALGO DEBORAH I.OND€RSMA €.WILLIAM HUTC;INSON TIMOTHY i.CURTIN, PETER A.Ski IT MARK L.COLLINS DAVID E.PRESTON THOMAS G.KYROS RANDALL 1.GROENDYK R.MART HOFFIUS DIRT:NOMUS MARK C.'.HAM50'. JONATHAN W ANDERSON JE.rREY W.BISWIC,.f'C ALFRED L.SCHUBKEGEL,JR. MARC DANEMAN EUGENE ALKEMA 1 TERRY MORAN MARILYN A.LANKFZ-:R CARL a')FTERHOUSE ELIZABET.a JOY RDSSEL PAMELA J.TYLER F-IZAW H A.JAMIESON GORDON B.BOOZER THOMAS,'MULDER THOMAS L.LOC;KHART WiLLiAM J.LAWRENCE IIS JOAN SCHLEEF MARY C.BONNEMA DENA M.BROWN H.EDWARD PAUL THOMAS J.BARNES ROBERT L.DIAMOND SUSAN M.WYNGAARDEN SCT A.HUIZENGA JON M.BYLSMA MARK E.NETI.Er'ON ROBERT D.KULLGREN RRLU G.HUDSON KAPLIN 5.JONES MICiiAFL E KELLI JOSEPH B.LEVAN KATHLS£N M.LIND RICHARD A.KAY BRUCE GOODMAN S'.EPHEN P APENDOULIS KATHLEEN P.FOCHTMAN DALE R.RiETBERG LARK`,'J Tr`LEY JOSEPH J VOGAN DAVID E.KHOREY JEFFREY;FRASER MARK M.DAVIS JOHN W.PESTLE MEMORANDUM DIRECT DIAL 6161336-6725 E•MAJL jwpssele�vrsh.c©m FROM: John W.Pestle RE: Cellular Towers--Federal Preemption of Local Zoning DATE: July 20, 1998 Congress is considering legislation that would allow cellular towers to be placed on any Federal property nationwide mj bout regard to local 7onin_g. This is bad policy and a violation of Federalism. It sets a dangerous precedent for the Federal government using its property for commercial purposes (unrelated to the Federal activity involved) in violation of local zoning, land use, building codes and other laws. Letters are needed immediately to Congress H opposing the le station. z. s �r We have also attached information on our: _. ; a- Model cellular tower zoning ordinance w, ®- Model cellular tower zoning lease �a -- Model cable television franchise Several hundred municipalities nationwide have used these model documents. Further information on the proposed legislation and a suggested letter to Congress are as follows. Current ituatim: The Federal Telecommunications Act of 2996 preserved local zoning over cellular towers. That Act required the President to make Federal property available for cellular towers. The resulting executive order did this but required compliance(among other things)with all state and local envinxi ental,zoning,building code and other requirements. In at least two cases cities sued the cellular industry for placing cellular towers on post offices without obtaining local zoning approval. When faced with the preceding executive order and constitutional objections (to commercial use of Federal property unrelated to the primary mission of the Federal agency in question),such suits were promptly settled. The settlements generally required local zoning approval for the towers. However,the cellular industry has loudly complained about delays by Federal agencies(especially the U.S.Park �R Service) ' matting Federal property available for cellular towers. ~ 6 D GRAND RAPIIDS • LANSING , KALAMAZOO • GRAND HAVEN • BIRMINGHAM `BARN J'vf, RIDDI RING, SCI-MIDT & HO 1LE d i LLi ATTORNEYS A T L A W P=osed Legislation: In response to these ownplairispGongressman Billy Tauzin(F.-LA)introduced HR 3844, "Wireless Wireless Communications &T,;'the hill attempts to make 911 service available nationwide. To help fund the$1.5 billion necessary to do this it would use the revenues from leasing Federal property for cellular towers. To this end,the bill requires all Federal agencies to make their property available for lease by a cellular provider hind days of a request for such usage. Cellular companies can immediately sue for failures to respond/denials. The Congressional Budget Office has stated that the revenue from leasing Federal lands for cellular towers would be only around $10 million, or less than 1% of of the $1.5 billion Congressman Tauzin says is necessary to institute nationwide 911 service. So in fact,a major effect of the bill would be to allow Federal property to be used for cellular towers in violation of state or local laws,while leaving states,municipalities and their residents to foot the tab of implementing 911 service nationwide. MMWC. yah,Concerns: The bill contains no requirement that a cellular provider using Federal property comply with local land use,zoning or building code requirements. The cellular industry is already stating that the bill preempts state and local laws. The effects could be major,because among the Federal agencies covered by the bill are: -- Post offices -- Military recruiting centers -- Bureau of Land Management lands ®� Park Service/Forest Service lands -a Federal courthouses A broader concern is that the proposal is patently unconstitutional as a violation of Federalism and would set a dangerous precedent. It is one thing for Federal properties to be exempt from state and local regulation on matters relating to an agency's primary mission or activities (even thea, non-military installations such as post offices and Federal office buildings are required to consider local zoning and building codes). It is a different matter for the Federal government to be exempt from all state and local laws when it engages in purely i ommercial activities unrelated to its Federal mission. For example,can the Federal government use current or defunct post offices as fast food restaurants or strip malls simply to raise money and contend that it is exempt from all state and local land use, zoning, environmental