HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-0225 JT Council-Planning SS PACKET Joint Study Session
Ashland City Council
and
Ashland Planning Commission
Tuesday, February 25, 1997
7:00 nm
Ashland City Council Chambers
1175 East Main Street
Discussion Topics:
7:00 Local Improvement Districts and the Land Use Process
8:00 Presentation of the proposed Cellular Tower Ordinance
9:00 Adjourn
Please call the Ashland Planning Department at 488-5305 if you have any questions or cannot
attend the meeting. Thank you.
YA('r ES, SU'-
PLr^,h,JNSr DEFT
CI TV iAL.L.
A= eland , 0F.' 9;5207
e�{0F. H4y
emarancfnm
November 6, 1996
GREGG�
u- Honorable Mayor and City Council
`,{{� Councilor Laws, Wheeldon and Hagen
�9 rum: Recommended changes to LID policies
U ject:
Attached is a copy of a staff report summarizing the history and present
policies governing local improvement procedures in the City of Ashland.
Our committee has circulated this report to interested citizens and held an
open forum to discuss its contents on September 16. After full
consideration of the comments and suggestions made at that meeting, the
committee would like to recommend that a public hearing be scheduled-for
December 3, 1996 to consider the adoption of the following policy
changes.
1. Modify our current policy on land use approvals to require that
instead of requiring an agreement for future improvements, that the
developer:
(a) Prepay the estimated amount of the required improvements, and
pre-sign in favor of the formation of an LID; or
(b) At the option of the city, require the developer to install a full
half-street abutting the property.
(c) Establish the average cost of a residential street at $135.00 per
lineal foot, to be adjusted annually by the Engineering News Record
(ENR) index of construction costs.
(d) 'Adopt a policy for unusual street conditions (e.g. hillside areas)
that allow a supplemental assessment in an LID whenever the actual
cost exceeds 10% of the average cost in (c), above.
2. Direct the City Recorder to prominently include the total estimated
cost of future street improvements on any lien search for a property
on which a pre-paving agreement was previously required.
3. Establish an "Arterial Street Assistance Account" to cover the
extraordinary costs on arterial and collector streets, as follows:
(a) Commit to city participation of costs in excess of the average
cost of a residential street, independent of any other County, State
or Federal assistance.
(b) Pay for the following excess costs on arterial or collector
streets:
(1) Extra pavement width or depth.
(2) Extra sidewalk width.
(3) Oversize storm drains serving more than the project
area.
(4) Up to 50% of the cost of traffic calming measures.
(5) Additional street lighting or signage.
(c) Increase the Transportation Utility fee by $50,000 and earmark-
these funds for a new "Arterial Street Assistance Account." This
would add 37 cents monthly to a single family residential account.
(d) Establish a policy that senior citizens over 65 and disabled
persons, with a household income of less than 530,000 may defer
assessment payments of up to 525,000 until the property is sold or
transferred. A lien would be recorded against the property.
Recommendations:.
It is also recommended that a public hearing be scheduled for December 3,
1996 at 7:00 p.m. to consider the proposed policy changes and the
establishment of an "Arterial Street Assistance Account." It is also
recommended that the staff be directed to prepare the appropriate
resolution and written policies implementing the above recommendations.
Attachment (1)
16\mcmo.031
LIDs in Ashland
Background
The City of Ashland's policy, through its Comprehensive Plan, has been to enhance
transportation by fully improving its streets and thereby reduce the cost of maintenance.
Improvement also enhances air and water quality by promoting multi-modal transportation, ..
an d enhances access for the police and fire departments and other service providers.
In subdivisions and in other developments under the Land-use Ordinance, streets are
"improved" v,hen they have curbs, gutters, storm drains, sidewalks, park rows, street trees,
street lighting, and appropriate traffic control devices, and are paved to lane widths
appropriate for the vehicle volumes they are planned to carry, including bicycle lane width
where required. If any of these elements are lacking, a street may need further'
improvement.
Paved streets are less expensive to maintain over the long run, since gravel streets quickly
deteriorate with use--especially when wet. In the winter, gravel streets erode and contribute
particulates to storm sewers and natural drainage ways. In the summer, unimproved streets
reduce air quality by generating dust. Police and fire vehicles can also respond more quickly
in emergencies if they are traveling over paved surfaces.
Authority for Formation of LIDs
Streets can be improved by cities, developers, or individual property owners. Property
owners residing along a given section of a street may implement their street improvements
under a Local Improvement District (LID). The majority of streets in Ashland have been
improved by the LID process or by subdivision development, and all are maintained by the
City of Ashland.
State law allows all incorporated Oregon cities to create LIDs. In 1874, Ashland's first city
charter granted the City authority for the formation of LIDs. City records show that LID
projects were implemented as early as 1911, and LIDs continue to fund such recent
improvements as Lori Lane, upper Ashland Loop Road and Lower Tolman Creek Road. By
providing low interest tax-exempt bonds, LIDs provide a way for property owners to
improve their neighborhoods on a cooperative basis.
1
City Participation
Over time, the City of Ashland has contributed to LIDs in various ways. Between 1950 and
1965 the City, at the request of developers, improved streets through the LID process with
the cost of the improvement being bom by new homeowners. This policy was discontinued
in 1965.
In the late 1960's and early '70's, many other cities continued to build subdivision streets at
the developer's request in anticipation of future home sales. The new homeowners within
the development were expected to take on the LID payments. When die developers defaulted
on their projects, the cost of the street improvements on unsold lots shifted from the
developer to the local taxpayers.
Initiation and Notification
Under State Law and our local ordinance, there are three typical methods by which LIDs
may be initiated: (1) by a petition submitted by a group of property owners; (2) by
resolution of the Council; (3) at an individual property owner/developer's request. Ashland's.
policy has been to require that more than 50% of the property owners must be signed in
favor of an LID to initiate the process, but this is not a State requirement. State law allows
the City Council to initiate LIDs with or without signatures, provided that no more than two-
thirds (67%) of the affected owners do not object at the first public hearing. The Council
legally has a great deal of flexibility when it comes to the creation and apportionment of
costs for LIDs.
ORS 223.389 requires public notice and a hearing before a proposed improvement is
authorized. By State law, the first hearing determines whether or not the City Council
wishes to go forward, but not the determination of the final assessment.
Ashland City Ordinance, however, requires that after the initial public hearing no more
participants can be added to the LID. After bids are received, the final.per lot share of the
LID may not exceed the original estimate by more than 10% unless a majority of the owners
consent to proceed, after notification.
Bancroft Bonding
To benefit homeowners and property owners, the Bancroft Act was created in the 1920's by
the State Legislature (ORS 223.205 to 223.300) and provided a uniform, low interest means
to pay for LIDs. These "Bancroft bonds" also allow LIDs to be paid for over a specific
period of time (typically 10 )'ears).
2
Current Assessments Still Due
Currently, Ashland has 19 Local Improvement Districts using LID Bancroft bonding. 'Nese
districts represent 172 accounts with a total outstanding balance of $1,570,063.
Methods of Assessment
There are five basic allocation methods of street assessment used by cities in Oregon: lineal
street frontage, lot area, per lot, trip generation, and zone of benefit. These methods, or a
combination of these methods, are commonly used throughout cities in Oregon. Zone
apportionment has been used when proximity to the improvement is considered a benefit. An
example would be Corvallis' use of zone of benefit apportioning for a commercial parking
lot, assuming greater proximity is of greater benefit.
Ashland in recent years has used a combination of lineal street frontage and lot area to
calculate the cost per property. Portland has used a combination of frontage and zone of
benefit; Medford has used a combination of frontage and/or dwelling units; The Dalles has
used a formula of 25% frontage and 75% area, with side streets participating by zone; and
Corvallis, using 50% frontage and 50% area.
Impact of LIDS on Ashland Street Improvement
The majority of streets in Ashland have been improved either by an LID or through the
development of subdivisions. In the past 10 years, 31 streets were improved through LIDS.
The total cost for these projects in 1996 dollars was $2,811,185.
Development of an "Arterial Street Assistance Account"
Arterial or collector streets require a wider, stronger travel surface, and usually include
additional amenities not found on local residential streets. Residents on arterial and collector
streets object to paying the additional costs of improving their street for community use. To
provide a method for the entire community to share in these additional costs, a revolving
fund entitled the "Arterial Street Assistance Account" could be created. To analyze the
different funding options, staff has assumed an annual target revenue of$150,000.
Unexpended revenues would roll-over annually, letting this fund build. Moneys would be
expended on a first-come-first-served basis.
The account would offset the additional cost of improvements on arterial or collector streets
identified in the Comprehensive Plan, and would only apply to outright permitted uses in
Single Family Residential Zones. Commercially zoned .properties and conditional uses in
residential zones would not benefit. Schools and parks would also be assessed.
3
The "Arterial Street Assistance Account" would be in addition to the $1.072 million in
transportation needs identified in the Capital Improvement Program that remain unfunded.
Individual Areas of City Participation
There are a number of areas the City could examine to identify improvement costs that
exceed those of a typical residential street, and where additional City participation from she
"Arterial Street Assistance Account" might be considered:
1. Extra pavement thickness and/or width for additional lanes, truck traffic or
industrial use.
12—Pedestrian Usa;g: sidewalk width where more than the neighborhood is servcj,
!, and where sidewalk width nos to exceed 4 feet.
3. Storm drain system reouirements/over-sizing: included where the system seises
more than the local neighborhood.
4. Traffic calming: which is not necessary on low traffic volume streets.
5. Street classification: designation as arterials, sub-arterials; collector and sub-
collector streets.
