PC Res 4393RESOLUTION NO. 4393
BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CAMPBELL RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
ADOPT NEW WIRELESS FACILITY DESIGN REQUIREMENTS. FILE
NO.: PLN2017-127
After notification and public hearing, as specified by law and after presentation by the
Community Development Director, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed.
The Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to file number PLN2017-127:
1. The proposed Wireless Facility Design Requirements (PLN2017-127) may be approved
concurrently, and subject to, the adoption of a Zoning Code Amendment (PLN2017-124)
repealing and replacing Chapter 21.34 (Wireless Telecommunications Facilities) of the
Zoning Code.
2. On August 1, 2006, the City Council adopted Ordinance 2070, which codified the City's
current wireless facilities development standards and procedural requirements under
CMC 21.34 (Wireless Telecommunications Facilities). The current City code section
dealing with telecommunication facilities does not take into account changes in federal
regulations that have occurred since that time.
3. On September 29, 2006, the state legislature enacted SB1627, which is codified as
Government Code Sections 65850.6 and 65964. Section 65860.6 removed discretionary
authority for wireless telecommunications land use permits for wireless
telecommunication facilities mounted to existing towers or structures (referred to as
"collocation facilities"), but did not remove the City's discretionary authority to review and
permit wireless telecommunications towers or structures that will include future
collocation facilities (referred to as "wireless telecommunications collocation facilities").
Section 65964 applies more broadly to all wireless telecommunications facilities and
limits the cities' ability (as a condition of approval) to require an escrow deposit for
removal of a wireless telecommunications facility, unreasonably limit the duration of any
permit for a period of less than ten years (absent public safety reasons or substantial
land use reasons), or requiring that all wireless facilities to be limited to sites owned by
particular parties (i.e. requiring facilities to be built on City property).
4. On November 18, 2009, the FCC issued a ruling adopting what is referred to as the
"Shot Clock" establishing "reasonable periods" for zoning authorities to act on wireless
facilities siting applications. The order established deadlines of 90 days for collocations
and 150 days for all other applications. (Note: The timelines established by the "Shot
Clock" provisions were updated in the more recent January 8, 2015 final rules.)
5. On February 17, 2012, Congress passed the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation
Act, which contained Section 6409(a), known as the "Spectrum Act" for the regulation of
wireless telecommunication facilities. The Spectrum Act included regulatory
requirements for state and local governments to "approve, and may not deny" an eligible
facility request that does not "substantially change" the physical dimensions of a tower or
base station. The Spectrum Act defined an "eligible facilities request" as "any request
for modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that involves (1) collocation
of new transmission equipment; (2) removal of transmission equipment; or (3)
Planning Commission Resolution No.
PLN2017-127 -Recommending Approval of Wireless Facility Design Requirements
Paae 2 of 4
replacement of transmission equipment. (Note: The Spectrum Act provided little or no
guidance regarding several key parameters, such as the definition of "substantial
change" and other terms, as well as applicable time limits; these items were
subsequently addressed by the January 8, 2015 final rules.)
6. On January 8, 2015, the FCC published new rules implementing Section 6409(a) of the
Middle Class Tax and Job Creation Act of 2012 ("Spectrum Act"), under the title
"Acceleration of Broadband Deployment by Improving Wireless Facilities Siting Policies"
which include necessary definitions, processing requirements, timelines and remedies
for applications that seek to modify an existing wireless telecommunication facility in
accordance with the Spectrum Act, serving clarify and implement Section 6409(a) of the
Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, 47 USC 1455 and Section
332(c)(7) of the Federal Telecommunications Act, 47 USC 332 to facilitate the delivery of
more wireless capacity in more locations to consumers throughout the United States.
The provisions provided much needed definitions for statutory terms, and clarification for
the regulation of the "collocation" facilities. These regulations generally (1) impose new
limits on wireless permit applications and how municipalities review them, (2) define a
"substantial change" with aone-size fits all cumulative limit on physical size increases,
and (3) deem a permit granted when a municipality fails to act on the application within
60 days of the submittal, referred to as the "Shot Clock". In addition, the FCC rejected
the argument that any modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that has
"legal, non-conforming" status should be considered a "substantial change" and instead
is required to be treated the same as other structures.
