HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-Development Services
,
OR I C /,'w'AL
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
From: William Woolard, Interim Director
Subject: Development Code Amendment
No, 00-02 - Telecommunications Ordinance
Dept: Development Services
Date: October 5, 2000
MCC Date: November 6, 2000
Synopsis of Previous Council Action:
February 7, 2000, The Mayor and Common Council directed staff to prepare an amendment to
the Development Code to add development standards for the construction and modification of
antennas, monopoles, and other telecommunication facilities.
Recommended Motion:
That the Public Hearing be closed, the Negative Declaration be adopted, the first reading be
waived, and the ordinance be laid over for final adoption,
~~~J
William Woolard
Contact person: Valerie C, Ross
Phone:
384.5057
Supporting data attached: Staff Report, ordinance
Ward:
Citywide
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A
Source: (Acct. No,)
(Acct. Description)
Finance:
Council Notes:
~U/~
1/ /&!oo t/u.... +I c2{,
.
Agenda Item ~ i cr
11/'lD/lfO
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: Development Code Amendment No. 00-02 - Telecommunications
Ordinance
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of November 6, 2000
BACKGROUND:
Standards related to Antennas, Satellite Dishes, and Telecommunications Facilities, were
adopted as Section 19,20,030(3) of the Development Code in 1991. Since that time there
has been rapid growth in the telecommunications field, resulting in numerous requests to
establish new facilities, The Development Code requires that the antennas be sited to
ensure compatibility with the surrounding area, but there are no criteria for determining
compatibility.
The proposed amendment establishes specific standards for the development of cellular
antennas, and related facilities, The review and approval process ranges from
administrative-level review for antennas that are camouflaged or co-located, to Planning
Commission review for antennas that are likely to impact the surrounding neighborhood,
Staff prepared an Initial Study to address potential impacts of the proposed amendment.
The Environmental Review Committee reviewed the Initial Study and recommended that
a Negative Declaration be prepared. The Notice ofIntent to adopt a Negative Declaration
was advertised and available for public review from August 3, 2000 through August 23,
2000. Comments received were incorporated, as applicable, into the proposed
amendment.
At their meeting of September 19, 2000, the Planning Commission recommended
approval of the proposed amendment. Commissioners Derry, Durr, Lockett, Ramirez,
Thrasher, and Welch voted in favor of the amendment. Commissioners Enciso, Garcia,
and Sauerbrun were absent.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None; costs for legal advertisements and copying charges were approved with initiation
of the amendment.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council adopt the Negative Declaration
and approve Development Code Amendment No. 00-02,
Exhibits:
1
2
Planning Commission Staff Report (September 19, 2000)
Ordinance
SUMMARY
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION
CASE:
AGENDA ITEM:
HEARING DATE:
WARD:
Development Code Amendment No, 00-02
2
September 19, 2000
Citywide
APPLICANT:
City of San Bernardino
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
REQUEST/LOCATION:
A City initiated proposal to revise Section 19,20,030(3) of Development Code Chapter 19.20
(Property Development Standards) to add development standards for the construction and
modification of antennas, monopoles and other telecommunication facilities,
CONSTRAINTS/OVERLAYS:
None
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS:
o Not Applicable
o Exempt
111 Negative Declaration, No Significant Effects
o Potential Effects, Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Plan
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
111 Approval
o Conditions
o Denial
o Continuance to:
DCA 00-02
Hearing Date: September 19,2000
Page 2
REOUEST AND LOCATION
This is a City initiated proposal to revise Section 19,20,030(3) of Development Code Chapter
19.20 (Property Development Standards) to add development standards for the construction and
modification of antennas, monopoles and other telecommunication facilities. Also proposed are
modifications to Development Code Section 19,02,050 to add new definitions related to this
code amendment.
BACKGROUND
On January 31, 2000, the Legislative Review Committee discussed this topic and recommended
to the Mayor and Common Council that the Development Code be revised to reflect the dramatic
changes in the wireless communications industry and to look for ways to improve the "product",
On February 7, 2000 the Mayor and Common Council authorized and directed staff to prepare
this development code amendment.
This amendment and an accompanying Initial Study were presented to the Development Review
Committee on July 27, 2000 and made available for public review for 20 days. Comments were
received from an industry consultant whose suggestions were incorporated into the amendment.