6. Exemptions by die City: exemptions to be on a case by case basis by the Council
which would be paid by the City.
{
Possible Funding Sources
r
Staff has examined what the revenue potential of various funding options would be if the Qrh,
were to collect approximately $150,000 annually for an "Arterial Street Assistance Acco::ni."
Council could utilize one or more of the following options, or combining financing from
several options:
1. Systems Development Charges (SDCs). There is currently a proposal to incre�_se
the Transportation Systems Development Charge. Three options were presented to the SDC
review committee, and the option which will collect the least amount of money was sele.::ed;
a $10,000 per year estimated increase. This could be increased to bring in an additional
$10,000 per year for the "Arterial Street Assistance Fund." The current Transportation SDC
is lower than those charged by Medford, Phoenix, or Jackson County. There is a rationa_
nexus with growth to increase these charges, since development increases the demands or: e
transportation system. SDCs, however, can only be used to pay 7% percent of projects
attributable to future growth. .
2. Increase Transportation Utility Fee. The current residential fee is $2.41 per
month. If this were increased by an additional $1.15 (or $3.56 per month) an additional
A
$150,000 would be collected annually for transportation. Everyone with a utility account
would pay this fee, regardless of their level of use of the transportation system. This fee
currently supports the sidewalk installation subsidy, and the bus fare subsidy. Medford's
Transportation Utility Fee is currently $3.50 per month.
3. Serial Levy/Propegy Tax The proposed $150,000 per year could also be raised
by increasing the property tax base by 14 cents/$1,000 valuation. This would require voter
approval.
4. _City Tax. This was attempted in 1979, but was referred to the voters and
defeated. Since revenue would be collected only from Ashland gas stations, it was alleoe._
that some loss of sales could occur. A regional gas tax would probably avoid this proble-.,
but it is doubtful that it would receive regional voter support. An Ashland one cent per
gallon gas tax would raise a minimum of S150,000.
5. Hotel/.Nfotel Tax increase A 1 increase in this tax would generafe
approximately $110,000.
6. Local Vehicle Registration Fee. If we estimate that there are 7,612 households.
each with an average of 1.5 vehicles, Ashland residents would pay S13.00 annually to raid
$150,000. There is also some question as to whether the State has preempted this area.
7. Business LicPnsP Increa - Since, in theory, businesses would be generating
additional transportation system impacts, this tax could be increased. An increase of S10 -.
the base fee would raise 517,000.
Options to Pre-paving Agreements
Another major area for street improvement funding review concerns pre-paving agreements.
One of the most frequent complaints by those involved in the implementation of LIDS is =:
"I knew I had signed something, but I didn't know it would cost this much", or that "the
developer should have paid this when my house was built."
In order to properly reflect the true cost of development and to allow the cost of abutting
street improvements to be included in the mortgage costs, consideration should be given to z
change in the existing policy of simply signing in favor of future improvements, to the
following.-
I. Deposit cost of improvements in advance. The cost of improvements would be due a:
the time s l other development fees are paid. This option would elimina(e the benefits of t
exempt financing, but street improvement costs could then be included in mortgage costs.
Financial �ternauves fof low income or affordable housing could i)e at Council's discret o .-.
5
This option presents the challenge.of accurately estimating the final cost of improvements in
advance, possibly by many years. Administrative overhead is also increased for the Finance
Department and Engineering Division. The Finance Department must track the revenue
received, but may also be able to earn interest on the fund equal to the inflating project cost.
Engineering is burdened by having to estimate costs years before actual construction. The
project design itself could change, or various cost elements could increase. The City would
then be bound to make up the difference between the original estimate and actual project
costs. Those lots that are prepaid in favor of the LID should also be included in the
boundary of the proposed LID and counted as a percentage in favor of the improvement.
2. Make pre-paving agreements more generally known, including costs (i.e. lien
searches, title reports). If lots within subdivisions or minor land partitions are each sign:"
in favor of an LID at their creation, notice of the LID should be included in the title repo-.
The notice on the report or lien search letter should be highlighted somehow to indicate :e
property is already signed in favor, to direct the purchaser to contact the Public Works
Department for more information, and should include an estimate of the current cost of th:c
LID for that parcel. -
The estimate creates the same problems for Engineering as noted above. (An estimate m:_ .-1
have to read something like "If this parcel is improved as proposed in the attached diagi
the LID cost estimate in 1996 dollars for this parcel would be SXXX.xx) Those lots that �e
signed in favor of the LID will continue to be included in the boundary of the proposed L
and counted as a percentage in favor of the improvement, and notified of pending LID
implementation. This estimate may also be a source of future conflict if the cost is
significantly higher than the estimate.
Prepayment agreements could be recorded in the City's lien search program. 7-his would
provide an additional notice when properties are sold. Although this may be a duplication c=
Jackson County's lien search, it would provide an opportunity for the City of Ashland to
notify buyers of LID commitments. In conjunction with this, the City of Ashland could
work with title companies to help them provide better information to the public.
3. Require street installation on abutting streets. Developers could be required to ma-ke
the improvements on the half-streets abutting their subdivisions, minor land partitions or
developments.
Deferral Pro-,rams for Low Income Seniors
In 1977, ORS 311.702 to 311.735 provided for the deferral of special assessments for - nic.-
with low income. To qualify for deferral, the progeny owner must:
1. Be over 62 years of age.
2. Own or be purchasing the propcay fee si::iple.
3. Reside on the property.
4. Not have purchased the property at a foreclosure sale.
5. Have a combined annual gross income of less than $17,500.
The deferred special assessment paid by the State, plus interest, becomes a lien against the
property which becomes due when the property owner dies or the ownership of the properly
is otherwise transferred. A qualifying spouse may continue the deferral. Some cities, such
as Eugene and Lake Oswego, additionally have had their own low-income deferral progrun
for seniors. While there are no current Oregon programs for only low-income residents, a
locally funded program for these residents could be developed. These liens clear (are paid)
when the property changes ownership.
Some methods of assistance the City may want to consider include deferring assessments;
extending the Bancroft Bonding period from 10 to 20 years (possibly not a cost effective
option); and possibly applying Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding to
census tracts identified as low-income neighborhoods.
Suggested Course of Action:
1. Modify policy on land-use approvals to require that instead of requiring agreement for
future street or alley improvements, that the applicant:
a. Prepay the estimated amount of fne required improvements and pre-sign in
favor of the formation of an LID, with the understanding that no additional
costs will be assessed for that project at the time it is implemented; or
b. At the option of the City, require the applicant to install the abutting street
improvements.
2. Direct the Engineering Division to estimate the 1996 cost of outstanding (previously
obtained) pre-paving agreements and direct the City Recorder to prominently include
the estimated cost of future improvements on any request for a lien search when
property is being sold.
3. Adopt an "Arterial Street Assistance Account" to provide a cost-sharing in future
projects as follows:
a. Establish the basic cost of a standard residential street in 1996 dollars of
5135. 11 per linear foot, adjusted annually by the Engineering News Record
(ENR) index of construction costs.
b. Commit to City participation of any costs in excess of this.basic cost from the
Arterial Street Assistance Account, independent of any other outside county,
state or federal assistance. .
Select a source, or combination of sources, of funding from the list of options,
which result in an annual revenue stre am of approximately $150,000 to cover
City participation in these excess costs.
d.'- -e a decision on the following issues:
1. Increase participation in sidewalks from 25% to 50%?
2. Include or exclude traffic ca ming measures.
3. Subsidize engineering design, inspection, and other overhead and
J financing costs?
4. Request that Staff bring back a resolution outlining the above policy changes for
Council adoption.
i
s
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 18.72.040 AND
ADOPTING SECTION 18.72.180 OF THE ASHLAND
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO WIRELESS
COMMUNICATION FACILITIES
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN Al FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1 . DRAFT
February 21, 1997
18.72.040 Approval Process
5. All installation of wireless communication
facilities shall be subject to the requirements of
Section 18.72.180, in addition to all applicable
Site Design and Use Standards.
a. Any installation of wireless communication facilities in
any residential or SO zone shall also be subject to a
Conditional Use Permit (18.104)
b. Freestanding structures in any zone located in or within
100 feet of the Historic District, as designated in the
Ashland Comprehensive Plan, are prohibited.
C. Facilities with a proposed height exceeding 80 feet
(including antennae) in the M-1 and E-1 zones when
located within 300 feet of a residential zone are subject
to a Conditional Use Permit.
d. Freestanding support structures are prohibited within the
C-1 zone, except for the Freeway Overlay District.
Antennae and associated equipment attached to pre-
existing structures must meet the requirements of Section '
18.72.180(C.)
6. Any exterior change to a structure listed on the National Register of
Historic Places.
SECTION 2.
18.72. 180 Development Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities
A. In addition to the submittals required in section 18.72.060, the following items
shall be provided as part of the application for a wireless coin munication
facility.
PAGE 1-Ordinance(,
1. A photo of each of the major components of the proposed
installation, including a photo montage of the overall facility.
2. Exterior elevations of both the building and the support
structure, either freestanding or attached drawn to scale (min
I"=10').
3. A set of manufacturers specifications of the support structure,
antennae, and accessory buildings with a listing of materials
being proposed including colors of the exterior materials.
4. A site plan indicating all structures, land uses and zoning
designation within 150 feet of the site boundaries, or 300 feet if
the height of the structure is greater than 80 feet.
5. A map showing existing wireless communication facility si=.es
within a 5 mile radius of the site currently being applied for.
6. Any other documentation the applicant feels is relevant to
comply with the applicable design standards.
B. All freestanding wireless communication facilities shall be located, designed,
constructed, treated and maintained in accordance with the following
standards:
1. All facilities shall be installed and maintained in compliance with :ae
requirements of the Building Code.
2. Freestanding support structures with a total height (from grade to ., > or
antennae) exceeding 30' must allow for collocation of at least one
additional user, unless deemed unnecessary by the Hearings Autho=.ty.
If collocation is not feasible, documentation is required to substaneste
that finding.
3. All associated transmittal equipment must be
housed in a building, which must be designed and
landscaped to achieve minimal visual impact with
the surrounding environment.
4. Applicant is required to remove all equipment
from the site and return the site to its original
condition if the facility is abandoned for a period
greater than six months. Removal and restoration
must occur within 90 days of the six month
period.
5. When lighting is required by a federal or state
authority, it must be shielded to minimize impact
on surrounding properties.
6. All towers must have a non-reflective finish and
color that will minimize the visual impact.
7. Facilities shall be located in the area of least
visual impact within the site which will allow the
facility to function consistent with its purpose.
8. Each addition of an antennae must follow the
approval process for new facilities.
PAGE 2-Ordinance(e:pa.x.e o,d)
C. All wireless communication facilities attached to a pre-existing
structure shall be located, designed, constructed, treated and
maintained in accordance with the following standards:
1. Antennae must have a height no greater than ten
feet above the highest portion of the structure to
which it is attached.
2. All associated equipment must be housed in a
building which minimizes to the greatest extent
possible, its view from street level. This includes
painting the building and antennae to blend with
the existing structure.
3. Facilities located in the Historic District shall be obscured from view
from the public right-of-way, excluding alleys.
4. Applicant is required to remove all equipment
from the site and return the site to its original
condition if the facility is abandoned for a period
greater than six months. Removal and restoration -
must occur within 90 days of the six month
period.
18.08 Definitions
Antenna - The device used to capture an incoming or to transmit an outgoing
radio-frequency signal from wireless communication facilities. Antennas
include the following types:
1. Omni-direction (whip) antenna - receives and transmits
signals in,a 360 degree pattern
2. Directional or Parabolic (panel or disk) Antenna - receives
and transmits signals in a directional pattern typically
encompassing an arc or 120 degrees. They.are typically
rectangular in shape.
3. Microwave antennas - receives and transmits to link two
telecommunication facilities together by line of sight. They are
typically circular or parabolic in shape and can be a grid or
solid material.
Collocation - The use of a single support structure or site by more than one
wireless communications provider.
Freestanding support structure - A stand alone structure used solely as a mounting
device for antennae. Freestanding support structures on which antennae can be
mounted include:
PAGE 3-Ordlnance(e.Piamcou.o,d)
Monopole - A freestanding support structure which consists of a single
pole sunk into the ground or attached to a foundation.
Lattice Tower - A freestanding support structure which consists of a
network of cross braces that forms a tower. These types of structures
are primarily used for taller towers and require a larger base than that
of a monopole.
Pre-existing structures - Structures in existance prior to an application for a wireless
communication facility installation.
Transmittal Equipment - All wireless communication facility equipment excluding
the support structure and the antennae.
Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) - An unstaffed facility for the
transmission and reception of radio or microwave signals used for comriierciai
communications. These facilities include antenna, support structures and
equipment enclosures.
The foregoing ordinance was first READ on the day of 1996, mid
duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of , 1996.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 1996.
Catherine M. Golden, Mayor
Approved as to form:
i
Paul Nolte, City Attorney
PAGE 4-0rdinance(v:pa.\,e ..,dj
April 23, 1996
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
FACT SHEET
Information provided by the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
NEW NATIONAL WIRELESS TOWER SITING POLICIES
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 contains important provisions concerning the
Fof towers and other facilities for use in providing personal wireless services.
Most state and local communities have worked closely with cellular and ether wirele_s
service providers on such placement Plans, but this new law establishes new
responsibilities for communities and for the Federal Communications Corr.rnissian
(FCC). The rapid expansion in the wireless industry makes these issues even more
important.
This fact sheet is intended to explain the new provisions and to help state and local
governments as they deal with the complex issues of facilities siting to their locai
communities. At the end of this fact sheet, you will find names of contacts for additional
information about this area and other issues before the FCC. __
Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the "1996 .Act") govems federai,
state and local govemment oversight of siting of"personal wireless service" facilities
The 1996 Act establishes a comprehensive framework for the exercise of jurisdiction by
state and local zoning authorities over the construction, modification and p'lacemen: of
facilities such as towers for cellular, personal communications service (PCSI, and
specialized mobile radio (SMR) transmitters:.
- The new law preserves local zoning authority, but clarifies when the
exercise of local zoning authority may be preempted by the FCC.
- Section 704 prohibits any action that would discriminate between different
Eof personal wireless services, such as cellular, wide-area SMR and
broadband PCS, It also prohibits any action that would ban altogether the
construction, modification or placement of these kinds of facilities in a
particular area.
- The law also specifies procedures which must be followed for acting on a
request to place these kinds of facilities, and provides for review in the
courts or the FCC of any decision by a zoning authority that is inconsistent
with Section 704.
- Finally, Section 704 requires the federal government to take steps to help
licensees in spectrum-based services such as PCS and cellular, get access to
preferred sites for their facilities. Federal agencies and departments will
work directly with licensees to make federal property available for this
purpose, and the FCC is directed to work with the states to find ways for
states to accommodate licensees who wish to erect towers on state property,
or use state easements and rights-of-way.
The attachments to this fact sheet seek to provide information concerning tower siting
for personal wireless communications services. They include a summary of the
provisions of Section 704 of the 1996 Act, the actual text of Section 704, and a
technical information summary that describes the cellular, wide-area SMR and
broadband PCS technologies that underlie the majority of requests for new tower sites.
Questions about this topic, and about federal regulation of wireless telecommunications
services in general, may be addressed to Karen Brinkmann, Associate Chief of;he
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. 202-418-0783, (e-mail: kbrinkma',5,'.fcc.go%)
Questions about the Telecommunications Act of 1996 generally may be`addressed to
Sheryl Wilkerson in the FCC's Office of Legislative and
Intergovernmental Affairs,
202-418-1902 (e-mail: swilkers@fcc.gov). Questions about tower siting. licensing
issues or technical matters may be addressed to Steve Markendoiff, Chief of the
Broadband Branch in the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 202-418-0620.
(e-mail: smarkend @fcc.gov).
This Fact Sheet is available on our fax-on-demand system. The telephone nvniber or
fax-on demand is 202-418-2830. The Fact Sheet may also be found on the `V ,i-
Web at http://www.fcc.gov/wrtb/wirehome.htmi.
SUMMARY OF SECTION 704 OF T14E TELECOMMUNICATIONS AC.T OF 1996
The following is a summary of key provisions. The text of Section 704 is.reproduced in
its entirety as an attachment to this summary.
1. Local Zoning Authority Preserved
Section 704(a) of the 1996 Act amends Section 332(c) of the
Communications Act("Mobile Services") by adding a new paragraph (7). ft
preserves the authority of state and local governments over decisions
regarding the placement, construction , and modification of personal
wireless service facilities, except as provided in the new paragraph (7).
2. Exceptions
a. States and Localities May Not Take Discriminatory or Prohibiting Actions
Section 704(a) of the 1996 Act states that the regulation of the
placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless
service facilities by any State or local government or
instrumentality thereot shall not unreasonably discriminate among
providers of functionally equivalent services and shall not prohibit
or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless
services. 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(i).
Review: Any person that is adversely affected by a state or local
governments action or failure to act that is inconsistent with
Section 332(c)(7) may seek expedited review in the courts. 47
U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(v).
b. Procedures for Ruling on Requests to Place, Construct or Modify Personal
Wireless Service Facilities
Section 704(a) also requires a State or local government to act
upon a request for authorization to place, construct, or modify
personal wireless service facilities within a reasonable time. Any
decision to deny a request must be made in writing and be supported
by substantial evidence contained in a written record. 47 U.S.C.
§332(c)(7)(B)(u), (iii).
c. Regulations Based On Environmental Effects of RF Emissions Preempted
Section 704(a) of the 1996 Act expressly preempts state and local
government regulation of the placement, construction, and
modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of
the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the
extent that such facilities comply with the FCC's regulations
concerning such emissions. 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(v).
Review: Parties may seek relief from the FCC if they are adversely
affected by a state or local government's final action or failure to
act that is inconsistent with this provision. 47 U.S.C. §
332(c)(7)(B)(v).
3. Federal Guidelines Concerning RF Emissions
Section 704(b) requires the FCC to prescribe and make effective new rules
regarding the environmental effects of radio fi-equency emissions, which are
under consideration in ET Docket 93-62, within 180 days of enactment of
the 1996 Act.
NOTE. The pendency of this proceeding before the FCC does not abject
the rules which currently are in effect governing the environmental
effects of radio frequency emissions. Section 704(b) gives preemptive
effect to these existing rules. See related attachments to the Fact Sheet.
4. Use of Federal or State Government Property
a. Federal Property
Section 704(c) of the 1996 Act requires the President (or his
designee) to prescribe procedures by which the federal government
may make available on a fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory
basis, property, rights-of-way and easements under their control,
for the placement of new spectrum-based telecommunications
services.
b. State Property
With respect to facilities siting on state property, Section 704(c) of the
1996 Act requires the FCC to provide technical support to States to
encourage them to make property, rights-of-way and easements under their
jurisdiction available for the placement of new spectrum-based
telecommunications services.
NOTE- Information concerning technical support for tower siting which
the FCC is snaking available to state and local governments is attached to
the Fact Sheet.
5. Definitions
"Personal wireless services" include commercial mobile services,
unlicensed wireless services, and common carrier wireless exchange access
services. 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(C)(i).
"Commercial mobile services" are defined in Section 332 of the
Communications Act and the FCC's rules, and include cellular telephone
services regulated under Part 22 of the FCC's rules, SMR services regulated
under Part 90 of the FCC's rules, and PCS regulated under Part 24 of the
FCC's rules. 47 C.F.R. §20.9.
"Unlicensed wireless services" are defined as the offering of
telecommunications services using duly authorized devices which do not
require individual licenses; direct-to-home satellite services are excluded
from this definition. 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(C)(iii).
COMPLETE TEXT OF SEC. 704 OF THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF
1996
SEC. 704. FACILITIES SITING; RADIO FREQUENCY EMISSIG" STANDARDS.
(a) NATIONAL WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS SITING POLICY-
Section 332 (c) (47 U.S.C. 332 !c) ) is amended by adding at t.._ t.._
following new paragraph:
' (7) PRESERVATION OF LOCAL ZONING AUTHORITY-
' (A) GENERAL AUTHORITY- Except as provided in =..-_
paragraph, nothing in this Act shall limit or affect -._
authority of a State or local government or instru_me=c3l__y
thereof over decisions regarding the placement,
construction, and modification of personal wireless se-v: c..
facilities .
' (9) LINSTATIONS-
' (i) The regulation of the placement, construction,
and modification of personal wireless service
facilities by any State or local government c-
instrumentality thereof--
(I) shall not unreasonably discriminate among pr_vids.s :�
functionally equivalent services; and
' (II) shall not prohibit_ or have the effect of e=ohibt='..-- rr=
provision of personal wireless services .
(ii) A State or local government or
thereof shall act on any request for
place, construct, or modify personal wirelsss _. r . .._
facilities within a reasonable period or t_-:a aE __r tr.s
request is duly filed with suca government_ or
instrumentality, taking into account the nat_re -r.=
scope of such request.
(iii) Anv decision by a State or local
instrumentality thereof to deny a req•.:est t
construct, or modify personal wireless service
facilities shall be in writing and supported t.
substantial. evidence contained in a w--itte^.
(iv) No State or local governmer--= or inst rimer:'--=__-_
thereof may regulate the placement, constructic
modification of personal wireless service facill-_as
the basis of the environmental effects of radio
frequency emissions to the extent that such
comply with the Commission's regulations concern:-;
such emissions.
' (v) Any person adversely affected by any f'_;-__
action or failure to act by a State or local goverr�men'_
or any instrumentality thereof that is inco.-,sists.=.e
with this subparagraph may, within 30 dais aft_-:
action or failure to act, commence an actic-. it _-
court of competent jurisdiction. The court
and decide such action on an expedited zasis . A_ .
oerson adversely affected by an act or failure tc _c_
by a State or local government or anv instru.,.er.:a::=
thereof that is inconsistent with clause (iv) .
petition the Concnissicn for relief.
' (C) DEFINITIONS- For purposes of this oaragraph--
' (i) the term 'personal wireless services '
commercial mobile service=_, unlicensed wireless
services, and common carrier wireless exchange accass
services;
(ii) the term -personal wireless service facia'_-_.e.
means facilities for the provision of personal wires s.
services; and
the term unlicensed wireless service' .e.- .-
t
the offering of telecommunications services usi^.c 3uly
authorized devices which do not require individual
licenses, but does not mean the provision of
direct-to-home satellite services (as defined i-
section 303 (v) ) . ' .
(b) RADIO FREQUENCY EMISSIONS-
Within 180 days after the .
enactment of this Act, the Commission shall complete action i-. ET
Docket 93-02 to prescribe and make effective rules regarding 7.ne
environmental effects of radio frequency emissions .
(c)
AVAILABILITY OF PROPERTY- Within 160 days of the enactment of
this Act, the President or his designee shall prescribe prre_"r?s
by whit: Federal departments and agencies may make avai-aoie
fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory basis, property,
rights-of-way, and easements under their control for the pl_crmer.:
of new telecommunications services that are dependent, in who__ cc
in part, upon the utilization of Federal spectrum rights for =:._
transmission or reception of such services . These procedures zav
establish a presumption that recuests `_cr the use of property,
rights-of-way, and easements by duly authorized providers -shoo-d be
granted absent unavoidable direct conflict with the departmen. or
agency's mission, or the current or planned use of the property,
rights-of-way, and easements in question. Reasonable fee= may be
charged to providers of such telecommunications services `-o-
property, rights-of-way, and easements. The Commission shall
provide technical support to States to encourage thee: to ma:<e
property, rights-of-way, and easements under their jurisdict:or.
available fur such purposes.
TECHNICAL INFORMATION CONCERNING CELLULAR, SPECL46LIZED
MOBILE RADIO AND PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES
April 1996
'Cellular Information
The FCC established rules and procedures for licensing cellular systems in the United
States and its Possessions and Territories. These rules designated 306 Metropol.i.an
Statistical Areas and 428 Rural Service Areas for a total of 734 cellular markets and
spectrum was allocated to license 2 systems in each market. Cellular is allocated
Spectrum in the 824-849 and 869-894 N1Hz ranges. Cellular licensees are generally
required to license only the tower locations that make up their outer service contour.
Licensees desiring to add or modify any tower locations that are within an already
approved and licensed service area do not have to submit an application for that iocaton
to be added to their cellular license, although they may need FCC approval if the antenna
would constitute a major environmental action (See question 2, below) or would exceec
the criteria specified in Part 17 of the FCC's Rules ("Construction, Marking and i.i�tin
of Antenna Structures"). Part 17 includes criteria for determining when construction or
placement of a tower would require prior notification to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA). (See question 3, below.)
A cellular system operates by dividing a large geographical service area into cells and
assigning the same frequencies to multiple, non-adjacent cells. This is known in the
industry as frequency reuse. As a subscriber travels across the service area the call is
transferred (handed-ofd from one cell to another without noticeable interruption. All
the cells in a cellular system are connected to a Mobile Telephone Switching Office
(MTSO) by landline or microwave links. The MTSO controls the switching bemeen the
Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) and the cell site for all wireline-to-mobil:
and mobile-to-wireline calls.
Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) Information
Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) service licensees provide land mobile
communications on a commercial (i.e., for profit) or private basis. A traditional Sti1R
system consists of one or more base station transmitters, one or more antennas and end
user radio equipment which often consists of a mobile radio unit either provided by the
end user or obtained from the SMR operator. The base station receives either teleplione
transmissions from end users or low power signals from end user mobile radios.
SMR systems operate in two distinct frequency ranges: 806-821/851-866 MHz (800
MHz) and 896-901/935-940 MHz (900 MHz). 800 MHz SMR services have been
licensed by the FCC on a site-by-site basis, so that the SMR provider must approach the
FCC and receive a license for each and every tower/base site. In the future the FCC will
license this band on a wide-area market approach. 900 MHz SMR was originally
licensed in 46 Designated Filing Areas (DFAs) comprised of only the top 50 markets in
the country. The Commission is in the process of auctioning the remainder of the United
States and its Possessions and Territories in the Rand McNally defined 51 Major
Trading Areas.
PCS Information
Broadband PCS systems are very similar to the cellular systems but operate ir_ a higher
frequency band, in the 1850-1990 MHz range. One other difference is that the FCC used
different market areas for licensing purposes. The FCC used the Rand McNally
definitions for 51 Major Trading Areas (MTAs) and 493 Basic Tradine Areas (BTAs).
PCS was allocated spectrum for six Broadband PCS systems and 26 Karrowband
systems. The six Broadband PCS systems will be licensed as follows: two Broadband
PCS licenses will be issued for each of the 51 MTAs and four for each of the 493 BT-As.
The 26 Narrowband systems will be licensed as follows: eleven Narrowband PCS
licenses will be issued for nationwide systems, six for each of five regional areas, seven
for each of the 51 MTAs and two for each of the 493 BTAs:
PCS licensees are issued a blanket license for their entire market area and are not
required to submit applications to license individual cell sites unless construction of the
facility would be a mayor environmental action or would require FAA notification. Major
environmental actions are defined by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
that is discussed in question 2, below. Therefore, the FCC has no technical information
on file concerning PCS base stations.
Frequently asked questions concerning tower siting for personal wireless
services.
1. Do local zoning authorities have any authority to deny a request for tower
siting?
Answer: Yes. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 specifically leaves in place the
auU on'ty that local zoning authorities have over the placement of personal wireless
facilities. It does prohibit the denial of facilities siting based on RF emissions if the
licensee has complied with the FCC's regulations concerning RF emissions. It also
requires that denials be based on a reasoned approach, and prohibits discrimination and
outright bans on construction, placement and modification of personal wireless
facilities.
2. What requirements dopersonal wireless communications licensees have to
determine whether a site is in a flood plain? A historical site?
Answer: All antenna structures must also comply with the National Environmental
ol�y ct of 1969 (NEPA). as well as other mandatory federal environmental statutes.
