HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/13/1996BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AGENDA
SPECIAL WORKSHOP MEETING
Wednesday, November 13,1996
1:30 P.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER
County Administration Building
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Fran B. Adams, Chairman (District 1) James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Carolyn K. Eggert, Vice Chairman (District 2)
Richard N. Bird (District 5) Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Kenneth R. Macht (District 3)
John W. Tippin (District 4) Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
PAGE #
1:30 p.m. Communications Tower Workshop
(memorandum dated November 8, 1996)
1 - 4
Attachment 1
5
Attachment 2
6-14
Attachment 3
15-23
Attachment 4
24-25
Attachment 5
26-36
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need
to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which includes the testimony and
evidence upon which the appeal will be based.
Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting may contact the County's
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordinator at 567-8000 x408 at least 48 hours in advance
of meeting.
Meeting ro
TCI Cable Channel 13 - rebroadcast trough S: 00 p.m. Friday
Falcon Cab - re roadcast Friday evening
BOOK 99 F•1,
SPECIAL WORKSHOP MEETING
Wednesday, November 13, 1996
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida, met at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street,
Vero Beach, Florida on Wednesday, November 13, 1996 at 1:30 p.m.
Present were Fran B. Adams, Chairman; Carolyn K. Eggert, Vice
Chairman; Richard N. Bird; Kenneth R. Macht; and John W. Tippin.
Also present were James Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P.
Vitunac, County Attorney; and Barbara Bonnah, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
COMMUNICATIONS TOWER WORKSHOP.
P.O. Box 1268 Vero Beach, Rordda 32961 562-2315
Preto 3ournat
COUNTY OF INDIAN MVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authorsty pen;onally appeared Darryl K
nlot who on oath saxs that he is President of the Press-Jountal a
n that_ pub�ed at Vero Beach in Indian River Cmmtp.
11nn 'Q°� s D. Z_
W N
billed
was Published in said newspaper in the issue(s) of
Sworn
to and subscribed before meed this
-
President
yPPA A. Pq;CoA •
: AtrCamn. Emim
A-" 25. 1997
N. LC3law
I �J,y9TFOF-FLOP��P.c s+enM .uc. 'ctt+ a PSP.si.. /
(SEAL)
NOVEMBER 13, 1996
PUBLIC WORKSHOP
OF THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
All interested persons are invited to attend a public work-
shop to be held by the Indian River County Board of
County Commissioners to discuss land use regulation of
commercial communications towers. The workshop will in-
clude presentations by planning and legal experts, and
opportunities for questions and comments.
• LOCATION: Commission Chambers,
County Administration Building
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida
• DATE 8t TIME: Wednesday, November 13, 1996; 1:30 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
By -s- Fran B. Adams, Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION FOR
THIS MEETING MUST CONTACT THE COUNTY'S AMERICANS
WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) COORDINATOR AT 567-8000
X 223 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF MEETING.
1
BOOK 99 PAU O
BOOK 99 PAGE 811
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/8/96:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DI,WISIQN HEAD
Robert M. Keating,CP
Community Developm t.Dl.pector
FROM: Stan Boling, AICP
Planning Director
DATE: November 8, 1996
SUBJECT: Communications Tower Workshop
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its special
workshop meeting of November 13, 1996.
BACKGROUND:
So far during 1996, 6 communications towers have been approved in
the unincorporated county, and 2 applications for towers are
currently under review. Based on the moratorium approved by the
Board of County Commissioners on November 5, 1996, no applications
for new commercial towers will be accepted until May 5, 1997 or
until new tower regulations are adopted, whichever occurs first.
Of the 6 approved towers, 2 are 139' tall, and 4 are 300' tall.
One of the 4 taller towers replaced an older tower that was
approximately 190' tall. Both of the 2 tower applications that are
currently under review, and are not subject to the moratorium, are
located in the north county area near I-95 (see attachment #1).
The significant increase in communications tower applications in
Indian River County is a nation-wide phenomenon resulting from both
the increased demand for cellular phone and personal communications
services and the explosion of competition resulting from the
deregulation aspects of the federal "Telecommunications Act of
1996".
On June 11, 1996, as a result of its review of the third tower
application reviewed during the year, the Planning and Zoning
Commission asked staff to arrange a tower workshop with the
Planning and Zoning Commission. Since that request, staff has
researched various tower regulation issues and coordinated with
commercial and amateur communications interests. The following
workshop and public hearings were held this summer and fall:
1. July 25, 1996: public workshop at Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting
2. August 26, 1996: public workshop special meeting with the
Planning and Zoning Commission members and public
3. September 5, 1996: public meeting and discussion with PSAC on
proposed LDR amendments related to communications towers
2
NOVEMBER 13, 1996
� s r
4. October 10, 1996: public hearing before the Planning and
Zoning Commission to recommend LDR changes related to
communications towers. (Note: no minutes of this meeting are
available yet.)
Based upon direction given by the Board, a November 13, 1996
workshop on communication towers has been scheduled. Staff has
arranged for two experts to attend the workshop: public sector
tower planning consultant Ted Krienes and FCC attorney Jeff
Steinberg. Staff has also run a public workshop courtesy
advertisement in the Press Journal and has invited staff and local
officials of other area local governments to attend the workshop.
As with the other public meetings on tower issues, staff has also
contacted commercial and amateur communications interests regarding
the workshop.
The goal of the workshop is two -fold. First, it is an opportunity
for the Board to learn about potential demands, legal constraints,
siting alternatives, design alternatives, and regulatory
opportunities relating to communication towers. Second, it is an
opportunity for the Board to identify specific communication tower
related land use concerns. Based upon the Board's expression of
such concerns, staff can then initiate or complete any necessary
planning activities or regulation changes.
ANALYSIS:
As a result of workshops and public meetings, the approach taken to
date to address concerns about tower proliferation has been to
develop proposed modifications to the county's existing tower
regulations. The latest version of proposed tower LDR amendments,
based upon recommendations at the October 10th Planning.and Zoning
Commission meeting, are provided with attachment, -#3. Despite all
of its efforts, the Planning and Zoning Commission has not been
able to articulate all of its tower related land use concerns.
Although the Commission acted on a set of proposed tower LDR
amendments, members still expressed a desire to regulate towers on
a case by case basis without specific regulations.
Issues/Constraints for the Board to Consider
*Legal
As with any change to the County's land development regulations,
there are legal issues to consider in developing new communications
tower regulations. With towers, however, there are even more
issues to consider than with general LDR changes.
The principal legal consideration with respect to enacting tower
regulations in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Among its other
provisions, this act states that local governments:
• may not prohibit the provision of personal wireless services;
• may not discriminate among providers of functionally
equivalent personal wireless services;
• must base any denial decision on substantial competent
evidence.
To be valid and withstand any legal challenges, communications
tower regulations must allow a sufficient number of adequately
sized towers to meet the industry's needs. In limiting tower
location, height, design, or other factors, the Board must
establish justifiable standards that address specific issues
3
NOVEMBER 13, 1996 aooK 99 PA�E 8�.
BOOK 99 PAGE 813
relating to public health, safety or general welfare.
Consequently, addressing tower requests on a case by case basis
will not be supportable.
*Technical
There are many technical issues affecting communications tower
regulations. One of the most important technical issues is
coverage. Essentially, this affects the number and height of
towers to adequately serve an area. RF engineering is the
technical method of determining coverage. This then affects tower
location and height.
Other technical issues relate`to coloration. Both technology
compatibility and tower structural characteristics affect
colocation. If technologies (cell, PCS, paging) interfere with one
another, colocation may not be possible. Similarly, the structural
characteristics of a tower, itself, may preclude installation of
additional antennae.
Besides those referenced above, other technical issues relate to
tower wind load design and fall radius, electromagnetic fields
(EMF's) for certain types of towers, tower lighting, and -
stealthing._ Associated with all of these technical issues is cost.
•Aesthetics and Land Use
Among all the tower issues, aesthetics is the most controversial.
As of this time, however, the aesthetics issue has not been
sufficiently narrowed down by the Board of County Commissioners or
the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Several components affect a tower's aesthetics. These include the
tower's lighting, its height, its bulk, guy wires, and others. To
regulate the aesthetic characteristics of towers, it is necessary
to determine which tower characteristics contribute to tower
aesthetic concerns.
