Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous i Wireless Telecommunications Towers: Update June 1996 This Executive Information Packet was compiled by the staff of PTI's ANSWER information service. Every year, ANSWER responds. to hundreds of inquiries from PTI member cities and counties. Topics range from management issues (performance measurement, privatization} to electronic service delivery (local government home page .development, touch-screen kiosks). ANSWER tracks these inquiries for "hot" .topics and develops specialized packets tailored to that. topic. Some of the tools ANSWER uses to conduct research include: on-line... electronic networks to perform full-text newspaper and journal database searching; a library of documents; and the. network of PTI members. _ To fmd out more about. ANS WER, .contact: Dale Bowen Business Manager 202/626-2456 bowen@pti.nw.dc.us To fmd out more about PTI programs and services, contact: Susan Benton Vice President 202/626-2454 ~ _. Benton@pti.nw.dc.us Each article in this information packet is copyrighted. Part I News and Journal Articles HEADLINE: Wireless Systems Put Out Their Antennas The New York Times May 27, 1996, Monday, Late. Edition -Final BODY: The race is on for the high ground: buildings, trees, water towers, church steeples, any place with a clear view and a sturdy spot'to anchor an antenna. In recent auctions, 107 companies spent. a combined $18 billion on .licenses to offer new wireless systems, called personal communications services, or P.C.S. Already, some of these services, using licenses auctioned last year,-are operating, carrying not only telephone conversations but data and paging signals_ It took 13 years. for cellular companies to build the nation's 17,000 cellular antennas; wireless services: plan to put up at least 100,000 more over the next nine years. P.C.S. antennas can be lower than cellular ones, but the shorter range of P.C.S. signals requires that the antennas be no farther apart. than six miles -- in dense urban' areas, no more than a mile. By contrast, cellular antennas now are 6 to 12 miles apart. The new demand for antennas, however, coincides with a chorus of complaints by groups rebelling against`the proliferating towers. The battles promise to be nothing but profitable fir a small but growing industry of companies like Unisite Inc., which serves as a middleman between antenna-hungry communications giants and antenna-phobic localities. Some of the creative tactics~involved have shown up in the Washington area, where a P.C'.S. system is already operating. While building the system, which began service in November, American Personal Communications Inc. of Bethesda, Md., known as A.P.C., won permission to install an antenna at Langley High School in McLean, Va., in exchange for lighting the baseball field. Here in Fairfax, outside Washington, the carrier leased a pole site for $1,200 a month from the Brandywine Swim Club, a neighborhood pool that can now replace its cracked decks and 25-year-old filter. "This just dropped out of the sky," Robert J. Griendling, the club's president, said of the windfall. "I didn't even know A.P.C. existed." .Given the infant industry's financial, technical and competitive pressures -and resources --~ cities and counties find. that they have a lot of leverage. The equation for a communications giant is fairly simple.- Take SprintSpectrum, apartnership of the Sprint Corporation and three cable television companies that bid $2.2 billion for licenses and expects to spend almost as much. on construction. The company says it hopes to begin offering service. by the end of this. year in most of its 32 markets. A new tower typically costs $275,000. A rooftop site might cost $150,000, and an antenna and transmitter can be added to an existing tower for $100,000 or less, according to .figures gathered by Unisite. So a cooperative community can cut a company's construction costs significantly. A hostile one might not be able to block a tower entirely -Federal law does not allow localities to ban wireless service -- but opposition can cause costly delays. "The companies are sort of coming on bended knee," said Thomas S. Dombrowsky, a serriior engineer for the Federal Communications Commission, which ran the P.C.S. auction. "The local governments can make them.. jump through hoops." So the large communications companies, already worrying about technical details and competition, are often hiring the small companies to find homes for their antennas. These companies, in turn; are responding creatively. In Atlanta, a cellular transmitter is hidden in the sign for a gas station offlnterstate 285. Antennas also lurk inside the signs for a restaurant i:n Denver and a motel in Harrisburg, Pa. Those were brainstorms of Stealth Network Technologies Inc. of Charleston, S.C., which is negotiating with several states to hide transmitters in highway signs. "Instead of a big pole with a huge antenna, we can build a nice clock tower or a steeple with chimes," said Daniel M. Compton, the company's senior manager for national accounts. The roll-out of P.C.S. is also a boon to owners of high-rise buildings. Building managers ~;et constant calls from brokers promising $1,000 a month or more for roof rights. "It's a sellers' market," said Gerard Lavery Lederer, a vice president of the Building Owners and Managers Association International in Washington. "With the backlash over towers, people are recognizing the beauty of buildings. We call it rooftop revenue." Telecom Towers Inc. of Arlington, Va., has contracts to put cellular and P.C.S. antennas on 200 office buildings in the Washington area and owns 160 towers of its own, scattered around the South and Midwest. "The profit margins are very high," said Clark T. Madigan, the president. "It's not people-intensive, and many of the costs are fixed." Perhaps the biggest coup was engineered by Unisite, atwo-year-old company in Richardson, Tex., that monthwas awarded a contract to manage antenna sites at the nation's 35,000 post offices. "Sometimes you're thinking just half a step ahead. of everyone else," said Unisite's chairman, Mark S. Fowler, who was F.C.C. chairman from 1981 to198'7. The United States Postal Service said Unisite had been chosen over 13 other bidders mainly because of its expertise in clustering several antennas at one site without interference. Dennis E. Wamsley, the .Postal. Service's realty asset manager, said that although he did not have precise • projections, the agreement was expected to bring the Postal Service millions of dollars in leasing fees. Most post offices are too low for their roofs to provide good wireless sites, so poles will be built in the parking lots, raising the chances of local opposition. But "a tower can be-away iFor the community to bite the bullef once and be done with it," Mr. Wamsley said. Local controversies over sites are expected to continue for a long time. "There's this perception that there's going to be this blight on the landscape, and an erosion of property values," said Sheldon R. Moss, an executive at the Personal Communications Industry Association, a group in Alexandria, Va., that represents P.C.S. licensees. "We probably have not done a good enough job educating people about the benefits of these services." The industry maintains that the towers are harmless. But emotional debates have often been prompted by residents' fears-- based on inconclusive evidence--.that low-level electromagnetic radiation from the antennas might. increase their risk of getting cancer. "You can throw a lot of money at these things, but there's a certain percentage that you can't resolve," said Ann W. Ciabattoni, the marketing coordinator for Arcnet, a company in Holmdel, N.J., that specializes in site design for wireless operations. "Everyone has gotten a lot. more savvy to the_ implications." A court recently endorsed one city's resistance to the towers. On May 3, Judge William L. Dwyer of United States District. Court in Seattle upheld asix-month moratorium on permits for wireless towers that had been passed in February by the city council of nearby Medina, Wa.~h. The small lakefront: city contains sites crucial to local P.C.S. companies because it lies. along a main commuter_ highway. In Whitemarsh Township, Pa., a suburb of Philadelphia, Comcast Metrophone went. through 16 zoning hearings, then was denied a permit for a cellular tower. Comcast later offered to go undercover with its tower and quickly received approval St. Peter's Lutheran Church, a hilltop parish where colonial troops once spied on the British, now has .a bell tower with a golden cross on top -and an antenna inside. For a hint of the stakes in the antenna wars, consider the tiny Cabin John Park Volunteer :Eire Department in Potomac, Md., outside Washington. The station has a sight line overthe Potomac River into Virginia. 'The department's treasurer, Eugene F. Roesser Jr., said American Personal Communications had approached the department in March 1994 and offered $500 a month fora 150-foot tower and started paying, even without an agreement. By August, the two sides were talking about $2,600 a month fora 180-foot tower. In September, A.P.C. offered a choice of $2,570 a month for 250 feet or $1,750 for 180 feet.:By November; it was $2,600 for 190 feet. In January 1995, it went up to $3,000. Community opposition built, and by May 1995 they were. talking about a 120-foot tower with two whip antennas for $2,000 a month. "It was. nuts. It was like buying a car,'.' Mr. Roesser said. In December, A.P.C. dropped out of the bidding. But by then, the company had paid the volunteers $13,000, which is socked away toward a new pumper. Last month, Mr. Roesser got a letter from a site hunter for Bell Atlantic Nynex Mobile. He said he was ready to talk. GRAPHIC: Photos: The new bell tower on St. Peter's Lutheran Church in Whitemarsh Towmship, Pa., contains a cellular antenna.. At right,... a typical wireless antenna. (Chris. Gardner for The New York Times). (pg. 29); Beneath an American Personal Communications antenna, students. at Langley High School in McLean, Va., relax before a physical education class. The company agreed to light the school's baseball field. (Amy Thompson for The New York Times) (pg. 34) Copyright 1996 The New York Times Company SECTION: Section 1; Page 29; Column 3 Business/Financial Desk LENGTH:. 1444 words BYLINE:. By MII~E ALLEN DATELINE: FAIRFAX, Va. LANGUAGE: ENGLISH LOAD-DATE: May 27, 1996 HEADLINE: Town In Washington State Spurs Legal Test. of Federal Tower Siting Provisions With Moratorium on Antenna Permits PCS Week May 15, .1996. BODY: Sprint Spectrum L.P. is exploring all options after a federal judge recently upheld a temporary moratorium on the installation of cellular phone antennas imposed by Medina, Wash., a rustic suburb of Seattle. In February, the townof 3,000: ordered a moratorium on the awarding of permits for wireless communications facilities, including antenna towers. It applies only to new permits, not applications already being processed, and is scheduled to expire Aug. 12. With the moratorium, town officials are seeking to buy time while weighing what to do about maintaining the aesthetics of the local area in the face of PCS, cellular and specialized mobile radio (SMR) operators seeking permission to install antennas. Through mid-April, Medina officials said, five wireless ervice providers "have expressed desire" to locate one or more facilities within. the town limits; more requests .are. expected. The town also cited"potential health hazards" as a reason for declaring the moratorium. The move by the Medina City Council has',drawn the attention of the wireless industry because adoption of the moratorium came within days of the enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the federal law that contained industry-backed language designed to clarify procedures for siting towers. Medina is one of several communities that are sticking by their local zoning ordinances over the issue of antennas and towers, thereby testing the law's siting provision. "It certainly sets a precedent that others. could follow," acknowledged Ed Mattix, spoke;srnan for Sprint Spectrum, the PCS limited partnership made up of Sprint Corp. and three of the nation's largest cable television companies. Ina 10-page ruling made public May 3, U.5. District Judge William Dwyer turned down a request fora preliminary injunction sought by Sprint Spectrum, which paid more than $105 million to acquire the B-block license for the 21-county Seattle major trading area in last year's FCC auction. Sprint Spectrum, in arguing for an injunction, said Medina's moratorium "threatesns..irreparable harm" by holding up its efforts to install base stations throughout western Washington. state, according to Dwyer's order. .Meter's Running for Sprint Spectrum Expanding on this, Mattix said Sprint Spectrum is losing''around $2 million a month" whiffle the moratorium is in effect. However, it has caused no slippage in the partnership's PCS buildout schedule to date. The Kansas City, Mo.-based company. expects to turn on service there this fall, he said. Sprint Spectrum also is seeking unspecified damages and other relief from Medina. Dwye~r's May 3 ruling does nothing to prevent this suit from moving forward, and a hearing before the judge is set for May. 27 in Seattle. Western Wireless Corp., with both cellular and PCS interests, and SMR .operator Nextel Communications Inc. filed amici curiae (friends of the court) briefs. ... Antenna Farm' Fears Located adjacent to Lake Washington and a heavily traveled.highway, Medina is the scene. of an unusually high amount of cellular traffic; town officials are fearful of it becoming an "antenna farm. ".But in their court brief, they said the moratorium will expire as scheduled, once the six months are up in August. In the meantime, Mattix said, :Sprint .Spectrum will continue to seek a mutually satisfactory agreement outside the courtroom that will permit the company to move forward with the sitting of one or two antennas in the tows. Sprint Spectrum based its request for an .injunction on the assertion that Medina's moratorium violates jurisdictional provisions of the Telecommunications Act and the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1993. Dwyer took a different view, saying Medina's moratorium "is not a prohibition on wireless facilities, nor does it have a prohibitory effect...Nothing in the record suggests that this is other. than a necessary and bona fide effort to act carefully in a field with rapidly evolving technology. Nothing in the moratorium would prevent Sprint's application, or anyone else's., from being granted." COPYRIGHT 1996 Phillips Business Information, Inc. Copyright 1996 Information Access Company, a Thomson Corporation Company IAC (SM) Newsletter Database (TM) Phillips Business .Information, Inc. SECTION: No. 20, Vol. 7; ISSN: 1080-7187 LENGTH: 694 words LANGUAGE: ENGLISH IAC-ACC-N0:3182048 LOAD-DATE: May 21, 1996 HEADLINE: Phone tower guidelines clear panel; But some residents say wording on health risks, aesthetics softened The San Francisco Examiner May 24, 1996, Friday; Second Edition BODY:. Seeking to minimize visual clutter and ease fears of health dangers, the Planning Commission has adopted guidelines for placing. new-style cellular phone antennae atop San Francisco buildings. The commission adopted the 44-page guidelines on a 5-1 vote Thursday, disregarding critics who said. they didn't do enough to prevent eyesores that could emit hazardous radiation and violate height limits. Commissioner Kelly Hayden cast the sole dissenting vote, objecting to technical wording. Commission President Susan Lowenberg recused herself because she owns stock in Pacific Bell, which is applying for 35 cellular sites. Urging immediate passage of the.guidelines, Vice President Hector.Chinchilla said, "Something has to be done quickly. Without this we have nothing to guide us." The commission already has .approved applications by Pacific Bell Mobile Services to install transmitting antennae at seven locations. Several of the sites are awaiting appeal before the Board of Supervisors, where Supervisor Sue Bierman is urging that The City create a telecommunications commission to oversee further requests. Besides Pac Bell, companies that have pending antennae applications are Cellular One, GTE Mobilnet, Sprint: Spectrum and Nextel. The guidelines are "the most stringent anywhere in California,".said Pac Bell spokesman Howard Wexler, who said the company had. nothing to do with drawing them up. But resident Mary Irene Zemanek .criticized them as lacking teeth. .Charging that the guidelines' wording had been softened from a previous draft, Zemanek said, " "Criteria' has been changed to "preference'; "require' changed to "encourage.' " Raising the health issue, Twin Peaks activist Ramona Albright complained that new cellular antennae have been attached to the Sutro Tower which, she insisted, is licensed to emit signals only for four television stations.. Among the sample guidelines: Antennae should be as inconspicuous as possible. ~~I Rooftop clutter should be minimal.. ~ij If the proposed antennae are "out-of-scale," they should be designed as art. Barriers should be erected to limit access to the transmitting devices to deter mischief makers. Federal Communications Commission restrictions regarding health should be followed. Applicants must disclose if public views of landmarks or vistas are affected. Neighboring. owners and tenants within 300 feet must be notified of applications. The antennae. are for New. age "digital" wireless phones, which are said to provide clearer reception han the analog transmission cellular phones used now. Planners are expecting applicationsfor some 300 antenna sites over the next decade. Copyright 1996 The Hearst Corporation SECTION: NEWS; Pg. A-12 LENGTH: 600 words SOURCE; EXAMINER URBAN PLANNING WRITER BYLINE: GERALD D. ADAMS LANGUAGE: English LOAD-DATE: May 25, 1996 HEADLINE: Postal Service Opens 35,000 Properties to Cell Sites Mobile Phone News May 27, 1996 BODY: UniSite Inc. teamed up with the United States Postal Service to open up more than 35,000 postal service properties to cell site construction. The two organizations signed an agreement to develop sites engineered for collocation of multiple wireless operators' equipnnent. UniSite will oversee the buildout of the sites, which is expected to proceed quickly because of the uniform procedures set by the agreement. The agreement marks one of the first under President Clinton's initiative set forth last August to open federal lands to wireless tower siting (MPN, Aug. 21, 1995). "We are very pleased with this agreement because it seems like a very logical.. place for siting towers in a community," said Pam. Small, spokeswoman for the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association. Richardson, Texas-based UniSite was formed to develop and manage sites that multiple wireless providers can share, regardless of technology differences.. The company manages a database of its sites nationwide. The database, InSite, provides design details, availability status, photos and program management data. Its RF engineering products ensure that no interference.-will occur among users of a site, the company said.: COPYRIGHT 1996 Phillips Publishing Inc. Copyright 1996 Information Accesa Company, a Thomson Corporation Company IAC (SM) Newsletter Database (TM) Phillips Business Information Inc. SECTION: No. 22, Vol. 14; ISSN: 0737-5077. LENGTH: 221 words LANGUAGE: ENGLISH IAC-ACC-NO: 3194313 LOAD-DATE: May 29, 1996 >EIEADLINE: FCC Wants Less Paper, More Resolutions PCS Week May 22, 1996 BODY: "So few days, so many. dockets," is the FCC's reaction to the Telecommunication.> Act of 1.996 that. was enacted last February,. according to Blair Levin, the commission's chief of staff. Levin spoke at the Personal Communications Industry Association's (PCIA) Spring Government Conference in Washington last week. Levin explained that in order to best .state their cases at the FCC, companies will have to' present their :views in a concise, simplified manner, leaving out all the history behind an issue that can jumble up the presentation of views and wants. Also, he said that with the work load each FCC employee is burdened with, the best way to get their attention is to offer a solution. He said that if someone comes into his office to lobby, he gives him/her 15 minutes tops, but if he/she has a solution, he will give him/her unlimited time. Levin. recommends resolving dif-ferences with adversaries and then presenting that :resolution to the FCC. He said that those agreements will go to the front of the line. "I urge you to craft solutions that work for you and. your.. adversaries, especially since your adversaries. maybe allies" on other issues, Levin said. On the topic of interconnection, the commission is considering folding its commercial mobile radio service- local exchange carrier mutual compensation proceeding into its interconnection proceeding initiated by the Act. Another speaker, R. Michael Senkowski, a partner in the Washington law firm of Wiley, 1[~ein & Fielding, said that while the interconnection decision will be made Aug. 8, he expects the battle will'continue well beyond that date. ...Local Regulators: Need More Information on Act According to Reuven Carlyle, external affairs manager for AT&T Wireless Services Inc.'s messaging division, local governments have a tremendous need for information on how the Telecom Act affects them. Carlyle .suggested to Levin during the PCIA conference that the FCC put together a fact sheet on how the Act affects zoning of wireless towers and facilities. Levin responded enthusiastically, suggesting that the wireless industry get together with local and estate governmental bodies and the FCC to hash out the meaning of the act. ...Tower-Siting Case Study: Medina, Washington The following example was given during the PCIA breakout session on tower siting; it illustrates how some municipalities need more information on the Act. Five days after the Telecom .Act was passed, the city of Medina, Wash., passed asix-month moratorium on special use permits .for wireless communications facilities. Fearing significant revenue loss due to deployment delays caused by the moratorium, Sprint Spectrum filed a complaint in March.. In its complaint, Sprint Spectrum sought an injunction and .damages, citing that the moratorium violated the Telecom Act and the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. Nextel Communications Inc. and Western Wireless filed amicus curiae ("friend of the court") briefs in support of the complainant. The court found that the Act preserves Medina's authority and that moratoria are valid as a zoning tool. Also,. the. court decided that the moratorium did not, as Sprint Spectrum had argued, prohibit the development of personal wireless services but rather was ashort-term suspension to allow Medina to review the issue. The court also said that Medina had not discriminated. against the new entrant and that thE; two incumbent cellular carvers would face the same situation if they tried to enter the market now. The court ruled that the moratorium did not violate~the 1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliattion Act, which bars municipalities from regulating the entry of mobile services into a market. The court rejected Sprint Spectrum's interpretation of the legislation, saying that the interpretation "implies .that federal. law bars any rejection. by local government of a zoning variance for siting of a wireless facility while the Telecom Act expressly preserves city and state zoning authority," according to a summary issued at the PCIA session. Regardless of the outcome of the court case, it is clear that there are different interpretations of the new Act and a need for information on the part of municipalities about the.future needs of the wireless market--i.e. the number of licensees that will soon be building new facilities. ...More Communication Needed Some municipalities are feigning ignorance of the tower siting provisions of the Telecom .Act, while others are rewriting their zoning regulations, according to Wendimarie Haven, president of site acquisition company Airtel Communications and a PCIA conference panelist. Still others acknowledge the Act's provisions, but have chosen not to make any changes in zoning laws. Montgomery.County, Md., threw out its "antiquated" zoning laws, replacing them with laws taking siting of wireless facilities into account, said Dennis Canavan of the Montgomery County Planning Department, another panelist. He said that the planning division was deluged with monopole requests, which. prompted them to revise the zoning ordinances. Canavan said a government's biggest fear is no planning behind tower placement. Other panelists agreed, citing the need for better communication between municipalities and wireless carvers. Steve Markendorff, chief of the broadband branch in the Common Carrier Bureau, said that companies should give governments the engineering details--like why a site must be put in one place rather than tagged onto an existing site 50 yards away. * It is crucial to explain to government officials how wireless services benefit voters because wireless is not. perceived as a mass consumer product, said Karen Brink-mann, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau associate chief. * The need to explain how tower site approval will not hurt an elected official's re-election prospects is apparent in the following example. According to panelist Dick Stewart of Grid Towers, one government official said he would rather have a federal judge mandate approval of a tower site because the judge does not have to worry about getting re-elected like he does. COPYRIGHT 1996 Phillips Business Information, Inc. ~; Copyright 1996 Information Access Company, a Thomson Corporation Company IAC. (SM) Newsletter Database (TM) Phillips Business Information, Inc. I' SECTION: No. 21, Vol. 7; ISSN: 1080-7187 LENGTH: 1040 words LANGUAGE:. ENGLISH IAC-ACC-NO: 3191686 LOAD-DATE: May 24, 1996 Part II Greensboro Agreement HEADLINE: City Turning Towers Into Cash Source News & Record (Greensboro, NC) Apri129, 1996, Monday, ALL EDITIONS BODY: You may not want one in your backyard, but those communications towers are making money for Greensboro. Communication towers springing up alongside Greensboro roadways are becoming a revenue source for the-city. In a unique agreement between the city and private businesses, Greensboro officials have worked out a plan to lease city land for cellular and radio tower construction. As a part of the plan, the city also has enticed companies to share towers, a move designed to reduce the number of monopoles and lattice-type towers erected in Greensboro. Already, GTE/Mobilnet and BellSouth share space on a .350-foot city radio tower in northwest Greensboro. Soon, AT&T and Bell South will share two other existing towers in Greensboro. BellSouth also plans to build a tower on city property that will accommodate two other companies as well. The city, which will maintain the tower once it is built, stands to make as much as $ 1.2 million by leasing the site for the next 20 years. Greensboro general services .director Mitchell Johnson said the idea for. partnerships between the city and the communications companies evolved as cellular telephone use increased and the companies began seeking multiple sites. to erect towers. Susan Rabold, the city employee responsible for reviewing site requests, was bombarded with site applications. "It just didn't make sense to her for all these people to put up their own tower," Johnson said. "She started saying, 'You need to co-locate.' " Rabold provided the companies with the locations of existing towers in the city. She also .identified city facilities, such as fire stations and water towers, that could accommodate communication transmitters. What she found was that the city already had facilities in most areas where the companies needed to locate. It made sense from a business standpoint, Johnson said, to allow them to put antennaes and towers on top of the existing structures: It also made sense, he said, to lease them vacant city property to erect new towers. "These towers are going to go somewhere," Johnson said. "If it's going to go up, we might as well do it on city property where; even though it's an eyesore, the citizen is getting some benefit from it." The Greensboro program has drawn attention from other North Carolina cities. Johnson said representatives from Charlotte have called requesting information about the partnership. In High Point, officials are considering a policy to allow. communication transmitters atop city water towers. BellSouth regional director Jim Belk said the companies benefit by not having to seek out land and persuade the owner to lease. The city sites already are identified, and the landowner is reputable, he said. "We know we have a reliable partner in the city," Belk. said. "We know they're not going. anywhere." The agreement works like this: The city leases land to a communications company, such .as GTE, which constructs a tower. on the site. The tower -usually between 150 and 200 feet tall - must be built to accommodate transmitters for at least three companies. Once the tower is completed, it is turned over to the city for maintenance. The city leases the other spaces on the tower to other companies. Each company pays a fee to the.city for the site. The city now is actively seeking tenants and has talked with representatives from Bell. South, AT&T, GTE, Sprint Cellular and Dial Call. The money the city collects by leasing tower sites is returned to the city for capital development.. At least one city employee has benefited financially as well:. Rabold, who initiated the idea, was cited by the city's Employee Recognition Committee on Tuesday for suggesting a way to increase revenue for the city. As a reward for her enterprise,,Rabold received a check for $ 3,300 - 1/10th of the money her plan has generated for the city so far. Copyright 1996 News & Record (Greensboro, NC) SECTION: TRIAD/STATE, Pg. B1 CLTY OF GREENSBORO NORTH CAROLINA P.O.80~; 3138 GREENS80R0, MC 2?4Q2-3136 Date 04-23-9b To City Manager ~7-~ groin : Director. of•General Services Subject Present Tower Lease Revenues Per your request the following report will outline the contracts we have in place and he known revenues from these contracts. I will also briefly mention the probable contracts'which we expect to execute in the near future. GTE / Mobilnet Cellular Lease on Forest Lawn Tower: One Time Payment of $215,000 First Year @ $1,200 per month = S 14,404 Next Six Years @ $2,0.25 per month.