7. On January 1, 2016, Assembly Bill 57 (AB57) became effective. Through AB57,
California state law "deems approved" any application for a new or substantially changed
wireless site when the City fails to approve or deny the application within the applicable
FCC shot clock timeframe and the applicant has provided all public notices required for
the application, including a notice to the City. As enacted AB57 applies to new sites and
substantial changes to existing facilities, but does not apply to "eligible facility requests"
under Section 6409(a).
8. The proposed Wireless Facility Design Requirements would be consistent with the
General Plan by furthering Policy LUT-5.1, LUT-9.31, and LUT-13.1:
Policy LUT-5.1: Neighborhood Integrity: Recognize that the City is composed of residential, industrial and
commercial neighborhoods, each with its own individual character; and allow change consistent with reinforcing
positive neighborhood values, while protecting the integrity of the city's neighborhoods.
Policy LUT-9.31: Wireless Telecommunication Facilities: Minimize the visual impact of wireless
telecommunication facilities by designing them as an integral architectural feature to a structure.
Policy LUT-13.1: Variety of Uses: Attract and maintain a variety of uses that create an economic balance
within the City while maintaining a balance with other community land use needs, such as housing and open
space, and while providing high quality services to the community.
9. The legislature of the State of California has, in Government Code Sections 65302,
65560, and 65800 conferred upon local government units authority to adopt regulations
designed to promote the public health, safety and general welfare of its citizenry;
Planning Commission Resolution No.
PLN2017-127 -Recommending Approval of Wireless Facility Design Requirements
Page 3 of 4
10. Review and adoption of these Wireless Facility Design Requirements is done in
compliance with California government Code Sections 65853 through 65857, which
require a duly noticed public hearing of the Planning Commission whereby the Planning
Commission shall provide its written recommendation to the City Council for its
consideration.
11. The decision making body has sufficiently considered all testimony presented to them in
order to make the following determination.
12.The proposed Wireless Facility Design Requirements will not directly result in any
physical changes to the environment.
13.The proposed Wireless Facility Design Requirements may be found exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)2 (the
activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the
environment), 15060(c)3 (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378), and
Section 15378(b)(5), (a project does not include administrative activities of governments
that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment).
Based on the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission further finds and
concludes that:
1. The proposed Wireless Facility Design Requirements are consistent with the goals, policies,
and actions of the General Plan;
2. The proposed Wireless Facility Design Requirements would not be detrimental to the
public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the City;
3. The proposed Wireless Facility Design Requirements are internally consistent with other
applicable provisions of the Zoning Code; and
4. No substantial evidence has been presented from which a reasonable argument could
be made that shows that the project, as presented, will have a significant adverse impact
on the environment; and
5. The project is categorically exempt under CEQA.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council adopt the attached Resolution (reference Exhibit A) for the approval of the above
described Wireless Facility Design Requirements.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of July, 2017, by the following roll call vote:
Planning Commission Resolution No.
PLN2017-127 -Recommending Approval of Wireless Facility Design Requirements
Paae 4 of 4
AYES: Commissioners: Kendall, Hernandez, Rich and Young
NOES: Commissioners:
ABSENT: Commissioners: Rivlin and Dodd
ABSTAIN: Commissioners: Reynolds
APPROVED:
Yvonne Kendall, Chair
ATTEST:
Paul Kermoyan, Secretary
RESOLUTION NO.
BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CAMPBELL ADOPTING NEW WIRELESS FACILITY DESIGN
REQUIREMENTS. FILE NO.: PLN2017-127
Exhibit A
After notification and public hearing, as specified by law and after presentation by the
Community Development Director, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed.
The City Council finds as follows with regard to file number PLN2017-127:
The proposed Wireless Facility Design Requirements (PLN2017-127) may be
approved concurrently, and subject to, the adoption of a Zoning Code Amendment
(PLN2017-124) repealing and replacing Chapter 21.34 (Wireless Telecommunications
Facilities) of the Zoning Code.
2. On August 1, 2006, the City Council adopted Ordinance 2070, which codified the City's
current wireless facilities development standards and procedural requirements under
CMC 21.34 (Wireless Telecommunications Facilities). The current City code section
dealing with telecommunication facilities does not take into account changes in federal
regulations that have occurred since that time.
