Laserfiche WebLink
101 <br />U" <br />cz, <br />�i <br />CHART A (Revised 2/13/97) <br />CONCERN: PROLIFERATION OF NEW TOWER SITES <br />Strategies to Limit Proliferation <br />2xisting Regulations <br />Drafted Regulation Changes <br />Additional Alternatives <br />1. Require demonstration of need for <br />new tower sites <br />a. Requires applicant justification: why <br />can't existing facilities meet <br />Reg. 1 Requires applicant justification: wh <br />Alt. 1 Require applicant's justification to <br />applicant's needs? <br />can't existing facilities meet <br />applicant's needs? [existing LDRs) <br />include: determination of service area <br />for wireless service(s) proposed [San <br />Dr. Changes comments: the formal <br />LDRchanges should specify <br />Francisco], specifyrequired search area <br />information <br />nformation and search area <br />(based on determind service area) <br />standards. Such information and <br />inventoryof applicant's g <br />standards are described under Alt. <br />infrastructure (Cobb], applicant submits <br />•5 year plan* projections (San <br />Francisco). RF (radio frequency) pattern <br />data based on field tests. <br />Alt. 2 Require applicant's justification to <br />apply to shorter towers (under 1501) and <br />to specifically address why not co - <br />locating on structures other than <br />existing towers (such as utility poles). <br />Alt. 3 At applicant's expense, county hires <br />third party RF consultant to <br />independently evaluate an applicant's <br />justification and report findings/opinion <br />to the count [Palm Beach). <br />2. Require/promote co -location: <br />Maximize use of existing and <br />h. Requires applicant justification: why <br />not co -locating on existing <br />Reg. 2 Requires applicant justification: why <br />Alt. 4 Increase 110% height cap for antennas <br />proposed structures <br />structures? <br />not co -locating on existing <br />structures? [existing LDRs] <br />attached to existingstructures, allowin <br />to reach a height o 100' - 1201. g <br />Dr. Caimi's comments heavily <br />endorse co -location provisions and <br />b. (Incentive) Allows replacement of <br />existing conforming towers with new <br />Reg. 3 Requires applicant to notify potential <br />Alt. 5 To make certain antenna attachment <br />incentives. <br />conforming towers without specific <br />users and plan in advance for future <br />co -location. (Palm Beach] <br />incentives more useful, provide setback <br />waivers for equipment buildings used to <br />approval. <br />support antenna attachments (e.g. <br />Reg. 4 (Incentive) Allows replacement of <br />antennas attached to utility poles). <br />existing conforming towers with new <br />conforming towers without specific <br />Alt. 6 <br />At applicant's expense, county hires <br />approval. [existing LDRa) <br />third party RP consultant to evaluate <br />Reg. 5 Requires various types of new towers <br />applicant's justification report (same as <br />Alt. 3 above). <br />to be specifically designed to <br />accommodate multiple users. <br />(Altamonte] <br />Reg. 6 (Incentive) Allows replacement of <br />non -conforming towers with new, <br />multiple user towers that are not <br />required to meet new setbacks. <br />Reg. 7 (Incentive) Allows attachment of <br />antennas to existing structures, <br />including towers, with antennas that <br />exceed the structure's height. Height <br />cap: 130t of height of existing <br />structure. [similar incentives in <br />several jurisdictional <br />Key: Alternatives Used By Other Local (governments <br />Altamonte: City of Altamonte Springs, Florida Cobb: Cobb County, Georgia Hialeah: City of Hialeah, Florida <br />Napa: Napa County, California Orange: Orange County, Florida Palm Beach: Palm Beach County, Florida <br />San Francisco: City i County of San Francisco, California <br />ONECESSARY BOARD ACTION: None of the "Drafted Regulation Changes" or "Additional Alternatives listed are mutually <br />exclusive. The Board should decide which (if any, or perhaps all) of the 7 draft changes and the 6 alternatives it <br />would like addressed in the formal LDR changes. 11 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />