Wireless Arguments (watch the noses growing . . .) — July 16, 2020
Liarless Arguments: Truth from PhD, IEEE Senior Fellow — July 23, 2020
March 3, 2020 Update
The new City of Prescott tactic is to just rewrite the rules and get what the developers want for them. Rory’s letter in today’s local Courier:
At the time Rory wrote this letter the proposed rule change was to go to the Board of Adjustment for Single Family and Multi Family zoned parcels as he states in the letter.
Last week the proposed rule was changed to eliminate the Board of Adjustment from the process for single and multi family zoning.
Our opposition has been successful in getting the Special Use Permit back into the process but now we need to keep the city from gutting our neighborhood protections.
The city just rewrites the rules now to get what they want for their developers, especially the property owner of this parcel, Mr. Gisi.
Tell the city council to keep the existing Wireless regulations LDC 2.4.49 unchanged.
Letter to the Editor: Tower end run
March 2, 2021 7:12 p.m.
I recently moved into Prescott from out of state having bought my Prescott home a year earlier. After arriving in Prescott, I have discovered that I have a similar issue with the Prescott City Council as described in the Courier letter written by Peter Kroopnick.
Last October, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-2 to recommend denial of a Special Use Permit (SUP) to allow a new 55-foot Verizon cell tower in the middle of the Yavapai Hills subdivision about 350 feet from my front door. There was massive neighborhood opposition to this same developer’s tower proposal.
Our neighborhood has spent hundreds of hours, written 300 letters opposing it, and spent thousands of dollars on legal advice to prevent this tower from depreciating our property values and ruining our neighborhood scenic views.
Wisely, five Planning and Zoning commissioners agreed with us that this cell tower costumed as a fake tree does not belong here. The City Council was scheduled to vote to accept or deny the P&Z recommendation to deny. Right before the November council vote, the developer was allowed to “continue” his application with no reason given.
Today we know what that reason was. The city staff proposed a total rewrite of the SUP regulations that protect our neighborhoods from irresponsibly sited cell towers. Then, the developer can do an end run around the P&Z recommendation to deny with the city requiring only a simple city building permit that SHALL be approved, no neighborhood notice.
Four council seats are open for the Primary Election. I can’t wait to vote in my first local election. Think before you vote. Your neighborhood may be next.
Letter to the Editor: City water for county developers
February 18, 2021 6:47 p.m.
In April 2020, the Prescott City Council voted to provide city water to the Town of Chino Valley with the excuse that our water would only be provided outside the City of Prescott to “governmental entities.”
Then just recently they voted to provide city water to Jeff Davis, a developer in the county, but this time the excuse was even more flimsy. Davis set up a private “water district” for his planned Stringfield Ranch housing development on Williamson Valley Road to be governed by a board consisting only of Stringfield family members. All of a sudden this totally private entity becomes a “governmental entity” to our City Council.
Next, Jason Gisi of AED Development Corporation is planning a housing development on the north side of Highway 89A in the county, independent of his proposed development in the Dells along the Peavine Trail. What is to stop him or any other county developer from declaring themselves “governmental entities” in order to receive city water? Where will all this end?
Four council seats are open for the Primary Election this summer. Think before you vote.
Prescott, AZ WTF Study Session — Oct 27, 2020
Prescott, AZ Planning Commission — Oct 29, 2020
Prescott, AZ WTF Study Session — July 14, 2020
Yavapai Hills Neighborhood Meeting — July 16, 2020
A Much Too Powerful Verizon Wireless Telecommunications Facility (WTFs) Proposed for a Residential Zone
Nov 10, 2020, 3:00 pm City Council Meeting re: Verizon Wireless Telecommunications Facility (WTF)
- Mayor Greg L. Mengarelli, email@example.com
- Council Member Steve Blair firstname.lastname@example.org
- Mayor Pro Tem Billie Orr< email@example.com>
- Council Member Steve Sischka firstname.lastname@example.org
- Council Member Alexa Scholl email@example.com
- Council Member Phil Goode firstname.lastname@example.org
- Council Member Cathey Rusing email@example.com
City Manager Michael Lamar firstname.lastname@example.org
City Council Voting Meeting Item
Special Use Permit for Wireless Tower in Yavapai Hills at 4044 Bar Circle A Road
When: Tuesday, November 10 at 3 p.m.
