HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity of Tamarac Resolution R-2013-043Temp Reso. #12344
May 6, 2013
Page 1 of 4
CITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA
RESOLUTION NO. Ra013 '' 3
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TAMARAC, FLORIDA, EXTENDING BY FORTY FIVE (45) DAYS THE
PERIOD OF ZONING IN PROGRESS INITIATED BY THE CITY
MANAGER'S AMENDED ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER DATED
DECEMBER 19, 2012, AND CONFIRMED AND RATIFIED BY
RESOLUTION NO. 2013-05, AND EXTENDED BY CITY RESOLUTION
NUMBER 2013-25, SAID ORDER AND RESOLUTION DECLARING A
ZONING IN PROGRESS AND PROHIBITING THE ISSUANCE OF
BUILDING PERMITS, ENGINEERING PERMITS, OR DEVELOPMENT
ORDERS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF OR SITING OF ANY
WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY AS DEFINED UNDER
SECTION 365.172, FLORIDA STATUTES, IN ANY PUBLIC RIGHTS -
OF -WAY, OR IN ANY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT WITHIN THE
CITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA; AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE
CITY MANAGER TO CONTINUE STUDY AND REVIEW OF THE
CITY'S REGULATIONS REGARDING THE SAME, AND TO REVIEW
AND CONSIDER THE COMMENTS OF STAKEHOLDERS AFFECTED
BY PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE CITY CODE; PROVIDING THAT
UPON THE ADOPTION OF THIS RESOLUTION NO PERMITS SHALL
BE ISSUED WITHIN THE AFFECTED AREAS DURING THE TIME
PERIOD COVERED BY THIS RESOLUTION; PROVIDING FOR
CONFLICTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING
FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, on January 2, 2013, the City Commission, by Resolution No. 2013-
05 confirmed and ratified the City Manager's Amended Administrative Order of
December 19, 2012, declaring zoning in progress and prohibiting the issuance of any
building permits, engineering permits, or development orders for the installation or siting
of any wireless communications facilities as defined under Section 365.172, Florida
Statutes, in any public rights -of -way or in any residential zoning district within the City
for a period of ninety (90) days from the date of the Amended Administrative Order; and
Temp Reso. #12344
May 6, 2013
Page 1 of 4
WHEREAS, pursuant to said Resolution No. 2013-05, the City's professional
staff studied the issues associated with the infrastructure required and the siting of
telecommunications towers and antennas in public rights -of -way and within residential
zoning districts throughout the City, and on February 27, 2013, presented to the City
Commission for consideration on First Reading Temporary Ordinance No. 2272
(Attached hereto as Exhibit "A") revising the City's Code with respect to the location and
siting of said wireless communications facilities in the public rights of way, which
Temporary Ordinance was adopted on First Reading; and
WHEREAS, stakeholders submitted written comments (attached hereto as
Exhibit "B") to the City setting forth concerns and requesting that the City revise the
proposed Ordinance and "confer with the industry as may be necessary to do so,"
"[encouraging] the City to invite members of the wireless industry and infrastructure
providers to sit down and discuss the substantive provisions of [the] proposed
ordinance"; and
WHEREAS, rapidly evolving technology and legal requirements with respect to
the deployment of wireless communication facilities requires the City to act carefully in
adopting regulations governing the location and siting of such facilities in the public
rights of way; and
WHEREAS, many of the concerns raised by stakeholders are addressed to
evolving technical and legal considerations associated with the deployment and
regulation of wireless communication facilities; and
WHEREAS, on March 13, 2013, the City Commission adopted Resolution No.
2013-25, which provided for a sixty (60) day extension of the zoning in progress; and
Temp Reso. #12344
May 6, 2013
Page 1 of 4
WHEREAS, during said 60-day extension period, City staff held a workshop to
gather stakeholder input and revised the proposed Ordinance based on that input; and
WHEREAS, Stakeholders have requested that the City consider additional
comments to the revised Ordinance, additional time is needed to carefully evaluate the
comments and to seek additional input from the industry.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA, THAT:
Section 1. The foregoing "WHEREAS" clauses are hereby ratified and confirmed
as being true and correct, and are incorporated herein by this reference. All exhibits
attached hereto are incorporated herein and made a specific part of this resolution.
Section 2. The zoning in progress confirmed and ratified by Resolution No.
2013-05, and extended by Resolution No. 2013-25 shall be extended an additional forty
five (45) days, and shall cease at the earliest of the expiration of one -hundred -ninety-
five (195) days from the issuance of the Amended Administrative Order, upon the
effectiveness of an ordinance addressing the subject matter of the Amended
Administrative Order, or upon the adoption of a resolution terminating the zoning in
progress.
Section 3. The City Commission hereby directs the City Manager to review and
consider
the points
raised in
written
stakeholder
comments addressing
the City's
proposed
personal
wireless
facilities
Ordinance,
and to consider the
additional
Temp Reso. #12344
May 6, 2013
Page 1 of 4
comments provided during and after the City's workshop. During such review and
consideration, the City Manager is authorized to further review regulations pertaining to
the installation or siting of any wireless communication facilities as defined under
Section 365.172, Florida Statutes, in any public rights -of -way within the City of Tamarac
or in any residential zoning district within the City of Tamarac. The City Manager shall
report back to the City Commission, prior to the expiration of the Zoning in Progress,
regarding the findings of said review and consideration.
Section 4. The City Commission hereby authorizes and directs the appropriate
City Officials to do all things necessary and expedient to effectuate the intent of this
Resolution.
Section 5. All resolutions inconsistent or in conflict herewith shall be and are
hereby repealed insofar as there is conflict or inconsistency.
Section 6. If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this resolution is held to
be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, then said holding
shall in no way affect the validity of the remaining portions of this resolution.
Section 7. This resolution shall become effective upon its passage and adoption
by the City Commission.
1
r
7
L
1
Temp Reso. #12344
May 6, 2013
Page 1 of 4
PASSED AND A�PTED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TAMARAC,
FLORIDA THIS DAY OF MAY, 2013.
