MUKILTEO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL 2015-70
SUBJECT TITLE:
Meeting Date:
Discussion of Cell tower Regulations
17, 2015
Exhibits:
1. Cell Tower Q&A
2. Attorney Opinion on Cell Tower Regulations
3. Draft Cell Tower Ordinance
4. Comparison of Other Cell Tower Regulations
Staff Lead:
Patricia Love, Community Development Dir.
Department Director:
Mayor Jennifer Gregerson
Estimated Time:
30 Minutes
August
N/A
RECOMMENDATION:
Informational item only; no formal action required
Budget Information
SUMMARY:
In the past year the City has issued two new cell tower monopoles ranging in height from 100 to
125 feet in height. This has raised some concerns about how cell towers are reviewed and
approved through the permitting process.
Council has requested this item be brought forward to discuss:
1. The cell tower permit review process;
2. The role of the Hearing Examiner;
3. Height restrictions in both residential and commercial zones and when height
exceptions apply; and
4. Council’s authority to change the height restriction in residential and commercial zones.
In response to the Council’s concerns, the City reached out to Scott Snyder of Ogden Murphy
Wallace to provide an overview of the federal regulations on cell towers and current case law.
Scott is an expert in the field of telecommunications and has provided the attached memo on
our options to regulate cell towers and suggested ways to update our current regulations.
His recommendations for the City’s current regulations include:
• Minor Alterations to address the FCC’s recent regulatory requirements for an expedited
procedure for minor alterations to existing WCFs. This could include encouragement of
co-locating new facilities on existing facilities.
• Clarify requirements for special exceptions, including a requirement of proof that a
“significant gap in coverage” exists.
• Expand definition of alternative locations to include “alternative technologies, facilities,
or locations, including co-locations,” to expand the techniques available to address
coverage gaps.
ALTERNATIVES: N/A
1
Exhibit 1: Cell Tower Q&A
General Cell Tower Questions & Answers
Cell tower regulations are very complicated and influenced heavily by case law. Below is a brief
Q&A response to Council’s preliminary questions:
What is the City’s Current Cell Tower Permitting Process & the Role of the Hearing Examiner?
Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) or cell towers as they are commonly known in the City
of Mukilteo are either permitted out right or require a conditional use permit depending on
zone and type of facility. Mukilteo Municipal Code regulates the following three types of
communication facilities:
Facility Type
WCF Detached
Definition
WCF that is independent of any
existing structure, utility pole, traffic
light, or water tower.
Permit Review Process
Conditional Use Permit in all
zones but LI and HI; In the LI
zone a CUP is only needed if
within 400’ of SR525.
WCF Attached
WCF is any facility that is affixed to
an existing structure, utility pole,
traffic light, or water tower.
Conditional Use Permit in SFR
and Public zones and
permitted in Commercial and
Industrial Zones.
WCF Temporary
WCF that is used to test coverage in
a general location for study
purposes.
Temporary Uses are allowed
under special circumstances
and for a limited period of
time.
-
-
-
Footnote 37 of the Municipal Code contains detailed standards for approval of a WCF See
Exhibit 3 Draft Ordinance for a copy of the regulations with our attorney’s proposed
amendments.
—
Revised Code of Washington 36.70B.040
Determination of Consistency, requires that a
proposed project shall be reviewed for consistency with a local government’s development
regulations during project review by consideration of codes in place at the time of the
application; the City cannot reconsider its regulations during the project review process.
-
2
Those facilities allowed as a permitted use are review by staff and those that require a
conditional use permit are reviewed by staff and forwarded to the Mukilteo Hearing Examiner
for a final decision after holding a public hearing. Both staff and the Hearing Examiner are
required by law to review the application according to the following standard of review:
1. Type of land use;
2. The level of development, such as units per acre or other measures of density;
3. Infrastructure, including public facilities and services needed to serve the development;
and
4. The characteristics of the development, such as development standards.
Hearing Examiners are generally attorney’s or seasoned planners who are experts in land use
law. Their role is to review an application against the City’s adopted regulations and consider
public testimony to determine if the application meets the City’s standards or if the application
can be mitigated with conditions to meet the City’s adopted standards.
Can we restrict height limits of cell towers?
Regulation of cell towers is based on coverage, not height. City code has limits on tower height
in residential, commercial and industrial zones but provides exceptions if the coverage cannot
be met. This is consistent with current law. Federal law states that Cities “may not regulate in a
manner that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless
services”. This means that we cannot adopt regulations that prohibit service or the ability to
connect and maintain connections. Strictly regulating cell towers by height alone is not
consistent with federal law. Because of Mukilteo’s topography imposing set tower heights does
not work well.
Can we prohibit cell towers in residential zones?
No; the City has to allow carriers the ability to provide and maintain service coverage in their
market area. We can however determine the type of technology used. This becomes a policy
decision: we can maximize coverage of cell towers by allowing a higher tower & encourage
colocations or limit the heights and increase the dispersion of facilities throughout the
zones. In effect: one tall camouflaged facility like the one at the police station or at 76th or
many lower “utility pole” type relay facilities like the one at Goat Trail Park or near Wellers
Cafe. Both options have plus and minuses: one large facility which may or may not have visual
impacts or more smaller facilities affecting more neighborhoods.
Competitive Advantage:
The City cannot “unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent
services” by providing existing carriers with a competitive advantage over others yet to
come. As we tighten up our regulations we have to be careful that if we restrict cell tower
poles in residential zones now, after they have been previously allowed, we run the risk of
opening ourselves to competitive advantage claims because some carries were allowed in
residential zones and in the future others would not be allowed.
3
Wireless CommunIcation Master Plans:
Preparing Telecommunications Master Plan is a relatively new concept that some Cities are
doing to help manage the type and location of incoming telecommunication facilities. This
however takes an upfront investment on the City’s part to hire an electrical engineer to prepare
a gap assessment study. This can be an expensive option but it lets the City set policy on the
siting of facilities and provides scientific neutral work up front so that the City does not have to
rely solely on applicant (industry) sponsored experts.
4
Exhibit 2: Attorney Opinion on Cell Tower Regulations
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
July 29. 2015
TO:
Patricia Love. Community Development Director
City of Mukilteo
FROM:
W. Scott Snyder. Office of the City Attorney
RE:
Review of Section 17.18.040(B)(37)
Wireless Communication Facilities Ordinance
You requested review of your wireless communications facilities (WCF) ordinance. It is my
understanding that Council Members have questions regarding the ability of the City to limit the
height of cell towers or prohibit them in residential neighborhoods.