or highway laws -- and exempt from state and local taxes? This would be a violation of Federalism and the rights of states and local units of government. Leftm XM : Tetters to Congressman Tauzin and other Congressional leaders are needed immediately. A sample farm of letter is attached. Mgd1l DogM=ts: We have also attached information sheets and order forms on our model cellular tower zoning ordinance,model cellular tower lease(for use when a cellular company leases space on a water or in a park from a municipality to put up an antenna or tower)and model cable television franchise. Qt �=: If you have any questions feel free to contact John Pestle at 616-336-60110. GRAND RAPIDS - LANSING • KALAMAZOO GRAND HAVEN - SOUTHFIELD IMUNICIPAL LETTERHEAD) Honorable Thomas Bliley 2409 RHOB Washington, DC 20515-4607 Honorable W.J. Tauzin 2183 RHOB Washington, DC 20515-1803 Re: HR-3844 -- Ce lular TQ-Wm .Dear Representatives Bliley and Tauzin: We are writing you about this legislation which would make all Federal property available for cellular towers. Please do not approve this legislation unless you make clear that any such commercial activity on Federal property is subject to state and local zoning,land use,building code, environmental and other laws. We understand you wish to mare Federal land available for cellular towers and to use the revenues to enhance 911 service nationwide. However, Congress cannot use Federal property for purely commercial purposes that is unrelated to the Federal mission for which the property was acquired without complying with all state and local laws. To do otherwise is a violation of Federalism and the Constitution. For example, we do not believe that simply to raise revenues the Federal government can lease post offices,military recruiting centers or the like for use as strip malls, fast food restaurants or massage parlors without first complying with the state and local laws that are applicable to any other business. Yet the cellular industry is saying that this is what your legislation does. The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 generally preserves local zoning authority over cellular towers but prevents municipalities from prohibiting such towers and requires them to act on zoning requests within a reasonable period of time. These provisions apply to cellular towers on Federal property as well as on private property. There is no reason for treating Federal property differently in this regard. Please do not approve this legislation unless these changes are made. Very truly yours, [signature] cc: [see attached Copy List] Copy List [your local Representative] Representative Bart Stupak 1410 LHOB [your two U.S. Senators] Washington, DC 20515-2201 Senator John McCain Representative Joe Barton 241 SROB 2264 RHOB Washington, DC 20510-0303 Washington, DC 20515s-4306 Senator Conrad Burns Ms. Barrie Tabin 187 SROB Legislative Counsel Washington, DC 20510-2603 National League of Cities 1301 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison 6th Floor 283 SROB Washington, DC 20004 Washington, DC 20510-4304 Ms. Cheryl L. Pasalic Senator Slade Gorton Interim. Director of Operations 730 SNOB NATOA Washington, DC 20510-4701 1650 Tysons Boulevard Suite 200 Senator Dianne Feinstein McLean, VA 22102-3915 331 SNOB Washington, DC 20510-0504 Mr. Robert Fogel Associate Legislative Director Representative Edward J. Markey National Association of Counties 2133 RHOB 440 First Street,N�'W, 8th Floor Washington, DC 20515-2107 Washington, DC 20001 Representative John D. Dingell Mr. Kevin McCarty 2328 RHOB Assistant Executive Director Washington, DC 20515-2216 U.S. Conference of Mayors 1620 I Street Representative Bob Goodlatte Fourth Floor 123 CHOB Washington, DC 20006 Washington, DC 20515-4606 Ms. Cheryl Maynard Representative James: Moran Government Affairs Coordinator 1214 LHOB American Planning Association Washington, DC 20515-4608 1776 Massachusetts Ave. NW,4th Floor Washington, DC 20036 VA.RNUM, RIDDERING, S CHMIDT &. HOWLETTLLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW DR'DGEWATER PLACE POST OFFICE BOX 352 • GRAND RAPIDS,MICHIGAN 94501-0352 TELEPHONE 6161336-60W - FAX 6161336.70M 1ViI+MORA"UM-MODU CELLUTAR ZONMG< RDMANCE FROM: John W.Pestle,Teresa S.Decker IE: Model Cellular Tower Zoning Ordinance We have prepared a model zoning ordinance for communities to use to regulate the 100,000 new cellular towers that are planned nationwide. The ordinance allows PCS(Personal Communications Service—the newest form of cellular service) and cellular services to be provided while giving communities the appropriate zoning authority to control proposed new cellular and PCS towers. An order form is attached. Specific information is as follows. jbe Problem. New PCS and cellular services will lead to a five—_U (increase in the number of cellular towers, creating significant zoning and land use issues for municipalities. Fortunately,the Federal Telecommunications.Act of 1996 generally preserved local zoning control over such towers. In response we have prepared a mo&I r&lIWaL2Qewer -ming odd=r,, based on (1) our extensive municipal and zoning knowledge (we are municipal attorneys for numerous communities) and (2) -- our extensive practice representing municipalities on cable and telecommunications matters. Communities,their