CITY F TAMARAC FLORIDA
BETH TALABIS O, MAY
ATTEST:
f "�
PA T FICIA TEUFEL, FMC
INTERIM CITY CLERK
RECORD OF COMMISSION VOTE:
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE
APPROVED THIS RESOLUTION
AS TO FOR
SAMUEL S. GO EN
CITY ATTORNEY
MAYOR TALABISCO
DIST 1: COMM. BUSHNE L
DIST 2: COMM. ATKINSGRA
DIST 3: COMM. GLASSER
DIST 4: V/M. DRESSLER
Temp. Ordinance # 2272
February 14, 2013
Page 1 of 12
CITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA; AMENDING ARTICLE IX,
CHAPTER 24 ENTITLED "TELECOMMUNICATIONS
TOWERS AND ANTENNAS" OF THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA,
AS AMENDED, AND TO REGULATE PERSONAL
WIRELESS SERVICE FACILITIES IN THE PUBLIC
RIGHTS -OF -WAY; CONTAINING A REPEALER
PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, to promote the public health, safety, aesthetics, and general welfare,
the City of Tamarac has a substantial and significant public interest in maintaining and
protecting its public -rights of way in a non-discriminatory manner, and requiring that
individuals and entities seeking permits to conduct any type of excavation, construction
or other activity therein do so in a safe, expeditious, and professional manner; and
WHEREAS, the Emergency Communications Number E911 Act, Chapter 365,
Florida Statutes, (the "Act") addresses, inter alia, local governments' regulation of the
placement, construction or modification of wireless communications facilities; and
WHEREAS, Section 337.401 et seq, Florida Statutes, addresses, inter alia, the
authority of municipalities to regulate the placement and maintenance of
communications facilities in the public rights -of -way; and
WHEREAS, the City Code provisions regulating telecommunications towers and
antennas need to be updated to expressly address current practices utilizing personal
wireless service facilities in the public rights -of -way and to protect the public interest by
protecting, preserving and maintaining the health, safety and welfare of the users of the
public rights -of -way, while also protecting, preserving and maintaining the aesthetic
character of areas where such rights -of -way exist, and this ordinance achieves such
purpose; and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk has provided at least ten days advance notice prior to
first reading of this Ordinance to the Secretary of State.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA, THAT:
Temp. Ordinance # 2272
February 14, 2013
Page 2 of 12
SECTION 1. The recitals and findings contained in the Preamble to this
Ordinance are adopted by reference and incorporated as if fully set forth in this Section.
SECTION 2. Sec. 24-700. — Intent and purpose, is hereby amended as follows:
The regulations and requirements of this article are intended to:
(1) Promote the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens by regulating
the siting of telecommunications towers and personal wireless service
facilities;
(2) Provide for the appropriate location and development of telecommunications
towers, personal wireless service facilities and antennas within the city;
(3) Minimize adverse visual effects of telecommunications towers, personal
wireless service facilities and antennas through careful design, siting,
landscape screening and innovative camouflaging techniques;
(4) Avoid potential damage to adjacent properties from tower or facility failure
through engineering and careful siting of tower structures and personal
wireless service facilities;
(5) Protect residential areas and land uses from potential adverse impacts of
telecommunications towers, personal wireless service facilities and antennas
by maximizing use of any new or existing telecommunications towers through
shared use, i.e., co -location, to reduce the number of towers or structures
used in connection with personal wireless service facilities that are needed.
SECTION 3. Sec. 24-701, Definitions, is hereby amended as follows':
Personal wireless services means commercial mobile services, unlicensed
wireless services, and common carrier wireless exchange access services, and shall
include "wireless service" as defined in Section 365.172, Florida Statutes as well as
"personal wireless services" defined in 47 USC $332(c)(7)(C)(i) as they may be
amended.
Personal wireless service facilities means facilities for the provision of personal
wireless services, and shall include all of those "wireless communications facilities" as
defined in Section 365.172, Florida Statutes, as it may be amended that are not
telecommunications towers as defined in this section.
'Language underlined in sections 2 and 3 is to be added. Language in said sections with a
strikethrough is to be deleted.
Temp. Ordinance # 2272
February 14, 2013
Page 3 of 12
Public rights -of -way has the same meaning as provided in Section 5.6-3 of the
City Code.
SECTION 4. There is hereby created a new Section 24-707 to provide as
follows:
Section 24-707. Personal wireless service facilities in the public rights -of -
way.
(a) Minimum standards. Personal wireless service facilities in the public rights -
of -way must meet the following minimum standards:
(1) Required approvals. No application for placement of wireless service
facilities in the public right-of-way shall be permitted without approval of
the building department, the public services department and the
department of community development.
(2) Site plan. Prior to the issuance of a building permit by the building
department or an engineering permit by the public services department, a
site plan for a minor development shall be presented for approval to the
planning division, department of community development. Notwithstanding
that site plan approval is not otherwise required for use of the public
rights -of -way, due to the necessity of above ground installation or
placement of certain personal wireless service facilities, each application
for such facilities in the public rights -of -way shall include all requirements
for site development plan approval as required by section 10-47 of the
Land Development Code. The director of community development may
waive all or some of requirements of section 10-47 of the Land
Development Code for a stealth facility which is designed to emulate
existing structures or fixtures already within the public rights -of -way
adjacent to the site.
(3) Completeness review; time limitation. The City shall grant or deny a
properly completed application for personal wireless service facilities in
the public rights -of -way no later than 90 business days after the date the
application is determined be properly completed. An application is deemed
submitted or resubmitted on the date the application is received by the
planning division. The planning division shall notify the applicant within
twenty (20) business days after the date the application is initially
submitted or additional information resubmitted, whether the application is
properly completed in compliance with the City's requirements. If the
application is not completed in compliance with the City's requirements,
the planning division shall so notify the applicant in writing indicating with
specificity any deficiencies which, if cured, make the application properly
Temp. Ordinance # 2272
February 14, 2013
Page 4 of 12
completed. Upon resubmission of information to cure the stated
deficiencies, the planning division shall notify the applicant, in writinq, no
later than 20 business days after the additional information is submitted, of
any remaining deficiencies that must be cured. If a specified deficiency is
not properly cured when the applicant resubmits its application to comply
with the notice of deficiencies, the planning division may continue to
request the information until such time as the specified deficiency is cured,
or may establish a reasonable time frame within which the required
information to cure the application deficiency is to be provided. If the
curative information is not provided within such time frame, the application
will be considered withdrawn or closed.
(4) Stealth facilities. When collocation of an antenna associated with
personal wireless service facilities is not possible, a free standing stealth
facility similar in appearance and construction to existing power or light
poles in the public rights -of -way in terms of height, color and material shall
be utilized; however, another facility type may be utilized if approved as a
special exception.
(5) Statement. A statement shall be submitted, prepared by a professional
registered engineer licensed to practice in the state, which through rational
engineering analysis certifies that the personal wireless service facilities
located in the public rights -of -way comply with applicable standards as set
forth in the Florida Building Code, latest edition, the State of Florida
Department of Transportation, Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards for
Design, Construction and Maintenance for Streets and Highways, and any
associated regulations including all electrical codes; and describes the
proposed personal wireless service facilities' capacity to permit multiple
users, including an example of the number and type of antennas or other
attachments it can accommodate. Any registered and licensed engineer
performing the required analysis shall also certify that he or she is
competent in the engineering disciplines necessary to determine and
certify compliance with the specified standards, or that the analysis has
been performed by a competent engineer under his or her direction or
supervision. No personal wireless service facility which exceeds its
loading capacity, or which causes any pole or structure to exceed its
loading capacity, shall be permitted in the public rights of way.
