HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06161998 - D10 ;. Centra
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS x* Costa
County
FROM: Telecommunications Subcommittee
Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier
Supervisor Donna Gerber
DATE: June 16, 1998
SUBJECT: Report on Proposed 1998 Telecommunication Tower Policy
SPECIFIC REQUESTS? OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. FIND that the adoption of the Policy is exempt from the
provisions of CEQA pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, Section
15061 (b) (3) as there is no passibility that this activity
could have a significant effect on the environment.
2 . ADOPT the 1998 Telecommunications Policy as presented.
3 . DIRECT staff to return in one year for an update to the County
Planning Commission of the Policy's implementation and
recommendations on appropriate changes.
ISCAL IMPACT
This activity was not included in the Community Development
Department work program. The cost for development and
implementation of the Policy results in a deficit in the Community
Development Department budget of $22 , 000. 00.
On May 12, 2998 the Board of Supervisors referred the draft 1998
Telecommunications Tower .Policy to a Board subcommittee for further
discussions of the issues raised by Save Mt. Diablo, Knox LaRue' and
Harry Styron, and directed staff to prepare responses to , the
comments received for review by the Subcommittee.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: K _ YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDA'T'ION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF SHARD ON .Tune 16, ? APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER X
See the Attached Addendum for Board action.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT - _ TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
contact:Debbie Chamberlain - 335-121.3 SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED dune 16 , 1998
cc: PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
B �, DEPUTY
2 .
A meeting of the Subcommittee was held on May 27, 1998, to discuss
the May 22 , 1998 staff responses. A copy of the memorandum was
also forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. Following discussion
by the subcommittee, staff was directed to incorporate the staff
recommended changes as modified by the subcommittee into the
policy for consideration by the Board of Supervisors.
The most notable change in the Policy is reducing the length of
the permit (Section VI) . Staff had originally proposed a 10-year
term with reviews every three years and the possibility of two 5-
year extensions. The recommended change reduces the term to a
maximum of 10 years with reviews every three years. Other changes
relate to increase submittal requirements to document the size and
type of equipment at the proposed facility, set a cap on the
number of installations and document the list of users.
Additional modifications have been made to reflect current FCC
requirements and definitions and to specifically exempt amateur
radio operators from the requirements of the Policy. The modified
Policy included with this Board Order is reflective of the
subcommittee's recommendations and comments received by the Board
of Supervisors at the May 12 , 1998 meeting.
There were a number of comments requesting no new towers be
permitted and/or their locations be limited on Mt. Diablo; and the
existing ones be "phased-out" over a 25 year period. To
facilitate this request, amendments to the County General Plan and
Zoning Ordinance would be necessary. In addition to looking at
the General Plan and zoning implications of such a request, the
review would need to include a technical analysis to determine if
limiting or banning towers on Mt. Diablo would have significant
visual impacts elsewhere in the County or on Mt. Diablo. If the
Board of Supervisors is inclined to proceed with this request,
staff should be directed to return with a scope of work, projected
time frame and budget. It should be noted that this activity
would not be included in the Community Development Department work
program and without dedicated funding, the cost for development
and implementation will result in a deficit in the Community
Development Department budget.
DJC/aa
BO/Policy.DJC
6/4/98
ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.10
June 16, 1998 Agenda
On May 12, 1998, the Board of Supervisors continued to this date, consideration of the
proposed 1998 Telecommunications Tower Policy.
Supervisor DeSaulnier commented that several interested parties had met in his office to
discuss this matter, and resolution of the issues had not been reached.
Debbie Chamberlain, Community Development Department (CDD), presented the staff report,
and the June 16, 1998, draft of the "Contra Costa County 1998 Telecommunications Policy"
The hearing was opened, and the fallowing people presented testimony:
Harry Styron, Mt. Diablo Amateur Radio Club, 1700 N. Broadway, Walnut Creek;
John Knox, 223 Bishop Avenue, Richmond;
Knox LaRue, 2171 Ralph, Stockton;
LeBon Abercrombie, Pappas Telecasting of Concord, 500 S. Chinowth Road, 'Visalia;
Joseph T. Gregory, Mt. Diablo Amateur Radio Club, 3244 Terra Granada
Drive, #2 B, Walnut Creek;
Lou Norberg, 1471 Lydia Lane, Clayton;
Richard M, Shapee, 2955 Corte Miguel, Concord;
Lou Rosas, Pacific Bell, 1600 S. Main Street, Room 202, Walnut Creek;
Seth Adams, Save Mount Diablo, P.O. Box 5376, Walnut Creek;
Peter Maucharsd, GTE Wireless, 121 Madrid, Sonoma.
All persons desiring to spear having been heard, the Board discussed the matter.
Supervisor DeSaulnier moved the Community Development Department's Recommendations
Nos.1 and 3. He suggested that the Board amend recommendation No. 2 on the drafted
Telecommunications policy by striking Section U (Third Party Review) on Page 3. Supervisor
DeSaulnier further recommended that in Section H (Development Guidelines for Mt. Diablo)
on Page 12, the Board include a paragraph labeled "D", and suggested it read, "Consideration
will be given to applicants with regard to past performance, as to adherence of the guidelines
listed here". He recommended that a sentence be added in terms of the hearing body, that
reads, "The applicant can demonstrate the facility has significant public safety benefits".
Supervisor Rogers seconded the motion.
Following further discussion, the Board took the following action:
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that staff's Recommendations Nos. 1 and 3 are
APPROVED; and Recommendation No. 2, the report titled "Contra Costa County 1998
Telecommunications Policy" (attached as Exhibit A), is AMENDED as follows: Delete
Section U, Page 3; INCLUDE in Section H, Page 12, a paragraph D, which reads,
"Consideration will be given to an existing facility where they have successfully adhered to
these guidelines", and also INCLUDE a paragraph L, which reads "The applicant can
demonstrate the facility has significant public safety benefits",
1
. .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
1998 TELECOMMUNICATIONS POLICY
Prepared by:
Community Development Department
June 16, 1998
. .. _....... ......... ......... ......... ......... _.............................. ..........
. ...._....... .......... ......... ........... ........._..... ._........ . _........ ......... ......... ...._...............
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
1. Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
11. Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
111. Definitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1V. Development Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
A. General Development Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
B. Building Mounted Antennas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
C. Roof Mounted Antennas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S
D. Ground Mounted Telecommunication Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
B. Freestanding Telecommunication Towers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
F. Broadcast Station Towers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
G. Major Ridge/Open Space Areas/Non-Urban Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
H. Mt. Diablo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
VI. Length of Permit/Discontinuance of Use/Financial Guarantee . . . . . . . . . . . 13
VII Testing of Commercial Wireless Communication Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
VIII. Submittal Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A. General. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
B. Telecommunication Towers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
............I--.... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ..........
__. _....._ .....__.. ......... ......... ......... ......_.. ._............................_..............._.._..................................
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
1998 TELECOMMUNICATION POLICY
I. PURPOSE
The purpose and intent of this policy is to establish development guidelines to regulate the
placement and design of commercial wireless communication facilities in order to preserve
the unique visual character of the County and are consistent with federal and state law related
to the development of commercial wireless communication transmission facilities. This policy
acknowledges the community benefit associated with the provision of commercial wireless
communication services within the County and encourages the tense of publicly owned
properties for the development of commercial wireless telecommunication facilities.