municipal attorneys, planners and zoning administrators can adapt this model ordinance to t=heir specific needs,requirements and state and local laws. To aid in this process we provide the ordinance on computer disk as well as a hard copy, di_n>s` r,Feat. The ordinance is 20 pages long,single spaced. It complies with the 1996 Federal,pct and has the following features,among others: It strongly encourages"collocation"(meaning multiple antennas on the same tower)sea as to minimize the total number of towers. — It strongly encourages placement of new towers on municipal property or in industrial and heavy commercial zones. it has more strict siting criteria for light commercial and(in particular)residential zones. -- It encourages avoiding towers altogether, such as by a new microcell technology (used at the 199+6 Republican National Convention in San Diego)where a PCS system is built as part of a cable system and no towers are needed. "Disguised antennas"are a ncoumg4 such as in billboards,church steeples and towers disguised as trees (a tower disguised as a tree is used at Mt.Vernon,George Washington's home), -- Cellular and PCS services are taken out of the"essential service"or utility definition in zoning ordinances, so that they are not allowed in all zoning districts as of right. m The equipment shelters which accompany towers are required to be adequately screened,blend in and have appropriate set backs. -- Provision is made for obtaining additional information Brom the cellular or PCS company,for example,to aid in evaluating detailed technical claim they may make, 8a The ordinance also encourages PCS or cellula companies to expressly take local zoning and land use patterns into account in their initial tower layout. This is in contrast to the approach used by many cellular companies where the initial tower layout or grid is simply determined by radio engineers with little regard for land use or sensitive areas, as Administrative reviews and administrative appeals must occur before applicant can go to court. GRAND RAPIDS • LANSING • KALAMAZOO - GRAND HAVEN VARNUM, RIDDERING, SCHyiIDT & HOWLETTLLp A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W What YSW Get: An order form for the zoning package is set forth below. For$225 you receive: -- The 20 page ordinance,both in hard copy and on computer disk. -- A memo highlighting key concepts in the ordinance. -- Our paper on Municipal Concerns and Interests in Personal Communications Service. -- The Federal Communications Commission's extensive Fact Sheet which helps explain PCS and some of the zoning implications of the 1996 Act. -- A list of consultants who have told us they assist municipalities on cellular/PCS zoning matters. Cable/Teleco==icatio_s Ewtice: Varnum, Riddering, Schmidt & Howlett represents municipalities nationwide on cable and television matters. It is one of the principal firths with such a practice and has represented over 200 municipalities on such matters. The firm also has a large municipal practice and is municipal attorney for several cities,counties and townships. See the fu-m's web page at www.vrah.com. Teresa Becker is a member of the firm's Municipal and Litigation Groups, specializing in zoning and land use matters. She drafted the fern's model PCS zoning ordinance, has assisted several communities on PCS and cellular zoning issues and has spoken nationally on cellular/PCS zoning. She is a graduate of Grand Valley State College and the University of Michigan Law School. She can be contacted at tsdecker@vrsh.com. John Pestle is Co-Chair of the firm's Energy and Telecommunications Practice Group. He received the 1996 "Member of the Year"award from the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisers for his work representing municipalities on the passage and implementation of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. He is a former Chair of the Municipal Lawyers Section of the State Bar of Michigan and is a graduate of Harvard College, Pale Graduate School and the University of Michigan Law School. He can be contacted at jwpestle@uvrsh.com. — ® ® . .w — **Model CeIFuI Z/PC'S Zoning Ordinance Carder Form** — — — — — — ® — — Please send me your model cellular/PCS zoning ordinance with accompanying documents for$225. E3 Check to request overnight delivery. (Add$10) E3 Our check is enclosed for$ -or- tt Please invoice us for the total of$ 0 We would like a diskette(list word processor and version) Orders will be shipped 2-3 working days after request is received Municipality/Finn: Name: Title: Address: Phone: Fax: E-mail: Please mull or fax this forth to the attention of Ms.Nikki Klungle at Varnum,Riddering,Schmidt&Howletts 333 Bridge Street,NW P.O.Box 352 Grand Rapids,MI 49501-0352 Phone: 616-335-67434 Fax: 616-336-7000 7198 niklungle@vrsh.com ............................................................. ............................................................................................................_ _..............._........................._. ........ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......._. ......... ......._ ......... ......... ......... . ......... . ....... ... ..... .................................. . ... . .... ........ AT -TORN EYS AT LAW BRIDGEWATER PLACE POST OfFfCE BOX 342 - ORA.ND RAPIDS.M3CFllG..AN#9501.4352 TELEPHONE 616,336-M - FAX 6161336.7003 FROM: John W.Pestle,Teta.Deur RE: Model Leases Personal Communications Service(PCs)and Cellular Antemm M mym€n}icipalities we now beim approached by AT&T,Sprint,Nextel and ONO to km musiowd (space on buildings,in mil parks and on water towers)for antennas,for Personal CowpoxuaicadServices(PC —the newest form of cellular telephone service)and other cellular-t3W services Commmities will coached by additional providers in the future as the FCC continues to auction off`rights to provide communi"dow service to additional companies and existing services expand. In some areas,PCS and other cellular services will require as many as three or four cellular antemas per square mile due to there being bona many more providers(three to six)per community nd the new technology requiring more antennas per provider. Overcall, 100,000 new antennas are expected nationwide. We have available mW6 forms of leases for a community and its counsel to use in negotiating a lease with a PCs or other communications provider. Each is IS to 20 pages long and rare available on clink and hid may. Among other things,they provide for: — Free(or reduced cost)phone and data service as a part of the compensation the municipality receives Provisions strongly encouraging multiple anteanmes on the same tower so as to miznirnize the number of towers Bankruptcytf ru mcial security related provisions due to the likelihood that some PCS-and cellular providers may fail(some have filed for bankruptcy) Extensive indemnity and insurance provisions to protect a municipality The model forms of leases come in three versions corresponding to the following three situations where a municipality may lease space to a communications provider: -- PCs anterum on existing municipal communications tower =to=on existing municipal l water tower/building PCs tower Md antenna,on undeveloped land(e.g.municipal park) The are available for 5225 for one,$250 for two and 5275 for the oft ibr��cipa lir u�and tailor to their specific situations. CmAact John Pestle(w his secretary,Nikki Klungle.,atthe AM address 616-3 36- 6743,&x P&M, 0)to obw&vopties or send ftLattached fxn. We WiD 4180 inch copies of our paper to the Nadonal A ciation of Telewt�tnt ca t cera .Advmr;s(NATOA)on . awpe 1 Court decision from W hft%ton upholding a Oty morstosium on granter mut tions for additional PCS tDWM. s GRANDRAPIM LANSING KALAMAZOO GRAt3T.HAV T VARNUM, RIDDERING, SCHMIDT & HOWLETTLL11 A T T. C R N E Y S A T L A W Q bl iT l c;=muak&bons Emctice: Varnum, Riddering, Schmidt& Howlett Lu represents municipalities nationwide on cable and television matters. it is one of the principal firms with such a practice and has represented over 200 municipalities on such matters. The firm also has a large municipal practice and is municipal attorney for several cities,counties and townships. See the firm's web page at www.vrsh.com. John Pestle is Co-Chair of the firm's Energy and Telecommunications Practice Group. He received the 1996 "Member of the Year"award from the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors for his work representing municipalities on the passage and implementation of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. He is a former Chair of the Municipal Lawyers Section of the State Bar of Michigan and is a graduate of Harvard College, Yale Graduate School and University of Michigan Law School. He can be contacted at jwpestle@vrsh.com. Teresa Decker is a member of the firm's Municipal and Litigation .Groups,specializing in zoning and land use matters. She drafted the firm's model PCS zoning ordinance,has assisted several communities on PCS and cellular zoning issues and has spoken nationally on cellular/PCS zoning. She is a graduate of Grand Valley State College and the University of Michigan Law Schools She can be contacted at tsdecker@vrsh.com. . . ® ® . ese. . .® "Model PCS Lease Order Form" PIease send me the following lease(s)at$.225 for one,$25 for each additional lease($275 for the set of 3). PCS antenna on existing municipal communications tower PCS antenna on existing municipal water tower/building PCS tower and antenna on undeveloped land ® Check to request overnight delivery service(Add$10 to total) • Our check payable to Varnum,Riddering,Schmidt&Howlett is enclosed for $ • Please invoice us for the total of$. a We would like a diskette(list word processor and version) Orders will be shipped 2-3 working days after request is received. Municipality/Firm: Name: Title: Address: Phone: Fax: E-mail: Please maid or fax this form to the attention of Ms.NEW Klungle at Varnum,Riddering,Schmidt&Howlett 333 Bridge Street,NW P.O.Box 352 Grand Rapids,MI 49541-0352 Phone: 516-335-6743;Fax: 515-336-7000 7/99 niklungle@vrsh.com CST p VARNUM, RIDDERING, SCHMIDT & HOW'LETTLLP ' A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W P; BRIDGEWATER PLACE POST OFFICE BOX 352 ° GRAND RAPIDS,MICHIGAN 495011-0352 TELEPHONE 6361 336.600n - FAX 616/336.7WO MEMORANDUM-MODEL CABLE FP-kNCE11SE FROM: John W.Pestle,Patrick A.Miles,Jr. RE: Model Cable TV Franchises Many municipalities are now facing franchise renewal with their cable television provider. We have assisted over 1013 municipalities on such franchise renewals. To assist other municipalities we have prepared=model ca le Wevilion