Staff also received comments from Mike Eckley of the MIS Department. His comments are
provided as Attachment C and are discussed under Finding #2 below. The amendment was
cleared to Planning Commission on August 24, 2000,
In 1996, copies of a similar amendment were sent to 12 telecommunications companies and their
consultants for their review and comment. Based on those responses, a meeting was convened
and changes were made to incorporate industry comments into the final revision, This
amendment is based on the document prepared in 1996. Further, both the development code
amendment and initial study were sent to the seven telecommunications companies that have
processed permits in the City within the last 2 years,
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
1. Is the proposed amendment consistent with the General Plan?
Yes, The purpose ofOoal 70 is to provide an adequate telecommunications system to
support existing and future land uses within the City. As proposed, these new standards will
provide a clearer set of standards and guidelines for processing new telecommunications
facilities in the City,
2. Would the proposed amendment be detrimental to the public interest, health. safety,
convenience. or welfare of the City?
No, This amendment would not permit additional types of antennas; rather it sets forth more
specific standards for the development of antennas that reward applicants who propose
concealed or camouflaged facilities with faster, easier processing,
DCA 00-01
Hearing Date: September J 9, 1000
Page 3
The proposed changes to the Section include:
. Exemptions to the ordinance to include IS" and 24" mini-dish satellite systems,
. Development and design standards that encourage screening and integration into
buildings,
. A stratification of approvals that provides administrative review for simple or
camouflaged installations or co-locations and Planning Commission review offacilities
with likely impacts to the community,
A number of city departments expressed concerns about interference from
telecommunications facilities with Public Safety operations, The proposed text changes and
initial study were routed to all departments represented at Development Review Committee,
Mike Eckley, MIS Programmer/Analyst for Public Safety Systems provided staff with
suggested language that is provided as Attachment C. Staff reviewed the language and did
not include the Y. mile limit because of concerns that interference may still occur beyond that
Y4 mile limit Rather, staff will route copies of all future applications to Mr, Eckley for his
review regardless of their location, In addition, Section 19.20,030(D)(S) includes language
regarding interference, Staff has developed a condition of approval that will address this
Issue:
"The operation ofthe monopole shall not cause interference with any electrical
equipment in the surrounding neighborhoods (e,g" television, radio, telephone,
computer, inclusive ofthe City's trunked SOOMHz public safety radio system, etc,) or
with Police or Fire Department communications equipment unless exempted by
Federal Regulations, If operation of the monopole causes interference, the
applicant/operator shall cease use of the facility immediately upon receiving notice by
the City,"
CONCLUSION
The proposal meets the convenience and all necessary Findings of Fact for approval of
Development Code Amendment No, 00-02,
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend that the Mayor and Common Council:
L Adopt the Negative Declaration; and
2. Approve Development Code Amendment No. 00-02 based upon the Findings of Fact
contained in this Staff Report.
Respectfully Submitted,
,
j~a__!ttifJlJt-d.
William Woolard
Interim Director of Development Services
~
DCA 00-01
Hearing Date: September J 9, 1000
Page 4
~k:~;
EDA Project Manager
Attachment A
Attachment B
Attachment C
Proposed changes to Chapter 19.20.030 (Property Development)
Initial Study
Email from Mike Eckley dated August 7, 2000
1
cg;=~v
ORDINANCE NO.
2 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AMENDING
SECTION 19.20.030(3) (ANTENNAS, SATELLITE DISHES AND
3 ELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES) OF THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL
4 CODE (DEVELOPMENT CODE) TO MODIFY DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS.
5 THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
o ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
6
7
8 amended to modifY text related to Antennas, Satellite Dishes and Telecommunications Facilities.
SECTION L Section 19.20.030(3) of the Municipal Code (Development Code) is
9 Section 19.20.030(3) is hereby amended to read as shown on Exhibit "A", attached hereto and
10 . ncorporated herein by reference.
