Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10211997 - D6 L -------- Contra TSD: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS a s '' Costa sTq c ti� Y' FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP County COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: October 21, 1997 SUBJECT: SCOPE OF WORK FOR UPDATE OF 1977 TOWER POLICY SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS Authorize the Community Development Director to proceed with the update of the 1977 Communications Tower Policy. FISCAL IMPACT This activity is not included in the Community Development Department work program. Without dedicated funding, the cost for development and implementation will result in a deficit in the Community Development Department budget of$27,000.00 to $34,000.00. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS In 1977, the Board of Supervisors adopted the Communications Tower Policy. The policy is an administrative direction to staff indicating the factors the Board of Supervisors would consider in making the findings on an land use permit for a communications facility which reached the Board on appeal. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: ✓ YES SIGNATURE '- RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMIT EE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON October 21, 1997 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x OTHER x Please see Addendum (Attached) for additional Board action. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE _ UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES:i ii iv v NOES: III AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact: Debbie Chamberlain (510/335-1213) ATTESTED October 21, 1997 Orig: Community Development Department (CDD) PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF cc: County Administrator THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS County Counsel AND C UNTY ADMINISTRATOR Supervisors B Christine Wampler DJC/dc J:Webb ie/towerpol.bo Update of Tower Policy October 21, 1997 Page 2 The County Planning Commission on June 23, 1997 adopted a resolution requesting the Board of Supervisors to authorize a study to propose appropriate modifications to the County's 1977 Communications Tower Policy. This request was in response to testimony the Commission received on a land use permit application (County File LP972015, Chevron, applicant), indicating recent advances in technology could apparently allow for consolidation of users or equipment on existing communications facilities. Additionally, changes in the regulation of the telecommunications industry at the federal and state levels will result in significantly expanded business opportunities, resulting in a demand for new communication sites. Based on this information, the Commission found it timely to recommend that the Board of Supervisors direct the Community Development Department to conduct an update of the 1977 Communications Tower Policy. Proposed Scope of Work The scope of work identifies two components; (1) review and update of the 1977 Communications Tower Policy and (2) implementation of the new tower policy. The scope of work identifies the steps in development of the policy, an approximate number of hours associated with each task and an estimated schedule. In preparing the update, staff will review the existing communications tower policy and determine if the existing goals, objectives and review procedures are appropriate in relation to the new trends in the communications industry. Issues such as reducing the number or height of towers within the County and increasing the use of co-location will be considered. Staff expects to work with interested parties to develop a policy that will meet the needs of the communities and the wireless companies. One focus of the update will be differentiating policies for specific areas in the County (e:g., Mt. Diablo, scenic ridges, open space and non-open space areas). Following preparation, the Community Development Department will distribute the draft policy to interested parties for comment and has included provision for the County Planning Commission to review and comment on the proposed policies. Staff has proposed an eight month to one year schedule for development of the policy. Following completion of the update, staff anticipates developing a tier approach for reviewing applications based on the potential for adverse impacts. For example, those telecommunication facilities that will have little or no effect on the environment could be exempt from discretionary review (e.g., land use permit application). During the course of the study, staff will also determine whether additional General Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments are necessary. The second component of the Scope of Work would address such potential amendments, but may not be included. D.6 ADDENDUM Item D.6 October 21, 1997 Dennis Barry, Interim Community Development Director, and Debbie Chamberlain, Community Development Department, provided an