Generally, towers have white strobe lighting during the day and a
red pulsating light at night. One issue to address is whether
tower lighting is an aesthetic
aesthetically unacceptable one
subdivision, are tower lights
subdivision? Another issue is wh
the upper portion is visible.
problem. While lights may be
hundred feet from a residential
a nuisance three miles from a
ether a tower is unsightly if only
From a land use perspective, the
and intensity. Is it important
industrial areas? Also important
located on a ten or twenty acre
county should be given the same
subdivision in the urban area.
•Approaches That Have Succeeded
aesthetics issue relates to use
to consider tower aesthetics in
is whether a single housing unit
parcel in the rural area of the
consideration as a residential
Local governments throughout the state and throughout the country
have used various approaches to tower regulation. Whether these
have been successful depends on the community's objectives. Some
of the approaches are as follows:
- Required colocation
By locating several users on one tower, the total number of
towers can be limited.
4
NOVEMBER 13, 1996
Height restriction
r
Limiting height can ensure that 300+ foot towers will not be
built. The trade off is more, lower (150 foot) towers.
Clustering.
Limiting towers to certain areas may reduce proliferation, as
long as coverage needs are met and acceptable cluster areas
are available. Clustering may occur on public lands.
Stealthing
Disguising towers is one approach to addressing the aesthetic
issues. This maylinvolve making the tower look like a tree,
church steeple, or something else. Cost can be a factor.
Existing Structures
Antennae can be placed on existing tall structures instead of
new towers. While the county has few tall buildings that can
be used for antennae placement, utility poles are a
possibility.
Other approaches have also been employed by local governments to
regulate towers. These will be discussed at the workshop.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that, after the workshop discussion and input, the
Board direct staff to initiate or complete specific planning
activities or LDR amendment changes.
ATTACHMENTS:
1: County Tower Location Map
2. Available Minutes and Meeting Summaries: Public Discussion of
Tower Issues
3. Latest Version of Tower LDR Changes (Post -Planning and Zoning
Commission)
4. Recent Bell South Gwinett County, Georgia Case
5. "Fact Sheet" from the FCC
APPROVED AGENDA ITE
BY �" r
FOR
u\c\a\1dr\t0wer.bcc
6i
NOVEMBER 13, 1996
BOOK 99 F�G
1
1
f LOCATION OF TOWERS
::
IN
INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY
O —
)P 1
1� TOWER HEIGHTS
1 '
® ® �q 0 UNDER 140'
loth
• 140' - 250'
I
" ® OVER 250'
4 T ' PO PROPOSED
TOWER :UNDER
1 1,� REVIEW
I-- -----I S.N. 00 O • ...
i -Approved in 1996
• . R -Replacement
I81h Tower
1
N
N S•
o
lorlde Turnpike
SOURCE: I.R.C. Planning Dept.
F.D.O.T.
SCALE °a ? 3 4 MII83 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Date: July 1996
Updated: Nov. 1996
W
O
0
:r*n
Chairman Adams advised that this workshop is being held to
determine what the County can expect with regard to the number of
towers that will be needed to provide adequate coverage, now and in
the future, and to explore the possibilities and opportunities in
planning for good land use. The County has invited consultant Ted
Kreines and FCC attorney Jeff Steinburg to speak today, after which
the carriers will have an opportunity to communicate their
positions and projections for future capacity.
CONSULTANT
Planning Director Stan Boling introduced Ted Kreines,
consultant and member of American Institute of Certified Planners
(AICP). He advised that Mr. Kreines is from California and has
worked in many, many local government jurisdictions on tower
issues. We have asked him to concentrate on 2 issues in his
presentation today:
1) What IRC can expect in the future in terms of towers and
communication demands and where IRC is at today.
2) Possibilities with regard to planning and
regulations in terms of controls.
Director Boling advised that Mr. Kreines has brought a lot of
graphics showing what has been done with towers in other
jurisdictions. At the conclusion of today's workshop, we will
determine if there are specific concerns and discuss planning
activities and regulatory procedures.
CONSULTANT
Ted Kreines distributed copies of the November, 1996 issue of
Wireless Update published by Kreines & Kreines, Inc.
7
NOVEMBER 13, 1996
Boa 99 ��.
BOOK 99 PAGE 81 I
A Newsletter Reporting to Local Government about the Increasing Rate of Wireless Antenna Permit Applications
Vol. 1, No. 9
Wireless Update
November 1996
MARC Selects Kreines & Kreines for Wireless Atlantic provides to all its subscribers. (To Wireless
Guidance Package for the Kansas City Region Update's thinking, this means that a cell site is a part of a
regional infrastructure rather than a local land use.) As a
The Mid-America Regional Council (MARC) has
selected Kreines & Kreines, Inc. to prepare a Wireless
Guidance Package. The Wireless Guidance Package may
become the first step of a Wireless Master Plan for the 114
cities and 8 counties that are members of MARC. MARC
is an innovative Council of Governments. Kansas City is
also the headquarters of one of the largest PCS licensees to
date (Sprint PCS has 32 licenses plus the APC license in
Baltimore - Washington, DC).
"Although we've just started," says Ted Kreines, AICP,
"I expect the highest quality effort from MARC, its 122
local governments and the private sector. They are highly
motivated and we believe this will be a model for the
nation." More about this project will be in future Wireless
Update issues.
Cell Sites are Neither Utilities nor Essential
Services: Pennsylvania Appeals Court Denies
Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems Claim
Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems, Inc. was denied a permit
by the Borough of Baldwin, Pennsylvania to construct a
150 -foot cellular communications tower in a residential
neighborhood. Under Baldwins zoning ordinance, uses
permitted by right in the residential district include
"essential services," among which are the construction
and maintenance of communication systems by public
utilities.
Bell Atlantic's lawsuit was rejected by the trial court
because the court determined that Bell Atlantic was not a
public utility under the zoning ordinance.
Bell Atlantic appealed, arguing that the trial court
improperly determined it was not a public utility. Bell
Atlantic also stated that the appeals court should reverse
the borough council's decision because the council did not
identify a legitimate reason for denying the application.
The appeals court affirmed the trial court decision in
favor of Baldwin, but for a different reason. The court
stated that even if Bell Atlantic was a public utility under
the zoning ordinance, the proposed tower was not a
permitted use. Under Baldwins zoning ordinance, uses
permitted by right must relate to the connection of the
residences in the district to public utilities. Not all
construction of public utilities is permitted by right in the
district. The record shows that Bell Atlantic's tower was
to be constructed not just to provide the residences within
the district access to a public utility, but also to improve
and expand the cellular communication services Bell
result, the Baldwin Borough Council identified a
legitimate reason for denying Bell Atlantic's application.
A copy of this decision is available from Kreines &
Kreines, Inc. for the cost of copying, shipping & handling.
Call us for more information.
Caution: RFR Research Is No Longer Dangerous
to your Health (Because CTIA May No Longer
Fund It)
RCR (a leading industry journal) reports that the $25
million industry -funded research program on potential
cancer risks from pocket telephones being conducted by
Wireless Technology Research LLC (WTR) may be in _
jeopardy. The research may be halted due to a dispute
between WTR and the Cellular Telecommunications
Industry Association (CTIA). The scientists conducting
the research want the wireless carriers and manufacturers
to indemnify scientists named in pending lawsuits. These
lawsuits involve health-related claims, potential industry
cover-up of health risks from cellular phones and privacy
of cellular billing and medical records for the WTR study.
The 1994 objectives of the WTR study included
comprehensive research for dosimetry, epidemiology,
toxicology and animal radiofrequency (RF) exposure
studies.
Cities and counties should note that the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 sets guidelines that
supersede any local government's standards for
regulating personal wireless facilities on the basis of RF
emissions. When personal wireless facilities comply with
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) RF
guidelines, cities and counties cannot impose their own
(looser or stricter) RFR standards.
Copies of the FCC guidelines are available from
Kreines & Kreines, Inc. for the cost of copying, postage
and handling.
Co -location v. Collocation
A Wireless Update reader has pointed out that the
dictionary uses the spelling "collocation." Wireless Update
prefers and plans to continue using the spelling "co -
location" because the dictionary spelling doesn't convey
the mean of "co" (together) and "location" (place). If
enough readers let us know they prefer collocation,
Wireless Update will reconsider. Wireless Update salutes
Erik Amundson of Sprint PCS, Seattle, and also notes that
Doug Athas, manager of PCS PrimeCo in the Dallas area
insists on proper spelling.