The FCC's rules that implement the federal environmental statutory provisions are
contained in sections 1.1301-1.1319. The FCC's environmental rules place the
responsibility on each applicant to investigate all the potential environmental effects.
and disclose any significant effects on the environment in an Environmental Assessment
(EA), as outlined in section 1.131 1, prior to constructing a tower. The applicant is
required to consult section 1.1307 to determine if its proposed antenna structure wi It
fall under any of the listed categories that may significantly affect the environment If it
does, the applicant must provide an EA prior to proceeding with the tower construction
and. under section 1.1312, must await FCC approval before commencing any such
construction even if FCC approval is not otherwise required for such construction. The
FCC places all proposals that may significantly impact the environment on public notice
for a period of 30 days, seeking any public comments on the proposed structures.
The categories set forth in section 1.1307 include:
Wildemess Area
Wildlife Preserve
Endangered Species
Historical Site
Indian Religious Site
Flood Plain
Wetlands
High Intensity White Lights in Residential Neighborhoods
Excessive Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure
3. Are there any FCC regulations that govern where towers can or cannot be
placed?
Answer: The FCC mandates that personal wireless companies build out their systems so
t atat aUeequate service is provided to the public. In addition, all antenna structures used fo*
communications must be approved by the FCC in accordance with Part 17 of the FCC
Rules. The FCC must determine if there is a reasonable possibility that the structure may
constitute a menace to air navigation. The tower height and its proximity to an airport or
flight path will be considered when making this determination. If such a determination is
made the FCC will specify appropriate painting and lighting requirements. Thus, the FCC
does not mandate where towers must be placed, but it may prohibit the placement of a
tower in a particular location without adequate lighting and marking.
4. Does the FCC maintain any records on tower sites throughout the United
States? How does the public get this information (if any)?
Answer: The FCC maintains a general tower database on the following structures: (1)
any.towers over 200 feet, (2) any towers over 20 feet on an existing structure (such as a
building, water tower, etc_) and (3) towers that are close to airports that may cause
potential hazards to air navigation. The FCC's licensing databases contain some base site
information for Cellular and SMR systems. The general tower database and the Cellular
and SMR data that maybe on file with the FCC is available in three places:
(1)Cellular licensing information is available in the Public Reference Room
of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau's Commercial Wireless
Division. The Public Reference Room is located on the fifth floor o£2025
M Street, NW, Washington, DC 20554, telephone (202)413-1350. On-line
database searches of cellular licensing information along with queries of the
FCC's general tower database can also be accomplished at the Public
Reference Room.
(2) People who would like to obtain general tower information through an
on-line public access database shoA call or write Interactive Systems, Inc;
1601 North Kent St., Suite 1103, Arlington, VA 22209, telephone
703-812-8270.
(3) The FCC does not duplicate these records, but has contracted with
International Transcription Service, Inc. to provide this service. Requests for
copies of information should be addressed to International Transcription
Service, Inc. (ITS, Inc.), 2100 M St., NW, Suite 140, Washington, DC
20037, telephone 202-857-3800.
5. Why do Cellular and PCS providers require so many tower sites?
Answer: Low powered transmitters are an inherent characteristic of Cellular Radio and
B oand PCS. As these systems mature and more subscribers are added, the effective
radiated power of the cell site transmitters is reduced so frequencies carl.be reused at
closer intervals thereby inereasuig subscriber capacity. There are over 30 million
mobile/portable cellular units and more than 22 thousand cell sites operating within the
United States and its Possessions and Territories. PCS is just beginning to be offered
around the country. Due to the fact that Broadband PCS is located in a higher ftequenc-=
range, PCS operators will require more tower sites as they build their systems to
provide coverage in their service areas as compared to existing Cellular carriers.
Therefore, due to the nature of frequency reuse and the consumer demand for services.
Cellular and PCS providers must build numerous base sites.
6. Can Cellular, SNfR and PCS providers share tower structures?
Answer: Yes, it is technologically possible for these entities to share tower structures.
Bow-ever, there are limits to how many base station transmitters a single tower can hole
and different tower structures have different limits. Moreover, these providers are
competitors in a more and more competitive marketplace and may not be willing to
share tower space with each other. Local zoning authorities may wish to retain a
consulting engineer to evaluate the proposals submitted by wireless communications
licensees. The consulting engineer may be able to determine if there is some flexibility
as to the geographic location of the tower.
7. Is the Federal government helping to find ways to accommodate multiple
licensees of personal wireless services?
Answer: Yes. The FCC has designated Steve Markendorff, Chief,mme Broadband Branch-
orcial Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC to assist
local zoning authorities and municipalities and respond to questions concemin, tower
siting issues. His telephone number is 202-418-0620. Also,President Clinton issued an
Executive Memorandum on August 10, 1995 directing the Administrator of General
Services (GSA), in coordination with other Government departments and agencies, to
develop procedures to facilitate appropriate access to Federal property for tie siting of
mobile services antennas. GSA recently released "Government-Wide Procedures for
Placing Commercial Antennas," 61 Fed Reg 14,100 (March 29, 1996). For further
information contact James Herbert, Office of Property Acquisition and Realty Services,
Public Building Service, General Services Administration, 18th & F Streets, `W,
Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-501-0376.
S. Have any studies been completed on potential hazards of locating a tower/base
site close to residential communities?
Answer:.In connection with its responsibilities under NEPA, the FCC considers the
potential effects of radiofrequency (RF) emissions from FCC-regulated transmitters on
human health and safety. Since the FCC is not the expert agency in this area, it uses
standards and guidelines developed by those with the appropriate expertise. For example,
in the absence of a uniform federal standard on RF exposure, the FCC has relied since
1985 on the RF exposure guidelines issued in 1982 by the American National Standards
Institute (ANSI C95.1-1982). In 1991, the Institute of Electrical and Electronic
Engineers (IEEE) issued guidelines designed to replace the RF ANSI exposure
guidelines. These guidelines (ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992) were adopted by ANSI. The
Telecommunications Act of 1996 mandates that the FCC complete its proceeding in ET
Docket 93-62; in which it is considering updating the RF exposure guidelines, no later
than early August 1996. Copies of this proceeding can be obtained from the
International Transcription Service, Inc. (ITS), telephone 202-857-3800. Presently RF
emission requirements are contained in Section 1.1307(b) of the FCC's rules , 47 C.F.R.
§1.1307(b), for all services. PCS has service specific RF emission provisions in Section
24.52 of the FCC's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 24.52.
Additional information concerning RF emission hazards can be obtained through a
variety of sources:
(1) Information concerning RF hazards can be obtained on the World Wide
Web at http-//www.fcc.gov/oet/faqs. RF safety questions are answered and
further RF documents and information are contained under the Cellular
Telephony Section.
(2) OET Bulletins 56 and 65 concerning effects and potential RF hazards can
be requested through the Radiofrequency Safety Program at 202-418-2464.
Additionally, any specific questions concerning RF hazards can be answered
by contacting the FCC at this phone number.
The FCC maintains a Communications and Crisis Management Center which is staffed
24 hours a day, seven days a week. In the event of an emergency, such as a
radiofirequency hazard threatening public safety or health you may call 202-632-6975.
The watch officer who answers at that number can contact our compliance personnel in
your area and dispatch them within a matter of hours.
I
S I'Lw min:; IL r.n,brr III,(I
Wireless World
Telecommunications -
' technology—and local
government response—
is at a crossroads.
1
By William Covington
ompanies hoping to succeed
in the highly competitive " - `=--
communications arena must.
'.
"'. have good relations with to-
cat governments. It's the to-
cal governments, after all, that supply
the franchises and permits needed to
- deliver cellular and paging services and 9�� �_
other communications products.
1 So far, those ielations have been piclty ing, the lat- buildings, on billbo:-r z
good. Local governments want the ben- est innovation is nsrrov,banci messagiue. utility poles, and on
efits that new forms of communication This ser vice a110%,5customerstoacknow•'- towersareconsiderec -
call bring, and v ireless service providers edge a page by p:essing a Lution oil then
understand that cities and towns must pagers. Soon they will be able to receive
exercise some control over what comes short text messages as well. Several consideration_ ::.,::n1
into the community. The challenge is to Wireless communications typically re- cell sites are placed. ..._. ._ .-.. ....
keep things on an even keel at a time of quire three components: a device (iele- site must be close em.-:::.:-. :o\t'.;s : ..:.
rapid growth in the telecommunications phone, pager, or portable computed, a receive the signal
cell sitehadio link; and a switching of- _ ; s°_c
indusU�y. � small portable phone o;a:: ::cs::
A sign of that growth is the auctions flee. livery maio! metropolitan area has elation is that cell sitci •.at i_-
held on August 26 by the Federal Conn one or more switching offices, where far enough apart to
'- munications'Commission. On that date, calls from cell sites are processed. The ']'he third is interfere -Pit
the FCC began the second in a series of calls are then sent out through the tele- and large bodies of •::;;:;r for
auctions that will allow more companies phonesystelll Whenawirelesscustomer candistorlasignal,prey:.:=,:r:2 )I:-,- :..
to offer wireless coil) nunicationser vices. calls another �%iieless telephone, the sei vice.
switching office locates the cell site cloy Finally,according;,
esl to the party being called and connects service requires that ::.r
The term %vireless communications re- that caller via that cell site. Over 90 cell site in ever,net;!
fens to a family of communication de- Percent of all wireless communication=_ within every six to saua::
vices that can send and receive messages still start of end on a traditional tole- clepending upon leer.=.`.-. .'.:.'. ::
instantly—bv voice in the case of cellular phone system !17,11,01 "wireline" in the customers,
telephones or alphanumerically in the business). Wireless comma:•s_.;:. ... c'. . .
case of pagers. Soon, too, computer users N'Vhen a call is mae.e. the dtvrce seeks can shalt Cell sites.
will he able to s,.:nd and receive data via out a radio link. also kno.:n as a cell site. ever,share the radioe-::::. ::: :a
wuelels mode Radio linla cap,. !d ,!i s;, - I, process it and ICCervCu ills 11
Om: o the �\Ver forms of cwuelcss (Verifying that ; e c.Ji .s Ie�n moat, tw to Car! s1 m)': r :
x vorrt car:)rrt.nr� on rs the personal con- untamed :nd �enc• . o.i - loa celi ,rlc. of spact must ,.p....:
nttuticni�:r?s cc, IICS is similar to ;r urclude one ur :r:ur,: ::n!cn r.:a, a It I, Ion};in� I,,"let
cellular phone toil operates at different lure to support th:rrn, ;ul n huildia;t I„ ,rf,:.ustomrrsinrrrasa - .. . .
radio Ircouencics and requirs twice as house radio an:: cur.r.'uir:r r,luipinertt. !r,:r „f roll sites I lo'..
nuuty c,rn,:,iuni: :,ions fncililir..,- In pm,;- (::ell sites r;:n l,e ;h,: I.h",; ,r .;lies I\pie:dlc - - - ,.
q•`rt �� [� `tr t� x a ' •� 's' '#y�` a��'.'�t`N.+h..