= 5145,800 Next Fourteen Years g $2,025 (if requested}= $340,200 Total for Full.Tventy-one Year_Lease =5615,400 BellSouth PCS Lease on Forest Lawn Tower: First. Option First Three Year Upfront @ 518,000 Per Yr.= $ S 5.00 54,000 Next Tvo Year @ $18,0100 Per Yr. = Term (W/O CPZ Increase) _ S $ 36,000 90,C100* Second Five Year Third Five Year Term (W/O CPI Increase) _ $ 90,000* Fourth Five Year Term (W/O CPZ Increase) _ _ a $ $ 90,0100; c?00* 90 Fifth Five Year Te=m (W/O se) CPI Incre , Total for Full Tvaaty-tine Year Lease = $;50,500* *These totals do not include the required CPS increase which will be computed With each five year extension! oe3_.9oa ,Total To-data fo the forest Lawn Toner Bite = S1. He115outh PAS Lease on Muirs Chapel Rd. Water Tower First Option S 500 First Threes Year Upfront @ 515,000 Per Yr.= S 45,OC)0 Next Two. Year @ 515,000 Per Yr. = $ 30,000 Second Five Year Term {W/O CPI Increase) _ $ 75,000* Third Five Year Term (~/O CPI Increase} _ $ '75,000* Fourth Five Year Term (W/O CPI Increase) _ S 75,OC)0= Fifth Five Year Tezm (W/O CPI~Increase) _ $ 75,000* Total for Pull Twenty-five Year Lease = $3?5,5~10* *Theee totals do not include the required CPI increase which will be computed with each five year extension! BellSouth PCS Relocation of City 2 Gh2 Microwave hop from Coliseum to County EMS provided a new 6 Gh2 Digital system plus an upfront payment of - $ 51,341 The General Services Depart.~nent, in cooperation with the Planning Department, has been actively pursuing the lease of City facilities for approximately one year. Those efforts have ` generated a known income stream of $1,492,?51 over the next twenty-five years or approximately $59,710 per year. . In addition the City is holding a proposed contract for the construction of a BellSouth PCs tower on the Police Firing 32ange Property (which is already Zoned PI). This lease is unusual because it represents the first lease where the vendor is building a facility on City owned property. This style of l+aase is unusual for municipalities however it affords the City several benefits to the Citi2ens. - First, we require that the facility as constructed must be able to handle's minimum of three co-locations. This is to help minimize the number of towers located .in the area of the tower: - Second, we require that the .facility, once constructed, becomes the property of the City of Greensboro. This way all revenue from the second and third cQ-locations goes entirely to the City. With respect to the Air Harbor Rd. site the proposed agreement which is presently being recommended to the City Manager by General Services is as follows; First Option = S 500 If Accepted, _ S 60,000 Lease Start at end'of third..Year for .two years at S18,5,00 Per year = S 37,004 J Second Five Year Term (W/o CPI Increase} _ ~$, g2, 500* T2iird Five Year Term (W/O CPZ Increase). = S 92, 5CI0* Fourth Five Year Test (W/O CPI Increase} - $ 92, SGt0* Fifth Five Yea= Term (W/O CPI Increase}. = S 92, 500* Total !or Full. T9-enty-five Ysar Lease = $467,:00' *These totals do net include the required CPI increase which will be computed with each five year extension! Probable Second and Third Co-locations would generate approximately'$18,500 per year each for approximately 20 years or (estimated} an additional $740,000+ *These totals do not-include the required CPI increase which will be computed with each five year extension: as mueII as If this contract is executed the City would have a net. annual income for the next twenty five years from these three tower locations of $78,410. S~Tith'the probable cv-locations this could increase to 5208,010. Clearly this. entrepreneur effort on behalf of the City has clearly provided the Citizens of Greensboro with some benefit to offset the clearly undesirable aspects of Tower construction in the City. It is important to note that the towers would be constructed in any case at least under this scenario the City is in some way compensated. CC: Mona Edwards. Susan Rabold CO-LOCATION 4PT10N AND LICENSE AGREEMENT THIS aGREEM-ENT; entered into this day of ., ~ g between (hereinafter referred to as "LICENSOR") an (hereinafter referred to as "LICENSEE"). LICENSOR (holds leasehold interest inJ [owns] a certain parcel of property located at ,, County of ,City of _, State of ,more specifically described in Exhibit "A°, attached hereto. and made. a part hereof. (hereinafter .referred to as "the Licensed Premises") and LICENSOR owns a communication tower (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tower''} erected on the Licensed Premises'. LICENSEE desires to obtain an option to use certain designated space of the Licensed Premises. and the Tower as foifows: OPT10N NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the sum of Dollars (5 } (hereinafter referred to as the °'Option Money"), to be paid by LICENSEE to LICENSOR upon LICENSEE's execution of this Agreement, LICENSOR hereby grants to LICENSEE the exclusive right :and option (hereinafter referred to as the "Option"y to use designated space of the Licensed®Premises and the Tower in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth herein. Option Period. The Option may be exercised at any time on or ;prior to Z9 ' (the '°Option Period"). At LICENSEE's election, and upon LICENSEE's written notice to LICENSOR prior to expiration of the Op#ion Period, the Option .Period .may be further extended for an additional period. of six (6} months, through and including 19 with an additional payment ofi Dollars ($ _} by LICENSEE to LICENSOR for the extension of the Option Period. 7he', Option Period may be thereafiter further extended by mutual .agreement in writing. If ,LICENSEE fails to exercise the Option within the Qption Period, as it may thereafter be extended as provided herein, the Option .shall. terminate, alt rights and privileges granted hereunder shall be' deemed completely surrendered,. LICENSOR shall retain all. money paid for the Option,_ and no additional money shall be payable by either party to the other. Transfer of Option. The Option may be sold, assigned, or transferred at any time by LICENSEE, to LICENSEE'S parent company or any affiliate or .subsidiary of LICENSEE or its parent company or. to any third party agreeing. l:o be subject to the terms hereof. Otherwise, the Option may trot be sold, assigned or transferred without the written consent of LICENSOR; such consent not to be unreasonably withheld. From arzd after the date the Option has been sold, assigned or transferred by LICENSEE ko a third party agreeing to be subject to the terms hereof, LICENSEE shall. immediately be released from any sand all liability under this Agreement. including the payment of any rental or other sums due. without any further action ' Changes in Property Outing Option Period. If during the Option Period or any extension thereof, or during the term. of this ~Agraement if the Option is exercised,. LICENSOR decides to~ subdivide, sell yr change the status. of the zoning of the. Licensed Premises or the other real .property. of LICENSOR contiguous to, surrounding, or in the vicinity of the Property {"LICENSOR's Surrounding Property"), LICENSOR shall immediately notify LICENSEE in writing. Any safe of he licensed Premises of the Tower shall be subject to LtCENSEE's rights under this. Agreement. LICENSOR agrees that during the Option Period or any extension thereof, or during. the term of this Agreement if the Option is exercised., LICENSOR shall not initiate or consent to any change in the zoning.. of the Licensed Premises or LICENSOR's Surrounding Property or impose or consent io any change in the zoning of the. Licensed Premises or LICENSOR's Surrounding Property or impose or consent to .any other restriction th2t would prevent or limit LICENSEE from using the licensed Premises for the uses intended by LICENSEE: as hereinafter set forth in this AGREEMENT. Title.. LICENSOR warrants that LICENSOR is seized of good and marketable title to the Licensed Premises and the Tower and has the full power and authority to enter into and execute this Agreement. LICENSOR. further warrants .that there are no deeds to secure debt. mortgages, liens or judgments encumbering the licensed Premises and the Tower except as set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto, and that there are no other encumbrances on the title to the Licensed Premises ar the Tower, except,,as set forth on Exhibit 8 attached herzto that would prevent LICENSEE from using the Licensed Premises for the uses intended by LICENSEE as hereinafter set forth in this Agreement: lnsoectians. LICENSOR shall permit LICENSEE during the Option Period, and any extension .thereof, free ingress .and egress to_the Licensed Premises or the Tower by LICENSEE and its employees, agents and contractors to conduct structural strength analyses, subsurface boring tests, radio. frequency tests and such other tests, investigations and similar activities as LICENSEE .may deem necessary, at the sole cost of LICENSEE. LICENSEE and its employees, agents,. and contractors shall have the right to bring the necessary vehicles and equipment onto .the Licensed Premises or the Tower and the Licensor's Surrounding Property to conduct such tests, irnrestigations and similar activltieS. Surveys. LICENSOR also hereby grants to LICENSEE the right to survey the Licensed Premises and LICENSOR's Surrounding Property, and the legal description of the Licensed Premises on the. surrey obtained by LICENSEE shall then: become Exhibit "C", which shall be attached hereto and made a part hereof, and shall control in the event of discrepancies between it and Exhibit'`A". 9.3•?~ z Governmental Approvals. LICENSEE'S ability to use the Licensed Premises and the Tower is contingent upon its obtaining aid certificates, permits, and other approvals that may be required by any federal, state or tocai authorities.. tf requested by LiCENS7EE, any such applications may be fried. with respect to, not only. the Licensed. Premises; but also t_tCENSQR's Surrounding Property. LICENSEE will perform all other acts and hear at! expenses. associated with any zoning or other procedure necessary to obtain .any certificate, permit, license or approval for the Licensed Premises deemed necessary by LICENSEE. LICENSOR agrees not to register any written or verbal opposition to any such. procedures... Exercise of Qption. LICENSEE shall exercise the Option by written notice to LICENSOR by certified rnai(, return receipt requested... The notice shall be deemed effective on the date it is posted. Ort and-after the date of such notice, this Agreement shall also constitute a lease agreement between LICENSOR and LICENSEE on the following terms and conditions: L1C€NSE AGREEMENT 1. Premises: LICENSOR hereby licenses to LICENSEE space on the Tower to the extent necessary to enable LICENSEE to erect, maintain and: operate ( )antenna as pare of its communications .system. Oesci-iption of .antenna(s):: ( -~ antenna {or equivalent) mounted on a sidemount Location on Tower. The ~, foot. - foot level of,the Tower. The exact location on the Tower will be determined in conjunction with. LICEN;SOR's enc~ineers so as to .avoid interference with any of LIC.ENSOR's, 'fighting equipment, cables, lines, antennas andlor any. other property of LICENSOR. located on the Tower and licensed premises,: as may be applicable. LICENSOR grants to LICENSEE permission to attach necessary transmission tines, rabies, antennas, fixtures, and other associated equipment to the Tower to make said antenna operational. LICENSEE wilt provide all. mounting hardware necessary for i#s installation. LICENSOR also licenses to LICENSEE a foot by foot ~° x ~;) area of land, ..being a portion of the (icensed, premises, as .described and Cepicted ion the attached Exhibit "A", far locating certain equipment described as 93-95 LICENSOR shall allow LICENSEE to pour a foot by foot L ' x ') concrete ..pad within this designated~~ kcensed area and place an unmanned equipment shelter within the .designated area which has been specifically descrii~ed on Exhibit "A" and LICENSEE must obtain. prior written .approval pursuant to the terms and conditions serforth in Paragraph 7 of this Agreement. LICENSEE-shall furnish, to its unmanned. equipment shelter, electric service for the operation of UCENSEE's communications equipment L1C€NSEE shall be solely liable for electricity .expenses relating to its installation and equipment. LICENSEE's el+ectt'ical service shall. be separately .metered, and LICENSEE shall be responsible for all costs associated with metering, including the cost of installing any meter. LIGENSQR shall provide 24 hour, 7 days per week access to LICENSEE for maintenance purposes. ' 2. T^ erm: .This Agreement shall commence .upon the. earlier of the start of construction of the equipment shelter and pad or the installation of the antenna on the Tower, which date shall be .provided to LICENSOR. in writing ,within ten (10) days following the start and which written notice shall. automatically. become a part of this license. .This Agreement shall then run for a period of L 1 years, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in Paragraph ~ 5 hereof. 3. R~ Beginning es of the commencement date of this Agreement as defined in Paragraph 2 above, LICENSEE: shall. pay as an annual license fee, in advance, the sum of and no1100 Dollars (S __,,,_Z Said sum shall be paid Dy LICENSEE on the anniversary. of the commencement dale each year thereafter throughout the term of this Agreement. 4. Extension of Term. LICENSEE shall have the option to extend the term of this Agreement for four (4) additional .consecutive five (S) year periods. Each. option for. an extended term shall be deemed automatically .exercised without. notice by LICENSEE to LICENSOR unless LICENSEE gives LICENSOR written notice of its intention not to exercise any such option, in which case, the term of this Agreement shall expire. at the end of the then current term. Ail references herein to the term of this Agreement shat{ inGude the term as it is extended as provided in this Agreement. 9-8-95 The annual rental for the extended terms shall be as follows: Extended Term ~ Annual. Rental 1st $ 2nd ~ 3rd ~ 4th ~ The annual rental for the extended terms shall be payable .in the same manner as the annual rental for the initial term.. if at the end of the. initial term this Agreement has not been terminated by either party, this Agreement shall continue in force upon the same covenants, temps and conditions .for a further annual term, and. for annual terms thereafter until termin~~ted by either party. LICENSEE..may terminate this .License Agreement after the initial term by providing a mfiimum of ninety (90} day advance written notice to LICENSOR of its intention to terminate upon the expiration of .the then current #erme The annual .yenta( fee for each additional renewal period shalt be equal to the annual rental fee paid for the immediate previous term and increased by percent ~%~~ and same .increase shall apply each year thereafter should this Agreement be renewed. 5. Tower Studies. LICENSEE agrees to reimburse LICENSER for the cost of al! necessary Tower studies determining feasibility of Tower loading due to LIGENSEE's antenna Should Tower modifcation be required, the cost of ail such modifications shall be borne by LICENSEE. LICENSEE shalt submit plans and specifcations to LICENSOR for written approval prior to commencement of any modification... LICENSOR shall..-conduct a Tower inspection upon completion of modification to -insure warty .compliance. Should Tower inspection identify nonconforming work, LICENSEE sha11 correct such nonconforming work after which LICENSOR wil4 conduct another Tower inspecaion to approve: the .corrections. Cost of the aforementioned.. Tower.. inspections anti work corrections shall be at the sole cost and expense of LICENSEE and she!! be conducted pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in Paragraph 7 of this Agreement. 6. A_earovals. LICENSEE is respon$ible for obtaining all necessary Federal, State and focal governmental approvals.. 7, hstailation Plans. LICENSEE, without liability of any kind. to LICENSOR, may commence worn only after LICENSOR has approved all plans and specifcations in writing. LICENSOR's approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. LICENSEE agrees to comply. with. all of LICENSOR's reasonable requirements. LICENSOR shall have the option to consult with LICENSEE'S contractor prior to any installation andlor maintenance that will require access to the Tower structure. 8. Standard for Performance. LICENSEE. at its sole cost. and expense. shall cause the approved work to be done and completed in a good, substantial and workmanlike .manner, .free from fau,its and defects, and in compliance with .all legs( requirements, and shall utiiiz°_ only first class materials and supplies. LICENSEE shall be solely responsible for construction means, .methods, techniques, sequences and procedures, and for coordinating all activities related o the work.': 9. Payments of Cosis and Expenses. LICENSEE shall provide and pay for ail labor, materials, goods and supplies,equipment, appliances, tools, construction equipment and machinery and other facilities ana services necessary for the proper execution and completion of the work. LICENSEE shall promptly .pay when due al{ costs and expenses incurred in connection with the work. :LICENSEE shall pay ap safes, consumer, yse and similar taxes .required by law in connection with the work, and shall secure and pay for all permits, fees and licenses necessary for the performance of the work. 10. Licensor's Repairs. LICENSOR will make at its expense all necessary repairs and replacements, as welt as alternations required by any govemmental authority having jurisdictiort in and to the Tower, unless the required repairs„ replacements, or alterations are solely. required for the ~ICENSEE's communication equipment located on the Tower and if so, the LICENSEE shall make, at its expense, all necessary repairs, replacements, and alterations as required 11, LICENSEE's Repairs. LICENSEE shall mai~ttain in a good state. of repair and in good _operating condition its antenna and transmitting and other equipment„ alt in accordance with good engineering practices and applicable govemmental rulES and regulations.. !n the event inspection, maintenance or repairs to LICENSEE`s antenna and equipment.., are required, LICENSEE shall. use qualified technicians and .submit for LICENSOR's approval the names of technicians or contractor proposed to.make necessary ascents and descents of t_ICENSOR's Tower. 12. Interference. LICENSOR and LICENSEE steal! at all times exercise the greatest care and judgment to prevent damage to the services of the other. LICEN~>EE will cause its engineers to verify by frequency search thaf its signal will not interfere. with radiating or receiving the. facilities of LICENSOR or others using LlCENS4R's property as of the date of execution of this 'License Agreement. In the event interference is encountered, LICENSEE and LICENSOR will exercise their best efforts to promptly and diligently resolve such problems immediately after notice of such interference. In the event LICENSEE is unsuccessful in its efforts to resolve the interference after a reasonable period {but not mare than 120 days),. LICENSOR may terminate his agreement without further liability to LICENSEE, except as provided below. Interference shall be deemed to be any interference which violates the terms ar~d conditions of transmitter licenses, andJor 9-8.45 b rules and regulations of the Federal Communications Commission andlor interference of LICENSOR's use, transmittal, or communications. 13. Indemnification. LICENSEE shall be liable for any damage. to the Tower or to any equipment located on the Tower or the New Tower arising out of ar in connection with LiCENSEE's use or occupancy of the Tower or the New Tower and Licensed Premises. and caused by the. negligence or willfut or intentional misconduct of its agents or employees. LICENSOR shall be liable far any damage to any of LICENSEE'S equipment located on the Tower or the New Tower arising out of or in connection with LICENSOR's use or occupancy of the Tower: or the New Tower and Licensed Premises. and caused by the negligence. or .willful. or intentional misconduct of its agents or employees. Each party agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the other party, from and .against any and all damages, liability, foss and claims for injuries to or Qe3th of person and for damages, liability. loss and claims to the licenses premises, appurtenances or approaches thereto, arising out of or in connection with such party's use or occupancy. of the Tower, the New. Tower and the Licensed Premises. 14. Contincaencies. This License. is contingent upon approval by regulating governmental authorities. In the event such approve( is withheld or subse~quen#ly withdrawn, or in the event that LICENSEE'S use of said'Tower is otherwise encumbered or determined to be inconsistent with the interest of LICENSOR's use of the premises, either party hereto, subject to all other terms and conditions of this agreement, shallfiave the right to terminate this license by ninety (90} days advance written notice to the other party by ninety. (90) days .advance written notice to the. other and said termination shall release LICENSOR and LICENSEE from all further obligations set forth .herein one to the other. In such event, LICENSEE shat! promptly remove, at LICENSEE°s cote.expense:-its antenna and`aIl other equipment and lines installed by or for the benefit of LICENSEE, 15. Termination. In the event that LICENSOR's leasehold interest in the liicensed property is canceled or terminated for any reason, this I~greement shall terminate as of the date of the termination of LIGENSOR's {easehold interest ar~d LICENSOR shall re>fund to LICENSEE, without interest, the pro-rata share of the rent dollars that have been paid in advance of any unexpired term hereunder. LICENSOR shall provide notice to LICENSEE of any, condition of default. under LICENSOR's tease of the Licensed Premises, or of the existence. of any condition which upon the passage of time or giving of notice. or both would became.. a breach under the lease, and LICENSEE shat! have the right. but not the obligation, to cure any such default under the lease. LICENSOR shall be liable to LICENSEE for any and all costs incurred in curing such default. 1fi. Default. Should LICENSEE tai to pay when due rent or<any.other amounts due LICENSOR hereunder or fail to cure any breach of any other provision of the License after sixty (60) days written. notice and demand. LICENSOR may terminate this License Agreement immediately, without further notice, and require LICENSEE to remove or cause 4.3.95 7 to be removed ail of the LICENSEE'S equipment.. LICENSEE shall, in such event, remain Enable for any and aN costs incurred for removal of LICENSEE'S .antenna, transmission lines and associated equipment from LICENSOR's Tower and far removal of associated structures from space provided. tCENSOR shat) not tae .liable for any damage to such equipment during its removal. 17. Surrender. of Premises. Upon expiration. or termination of .the License, LICENSEE, aC its own costs and expense, .shall completely'remove or have removed, a!I structures, including antennae:: and associated mounting brackets and transmission equipment and concrete foundations, fences .and other associated structures and arestore the Licensed Premises to its original condition, ordinary wear and tear excepted. If such time for removal causes LICENSEE to remain on -the .Licensed Premises and TowEar after the termination or expiration of this Agreement, LICENSEE shall pay rent at. the then existing monthly pro-rata basis, until such time ' as the removal of personal property and fixtures are completed 18. Assiynment. This Agreement may be sold, assigned or transferred at any time by .LICENSEE to LICENSEE's parent company or any affGate or subsidiary of LICENSEE or its parent company, to any successor entity with or into which LICENSEE is sold, merged orconsoiidated, or to any entity resulting from a reorganization of LICENSEE or its parent company or to any third party agreeing to be subject to the .terms hereof. Otherwise, this Agreement may not be sold, assigned, or transferred without the written .consent of the LICENSOR, such consent roof tv be unreasonably withheld. LICENSEE may sublease the Property, but wiN provide written notice to L{CENSOR cr flits sublease. 19. Notice. AU notices hereunder must be in writing and shall be deemed. valid, if sent by. certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed as follows, or sent to .any other address that the party to be notified may have designated to the sender by like notice; As to LICENSOR: Attention: As to LICENSEE: Gearon ~ Co., Inc. 2801 Yorivnont Road, Suite 150 Charlotte, North Carolina 28208 Phone: (704) 357-0355 20. Binding Agreement. This Agreement shall extend to and bind the heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns (when allowed to be assigned) of the parties hereto. e.a•es 8 --,,•. 23: Condemnation. if the whole of the .Licensed Premises or such portion tlhereof as will make the premises unusable for the puPposes herein licensed. are condemned by any legally constituted authority for any public use or purpose, or sold under threat tr~ereof, then in either of said events the term hereby granted shall cease from the time when possession of the Licensed Premises, incfusive of the Tower. is taken by pubic authorities, and rental shall be accounted for as between LICENSOR and LICENSEE as of that date on a pro-rata basis for rents paid in advance. Any lesser condernnatian shall in no way affect the respective rights and obligations of LICENSOR; and L1CEiVSEE hereunder. Nothing in this provision shall be construed to limit or affect LICENSEE's .right to an award of compensation of any eminent 'domain proceeding for the taking of UCENSEE's antenna and: equipment, if taken. 22. ProQerty Taxes.. LICENSOR shall be responsible for all property taxes due on the Licensed Premises: 23. Govemivny Laws. This License Atgreement and the performance thereof shall be governed, interpreted, construed. and regulated by the laws of the state wherein the Licensed Premises and the Tower are located. 24. Attomey Fees and Ccsts. In connection with any. enforcement action or litigation arising out of this Contract, the prevailing party, whether LICENSOR or LICENSEE shall be entitled to recover aft costs incurred including attorney's fees and legal assistant fees for services .rendered in connection therewith, including appellate proceedings and post.}udgment proceedings: 25, Final Agreement This Agreement represents the final agreement of the parties and no agreements or representations,-unless incorporated into this Agreement, ''~~ shalt be binding on any of the parties... The date of this Agreement shall be the day upon which. it becomes fully executed by all parties. ~8-95 iN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and affixed their respective seals the day and year first. above written. WITNESSES: LICENSOR: (SEAL) !SEAL) (SEAL) LICENSEE ~ . GEARON ~ CO., INC., a Georgia corporation 6y: . ~ Sue 8. Chapman, Asst. Vice President Attest: ~W. Maser, Secretary (CORPORATE SEAL) (USE IF LICENSOR (S AN INDIVIOUAL~ s.a•s5 !N WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set the'sr hands and affixed their respective seals the day and year first above w~ittene LICENSOR: ~y: ~,_, President Attest: Secretary CORPORATE SEAL) LICENSEE GEARON 8~ CO_, iNC,, a Georgia c®rporation ey: Sue 8. Chapman, Asst. Vice President Attest: K.W. Maser, Secretary (CORPORATE SEAL} iN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and .affixed their respective seals the day and year first above written, WITNESSES: LICENSOR: (SEAL) general partner SE~~L) general partner _ (SE}~l.) general partner LICENSEE GEAR4N ~ G~., 1NC.. a Georgia corporation 8y: Sue B. Chapman, Asst. Vice Prgsident Attest: K.W. Maser, Secretary (CORPQRATE SEAL) [USE 7F LICENSOR IS A PARTNERSHiPJ saes EXHtBiT °A" (The fetal description of the entire tract of land owned by Licensor to be attached EXH161T "8" :~ List all deeds to secure~Debts, Mortgages, liens or Judgments encumbering the Property. If none, please state "none". ~~ Lender. Loan Officer Name and Telephone Loan Number. Lim Judarts: ~.gs EXH16tT "C" Legal Description and Survey of the Property (3a be attached at a later date). ~~._... _ ~r , _ ~ ,. ~r •,aw: ? °':: :~ ~~ a s~ d ~ e.'s a. ~ ~• ~~:: a• ~ si• „vi: a;n• G~w~'. Q `a•. a:;~ IL { .r .... m ., d .ate ~ e. o. a ; a ~s,,: a ~. a a a a' a . a ~:. :, ae :.