This policy also provides administrative direction to staff by indicating',the factors, in addition
to those required by§26-2.2006 of the County Code, the Board of Supervisors may consider
in reviewing a land use permit and/or development plan application for a commercial wireless
communications facility.
II. OBJECTIVES
Meet the present and future communications needs within Contra Costa County while
minimizing the visual and environmental impacts on the landscape.
Employ disguising techniques of design so that a tower is aesthetically and architecturally
compatible with the environment. General Pian.Policy 9-18, 9-19, '9-22.
Ensure a broad range of telecommunications services and high quality telecommunications
infrastructure to serve the community.
Encourage "stealth" design of wireless communications facilities if located at visually
prominent sites. General Plan Policy 9-18, 9-19, 9-21, 9-22
Pursue additional public benefit by encouraging the leasing of publicly owned properties,
where appropriate, for the development of wireless communications facilities.
III. DEFINITIONS
A "Antenna"means any system of towers, poles, panels, rods, wires, drums, reflecting
discs or similar devices used for the transmission or reception of electromagnetic
waves. The distinction is made between the support structure and the antenna(s)
mounted thereon.
2
B. "Antenna Support Structure"means any system of towers poles or other structures
used to support an antenna.
C. "Applicant"means owner(s)of property or leaseholder or representative(and,where
applicable, easements) upon which wireless communications facilities are to be
located.
D. "Building Mounted Antenna"means an antenna whose support structure is mounted
to a building or rooftop equipment screen,that transmits or receives electromagnetic
signals.
E. Broadcast Station Tower": A structure or supporting antennas or other equipment
that transmits or receives electromagnetic signals which is 'part of an AM, FM
International or Television Broadcast Station or which supports antennas necessary
for a Cable System"head end"facility.
F. "Co-location"means the location of two or more wireless communications facilities
on a single support structure,or otherwise sharing a common location. Co-location
shall also include the location of wireless communications facilities with other utility
facilities and structures such as,but not limited to,water tanks,transmission towers
and light standards.
G. "Commercial Wireless Communications Facility" means a facility that transmits
and/or receives electromagnetic signals, including, but not limited to towers,
antennas, monopoles support or accessory structures and related equipment.
Amateur radio operators are not included in this definition.
H. "Equipment Enclosure"means a cabinet or other structure used to house equipment
associated with a wireless communications facility.
1. "Free-Standing Telecommunication Tower":an antenna support structure that is over
18-feet in height from finished grade and is designated to support the antennas of a
facility regulated by this Policy. Monopoles and self-supported or guyed structures
of lattice construction are examples of this type of structure. Roof-mounted or
building mounted antennas are excluded from this definition.'
J. "Ground-Mounted Antenna" means an antenna with its support structure placed
directly on the ground,the total height of which does not exceed 15-feet including
the height of the antenna.
K. "Bearing Body" shall mean that as determined by the Community Development
Director and one of the divisions of the planning agency defined in Seefion 26-2.202
of the County Code.
.... ...........................................................................................................................................................
__ _. ._._...._ ......... ......... ......... ............_................. ............................._.._...... ........_. ........ ....._
3
L "Monopole" means a single free-standing pole, post, or similar structure over 18-feet
in height from finished grade used to support equipment associated with a commercial
wireless communications facility.
M. "Mount Diablo Area" is defined to be the Mt. Diablo State Parr Boundary as
determined at the time of application, and those areas depicted on Figure 1 attached
to this Policy.
N "Non-Urban Area" means those areas designated in the County General Plan as
"Agriculture", "Public and Semi-Public", "Watershed", or"Parks and Recreation".
d. "Related Equipment" means all equipment ancillary to the transmission and reception
of voice and data via radio frequencies. Such equipment may include, but is not
limited to, cable, conduit and connectors.
P. "Roof-Mounted Antenna" means an antenna directly attached or affixed to the roof
of an existing structure which transmits or receive electromagnetic signals.
Q "Open Space" means those General Plan designations that include publicly owned,
open space lands which are not designated as"Public and Serni-Public", "Watershed",
or "Parks and Recreation". Lands designated "Open Space" included, without
limitation, wetlands and tidelands and other areas of significant ecological resources
or geologic hazards.
R. "Scenic Ridges" means those areas identified as such in the Open Space Element and
as depicted on Figure 9-1 of the County General Plan.
S. "Service Provider" means any authorized provider of commercial wireless
communications services.
T. "Stealth Facility" means any commercial wireless communications facility which is
designated to blend into the surrounding environment by means of screening,
concealment, or camouflage. The antenna and supportingantenna equipment are
either not readily visible beyond the property on which it is located, or, if visible,
appear to be part of the existing landscape or environment;rather than the wireless
communications facility.
U. "Third Party Review" means an independent review, paid for by the applicant by an
independent expert in radiofrequency and/or wireless communications.
4
IV. DEVELOPMENT-GUIDELINES
In consideration of an application for a land use permit and/or development plan, all new
commercial wireless communication facilities shall be reviewed by the hearing body for
compliance with the following General Development Guidelines:
A. General Development Guidelines: The following development guidelines shall be
met by all new commercial wireless communication facilities:
1. All proposed commercial wireless telecommunication facilities shall be located
so as to minimize their visibility.
2. In order to use any telecommunications facility type and placement (such as
ground-mounted, facade-mounted, roof-mounted or towers), the applicant
will be required to demonstrate why a telecommunication type with a lesser
adverse visual impact cannot be used.
3. In addition to the photo simulations showing before and after scenarios,
applicants may be required to submit further visual analysis (such as line of
sight analysis).
4. If the hearing body deems it necessary, applicants may be required to
construct a full scale"mock-up" of a proposed facility, using materials and
colors that resemble the actual facility for proposed ground-mounted facilities
and roof mounted facilities. The mock-up shall be installed 10 days prior to
the scheduled public hearing date, and left in place for a period of 10 days
from the date of any final administrative action ',taken on the project
application. The notice of public hearing shall contain infonnation about the
location and placement of the "mock" structure. Additionally, all "mock"
structures shall be removed by the applicant within one month from the date
of final administrative action on the project application, and the site shall be
restored to its original condition, if the application is denied.
S. All commercial wireless communications facilities shall comply at all times
with all Federal Communications Commission(FCC)rules, regulations, and
standards, and any other applicable federal, state or County law or regulation.
6. Sufficient anti-climbing measures shall be incorporated into the facility, as
needed,to reduce the potential for trespass and injury.
7. Building mounted antennas are preferred over free-standing antenna
structures, provided that each facility adheres to applicable County zoning
ordinance height restrictions.
5
8. To minimize overall visual impact, new commercial wireless communication
facilities shalt be co-located with existing facilities and with other planned new
facilities,whenever feasible. In addition, whenever feasible, service providers
are encouraged to co-locate antennas with other facilities such as water tanks,
light standards, and other utility structures where the co-location is found to
minimize the overall visual impact. To facilitate co-location in appropriate
cases, conditions of approval for land use permits shall require all applicants
to cooperate in the siting of equipment and antennas to accommodate the
maximum number of operators at a given site. Whenever possible, the
applicant shall agree to allow future co-location of additional antennas and not
to enter into a lease for the exclusive use of the site.