This memo will review your current ordinance in light of federal law, FCC regulations and
expanding case law, review updates needed to bring your existing ordinance in line with
evolving FCC regulations and discuss the alternatives available to the City. In a nutshell,
topography and coverage, rather than height or zoning use category, will be the determining
factors.
FEDERAL LAW
Federal law specifically authorizes zoning regulation by state and local governments of
commercial mobile services. 47 USC §332(c)(7). Federal law specifically authorizes local
governments to enact and enforce zoning regulations regarding the “placement, construction and
modification of personal wireless service facilities.”
This zoning authority is subject to three specific limitations.
1.
The regulations may not “unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally
equivalent services.” 42 USC §332(c)(7)(B).
2.
Regulations may not “prohibit nor have the effect of prohibiting the provisions of
personal wireless services.”
Regulations and siting decisions cannot be made “on the basis of environmental effects of
3.
radio frequency emissions to the extent that the facilities comply with the Commission’s
regulations concerning such emissions.”
Recently enacted FCC regulations also require cities to provide expedited review of minor
alterations in wireless cellular facilities (WCFs). Minor alterations include increases in the
5
number of antennas co-located on an existing tower, or increases in the envelope or height of less
than ten percent. Decisions in these sorts of minor alterations are required to be made within
sixty (60) days.
Challenges under this statute are reviewed in federal court. Case law looks to the actual record
before the City. Denials based on citizen comments, when the record contains cell provider
expert witness testimony, are frequently overturned. Successful defense of the City Council’s
discussion will be based primarily on the science of coverage and the City’s topography.
CURRENT ORDINANCE
Your current ordinance, enacted in response to the amendments contained in 47 USC §332, is
generally in good shape. The case law that has developed since the enactment of §332 provides
greater direction to municipalities. “Prohibition” of’ wireless communications facilities by local
governments need not be by an ordinance or enactment. A local regulation which prohibits a
wireless communications operator from obtaining full coverage is a prohibition. Virginia
Metronet,. Inc. v. Bd of Supervisors of James City Cnty., Virginia, 984 f.Supp 966 (E.D.
Virginia 199$). Put another way, a local government’s regulation of the placement or
construction of personal wireless service facilities violates federal law if the provider cannot
address “significant gaps in the availability of wireless service” or a user is “unable to connect”
or “maintain connection” with his cellular provider. Cellular Telephone Co. v. Zoning 3d of
Adjustment of the Borough of Ho-Ho-Kus, 197 F.3rd 64 (3d Cir. 1999). Our recommendations
include amending your ordinance to include the federal test for approval of a “special exception”
under your ordinance to the height or other development standards. Adding a test will provide
greater transparency and help your citizens understand the application of the ordinance.
Federal law is clear that other factors, typically of’ importance to citizens, are not relevant in the
review process. Aesthetics and property value decreases cannot alone result in a denial which
results in a gap in service. Ogden Fire Co. No. I v. Upper Chichester Township, 504 F.3d 370
(3d Circuit 2007). A community may deny a specific request for a tower, despite the potential
gaps in service or loss of coverage if there is substantial evidence of “other potential alternatives
for expanding the provider’s coverage.” 360 Degrees Communication (‘o of Charlottesville v.
Bd. ofSupervisors ofAlbemarle Cnty., 211 F.3d 79 (4th Cir. 2000).
Decisions to deny based on aesthetics or decreases to adjacent property values that result in a gap
in service are in violation of the act. Briefly summarized, the case law as it has developed
provides this guidance. The City’s regulatory structure for wireless communications facilities
needs to provide for a method of providing service throughout its community. The regulatory
structure needs to provide a way for a wireless operator to close gaps in service and address loss
of connection within your community. This can be accomplished, however, through a variety of
towers and technologies. Your planning commission and city council have a number of’ policy
tools available to address this situation. Your current ordinance provides for cell tower heights,
recognizing that those heights may need to be increased to address gaps in coverage. (“special
circumstances”). The federal courts have noted that reasonable alternatives to increased cell
tower height may include additional tower locations (a number of mid-sized towers rather than
one very tall tower) or widely disbursed and frequent smaller scale facilities.
6
POLICY APPROACHES
1.
Maximize Existinz Tower Locations. Because the City has under its current ordinance
approved one or more cell tower locations, one policy approach could be to encourage co
location, that is. to maximize service providers on fewer antennas. Because of variations in cell
tower coverage patterns, there will he individual coverage ditTerences but in general expediting
co-location maximizes the existing number of the use of existing facilities and potentially
minimizes the construction of futtire towers.
2.
Evaluation of coverage Areas and Encouragement of Disbursal. As you have noted in
our discussions, Sammamish and other communities have done master planning for cell tower
locations. Other communities, such as Edmonds, use a multi-layered approach with tall towers
or monopoles in industrial locations with mid- and small-scale facilities in other zoning districts.
These approaches look to maintaining full coverage by either defining locations fbr development
with cell towers and other WCFs which assure coverage based on evaluation of the City’s
topography and cell providers’ coverage areas, or providing a number of “reasonable
alternatives” to achieve full coverage.
MAY A CITY PROHIBIT CELL TOWERS IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS?
As has been discussed, the City would likely violate federal law by making a blanket prohibition
which resulted in gaps in service. If the City Council wishes to prohibit tall towers in or adjacent
to residential neighborhoods, then alternatives for mid-range towers or other facilities need to be
made for these neighborhoods which allow a cell provider to obtain and maintain full coverage
throughout the City.
RECOMMENDATION
Updating Your Current Ordinance Structure. As has been discussed, your ordinance is in
generally good shape hut has one needed addition and several items that could be clarified. They
are:
I.
Minor Alterations. The City’s ordinance needs to be revised to address the FCC’s recent
regulatory requirements for an expedited procedure for minor alterations to existing WCFs. A
copy of an ordinance adding the new federal requirements to your existing ordinance is attached.
Please note that anything that the City can do to facilitate co-location on existing towers and
utilize those towers prevents the construction of new towers and other WCFs. If the policy goal
is to minimize the intrusion of’ WCfs into residential and other sensitive neighborhoods, utilizing
existing facilities to their maximum is an important tool.
2.
CLarify the Provisions of MMC 17.16.040(B)(37)(m). This recommendation woutd
clarify the test that an applicant must meet to obtain a special exception. The applicant should he
required to prove that a “signhticant gap in coverage” exists. A gap in coverage would be
defined as the inability of’ its users to “connect” with the service or “maintain that connection.”
In addition. the applicant should be required to show that coverage cannot he obtained through:
7
a.
h.
Co-location at a commercially reasonable price; or
Use of alternative technologies or facilities.
This clariflcation is included in the draft ordinance.
