HomeMy WebLinkAboutSS2 - Telecommunications Facility Siting Issues•
ITEM 552
TO: Members of the Newport Beach City Council
FROM: Dave Kiff, Assistant City Manager
Robin L. Clauson, Assistant City Attorney
Telecommunications Ad Hoc Committee
SUBJECT: Telecommunications Facility Siting Issues
RECOMMENDED Discuss and offer any direction to City staff and /or to the Telecom Committee
ACTION: regarding a proposed Wireless Telecommunications Ordinance and a proposed
Council Policy.
BACKGROUND: In November 2000, the City Council formed the Telecommunications Ad Hoc
Committee and directed it to address the following issues:
1- UPDATING THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO CABLE
• TELEVISION. The City's municipal code chapter that relates to cable
television requires significant amendments before the City can enter into
any effective franchise agreements with Adelphia and Cox.
2 — UPDATING THE MUNICIPAL CODE AND ENACTING A COUNCIL
POLICY REGARDING TELECOMMUNICATIONS. The City should
adopt a new section to the municipal code relating to telecommunication
so that we can effectively address:
• Where to site new wireless antennas;
• Whether and where to use City-owned property or rights -of -way for
antennas;
• What design and structural standards the City should apply to antennas,
whether placed on rights -of -way or public or private property;
• What fee should be levied for the use of the public property for antennas;
• How to effectively ensure that the City's emergency radio network is not
adversely impacted by siting activity.
3 - FRANCHISE RENEWAL NEGOTIATIONS. The City's two major cable
television franchise agreements with Cox Communications and Adelphia
expire on January 27, 2003. The Committee has been actively working on
a Community Needs Assessment in anticipation of renewal.
The Telecom Committee, which includes Council members John Heffernan
(Chair) and Gary Adams and community members Leslie Daigle and Don
• Boortz, have met since early 2001 to work on these tasks.
Page 2
In March 2002, the Committee considered draft guidelines for the siting of •
wireless telecommunications facilities on public and private property. At an
April 23, 2002 joint meeting and Study Session of the City Council and the
Committee, council and committee members suggested that staff proceed to:
• Develop a Council policy on the use of public property for
telecommunications facilities; and
• Develop a Telecommunications Ordinance that reflected the City's
Zoning Code for the placement of such facilities on private and public
land.
The April 23, 2002 staff report is available on the City's Web site for those who
wish more information about the earlier discussions (www.city.newport -
beach.ca.us).
We're Finally Back We engaged Larry Lawrence of Lawrence and Associates
to help us prepare any ordinance(s) associated with this effort. We returned
with:
1— A Draft Telecommunications Ordinance.
PURPOSE: To describe when, where, and how telecommunications facilities
like micro -cell antennas and more can be placed on public land, public right -of-
way, and private property.
KEY ISSUES ADDRESSED:
• The City has a limited right to regulate placement of these facilities.
• No facilities in residentially -zoned or open space areas. •
• A prioritization of the types of cell-site structures and placements.
• The permit and licensing agreement process by which an applicant must
submit a proposal.
• City Council review of some, but not all, applications.
• Removal (including payment) of abandoned facilities
2 — A Proposed Council Policy on the Siting of Telecommunications
Facilities on City-owned Land
PURPOSE: To describe which City-owned or City-held Trust properties are
eligible for the siting of telecommunications facilities by private - sector
providers.
KEY ISSUES ADDRESSED:
• Adopts a list of eligible sites
• Adopts a list of ineligible sites
• Requires rents be set and reviewed via a Rent Survey
• Requires a Licensing Agreement for all facilities on public land
• Allows the City Council to stop the approval process for a specific site.
Recent History. As noted, the Council and the Committee met in April 2002 to
discuss how the City might address telecommunications siting issues. The
Committee met again on August 21, 2002, to review these two documents. They
forwarded them to the City Council for this Study Session item.
Two other documents will follow the Council's consideration of the Telecom •
Ordinance and Council Policy. They are a Right -of -Way Ordinance and a related
Page 3
Resolution describing the standards and procedures that the City would use
is regarding proposals to place facilities within the public right -of -way. The
Committee believed that these documents will require further review by the
Committee and by industry before going forward to City Council. The
Committee expects to meet again to discuss the Right -of -Way Ordinance and the
Resolution in mid - September.
What the Draft Right -of -Way Ordinance Will Address.
PURPOSE: To describe when, where, and how telecommunications facilities like
micro -cell antennas and more can be placed on public rights -of -way and to
ensure that the applicant appropriately compensates the public and protects
aesthetic and related concerns for doing so.
KEY ISSUES ADDRESSED:
• Placements in the right -of -way need authorization via an Agreement from
the Public Works Department.
• Sets a term for the Agreements.
• Sets forth insurance and hold harmless provisions.
• Requires undergrounding where area utilities are undergrounded.
• Applicant may appeal a denial to the City Council.
• Removal of abandoned facilities
What the Resolution Incorporating Specifications and Standards for
Telecommunications Facility Installations Will Address.
PURPOSE: Authorizes, by resolution, City staff to follow specific industry
standards and procedures for the placement of above - ground facilities in the
• public right -of -way.
KEY ISSUES ADDRESSED:
• Paint color, facility placement, ADA, size limitations, etc.
ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Draft Telecom Ordinance
Attachment B — Proposed Council Policy Lr23
•
DRAFT •
ORDINANCE N0.02 -_
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER
15.70 TO THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE
PERTAINING TO WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION
FACILITIES
The City Council of the City of Newport Beach finds that:
A. The regulations and design standards set out in this chapter are necessary to
protect public health, safety, welfare, and aesthetic interests, and that the enforcement
thereof will not result in the imposition of excessive costs on operators and users of
telecom services. The City Council finds, further, that these regulations and design
standards neither materially limit a person's ability to receive telecommunication
services nor create unfair competition among telecom service providers.
B. Section 704 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act (47 U.S.C. §332(c)) preempts
local regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of telecom facilities on
the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that
such facilities comply with the applicable FCC regulations.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, HEREBY
ORDAINS as follows:
SECTION 1: Chapter 15.70 of Newport Beach Municipal Code is hereby added to read as
follows:
Chapter 15.70
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES
Sections:
15.70.010
Purpose and Intent
15.70.020
General Provisions
15.70.030
Definitions
15.70.040
Available Technology
15.70.050
Height and Location
15.70.060
Design Standards
•
�,I
• 15.70.070 Permit Review Procedures
15.70.080 Radiation Report
15.70.090 Right to Review or Revoke Permit
15.70.100 Removal of Telecom Facilities
15.70.110 Violation a Misdemeanor
15.70.010 Purpose and Intent
A. Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to provide for telecommunication
(telecom) facilities on public and private property consistent with federal law
while ensuring public safety, reducing the visual effects of telecommunication
equipment on public streetscapes, protecting scenic, ocean and coastal
views, and otherwise mitigating the impacts of such facilities. More
specifically, the regulations contained herein are intended to:
Encourage the location of antennas in non - residential areas.
2. Strongly encourage co- location at new and existing antenna sites.
3. Encourage telecommunication facilities to be located in areas where
adverse impacts on the community and on public views is minimized.
• B. The provisions of this Chapter are not intended and shall not be interpreted to
prohibit or to have the effect of prohibiting telecom services. This Chapter
shall not be applied in such a manner as to unreasonably discriminate among
providers of functionally equivalent telecom services.
•
15.70.020 General Provisions
A. Applicability. These regulations are applicable to telecommunication facilities
providing voice and /or data transmission such as, but not limited to, cell
phone and radio relay stations.
B. Exempt Facilities. The following facilities are exempt from the provisions of
this Chapter:
Amateur radio and receiving satellite dish antennas regulated by Chapter
20.61.
2. Facilities entirely within a permitted structure or screened from all view
by an existing roof parapet. However, such facilities are not exempt if
any part of the facility will be visible from land or buildings above.
2
6
C. Permit Required. A permit shall be required for all telecom facilities regulated •
by this Chapter in accordance with Section 15.70.070.
D. Other Regulations. All telecom facilities within the City shall comply with the
provisions of this Chapter and the following requirements:
1. Conditions in any permit or license issued by a local, state, or federal
agency which has jurisdiction over the telecom facility.
2. Rules, regulations, and standards of the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) and the California Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC).
3. Easements, covenants, conditions, or restrictions on the underlying real
property.
4. The Uniform Building Code, Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Mechanical
Code, and National Electrical Code, as amended by state or local law or
regulation.
5. The provisions of Chapter 13.20 to the extent the telecom facilities are
proposed to be located on or within City right of way or City property or
facilities. •
E. Regulations not in Conflict or Preempted. All telecom facilities within the City
shall comply with the following requirements unless in conflict with or
preempted by the provisions of this Chapter:
1. Design guidelines or standards in any applicable specific plan.
2. Requirements established by any other provision of the Municipal Code
or by any other ordinance or regulation of the City, other than those listed
in Paragraph D of this Section.
F. Setbacks. Setbacks shall be measured from the part of the telecom facility
closest to the applicable lot line or structure.
G. Maintenance. The telecom operator shall maintain the telecom facility in a
manner consistent with the original approval of the facility.
H. Non - Conformities. A proposed telecom facility shall not create any new or
increased non - conformities as defined in the Zoning Code, such as, but not
limited to, a reduction in and/or elimination of, parking, landscaping, or
loading zones.
K?
•
I
15.70.030 Definitions
• For the purposes of this Chapter, certain terms shall have meanings as follows:
1. Antenna means a device used to transmit and /or receive radio or
electromagnetic waves between earth- and /or satellite -based systems,
such as reflecting discs, panels, microwave dishes, whip antennas,
antennas, arrays, or other similar devices.
2. Antenna Array shall mean antennas having active elements extending in
more than one direction, and directional antennas mounted upon and
rotated through a vertical mast or tower interconnecting the beam and
antenna support, all of which elements are deemed to be part of the
antenna.
3. City means the City of Newport Beach.
4. City Council or Council means the City Council of the City of Newport
Beach.
5. Co- location means an arrangement whereby multiple telecom facilities
owned or operated by different telecom operators share the same
structure or site.
• 6. Department Director or Reviewing Department Director means either the
Planning Director or the Public Works Director, as applicable.
7. FCC means the Federal Communications Commission.
8. Feasible means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner
within a reasonable period of time, taking into account environmental,
physical, legal, and technological factors.
9. Lattice Tower means an open framework structure used to support
antennas, typically with three or four support legs.
10. Monopole means a single free - standing pole used to act as or support a
telecom antenna or antenna arrays.
11. Operator or Telecom Operator means any person, firm, corporation,
company, or other entity that directly or indirectly owns, leases, runs,
manages, or otherwise controls a telecom facility or facilities within the
City.
4
7
12. Residential Lot means a lot containing, or zoned for, one or more •
dwelling units in the R -1, R -1.5, R -2, or MFR District or in the residential
portions of the PC or SP Districts.
13. Reviewing Authority means the person or body authorized under the
provisions of this Chapter to review and act upon a telecom application,
i.e. either a specified staff department director or the City Council.
14. Stealth or Stealth Facility means a telecom facility in which the antenna,
and sometimes the support equipment, are hidden from view in a false
tree, monument, cupola, or other concealing structure which either
mimics, or which also serves as, a natural or architectural feature.
Concealing structures which are obviously not such a natural or
architectural feature to the average observer do not qualify within this
definition.
15. Support Equipment means the physical, electrical and /or electronic
equipment included within a telecom facility used to house, power,
and /or process signals from or to the facility's antenna or antennas.
16. Telecommunication(s) Facility, Telecom Facility, or simply Facility means
an installation that sends and /or receives radio frequency signals or
electromagnetic waves, including but not limited to directional, •
omnidirectional and parabolic antennas, structures or towers to support
receiving and /or transmitting devices, supporting equipment and
structures, and the land or structure on which they are all situated. The
term does not include mobile transmitting devices, such as vehicle or
hand held radios /telephones and their associated transmitting antennas.
17. Title 20 or Zoning Code means Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal
Code.
18. Zoning District or District means an area of the City designated on the
official Districting Maps and subject to a uniform set of permitted land
uses and development standards.
15.70.040 Available Technology
All telecom facilities approved under this Chapter shall utilize the most efficient
and diminutive available technology in order to minimize the number of facilities
and reduce their visual impact. More specifically, this technology shall be defined
as follows:
1. Most Efficient Technology. Use of the most efficient antenna and support
equipment to serve the City. In this context, the "most efficient"
•
5
17
• technology is that which allows the operator to use the fewest number of
telecom facilities to adequately serve the City.
2. Most Diminutive Technology. Use of the smallest antenna and support
equipment in use within the operators service area, consistent with
providing the required service.
15.70.050 Height and Location
A. Height.
Maximum Height. No antenna or other telecom equipment or screening
structure shall extend higher than the following maximums:
a. 35 feet for antennas on streetlights, traffic control standards, utility
poles, or other structures within the public right -of -way.
b. For all other telecom facilities, the maximum height of antennas shall
be the upper maximum building height allowed in the zoning district as
specified in the Zoning Code (for example, no higher than 35 feet in
the "26135 Foot Height Limitation Zone "). Height limits for telecom
antennas and screening structures shall otherwise be exempt from
• any use permit or other special approval requirements of the Zoning
Code, except that stealth structures containing telecom facilities shall
not be exempt from such special approval requirements.
2. Over - Height Antennas. The City Council may approve antennas up to 15
feet above the preceding maximum building height limitations under the
special review provisions of Section 15.70.070 of this Chapter.
B. Location.
Location Categories and Location Priorities. Locations for telecom
facilities shall be selected according to the following priority order:
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
f.
9•
• h.
Wall, roof, or existing co- location structure or site;
Existing pole, light standard, or utility tower in non - residential zoning
districts;
Commercial sign or architectural feature;
New or existing "stealth" structure other than a false tree;
New false tree;
New "Slim Jim" monopole (i.e. with no antenna elements other than
the pole itself);
New standard monopole with attached antenna elements;.
New lattice tower.
6
2. Special Requirements. Proposals for telecom facilities at location •
categories "e" through "h" shall require special review by the City Council
under the provisions of Section 15.70.070 of this Chapter. In such cases,
the applicant shall be required to show to the satisfaction of the Council
that:
A. Higher priority locations are either not available or are not feasible;
B. Establishment of a facility on a new standard monopole or lattice
tower is necessary to provide service; and
C. Lack of such a facility would result in a denial of service.
3. Other Locations Requiring Special Approval. Telecom facilities are
prohibited in the following locations unless given special approval by the
City Council under the provisions of Section 15.70.070:
a. Within 100 feet of a residential zoning district.
b. On common area lots or other non - residential lots within residential
districts.
c. Within any required setback established in the Zoning Code.
4. Prohibited Locations. Telecom facilities are prohibited in the following
locations:
a. On residential lots. is
b. In the Open Space- Passive (OSP) zoning district.
C. Co-Location Requirements.
Co- Location Required. To limit the adverse visual effects of a
proliferation of telecom sites in the City, a new telecom facility proposed
within 1000 feet of an existing facility shall be required to co- locate on
the same site as the existing facility unless the reviewing authority
determines, based on evidence submitted by the applicant, that such co-
location is not feasible.
2. Co- Location Limitations. Notwithstanding Paragraph 1 preceding, no
more than three telecom facilities may co- locate at a single site unless
the reviewing authority finds that:
a. The net visual effect of locating an additional facility at a co- location
site will be less than establishing a new location; or
b. Based on evidence submitted by the applicant, there is no available
feasible alternate location for a proposed new facility.
7
•
/V
• 3. Condition Requiring Future Co- Location. In approving a telecom facility,
the reviewing authority may impose a condition of approval allowing
future co- location of telecom facilities by other carriers at the same site.
15.70.060 Design Standards
A. General Criteria. In addition to the other design standards of this Section, the
following criteria shall be considered by the reviewing authority in connection
with its processing of any telecom permit.
Blending. The extent to which the proposed facility blends into the
surrounding environment or is architecturally integrated into a concealing
structure.
2. Screenino. The extent to which the proposed facility is screened or
camouflaged by existing or proposed new topography, vegetation,
buildings, or other structures.
3. Size. The total size of the proposed facility, particularly in relation to
surrounding and supporting structures.
• B. Free - Standing Antennas. Antennas and any poles or other structures erected
to support antennas shall be visually compatible with surrounding buildings
and vegetation. The reviewing authority may require that the antenna be
colored to blend into the sky or other background.
C. Roof - Mounted Antennas. Roof - mounted antennas, except whip antennas,
shall be completely screened from public view in a manner consistent with the
building's architectural style, color and materials including, if determined
necessary by the reviewing authority, screening to avoid adverse impacts to
views from land or buildings at higher elevations.
D. Wall- Mounted Antennas. Wall- mounted antennas shall be painted to match
the color of the wall on which they are mounted. Cables and mounting
brackets shall be hidden. Shrouds may be required by the reviewing authority
to screen wall- mounted antennas.
E. Support Equipment.
1. Building- Mounted Installations. For building- mounted installations,
support equipment for the facility shall be placed within the building. If
the reviewing authority determines that such building placement is not
feasible, the equipment shall be roof - mounted in an enclosure or shall
. otherwise be screened from public view in a manner approved by the
0
reviewing authority. Roof - mounted equipment shall comply with the •
height limits applicable to the building per the Zoning Code. All screening
used in connection with a building- mounted facility shall be compatible
with the architecture, color, texture and materials of the building to which
it is mounted.
2. Ground - Mounted Installations. For ground- mounted installations, support
equipment shall be screened in a security enclosure approved by the
reviewing authority. Such screening enclosures may utilize graffiti -
resistant and climb- resistant vinyl -clad chain link with a "closed -mesh"
design (i.e. one -inch gaps) or may consist of an alternate enclosure
design approved by the reviewing authority. In general, the screening
enclosure shall be made of non - reflective material and painted or
camouflaged to blend with surrounding materials and colors. Buffer
landscaping may also be required if the reviewing authority determines
that additional screening is necessary due to the location of the site and
that irrigation water is available.
3. Installations in Public Right -of -Way. Telecom Facilities and or support
equipment proposed to be located in the public right -of -way shall comply
with the provisions of Chapter 13.20. In addition, ground- mounted
equipment in the public right -of -way shall comply with all requirements of
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). •
F. Night Lighting. Telecom facilities shall not be lighted except for security
lighting at the lowest intensity necessary for that purpose. Such lighting shall
be shielded so that direct rays do not shine on nearby properties. The
reviewing authority may consult with the Police Department regarding
proposed security lighting for telecom facilities on a case -by -case basis.
G. Siqns and Advertising. No advertising signage or identifying logos shall be
displayed on any telecom facility except for small identification, address,
warning, and similar information plates. Such information plates shall be
identified in the telecom application and shall be subject to approval by the
reviewing authority.
15.70.070 Permit Review Procedures
A. Reviewinq Authority. All applicants for non - exempt telecom facilities not within
the public right -of -way shall apply for a permit from the Planning Department
as follows:
Private or Cites- -Owned Property. Facilities on private property or on City -
owned property shall be reviewed by the Planning Director as a
"Telecom Permit ".
9
!a
•
• 2. Referral to City Council. The Planning Director may refer any application
to the City Council for special review under the procedures set out in
Paragraph F of this Section.
B. Submission Requirements. Applications for telecom facilities shall be
accompanied by the following documentation:
Plans. Site Plans and Elevations drawn to scale.
2. Justification. A brief narrative, accompanied by written documentation
where appropriate, which explains the purpose of the facility and
validates the applicants efforts to comply with the design, location, and
co- location standards of this Chapter.
3. Maps. A map or maps showing the geographic area to be served by the
facility. In order to facilitate planning and gauge the need for future
telecom facilities, the reviewing department director may also require the
submission of a comprehensive plan of existing and future facilities by
the operator for the entire City or other defined service area.
4. Visual Simulations. Visual simulations showing "before" and "after" views
of the proposed facility, unless the reviewing department director
determines that such simulations are not necessary for the application in
• question. Consideration shall be given to views from both public areas
and private residences.
5. Emission Standards and Non- Interference Data. Evidence that the facility
will comply with FCC emissions standards and that use of the telecom
facility will not interfere with other communication, radio, or television
transmission or reception.
6. Property Ownership. Evidence of ownership of the real property on which
the proposed telecom facility will be located, or if the applicant does not
own the real property, the name and mailing address of the real property
owner(s) and a copy of the lease agreement for use of the property.
7. Wind Load Calculations. For proposed antenna installations on new
monopoles, utility poles, or other structures subject to wind loads, wind
load calculations prepared by an engineer registered in California shall
be submitted showing, to the satisfaction of the reviewing authority, that
the resulting installation will be safe and secure under wind load
conditions. Such calculations shall take into account other existing
attachments to the supporting structure and potential future antennas co-
located on the structure by other operators.
10
i�
Mailing List. If public notice is required by the reviewing authority, a list of •
property owners within 300 feet of the proposed telecom facility taken
from the latest assessor rolls.
9. Supporting Materials. Additional supporting materials as deemed
necessary by the reviewing department director to complete review of
the proposal. Supporting materials may include, but are not limited to,
color and material sample boards, proposed informational signage, and
landscaping plans.
10. Fee. Applications shall be accompanied by a fee established by
resolution of the City Council to defray all estimated costs and expenses
incidental to review and processing of the application, including any
expense incurred by the Police Department or for any outside technical
or legal services to review the application. This fee shall be in addition to
other fees required by the Municipal Code.
C. Review Process for Proposals on City Property. Review of telecom
applications for facilities on City property shall be as follows:
Filing. Applications shall be submitted to the Planning Director for
facilities on City -owned property shall undergo initial staff review for
compliance with the provisions of this Chapter and Chapter 13.20. Within
30 days of filing, the reviewing department director shall cause the •
applicant to be notified in writing whether the application is complete. If
an application is determined to be not complete, the notification shall
identify those parts of the application which are incomplete and shall
indicate the manner in which they can be made complete.