fimigbisel--a lunger version and a shorter version. An order form is attached. Specific information is as fellows. R=ypls Cortrnlexity: Many cable television frarnchises are corning up for renewal at the present time. Such renewals are significantly different than the original grant of a cable franchise: -- Federal restrictions applicable to cable franchise renewals (the "formal renewal process") make it difficult to terminate a franchise or impose conditions the cable company strongly objects to. -- Federal restrictions on what municipalities can require in formal franchise renewals. -- Attempts by cable companies to obtain the right in cable franchises to provide telephone service. Increased complexity,bath to provide needed protections for municipalities and their residents and due to neve FCC regulations(customer service,technical standards and the life)affecting cable. A cable franchise can provide significant assistance for a community and its residents on such items as the minimum number of channels and programming to be provided;needed customer service and consumer protections; significant protections on use of the rights of way;and indemnities and insurance that largely insulate a municipality's general fund from claims due to the activities of the cable television company. Iblfldel Franeshises: The model franchises provide detailed language and helpful comments. They should aid a mummicipal manager,municipal attorney or municipal cable administrator in the renewal process. The longer version covers the following Mics,among ethers(see sample table of contents,attach). Tbeshorter version covers many of these topics(not all)but in less detail. -- Cable services to be provided. -- Franchise fee -- Cable system description -- Right of way management -- Where cable services will be provided -- Emergency alert system (universal service,homes per anile) Transfer of cable franchise -- Anti-discrimination/redlining Signal quality standards -- Customer service irndernnityl tmnance -- Free drops at municipal buildings „- Defaultairesrnedies -- Public, education, government(i'ECr) -- Telephone service channels -- Institutional network GRAND RAPIDS • LANSING KALAMAZOO ° GRAND HAVEN VARIX UM, RIDDERING, SCHMIDT & HOWLETTILLP t ATTORNEYSA T l A W Two Versions: The shorter version is aimed more at medium to smaller sized municipalities. It covers the f essential points but has no institutional network. It is less detailed than the longer version. We can fax you the table of contents. The longer version is more detailed and is typically used by medium or larger municipalities,especially these which either have extensive PEG requirements or work extensively on cable and franchising matters. It has very extensive provisions on rights of way,customer service,insurance and indemnity,PEG,institutional network,defaults and remedies. We suggest that municipalities obtain both versions and compare them section by section. They may wish to "mix and match"sections from each as is appropriate to their needs. Cost&W You Get: The cost is$250 for the shorter version,$350 for the longer version,or$450 for both. What you get is a package including: The franchise,both in hard copy and on computer disk -_ A memo with comments on specific sections of the franchise and a list of specific sections to be "customized"by each municipality _- A general memo on how to use the cable franchises •_ A memo on cable television renewal procedures which includes both some comments from our experience and a copy of the renewal section of the 1984 Cable Act _- A form of contract which municipalities should use with each entity programming a PEC Channel A list of consultants who have told us they assist municipalities on cable television refranchising. How to Rcd: To order the franchises or obtain additional information,mail or fax the attached form to us. Most logistical or ordering questions can be answered by Ms.Nikki Klungle at 616-335-6743. Substantive questions can be addressed to Pat Miles or John Pestle at 616-336.6000(fax 616-336-7000). CabletUccom_municatins Practice: Varnum, Riddering, Schmidt&Howlett LLP represents municipalities nationwide on cable and television matters. It is one of the principal firms with such a practice and has represented over 200 municipalities on such matters. The firm also has a large municipal practice and is municipal attorney for several cities,counties and townships. See the firm's web page at www.vrsh.com. John W.Pestle is Co-Chair of the firm's Energy and Telecommunications Practice Group. He received the 1996 "Member of the Year"award from the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors for his work representing municipalities on the passage and implementation of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. He is a former Chair of the Municipal Lawyers Section of the State Bar of Michigan and is a graduate of Harvard College, Yale Graduate School and the University of Michigan Law School. He can be contacted at jwpestle@vrsh.com. Patrick A.Miles,Jr.is a partner in the firm's Energy and Telecommunications Practice Group.He represents municipalities extensively on such matters and has led several delegations of municipalities m meetings at the FCC on cable television, telecommunications and right of way management matters. He