Clarify Existing Provision in MMC 17.16.040(B)(37)(m)(iv). I suggest that the current
3.
ordinance reference to “alternative locations” be expanded to read “alternative technologies,
facilities, or locations, including co-locations.” This change would allow consideration of
different techniques to address coverage gaps and is also included in the attached draft
ordinance.
Alternatives
—
Master-PIannin and Alternative Tower/Technology
Given that the City has adopted one regulatory approach and federal law prohibits
discrimination, if the Council wishes to evaluate other regulatory approaches, we suggest that
you begin by creating an appropriate legislative record for the new approach. A good place to
begin is with an evaluation by an electrical engineering consultant of the City’s topography and
provider cell phone coverage areas. Areas which have the potential to address gaps in service
could be identified. The consultant could identify specific locations for larger scale towers and
recommend coverage options for mid-scale development (smaller towers) or attached panels.
Having laid the appropriate technical foundation, the City and its citizens would not then need to
rely on the experts provided by a development permit applicant in the process but would have
laid its own scientific and professional evaluation basis for regulation.
WSS/gjz
Attachment
8
Exhibit 3: Draft Cell Tower Ordinance
CITY OF MUKILTEO
MUKILTEO, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY Of MUKILTEO. WASHINGTON.
RELATING TO WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES; AMENDING
SECTIONS 17.16.040 AND 17B.16.180 Of THE MUKILTEO MUNICIPAL
CODE TO
ESTABLISH
PROCEDURES
FOR REQUESTS
FOR
MODIFICATION
OF
EXISTING
WIRELESS
COMMUNICATIONS
FACILITIES AND TO CLARIFY CRITERIA FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS
FOR NEW
WIRELESS
COMMUNICATIONS
AND
FACILITIES;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS. in 1934, Congress enacted the Communications Act of 1934, creating the
FCC and granting it authority over common carriers engaged in the provision of interstate or
foreign communications services; and
WHEREAS, in 1996, Congress enacted Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 70 (the “1996
Act”), amending the Communications Act of 1934 and implementing regulations applicable to
both wireless and wireline communications facilities for the purpose of removal of barriers to
entry into the telecommunication market while preserving local government zoning authority
except where specifically limited under the 1996 Act; and
WHEREAS, in the 1996 Act, Congress imposed substantive and procedural limitations
on the traditional authority of state and Local governments to regulate the location, construction,
and
modification
of wireless
facilities
and
incorporated
those
limitations
into
the
Communications Act of 1934: and
9
WI IEREAS. the City of Mukilteo has adopted regulations that have been codified as part
of the Municipal Code establishing local requirements for the location, construction, and
modification of wireless facilities: and
WHEREAS. in 2012. Congress passed the “Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation
Act of 2012” (the “Spectrum Act”), (Pub. L. 112-96; codified at 47 U.S.C.
§ 1455(a)); and
WI-IEREAS, Section 6409 of the Spectrum Act (“Section 6409”) implements additional
substantive and procedural limitations upon state and local government authority to regulate
modification of existing wireless antenna support structures and base stations; and
WHEREAS. Congress, through its enactment of Section 6409, has mandated that local
governments approve, and cannot deny, an application requesting modification of an existing
tower or base station if such modification does not substantially change the physical dimensions
of such tower or base station; and
WHEREAS. the FCC issued, pursuant to its rule making authority, an Order clarifying
and implementing statutory requirements related to state and local government review of
infrastructure siting, including Section 6409; and
WFIEREAS, specifically, the Order defines key terms utilized in Section 6409,
establishes application requirements limiting the information that can be required from an
applicant, implements a 60-day shot clock and tolling provisions, establishes a deemed approved
remedy for applications not timely responded to, requires cities to approve a project permit
application requesting modification of an existing tower or base station that does not
substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station, and establishes
development standards that govern such proposed modifications, collectively reiirred to as
“Eligible Facility Request Rules”; and
10
WFILRI1AS. the Order became effective on April 8.2015; and
WI IEREAS. the City Council finds that it is required under Section 6409 of the Spectrum
Act and the Eligible Facility Request Rules established in the Order to adopt and implement
local development and
zoning
regulations that are consistent with Section 6409 and the Order;
and
WIIEREAS, a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) was issued on
and
WIIEREAS, in accordance with RCW 36.70A.106 and WAC 365-196-630, a notice of
intent to adopt the proposed new development regulations was sent to the State of Washington
Department of Commerce and to other state agencies to allow for a 60-day review and comment
period, which comment period ended prior to adoption of this ordinance; and
WHEREAS. on
the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public
meeting related to this proposed ordinance; Now, therefore.
TI-JE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MUKILTEO, WASHING’fON, HEREBY
ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
Table 17.16.040(A)
-
Amended.
Section 17.16.040(A) of the Mukilteo
Municipal Code is amended as follows:
ADD NEW ROW UNDER UTILITIES FOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATION
FACILITIES
-
ELIGIBLE FACILITIES REQUESTS
-
P all the way across in every zone with
footnote to 37.
Section 2. Sub-Section 17.16.040(B)(37)
-
Amended. Section 1 7.1 6.040(B)(37) of the
Mukiheo Municipal Code is amended as follows:
37. Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) (Attached and
Detached). Wireless communications facilities shall meet the
11
following performance standards:
Light industrial zoning: Detached WCFs located within
a.
four hundred feet of the Mukilteo Speedway in the light industrial
district shall require a conditional use permit.
b.
Separation distance: In all single-family residential and
commercial districts, detached WCFs shall be separated by a
distance equal to or greater than one thousand three hundred
twenty linear feet. WCFs that are colocated upon a single support
structure shall count as a single WCF for the purposes of this
subsection.
Setbacks: Attached and detached WCfs reviewed under
c.
this section shall not be located within any required setback areas;
provided, however, the setback requirement for underground
facilities shall be a minimum of five feet from any property line,
except where:
i.
Structures which exceed forty-five feet in height
shall be set back from any lot line five feet more than that specified
in the individual zone for every ten feet, or fraction thereof, over
forty-five feet of height.
ii.
The required setback, as listed above. may be
reduced by the planning director, if the applicant can demonstrate
to the planning director’s satisfaction that the reduced setback
would result in a greater natural vegetative screening of the WCF
than would have been provided by meeting the WCf development
regulations.
iii.
All equipment shelters, cabinets, or other on-theground ancillary equipment shall meet the setback requirements of
the zone in which located, except that the rear setback requirement
may be reduced to five feet if the structure meets all other
standards.
d.