3. On September 29, 2006, the state legislature enacted SB1627, which is codified as
Government Code Sections 65850.6 and 65964. Section 65860.6 removed
discretionary authority for wireless telecommunications land use permits for wireless
telecommunication facilities mounted to existing towers or structures (referred to as
"collocation facilities"), but did not remove the City's discretionary authority to review
and permit wireless telecommunications towers or structures that will include future
collocation facilities (referred to as "wireless telecommunications collocation facilities").
Section 65964 applies more broadly to all wireless telecommunications facilities and
limits the cities' ability (as a condition of approval) to require an escrow deposit for
removal of a wireless telecommunications facility, unreasonably limit the duration of
any permit for a period of less than ten years (absent public safety reasons or
substantial land use reasons), or requiring that all wireless facilities to be limited to
sites owned by particular parties (i.e. requiring facilities to be built on City property).
4. On November 18, 2009, the FCC issued a ruling adopting what is referred to as the
"Shot Clock" establishing "reasonable periods" for zoning authorities to act on wireless
facilities siting applications. The order established deadlines of 90 days for collocations
and 150 days for all other applications. (Note: The timelines established by the "Shot
Clock" provisions were updated in the more recent January 8, 2015 final rules.)
5. On February 17, 2012, Congress passed the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation
Act, which contained Section 6409(a), known as the "Spectrum Act" for the regulation
of wireless telecommunication facilities. The Spectrum Act included regulatory
requirements for state and local governments to "approve, and may not deny" an
eligible facility request that does not "substantially change" the physical dimensions of
a tower or base station. The Spectrum Act defined an "eligible facilities request" as
"any request for modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that involves
(1) collocation of new transmission equipment; (2) removal of transmission equipment;
or (3) replacement of transmission equipment. (Note: The Spectrum Act provided little
City Council Resolution No. Page 2 of 4
PLN2017-127 -Wireless Facility Design Requirements
or no guidance regarding several key parameters, such as the definition of "substantial
change" and other terms, as well as applicable time limits; these items were
subsequently addressed by the January 8, 2015 final rules.)
6. On January 8, 2015, the FCC published new rules implementing Section 6409(a) of the
Middle Class Tax and Job Creation Act of 2012 ("Spectrum Act"), under the title
"Acceleration of Broadband Deployment by Improving Wireless Facilities Siting
Policies" which include necessary definitions, processing requirements, timelines and
remedies for applications that seek to modify an existing wireless telecommunication
facility in accordance with the Spectrum Act, serving clarify and implement Section
6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, 47 USC 1455
and Section 332(c)(7) of the Federal Telecommunications Act, 47 USC 332 to facilitate
the delivery of more wireless capacity in more locations to consumers throughout the
United States. The provisions provided much needed definitions for statutory terms,
and clarification for the regulation of the "collocation" facilities. These regulations
generally (1) impose new limits on wireless permit applications and how municipalities
review them, (2) define a "substantial change" with aone-size fits all cumulative limit on
physical size increases, and (3) deem a permit granted when a municipality fails to act
on the application within 60 days of the submittal, referred to as the "Shot Clock". In
addition, the FCC rejected the argument that any modification of an existing wireless
tower or base station that has "legal, non-conforming" status should be considered a
"substantial change" and instead is required to be treated the same as other structures.
7. On January 1, 2016, Assembly Bill 57 (AB57) became effective. Through AB57,
California state law "deems approved" any application fora new or substantially
changed wireless site when the City fails to approve or deny the application within the
applicable FCC shot clock timeframe and the applicant has provided all public notices
required for the application, including a notice to the City. As enacted AB57 applies to
new sites and substantial changes to existing facilities, but does not apply to "eligible
facility requests" under Section 6409(a).
8. The proposed Wireless Facility Design Requirements would be consistent with the
General Plan by furthering Policy LUT-5.1, LUT-9.31, and LUT-13.1:
Policy LUT-5.1: Neighborhood Integrity: Recognize that the City is composed of residential, industrial and
commercial neighborhoods, each with its own individual character; and allow change consistent with
reinforcing positive neighborhood values, while protecting the integrity of the city's neighborhoods.