Lam• 't yi J ��� � ^�yT✓^ _
Y-,f � � 4 t 7t� yt i Y•'ayTFyaq.{yid< •s}.«����x�nr�',�'�}�
-�P"�.�}y�t,�a„+rr .�f• e yv, --d '`f>s-ttcr7rg �< .q
4:r�'��-•m .ry 2 ,•c5 -rri:.<r '*,.-stC �,3.kr�;t" r0• "". u}-,
y n &F lacatio s Can ymr lord the
rw,rz��7_^�� �. � 1s-�}•`t"".';�'' ��. �y��y' i��4.�^ dcruC n r Ilus L«ddmg".Src
__sz�_y.. �L q — �^t p`�>r•
12 till the urr.aurr
RM
DWI[ -
�.:��� _•,��,_:1::?—_'� `�' I(. 71U1A.T!,1{ metropolitan areas may seek I.zrmissis: �.
to build 15 to 50 facilities a year.
The new PCS licensees and the n,: -
paging providers are also seeking site_
r
- and so are the growing numbes of con-.-
panies offering data comniunica:ions a:-:
- similar services. l-lowever mess.=.ging an:
data delivery services typicaii`: can u
much smaller sites and often share cmc-t
- ing facilities with cellular or PCS urovia
ers. at
The winners of the C bloc auctions
companies like Next Wave and �Alireless
PCS are just now beginning to .sake a-.
appearance. Like the PCS lice:-_e hold-
- ers, they will need to build e-: entir-
s
network, with the number of sltes de-
pending on the type of technoio-y use_
and the degree to which the`: can 'o_-
r locate" with other providers \t
less companies also use "stealtt 5' tec-
n:ques chiding facilities on ro -ops r-
elsewhere) to effectively co::- site.
lcc-.:e on rooftops or conceal in other trum to allow at least t%,,o new service Local goveinmentscanpiobabi.. iselhe:
•,a_:s. providers in every market.The service to experiences with PCSs, which :,'uicali-_'
be offered was referred to as PCS or request permits for 50 to 100 facilities
Going once personal communications services. The year, as a guide to determine hr:: mar.
-:-
Ba--k in 1981, the Federal COInInUI11Ca- auctions were completed in March 1995 facilities a C bloc carrier might ssek.
lions Commission published a report on and raised over S7 billion.
implications for economic development Yet another auction was held earlier In a hurry
of lire then very new cellular telephone this year, this time to encourage at least A wireless company typically sends be
:ethnology. After a series of hearings, one more nationwide provider. About tween 5250,000 and$700,000 to _et a ce:.
the zorrinnission invited providers to ap- 510 billion was raised by auctioning off site up and running. Those A an.: B blc:
%' for licenses to provide cellular sec- what is known as C bloc spectrum-Then, Providers that received their lic_.n.ses is
'rtes in 306 metropolitan service areas on August 26, the D and 6 bloc auctions the 1980s have actually built ;:'.eir sys
'28 rural areas. were initiated. Thep are expected to be terns three times first to serve c.a ome.-
So many companies applied that the completed by the end of this month. with three-watt car phones, the:: to a=- �.
=CC decided simply to assign local tele- No one is certain hoer the successful commodate half-watt portables and -
:>i':c.^.zconipanizsenough radiospeclrum bidders will make use of this additional Nally to convert analog cellular' s:ste;:a =_
::.roc s pectnunl to offer CCHUlar tom. to more efficient digital technoic .':.
- k radio frequency. Auction '.�Imtcrs kith g
....::!:cations in theirown areas'. A lottery licenses may simply enhance their cur- Now come the successful PC= anti C
...; set up to el!ow non telephone com- rent systems by providing ancillan' set- bloc bidders, and the soon-to- cictcr
to compete for the remaining :\ vices, or then may offer dramatic new minecl v:inners of the D and spe:-
. _c specvuln. liv the end of 1984, nzarlo
communications services. In any case. it It All these companies ha-e a IT
major metropolitan area in the U.S. is likely that the I) and G bloc offerim s and n doll s monetaryobllt;at ion to ti'.:ledcI _-
..:... .xat assigned Io a carrier. In 1959. will insult in a nett: for more ceil,;tar ,uvcIn ment and to Nmks. III
.....tar lotteries were held for the t ill ill lower. ;tiff indu;lry compewinn is tor_-.n co:-:.-
as a result r.I all this tr_u.ilv, !,`cal navies to lower ;tree!;:; -
.. cJlt.lar fort: 't - CSeu!.'cied all es ,.oy,•rnrna t.• tayc r" ut el,t.- aclw,: n•: lo' each minute :u ll" : -lhair In—
trtinm_ Urr,l::o slim;nrs nredi:rled ❑IrcuJr tnu'rt'ut -t,nl dh,ls �10;11,se: l<. `�'u rc'Cti nl rcvcn u,:.
. . .. .:' th;lna luil'.inn soh<;:ih�a's by Zt!t I!t. inl; email,! their CmCl::..:,a ere;: 11 to -ault, wince:::; :,rrcir:: ..:id,.. ..
!`1`4t ;i: Cell cl::r in,.htsl ry Itnd o:ill he in a hul'r•: b. ; r��:' nab
. . . . . ::ul` `Irutzm :trl•::. hrr•: r. i:a ut•, ra. .r .
,! �, . .I .I: :nil.inn: ru: l,nn<•c: Int - - tr:� :\: .1 uu: •.v h.•It ?ui+ `•.'rail:; ::n.i tl:. y •.gill t::<:::I :. .. . .
• 10 Plan..ing I)GCCnil", 1996
Given that situation, my advice to lo- can sect: from the permit applicanL
cal governments is to gel a handle on the Regular communication with the car-
key elements of the"releconununications viers serving a community is also essen-
Act of 1996, which lays out the ground tial. At least once a year every locality
rules for industry and local government should invite the telecommunications car-
in the area of land-use law. riers serving the area to a regular meet-
ing. Use this time to review the contents -
tl hat is rcquircd of permit applications. Place special em-
The law creates apresumpt ion that needed phasis on the type of information that is
wireless facilities can be sited in a com- expected from the applicants. Identify
enmity. Plat refusals to grant permit ap- the parts of the application that can be X
plications are no longer allowed.The law left blank, which must be filled out, and
also requires that requests for permis- under what conditions an application will 0 �*
lion to build must be acted on promptly. be rejected as incomplete. Also, ask ser- +
It forbids regulations from favoring one vice providers where they may want to
sort of .wireless service provider over build facilities in the next year.
another. And it prohibits local govern- Increasingly teleconununicationscom- w3
ments from regulating radio frequency panies are teaming up with local govern-
emissions. A federal standard has been menls to sponsor regional wireless semi-
selin this area and demonstrated compli- oars. These educational forums usually !
ante with that standard is all a locality last a full day and bring together local =----------------------- -
What the Wireless Revolution Means
t this moment, thousands of
"site acquisition representatives,. x
are standing of planning counters z
everywhere in the U.S.,demand
ing permits-now.In most com-
munities, however, there is no plan for
'yr I
accommodating the sites over the long
haul. c
Both city and county governments typi Ir'
tally categorize personal wireless facili-
ties as:.special or conditional uses Yet
they often rely on outdated radio trims-
r. ,I
mission and satellite_dish zoning prove
stuns to regulate them .i
But some communities have instituted
multiheied ieview procpd ues
> I k; :.
era someofthese procedure�s;residenttal�zones „r ,
rr r�geone approach commercial and Indus r
'� teal'zones another, iiipnopoles iegt` t Tz ?
review
1110 is 56t eet`and less are` h,:
permitted adaiinistrativby
t 7 *
The advanage to a zbnuig ordi ante t lr,
approach is that each cellr site isealt 1' ,
cr withconsisteutlyandunformlyTlieda- ifs :
advantage is that the i-isd chop deal 1 .:.
-wjfhicell sites„one at a,tt a As a. esu t,
z'•;wireless carriers are asking for andXocal
.. arc, ,
V governments are approWing vast sys�gms .�
', on asite by site basis
V. S oinecitiesandcounhes knowing that g
they are running out of good cell sites y,
review applications.in bulk.,San Diego,
for example,requires annual submissions Some com u,nilies lease public lurid—bicblding .vale,lauks—la
of all cell sites from each carrier. Many ,-bcless carrir is. Local gomi..meals asiug 11101 approncl: have Co•,ll of
jurisdictions also encourage Or require aver cell sites. but they also opera tbemselees up la polewi d l:,,suile.
c0-location.