Height: in single-family, multifamily residential, and public
zones, the maximum combined height limit shall be sixty feet. In
commercial and industrial zones the combined height of the WCF
and any support structure shall not exceed eighty-five feet, except
when colocation is specifically provided for. the combined height
shall not exceed one hundred feet. The applicant shall demonstrate
a justilication for the proposed height of the structures and an
evaluation of alternative designs, which might result in lower
heights. Utility poles. streetlights and traffic signals may be
12
exempted from the height limitation at the discretion of the
planning director. If additional height over that allowed in the zone
is justified, it may he allowed through the conditional use permit
process. Due to the proximity of Paine Field Airport to the city, all
WCFs shall he approved by the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) and the Snohomish County Airport at Paine Field to ensure
that the facilities are not located within the airporfs restricted
airspace.
Landscaping: Equipment shelters and cabinets and other
e.
on-the-ground ancillary equipment shall be screened using Type I
and ten feet of Type III landscaping around the enclosure in
accordance with the requirements contained in Chapter 1 7.58,
Landscaping, of the Mukilteo Municipal Code. Support structures
shall be landscaped using Type I screening around the compound’s
perimeter. Trees with significant height and fullness upon maturity
shall also be used to visually screen the tower from adjacent
properties.
f.
Lighting: Except as specifically requested by the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA). the Federal Communication
Commission (FCC), and/or the Snohomish County Airport at Paine
field, transmission structures shall not be illuminated, except
transmitter equipment shelters may use lighting for security
reasons as long as the light is shielded downward to remain within
the boundaries of the site.
Concealment technology: All WCFs shall employ
g.
concealment technology in their design, construction, and
maintenance and reduce the WCFs’ aesthetic impacts to the
maximum extent possible. Such concealment technology shall
include, at a minimum, the following:
1.
All antenna support structures and antennas shall be
painted a nonreflective color, approved by the planning director,
which blends into the nearby surroundings of the WCf so as to
minimize the visual impact of the support structure or antennas.
ii.
New antenna support structures shall be located in
such a manner that existing trees on the site are used to screen the
WCF from view from roadways, residences, and other properties;
provided, however, that all WCFs shall be designed in a manner
which minimizes the need for removal of existing trees.
iii.
To the maximum extent possible, WCFs shall be
designed to resemble an object other than a WCF which is already
13
present in the local environment, such as a tree, a street light or a
traffic signal. It may include the use of colors or materials to blend
into the building materials from which a structure is constructed.
Examples of concealment technology include, but are not limited
to. the use of innovative site design techniques, existing or new
vegetation and landscaping, paint and other surface treatments,
alternative antenna configuration and/or selection, utilization of
antenna support structures designed to resemble trees. and any
other practice which screens the WCF from observation from
roadways, residences, and other properties or otherwise has the
eflect of reducing the aesthetic impacts associated with the WCf.
Ii.
Noise: No equipment shall be operated at a WCf (attached
or detached) so as to produce noise in excess of the applicable
noise standards under Chapter 8.1$ of this code, except for in
emergency situations requiring the use of a backup generator,
where the noise standards may be exceeded on a temporary basis.
Air conditioning and ventilation equipment associated with the
ancillary equipment of the WCf shall be designed and configured
in a manner so that noise impacts on adjacent properties with
residential uses are minimized to the maximum extent practicable
through the use of baffling and/or other noise attenuation
techniques and that the noise levels generated by the ancillary
equipment otherwise comply with applicable noise regulations
adopted by the city. In descending order, preference shall be given
to the following configurations of air conditioning and ventilation
equipment: (1) orientation toward properties with nonresidential
uses; (2) orientation toward streets; and (3) orientation toward the
furthest residential use.
i.
Collocation: It is the policy of the city to minimize the
number of detached WCFs and to encourage the colocation of
more than one WCF on a single support tower. No new detached
WCFs may be constructed unless it can be demonstrated to the
satisfaction of the permit authority that existing support towers are
not available for colocation of an additional WCF, or that their
specific locations do not satisfy the operational requirements of the
applicant. In addition, all detached WCFs shall be designed to
promote facility and site sharing. All facilities shall make available
unused space for colocation of other telecommunication facilities,
including space for those entities providing similar, competing
services. Colocation is not required if the host facility can
demonstrate that the addition of the new service or facilities would
impair existing service or cause the host to go oil-line for a period
of time. Nothing in this section shall prohibit the owner of an
existing facility from charging a reasonable fee for colocation of
14
other telecommunications facilities.
Abandonment and obsolescence: A WCF’ shall he removed
by the facility owner within six months of the date ii ceases to be
operational or if the facility falls into disrepair.
j.
Maintenance: All WCFs shall be maintained in good and
k.
safe condition and in a manner that complies with all applicable
federal, state and local requirements.
shall
All
applicants
emissions:
Electromagnetic
1.
demonstrate compliance with all applicable FCC regulations
regarding the radio-frequency emissions of WCFs. If at any time
radio frequency emissions exceed any of the standards established
by the FCC, the applicant shall immediately discontinue use of the
WCF and notify the city. Use of the WCF may not resume until the
applicant demonstrates that corrections have been completed
which reduce the radio-frequency emissions to levels permitted by
the FCC.
Special exceptions: When adherence to the development
m.
standards listed in this section result in a physical barrier which
would block signal reception or transmission, or prevent service
coverage in the targeted area result in a significant gap in coverage,
a special exception may be granted by the approval authority. A
significant gap in coverage occurs when the applicant’s users are
unable to connect with the applicant’s service or maintain that
connection. When considering a special exception request, the
permit authority shall consider:
i.
The height of the proposed WCF shall be no greater
than necessary to transmit and receive signals of an acceptable
quality.
The applicant has demonstrated that aesthetic
ii.
impacts associated with the proposed WCF have been minimized
to the maximum extent possible using concealment technology.
site design, andlor architecturally compatible improvements to
existing structures.
The levels, types, and availability of the
iii.
telecommunications services proposed by the applicant arc
designed to serve areas primarily within the city.
Alternative locations technologies, facilities, or
iv.
locations, including collocations, are not available for the proposed
15
WCI’.
Use of city right—of-way: Any telecommunications carrier
who desires to construct, install, operate, maintain, or otherwise
locate telecommunication Facilities in, under, over, or across any
public right-of--way of the city for the purpose of providing
telecommunications services shall obtain permission from the city,
authorizing use of the city right-of-way. WCFs attached to utility
poles, streetlights and traffic signals may be exempted from the
setback requirements at the discretion of the planning director.
ii.
o.
Conditional use permit criteria: In addition to the
performance standards listed in Section 17.64.020, a conditional
use permit for a detached WCF shall only be approved if the
wireless provider can demonstrate that no other attached WCF
alternative(s) are available that can provide the same level of
service coverage to the targeted area.
p.