Policy LUT-9.31: Wireless Telecommunication Facilities: Minimize the visual impact of wireless
telecommunication facilities by designing them as an integral architectural feature to a structure.
Policy LUT-13.1: Variety of Uses: Attract and maintain a variety of uses that create an economic balance
within the City while maintaining a balance with other community land use needs, such as housing and open
space, and while providing high quality services to the community.
9. The legislature of the State of California has, in Government Code Sections 65302,
65560, and 65800 conferred upon local government units authority to adopt regulations
designed to promote the public health, safety and general welfare of its citizenry;
10. Review and adoption of these Wireless Facility Design Requirements is done in
compliance with California government Code Sections 65853 through 65857, which
City Council Resolution No.
PLN2017-127 -Wireless Facility Design Requirements
Page 3 of 4
require a duly noticed public hearing of the Planning Commission whereby the
Planning Commission shall provide its written recommendation to the City Council for
its consideration.
11. The decision making body has sufficiently considered all testimony presented to them
in order to make the following determination.
12.The adoption of new Wireless Facility Design Requirements will not directly result in
any physical changes to the environment.
13. The proposed Wireless Facility Design Requirements may be found exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)2 (the
activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in
the environment), 15060(c)3 (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378),
and Section 15378(b)(5), (a project does not include administrative activities of
governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the
environment).
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the City Council further finds and concludes
that:
1. The proposed Wireless Facility Design Requirements are consistent with the goals,
policies, and actions of the General Plan;
2. The proposed Wireless Facility Design Requirements would not be detrimental to the
public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the City;
3. The proposed Wireless Facility Design Requirements are internally consistent with other
applicable provisions of the Zoning Code; and
4. No substantial evidence has been presented from which a reasonable argument could
be made that shows that the project, as presented, will have a significant adverse
impact on the environment; and
5. The project is categorically exempt under CEQA.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council adopts new Wireless Facility
Design Requirements as set forth in attached Exhibit A-1.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
day of , 2017, by the following roll call vote:
City Council Resolution No. Page 4 of 4
PLN2017-127 -Wireless Facility Design Requirements
APPROVED:
Elizabeth "Liz" Gibbons, Mayor
ATTEST:
Wendy Wood, City Clerk
Ado~tei~: I~~lonth. Dad. ~'eai°
E~(~tecti~e: Month. I~a~. Fear
C(h~ Council Rcsolutii~n tio.:
City of Campbell
C';~~~~~r~~l C'ii~~ C€~~~~~cxi~
Isltzal,.~i(~ °i.;z" tiil3l~~~r~~. ~Izt~~G~r
Paul TZt~s~ril.ofif, t'icc= 1fa~c)r
Jcfl'ri:c £_'r~i.,[hla, Coufx~il 3(~~~nbe°~~
:~usa~~ 11. L<i~ltir°ti, Council :11~r~~b{'r
rich ~~`at<~;•naa«. Ccxu3c•iI 1len~be~r
(;~tzz~p~~~l ~''l~i~~~in~ ~:~~n~rnig~ic~~~
1'r~uuie fieaxla(l, £'ltair
;4Sicha~.~I Lich, ~,-iee C[r3ir
C~ utfiia Ik>c]cl, C;tnumissi<,~n£~~~
JvT~,lle Hcrnand~:z, E.'orl~mis~:iouf,'r
Phillip C`. RE~cnold4. Jr., £:;ostunishit~n<ar
~~ndre~c kiti lii2. Coni~uissionEer-
~?Oii:11C1 Z'F1{lt3ti. Cf')711011$Slt)llc'!'