11 III
12
III
13
III
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
AN ORDINANCE . . . AMENDING SECTION 19.20.030(3) (ANTENNAS,
ATELLITE DISHES AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES) OF THE SAN
ERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE (DEVELOPMENT CODE) TO MODIFY
EVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing ordinance was duly adopted by the Mayor and
5 ommon Council of the City of San Bernardino at a meeting thereof, held
6 day of , 2000, by the following vote to wit:
ouncil Members:
AYES
NAYS
ABSTAIN
ABSENT
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
ERSON
C CAMMACK
City Clerk
The foregoing ordinance is hereby approved this
day of
19 000
20
21
22 pproved as to form
23 nd legal content:
24 AMES F. PENMAN
25 ":J= -rL
26
27
28
2
JUDITH VALLES, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
EXH181T A
PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - 19.20
SECTION 19.20.030
3.
ANTENNAS.
FACILITIES
SATELLITE DISHES
AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
All antennas, telecommunications facilities and satellite dishes shall be installed in the
following manner, subject to the appropriate entitlement:
A. EXEMPTIONS
The following installations in residential districts are exempt from the provisions
of this section:
L The installation of one (1) ground mounted satellite dish antenna in the
rear yard which is less than 10.5 feet in diameter and less than 12 feet in
height;
2. One (I) satellite dish antenna which is less than 24 inches in diameter may
be installed on a building provided that such antenna does not extend
above the eaveline of said building;
3. Residential single-pole or tower roof or ground mounted television, or
amateur ratio antennas where the boom of any active element of the array
is 30 feet or less and the height does not exceed 75 feet
B. DIRECTOR REVIEW
The following shall be reviewed by the Director, subject to a Development
Permit:
1. Antennas up to a maximum of 15 feet in height that are mounted on a
building or rooftop and that are screened from view from all adjacent
public rights-of-way.
2. Antennas that are architecturally integrated with a building or structure or
concealed so as not to be recognized as an antenna, such as clock towers,
carillon towers and signs.
3. Antennas mounted on other existing structures including, but not limited
to, water tanks, pump stations, utility poles, ball field lighting where
antenna height does not exceed structure height.
4. Co-location of existing equipment on an existing City-approved support
structure.
5. Modification of existing telecommunications facilities where the physical
area of the reconfigured or altered antenna shall not exceed 25 percent of
the original approval:
1II-3
PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - 19.20
a. 3 or more additional whip antenna (15 feet maximum height);
b. The reconfiguration or alteration of existing antenna on a single
support structure
c. Additional dishes up to 4 feet in diameter.
d. Increased height of an existing antenna up to 75 feet
6. Stand-alone monopoles camouflaged as palm trees, pine trees or other
natural objects, within a grouping of similar natural objects.
C. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW
The following shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission, subject to a
Conditional Use Permit:
1. Increased height of an existing, approved antenna that exceeds 75 feet in
height.
2. New stand-alone monopoles that exceed 75 feet in height.
3. New ground mounted, uncamouflaged monopoles up to 75 feet in height.
4. All other wireless communication facilities, including lattice towers.
5. Placement of an antenna on any building not screened from public view.
6. On residentially designated property that is developed with a legal non-
residential use (e.g., school, church, etc.)
D. DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN STANDARDS
1. The antenna, support structure and associated equipment shall not be
located within any residential land use district except as provided by
Section 19.20.030(3)(A) and 19.20.030(3)(D)(5).
2. A maximum of one (1) satellite dish antenna shall be permitted per lot
except retail locations selling and displaying satellite dish antennas
andlor televisions may have more than one (1) such antenna.
3. No part of any satellite dish antenna shall be located within a required
front yard, side yard, or on the street side yard of a corner lot.
4. No part of any satellite dish antenna shall be located within three (3) feet
of any property line.
5. Associated equipment shall be located within a completely enclosed
structure or otherwise screened from view. Fencing shall be wrought
iron or similar decorative material and shall be consistent with the
1II-4
PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - 19.20
provisions of Section 19.20.030(8). Prohibited fencing includes chain
link, razor wire and barbed wire.
6. The antennae shall be sited to assure compatibility with surrounding
development and not adversely impact the neighborhood.
7. Antennas and support equipment shall be sited to minimize views from
the public rights-of-way. Landscaping may be required to screen the
equipment buildings or support structures from view.
8. If an antenna is attached or integrated into a building, it shall be painted
to match the color of the building andlor covered with similar materials,
subject to approval of the Director.
9. If not camouflaged, antenna and monopoles shall be a single, non-glossy
color (e.g., off-white, cream, beige, green, black, or gray).