San Francisco has a book of guidelines the best guidelines don't provide the cer- fact that some communities are ieain;
for planning commissioners to use in tainty of a good plan. public land—water tanks,par}Jane,r.;hts
reviewing cell site applications. But even The situation is complicated by the of-way—townclesscairiers. Leasin___ :bii<
1�0•1cllllucln officials, coo ullu
cis. industry iepresentauxes, 0-:1C
interested parties.The topics ilic!,,!C;c
less communications: tile I\ties o.
ties needed; the method llscci -0 sei;
1992 possible sites; how the Pcllllll-
cess works; and health issues a:'C' P:
1 154,�;IWI--'�� erty values. AT&T Wit eless Se r ces
ZIP
held such gatherings in Boston,N YC
994
Baitilljorc, Washington D.C., rid
0
99S
_j ci al otlic, im isdictiOns
�
Local governments Should al l reN
ti,eil land-use levislatioll ill I,(!
1000 11
��l coiucides N,,jtjj the pro%isions 0-
A 71 '!__nts
200J0 25,000 30.000 CO nillunications act.other e! 5."
should consi sh S _: u
: s-
in industrial and conun-_':
a heating process for
1. ...... S,_Iecific, as opposed to curl v'z
H -�mes 7
stindards: fixed Lillie
I and solves two problems: Local govern- applications. A more stringent review has not required permits for
the best locations for Would be required for properties not iden- struction 11, PeMISYIN'Zinia,ill->:�'e C'
inents can choose ap- 0: appeals denied Bell Atlar_:_:
tified in the master plan. A "D Step
wireless facilities, and applicants call get
.antag2 o sys:Ierns, claim that a 150-:&-:
rose,, has S tile act% assuring and OUtOf tile pl2rujitt ing process quickly. p
earl- sta�,,. Because it to%-.er wasan essential st�l
companies have popped tip to mar public input at Fit ca aft be permitted 01 of right.ands and to direct the requires a map, it is also tk° only_ct these public I
er- The courts are -1 beil%vell_
ploach that ensures some degree 01 c
b,i riers to "easy" city and county sites �-,-ad for plannels. It's clea_
The problem is that the wireless firms tainty.
options, I •,ould say that is needed. So is a facULIF'
Often insist oil all exclusive arrangement Given all the I
P the wireless master plan is the tool of a review process.%vith the community, in effect tying u I
access to public land—and exposing the choice. At this writing, on!\- a fev: cities Tjd Kreines, AICP
and counties are exploring tile master
community to potential legal challenges -1 to �:-cmes is president Of Krei'!--
object plan approach, so there is 110 model L f -0111:ou, California. The furn s=:
Further, private landowners may objc carriers are boond to tire 0
10 the competition from a public body. follow. But wN eless planning.
An alternative approach is to require the ad hoc approach of stung one cell
all cell sites to be located on land owned facility at a line. I predict that they will
or leased by the jurisdiction. Ringwood, soon request the certairiz•, that conies Terms of Art
\e%v Jersey, is trvim that,although it has with a wireless master plan.I c also pointing tile Nvay.
cullvdireepubliclyoNvned sites that qL1,11ify. The courts 11 The people C(
'rheic have been four important Court
-file suburban Passaic County c0lum U_ wireless planning so far, and ri;es that apply for Pels011a-
nity has also offered to lease land from cases Oil to be inam more. Earlier C:Iities: site acquisition
mivate landowners seeking a cell site there are Sure , yels cell site buildeiS. IS.
wireless this year, a federal colm upheld a six- lad:
and then to sublease the site to it xv irel and others. Be aware that
carrier. month nioratolikull Imposed by the clay cants seek approval of cell 5;.
A wireless master plan is another wav of imediria, Washington SPlint Spectrum it or lease thern to he cal- 0'
to go.The town of Windscu,Connecticut, had asked for a prefirninPIN injunction tc owners diev represent.
: preparation of such a Ovemde the 11102-atOrRun, which Medina
considering the plePa .. .: : .. . Companies hce:-
15 0 -e it:...netoplan for
tied it needed to gi\ .: .
plZu, for the area between Hartford and aig 11 r FCC to build personal
Biadlev International Airport. Also, the cell sites But another federal court I
of r3o�lsouth Mobil. and operate personal wilelc-
Mid-Aincitca Regional Council. which lie'(' the contention 1 -there Zile also unlicellse�. cl:
Ceorgia, had
at Gwinnett Count\
flit counties and 11=1 111LI q\ that CuCO1lu)aSSCx* C19 Still
I(ZIIISZs I)ut presented Sufficient C%:LiC:1C0 to
n the Telccojllrnulllcaliors
licip9lifics in two SwIcs around
City, has Nn gun i N\o-plwsc loccss
that port its denial of a pci ruit a C I]i tws f ra the p„0\I
ll:ZILI 111 0 Mclm\%lul,:, "lli)
J it cic����l Ivy ,1:1;ulklin Colin
1•larl. z1- SI
�!Cllll Of
Tiw lizi;IQ plal cipploach irvol\�s ;I
Iasi is 1whicz 111"i 1, \%,h. 2% ".1 11 tW"
inul;lil jlrl h C<,
i I w,
� 1± '1'I:m nine. I)teaui 6.:r 19'in
location. Local governments like lions. Use your regular annu;il mcelin_
the idea because It reduces site with the cellular companies as tu,opp"r-
�� proliferation, and industry lilies lunity to register potential hermit al?hli
it because construction and op. cants. livery time a permit is sought, lh._
crating costs are reduced.There registered parties could be informed an::
® are some drawbacks, however. invited to contact tile applicanitodiscus=
For one thing,co-location cre- sharing the facility. _
ates larger sites. The more cam- A final suggestion: Loot: to the fill(';
,'.,^"„., ers sharing a facility, the bigger Ask industry representatives to share lhe..r
<� )and potentially more intrusive) expectations of what's ahead in the v,a•.-
m
� it will be. Also, permit review of services, carriers, and concerns.
M x time may increase dramatically,
K " and the extra height of the facil- 11'illiam Covington is land-usa and enviro:.
g mental policy counsel to AT&T Wireless c_
ity can push the application into „ices in Kirkland. Washington. I-le ,-:as i r"
• - amo+'e SLingent reviewcategory. 1iied), director of right-oiv:a} nel WO: ing
Finally, established cellular car- Ring Counq•, \Vashin,ton.
?i ""•",� ' '_ ricis may have reasonable con-
;„ I terns about revenue,operations,
and liability when a new can ier
„ is added to an exist-
.
ing site.
p ®� t,R a For local govern
m
ments seeking to y
aResourees
„ •r+`=�rli " make co location an
3ah' attractive option for ' x
vsareless providers,
' Readrng TXRMes B. Kremes publishes a
1 p + +fie'etnewslettercalled"WirelessUpdate=Con-
'"' I have three sugges- Y-tT„�a"--t a r y br
tac`'t the firm bybpli
Chlorinated Water process in conformance with Goal 11. Representatives of
DEQ staff have a draft permit available that will permit DEQ, municipalities, and LCDC are discussing situations where an entity located outside the UGB requires a sewer
the activity subject to best management practices system extension outside of the UGB to mitigate a health or
DEQ will provide the EWT with more specific infor- other environmental hazard. Currently, the two state
mation concerning the discharge of super chlorinated agencies do not have a process for."early warning" of such
water as it relates to a case with the City of Beaverton. conflicts. DEQ Director Langdon Marsh suggested the
Land Use Issues creation of a "community solutions team" to facilitate and
address such issues.
Dick Benner, Department of Land Conservation and
Development, addressed the group on Goal 11 (Public The EWT continues to meet monthly. If you have issues
Facilities) and Goal 14 (Urbanization). In essence, you would like addressed by the EWT, contact the League
sanitary sewers outside of the urban growth boundary representatives Roger Jordan or Ed Gormley, or League staff
are not allowed unless it goes through the exceptions Joni T. Lowy.
City Authority Over Siting of Cell Towers
Has your city been approached about siting a new cellular cation process, and standard guidelines concerning safe:,.,
lower? If so, you're not alone. New towers are cropping up aesthetics, and criteria affecting abandonment.
all over the state and many cities are being deluged with
requests for siting. Growth in wireless service industry has The Act determined that the FCC hps sole authority for
outpaced many local governments' ability to understand the determining the regulatory standards for environmental
impacts of cellular towers and, therefore, to properly site and effects of radio frequency emission standards. Potential
regulate them. As with other areas of the telecommunica- health risks associated with electromagnetic fields (EMFc.
tions industry, the new federal Telecommunications Act of have been the second greatest source of community opcxi-
1996 includes provisions concerning the siting of towers for lion to the siting of cellular towers, because of both personal
wireless services (including cellular phones) and the Federal safety and the perceived impact on property values. Since
Communications Commission (FCC) is in the process of 1979, scientists have conducted more than 1,00-, studie_ or
developing rules for acceptable emissions standards. EMF exposure. some have linked pro\:miry to prom-ior
EMF sources to higher incidence of cancer amo..=
In spite of intensive lobbying on the part of the cellular none, however, has managed to isolate the findings to z
industry, the federal law preserves the authority of local single EMF source. Thus, no scientific study ha; estabGs-ed
governments over zoning and land use decisions concerning a specific correlation between cancer and the nc-�-ionic:-
the placement, construction, and modifications of the siting radiation generated by a cellular-communication. facili::
of towers for cellular and other wireless services. device, nor has any study disproven the connection.