~.~1' ~~~
P~sul l:ir~nir<<i«, £~ta~~~nt~~rzii~ I)e~~elol3s~x~ul I1irc°rt~}~~
~Ieafhc~r Lc:3~hardY, I)i:~I3uE~ Cih~.:l3toei~ci
fite~aheu 12~,~e~, ~~<,uc•iatir Y(auuc~i•
City of Campbell i Wireless Facility Design Requirements
T~b1~ ®>~ t~~~nt~nts
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 4
Intent of the Requirements ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4
Review Criteria ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5
Stealth Facilities .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................6
Completely integrated facilities ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6
Carefully placed facilities ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7
Concealed Facilities .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 8
Roof mounted ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Facade mounted .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 8
Faux trees ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 10
Towers ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 12
Public art ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 12
Ancillary Equipment and Support Features ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 13
Landscaping ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 13
Temporary Equipment ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 13
City of Campbell ~ Wireless Facility Design Requirements
1 ~~ t°~~~1 ~~ c~ti~ ~
This document includes requirements to minimize the visual impacts and aesthetic concerns of wireless communications
facilities and encourage collocation of those facilities, consistent with applicable federal and state law. These requirements
are adopted and maybe amended by the City Council, at the recommendation of the City's Site and Architectural Review
Committee and Planning Commission, and serve to implement the design requirements contained in Campbell Municipal
Code ("CMC") Chapter 21.34 (Wireless Communications Facilities) (as maybe amended from time to time) and other design
standards and considerations when appropriate. These requirements should be used in conjunction with CMC Chapter 21.34
and do not supersede the requirements set forth in Chapter 21.34, but serve to provide specific standards and overall
guidance for stakeholders involved in the design and development of wireless communications facilities in the City. Public
notice shall be provided prior to significant changes to these requirements.
Checklists and handouts prepared by staff to facilitate implementation shall be consistent with these requirements.
Int~~t cif the I~~clui~-el~~~>nts
These requirements are designed to protect and promote public health, safety, community welfare, zoning integrity and the aesthetic
quality of the City, and to minimize adverse impacts of wireless communications facilities, in conformity with the goals of the General
Plan, while providing for the communications needs of residents, businesses, visitors, and government within the City of Campbell.
These requirements prescribe clear, reasonable, and predictable criteria to assess and process applications in a consistent and
expeditious manner. The purpose of these requirements is to assure a degree of uniformity and consistency in the wireless
communications facility review process and provide direction to applicants, service providers and their consultants in regard to the
types of facilities that are encouraged, as well as the types of facilities that are discouraged and/or will not be supported. The purpose is
also to require all wireless communications facilities to minimize visual and aesthetic impacts by providing for installations that are
designed carefully to maintain or improve upon the aesthetic quality of the site and surrounding area, by utilizing, to the extent feasible,
City of Campbell ~ Wireless Facility Design Requirements
the best siting, design, equipment, and construction methods and the smallest and least intrusive antennas, components and other
necessary equipment available.
As further detailed below, the applicant shall use all feasible means to conceal or minimize the visual impact of the wireless
communications facility(ies) through integration. Integration with existing structures or among other existing uses shall be
accomplished through the use of architecture, landscape, and/or siting solutions.
Substantial conformance with these requirements is required as applicable and feasible to a given facility type. Not all
requirements will be applicable to all projects, and therefore interpretation maybe required to adapt to the scope of a
particular facility request.
Rvi~w f:rt~ri~~
The primary goals of these review criteria is to ensure safe and visually and aesthetically acceptable facility design of all wireless
communications facilities, encourage the collocation of facilities, and provide a guide to preferred and acceptable design of wireless
communications facilities.
Review Criteria:
i. The proposal minimizes visual and aesthetic impacts to the extent feasible through considerate design, screening, and
siting.
2. The proposal blends with, integrates into, and/or complements the color, design, scale, massing, symmetry, and/or
character of the surrounding context, whether natural backdrop, building or existing facility, to the extent feasible.
3. The proposal minimizes the removal or modification of any site landscaping or parking and provides appropriate
replacement landscaping, or parking if necessary.
4. The proposal does not include any exterior lighting or signs, except to the extent required or recommended for safety
purposes.
5. Ancillary equipment and support features have been incorporated into the design of the wireless communications
facility except in instances where such an approach would result in a less favorable design.
~-
City of Campbell ~ Wireless Faciliri~ Design Requirements ~-
6. The proposal has been collocated or designed to allow collocation to the extent feasible, except in instances where
such an approach would result in a less favorable design.
e4~ltl 1~~€~~l~l~~°
Stealth facilities are those which result in no perceptible visual impact. As such, stealth facilities are generally preferable to concealed
facilities except in rare circumstances when the concealment method serves to improve the aesthetic value or interest to a building,
structure or site. There are two primary categories of stealth facilities: (i) those which are completely integrated into an existing
structure or architectural feature and (2) those which are imperceptible as a result of careful placement. Both stealth categories require
the facility to remain integrated or imperceptible, even when the facility maybe expanded upon under the provisions of an eligible
facility request. (See CMC Section 2i.34.i9o (Definitions)).
Completely integrated facilities are those which are incorporated into an existing structure or site in a manner which does not result in a
new feature being added. This stealth category may result in the removal of existing siding, or materials to achieve Radio Frequency
(RF) transparency, provided that the replacement materials match, to the extent
feasible, the existing or abutting material.
Where an equivalent material match cannot be ~ _.~..~_.~_~.w~.__~~,_
adequately demonstrated, a stealth facility could ~ ~ ~_° ~` e~. ~ ~ ~~
.~ ,.
propose to completely remove and replace an
existing material if doing so serves to achieve a more
cohesive design and does not disrupt the design of
the building (e.g. the replacement of all roof
shingles, as opposed to simply removing/replacing a
smaller impacted roof or wall section). ~'~`~'~~'" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ t ~ `'~~<<~~~ ~ ~ - °"~''"~~
~~
City oPCampbell Wireless Facility Design Requirements `~'`
Carefully placed facilities are those situated in a location which renders a facility ~~irtually imperceptible to the public. As such, the
emphasis for this category of stealth facility is on its location as opposed to its design. Carefully placed facilities require no
camouflaging or screening, in that existing site features (e.g. buildings, walls, roof parapets) render such a requirement unnecessary.
Successful examples of carefully placed facilities may include those proposed within an existing building (requiring no alteration of
existing materials), those sited on the roof of a particularly large or tall building, and those which are flush mounted to an existing high
voltage lattice tower.
In the case of aroof-mounted facility, decision-makers must carefully consider the appropriate height of the equipment, distance from
the edges of the roof, and resultant views from adjoining properties to ensure facilities falling under this category are not visible.
1'igu~'e ~ - L.tai?~plz° faI'tt Fae€3rt~ c;lu~'`,=r i irr~per~~;'p4itili t« thr }mk~iic't~rut~t
tut;iiiplz~ ~an(<i~,t~ }>~>int,, as a restElP c~u~rii~I t?]acc~i.ei~f ,rl~,•n e<~ntiici~ ring
tii~ In i;l~! c~~ tits t'~~tii}~~n~~ttt.
,~~
high u~l#a,~,c E<rttkr tntt~t'c,~~xl tr;'att'e
I~, irj,d~'h. F3s~sr ~'c}t!i}~ire3rE 1'~i~iaen 1?t
'~i~tm~; [~.•nciit; <;r<i , r~l~li~r, ~hc~uic3
I'igu~~c• f: -- }~~hamph' i~E~~ ;.~ ticril t'+usf-i;iuunt<>fi facilitit's ut1 a sin;~lc° luGihiir~~
+i~ic~E~ :€~'~~isiE~lE as a Er•siilt r~} 1?E •i~l~;i <<3rihin,~tmn ~~t fa'in~ lnu t~~il. ~~e tax? clES,
1~ ~ [he '~n~1ta_r~t; ~ ate,°~.
City of Campbell ~ Wireless Facility Design Requirements
Concealed facilities are those which result in new site or architectural features being added to a property in a manner which
complements, enhances, or seamlessly integrates into their surroundings. While this category of facility design allows for limitless
innovation, concealed facilities most frequently associated with this category include roof mounted, facade mounted, faux trees, towers,
and public art. In principle, facilities seeking approval under this category must be designed such that they would be supported
irrespective of the equipment they seek to conceal and in a manner consistent with other adopted plans or design requirements or
guidelines as applicable (e.g. Downtown Development Plan, East of Campbell Avenue Area Master Plan, and Winchester Boulevard
Master Plan). In that concealed facilities often seek to mimic, recreate, or expand upon existing site or architectural features, colors,
and materials, applicants are required to pro~~ide samples of the materials the applicant seeks to duplicate and compare those samples
against the existing site features.
l~c~of ia~ountecl
Roof mounted facilities, as their name implies, are those with their antennas and equipment placed directly on the roof of a building or
structure. This type of facility is most frequently concealed by housing the equipment in a new cupola, dormer, or penthouse, and/or by
screening it behind a raised parapet. Roof mounted facilities should generally be comprised of the same materials, colors, and finishes
as the existing structure, and proportionate in scale and massing.