2. Emergency Communications Review. At the same time as the Applicant
submits an application to the Planning Director, the Applicant shall
submit the Plans, Map, and Emission Standards and Non - Interference
Data (parts 1, 3, and 5 of the Submission Requirements) to the Newport
Beach Police Department. The Police Department shall convene a
review of the plan's potential conflict with emergency communications,
including the communications of any public safety agency operating in
the region. If the Police Department determines that the proposal would
interfere with emergency communications devices, the applicant shall be
given the opportunity to modify the proposal. If the proposal is not
modified, the reviewing department director shall deny the proposal.
Director's Action. Within 30 days of the determination that the application
is complete, the Planning Director shall take action on the application
based on the following criteria:
•
11
ly
a. If the director determines that the facility conforms to the height,
• location and design standards of Sections 15.70.050 and 15.70.060 of
this Chapter, he or she shall approve the application with or without
conditions of approval.
b. If the director determines that the facility does not conform to one or
more standards, he or she shall inform the applicant of the
discrepancy and give the applicant the option of amending the
application to eliminate the discrepancy. If the discrepancy is not
eliminated, the director shall deny the application.
c. If the director determines that conformity to standards are in doubt, he
or she shall refer the application to the City Council for Special Review
under the procedures set out in Paragraph F of this Section.
4. Applicant Notification. After action on the application, the director shall
cause the applicant to be notified in writing within five days of the
decision. The applicant may appeal decisions by the director in
accordance with Paragraph E of this Section.
5. City Manager Action. When a permit for a telecom facility on City -owned
property or facilities is approved, the Planning Director shall forward the
permit to the City Manager, who shall prepare and execute a Licensing
• Agreement based upon a term and rental amount adopted under City
Council policy.
6. City Council Action. Where applicable (including proposals to site
facilities in Location Categories "e" through "h "), the City Manager shall
forward the licensing agreement and final telecom permit to the City
Council for final approval. The City Council may approve, approve
subject to modifications, or deny the licensing agreement and telecom
permit. The City Council retains the right to refuse approval of a licensing
agreement at any time and for any reason. Should the City Council deny
the licensing agreement, the agreement and permit shall not be
executed.
7. Notification to Applicant. The City Clerk shall notify the applicant in
writing within five days of the City Council's decision.
D. Review Process for Private Property. Review of telecom applications for
facilities on private property shall be as follows:
1. Filing. Submission of application to the Planning Director and initial staff
review. Within 30 days of filing, the Director shall cause the applicant to
be notified in writing whether the application is complete. If an application
• is determined to be not complete, the notification shall identify those
12
15
parts of the application which are incomplete and shall indicate the •
manner in which they can be made complete.
2. Emergency Communications Review. At the same time as the Applicant
submits an application to the Planning Director, the Applicant shall
submit the Plans, Map, and Emission Standards and Non - Interference
Data (parts 1, 3, and 5 of the Submission Requirements) to the Newport
Beach Police Department. The Police Department shall convene a
review of the plan's potential conflict with emergency communications,
including the communications of any public safety agency operating in
the region. If the Police Department determines that the proposal would
interfere with emergency communications devices, the applicant shall be
given the opportunity to modify the proposal. If the proposal is not
modified, the reviewing department director shall deny the proposal.
3. Director's Action. Within 30 days after the determination that the
application is complete, the Planning Director shall approve, approve
subject to conditions, or deny the telecom permit under the same
procedures and criteria as set out in Paragraph C of this Section. The
Director shall then cause the applicant to be notified in writing within five
days of the decision. The applicant may appeal decisions by the Director
in accordance with Paragraph E of this Section.
E. Appeals to City Council. Within ten days of the date of written notification of •
action by the reviewing department director, the applicant may appeal any
denial of the application or any conditions of approval to the City Council. The
City Council shall hear all appeals within 45 days of filing of the appeal. If the
City Council action on appeals shall be final. If the final action is denied, than
the City Council shall adopt a Resolution setting forth the reasons for denial.
F. Special Review by Council. Because of their potential for greater- than -usual
visual or other impacts on nearby property owners, residents, and
businesses, applications for the telecom facilities identified following shall
require special review by the City Council.
Applicability. Proposals requiring special review include the following:
a. Telecom antennas up to 15 feet above the upper maximum height
limit for the zoning district.
b. Telecom facilities at locations identified as requiring special review in
Section 15.70.050.
c. Any telecom application which the department director determines
requires special review in order to serve the public interest.
13
E
1(11
2. Special Review Procedures. Applications subject to special review shall
• be reviewed under the following procedures:
a. Notification describing the proposal and the date and time of City
Council review shall be mailed at least 10 days in advance of the City
Council review date to property owners of record within 300 feet of the
proposed location of the telecom facility. However, such notification
shall not constitute a public hearing notice and non - receipt of such
notification shall in no way nullify any approval or denial of a telecom
facility.
b. No formal public hearing shall be required in conjunction with review
of a proposed telecom facility. However, the City Council may hear
and consider comments from the public during its review of the
application.
3. Council Action. The City Council shall take action on the telecom permit
within 45 days after the determination that the application is complete.
Applications subject to special review may be approved by the City
Council if it makes the following findings:
a. The approval is necessary to allow the facility to function as intended
and identified alternatives to the proposal are not feasible.
• b. The approved facility will not result in conditions which are materially
detrimental to nearby property owners, residents, and businesses, nor
to public health or safety.
The City Council may approve, approve subject to conditions, or deny
the telecom permit.
4. Notification to Applicant. The City Clerk shall notify the applicant in
writing within five days of the City Council's decision.
G. Removal Bond and Right -of Entry. As a condition of approval of any telecom
permit, the City may require a bond or other financial security and /or a right of
entry to the telecom facility site in order to provide for possible future removal
of the telecom facility under the provisions of Sections 15.70.090 or 15.70.100
of this Chapter.
15.70.080 Radiation Report
Within 30 days after installation of a telecom facility, a radio frequency (RF)
radiation report prepared by a qualified RF engineer acceptable to the City shall
. be submitted in order to demonstrate that the facility complies with FCC
14
I7
standards. If the report shows that the facility does not so comply, the reviewing •
director shall require that use of the facility be suspended until a new report has
been submitted confirming such compliance.
15.70.090 Right to Review or Revoke Permit
A. Changed Circumstance. Any telecom permit approved pursuant to this
Chapter shall be granted by the City with the reservation of the right and
jurisdiction to review and modify the permit (including the conditions of
approval) based on changed circumstances. Changed circumstances include,
but are not limited to, the following in relation to the telecom facility and its
specifications in the approved application and /or conditions of approval:
1. Increased height or size of the facility;
2. Additional impairment of the views from surrounding properties;
3. Change in the type of antenna or supporting structure;
4. Change in color or materials;
5. Substantial change in location on the site;
6. An effective increase in signal output above or near the maximum
permissible exposure (MPE) limits imposed by the radio frequency
emissions guidelines of the FCC.
Upon review, any changed circumstance shall require the application and •
approval of a modification to the original telecom permit.
B. Additional Right to Revoke or Modify Permit. The reservation of right to review
any telecom permit granted by the City is in addition to, and not in lieu of, the
right of the City to review and revoke or modify any permit granted or
approved hereunder for any violations of the conditions imposed on such
permit. After due notice to the telecom operator, the City Council may revoke
any telecom permit upon finding that the facility or the operator has violated
any law regulating the telecom facility or has failed to comply with the
requirements of this Chapter, the telecom permit, any applicable license
agreement, or any condition of approval. Upon such revocation, the City
Council may require removal of the facility.
15.70.100 Removal of Telecom Facilities
A. Discontinued Use. Any operator who intends to abandon or discontinue use
of a telecom facility must notify the Planning Director by certified mail no less
than 30 days prior to such action. The operator or owner of the affected real
property shall have 90 days from the date of abandonment or discontinuance,
or a reasonable time as may be approved by the Planning Director, within
which to complete one of the following actions:
15
•
L
• 1. Reactivate use of the telecom facility;
2. Transfer the rights to use the telecom facility to another operator;
3. Remove the telecom facility and restore the site.
B. Abandonment. Any telecom facility that is not operated for a continuous
period of 180 days shall be deemed abandoned. Upon a finding of
abandonment, the City shall provide notice to the telecom carrier last known
to use such facility and, if applicable, the owner of the affected real property,
providing thirty days from the date of the notice within which to complete one
of the following actions:
Reactivate use of the telecom facility;
2. Transfer the rights to use the telecom facility to another operator;
3. Remove the telecom facility and restore the site.
C. Removal by City.
1. The City may remove the abandoned facility, repair any and all damage
to the premises caused by such removal, and otherwise restore the
• premises as is appropriate to be in compliance with applicable'codes at
any time after 30 days following the notice of abandonment.
•
2. If the City removes the telecom facility, the City may, but shall not be
required to, store the removed facility or any part thereof. The owner of
the premises upon which the abandoned facility was located and all prior
operators of the facility shall be jointly liable for the entire cost of such
removal, repair, restoration and storage, and shall remit payment to the
City promptly after demand therefore is made. In addition, the City
Council, at its option, may utilize any financial security required pursuant
to Section 15.70.070(G) in conjunction with granting the telecom permit
as reimbursement for such costs. Also, in lieu of storing the removed
facility, the City may convert it to the City's use, sell it, or dispose of it in
any manner deemed by the City to be appropriate.
D. City Lien on Property. Until the cost of removal, repair, restoration and
storage is paid in full, a lien shall be placed on the abandoned personal
property and any real property on which the facility was located for the full
amount of the cost of removal, repair, restoration and storage. The City Clerk
shall cause the lien to be recorded with the Orange County Recorder.
16
M
SECTION 2: That if any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance •
is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the
validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council
hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection,
clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one to more sections, sub-
sections, sentences, clauses and phrases be declared unconstitutional.
SECTION 3: The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this
Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official
newspaper within fifteen (15) days after its adoption.
This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Newport Beach held on the 10th day of September, 2002, and adopted on the 24"' day of
September, 2002, by the following vote, to -wit:
AYES, COUNCILMEMB
NOES,COUNCILMEMBERS
ABSENT, COUNCILMEMBERS
1F.TL97-:1
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
F: \users \cat \sha red \da \Ordinance \Telecom \081402.doc
17
•
•
a
• Council Policy L -23 (DRAFT)
THE SITING OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT
ON CITY -OWNED LAND
PURPOSE: To describe the manner in which specific city-owned or city Trust
properties may be used as locations for telecommunications devices that
transmit voice or data.
POLICY: It is the policy of the City that it shall effectively balance the needs of its
residents, visitors, and businesses to use and have access to state- of -the-
art wireless telecommunication systems (such as wireless Internet, voice,
and other data communications) with the needs of residents to safely
and effectively enjoy their property. Therefore, the City shall follow this
Policy when considering applications to install wireless communications
devices on City-owned or City-held property by any
telecommunications provider or siting company.
A -- PERMIT REQUIRED
• 1. All telecom facilities proposed to be located on City-owned or City-held trust
property must first apply for and receive a permit under the provisions of
Chapter 15.70.