9. All related equipment, equipment enclosures, antennas, poles or towers shall
have a non-reflective finish and shall be painted or otherwise treated to
minimize visual impacts. Antennas which will be viewed primarily against the
skyline (such as "whip" or "stick" antennas) shallbe painted light gray,
camouflage patterns or other approved color, with a reflectivity less than
55% otherwise. except where the antenna structure owner or registrant is
required to mark(paint)the antenna structure otherwise by the terms of the
FCC Antenna Structure Registration applicable to the facility.
10. The applicant shall demonstrate through manufacturer and industry
information that the latest technology available to minimize visual impacts
relating to the design of the commercial wireless telecommunications facility
is being used.
11. Commercial wireless communication facilities shall avoid any unreasonable
interference with views from neighboring properties, whenever feasible.
12. Development of commercial wireless communication facilities on vacant sites
shall be temporary. 'Whenever feasible, when the site is developed, such
facilities will be removed and replaced with building(mounted antennas.
13. All commercial wireless communication facilities which are not mounted on
existing structures shall b 1 j screened from the view of surrounding
properties as much as possiby and the public view or co-located with existing
facilities or structures so as not to create substantial visual, noise or thermal
impacts; or (2) sited within areas with substantial screening by existing
vegetation; or (3) designed to appear as natural' features found in the
immediate area,such as trees or rocks, so as to be effectively unnoticeable; or
(4) screened with additional trees and other native or adapted vegetation
which shall be planted and maintained around the facility, in the vicinity of the
project site, and along access roads in appropriate;situations, where such
vegetation is deemed necessary to screen telecommunications facilities. Such
6
landscaping, including irrigation, shall be installed and maintained by the
applicant, as long as the permit is in effect. This may require installing an
automated, mechanical irrigation system. If the proposed commercial wireless
communication facility is to be located on public land, the managing agency
shall be consulted and provided 30-days to review', and comment on any
proposed landscape plans.
14. Landscaping may be required in informal natural looking clusters in the
vicinity of any proposed commercial wireless telecommunication facility, in
addition to screening of the facility.
15. Applicants proposing to irrigate landscaping used for screening commercial
wireless telecommunication facilities shall providewritten proof of the
availability of the necessary water supply to sustain any landscaping required
for visual screening prior to permit issuance. This may be in the form of a
letter from the owner of the land allowing the applicant the use of required
water facilities for landscaping installed improvements in the area.
16. Proposed equipment cabinets/structures and accessory structures shall be
maintained in good condition over the term of the permit. This shall include
keeping equipment cabinets and structures graffiti free and maintaining
security fences in good condition.
17. Antennas, towers, dishes or mountings shall not be used for advertising.
18. Exterior lighting shall not be allowed on commercial wireless communication
facilities except for that required for use of authorized persons on site during
hours of darkness or where antenna structure owner or registrant is required
to light the antenna structure by the terms of the FAA Antenna Structure
Registration applicable to the facility.
19. The applicant shall be required to provide evidence in the form of a license
or construction permit from the FCC and/or FAA that the FCC and/or FAA
has accepted the applicant's certification that the facility meets the FCC
and/or FAA standard or provide evidence that the FCC and/or FAA has
categorically exempted the applicant from demonstrating compliance with the
FCC and/or FAA standard.If license or construction permit has not yet been
obtained by the applicant, the furnishing of such FCC and/or FAA license or
construction permit shall become a condition of approval for the land use
permit and/or development plan.
''I'll'-,...........................................................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
7
20. Where three (3) or more commercial wireless communications facilities
operate in the same location, the carriers operating those facilities shall
provide documentation of testing done by an electromagnetic field (EMF)
expert to verify that the cumulative EMF levels conform to standards adopted
by the FCC.
21. Free standing telecommunications towers shall not be located within the
required front yard setback of any property.
22. All freestanding telecommunications towers shall be designed at the minimum
functional height required for the coverage area unless related to a County
approved plan to reduce the impact(s) of future installations.
23. A technical review by the County Communications Officer of the General
Services Department to determine if the proposed installation will have
electromagnetic interference with other facilities or uses in the area may be
required. If a review of compatibility of the facility is necessary, the County
Communications Officer, acting jointly with the Community Development
Department (CDD), may consult with a California registered professional
engineer with known expertise in this specialty. The CDD may retain the
services of a private-sector consultant for this purpose to provide professional
recommendations to the CDD. The applicant may be asked to describe the
electromagnetic frequency needs of the wireless provider and to identify
alternative sites which meet the applicant's telecommunications needs and can
be readily or reasonably leased. The wireless provider will present its data and
offer straightforward information to Community Development Department
staff regarding its electromagnetic frequency needs._ The wireless provider
will also make staff aware of those alternative sites where leases can be
secured that are suitable for its system. When deemed necessary by
Community Development Department staff, the wireless provider will also
host information sessions for County staff and Board of Supervisors and
County Planning Commission. The cost of such reviews shall be paid by the
applicant and deposited with the County as part of the application fee.
24. In appropriate cases, the proposed wireless communication facilities can be
located on County-owned or controlled property or County rights-of-way,
25. Application review and all other subsequent review's of proposed or existing
commercial wireless communication facilities shall . include photo
documentation of existing conditions and equipment for comparison with past
conditions and in order to facilitate policy goals relatedto minimizing site
disturbance and visibility.
..................
8
26. At the time of permit review, these photo documentation shall be updated.'
Additional equipment will only be allowed where'the cumulative visual
impacts are decreased through replacement with smaller equipment or
additional mitigation to decrease visibility.
B. Development Guidelines for Building Mounted Antennas: In addition to all other
applicable development guidelines, Section IV.A., commercial wireless
communication facilities proposed to be mounted or attached onto existing buildings
shall be reviewed by the hearing body for compliance with the following:
1. Building mounted antennas and any ancillary equipment should be in scale and
architecturally integrated with the building design in such a manner as to be
visually unobtrusive. Screening designs may include locating the facility
within attics, steeples, towers, behind and below parapets, or concealed with
an architecturally compatible addition to a building.
2. When viewed directly against a building wall, colors and materials of the
antennas should match the existing building.
3. Building mounted antennas and any ancillary equipment should avoid any
unreasonable interference with views from neighboring properties.
4. The equipment cabinets and structures shall be located to minimize visibility
from public places,and to have minimal visual impacts. Any visible portion of
the equipment cabinet shall be painted or treated in order to be architecturally
compatible with the surrounding buildings and/or it shall be screened, using
appropriate techniques, to camouflage, disguise ',and/or blend into the
surrounding environment, as determined by the Hearing body.
S. The applicant shall make every attempt to flush-mount and locate antennas
below the roof line of the building. Antennas and the associated mounting
generally shall not project beyond a maximum of 18-inches from the face of
the building.
C. Development Guidelines for Roof Mounted Antennas: In addition to all other
applicable development guidelines in Section IV.A., commercial wireless
communication facilities proposed to be mounted or attached to the roof of existing
buildings shall be reviewed for compliance with the following:
1. Roof mounted equipment and antennas, other than facade antennas, shall be
aesthetically compatible with and located as far away from the edge of the
building as technically feasible as determined by the hearing body. Antennas
attached to the building shall be painted or otherwise treated_to match the
exterior of the building or the antennas' background color.
9
2. Roof-mounted antennas shall not be allowed when they are to be placed in
direct line of sight of scenic corridors or where they will significantly affect
scenic vistas, unless the facilities incorporate appropriate techniques to
camouflage, disguise and/or blend them into the surrounding environment, as
approved by the hearing body.
