Extracted text (via pymupdf)
6036 characters
To:
Kevin Phelps, City Manager
Jack Friedline, Assistant City Manager
From: Don Bessler, Director of Engineering
Jamsheed Mehta, Director of Development Services
Ryan Lee, Intergovernmental Relations Manager
Rick St. John, Deputy City Manager
Date: May 31, 2022
Re:
CIOSI Follow-up - Monopoles
The outline below is staff’s effort to capture the follow-up items from the March 8th, 2022
Workshop. Our proposal is to craft our response in the form of a memo and allow
Councilmembers the opportunity to use the CIOSI process to determine collectively, what items
that they would like to come back to them. Our concern is that the original CIOSI continues to
morph and grow at each subsequent workshop. This would bring clarity of process to the issue
and hopefully provide the Council with a sense of closure on certain elements of this far-reaching
issue.
1. What is the setback from current monopoles on city owned property (not the ROW)
from private property?
a. Setbacks from residentially zoned properties:
i. Prior to the 2019 Adopted Ordinance: 300 feet.
ii. Per Ordinance 019-48: 150 feet. Can be reduced further with a Conditional
Use Permit (CUP), to 50 feet.
2. Have stealth small cell poles been placed in Glendale; or other Valley cities?
a. Staff has sent an email blast to 110 recipients, with a follow-up email to Valley and
statewide municipal contacts, requesting information to address this question. We
have received three responses.
i. Recipients included The League of Cities and the State Wide Telecom
Committee in additions to counties / Tribal.
ii. The three respondents indicated the same street light design as Glendale’s
being the latest version which is an antennae array extended on top of a street
light pole. There are limited examples of stealth installations including small
cell saguaro and custom installations connected to signage, or other vertical
elements such as water towers. Examples are attached below.
3. What was the original monopole height at FS 156? What was the original setback from
residential, and what is it now?
a. The original flagpole was 50’ in height – the new monopole elm is 70’ in height
b. The original (2008) setback from residential was 154 feet; (2021) 147 feet
4. How many monopoles on any property in the COG exceed 50’?
a. Development Services indicates that this information is not available.
5. How does the wireless cooperative work as it relates to advocating for better
legislation.
o The Regional Wireless Cooperative does has staff; they have not had direction from
the board of directors from the member entities to pursue any legislative agenda.
o
There is little appetite to change state law as it relates to the deployment of small cell
antennas. Many cities have decided to accept and even accelerate the deployment
of small cell technology if it means improved economic development and quality of
life. Staff recommends that the city work directly with Crown Castle, AT&T and
Verizon on design standards that meet City Council standards. If we can all agree on
design standards, Public Affairs will reach out to other cities and see if they will
consider adopting comparable standards. If this works, we can create a model
ordinance that reaches the entire valley. This approach will streamline legislation in
future years.
6. Draft a “Good Neighbor Policy” that addresses the practice of taking future
monopoles on city property (not the ROW) to Council.
Guiding Principles:
• Wireless and/or aerial telecom installation on city property, where the city has
discretion to deny access requires several guiding principles:
o Commitment of good neighbor intentions by requiring a 750’ setback from
existing residential property
o Notification to affected neighborhood prior to permitting
o Aesthetic review to consider stealth opportunities
o Encourage sensible co-location to mitigate a proliferation of standalone
installations
Procedural Considerations
• Wireless carrier contacts Engineering / Planning to express their desire to locate on
city property.
• Engineering will work with carrier to identify acceptable location (if necessary,
Engineering will coordinate internal meeting with various affected divisions for
concurrence of proposed location) i.e. Parks, Utilities, Campus properties,
Operations.
• When preliminary location is presented by the carrier, Engineering will work with the
Councilmember whose district the site is located to seek elected official feedback
and consider public outreach strategies."
• When location is determined and agreed upon by all parties, Engineering will advise
wireless carrier to submit for Planning approval. During the Planning reviewing
process Engineering will initiate contract negotiation.
• After Planning approval, both Engineering and Planning will schedule Council
Workshop.
• Upon Council consensus to bring forward, and once contract terms are agreed upon,
Engineering will request the wireless carrier to provide Planning / Zoning approval
letter, full set of electronic plans and project photo simulation.
• Once all items are together Engineering will forward to Legal for review / Green
sheet.
• When Green sheet is received from Legal, Engineering will mail out the agreement to
client for vendors final signature, Vendor/ Wireless Carrier will return three (3) signed
copies back.
• Once received, Engineering / Planning will schedule to be placed on a Council
Voting meeting Agenda for contract approval.
• Establish an aesthetics review staff team (Engineering, Planning, affected city
department) that will consider stealth designs to mitigate visual impacts in the
surrounding area for all large cell tower locations sited on city property, excluding the
ROW.
PRE-STEALTH INSTALLATION TYPOLOGIES
MONOPOLE STEALTH EXAMPLES
SMALL CELL STEALTH EXAMPLES