2. All proposals affecting City -owned or City-held trust property shall be processed
via this Policy through the Planning Department. Successful projects shall
receive a "Telecom Permit."
3. All proposals affecting facilities located within City right -of -way shall be
processed via Chapter 13.20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code through the
Public Works Department. Upon approval, proposals shall receive an
"Encroachment Permit (Telecom)."
B — LICENSING AGREEMENT REQUIRED
All telecom facilities located on City-owned property or City-held Trust property must
have a Licensing Agreement approved as to form by the City Attorney and approved as
to substance (including, but not limited to, compensation, term, insurance
requirements, and hold harmless provisions) by the City Manager.
•
) I
DRAFT Policy L-23
Page 2
C -- CITY SITES ELIGIBLE OR INELIGIBLE FOR FACILITY PLACEMENT •
1. Sites Eligible for Use. The City Council has determined that the following City
locations are acceptable for placement of wireless devices:
a. Fire Stations
b. Newport Beach City Hall
c. Police Headquarters
d. Lifeguard Headquarters
e. Piers
f. The OASIS Senior Center
g. Medians and parkways along public streets
h. City-owned and Trust -held Properties
i. The Central Library and Branch Libraries
j. The Utilities and General Services Corporate Yards
k. Big Canyon Reservoir and surrounding grounds
1. Qualifying City-held easements
m. Streetlights (following certification and acceptance by the Utilities
Department of an effective test of the facility's impacts to the light
standard under various environmental conditions). •
n. Traffic Signal poles (following certification and acceptance by the Public
Works Department of an effective test of the facility's impacts to the traffic
signal pole under various environmental conditions).
2. Sites Ineligible for Use. The City Council has determined that the following City
locations are unacceptable for placement of wireless devices in accordance with
the entirety of this Policy:
a. Open space areas owned by the City where placement of facilities in these
areas would aesthetically impair the pristine nature of the area.
D -- COMPENSATION AND TERM
The City Manager shall follow these rules when arriving at a compensation level for
any wireless device on City property:
1. Compensation shall be equal to fair market value, taking into account rent charged
by owners of public or private properties within Newport Beach or neighboring
cities for a similar type of facility and location. Such compensation shall be •
determined via a Rent Survey conducted by the City Manager's Office.
as
DRAFT Policy L-23
Page 3
• 2. The Licensing Agreement shall provide for a specific term to be determined by the
City Manager. Where the term exceeds five (5) years, at the fifth year and every five
years thereafter, rent shall be adjusted to fair market value using the Rent Survey
( "Market -Based Adjustment ").
3. The Licensing Agreement shall provide for the following rent adjustments:
A. Rent shall be adjusted annually by the Consumer Price Index for All Urban
Consumers, Anaheim - Riverside -Los Angeles or a similar index; and
B. At the end of five (5) years of the Agreement term and every five years
thereafter, the Market -Based Adjustment described above.
E — EFFECTIVE DATE AND COUNCIL NON - CONSENT
1. The City Manager shall notify (via memorandum or similar correspondence) the
City Council as to a pending License Agreement for telecommunications facilities on
public land. The Licensing Agreement shall take effect thirty (30) days after the City
Manager's notification of the City Council unless called up by a City Council
member within the 30 -day period per this section.
• 2. A City Council member reserves the right to, at any time and for any purpose, not
consent to the City Manager's issuance of a Licensing Agreement under this Policy
by notifying the City Manager within 30 days of Council notification of the Council
member's intent to bring the Agreement before Council for formal consideration.
Should the City Council not consent to the issuance of an Agreement, the Agreement
and shall not be executed.
F -- PROPOSALS FOR EQUIPMENT IN THE CITY RIGHT -OF -WAY
This policy shall not apply to Encroachment Permits (Telecom) for the use of right -of-
way. Chapter 13.20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code shall govern consideration
of Encroachment Permits (Telecom).
Proposed for Adoption -- September 10, 2002
is
a,
Newport Beach City Council
Study Session
Tuesday, August 27, 2002
Why a Telecom Ordinance?
• Governs the size, scope, and placement of wireless telecom
(antenna & support facilities) throughout town to protect:
• Amthetics
• Public Safely
, Omallimpactsofmultipleprovidersinmultipleplaces.
• We cannot "just say no" — the FCC and the 1996 Telecom
Act allow telecom providers to site facilities & serve the
public.
• With the Ordinance, we want to:
Encourage locoing antenna in non-residential places
. eMOWdgI'co- IMali001LL5e a %irtin$sitW)
. EMoumge placement where view and public imparts arc minimized.
Last Time We Met...
• Joint Meeting (Telecom Committee and City
Council) on April 23, 2002
• Staff developed a Wireless Telecom
Ordinance and a Council Policy (L -23)
regarding the siting of facilities on City -
owned property.
b
1
�� of
1
' Proposed Telecom Ordinance
• Establishes a Location Priority & requires co-
location where feasible — priority is (cont'd):
. New false "a
, Ncwslisaiimsnonopole
New renopole w /wean. snecM1mrnb
I New lattice sower
(Requires Council review ofE -H and near or within
residential areas)
• Prohibits telecom facilities on residential lots or
OSP -zoned parcels
Why a Policy for City Land?
• Because we have several offers. We have City-
owned properties throughout our community,
making us an attractive lessor.
• If we don't use our properties, the store next door
will, and the City would forgo that rent revenue.
• City would have additional control over aesthetics
& public safety when we use our facilities.
Proposed Telecom Ordinance
• Must use best available, smallest technology
• Max height = 35' or Zoning Code (some
exceptions)
• Establishes a Location Priority & requires co-
location where feasible — priority is:
Existing cc- location structure
a Existing pole
Commercial Sign
a New or existing stealth structure
Proposed Telecom Ordinance
• Sets design standards
• Sets forth a permit process & requires certain
submission documents (Planning Dept)
• Allows for PD review and possible denial
• City can require a removal bond.
2
Proposed Policy L -23
• All projects on City -owned land need a Permit per
the Telecom Ordinance.
• Once permit authorized, City Manager's office
prepares a lease with a region -based rent.
• 5 -year term (or more) w /annual CPI and a market -based
u hustment at end of each 5 -year term.
• Cowell can "call -up" lease, since lease won't go into
effect for 30 days.
• Separate right -of -way ordinance governs the use of
City right -of -way.
What's Next....
• Consider comments from:
. Council &staff today
. Wireless Telecom industry
• Adopt Policy L -23 on September 10th
• Return Telecom Ordinance for 1st Reading on 9 -24,
2nd Reading on October 8th — effective Nov 81h,
2002
• Bring to Council a Right -of -Way Ordinance on 10-
_ 8 for IRt Reading, 10 -22 for 2nd Reading — effective
November 22, 2002.
tuuu .m..
smu.nron.vnn
aATT Wireless
Proposed Policy L -23
....,�..,..,...�m�r.,........ fir.
• Eligible Sites
• Fire Sw,..s
• City Hall
• FD W*utncrs
• Lifeguard Headquarters
• Piers
• OASIS
• Medians aad Parkways Wong
public rtree0
• Libraries
• Eligible Sites:
• Cohponeu Yards
• BCR and surounding
grounds
• Certain ea¢CrM•n15
Sneetlights
. TmfFhc Sigrwls
Ineligible Sites:
. Open space areas owned by
the City
What about Safety and RF?
• According to the FCCrs Office of Engineering and
Technology (ww .ke.gov/oet/rfsafe
grkal:eumor wahas immhwu...... n..rv.m.,.wr
emRVd.o-vI rnwrvrdmlurv.ury Umnna,tl.m u„�, h„.w•u.emmW,. rr.,,;.
Ingwm... In nNrr rr: M1. +rraJ rn Mnl. rl m m,n ae r<'C IiMd Inr.rUUlar nr %i
ea.mmJ;nJwl.rnWJ renWllY a +w W n'mJn M ax ma;n neisnJUhn•
a aluw Mipj. of arunMnahwtl MNineh.a'lm
s:.:r 1d are,e 1n rlru rrvdvn
env Unememhr.du..amn +I WM1I4.mIJMrv,hr..l e, sl:
rti«awW,.;m,ee „
• What about towers located near homes or schools?
rMvrui d'umm +4x; ua�nun:h lrUm�u Thhrwlbd.w —,1pd nna aulurcgruulp
v Namw w.....myxaM U.%r
6aadm Jm naemmrvndaamv Wm�+ oryyn-rvn.wd,nJUrvrvd6r eR:Trn..d M
Yrvtl.'nl Gnrn,mnl mpwntek lm MvlJr vnd ufrvhy.11n'mfim'. Uun n re m:mn w
a..ervn..
•.2 _`
s
aW .
rF 1
i
Proposed Policy L -23
• All projects on City -owned land need a Permit per
the Telecom Ordinance.
• Once permit authorized, City Manager's office
prepares a lease with a region -based rent.
• 5 -year term (or more) w /annual CPI and a market -based
u hustment at end of each 5 -year term.
• Cowell can "call -up" lease, since lease won't go into
effect for 30 days.
• Separate right -of -way ordinance governs the use of
City right -of -way.
What's Next....
• Consider comments from:
. Council &staff today
. Wireless Telecom industry
• Adopt Policy L -23 on September 10th
• Return Telecom Ordinance for 1st Reading on 9 -24,
2nd Reading on October 8th — effective Nov 81h,
2002
• Bring to Council a Right -of -Way Ordinance on 10-
_ 8 for IRt Reading, 10 -22 for 2nd Reading — effective
November 22, 2002.
tuuu .m..
smu.nron.vnn
aATT Wireless
Proposed Policy L -23
....,�..,..,...�m�r.,........ fir.
• Eligible Sites
• Fire Sw,..s
• City Hall
• FD W*utncrs
• Lifeguard Headquarters
• Piers
• OASIS
• Medians aad Parkways Wong
public rtree0
• Libraries
• Eligible Sites:
• Cohponeu Yards
• BCR and surounding
grounds
• Certain ea¢CrM•n15
Sneetlights
. TmfFhc Sigrwls
Ineligible Sites:
. Open space areas owned by
the City
What about Safety and RF?
• According to the FCCrs Office of Engineering and
Technology (ww .ke.gov/oet/rfsafe
grkal:eumor wahas immhwu...... n..rv.m.,.wr
emRVd.o-vI rnwrvrdmlurv.ury Umnna,tl.m u„�, h„.w•u.emmW,. rr.,,;.
Ingwm... In nNrr rr: M1. +rraJ rn Mnl. rl m m,n ae r<'C IiMd Inr.rUUlar nr %i
ea.mmJ;nJwl.rnWJ renWllY a +w W n'mJn M ax ma;n neisnJUhn•
a aluw Mipj. of arunMnahwtl MNineh.a'lm
s:.:r 1d are,e 1n rlru rrvdvn
env Unememhr.du..amn +I WM1I4.mIJMrv,hr..l e, sl:
rti«awW,.;m,ee „
• What about towers located near homes or schools?
rMvrui d'umm +4x; ua�nun:h lrUm�u Thhrwlbd.w —,1pd nna aulurcgruulp
v Namw w.....myxaM U.%r
6aadm Jm naemmrvndaamv Wm�+ oryyn-rvn.wd,nJUrvrvd6r eR:Trn..d M
Yrvtl.'nl Gnrn,mnl mpwntek lm MvlJr vnd ufrvhy.11n'mfim'. Uun n re m:mn w
a..ervn..