City of Campbell Wireless Facility Design Requirement
Facade mounted facilities are those which include antennas mounted, attached, and/or affixed to any facade of a building. Generally,
this facility type is difficult to conceal, except in instances where an architectural element maybe added in a considerate manner.
Facade mounted antennas attached to an existing structure must consider the scale, symmetry and design of the structure and minimize
the addition of bulk and clutter to a building. The examples provided below illustrate several successful and unsuccessful facade
mounted facility designs.
t~'i~~~rc 9 - t.'r3stict~e~sfui e~sarr.~~lr ~~t t~~[.ac~t~ m{}u~~tc~<I r~cEtii}arijenC
I
~w. _
_~ ~ `l
~.,
i'is;zn•~:~s trr .~ tt - t=,t~~i<riuuts cl~ucii~~~ t~u~ rertu~rai ~3n~1 rztpl ~rer;F~nt' ui ~lu,li nurimt~~d
qua= ~~ i4 ~•:;TI~ ~~a~ ar{~h~[~~_l_n;uh n~[e,;c<4ted cuttce:tlm~~tt[ if<a~~ti ~titain<t(.;lo>s t+indr~i~s;.
~'t};41 t'('. 1'3 - ~Cl tiGi( Ct'f+ShiL i'Y~!I:I j>It`U~ ,1llE,'Cf7 Ala l1'\i'i'tt) Ft'E1(E4~:3 ti'till ;162'f211 ('Ctll£~l} ft4t~,ill'C. }~73~ilECti I~j c~ 1 ..~. -'?:1CCt'4tiilf~ t'ti2t[?7 ~1~t'n O~ HI'tttll that flt'lit; ;fi=~i Et~~t'f~ t3T 11 ~.`lt ;il'C~11 Z{~('('flYa~
:,. >igq!.'fl i!21 ~; i'i 1t ~i?C{d1 ~?ta~ ~~?~' 3~ 7 ( ~~ `ni ~,... :3,71~t~, t... :., t: Jn .;'i4tt t, ~ ? 1'.:'. ~_;t i)}.~ „~,._ tc'ri ~.
City- of Campbell ~ Wireless Facility Design Requirements E
Faux trees are effectively a tower facility camouflaged to resemble a tree. Design of these facilities should include an assessment of the
appropriate tree species, shape, and size, as well as the quality and longevity of materials (branches & bark), color, and finish in
consideration of the facilities' surroundings. Detailed specifications must be provided during plan review. In addition to the general
review criteria, all faux tree facilities shall comply with the following standards:
a. The tree species shall be selected based on its proposed surroundings and ideally placed in an established grove of trees of
comparable size, height, species and shape as the proposed.
b. Utilize faux trees that replicate the shape, structure, height, and color of live trees.
c. The canopy shall completely envelop all tower-mounted equipment and extend beyond the tower-mounted equipment at least 18
inches.
d. The canopy shall be naturally tapered to mimic the particular tree species.
e. All faux trees must incorporate a sufficient number of branches (no less than 3 branches per foot) and design materials so that
the structure is as natural in appearance as possible.
f. Where branches are connected to the pole, the branches shall make a seamless connection with the faux bark cladding.
g. All tower-mounted equipment, including, without limitation, antennas, equipment cabinets, cables, mounts and brackets, shall
be painted flat, natural colors to mimic the bark or branches of the particular tree species based on the predominant backdrop.
h. All antennas and other tower-mounted equipment cabinets shall be covered with leaf or needle "socks" to blend in with the faux
foliage.
i. The entire vertical structure shall be covered with permanently-affixed three- dimensional faux bark cladding to mimic the
particular tree species.
j. All coaxial cables must be routed directly from the ground up through the pole.
City ofCampbell ~ Wireless Facility Design Requirements '~ ~~~'~
I~'i~t~rc~ i~ - V-:~h<~})ed trees (_sttcl~ as
Ittcal~ pt~ts`~ arc ~;ertcraii~ ~)rcf`c: rre~~ as
the~• offer the ;neatest screening; t~~here
antennas are mounted. The tree si)ecies
shall I)e selected I)ased c)r) surrout~din~s
and ideall~~ placed itl a ~ro~-e.