Eligible facilities requests for modification.
i.
Applicability. This subsection implements Section
6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of
2012 (“Spectrum Act”) as interpreted by the Federal
Communications Commission’s (“FCC”) Acceleration of
Broadband Deployment Report & Order, which requires local
governments to approve any eligible facilities request for
modification of an existing tower or base station that does not
result in a substantial change to the physical dimensions of such
tower or base station. This subsection shall apply only to eligible
facilities requests for an eligible support structure that is a legal
conforming or legal nonconforming structure at the time a
completed eligible facilities request is submitted to the City. To
the extent that the nonconforming structures and use provisions of
the Mukilteo Municipal Code would operate to prohibit or
condition approval of an eligible facilities request otherwise
allowed under this subsection, such provisions are superseded by
the provisions of this subsection and shall not apply. This
subsection shall not apply to an eligible facilities request which
requests replacement of the existing tower or base station.
ii.
Definitions. For purposes of this subsection, the
terms used have the following meanings:
(A) Base Station. A structure or equipment at a
fixed location that enables FCC-licensed or authorized wireless
communications between user equipment and a communications
16
network. The term does not encompass a tower as defined herein
or any equipment associated with a tower. Base Station includes,
without limitation:
Equipment associated with wireless
(1)
communications services such as private, broadcast, and public
safety services, as well as unlicensed wireless services and fixed
wireless services such as microwave backhaul.
Radio transceivers, antennas, coaxial
(2)
or fiber-optic cable, regular and backup power supplies, and
comparable equipment, regardless of technological configuration
(including Distributed Antenna Systems (“DAS”) and small-cell
networks).
Any structure other than a tower that,
(3)
at the time the relevant application is filed with the City under this
subsection, supports or houses equipment described in paragraphs
(a) and (5) that has been reviewed and approved under the
applicable zoning or siting process, or under another State or local
regulatory review process, even if the structure was not built for
the sole or primary purpose of providing that support.
The term does not include any structure that, at the time the
relevant application is filed with the City under this subsection,
does not support or house equipment described in (a) and (b) of
this subsection.
(B)
Collocation. The mounting or installation of
transmission equipment on an eligible support structure for the
purpose of transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency signals
for communications purposes.
Eligible facilities Request. Any request for
(C)
modification of an existing tower or base station that does not
substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base
station, involving:
(1)
Collocation of new transmission
(2)
Removal of transmission equipment;
(3)
Replacement
equipment;
or
of
transmission
equipment.
17
(D)
Eligible support structure. Any tower or
base station as defined in this subsection, ptovided that it is
existing at the time the relevant application is filed with the City
under this subsection.
(E)
Existing. A constructed tower or base station
is existing for purposes of this subsection if it has been reviewed
and approved under the applicable zoning or siting process, or
under another State or local regulatory review process, provided
that a tower that has not been reviewed and reviewed because it
was not in a zoned area when it was built, but was lawfully
constructed, is existing for purposes of this subsection.
Site. For towers other than towers in the
(F)
public rights-of-way, the current boundaries of the leased or owned
property surrounding the tower and any access or utility easements
currently related to the site, and, for other eligible support
structures, further restricted to that area in proximity to the
structure and to other transmission equipment already deployed on
the ground.
Substantial
Change.
A
modification
(G)
substantially changes the physical dimensions of an eligible
support structure if it meets any of the following criteria:
For towers other than towers in the
(1)
public rights-of-way, it increases the height of the tower by more
than 10% or by the height of one additional antenna array with
separation from the nearest existing antenna not to exceed twenty
feet, whichever is greater; for other eligible support structures, it
increases the height of the structure by more than 10% or more
than ten feet, whichever is greater. Changes in height should be
measured from the original support structure in cases where
deployments are or will be separated horizontally, such as on
buildings’ rooftops; in other circumstances, changes in height
should be measured from the dimensions of the tower or base
station, inclusive of originally approved appurtenances and any
modifications that were approved prior to the passage of the
Spectrum Act.
For towers other than towers in the
(2)
public rights-of-way, it involves adding an appurtenance to the
body of the tower that would protrude from the edge of the tower
more_than twenty feet, or more than the width of the Tower
structure at the level of the appurtenance, whichever is greater; for
18
other eligible support structures, it involves adding an
appurtenance to the body of the structure that would protrude from
the edge of the structure by more than six feet;
For any eligible support structure, it
(3)
involves installation of more than the standard number of new
equipment cabinets for the technology involved, but not to exceed
four cabinets; or, for towers in the public rights-of-way and base
stations, it involves installation of any new equipment cabinets on
the ground if there are no pre-existing ground cabinets associated
with the structure, or else involves installation of ground cabinets
that arc more than 1 0% larger in height or overall volume than any
other ground cabinets associated with the structure;
It entails
(4)
deployment outside the current site;
any
excavation
or
It would defeat the concealment
(5).
elements of the eligible support structure; or
It does not comply with conditions
(6)
associated with the siting approval of the construction or
modification of the eligible support structure or base station
equipment, provided however that this limitation does not apply to
any modification that is non-compliant only in a maimer that
would not exceed the thresholds identified in paragraphs (g)(i)
(g)(iii) of this subsection.
(H)
Transmission Equipment. Equipment that
facilitates transmission for any FCC-licensed or authorized
wireless communication service, including, but not limited to,
radio transceivers, antennas, coaxial or fiber-optic cable, and
regular and backup power supply. The term includes equipment
associated with wireless communications services including, but
not limited to, private, broadcast, and public safety services, as
well as unlicensed wireless services and fixed wireless services
such as microwave backhaul.
Tower. Any structure built for the sole or
(I)
primary purpose of supporting any FCC-licensed or authorized
antennas and their associated facilities, including structures that are
constructed for wireless communications services including, but
not limited to, private, broadcast, and public safety services, as
well as unlicensed wireless services and fixed wireless services
such as microwave backhaul, and the associated site.
19
iii.
Application. The City shall prepare and make
publicly available an application form which shall be limited to the
information necessary for the City to consider whether an
application is an eligible facilities request. The application may not
require the applicant to demonstrate a need or business case for the
proposed modification.
An eligible facilities
iv.
Timeframe for Review.
request shall be deemed received by the City upon the date such
in person during the
application is filed with the
City’s regular business hours and accompanied by the applicable
permit review fee. Within 60 days of the date on which an
applicant submits a request seeking approval under this subsection,
the City shall approve the application unless it determines that the
application is not covered by this subsection or proposes a
substantial change to the physical dimensions of the eligible
support structure. The 60-day period begins to run when the
application is filed, and may be tolled only by mutual agreement or
in cases where the City determines that the application is
incomplete. To toll the timeframe for incompleteness, the City
must provide written notice to the applicant within 30 days of
receipt of the application, clearly and specifically delineating all
missing documents or information. The timeframe for review
begins running again when the applicant makes a supplemental
submission in response to the City’s notice of incompleteness.