~r: ii : ~+;:: C •S;< O `.`. w. ,... .. .... , .• ;;., .. .,ll <• :M1. Q..~~• ~_ a~ H •: ., . oc A•: .. . .. . . ..... H , • ,. s ~ .. ... .. ... ~' x ... a o .. ... ... w . Q,• •~ ~ .. .. .. ... v ~. .. .v., ,. N~ .. ,.. .. .. ... .. .. o .. .~ a ". .. .... N .. .. Ci' .. .~ . . . .. ... .. . . ... .. ~• d ~ ... iu .. ..... dt' ~''sr p': (j .. . .. e .. :.. , .. :. .. oG ~ }, O •. l .. i • Q •: • ?~ ~ O v ~ ,. r, i • w ac . .. •, .. . . ... .. d ~. .. .~ N I I~~ .'~ aye a.. ~. • ~ Q.,.~, ~ ~ C d y ~+ M , ., . .. " i ' , r v • .. . . . i v .. r~ ... .. y ., .. a .. <a~,. .... .. .... f!f ,. .. .... ... a .. .: ~ d y ere O:.''i,: ri H ..a 0 y = a... , e,'•an O • O. ~ W ~' ~ y r M N •- ~ • 'w,•.^ ~ O;~~fO ~: ~Q5 $, ~ .~ r s~+`!r N~'~ .~ f ~ O ~ C .~: O ~f f ~ Q Al o Q 4 "p O to aif : N. ~n 'M • an ;:!f. X11 • . • r' • `:f; fL~ 1 cif ^ •... },...'.. •`s Z ~:.:' ±~- •d •::..: ~'F 7 i y ;~• O r ,~ •..~ p p Icl ..vs.~.c ~ ., ~ ~ 0. ~ ~' ~ a ,~ `~ ~ ~ • ~ :. `. a .~ p; < !~ `~ Z y ~ .~• tl• ~ ~ ~~~ ~•::~: 0 C}C ~ Z z '! v '~~' •~• E. a k~ ~ a . `r tort ~. •°•C>;' i Yi 'p ~ .. ~;:. ~p{ y 1 {1l d :~ Q `~• s +t ~ ;a R .;" ~ y: w -0; a aG ^ :. '~ > d ~ •~ a "~i' a•.e : ,,, G i ~ r' N .S Y a~ O'(O a. •~. •.=. ~• ~'~ E:~w ~.•i O •~ ~ aG Ja ia. Ur~ ~ v~ .~ ..i .~. d'.~' ~. ••lY..y ~ ~I _`+..a/ E~„ a 3 ~ T ~ •.~ ~ <.er.. s : a a. •'a. a .ae y yt ~ k~ ..h. 3 [~ ~ • ~ ~ *1 ~! ~ aR N ~' ~ ~ III ~ Z} New Construction in GO-M and G0-H: After the effective date of this Ordinance, a newly constructed private. dormitory in the Go-M or GO-H District shall be exempt from the density requirements of Table 30-a-5-4. ',rhe residential capacity of the facility shai:l be determined by provisions of the NC Building, Code in conjunction With applicable setbacks, planting yards,-and minimum off-street parking requirements of this Ordinance.. 30-5-2.65 public Parks {p,) mere R~qui~~ All Districts. {8) Parking:..Overflow parking (in addition to required parking} shall be designated on the. .site plan_and kept available to handle all traffic from special events.auch as softball tournaments and outdoor concerts.. {C} Access: All parks greater than ten (10) acres shall have primary access to a collector or thoroughfare street. 30-5-2.66 Public Recreational Facilities {A) Where Reau_i_~~ All .Districts. (B) Parkins: OverflaW parking (in addition to recpaired parking) shall be designated. on the site. plan and kept available to handle all traffic from special events .such as softball tournaments and outdoor concerts. 30-5-2.67 Radio, Television, or Communication Towers (principal) (A) ere ire.: AG, GO-M, GO-H, HB, C8, CP, LT,Cag HI, and PI Districts.. {B) et k: Towers shall be a minimum of one hundred (100) feet from any residentially zoned property and shall be located such that alI supporting cables and anchors are contained within t3~e property. (C) ht: The tower may exceed the maximum height of the zoning district with approval of a Special Use Permit. {D) om Tian With. th R ul 'ons• .Towers shall comgly Frith all applicable federal, State and local regulations (e.g. Federal Communications Commission). .Supplement No. 1 30-5-34 ,~ ~' ,..~, PTI Wireless Focus Group Meeting February 8-9, 1996 PTI Offices, Washington, DC Representatives of seven PTI member jurisdictions met with PTI staff to identify tools and information local governments could use in the azea of wireless telecommunications. Following aze key points fromi the meeting: Getting Ready 1.) Set up a task force in your community that includes the key players. Ciiy/county manager's office iin the lead. Members to include directors of public works, budget, planning, law department, information systems and telecommunications. 2.) Educate yourself and key players. Bring knowledge to the team and ensure that your jurisdiction's attorneys have a strong information base. Educate your elected officials, citizens and business community. 3.) Inventory of assets -both yours. and the vendor's. Local government assets might include: Public property, rights-of--way, franchise authority, shadow conduit, sewer/road work. Vendor assets miglrt include: Capital, equipment, applications, relationshiips:with elected officials, expertise. 4.) Meet with the vendors. Begin to build relationships, learn vendors' goals for the jurisdiction, begin to provide framework to vendors for working with your local government. 5.) .Have the Task Force develop a mission statement and guidingrprinciples. These might include: Facilitate economic development, serve the citizens and local government, strengthen revenues, manage the rights~f--way. 6.) Develop and Adopt Policies and Legal Fzamework. Policies might relate toland use, rights-of-wa}~, compensation (franchise fees and permit/business fees), and policy supporting economic development. 7.) Develop a Strategic Telecommunications Plan and market the'plan. Legal Preparation 1.) Track what is happening at the federal and state levels, and with the private sector. 2.) Determine your franchise fee and taxing authority. 3.) Know your jurisdiction's charter and what it allows and/or prohibits. 4.) Review your state public utilities commission statutes which may impact your jurisdiction's actions.. 5.) Recognize that laws may need to be amended at the local and state levels. 6.) Draft ordinances that provide for contingencies given the current confusion relating to the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. 7.) Recognize that it might be necessary for your jurisdiction to hire an "expert" telecommunications attorney to work with your attorneys. Technical Preparation l.) Recognize that there are no experts in this field now and prepare to train/educate existing telecommunications professionals. 2.) Create a telecommunications technical team including individuals with expertise in 800Mhz, networks (LAN and WAN), telephony,: GIS, fiber optics, 9-1-1. Include technicians from key departments. 3.) Ensure that people on this team not only have good technical. skills within their own areas but aze broad-thinking as well. 4.) Leader must. have good communications and interpretive skills. 5.) Recognize that it may be necessary for the jurisdiction to hire an "expert" for a period of time. Identify the Possible Roles for Your Local Government and Choose Yours: (Choice should support the vision statement and guiding principles) Facilitator Builder (of towers) User Issuer of tax-free bonds Partner Creator ofjoint-venture opportunities Regulator Convener for regional approach Communicator Financer/Investor Educator Taxer Leader Manager Plan for On-going. Internal and External Education Who: Staff, elected officials, citizens, business community, the telecommunications industry. If your jurisdiction has a consumer affairs office, involve them to assist with education of citizens and tracking of complaints and inquiries.. Create a public relations campaign for citizens, the business community and to support economic development. Prepare Internal Process for Vendor NOW! Centralize/streamline/re-engineer activities related to the vendor. Create aone-stop shop. Compensation Related o New Telecommunications 1.) Emphasize compensation not revenue with the vendors. 2.) Compensation is for the use. of rights-of--way (what we get for what we give.) 3.) Need to value your jurisdiction's assets wisely. 4.) Be clear on the compensation/revenue attached to the activity. Provide for compensation/revenue changing for different activities. Compensation Alternatives: Tower rental % or gross revenue Franchise fees licenses, permits, taxes, fees Linear mile expense in-kind facility upgrades, phones, services, equipment Identify cable as real estate property and relate taxes to this. National Standards Goal of universal access. Minimum or baseline for compensation. Valuing of local assets. Provide for structural safety. Endorse the exploration of enterprise effort in wireless telecommunications. Participating Jurisdictions: Boston. MA . Mike Hernon, Chief Information Officer Scott Dunlap, Cable Communications Office Hampton, VA Mike Monteith, Assistant City Manager Jacksonville, FI, Jeff Clements, City Council Research Little Rock. AR Cy Carney, Assistant City Manager PhiladelQhia, PA Martin Arias, Assistant. City Solicitor: Arlington County, VA Jorge Gonzalez, Assistant County Manager George November, O'TIS Director PTI Susan Benton, Vice President for. Membership I Part IV Resource List C e y Wireless Telecommunications Resource List References Cited in This Packet City of Greensboro, NC General Services Department 910/373-2489 City of Medina, WA Mayor's Office 206/454-9222 City of San Francisco, CA Planning Department 415/558-641 l Local Government Research PTI's ANSWER Information Service 202/626-2456 American Planning Association 312/955-9100. Federal Legislation National Association of Counties Legislative Affairs Office 202/393-6226 National League of Cities Office of Policy and Federal Relations 202/626-3000 Federal Government FCC Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Washington, DC 202/418-1350 .Internet - http://www.fcc.gov Wireless Telecommunications Towers: Update ~~ APRIL 1996 AMERICAN I~ PLANNING ASSOCIATION Cellular Facilities: A Survey of Current Zoning Practices By Michelle Gregory with Douglas Martin L ast June, Zoning News reported on guidelines for siting cellular towers ("Local Planning Issues in Siting Cellular Towers"). The article was based on a handful of ordinances and reports we were able to gather from communities that had experience with the issues surrounding cellular towers and antennas. Since then, the number of applications submitted to local governments has mushroomed to meet consumer demand for various forms of cellular communications technology. To find out how they are handling this challenge, APA cooperated with the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Counties, and the National Organization of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors to survey their member governments concerning their cellular facility siting policies, problems, and practices. Evolving. Technology Currently, the most widely used technology is cellular phones and paging devices. But since March 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has auctioned off 1,900 megahertz (MHz) of the radio spectrum to new license holders. The country has been divided into 51 major trading areas, with two licenses awarded in each. With more competition.and more money for research and development, the industry pioneers promise even greater communication opportunities. Futuristic'television commercials depict an "Ameritech test town" where customers in a diner ry to eat lunch while fiddling with various personal communication system (PCS) devices. PCS operates on the notion of "follow-me calling," wherein communication is routed to an individual rather than a telephone'number via a more sophisticated version of the pager. The receiving end of the system, however, will likely be a voice transmission :device, a fax, a video screen, or a database instead of a simple beeper. PCS technology will still be networked via cell sites but will operate at higher frequencies on the electromagnetic spectrum (1,850 to 2,200 MHz versus 800 to 900 MHz) and will have smaller radii than current technology. Industry analysts say the Ameritech advertising fantasy is not far off. They estimate that more than 15,000 cellular towers have been built in the U.S. in the last 14 years to meet the service requirements of more than 25 million customers. They estimate that by 2003 there will be 167 million PCS users, with at least 100,000 cellular towers needed to accommodate this growth. Evolving Law On January 31, Congress passed thelong-debated Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996, opening even more portions of the radio spectrum for PCS licenses. Section 704 (Facilities Siting; Radio Frequency Emission Standards) prevents local zoning authorities from arbitrarily banning cellular towers. The act effectively says local governments cannot allow one carrier and exclude another, but it: also acknowledges their right to determine the criteria for siting ' cellular facilities. However, it also bars state and local governments from regulating such facilities "on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply" with FCC regulations. The cellular industry lobbied hard for federal preemption of local siting powers. Its argument for federal preemption focused on efficiency: Given the imminent proliferation of cellular phones, pagers, and other emerging PCS technology, all driven by an unrelenting consumer demand, the nation would be better served by national standardization of facility siting requirements. Advocates claimed such standardization would drastically reduce the amount of time necessary to establish cells throughout the country. Cellular industry lobbyists will now shift their deregulation campaign to state legislatures. In Vermont, ~,a ~ ~ ~~~ ~~r ~ s .~ Pit ~.~: a proposed legislation R a-~:5~ ,r~,_j~. ~t ; t~ ,~~ would require local _ governments to make reasonable provision for Q ~ ~_ ~ z~~;~ ~x~=~~~~ cellular carrier transmis- __ , ~~~ ~~wt ~ _~.~:;: sion facilities or treat ,,, ~ ~ E~~ t4 ~ b V, them as a conditional use in any district, in effect ~~'~1~~` a --~ -3 ~~~# ~~" forcing communities that .~~~ ~,p y ~>~~a ;~i- ~~~~~~ .have not yet dealt with _ , _ _ ~ ~, t =~~~~ ~ ~~ , _w ~~, the issue to develop the appropriate provisions. ~~, .:~~ `~s ~t b=~~-~ ~°~KE ~ Although PCS ' `fi ~``~~° ~ h~ technology and the laws regulating it are obviously moving targets, APA has tried to gather information on current practices for siting facilities and on future plans by the industry for making them less visually obtrusive and difficult to accommodate. This issue of Zoning News is intended as a timely update and companion document to the June 1995 article, which remains a good primer on the basics of cellular communications technology and the issues planners face. Evolving Practice Often, it seems, the cellular industry's own consumers have been among those who object to the visual pollution and perceived electromagnetic pollution that accompanies cellular transmission facilities. This irony poses a complex problem for planning and zoning professionals. Successful cellular communication can occur only where there is an adequate network of communication cells webbed together by their nuclei, the transmission antennas. Industry xepresentatives say the cells cannot be installed fast enough and that local governments' site plan review and approval procedures are log-jamming the telecommunications revolution. They also suggest that, as the nation continues to shift from wired to wireless communication options, communities will ~.i ex erience an increase in the concentration of state-of-the-art ~~ transmitting cells, allegedly resulting in a proportional decrease in ~';' the height of the towers that support them and a shift toward. more building-mounted antennas. This may be true for urban areas, which have the requisite density for this to happen, but the rural landscape will always lack the tall buildings that can serve as support devices. In any event, until the design of these facilities improves, the cellular tower and its accompanying antennas remain locally ' unwanted land uses. Residents have always resisted `' communications towers of any kind in their neighborhoods,. ~, •. viewing. them as visually disruptive. Furthermore, towers and the communication devices they support emit non-ionizing electromagnetic fields, a source of significant health concerns. ~.: Whether hazardous to human health or not, these uses bear the "~ perception of danger, which threatens adjacent property values ti: and quality of life. Towers have also been known. to topple in bad weather. The public's eagerness to embrace cellular ~~;` technology is not accompanied by a willingness to accept its environmental drawbacks. ~ - With those challenges in mind, the survey's purpose was threefold. Our first priority was to determine whether local governments unduly block the siting of cellular towers and, thus, the development of the "information skyway system." Our ~' second'was to determine how local governments felt about the 4 ,;' local siting preemption because we needed to ensure their ~`' ` interests were represented in Washington. Finally, we wanted to ' collect information on local siting policies to assist local i =_;: governments in the review of future cellular tower and PCS '' facility applications. We distributed the survey in mid-September to jurisdictions - of all sizes. It was broadcast-faxed to APA chapter leadership, who were asked to fax it to at least five jurisdictions within their local chapters. We received 230 responses. The firsrhalf of the survey concerns the application policies for cellular facilities. The second half deals with. the specific siting details that communities reported. These- latter responses are not as quantifiable or as frequent as the responses from the first section and appear in an anecdotal format. Each question is presented with its accompanying responses. Where appropriate, graphical representation has been provided. 1. Has your community ever received an application for permission to erect a cellular communication tower? -Yes (how many?) - No. Total responses: 230. 2 - 4. How many tower applications has your. community approved, and how many has it denied? What is the current number of towers standing? Total responses: 230. We received responses from 32 states (average per contributing state = 7). Texas, Michigan, ~~ ; Maryland, and Florida each supplied more than 10. (See adjacent chart for. responses on questions. l - 4. Data on status of cellular tower applications are as of November 7> 'r ~ 1995.) r`-- ` A total of 1,390 tower applications had been submitted for ,'.a review; 1,134 (82%) were approved, and only 116 (8%) were denied. The remaining 10% had a status of "approval .pending" or "permitted prior to zoning provisions enacted." Respondents reported 1,255 cellular towers standing as of that date, an average of 5.5 per jurisdiction. The ratio of tower approvals to towers currently standing is slightly skewed by the 2 fact that some respondents included in their standing count towers erected prior to the existence of any approval process. CELLULAR TOWER SITING ACTIVITIES (Questions 1-4) 100 ^ Applications 600 Received 500 ~ Applications Approved 400 ~;, Applications 300 Denied 200 '~ ~ Towers ~ Currently .. 100 :. Standing Towns/Goes Gties Cities over Countios under between 200,000 with Zoning 50,000 50,000- Authority 200,000 5. Approximately how long does the application review process take? (from submission to final approval): - 2 - 4 weeks -1 - 2 months - 3 - 6 months _ 6+ months. Total responses: 205. PROCESSING TIME (Question S) 60% 50% 40% " ; ^ 2 to 4 Weeks 30% ®1 to 2 Months ~~ °~~' 3 to 6 Months 20% `" ~" ^ Over b Months ~ <' y 3 0% ~ Ti _ Towns/Gties Gties Gties over Counties under between 200,000 with .50,000 50,000- Zoning 200,000 6. With an anticipated increase in tower applications, is your community updating or streamlining its present review process? -Yes - No Total responses: 187.. COMMUNITY RESPONSE TO RISE IN TOWER APPLICATIONS (Question 61 80%- ~ {' :;{;. 70%. 60% 50% 40% 30% 20°io l0°i° : ; ~ '> 0% : Towns/Gties Gties under between 50,000. 50,000- 200,000 ~~ Communities Streamhnmg Communities E51 Not Streamlining Cities over Counties 200,000 with Zoning 7. Were the main concerns regarding tower approval in your community related to: Aesthetic appearance Health-risks -Structural soundness Total Responses: 206. Many. respondents chose .more than one option, with 339 "main concerns" reported. 183 (89%) listed aesthetics; 74 (36%) reported structura:i soundness was a main concern; and 82 (40%) reported health risks as a primary concern. 8. Does your community encourage or require tower sharing to the extent that it is technically feasible? -Yes No Total Responses: 199. 154 (77%) replied that they require or encourage, tower sharing to the extent that it is technically , feasible. 45 (23%) replied they did not. 9. Would you support or oppose federal preemption of local cellular tower siting standards? Support Oppose. Total Responses: 212. 13 (6%) said they would support federal preemption, while 199 (94%) said they would oppose it. 10. What were the reasons for denial of cellular tower applications? Total Responses: 19. Every respondent listed strong opposition from adjacent residential or business property owners as the reason for denial. 11. How would you describe the feasibility of cellular tower siting within your community? Total Responses: 153. Because the responses were anecdotal, we read them and assigned each one a feasibility rating. Not very feasible: 36 (24%) qualified as having "not very feasible"tower siting environments. Among the circum- stances we found to be recurrent in this category were: ^ intense public opposition to visual pollution ^ intense public opposition to health risks associated with cellular technology ^ presence of an environmentally sensitive area or scenic overlay district ^ technically not approvable due to outdated regulations ^ no land available for towers, can locate antennas only on existing buildings ,, ^ multiple reviews and approvals required by different reviewing bodies ^ permitted in industrial districts only ^ request for tower too close to an'airport environment .Feasible: 58 (38%) qualified as having feasible tower siting environments. Recurrent comments: ^ towers allowed in some but not all districts ^ regulations were still in the process of being updated to accommodate cellular technology ^ increasing public acceptance ^ favorable environment if zoning for location is met ^ favorable environmer-t but prefer rooftop installation and co-location on existing towers ^ favorable environment if tower is designed to "blend" with its surroundings ^ must meet landscape requirements for the site ^ favorable environment everywhere except residential areas Very Feasible: 59 (39%) qualified as having very feasible siting environments. Recurrent comments: ^ recently amended regulations to accommodate cellular technology ^ easy as long as site is aesthetically compatible ^ good relationship with cellular carrier ^ little or no public opposition has .been expressed ^ proposal and site plan in line with local standards/ land-use controls ^ proposing parry respects local concerns 12. What (if any) are your community's cellular tower requirements for the following: Height (total responses: 112). Most commonly, height limitations were a function of the district the tower was to be located in or the density of existing development. For building-mounted antennas, the height added to a host building was also limited in this way. In many communities, maximum height was a function of the setback possible on the lot, regardless of the district or the density. These tower-specific height standards were tied to the setback to protect adjacent property or property owners from damage that could be caused by a fallen tower. Height restrictions in communities that reported these in feet ranged from 30 to 320 feet.. In some communities where communirywide height testrrictions were intended to maintain a small or quaint scale of building development, towers had been exempted. In other cases; they were allowed to exceed standard height .limits only with a variance or special use permit. Finally, some communities' tower. heights were contingent upon Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).... approval, because towers would be located near airports or, flight paths. Setback (total responses: 131). The most common formula for setback was a percentage of the tower height. The most conservative setback reported was 10~ percent of tower height plus an arbitrary additional disfance (such as 10 or 20 feet for insurance) from the nearest hroperry line or street. The intent was to protect adjacent property from damage in the event of a fallen tower, but :it should be noted that some towers are designed to colla~~se within themselves rather than topple forward. Im most cases, the setback was based on the district's requirements. One respondent had no setback requirements becanse towers were allowed only on public property such as municipal golf courses or utility easements. Another had no setback requirement for the individual lot, but did require spacing of 300 feet from the nearest residential dwelling. Landscaping and Screening (total responses:'9S,i. The most. common response was a requirement for landscaping around the base of the structure, with a height and depth specified for vegetation. Another common response was that landscaping be required for the area fronting residential or commercial property or streets. Some places required landscaping only for towers locating in residential districts. Others requited' landscaping standards to be determined by a ZBA or a design review board. A few required the landscaping of a percentage of the total lot area. For those that had communitywide landscaping ordinances or guidelines in place, very specific details (such as shrub type and planting methodology) were listed. A few communities applied tree planting requirements such as "one six-foot tree for every 40 feet of frontage" or "street trees required." As for nonvegetative screening, most places a€;ain required some form of screening ,around the base of towers, in addition to planting. Specific descriptions included: brick masonry walls, chain link fences, solid wood fences, opaque barriers, and berm. Some communities reported landscaping or screening height requirements. These ranged from four to 24 feet. Amore flexible but vague approach, reported frequently, was to require that landscaping be done in a way that would be compatible with the surrounding character, buildings, or landscape. Lot Requirements (total responses: 69). Most lot size requirements were determined by the minimum lot size allowed for whatever zoning district the tower. would be built in. In actual numbers, they were reported in either square footage or acreage. The smallest lot size reported was 5,000 square feet, and the largest was 10 acres. The other common method for determining lot size was to make it a function of tower height. Again, the tower- toppling factor is the primary justification for using this method. We speculate that concern over the proximity of adjacent uses to an EMF source may also have been a reason for the larger lot sizes, but nobody reported this. garner scesources Tor manners Al'.As (~l~u% ~ r..,,.. __ L~f~r~-r C,t~~k~~r, :~ coiu~~ilatinn of lireratiu~c and ordin;uicca, i~ a.~ailahlc ro Plaimin~ i1d~ isur~.~ tic n: ice sill ~serihers free „(rh ir;~°; tiil_I l~or unnsuL~scrihrrv. H~°<<la;, G//~ct_ ~, f Lora I ~r~~~ior~ T.;<<r ,~~ .~,~t ,L1,r ~ ~~f%r!irs, OahRid~~.A~~u~iarcd Uni~~er~itics. 1`>~~_'. "I mE~I~mrnrari~ul olrrh~ ti'e~~. 'l ~~leconuuuni<atin~~~, hill,' .., crf~~ of tics;ion at Nuional :1~~lnciaruui r~l (_'~,unncs (N.1l.Uj lc~~,isl.~ri~~ ~uiif~r~~i~cr. Alarch .~. 1~)yu. 1.-,tilsl~le hour R~curdcd I~~~~nnn_rs, lnc.. h'Ui IC CI~>~.~~r 1 e~~f I>riec..Aliller,~,illc, ~9I~ _' 110 (+I I)-~X;~~ -GaPI j. ~USC: ~5 plus s' ~6ippin~~, ~lirck ~~r nu,ner order. iZrrcrcn~r" yn-1~~, r.tE~c?. Surci~~in~~rLe~lelccummanir:uio^s;~ec~\harLocal (;~~acrninerir Prolu;sion.~l Nccd to l~nu~.l; ltircrncttiunal (=,in=(~~~unt1 ~i.nri~us;l~s~~~i.uinii.urdi;o~rnui~~~nt ~lcchnc~iu~~~hu~r a ~I~cleauurnunicariuns hill V~7ork.iu,~~, \1a~ 14, lp`?h. }lean h~°~~~nri~ Hotel, tiarran~e•nrc~, °7~clccouuuuoi~ations :Act ~,f I`1~16 ~\hat lt'~lra~i< t~, our (=ir~,'~ rape o1 seti~i~in ar A~atiunal Lca~u~ ui Citi~; fV'I (~1 ani(crrnce„ Alar~l~ lU_ 1'~`)(,, ac.~il,,i,lc 1=um Natiuual I_,ca~uc ul (:iris, (,1i3-~~}~) ij+1. Ci,:c ~ti I i~lu~ ~? I~u ~1hip},inc. }~~~URI]~C? 111~~ ~1(,, raps _'i~. l4~`r~ ~~_; l ~~~r n ?rcai r s 1,<<. 