0
ITEM SS3
TO: Members of the Newport Beach City Council COUNCIL AGENDA
FROM: Dave Kiff, Assistant City Manager Pj0 S.) 0-1-
SUBJECT: Joint Meeting of the City Council and the Telecommunications Al Hoc
Committee: Siting Wireless Telecommunications Equipment on Public
and Private Property
RECOMMENDED Discuss & offer direction to staff and to the Telecommunications Ad Hoc
ACTION: Committee regarding a new Council Policy and /or changes to the Municipal
Code relating to the siting of wireless telecommunications equipment on City -
owned property, rights -of -way, and private property.
BACKGROUND: In November 2000, the City Council formed the Telecommunications Ad Hoc
Committee and directed it to address the following issues:
1- UPDATING THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO CABLE
• TELEVISION. The City's municipal code chapter that relates to cable
television requires significant amendments before the City can enter into
any effective franchise agreements with Adelphia and Cox.
2 — UPDATING THE MUNICIPAL CODE AND ENACTING A COUNCIL
POLICY REGARDING TELECOMMUNICATIONS . The City should adopt
a new section to the municipal code relating to telecommunication so that
we can effectively address:
• Where to site new wireless antennas;
• Whether and where to use City -owned property or rights -of -way for
antennas;
• What design and structural standards the City should apply to antennas,
whether placed on rights -of -way or public or private property;
• What fee should be levied for the use of the public property for antennas;
• How to effectively ensure that the City's emergency radio network is not
adversely impacted by siting activity.
3 - FRANCHISE RENEWAL NEGOTIATIONS. The City's two major cable
television franchise agreements with Cox Communications and Adelphia
will expire on January 27, 2003. The Committee has been actively working
on a Community Needs Assessment in anticipation of renewal.
Page 2
The Telecom Committee, which includes Council members John Heffernan
(Chair) and Gary Adams and community members Leslie Daigle and Don
Boortz, have met since early 2001 working on these tasks.
At the Committee's March 19, 2002 meeting, it discussed draft guidelines for
Wireless Communications Siting. It directed staff to take the draft guidelines
to the City Council in a joint City - Committee Study Session. The draft
guidelines are attached as a matrix that compares standards in other cities.
Should the City Council and the Committee wish to move forward with these
guidelines, we have prepared a draft Council Policy (F -24) that reflects the
guidelines. This Policy could be adopted at the Council's next public meeting
(May 14, 2002). Revisions to the Code that reflect this Policy could follow the
Council's adoption of the Policy.
ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A - Comparison Matrix
Attachment B - Draft Council Policy F -24
0
rf
m
n
•
Attachment A
3
uu
EOw. >>O
cU
my °g g w V
N
@o
gymvw�"
Jcngm
;°!yw Nom, g
A c a
r°a
°0It0
X@ c° n$ W>
__ m o
m S _» 9
o r c a$ E 0 0 0
9r
c
W
W W
y C
Lmy
M W 7
`o
$ C W
j:
OM fi a? W c Z
N
U`
w
co
Ca 0
a 0 m � m N n
w W
M O)C
a W E C
W N Q W
$ 0-
m a O g
L C 31 { I RW J N O al
J u y 0�19> 0$ W« G
mco
>w
a
�w tN mlWOm
t��..
m «- -J�o
Eai- ��waa?3 o°+m
-g we W OCL
W m
c o g
Z E E......
NEB«
amt
Zt w��w
WN JVW
O c
W
C � m -
V' C
w
w
C
g
C O C
E a
goo
'E 7i .Lc =�a
c�
m m
c
aow uWi� �'
v5
m 9 W,Ti
C
oc $
mmm3�w EW
J
a.Y!
E -
89 -w
O. w � O
a
m� m c
mom
g t n o m
cnEt nc.QV
E.o�
m
�w� v8
c C A
0 m M yj O
0 J$ .SmZ m L a m .-
0
t0 N
p
H 6 J U
C
W
N m C a G
C 0$ w
m
�lL
YW�jW wtw
b
CO�COIwan
$Cm
$r'OE�'C
w O Q O V
-
0 W w C O>
m$ w m o o
W$ a
$;
3 C o n n J
'EM ° c W E
w
0
c = p- E
°M
-0mc
a m'n$
LL: U (0
�J SO
Z`N OUItZtW
M
8
1,
WNV
t-5
_:VU .9
co
m
`o wg o
W_
mEc
Wm�
�m�
@._
W
:02W
�'=p
as
4�
00
�C
n�
c`c
o �_
=c
Oaf
A
Ea
o _s2
an
C
1'u�9c
Co c ,Lc °m
��$E
S
Ec
w: -0,cm° E
O �o� oc �
t
1.1
cc M:g -M
W W 3
c8-B
5«acm0
O
J_4
c
N
wm
mm Waac E$
C L C C'W NMI
t0
m
a W.
mm'v m3
-mica 3c
E$ m V$�
E'^J Cm-
JgomO
q
2
Em a
m$O
v L
°Nr oc O- o
MN
�$
fd
-Bm EWA 3 o3L
�Q
mm_CU m
Q
$cA
=wgcE
W R W. vp c E CO)
0
crnc 3pJ W m
ncRO a.9
$3s
�cm.i'- W oo mo�Fjj3
3
m
> +�w6?La
55�' -2r�x
«www
m - °E +mg
W `o W._
W
x
ffi °v
a«s>
$E.2EJ0 —2D
�$gc�m�pyo( -0 E
Hg'C3
Z
0wm
=q 0E
c9ffi a
ZO
tan
0 mA._'m 8
0.
�E'v$WENv
N ri
owm =no
Z OQU
o'mn
Z=w
agaFV Ca CL
N
N
O
A
wv A�o
c�
q
3 mom, 8AQ
t
WC pmn
am
3g
c IVO y�b�v
U
CO
m
E
O 0
CC m m 3
c
ON
MM e 3
m c
m W �w5 w 3 m c m
J
0'c c""
go
WE
ZS
�x�c �.- w
Sm W
tic
�m�EE'oz bim "�
EW
m
gE�mo.:
010$
w
E
ffiE�Jt�a�ivE
!
.12 O E
0
cE
ocri+i3
wg
� N
ac m
tv w
�gN v
w
Q
E
m
E
;
E
op
a
N
°
3
v
w
IL
1p
V 00
4
o m
d E
� m '2
�$mC€�
y C g C
l0
J p= C
d y L c O G
c
��m4
a�3Uy >mm
V
p p o
W p O
W
g
m9mv
c
E'$
E
E =$gacg
$ m $
0 8
o
c %S^
m
0
o
c�'a0 EhCp
Z
= v 3?
Z
Z
Z
O mm b N l-11 U
a
mmm
a �yaQm
$ v
n Yam 3
m
"m
MEc a
mEcm
vmacwgmwm?.
=$ w
t3
om
40
n�y
�cm m7�ffi
-mrn
°E
o L> i Em-
E
$a
- n v
a@
c
IL
w -mc$S
�
J:
c2 mS��mc5
m
cmc���?v
tm4� g.
5m a
g'
mts
O
p w
°OC
m0a m
m m R
o n
^O
c
S.q$
0mo
0 3c�a
$�`o
Ec E
mc
gm;
cE
$
_ Lm5E
E
ai
m
go
Kw5 E w
a uo$
= m
c E:
V
O
ti
C
m
yam°
Z
.E8m2
="'�°
mm
`Xm"T° —m°$ 9
tdx
am
O�
— >'$
$ °c
c
11 •.g�ffi
n a
mm om`
'L'dSry
W�O
W m
. • > ffi
c
�WB° 0
V
J p
mm aaSqq $
a
ma
E f m PAR
2n°m
0 m
0 Eaa
a
m �
�y
2
m
>�E�w
mn
?�
c°s vO- m
a t oLq O
m�ni�v Wac
t?
.%Po
m
�
8 m
o t
m
g CMOs
3
W
3 M
? %E
O -
°°°
I
5
cy
cc
6
Z
K
EeN
H-s>b
m
L
;
O
9 em
$p- c
$
E
N
E
D W
`o n
Z
9 2
$ C
° C m
m m>
ma
�`
E�m38
v
B. n
-6,m
_
C
$ t m
m
p m
J
° 5 m
c�
c ° mc
-Ev
w,_ E
t
yU t
o w
o 0 b
m
mypp O
m
a LD L
m
LL
$
Z
Cm
3 a
y m
C 5
m
Z
U c m
¢
C —0
IL
K
3
z
LL
0 0
0
Oc
F
v
s
v
h
ci
'ig
a °°
Ny
SN
arc
mic �F
Spy
m0
mf=
e
1p
V 00
4
DRAFT F -24
Attachment B
• DRAFT
THE SITING OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT
ON PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LAND
PURPOSE: To describe the manner in which specific city-owned or city Trust
properties may be used as locations for telecommunications devices that transmit voice
or data and to describe the standards by which the City shall, under applicable zoning
laws and the Telecommunications Act of 1996, permit private property owners to place
these devices on private property.
POLICY: It is the policy of the City that it shall effectively balance the needs of its
population to have access to state -of- the - science wireless telecommunication systems
(such as wireless Internet, voice, and other data communications) with the needs of
residents and City government to safely and effectively enjoy their property. Therefore,
the City shall follow this Policy when considering applications to install wireless
communications devices by any telecommunications provider or siting company:
I — WIRELESS DEVICES ON CITY -OWNED PROPERTY OR RIGHT -OF -WAY
A — PERMIT REQUIRED
1. All communications facilities except exempt facilities must receive a permit
issued by the department director, provided that the facilities meet the
regulations in this Policy. The City Council shall serve as the appellate body to
review the department director's decision as to whether to approve or deny a
Permit.
2. All proposals affecting City-owned property and buildings shall be processed via
this Policy through the Planning Department. Successful projects shall receive a
"Telecom Permit."
3. All proposals affecting City right -of -way shall be processed via this Policy
through the Public Works Department. Upon approval, proposals shall receive
an "Encroachment Permit (Telecom)."
B — SUBMITTAL AND CONSIDERATION PROCESS
Applicants shall follow the following process when proposing to place a wireless
facility on property owned by the City, on City right -of -way, or as a part of the City's
trust properties:
DRAFT F -24
Attachment B
Proponent submits site plan and specifications to department. Department
reviews /ensures compliance with this Policy's design standards and other
requirements.
2. Department contacts the Police Chief, Fire Chief (or their designees), and the
Orange County Sheriff's Department's communications coordinator to determine
if the placement of the device will interfere with existing emergency
communications devices. If the proposal interferes with emergency
communications devices, the applicant shall either modify or withdraw the
proposal.
3. If and when Fire and Police approve a proposal, the department shall forward
the proposal to the City Manager's Office in the form of a tentative Permit.