3. The height of roof-mounted antennas, including the support structure,
generally shall not exceed 15-feet above the roof plate of the existing building
on which they are placed.
4. The equipment cabinet or structure, if located on the rooftop of buildings,
shall be located so as to be minimally visible from public places. If any
portion of the equipment cabinet is visible, it shall be camouflaged or screened
from view, to the fullest extent possible.
D. Development Guidelines for Ground-Mounted Telecommunication Facilities:
In addition to all other applicable development guidelines in Section IV.A., ground-
mounted telecortu-nunications facilities proposed in any allowed zoning district shall
comply with the following:
1. Commercial wireless communication facilities visible on or above the ridgeline
shall be prohibited unless, prior to approving the application, the hearing
body determines that the applicant has shown that there is no feasible
alternative.
2. Ground mounted facilities by different systems operators generally shall not
be allowed within 1,000 feet of one another, unless the hearing body
determines that the cumulative visual or other physical environmental impacts
can be reduced by allowing such facilities within 1,000 feet of one another.
The hearing body shall determine the number of antennas allowed per site on
a case by case basis, with the goal of minimizing the visual impacts of the
antennas from public viewpoints.
3. Ground mounted antennas should be the minimumfeasible height, but no
taller than 15 feet in total height. In addition, for any ground mounted
antennas over 10 feet in height, the applicant shall demonstrate that the
additional height,up to a maximum of 15-feet total, is structurally required to
meet the applicant's objectives and that visual impacts, if any, have been
mitigated by specified means, satisfactory to the hearing body.
10
4. All proposed facilities should be located within easy reach of existing access
roads,whenever possible. Unless visual impacts can be adequately mitigated,
no new access roads on the ridgeline shall be allowed with any proposed'
telecommunication facility.
5. All facilities shall incorporate appropriate techniques to camouflage, disguise
and/or blend them into the surrounding environment (stealth techniques) to
minimize visual impacts. A sample list of such techniques is set forth in
Subsection E. below (Development (:guidelines for Free-standing
Telecommunication Towers) .
6. All associated equipment cabinets or structures for ground mounted facilities
shall be designed and located so as to minimize visual impacts and/or be
screened from public view. Screening techniques may include landscaping
and/or architectural treatment to make them compatible with existing
buildings and/or partial burial of the cabinets or structures.
E. Development Guidelines for Free-standing Telecommunications Towers: In
addition to all other development guidelines in Section IV. A., free-standing
telecommunications towers proposed in any allowed zoning district shall comply with
the fallowing:
1. Free-standing telecommunications towers shall be located and designed to
minimize visual impacts. When appropriate, monopoles in areas where
adverse visual impacts cannot be avoided(as in some commercial areas), shall
be camouflaged, disguised and/or blended into the surrounding environment,
or disguised as pieces of art/sculpture, flag poles, telephone poles, light
standards, or other visual forms to avoid an adverse visual impact.
2. Freestanding telecol'wnunications towers shall generally not be allowed within
1,000 feet of each other, unless the hearing body determines that the
cumulative visual impacts will be reduced by allowing facilities within 1,000
feet of one another.
3. All applicants for telecommunications towers shallprovide to the hearing
body a written commitment to allow other wireless carriers, using compatible
technology, to co-locate antennas on the proposed towers.
4. The smallest available and least visible antennas that provide the coverage
objective shall be mounted on towers.
5. Lightning arrestor rods and beacon lights shall not be included as part of the
tower design, unless the applicant can demonstrate that such are necessary for
safety reasons. j
1�
Minor modifications to the communications equipment design, location, elevations,
and other elements of the approved tower may be allowed by the hearing body, if such
modifications are in keeping with the architectural statement and layout design of the
original approval.
F. _Development Guidelines for Broadcast Station Towers: In addition to all other
applicable development guidelines, in Section IV.A. above, commercial wireless
communication facilities proposed in any allowable zoning district shall comply with
the following:
I. Broadcast station towers shall be the minimal functional size. Any proposed
towers of 250 feet in height or more may be approved by the hearing body
only if the applicant can demonstrate that there is no feasible alternative.
2. Broadcast station towers shall be set back 110 percent of their height from
adjacent residential buildings or building envelopes.
3. Broadcast station towers shall not be placed on or above the ridgeline unless
approved by the hearing body and upon the applicant's showing that there is
no feasible alternative.
4. The applicant shall be required to satisfy complaints of blanketing interference
as set forth in Part 73 of the FCC Rules.
G. Development Guidelines for Major Ridge/Open Space Areas/Non- Urban Areas:
In addition to all other applicable development guidelines in Section IV.A. above,
commercial wireless communication facilities proposed to be located within an area
identified in the County General Plan as Scenic Ridge, Open Space or Non-Open
Space areas, shall be subject to the following:
1. Compliance with Section IV.E., "Development Guidelines for Freestanding
Telecommunications Towers" and Section IV.F., ".Development Guidelines
for Radio and Television Towers."
2. No commercial wireless communication facility shall be located within Sfl
vertical feet of a County General Plan identified Major Ridge, as measured
from the base of the facility, unless an exception is;granted by the hearing
body. An exception may be granted by the hearing body only if any of the
following findings can be made:
a. Due to the specific location and design of the proposed facility, the
facility will not be visible from surrounding properties or public view,
or
12
b. Due to existing development or existing vegetation at the site, the
proposed facility will be substantially screened from the view of
surrounding properties and public view and will not result in an
adverse visual impact; or
C. The applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the hearing body'
that there is no feasible alternative.
3. Special design considerations, including designs which simulate natural'
features found in the immediate area, i.e. trees or rocks, may be taken into
account by the hearing body when facilities within the County General Plan
identified major ridge line areas are proposed.
4. Development of a commercial wireless communication facility shall conform
generally with the natural contours to avoid excessive grading.
H. Development Guidelines for Mt. Diablo Area: In addition to all other applicable
development guidelines, in Section W.A. above, commercial wireless communication
facilities proposed to be located in the Mt. Diablo Area (as defined in this policy)
shall be subject to the following:
I. Compliance with Section IV.E.,"Development Guidelines for Radio and
Television Towers", and Section IVY., "Design Guidelines for Free-Standing
Telecommunications Towers".
2. No commercial wireless communication facility shall be located within 50
vertical feet of any peak within the Mt. Diablo Area, which as measured from
the base of the facility, unless an exception is granted'. An exception may be
granted by the hearing body only if any of the following findings can be made:
a. Due to the specific location and design of the proposed facility, the
facility will not be visible from surrounding properties or public view:
or
b. Due to existing development or existing vegetation at the site, the
proposed facility will be substantially screened from the view of
surrounding properties and public view and will not result in an
adverse visual impact; or
C. The applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the hearing body
that there is no feasible alternative.
.............................................................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................................................................
13
3. Special design considerations, including designs which simulate natural
features found in the immediate area, i.e. trees or rocks, shall be taken into
account by the hearing body when approving facilities.
V. LENGTH OF PERMIT/DISCONTINUANCE OF USE/FINANCIAL GUARANTEE
All permit approvals for conu-nercial wireless communication facilities may be valid for up to
a maximum of ten(10)years, with administrative or public hearing reviews every three years
to demonstrate continuing compliance with the Conditions of Approval. When reviewing
existing facilities for renewal, the hearing body shall determine whether substantial progress
has been made in decreasing the visibility of these facilities.