1~~.. Ir/~~'r, lan [)i~~u 1~sr~~iati~ui u{ l~~rv,rnnunn, 1`~'1~ ~C,lr)~~':~~_5;~1(1)_ Accessory Structures (total responses: 91). There were 91 responses to this question. Accessory structures are '~ .sometimes: required to house transmitting or maintenance equipment. These comments seemed to vary widely, and there was no prevailing practice. Many communities. li applied the accessory structure requirements for the zoning district; others required only that accessory structures meet the building code.. Some required that accessory structures for towers in residential districts be designed to resemble the neighborhood's basic residential house design. Others required ..design review board approval. Some places listed separate accessory structure setbacks from both the property line and the tower itself. Some required that they be located within the buffer and .others that the structure have its own buffer, landscaping, or screening. For situations where .the tower itself is an accessory structure. to a principal use, the related buildings were required to have the same building design or materials as the principal use. In other words, if a tower and its associated equipment box or building were an accessory use to an office building made of red brick, the equipment facility would also have to be constructed from red brick. Two respondents listed provisions for accessory structures to rooftop antennas. They required that the structures blend in with the building's aesthetic properties and not exceed the specific height limits. Lighting (total responses: 59). The most common response was the need for lighting to meet FAA or FCC requirements. The other common requirement was that any lighting not result in glare on adjacent property, most notably residential property. Some respondents described .their provision as "basic security lighting only." A few specified the use of red lights at night and whiite strobe lighting during the day. Others required that lighting be .shielded during the day or because of a scenic overlay .district. Some places specified that lighting could not be ,placed above a certain height, such as 15 or 20 feet. One community specified no flashing lights. The nnost unusual 'requirement was that lighting meet the standards of the city's "dark sky ordinance." (For more information on ',such ordinances, see "Shedding Light on the 1Jrban Landscape," October 199$.) .Other Security Requirements (total responses: 4~. Almost all responses described some type of fencing requirement. Some places specified "climb-proof" fencing, while others specified fencing height or material such as brick, chain- link, or barbed wire. One community expressly prohibited the use of barbed wire while another allowed it with a conditional use permit. A few left security caisiderations up to the discretion of the applicant, and one required .conditional approval by a design review board. Maintenance (total responses: 41). Most of the maintenance requirements amounted to removing the tower and related facilities upon their abandonment, obsolescence, or cessation of use. The grace period for removal. ranged from 90 days to one year. Some communities mentioned they had entered intro special maintenance agreements with the owners. Annong the quirkier requirements: that the access road to the site be kept clear of snow, and that the site landscaping and sprinkler system be well maintained. One community offered this response: "If the tower is to be removed, damaged, knocked down, or blown down, it cannot be replaced without prior review and approval by the planning and zoning commission and city council. If the tower is inoperable and the owner shows no intention to repair, the tower will be removed." Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Emission Standards (total responses: 23). A.word of explanation is in order here. In general, cellular communications facilities and devices are associated with low levels of electromagnetic energy. There are three wireless communication sources that generate and use it: cellular antennas, hand-held cellullar communi- cation. devices, and electrical equipment housed in storage .buildings and switching stations. In terms of the electro- magnetic spectrum of frequencies, cellular technology operates at radio frequencies, which are located at the lower end of the spectrum. When the electromagnetic energy is generated by radio frequency waves emanating 4 through space, there is a byproduct known. as radio frequency radiation. Electromagnetic radiation is broken into two groups: ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. Radio frequency radiation is non-ionizing, which means it does not possess enough energy to create ions. Ionizing radiation, on the other hand, is capable of altering the chemical structure of organic matter. Cellular communi- cations devices and facilities generate non-ionizing radiation. However, there is evidence of a very rare phenomenon that occurs when complex organic mol- ecules with short linear groups of atoms extending off the main molecular body encounter strong, non-ionizing energy at very high power densities. This rare encounter can cause a frequency resonance to occur. The vibration caused by this resonance can result in molecular alter- anon. How this specifically translates into a human health hazard is the subject of much debate among EMF researchers. Until further clarity-can be provided, the scientific community advocates that proximity to higher non-ionizing radiation sources.. be controlled where possible. This approach is known as prudent avoidance. EMFs and the health concerns associated with them remain the most elusive aspects of cellular facility siting. The federal government has adopted no formal standards for what is or is not safe. -Both private and public organizations and government agencies have proposed guidelines that limit exposure to nonionizing radiation: These standards can be divided into broad categories: emission standards, which set the limits on the.incidental (nonpurposeful) radiation emanating from a device; and exposure standards, .which set limits on the radiation power density to which a person,may he_exposed,_..,. Emission standards limit unwanted leakage from devices such as microwave ovens that should contain the radiation inside the device or that have shielding to protect operators and others from exposure during normal operation. Exposure standards limit exposure of persons,to radiation present in the environment, for example from a radio transmitter. From: Michael G. Yost, Nonionizing Radiation Questions and Answers (San Francisco Press, Inc., 1988). In the meantime, communities nationwide continue to rely on standards set by the American National Standards Institute, as reported in "IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz" (c.95.1-1992). Most responses to this question referred to these standards. This document is a revision of ANSI's 1982 standards in which they state that "devices operating on less than seven watts of power at frequencies less than 1,000 MHz will not cause immediate thermal effects." Cellular mobile phones operate between 0.6` and three watts of power at frequencies between 800 and 900 MHz. PCS mobile communicators. are anticipated to operate on no more than one watt of power at frequencies between 1,850 and 2,200 MHz. Both fall well below the seven-watt threshold. Cellular sites, including monopoles, roof-mounted antenna sites, and building-mounted antenna sites, emit a maximum of 3,000 watts of effective radiated power or ERP (the power supplied to an antenna multiplied by the relative gain of the antenna in a given direction). In comparison, radio broadcasting towers emit roughly 100,000 watts ERP, and television broadcasting towers emit approximately five million watts ERP. The radiation emitted-from these broadcasting sources decreases according to the inverse square principle, which states that the further the distance from the source, the less potent: the radiation. Transmission quality also operates on this principle. For more information on cellular communications technology and the subject of electromagnetic fields and communication towers, we highly recommend Wireless Communications Facilities Issues Paper (San Diego Association of Governments, 1995). What were some other conditions for approval? This section represents an assortment of unique conditions for approval that we did not anticipate in our survey design. Common among them was the exclusive acceptance of monopole towers or transmitting antennas that would be mounted on pre-existing buildings or structures such as water towers. Still other communities listed the exclusive acceptance of guy-wired lattice towers. As mentioned earlier, some communities required FAA approval when towers were to be located near airports or flight paths, in which case strobed lighting was required. One community specifically prohibited any signage or advertising on the site. Some communities also required the use of a specific color of paint on the tower, such as light gray or light blue. A variety of special. conditions were applied to towers locating in residential areas. A public notice and hearing were often required. One community allowed towers in residential districts only if they were somehow disguised as part of an existing building. Another required proof that the owner had adequate insurance coverage for any potential damage. caused by or to the tower. Yet another required that the applicant show a local demand fo:r the technology to justify its necessity. The most unusual requirement was for an estimate of the number of vehicle trips per day for the proposed site. This may have been the by- product of a-broader transportation impact,analysis requirement for all uses: proposed within a given commercial district. What types of approval procedures were,used? This was not a question on the'survey, but the responses revealed that most communities allowed. towers with a conditional use permit. The second most common approval was via special ttse permit. Finally, a much smaller group of communities stated that towers were allowed by right in some districts but not in others (most notably, residential). For those communities that required approvals by more than their. planning commission or zoning board of appeals, the most frequently mentioned entities were design review baards, historic preservation boards, the FAA, and the .FCC. Though not reported by these respondents, we subsequently have heard of community deferral to the decision of a state-level utilities commission or board. Communities should verify whether this form of approval exists in their state. Third Party Wireless Go-Betweens Many third-party entities have stepped in to help f:~cilitate the cellular revolution. Municipal planners and officials often need technical education, legal advice, and negotiating dips while cellular carriers .often need help scouting and acquiring sites for their transmission devices. Some communities, in conjunction with the carriers who have approached them, have hired. consultants to fulfill these needs. Some of these firms are subsidiaries of the telecommunications companies, and others are independent organizations that more or less serve the cellular communications industry. FoxFire Community Planning & Development in Denver and Unisite in Dallas are two such organizations. They bring a wealth. of cellular technology experience and. land-use expertise to the table. A third category of go-betweens is arising to serve as advocates for the public sector. CityTel, Inc. of Atlanta is one such firm. This option appeals to local governments because firms like CityTel enter the picture as a lessee. of municipally owned property-and a lessor to the telecommunications carrier-thereby. generating revenues for themselves and the municipality. The firm approaches site selection on the basis of what is ideal for the hosting. municipal government rather than the cellular carrier. These firms are economically motivated to achieve tower sharing wherever possible and take responsibility for tower maintenance. Moreover, they appeal to communications carriers who no longer need to spend time and money dealing with municipalities directly. All the firms mentioned above have a regional market within the U.S, but this is an emerging market in which new firms are still developing. Research to find the most appropriate organization within. a planning agency's state or geographic area would be worthwhile. Airport Brews a Bad Reaction The owners of the High Point Brewing Corporation (HPBC), a Denver firm,. at first were pleased when Stapleton Redevelopment Foundation (SRF) officials showed them an abandoned hangar at the city's recently vacated airport. Once merely home brewers, they were excited by the possibility of opening up a microbrewery, and the former airport seemed perfect. SRF is a nonprofit organization established to oversee the redevelopment of Stapleton airport. HPBC's owners decided after one. visit that they wanted to lease a space on the southwesrside of Stapleton. Unfortunately, that area is zoned for commercial use, which excludes. the brewery. HPBC quickly applied for a conditional use permit, and the city posted signs notifying the. public of the firm's intentions. To the surprise of both parties, residents of the nearby Greater Park Hill neighborhood immediately inundated SRF with xelephone calls. As part of an agreemenrreached with the community, SRF is responsible for discussing all develop- ment proposals with residents to build consensus regarding appropriate uses for the airport. Due to a lack of communica- tion between the leasing agent, SRF, and the city, SRF officials were unaware of the proposal and caught off guard by the calls. Most callers were concerned not about the microbrewery but about why they had not heard about the proposal earlier. The neighbors' fears eased when they realized that SRF was not at Zoning News is a monthly newsletter published by the American Planning Association. Subscriptions are available for $50 {U.S.) and $65 (foreign). Frank S. So, Acting Executive Director; William Rr Klein, Director of Research. Zoning Newr is produced at APA. Jim Schwab, Editor; Fay Dolnck, Scott Dvorak, Michelle Gregory, Sanjay Jeer, Megan Lewis, Dtrug Martin, Marya Morris, Marty Roupe, Laura Thompson, Reporters; Cynthia Cheski, Assistant Editor; Lisa Barton, Design and Production. Copyright ©1996 by American Planning Association, 122 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 1600, Chicago, IL 60603. The American Planning Association has headquarters offices at 1776 Massachusetts Ave.,. N.W., Washington, DC 20036. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording,. or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the American Planning Association. Printed on recycled paper, including 50-70% recycled fiber and 10% postconsumer waste. fault. The planning board ended the controversy by denying the conditional use permit, in part because of the parcel's proximity to the residential zone. HPBC has decided to look elsewhere. Meanwhile, SRF continues the redevelopment: of Stapleton with much larger plans than just subdividing and selling the property. Over the next few years, CEO Tom Go~ugeon plans to convert the seven-square-mile site into an environmentally responsible, mixed-use community complete wit1120,000 jobs and 30,000 residents. He envisions. a community in which open space is, maximized (over a third of the site), and ;public transportation is within walking distance for everyone. To ensure Stapleton's future viability, SRF wants to install a flexible infrastructure-including fiber optic capabilities, natural drainage, and alternative energy sources such as photovoltaics-that can adjust to a variety of technological innovations. SRF is also considering rate increases for peak-hour water usage in an effort to force Stapleton consumers to use creative conservation techniques. .Martin Roupe zoivin~ eports Land Use Practices: Exclusionary Zoning, de Facto or de Jure? Barbara Lukermann and Michael P. Kane. Center for Urban and Regional Affairs, 330 Hubert H. Humphrey Cente; , 301 19th Avenue S., Minneapolis, MN55455. 199~t. 80 pp. Free. .The Metropolitan Council in Minnesota's 'Cwin Cities has long advocated a fair share approach to providing affordable housing for the region's low- and moderate- income population. Over the past two decades, it has published several development guides requiring communities to establish goals for accommodating affordable housing. This study sought to ascertain just how well the region was addressing these needs. The authors selected 1 ~0 growing suburban communities and looked at their current housing stock, local regulatory environment, and local policies and actions. The results offer quantifiable evidence: that the growing suburban areas of our cities, even those with strong regional planning, are not providing their fair share of affordable housing opportunities. Land Use in America Henry L. Diamond and Patrick F. Noonan. Islancl Press, 1718 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 300, Washington, I~C20009. 368 pp. 1996. $26.95. The United States has taken major steps in thie la$t three decades to improve its environmental quality through a host of regulations, but has yet to find effective ways to restrain the alarming growth in the consumption of land for new development. The primary authors have included contributions from a number of prominent figures in the land conservation movement who discuss aspects of these problems. Among them: former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean; former EPA Administrator William Reilly; and Professor Jerold S. Kayden of Harvard University. The aim of the book is to aid communities in finding more fiscally and environmentally sound ways to accommodate growth. __ _ _ ~r~L~ A Newsletter Reporting o Local Government about the increasing Rate of Wireless Antenna e~lica - -- - - ~~~'~SS No. 6 1 l V ~ ~~ ~~ August 1996 p , o . Gwinnett - A POSStble Test Case Section 704(ax7xBxiii) establishes the requirement of Wireless Update has received;and reviewed the filings in substantial evidence supporting a denial. This section is quoted in Vol. 1, No. 1 (March) of Wireless Update. Inc, et al v. Gwinnett County, Georgia, BellSouth Mobility, . et al and thinks its readers may be interested BellSouth also cites the RF emissions standards in BellSouth Mobility applied for, and was denied, a Tall • Section 704(aX7xBxiiv) but only offers the conjecture that RF emission standards were used by the County to deny the Structure Permit from Gwinnett County: BellSouth application: This section of the law isquoted in • Unlike the Medina case: (featured in the June and July. Vol. 1, No. 1 (March) of Wireless Update. issues of Wireless Update), Gwinnett has ail the In the second cause of action, BellSouth claims it was markings of an attempt by the carrier (BellSouth) to denied equal protection under the federal and Georgiia establish landmark law for personal wireless facilities. constitutions as follows: • In order to bring a lawsuit under the new Federal BellSouth waited until Telecommunications Act BellSouth applications for two similar cell sites (the " , February i2, 1996 to file this lawsuit: a date four days site) were heard by "Suwanee" site and the. "Five Forks the County Commission on the same day. The Suwanee after Presiident Clinton signed the new law, site was approved while the Five Forks site was denied. • In its application for a Tall Structure Permit, prior to any ation, BellSouth claimed that the County's Tall liti • According to BellSouth, there was no rational basis for g Structure Permit Resolution was unconstitutional, both the County,Commissioners to approve the Suwanee site. federallyand in the State of Georgia. This may have and not the Five Forks site. been a warning to the,County by BellSouth of its Third, BellSouth. claims that the landlords' property was intention'to challenge the Tall Structure Permit process. , ..taken without due process and just compensation. (Keep in Gwinnett County, about 30 minutes east of downtown mind this site is a small part of a lot already devoted to . is the fastest growing county in the Metro Area; Atlanta automobile servicing.) Fourth, BellSouth seeks a Writ of , with a population in 1995 of 436,900. BellSouth Mobility Mandamus that directs the County to issue a permit to has cellular licenses throughout the southeasternU.S. and construct the monopole. In the fifth cause of actiion, PCS licenses in the'Knoxville and Charlotte MTAs {Major. BellSouth claims thatits civil rights were denied. Trading Areas).. BellSouth's argument is that Gwinnett. County acted. in BellSouth and the landowners: of the proposed "Five. an arbitrary and "wanton" manner and that BellSouth was Forks" cell site applied fora Tall Structure Permit {fora .discriminated against but has no administrative remedy. As 197-foot monopole) in GwinnettCountyon February 12, a result, BellSouth requests the court to: 1996. The permit application was denied on Apri123, 1.996. ' . Require the County to issue a Tall Structure Permit and BellSouth filed suit on May 21, 1996 in United States all other permits. and licenses necessary for the District Court, Northern District of Georgia. The BellSouth construction and operation of the. monopole. suit names as defendants the County, each of the County • Award compensatory damages for financial losses. Commissioners, the Director and his Development Director of the Department-of Planning and Development. At press • Award costs, expenses. and attorneys fees. time, no court date had been set. • Award punitive damages sufficient to deter such acts in .BellSouth seeks to obtain a single cell site permit the future. through the federal district court. However, much more . Grant other relief that the Court deems proper. .may be at stake... Analysis: What's Really at ssue in Gwirunett? Five Causes of Action The first cause of action alleges aviolation ofhe- Although.. trial courts may not make case law, cities and following Telecommunication Act sections: counties should be more concerned with any precedent that be forthcoming from Gwinnett than in the disposition ma ( ~( ~) • Section' 704 a 7 (iXI) prohibits discrimination y of the,proposed T97-foot monopole site. Wireless Update among providers of functionally equivalent services.: offers the following analysis. from a wireless planning This section is analyzed in Vol. 1, No. 2 {April) of perspective: Wireless. Update. Published by Kreines 8 Kreines, Inc., 58 Paseo Mirasol, Tiburon, CA 9492Q Consultants to Cities ~: Counties phone: (415).435-9214, fax; {415) 435-1522, e-mail wireless.update@worldnet.atf.net http;Uxyz:uchicago. eduJusersrkreines/wireless.htm • BellSouth may have~been losing patience with Gwinnett County. A previous application for a cell site in the same azea had been repeatedly tabled at Commission meetings. BellSouth may have been looking for a denial that it could use as a basis for a lawsuit. • BellSouth may have. wanted to overturn the County's process for Tall Structure Permits that was puf into place by resolution in 1995. If BellSouth prevails on any of its causes of action, other jurisdictions may be intimidated into approving future applications for wireless facilities. Two .Lessons From Gwinnett for All Local Governments Regardless of the outcome in Gwinnett, cities and counties should take note of two issues: Substantial evidence is required when denying cell sites. Some states, like ralifort~!a, require:findings linked to facts when reaching zoning decisions on individual properties. Other states call all zoning decisions "legislative acts".(even thoughonly one property is involved) and require only a simple voice vote. However, the Federal Telecommunications Act requires a denial ofany request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless services facilities to be supported by substantial written evidence. It is not clear whether Gwinnett County provided such substantial evidence. Kreines &Kreines, Inc. is available to assist cities and , counties with wireless planning to fit the unique circumstances of that jurisdiction by: • Drafting ordinances and reviewing ordinanc;es prepared by city or county staff. • Drafting findings and explaining the reasons for the findings. • Defining. what is meant by substantial evidence and preparing substantial evidence. Wireless Update continues to recommend a planning approach. for wireless policy. Ordinances aze fine, but they should be backed by a geographical plan that has citizen and industry buy-in. Findings .are recommended, but they gain strength and credibility when tied to a plan. Kreines 1~ .Kreines Offers RF Engineering Experts According. to a recruiting ad in the 6i:"si96 rte" irefess Week, RF (Radio Frequency) engineers get paid up to $180,000 per year. If the industry is willing to pay those kinds of salaries, how can cities and counties access professional experts. who are not connected to the industry? Kreines. &Kreines, Inc. now offers the services of two associates, one a Doctor of Science, the other a Ph.D. who can observe measurements, take their own measurements, testify as to whether proposed cell sites can be moved or when Lexington, Kentucky checks in with this story: Bell Model ordinances don't help. BellSouth specifically reduced in height, testify whether a carrier's system/network criticized the use of a model ordinance from another could be adjusted, or testify on the health impacts of cell jurisdiction. The model ordinance was used by the sites. Please call Kreines &Kreines, Ino, at (415) 435-9214 opposing. neighbors to argue .against the proposed antenna if you would like more information. monopole because of its height. It is not cleaz as to the Yes, Virginia, They Do Have Portat~le Cell degree to which Gwinnett County relied on the model Sites ... In Kentucky ordinance. Wireless. Update has. received numerous phone calls on No sooner does Wireless Update publish a story in Vol. these issues before. We will be pleased to send materials 1, No. 5 about Cellular on Wheels (COWs) and Cellulaz on regarding findings and substantial evidence to those local Light Trucks (COLTS) speculating on whether these governments requesting them. Wireless Update cautions techniques will be used to circumvent local government, cities and counties nQt to reconfigure anotli~r jurisdiciio~t s South Mobility brings in twin 60-foot cellulaz "towers" on idea of a "model ordinance" into their own. Wireless fl~_~ trucks and parks the trucks where they can get a Update has a collection of ordinances, some of which are "temporary" lease. And, until May 30, 1996, the city could ideal for the adopting jurisdiction, but none of which are .not stop them. applicable anywhere else. Quick voice votes and copying another jurisdiction's It seems as if Kentucky has no local approval of local ordinance may sound like the best way to handle cell sites, ' cell sites ... it's all done in Frankfort at a State agency. If a local government insists on a public hearing, its held in . are penny-wise and pound-foolish. Ordinances but they Frankfort .,. that's about 275 miles from Paducah. Because must be created to meet the circumstances within the the state process is slow, BellSouth outfits these trucks as jurisdiction and denials need to have real facts supporting cell sites. Since Lexington has quite a few of `temporary them. Gwinnett County may have donee these two things .... ' . them, they may be all over Kentucky. t tell. we just can Update will keep its readers informed on the Wireless The Lexington Fayette County Urban Council finally . Gwinnett in future issues. For more outcome of BellSouth v closed this loophole by adopting Ordinance No. 85-96. . information or a copy of the court filings, please contact Now, at least, temporary cell sites are regulated by Wireless Update.. Lexington; but not permanent ones. Published by Kreines 8 Kreines, Inc., 58 Paseo Mirasol, Tiburon, CA 94920, Consultants to Cities 8 .Counties phoney (415) 435-9214, fax: (415J 435-1522, a-mail: wireless.update@worldnet.atGnet s { l ' you've Only Just Begun, • Coverage phase -,each carrier is either planning or trying m r e d s o i uch a to xten ignal strength to as ea c verage as it If you've had your first cell site public hearing where the can to meet its FCC requirement. The emphasis is on I Telecommunications Act is at issue, and' it's over ... don't "covering" as much geography as possible, but usually. relax just yet. 1996 is still. very early inthe process of along high-volume trafficways. wireless deployment, which includes:; i . Capacity phase - as vehicular and business (especially j • Cellular -you have two carriers in your area and chances data) use`increases, new cell sites will be "infilled" are they. are nowhere near fully. deployed yet. For between existing cell sites. More wireless traffic means example, Gwinnett is a cellular case; not 1'CS. more cell sites, just like morevehicular traffic means • PCS Broadband -you may have had wo carriers visit more highway lanes. you already {A and B Blocks) and a third (C Block) is • Residential phase-this is where wireless supplants the ' getting ready.. But there are three more {D, E;and F This phase land-line telephone (it's already started to). j Blocks) due to be auctioned in August. Look for them in will require more sites within residential areas. I 1997 or T998. Most of the future PCS antennas have yet Residents will be told by the carriers; "If you want the ~ to be proposed. service, you've got to have the cell sites." • PCS Narrowband -some are here and others have yet to The problem with this phaseddeployment process is that each carrier's entry into each community will be staggered be licensed. Thev will need antennas just like their „ overthe nexf5 to 10 years: Opponents to cell siites during « ins As of FCC s latest Fact Sheet broadband cous ff ti n t li n ' the capacity phase will link up with opponents from the . to auc o o ses ye ce ~ (7/14/96) there are 1,343 coverage phase. By he time the residential phase starts, • Paging -there are 12 carriers out there nationwide and some :communities will have political coalitions formed. ~, all have: plans for more. antennas.: They've only just. begun. • SMR {Specialized Mobile Radio) - hese are the dispatch Yah00! We have a Web Site carriers and they're usually localized. `They: lave whip Wireless Update has a new world wide web site at antennas which are sometimes, not always, co-located. http://xyz.uchicago.edulusers/jkreines/wireless.htm: In ' • ESMR (Enhanced SMR) -these are actually carriers conjunction with the Wireless Zlpdate web site ,you will find who have stitched together an'nter-regional or the Kreines &Kreines, Inc. homepage right alongside. potentially national frequency' hat could rival cellular, If you want to access the Kreines &Kreines, Ino, home but not be cellular. They also need antennas.' page directly, just search for "cellular towers" in YahoolT"". Before you react in horror: they all won'tbe coming to When you look for both words ("cellular" and "towers") the planning counter in the next few months. Carriers,.. together {not either/or) you'll find Kreines & Kreines,'Inc. particularly cellular and PCS, will have athree-phased as the sole listing. You can, jump to the Wireless Update deployment:. homepage