Published by Kreines & Kreines, Inc., Consultants to Cities & Counties on Wheless Planning
58 Paseo Mirasol, Tiburon, CA 94920
phone: (415) 435-9214, fax: (415) 435-1522, e-mail. wireless.update@worldnetatt net
8
NOVEMBER 13, 1996
_I
Wireless Master Plans
Wireless Update is receiving more inquiries regarding
Wireless Master Plans. What are they and why do we
think they are superior to an ordinance (regulation) or
policy (guideline) approach?
First of all, Wireless Master Plans include or depend on
an implementing ordinance and/or a municipal policy.
Rather than supplanting regulations or guidelines, a
Wireless Master Plan adds to the ordinance or policy the
one ingredient that distinguishes it: a geographic base.
Second, some planners believe that a Zoning Map
provides the geographic base needed for a Wireless
Master Plan. Wireless Update thinks placing cell sites in
permissive districts such as industrial or commercial
enclaves, can have profound impacts on nearby properties
in residential zones. No municipality would ever have
designed a zoning district for 100 -foot (and higher)
mounts within a community of two- or three -storied
structures (unless they called it "the Tower District").
Cities and counties are adding these exceptions or
conditional (special) uses as afterthoughts in land use
districts. Cell sites can be called "land uses" or "utilities"
if it's convenient, but what they are is infrastructure.
Third, cities and counties are approving cell sites on a
one -at -a -time basis, even though cell sites are actually
parts of a network or system (which is why they are
infrastructure). Some cities and counties ask for a build-
out plan, but carriers are reluctant to show local
government that which the cities and counties all know
they have. How can planners add, in good faith,
incremental pieces to a system when planners lack an idea
of what the ultimate network will look like? More
important, what would all the carriers' built -out networks
look like when super -imposed on each other? Does
anyone, including the FCC, have an idea of what that
would look like?
Fourth, how would a Wireless Master Plan relate to co -
location? If planners knew where all the cell sites might
go, then they would have a better chance of co -locating
them. The Wireless Master Plan doesn't force a carrier on
to a particular co -location mount, but it tells that carrier:
here's the general area where the city or county wants
your — and the others' — cell site to go ... start talking.
Fifth, the Wireless Master Plan can be a marketing
document for the city or county. By pre -approving its
own general areas in a Wireless Master Plan, local
government gives the carrier and the landowner (often the
local government itself) a head start on other landowners
who have yet to go through the process. If the city or
county adopts the Wireless Master Plan, it just needs to
make certain that it hasn't created a conflict of interest by
keeping private landowners out of the leasing pool.
Sixth, when it comes time to make findings, which
Wireless Update recommends for both denials and
approvals, the local government will need a written body
of substantial evidence. What better place to find
substantial evidence than in a recently adopted Wireless
Master Plan?
Seventh, and finally, what the carriers crave
desperately is certainty. A Wireless Master Plan is
subjected to public input before pre -approval of
acceptable locations, which occurs at adoption. After that,
all that remains is an administrative proceeding in order
for the carrier to obtain a permit. There should be no
surprises to the carver or to the local government as each
cell site is proposed.
Questions abound: how expensive is a Wireless Master
Plan? (Not very, and the cost is recoverable from the
carriers). How long does a Wireless Master Plan take?
(Several weeks where the carriers cooperate, several
months when they don't.) Are specific sites identified?
(No, general areas are.) Is radiofrequency (RF)
engineering required? (This is a variable, although a
minimal amount of RF engineering is recommended.)
Wireless Update doesn't recommend the use of model
Wireless Master Plans for the same reason Wireless Update
doesn't recommend model ordinances. Each month
Wireless Update features articles on lawsuits and it won't
be long before the ordinance or Wireless Master Plan
borrowed from another jurisdiction will end up resulting
in litigation. Wireless Update's advice: take the time,
include the carriers and consult the public.
We call that a win -win-win.
Johnson County, Kansas Retains Kreines &
Krelnes to Review its "Communications Tower"
Regulations
Johnson County, immediately to the southwest of
Kansas City, is experiencing "tower fever" with the
number of applicants approaching the planning counter.
The first order of business was to retain Kreines &
Kreines, Inc. to help staff with the revisions to the Johnson
County Zoning and Subdivision Code.
Johnson County is addressing issues that are similar to
many local governments trying to make the previously
existing zoning provisions work for wireless. Here are
some of the issues dealt with in -the County's new
regulations:
• Definitions of terms consistent to the
Telecommunications Act of 1996.
• Rationales for what the County wants in the
regulations (e.g., co -location). These rationales will
provide substantial evidence in the event any cell sites
are denied by the County.
• Co -location of cell sites is defined and rules for co -
location are established.
Call Kreines & Kreines, Inc. if your jurisdiction needs a
document reviewed. The time and cost is low.
Kreines & Kreines, Inc. will be doing a review of a
Florida city's proposed regulations next.
Published by Kreines & Krelnes, Inc., Consultants to Cities & Counties on Wireless Planning
58 Paseo Mirasol, Tiburon, CA 94920
phone: (415) 435-9214, fax: (415) 435-1522, a -mail: wireless.update@worldnetattnet
N
NOVEMBER 13, 1996
BOOK 99 PAGE 818
Court Cases, Ordinances & Other Documents
Kreines & Kreines keeps copies of:
• City/county wireless ordinances, wireless regulations,
wireless policies and wireless moratoria.
• Court cases (Grundman v. 360 Degree Communications
Company, Sprint Spectrum v. City of Medina, BellSouth
Mobility v. Gwinnett County, Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems
v. Borough of Baldwin, Westel-Milwaukee Company v.
Walworth County).
• FCC Guidelines.
• Telecommunications Act of 1996
• General Services Administration procedures for federal
sites.
• California Public Utilities Commission orders for
Cellular Utility Facilities.
• A primer on how to meet the substantial evidence test,.
These are available from Kreines & Kreines, Inc., along
with back issues of Wireless Update, for the cost of copying,
shipping & handling. Call us for more information.
*Feds Said the Light is Red, Cities/Counties Don't
be Misled
The General Services Administration has issued
procedures for placing personal wireless facilities on
federal property. These procedures were issued as a result
of an order by President Clinton to all federal departments
and agencies to facilitate access to federal property for
placement of personal wireless facilities.
A guiding principle of these procedures is that the
placement of personal wireless facilities on federal
property should be done in accordance with Federal,
State and local laws and regulations ... public health and
safety concerns, environmental and aesthetic concerns,
preservation of historic buildings and monuments."
If UniSite, Inc. or another company is trying to place an
antenna on federal lands (e.g., post office property) in
your jurisdiction without obtaining any local permits, you
may want to get a copy of these procedures.
Kreines & Kreines Returns to Daly City,
California for a Workshop
After having completed two projects (one in the 1970s,
the other in the 1980s) in Daly City, just south of San
Francisco, Kreines & Kreines, Inc. was particularly
honored to be asked to participate in a wireless workshop.
Daly City is a "can -do" city, and the questions to
Kreines & Kreines, Inc. were:
• The City wants to lease public lands to the carriers.
How can the City market its publicly'owned prime cell
sites and regulate carriers at the same time?
• The City has areas that are inappropriate for cell sites,
even though the zoning ordinance might allow cell
sites in these areas at this time. What do we do?
The City has some areas that are conditionally
acceptable for cell sites, but what are the conditions
BOOK 99 PAGE
and can they be established in advance of granting a
Conditional Use Permit?
Kreines& Kreines, Inc. provided direction to the Daly
City Council and staff on Halloween night. Hopefully the
suggestions were all treats and no tricks.
CPUC Reconsiders its Pre-emption Role: Come
to a December Workshop
The June issue of Wireless Update announced that the
California Public Utilities Commission adopted General
Order 159A, a relaxed version of GO 159. At the time,
Wireless Update noted that pre-emption (the real version,
not the FCC variety) was possible with GO 159A, but the
CPUC was not rushing to force California cities and
counties to approve cell site applications.
As certain carriers begin to encounter increased local
government resistance to applications for cell sites, they
are urging the CPUC to reconsider its policies on pre-
emption. Consequently, the CPUC is holding a one -day
workshop in San Francisco to gather testimony from local
governments. The workshop is open to everyone.