oral report outlining the staff recommendations. The Board members discussed the issues and took the following action: 1. APPROVED the staff recommendation authorizing the Interim Community Development Director to proceed with the update of the 1997 Communications Tower Policy; 2. REQUESTED that staff take all necessary steps to expedite the completion of the review; 3. DIRECTED staff to provide an inventory of currently existing tower facilities; and 4. DIRECTED staff to explore the issue of what ability the County may have to impose some type of a license fee, or some type of fee to recover costs. In voting no on the motion, Supervisor Gerber advised that although she supports revising the County tower policy, she continues to have concerns relative to the fiscal impact estimate contained within the staff report. RESOLUTION NO. 23-1997 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AUTHORIZE THAT AN UPDATE TO THE 1977 COMMUNICATIONS TOWER POLICY BE CONSIDERED. In May, 1977, the Board of Supervisors adopted an administrative policy to guide the processing of development applications for communication towers intending to encourage efficient utilization of communication sites and to minimize establishment of new communication sites except where proof that new sites or facilities are necessary; the policy was formulated based on input provided by a working committee consisting of representatives of the East Bay Regional Park District, the communications industry, and staff, and At the May 27, 1997 County Planning Commission hearing, the Commission received testimony from a representative of Save Mt. Diablo requesting that the County undertake an update to the Communications Tower Policy. RESOLVED, that the County Planning Commission finds that recent advances in communication technology and changes in the regulation of the communications industry at the federal and state levels that will result in significantly expanded business opportunities for the communications industry; these opportunities will result in additional demand for new communications sites and facilities in the County; and It has been twenty years since the County's Communications Towers Policy was last reviewed and may not account for the recent changes in the communication's industry business environment; and The County Planning Commission recommends that the Board of Supervisors AUTHORIZE a study to propose apppropriate modifications to the Communications Tower Policy so as to reflect current and anticipated trends in the communication industry, and to ensure conformance with general plan policies and compliance with zoning regulations. Y• Resolution No.23-1997 Request to Update Communications Tower Policy County Planning Commission The decision of the County Planning Commission was given by motion of the County Planning Commission on June 23, 1997 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners - Clark, Gaddis, Guncheon, Pavlinec and Hanecak. NOES: Commissioners - None. ABSENT: Commissioners - Terrell and Wong. ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None. COUNTY PLANNING CONMUSSION, Chairman of the County Planning Commission, County of Contra Costa, State of California. I, Dennis Barry, Secretary of the County Planning Commission, certify that the foregoing was duly called and approved on June 23, 1997. ATTEST: Dennis Barry, Secretary of the County Planning Commission, County of Contra Costa, State of California. C Awpdoc\comtower.res RD\ Page 2 I O 00 ., 0000 all C� o0(ON 00 00 o0 00 0 CL ° o, c, rn rn rn W p00 00 cq cq 00 00 M kr) � U rA Eli C� as N 00 O kn O O O N O � pij N •--� N N � ,--� N W I Gc7 i:> C bA U a 4� 4+ U 1 > I O rI O U O ll -+'' 3 U ° ° In ° p A w C o 0 0 � a •U •ti 3 .o b � � � U N N ° ULn CID wci fl r+Ll.;:: G U fa• y i�r N O x O L1. ` °� y a U ... �, �,, U W W o a Cd bJD 4., r .. ° U o O p vn a� 0n O. -0 fl a o cl a ........... ..........- ......- .............. ..........- ............ ............. ......... ................... ................... ...... ....... ....... ..... .................... ....... ....... O ........... ................... .......I-- .......... ........ © C O XX o wX.X1C Q o . i. i-{ N v� 6l9 613>i 0 0 o �; o 0 0 Q cv o .. ti O ... O: Cr ^� H p Qa Q O a U opo o W U a �: PLO Vol ca ^, :o �, �: p o W u Y a :� t� U O , 0 o O . w o O �• xx P4 x � Q MAY 1977 COMMUNICATIONS TOWER POLICY GOAL: To meet the present and future communications needs within Contra .Costa County while minimizing the visual and environmental impacts on the landscape. OBJECTIVES: To require demonstrable proof that new sites and/or facilities are necessary. To encourage maximum utilization and efficient use of the limited communication sites. To employ disguising techniques of design so as to diminish the negative impacts of such uses. To support developments which maximize energy conservation measures. To preserve to the greatest extent the existing flora and fauna. DEFINITIONS 1. Communications Tower - Any structure which is used to transmit or receive electromagnetic communications signals or which supports such a device. Private radio and T.V. receiving antennas for residential use are speci- fically excluded. 