4. The City Manager shall prepare and complete a standard Licensing Agreement,
including the rent amount and shall seek ratification of the Manager's execution
of the Agreement and the Final Permit at a regularly scheduled Council meeting.
C — DEPARTMENT REVIEW /FACILITY STANDARDS
The department director (or designee) shall review and issue tentative Telecom Permits
to place wireless facilities on City property in accordance with Chapter of the
Municipal Code. 0
r 1. Height. No devices shall be vlaced higher than the maximum building height
allowed in the zoning district.
2. Permitted Locations. Facilities may be placed in any zone, right -of -way, or
easement, except the ORen SRace Passive (OSP) Zone, however:
a. Placement of transmitting antennas are strongly discouraged in residential
neighborhoods or adjacent to schools. Any _proposal to place a transmitting
antenna in residential neighborhoods or adjacent to schools shall be subject to
of service
b. Placement shall follow this vriority order whenever vracticable:
1. Wall, roof, or co-location structure;
2. Existing Role or light standard (commercial
3. Commercial signor architectural feature;
4. New false tree or other similar structure (discouraged); or
5. New monopole (strongly discouraged).
2
•
DRAFT F -24
Attachment B
3. Co- location. Co- location of devices is required wherever technically feasible.
However, no more than three commercial providers may exist on any co- location
facility unless shown to be aesthetically feasible.
4. Design Standards. The department director shall adhere to these design
standards in the issuance of any Telecom Permit:
a. Free - Standing Facilities. Facilities should be visually compatible with
surrounding buildings and vegetation.
b. Roof- Mounted Facilities. Roof - mounted antenna facilities (except whip
antennas) shall be completed screened from public view, consistent with the
building's architectural style, color and materials, including, if necessau,
screening to avoid adverse impacts to views from higher elevations.
c. Wall- Mounted Facilities. Antennas should be painted to match wall color.
Cables and mounting brackets should not be visible.
d. "Stealth" Installations. Installations inside a structure or below the upper
limits of a roof parapet are exempt from discretionary review.
5. Radiation
radio
proposed facility, as well as any co- located facilities, complies with current
Federal RF emission standards. The City may require the Permit holder to
conduct yearly RF report updates.
D — RENT
The City Manager shall follow these rules when arriving at a rent for any wireless
device on City property:
1. Rent shall be equal to fair market value, taking into account rent charged by
other similar Southern California communities and location. Such rent shall be
determined via a semi - annual review ( "Rent Survey ") conducted by the City
Manager's Office.
2. Agreement shall provide that rent shall be adjusted every three years to an
amount equal to the highest rent paid to any city on the Rent Survey.
E — CITY SITES ELIGIBLE OR INELIGIBLE FOR FACILITY PLACEMENT
3
DRAFT F -24
Attachment B
1. Sites Eligible for Use. The City Council has determined that the following City
locations are acceptable for placement of wireless devices in accordance with the
entirety of this Policy: ID
a. Fire Stations
b. Newport Beach City Hall
c. Police Headquarters
d. Lifeguard headquarters
e. City-owned and Trust -held Properties
f. The Central and Branch Libraries
g. The Utilities and General Services Corporate Yards
h. Big Canyon Reservoir
i. City rights -of -way and City-held easements
j. Streetlights (following certification and acceptance by the Utilities
Department of an effective test of the facility's impacts to the light
standard under various environmental conditions).
2. Sites Ineligible for Use. The City Council has determined that the following City
locations are unacceptable for placement of wireless devices in accordance with
the entirety of this Policy:
:E
F — COUNCIL NON - CONSENT.
The City Council reserves the right to, at any time and for any purpose, not consent to
the City Manager's issuance of a Licensing Agreement and Final Telecom Permit under
this policy. Should the City Council not consent to the issuance of an Agreement and
Permit, such Agreement and Permit shall not be executed. This Section shall not apply
to Encroachment Permits (Telecom) for the use of right -of -way.
II — WIRELESS DEVICES ON PRIVATE PROPERTY
The City recognizes that private property owners may, under certain circumstations,
have the right, pursuant to Chapter _ of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and this
Policy, to use their private property to install wireless facilities and to generate income
from these devices. However, to protect public safety and the City's emergency
communications system, each of the provisions of this Policy which relate to devices on
public property shall, when in accordance with local, state, and federal law, apply to the
placement of wireless devices on private property and therefore require a Telecom
Permit, with the following exceptions:
1. The Planning Director may issue a final Telecom Permit for a wireless device,
subject to Chapter _ of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Section C of this
4
DRAFT F -24
Attachment B
Policy, and subject to Planning Commission and City Council appeal if
applicable, without review (or the development of a License Agreement) or
approval of the City Manager;
2. The Planning Director may determine that additional notice is appropriate and
direct that notice of a pending Telecom Permit be provided by the applicant to all
property owners within 300' of any proposed installation;
3. The City recognizes that the placement of wireless facilities on properties
administered by the California Division of the State Architect do not require a
Telecom Permit but shall require a review by the telecommunications personnel
of the Police and Fire Department.
III — EXEMPT FACILITIES
These facilities are exempt from this Policy:
1. Receiving satellite antenna less than two meters in diameter in nonresidential
districts with building permit.
2. Receiving satellite dishes less than _ inches in diameter in residential areas, as
exempted by the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
• 3. Private installations where all facilities are inside a structure or below the upper
limits of a roof parapet with a building permit.
Adopted - May 14, 2002
•
9
LosAnge %s Times
Thursday, Apr# IB, 2002
GOING MOBILE
Poised to Work, Play 8t
Shop Any Time,
Anywhere
.Technology: Telecom firms race to install next -
generation wireless networks that will enable 'the
next big thing' to flourish.
By KAREN KAPLAN, TIMES STAFF WRITER
After several years of false starts, the grand hopes for
mobile commerce in 2002 rest in no small part on the
slender shoulders of Adirem Quintel.
The 25- year -old field technician for Nortel Networks
Corp. is part of an army of thousands of workers who are
. quietly yet methodically visiting cellular towers across the
nation and upgrading them for a new generation of faster
wireless networks.
Quintel typically visits two or three of them a night, each
time installing a sophisticated piece of digital switching
equipment for Verizon Wireless Inc. that allows cell
phones, two -way pagers and hand -held computers to
transmit data as fast as desktop PCs with dial -up
connections to the Internet. Wireless carriers expect to
have their next - generation wireless networks turned on in
the country's major metropolitan areas by year -end.
Verizon has launched its Express Network in Salt Lake
City, the San Francisco Bay Area and the Northeast
corridor connecting Boston, New York and Washington.
Sprint PCS Group Inc. plans to switch on its entire
nationwide high -speed network this summer. Cingular
Wireless, AT &T Wireless Services Inc. and others are
going forward with new networks as well.
April 23, 2002
Study Session Item No. SS3
Graphics
Mobile Internet use In
the U.S. is growing...
CAI [:Fo-es and hantklou
[r °3JI9ri ala be'CORieg key
deuces to 01Cass the Intamel.
Imrnrl acon e, ac �5,
n nalm>
� Mo01b Imerr>et wun
iulal Ntemer user
M I,.0 95.4
2001.' g,9 119.0
2002 1ra.5 13s.0
2003 ■47.0 16LB
2ooe MG&5 165.s
Swrcr ECRtne:cr
...and worldwide mobile
commerce Is boorrdng...
Ecrrp;±ald..Wa hme Wert
Ieou % •.hh_ tia1 Ir SoUrig
p•G_iu 9u a.gp n1cL1?+tlr,•ces.
t \L: >h1,LC I +reCile [emnrcrtt.
in Ud1i005
0
n+ 02 oa w .m u
5oaae: Cannon nSlzt'M1DR
...but U.S. sales are
expected to lag far behind.
A sra sart Ir, the U.S. will main
sma'J „obie commerce sales
in the near future
V55118*a vnatC MmMia tammmce
15 2005
U.S. mcbp,
comme,u-•: 2.2%
wdrV3Mde rrwbik �..
ctanmerce� 97.9%
All of them are betting that the new technology finally
will entice Americans to use their cell phones, hand -held 50.1u: Cahxr> In SWMEIR
computers and other mobile devices to shop and conduct :nnawMSUmnc
business - -a trend that is supplanting the letter "err in the
technology vernacular with the letter "m."
Los Angeles Times
Thursday, April 18, 2002
"The potential for m- commerce is directly related to the roll -out of these networks," said
Ben Macklin, a senior analyst at EMarketer Inc., a market research firm based in New
York. "It provides consumers with a much more compelling type of offering."
Already a hit in parts of Asia and Europe, mobile computing has long been anticipated as
the next big thing for the Internet.
For corporate America, so- called m- business promises to help companies streamline their
operations and increase efficiency by allowing workers to conduct business without being
tethered to the office. It will allow real estate agents to access listings from the road and
enable insurance adjusters to process claims without returning to the office.
For consumers, in-commerce offers the tantalizing prospect of shopping for books,
baseball tickets or other items on portable gadgets while commuting on the subway or
standing in line at the post office. They will be able to exchange electronic greeting cards
on their cell phones, place bets on racehorses using two -way pagers and download video
games to their personal digital assistants.
Forecasters at New York market research firm Jupiter Media Metrix predict that by 2005,
$22.2 billion worth of goods and services will be purchased on mobile devices
worldwide. Businesses and consumers in Asia are on track to spend $2.6 billion on in-
commerce this year, and their counterparts in Europe are expected to ring up $500
million in sales by Dec. 31.
In contrast, otherwise indulgent North Americans are projected to spend a paltry $100
million using their mobile devices in 2002. But analysts expect those spending habits to
change once the faster wireless networks come online.
The new networks -- generally called "3G" because they represent the third generation of
wireless technology- -will enable new forms of m- services, m- entertainment and, of
course, m- advertising that are far more appealing than the offerings available in the U.S.
today.
Stock trades from wireless PDAs are slow, and Web sites redesigned for tiny cell phone
screens are cumbersome to navigate with only about a dozen keys on the number pad. As
a result, less than 2% of Americans whose phones are equipped with Web browsers use
them for mobile commerce, said Dylan Brooks, Jupiter's senior wireless analyst.
"That points to the lack of a compelling experience," he said. "A fairly large number of
people have used their phones to do something, but the actual user experience isn't such
that it really ropes people in."
Whether that will change depends on a variety of factors, including the development of
new - fangled devices with bigger screens, improvements in voice recognition technology
that will eliminate the need to type on miniature keypads, and the emergence of new
2
LosAnge %s Times
Thursday, Apr# 18, 2002
applications that will entice users to open their wallets.
But after several false starts, analysts now believe the most critical factor for the U.S. is
the roll -out of 3G networks.
"I liken it to the automobile: You had to have roads before you could have a car," said
Ken Hyers, senior analyst in the mobile carrier services group at Cahners In- Stat/MDR, a
Newton, Mass., consulting firm.
And that's where Quintel comes in. For the last three months, she has been spending her
nights cruising around Southern California in her black sport utility vehicle visiting
Verizon cell sites. The essential piece of equipment that brings them onto the company's
3G network is a channel element module, a metal box about the size of a coffee table
book that converts calls from the digital wireless network into signals that can be carried
on the traditional phone network and vice versa.