10. Antenna structures shall conform to Federal Aviation Administration
regulation AC7017460 latest edition. This may include beacons,
sidelights andlor strobes.
11. The operation of the antennae shall not cause interference with any
electrical equipment in the surrounding neighborhoods (e.g., television,
radio, telephone, computer, inclusive of the City's trunked 800MHz public
safety radio system, etc.) unless exempted by Federal regulation.
12. A support structure may be required to be adequately designed for a co-
location on another company's equipment, of no more than two
companies. If co-location is proposed, the application shall be reviewed
by the Director, subject to a Development Permit.
III-S
ATTACHMENT B
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
INITIAL STUDY
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the preparation of an Initial Study when a
proposal must obtain discretionary approval from a governmental agency and is not exempt from
CEQA. The purpose of the Initial Study is to determine whether or not a proposal, not exempt from
CEQA, qualifies for a Negative Declaration or whether or not an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
must be prepared.
1. Project Title:
Development Code Amendment No. 00-02
2. Lead Agency Name: City of San Bernardino
Address: 300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
3. Contact Person:
Phone Number:
Margaret Park, AICP
(909) 384-S0S7
4. Project Location (AddresslNearest cross-streets): This is a citywide amendment
5. Project Sponsor:
Address:
City Of San Bernardino
300 North "D" Street, 3rd Floor
San Bernardino, CA 92418
6. General Plan Designation: Various
7. Description of Project (Describe the whole action involved, including, but not limited to, later
phases of the project and any secondary, support, or off-site feature necessary for its
implementation. Attach additional sheets, if necessary):
The project consists of a City initiated proposal to amend Chapter 19.20, Section 19.20.030(3) of
the San Bernardino Municipal Code (Development Code) to add development standards for the
construction and modification of antennas, monopoles and other telecommunication facilities. The
proposal has the potential to affect parcels citywide.
The Development Code provides guidelines for the approval of vertical antennae and satellite
dishes-however, they were instituted prior to the growth of the wireless telecommunications
industry and could not have anticipated its tremendous growth. The current Development Code
Section does not specify between types of telecommunications facilities and does not provide the
necessary tools to evaluate locational criteria, multiple sitings and camouflaging of antenna.
The proposed code amendment is designed to provide more specific development standards and
provide clear guidelines for the processing of such requests. In addition, other than stated
exemptions for residential antennas, satellite dishes, and legal non-conforming uses, no commercial
telecommunications facilities will be permitted in residentially designated areas. All properties
within the Foothill Fire Zones are residentially designated. This amendment would not allow
IS 1
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
INITIAL STUDY
establishment of new commercial antennae in the Foothill Fire Zones unless Conditional Use
Permit is reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission.
8. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Various because potentially all parcels within the City may
be affected by this ordinance.
9. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, finance approval, or participation
agreement): None
IS 2
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following
pages.
I8:I Land Use and Planning
o Population and Housing
o Earth Resources
o Water
o Air Quality
DTransportation/Circulation
o Biological Resources
o Energy and Mineral Resources
o Hazards
o Noise
o Mandatory Findings of
Significance
D Public Services
D Utilities and Service Systems
D Aesthetics
D Cultural Resources
D Recreation
Determination.
On the basis of this Initial Study, the City of San Bernardino, Environmental Review Committee finds:
That the proposed project COULD NOT have significant effect on the environment, [8J
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
That although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the 0
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
That the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
That although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the 0
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to
that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project.
~v.Rm--
Signature
11m 1A . Woo
~
~~~ O.f?OSS
Printed Name
IS 3
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
INITIAL STUDY
Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Imoact Incornorated Imnact No Imoact
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Will the
orooosalresultin:
a) A conflict with the land use as 0 D D [gJ
designated based on the review of the
General Plan Land Use Plan/Zoning
Districts Map?
b) Development within an Airport District D [gJ D D
as identified in the Air Installation
Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) Report
and the Land Use Zoning District
Map?
c) Development within Foothill Fire D D [gJ D
Zones A & B, or C as identified on the
Land Use Districts Zoning Map?
d) Other? D D D [gJ
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Will the
proposal:
a) Remove existing housing (including D D D [gJ
affordable housing) as verified by a
site survey/evaluation?