The workshop is planned for December, although a
date has not been announced. Please contact Kreines &
Kreines, Inc. for the date, time and location.
Ted Kreines, AICD, will be at the workshop. He will
incorporate into his remarks comments sent to Wireless
Update by readers. Please send any written comments
you want included to Kreines & Kreines. This workshop
will be reported on in a future issue of Wireless Update.
Play it Again, Walworth County
A Wisconsin Appeals Court judge ordered Walworth
County to reconsider the Walworth County Park and
Planning Commission's decision to deny Cellular One a
permit to construct a telecommunications tower in Westel-
Milwaukee Company, Inc. v. Walworth County.
Cellular One applied for a conditional use permit to
build the 200 -foot tower in March 1994. The County
denied the CUP because a neighboring resident felt the
location of the tower would reduce the value of their
property and was too close to their residence.
The trial court ruled that the record for the denial
contained sufficient evidence for the denial of the CUP.
Cellular One appealed.
While the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was
enacted after Walworth County's denial, the court ordered
the County to reconsider the Cellular One application in
light of the Telecommunications Act The court based its
judgment on conserving administrative and judicial
resources. If the County's denial of the CUP was upheld,
then Cellular One could resubmit its application to the
County anyway and the County would have to base its
new decision on the Telecommunications Act this time
around. Copies of this decision are available from Kreines
& Kreines for the cost of copying, postage and handling.
Published by Kreines & Kreines, Inc., Consultants to Cidds & Counties on Wireless Manning
58 Paseo Mirasol, Tiburon, CA 94920
phone. (415) 435-9214, fax: (415) 435-1522, e-mail: wireless.update@worldnetatt.net
10
NOVEMBER 13, 1996
Editorial: Wireless Update Scoops RCR with the
Gwinnett County Lawsuit
Wireless Update first heard about the Bell South Mobility
v. Gwinnett County lawsuit in June 19% and jumped right
on it. Wireless Update readers alerted its readers to this
case in the July issue, fully discussed the issues in the
August issue and analyzed the decision in the September
issue. This case was important because the decision was
based solely on procedure and not on substance.
Imagine our surprise, then, to rea:. bout Gwinnett in
the October 21,1996 issue of RCR. Why did this case —
which should be the champion of the industry — take four
months to come to the industry's attention? Before you
wonder, "who cares?" please consider the following.
Wireless deployment is a brand new ball game. The
carriers are giving it the best shot they can, but their
emphasis is on time. Cities and counties, on the other
hand, have seen applicants in a hurry before. Wireless
Update sees it this way:
• There will be a flurry of litigation, not all of which
makes case law, but some of which will influence the
way things get done.
• Telecommunications attorneys will lead the way, and
they are expert in filing ex parte briefs, normally before
commissions such as the FCC and those that regulate
utilities in the 50 states.
• However, local government is still trying to figure out
whether this wireless phenomenon calls for land use,
environmental or infrastructure law ... or all three.
• Cases like Medina (June & July Wireless Update) and
Baldwin (this issue of Wireless Update) are really just
sorting out the way courts view wireless planning.
Gwinnett, on the other hand, is a completely new issue:
the Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires written
substantial evidence in a denial of a cell site and, because
the judge found that Gwinnett didn't provide that
evidence, he overturned the County's denial.
Wireless Update understands that we are all learning
how to deal with this increasingly frenzied pace of
meeting time commitments to approve or deny. As
— Kreines & Kreines, Inc. -
Consultants to Cities & Counties on
Planning for Personal Wireless Facilities
58 Paseo Mirasol
Tiburon, CA 94920
11
NOVEMBER 13, 1996
frustration builds, some harried applicants may turn to the
courts for remedies. Wireless Update will let cities and
counties know first what litigation is pending and how
that may affect local government decisions.
November is for Giving Thanks
When Wireless Update sent its first issue out to 100
prospective subscribers and potential clients last March,
we had no idea that we would find so many interested
readers in eight months' time. We are thankful for your
interest and your'votes of confidence.
As the holidays draw near, many Wireless Update
readers will take trips to other parts of the country. While
visiting other regions, take a look at how their cities and
counties are approving personal wireless facilities. We
have much to learn from each other, even if it's how not to
do something next time.
Wireless Update wishes its readers a Happy
Thanksgiving. And thanks for being a loyal reader.
Windsor, Connecticut Holds a Workshop
Kreines & Kreines, Inc. traveled to hold a workshop in
the Town of Windsor, the oldest town in Connecticut,
which happens to have a strategic location between the
City of Hartford and Bradley International Airport. Not
only is this town careful about the way it looks, it happens
to be very successful in economic development. Most
cities and counties active in economic development fear
over -regulation of wireless, but Economic Development
Director Harry Freeman takes a different approach: "If I
can't offer a quality environment to prospective tenants,
they'll go elsewhere."
Planning Director Mario Zavarella, AICP, noted that
the process of wireless planning might take a little longer
at first, but if Windsor plans, the result is likely to come
sooner for all carriers and the outcome will be appreciated
by all. Connecticut is a particularly difficult state within
which to plan for cell sites because there is a Connecticut
Siting Council that actually can pre-empt local
government.
Stay tuned and VWreless Update will keep its readers
apprised.
BOOK 99 PAU 820
BOOK 99 FAE 821
Mr. Kreines emphasized that he is a city planner, not an
engineer, and that he feels his job today is to furnish guidelines,
shed some light, and participate in discussions. He began by
respectfully asking that "towers" be referred to as "personal
wireless facilities."
Through the aid of ELMO, the overhead projector system, Mr.
Kreines gave the following slidefilm presentation:
What are the greatest concerns of those impacted by an ordinance or policy?
Property
Rights
Property
Values
e Kreines .0 Kreines, Inc., 58 Pawn N1irasnl, *1 ihurnn, CA 14920, (d l5) 419-9214
12
NOVEMBER 13, 1996
Use Permit
Zoning Ordinance
Master Plan
What are the main objectives of a Wireless Master Plan?
13 8001( 99 F'A� � 8?
NOVEMBER 13, 1996
BOOK 99 PaP'E 823
Coverage
Should we select a maximum height?
Capacity
Residential
Kreines & Kreines, Inc., 58 Paseo Mirasol, Tiburon, CA 94920, (415) 435-9214
14
NOVEMBER 13, 1996
What does a Wireless Master Plan accomplish that an ordinance or policy will not?
Certainty
Marketability
Pro -Forma
Permitting
Section 704(a) (7) (B) of the Telecommunications Act
of 1996:
The regulation of the placement, construction,
and modification of personal wireless service
facilities by any State or local government or
instrumentality thereof -
• shall not unreasonably discriminate among
providers of functionally equivalent
services; and
• shall not prohibit or have the effect of
prohibiting the provision of personal
wireless services.
15
NOVEMBER 13, 1996
BOOK 99 FA..,U 82
Box 99 PA -E 82
14 -5
Which statement best- describes your view?
1. The community shou-Id, be designed (or
redestghed) to, accothmod'ate the wireless
netw- ork.
ORS
2. Th �wir'ple'ss-netwotk.---sh.ouldbe designed (or.,
Tedlgn-ed); to. accoftitA6datethe community.
OR,
I Both -the. community and-, thewireless, network
should be designed- (or redesigned) to
accommodate. each other.
What is the greatest challenge facing an ordinance or policy approach?
-ocal Regulation
without Conflict
of Interest
16
NOVEMBER 13, 1996
':41.i
Generate Revenues
for your own
City/County
L--1
IWhat Authority does a local government have under the federal law? I
What is the difference between an ordinance and a policy approach-?
El
Ti- -'r
• Offer incentives.
• Flexible guidelines.
• Suggest approaches.
• Useful for making
findings.
NOVEMBER 13, 1996
*
Set requirements.
Protection of
Mandate of the
Environmental,
a Telecommunications
Aesthetic
act of 1996
& Historic
review.
Resources
Has force of law.
What is the difference between an ordinance and a policy approach-?
El
Ti- -'r
• Offer incentives.
• Flexible guidelines.
• Suggest approaches.
• Useful for making
findings.
NOVEMBER 13, 1996
*
Set requirements.
e
Proscribe limits.
e
Limit administrative
review.
•
Has force of law.