At the time of each three year review , modifications may be required to the approved land
use permit and/or final development plan, if technology has advanced to the point where
commercial wireless telecommunication facilities can be made safer or less visually obtrusive,
to conform to similar Commercial Wireless Community facilities that are currently being
installed in California at the time of permit review.
Application review and subsequent reviews of proposed or existing commercial wireless
communication facilities shall include photo documentation of existing conditions and
equipment for comparison with past conditions and in order to facilitate policy goals related
to minimizing site disturbance and visibility.
All land use permit and/or development plan applications shall include conditions of approval
that require modifications to the approved site plan if technology has advanced to the point
where commercial wireless telecommunication facilities can be made safer or less visually
obtrusive, to conform to equipment that is currently being installed at the time of permit
review.
All structures and equipment associated with a commercial wireless communications facility
shall be removed within thirty(30)days of the discontinuation of the use and the site shall be
restored by the permittee to its original pre-development condition. In addition, the permittee
shall provide the Community Development Department with a notice of intent to vacate the
site a minimum of thirty(30) days prior to vacation. For facilities located on County owned
or leased property, this removal requirement shall be included within the terms of the lease.
Prior to constructing a telecommunications tower, or prior to renewing a use permit for an
existing tower, the applicant or permittee shall provide a financial guarantee, which shall be
indexed annually for inflation, satisfactory to the hearing body, for the removal of the facility
in the event that the use is abandoned or the use permit expires, or is revoked, or otherwise
terminated. The amount of the guarantee per free-standing tower may be reduced or
eliminated (a) if the applicant has more than one free-standing tower in the County. If the
owner or lessee does not remove any obsolete or unused facilities, as described above, the
financial guarantee shall be used by the County to remove any obsolete or unused facilities
14
and to return the site to its pre-development conditions. Any unused financial guarantee shall
be returned to the applicant upon termination of the use and removal of facility or transfer of
the lease accompanied by a financial guarantee by the new lessee or owner.
VI. TESTING OF COMMERCIAL WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION SITE
All requests for testing ofcommercial wireless telecommunication facilities may be submitted
to the Community Development Department for consideration, in any zoning district which
permits commercial wireless telecommunication facilities, following the issuance of a land
use permit and/or development plan. The height of the proposed facility shall not exceed the
maximum height allowed for structures in the zoning district in which it is proposed, and the
facility shall be removed within six(6) months. A bond sufficient to cover the cost of removal
shall also be provided to the Community Development Department and shall be provided by
the applicant.
VII. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
A. General: In addition to the general requirements for a Land Use Permit application,
an application for a commercial wireless communication facility shall include the
following information.
I. Site and landscape plans drawn to scale;
2. Statement of ownership of the proposed site or authorization to use it;
3. Reference to any necessary easements;
4. A USGS Topographic map or survey with existing topographic contours
showing the proposed antennas, accessory structures, new roads and the
surrounding area extending at lease one hundred fifty(15 0) feet beyond any.
proposed towers and at least fifty (50) feet beyond other proposed
telecommunications facilities;
5. The number, type and dimensions of antennas and equipment cabinets and
structures proposed for use by the applicant and a map identifying all existing
telecommunication facilities within a 3,040 foot radius of the proposed
facility;
6. If determined necessary by the Community Development Department, a
description indicating whether the proposed telecommunications facility is
intended to increase capacity within an existing covered area or extend service
to an unserved area, describing the extent or degree of each proposed
increased or extended service;
11...I...I.............................................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................
15
7. For applications to extend service to an unserved area, if determined
necessary by the Community Development Department, a map based on
either radio frequency propagation maps(or similar engineering data) or drive
tests at the proposed site and its vicinity showing the estimated coverage area
of the proposed telecommunications facility;
8. A map showing how the proposed antennas fit within the network of the
applicant's existing and proposed antenna sites within 3,000 feet of the project
vicinity;
9. A statement of intent to design the facility to allow for co-location;
10. A description of the site selection process, including information about at least
two other sites in the same search ring that were considered and the reasons
for their rejection;
11. A statement to the hearing body, including:
a) The power rating for all antennas and' back-up equipment
proposed with'the first application; and
b) A description of the system, including the number of
antennas, and associated equipment cabinets and structures
which conforms to the radio-frequency exposure standards
adopted by the FCC, and will operate within the frequency
assigned by the FCC; and
C) Assurance that operation of the facility, in addition to ambient
radio-frequency exposure levels, will not exceed adopted FCC
standards with regard to human exposure in "uncontrolled
areas" (i.e., areas subject to general public exposure, as
defined by the National Council on Radiation Exposure
Prevention or the then applicable FCC standard-.
12. The applicant's proposal to establish and maintain maximum visual screening
of unsightly public views of the facilities, including landscape and irrigation
plans, sample exterior materials and colors of towers, antennas, and accessory
structures, including equipment structures and cabinets and security fences;
and
13. Visual impact demonstrations, including before and after photo-simulation,
showing height and location of the proposed facility as viewed from public
places.
...........
....I.............................................................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................
16
14. A list of the names, addresses, and types of business users who will occupy
the site.
15. All applications and reviews shall include a list and photo documentation of
transmission, reception and other equipment initially proposed,justifying the
need for the range of equipment. At each three year permit reviews, these lists
and photo documentation shall be updated. Additional equipment will only be
allowed where the cumulative visual impacts are decreased through
replacement with smaller equipment or additional mitigation to decrease
visibility.
B. Broadcast Station & Telecommunication: Applications for telecommunication
towers, in addition to the above submittal requirements in Section VII.A., shall
include the following:
1. A description of the tower, with technical reasons for its design and size-,
2. A report from a civil engineer regarding the number and type of antennas the
structure is designed to support;
3. A statement to the hearing body indicating how the facilities have been
designed to aUbw co-location of other carriers, wherever technically feasible-,
4. A statement of the reasons for not co-locating on any of the existing
monopoles and lattice towers identified in the area survey. This may include
a statement from the telecommunications carrier for the existing facility
giving reasons for not permitting co-location, or a statement of structural
reasons, with a copy of the structural calculations to be reviewed by the
County Building Inspection Department;
5. A statement indicating whether each site identified is essential for completion
of the coverage objective and reasons; and
6. To the extent required by the hearing body, a visual study depicting
representative locations within a maximum three mile radius from which any
portion of the proposed tower would have a substantial, demonstrable
negative aesthetic effect, including public and private viewpoints, streets,
parks or scenic areas. The visual study shall not be required for co-locations
on existing towers that do not result in an increase in height of the tower.
DJC/dc:aa
4/29/98
5/28/98
6/4/98
6/9/98
..........................................
E# Dennis M.Barry,AICP
✓ , `J Contra
Community Development Director
Development
Costa
Department
County
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street •'-: ;
4th Floor,North Wing
Martinez,California 94553-0095
Phoo.25 335-12101
June 8, 1998
Knox LaRue
2171 Ralph Avenue
Stockton,CA 95206
Dear Mr. LaRue.