Following a supplemental submission, the City shall have 10 days
to notify the applicant that the supplemental submission did not
provide the information identified in the original notice delineating
missing information. The timeframe is tolled in the case of second
or subsequent notices pursuant to the same procedure used for the
first notice of incompleteness. Except as may be otherwise agreed
to by the applicant and the City, second or subsequent notices of
incompleteness may not specify missing documents or information
that were not delineated in the original notice of incompleteness.
Notices of incompleteness from the City shall be deemed received
by the Applicant upon the earlier of personal service upon the
applicant, three days from deposit of the notice in the U.S. Mail,
postage prepaid, to the applicant, or by electronic mail if the
applicant has agreed to receive notices in such a manner. In the
event that after submittal of the application, the applicant modifies
the eligible thcilities request, the modified application shall be
considered a new application subject to commencement of a new
application review period.
Review of Application. Within 60 days of the date
v.
on which an applicant submits a request seeking approval under
20
this subsection, the City shall approve, and may not deny, an
eligible facilities request for modification of an eligible support
structure that does not substantially change the physical
dimensions of the such structure. An eligible facilities request
shall be denied upon determination that the request is not subject to
this subsection or will substantially change the physical
dimensions of an eligible support structure. In the event the City
fails to approve or deny a request under this subsection within the
timeframe for review, accounting for any tolling, the request shall
be deemed granted.
Nothing in this
vi.
l-lealth and Safety Codes.
subsection shall relieve the applicant from compliance with
applicable building, structural, electrical, and safety codes and with
other laws codifying objective standards reasonably related to
health and safety.
Expiration of Approval. An approved eligible
vii.
facilities request shall be valid for a term of 1 80 days from the date
of issuance or the date the application is deemed approved.
Remedies. Notwithstanding any other provision in
viii.
the City code, no administrative review is provided for review of a
decision to condition, deny, or approve an application. The
applicant and the City retain any and all remedies that are available
at law or in equity, including by way of example and not
limitation, those remedies set forth in the FCC Eligible Facilities
Request Rules and remedies available under the Land Use Petition
Act. In the event no other time period is provided at law for
bringing an action for a remedy, shall be brought within 30 days
following the date of denial or approval.
Section 3.
Section 17B.16.180
-
Amended.
Section 17B.16.1$0 of the Mukilteo
Municipal code is hereby amended as follows:
17B.16.180 Development
communication facilities.
regu]ations
for
wireless
Wireless communication facilities shall not he allowed
A.
within the shoreline jurisdiction, except for public agency
emergency and operation infrastructure or for homeland security.
When it can be demonstrated that no practicable alternative
H.
site exists. “altached” wireless communication facilities (WCF)
21
may he constructed on or within existing/new buildings. WCF
Facilities must he designed to blend with the building to which they
arc attached. Antenna array proposed to extend higher than the
height of the building/structure to which it is attached must be
screened unless the screening is more intrusive into view corridors.
C.
Monopoics and lattice towers are prohibited.
D.
Wireless communication facilities (WCf) shall meet the
following performance standards:
1.
Setbacks. Attached and detached WCfs reviewed
under this section shall not be located within any required setback
areas; provided, however, the setback requirement for underground
facilities shall be a minimum of five feet from any property line,
except where:
a.
Structures which exceed forty-live feet in
height shall be set back from any lot line five feet more than
specified in the individual zone for every ten feet, or fraction
thereof, over forty-five feet of height.
The required setback, as listed above, may
b.
be reduced by the planning director, if the applicant can
demonstrate to the planning director’s satisfaction that the reduced
setback would result in a greater natural vegetative screening of the
WCF than would have been provided by meeting the WCF
development regulations.
All equipment shelters, cabinets, or other
on-the-ground ancillary equipment shall meet the setback
requirements of the zone in which they are located, except that the
rear setback may be reduced to five feet if the structure meets all
other standards.
c.
2.
Height in Commercial Zones. The combined height
of the WCf and any support structure shall not exceed eighty-five
feet. The applicant shall demonstrate a justification for the
proposed height of the structures and an evaluation of alternate
designs, which might result in lower heights. Utility poles, street
lights and traffic signals may be excepted from the height
limitations at the discretion of the planning director. If additional
height over that allowed in the zone is justified it may be allowed
through the conditional use permit process. Due to the proximity of
Paine Field Airport to the city all WCfs shall be approved by the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Snohomish
22
County Airport at Paine field to ensure that the facilities are not
located within the restricted airspace.
Landscaping. Equipment shelters and cabinets and
3.
other on-the-ground ancillary equipment shall be screened using
Type I and ten feet of Type II landscaping around the enclosure in
accordance with the requirements contained in Chapter 173.5$.
Support structures shall be landscaped using Type I screening
around the compound’s perimeter. Trees with significant height
and fullness upon maturity shall also be used to visually screen the
tower from adjacent properties.
4.
Lighting. Except as specifically requested by the
FAA, the Federal Communication Commission (FCC), and/or the
Snohomish County Airport at Paine field, transmission structures
shall not be illuminated, except transmitter equipment shelters may
use lighting for security reasons as long as the light is shielded
downward to remain within the boundaries of the site.
Concealment Technology. All WCFs shall employ
5.
concealment technology in their design, construction and
maintenance and reduce the WCFs’ aesthetic impacts to the
maximum extent possible. Such concealment technology shall
include, at a minimum, the following:
a.
All antenna support structures and antennas
shall be painted a nonreflective color, approved by the planning
director, which blends into the nearby surroundings of the WCF so
as to minimize the visual impact of the support structures or
antennas.
b.
New antenna support structures shall be
located in such a maimer that existing trees on the site are used to
screen the WCf from view from roadways, residences, and other
propcrtiesz provided, however, that all WCFs shall be designed in a
manner which minimizes the need for removal or topping of
existing trees.
c.
To the maximum extent possible, WCFs
shall he designed to resemble an object other than a WCF which is
already present in the local environment, such as a tree, a street
light or a traffic signal. It may include the use of colors or
materials to blend into the building materials from which a
structure is constructed. Examples of concealment technology
include, but are not limited to, the use of innovative site design
techniques, existing or new vegetation and landscaping. paint and
23
other surface treatments, alternative antenna con figuration and/or
selection, utilization of’ antenna support structures designed to
resemble trees, and any other practice which screens the WCF
from observation from roadways, residences, and other properties
or otherwise has the effect of reducing the aesthetic impacts
associated with the WCF.