Where: City Hall, 201 S Cortez St, Prescott, AZ 86303
PRESCOTT, AZ (November 5, 2020) –The City of Prescott will hold a Voting Meeting on Tuesday, November 10th and will be reviewing a proposed Special Use Permit allowing for construction of a 55-foot wireless tower at 4044 Bar Circle A Road.
- The meeting will begin at 3 pm and this item is the last item on the posted agenda.
- Staff will provide a presentation with no recommendation (Planning & Zoning voted 5-2 to deny the project)
- Council will allow the project proponents presentation time to prresent their case.
- Unbelievably, Council will NOT give the project opponents equal time present their case
In person attendance will be limited to thirty (30), due to social distancing measures, however members of the public may view the meeting on
- Channel 64,
- Facebook Live,
- the city’s website or
- Participate via Zoom.
1. Public may view the meeting remotely via the City Website, City Facebook Page, public access channel, Channel 64.
a. To participate via Zoom, please register in advance at the following link: Zoom Webinar Registration → https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_7MBEymurRt2yjCSG94qUDw
b. Following staff’s presentation and Council discussion, the floor will be opened and public comment taken in the following order (in the order received by staff):
i.Comments received through the website Comment Card Submission Form: Speaker Request Form Link
ii. Comments from in person audience
iii. Comments from participants via Zoom.
2. The Mayor will limit comments to a maximum of 2 minutes and requests that members of the public only comment if they are contributing new information & comments this translates to coordinate so the group does to NOT duplicate among speakers.
- 20″ x 30″ Posters at Costco, mounted on poster board: City Council Oath(s), Key Slides from Planning & Zoning Presentation, VHP Diagram, Title 47 § 324 — Use of Minimum Power
- Decorate and pass a truth stick from speaker to speaker: hold up vertical when others speak the truth, hold up horizontal when others do not
- Show Solidarity by all wearing same sticker, color, something that designates that you are on the same team; the more in the crowd doing the same, the better
- Other ideas?
The Latest . . .
On Mon Nov 9, we shut down a scheduled Tue Nov 10 vote on a Verizon WTF in Prescott, AZ; the item will be moved to a date uncertain, which may lead to project changes . . . details are here → https://scientists4wiredtech.com/arizona/prescott/
The following from Pinnacle Consulting is the modern-day equivalent of "the dog ate my homework."
Importantly, since this request for delay came from the applicant, then the City of Prescott must immediately negotiate with Verizon a mutually-acceptable end-date to whatever shot clock tolling agreement might be in place.
From: Michelle Lamoureux email@example.com
Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 4:18 PM
To: Dewitt,Tammy; Steven Kennedy
Cc: Dino Pergola
Subject: RE: City Council meeting on November 10th – RF Engineering Decks
Due to unforeseen circumstances with our current landlord we need to defer tomorrow’s meeting to an undetermined date. Please let me know if you have any questions or need any additional information.
Pinnacle Consulting, Inc.
1426 N Marvin St., Suite 101
Gilbert, AZ 85233
O:480-664-9588 ext. 230
November 9, 2020 (@ around 4:00 pm)
Mayor Greg L. Mengarelli email
Council Member Steve Blair email
Mayor Pro Tem Billie Or email
Council Member Steve Sischka email
Council Member Alexa Scholl email
Council Member Phil Goode email
Council Member Cathey Rusing email
City Manager Michael Lamar, email, 928-777-1380
City Attorney Jon Paladini email, 928-777-1274
Community Development Director, Bryn Stotler email, 928-777-1317
Community Development Planning Manager George Worley, email, 928-777-1287
Community Development Manager Tammy Dewitt email, 928-777-1319
Re: Request to Continue Item 10.F from Nov 10, 2020 City Council Meeting Due to Innacurate/Misleading/Fraudulent Information in June 26, 2020 Biwabkos Consultants LLC RF Safety and NIER Analysis Report
The important Antenna Capability Calculations (see below) were left off of the RF Report submitted by Pinnacle’s Consultants who are not Professional Engineers. These facts make the RF Analysis flawed and not ready for City Council deliberations for the following solid reasons — all dealing with the pulsed, data-modulated, Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR) reports and maps:
The Biwabkos Consultants LLC RF-EMR report only considered six of the twelve total antennas on the project (severely under reporting the RF-EMR exposures). This is a fatal error which renders the report meaningless.