(6) Dimensional Limits. No permit or order shall be granted authorizing -
the placement, construction or modification in the public rights of way of a
personal wireless communications facility, other than a pole or tower,
having exterior dimensions greater than four feet (4') high, by three feet
(3') long, by two feet (2') wide, or having a total volume exceeding twenty
Temp. Ordinance # 2272
February 14, 2013
Page 5 of 12
four cubic feet (24 ft). A power or light pole shall not be considered a
personal wireless communications facility merely because a personal
wireless communications facility has been installed on or attached to such
pole.
(b) Height/setbacks and related location requirements.
(1) The height of a personal wireless service facility in the public rights -of -
way shall not exceed the height of existing poles within one -hundred feet
of such proposed facility in the public rights -of -way, or if no such existing
poles are present within one -hundred feet of such proposed facility, such
facility shall not exceed a height of fifty (50) feet. Height shall be measured
from the crown of the road of the nearest public street.
Except as otherwise provided herein, personal wireless service
facilities in the public rights -of -way shall conform to the setbacks
established for the underlying zoning district.
(3) Personal wireless service facilities in the public rights -of -way which are
above ground shall not be permitted within fifty (50) feet of any principal
residential structure. In the event a provider of wireless service, as
defined in section 365.172(3), Florida Statutes, demonstrates to the
satisfaction of the director of community development that application of
this paragraph results in an actual or effective prohibition of wireless
service to a residential area or zone from outside the residential area or
zone, the applicant and the director of community development shall
cooperate to determine an appropriate location and design for such
proposed above ground facility. In any such cooperative determination
there shall be a preference for collocation with existing personal wireless
service facilities or other utility facilities. Where facilities cannot be
collocated, there shall be a preference for the use of free standing stealth -
type structures associated with the proposed personal wireless service
facilities which are consistent, to the extent possible, with the purposes of
the Land Development Code as that code is defined in Sec. 10.327. The
director of community development may require a statement, prepared by
a_ professional registered engineer licensed to practice in the state, that
the proposed location is needed by a wireless service provider to close a
significant gap in its service to that area. Any registered and licensed
engineer preparing any such statement shall also certify that he or she is
competent in the engineering discipline or disciplines necessary to make
the required determination, or that the determination has been made by a
competent engineer under his or her direction or supervision. The
Temp. Ordinance # 2272
February 14, 2013
Page 6 of 12
applicant shall reimburse the reasonable costs incurred by the City for this
cooperative determination.
(c) Antennas
(1) Each application shall contain a rendering or photograph of the
proposed antenna which depicts its aesthetic features including, but not
limited to the use of colors and screening devices. The application shall
be subject to administrative approval determining consistency with the
definition of a stealth facility as defined in Sec. 24-701 of the Zoning Code.
The director of community development may require, to the extent
possible that stealth antennas be utilized to match existing fixtures in the
public rights -of -way.
(2) No signals, lights, or illumination shall be permitted on an antenna,
except as required by applicable state or federal laws or rules.
(3) Exterior mounted antennas shall only be permitted at a height and
location that will not interfere with use of the public rights -of -way.
(4) No exterior antenna in the public right-of-way shall exceed the height
of the pole to which it is attached. No antenna shall be mounted more
than four inches (4") from the pole to which it is attached. No exterior loop
cable shall be installed on any personal wireless service facilities located
in the public rights -of -way.
(5) Antenna dimensions. Antenna dimensions shall be approved by the
director of community development as required by existing technology.
The director of community development may require a statement,
Prepared by a professional registered engineer licensed to practice in the
state to certify the need for the required dimensions. Any registered and
licensed engineer preparing any such statement shall also certify that he
or she is competent in the engineering discipline or disciplines necessary
to make the required determination, or that the determination has been
made by a competent engineer under his or her direction or supervision.
(6) Distance between antenna locations/number of antenna locations
within a specified area. To minimize the adverse visual impacts associated
with the proliferation and clustering of antenna and associated above
ground personal wireless service_ facilities, no antenna site in the public
rights -of -way shall be located within one thousand feet (1,000') of any
other such antenna site or telecommunications tower. Further, no more
than five (5) antenna sites may be located within an area of one
(1) square mile. In the event a provider of wireless service, as defined in
section 365.172(3), Florida Statutes, demonstrates to the satisfaction of
the director of community development that application of this paragraph
Temp. Ordinance # 2272
February 14, 2013
Page 7 of 12
results in an actual or effective prohibition of wireless service to a
residential area or zone from outside the residential area or zone, the
applicant and the director of community development shall cooperate to
determine an appropriate location and design for such proposed above
ground facility. In any such cooperative determination there shall be a
preference for collocation with existing personal wireless service facilities
or other utility facilities or for use of unused capacity on existing personal
wireless service facilities. Where facilities cannot be collocated and no
such unused capacity exists there shall be a preference for the use of
free standing stealth -type structures associated with the proposed
personal wireless service facilities which are consistent, to the extent
possible with the purposes of the Land Development Code as that code is
defined in Sec. 10.327. The director of community development may
require a statement prepared by a professional registered engineer
licensed to practice in the state, that the proposed location is needed by a
wireless service provider to close a significant gap in its service to that
area. Any registered and licensed engineer preparing any such statement
shall also certify that he or she is competent in the engineering discipline
or disciplines necessary to make the required determination, or that the
determination has been made by a competent engineer under his or her
direction or supervision. The applicant shall reimburse the reasonable
costs incurred by the City for this cooperative determination.
(d) Approval required from other -governmental agencies and owners. Each
application for the location of a personal wireless service facility in the public
rights -of -way may be required to include written approval, or a statement of no
objection from federal or state agencies that regulate siting, design, and
construction of such facilities or have jurisdiction over the public rights -of -way.
An existing facility in the public rights -of -way shall only be utilized in a manner
consistent with the City Code and with the written permission of the facility
owner.
(e) FCC emissions standards. All personal wireless service facilities in the public
rights -of -way shall comply with current radio frequency emissions standards of
the Federal Communications Commission.
(f) Buffering.
(1) The director of community development, as condition of approval, may
require the use of a fence or wall as a buffer, which fence or wall is
Temp. Ordinance # 2272
February 14, 2013
Page 8 of 12
consistent in design and function with fencing or walls currently used in
the public Rights -of -Way around any personal wireless service facilities.
(2) The director of community development, as a condition of approval,
may require the use of landscaping as a buffer, which landscaping is
consistent with the landscaping otherwise located in the public rights -of -
way. Additional landscaping may be required if deemed necessary to
buffer adjacent properties. The director of community development may
require landscapinq in excess of the requirements of the city code to
enhance compatibility with adjacent residential and nonresidential land
uses.