Each box can handle at least twice as many voice calls as the one it replaces, or it can
boost voice capacity while ferrying data at speeds of 40 to 60 kilobits per second, about
three to four times as fast as current wireless technology allows.
Quintel can swap the equipment in less than 20 minutes and can usually do two or three
upgrades a night. And Verizon has well over 1,000 sites to upgrade just in Southern
California before it can turn on its network here next month.
All the major wireless carriers are upgrading their networks to accommodate high -speed
data transmissions. Though they employ different technologies, the networks all handle
more calls by taking advantage of faster processors inside phones and cell sites. They
also use compression technology and more efficient coding algorithms to squeeze more
calls onto their networks at once.
As the networks come on line, analysts say business users will be the first to benefit from
the increased speed. The flood of data will be most useful for people using wireless
networking cards to connect to corporate networks and the Internet on their laptops and
PDAs.
Businesses also are more willing to pay the higher prices that carriers will charge for 3G
services, said Cahners analyst Hyers.
Consumers will follow in the next 12 to 18 months, although they may never embrace m-
commerce as enthusiastically as their counterparts in Asia and Europe, analysts said.
People there spend more time commuting on trains, where their hands are free to play
with wireless gadgets, but Americans pass their commutes behind the wheel.
Americans also are spoiled by the fast Internet connections they can get with desktop
PCs, which display the Web on large, full -color screens.
LosAnge %s Times
ihursday, Apn/ 18, 2002
"The ease of doing things online with a PC and the richer experience there [are] baked
into the psyche of a lot of online consumers," said Jupiter's Brooks. "The idea that they'll
replace that activity with wireless is probably a nonstarter."
Although mobile computing may never supplant desktop computing, analysts still believe
that m- commerce and m- business activities eventually will become an important part of
the technology spectrum. The first big step is 3G.
"Before, you saw a gazillion people try to develop applications and the network wasn't
really there to support them," Flyers said. "With the new networks coming out, we will
see a lot of people trying to do it again. That's what's going to make the difference."
0
IosAngeles Imes
Thursday, Apr# 18, 2002
GOING MOBILE
Can M- Commerce Overcome the
Hurdles?
.The industry faces the daunting challenge of persuading Americans to hang
up their lowly telephone modems.
By JIM COATES, CHICAGO TRIBUNE
There's a strong whiff of the same old, same old wafting through the wireless world.
Billions of dollars are being spent to roll out networks and devices designed to foster a
mobile revolution. They use high -speed radio technologies with names such as 3G, Wi-
Fi, Bluetooth and ultrawide band.
Think of it as a marriage of the cell phone and the cable modem: a new generation of
wireless hand -held devices such as the familiar Palms but capable of high -speed Internet
features such as video e-mail, music and blazing file transfers from any place on Earth to
• any other place you happen to roam. But what a bitter ring of familiarity it has, this talk
about a third generation of mobile phones and allied devices that access the Internet
without wires.
It hardly differs from the hype that fueled the first rush to get high -speed connections to
home and office computers for e- commerce. That crusade to connect America to
broadband lasted maybe four years before stumbling last year.
It's a bit premature to start passing out the party hats and confetti for the great revolution
that wireless evangelists say awaits.
The question is: Can wireless somehow bring about the miracle that far - faster fiber -optic
lines failed to produce?
Marketers have rushed to push anything that contains the "m" word, "mobile." But it's
hard to forget that the last tech frenzy left us with an incredibly powerful global fiber -
optic network that remains more than 90% unused.
All that dark fiber swallowed the hopes of companies such as Cisco Systems Inc., Nortel
Networks Corp., Lucent Technologies Inc., AT &T Corp. and 3Com Corp. that now are
gasping for air.
These companies stand to gain greatly- -maybe even rebound to prior glory- -if the world
embraces all the new mobile devices that soon will pour onto the market.
It wasn't all disaster, of course.
Los Angeles Times
Thursday, April18, 2002
Although the Intemet meltdown blitzed the bulk of the dot -coms, e- commerce today is
almost commonplace.
There is an important e- lesson here: Those selling the dream of using mobile phones or
personal digital assistants to connect to the Net should remember and respect the lowly
telephone modem.
Today, the majority of American Internet users remain content to dial up from their
homes using roughly the same technology that existed when the information revolution
began.
In fact, 88% of Americans accessing the Internet do so from conventional dial -up
modems using connection speeds of 56 kilobits per second or slower. Only 12% of online
Americans use cable modems, digital subscriber lines or other high -speed connections,
according to the latest studies from the Progress & Freedom Foundation, a Washington -
based technology policy think tank.
Intemet service providers that use cable modems such as Princeton, N.J. -based RCN
Corp. and AT &T Broadband are struggling to support existing customers and find new
ones.
Those selling the dream of third - generation high -speed wireless access, or 3G, must
convince the world that people who don't seem to want high speed in the comfort of their
own homes will want it on their mobile phones.
But many of those who have experienced the excitement of the new wireless world are
eager to embrace it. Consumers are buying mobile devices, such as the recently
introduced Samsung SPH -I300 and the Handspring Tree, which combine a PDA with a
cell phone. Businesses are adding wireless networks that can provide Intemet access at
airports, hotels and college campuses.
There is much to admire about the head - spinning array of clever wireless technologies. It
is, after all, an engineering triumph to build systems that can slice and dice radio
transmissions and create a 2 -ounce telephone that carries moving pictures as effectively
as a 40 -pound television set.
Most likely, a 3G phone will always be on, just like a PC with a broadband connection.
Link them with the new global positioning satellite radios, and employers suddenly know
where each worker is at any given time.
Whether it's a cab service coordinating pickups, emergency operators dispatching police
squad cars or a sales manager tracking order takers, 3G has huge new powers. Such
gadgets will tell worried parents where their children are or how far a commuting spouse
is from the front door. It
2
I
LosAnge %s Tmes
Thursday, April 18, 1001
• Maybe Americans will learn to use a new palette of technology tools, such as sending a
digital picture on 3G phones without making a full- fledged call.
•
Or maybe we'll just do what we did when the miracle of fiber -optic broadband was
poised to change our world. Maybe we'll just stay at home, content to play with our trusty
old 1G analog telephone modems.
3
7
Los Angeles Times
Thursday, Aar# 18,1001
Struggling for a Slice of the
Wireless Pie
.Consumer services: Pizza - ordering system tested by Domino's and
Motorola highlights hurdles of m- commerce.
By ROB KAISER, CHICAGO TRIBUNE
You're hankering for a pizza and have a cell phone in hand. Why not go online?
That's the deal Motorola Inc. is pushing.
The Schaumburg, Ill., cell phone giant, searching for ways to sell more Internet- enabled
handsets, has developed a "three- click" mobile pizza ordering system for Web - enabled
phones, which Domino's Pizza tested last year in Las Vegas.
Results from that trial show the wireless industry is set to revolutionize the pizza delivery
business. Or perhaps the findings merit more study of the concept.
The answer depends on whether you ask Motorola or Domino's.
"This is easier than ordering over [a regular] phone, especially repeat orders," said Tim
Krauskopf, a vice president of Motorola's Internet software and content group.
1P
0
"Ordering online is more difficult than picking up the phone," countered Matt Maguire,
Domino's vice president for information services. q
The differing responses highlight the hurdles purveyors of "m- commerce," or mobile
commerce, must leap before winning the hearts of restaurant and retail executives, not to
0
Los Angeles Times
Thursday, Apri/IB, 2002
. mention consumers.
M- commerce, like its older cousin e- commerce, is expected to offer companies a new
sales channel that could transform how consumers get information, entertainment and
products, including pizza. Yet the hype about how m- commerce can turn cell phones into
electronic wallets and let stores fire off instant messages to nearby shoppers hasn't
translated into changes in consumers' habits.
And that's unlikely to happen any time soon.
Wireless analysts said the most popular m- commerce offerings for consumers in the U.S.
during the next couple of years probably will be downloadable games and ring tones.
"It gives the consumer a chance to dip her toe in m- commerce without diving in," said
Adam Guy, a wireless analyst with Strategis Group.
More elaborate offerings will be constrained by outdated infrastructure, conflicting
standards, security concerns and device limitations.
"It's got to get to the point where the application is so easy that people say, 'This is easier
than dialing,"' said Adam Zawel, a wireless analyst at Yankee Group in Boston.
• That's the challenge Motorola is taking on in the pizza business.
Motorola wanted to develop a shopping "engine" that can be used for various m-
commerce applications.
Krauskopf said the company decided to test its software in one industry and settled on
pizza because it is a $30- billion market, already has strong telephone ties and includes
many repeat orders.
For pizza outlets, Krauskopf said, the concept clicks because it cuts down on the number
of employees needed to enter orders and reduces errors in order entry.
Yet the concept faces serious logistical issues.
The biggest barrier from the consumer point of view, Krauskopf said, is getting people to
program their phones with their favorite combinations of toppings, address and billing
information, so they can quickly enter repeat orders.
Many pizzerias often present their own limitations, particularly if they don't have
computer -based ordering systems installed.
In the test with Domino's, Motorola had to set up a simple version of the ordering system
• for locations that didn't have the computer systems. Users could see a menu and specials
but still had to make a call when they were ready to place an order.
Many businesses still don't have Internet ordering systems.
2
0
Los Angeles Times
Thursday, April 18, 2002
For example, Pizza Hut offers online ordering in only three places: Columbus, Ohio;
Kansas City, Mo.; and the Dallas -Fort Worth area.
Manish Patel, chairman and co- founder of Where2getit Inc. in Northbrook, Ill., said that
though his firm develops Internet store - location search pages and maps for companies
such as La -Z -Boy Inc. and Reebok International Ltd., clients have expressed little interest
in building m- commerce capabilities.
"At this stage, no one is really moving," Patel said.
That doesn't mean, though, that some companies aren't getting ready.
Donatos Pizzeria, which is owned by McDonald's Corp., has decided to use Motorola's
m- commerce offering.
"We're probably a year away from really pushing it," said Tom Krouse, senior vice
president of marketing at Donatos. "Our hope is it just grows on the front end of this
wave."
Donatos has drive -up windows where customers can pick up orders, and Krouse expects
the ability to click orders into cell phones will be popular with people who use that
service. 0
Still, Donatos will have to clear technological hurdles before it can offer the service in its
200 locations as well as get franchisees on board with the concept.
"The plan would be to make it ,available to all customers, but you have to make sure that
everybody is set up properly," Krouse said.
Ensuring that the infrastructure works and then converting customers to use the service
take much more time than cranking out pronouncements on the hype machine, a lesson
well learned by e- commerce pioneers.
Domino's Maguire said every vendor who visits him asks how online ordering has grown
in recent years. He turns around the question, asking whether they would order pizza
online.
"They start thinking about the logistics of it all, and they say they would still call,"
Maguire said.
9
•
LOS Angeles Times
Thursday, April IB, 2002
These Nets Have Security Holes
.Safeguards: Hackers can easily break into many networks. Experts advise
the use of common sense.
