Spokane Municipal Code

Title 17C Land Use Standards

Chapter 17C.355A Wireless Communication Facilities

Section 17C.355A.060 Application Submittal Requirements

In addition to the application materials identified in SMC 17G.061.110, Type II and Type III applications submitted under this chapter shall include the following materials.

1. Requirement for FCC Documentation. The applicant shall provide a copy of:

   1. its documentation for FCC license submittal or registration, and

   2. the applicant’s FCC license or registration.

2. Site plans. Complete and accurate plans and drawings to scale, prepared, signed and sealed by a Washington-licensed engineer, land surveyor and/or architect, including (1) plan views and all elevations before and after the proposed construction with all height and width measurements called out; (2) a depiction of all proposed transmission equipment; (3) a depiction of all proposed utility runs and points of contact; and (4) a depiction of the leased or licensed area with all rights-of-way and/or easements for access and utilities in plan view.

3. Visual analysis. A color visual analysis that includes to-scale visual simulations that show unobstructed before-and-after construction daytime and clear-weather views from at least four angles, together with a map that shows the location of each view.

4. Statement of Purpose/RF Justification. A clear and complete written Statement of Purpose shall minimally include: (1) a description of the technical objective to be achieved; (2) a to-scale map that identifies the proposed site location and the targeted service area to be benefited by the proposed project; and (3) full-color signal propagation maps with objective units of signal strength measurement that show the applicant’s current service coverage levels from all adjacent sites without the proposed site, predicted service coverage levels from all adjacent sites with the proposed site, and predicted service coverage levels from the proposed site without all adjacent sites. These materials shall be reviewed and signed by a Washington-licensed professional engineer or a qualified employee of the applicant. The qualified employee of the applicant shall submit his or her qualifications with the application.

5. Design justification. A clear and complete written analysis that explains how the proposed design complies with the applicable design standards under this chapter to the maximum extent feasible. A complete design justification must identify all applicable design standards under this chapter and provide a factually detailed reason why the proposed design either complies or cannot feasibly comply.

6. Collocation and alternative sites analysis.

   1. All Towers. All applications for a new tower will demonstrate that collocation is not feasible, consistent with SMC 17C.355A.050.

   2. Towers in a residential zone or within 150 feet of a residential zone.

      1. For towers in or within 150 feet of a residential zone, the applicant must address the City’s preferred tower locations in SMC 17.355A.050 with a detailed explanation justifying why a site of higher priority was not selected. The City’s tower location preferences must be addressed in a clear and complete written alternative site analysis that shows at least five (5) higher ranked, alternative sites considered that are in the geographic range of the service coverage objectives of the applicant, together with a factually detailed and meaningful comparative analysis between each alternative candidate and the proposed site that explains the substantive reasons why the applicant rejected the alternative candidate. An applicant may reject an alternative tower site for one or more of the following reasons:

         1. preclusion by structural limitations;

         2. inability to obtain authorization by the owner;

         3. failure to meet the service coverage objectives of the applicant;

         4. failure to meet other engineering requirements for such things as location, height and size;

         5. zoning constraints, such as the inability to meet setbacks;

         6. physical or environmental constraints, such as unstable soils or wetlands; and/or

         7. being a more intrusive location despite the higher priority in this chapter as determined by the Planning and Economic Development Services Director or Hearing Examiner, as applicable.

      2. A complete alternative sites analysis provided under this subsection (F)(2) may include less than five (5) alternative sites so long as the applicant provides a factually detailed written rationale for why it could not identify at least five (5) potentially available, higher ranked, alternative sites.

   3. Required description of coverage objectives. For purposes of disqualifying potential collocations and/or alternative sites for the failure to meet the applicant’s service coverage objectives the applicant will provide (a) a description of its objective, whether it be to close a gap or address a deficiency in coverage, capacity, frequency and/or technology; (b) detailed technical maps or other exhibits with clear and concise RF data to illustrate that the objective is not met using the alternative (whether it be collocation or a more preferred location); and (c) a description of why the alternative (collocation or a more preferred location) does not meet the objective.

7. DAS and small cells. As outlined in SMC 17C.355A.010, the City encourages, but it is does not require, the use of DAS and small cells. Each applicant will submit a statement that explains how it arrived at the structure and design being proposed.

8. Radio frequency emissions compliance report. A written report, prepared, signed and sealed by a Washington-licensed professional engineer or a competent employee of the applicant, which assesses whether the proposed WCF demonstrates compliance with the exposure limits established by the FCC. The report shall also include a cumulative analysis that accounts for all emissions from all WCFs located on or adjacent to the proposed site, identifies the total exposure from all facilities and demonstrates planned compliance with all maximum permissible exposure limits established by the FCC. The report shall include a detailed description of all mitigation measures required by the FCC.

9. Noise study. A noise study, prepared, signed and sealed by a Washington-licensed engineer, for the proposed WCF and all associated equipment in accordance with the Spokane Municipal Code.

10. Collocation consent. A written statement, signed by a person with the legal authority to bind the applicant and the project owner, which indicates whether the applicant is willing to allow other transmission equipment owned by others to collocate with the proposed wireless communication facility whenever technically and economically feasible and aesthetically desirable.

11. Other published materials. All other information and/or materials that the City may, from time to time, make publicly available and designate as part of the application requirements.

Date Passed: Monday, November 2, 2015

Effective Date: Monday, November 2, 2015

ORD C35312 Section 2