(q) Equipment. Unless approved by the city engineer with respect to safety
within the public rights -of -way, and by special exception, no equipment or
equipment cabinets associated with the personal wireless service facilities shall
be located above ground in the public rights -of -way or in a location that, in the
determination of the City engineer, will interfere with the use of the public rights -
of -way. The location in the public rights -of -way of any equipment associated with
personal wireless service facilities shall be subject to the approval of the City
engineer. The City engineer may require a statement, prepared by a professional
registered engineer licensed to practice in the state, to certify the need for the
proposed equipment and location. Any registered and licensed engineer
Preparing any such statement shall also certify that he or she is competent in the
engineering discipline or disciplines necessary to make the required
determination, or that the determination has been made by a competent engineer
under his or her direction or supervision. No generators may be placed or utilized
in connection with personal wireless service facilities in the public rights -of -way,
except in the case of emergency and approved in advance by the City engineer.
(h) Removal of personal wireless service facilities in the public rights -of -way and
restoration of the public rights -of -way.
(1) All abandoned or unused personal wireless service facilities in the
Public rights -of -way shall be removed by the owner/operator within ninety
(90) days of the cessation of use. A personal wireless service facility in the
public rights -of -way shall be considered abandoned if use has been
discontinued for one hundred eighty (180) consecutive days. Personal
wireless service facilities in the public rights -of -way being utilized for other
Purposes, including but not limited to light standards and power poles,
may be exempt from this provision where superseded by the requirements
of county, state or federal regulatory agencies.
Temp. Ordinance # 2272
February 14, 2013
Page 9 of 12
(2) Upon the removal of any personal wireless service facilities from the
Public rights -of -way, such public rights -of -way shall be completely restored
to the satisfaction of the City engineer at the cost of the owner or operator
of the personal wireless service facilities in the public rights -of -way. The
City engineer shall require a bond or other fund sufficient to secure the
restoration of the public rights -of -way.
(i) Signs and advertising. The use of any portion of a personal wireless service
facility in the public rights -of -way for the posting of signs or for advertising
purposes, including the display of company name, banners, streamers, etc., is be
strictly prohibited.
(i) Non-interference. Each application to allow construction of personal wireless
service facilities in the public rights -of -way shall include a statement prepared by
a registered radio audio frequency (RAF) engineer that the construction and use
of the facilities will not interfere with public safety communications or the usual
and customary transmission or reception of communications service enioyed by
adjacent residential and nonresidential properties. A statement shall be prepared
by a registered engineer identifying any interference that may result from the
proposed construction and use of such facility.
(k) Inspections.
(1) Owners or operators of personal wireless service facilities in the public
rights -of -way shall ensure that the City's building department has current
contact information for such owner or its authorized representative.
(2) The owner or operator of a personal wireless service facility in the
Public rights -of -way shall submit a report to the city's building department,
certifying structural and electrical integrity at least once every two (2)
years.
(3) Inspections evaluating the structural and electrical integrity of the
facilities shall be conducted by an engineer licensed to practice in the
state. The results of such inspections shall be provided to the building
department along with certification that the engineer or engineers
conducting such inspections are competent in the engineering discipline or
disciplines necessary to evaluate the structural and electrical integrity of
the facilities, or that the evaluation has been made by a competent
engineer or engineers under his or her direction or supervision. Any
personal wireless service facilities in the public rights -of -way found in such
inspection or otherwise determined to be lacking structural or electrical
Temp. Ordinance # 2272
February 14, 2013
Page 10 of 12
integrity shall be repaired or removed as required by the building
department.
(4) The building department may conduct periodic inspections of personal
wireless service facilities in the public rights -of -way to ensure structural
and electrical integrity. The owner or operator of personal wireless service
facilities in the public rights -of -way may be required to have more frequent
inspections of a particular facility should there be reason to believe that
the structural and electrical integrity of said facility is jeopardized.
(m) Modifications or replacements. Modification or replacement of personal
wireless service facilities and equipment in the public rights -of -way shall be
subject to approval of the City's building department. If such modification or
replacement would, as reasonably determined by the City, result in the facility or
equipment beinq readily discernibly different in size, type, and appearance when
viewed from ground level from surrounding properties, such modification shall
require approval as a special exception.
(n) Reservation of Rights.
(1) The City does not waive any rights under applicable law with respect to
management of its public rights -of -way. The City shall require that owners
and users of personal wireless service facilities in the public rights -of -way
pay the maximum compensation to the City. The City reserves the right to
enforce all applicable city code provisions with respect to personal
wireless service facilities in the public rights -of -way.
(2) The City does not warrant or make any representations that the public
rights -of -way are available, suitable or appropriate for the construction,
placement, maintenance or use of personal wireless service facilities.
(3) The City's approval of an application for the construction, placement,
or modification of a personal wireless service facilities in the public rights -
of -way shall not create any rights in such facilities' ability to be maintained
or utilized in the public rights -of -way for any particular period of time or
any rights that are inconsistent with the City Code.
(4) The City reserves the right to abandon any public rights -of -way,
notwithstanding the presence of any personal wireless service facilities in
the public rights -of -way that have been approved by the City and the City
shall have no liability or responsibility to the owner, operator, or users of
such personal wireless service facilities in the public rights -of -way.
(5) The City reserves the right to require the relocation or removal of any
personal wireless service facilities in the public rights -of -way consistent
with its authority under applicable law. The City shall have no liability or
Temp. Ordinance # 2272
February 14, 2013
Page 11 of 12
responsibility to the owner, operator or users of the personal wireless
service facilities in the public rights -of -way.
(6) The City shall have no responsibility or liability for damage to or
interference with the use or maintenance of personal wireless service
facilities in the public rights -of -way by any third party.
Secs. 24-708-24-799. - Reserved
SECTION 5. Conflicts. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict
herewith are repealed to the extent of such conflict.
SECTION 6. Savings. All fees and other dollar amounts owed to the City under
any contract, Agreement, or other provisions of the City Code as of the effective date of
this Ordinance, whether known or unknown, shall not be affected by the adoption of this
Ordinance and the City expressly reserves its rights with respect to such amounts.
SECTION 7. Severability. It is declared to be the intent of the City Commission
of the City of Tamarac, Florida, that if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or
provision of this Ordinance shall be declared invalid, the remainder of the this
Ordinance shall be construed as not having contained said section, subsection,
sentence, clause, or provisions and shall not be affected by such holding.
SECTION 8. Inclusion in Code. It is the intent of the City Commission of the
City of Tamarac that the provisions of this Ordinance shall become and be made a part
of the City Code of Ordinances, and that the sections of this Ordinance may be
renumbered or re -lettered and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section,"
"article," "regulation," or such other appropriate word or phrase in order to accomplish
such intentions.