":Nothing in this Act shall limit or affect the authority of a Therefore, in making decisions about cell tov.e. sitinc,
State or local government . . . over decisions regarding the cities are not allowed to consider the cotential '.ealth e'=cis
placement, construction, and modification of personal+wire- of stray voltage from transmission toy:e:s when conside::-,
less service facilities"except that it "shall not unreasonably siting requests. An FCC rule regarding acceptabi-- stand_-'_
discriminate among providers or functionally equivalent for radio frequency transmissions, and determination o',
services; and shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibit- potential health affects, is expected shortly-
in,the provision of personal wireless services." This non-
discrimination rule also requires that the government "act on Finally, cities should keep in mind that their public p::-
any
request . . . within a reasonable period of time alter the perry and facilities (e.g., parks, water towers, cat;, com-
request is duly filed. . . Any decision by a State or local munications towers, and even city haul may be r.as for
_r
government . . . to deny a request to place, construct, or siting of cellular towers (or for the smaller antennas for
modify personal wireless service facilities shall be in writing personal communications services, PCs). Cities- rrray be -i+le
and supported b to help control the impact of the towers, use the private
written record."y(Telecommusubstantial evidence contained in a nications Act of 1996)
lowers for public communications equipment, and ger. =:e
rental revenue for the government.
Therefore; federal law does allow cities to consider visual,
aesthetic, or safety issues when making their decisions. n spite of this dear federal e isupport for local zoning a :.
Decisions to deny a request for cell tower siting are appeal- controls, the Oregon Legislature is not f tower <i, from.
able to the tour.;. Decisions which violate the provisions of
unpostng restrictions on local control c tower s�bng, c-
able
federal law: M,ly be appealed to the FCC. reduce n;authority of cities to balance the needs or pm..'.
providers to site towers with the loco preference: of d''.
Cities are encc,!raged to adopi an ordinance for cellular neighborhoods. Cities will have to h,2 prepared defe
tower sling th,-.; includes a dear, non-discriminatory appli- local zoning control against any limiu that are
the i9971.egislatwe.
Page 6 League of Oregon Cities h'ev.sletter,' �gus ") 3
Wireless Telecommunications Services: Did you know?
According to an industry association, the number of cell Siting on Federal Property —
siles nationally has increased from 346 in January 1985, to Federally-owned land is exempt from local zoning, and the
nearly 25,000 in June 1996 (this includes cell towers, Telecommunications Act requires that federal property,
antennae, roof or wall-mounted receiver dishes, etc.). Over rights-of-way and easements under their jurisdiction be avail-
38 million subscribers are using those 25,000 towers. The able for placement of towers and antennae. The federal law
cumulative capital investment by the wireless industry now also orders the FCC to provide technical staff to state govern-
totals more than $26.7 billion. In addition, the industry is merits to encourage tower siting on properties owned by
hiring over 1,000 employees each month - including a state governments and agencies. A Dallas company that
substantial number of city planners. Here's a refresher on builds "spec towers" for lease to cellular service providers
your rights and responsibilities. already has a contract with the U.S. Post Office to site towers
Local Control- on post office buildings and properties nationwide. By the
end of the year, the FCC will have issued another Fact Sheet
A city does have authority to deny a request to site a on the responsibility of the federal government to facilitate
cellular site, but it must provide a reasonable explanation in the siting of towers on federal property. The number of
writing. The FCC's bottom line, following the Telecom- towers sited on federal land is expected to continue to
munications Act, is to encourage wireless telecommu- increase.
nications providers to "build out their systems so that
adequate service is provided to the public." Remember, Antenna vs. Tower — _
your city must take requests to zone towers "in order" with Personal communications services (PCS) systems often
other zoning decisions, or it can be challenged as being require a great many small antennae, rather than several 50-
discriminatory or of prohibiting tower siting(both illegal 200 foot monopoles or towers for cellular service. These
under the Telecommunications Act). antennae can be as small as 18 inches and be placed much
Decisions on Location and Siting - more discreetly on existing poles, wires, towers, etc. They
may also offer compensation opportunities to the owners of
The siting decisions of a cellular service provider ought to public property. For example: New York City has 3,000
be determined after each city (or regional area) has helped lampposts. They are receiving $3 million annually - from
make "location" decisions. A request for siting from a pro- charges of S 100 per lamppost and 5300 per stoplight - for
vider assumes that a city has already evaluated its land use the placement of PCS antennae. Remember, we're not N'e»
and other plans to decide on appropriate locations for cell York City, but we may still provide the necessary links for
sites, towers and antennae. Cellular service providers are these services.
likely to come to the city with a specific property for their
cell facility already selected. If the citgl has taken the steps to Co-location Requirements?
evaluate its local situation, it has the opportunity to recom- Under the Telecommunications Act, a city does have
mend other, comparable sites. Cities can refuse to have authority to prohibit single-entity towers and to require -co-
towers sited in particular places - they cannot refuse to site location" of wireless services on a single pole or tower. The
any towers. To date, we know of only one city in Oregon FCC coordinates authority for 3 -6 PCS (personal communi-
hat has decided to delay siting any additional cell facilities cations services) providers and two cellular service providers
until they have studied local needs and available locations. in a service area (either a defined metropolitan or rural area).
This action has been upheld in federal court in the case of if considering a co-location policy, remember that the equip-
- Medina, Washington. ment of each provider(dishes, antenna, etc.) must be
Compensation for Towers on Public Land - approximately 20 feet from another provider on the pole.
This means that a larger and/or taller tower may be required
Payment for rental of public property for cell towers is for co-located services. Some citizens are objecting to
taking many forms-some governments are receiving a cash multiple towers; others to the site of"antenna farms" (po!es
payment for renting the property, while others are receiving with multiple dishes or antenna). Towers with multiple users
equipment and/or services from the telecommunications may work best in remote or wooded areas of the city.
provider as compensation. b%/hen considering how much
rent should be charged for a cell tower or antenna site on Pre-approved Sites for Towers?
t
public property, consider the potential value of'in-kind"i Cell tower, are popping up all over the state, but if wir-
services or equipment. Currently, the industry tends to give less providers are still looking for tower sites in your cite,
three to four times what they would pay in cash if they can
you might consider
provide the compensation in-kind service. A city willing to developing a list of pre-approved site: -
coordinate siting on public property may receive services for properties - public or private- that fiave the appropriate
the police department, 9-1-1 system, fire department, public zoning and aesthetic properties to be suitable for a tower.
works, or city hall. Being able to identify and inventory pre-approved sites car.
speed up the process and reduce the potential disagreen-:=_nu
and public concerns about siting.
League of Oregon Cities Newsletter/November, 1996 Pa_e 3
j� ti
m �m" n'^ n iF rY' §`
ELU Ogg
n£ g Amo
y' n o .o e w °c E $d o Q y rs 3 •J S.
0 . dw
m
a3 wp w w < ..�
PO n
O Win? 0=00 QS�.' N< °' Rm •�
om
> > o^Q . Edo ul
sn 5 •. F' m oi"i Eac a9 O I
(O_
l-
< may' Egg o� •. r�i
oc
m ^ a ° , aaod
°U �n N9y Fyn o r�igT c°�yi? " ® •'s¢c �" :aB.g.�}i r`
IS
NNI �r
o='^� n's ® ,®
�k:li .�S
E-8
El
�l�t"' I� � � . d '� alp„• •f:. 1.1 ,
ELI-
�kd
f
kjM. -0l
T!y
Existing conditions,
.:
�•. Meyer site: ' �.
a
s
Iz
-
Y
�i I Al""^y° � 1. 3 'y rit y,s '-e►r .r �,� ss:.- �; W•'�T'h r �¢.
�'�� g 1, ..�� 1w_,�. ^S trKC'Ri�. <M`4Y 4..1 1 �^' a �j-�• r f a''r -�'�
` � A
II I�l•—� ®�� S L • � F
q+ll II i
�� -;K,.Y 1 ♦La,ria.�1psT,,.ed°h )� f r � I I
- �i'T�i'!\�+` �J.-i.b tlT _F•t-T>�>Q r.'S��,i.z�%/.5.-.{{rl Lr°�1'xi�5 f.�i�♦1:-'.X!ti t 1��(YI�,�l��F,{R♦♦I�/I�Yt�Yp N� tyy°.F�
-
f��y7
♦vyti� �e:• " i ii'
�,� \1 r �F�fr3�,,, r�'y") i. j � �A1 ..Et ♦"+�;�1'(x�G>+"1e�7 - �"is.f',-,.i rte!
l/.+j?u.. " t L 3+t f •• '�.i�y lW -�e,a .. S�'wa"r;,..P � f
f\ f ;t r,�rlsCti r s J �,. �,Ft• d-a • ,�r� wd"�'�tF'♦a.l.�° ,.rTAR. �
• � py�r♦+`•Ys r ir�t� .I sFd III �'S{�' '�� ��r\,YT!•cx_tn� .�' �� az
--Oar
X s "D�g�tally enhancetl photograph lllasIng
c �' r ���• y ^ sai _ PI!O/IOSedwS {VestfCellalaPfaC�lltyi
d !y f - .' T �ln°'�Ic j }jSir��l ,y k♦ .,. t1 r,� Yi S '$ �J :.,
i44
'4 \ l! u � �s vt a �.•
ma..-.m. ..L
+ °['y1 ��'f�_F u'F r"1 ay �' .ye•ttyF�,•�P V°�° �'M�'a�'i";- w :.a,„ .� L : .r x-•w :