RE: North Peak of Mt. Diablo
I am in receipt of your June 1, 1998 fax regarding your tower installations on the North.Peak
of Mt. Diablo and the draft 1998 Telecommunication Tower Policy. Your letter provides
background about the history of the facility and your personal experiences with Save Mt.
Diablo. Your letter firther identifies your concerns with the draft 1988 Telecommunication
Tower Policy and identifies the number and type of users that are currently operating on
North Peak.
At the May 27, 1998 Subcommittee meeting, you requested staff to identify how the draft
1998 Telecommunication Tower Policy would effect your approved land use permit and, if
adapted, what changes to the facilities would be necessary. The Subcommittee responded
by requesting that by June 1, 1998 you provide staff with your evaluation of what changes
would be necessary to comply with the draft Policy and staff would review your proposal
and provide a response. To date, this request has not been made,
The Policy issues identified on pages 4 and 5 of your letter were responded to in the May 22,
1998 Report to the Telecommunications Subcommittee. Additionally, you stated that the
guideline requiring"that towers and buildings be located 50-feet below the ridge line is not
practical..." The guidelines for the Mt. Diablo area provide flexibility;to allow the existing
location of the towers, if the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of division of the
planning agency hearing the application, that there is no feasible alternative. Furthermore,
you state that the"FCC does not license towers on commercial communication sites" except
AM broadcast antennas. While this is true, as stated in Section IBJ, Guideline 919, this
requirement can be satisfied by demonstrating that towers are j exempt from FCC
requirements.
Office Hours Monday-Friday:6:40 a.m.-5:40 p.m.
Office is closed the 1 st,3rd&6th Fridays of each month
{
...............................................................................................................................................................................................
. . ............................. ......................
2.
Finally,you have asked that when the list of the site users is provided, that this information
be kept confidential. I am not aware of any exceptions under the Public Records Act that
would allow the County to keep this information confidential. Generally, all information
submitted to the County is public information and we are required to provide it upon request.
If you have any information to the contrary, I will discuss the matter further with County
Counsel.
Should you have any further questions, or need additional information, please do not hesitate
to call.
Sincerely,
DEBBIE CHAMBERLAIN
Senior Planner
DJC/aa
LT2/Tower.DJC
................... ...... ....... .......
1.11 ''I'll,..........................................
@6/01/1998 13:4:3 b102151211 r` J KNUX t Aut nt
' 209-948-M55 KSTN AM FM 391 Pei MAY 31 '98 11:17
K" :La Rue
2171 Ralph AA'vtuut
SWkt las CA
(20)462-M9
Fax(20)94"ZW
May 29, 1998
Mr. Jack Knox
De'Jack:
I hope that you agree with MY prewltntion. I have not sent this to anyone,pending your
Ootments. Debbie bw putt a deadline of noon on tbia material.
The dent 1A wiU be sent you Monday morn.
Thank you dor your assistance.
Kis La
....... ...................................................................
''I'll-,......I I....................................................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................
1,1:46 OIVZIOtZll J KNUA t-Ak= rar
209-948-8255 KSTN AM & FM 391 P02 MAY 31 199 11:17
Knox La rLue
2171 IU*b Avenue
Stodfti%CA 95206
(20)462-6050
?*Uy 29, 1998
Hmx"Do=a Gerber,Supervisor Fax 820-6627
309 Diablo Road
Danvil*CA 94526
Honorable Mark De Saulnia, Supervisor Fax: 646-5767
2425 Bisso I. Suite 110
Concord,CA 94520
Ms. Debra Chambedin, Senior Planner Fax. 335-1222
W Dennis Barry
COMOnkity Developmest Dqmtmwt
651 Pine Street
Nhxthw4 CA 9053
RR Proposed Contra,Costa Tel000mnwications Policy
Dew Supavisors Gabor and De Saulnier:
Thank you for your interest in the problems ivvoh-ed with tW new toleconmwnk-afim
study The time you have taken to listen to the problem fed by the broad spectrum of
Telecommunications operwors and system operat"s,is doe*WftcWed. I wish to
provide you with information that is useful to You azul your PrOcemes in estabhOing a new
policy for Contra Cotwa county.
Obviously,the thrust of my oommenu win relate to Nft. Diablo and bigb le-M sites in
Contra Cosa County. I have been invoked with tramnisdon site:;in Coma Costa
Couzy fair more than 50 years. The distreswW tag to me Wmt the pwoe who are
.............................................I..,.......
.»:
cltrlVI11=10 33.*t.3 rtvZLZ:) td! d NNW^
20"4a-92S$ KSTN Edi & FMr+4tat �s
391 P03 MAY 31 198 11x18
comical oftowets,arstm a and talecomurnuseicatiOns Site$in gee aW is that flares is
'pp'lY room in their M'ds far a n to?fav*s'AeW POW or Head thd docs not
petalled their tlmughta My Position is that I bane duet as much tib if rwtmore,to
operate a North Pak teleoomamrnieWo s site&a those who cideizeme. I a taraepted a
cleat with the state whieh allowed me to stay on the North Peak and expand as needed. I
k t More than 1 1f2 million dobn on the table in order to maim this right adto come
to a teason+sblt conclusion to the dispute involving the AM aNUW don oftbe North Peak
from►v4. I know of so such pexsonaal aran;ti&ea on the part ofthose wtw now dWer with
MY Otd*Uwxd use ofd North 1'"k, To my kwwieclge„thee: *pert thewselva
as North Peak mgmts without having any vested finaereuad intra est. It hexa 4aVs,b
ow my
Paoy> acquiring the North Peak in the mid 501% ftt those who'aorto lire on my
Property have tho freedom to do so. Over the years a imber ofie have aw ed
thetrnWv"of this opPportumty, altlr<ough the number of People involved aW aotu*
comkV to*4 forth Peak bas atvvays been very small. Many weeks,as m y as we�
asceertauia,no one comers, 'Them are rims whm as"my as s 10 of 12 will cow to the
North Peak and it is Owe for tbam to+enjoy if they Ovists,as faras I am cowasecl, Norse
Ofthese People to arnp kwwledge has any persoal investment nt excepat that of cttizaun
wishing to be on the property,which is a right I also have.
Ioar Our
MOdW9 with You, Setts A Without pe meal knowledge;was onitlew of
thus that rove have had on then mowateiu over the years,d the&as
Junk, My o+ crurtion of our hWWes forr many years was done as we would afford to do
them and handled by me and one or two belpera. Material which we I-11W tete would be
W"tratorted to the mountaiaa for use there. Until the mesial was used it was
retained at the,site. I leaanwd vexy quiOirty of the noW for having material ilumodistely
4vailable for our needs. A run to Conoord&nd return for an items for the North Peak
talo 4"3 lsou ra, In my event `on ofmy equ�and nUterW n the
broadest $mse is VAjectnrc and uninformed. It bas beon a policy of Aadarrss;group l
to+raoMAO Me to ask about why we hastdlcd Certain things the way we did. I3is group
p"fM to a C*MPW't-%90 to the WYMSPAW,get publicity and all theft mAROW of
rather tha Set to then real meat Of the question on dmnr minds. I raft*questioned
Adam about why be did this sort Offtg instead ofconucting meso we could work
tOge r and ro+a meant was that his flung oorF�eras Oo rrtacting papers was the
wap to 84 publicity and that they did not we to eo,nftct me.