By CHARLES PILLER, TIMES STAFF WRITER
Jonas Luster,
an architect of
defensive
wireless
networks,
holds a hand-
held device
that can read
wireless
networks from
his car.
(RANDILYNN
BEACH /For
The Times)
They call it "war driving." Hackers plug an antenna into a laptop computer, jump into a
car, and then the fun begins. They easily break into wireless computer networks, which
often spew unencrypted information into the airwaves for anyone to pick up.
"There are two kinds of people doing wireless security assessments in Silicon Valley:
people like me, and the 19- year -old kids who do it for sport," said Jonas Luster, president
of D- fensive Networks Inc., a Campbell, Calif., security consulting firm.
During a recent security audit in a Silicon Valley parking lot, Luster's electronic "sniffer"
detected 169 wireless networks using the most popular standard, known as "Wi -Fi." Just
six had any form of security. The experience with Wi -Fi is just the tip of the iceberg. The
coming of so- called 3G wireless networks, which will allow cell phones and hand -held
computers to access the Internet at high speeds, is creating a new realm of vulnerabilities.
Though wireless networks differ in their strengths and vulnerabilities, none escapes the
fact that they transmit information through the air and are designed to traverse the
infamously insecure expanses of the Internet.
• Despite such concerns, the push for wireless convenience, mobility and commerce is
racing ahead.
it
Los Angeles Times
775arsday, Am# 18, 2002
Last year, about 7.5 million devices were sold that connect personal computers, laptops
and hand -held computers to Wi -Fi networks, which dominate the home and business
markets, according to market research firm Allied Business Intelligence. Research firm
EMarketer Inc. forecasts that by 2004, 63 million people in the U.S. will be connecting to
the Internet by using cell phones or personal digital assistants.
Businesspeople use Wi -Fi to view documents from distant conference rooms. Forklift
drivers use wireless hand -helds to monitor inventory in warehouses.
Shoppers browse Amazon.com or answer e-mail over wireless links while sipping a cafe
latte at Starbucks. The coffee chain has equipped hundreds of outlets with Wi -Fi, and
many other restaurants and airports have done likewise.
That mobility comes at a price.
During an audit for a Silicon Valley company, "we picked up signals from a nearby
hospital," Luster said. "It was a large amount of patient data, completely in clear text,"
meaning the information was not scrambled or encrypted.
"We approached this hospital, and I offered to [plug the gap] for free," he said
The hospital refused to talk to him, Luster said.
"It would have been an admission of a problem, and people don't want to do that," he
said.
On another occasion, he stumbled across a Nevada casino that was broadcasting
unencrypted details of its security operations.
Call it the "if I can't see it, it can't hurt me" effect. Computer -savvy businesses take at
least basic steps to protect wired networks, such as using anti -virus programs and
installing software "firewalls" to block hackers.
Yet unwired vigilance is rare. Wi -Fi security is among the most leaky in the wireless
world, and because its nodes often connect to standard networks, they can expose all
manner of company secrets.
The root of the problem, experts said, is the same one that has plagued standard computer
networks for decades. Wi -Fi was designed for convenience and economy, not security.
Default Wi -Fi security settings are next to useless. Few users bother to learn about
advanced settings for wired equivalent privacy, or WEP, which is built into Wi -Fi
devices. Manufacturers don't ship products with the most secure settings turned on
because that causes conflicts with Wi -Fi products from other vendors.
2
id
Los Angeles Times
Thursday, Apr# 18, 2002
• WEP is meant to encrypt data traveling over the airwaves and patch holes in company
networks through wireless access points, or hubs. But even when set up properly, WEP
provides weak protection on both fronts. Hacking software called AirSnort and
WEPCrack, freely available online, allow even inexperienced hackers to obtain WEP's
encryption "key" to unscramble airborne text.
Ease of use has led to another big problem: "rogue" access points. A multitude of
technically savvy but careless employees set up ad hoc wireless connections to their
company networks.
"Companies say, 'We don't need wireless security because we don't have a wireless
network,"' said Christopher W. Klaus, chief technology officer of Internet Security
Systems Inc., an Atlanta -based security company. "But just sniffing around their office,
we find four or five access points."
Large businesses can install virtual private networks, which block hackers fairly reliably.
But that solution can be prohibitively costly and complex.
Experts advise common sense: Turn on WEP to deter casual eavesdroppers, and shut
down rogue hubs.
• They also urge caution in setting up authorized hubs. Wi -Fi is meant to broadcast only
150 feet, effectively within one building. But if hubs are set inside windows on the
building's periphery- -where no walls impede signal strength -- networks become open to
remote hackers, Klaus said.
He has picked up Wi -Fi signals six miles from a network access point. Bad guys do the
same, using a popular hacking tool, a Pringles potato chip can, as the antenna.
Ultimately, Wi -Fi security should improve as new standards upgrade WEP over the next
couple of years. The first of these, called 802.1x, will be finalized within a couple of
months. It changes the WEP encryption keys about every five minutes, rendering
common hacking tools ineffective.
As consumers adopt high -speed 3G cellular phones, they may want to consider Wi -Fi s
cautionary tale.
The 3G networks will fix voice encryption problems that make many of today's cell
phones easy to tap. But 3G mobile commerce will require interaction with Web sites and
networks whose security may not be so reliable. Such glitches have plagued PC -based e-
commerce from its inception.
"3G services will all be insecure," said Bruce Schneier, a cryptographer and chief
• technology officer of Counterpane Internet Security Inc. in Cupertino, Calif "We'll be
patching it up as we go."
3
/3
Los Angeles Times
Thursday, Apri/ 18, 2002
Warming to Wi -Fi
.The network technology is so inexpensive and easy to set up that it has
sparked a kind of populist movement. 'Hot spots' are sprouting all over.
By JON VAN, CHICAGO TRIBUNE
Cell phone executives hype the arrival of their new "3G" networks, but a lowly
technology from the computer world has been steadily gaining converts as an alternative
path to the nirvana of high -speed mobile access to the Internet.
The technology is known as "Wi -Fi," and it's the most popular method of creating
wireless networks in homes and businesses. For a few hundred dollars, anyone can pick
up the gear at a local computer store and have a network running in a few hours.
Although cellular carriers are spending billions to build their high -speed nationwide
networks, Wi -Fi adherents point out that their off -the -shelf technology is faster, cheaper
and easier. But there's one important caveat: Its range is only about 150 feet.
That might seem like a fatal flaw for a technology vying for a piece of the wireless
revolution - -a movement built on the promise of ubiquitous high -speed Web access that
works whether you're sitting in an easy chair or on a bullet train.
But as the revolution has gathered steam, the industry has begun to realize that the
nationwide reach of 3G networks is not really necessary for everyone. What's important
is to be able to connect in a few key locations: home, office, airport, hotel and - -why not ? -
-the coffee shop.
Business campuses are embracing Wi -Fi networks, and even retailers are installing local
systems for customers' use while they shop. In many urban areas, computer buffs can
move from one Wi -Fi "hot spot" to another, keeping their Web connectivity as they go.
"You can go to airports and other hot spots and be amazed at the performance," said
Adam Sewall, the former chief executive of wireless gear maker Spectrum Wireless Inc.,
who now works at ComVentures, a venture capital firm in Palo Alto, Calif.
Even wireless carriers forging ahead with their "third- generation" plans are waking up to
the benefits of including Wi -Fi hot spots as part of their national networks- -not as a
replacement but as a supplement.
At least two wireless carriers, VoiceStream and Sprint PCS, already have invested in Wi-
Fi firms. Most others have deals in the works.
Wi -Fi, short for "wireless fidelity" and also known by the techie moniker 802.1 lb, is the
wireless version of the common ethernet networks that link computers in homes and
corporate offices. The original selling point of Wi -Fi when it was introduced several
01
14
Los Angeles Times
Thursday, April 18,1001
• years ago was that it eliminated the need to snake miles of wires throughout a building.
The earliest version of wireless ethernet transmitted information at about 1 megabit per
second - -not particularly fast compared with the 100- megabits -per- second speeds of wired
ethernet. Today, Wi -Fi transmits information at a respectable I I megabits per second,
and a recently adopted standard, 802.1 la, will bump speeds up to 54 megabits per
second.
Wi -Fi still isn't up to wired speeds but runs rings around 3G wireless technology. The
advanced wireless networks that carriers such as Verizon Wireless Inc., AT &T Wireless
Services Inc. and Sprint PCS Group Inc. are bringing out this year deliver speeds of 60 to
120 kilobits per second.
Wi -Fi is so cheap and easy to set up that it has sparked a kind of populist movement.
Wireless hot spots are popping up in all sorts of places, creating a pseudo sense of
ubiquity in some densely populated urban areas.
But in the suburbs, countryside or even big buildings, Wi -Fi begins to lose its luster.
Russ Intravartolo, chief executive of StarNet Inc., an Internet service provider based in
Palatine, Ill., said his firm is expanding its wireless high -speed Internet service to
customers in Chicago's northwestern suburbs. StarNet recently began using Wi -Fi to put
• wireless LANs, or local area networks, into apartment complexes and discovered the
difficulties inherent in the technology.
"Bringing in the signal into a development and then distributing it to everyone can be a
struggle," he said. "We have this 14 -story condo where we're trying to serve the residents
with a wireless LAN, but we find it won't work from one floor to the other.... Even when
you install a wireless LAN for one floor, it may not propagate everywhere you want to
reach."
These difficulties with Wi -Fi's low- powered radio technology probably will ensure that
the higher- powered signals of 3G will find a significant mass market, said Annabel Z.
Dodd, author of "The Essential Guide to Telecommunications."
"In the end, I'd say Wi -Fi is complementary to 3G wireless," she said.
A San Diego bus that marries 3G and Wi -Fi may provide a glimpse of this hybrid future.
Operating on the campus of UC San Diego, the bus is connected to the Internet via an
advanced 3G network providing speeds of 2.4 megabits per second. Riders on the
Cybershuttle access that network through a standard Wi -Fi network set up inside the bus,
which is essentially a rolling hot spot.
• "It's like a mobile version of a cable modem," said Ramesh Rao, director of UCSD's
advanced Internet division.
2
Los Angeles Times
Thursday, April 18,1001
Although it has many advantages, Wi -Fi could become a victim of its own success. It
uses unlicensed segments of radio spectrum that are shared by many sorts of devices,
including some kinds of cordless phones.
More applications for the same spectrum are in the works, said Roger Marks, who chairs
a standards committee for the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
"There are so many products that want into the band that there are a lot of concerns about
the coexistence problem," Marks said. "It's hard because no one has a clear answer.
There's always a scenario how these things can interfere with each other and scenarios
where they don't.... But no one knows for sure."
Patrick Stavors, a technician for Starnet, installs an Uni -17 antenna on the roof of a
building in Palatine, Illinois, to allow use of new wireless fidelity technology.
(STACEY WESCOTT I Chicago Tribune)
M
0
lb
•
•
•
LosAnge %s Times
Thursday, A,orii 18, 2002
A student at the University of California, San Diego uses a PDA to browse the Web on
the campus "Cybershuttle" bus. The bus is connected to the Internet via an advanced
network.
(UC San Diego)
0
%7