b) Create a significant demand for D D D [gJ
additional housing based on the
proposed use and evaluation of project
size?
c) Induce substantial growth in an area D D D [gJ
either directly or indirectly (e.g.,
through projects in an undeveloped
area or an extension of major
infrastructure)?
d) Other? D D D [gJ
IS4
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
INITIAL STUDY
Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incoroorated Imnact No Impact
III. EARTH RESOURCES: Will the proposal
result in:
a) Earth movement (cut and/or fill) on 0 D D ~
slopes of 15% or more based on
information contained in the
Preliminary Project Description Form
No.D?
b) Development and/or grading on a slope 0 D D ~
greater than 15% natural grade based
on review of General Plan HMOD
map?
c) Erosion, dust or unstable soil 0 D D ~
conditions from excavation, grading or
fill?
d) Development within the Alquist-Priolo D D D ~
Special Studies Zone as defined in
Section 12.0, Geologic & Seismic,
Figure 47, of the City's General Plan?
e) Modification of any unique geologic or D D D ~
physical feature based on field review?
f) Development within areas defined as 0 D D ~
having high potential for water or wind
erosion as identified in Section 12.0,
Geologic & Seismic, Figure 53, ofthe
City's General Plan?
g) Modification of a channel, creek or 0 D D ~
river based on a field review or review
of USGS Topographic Maps?
h) Development within an area subject to D D D ~
landslides, mudslides, subsidence or
other similar hazards as identified in
Section 12.0, Geologic & Seismic,
Figures 48,51,52 and 53 of the City's
General Plan?
IS 5
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
INITIAL STUDY
Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
lrooact Incomorated lrooact No lrooacl
i) Development within an area subject to 0 0 D l8J
liquefaction as shown in Section 12.0,
Geologic & Seismic, Figure 48, of the
City's General Plan?
j) Other? 0 0 D l8J
IV. WATER. Will the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage 0 D D l8J
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface runoff due to impermeable
surfaces that cannot be mitigated by
Public Works Standard Requirements
to contain and convey runoff to
approved storm drain based on review
of the proposed site plan?
b) Significant alteration in the course or 0 0 D l8J
flow of flood waters based on
consultation with Public Works stafl?
c) Discharge into surface waters or any 0 D D l8J
alteration of surface water quality
based on requirements of Public Works
to have runoff directed to approved
storm drains?
d) Changes in the quantity or quality of 0 D D l8J
ground water?
e) Exposure of people or property to 0 0 D l8J
flood hazards as identified in the
Federal Emergency Management
Agency's Flood Insurance Rate Maps,
and Section 16.0, Flooding, Figure 62,
of the City's General Plan?
f) Other? 0 0 D l8J
IS 6
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
INITIAL STUDY
Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Imnact Incoroorated Imoact No Imoact
V. AIR QUALITY. Will the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or 0 0 0 ~
contribute to an existing or projected
air quality violation based on the
thresholds in the SCAQMD's "CEQA
Air Quality Handbook"?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to 0 0 0 ~
pollutants?
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or 0 0 0 ~
temperature, or cause any change in
climate?
d) Create objectionable odors based on 0 0 0 ~
information contained in the
Preliminary Environmental Description
Form?
VI. TRANSPORT A TlON/CIRCULA TlON. 0 0 0 ~
Could the proposal result in:
a) A significant increase in traffic 0 0 0 ~
volumes on the roadways or
intersections or an increase that is
significantly greater than the land use
designated on the General Plan?
b) Alteration of present patterns of 0 0 0 ~
circulation?
c) A disjointed pattern of roadway 0 0 0 ~
improvements?
d) Impact to rail or air traffic? 0 0 0 ~
e) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or 0 0 0 ~
ofT-site based on the requirements in
Chapter 19.24 of the Development
Code?
1) Increased safety hazards to vehicles, 0 0 0 ~
bicyclists or pedestrians?