2. Communication Facilities - Shall include communication towers, antennas and the necessary accessory appurtenances. 3. Communications Site - Shall generally mean the defined area subject to review, under any land use permit application request for communication facilities. REVIEW As required by Ordinance, any applicant wishing to construct a communication facility must obtain a land use permit from the Contra Costa County Planning Agency and shall be subject to the following reviews prior to a public hearing: A. Land use review to determine suitablility of the site and compatibility with surrounding uses. B. Complete environmental review in accordance with the State of California Environmental Quality Act and State and County Guidelines . C. A technical review by the County Communications Officer. If the Communica- tions Officer feels there is need for further review by a Communications consultant, the applicant will be required to pay the fee for the consultant. D. By other agencies concerned with various aspects of the application. LP GUIDELINES The guidelines established by this policy are as follows : 1 . Height a. The heights and mass of communication facilities should be the least necessary for the applicant's activity, commensurate with technical , safety, and visual considerations. b. The heights of towers should not exceed a height on which FAA regu- lations on lighting and painting must come into use, unless there is overriding need and necessity. c. Facilities should be located below the skyline wherever possible. 2. Spacing a. The maximum number of towers and the spacing between them shall be determined after review by the applicable agencies. b. Facilities should be grouped and located at each site to minimize visual impact. 3. Power Lines a. All power lines to and within communication sites should be under- grounded unless there are overriding reasons not to do so. b. Lines should follow the corridor of least damage. 4. Accessory Equipment Shelters a. Accessory equipment shelters should be generally limited to the housing of radio, electronic and related power plant equipment. b. Such housings should be placed off skyline unless there are overriding reasons not to do so. c. Colors and sheen of structures should be selected to blend with the area. 5. Permits a. Permits should be issued to the applicant only and should not be trans- ferable. b. Permits may be issued for definite period of time to be determined by the Planning Commission. c. There should be periodic review of each permit to assure compliance with the conditions of the permit. At the time of revie-,i additional conditions may be imposed and/or existing conditions altered. . .., t/` d. In accordance with the Ordinance Code, non-compliance with the conditions of the approved permit is cause for revocation proceedings. Any deviations from the approved permit require the submittal and approval of a new application. e. Compliance with the requirements of any and all applicable regulating agencies should be required. 6. Site Area a. There should -be a complete development review including appearances and locations of all facilities. b. The area around all sturctures, poles, and guy structures should be free of combustible materials. Clearing of the site should only be allowed to the degree necessary to prevent fire hazard. c. A landscape and rehabilitation plan should be submitted for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator prior to the issuance of a build- ing permit. In non-urban areas, the landscape plan should include only suitable plants indigenous to the immediate area, and a qualified botanist should be consulted. d. The site should be maintained in an orderly manner. e. All facilities should be removed upon termination of use, and the site restored by natural or by artificial means as recommended by a qualified botanist. f. Rare and endangered plant and wildlife species should be protected. In addition to the standard land use permit application form and submittals , applicants for communication facilities shall submit the attached supplemental information form. RWC/DE:gg 5/13/77 INFORMATION SUBMITTAL All applications for Commercial and Non-commercial Radio, Microwave and Television Receiving and Transmitting Antenna Support Structure and Accessory Equipment Buildings shall submit the following information with their application: a. Location of proposed antenna support structures and accessory buildings. This information shall be shown on a plot plan drawn to scale showing area of the property, location of antenna support structures, accessory equipment buildings, existing structures within a 200 foot radius of the antenna support structures, latitude and longitude coordinates of the proposed antenna support structures and parking facilities. b. Ground elevation feet above sea level. c. Height of antenna support structure feet above