~'igcare ~~i -- Increase:, in ~hranch let~~th and
cic~,rlsit~~ c~~n dr~tmaticall~- it~r)~)ro~-e th~~
aeSth~'ttC:;~ {)~ a fat1X tl'E'e. ~b'hel'e ~)rant'heS at'e
connected, the I)ranches silali tr~ake a
Seanl~eSS (otl.neCtiol7 ~1'tth the I)~)Ie.
"tk`~'ta%Y~$°^v ;.~~~ a) i~.~ - i`.~?_. ,>; ~a. ~At ;,s, 'ttE ~ ~~~f?t~ #~~t x ~'. !
.c Intl till 1.1C't'c ~~~ i ~ € :. ?-
City of Campbell Wireless Facility Design Requirements
,~.:~ _.
,_..
µ3~~.,s~,~F
Tower facilities include monopoles, lattice towers, guyed towers, freestanding towers, and/or other structures (other than faux trees)
designed to support antennas. In general, towers are the least preferred category of facility as they are often significantly taller than
their surroundings and the most difficult to conceal. Towers shall be designed to architecturally blend with the building, structure,
and/or setting in which they are proposed. Towers shall be built at the lowest height possible.
For flag poles, antennas must be enclosed within the pole or a radome. The wireless communications facility(ies) must fully comply
with the U.S. Flag Code. All cables must be routed directly from the ground up through the pole. The overall height and diameter of
the flag pole must be compatible with the surrounding area. Decorative elements must be included in the overall height measurement.
rortl~~~~' ~€°,
Public art facilities marry functional and aesthetic design to arrive at attractive and stimulating visual qualities versus other ty°pes of
concealed facilities which focus on making the facility visually obscure. Both are suitable concealment methods, though public art
facilities are particularly suitable for areas with heavy pedestrian use (e.g. parks, entertainment facilities, community centers, regional
shopping centers).
;~~,
City of Campbell Wireless Facility Design Requiremem~
Figut•c~4v6 to ,~:~ - I;xampl~~s of suc°«:ss€rrl and unsuccessful to~tit°r cle°~i~;a~s.
x`~~c ill~~~~, acl~~i~~a~~~~~f ~~~~d Sc~ppc~~°t. 'e~~~~°~
To the extent feasible, ancillary equipment and support features should be incorporated into the design of the wireless communications
facility. Where this approach is infeasible, or may result in a less favorable design, ancillary equipment and support features associated
with the wireless communications facility are to be placed underground in vaults, within existing structures or buildings (i.e. utilizing
existing mechanical equipment rooms), or built into new unobtrusive structures or enclosures onsite.
~.a~~~~~~ ~g~~~~a
Landscaping maybe required as a secondary means of screening for some projects to offset the overall visual impact, but should not be
considered as a substitute for walls, screens, fencing or other structural and permanent improvements. New landscaping proposed for
such purposes should be provided in the form of screening trees located near the antenna, or as canopy trees for nearby parking areas.
Where it is not feasible to provide additional landscaping in proximity to the proposed antenna location, or substantial landscaping
already exists on-site, other means of balancing a project's visual and aesthetic impacts shall be considered. Landscaping shall be
installed and maintained as necessary to conceal or screen the facility from public view. All landscaping shall be installed, irrigated, and
maintained consistent with CMC Chapter 21.26 (Landscaping Requirements).
~~'~~~~~i~o~°~~~,~, f;q~~il~~~tc~~~~
Mobile towers, also known as COW (Cell on Wheels) are prohibited except when a local emergency is declared by the City Manager or as
otherwise expressly allowed by CMC Section 21.34.150 (Temporary Wireless Communications Facilities). A COW or similar temporary
wireless communications facility or equipment shall not be permitted for maintenance activities or while awaiting an expected
entitlement or pending plan review, and the temporary allowance of such equipment or facility during an emergency shall not be
considered to establish a permanent use of such a facility or structure after the emergency has ended, as declared by the City Manager.
Once the emergency has ended, the temporary wireless communications facility shall be removed from the site as soon as possible.
City of Campbell ~ Wireless Facility Design Requirement.,