has received certificates from the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors for his work assisting municipalities on cable and telecommunications matters. He was named"Outstanding Young Lawyer of the Year"by the Michigan State Bar in 1996 and is a graduate of Aquinas College and Harvard Law School. He can be contacted at pamiles u@vrsh.com. . .......................................................................................................................................................................................... _... _._......... ......... _ VA.RNL1M, R.IDDERING, SCHMIDT & HOWLE17 LP . ATTORNFYS A T L .A 'W Model Cable Franchise Under Form Please send men o Model Cable Franchise,Long Version($350) D Model Cable Franchise, Short Version($250) 13 Both Versions($450) 13 Send by overnight delivery(add$10 to total) • Our check payable to Varnum,Riddering,Schmidt&Howlett is enclosed for$ • Please send ane an invoice for$ E3 We would like a diskette formatted in (list word processor and version) Orders will be shipped 2-3 working days after request is received n Please fax me the table of contents from the shorter franchise to examine 13 Please add me to your mailing list Municipality/Firm: Name: Title: Address: Phone: Fax: E-mail: 'lease mail or fax this form to the attention of Ms.Nikki Klungle at Varnum,Riddering,Schmidt&HowlettLLP 333 Bridge Street,NW P.O.Box 352 Grand rapids,MI 49501-0352 Phone: 616.336-6743,Fax: 616-336-7000 7/98 - - r - ® a.. ....., ® - - - - v nWungle@vrsh.com Fable of Contents 1 DEFDaTIONI S 1.20 Institutional Network or 2 GRANT OF RIGHTS Rights-rrf•Wsy I.i In General I-NET 2.1 Permission/Franchise 3.2 Relocation:of the System 1.2 Additional Insureds 1.21 Institutional Network Agreement 3.3 Weather 1.3 Affiliate Services 2.2 Institutional Network 3.4 Restoration of Property 1.4 Authorized Area 1.22 Local Off Air Channels 2.3 Additional Services 3.5 Barriers 1.5 Cable Gross Revenues 1.23 Manager 2.4 No Priority 3.6 Traffic Control 1.6 Cable Ordinance 1.24 Municipality 2.5 Municipality's Rights In 3.7 Minimum,Interference 1.7 Cable Services 1.25 Municipal Charter Public Ways 3.8 Tree'Trimming 1.8 Cable System 1.26 Municipal Code 2.6 Emergencies 3.9 Trees and Landscaping 1.9 Cable Television Business 1.27 Normal Operating 2.7 Backup Power 3.10 [Reserved] 1.10 Commission Conditions 2.8 compliance With Law 3.11 East Usage 1.11 Company 1.28 PEG Chmnels 2.9 Maintenance and Repair 3.12 Crorsst,vction-General 1.12 Control 1.29 Public Ways 2.10 Other Permits 3.13 Reconstruction Schedule 1.13 Drop 1.30 School Systems 2.11 Right of Condemnation 3.14 Liquidated Damages 1.14 Effective Date 1.31 Service Interruption Reserved 3.15 Reconstruction Bond 1.15 Emergency Alert System 1.32 Tel 'cations 2.12 Fees 3.16 Emergency Notification 1.16 Event of Default Service 2.13 Identification 3.17 Right of Inspection 1.1'7 FCC 1.33 Uncured Event of Default 3.18 Notice of Construction to 1.18 Franchise Agent 1.34 User 3 PUBLIC WAYS AND Municipality 1.19 Indemnitees 1.33 Video Programming CONSTRUCTION 3.19 Notice of C.ou,sttuction. 3.1 No Burden our Public Residents Table of Contents(continued) 3.20 Utility Crowding 5.17 Service Interruptions 9 CABLE RATES AND 15.15 Waiver of Compliance 3.21 Removal of Obsolete 5.18 PEC Signal Quality REGULATION 15.26 independent Contractor Facilities/Cooperation 5.19 Log of Complaints 9.1 Rates Relationship 3.22 (Reserved) 5.20 Payment Options 9.2 Regulation 15.17 Diligent Prosecution 3.23 New Developments 5.21 Bills 9.3 Uniformity 15.1E Severability 3.24 Preventive Maintenance 5.22 Refunds and Credits 9.4 Notice of Certain Costs 15.19 Specific Rights 3.25 Parallel Installation 5.23 Seasonal Contracts Reserved by Municipality (cont'd) 5.24 Fire,Etc=Free 10 TERM 15.203 General Reserved Rights 3.25 Identification Replacement 14.1 Term 15.22 Conduct of Hearings 3.27 Ownership of Installed 5.25 Late Payment for Cable 10.2 Extension 15.23 Authority Cable Service 10.3 Termination 15.24 Effective Date 3.29 Joint Use by Municipality 5.26 Disconnection 10.4 Performance Evaluation 3.30 Compliance with Law 5.27 Privacy and Monitoring Sessions EXHIBIT A-CABLE 3.31 Poles 5.28 Subscriber Information SYSTEM DESCRIPTION 3.32 Underground Facilities 5.29 Truth In Advertising 11 TRANSFERS , 3.33 Underground Street 5.30 Complaints Referred by OWNERSHIP AND EXHIBIT B - MUNICIPAL/ Crossing Municipality CONTROL SCHOOL LOCATIONS 3.34 Temporary Relocation 5.31 Reports 11.1 Operation of Cable 3.35 Pavement Cut 5.32 FCC Technical Standards System EXHIBIT C-EVIDENCE OF Coordination/ 5.33 Liquidated Damages 11.2 Franchise Agreement INSURANCE Additional Fees Transfers 3.36 Vacation 6 CABLE SYSTEM 11.3 Transfer of Ownership or EXHIBIT D - FORM OF 3.37 As-Builts ACCESS Control FRANCHISE AGREEMENT 3.38 Utility Notification 6.1 PEG Channels Generally 11.4 Ownership, FEE REPORT Program 6.2 Number of PEG Channels Encumbrances 3.39 Discontinuance and 6.3 Allocation of PEG 11.5 Applications for Consentf EXHIBIT E -- OWNERSHIP Removal of System Channels Procedure/Restrictions OF COMPANY 3.40 Failure to Discontinue 6.4 Signal Input Paints Service 6.5 PEG Access Assistance 12 DEFAULTS EXHIBIT F -- REPORTING 6.6 Institutional Network 12.1 Events of Default REQUIREMENTS 4 CABLE SERVICE 6.7 Encouragement of Access 12.2 Uncured Events of 4.1 