The r6wh of this is that A&ms is asking the SMMd and shay pjanning
tacef "burdensome the Department to
p
t* re� on the cownu�caionia�atry,w�among uCMmty OfContrn Costand
As co
Adams bas rvwomy vosested that other si ft or a v 'ems.
l nSAM can a
�erlfaibhi azar at�r�autiens W
provideCoWd Whkb
v�ca►ge as North Peak with no data to back up e; tes;n .
AAam o eqertise arsd is tlneredoree a atirlW to make these state7aae 1b. Adam
also wakes broad StAftmOats about jaga,older eyquiipm ew witlrrou any
e elfics. Adams tanks about smaller ftu= cion and recepuou eqsipment for
2
11
_. _..:
C}dJC3.tI.t��tj 1.7:ii.� J1Gs61J11 tCl t J t�.IV4;,�h ;;,
Y'F�1L7C C)42 -9sF32 iC1'N AM & FM 391 PO4MAY 31 '9B 11:19
tel"OnI tuciOations with"wY actual data. Just a broad statementwith it0 fmmdWon.
Adams SU011 that*Ofting wed a numbers'ftratuuiss ion andWn
for eh a only would makes it � Ptrsetrt
consolidating to the fullest ve tnore3 towers # p
Adams"210d in m meeting"Ift you that the list of site cur tcnrters is r, y r�btarirterd
from 60 FCC web site. It is true;that i is 0'4"0 at the FCCWeb Site.
Howevta;e.review ofwbtat is available theme aluaws that substantialami oflwCC
irtf'vrrnat#oxr is tint available at the FCC web site,including dent . 'Phis,is another
example of Adana"to paint a brow.Picture to the beard wftlxw ibundation. 'The
board zeds to have actual infortnaticrmt orr which to make a decision. Adams sugge�that
a sect microwave dish�be allowed 'the Original dish
was replaced with
something srtrtauer, M offered is non data support this stat
Bach micsrowavey stad ou and syst�eem is an designed Whatsoever.
amourxts of Ply and r rrch, It is not } . and s d
p+ ible to say that wave tifthe hared
rePhWAI a dish with two smaller Ores. Other commenb on Adam's lade of m ulor
about his representations can be shouuntt on the cramuct ews he has set gwth his suggestions
iv the changes in the drag policy where he makes a statement that an:fit.Diablo most
towers are 50 to 84 feet ROw. This statemeatt was licked up in the comments by
cOmmilsio t stAff 4w towers,which he is talkiog about are an go ,plus the anter
and We been all along. HS mumatsts in the sante paragraph at
fed as ehecess ��to doss what]
�'M a 250 foot tower, If Adams had worked with us be would have
known that this figure related to AM broadcast stations,which the staff was attempting to
comrnwMt oo. The height of a AM broadcasst tower is rejee i'to the fr"umq
traet mitred by the tower and the needs of the wFueering to make such ingtagations,
AUWt 09 wield*t& of the FCC.
To the best of my knowledge,,t arrived on the North,Peak sce.bag befbre these people
wha now COMM04 on cornactmrrticatiom dies on the North Peak. Ifthere was arty one
who wets around be five f got them they never did InM�about purchasing the
propert
and de,4opipg or not developing the uses of'the mmu catiOns uses of the North Peak are a un property, ;Tone
r
and Wire*hundreds ofthousands q,f ted aatu r�ee wl�nidt b�ae8ts
as North Ptak is a r+eg octal,Wt laorth a Nc�rttherts C$l% prude,just
recrerttma pie,North peaks' the a
r*om 1,not;local00MUM08tim site and should be protected and premve d as such.
ISI otu m"fi ng I Weed to provide you with information on then site ums. At the present
time there:are 73 direct vo mmerr i aftusers. so=of'thew,like paging Companif
seroma'tkOu tft&upon thousands of custmm. t7thM which include Kaiser,probably
provide etcat iur€iirmatticntt emission
Fresxro,Sayar�nto,Samoa Ro Satz F' ire�a half tin pimple uat
f Bay and the San IM amt.. The two
T"fI stations cetrtati server �n pexrple;each in l+lvrtheurxt Califorxtia, adtiott to the
?3 c�A meas at our site on the North Peak we aW provde space for 3 Ham;operators.
3
_...._... _........ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... _...._.. _
.............._...... ......__. . ......... ......... ......... .._...... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
_ _ _. .._...... _........
2oq-948�-8255 KSTN AM 8 FM 391 P06 MAY 31 198 11:21
aonstr Wdon of rune+*dAeemting Systems there,
The requurement that towe n and bWding be located 50 feet below the;ridge htu is not
practical bemse,this proposal would oniy mean that if eorced that towers wtrnld atlhl
have:to be at at lem the dmfions wt currently have. In the staffs response number IS to
my rommesrt about the FCC requiring at pe3rmit from them for a comfit acW
mmmunk ation site aim*does not support. Staff's comm at weal"no&Ade=had
been subu tted to the conttruy". The building of a tower owept with ars AM broadcast
stenion cies not rpt eheetso=V*tic wter&rcme or FAe levels. Thea ph o mte
only occur afar anteYma had been hooked onto the tower,which is a supporting structure.
Them is no evidence be+eause them is no rule. The FCC does not licenser tom on
commacial conmunieationsite+s. They ozdy hcentse systems.
I know this respom frets been leegth►y. It has only been my hope that I could provide you
with a thtoug#t#ful group of suggestions NO comments. Hopefully,with apprepnate
language int the policy,o e departments time,the Planting Commissions time,,and possibly
the mpe viwws times can be cciumved. It is my hope that we can provide iftfo rnation to
Contra Costa,County wt ich can f itrther the Counties undea'$VVxW,B of the
rteieds. The County and the people of Northefn and Coubt Califnia.
Without the North Peak and communications system operating and to be built great harm
will ccrote to pops labon ofthe area, Ag6r� I want to remind the board that Contra Costa
County itseif`uses a tubstt tial number of communications situ including tidge tap sig.
Z7L&
Ver'Ve:rIS.
Rete
S
...I................................................................................................... ......
........................................I...........
WO/UI/I7t1b JJ:4J
209-948-6255 KSTN AM & FM 391 POS MAY 31 '98 11:20
Tbey pay little or no rat. 00w oustoreas hjoWiC 6 truddgg cornpanies, 5 phM*4
eovkadws, 13 tonsiruction contractors, 5 landscape oowpame.%3 agnoulture opftimons,
2 seausity*mVav!M'7 pA&S companies,2 TV stafions�, I ralroad, I oil company.2
radio ft*phow owVanies and 6 M0f0WWC SYMOM inVOIViIW tftbDUO OOMParlieS.TV
Mdons,dlemical companies MW of course miser.
In a separate document lack Kwx will fist thew companies by name,but given the
confidential nature of this informatim it is provided it under the condition that is available
only to the mpervisom themselves. I am concerned that if information is public it could
work to deteruxot of our customers and us.