Noise. No equipment shall be operated at a WCF
6.
(attached or detached) so as to produce noise in excess of the
applicable noise standards under Chapter 8.1 8, exceptfor in
emergency situations requiring the use of a backup generator,
where the noise standards may be exceeded on a temporary basis.
Air conditioning and ventilation equipment associated with the
ancillary equipment of the WCF shall be designed and configured
in a manner so that noise impacts on adjacent properties with
residential uses are minimized to the maximum extent practicable
through the use of baffling and/or other noise attenuation
techniques and that the noise levels generated by the ancillary
equipment otherwise comply with applicable noise regulations
adopted by the city. In descending order, preference shall be given
to the following configurations of air conditioning and ventilation
equipment: (a) orientation toward properties with nonresidential
uses; (b) orientation toward streets; and (c) orientation toward the
furthest residential use.
Collocation. It is the policy of the city to minimize
7.
the number of detached WCFs and to encourage the collocation of
more than one WCF on a single support tower. No new detached
WCFs may be constructed unless it can be demonstrated to the
satisfaction of the permit authority that existing support towers are
not available for collocation of an additional WCF, or that their
specific locations do not satisfy the operational requirements of the
applicant. In addition, all detached WCFs shall be designed to
promote facility and site sharing. All facilities shall make available
unused space for collocation of other telecommunication facilities,
including space for those entities providing similar, competing
services. Collocation is not required if the host facility can
demonstrate that the addition of the new service or facilities would
impair existing service or cause the host to go off-line for a period
of time. Nothing in this section shall prohibit the owner of an
existing facility from charging a reasonable fee for collocation of
other telecommunications facilities.
8.
Abandonment and Obsolescence. A WCF shall be
removed by the facility owner within six months of the date it
ceases to be operational or if the facility falls into disrepair.
24
9.
Maintenance. All WCFs shall be maintained in
good and safi condition and in a manner that complies with all
applicable Ièderal, state and local requirements.
1 0.
Electromagnetic Emissions. All applicants shall
demonstrate compliance with all applicable FCC regulations
regarding the radio-frequency emissions of WCFs. If at any time
radio frequency emissions exceed any of the standards established
by the FCC, the applicant shall immediately discontinue use of the
WCF and notify the city. Use of the WCF may not resume until the
applicant demonstrates that corrections have been completed
which reduce the radio-frequency emissions to levels permitted by
the FCC.
11.
Special Exceptions. When adherence to the
development standards listed in this section result in a physical
barrier which would block signal reception or transmission, or
prevent service coverage in the targeted area, a special exception
may be granted by the approval authority. When considering a
special exception request, the permit authority shall consider:
a.
The height of the proposed WCF shall be no
greater than necessary to transmit and receive signals of an
acceptable quality.
The applicant has demonstrated that
b.
aesthetic impacts associated with the proposed WCF have been
minimized to the maximum extent possible using concealment
technology, site design, and/or architecturally compatible
improvements to existing structures.
c.
The levels, types, and availability of the
telecommunications services proposed by the applicant are
designed to serve areas primarily within the city.
d.
the proposed WCF.
Alternative locations are not available for
12.
tise of City Right-of-Way. Any telecommunications
carrier who desires to construct, install, operate, maintain, or
otherwise locate telecommunication facilities in, under, over, or
across any public right-of-way of the city for the purpose of
providing telecommunications services shall obtain permission
from the city, authorizing use of the city right-of-way. WCFs
attached to utility poles, streetlights and traffic signals may be
25
exempted from the setback requirements at the discretion of the
planning director.
13.
Conditional Use Permit Criteria. In addition to the
performance standards listed in Section 1 7B.64.030, a conditional
use permit for a detached WCF shall only be approved if the
wireless provider can demonstrate that no other attached WCF
alternative(s) are available that can provide the same level of
service coverage to the targeted area.
E.
Eligible facilities requests for modification of an existing
tower or base station that do not result in a substantial change to
the physical dimensions of such tower or base station shall be
processed in accordance with MMC 17.16.040(B)(37)(p).
Section 4. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance
should held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity
or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section,
sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance.
Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force 5 days
after publication of the attached summary.
PASSED by the City Council and APPROVED by the Mayor this
day of
2015.
APPROVED:
MAYOR JENNIFER GREGERSON
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATEI):
CITY CLERK, CFIRISTINA J. I3OUGI IMAN
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
ANGELA G. SUMMERFIELD
26
FILED WIT[i THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
27
Exhibit 4: Comparison of Other City Cell Tower Regulations
28
_-<‘
QMUKILTEO
1
Existing Wireless
Communication Facilities
0
0
0
0
I
Attached
I
(
‘
Z
1 ./
i /\
I
V
of facility, in feet
(‘fl
S
/
/i
/
)
7tliS[
tItliSt
Ith St
p
iOlhtIt
—•
\‘..—_itIi St
Th
htti
Approved WCF, Not Constructed
0.25
I
Scale
J
I
Labels denote height
Detached
7
4.
I
I
=
0.5
I
1:33,000
1
I
I
I
Miles
I
I
Mukilteo
Elementary;
C’
Updated August 6, 2015
Middle
School
-
I
75thSt
76th St SW’——.
.lsw
POS5E55LON SOUND
/
SI.
N
/
/
w
Boeing
Everett
acuity
.
U’
8ith St S
i
—
h
•
8
_
/
-
SI
I
S
‘
‘n
.
.st SW
I
P S1
Pbj,
92nd St SW
93Td?’SW
!
Snuhomish (‘o&int
me Field Airport
.
‘I
I:
I’
:u
l9tbpj$w
I
.
•c’
S
‘‘
—
I
.::‘
_Cc
I
‘
ylcach..
Ch—.’--...
—
/
.-
Ha,b0I
Columbia
Elementary
Pointe
Middle School
in.
..d.,is
Kamiak
J’
.,
1%
-.
. -
Fairmount
Elementary
-.
,•t.
.)
c
•
,“ Endeavour
•
JI
/
.
‘
.
Elementary
I
),
e lJerofl
4
-
‘ia
‘°
f
rnva
4
.
!‘
Snohom;s,h,
Couty
::o
I
Uoc.Jment l-atFi U Map Uocuments (MXDs)tProject MXOsWVtreless Communition FadUties 8.5x11 (8.6-1 5).mxd
Wireless Communication Facility (WCF) Regulations in SFR Zones
City
Type of Facility
Maximum Height Limit
Exceptions
Comments
Arlington
Utility Poles
35'
Up to 45'
Up to 55' in the residential High Density
Zone
Micro, mini and macro wireless facilities
are allowed in residential areas. Can be
attached to a multifamily structure
Bothell
Monopoles and Utility Poles , on
nonresidential structures.