17
P
BOOK 99 f -Au 8
'A
BOOK 99 PA -t 827
What kind of special knowledge does staff need to evaluate an application?
�A How Many Carriers Will There Be?
License Type
i Number of Licenses
Number of Existing &
Future Operators
Cellular _
2
2
ESMR
_
1-2 —
1-2
90 Mhz SMR
5
_
PCS
_
6 (3 TBD)
_Broadband
Narrowband PCS
_
26 (7 TBD)
-
26
38 Ghz
1 (1+ TBD)—
- -- 4 __.-----
MMDS . - — 4— - ----
Paging Companies
Multiple
10-25 per city
FCC Reallocation (235 Mhz)
_
9 (recommended)
9-18
FCC Reallocation (100 Mhz)
_
5 (projected)
5-10
TOTALS
------------- -- ------ -
- -
-- 57-87
MMD.S: MuNipoid Microwave Distribution Services
— —..
----- -- ----- -
IVDS: Interactive Video Distribution Services
-
Source: UniSite.lnc.
18
NOVEMBER 13, 1996
L
Which. statement best describes your view?
1. The community should be designed (or
redesigned) to accommodate the: wireless.
network.
OR
2. Thew.ir,e'l;os8;network should, be- des ign-.pd(or,
redesigned:).In
to:., accommodate the-: community.
OR
I 130tho the community and the wireless network
should be designed' redesigned). to
.;
accommodateeach other.
Elements of a Wireless Master
Plan
• Public Policy Element
- Ordinances/ policies
- Protocols
- Standards
- Criteria
- Review steps
- How to use the Wireless
Master Plan
19
NOVEMBER 13, 1996
• Location Element
• Visibility Element
• Siting & Design Element
• Safety Element
• Public Sites Element
• Monitoring and
Maintenance Element
• Mapping (MARC)
BOOK 99 PAGE 8�8
or
�t
Above: l wo small monopoles mounted on the
side of a penthouse above a warehouse.
Lett I %, o PCS panels (large arrow) on
toren rmind building compared to two cellular
panrk (,mall arrow) on background building
PERSONAL
County
WIRELESS
Telecommunications
SERVICES
Services
Commercial Unlicensed
Common Carrier
Mobile Radio Wireless
Wireless
Services Services
Exchange
1 1%
Services' '
Cellular PCS Specialized Enhanced Paging
Mobile Specialized
Radio Mobile
Radio
21
NOVEMBER 13, 1996
B0399 FACE 8 30
BOOK 99 FATE 831
- -5
C'\o-
rlo-l-
. 71
22
NOVEMBER 13, 1996
.,s -f � � s Jy+
Tq�
wi ai�
�.
BOOK 99 PACE 833
How many of us believe that there must be a
minimum vertical separation between carriers &
that this distance drives the tower higher?
24
NOVEMBER 13, 1996
� � r
� t 7"`Sr S y� �.,-�v S• "hk,�„��, �-ask.... � '`'Tm�"'F '�-1 ���r.�"1'°t�'� "rla3t`v`L's+��.Pi•� r•^ter, Nv'�^�.+,v '��.
�F ��i� .may`' ��� ��yy�-s���"�C�,���r��. j �`• a t ��` `�������,�„ ,���,"`�.
RK
� raw f� }3��..�-.��"�t� �-vs�,�-'� .�.L�.+� i •.
1 tti `��nJ'xy ✓s '�� IiaS S n� "zs�s � x
Of .r,jv, `TZ S7,J S�
.r
�r.�� s J_ti �}�.s•�jr s'n\3vii --g�g5-a�i�-i`�c� b ..itax��d. ,,y � r
y r+ a <n 1gigaues.Y- Elt,
.� t '+•.i`T s-rt.yam.,. '.'�' } r* x ^ty{. -k-�.i,?. .� �' a-� F
:11
bury Heights' zoning board
fires all towers to be less than
b
-Ivi J
JA
Market research
forecasts major
population shifts K "' ?�I �'-
within four years,
demanding
broader
coverage
W
0 wlkl�
Custom Monopole R.F. 71"
Transparent Enclosure
Customer Airtotich Cellular
Contractor Tower Structures
Hilltown demands
i'A"A
...... . . . . . . . .
rr 4.
co -location of PCS,
broadcast, cellular,
and two-way on
one 1500 -foot
tower.. .
W
0 wlkl�
Custom Monopole R.F. 71"
Transparent Enclosure
Customer Airtotich Cellular
Contractor Tower Structures
If site acquisition costs rise another 60/0`.
this year, how,will you get full market
-coverage on time and on budget?
rr 4.
If site acquisition costs rise another 60/0`.
this year, how,will you get full market
-coverage on time and on budget?
�.ThN7IK11 ol�i
All
,
�ikt ,'90 Et il
BOOK 99 RAu 837
Wireless
Above Ground
.t
Underground
At the conclusion of the slidefilm presentation, Commissioner
Bird asked if the various users of towers transmit the same type of
radio waves whereby additional height provides additional coverage
and where it would be advantageous for somebody to be on the top
and less advantageous for somebody to be in the middle or the
bottom of the mount. His question included whether they transmit
on different types of frequency wave lengths where they could be
lower on the tower and still accomplish their purpose versus the
users on the top.
Mr. Kreines explained that they all could be lower than they
are because the examples shown are in other parts of the country
and it is the same technology. This is really a function of RF
design which one would be led to believe are all locked in with
cells and cannot be changed. Mr. Kreines stated that he was trying
to make the point that they can be changed so that the cells can
get smaller and interlocking can occur.
Commissioner Macht clarified that generally the higher the
tower, the broader the range depending on the line of sight and
interference of frequencies.
Commissioner Bird asked about co -location, and Mr. Kreines
stated that every single -use tower that allows co -location wants to
stay at the lowest point and have the additional carrier added to
the top.
Mr. Kreines emphasized that the purview of the County is land
use, environment, and infrastructure.
28
NOVEMBER 13, 1996
� � r
Chairman Adams agreed that our primary concern is land use,
which is why we asked Mr. Kreines to come today. However, we don't
know who to believe as far as future RF carriers are concerned.
Community Development Director Bob Keating asked if visibility
is the Board's major concern in approving additional towers, and
Chairman Adams replied that our first concern is the number of
towers and the need for more.
Commissioner Macht believed that safety and aesthetics are the
driving forces, and Commissioner Bird commented that it gets down
to the question of whether there should be taller and fewer towers
or whether there should be more shorter towers.
Commissioner -elect Caroline Ginn, who will take office
November 19, asked if we could have a plan without having any more
towers than we have right now.
Mr. Kreines replied affirmatively, but stressed that there
might have to be some infill at very low heights. There are many
sites in the county that could qualify for strengthening, except
for the back areas.
Mrs. Ginn asked if it is possible to design a master plan
through a workshop, and Mr. Kreines again replied affirmatively,
adding that he believed it would have to be subjected to RF testing
on a scale model such as the one done for Dallas/Ft. Worth.
Attorney Vitunac asked if there are any wireless ;masterplans
where the County owns the infrastructure and leases it out to the
communication providers, and Mr. Kreines stated that there were not
any at this time. There are counties in many parts of the country
that have lease arrangements with the providers and they do it on
a first come, first serve "let's make a deal" basis. It is
possible that co -location will be required. Lease rates are all up
for grabs. Some industry representatives are saying that they are
being gouged because all of a sudden there is a master plan that
puts everything that the county owns on the front burner. Mr.
Kreines cautioned about being very careful in that regard because
that could be a conflict of interest for the County.
Attorney Vitunac asked if Mr. Kreines would advise the County
to get into the business of building and owning towers, and Mr.
Kreines felt the County would be well advised to do so, but with a
County plan. He pointed out that there are -tower builders who are
not carriers; they are not licensed by the FCC. They are like
developers who are not builders. There are tower builders,
W
NOVEMBER 13, 1996
BOOK 99 PA,E S3
I
BOOK 99 PAE839
839
however, who will build a tower and lease the positions on the
tower, and such a company could work for the County.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Jeff Steinburg, attorney from the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC), quoted Sections 704(a) and 704(b) of the Tele-
communications Act of 1996 and outlined some FCC recommended
guidelines:
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUREAU
y 2025 M Sftet, N.W., W"hlnpmn, DC 20664
FACT SHEET #1
APRIL 23, 9996
NATIONAL WIRELE88 FACNJilES SITING POLICIES
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 cotuaias imporWd Prcnriatoa cw4en ing the
place:aeat of towers tend other Scilides for use in ptovidia6 PMWW wirdcu =vl= him
stab and local cotmmnrides bays Wooed donly MA odla w and 011W Wireless secvioe
providers on such plplms, but this txw law embl *w now rcWm-69ibies fag
=nnwnWes and for the Federal Communicmone Commbdon (FCC). The rid man
in the ori vbm industry malon mese isttnes sera moue important.