from the Kreines &Kreines, Inc. hornepage. ~! Published by Kreines &Kreines, Inc., Consultants to Cities & Counties `on Planning for Wireless Antennas ~------ ~, ~ ~ o ~ Would You Like to Continue Receiving Wireless Update? O Each city and county can get one,free subscription to Wireless Update. Private, organizations or individuals can ~~~ i purchase a subscription. Please let us know if you would like. to continue receiving Wireless Update. If we do ~ i not hear from you by August 26, 'i 996, we will. assume you no longer'wish to receive Wireless :Update and his will i~ ~ be your last issue. ~ Please make checks payable. to Kreines &Kreines, Ina. ` Send the .following information to Kreines & ~ ~ Kreines Inc. b e-mail wireless.u date worldnet.att.net ,mail 58 Paseo Mirasol, Tiburon, CA 9492GY), ~ phone (415-435-9214), fax (4I5-435-1522) or Internet (http://xyz.uchicago.edu/users/jkreines/wireless.htm): ~ ~ Name Title Jurisdiction/Com an : > P Y ~~ ~ - j Mailing Address: ~ City, State, Zip Code (9 digit):..... - i ~ i Back Issues Ordered ($l0 each): ^ March ^ April ^ May. ^ June ^ July i ~ i Kreines &Kreines Helps Cities & Counties in the Leasing of Local Government Sites ' There are two ways a local government. can control cell sites: by being a regulator or by being a landlord ~;or doing both). Kreines &Kreines; Inc. has a package to have your. jurisdiction lease your land for cell sites and then to gain revenue from them. Kreines &Kreines, Inc. has formed a strategic alliance with a Southern California development firm that will actually prepare, lease and manage publicly-owned cell sites. There are national firms making similar offers, but none: combine the real estate acumen of a developer with the services of a wireless planning firm working exclusively with cities or counties. "What makes this package different," says Ted Kreines, AICP, President of Kreines &Kreines, Inc., "is that we provide a Wireless Master Ptan with the. leasing of a local government's sites." Kreines notes that other packages don't "pre- service" the public sites in order to make them readily approvable by government. Carriers don't want to sign a lease with. government unless they have a leg up in the approval process. Cities and counties can't offer carriers any preferential treatment on public leases that won't also be available for private leases. Kreines &Kreines, Inc. has a technique for "pre-servicing" public sites for personal wireless facilities so that when the carrier brings in the application, the carrier walks out with an entitlement. "It's quicker, everyone wins and it just about guarantees co-location," Kreines said. "Kreines &Kreines, :Inc. will not service the industry directly, but I know how to work with cities and counties." Similarly, the developers are content to deal with the carriers, with whom they have site acquisition experie~~P rreines calls it "a match made in. heaven." Articles Featured in Past Issues of Wireless Update Vol. 1, No. 1, March Definitions of acronyms and terms used in the wireless field. Excerpts from the Telecommunications Act. Vol. 1, • Definitions of more wireless communication No. 2, acronyms and terms. April • Differences between PCS and cellular technologies. • .Telecommunications Act requirements for equal protection and non-discrimination. Vol. 1, • Differences between GSM and CDMA No. 3, technologies. May .Environmental review of wireless facilities. • Tall towers containing wireless antennas. Kreines &Kreines, Inc. Consultants to Cities & Counties on Planning for Wireless Antennas 58 Paseo Mirasol Tiburon, CA 94920 Route to: 1. ~ y'~acaq~c 2. ~°aucucq. Dlneetaz 3. ~ ,$t~a~cce y 4. Vol. 1, .California Public Utilities Comrnission No. 4, requirements for wireless facilities. June .Can federal or state government pre-empt local wireless facilities decisions? • Excerpts from decision in Sprint Spectrum v. City of Medina wireless facility moratorium. ~ Planning versus permitting in wireless facilities. Vol. 1, • More about Sprint Spectrum v. ("ity of Medina. No. 5, • News about wireless facilities from Georgia July and Alabama. • Federal sites may become the ne;w trend for personal wireless facilities. ~ ~~~~~~ rid ~l~e~~a~~r` 1^'. GJ. 1~C''e34tiaP' ~~bt~ ~~~~ ~~~I~ USABullcRate You've Only Just Begun If you've had your first cell site public hearing where the Telecommunications Act is at issue, and it's over ... don't relax just yet. 1996 is still very early in the process of wireless deployment, which includes: • Cellular -you have two carriers in your area and chances are they are nowhere near fully deployed yet.. For example, Gwinnett is a cellular case, not PCS. • .PCS Broadband -you may have had two carriers visit you already (A and B Blocks) and a third. (C Block) is getting ready. But there are three more: (D, E and F Blocks) due to be auctioned in August: Look. for them in 1997 or 1998. Most of the future PCS antennas have yet to be proposed. • PCS Narrowband -some are here and others: have yet o be licensed. They will need antennas just like their broadband cousins.. As ofFCC's latest "Fact Sheet" (7/14/96) there are 1,343 licenses yet to auction off. • Paging -there are 12 carriers out there nationwide and all have plans for more antennas.. • SMR (Specialized Mobile Radio) -these are the dispatch carriers and they're usually localized. They have whip antennas which are sometimes, not always, co-located: • ESMR (Enhanced SMR) -these are actually carriers who have stitched'together an inter-regional or potentially national frequency that could rival cellular, but not be cellular. They also need antennas. Before you react in horror: they all won't be coming to .the planning counter in the next few months.. Carriers, particularly cellular and PCS, will have athree-phased deployment: • .Coverage phase -each carrier is either platming or trying to extend signal strength to as much area coverage as it can to meet its FCC requirement. The emphasis is on "covering" as much geography as possible, but usually along high-volume trafficways. • .Capacity phase - as vehicular and business (especially ...data) use increases, new cell sites will be "infilled" between existing cell sites. More wireless traffic means more cell sites, just like more vehicular traffic means more highway lanes. • Residential phase -this is where wireless supplants the land-line telephone (it's already started to). This phase will.. require more. sites within residential :areas. Residents will be told by the carriers: "If you want the service, you've got to have the cell sites." The problem with this phased deployment process is that each carrier's entry into each community will be staggered over the next 6 o i ~ years. Opponents to cell sites during the capacity: phase will link up with opponents from the coverage phase.. By the time the residential phase starts, some communities will have political coalitions formed. They've only just begun. Yahoo! We have a Web Site Wireless Update has anew world wide web site at http: //xyz. uehicago. edu/users/jkr~eines/wireless, htm. In conjunction with the Wireless Update web site you will find the Kreines' &Kreines, Inc. homepage right alongside. If you want to access the Kreines &Kreines, Inc. home page directly, just search for "cellular towers" in Yahoo!T"" When you look for both words ("cellular" andl'-`"towers") together (not either/or) you'll find Kreines & ]Kreines, Inc. as the sole listing. You can jump to the Wireless Update homepage from the Kreines &Kreines, Inc. homepage. Published by Kreines &Kreines, Inc., Consultants to Cities & Counties on Planning for Wireless.Antennas i ~ ®o ~ Would You: Like to Continue Receiving Wireless Update? ~ o ~ ~ Each city and county can get one free subscription to Wireless Update. Private organizations or individuals can .purchase a subscription. Please let us know if you would like to continue receiving Wireless Update. If we do not hear from you by August 26, 1996, we will assume you no longer wish to receive Wireless Update and this will be your last issue. i 'Please make checks payable to Kreines &Kreines, Ina Send the following information to Kreines ~ o Kreines, Ina by a-mail (wireless.update@worldnet.att.net), mail (58 Paseo Mirasol, Tiburon, CA 949:?0), ~ phone (415-435-9214), fax (415-435-1522) or Internet (http://xyz.uchicago.edu/users/jkreines/wireless.htm): I Name, Title, Jurisdiction/Company: ~ i Mailing Address: i City, State, Zip Code (9 digit): ~ e Back Issues Ordered ($10 each): ^ March ^ April ^ May ^ June ^ July i ~ i a-----------=----------------- ----- ------~ Kreines &Kreines Helps Cities & Counties in the Leasing of Locai. Government Sites ` There are two ways a local government-can control cell sites: by being a regulator or by being a landlord (or doing both). Kreines &Kreines, Inc. has a package to have your. jurisdiction lease your land for cell sites.and then to gain revenue from them. Kreines &Kreines, Inc. has formed a strategic alliance with a Southern California development firm that will actually prepare, lease and manage publicly-owned cell sites. There are national firms making similar offers, but none combine the real estate acumen of a developer with the services of a wireless planning firm working exclusively with cities or counties. "What makes this package different," says Ted Kreines,'AICP, President of Kreines &Kreines, Inc., "is that we provide a Wireless Master Plan with the leasing of a local government's sites." Kreines notes that other packages don't "pre- service" the public sites in order to make. them readily approvable by government. Carriers don'f want to sign a lease with government unless they have a leg up in the approval process. Cities and counties can't offer carriers ar-ypreferential treatment on public leases that won't also be available for private leases. Kreines &Kreines, Inc. has a technique for "pre-servicing" public sites for personal wireless facilities so that when the carrier brings in the application,:. the carrier walks out with an entitlement. "It's quicker, everyone wins and it just about guarantees co-location," Kreines said. "Kreines &Kreines, Inc. will not service the industry directly,: but I know how to work with cities and counties." Similarly, the developers are content to deal with the carriers, with whom they have site acquisition experie~~p T:reines call it "a match made in heaven." Articles Featured in Past Issues of Wireless Update Vol.1 No. 1, March Definitions of acronyms and terms used in the wireless field. • Excerpts from the Telecommunications Act. Vol. 1, Definitions of more wireless communication No. 2, acronyms. and terms. April .Differences between PCS and cellular technologies. • Telecommunications Act requirements for equal protection and non-discrimination. Vol. 1, • Differences between GSM and. CDMA No. 3, technologies. May .Environmental review of wireless facilities. • Tall towers containing wireless antennas. Kreines &Kreines, Inc. Consultants to Cities & Counties on Planning for Wireless Antennas 58 Paseo Mirasol Tiburon, CA 94920 Route to: 1. ~ ~1~~rag~c 2. ic~'.aucucq Duteete~ 3. ''"''Y' ~~0~'~ 4. Vol. 1, .California Public Utilities Commission No. 4, requirements for wireless facilities. June .Can federal or state government pre-empt local wireless facilities decisions? • Excerpts from decision in Sprint,Spectrum v. City of Medina wireless facility moratorium. • Planning versus permitting in wireless facilities. Vol. 1, . .More about Sprint Spectrum v. City of Medina. No. 5, .News about wireless facilities from Georgia July and Alabama. • Federal sites may become the new trend for personal wireless facilities. ~I~ USABuIkRate G~or-•~~e 14. Nom Git,yy }~ak7a~er` P . t] . Dr~ a~~r 996th Cat te~,~~ Staticsn: TX '7784c ` A Newsletter Vol. 1, No. 6 ~~ortina to Local Government about the In of Wireless ~~~`~ i ejaplica ~~ August 1996 Wireless Update Gwinneit - A Possible Test Case • Wireless Update has received and reviewed the filings in BellSouth Mobility, Inc, et al v. Gwinnett County, Georgia, et al and thinks its readers may be interested. • BellSouth.Mobility applied for, and was denied,. a Tall Structure Permit from Gwinnett County. • Unlike the Medina case (featured in the June and July issues of Wireless Update), Gwinnett has all the = mazkings of an attempt by the carrier (BellSouth) to establish landmazk law for personal wireless facilities. • In order to bring a lawsuit under the. new Federal Telecommunications Act, BellSouthwaited until February 12, 1996 to file this lawsuit: a date four days after President Clinton signed the' new law; • In its application for a Tall Structure Permit, prior to any litigation, BellSouth claimed that the County's Tall Structure Permit Resolution was' unconstitutional, both federally and in the State of Georgia. Thismay have been a warning to the County by.BellSouth of its intention to challenge; the Tall Structure Permitprocess. Gwinnett County, about 30 minutes east of downtown Atlanta, is the fastest growing county in the Metro Area, with a population in 1995 of 436,900. BellSouth Mobility has cellular licenses throughout the southeastern U.S. and PCS licenses in the Knoxville and Charlotte MTAs (Major. Trading Areas). BellSouth and the landowners of the proposed "Five Forks" cell site applied for a Tall Structure Permit (for a 197-foot monopole) in Gwinnett County on February .12, 1996. The permit application was denied on April 23, .1996. BellSouth filed suit on May21,-1996 in United States District Court, ~tzlorthern District of Georgia. The iellSouth suit names as defendants the County, each of the County Commissioners, the Director and his Development Director of the Department ofPlanning and Development. At press time,. no court date had been set. BellSouth. seeks to obtain. a single cell site permit through the federal district. court. However, much more may be at stake. Five Causes of Action The first cause of action alleges a violation of the following. Telecommunication Act sections: • Section 704(a)(7xB)(i)(I) prohibits discrimination among providers of functionally equivalent services. This section is analyzed in Vol.1, No. 2 (April) of Wireless Update. Section 704(a)(7)(B)(iii) establishes the requirement of substantial evidence supporting a denial.. This section is quoted in Vol. 1, No.1 (Mazch) of Wireless Update. BellSouth also cites the RF emissions standazds in Section 704(a)(7)(B)(iv) but only offers the conjecture that RF emission standards were used by the Country to deny the BellSouth application. This section of the law is quoted in Vol. 1, No. 1 (Mazch) of Wireless Update. In the second cause of action, BellSouth claims it was denied equal protection under the federal and Georgia constitutions as follows: • BellSouth applications for two simlaz cell sites (the "Suwanee" site and the "Five Forks" site) were heazd by the County Commission on the same day. The Suwanee site was approved while the Five Forks site was denied. • According to BellSouth, there was no rational basis for the County Commissioners to approve the Suwanee site and not he Five Forks. site.. Third, BellSouth claims. that the landlords' ;property was taken without due process and just compensation. (Keep in mind this site is a'small part of a lot already devoted to automobile servicing.) Fourth, BellSouth seeks a Writ of Mandamus that directs the County to- issue a permit to construct the monopole. In the fifth cause of action, BellSouth claims that its civil rights were denied. Be1lSouth's argument is that Gwinnett County acted in an azbitrary and "wanton"manner and that BellSouth was discriminated against but has no administrative; remedy. As a result, BellSouth requests the court to: • Require the County to issue a Tall Structure Permit and all other permits and licenses .necessary for the construction and operation of the monopole. • Award compensatory damages for financial losses. • Awazd costs, expenses and attorneys fees. • Award punitive damages sufficient to deter such acts in the future. • Grant other relief that'the Court deems proper. Analysis:'What's Really at Issue in Gwinnett? Although trial courts may not make case law, cities and counties should be more concerned with any precedent that may be forthcoming from Gwinnett than in the disposition of the proposed 197-foot'monopole site. Wireless Update offers the following analysis from a wireless planning perspective: Published by Kreines 8 Kreines, 7nc., 58 Paseo Mirasol, Tiburon, CA 94920, Consultants to Cities 8 Counties phone: (415) 435-9214, fax: (415J 435-1522, a-mail: wireless.update@worldnet.atf.net h ttp://xyz. uchicago. edu/users/jkreines/wireless.htm • BellSouth may have been losing patience with Gwinnett County. A previous application for a'celi site in the same azea had been repeatedly tabled at Commission meetings. BellSouth may have been looking for a denial that it could use as a basis. for a lawsuit. • BellSouth may have wanted to overturn the County's process for Tall Structure Permits that was. put into place by resolution in 1995. If BellSouth prevails on any of its causes of action, other jurisdictions may be intimidated into approving future applications for wireless facilities. Two Lessons. From Gwinnett for All Local Governments Regardless of the outcome in Gwinnett, cities and counties should take note of two issues: Substantial evidence is required when denying cell sites. Some states, like (;alifornia; require:fi_ndings linked to facts when reaching zoning decisions on individual. properties. Other states call. all zoning decisions "legislative acts" (even though only one property is "involved) and require only a simple voice vote. However, the Federal Telecommunications Act requires a denial of any request to place,. construct, or modify. personal wireless services facilities to be supported by substantial written evidence. It is not cleaz whether Gwinnett County. provided such substantial evidence. Model ordinances don't help. ,BellSouth specifically criticized the use of a model ordinance from another jurisdiction.. The model ordinance was used by the opposing neighbors to argue against the proposed antenna monopole because of its height.. It is not cleaz as to the degree to which Gwinnett County relied on the model ordinance. Wireless .Update has received numerous phone; calls on these issues before. We will be pleased to send materials regarding findings and substantial evidence to those local governments requesting them.. Wireless .Update cautions cities and counties ~t to reconfigure another jurisdictions idea of a "model ordinance" into their own: Wireless Update has a collection of ordinances, some of which are ideal. for the adopting jurisdiction, but none of which are applicable anywhere else. Quick voice votes and copying another jurisdiction's ordinance may sound like the best way to handle cell sites, but they are penny-wise. and pound-foolish. Ordinances must be created to meet the circumstances within the jurisdiction and denials need to have real facts supporting them. Gwinnett County may have done these two things ... we just can't tell. .Wireless .Update will keep its readers informed on the outcome of BellSouth v. Gwinnett in future issues. For more information or a copy of the court filings, please contact Wireless Update. Kreines &Kreines,. Inc. is available to assist cities and counties with wireless planning to fit the unique c'u~cumstances of that jurisdiction by: • Drafting ordinances and reviewing ordinances prepared by city or county staff. • Drafting findings and explaining the reasons for the findings. Defining what is meant by substantial evidence and preparing substantial evidence. Wireless Update continues to recommend a planning .approach for wireless policy. Ordinances are fine, but they should be backed by a geographical plan that has citizen and industry buy-in. Findings are recommendeci, but they gain strength and credibility when tied to a plan.. Kreines &Kreines Offers RF EnginE:ering Experts According to a recruiting ad in the 6is>96 Wireless Week, RF (Radio Frequency) engineers get paidl up to $180,000 per year. If the industry is willing to spay those kinds of salaries, how can cities and counties access .professional experts who are not connected to the industry? Kreines &Kreines, Inc. now offers the services of two associates, one a Doctor of Science, the other a PhD. who can observe measurements, take their own measurements, testify. as to whether proposed cell sites can be moved or reduced in height, testify whether a carrier's system/network could be adjusted, or testify on the health impacts of cell sites. Please call Kreines &Kreines, Inc. at (41.5) 435-9214 if you would like more information. Yes, Virginia, They Do Have Portable Cell Sites ... In Kentucky No sooner does Wireless Update publish a :story in Vol. 1, No. 5 about Cellular on Wheels (COWs) and Cellular on Light Trucks (COLTS) speculating on whether these techniques will be used to circumvent local government, when Lexington, Kentucky checks in with this story: Bell South Mobility brings in twin 60-foot cellular "`towers" on flat-bed trucks and pazks the trucks where they. can get a "temporary" lease. And, until May 30, 1996, the city could not stop them. It seems as if Kentucky has no local approval of local cell sites ... it's all done in Frankfort at a State; agency. If a local government insists on a public hearing, its held in Frankfort ... that's about 275 miles from Paducah. Because the state process is slow, BellSouth outfits these trucks as "temporary" cell sites. Since Lexington has quite a few of them, they may be all over Kentucky. The Lexington Fayette County Urban Council finally closed this loophole by adopting Ordinance No. 85-96. Now, at least, temporary cell sites aze regulated by Lexington; but not permanent ones. Published by Kreines &Kreines,-Inc., 58 Paseo Mirasol, Tiburon, CA 94920, Consultants to Cities & Counties phone: (415) 435-9214, fax: (415) 435-1522, a-mail: wireless.update@worldnetaif.net http:llxyz. uchicago.edu/users/%kreines/wireless.htm +~ ~~ Vis-on for the Future ~„a Solutions for Today June 29, 1996 Dear PTI Iviember, The issue of siting wireless telecommunications towers continues to be of major importance to all local governments. Two recent actions, the signing of the Telewmmunications Act of 1996 and the continued FCC auction of PCS licenses, along with advances in wireless technology, have helped spur the tremendous growth in the number of tower requests that. continue to be made in your jurisdiction. To shed some light on how other communities are responding to this issue, PTI's ANSWER information service has prepared the enclosed Exeruti~re l<nf'orffiation Packet -Wireless Teleco~t~e~is Ta~ee's. This packet contains news and journal articles describing what several local governments are doing with regards to managing the siting of towers; the Greensboro, NC, agreement to lease city~wned property for tower construction (bringing revenue to the city); a summary of a Wireless Focus Group Ivlceting PTI held with seven PTI member jurisdictions; and finally, a resource list of contact names and telephone numbers. In addition to creating this packet and responding to member inquiries on wireless telecommunications, PTI is working with our sponsoring organizations to keep local governments informed on telecommunications-related issues. These include: Cosponsoring with NLC a series of seminars explaining the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and funding the NLC guidebook The Telecommunications Act of 1996: li~hat It a%ieans to Local Governments (enclosed); Providing financial support for NLC's efforts in the; FCC rulcmaking process for the Telecommunications Act of I996; • Funding the NACo publication Counties ors the Information Superhighway (enclosed,); ~ Funding the NACo vidcoconference exploring the impact of the telecommunications act on counties. PTI's President, Dr. Costis Toregas, was a speaker at the videacorefcrence; ® Developing telecommunications and technology workshops for the NACo, ICN1A, and NLC annual conferences. We hope you hnd the enclosed Eaeecretive Information Packet - ~'Vireless Trelecorrsrraunicati~ans T®~vers useful. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to Dail PTI's ~~SWBK at 202/626-2456. Partnership Strategies ~~ Dale Bowen Business l~nagcr ~~~ PUBLIC TECHNOLOGY, INC. 1301 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20004-1793 202.626.2400 800.852.4934 FAX 202.626.2498 INTERNET http://pti.nw.dc.us Printed on recycled paper AUG-09-96 FRI 01:05 PM SHOREGLIFF COMM. 714 661 9785 P. 01 SHORgCLIFF COMMUNICA~fIONS INT$RNATION!~i, 34127 PACIFIC COAST HIGIit'UAY; SU1TF. C DATdA POINT, CA. 42G?9 PHONE:(714) 443-373.5 FAX:(714) 443-4206 FACSIMILE IRANSMI~TAL SHBTT rcf: k~xoM: Ms. Sabine McCully Sue S. Pepe _~ ~~ __ COMPAIIY: AAI`Fs: City of College Station August 9, 1996 __ r FAX NUMBBR: 'POFAL NO.Ok FACi1~5 SNClUUIN(3 CovEK: (~49)'76~-346 7 incl. cover ~ __ _ ~~' Wireless Buildout Conference Series ^ URCisIVT FOR REviE~T~' ~ PLEASE, COIviM1;NT C] P1,E:1SE REPLY ^ PI,EASF; 1;}:C:YC;~F De~-tr Sabitle: FotJowing is a copy of our San Diego brochure for the Wireless Buildotit conference. ~~'he ,yan Antonio program will be the same oI~ Sept. 30 £~: Oct. l . We'll kee~~ you Basted with information. Sincerely; ~Q ue Pepef Conferel~ce Director FRI 01:05 PM SHORECLIFF COMM. 714 661 9785 P.0 ~~ i <i i ~~ ~~G~oN~~ ~on~~E~~n~c~ ~~~~~ ~~ For PCS, Cellular, and Paging Site ~cq~usi~ion' ~s C~onstructton Gain ~~~ the infotmt~i~ion ar~d co~~~~~xe~[s you ~zeed -- una~er owe roof -- fgi~ ~i~e acquisition anc~ tie eff~icent~ ~ru.~I~~ou~ of ~ wireIess ne~wo~k. ~lC~l~A~ E3~~ '~Ifl'~~: MTA 43 euu.oour Southern (~~~lifc~rni~, ~~r~stern ~~ irona ~ncl South+~r~ N~~v~tla ~Dfficiat 3pansors: .:. ~ ~toro~sota ~ ti~•,~ ,;~:~•. 4 .ra•_ .~Uieet face-to;~aee w,~t~h: Property. owners anti building mangers Local government z©ning officials • pGS licensees AUG-09-96 FRI 01:06 PM SHORECLIFF COMM. 714 661 ~J785 P. 03 "~: ~ac~ is on far ~~~~ ~ 1~1e ~~ket -- end time i~~~~th~ :. ,; rr~~st cr~c~a~ ~~e~~i~ in i~CS site a~q~isit~~r~s~ :: Hc~(tl f~statc~ 1>rtrst I:)F; ~zc:clciirc>cI, .IE(75r~S 11f?~yO~IG[l ~a~r~2ziis vt~tciinf~r~, tc~itrt>t'~ c:vnsli•ucFc:rl, c~n~ c~E~ui~~rrt~nt put in plc~rc. Rost II~'1',rl 43 1'rf.~Ii'()1'ICS s~vi1I he r,•~r21,~31Frtec~ LV,tt~I.113 3G m«sltlrs - i~hctt ~acrrt iti°ilf y~c~u ~~It2~ iz~ tllf'1F (ff'Vf;Ifl~Jl1lr-?I21 i~i~d taut: • IIt;}~~' trl St:rt'u;ttlra* [l ?~Ittits~liy T3F>.1'i~6ir..iit1 .SitEa I~CF.IS(.* • ('t.lrret~t isl[:ltlsirr~~ %E~l:(ist,~ 7~'Eall(is • iit~~v t()'~t<{i1zl~t:'tbc= F(~EII~G.~tE~rirt~; Prc)c(,s~ • f„ilr~t'[ll (:()ll~;trt,r;ti[zll .Rr Iltst~lltttic)tl "I'tE:tt(1!3 • ~I~~11E'': I:ft~:c;t 0# ~11't(:)•~lit,~y ~l(:E;~111U1U~,~' Ull (;.El'1'1•E;D:Ilt ~.Gll ;3tte (.f3ritifJ'lt,(;ti()1.1 • I^I[)~Y ~() I)E'crta~se Sit!'. ~1r;Eltli~i.tE),Il C:c~vt4 13p L?~i:ul 0~++,lt,I'- hhis:. ~t is exp des~i+~ned for: • x~, I3 ~ c.13l~a~-:~. ~i~~~l~,yE:E~~ • I~lttllzlit)~;1~'ir~tl~. ~. • I.tltltl tis[? t.,E)Ittitll.tA'IliS • I31IIb[?FIrE~ t1tiE~ 5ljytl~'a()t'tlpul'lf[:s • t,~'1'[](~'e'ttli~ T~IOI}t,l't_V Cj4i*it(~r3 • ~\~' ~I1~,111C3f3TS [+ Site t1t:r{itisiiiEZll ~,X~)c~rts • Toeve.r I3ttildors • .E)1"g1EGt .MFtlltl~y(?r5 • (iC)i~tgrlltll4'Tit (')f"ficit~ts • RaiIl'Erl{1 C~U,n~Eltlny kxe:r..tttivc~s . - El1I I?,X[*(;lltltiE;3 :I,lltt4t'tiStt`l'~ in clisro~:![arilt~; rtc3ut Ea~)pc)i•t'tlnific),~ Flb~lil.tfi3lE' Itl ~Vlt'E?Kass Ci~lllrt111t1'ic:catic)~1, ~~~- ~~~ ~~~~aa~~r ~.5'nb, AUG-09-96 FRI 01:08 PM SHORECLYFF COMM. 714 661 9785 P, O4 • ~ ~a~c~ tie • ~t CQlUt1~E'~~Q~~ Rnl at this exci~u~r+~s e~r~nt. Keyna~~ S~Setakers~ j ohn B alrer Kev i't~ Ti"inn •~1~~; ~~,[Y9$t(~£;.ttt O f ~l'l.'~127Q.1L1°~tP ~51:1!!(JI' ~l~~:r,' ~~1"t?S,!(~HJPt ~'~c~~i=~c ~31.aI.1. It~c~~i~l.,~: N~~:x~t~:~.vt', S~.t~~f(:cs ~onfarence a~e~k~rs: Atcx allay I~1[tnor;r~~•!'1~~,ifiufie.~r l.'sv~rvrnc i~Ic~•ro~zr:~t.n (::et.:t.c~t..rtx It~'R~S'!'R4iG`''t'LiRt fiT:C)'lJP Neil ). ~:la>ieY, jn 1.)ir'eclvr of .tt(tlrl ~z;lntc AJiS~I! F)ccat:trSE: rJ!• I.~c}S 1~1{Ttra,t-,, 'I~m l)al~. Rl~tti-ar (.:t'F'Y c)tr ~s1~f~tl~.t~t ' Susai'I~'.Sa~t'is Ptlrlc.i~~tit t'Ibrin~r• I?Pe~ E~r1 I'irsi~`~n1 j9ni:l, (~(JA•fD11_I~IE:~1'I~.)v3 • '~3~2f~ I~lBOtl ' Stan Fr(~rne I' I::tf)hff .I;t~.l'L~.ktP'R1~1S5 Rtfl't8F[I ~' ulpi~iu ~E:nipr° YiG'~ ,!~'irsirl~nt ~ (.;(`1(J 4;~tJ~~I.~[:0I1rI~T Inc;. Rick'Gc1It 1~~~,lseta}~ Ui+•++~r E~Ert.t{ L:~ri~rt~i~t<ti,~t.y Rs;.rt f.;~e~~~~~~ .Rt.C)l~.t)i1~i l~i;~1![C:iKt;:~7...it•' . °`: tea F~t~~t~~l~nnlrrg ndrrzi~,i~llzrlnr . C;c~t:~~'r•~ ~t;' I.,cjs A~c:~t:t.~s `E~tl Kresttc~~ !?t•e5aclj:rat ICREIN),~ ~ ItILt~INt4~, 'I'hc:r~~~ O'f~rin~c~Il [<trrrrtr,: F4,r~rzir,,s; iJurrtr~;!~>:' Moir Ulson C:t'r~' c>t'' ~.~, t~ t.~s Ii r tttt,3F€.:~, RC~fi'etiCDtd11"Kk~ K~prestxiit~-tiartt t'Icrrrr7ir~M )lr•F,(rr:tt=rc~r: f . J,arry 'l'oad l'rr:r• !'tr+rrls•RtF f:;'ir~r1 Ilt:~~'.sOu,rarrll- ~itFtF,Ei;' ~t.l'4 ~~`!".i.i..~.t~ ~+'it[)~'!' tQc ~~~;)t:, T,a~ic:e i7mhc~t l€s !'r'f!~~ltlr' n f Join ~s f yr the ~~~~~s~ Built~out Golf TQ~arnarn~.~t {;t~rc,natio t;t~11` C,e,s~sz;c~. F.rirl.~y.:1.4ag~rst 2;3. tit,r,~i~t,r'caci t~~~ ti't"!'. Nrtcu~rrr. ~... _ .. ~~~ s .rww lcw A11 Ji!~A1r. COMM. I ~ .~ ~ ~ u e ~,~,,~ Hvw to R®gister y,j, 1;1• lahtui~: ~;~.I} Of1tl•~r0~•9fi#'I ct3• ?14-#43.3?35 to r~lgly if:>: lla:a'air: hi Itat•r! tna- r-rtt{3'ir f. (t3i~ inEitnttBlJf)13 1)attrlV- ...,.k Iti 1iJ>: t;nuaprita t)txfnr~i li.i.;;lt~t'U. 113i1Fi a>itf taX dais ...4T.~ iq:~,!i,t[:1riE,77 lC[r3t tr :14•;143,92i)~ lit nttiifl; tasTYap!{i;e.' hsrfprr' Arhust 1.~~, 'i9$lI° RTi.{1 ~`~ 'Ci`I 133'i7 t11,1!~ SY3}fiStl'it[iklP ifil il~ t,i)' ~~~~ Al"1;14313afilduut 1!U. B[)< Rii2,1)una Yoint. (~,.3 t-~!")29 °itrT;J.9: ~;'i'~/:•, ri•'~°Ir7. •!f.'