The Biwabkos Consultants LLC RF-EMR did not use industry-standard professional RF-EMR meters that are available to them to actually meter the existing RF-EMR exposures in the target area (the Narda NBM-550 Broadband Field Meter, the Narda SRM-3006 Field Strength Analyzer or the GigaHertz Solutions HF-58B meter). In fact, there was no base level RF-EMR reported at all. Only with a base level, can one assess the percentage increase from current (pre-construction) RF-EMR exposures to the projected (post construction) RF-EMR exposures from this proposed Wireless Telecommunications Facility (WTF). As attorney Andrew Campanelli reported in his important memorandum (in your packet) the Biwabkos Consultants LLC RF-EMR report and the applicants’ RF-Propagation maps are not probative evidence in any way way shape or form. Neither is worth the paper it is printed on (or the tablet displayed on).
The Biwabkos Consultants LLC RF-EMR report only lists the projected Occupational RF-EMR exposure — fraudulently hiding the General Population RF-EMR exposure. As a % of FCC RF-EMR Maximum Public Exposure Guideline (MPE), this proposed Wireless Telecommunications Facility (WTF) is over 20% which is greater than 2,000,000 µW/m² for frequencies 1500 MHz and above — not the 4% as highlighted . . . sneaky, huh?
The Biwabkos Consultants LLC RF-EMR does not consider the peak levels of RF-EMR, only the average levels of RF-EMR. This is wrong because the peak levels of RF-EMR are 100x to 10,000 x times higher than average levels . . . sneaky, again, huh?
The Total Maximum Effective Radiated Power (ERP) Output Capability of the antennas to output electromagnetic power through the air (1,245,300 Watts ERP and 2,000,000+ µW/m²) are millions of times higher than needed for 5 bars telecommunications service on a cell phone for placing wireless phone calls — as explained fully here.
Link to Quintel QS6456-5 Antenna x 12
|Frequency (MHz)||Ant. Gain (dBi)||Power Ratio||Max Power × Power Ratio||Watts ERP x Qty||Watts ERP|
|696-806||15.2||33.1||500 × 33.1 =||16,550 × 12 =||198,600|
|824-894||15.4||34.7||500 × 34.7 =||17,350 × 12 =||208,200|
|1695-1780||18.0||63.1||250 × 63.1 =||15,775 × 12 =||189,300|
|1850-1990||18.1||64.6||250 × 64.6 =||16,150 × 12 =||193,800|
|2110-2180||18.6||72.4||250 × 72.4 =||18,100× 12 =||217,200|
|2300-2400||19.0||79.4||250 × 79.4 =||19,850 × 12 =||238,200|
|Total Max ERP
|103,775 × 12 =||1,245,300
Today, we talked to Bryn Stotler for about ten minutes and to George Worley for about 30 minutes. Both were very nice, but communicated that only the City Council could decide to continue Item 10.F from the Nov 10, 2020 City Council Meeting. We left multiple messages for Tammy Dewitt and Jon Paladini, but as of 4:45 PM (Arizona time) received no return phone calls.
We are asking you to continue Item 10.F from the Nov 10, 2020 City Council Meeting and to please direct staff to do a much more accurate and thorough RF-EMR analysis conducted by a Professional Engineer to make this application process whistle clean.
Here is our email from earlier today.
November 9, 2020
Hi, Brynn et al.
>>> Stotler, Bryn wrote on 11/9/2020 9:00 AM:
Thanks so much for the link. 😎
I am reading through the Biwabkos Consultants LLC RF Safety and NIER Analysis Report June 26, 2020 for Site: AZ2 Yavapai Prescott, AZ
12 x Quintel Solutions QS6456-5: 6′, 45°, 6-Ports: 2x 698-894 + 4x 1695-2400MHz, Smart Bias-T RET, right?