This Fad Shat 01 is intended to opWa date ttsw provisions and to help sere sad
local SovW menb as *0Y deal wits the ultra of imflities situs is fit* load
oocnmuaitieL AXON wd of t)ds-Fact Sbast ft you Will &d norma of conmab for
additional inforamtioa about this area ad other issues befa++e the FOC.
Section 744 of the Tciccommuoicadons Act of 19% (the 1996 Act) >nv= federal.
start and local Sm mnent ovuli& of st of-pasonal wireless wvloe" WHtim Thf,
1996 Act establisbt• a cotapreb•asive fiamwa& for the mvm4se Ofimdogedon by sbte is
ioeal mwmg authorities over to cooft% modisatiaa and pIsc=M4 of 6CM&S such as
towers for ocnWw, persons) communications service (PCS Wad spwAn1lzW moobiie radio
(SM aansmit EM
• The new law psesorves local anoint nut WAY, batt clarifies When the mu n.i v of bora
2wiaS authority may be preetmpud by the FOC...-
•
.,.• $anon 704 prolttbita any action that would disariminste betwan dtffm t provid= of
personal wbdcss servicm such as cdMw. wid&mm SMR and broadband PCS. Tt
also prohibits atq sctian then would baa dwgetber the c=5Wucdua6 mofiiticmtioa or
placement of these )dads of facMda in a pattlatlar area. .
■ 71w law also tq edfm p umdura Which mast be followed for aclityi an a requat so
place thm kinds of i ' and Vwvi1s for wview in the courts or the FOC of any
decision by a zoning audmity that is fncoaaism with Section 704-
30
NOVEMBER 13, 1996
� s �
a Finally. Scctioa 704 tequins the federal governwd ae to take steps to help licensees in
epecnvm-based services, such as PCS mrd cellular, ret won to preferred sites for
their facilities. Federal agencies and departments will work dirtcdy with liwMea to
nsake federal p mpaty available for this purpose, and the FCC is directed to work with
the states to fund ways fcsr states to wootnmodate lioameec wbo wish to rrm towers
on static pmpmty, or no date auwwrnrs and sights-of4my.
'The inaciziesir w tfiis fact shat mak to Pmvido inform9doa concerning tower sidnS
for prions! wireless oommnanicoom Vxvicett They include it xw=ary of the provisions of
Section 704 of dzz 1996 Act. the &dual text of Section 704, and a teeht►ical information
samsmaty tbat describes Urs aemi1w, wkl&SMR sad bcoadbarA PCS tecbnologie: that
underlie the majority of requests for new town vitea-
Ques&= about this topic, and about federal mrilabon of wither t-1- i mkunication:
sorv= is geweeal, may be added to Kam Bnd=wn, Anodate Chief of to Vhvleas
Tekc�rmicaloas Instar, 202-4184)783, (o-ntdl: kbemlaaa Qu tions shaut
the TdeaoummiaWori Act of 1946 sum* may be x1dresaod to Sheryl WMwmn is the
FCC's Oti`toa of L49wd o and is vwramentrl Agnes„ 202-419-1902 %rgna�il:
may beaddressed two StmMerken6o rZ CChidof ft DroadwA Branch in to Virden
Ttlaeeoeasssittnica>aons Sureate, 202-I1s-0620, (e-nea7: a�dc�d�.8+ovj.
This !fact Sheet R is avat7abis ea our fisc-m4eee>and quem by
Domes Number 690x1. Tbc Wktpbow mnnber fbr fax-on4emW is 202-418-2830. This
Feet Sheet N1 may also be tld on ft humat at http://Www.fmgov&*Mbduma.htmL
SUMMARY OF SECTION 704 OF TELTCOI4II'"'CATIONS ACT OF 19%
7'he following is a ammary ut key provision. The text of Section 704 is reproduced in its
enti=ty as as attacivamt to this VJMMMY-
LgW Zonim Aum► Preserved
Section 704(a) of the 19% Act =cods Soction 332(c) of the Comzzvmicidont Act
('Mobile SaMoae") by adding a naw paragraph (7). It preserves the authority of state
and local govanmcats over regar4ag the PWWAM R, canstr X*d, and
modification of personal wireless wrvive6611fim acotpt w provided in the new
(7)•
2. Fxgm§=
a,
Stain -pd L=Udw My Not Take L=t''2hgdq inn W or Prohibiliem Actions
Sidon 704(a) of die 19% A_ at t� 1W du ragulation of the pmt,
_ co m and v ;peraoml wireless aeet a ss by any
State or Cowl govemmat or tea► 8awt shall not uia oaably
discriminate among peovidai of loaionahly wp iw%messm 4ces.'aad dball act
pcohiblt or have the mat otp wbibitins rho Pmvisim of PW=W %toleas
wrvlem 47 U.S.C. f 332(o)(7)(B -
Revewear. Any penin tlmt is advaaely agooted by a stats or loaf govetamen's
whoa or failure to act that is kPonssistea with Sectim 332(e)(7) meq► seek
acpodited taviea in else courts. 47 V.S.C. 1332(ax7)(Axs^.
b.
Section 704(a) also requires a Same er local govemn emt m set upon a mQucst
for authorization to place, oossstieuck err rrsodity pexsoaai wireless WVia
fielitia within a reasonable lima. Any decision to deed a tegvtat must be
made is writing and be mppoetsd by asbftnd l evidence ccaWwd In a wdtsaa
aneroid. 47 U.S.C. f 332(cx7)( W), (iii).
31
NOVEMBER 13, 1996
BOOK 99 PAGE 840
Fr- -I
BOOK 99 PAr,[ $41
S.
.., • . a. L u, , i - i.•i,_ is . ii! • .
Seabee 7WI) of the 19% Act esprmiy V=W s :talc end local Soveriuncnt
regulation of the plaeeineet, oonAMWAon. and modification of personal wireless
service feeilifl a on dw basis of the envie ==W rffab of radio ftequmey
emir ions to ft ca -, t that sorb tacaities comply with the FCC's rnWations
such cmisriom 47 V.S.C. 1332(aX7XRXiv)-
pAMAS =7 seine :eliet Dom due FCC if they arc adver-'ely affected by
a slime Or local govcrs final aadoa or fillers to art *A& is inconsistent
with this pro Alk n. 47 U.S.G 4 3320X WXv�
704(b) xquim the FCC to and MdW CfFettltve MW mks t+!lg&K ft
the envlronmmtsI cffocb of radio frogU=Cy emissions, winch are udder conaideration
in ST rAck t 93-62. wi0do 120 days at ens of 6919% Act•
Mn Vw pod. .a q( tilts procce t+ti b*` r* FCC deer' #W the M"
Wi*h ctaMWO ars in mid vvfwgt At d sets of radio ftWupwy
mdwkm. S d1w 7041W SIM per to dwe adaelitg rule:. See elated
sa7+u s to ON F. net deet
ntWl -(17.1 71
moo°7Wc) of die 1996 Act m9M the Pt>widtart (Offam) toow pwm&m by on a
a
whwh a* fedad govt KAY manta
W rasamb oondiscrimina- yr bull. pmpst9, nSs� vay and
eaftnum under am Control, t r the ptaemat of new ,Wwu% m-b&ed
xl000mmmicadoos services.
With respect to facilities sitinS on state property. Section 704(c) of the 1"6
Act requires clic l:CC m provide teobmicsl offort to States to eneouraSe tkwm
t,.) mike propery►, ngbad-way and easmnents under their jurisdiction available
for the placement of new spectrum -based telecomtnuaiications scrvixs.
NOTE: Infarnudi i eoncernbW teehnfeol import for tower siting which the
FCC l: making available m Kate and local governmente is aarradwd to the Fact
Shea
'Personal air LM sw,&=' include commercial mobile servicer, unlicensed wireless
Wr&es, and common carrier wireless exchange weem servi=L 47 U.S.C.