SECTION 9. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective
immediately upon the date of its adoption by the City Commission.
PASSED, FIRST READING this
PASSED, SECOND READING this
ATTEST:
PAT TUEFEL, CMC,
INTERIM CITY CLERK
I HEREBY CERTIFY that
I have approved this
ORDINANCE as to form:
SAMUEL S. GOREN
CITY ATTORNEY
day of
day of
Temp. Ordinance # 2272
February 14, 2013
Page 12 of 12
2013.
BY:
MAYOR BETH TALABISCO
, 2013.
RECORD OF COMMISSION VOTE: 1ST Reading
MAYOR TALABISCO
DIST 1:
COMM BUSHNELL
DIST 2:
COMM ATKINS-GRAD
DIST 3:
COMM GLASSER
DIST 4:
V/M DRESSLER
RECORD OF COMMISSION VOTE: 2ND Reading
MAYOR TALABISCO
DIST 1:
COMM BUSHNELL
DIST 2:
COMM. ATKINS-GRAD
DIST 3:
COMM GLASSER
DIST 4:
V/M DRESSLER
H:\ GOV CLIENTS\TAM 2704\050164 GM\ORD 2013\TO 2272 (Personal Wireless Facilities)(2-14-13).docx
Crown Castle
8555 NW 64" Street
Miami, Florida 33166-2628
MelissaP.Anderson@crowncastle.com
February 26, 2013
Via Electronic Mall and Rand :Delivery
IIama.rac City Commission
The Honorable Beth Talabisco, Mayor
The Honorable Patricia Atkins -Grad, Commissioner
The Honorable Pamela Bushnell, Commissioner
The Honorable Harry Dressler, Commissioner
The Honorable Diane Glasser, Commissioner
City of Tamarac
7525 NW 88th Avenue
Tamarac, Florida 33321-2401
Office 786-899-5911
Mobile 561-314-9261
Fax 305-591..1469
www.crowncastle.com
Re: T02272 - Amending Chapter 24 entitled "Telecommunications Towers and Antennas"
Dear Mayor and Commissioners:
Crown Castle respectfully submits this letter to the Tamarac City Commission (the
"Commission") to clearly iterate the position of Crown Castle NG East Inc. ("Crown Castle") concerning
T02272 - Amending Chapter 24 entitled, "Telecommunications Towers and Antennas," proposed in Item
8a of the Februant, 27, 2013, City Commission agenda and to provide important background and context
on the matter, Crown. Castle specifically incorporates into this letter the contents of its letter of January 8„
2013, opposing the proposed Zoning in Progress moratorium which was subsequently imposed by the
Commission.
First and foremost, Crown Castle would like to encourage the City to invite members of the
wireless industry and infrastructure providers to sit down and discuss the substantive provisions of this
proposed ordinance. Whilc Crown Castle soecificall�requested by letter and in person at the Januarr9
2013 City Commission nneetin to be included durin the draftingrocess of this ro osed ordinance no
comment or uput was ever solicited from Crown Castle As such, the ordinance currently before the
Commission for consideration contains both very crucial legal and technical flaws,
The placement of communications facilities within public rights of way is very specifically
governed by Section 337.401(3)(a) of the _Florida Statutes. To quote the statute: "Because of the unique
circumstances applicable to providers of communications services, including, but not limited to, the
circumstances described in paragraph (e) and the fact that federal and state law require the
nondiscriminatory treatment of providers of telecommunications services, and because of the desire to
promote competition among providers of communications services, it is the intent of the Legislature that
municipalities and counties treat providers of communications services in a nondiscriminatory and
competitively neutral manner when imposing rules or regulations governing the placement or
maintenance of communications facilities in the public roads or ri�,>hts-ref may. Rules or regulations
imposed by a rnunicipalitly or county relating to providers of communications services placing or
Page I of 4
February 26, 2013
maintaining communications facilities in its roads or rights -of --way must be generally applicable to all
providers of communications services..." Furthermore, the statute goes on to state that, "Any rules or
regulations adopted by a municipality or county which govern the occupation of its roads or rights -of -
way' by providers of communications services mug be related to the placement or maintenance o
facilities in such roads or rights -o
f -wiry way, must be reasonable and nondivcriminato!L and may include
on1j, those matters jLeCCIEM to manare the roads or j&h1s-of-way of the municipality or coy#A.
(emphasis added)
The regulatory scheme allowed by the Florida Statutes is fairly straight forward: communications
services providers wishing to place their facilities in the right of way are required to obtain a right of way
permit from the relevant municipality. Additionally, municipalities are allowed by the statute to require
such communications services providers to register with the municipality and the municipality may
"manage" the "placement or maintenance" of the facilities. This management has been interpreted to
mean that the municipality can regulate with regard to such considerations as safety and construction
standards, but in no instance may the municipality require a communication facility in the public right of
way to go through a zoning review process. Nor may the municipality prohibit the placement of such
facilities in certain zoning districts of the City where such prohibition would constitute an actual or
effective prohibition of the provider's service in that zoning district.
A section by section analysis of T02272 is set forth below.
Section 3
The definition of "Personal wireless service facilities" does not clearly distinguish between the
addition of an antenna on an existing structure and the installation of a new free-standing structure.
Section 4
• (a)(21) -- Requiring site plan approval by the Planning Division violates Section 337.40](3) of the
Florida Statutes because it creates a discriminatory regulatory requirement. Indeed, the City admits in
this section that site plan approval "is not otherwise required for use of the public rights -of -way," The
provision asserts that site plan is "due to the necessity of above ground installation" of certain wireless
facilities. Presumably, there are other above ground installations by non -wireless communications and
utility companies which then do not require site plan approval.
0 The requirement for site plan approval for each node is also quite burdensome. Section 10-47 of
the City Code governing site plans shows that many if not most of the requirements of that section are not
applicable to or realistic in the context of deploying an antenna on an existing utility pole in the public
right of way, or even for a new pole in the public right of way. The site plan regulations clearly expect
that the proposal will involve a specific lot and property, not the public right of way. At a minimum, this
will render it extremely difficult to create a "complete" application that will trigger the timeline for
review by the City and could cause significant delay.
0 (a)(5) — The section requires a single professional engineer to attest to several different technical
requirements, not all of which may be within the purview of one professional engineer's expertise, For
instance, a structural engineer may be able to attest to Florida Building Code requirements, but may not
have sufficient professional knowledge to attest regarding the "number and type of antennas."
• (a)(6) — Dimensional Limits — This is ve problematic. It prohibits "a personal wireless
communications facility'
I YM
having exterior dimensions greater than 4 feet high, 3 feet long, and 2 feet wide
or having total volume exceeding 24 cubic feet. First, it doesn't define what is included in the measure.