- QS (First 2 Characters) – Single Low Band Array
- 6 (Third Character) – 6 ft Antenna Length
- 45 (Fourth and Fifth Character ) – 45 Degrees Horizontal Beam Width
- 6 (Sixth Character) – 6 RF Ports
- 5 (Last Character after “- “) – Product Variant
These links/pdfs should have been included in the packet . . .
So I read . . .
"I certify that the attached RF exposure analysis and report is correct to the best of my knowledge, and all calculations, assumptions and conclusions are based on generally acceptable engineering practices:"
BUT . . . I see no Professional Engineer stamp on this report and no P.E. designation after either of the names for Dodon or Kennedy. . .
Therefore, this RF report from Kennedy is not probative evidence, correct Mr. Paladini?
I believe you say as much, yourself, on July 14, 2020 → https://youtu.be/PCK2ZoOoBeI?t=13m56s
Prescott, AZ City Attorney Jon Paladini at July 14 City Council Study Session:
"We have facts, opinions and data to justify the denial and when we talk about opinions, we are talking about expert opinions, we are talking about professional opinions. You know, opinions, like "I don’t like cell towers" isn’t really a good opinion to base your denial on." Opinions that say "this may affect my view" or "this may diminish my property value" are OK, but again that has to be taken in context on those other decision-making matrix issues."
In matters of pulsed, data-modulated, Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR) exposures, a Professional Engineer’s stamp is the industry standard.
These critically important RF-EMR analyses are based on six antennas, while the project calls for 12 antennas — oops), so what will the City of Prescott do now . . . Postpone the November 10, 2020 item 10.F until the City of Prescott completes an adequate, professional RF analysis?
Will you please email me back to let me know?
Here is the evidence:
Dodon/Kennedy: The max theoretical % MPE (Occupational) is 4.4%
Q: What is the max theoretical % MPE (General Population ) . . . is it 4.4% x 5 = 22% or 2,200,000 µW/m² at street Level?
Kennedy RF-Report Only Lists Six (6) Antennas
- "This site has (1) carrier with (3) sectors
- There is a total of (6) antennas
- Each sector supports various LTE carriers including, but not limited to 700 MHz, 850 MHz, 1900 MHZ, 2100 MHZ frequencies.
- All LTE supports MIMO."
WTF Engineering Drawings Specify Tweleve (12) Antennas
Amazingly when I search the packet for "watt" or "radiated" as in Effective Radiated Power nothing comes up.
We are also seeking the current (pre-construction) pulsed, data-modulated, Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR) readings in µW/m² and signal strength readings in dBm, so we can assess the percent increase post-construction.
Does the City of Prescott have the data similar to what you see here → https://ourtownourchoice.org/glenellyn/il-hb-5818-to-give-local-governments-a-say-in-densified-4g-5g-wireless-grid/#swtf ?
Prescott Muni Code 2.4.49 / Telecommunications Facilities
Public, Civic and Institutional Use Categories, Utilities | Original Code here.
[Wireless] Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs), including commercial towers, antennas and wireless communication facilities and related facilities for one or more receivers, shall be regulated and permitted pursuant to this section and shall not be regulated or permitted as essential services, public utilities, or private utilities, and shall require a Special Use Permit in accordance with the following standards.
These regulations are intended to provide for the development of wireless communication services to the community while:
1. Protecting residential areas and land uses from potential adverse impacts of towers and antennas;
2. Encouraging the location of wireless facilities in nonresidential areas;
3. Minimizing the total number of wireless communication sites throughout the community;
4. Encouraging the joint use of new and existing tower sites as a primary option rather than the construction of single-use towers;
5. Encouraging the users of towers and antennas to locate them, to the extent possible, in areas where the adverse impact upon the community is minimal;
6. Encouraging users of towers and antennas to configure them in a way that minimizes the adverse visual impact of the towers and antennas through careful design and siting, landscape screening, and innovative camouflaging techniques;
7. Enhancing the ability of the service providers of telecommunications services to provide such services to the community quickly, effectively, and efficiently;
8. Considering the public health and safety associated with wireless communication facilities; and
9. Minimizing potential damage to adjacent properties from tower failure through proper engineering and careful siting of tower structures. In the furtherance of these goals the City shall give due consideration to the General Plan, the Zoning Code, and the Wireless Communication Plan for Central Yavapai County.