ground. Maximum height to tip of proposed highest antenna feet above ground. YES NO Will this structure be: Steel Construction Wood Construction Other (Describe, draw plan and layout) Painted Orange & White (per FAA ruling) Painted, Galvanized or Other (Explain) Self-Supporting Guyed Lighted on Top (per FAA ruling) Lighted on Sides (per FAA ruling) d. Height, size and elevations of all proposed structures including tower load capabilities and placement and size of proposed antennas. e. Do you have Federal Aviation Agency approval to erect the antenna support structures? Yes No If the answer is yes, please attach a copy of your authorization. If the answer is no, please explain. f. Do you have Federal Communications Commission approval to operate in this location? Yes No If the answer is yes, please attach a copy of your authorization(s). If the answer is no, please explain. g. Please identify the names of proposed users for this location and their required uses. -1- h. Do you have Public Utility Commission approval to operate in this location? Yes No If answer is yes, please attach a copy of your authorization. i. Do you intend to raise the height of this antenna support structure at a later date? Yes No If the answer is yes, identify your total intended height. feet. j. What efforts have been made to meet your communications needs in/on an existing site/facility? (Attach statement.) k. Would your site/facility be available for other users? Yes No 1. Explain fully the type of power source to be used together with the proposed treatment of power lines. m. Under general uses requested at this location, are you requesting: If Yes: Specify Number of antennas and Systems Proposed No 1. Two-Way Radio Transmitting 2. Two-Way Radio Receiving 3. Microwave Transmitting-- - 4. Microwave Receiving 5. CATV Head End 6. AM Transmitting 535-1.605 MHz 7. FM Transmitting 88-108 MHz 8. VHF-TV Transmitting 54-88 MHz 174-216 MHz 9. UHF-TV Transmitting 470-890 MHz 10. TV Translators 11. Other - Explain n. Give the distance and direction to other communication facilities (within 1 mile) and identify the owner: o. Would you agree to cooperate with a recognized radio users group in matters of frequency compatibility tests, etc., at this and other nearby sites in order to promote best utilization of.available radio sites in the area? Yes No -2- �P- RESOLUTION NO. 23-1997 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AUTHORIZE THAT AN UPDATE TO THE 1977 COMMUNICATIONS TOWER POLICY BE CONSIDERED. In May, 1977, the Board of Supervisors adopted an administrative policy to guide the processing of development applications for communication towers intending to encourage efficient utilization of communication sites and to minimize establishment of new communication sites except where proof that new sites or facilities are necessary; the policy was formulated based on input provided by a working committee consisting of representatives of the East Bay Regional Park District, the communications industry, and staff, and At the May 27, 1997 County Planning Commission hearing, the Commission received testimony from a representative of Save Mt. Diablo requesting that the County undertake an update to the Communications Tower Policy. RESOLVED, that the County Planning Commission finds that recent advances in communication technology and changes in the regulation of the communications industry at the federal and state levels that will result in significantly expanded business opportunities for the communications industry, these opportunities will result in additional demand for new communications sites and facilities in the County; and It has been twenty years since the County's Communications Towers Policy was last reviewed and may not account for the recent changes in the communication's industry business environment; and The County Planning Commission recommends that the Board of Supervisors AUTHORIZE a study to propose apppropriate modifications to the Communications Tower Policy so as to reflect current and anticipated trends in the communication industry, and to ensure conformance with general plan policies and compliance with zoning regulations. Resolution No.23-1997 Request to Update Communications Tower Policy County Planning Commission The decision of the County Planning Commission was given by motion of the County Planning Commission on June 23, 1997 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners - Clark, Gaddis, Guncheon, Pavlinec and Hanecak. NOES: Commissioners - None. ABSENT: Commissioners - Terrell and Wong. ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None. COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, Chairman of the County Planning Commission, • County of Contra Costa, State of California. I, Dennis Barry, Secretary of the County Planning Commission, certify that the foregoing was duly called and approved on June 23, 1997. ATTEST: Dennis Barry, Secretary of the Co my Planning Commission, County of Contra Costa, State of California. C Awpdoc\comtower.res RD\ Page 2