§ 332(cX7)(CXI)•
'C.oml mobile xrviom' are de5oed in Sxtion 332 of lite Comaitmicutiruas Act
sod the FCC's rnks, and indob txllt,— talsplsm ser vies ftplated wider Pert 22 of
the FCC's roles, SMR swvscea:egu mid underPstt 90 of the FCC's rules, and PCS
rogdaW under Put 24 of the Foga rAm 47 CFR 1209.
. _ . 'ata defined ss the o>2'ering � srleootnentutilcaflons
servioN gft d* awhoriaed &-nm which do not regws iu&viiduil I'cwW r &*Ct-
to-bome naM anka we exduded ftm this definition. 47 V.S.C.
§ 33XeX7xCX4
32
NOVEMBER 13, 1996
m
COMPLETE TEXT OF SECI70, 704 QF TRLECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1"6
SEC. 704. KACII.TTIES 9117NC; O1�C.ATItON 9.
s1TING POLICY
(a) NATIONAL WIRELESS
SEC. 332(e)141 U.S.C. 332(c)1 MOBILE SERVIC'E"4datory Tratm=t of
Mobile Services 4 amendod by adding at the cad the fonowi ig now paragraph:
(7) PRESERVATION OF LOCAL ZONING AUTHORITY—
(A) GENERAL. AUTHORITY.— as provided in this paza SPS
nothing in *k Act :hall !'emit or affect ft mdwdq► of��� a ov or
iastthnnantLit7► thosoof avow docisicas rsgu&4 p
and
modincedon of personal wuckm aavia facilitics.
(S) L UTATroxS--
Tlw mon of the place, carawmfim dad modlficedon of
per'oml aitt.lesu samw famlides by my Statc or laud govamsumt or
��Y thwoS— diehxiwvwm lawn FgQ.Vjdw of
fheodamUy satpnv9101 M.T11 aa; and
(LI) *dU dot pQmk or love the elan of Wd— the
of p wkas setvioes.
(11 A SUM Of ictal of ummsat1hr dwed al+all act on
� m baft visa i nun" period of dme is my
serviceor . meat i�cha�rtrautytalti� Ifo "comp ft Bab"
" filed with wch gov�cm
WA scope of state request vwnmaot or itY
(� Assy dotasioo by a Statc a kat go
witelm
thea+eof to dm's► a soquest to piece. ooaMuet. ar mOft pa
Favice fao'lism shad be in wdit and mpporW by subtr "rvHOM
coatatned to a %littca :coati.
(iv) No Sm�e or local SQ%Tmest or tauly tbesoof mar
rogulde do 0mcmeWs eombw*w- ad modificed a: of Pum d 14ftlesa
service hatdes an the bads of Bee BariWith the�Conmi�e��r
�
emiasim to do IN I seat such hsHitics�.
vt idy affactedaffacted by m► 8mt action cc h&ZP co act
by a Starve or load govt a m4' imiromenwhy demedw
After attrh W11= a
inconedmttmt with d is, sabper ;;; anyl within 30 dip
failm to am aommatN an action in any court of compo 3 *L The
cast shall bear and dedde such action ash an expedited bads A y pcmou
adversely affocted by as sot or faiharc to act by a Steffe or 10001 govt mmw or
my iastnem+eatality *dmf to is tzx mistent with clause DO MY Pcfifim dw
Commission for relief
(C) DWI4MONS.— For purposes of this va wq)h---
(t) the tam: 'pessooal wiralass swices" means comeoercial mobilc
saris unUumsed wirek s services, and mmuron carrier wireless exthie
acom wrvkm
(a) tiro term 'personsl wireless service f ciUtW' means fWHtiq for
the pion of personal wireless sere M; dad
C the term "unlicaesed wim1m " means *e offw;ns of
teteeorntnmicatioas services tueag devices vufileh do not requite
individual lig. but does not moan the provision of dbem4o-home eaullite
aamesa (as defined in section 303(v)).
* * • . •
33
NOVEMBER 13, 1996
BOOK 99 PAJ'E 844
Bog 99 RASE 843
SM 794 FA=TI S SITING; RAD10 MQUENCY BNIISSION
STA1gDAIM
s • � • •
(b) RAM FREQUENCY EMMSIONS.—Widna 180 days after the enactaym of
tial; Act„ dw Commi2lat :ban comphft mion in ET Docket 93-62 to prescribe sad make
effee6ve rales regarding do aaviro-Famenlal effect: of radio fregoaney emissions.
I.,�.
(W AVAN AD311rY OF PROPERTY.—Within 180 dvs of dw easctmew of this
Ars. the Pre ddft or bb dadpw diall preamba pvocedm+ea by whieb Federal depa mums
ad ssmdd.mq meta available aga.8ir, reasomM e, and buss, p operty.
n~-wqr sad manaft under dmk confraol for the phooment of oew t -I-- dt otu
siviou to este fit, in whole Pr in pact, upas the ultiilindun of Federal
rION !br die mai ar reoepdon of rich m -Asea. Tboaa peocedwes may esb6ft a
p m mnpbon that requests for the use of property, rigbts.of-way. and eascmeub by duly
s6Oriwd providers dwidd be granted absent unavoidable direct sou ict with ft depsrtrrtm
or agearcyr's mission, or the currcat or plumed ire of the property. right-of-wq, and
easanuft in questiam Reasonable fee: may be charpd to providers of such
tdeoocamuoieatti�s sesrkea far oar of ProPedy• riway, and eaaemeats. The
Comminim shall p>novlele techrdeal rapport to States to eacoump them to make property,
r1&3-af w1% rod eaaemes+ta under their jurisdie don available for such purposes.
TECHMC-AL INFORMATION CONCERNING CELLULAR, SPB23M -
MOBiQ.E 1tADI0 AND pg,Zt. NAL CO OWNICATIONS SERVICES
Cellulae Infornisdou
The FCC adabliahed rules and procedures for Hoeneing eeellular systeon ;n the United Stairs
and its possessioais god Twdjuries. There tales doa*abd 306 Metropohten Statistical AMW
and 428 Rural Service Arms fnr a total of 734 cellt z markets and spccu= was allocated to
license 2 systems in each market. Cellular is allocated gmtrnm in dw 824-849 and 869494
MHz mngaa. Celldar licensees are gernarally► wqi red to liomao only the Lower locations that
nzake up titter outer service contotur. Licensees deucing to add as modify any tower loadons
tint are widdn an already approved and licensed serAoe aces do Trot have to subult an
application for lira# location to be added to their cddat lic arra, altlroagh toy may need FCC
approval if the antcana would oon dm acdot► (SW 9 2 below)
or would emceed the criteria specified in Part 17 of the FCC's Rules (mole. Maildng
and Lighting of An%= Strtwwres7• Part 17 Inchdca criteria for d+krmiaiag %tw
conwuwon of plaocme�ot of a tower would regtnire Preer notlfladmn to the redrraal Aviation
Administrem (FAA}: ' (See qua don 3. below.)
A odlulat systan opaxates by "diltg a lap geographnd service area loco evils and
emeses bequmdin to, noersdjaemt cells. This is known in rho indfey
a, fregaaney lana: Ai a sabsd'tbef ftvels aax+oaa Me secvloa era rho an b
tusfeuvd
(ha++dod-oft# free once veli to atWa W VdhM aejica" ift+Wd°m AS the coats in a
Qdkdar sysatm an aooneP Ied m a WkJ& Telepboos $wIfthiigt Off oe (.MM) by Limns or
microwave ice. The WM condroll the awitr>t> * the Public SveTitcleod T
awbow
Network (PSTN) and ilio Ga site fot all vvitelins-to-mobil@ and raobnee4o-whermt cels. i
SQeciatized
� Ucrosm pro • rn oa a
SpecWi. d Mobile Radio (Sly)_ basis. A traditiamal S "'t of ora ax
Commercial (La.. Eft Profit) or Pnva4b and end mer radio equipunant�
=x a bast Wtion transm Uv% oar air mom amoeni+as
whM
ofim oonim of a mobile radio V& eitlnet provided by the and lure or obtained
SMR aper".