Towers, antennas and wireless communication, and related facilities that are exempt from the requirements of this section include:
1. Those not exceeding the maximum height and setback requirements of the underlying zoning district and used solely for transmissions by a single user and not otherwise restricted within that zone including, but not limited to, amateur radio and devices necessary for use of a subscription to a commercial wireless provider service.
2. Those that are owned, operated or controlled by a governmental entity.
C. General Provisions
1. Principal or Accessory Use: Antennas and towers may be considered either principal or accessory uses to the principal use of the property.
2. Lot Size: For purposes of determining whether the installation of a tower or antenna complies with district development regulations including, but not limited to, setback requirements, lot coverage requirements and other such requirements, the dimensions of the entire lot shall control, even though the antennas or towers may be located on a separately leased portion of the lot.
a. Towers and antennas either shall maintain a galvanized steel finish or shall conform to any applicable standards of the FCC, FAA, or other regulatory agencies, or be painted to reduce visual obtrusiveness and blend with the surroundings.
b. Antenna and related electrical and mechanical equipment attached to alternative tower structures must be of a color compatible with the color of the supporting structure to make the antenna and related equipment visually unobtrusive.
c. Improvements comprising a wireless communication facility shall, to the extent possible, use materials, colors, textures, screening, and landscaping blending them into the natural and surrounding setting.
d. Towers shall not be artificially lighted unless required by the FAA or other applicable governmental authority. If lighting is required, the application shall contain a list of optional light devices and a statement of the reason for selection of the light device specified over each of the options. Economy and serviceability are among acceptable criteria for selection.
D. State and Federal Requirements
All towers, antennas and wireless communication facilities must meet or exceed standards and regulations of the FAA, the FCC, and any other agency of the state or federal government with the authority to regulate them or their components. If such standards and regulations are changed, then the owners of the towers and antennas governed by this Section shall bring such towers and antennas into compliance with such revised standards and regulations within six (6) months of the effective date of such standards and unless a different compliance schedule is mandated by controlling law.
Towers, antennas and wireless communication facilities shall be maintained in compliance with standards contained in applicable City building codes and the applicable health and safety standards established by the FCC, the City or other governmental bodies having jurisdiction, as amended from time to time. Towers, antennas and wireless communications facilities which are not in compliance shall be removed at the owner’s expense if not brought into compliance within 30 days after written demand by the City.
No signs shall be allowed on a tower or antenna, other than warning signs placed no higher than 6 feet above the base of the structure.
G. Site Development Standards
Except as provided in this section, all building and use processes and requirements, including height restrictions applicable in the applicable zone, shall apply to towers, antennas and wireless communication facilities.
H. Engineered Design
Any information of an engineering nature that the applicant submits, whether civil, mechanical, structural or electrical, shall be certified by an Arizona Licensed Professional Engineer.
Any modification to an existing facility shall require the existing facility to comply with all terms of this section and all other applicable codes and ordinances.
J. Performance Criteria
The following characteristics are deemed consistent with the purposes of this section and will be afforded favorable weight in considering the application:
1. Existing structures will be preferred over new structures;
2. New structures which appear to be structures commonly found within that zone are preferred over apparent wireless structures;
3. Wireless communication facilities, which cannot be readily observed from adjacent streets, are preferred;
4. Heights that do not exceed height limitations for the underlying zoning district. Heights in excess of permitted heights in the zone may be approved by Special Use Permit pursuant to Sec. 9.9;
5. Collocation of multiple uses on a single wireless communication facility will have significant favorable weight in evaluating the application;
6. Network development plans which achieve the fewest number of wireless communication facilities of all users reasonably necessary for commercial coverage;