It is my request that the new policy W=dhtW our wash"operation. Any ww
constructkm of building or toviers would ra**consideration by the Planning
Departinent,and if necasary the Plxnnhg Commission also,and that the new application
be,subjea to such provisions as might be appropriate in the policy under coWderstiom
At the time of the one year review we would continue our current operation provided that
the cunxmt Wd
use requirements we being observed. At the enid of the 10 year permit period we should
have the vqoeotatiou that if the use pavw had been adhered to that the permit would be
mawded with perbap any amendments that might come afivr ealmicernat of the new
policy. I Au*a urge that the panit have:provision for 2&e year camsion, rtbe
conditions of the pemit had been adhered to,them is no point in heariqp ad awtber
review being imposed. As W been pointed out by the Channel 42 people a 10 years
window is a very short space of 6=for a subnantial number of teltoommunication,
fa ties,incluxles TV and most microwave The County and the public is not harmed
with this term becaum the County bas oversight ofthe operation at all finses
Ibe proposal that the county may not srmffiww our installations and presumably others
in the county m*gMs a scenario whm zoning might be granted for a substantial bailding
only to require at a review proem that the budding have the ftat 10 timet shaved off
This to me is what could face me on the North Peak.
The proposal reqi*eamt for a 30 day quipment mwval following diwontinuance of
use is as I urged earlier not a reasouable,*w frame. Given the oTaience we have with
the coaftons tha oda in many orthm Idnft otiMWWOUS 30 days is unreasonable, 60
4M is remnable and I would urge dw you cousider phft this thw fiux in the policy
AWtlW PrOPOWI 4*is in the new policy,if approved,would requim that all of the
builft and tower;that we now have on the North Peak be moved to the"of the ha
which would be fatal for most of the"am operating on M site„both from a
opasdonal studPoint anid a fiouncial stuwpoiw,to sty nod*of the reconsuvetion
problem of wA*to relocate towes and Wk%W where the land is so steep that the
retstomwould cause*A*tanfW alteration of the landscape to say notbing of the
4
.........................................................................................
''Ill.-...1.11...................................................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................
James Carmen Michael Abraham KnIghtsen Town Advisory
Kensington MAC Kensington MAC council
. 118 Windsor Ave. 125 York Ave. P. 0. Box 170
Kensington, CA 94707 Kensington, CA 94707 Knightsen, CA 94548
North Richmond MAC Oakley MAC Pacheco MAC
P. O. Box 471 P. O.Box 212 1237 Temple Drive
Richmond, CA 94808 Oakley, CA 94561 Pacheco, CA 94553
Rodeo MAC East Bay Regional Park Save Mt. Diablo
District P. 0. Box 5376
P. O. Box 5381 Walnut Creek, CA 94596
c/o Supervisor Uilkema Oakland, CA 94605-0381
Dan Burke Karen Vernetti American Tower Systems
Sprint Spectrum 2906 Bayview Dr. Bill Nevin, Director of
651 Gateway Blvd. , #1500 Alameda, CA 94501 Operations
So. San Francisco, CA 1220 Brickyard Cove Rd., 0200
94080 Pt. Richmond, CA 94801-4134
Kevin Allison, Supervisor Dennis Elwell Naval Facilities Engineering
AT&T Contract Management Telecommunications Division Command
1200 Peachtree street, NE, Dept. of General Services P. O. Box 727
Rm. 15W10 601 Sequoia Pacific Blvd. San Bruno, CA 94066
Atlanta, GA 30309 Sacramento, CA 95814-0282
Peter W. Maushardt Karry L. Styron Lawrence E. Ferri
121 Madrid Way 1700 N. Broadway, #206 Park Superintendent
Sonoma, CA 95476 Walnut Creek, CA 94596-4134 Dept. Of Parks & Recreation
96 Mitchel Canyon Road
Clayton, CA 94517
Paul R. Dickey Richard S. Brown Knox LaRue
307 Draeger Drive 4125 Sacramento St. 2171 Ralph Avenue
Moraga, CA 94556 Concord, CA 9.4521 Stockton, CA 95206
Chevron
Steve Slavin Molly Keles Stan Wood
6001 Bollinger Canyon Rd, Rm 4683 Chabot Drive, suite 100 Kukulica & Associates
2160 Pleasanton, Ca 94588 1175 Dublin Blvd. , #106A
San Ramon, CA 94583-0954 Dublin, CA 94583
Town of Danville Town of Moraga Dona Burke
510 La Gonda Way P. 0. Box 188 Pacific Bell
Danville, CA 94526 Moraga, CA 94556 1600 South Main, #202
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Lou Rosas
Pacific Bell
1600 S. Main St. , #202 cl eNs�,C�0 A64-
Walnut Creek,CA9 4596 (-
'?N
................... ........ .........
........................................................................................
''I'll''..,...I.......................................................................................................................
...............................................................
City of Antioch City of Brentwood City of Clayton
P. Obox 130 708 Third Street P. 0. Box 280
Antioch, CA 94509 Brentwood, CA 94513 Clayton, CA 94517
City of Concord City of El Cerrito City -of Hercules
1950 Parkside Drive 10890 San Pablo Ave. P. 0 Box 156
Concord, CA 94519 El Cerrito, CA 94530 Hercules, CA 94547
City of Lafayette City of Martinez City of Orinda
P. O. Box 1968 525 Henrietta Street 26 Orinda Way
Lafayette, CA 94549 Martinez, CA 94553 Orinda, CA 94563
City of Pinole City of Pittsburg City of Pleasant Hill
2131 Pear Street P. 0. Box 1518 100 Gregory Lane
Pinole, CA 94564 Pittsburg, CA 94565 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
City of Richmond City of San Pablo City of San Ramon
P. O. Box 4046 One Alvarado Square 2222 Camino Ramon
Richmond, CA 94804 San Pablo, CA 94806 San Ramon, CA 94583
Cityo f Walnut Creek GENERAL SERVICES COUNTY COUNSEL
1666 N. Main Street
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 XNTFR-OU
XNTM-OFFXCE
Caltrans SHERIFF AIA
1120 N Street, Room 1.100 P. 0. Box 271
Sacramento, CA 95814 Alamo, CA 94507
Bay Point MAC Bethel Island MAC Byron MAC
P. O. Box 5148 P. 0. Box 1388 P. 0. Box 268'
Bay Point, CA 94565 Bethel Island, CA 94511 Byron, CA 94514
Diablo MAC Discovery Bay MAC El Sobrante MAC
P. O.Box 35 P. 0. Box 272 3817 San Pablo Dam Road
Diablo, CA 94528 Discovery Bay, CA 94514 El Sobrante, CA 94803 .
Steve Farneth Marianne Loring John R. Grosvenor
Kensington MAC Kensington MAC Kensington MAC
45 Beverly Road 274 Willamette Ave. 4 Franciscan Way
Kensington, CA 94707 Kensington, CA 94707 Kensington, CA 94707
.......... .......I...............................-.....
CC31"1"imuni`J Contra Q Dennis M.Barry,A16P
Developmenttcommunity Development Director
Department Costa
County Administration Building oU my
651 Pine Street -
4th Floor, North Wing -
Martinez,California 94553-0095 �
Phon e335-1210 :F ,
Pq C• ���
June 9, 1998
INTERESTED JURISDICTIONS/AGENCIES
RE: Draft 1998 Telecommunications Towey-Policy
Enclosed is a Final Draft of the Contra Costa County 1998 Telecommunications Tower
Policy. The draft policy will be considered by the Board of Supervisors on June 16, 1998
at 3:00 P.M.
Should you have any questions, please contact Debbie Chamberlain at(925) 335-1213.
Sincerely,
DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP
Community Development Director
Office Hours Monday-Friday:8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
Office is closed the 1 st,3rd&5th Fridays of each month