IS 7
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
INITIAL STUDY
Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incornorated Impact No Impact
g) Conflict with adopted policies D D D ~
supporting alternative transportation?
h) Inadequate emergency access or access D D D ~
to nearby uses?
i) Other? D D D ~
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Could the
proposal result in:
a) Development within the Biological D D D ~
Resources Management Overlay, as
identified in Section 10.0, Natural
Resources, Figure 41, ofthe City's
General Plan?
b) Impacts to endangered, threatened or D D D ~
rate species or their habitat (including,
but not limited to, plants, mammals,
fish, insects and birds)?
c) Impacts to the wildlife disbursal or D D D ~
migration corridors?
d) Impacts to wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, D D D ~
riparian and vernal pool)?
e) Removal of viable, mature trees based D D D ~
on information contained in the
Preliminary Environmental Description
Form and verified by site
survey/evaluation (6" or greater trunk
diameter at 4' above the ground)? .
t) Other? D D D ~
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL
RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy D D D ~
conservation plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a D D D ~
wasteful and inefficient manner?
IS 8
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
INITIAL STUDY
Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Miligation Significant
Imoact Incorporated Imoact No Imoact
c) Result in the loss of availability of a 0 0 0 ~
known mineral resource that would be
of future value to the region and the
residents of the State?
IX. HAZARDS. Will the proposal:
a) Use, store, transport or dispose of 0 0 0 ~
hazardous or toxic materials based on
information contained in the
Preliminary Environmental Description
Form No. G(I) and G(2) (including,
but not limited to, oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)?
b) Involve the release of hazardous 0 0 0 ~
substances?
c) Expose people to the potential 0 0 0 ~
health/safety hazards?
d) Other? 0 0 0 ~
X. NOISE. Could the proposal result in:
a) Development of housing, health care 0 0 0 ~
facilities, schools, libraries, religious
facilities or other noise sensitive uses
in areas where existing or future noise
levels exceed an Ldn of 65 dB(A)
exterior and an Ldn of 45 dB(A)
interior as identified in Section 14.0,
Noise, Figures 57 and 58, ofthe City's
General Plan?
IS 9
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
INITIAL STUDY
Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Imnact Incoroorated Impact No Impact
b) Development of new or expansion of D D D [8J
existing industrial, commercial or other
uses which generate noise levels above
an Ldn of 65 dB(A) exterior or an Ldn
of 45 dB(A) interior that may affect
areas containing housing, schools,
health care facilities or other sensitive
uses based on information in the
Preliminary Environmental Description
Form No. G(1) and evaluation of
surrounding land uses No. C, and
verified by site survey/evaluation?
c) Other? D D D [8J
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal
have an effect upon, or result in a need for
new or altered government services in any
of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? D D D [8J
b) Medical aid? D D D [8J
c) Police protection? D D D [8J
d) Schools? D D D [8J
e) Parks or other recreational facilities? D D D [8J
f) Solid waste disposal? D D D [8J
g) Maintenance of public facilities, D D D [8J
including roads?
h) Other governmental services? D D D [8J
XII. UTILITIES. Will the proposal, based on D D D [8J
the responses of the responsible Agencies,
Departments, or Utility Company, impact
the following beyond the capability to
provide adequate levels of service or
require the construction of new facilities?
a) Natural gas? D D D [8J
IS 10
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
INITIAL STUDY
Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
lmoact Incornorated Imoact No Impacl
b) Electricity? 0 0 0 1ZI
c) Communications systems? 0 0 0 1ZI
d) Water distribution? 0 0 0 1ZI
e) Water treatment or sewer? 0 0 0 1ZI
t) Storm water drainage? 0 0 0 1ZI
g) Result in a disjointed pattern of utility 0 0 0 1ZI
extensions based on review of existing
patterns and proposed extensions?
h) Other? 0 0 0 1ZI
XIII. AESTHETICS.
a) Could the proposal result in the 0 0 1ZI 0
obstruction of any significant or
important scenic view based on
evaluation of the view shed verified by
site survey/evaluation?
b) Will the visual impact of the project 0 0 1ZI 0
create aesthetically offensive changes
in the existing visual setting based on a
site survey and evaluation of the
proposed elevations?
c) Create significant light or glare that 0 0 0 1ZI
could impact sensitive receptors?
d) Other? 0 0 0 1ZI
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Could the
proposal result in:
a) Development in a sensitive 0 0 0 1ZI
archaeological area as identified in
Section 3.0, Historical, Figure 8, of the
City's General Plan?