7. Location in the least restrictive zone;
8. Suitability of the location for collocation of governmental public service wireless communication facilities.
K. Special Submission Requirements
Each application shall be on a form provided by the City and shall be accompanied by:
1. The address of the site;
2. The Assessors Parcel Number (APN) of the site and the zoning classification of the site;
3. A map of all properties within 300 feet of the proposed site together with a mailing list of all property owners within such 300 feet and stamped envelopes pre-addressed to each such property owner;
4. A map of adjacent roadways;
5. A drawing of proposed means of access;
6. Elevation drawings of the exterior of each element of the proposed wireless communication facility;
7. A complete landscape plan;
8. The setback distance between the proposed wireless communication facility and nearest residential unit, and residentially zoned properties within 300 feet of the wireless communication facility;
9. The separation distance from other towers described in the inventory of existing sites, their type of construction and the owner’s name and address;
10. Method of fencing;
15. Certification that the applicant is licensed by the FCC to provide the service proposed and that the wireless communication facility, as represented in the application, will comply with all FAA, FCC and other applicable regulations;
16. A map of all locations owned, leased or operated by the applicant and their coverages which are located within 10 miles of the proposed site or which are capable of communication with the proposed site by wireless means;
17. A map of all collocation sites within 2 miles of the proposed site;
18. An inventory of towers, wireless communication facilities and alternative tower structures used by the applicant which are existing towers, antennas, wireless communications facilities which are facilities or for which application for approval has been submitted, and all additional sites the applicant intends to construct or utilize within 365 days following the date of the application, which are within the jurisdiction of this section or within 1 mile of the border thereof; the inventory shall include the location, height, and type of each;
19. Certification, as of the date of the application, that all wireless communication facilities within 25 miles of the proposed site which are owned, leased, or operated by any licensee who will use the proposed site, comply with all applicable FCC, FAA and other applicable regulations;
20. Certification of whether the applicant is applying for collocation treatment;
21. Certification that police, fire departments, public safety officials, water and sewer districts and local governments having jurisdiction within 5 miles of the site have been notified of the application;
22. Certification that no permitted site reasonably meets the needs of the applicant, listing all such sites within 5 miles of the proposed site and the reason each is not adequate for reasonable commercial coverage; and
23. A list of each wireless telecommunication facility with which the proposed site has the potential to interfere, including the name, address and phone number of the owner. Within 10 days following filing of the application, applicant shall file a certificate that each of the owners of facilities noted above has been given written notice of application.
In addition to other applicable standards of this Code, the following shall also be considered in determining whether to issue a Special Use Permit: height proposed, proximity to other uses, historic sites, landmarks, vehicle traffic routes, medical facilities, air routes, topographical features, utilities, access and suitability of alternative sites.
1. Collocation: The policy of this Code shall be to encourage collocation.
a. Preference: An applicant who certifies in writing that it will construct a tower suitable for collocating and, as a condition of zoning, or permit approval executes a written agreement (Collocation Agreement) with the City prepared by the City Attorney, consenting to application of the terms of this provision shall, unless waived by the applicant, receive preferential treatment for a final approval or rejection of its application after a complete and correct application, fee and all required documentation and information is filed.
b. Collocation Agreement: The Collocation Agreement shall provide for at least the following:
1) The applicant shall accept for collocation any FCC licensed wireless communication provider (Additional User) using any compatible technology on commercially reasonable terms considering all of the factors a reasonable tower leasing company would deem relevant in entering into such an agreement.
2) Any Additional User seeking collocation shall submit specifications for its equipment and use (Request) to the applicant and applicant shall, within 30 days thereafter, respond to such party in writing (Response) furnishing all technical requirements, which must be resolved before collocation. Copies of any such requests and responses shall be copied to the Community Development Director.
3) Applicant and the Additional User shall, thereafter in good faith, attempt to resolve any technical or business terms. If, after 30 days from the Response the Additional User believes the applicant has not negotiated in good faith, Additional User may submit in writing, a request for arbitration to applicant and the American Arbitration Association which shall designate a person knowledgeable in collocation of wireless communication carriers to act as arbitrator and decide all issues between the parties. Such arbitration shall be held within 30 days of the request for arbitration. Upon the written agreement of both parties, a different procedure for binding dispute resolution may be used. The result of the arbitration or other resolution method agreed to by the parties shall be binding and may not be appealed.
4) If the arbitrator certifies in writing to the City that the applicant has failed to comply with the decision of the arbitrator within 10 days of its issuance by the arbitrator, the use permit for the wireless communication facility in question shall be terminated and the wireless communications facility shall be removed within 30 days of the date of the arbitrators certification, failing which, the City shall have all of the remedies available to it for elimination of a use in violation of the zoning code.