Is that each piece of equipment? Is it cumulative of the antenna plus equipment boxes? Second, 4 feet
Page 2 of 4
February 26, 2013
high and 3 feet long and 2 feet wide doesn't make sense. This needs to be expressed in terms of
height,lwidth/depth. Third, there is no basis for this size. It is arbitrary and limits technology choices.
0 (b)(1) - Similar to the comment regarding (a)(6) above, the dimensional restrictions contained in
this section are arbitrary, potentially will limit technology choices and not in any way related to the
"management" of communications facilities within the public rights of way with regard to safety and
construction, but strictly relates to aesthetics. Also, as noted below, the prohibition on pole top
installation is clearly a problem,
0 (b)(2) - This is an example of where the ambiguous use of "personal wireless service facilities"
creates uncertainty. The section states that "personal wireless service facilities" in the public right of way
shall conform to the setbacks established for the underlying zone. Yet, if the utility pole is already in the
public right of way, the addition of an antenna does not make the pole itself a personal wireless service
facility. (See Section 365.172(3)(ft), Fla. Stat, which states, "Placing a wireless communications facility
on an existing structure does not cause the existing structure to become a wireless communications
facility").
& (b)(3) -Does the City intend that this provision apply to that installation of new poles and also
when antennas are added to an existing pole. The confusion of whether this applies only to new poles is
compounded because subsection (c) is entitled "antennas."
0 (c)(1) - This provision, and the requirement for consistency with the definition of "stealth,"
seems inconsistent with a deployment within the public right of way. It seems arbitrarily lifted from a
different context. For example the statement that the Director can require -stealth antennas be utilized to
match existing fixtures in the public rights -of -way" is difficult to comprehend. What are the "fixtures" in
the public rights of way to match? Power transformers? (So, electric transformers are aesthetically
acceptable but a panel antenna isn't?)
0 (c)(4) - Prohibiting pole top antennas and requiring that the antenna be no more than 4 inches
from the pole will create problems with clearance from utility and communications facilities and could
effectively prohibit the use of many otherwise eligible poles. The prohibition on "exterior loop cable" is
also strange and discriminatory. Presumably, existing utility poles have many cables and likely fiber
splice boxes and similar installations. How does an "exterior loop cable"' attached to an antenna become
intolerable but all of the other installations are acceptable,
9 (c)(5) -The City has no authority to make decisions about the sort of technology utilized in the
public right of way. Certainly, this is not within the purview of the definition of "management" contained
is Section 337.401, 1, Fla. Stat., and is specifically prohibited in Section 365.172(12).
0 (c)(6) - A requirement of 1000 feet between antennas is arbitrary and discriminatory
(particularly, if there are utility poles, with multiple lines and equipment closer together than every 1006
feet),
0 (d) - The provision conflicts with Section 365.172(12)(c), Fla. Stat., which states, "Local
governments mqv not require wireless providers to provide evidence of a wireless communications
facility's compliance with federal regulations, except evidence of compliance with applicable fiederal
Aviation Administration requirements under 14 CFR s, 7� as amended, and evidence ofproper Federal
Communications Commission licensure, or other evidence of Federal Com),nunications Commission
authorized spectrum use, but may request the Federal Communications Commission to provide
information as to a wireless provider's compliance with federal regulations, as authorized by federal
law."
0 (f)(1) - The requirements of a "fence or wall" as a buffer and "landscaping" within the right of
way seems contrary to public safety and is possibly discriminatory. Is this required of other utilities
providers within the public right of way?
Page 3 of 4
February 26, 2013
• (g) — The requirement to underground equipment is discriminatory unless imposed on all public
right of way users. Also, the prohibition on generators may ultimately be inconsistent with potential FCC
back up power mandates.
• (i) — It is not within the City's authority to require a statement of non-interference. See, In re
Cingukar Wireless, 18 _FCC Red. 13126.
• (k)(2) — The requirement for a report certifying structural and electrical integrity at least every 2
years seems excessive for a. pole. Is this required of other utilities in the public right of way?
• (m) — This provision violates Section 6409 of the Tax Relief Act. It would require a full blown
special exception (and therefore allow discretionary review and denial of a modification) if the proposed
modification would result in the facility or equipment '`being readily discernibly different in size, type,
and appearance when viewed from ground level from surrounding properties.", Under the Tax Relief Act,
the City cannot deny and must grant any modification that does not substantially increase the physical
dimensions of the tower or base station. The City's proposed language subverts that if there is any
discernible difference, even if the equipment is going to be smaller.
• (n)(I ) — The reservation of the right to impose the "maximum compensation to the City" is vague
and unenforceable. There are several restrictions contained in Florida and Federal statutes limiting what
may be charged by the municipality, not the least of which is Section 337.401(3) of the Florida Statutes.
Crown Castle requests that this letter be entered into the record for the Tamarac City Commission
meeting of February 27, 2013, with regard to Item 8a. Crown Castle Iooks forward to working with the
City in redrafting this ordinance prior to second reading and to providing its telecommunications services
within the City of Tamarac very soon.
Sincerely,
MU45,a- P. Aod-0,rwv,
Melissa P. Anderson
Government Relations Counsel
Southeastern Region
Cc: Mr. Michael C. Cernech, City Manager
Ms. Patricia Teufe1, Interim City Clerk
Samuel S. Goren, Esq., City Attorney
David N. Tolces, Esq., Assistant City Attorney
Sarah M, Bleakley, Esq., Outside Counsel to the City
Mr. Christopher T. Sinclair, Crown Castle
Alexander E. Reynolds, Esq., PCIA.
Scott Thompson, Esq., Davis, Wright and Tremaine
Page 4 of 4
mob& PCIA
Ir"IMT111400
Dw Wrth-�', iphVru(Ue
February 26, 2013
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Patricia Teufel, Clef C
Interim City Clerk
City of Tamarac
City Hall, Room 101
7525 NW 88th Ave
Tamarac, FL 33321
DAS f, rut
0 IstribUted Antemna Systems i
u �tz
Re: Temp Ordinance # 2272 - Ordinance Amending Article IX, Chapter 24
Entitled "Telecommunications Towers and Antennas"
Dear Ms. Teufel,
PCIA—The Wireless Infrastructure Association,The DAS Forum. ("PCIA")l and the
Florida Wireless Association ("FWA ")2 write in response to the City of Tamarac's proposed
ordinance that would amend the City's existing ordinance to add regulations for personal
wireless service facilities.
This letter is in follow-up to our January 7, 2013 letter to the City commenting on the
City's then -proposed resolution (TR 12295), a copy of which is attached, Unfortunately, it does
not appear that the City solicited input from the wireless industry, in developing this ordinance.
We are concerned that the current draft does not reflect requirements that, as a practical matter,
are consistent with the technology and methods of deployment of distributed antenna system
(DAS") and small cell installations, and in some sections does not reflect applicable law. We
respectfully ask that the City revise the ordinance in consideration of our comments and confer
with the industry as may be necessary to do so. We believe that this in the interest of the City and
its citizens as well as the industry, because an ordinance that interferes with the industry's ability
to deploy wireless facilities that are needed to bring wireless coverage and capacity to citizens.
' PCIA is the national trade association representing the wireless infrastructure industry, The DAS Forum, a
membership section of PCIA, is dedicated to the development of DAS and small cell solutions as elements of the
nation's wireless infrastructure. Together, the members of PCIA and The DAS Forum develop, own, manage, and
operate towers, rooftop wireless sites, and other facilities for the provision of all types of wireless,
telecommunications and broadcasting services. PCIA and its members partner with communities across the nation to
affect solutions for wireless infrastructure deployment that are responsive to the unique sensitivities and concerns of
each community.
2 FWA is a non-profit organization made up of volunteers who work in the wireless telecommunications industry
throughout Florida. FWA was formed in 2007 and its members include wireless service providers, tower owners and
developers, title companies, engineers and lawyers.
Patricia Teufel
February 26, 2013
Page 2 of 4
We provide comment on several aspects of the proposed ordinance that are of practical
and/or legal concern to the industry below and, again, respectfully ask that the City revise the
ordinance in consideration of our comments.
I. Section 4, New Section 24-707
Required Approvals § 24-707(a)(1). We request clarification of this section. It appears that this
section would apply to any facility in the public rights -of -way, including collocations. Section
6409 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, which was recently clarified
by the Federal Communications Commission, regulates collocations. 3 Specifically, it mandates
that eligible facilities requests, which include collocations, replacements, and removals of
wireless towers and base stations, "shall be approved" if' they would not constitute a substantial
change (as that term is defined by the FCC) to the existing wireless facility. Essentially, section
6409 supplants local zoning authority with respect to collocations. Insofar as new section 24-
707(a)(1) would exercise zoning authority over collocations in the public rights -of -way, it is
contrary to federal law.
Stealth Facilities § 24-707(a)(4). We request that the City add a definition for "stealth facility",
which considers the type of camouflaging that is practically available for the type of installations
contemplated by the ordinance (e.g., canisters installed around antennas, painted a color that
blends in with the surrounding environment). As this section is currently written, it is unclear
what the City means by a stealth facility. We, can make some educated assumptions about how a
facility is supposed to be configured in order to conform with the ordinance's requirement that it
be similar in "terms of height, color and material" to existing poles. However, without more
explicit guidance, the ordinance's language opens the door to a wide variety of interpretations
that could slow down the siting process.
Dimensional Limits � 24-707(a)(6). We request that the City clarify and expand this Section,
relating to the total allowable volume of a personal wireless communications facility. First, we
do not understand what "other than a pole or tower" means in this context. Does that mean this
section only pertains to equipment cabinets, or does it mean that the volume limit simply
excludes the support structure to which the facility is attached? If, for example, this section is
designed to regulate the size of equipment cabinets, 24 cubic feet would not be large enough to
accommodate the type of cabinets the industry would normally utilize. We also note that it is
already typical for other telecommunications companies and utilities, such as the electric
company, to place and maintain cabinets larger than 24 cubic feet in the public right-of-way. In
this regard. Section 337.401 of Florida's Statutes and Section 253 of the federal
Telecommunications Act of 1996 require generally applicable and non-discriminatory rules to
manage the public right-of-way; disallowing larger cabinets here may well be construed to create
discriminatory rules.
' Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. No, 112-96, § 6409(a) (2012); Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau Offers Guidance on Interpretation of Section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief
and Job Creation Act of 2012, PublicAlolice, DA 12-2047, 28 FCC Rcd I (Jan. 25, 2013), available at
ht!p://'jf allfoss.f wy/e K5 ,)ublicianachmatch/DA 12 204
cc.g doc_Xuojlc!attacn.matcttii)A...L2-2�Q47At Red2df.
Patricia Teufel.
February 26, 2013
Page 3 of 4
Height/Setbacks " 24-707 b . Bather than an. absolute; height limitation. we suggest phrasing the
height ]imitation as X number of feet above the height of other structures in the right-of-way (for
example, 10-15 feet). In order to provide effective coverage, an antenna must be raised above
surrounding structures such as other poles. Since the City does not allow antennas to be, affixed
to the top of poles (§ 24-707(a)(4)), it is not possible to raise the antenna above surrounding
obstructions without increasing the allowed height of the pole itself.
In addition, we respectfully request that the City engage with the industry in a detailed discussion
of the City's setback requirements to ensure those make sense for the types of facilities that may
be deployed in certain zoning districts.
Distance Between Antenna Locations § 24 707(b). We suggest lessening the 1000-foot
separation requirement to, perhaps, 250 feet. Although we appreciate that it is possible under the
provisions of the ordinance to demonstrate a need for a lesser separation requirement, placing the
initial separation at 1000 feet is a large initial burden to overcome. That separation distance may
be appropriate for a large tower facility, but the smaller coverage areas of small cells and
distributed antenna systems, which are less visually intrusive, by their very nature require
smaller separation distances.
Non-interference § 24-707(i). We suggest removing this section. The FCC has plenary authority
over regulation of wireless communications, and the wireless carriers who operate from any
given site must apply to the FCC for a license and conduct frequency coordination, which
ensures that no interference will occur, if interference does occur, the FCC is the only agency
with the authority to resolve the dispute. Federally -regulated standards such as wireless
communications fall outside of the scope of land development and zoning issues.
Modifications or Re lacements 24-707 rn . We suggest changing the language of this section
to read: "If such modification or replacement would constitute a substantial change pursuant to
47 U.S.C. § 1455(a), such modification or replacement shall require approval as a special
exemption." Both modifications and replacements of wireless facilities are governed by section
6409. The standard for determining when a local jurisdiction has zoning authority to require an
application for special exemption is when a facility would "substantial[ly] change." A substantial
change has been defined by the FCC to include the following situations:
1) [t]he mounting of the proposed antenna on the tower would increase the existing height of the
tower by more than 10%, or by the height of one additional antenna array with separation from the
nearest existing antenna not to exceed twenty feet, whichever is greater, except that the mounting
of the proposed antenna may exceed the size limits set forth in this paragraph if necessary to avoid
interference with existing antennas; or
2) [t]he mounting of the proposed antenna would involve the installation of more than the standard
number of new equipment cabinets for the technology involved, not to exceed four, or more than
one new equipment shelter; or
3) [t]he mounting of the proposed antenna would involve adding an appurtenance to the body of
the tower that would protrude from the edge of the tower more than twenty feet, or more than the
width of the tower structure at the level of the appurtenance, whichever is greater, except that the
mounting of the proposed antenna may exceed the size limits set forth in this paragraph if
Patricia Teufel
February 26, 2013
Page 4 of
necessary to shelter the antenna from inclement weather or to connect the antenna to the tower via
cable; or
4) [t]he mounting of the proposed antenna would involve excavation outside the current tower site,
defined as the current boundaries of the leased or owned property surrounding the tower and any
access or utility easements currently related to the site.°
We note that the City's standard that a special exemption is required for a facility that would be
"readily discernibly different in size, type, and appearance when viewed from ground level from
surrounding properties" is not consistent with the FCC's interpretation of the statute.