. •:P au.•r ra'P?H;.! i;i urn !+P[ v+I~7~4,AtI Y•.-' •,fl. !•: irt:1!'i' R~gis~t~atiQn Form -- ~4 Hvurei 1~'nx tn: 71~•443.92~G ~~~~ I -vnrrF lit riitE:t,t t11r~ M 1':1 4;t 'f$ullrlr)ut i;.;:afert:tlt e). ~/ [tiL° ellr~+ i, a,!• c n~iit i r)i~I iaticittr~~littts ir, t?ttf:lr,S(1{l. . i~:i~ 1 ~A~k.t; 'frl e',(Nil~l f~ii•i 4rI'lit~r> t~liE:~F'ri~ 111111i:1i)>Ir (:r:x;tlY11A! t,l,Itli~rY`t;f",",~, •':+r3f1(`t+, 1)I{5it,~>i; ~f:ntl iItl' r?trJi'la Irf{tP)tS~Iri1,ll:. Y~S~ :ii;;,a Iuf' frl) nr tttu S'!'c: '~.>ti-rst't.t t;r.-lt'lii.tr!~~s.[arnf . 1 vatnt d:~l~lri,• atld x})tnasfrrti#)i~'r kI['<)rmriiilirt alPClr:t ihi: 1',( t.~ ~3'•} 13l;ilcitn[I (.c,;t.e%)i:i)t,e EL3f1 rll,[`r:; .t! 1)tf= 11'it•tdtrai 13tai1{l:i!)t f'aa!ft<rrr.:r~'ir~rir++• plE•:at,,,= ca>n:; ritr: il~frrrnu+tiiul !!'rirTerli[ttf,.il<. ~i111,tE: ,. ..._..., _........ ..........._._.. ..._....._... ,,......, ..... .. t ~rttit] iii e~'l. G;l_~...... .... _. _. titn!~ 1!}! .............._ 'DT'I ~ ) .._........ ,... 1•a~ ! 1 1r.'~R,I,i . ..... .. ..... , ....., ...,.. r:T.&tr'lit.i.ni•rl ~"i~,r ..., etc: Ali ~,if3i tll'l .... .. _. .. ..... ... .. ;k~}> r`r)JTr'II~;U~'' tt'fl{.Pj(~ ;j~F1 I{/ Ui!r'liit. "11'ile: . ' ...... ......... . ~lf i'llX'S} i.'!tt' ;It'd::, .. ._... Ick? ........... .... ... i;-'11,111 __....._ .......... ...,... 1 Y~ilt!hR :iIP"a.el, hU# IITr•a~e• ~Ci~•r•ft i:~r• nn !{rf!i !air){:!~~ ijBT f{J!' fi•P;rn•ttj:dvtP'a~- rarlf~•r.•n<:c!.<stnri ri~;u~s (:rtl'[a;eTlatirron $r~krcue t;t~'i:~•kt:Ei'~ it• •n~ta hr ;•,:c,•Sr:~4 in •rriiulg ru o::,ednac e •.r~ ..< 1:: !Vliu, '3 :'". r•re:ar• ..n.<•:r. U•1; F• • 1. RI:3'fI ,TY t~ v...t.[~i!illr:::[ .~ ~~ s.~ ~' S4~ d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ 714 661 9755 P. 05: ~~" ~ ~~ ~~~ ~'~' ~P~, ~,~ AUG-09-96 FRY 01:10 PM SHOREGLIFF COMM. 714 661 9755 03/0$!9 1:03 P1~I The ~eless Buld~ui; .1996 Regional Conference Series (Dates subject to change) Se-.~ 25 MTAs:_ MTA 43 San Diego, CA August 21 - 22 Hotel Del Coronado MTAs 79,19, & 31 San Antonio, TX September 30 -October 1 Hyatt Regency MTAs I1 & 33 Chicago, IL October 14 - 15 MTAs 21, 67 & 27 Colorado Springs, CO October 28 - 29 The Broadmoor MTAs 83, 85, & 77 Coeur d'Alene, ID November 4 - 5 Coeur d'Alene Resort MTAs 37, 75, 4I., 63, 93, bl,, &; 89 Midwestern Regional Conl°erEance Lake oi'the Ozarks, MO November 13 - ~ 4 Marriott MTAs 29, 71, & 81 San Francisco, CA December 2 - 3 Marriott 11'IT`As 35, 87, & 49 Orlando,. FL January 14 - 15, 199? The Peabody P. 06 AUG-99-96 FRI 01011 PM SHORECLIFF COMM. 714 661 9785 P. O7 SIGNALS. Antennas Iu~kp unseen, in other structures fROhn , FAUX 'FREES, PLEASE "~~lth lire ttrrea~ul:,Unn dt th:• • •' 'fcderrl! fC1'eI. It's tEke the ntarkc; • has 5Urldent~ exploded rvt:r}• tats In t:alitornits aRJ itrns3s the rrttre Hatton is faeint; the same thl,t,it '1'itere's }vat this hose pro• Elf¢ratia:, Vi ~ntenaa;." F:ntg!tr ttnii, "Some ~f these titles are • getting tH~n „r three at+plica;tunr ••u n:ontll It's rea!iy quite ama;:- the •' ' Locxi af`.It;lts',5 are forrli:g tilt' t•ompant-. t;: [4scig the det'ICes s,s she :2,at15iape uun't look like a „_priuklt• rne55 A nrskcd antenna ._;:,,t:an ioak like s big slls'er pore ,yitk :arms its job is to usher e:;i- ..attlAr teleytwnt: calls tnrauglt the ;~~,1r on u•areg of radio-freyuene}' •-;,~Iectromt;gnetle ra.hation °hirTouch ,y rcticduicd to 1!,• „„jttall its t,rst'oke thee, rs piastre •~'~ahu that tfirej~ll~• sr 2,io e,ntrnnn •;~ l~p'.tind to uDout a r,l,snth --^-•lt lolls+t•r' a viand aF s}nth:•tt: •~,nea attJ ppalms that `ta+o lie~•r. -•i' lsnted" b~ other eosnpeslics in y,tthcrn Caletnl'ttltt iuld Ir the ;83t. "It ttuks gust like a palm tree," ' said 13ett'.• Stnith of Fort l~tsrth ' Tatvcrs iIi Texas, Iltakers of 1+P• ' liinA's tree •'Fnu t:r,n't tell 'it's nuI a real ollr." Rol}south Mklttiiu}: put up 7i take nii:E~ In :ltlanta ro proi•ilic better ecllalar serL•ice for the Olympics AIi95ion l'ieja :.onsidrri•d qet- iing a fake ir2e but decided ' against it, F'ecffic Telesis C.o. jumped the gun and hsd a Tubber pins tree made ariytcnL`, and not, it's stuck u•itll iL said t3ob L}•nn of SBA int. in Costa 1rle.;a, acon- suItanr to the phone gjant. "tti'e actually have a fake tree for sah;.d anybody' u•ant5 one." Lynn Said. " 2'uu never have to • tt•>;ter i1 " l't,itrtt•r,! lndttstn£s t.^. ~~Aras• ku Is nt,o tra't~g to grill a l3tg sh%, re of tt,e fake-[rett rnarltt;, ' "{l'n }~eid lit'q Of tiii££ Vt't2:•r tt•t'c~ that 'didn't work 'the . fipltda tests jncrrf£tjrttt frith the +Iltna2." spokeStrl,~n t3rsau Starl• ic> »uld "SY;e'L'e lltlalfi' solred • Ebitl }~ral•l~ut.'Uur palm Frt;~ Host u•urks " Pas:jli: lieu Dlobile Services i~as built 5U tantcnnt,s m Orauge ' CUttlx;• and piEin9 to add an eddj- tiunal '~, ~~ Tltt: Century .?I puildIttg an Hcaih t3utllaVard in iluntlltgtqu f3tttch tlss ~C~r4::¢~IS'••lsetet;{ated~ • into its biack'kI$h's' facade, ' Seal Seacll,Is,ilaL•ing nvp itR- • teunas crafijfirHi'dden in th"• 192v clack urt•er iit:City.liall, Olae tt•i11 be hidden i1S p• metaE railing o:t • the tau•cr sail the other utsldr ti}+erglass f~SFtionesi to took like •~od supports•'I'hose tn•o ante,l• --ttos, and a third to br lnstallcd •: -along the freeway, a•itl rAise'' ..es::7Ye bw~u~ Gyt,;,ng rr•o,nt~-g •ecuests 40. ieitc.a.-cnone tow~r~ L:i 41! 5741.] a1J: ;; ri!9tUn4atuY•: amp.,^iiS 9•iy...t. 7hr r;r1c~. a~ eyeso•89.'hrs tr<e 9a", t~eE $ cane !? utu:n e -. ~ - 1NAVELtNGtHS: The sign ar Irvine 4Gectrurr2 hides one of the 't`ile I11ottItolt: ViguCl SVater ib :_..zctct llas an'antenna stuck to t} =~3~de of one of its water tank °".~linted to blend in u'Ith the ezt ~:'' "~.r tsttd held itti place by a tle ':,~ ring that expands and. co ;""ttticts wfth'the'tank, Att amen jti the Dai',a point Harbor marl _ is painted blue to Mend in u•i ~31e sea and sky', .~ .'Les Aiemftos Community Co '•;,~egational Church has a Pacif :~tb antenna {ridden in its be ,~aer. Perhaps rho most prominen - bur still hidden, of Urange Coo cy's Antennas is iltside tlse lrvtn St+ECintm sign, a +vhitc obeli; along the Santa Ana {I-S1 Fre • way !n Irvine. "It isr a very specially forntu IAted flbergtass tlrut eltotvs th • riidlo frrtluencies to be able t ' 9t504i t}Irough," said Lonm - flurtkc, prostdent ct tild Yattft Gioup in 12Cdondo Beech, "stealth site" proL'tder. "tVe't• • ilone stucco. t~'e've done u~oo gi•A,jt. tCr',:e stone ¢uncrete . tt't'vc cianc smooth .. He wr.uldn't saL• hn+. tnu,:}t th sign rust 'Ttlere's a real scieltre n where thc)• put up these anter•• Has. Sontettmes they has•e to put one svlthln a space of a fCtt• feet to trtp,ke their s~stetn work. lI'B not easy," h;aCfk6 Said. -tl'ithout antennas at rill the right spats, callers could Aare bad rcceptioa, oi• fall jute a ce11- pk}one black iROle. AntenllAS are sp,,ved accw•d- ing to the terrain and tkte number of people using them. In Jrange Cauaty, they 91'0 ttenarolly'one to live miles apart. in the countr•t•• • side. they can be 15•:a 3222ites e rrsrt, said Tim Ayers: aF the tel- l tulsr Telecanmunications I+~• dusiry Asseciatioa. : "7hece's aggresseve rompe[,• tU)n for thv ear Sites," AYtrs said, "ft's a new busjress," paC1IjC fiiOUp i5 also rest+onsi- Dle for the f0~foot iriangulsr, - stolleljke tower nGltt John ii,'ayne Alrpart that sa}•s "Fxeci,tlt~e = Park " 11 looks like a tali, 'scliLl' 11SUnllneen[ ,jUtt7t1R gkt•tu~lyd„ 1'+111 • it'5 actutilr a then shell hal'bnr• ing a hiq Antenna hetlmir.g t;l;. --Hate to rhr•usa,ldz of crlloli+t• t~l•~• phohes a•ltiaailtg t,y on 'than fray- s- weI'• tt; Probably the most popular s, places for Ittealtn antennas eta e' on the sides olf tali buildings. The xi• antennas coal ba shade into pat ~- panels of discerent shapes paint• na ed rite same color its the building [h so this look like ttccoretjons The cell-f,ltone providers ap- n- plaud their own ingenuity, but it .others sec resit e~£forts as sinis• 11 ter and pr>g,.sbty dangerous. "I think It's .eAils' sneaky ~ t T+sey don't knoct• azactlu Lvhnt i n- problems ttlrs•'lk cause ro•hurn,?n e beings, but ttse•,'re jarnntin~ K them jr~ eve-yyttrre [hey cah." e• said 14arianrl-; Silt, tt•na suct:eed- ed ii, i`,t:tting an.L.;t. Celtuinr an• rennt2 to+rCr ts~mos t•.d f2•ou7 a cpLtt Ileatr the pisgttrourid At Sflt•rrado o Canyon E[r16Cnt;i•y• her dough- ~ ~ e tee's school. "The4're ,Itrikttth'a i rnn of mane;: and ~'hcy're sot ga ~ ]ng to stop '. (~ a Studies hnt•t•n•t mown i?,tlt ;he 1f t• F'Adlp tt'a11512I1gaUliy C:i 1,SC 111• f d Hess. GUt CYi[1;:c ni i'Ie 13hun,•c ;;:, r JII ipnQ-l~"frtt st..d14:5 hdCC1 to LJN 1 2 done. 1 tompunies msl.+• !hc ,;;~t.,, are b~r,nir2,5, liner ther• I V r•tal+- 1 InR £1 RYad US •4,4t ii'y Ii7N)' CiIP [t) : saiitf+• miiltosts oC neu• t:ustom. j i era. in the t;,-sled states- yon». body buys a Ct°itutnt• pttOne et•~t•y three seconds indu•atry offteials st4 y. l)n the hot,'on. grain sittls. Stealth ver;uol; i'I e;:hnolugtes of yott[h ldt•oiina jsDCitdirjg tt,:o of them, one at a shopping ecnter In Nt;u• pork glare as a iluAiut dc•co• mi't'e eletncnt, ant'[ sane lit rural Penns}'ivaitici. leither silo s:i;tu,all}• hat ~rilin inside. Jusransannai; "Ne can boil; th.c'a xu the}''rc actuaE tunctiuntna train siln5," .said Jtnt l~tlld't;mitir, cotnpan; ~ spakesma,t, 1'he Co[n~5n? hg.t a l,iitent pcsidjng ort a .e.t ••a X126,1 f12+L: material called •'iniealthskln" thee.. hiJes Aadg,ers tarsi aftow,i r;i• dio ~Y2fveg to tl:tss: CFt; ougtt effi, Clentl i'. tiieat]!k .S ':+1'. Il do L'elap• ing anetlicr tnatrrl'iaJ'it2at's sup• f'iasEd try be -nU'ItI,nrF.cn2E[Ii An ~ qtr::lilt.-f(tn '•t~d tt:i1 ,'(t3 u:,iii j: c Lillits " ~ Ha:de;nsal, ?a at. "Ito then 1 s1 I l,a'r: tc' l,llt yvli ' JAfdFS BENNfrtrrrp Ora~gas Co~~ty+tegisje. htAfSK AVERYThq Rtgrster ~+"rtd more titan 540,009 a year ~{fierenftl'r. Stealth antennas send cell-phone s~ nals an the sl ~ ~! CULYURE: ~1~ph 1lO~l{ trEe." 'fhstl izz no Iorlger trill. ° "it tbF Cr9SE c1tt be flUt only' u ItiKh scho6l and intei,rati ti ~~'tivk?5 It2Si2S(I n~ 1'Filil Atrl ouch Cellulat• also makes trees F)ut these trees hide cell s3~tnbolo{Christian hope but also . ,~ ney a7tteuna into it," 5aia Ed 1LL 2FFISt[,J~3LI1' Et CIE(~fl[7H~ o- 7ar-teler!}rOre xnECnnae in9id2. s means for eornmunicRtirrt, Ihat`sfineu•ithme,''xaidLeland Knight; director of c;,mrnunity develonmertt in Dana 3' nt art'(: hf(1(~C77 111 1)tti3ljltl rte ~ • Ceii~phone cornparties are e Jones, it+tstor of 55tH( Andreu'g ur ' , • 171{i(` f!'c•C y - '`r rc: cning new heights of staslthl• Fpiscopttt l'hureh in Irvine, 1 Aat propuSRl didn't fi~,r ~a•ith . l eI) 111- i>ida t:hut'clt Ct'r,tSS£'fi tress ea they scarth for prates to tune ~ltr 100.000 new antennas wAich hopes iu ger do 9ntenna dtsggwised as a cross, the achooi dlatr7tt. !n)ta84 one pf the Iight peies at :t,e i:sana . ~ho> exg~ct ro nepd Dy the Yeer ' ' t'ltt: r;ell•phnne (:aopie 4i;E1 the Iiillx trig Schcoi fuut:~aH a;aQi- Brt::a>tol.Ntast:-ot.A Tire CrAnt r n ~O F =000 1 heJ r¢ crashing ing tt>i• 6ainty fixture3 insiQe ak disgul;ctQ nridnpas "StCaEtb " um is batng repltsc~rf wtt=t art ll ~ V tY egistNt '1'!tc vuet .tayoe h:ihner on : e grtot, aitas, rinrp yr,r• Rtbtien stLttS, in- sites, •,•I'ile re Y~ Ketting renily quite even t,r er poi: thlt N•ill bo?d an enteirna. Nub~x1 i )' a sL;iDr>scd to i p :':rid that "oni5• Cod can make a side rubber pizte trees, even oa cAt,reM crosses hnngit;atl~c t'hcy rsfCered to ngtitE build a ne'.v seoreDo!trd Ft tha wee:Q see 51GNAI.s ra;a~ t~ . Memorandum V To: Jim Callaway Roxanne Nemcik ~i Fromr Linda Piwonka ~ U'" 'i,; Re: Information on New Telecommunications Law ';; Regarding Local Regulatory Authority on Telecommunication Tower Sites and other Franchise and Right-of-Way Issues f ', Date: August 25,1996 j'i '~ Jim, and Roxanne, T am attaching some information that Charlie and I obtained during the annual meeting of TATOA {Texas Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors). Since things 'I~ change so quickly in the business, and the. Fells. keep changing the rules, I thought we might all find this ~j helpful. It also includes a list of the: membership. and phone numbers which may prove handy to find a counterpart from another city if you wish. to talk about issues. Likewise if you get information coming that would be helpful to Charlie and myself in the. franchising and management of the rights-of--way, we would appreciate you sharing same with us. it will probably take us all to keep ahead of this train.... See ii Ya. cc: Charlie Shear ,:, Attachment i ',i 'ii jl ~~~ '!I it j, ,~ I, l I i r° FOCUS ON" C~iANGE TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS OFFICERS AND`ADVISORS CITY TELECOMMUNICATION CHALLENGES JAY DOEGEY, CITY ATTORNEY, ARLINGTON. IVAN`BLAND, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY AUGUST 3'5, 1996 CITY TELECOMMUNICATION CHALLENGES I. CITY POLICY AND GUIDELINES A.. CURRENT ORDINANCES AND POLICY B, TELECOMMUNICATION SSTING ISSUES C. POLICY DEVELOPMENT II. ZONING CASES A. APPLICATION QUESTIONNAIRE B: TECHNICAL HELP. C. HEARING PROCESS 1. PLANNING' AND ZONING BOARD- TOWER/ANTENNAE .GUIDELINES. a. YOUR DECISION SHOULD BE MADE ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS IN A REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION `T'HE NATURE AND SCOPE OF EACH REQUEST b. IT IS NOT-THE INTENT OF .THESE GUIDELINfES TO GIVE PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT TO Z'HE WIRELESS SERVICES INDUSTRY IN Z'HE PROCESSING OF REQUESTS, OR TO SUBJECT WIRELESS REQUESTS TO ANY BUT THE GENERALLY APPLICABLE TIME FRAMES F'OR ZONING DECISIONS WITH CONSIDERATION F'OR THE '' COMPLEXITY AND TIME NEEDED F'OR APPROPRIATE REVIEW c. THE .BOARD SHOULD DEVELOP AN APPROPRIATE RECORD IN 'EACH CASE .THAT ADDRESSES ANY ISSUES THAT ARISE INCLUDING ANY INCOMPLETE OR UNCLEAR. RESPONSES TO QUESTIC)NS PROVIDED IN THE APPLICATION PROCESS UR THE HEARING d. YOUR DECISION CAN NOT UNREASONABLY FAVOR ONE COMPETITOR C)VER ANOTHER AND ACTIONS t2) P . TAKEN.SHOULD NOT PROHIBIT, OR .HAVE THE EFFECT OF PROHIBITING, WIRELESS SERVICES 2. CONDITIONS TO CONSIDER ADDING TO TELECOMMUNICATION ZONING CASES a. APPLICANT WILL PERMIT COLLOCATION OF OTHER TELECOMMUNICATIONS PROVIDERS b.' THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS STRUCTURE WILL BE CONSTRUCTED TO ACCOMMODATE ADDITIOTfAL PROVIDERS C. THE BACKHAUL.PROVIDER WILL BE IDENTIFIED d. THE CITY WILL RECEIVE TIMELY NOTICE TF:[AT IDENTIFIES ANY PROVIDERS WHO COLLOCATE AND THE IR.BACKHAUL PROVIDERS e. THE STRUCTURE WILL BE REMOVED IF NOT USED OR MAINTAINED FOR TWELVE MONTHS f. SECURITY WILL BE PROVIDED TO CITY ~SO STRUCTURE CAN BE REMOVED IN THE EVENT IT IS NOT USED FOR A PERIOD OF, TWELVE :MONTHS ~.., III. CITY AGREEMENTS A. VALUE:.OF INFRASTRUCTURE B. COMPETITIVE BIDDING ~ C. CITY EXPENSES. h D. TERM E. ~' R COMPENSATION F. BACKHAUL.PROVIDER G. TRANSFER H. SERVICE AREA' I. ~' NON SERVICE LINES J. DEFINITIONS K. CITY: REMEDIES L. CITY CAPACITY ~: (3)- ,~ M. 911/PUBLIC SAFETY N. CUSTOMER SERVICE O. CONSTRUCTION P. LAW CHANGES Q. LEAS3NG y R. FRANCHISEE MAY LEASE A PART OF THEIR PLANT -0R SELL ~ THEIR SERVICES OR LEASE CAPACITY TO ANY CUSTOMER FOR RESALE TO THE PUBLIC WITHIN THE CITY OF DALLAS ONLY IF THAT CUSTOMER ALSO HAS A FRANCHISE FROM THE CITY OF DALLAS TO OFFER THIS SERVICE TO THE i PUBLIC IN THE CITY IV. TCCFUI A. PURPOSE B. PROJECTS C. JANIS D. EVERHART ASSISTANT CITY. ATTORNEY, DALLAS CHAIR OF TCCFUI CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE: 1500 MARILLA 7DN DALLAS, TEXAS 75201 (2.14) 670-3481 FAX. (214) 670:-0622 V. ATTACHMENTS.. MODEL CITY TELECOMMUNICATIONS POLICY SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM WITH TELECOMMU1vI- j j CATLON TOWER/ANTENNAE QUESTIONS il 1 (4) MODEL CITY. TELECOMMUNICATION ANTENNA/.TOWER .SITING POLICIES AND GUIDELINES 1. 2 Consistent with federal and state. .law, the City endeavors to effectively manage the efficient use of public rights-of-way, protect the public safety and welfare, promote high quality telecommunication services and opportunities, .safeguard the rights of consumers - and citizens, safeguard community land values, .require fair compensation from users. of 1the public rights-of-way,_ promote orderly planning and deve3opment, and. minimize the size, number and obtrusiveness of antennas/towers. Requests for rezoning or Special Use Permits to authorize antennas/towers should document the need :for the requested site, the nature of any existing sites, and demonstrate how the request will promote the City's telecommunications policies and guidelines. .Antennas/towers should not be constructed or used 'in .City jurisdiction without .all approvals and permits first :having been secured. Antennas/towers shall meet all applicable FAA, FCC, -and other federal, state and local..codes and standards. Safety issues will be fully addressed by applicant :for antenna and tower sitings. AntennasJtowers should be located in such a manner that if the structure should fall:. along its longest dimension it will remain wit7hin property, boundaries and avoid habitable structures, public streets, utility lines and other antennas or towers: unless building support.. structures 'are of sufficent;.:height. and strength. If a proposed structure has a potential' for affecting. a nearby property or structure upon collapse or`scattering of equipment debris, the's nation will be addressed by applicant. Antennas/.towers should be located clear of aircraft flight patterns and not interfere with aircraft flight operators'frequencies. Telecommunications providers will supply the City with their respective master antenna' plan, including detailed maps, showing the precise locations and characteristics of all antennas/towers and indicating coverage areas -for current and future antennas/towers. Also, on initial.. application, applicant will 'provide topographic maps-.sufficient to support _any applicant 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. F claims of terrain difficulties that necessitate the tower. 8. Antennasjtowers shall be located. to .minimize their number, height and obtrusiveness. 9. Back haul providers shall be identified and have ail necessary approvals to operate as such, including holding necessary franchises, permits and certificates.. 10. Telecommunications providers should, to the .maximum extent feasible, promote collocation of antennas by multiple providers through- the use of .nonexclusive agreements for antenna sites, relocation and reconfiguration of antennas to accommodate. additional users, utilization of current technology to maximize antenna separation and minimize antennajtower .height and obtrusiveness, and ensure building support structures are flf sufficient height and strength.. 11. Unless alternate..provisions. are .made, each tower facility will be constructed in such a way that the structure can support.. multiple additional antenna systems having the same or similar wind and weight - loading characteristics of those that are proposed by applicant. Tower space on existing antenna towers should be provided on a reasonable, proportioned. cost basis to other telecommunications provders,who seek use- of the structure. Access for another, provider should be refused 'if .the proposed new use will .result in the creation' of a level of radio frequency interference which .would significantly degrade applicant's services. 12. Financial hardship alone or the inability for applicant to obtain financially advantageous agreements or .leases shall.. not.. provide 'a reason for any .deviation, change, or variance to Telecommunications policies and guidelines: 13. All structures and antennae shall be kept in good repair. or should be proiriptly removed. whenever such use terminates. 14. Applicant will identify to the City any structures in the vicinity which are available foruse by applicant for telecommunications that have' not been addressed otherwise: in the application. i5. Applicant will submit an appropriate landscaping plan than will comply with'City ordinances as appropriate for ` the .area . t2) i Saecific Use Permits/Zoning Cases I Pursuant to the provisions of .the Federal Telecommunications. Acts ofi '1996, the following information is necessary to enable the I'Ianning and Zoning Commission and City Council to properly. evaluate all applications to locate telecommunica#ions antennas/towers in he City of Arlington. This form must be returned with your application. if additional space is needed for any question, attach an additional sheet. Name of Applicant SUP/Zoning Case No. 1. Described the nature of the antenna. site: a. What: type of supporting structure. is proposed? 1) A monopole (height: ); 2) Aself-supported structure (height ); or, 3) A .guyed. tower (height ): ~' b. Attach .photos. or drawings of ail. equipment, structures and antennas. c. Will` the structure meet all applicable 'FAA, FCC and other codes and s#andards?; Be specific. d. Given its position on the proposed location, if the structure should faN to the ground along its longest dimension, .would it remain within the property boundaries? Would it avoid habitable structures? Would it avoid .public streets, util#y lines, and other antennas/towers? 2 2. !s the antenna/tower necessary? if so, why? 3. State the name(s) of the telecommunications providers or other users of .the antenna/tower and describe the use to be made by each user. p N ~' 4. Will this antenna/tower site be connected to other sites? !f so, describe Ihow it will be connected and who will be the backhaul provider. 5. .Have you made an effort to collocate the facilities. proposed for .this antenna/tower on' existing towers or structures in the same genera! area? Please identify the `location of #hese existing sites. ,; w l'''~ 3 6. Regarding No. 5 above, if yes, please describe in detail these efforts and explain in detail why these existing saes were not fieasible. I 7. Attach all studies or #ests performed which demonstrate why the existing sites in No. 5 above will not provide sufficient signal coverage.. 8. Attach written documentation from these existing sites' owners and/or operators which confirm` the statements in No. 6 above. 9. Do these existing sites,. in No. 5 above, .allow/promote. collocation and, ifi not:, why not? 10. Will collocation be a~iowed to otner teiecommurncat~ons proviaers a~ me requested site? If not, state every reason and the basis for each reason. II 1 4 11. Wilt the applicant or the. proposed provider reconfigure its. antennas and other equipment to accommodate other"telecommunications .:providers? If not, state every reason and the basis #or each reason. I~ ',j 12. What is the proposed provider's current coverage area for the City of Arlingi:on? h se crate ma s showin 13. in response #o No. 12, attac p p g a. What areas the proposed provider's existing antennas currently cover; b. Wha# :areas the proposed. provider's existing site and.. the .sites described in No. 5 would. cover; 'and, ~ c. What areas the proposed provider's existing: sites and the requested si#e would cover. vi er's master antennaltower lan for the Ci of ro d 14. What is the ro osed p tY P P p Arlin "ton? Attach ma sand other related documentation. 'Provide information 9 P i each hase of the Ian. mdicat ng _P p s 15. Describe the proposed provider's plan to minimize the number of telecommunications antennasJtowers needed to cover the City of Arlington. r "SEC. 253. REMOVAL OF BARRIERS TO ENTRY. {a) IlV GENERAL.-No State or local statute or regulation, or other State or local legal requirern:ent, may prohibit or have the effect. of prohibiting. the ability. of and entity to provide .any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service. "(b) .STATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY.- Nothing in .this section. shall affect the ability of a State to impose, on a competitively neutral basis and consistent. with section 254, requirements necessary to preserve and advance universal service, protect the public safety and welfare, ensure the continued quality of telecommunications .services, and safeguard the rights. of consumers. "(c) STATE AND' LOCAL GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY.-Nothing in this section affects the authority of a State or local government to manage the. public rights-of -way or to require fair and .reasonable compensation from. telecommunications .providers, on a competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory basis, .for use of public rights-of-way. on a nondiscriminatory basis, if the compensation... required is publicly disclosed... by .such .government. . "(d) PREEMPTION. - if, after notice and an opportunity for public comment, the Commission determines that a State or ocal government .has permitted or imposed any statute, regulation, or legal .requirement tha# violates subsection.. {a) or (b), the Commission shall preempt... the enforcement of such statute, regulation or legal. requirement to the extent necessary to correct uch inconsistency.... ~~~~~~~~ Notes Preservation of right of way authority under state`law. • No affirmative federal. right: or authority to seek compensation from telecommunications providers or impose requirements related. to management of the .right of way. • Management is :intended.. to :cover ypical requirements,.. such as street cut permits, ,insurance,. indemnities,..-bonding, notification to other. right of w~ayusers and arbitration over disputes, imposed upon activities in the right of way. • Applies only to telecommunications :providers in the right of way, not cable providers or others. • All. the.. treatment :must be .competitively neutral. and nondiscriminatory. no# require individual licenses, but does not mean the provision of ;direct-to-home satellite services (as defined in section 303(v)).". -_ Notes • The zonn .authority of local governments. over personal wireless F g '~ '`~ communications (cellular and PCS) .facilities is affirmed. Conditions I''~,I - No unreasonable discrimination - Shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting services - Act on' an re west within a reasonable eriod of time. Y q p ', - Decision to deny a request shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. - May not regulate placement on the basis of the environmental effects of radio free uenc emissions q y - Rgh# of appeal wi#hin 30 days to court or Commission lil~ i III .NEWSReport No. DC .__ASE August 1,1996 http://www.fcc.gov/rzrcc6052.html COMMISSION ADOPTS RULES TO IMPLEMENT LOCAL COMPETITION PROVISIONS OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996 (CC DOCKET N0.96-98) Vie~~•~the teat version of this document C~iairn~an Hundt's Statement Commissioner Quellds Statement Commissioner Ness's Statement Attachment: Points of (nterconnectiou & linb~~ndled Elements The Commission today took action to remove statutory,. regulatory, and .operational barriers to local telephone services competition. In an' Order adopted today, one week before the August 8 deadline, the Commission established a framework of minimum, national rules that will enable he states anal the Commission to begin implementing. the local competition provisions `of the' Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Commission's Order relies heavily on the states to develop the specific rates and procedures, consistent with the Commission's general rules.. Today's decision reflects the experiences of those states that have already endeavored ~o promote local competition. 'The experience of these states :helped the Commission determine that a flexible policy .framework was the best approach, leaving up to the individual states the applicationof our national rules,. with appropriate discretion to accommodate the special. characteristics of their regions and needs of their local markets.. Under the 1996 Act, incumbent local telephone companies and new entrants may voluntarily agree to terms and conditions without regard :to the Commission's rules.. Ifparties cannot reach agreement, however, the Commissionhas put in place a baseline of terms and conditions for all arbitrated agreements between local telephone companies and new entrants: Establishing certain rights that are available, through arbitration, to all requesting carriers will help inform new entrants of their rights, and will simplify the arbitration process for the states. The Commission's rules will reduce delay in arbitrations and lower transaction costs. The Commission. believes that its rules are.consistent with the pro-competitive actions already. taken. by many states, and. indeed, many of the Commission's decisions are based directly on existing state commission actions. .Today's Order addresses the three paths of entry into the local telephone market enumerated by the 1996 Act. These three methods of entry are full facilities-based entry, purchasing of unbundled network elements from the incumbent local exchange.. carrier. (LEC) and resale of the incumbent's retail services. As described in greater detail below,: the Commission prescribes certain minimum points of interconnection necessary to permit competing carriers to choose the most efficient points at which to interconnect with the incumbent. LEC's network. in addition, the Commission adopts a minim~.im list of unbundled network elements that incumbent LECs must make available to new entrants, upon request. The Commission also sets forth a methodology for states to use-when: applying the statute's "avoided cost standard" °for setting wholesale prices with respect to retail services. in addition, the Commission sets forth a methodology for states to use in establishing rates for interconnection and the purchase of unbundled elements, Actual prices will be set by the states. The Commission concludes that acost-based pricing methodology .based on forward-looking. economic costs 1 of 9 08/14:/96 11:03:18 NEWSReport No. DC 96-75 ACTION IN DOCKET CASE August 1, 1996 NEWSReport No. DC ...ASE August 1, 1996 http://www.fcc.gov/nrcc6052.html is most consistent with the. goals of the 1996 Act. The Commission sets forth .principles and methodologies that are to be used by parties, arbitrators, and states nconnection-with the creation and review of "Total Service Long.