Collocation on Existing Monopoles and
Lattice Towers (Residential Zones) .
Roof-mounted antennas shall not exceed 15'
above the highest portion of the building,
including the mount on nonresidential
structures in a residential zone
An additional15' is allowed, either for a
new street pole with flush mounted
antennas or a pole-top mounted
canister.
Everett
Monopoles and Utility Poles
Communications facilities shall be designed
so as to be the lowest height possible to
adequately serve the needs of the public for
the proposed utility or communications
service.
The review authority, in considering the
proposed utility or communications
facility, may allow antenna or tower
height to exceed the height permitted in
the underlying zone without having to
satisfy the variance approval criteria of
Section 41.130.C of this title. Approval
may only be granted if it can be
demonstrated that such height is
necessary to adequately serve the
needs of the public for the proposed
utility or communications service.
Lake Stevens
Monopoles and Utility Poles
A new antenna or array placed on a
previously approved tower or an existing
structure such as a water tank or
building is exempt from further land use
permit approvals, provided it does not
add more than 25' to the height of the
tower.
k
Lynnwood
Monopoles and Utility Poles
WCFs utilizing a wireless communications
support structure shall be limited to the
maximum building height for the applicable
zone.
Attached on existing structure such as
buildings, communication towers, and
utility facilities. Preference is to the fascia
of buildings or mechanical penthouses.
Co-located (on one support structure) with
other WCFs. In residential zones as
permitted in LMC 21.42. 100
City
Type of Facility
Maximum Height Limit
Exceptions
Comments
Marysville
Monopoles and Utility Poles
80'
Not more than 20' on a nonresidential
structure; and not more than 15' on a
multifamily structure.
In residential districts, new concealed
antenna support structures shall only be
permitted on lots whose principal use is
not single-family residential, including but
not limited to schools, churches,
synagogues, fire stations, parks , and
other public property.
Mill Creek
Monopoles and Utility Poles
The WCF structure must be no higher than
the minimum height necessary to serve the
target area and designed to allow extensions
to accommodate the future collocation of
additional antennas and support equipment.
Snohomish
Utility Poles
The new facility will not exceed the height of
the existing tower.
Bellevue
Monopoles and Utility Poles
The height of the WCF shall not exceed the
greater of: 1) the maximum building height
allowed for the underlying land use district, or
2) the height of the structure to which it is
attached or which it replaces. In no event may
the WCF add more than 15' of height to the
existing structure;
Existing buildings and structures in
residential zones not used for residential
use (e.g., religious facility or public
facility).
Any request to exceed the height allowed for
exempt WCF pursuant to subsection B of this
section shall be the minimum necessary for
effective functioning of the provider's network,
as certified by the provider's licensed
engineer.
Edmonds
No
N/A
Issaquah
Monopoles and Utility Poles
Antennas on Street (Utility) Poles: Antennas
on street poles shall not exceed the height of
the existing pole by more than 20', including
the mounting, in residential areas.
The following wireless communication
facilities are prohibited in Edmonds:
1. Guyed towers.
2. Lattice towers.
3. Monopoles are prohibited in all
residential zones (single-family (SF) and
multifamily (MF)).
Wireless communication towers,
including telescoping antenna (except
those towers regulated in residential
districts) not subject to height limitations.
City
Type of Facility
Maximum Height Limit
Mercer Island
Monopoles and Utility Poles
60'
Redmond
Utility Poles and Antenna Support
Structures
The combined height inclusive of antenna(s)
shall not extend more than 15' above the
maximum height of the zone for which it is
proposed to a maximum of 60'.
Seattle
New major communication utilities are
prohibited in residential zones
Shoreline
Monopoles and Utility Poles
Up to maximum height specified for each
zone.
Exceptions
Comments
WCFs are prohibited in single-family and
multifamily residential zones; except on
public and utility properties as identified in
the Mercer Island Municipal Code
A height bonus of 15' may be allowed by
the approval authority when collocation
is specifically provided.
On institutional structures, places of
worship, and other nonresidential sites
located in residential zones.
Attached to residential structures in the R20 and R-30 zoning districts (multifamily)
Physical expansion of existing major
communication utilities may be permitted
by Council Conditional Use under the
criteria listed in Section 23.57.006 and
according to development standards in
Section 23.57.008.
The following activities are permitted
outright for existing communication utilities
and accessory communication devices:
structural alteration to meet safety
requirements, replacement on-site,
maintenance, renovation, or repair. The
addition of new accessory communication
devices or new minor communication
utilities to an existing tower is permitted
outright, except as follows: No more than
a total of 15 horn and dish antennas that
are over 4' in any dimension may be
located on an existing tower, unless the
applicant submits copies of Federal
Communications Commission licenses, as
provided in subsection 23.57.008.G,
showing that all of the existing 15 horn
and dish antennas over 4' in any
dimension, plus any proposed additional
such horn or dish antennas, are
accessory to the communication utility.
The maximum height of structuremounted facilities shall not exceed the
base height limits specified for each
zoning designation in this title regardless
of exceptions for the particular mounting
structure, provided the facility may
extend up to 15' above the top of the
structure on which the facility is installed,
including those built at or above the
maximum height allowed in a specific
zone.
City
Type of Facility
Maximum Height Limit
Woodinville
Monopoles and Utility Poles
The structure/pole and antenna may be
raised by a mount to accommodate the
minimum separation requirement, not to
exceed 30'.
The height of the monopole shall be no
greater than 120'.
For co-location, the height of the existing
facility may be increased by the minimum
separation necessary between the facilities,
not to exceed 20'.
Exceptions
Comments
Types of Antennas
•
Micro facility" means an wireless communication facility which consists of antennas equal to or less than 4' in height (except omni
directional antennas which may be up to 6' in height) and with an area of not more than five hundred eighty (580) square inches
in the aggregate (e.g. one foot diameter parabola or 2' x 1.5' panel) as viewed from any one point.
•
Mini facility" means a wireless communication facility which consists of antennas equal to or less than 10' in height or a parabolic
antenna up to one meter (39.37 inches) in diameter and with an area not more than fifty square feet in the aggregate as viewed
from any_one point.
•
Macro facility" means a wireless communication facility which consists of antennas equal to or less than 15' in height or a
parabolic antenna up to one meter (39 .37 inches) in diameter and with an area not more than one hundred square feet in the
aggregate as viewed from any one point.
Types of Wireless Communication Facilities
Z:\Wireless facilities\ Wireless Communication Facility (2).docx