IS II
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
INITIAL STUDY
Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
lmoact Incornorated Imoact No Imoact
b) The alteration or destruction of a 0 0 0 [gJ
prehistoric or historic archaeological
site by development within an
archaeological sensitive area as
identified in Section 3.0, Historical,
Figure 8, of the City's General Plan?
c) Alteration or destruction of a historical 0 0 0 [gJ
site, structure or object as listed in the
City's Historic Resources
Reconnaissance Survey?
d) Other? 0 0 0 [gJ
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood 0 0 0 [gJ
or regional parks or other recreational
facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational 0 0 0 [gJ
opportunities?
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to 0 0 0 [gJ
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce
the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal, or
eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to 0 0 0 [gJ
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage
oflong-term, environmental goals?
IS 12
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
INITIAL STUDY
Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Imoact Incoroorated Imnact No Imoact
c) Does the project have impacts that are 0 0 0 t8J
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable
future projects.)
d) Does the project have environmental 0 0 0 t8J
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
IS 13
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
INITIAL STUDY
REFERENCES. The following references cited in the Initial Study are on file in the Development
Services Department.
1. City of San Bernardino General Plan.
2. City of San Bernardino General Plan Land Use Plan/Zoning Districts Map.
3. City of San Bernardino Development Code (Title 19 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code).
4. City of San Bernardino Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey.
5. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones Map.
6. South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
7. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Maps.
8. Public Works Standard Requirements-water.
9. Public Works Standard Requirements-grading.
DISCUSSION OF SPECIFIED CHECKLIST RESPONSES.
I. PLANNING & LAND USE
b) All cellular facilities proposed within the navigable airspace of the San Bernardino International
Airport will require review and clearance from both the Federal Aviation Administration and the
Airport Authority.
c) All properties within the Foothill Fire Zones are residentially designated. This amendment would
not allow establishment of new commercial antennae in the Foothill Fire Zones unless a
Conditional Use Permit is reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission.
IX. HAZARDS
c) A discussion from a public information Website of the Medical College of Wisconsin is attached. It
should be noted that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 would not allow consideration of
potential health effects as part of a land use consideration.
XIII. AESTHETICS
a) & b) Views around the city could be affected, however, this amendment encourages applicants to
camouflage antennae by integrating them into buildings (existing or proposed) or by designing them to
look like palm trees or pine trees. These disguised facilities can be further soften and blended by
grouping real trees on the same site to create a cluster or row of trees, as appropriate to the location.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft of proposed changes to Development Code Section 19.20.030 - Antennas, Satellite Dishes
and Telecommunications Facilities.
2. Excerpt from the public information Website of the Medical College of Wisconsin.
htto:llwww.mcw.edu/l!crc/coo/cell-phone-health-FAO/toc.html
IS 14
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
NOTICE OF INTENT
FROM:
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Development Services Department
300 North. D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
TO:
o
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
1400 Tenth Streel, Room 121
Sacramento, CA 95814
~ COUNTY CLERK
County of San Bernardino
385 North Arrowhead Avenue
San Bernardino, CA 92415
SUBJECT:
Filing of Notice of Intent to adopt a Negative Declaration in compliance with Section 21080c of the Public
Resources Code and Sections 15072 and 15073 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Project Title: Development Code Amendment No. 00-02 (Telecommunications Ordinance)
State Clearinghouse Number (if submitted to Clearinghouse): N/A
Lead Agency Contact Person:
Area CodelTelepbone:
Margaret Park, AICP
909-384-5057
Project Location (include county): The proposed amendment will be effective citywide in the Cily/County of San
Bernardino.
Project Description: The project consists of a City initiated proposal to amend Chapter 19.20, Section 19.20.030(3) of the
San Bernardino Municipal Code (Development Code) to add development standards for the construction and modification of
antennas, monopoles and other telecommunication facilities. The proposal has the potential to affect parcels citywide.
This is to notify the public and interested parties of the City of San Bernardino' s intent to adopt a Negative Declaration for
the above referenced project. The mandatory public review period will begin on Thursday, August 3, 2000 and will end on
Wednesday, August 23,2000. The Initial Study and supporting Technical Studies are available for public review at the
public counter in the Development Services Department, located on the third floor of City Hall (address listed above).
The project site is not listed in the Slate of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List pursuant to Government
Code Section 65%2.5(E).