-Run Incremental Cost" (TSLRIC) studies that will serve as the basis for state establishment of rates for interconnection and unbundled elements. Because the TSLRIC studies are for network elements, the Commission calls them "Total Element Long Run Incremental-host" {TELRIC) studies. Prices are to be set at TELRIC plus a reasonable share of forward- looking joint and common costs. For those states that do not elect to apply this methodology. in time for their arbitration process, the Commission also establishes default proxies that a state commission may use to resolve arbitrations that must be completed prior to a TELRIC study. States and the parties may seek further interpretive rulings from the Commission as they implement our rules The Commission's decision today is the first part of a trilogy of actions that will bring competition to the telecommunications market. The second. and third parts; are universal service and access charge reform. Pursuant to the requirements of the 1996 Act, both federal and state regulators must develop a new system of funding,universal service,that is explicit, predictable, sufficient, and competitively neutral. A competitive telecommunications market requires that access charges be moved closer to more economically efficient levels. To avoid undue disruption of incumbent LECs' ability to support universal service, new entrants purchasing unbundled elements will continue to pay a portion of certain access charges, as described in greater detail. below,. until no later than June 30, l 997. The following sum`rzarizes the key issues addressed in the Report and Order. Section 251-Interconnection;Unbundled Access; .and Resale General Section 25l of-the 1996 Act imposes specific obligations on telecommunications carriers designed to promote competition in local exchange markets across the country. Section 251(a) imposes ge-neral obligations on all telecommunications carriers. Section 251(b) imposes on all LECs certain requirements, including the obligation to provide resale; access to rights-of--way; and to establish reciprocal compensation arrangements for transport and termination. of traffic. Section 251(c) requires incumbent -EEGs `to make available to new entrants interconnection and .access o unbundled rnetwork elements, and to offer LEC retail services for resale to telecommunications carriers at wholesale rates. Access to unbundled elements and resale opportunities are methods by which telecommunications carriers can enter the local exchange market. Section 251(c) is the primary focus of today's Order. Interconnection Section 251(c)(2) of the 1996 Act requires incumbent LECs to provide interconnection to any requesting telecommunications carrier at anyaechnically feasiblepoint. The interconnection must be at least equal in qualty'to thatprovided by the incumbent LEC to itself or its affiliates, and must be provided on rates, terms, and conditions that are just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory... The. term "interconnection" under section 251(c)(2) refers only to the physical `linking of two networks for the mutual exchange of traffic. The Commission identifies a minimum set of"technically feasible" points of interconnection .at local and tandem switches. The Commission states that telecommunications carriers may request interconnection under section 251(c)(2) to provide telephone :exchange service or exchange. access service, or both. If the request is for .such purposes, the incumbent LEC must provide interconnection in accordance with section 2.51(c)(2) and the Commission's rules thereunder to any telecommunications carrier, including interexchange .carriers and commercial mobile xadio service (CMRS) providers, 2 of 9 OS/1~/96 11:03:19 ,NEWSReport No. D`C ..:ASE August. 1, 1996 http://www:fcc.gov/n:rcc6052.html= Access to Unbundled Elements Section 251(c)(3) requires incumbent LECs to provide requesting telecommunications carriers nondiscriminatory access to network elements on an unbundled basis at any technically feasible point on rates, terms, and conditions that are just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory. The Commission identifies a minimum set of network elements that incumbent LECs mustpravide under this section. States may require incumbent LECs to provide additional network elements on an unbundled basis. The Commission identified he seven followingnetwork elements: n network interface devices r-:~ local loops n local and. tandem switches {including ail software features provided. by such switches) n interoffice transmission facilities r: i signalling and call-related database facilities r:~ operations support systems and information r-i operator and directory assistance facilities. Incumbent LECs must provide requesting carriers nondiscriminatory access to operations- support ystems and information. The Order requires incumbent LECs to provide access to network elements in a manner that allows requesting carriers to combine such elements as .they choose. Incumbent. LECs may not. impose restrictions upon the use of network elements. Methods of Obtaining Interconnection and Access to Unbundled Elements Section 251(c)(6) requires incumbent LECs to provide physical collocation of equipment necessary for .interconnection or access to unbundled .network elements at the incumbent LEC's premises; except that the incumbent LEC may provide virtual collocation if if demonstrates to the state commission that physical collocation is not practical for technical reasons or because of space limitations. Incumbent LECs are required to provide any. technically feasible method of interconnection or. access requested by a telecommunications carrier, including physical collocation, virtual collocation,. and interconnection at meet points. The Commission adopts, with certain modifications, the physical and virtual collocation requirements it .adopted earlier in the Expanded'Interconnection proceeding. The Commission also establishes rules interpreting the requirements of section 251(cj(6). Pricing Methodologies The 1996 Act requires the states to set prices for interconnection and unbundled elements that are cost-based, nondiscriminatory, and may .include a reasonable profit. To help .the states-accomplish this, the .Commission has concluded that the state commissions should set arbitrated rates for interconnection and access to unbundled elements pursuant a.forward-looking economic cost pricing. methodology. The Commission has concluded thatthe prices that new entrants pay for interconnection and unbundled elements should be based on the local telephone companies Total Element-Long-Run Incremental Cost (TELRIC) of providing a particular network element, plus areasonable share of forward-looking joint and common costs. States will determine, among other things, the appropriate risk-adjusted cost of capital and depreciation rates. If states are unable to conduct a cost study and apply an economic costing methodology within the statutory time frame for arbitrating interconnection disputes, the Commission has established default ceilings and ranges for the states to .apply, on an interim basis, to interconnection.arrangements. The < Commission establishes a default range of 0.2- 0.4 cents per minute for switching, plus access charges as 3 of 9 08/1/96 11:0.3:19 NEWSReport No_?DC ...ASE August 1, 1996 http://www.fcc.gov/nrcc6052.html discussed below. For .tandem switching, the Commission establishes a default ceiling of 0.15 cents per minute. The Order also will establish default ceilings for the other unbundled network elements. These default provisions might provide an administratively simpler approach for state establishment of prices, for a limited interim period, and states, in the exercise of their discretion, select the specific price within .that range, or subject to that ceiling. Access Charges for Unbundled Switching Nothing,n the Commission's Order`alters the collection of access charges paid by an interexchange carrier under Part:69 of the Commission's rules, .when the. incumbent .LEC provides exchange access service. to an interexchange carrier, either directly or through service resale.. Because access charges are not included in the cost-based prices for unbundled network elements, and because certain portions of access charges currently. support the provision of universal service, until he access. charge reform and universal service proceedings have been completed, the Commission is continuing to provide for access :charge recovery with respect to'use of an incumbent LEC's :unbundled switching element, for a defined period of time. This. will minimize the possibility that the incumbent LEC will be able to "double recover," through access charges, the facility costs that new entrants have already paid to purchase unbundled elements, while preserving. the status quo with respect to .subsidy: payments. Under this Order, incumbent LECs will recover from interconnectingcarriers the carrier common line charge. and a charge equal to 75% of the transport interconnection charge for all interstate minutes traversing the incumbent LECs locale switches for which the interconnecting: carriers pay unbundled network element charges. This aspect of the Order expires at the earliest of: 1) June 30, 1997; 2) issuance of final decisions by the Commission in the universal service and access reform proceedings; or 3) if the incumbent LEC is a Bell Operating Company (BOC), the date on which that BOC is authorized under section 271: of the Act to provide in-region mterLATA service, for any given state. Resale I The 1996 Act requires all incumbent LECs to offer for resale -any telecommunications service: that the carrier provides at retail: to subscribers who are not telecommunications carriers Resale will be an importantentry strategy both in the short term for many new entrants as they build out their own facilities and for small businesses that cannot afford to compete in the local exchange market by purchasing unbundled elements or by building their awn networks. The i'996 Act's pricing standard for wholesale rates requires state commissions to identify what . . marketing,. billing, collection, and other costs will be avoided or that are avoidable by incumbent LECs when they provide services wholesale, and calculate the portion of the retail rates for those services that is attributableto the avoided and avoidable costs. To define clearly a,wholesale service, the Commission has identified certain avoided costs. The.:application of this definition is left to the fates. If a-state elects not to implement the methodology, it may elect, on an interim basis, a discount rate from within a default range of discount rates established by the. Commission.. The Commission establishes ~i default discountrange of T7-25% off retail.prices, leaving the states o set the specific rate: withinthat range, in the exercise of their discretion. Transport and Termination The 1.996 Act requires that charges. for transport and termination of traffic be cost- based. The Commission concludes that state commissions, during arbitrations, should set symmetrical prices based on the local telephone company's forward-looking costs.'The state commissions would also use the TELRIC :methodology when establishing rates for transport and termination. The Commission establishes a default range of 0.2-0.4 cents per minute for end office termination for states .which have not conducted a TELRIC cost study. The Commission finds significant evidence inthe record in support of the lower end of the ranges. In addition, the Commission finds that additional reciprocal charges could apply to termination through a tandem switch. The .default ceiling for tandem,switching is 0. i 5 cents per minute, plus .applicable charges for transport from the tandem switch to the end office. Each state opting for the default approach for a limited period of time, may select a rate within that range. 4 of 9 08/14/96 11:03:19 NEWSReport N:o. DC __ASE August 1,_ 1996 http://www_fcc_gov/nrcc6052.html Commercial Mobile-Radio Service In the Order, the Commission concludes that CMRS providers. are telecommunications carriers, and therefore are .entitled to reciprocalcompensation arrangements under section 251(b)(5). The Commission also. concludes that under section 251(b)(5) a LEC may not charge a CMRS provider, .including a paging company, or any other carrier for terminating LEC-.originated traffic. The Commission also'states'that CMRS providers {specifically. cellular; broadband PCS, and cove;red specialized mobile radio (SMR) providers) offer telephone exchange services, and such providers therefore may request interconnection. under section 251(c)(2). The Commission determines that CMRS providers should. not be classified as LECs at this. time. In thin decision, the Commission applied. sections 251 and 252 to LEC-CMRS interconnection. The Commission acknowledges that section 332 is also a basis for jurisdiction over LEC-CMRS interconnection, but declined to define the precise extent of that jurisdiction at this time. Access to Rights of Way The Commission also amends its rules to implement the pole attachment provisions'of the i 996 Act. Specifically, the Commission establishes procedures for nondiscriminatory access'by cable television systems andtelecommunications carriers to poles, ducts, conduits, and rights-of--way owned by utilities or LECs. The Order includes several specific rules as well as a number of more general guidelines designed to facilitate the negotiation and mutual performance of fair, pro-competitive access agreements without the need for regulatory intervention. Additionally, an expedited dispute resolution is provided when good faith negotiations fail, as are requirements concerning modifications to poles, ducts, conduits, and rights-of--way and the allocation of the costs of such modifications.. Exemptions, Suspensions, and Modifications of Section 251 Requirements for Rural and Small Telephone Companies '"' Section 251(f)(1) of the 1996 Act provides for exemption of the requirements in section 2510.) for rural telephone companies (as defined by the 1996 Act) under certain circumstances. Section 251{f)(2) permits LECs withfewer. than 2 percent of the nation's subscriber lines to'petition for suspension or modification of the: requirements in sections 251(b) or (c). States are :primarily responsible for interpreting the provisions of section 25 i (f) through rulemaking and adjudicative proceedings, and are responsible for determining whether a LEC in a particular instance is entitled to exemption, suspension, or modification of section 251 requirements. The Commission establishes,a very limited set of rules interpreting the requirements of section 251(f): n LECs bear the burden of proving to the state commission that a suspension or modification of the requirements of section 251(b) or (c) is justified. o Rural LECs bear the burden of proving that continued exemption of the requirements of section 251(c) is justified, once a bona fide request has been made by a carrier under to section 251. ^ Only LECs that, at the holding company level, have fewer than 2 percent, of the nation's subscriber linen are entitled to petition for suspension or modification of requirements under section 251{f)(2)- __......... ~ _. ~ ... ....__.. ._._ _ ...._~~ _ _ . -- -.. _.___ _~_~.._ .... ~ . _ .... M Action by the .Commission August 1,1996, by Report and Order (FCC 96-325). Chairman Hundt Commissioners Que11o, Ness, and Chong, with Chairman Mundt and Commissioners Quello and Chong issuing separate statements. - FCC 5 of 9 08/14/96 11:03:19 STATEMENT OF CHAIl~:MAN REED HUNDT Augusta 1, 1996 Re: Interconnection Report. and Order Today the Commission completed our effort to write part one of three part: trilogy scripted for us by the Congress. This. is the 32nd time since passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that the Commission has beaten its statutory deadline -- and this time we beat it bya full week. The decisions we adopt today do not `bring telecommunications reform to an end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But we can say is that we have reached the end of the :beginning. STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER JAMES H. QUELLO .August i, 1996 Re: Interconnection Report and :Order Todaymarks the end of the pre-competitive-era in local telephone service. By our vote today the Commission implements rules that will introduce competition into this last monopoly telecommunications market. Our Report and Order refers to these rules as the first part of a trilogy that. also includes future universal service and access charge reform. This is, to be sure, true. But I must confess that I also see today's action as not the first, but rather the third and final part, of a different trilogy -- .one whose first two parts were. the introduction of competition into `the long=distance telephone market and the divestittiire of the Bell Operating Companies from AT&T. These first two events made local telephone competition inevitable; `today we usher it in. Any Commissioner would be privileged to have served during one of these events. I have been lucky enoughto'have seen all<three. From this: perspective, then, I-would offer several thoughts to the parties .most immediately affected by today's decision. First, to the public, I would say: unparalleled changes in the array of telecommunications services available to you, as well as in the companies that provide them, are going to occur. As competition proliferates and prices fall, economic. growth will also occur, and that too will benefit .all of us. This is the vision of the 1996 Act, and. it is the goal of the rules we adopt today. To those companies that seek to offer competitive local telephone service, I would say: the rules we ,,~ a 08 /14 /96 31:03 _2D NEWSRe~ort No. DC ...ASE August 1, 1996 http://www.fcc.gov/nrcc6052.html adopt today attempt o provide the regulatory assist~ce you need to enter a market in which your competitor not only possesses a monopoly, but also controls the facilities upon which you must depend to compete. Buf even so, our rules are pro-competition, not pro-competitor. They are intended to make it possible for you to enter the market on fair and equitable terms, but not to so alter the market that entry occurs even where it otherwise might not. We have opened the door, but we have not paved the way. To the wireless communications providers, I would say: we have heard and understand your concerns regarding the differences in your technical and market configurations and have, therefore, expressly reserved federal jurisdiction under Section 332. Nevertheless, ~t is important that our decisions . implementing competition be technology-neutral and provide an opportunity for negotiations under the comprehensive interconnection. regime embodied by Congress in Section 251. We will presume good faith negotiations by all but stand ever vigilant to .consider and resolve instances of discriminatory treatment. To`our state commission counterparts, I would say: with today's action, we effectively pass you the pen. It is now your responsibility to write the rules and set the prices and terms that will make Congress's vision of competition a reality. To provide added flexibility and to make this process administratively easier, we have also provided ranges of proxy prices that can be used until, or even instead of, state-specific rates. are set. Our decision today borrows from and builds on the experience of those of you who are grappling with statewide competition issues. This has, in sum, been a cohaborative process. It must continue to be a collaborative process if we are collectively to succeed_ To small telephonecompanes, Iwould say: our Report and Order relies largelyon statecommissions to implement the provisions of the law that ensure that .competition. will be introduced in a way that. is sensitive to your unique circumstances. We cannot,. and indeed would not want. to, perpetuatewhat one small company has called a "reasonable, investment-backed. expectation to hold competitive advantages over new market entrants." But while we will not guarantee your current profit margins, we ai•e also confident that state decisions will assure that competition in your service areas will take hold;~in a reasonable manner. l To the Bell Operating Companies and other large: independent local telcos, I would say: these rules will bring about .competition. You will open your markets to competitors, and in return you will- become competitors in other markets. The rules we adopt today will enable you to do both things.:. What they will not enable you to do is avoid the first, but obtain the second. These'rules will bring change, not catastrophe; hey will bring opportunity, not oblivion. It will be a different world, but one in vvhieh you will continue to play a vital role. Finally, I must acknowledge that this,day would not have come without the tireless dedication and tremendous talents of Gina Keeney and her gifted Common Carrier Bureau staff. The Chairman will, I am sure, commend.-each of you at length, and I will leave that privilege to him. For my'part I want to express my thanks to the entire CCB "Dream Team," and especially to its. captain, .Richard Metzger. Thin job could literally not have been done this well in such short time without you, and for that you have my profound respect and appreciation. PRESS STATEMENT OF COMMISSIOhTER SUSAN NESS.... August 1, 1996 Re: Interconnection Report and Order • Today we are fulfilling one of the most important responsibilities assigned to us by the 7 of 9 08/l~/96 11:03:20 NEG+7SReport No. DC ...ASE August 1, 1996 http://www.fcc.gov/nrcc6052c..html Telecommunications Act. of 1996 -- writing the rules that will achieve the vision of fair and robust j competition in all telecommunications markets. We are doing so with utmost fidelity to the letter and the II spirit of the statute. We are striking a careful balance between competing values of uniformity .and flexibility. We are I prescribing the rules that are necessary to ensure that competition has an opportunity to develop, but, consistent with the statute, we have left significant responsibilities to the states. The vanguard states remain free #o continue their procompettve course, just as Congress intended. Other states are being given the tools to accelerate their progress. ' The process. of introducing competition where monopoly now reigns can be likened to a relay race. The '' firstleg was run by Congress, the second by the :FCC, the third by the states, and the fourth by the market. But the ultimate winners will be American consumers. There are bound to be unexpected consequences, and bumps in the road, and efforts to game the process. We will need to be vigilant, to ensure continued progress. Competition will take time to emerge. It won't come easy. It will take a iot of work -- by everyone involved. The FCC will -not shrink from taking the steps necessary to .reach the legislative goal. - attachment - Points of Interconnection & Unbundled Elements 8 of 9 O8/1~~/96 11:03:20 ~NEVYSReport No. DC ...ASE August 3, 199b http://www-~cc.gov/zlrccb052.htm1 Rt31(~ T CAF ! NTE F~CC~ N N EGII ~ i~ UN~UNC~LE[~ ELEMENT ,,~ TRA~ITI~NAL I~~ _, `- POINT CAF PRESENCE ' _~1 _ - -. --~ _ _ - CALL-RELATED INTERDFfICE 1A TA BASES FACILITIES '~ SERVING 1NIRE D TANDEM CENTER SWITCH SS? SIGNALING NE TW GRK INTERr~FFICE FACILITIES LDCAL LCUCAL ~ SWITCH .. SIf~ITCH ~,,~ 1 Lt~CA L ~`~, LC1t3P .OPERATOR SERVICES & ~ %;: <~DIRECTORYASSISTANCE ;=;: a ~_ ~NET1Nt]RK INTERFACE KEY DEVICE >jNID~ - - - Signaling Paths ..Voice and Darta Paths 9 of 9 08/1~4/9b 11:03:35 ~ .-cam t'1..,. cr if ~~ C~ x,.r 'h r i- ~ ~ i , ~ . ~ X X 'gar ~ ~ ,~ '' _ a, C F _~~ 4 y ~ t r ,~ ~~( ~J ~ .r'. jit' ~~ ,. t qt ~y t~a~c ~- a, ~ . y p f~k t wx p-bt r~ ~ ~' ~ rryy-- ~~k~lw Members~i~n% ~ }~;ecto ' ~ ~~' ~~ Y ~ z ~_t ~ r ~ 7 (E, s4~_, ctif ti si~i~< g. a. '. ~^ ~ t y - _ - . ? fi'r' ~ -.' ~~- ~ v ~ ryTt ~ L ~. ` ~~ca }~~ August ~ 996 , r CJ nr ~ 4 f' > ~ k P T ~ jvy- '~W ~~~ 1 S ,_i ,m 4~ y . ~ ~kSi . ~ - ~~ 5 ~ f f ~ r -s'r "~'Rr ~ ~r ' a~ ~~ " k yi y ~ ~ rv t ~, ~ ~ a ~' ~ - t~J rl H n1 ~y a *i}s c '~ ~ h t~, r. ~ ;:~ 1 ~ 'ii ' ~ TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF „~' TELECOMMUNICATIONS OFFICERS AND ADVISORS (TATOA) - 1995 =1996 BOARD MEMBERS NAME & ADDRESS PHONE FAX - Paul Smolen, President {512) 499-241.5 (5.12) 499-2416 City of Austin P.O. Box 10$8 Austirr TX 78767 Larry Dovalina; Vice President (210) 795-20$0 (210) 795-2085 City of Laredo P.O. Box 579 ~~ Laredo, TX 7804 i r. r: Pat Nicks, Treasurer (214) 72i-2533 (214) 721-2331 G Assistant Director ~x Communications Dept. y City of Irving ~' 233 South Rogers Road ,; ~' Irving, TX 75060 j! Theresa Thompson, Secretary {817):459-5112 (817) 459-fr116 ~ City of Arlington h; ,, P.O. Box 2331 I . 101 W. Abram Street. Arlington, TX 76004 ', P.C. Gracia,-Regional Rep. {512) 857-1.881... (512)857-1889 Admin. Asst. City of Corpus Christi ~I, P.O. Box 9277 N Corpus Christi, TX 78469-9277 p, ~, Melissa Winblood, Regional Rep.. (915)-541-4550 (915) 541-4710 Asst. City Atty, City of EI Paso 2 Civic Center Plaza El Paso, TX 79901 Robert S. Sider,.Regional. Rep. (2:10) 207-8497 {2I0) 207-4144 City of San Antonio ' P.O. Box 839966 San Antonio, TX 782$3-3966. g;\tatoa\boardmem.doc i Andrews, Jim * Barnett, Susanne `'~ City Manager, City of Sherman Deputy City Manager-Finance/Adm., City of Sugar Land, P.O: Box 1106 P.O. Box 110 Sherman, TX 75091-1 106 Sugar Land, TX 77487-0 1 1 0 _ Ph: 903-892-7200 Fax: 903 892-7394 -275-2721 - 4 Fax: 713 Ph: 713-275 27 0 * Beckley, Susarr * Belcher, Jan Public Information Officer, City of Plano, Assistant City Manager ,City of Colleyvi'lle, P.O. Box 860358 P.O. Box 185 Plano, TX 75086-0358 Colleyville, TX 76034 Ph: 214-578-7301 Fax: 214-578-7453 Ph: 817-577-7575 Fax: 817-577-7555 susanb@inux.plano.gov GJNT58A@prodigy.com Bell, William Benson, Dave City Attorney, City of Brownwood City Manager, City of Lakeway P.O. Box :1726 reek.. 104 Cross C ~ Brownwood, TX 76804 Lakeway, TX 78734 Ph:915-646-5547 Fax: 915-643-5831. ~I Ph: 512-261-4353 Fax: 512-261-9312 I~ '~~I~ ICI * Blackman, Murray Bland, Ivan , Assistant to City Manager, City of Georgetown Assistant City. Attorney, City of Arlington P.O. Box 409 P.O. Box 231 ~~I Geor etown TX 7$627-0409 g Arlington, TX 76010 i, Ph: 512-9302010 Fax: 512-930-3659 '~, f, Ph; 817-459-6878 Fax: 817.