5) The Additional Party, upon submitting the Request shall become a third party beneficiary to the Collocation Agreement.
6) The City shall not be a party to any contract between the applicant and the Additional Party, shall not be a required party, and shall not be made a party to any dispute or arbitration and applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold the City harmless from any cost, including reasonable attorney fees, associated with such matters.
7) A lease or other agreement containing the business terms proposed by the applicant for collocation shall be attached as an exhibit to the Collocation Agreement.
2. Setbacks: The following setback requirements shall apply to all towers for which a Special Use Permit is required; provided, however, standard setback requirements may be decreased if the goals of this Section would be better served thereby:
a. Towers must be set back from any lot line a distance equal to at least 100 percent of the height of the tower unless a greater setback is required for the particular zone.
b. Guy wires and accessory structures must satisfy the minimum zoning district setback requirements.
3. Height: Unless otherwise approved by City Council, tower height shall be limited to that established by the underlying zoning district.
a. Towers and antennas shall be removed, at the owner’s expense, within 180 days of the discontinuance of use unless the City extends this time in writing.
b. An owner wishing to extend the time for removal or reactivation shall submit an application stating the reason for such extension. The Community Development Director may extend the time for removal or reactivation up to 60 additional days upon a showing of good cause. If the tower and antenna are not timely removed, the City may give notice that it will contract for removal within 30 days following written notice to the owner. Thereafter, the City may cause removal at the cost of the owner.
c. Upon removal of the wireless telecommunication facility, the site shall be returned to its natural state and topography and vegetated consistent with the natural surroundings.
5. Modification: No existing facility or wireless telecommunication facility may be changed or modified except as follows:
a. The change or modification is required by a change in user or technology.
b. The change does not increase the height of the tallest component above the height approved in the Special Use Permit or, in the case of an existing facility, its then current height.
c. At the conclusion of the change or modification, the facility complies with all requirements of the building department.
d. Each of the documents and certifications required for a Special Use Permit are given.
M. Telecommunications-related Definitions
Telecommunications-related terms shall have the following meanings as used in this Section:
|Alternative tower structure||Vertical components not generally designed for use as antenna support structures including but not limited to structures such as church steeples, ballpark light poles and water towers.|
|Antenna||Any exterior devise for transmitting and receiving wireless communication and mounted on a tower, alternative tower structure, building or structure and used for transmitting and receiving wireless communication for a fee to more than one provider at one time.|
|Certification||A written statement of the fact to be certified made under oath by the applicant and notarized.|
|Collocation||Means use by 2 or more wireless communication providers located on the same tower or alternative tower structure.|
|Commercial Coverage||A single FCC licensee’s network of wireless communications facilities providing a level of service to all areas of the community which, when fully developed, will permit viable commercial operation.|
|FAA||the Federal Aviation Administration|
|FCC||the Federal Communications Commission|
|Height||The antennas and all related equipment shall be included in determining height. See Sec. L.3 for the method of measuring height.|
|Permanent Use||The active use of antennas for the commercial transmission and receipt of wireless communication intended at the time of its installation to be actively used for a period of not less than 3 years.|
|Tower||Any structure, including any supports, designed and constructed substantially for the purpose of being or supporting one or more antennas. Alternative tower structures shall be deemed a tower on the date a building permit is issued for modifications to enable its use as a tower.|
|Tower, Existing Facility||A tower, antennas or wireless communication facility in active use and for which a building permit has been properly issued and has not expired before the effective date of this Code.|
|Tower Height||The antennas and all related equipment shall be included in determining height. Refer to Sec. 2.7.3 for the definition of how height is measured.|
|Tower, Permanent Use||The active use of antennas for the commercial transmission and receipt of wireless communication intended at the time of its installation to be actively used for a period of not less than 3 years.|
|Tower Structure, Alternative||Vertical components not generally designed for use as antenna support structures including but not limited to structures such as church steeples, ballpark light poles and water towers.|
|Wireless Communication||Any technology for transmitting communication through the air.|
|Wireless Communication Facility||Any combination of one or more antennas, towers and/or structures or equipment used for the transmission of wireless communication.|