Programming Services Cablecasting Default IT G-PREVENTIVE 4.2 First Amendment 6.8 Publicity MAINMANCE PROGRAM 4.3 Cable System Description 6.9 Educational Services 13 REMEDIES 4.4 Service Provided 6.10 Leased Access 13.1 Remedies EXHIBIT H-y SIGNAL 4.5 Access to Service 6.11 Cost Home by Company 13.2 Security Fund INPUT POINTS 4.6 Service 13.3 Remedies Not Exclusive 4.7 Drops 7 INDEMNITY AND 13.4 Liquidated Damages EXHIBIT I 4.8 Free Service INSURANCE 13.5 Liquidated Damages INDEMNIFICATION 4.9 Continuity of Service 7.1 Disclaimer of Liability Procedure 4.10 Interconnection 7.2 Indemnification EXHIBIT J- 4.11 Emergency Alert System 7.3 Assumption of Risk 14 PROVISION OF INSTITUTIONAL 7.4 Defense of Indemnitees INFORMATION NETWORK SPECIFICATION 5 CABLE CUSTOMER 7.5 Notice,Cooperation and 14.1 Filings SERVICE Expenses 14.2 Hooks and Records EXHIBIT K a-REMOTE 5.1 Customer Service 7.6 Insurance 14.3 Reports SIGNAL INPUT POINTS Standards 7.7 Named Insureds 5.2 Reservation 7.8 Evidence of Insurance 15 GENERAL EXHIBIT L- 5.3 Undergrounding 7.9 Cancellation of Policies of 15.I Entire Agreement CONTRIBUTION IN AM OF 5.4 Lockout Device Insurance 15.2 Recitals CONSTRUCTION 5.5 Blocking 7.10 Insurance Companies 15.3 Taxes 5.6 Pay Per View 7.11 Deductibles 15.4 State of All EXHIBIT M m CABLE 5.7 Notification 7.12 Contractors 15.5 Covenants/ t CUSTOMER SERVICE PLAN 5.8 Notice of Changes 7.13 Insurance Primary 15.6 Notices 5.9 Program Guide 7.14 Review of Limits 15.7 Conferences EXHIBIT N -- PEG USER 5.10 Converters 15.8 Governing Law CONTRACT 5.11 Negative Options 3 FEES AND PAYMENTS 15.9 No hWucernerrt 5.12 Telephone Service 8.1 Franchise Fee 15.10 Non-Discri instion EXHIBIT O - LIENS AND 5.13 Office/Home Delivery- 8.2 Audit 1S.I I Franchise Agreement ENCUMBRANCES Pick Up 8.3 Permits and Other Fees Accepted 5.14 Installation Standards 8.4 Interest 15.12 Waiver Filbw 5.15 Installations/Service Calls 8.5 Prior Fees 15.13 Guarantee of Pareart 5.16 Service Call Charges 15.14 No Liability ........................................................................................................................................................................................ ......... ........ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ........... . .. .... _............ ......... .......... ... ..................... ...................... . ... . ........ _ _ _ _ ............................................ ....._..._...... ... Phil 84WWW The io Contra cow WVd County AdminlMration Building county Admin*ww Costa 651 Ping Street,Room 1 i33 Martinez,Caiifa mia 94663-1293 uounty, Owls Ia.uukem,2M owrw- 'Rh die fir, 4M 033&� canotatanw,s'i't Dist&- September 23, 1998 The Honorable Dianne Feinstein U.S. Senator Hart Building #331 Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Feinstein: SUBJECT: OPPOSITION TO BILI. HR3844 (TAUZIN, R-LA) I air- writing on behalf of my colleagues who serve on the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors to add our voices to the numerous public agencies who have come out in opposition to Bill HR3844 (Tauzin, R--LA). This Bili would make all Federal property available for cellular towers. Please do not approve this legislation unless it is amended to require that such commercial activities on Federal property is subject to local land use and zoning requirements, building codes, environmental, and other laws. The County of Contra Costa has spent considerable time and resources in the past year updating its policy for the siting of telecommunication facilities. The proposed Bill would frustrate the County's goals and policies in this regard because it would exempt commercial sites on Federal properties. Such facilities could well be inconsistent with the desires of the local community and the adopted County General Plan. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 generally preserves local zoning authority of cellular towers but prevents local government from prohibiting such towers and requires action on requested approvals within a reasonable period of time. These provisions apply to such towers on Federal property as well as private property. There is no compelling reason to treat Federal property differently in this regard. Please do not approve this legislation unless these changes are made. Sincerely yours, Jim Roger : Chair Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors JR\1v1MB;t� s p171dbkCeld'i�`a�wr.Leg cc: Contra Costa county California Congressional Delegation Phil satchow The Board of Supervisors Contra Cie*Of ft 8owd and County Administration Suilfts; CCowV",whslmatm osta851 Pine Street,Room 106 €�s�� �� Martinez,California 94553-1293 uounty F 4t ice ifle,ft Dotrid September 23, 1998 The Honorable Barbara Boxer U.S. Senator Hart Building #112 Washington, D.C. 20510 Bear Senator Boxer: SUBJECT: OPPOSITION TO BILL HR3844 (TA11ZIN, R-LA) I am writing on behalf of my colleagues who serve on the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors to add our voices to the numerous public agencies who have come out in opposition to Bill HR3844 (Tauzin, R-LA). This Bill would make all Federal property available for cellular towers. Please do not approve this legislation unless it is amended to require that such commercial activities on Federal property is subject to local land use and zoning requirements, building codes, environmental, and other laws. The County of Contra Costa has spent considerable time and resources in the past year updating its policy for the siting of telecommunication .facilities. The proposed Bill would frustrate the County's goals and policies in this regard because it would exempt commercial sites on Federal properties. Such facilities could well be inconsistent with the desires of the local community and the adopted County General Plan. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 generally preserves local zoning authority of cellular towers but prevents local government from prohibiting such towers and requires action on requested approvals within a reasonable period of time. These provisions apply to such towers on Federal property as well as private property. There is no compelling reason to treat Federal property differently in this regard. Please do not approve this legislation unless these changes are made. Sincerely yours, k .r Jing Roger, Chair Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors JR\DM 3: T 1s rt7taatCe1Xwr.Le9 cc: Contra Costa county California Congressional Delegation Phil sawtWIM Thi Board of Supervisors Contra Qs*of the sowd Md County Administration €€filingCosta., untyf+.dev in4ftiar 851 Phe Street,Rom 106 # ts� a nee,lea€ ornis -1293 County GwVW S.Mom,2nd NOW Joe Ca ((AMpp,,(({4 ggyym�ow,1m September 23, 1998 The Honorable Ellen Tauscher U.S. House of Representatives 10th Congressional District Longworth Building #1440 Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congresswoman Tauscher: SUBJECT: OPPOSITION TO BILL HR.3844 (TAUZIN, It-LA) I am writing on behalf of my colleagues who serve on the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors to addd our voices to the numerous public agencies who have come out in opposition to Bill HR3844 (Tauzin, R-LA). This Bill would make all Federal property available for cellular towers. Please do not approve this legislation unless it is amended to require that such commercial activities on Federal property is subject to local land use and zoning requirements, building codes, environmental, and other laws. The County of Contra Costa has spent considerable time and resources in the past year updating its policy for the siting of telecommunication facilities. The proposed Bill would frustrate the County's goals and policies in this regard because it would exempt commercial sites on Federal properties. Such facilities could well be inconsistent with the desires of the local community and the adopted County General Plan. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 generally preserves local zoning authority of cellular towers but prevents local government from prohibiting such towers and requires action on requested approvals within a reasonable period of time. These provisions apply to such towers on Federal property as well as private property. There is no compelling reason to treat Federal property differently in this regard. Please do not approve this legislation unless these changes are made. Sincerely yours, Jinn Rogers, Chair Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors JR\DMB: its pl 7tdbkCel1gowr.Leg cc; Contra costa county Californias Congressional Delegation hil oftheior The Board Supervisors Contra. C Arw Canty Administration Building 61 Pias Street,Room 106 Costa Mattinez,California W63-1293 County a.Dwns 001W i *0 Die fi nW,4th Oifi3. € .moi "AMWMIRS,ram MAO& September 23, 1998 The Honorable George Miller U.S. House of Representatives 7th Congressional District Rayburn Building ##'2205 Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Miller. SUBJECT: OPPOSITION TO BILL HR3844 (TAU.ZIN, R-LA) I am writing on behalf of my colleagues who serve on the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors to add our voices to the numerous public agencies who have come out in opposition to Bill HR3844 (Tauzin, R-LA). This Bill would make all Federal property available for cellular towers. Please do not approve this legislation unless it is amended to require that.such commercial activities on Federal property is subject to local land use and zoning requirements, building codes, environmental, and other laws. The County of Contra Costa has spent considerable time and resources in the past year updating its policy for the siting of telecommunication facilities. The proposed Bill would frustrate the County's goals and policies in this regard because it would exempt commercial sites on Federal properties. Such facilities could well be inconsistent with the desires of the local community and the adopted County General Plan. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 generally preserves local zoning authority of cellular towers but prevents local government from prohibiting such towers and requires action on requested approvals within a reasonable period of time. These provisions apply to such towers on Federal property as well as private property. There is no compelling reason to treat Federal property differently in this regard. Please do not approve this legislation unless these changes are made. Sincerely yours, dim Rogues, Chair Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors JR\DMB:rens pi 71d b1 Cei1'l�awr.Leg cc: Contra Costa County california Congresy:onal Delegation