-459-611.6 * Broaddus; William L. Brown; Giles .City Administrator, City of Caldwell Director of Finance, City of Sherman 107 South Hill Street. ~~ P.O. Box 1106 ~ Caldwell, TX 77836 Sherman, TX 75091-1106 Ph: 409-567-3271 Fax: 409-567-9233. ~', ~ Ph; 903-892-7200 Fax: 903-892-7394- , ,; Burgess, Anita ~ * Butts, Gary City Attorney, City of Lubbock _ ._ City Manager, City of Brownwood ~! P.O. Box 2000 P.O. Box 1389 Lubbock, TX 79457 Brownwood, TX 7b804 Ph: 806-767-221 LFax: 806-762-1946. Ph:915-646-5775 Fax: 915-646-0938 Campbell, James * Cavazos III, Hilario Director of Economic Development, City of Brownwood Commissioner, City of Laredo Cable Commission P.O.'Box.1389 2400 San Bernardo ~' Brownwood; TX 76804 Laredo, TX 78040 ~~, Ph: 915-64b-6751 Fax: 915-646-4697 '~ Ph: 210-722-8143 Fax: 210-795-2085 I' * =Primary Members * Chavez, David T: Chavez, Sam i CitySecretary, City of Big Lake: City Planner, City of the Colony P.O. Box 300 ' 5151 N. Colony Blvd. Big Lake., TX 76932. The Colony, TX 75056 Ph:915-884-2511 Fax: 915-884=3195. Ph: 214-625-1756 Fax: 214-624-2298 * Chiles, Linda Gail Cmajdalka, Corey ~ Asst. to the City Manager, City of Carrollton Information Services Manager, City of Rosenberg 1945 Jackson Road P.O. Box 32 I Carrollton, TX 75006. Rogenberg, TX' 77471 Ph: 214-466-3001 Fax: 214-466-3252 1 i Ph:713-344-3322 Fax: 713-344-3333 f * Conklin, Cary Cook, David City Manager, City of Benbrook Assistant Director, City of Dallas -Utility Management 911 Winscott Road 1500 Marilla, Rm.2B South Benbrook, TX 7612b Dallas, TX 75201 Ph:817-249-3000 Fax:817-249-0884 Ph:214-670-3360 Fax:214-670-3360 Cullen, Cindy Cunningham,, Cathy Program Manager, Mayor's Task Force. on Tech. Senior Asst. City Attorney, City of Irving 40] C' ress St. Ste. 602 YP P. O. Box152288 .Abilene, TX 79601-5149 Irvin , TX 75015-2288 g Ph:915-673-4883 Fax::91.5-673-2883. Ph:214-721-2541 Fax: 214-721-2750. I' Cunningham, Larry * :Crump, Georgia N. City of North Richland: Hills Attorney, Lloyd, Gosselink, Fowler, Blevins & Mathews, PC 7301 N.E.. Loop 820 P.O. Box 1725 North Richland Hi11s, TX 76180 Austin, TX 78767 ~, Ph: 817-581-5500 Fax: 817-581-5516 ~, i i, Ph:512-322-5832 Fax: 512-472-0532 ; Davis, Brian Davis., Steve 'I Telecommunications Coordinator, City of Richardson Manager, City of Carrollton !'I 411 W. Arapaho Rd., #106 Communications Division Richardson, TX 75080 1420 Hutton Ph: 214-238-4262 Fax: 214-952-0872 Carrollton, TX 75006 ', Brian@cor.gov ~, Ph:214-446-3610 Fax: 214-466-3252 i Dempsey, Mark * Dill, Trudi ''~ Assistant City Attorney, City of Garland Deputy City Attorney, City of Temple P;O. Box 469002 Municipal Bldg., 2Nonh Main ~ Garland, TX 75046-9002. Temple, TX 76051 Ph: 214-205-2390 Fax: 214-205-2389 Ph:817-770-5674 Fax: 817-770-5711 i. I, * =Primary Members ii ~~', Dollar, William Assistant City Manager, City_of Garland P.O. Box 46900? Garland, TX 75046-9002 Ph:214-205-2472 Fax:214-205-2504 * Dovalina, Larry City Cable Officer, City of Laredo 2400 San Bernardo Laredo, TX 78040 Ph: 210-795-2080 Fax: 210-795-2085 Earle, Bruce M. Ellinger, James Chair, City of Laredo Cable Commission Public Relations Coordinator, Austin Community Television 2400 San Bernardo 1143 Northwestern Avenue Laredo, TX 78040 Austin, TX 78702 Ph: 210-722-8143 Fax: 210-795-2085 Ph:512-478-8600 x 22 Fax: 512-478-9438 * Ellrod III, Frederick E. * Fehrenbach, Nick Attorney, Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone Auditor, City of Dallas -Utility Management 1225 19th St., NW, Ste. 400 1500 Manilla, Rm. 2B South Washington, DC 20036 Dallas, TX 75201 Ph: 202-785-0600 Fax: 202-7$5-1234 Ph: 21:4-670-3005 Fax:'214-670-3360 feel Trod @ mcps.ccmail.compuserve.com * Foster', Richard Fox, Marilyn J. Public Information Officer, City of Denton Assistant Director, Financial Svcs., City of Austin 215 E. McKinney Street P.O. Box 1088. Denton, TX 76201 Austin, TX 78767 Ph: 817-566-8509 Fax:- 8 7-566-8236: Ph: 512-499-2397 Faxa 5 i 2-499-2573 Gandy, Karen " * Garlinghouse, Patricia Zoning Administrator, City of Southlake Executive Director, Austin Community Television, Inc. 667 N. Carroll :Ave. 1143. Northwestern. Avenue Southlake, TX 76092 Austin, TX 78702 Ph: 817-48i-5581x743 Fax: 817-488=9370 Ph:512-478-8600 x 18 Fax: 512-478-9438 acts@eden.com Garza, Randy T. * Gilliam, John D. Risk Manager,. City of Kingsville City Attorney, City of Sherman P.O. Box 1458 P.O. Box 1106 Kingsville, TX 78363:.. Sherman,: TX 75091-1106 Ph:512-595-8002 Fax: 512-595-8035. Ph: 903-892-7203 Fax: 903-892-7394 Goolsby, Tom * Goram, Steven PIO Specialist, City of Lubbock Director of Information & Cust. Svc., City of Coppell P.O. Box 2000 P.O. Box 478 Lubbock, TX 79457 Coppell, TX75019 Ph: 806-767-2285 Fax: 806-762-3623 Ph: 214-304-3559 Fax: 214-304-3673 * =Primary Members * Gracia, P.C. Graham, Jonathan Administrative Asst., City of Corpus Christi- Watei-Division City. Attorney, City of Temple P.O: Box 9277. Municipal Bldg., 2 North Main Corpus Christi, TX 78469-9277 Temple, TX 7650] Ph: 5i2-857-1881 Fax: 512-857-1889 Ph: 817-770-5674 Fax: 817-770-5711 Green, Jim Heiman, John Public Information Coordinator, City of Lubbock Councilmember, Ciiy of Mesquite P:O. Box 2000 P.O. Box 850137 Lubbock, TX 79457 Mesquite, TX 75189-0137 Ph:806-767-2285 Fax:806-762-3623 Ph:214-216-6403 Fax:214-216-6431 Heindel, Allan Hennings, Biil AssistanrGit Mana er, Cit of Hurst. Y g Y Acting Cit Mana er, Cit of Co us Christi. ~ Y g Y rP 901 Precinct Line Road P.O. Box 9277 Hurst, TX 76053 Corpus Christi, TX 78469-9277 Ph: 817-788-7305 Fax: 817-788-7307 Ph: 512-880-3222 Fax: 512-880-3839 Hettinger, Harry * Hindman, Mark Sr. Technican, City of Carrollton Assistant City Manager, City of Mesquite Communications Division P.O. Box 850137 1420 Hutton Mesquite, TX 75189-0137 Carrollton, TX 75006 Ph: 214-216-6403"Fax: 214-216-6431 Ph:2i4-446-3610 Fax:214-466-3252 * Holland, Ronald W. * Horrigan, John City Manager, City of Eagle Lake Chairperson, Austin Telecommunications Commission PA. Box 38 P.O. Box 1088 Eagle Lake, TX 77434 Austin; TX 78767 Ph: 409-234-2640 Fax: 409-234-3255 Ph: 5 i 2-471=4962 Fax: 512-471-1835 horrigan @ uts.cc.utexas.edu ,I * Hugman, Kevin- Johns, Crystal Assistant to City Manager, City, of Southlake Asst. City Manager, City of Irving, 1725 E. Southlake Blvd:.. 825 W..Irving Blvd. Southlake, TX 7b092 Irving, TX 75060 ~ Ph: 817-481-5581 ext. 7i0Fax 817-488-679b Ph: 214-721-2521 Fax: 214-721-2331 * Johnson, Donald C. * Johnston, Marcus .Cable Information Officer, City of Grand Prairie City Adminstrator, City of Bellville P.O. Box 534045 30 S. Holland Grand Prairie, TX 75053-4045 Bellville, TX 77418 Ph: 214-237-8006 Fax: 214-237-8317 Ph: 409-865-3136 Fax: 409-865-9485 Primary Members Kamm, Mary Fae Director of Constituent Services, Senator Kay B. I3utchison's Office 1440 N. Central ,Expressway # 1160 Dallas, TX 75231 Ph:214-361-3505 Fax: 214-36i-3502 - King, Claude .Asst. City Manager, City of Lewisville 1197 W. Main Street Lewisville, TX 75067 Ph:2i4-2.19-3409 Fax:214-219-3487 * LaFoliett, Victoria * Landgraf -Freeman,. Dolores .Manager, Public Information, City of Longview Administrative Asst., City of Garland, City Manager's Office P.O. Box 1952 P.O. Box 469002 Longview, TX 75606 Garland, TX 75046-9002 Ph:903-237-1090 Fax:903-237-1009 Ph:214-205-2324 Fax:2i4-205-2504 Landers, Patricia Communications:Director, City of Irving 233 S. Rogers Road Irving, TX 75060 Ph: 214-721-2533 Fax:274-721-2331 * Leal, Gerardo J. Public Access Director, City of Laredo P.O. Box 579 Laredo, TX 78042. Ph: 210-795-2385 Fax: 210-795-2387 Lerma; Carlos £. City Manager, City of Kingsville P.O. Box 1458. Kingsville, TX 783b3 Ph: 512-595-8004 Fax: 512-595-8035 Leyendecker, Dave Commissioner; City of Laredo Cable'Commission 2400 San Bernardo `Laredo, TX 78040 Ph: 210-722-8143 Fax: 270-795-2085 Lochhead, Carole CouncilMember, City of Mesquite P.O. Box 850137 Mesquite, TX 75189-0137 Ph:214-216-6403 Fax:214-216-6431 * Maples, Kathy Community Relations Manager, City. of DeSoto 211 E. Pleasant Run Road Desoto; TX 75.115 Ph: 214-230-230-9648 Fax: 214-230-5793 desoto~r @ ai rmai l .c om * Lewis, Gene Director of Planning & Zoning, City of Lewisville 1197 W. Main Street Lewisville, TX 75067 Ph: 214-219-.3456 Fax: 214-219-3487 CORW46A@Prodigy.com ..Lindley, Bill.. City Manager, City of Desoto 21 T E. Pleasant Run Road .DeSoto, TX 75115 Ph:2:14-230-9642 Fax:214-230-5793 .Mann, .David Mayor, City of Eagle Lake , P,o. Box 38 Eagle Lake, TX 77434.. Ph: 409-234-2640 Fax: 409-234-3255 Martin, Sheila Asst. to the City Manager, City of Plano P.O. $ox 860358 .Plano, TX 75086-0358 Ph:214-424-6531 Fax:214-423-9587 * =Primary Members Mastronandi, Janet. Mayworm, .Ron. CityNoice Mail Coordinator, City of Richardson Communications Manager, City of College Station 411 Arapaho, Rm. 106 P.O. Box 9960 Richardson, TX 75080 College Station, TX 77842 Ph:214-238-4260 Fax:.214-952-0872 Ph: 409-764-3538 Fax: 409-764-3791 I * McDonald, Mike McElreath, Trina 9 Computer Services Administrator, City. of Abilene Planner, City of Lewisville P.O. Box 60 i 197 W~ Main Street ~ Abilene, TX 79604 Lewisville, TX 75067 Ph:915-676-6298 Fax'915-676-6329 Ph:2i4-219-3457 Fax:214-219-3487 mike.mcdonald @ internetmci.com McGrane, John * McKinney, Deena Finance.Director, City of Plano Finance Director, City of Rosenberg P.O. Box 860358 P.O. Box 32 Plano:, TX 75086-0358 Rogenberg, TX 77471 Ph: 214-578-7307 Fax: 214-578-7453 Ph: 7 i 3-344-3302 Fax: 713-344-3333 Miller, Bob * Miller, Nicholas P. information Services Manager, City of Coppell Attorney, Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone P.O. Box 478 1225 19th St:, NW, Ste. 400 Coppell, TX 75019 Washington, DC 20036 Ph: 214-304-3559 Fax: 214-304-3673. Ph: 202-785-0600 Fax: 202-785-1234 J npmiller@mcps.ccmail.compuserve.com Morgan,. Randal Morgeson, Terry Compliance Manager, City of Dallas -Utility Management Administrative Intern, City of Cedar Hila 1500 Mazilla, Rm. 2B South P.O. Box 96 Dallas, TX 75201 Cedar Hill, TX 75106 Ph: 214-670-3005 Fax: 214-670-3360 Ph:214-291-5103'Fax:214-291-5107 Morris Joe Mushier, Jeff , Executive Producer, City of Richazdson City Attorney, City of Sugar Land 411 W. Arapaho Road #207 P.O. Box 110 Richardson, TX 75080 Sugar Land, TX 77487-01.10 Ph:713-275-271.5 Fax:713=275-2721: Ph:214-238-4266 Fax:214-238-4247 Neely, David * Nicks, Pat City Manager, City of Sugar Land Communications Asst: Director, City of Irving P.O. Box 110 233 S. Rogers Road Sugar Land, TX 77487-0100 Irving, TX 75060 Ph: 7i3-275-2710 Fax: 713-275-2721 Ph: 214-721-2533 Fax: 214-721-2331 * =Primary Members Nixon, April * Oldenburg, Greg Public information Manager, City of Arlington Coordinator Citicable NRH, City of North Richland Hills P;G. Box 231 6720 N.E: Loop 820. Arlington, TX 76010 North Richland Hills, TX 76180 Ph:817-459-6403 Fax:817-459-6116 Ph:817-581-5756 Fax: 817-581-5706 anxon @ ci.arlingtonax:us O'Neil Patricia Ortiz, Lisa , Director of Administration, Austin Community Television City Attorney, City of Corpus Christi 1143 Northwestern Avenue p,0. Box 9277 Austin, TX 78702 Corpus Christi, TX 78469-9277 Ph:512-478-8600 X 19 Fax: 512-478-9438. Ph:512-857-1881 Fax: 512-857-1889 Piwonka, Linda * Polasek, Sieve Dir. of Office of Tech. & Info. Svcs., City of College Station Asst. Administrator-Community Svcs., City of Hurst P.O. Box 9960 901 Precinct Line Road College Station, TX 77842 Hurst, TX 76053 Ph: 409-764-3538 Fax: 409-764-3791 Ph: 817-788-7305 Fax: 817-788-7307 .Porter, Gres Pugh, Rondella Assistant Cit Mana er Cit of CedarHiil Y g Y Research S ecialist III, Cit of Austin P Y P.O. Box 96 P.O. Box 1088 I Cedar H11 TX 75106 Austin TX 78767 P :214- - h 29.1-5103 Fax: 214-291 1 5 07 Ph: 512-4 -2422 F - - 99 ax 512 499 2416 Rabe, Sheree Ra e, A.G. PP Ctty of Georgetown Cable Coordinator, City of Coppell P.O. Box 40 9 P.O. Box 478 Georgetown, TX 78627-0409 Coppell, TX 75019 Ph: 12- 30-36 F x• - - 5 9 53 a .51:2 930 3622. Ph: 214-304-355 Fax: 2 4- - 9 1 304 3673 Regester, Susan Ritchie, H.F. _. Senior District Rep., Congressman Joe Barton's Office Mayor ,City of Big Lake I 2019 E. Lamar, #i00 P.O. Box 300 Arlington, TX 76006 Big Lake, TX 76932' Ph:817-543-1000 Fax: 214-875=1907: ~'~j it ~~ '~J Ph: 915-884-2511 Fax: 915-884-3195 '~I * = Pr'mar i Members' y II ii * Robinson-Bustos, Pat I Sanchez, Juan ~~ State Director of Gov. Affairs, TCI Cablevision of Texas Administration Intern, City of Flower Mound 1565 Chenault Street 2121 Cross Timbers Road .Dallas, TX 75228 Flower Mound, TX 75028 ' Ph:214-.907-4096 Fax:214-907-4099 Ph:214-539-b006 Fax:214-539-3385 townfm @onramp.net Scanlon, Michael * Schenk, Larry W. Asst. City Attorney, City of Corpus Christi City Attorney, City of Longview F.O. Box 9277 P.O. Box 1952 I Corpus Christi; TX 78469-9277 Longview, TX 75606 Ph: 512-880-3360 Fax: 512-8:80-3239 Ph: 903-237-1010 Fax: 903-237-1009 * Shaw, Larry. * Shear, Charlie Assistant City Manager, City of Duncanville Communication & Info. Svcs. Mgr., City of College, Station P:O. Box 380280 P.O. Box 9960 Duncanville, TX 75116 II College Station, TX 77842 I Ph:214-780-5003 Fax: 214-780-5077 Ph' 409-764-3538 Fax: 409-764-3791 cshear@ci.college station.tx.us :Sizemore, Manuela * Smith, David Atmar Government Affairs Coordinator, TCI Cablevision of Texas City Attorney, City of Victoria iS65 Chenault Street P.O. Box 1758 Dallas, TX 75228 Victoria, TX 77902 Ph: 214-320-7312 Fax: 214-320-7550 < i Ph: S 12-572-b703 Fax: 512-572-2719 hawai~@ICSLnet * Smith, Johnny P. Smith, CET, Scott M. City Manager, City of The Colony Project Manager, Mayor's Task Force on Tech. 5151 N. Colony Blvd. 401. Cypress St., Ste. 602 I The Colony, TX 75056 Abilene, TX 79601-5149 Ph:214-625-1.756 Fax: 21.4-624-2298 Ph: 915673-4883Fax: 915-673-2883 ttf.abilene.cotn ~ * Smolen, Paul N. * Somereve, Margaret Regulatory Officer, City of Austin Asst. to the City Manager, City of Fanners Branch P.O. Box 1088 P.O. Box 819010 Austin,. TX 78767 Fanners Branch, TX 7538 i-9010 Ph:512-499-2415 Fax: 512-499-2416 Ph: 214-919-2509 Fax: 214-247-483b ~' psmolen@bga.com { '~ I J * =Primary Members I Sprinkles, Amy Stripling, $ob Marketing Director, City. of Grand Prairie City Manager, City of Colleyville P.O. Box 534045 P.O. Box 185 ~ Grand Prairie, TX 75053-4045 Colleyville, TX 76034 Ph:2i4-237-8140 Fax:214-237-83.17 i Ph: 817-577-7575 Fax:817-577-7555 Tafel, Rachel Taylor, David i PIO Officer, City of Flower Mound City Manager, City of Temple 2121 Cross Timbers Road Municipal Bldg., 2 North Main Flower Mound, TX 75028 Temple, TX 76501 Ph: 214-539.-6006 Fax: 274-539-3385 Ph: 877-770-5600 Fax: 817-770-5582 townfm @ onramp.net I * Terry, Candise * Thompson, Teresa Asst. to the Town Manager, City of Flower Mound Asst. to the City Manager/PIO, City of Arlington 2121 Cross Timbers Road P.O. Box 23 i Flower Mound,: TX 75028. Arlington,, TX 76010 Ph: 214-539-6006 Fax 214-539-3385 Ph: 817-459-6112 Fax: 817-459-6116 townfm@onramp.net tthompsori@ci.arlington.tx.vs Townsend, Lambeth * Vanderford, Jim Attorney, Lloyd, Gosselink, Fowler; Blevins, Mathews Chairman, Capital Planning & Utility Development Cmte. ' P.O. Box 1725 City of Lakeway Austin, TX 78767 104 Cross Creek Ph:512-322-5830 Fax: 512-472-0532 Lakeway, TX 78734 Ph: 512-267:-6090 Fax:512-261-9312 * Vick, Greg Walsh, Wendy i City Manager., City of Cedar Hill City of Georgetown P.O. Box 96 - P.Q Box 409 Cedar Hill, TX 75106 Georgetown; TX 78627-0409 Ph: 2 i 4-291-5104 Fax: 214-291-5107 i Ph: 512-930-3575 Fax: 512-930-3659 Watson, .Dennis Wayman, Andy Asst. to City Manager, City of the Colony City of North Richland Hills ~, 5151 N. Colony Blvd. 7301 N.E. Loop 820 The Colony, TX 75056 North Richland Hi11s, TX 76180 Ph: 214-625-1756 Fax: 214-624-2298 Ph: 81.7-581-5582 Fax: 817-581-5516 * =Primary Members Weegar, Allan * White, George T. ACM-Adminstration, City of Hurst Vice President, David M. Griffith & ,Assoc., Ltd. 901 Precinct Line Road 8303 SouthwestFreeway No, 900 Hurst, TX 76053 Houston, TX 77074-1 60 1 Ph: 817-788-7305 Fax: 817-788-7307 Ph:713-541-5457 Fax: 713-541-664.9 Wilburn, Janet * Winter, Sue Alderwoman, City of Big Lake Cable Communications Adminstrator, City of Fort Worth P.O. Box 300 401 W. 2nd Street Big Lake, TX 76932 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Ph:915-884-2511 Fax;915-884-3.1.95 Ph:817-871-6119. Fax:817-871-6190. Yelverton, Shana Asst. City Manager, City of Southlake 1725 E. Soutlake Blvd. Southlake, TX 76092 Ph: 817-481-5581x705 Fax: 817-488-6796 Please fax any corrections to TATOA {512)499-2416 * =Primary Members .!i 1i.li~ 1i ~~~~®~11~~ ~i .LL®~ Removal of barriers to entry Preemption of franchising authority regulation of telecommunications services Establishment of open video systems Restrictions on over-the-air reception devices Facilities siting; -radio frequency emission standards ~~ by: Scott Cazlson Assistant City Attorney City of Dallas This material is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Actions should be taken based upon consultation with your attorney. "SEC. 253. REMOVAL OF BARRIERS TO ENTRY. "(a) IN GENERAL.-No State or local statute or regulation, or other State or local legal requirement, may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service. "(b) STATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY.- Nothing in this section shall affect the ability of a State to impose, on a competitively neutral basis and consistent with section 254, requirements necessary to preserve and advance universal service, protect the public safety and welfare, ensure the continued quality of telecommunications services, and safeguard the rights of consumers. "(c) STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY.-Nothing in this section affects the authority of a State or local government to manage the public rights-of-way or to require fair and reasonable compensation from telecommunications providers, on a competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory basis, for use of public rights-of-way on a nondiscriminatory basis, if the compensation required is publicly disclosed by such government. "(d) PREEMPTION. - If, after notice and an opportunity for public comment, the Commission determines that a State or local government has permitted or imposed any statute, regulation, or legal requirement that violates subsection (a) or (b), the Commission shall preempt the enforcement of such statute, regulation or legal requirement to the extent necessary to correct such inconsistency. ~~~~~~~~ Notes • Preservation of right of way authority under state law. • No affirmative federal right or authority to seek compensation from telecommunications providers or impose requirements related to management of the right of way. • Management is intended to cover typical requirements, such as street cut permits, ,insurance, indemnities, bonding, notification to other right of way users and arbitration over disputes, imposed upon activities in the right of way. • Applies only to telecommunications providers in the right of way, not cable providers or others. • All the treatment must be competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory. SEC. 303. PREEMPTION OF FRANCHISING AUTHORITY REGULATION OF TELECOI~~Il1~iUNICATIONS SERVICES. (a) PROVISION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES BY A CABLE OPERATOR -Section 621(b) (47 U.S.C. 541(b)) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new paragraph: "(3)(A) If a cable operator or affiliate thereof is engaged in the provision of telecommunications services- "(i) such cable operator or affiliate shall not be required to obtain a franchise under this title for the provision of telecommunications services; and "(ii) the provisions of this title shall not apply to such cable operator or affiliate for the provision of telecommunications services. "(B) A franchising authority may not impose any requirement under this title that has the purpose or effect of prohibiting, limiting, restricting, or conditioning the provision of a telecommunications service by a cable operator or an affiliate thereof. "(C) A franchising authority may not order a cable operator or affiliate thereof- "(i) to discontinue the provision of a telecommunications service, or "(ii) to discontinue the operation of a cable system, to the extent such cable system is used for the provision of a telecommunications service, by reason of the failure of such cable operator or affiliate thereof to obtain a franchise or franchise renewal under this title with respect to the provision of such telecommunications service. "(D) Except as otherwise permitted by sections b11 and 612, a franchising authority may not require a cable operator to provide any telecommunications service or facilities, other than institutional networks, as a condition of the initial grant of a franchise, a franchise renewal, or a transfer of a franchise.". (b) FRANCHISE FEES.-Section 622(b) (47 U.S.C 542(b)) is amended by inserting "to provide cable. services" immediately before the period at the end of the first sentence thereof. Notes • In summary, the section prohibits a cable franchising authority from extending its authority under the Cable Act to telecommunications services offered by a cable operator or its affiliate. • State and local authority to manage the right of way and collect compensation related to telecommunications services provided by cable operator is unaffected. • A cable franchising authority may not: - order a cable operator to discontinue telecommunications services or discontinue the cable operation for lack of a Title VI franchise for telecommunication services. - require a cable operator to provide telecommunications services, with the exception of institutional networks, in connection with the initial grant of a franchise, or renewal or transfer. Cable franchise fees derived from revenues related to the delivery of cable services, not telecommunications services "SEG 653. ESTABLISHMENT OF OPEN VIDEO SYSTEMS. "(a) OPEN VIDEO SYSTEMS.- "(1) CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE.-A local exchange carrier may provide cable service to its cable service subscribers in its telephone service area through an open video system that complies with this section. To the extent permitted by such regulations as the Commission may prescribe consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity, an operator of a cable system or any other person may provide video programming through an open video system that complies with this section. An operator of an open video system shall qualify for reduced regulatory burdens under subsection (c) of this section if the operator of such system certifies to the Commission that such carrier complies with the Commission's regulations under subsection (b) and the Commission approves such certification. The Commission shall publish notice of the receipt of any such certification and shall act to approve or disapprove any such certification within 10 days after receipt of such certification. ~~~~~~~ "(b) COMMISSION ACTIONS.- "(1) REGULATIONS REQUIRED.-Within 6 months after the date of enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Commission shall complete all actions necessary (including any reconsideration) to prescribe regulations that- "(A) except as required pursuant to section 611, 614, or 615, prohibit an operator of an open video system from discriminating among video programming providers with regard to carriage on its open video system, and ensure that the rates, terms, and conditions for such carriage are just and reasonable, and are not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory; "(B) if demand exceeds the channel capacity of the open video system, prohibit an operator of an open video system and its affiliates from selecting the video programming services for carriage on more than one-third of the activated channel capacity on such system, but nothing in this subparagraph shall be construed to limit the number of channels that the carrier and its affiliates may offer to provide directly to subscribers; "(C) permit an operator of an open video system ~to carry on only one channel any video programming service that is offered by more than one video programming provider (including the local exchange carrier's video programming affiliate): Provided, That subscribers have ready and immediate access to any such video programming service; "(D) extend to the distribution of video programming over open video systems the Commission's regulations concerning sports exclusivity (47 C.F.R. 76.67), network nonduplication (47 C.F.R 76.92 et seq), and syndicated exclusivity (47 C.F.R. 76.151 et seq.); and "(E)(i) prohibit an operator of an open video system from unreasonably discriminating in favor of the operator or its affiliates with regard to material or information (including advertising) provided by the operator to subscribers for the purposes of selecting programming on the open video system, or in the way such material or information is presented to subscribers; "(ii) require an operator of an open video system to ensure that video programming providers or copyright holders (or both) are able suitably and uniquely to identify their programming services to subscribers; (iii) if such identification is transmitted as part of the programming signal, require the carrier to transmit such identification without change or alteration; and "(iv) prohibit an operator of an open video system from omitting television broadcast stations or other unaffiliated video programming services carried on such system from any navigational device, guide, or menu. ~~~~~~ (2) IMPLEMENTATION. - "(A) COMMISSION ACTION. - In the rulemaking proceeding to prescribe the regulations required by subsection (b)(1), the Commission shall, to the extent possible, impose obligations that are no greater or lesser than the obligations contained in the provisions described in paragraph (1)(B) of this subsection. The Commission shall complete all action (including any reconsideration) to prescribe such regulations no later than 6 months after the date of enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. "(B) FEES. - An operator of an open video system under this part may be subject to the payment of fees on the gross revenues of the operator for the provision of cable service imposed by a local franchising authority or other governmental entity, in lieu of the franchise fees permitted under section 622. The rate at which such fees are imposed shall not exceed the rate at which franchise fees are imposed on any cable operator transmitting video programming in the franchise area, as determined in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Commission. An operator of an open video system may designate that portion of a subscriber's bill attributable to the fee under this subparagraph as a separate item on the bill. *~.*~~ Notes • FCC has developed a rule for Open Video Systems. Final rule due August 8. • Fees in lieu of franchise fees based on the revenues of the OVS operator, not revenues from all programmers. • Management of right of way authority in legislative history and rule. • PEG requirements included in statute and rule. • Unclear whether the rule preempts state and local franchising authority. SEC. 207. RESTRICTIONS ON OVER-THE-AIR RECEPTION DEVICES. Within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall, pursuant to section 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, promulgate regulations to prohibit restrictions that impair a viewer's ability to receive video programming services through devices designed for over-the-air reception of television broadcast signals, multichannel multipoint distribution service, or direct broadcast satellite services. Notes • FCC directed to issue regulations. targeting State and local regulations which impair over-the-air reception of: - television signals - MMDS - direct broadcast satellite signals • FCC began development of a new rule on satellite dishes only before enactment of Telecommunications Act. The final rule was released last week • In summary, any State or local regulation, including a zoning, land-use or building regulation, which impairs the installation, maintenance or use of: 1) an antenna, one meter or less in diameter, designed to receive direct broadcast satellite signals; 2) an antenna, one meter or less in diameter, designed to receive video programming service via multipoint distribution service; and 3) an antenna designed to receive television broadcast signals is prohibited. The prohibition is removed and regulation permitted when 1) necessary to accomplish a clearly defined safety objective stated in the regulation and the regulation is applied in anon-discriminatory manner to similar fixtures of comparable size, weight and appearance, 2) necessary to preserve an historic district and 3) no more burdensome to affected antenna users than is necessary to achieve the objectives stated in 1 and 2. A regulation "impairs" installation, maintenance, or use of an antenna if it: 1) unreasonably delays or prevents installation, maintenance or use, 2) unreasonably increases the cost of installation, maintenance or use, or 3) precludes reception of an acceptable quality signal. • A waiver of Commission preemption may be sought. Also, a particular State or local regulation falling within this rule may be challenged before the Commission or in court. • The rule also applies to nongovernmental restrictions such as homeowner association rules. The FCC announced further rulemaking regarding restrictions affecting the maintenance, use and installation of antennas on rental property. SEC. 704. FACILITIES SITING; RADIO FREQUENCY EMISSION STANDARDS. (a) NATIONAL WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS SITING POLICY -Section 332(c) (47 U.S.C. 332 (c)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: "(7) Preservation of Local Zoning Authority. - "(A) General Authority. Except as provided in this paragraph, nothing in this Act shall limit or affect the authority of a State or local government or instrumentality thereof over decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities. "(B) Limitations.- "(i) The regulation of the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof - "(I) shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; and "(II) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. "(ii) A State or local government or instrumentality thereof shall act on any request for authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless facilities within a reasonable period of time after the request is duly filed with such government or instrumentality, taking into account the nature and scope of such request. "(iii) Any decision by a State or local government or instrumentality thereof to deny a request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. "(iv) No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate 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 Commission's regulations concerning such emissions. "(v) Any person adversely affected by .any final action or failure to act by a State or local government or any instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent with this subparagraph may, within 30 days after such action or failure to act, commence an action in any court of competent jurisdiction. The court shall hear and decide such action on an expedited basis. Any person adversely affected by an act or failure to act by a State or local government or any instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent with clause (iv) may petition the Commission for relief. "(C) DEFINITIONS.-For purposes of this paragraph- "(i) the term 'personal wireless services' means commercial mobile services, unlicensed wireless services, and common carrier wireless exchange access services; "(ii) the term 'personal wireless service facilities' means facilities for the provision of personal wireless services; and (iii) the term 'unlicensed wireless service' means the offering of telecommunications services using duly authorized devices which do not require individual licenses, but does not mean the provision of direct-to-home satellite services (as defined in section 303(v)).". Notes • The zoning authority of local governments over personal wireless communications (cellular and PCS) facilities is affirmed. Conditions - No unreasonable discrimination - Shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting services - Act on any request within a reasonable period of time. - Decision to deny a request shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. - May not regulate placement on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions - Right of appeal within 30 days to court or Commission