Following the public review period, the project and proposed Negative Declaration will be reviewed by the City's
Environmental/Development Review Committee on Thursday, August 24, 2000, al 9:00 a.m. in Conference Room-A
located on the fourth floor of City Hall.
Signature:~R/
Date: 07/27/2000
Title: Senior Planner
Date received for filing at OPR: N/ A
ATTACHMENT C
ParK Ma
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dupree Do
Tuesday, August 08, 2000 7:45 AM
Park Ma
Preciado Br
FW: Com-ments Regarding Development Code Amendment #00-02 Study
These are comments from the Fire Department. Note the word prior to 800 MHz should be
trunked.. Thanks Margaret
-----Original Message-----
From: Eckley Mi
Sent: Monday~ August 07, 2000 9:17 AM
To: Dupree Do; Billdt Mi
Cc: Ingels-Ja: Avery Ge; Fratus Ma: Curtis Ro
Subject: Comments Regarding Development Code Amendment #00-02 Study
Hi Doug:
I would suggest that the following item be considered:
Page 111-5 Draft Section 19.20.030
Item E-7
Consider changing to:
"The operation of the antennae shall not cause interference with any electrical equipment,
to include the City's trucked 800 MHz public safety radio system, in the surrounding
neighborhoods (e.g., television, radio, telephone, computer, etc.), unless exempted by
Federal regulation. Proposed installations within 1/4 of an existing fire station, police
station, remote police facility or City owned radio transmit/receive site shall be
designed to avoid interference with any electrical, computer or radio equipment used at
the site."
I will return the package of materials to your office.
Mike E.
Michael Eckley, Programmer/Analyst (Public Safety Systems)
City of San Bernardino, MIS Division
c/o San Bernardino Police Department
MIS - "B Building"
710 North D Street
San Bernardino, CA 92401
Office: 909-384-5673
MIS: 909-384-5947
Fax: 909-388-4913
Pager: 909-556-4096
e-mail paging: mailto:19095564096@pacbellpcs.net
e-mail: mailto:eckleymi@ci.san-bernardino.ca.us
website: http:\\ci.san=bernardino.ca.us
Remember: "Incoming fire has the right-of-way!"
1
..~",
..~!-,:, .
."..-~ ,.
"**.:JQR OFFI~E, USE ONLY - NOT"A PUBUC'DOClftllPlT*~~r; A
:,~~i;:~~1;'::;' ~'. ~~.;;;;'~:'..' ::_~~:~~;f~.' . 'r'-~R?~lf1' "'~ ~~:~}}~::_'Y-;-';;\::'~'~~'~~~f-:~t~.~:_0'~;,~",;~:,:~,~'
" "CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO :'CITY CLERK'S OFFICE '_-'_,'-__H' " , ,
., RECORDS & INFORMATION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
AGENDA ITEM TRACKING FORM
Meeting Date/Date Adopted: /I /2{) / 00 Item No. 9
I I
Resolution/Ordinance No. Me - 1090
P_~/- 6 ()
Ayes: I. 3 SI':) C, 7
I / / r /
Abstain: e--
Date Sent to Mayor: 1/~20- 00
Date of Mayor's Signature: /1- 2tI-o ()
Date Summary Sent to Attorney: II ~ 20- 0 0
Date Published: I;) -1- () 0
MeetingType:---D~- J. 'tt.r.J
Continued Fromrrf& Item No.
~o
Effective Date:
Ordinance Urgency: Yes
Tennination/Sunset Date:
Nays: -,:)
Absent: ;:}.-
Vote:
Date Returned from Mayor:
Date of Clerk's Signature:
11-2..1)-<:) ()
II -Z-rJ _0 ()
Date Summary Returned from Attorney:
1/.. 2.0 -00
Date Seal Impressed:
//~ 2.-() --ad
....-f'J
~
..J
Exhibits Complete & Attached to
Reminder Letter Sent:
Rem inder Letter Sent:
Reminder Letter Sent:
Request for Counci I Action & Staff Report Att ched: Yes
Notes:
~-.".
(..J..-..../ ,
'" _f'>--,.....
Ready to File:
Date:
IXXUMfNT tOCA l'1OM
FC:JM6At1f1d1. ... T.... faIm. CC FomI No. 111. Ust \JpdIIId: 12.OV1'"