"Thank you for this opportunity to consider the wireless industry's cone -vents. Please do
not hesitate to contact the undersigned with any questions you may have. We stand ready, and
look forward to, having a constructive dialog with you.
isf
Hal Tlodges
Regulatory Committee Chair
Florida Wireless Association
8526 Exchange Dr., Suite 210
Orlando, FL 32809
(407) 373-6672
hhodges(tz tlwireIess.org
Attachment
Sincerely,
Alexander Blake Reynolds
Government AffairsCounsel
PCIA---The Wireless Infrastructure Association
and The DAS Forum
901 N. Washington Street, Suite 600
Alexandria, VA 22314
703-535-7451.
alex.reynoldspcia.com
CC: Michael C. Cernech, City Manager
Samuel S. Goren, City Attorney
David Tolces, Assistant City Attorney
4 Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Offers Guidance on Interpretation of Section 6409(a) of the Middle Class
Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Public Alotice, DA 12-2047, 28 FCC Rcd 1, at 2 (Jan. 25, 2013), available
utht_pt i'fiallfoss.fcc.aov`edocs publictattachznatch�L?A-1?-2047A1 „Rcd fadf.
wpmm" CIA
January 7, 2013
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Patricia Teufel, CMC
City Clerk.
City of Tamarac
City Hall, Room 101
7525 NW 88th Ave
Tamarac, FL 33321
I
r �: E,« & f rod,, m
Distributed Antenna 'Systems �..
;# r,, r sas, r rfFF,
Re: TR12295 — A Resolution Ratifying Prohibition of Issuance of Building
Permits, Engineering Permits, or Development Orders for Communications
Facilities
Dear Ms. Teufel,
PCIA---:I'he Wireless Infrastructure Association, The DAS Forum ("PCIA")' and the
Florida 'Fireless association ("FWA"}' write in response to the City of Tamarac's proposal to
introduce TR12295, which would suspend the issuance of building permits, engineering permits,
or development orders for communications facilities in public rights -of -way or residential coning
districts. In effect, TR l 2295 would suspend deployment of communications infrastructure in the
areas of the City that need it most.
Wireless services, from basic voice communication to broadband, require robust 'wireless
infrastructure. In turn, these services enable communication, increase productivity and mobility,
facilitate commerce and assist the work of public safety. For example, more than 70 percent of
all emergency calls each day are placed with a wireless device ---without wireless infrastructure,
the ability to access first responders is significantly hindered. Residents and businesses rely on
wireless services to navigate their daily lives and compete in a global economy. It is estimated
' PCIA is the national trade association representing the wireless infrastructure industry. The DAS Forum, a
membership section of PCIA, is dedicated to the development of DAS and small cell solutions as elements of the
nation's wireless infrastructure. Together, the members of PCIA and The DAS Forum develop, own, manage, and
operate towers, rooftop wireless sites, and other facilities for the provision of all types of wireless,
telecommunications and broadcasting services. PCIA and its members partner with communities across the nation to
affect solutions for wireless infrastructure deployment that are responsive to the unique sensitivities and concerns of
each community.
2 FWA is a non-profit organization made up of volunteers who work in the wireless telecommunications industry
throughout Florida. FWA was formed in 2007 and its members include wireless service providers, tower owners and
developers, title companies., engineers and lawyers.
Patricia Teufel
January 7, 2013
Page 2 of 3
that by 2015, a majority of Americans will utilize a wireless device as their primary Internet
access tool. In fact, as of June 2011, 92 percent of Florida's population had a mobile phone. 3
Achieving both high bandwidth and broad service coverage requires a mix of'different
types of wireless infrastructure. Everyone is familiar with cell towers, which are excellent for
covering large geographic regions and providing a good wireless signal. But they are .not a one -
size -fits -all solution. Wireless providers also employ distributed antenna systems ("DAS") and
small cells as a critical element of their networks, both to expand coverage and capacity and to
increase capacity in places that may already be served by a cell tower. DAS and small cells act as
a conduit for bringing increased coverage and capacity that traditional towers cannot otherwise
provide. As Floridians increasingly rely on their connected devices to participate in new high
bandwidth modes of communication, it becomes equally important to incorporate DAS and small
deployments into the existing wireless infrastructure ecosystem.
PCIA and FWA urge the City not to introduce TR12295. As a measure that would
suspend the deployment of new wireless facilities, TRI 2295 would deny the City's citizens
access to improved wireless voice and broadband services. To continue to ensure that the public
is adequately served with robust wireless communications, the City should instead streamline the
application process for new and collocated wireless facilities. If the City does pass TRI 2295,
PCIA and FWA respectfully request to have the opportunity to participate as the City Manager
studies the City's zoning regulations.
3 The Federal Communications Commission's data on wireless subscribership is up-to-date through June 2011. See
LOCAi. TELEPHONr COMPETITION: STATUS AS OF JUNE 30.2011, FCC, INDus,rRY ANALYSIS ANDTECHNOLOGY
DivisioN, WIRELESS TELECOMMLT NICATIONs BUREAU, at Table 18 (June 2011), available at
h1T://hrauntbssAc.aov/edocs PU bHC/attachmatch/DQC:a L t A 1 ptif,
_
Patricia'reum
January 7, 2013
Page 3 of 3
Thank you for this opportunity to consider the wireless industry" s comments. Please
contact the undersigned with any questions you may have.
- /Sl
Hal Hodges
Regulatory Committee Chair
Florida Wireless Association
8526 Exchange Dr., Suite 210
Orlando, FI, 32809
(407) 373-6672
hhodges,,','q)metropcs.corn
Sincerely,
Alexander Blake Reynolds
Government Affairs Counsel
PCIA—The Wireless Infrastructure Association
and The DAS Forum
901 N. Washington Street, Suite 600
Alexandria, VA 22314
703-535-7451
alex.reynolds@pcia.com
CC: Michael C. Cernech, City Manager
Samuel S. Goren, City Attorney
David Tolces, Assistant City Attorney.
Melissa P. Anderson, Government Relations Counsel, Crown Castle