The bate aWan receives either telepb ne traa:a>isstt�Os truer end asers ex low
povrea algals from and riser mobile sad'm
34
NOVEMBER 13, 1996
SMR systems operate is tm disdnet freq=wy 206421R31 -W6 MHz (OW bGW
and 196-901/9334w heft (4001V H* S00 Ma SW =vim taw baa Roamed by to
FCC as a slte-bq►-she basis, too that the S14R provider taust sppmoaah the FCC and seed a
license ft arch and aracy tom nits. In the futuaa the FMw in BMW band oo a
wide -area moket spp:oad+. 900 M& Slit was ' ' 8OINI
Fift
Aum (DFAs) of only the top 50 anslc $ in die eomlQy- The Cummissioa is b
the process of aucdovL4 tba mmliadec of the United States and in Pow ausd
Territories in the Read meNal1y defined Sl UWor Trading Area:.
)JOTE : F. I vras uiof serf
before commencing any ach consUvotion even K FCC approval b not odx'r►be mluirod for
such corumimon. The FCC Placa all proposals that my v'Pm= Y oPad the en"mrment
on public notice for a period of 30 days, seeking any Public cotumwts on the PrWsed
Much=. -ncc eg"aries set forth in Medan 1.1307 Wode:
W * kkmess Ares
Wildlife Presem
Endangered Spccics
Hi,dorical Site
Indian RaRgious Site
Flood Plain
WdIMxW
High Intensity Wbita Ligiub in Residential Ne1iO4orf00ds _
Ex ve Radiation Exposers
3. Ara there any FCC rePbdk s that govern whore rouges am or *"net be plead?
Answer. Tie FCC mendatea that peranil w1tdets � m that
adequate susrv= is provided ID to public. In 22
coot; must by by the PCC In aocuKbM vd& hC7,909 FCC Rulon.
The FCC must detamnte if than is a taawaaWa pot nl Billr elle tbe_ Mq ca>fte a
menace to sk nav*WO L The tower b0i8k and Ib paoat3miq tD as a?epo4t a palb will
be considered vtm maltt ebb dewrnhwImL Tf sulk a dt tertnitu+tioa is alido the FCC will
X15► approprimw p®nft and revir i s . ThA tI W PW4 a ant msrdete
where towers must be plavod. bnt d map pro}a'but the plae nt of a tow is a pat'traala:
location widwart adequate lige god unaridrK-
4. Does the FCC watat to aq' raetds oa tvwn BUM dkroa1100 SO Uaitad States?
Now don the puublk pt thio tWbra GOS (W =W _
Am= Thr FCC aha mfrs a goarg wwa database =the 6 W"i-1a- : (I) m'
towers over 200 feet, M mei► taweea awr 20 feet = rm vd9dft +e (06 a a %dIdIM
water tower. etc.) and (3) Wwm tient WC dose 14 airports that mgy cmm potential hawds to
air navigation. The FCC's fleeaft dambases cueWa name base site k&ffu adoa for
Cellular and SMR systems. The panetsl tower dsdabut hod dw CaUubr and SMR data that
may be an file with to FCC is aWUbk in throe PINM
(1) Cellular fi cnang bhrmatioa b eveitable in the Pobliq Re cla Of the
M MW PamWitelem T Bureau s Coeos�dal _ , .. -
ltefinen a Rooth is bated on the intik floor at 2W M Sgp4 NW, W=bhom DC
20554, teicphoaa (I WII-1350. Wins detsban I,- - A I! of UAWW Ile sae *
Information, along whh quaff Of the FCCa geoetal uma dsteban eau also be
aeoomphsh+ed at else Public RaIleirim" itaom.•
35
NOVEMBER 13, 1996
BOOK 99 FAIIA 844
BOOK 99 PnE84
(2) People wbo would like to obtaia Ssneral tower infotmstion *=6h In on-line
public tccees database should call or write Iataaed* sync. Inc., 1601 North Kent
St.. Suite 1103, AAkwoo, VA 22209, telephone 703-1124170.
(3) The FCC does not duplicate these raoids, but has contracted, with Iatcnational
TranWnptim service, Inc. to provide thn service. Requem for wpm m of information
should be WdmsW to laternstiotial Tramcciption Service. Inc. (M lne.12100 M
St., NW, Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037, telephone 202457-3600.
S. Why do Cellular and PCS providers require so many tower site$?
An,swwen Low powered transmitters are an inherent charaatedfiic of Cellular Radio and
Broadband PCS. As these systems matume and more subscribers aro added, tha of mtive
ra&amad p* wt of am an site transmitters is reduced >io gequencles can be reused at closer
Uservals t6eseby increasing subunIm capacity. Thane are over 30 inline nlobila►postable
cellular units and mote than 22 ftw and odl aims operating witbia the United Staten and its
Possadoaa and Twivie . PCS is just beginaiag lobe olfaed around the country. Due to
the fat *cert &ttadband PCS is located in a W&a fiequaq UnIA PM OPrdW WGI
require mote tom sites as fty build *inch sysaetas to provide oo OMP In chain savior areas
es oompiioed to ate g Caputo careimt Tleae+4ft% due to to mom of Amency mere and
U oo� d_ smaod for services, Cell* and PCS pwvWm must bawd mataemw bms
sites
L Cera CeRular, SM and PCS pmvkbrs shearer tow$r stra UM7
r. Y616 it is oe +ologieally possible Ser chases Sat " to oboe twrer ouctum
However, *hare nee limits to bow many base station Vansadum a SIA& tourer cm bold and
di!'fferont tower strutters have different limit. Moreodve:, these Pwvldets Ire cottepWtorl in
a mora and unto oompeove rawketplace aced easy not be Willing to share *colo spaae with
each other. Lauri mesietg MWwrities uW Wish to ret& a cowdft eqjnm to aduata dw
PrOPonla svbmined by v►irelast eommtaticslatoas litems. The eonsuift en&w uuw be
able to deter nine if &innate is some $e d -o ty as to the geographic lowdoo of the UMW.
7. h the Federal government helping to find ways to sooammodate I Ndtipu Reensees of
penowd wirelm nrrita!
Yes. TU FCC bas de dop Kiwi Stew iota=rindaall; C Sone.
Cotmnerdat Wheless Dhiaioa. Vadom Teleoomm+voicadooa Btaeau, FCC to MAX loosd
mein$ out wddet and m micipelities and respond to quad= mmmins tower Aft isstt*s.
Wis telephone number is 202-418:06"20 Abo. FmIdeo Cl RIM honed m FWMdvo
Meman August 10,1995 &Ccdng the A1o 001 of C>eat rel Setrv% n (WA). in
000a;d'tniti= with other Government deplcta mb and ageodes, to dowdop procedures to
fmdlitfe appropriate access to Fc&nd pzopecty for the siting of mobil* services InIamas.
GSA recently relemad "Government -Wide PrOcc" a for PlaciaS Conomor W AM=nW 61
Fed. Reg. 14,100 (March 29, 1996). For further information contact James Herbert, Oalm of
Propmy Acquisition cad Realty Service:, Public Building Service, General Services
Administration, 18th & F Streets, NW, Washington, DC 20405, telephow 202-501-0376.
L Have say stndies beta completed oa potential hazards of locating a tower/ban site
ales* to residential commuaitin?
Apgwrr. In cwwaection with its respoMbilities under NEPA. the FCC consider: the potential
effects of radiofrequency (RF) emissions from FCC -regulated tia mniinccs on human health
and safety. Shut the FCC is not the expert agency in this area, it teres standar& and
gt>ldellnes developed by those vrith the appropriate expertise. For ammpk, in the absence of
a uniform federal standard on RF exyosure, the FCC has relied matt 1985 on the RI'
36
NOVEMBER 13, 1996
ccpos= guidelh= issued in 1982 by the Anil n Nsdonal Staa&wh Inobtult (ANN..
093.1 -LM). In 1991, dw I=6brte of Elecaial sad Electronic Engiawn (IEEE) isund
guideline dcdz wd to replace the RF ANSI expam guidelinm That gnidelim
(ANSLUEE 095.1-1992) arae adopted by ANSI. Tlw TelecommunicatioM Act of I Y96
mad" dw the FCC ooq*w its prooee&S is BT Docket 93.64 in wldch it is
oond&rinY ppdating the RF a gvklclb e k no lsiec dwn early August 1996. Copia of
this proceeding can be obtaioocf froea the Iataastianal Transcription Sarrvim -Inc. (ITS),
alephow 2M457-3840. Pnnc*, RF omission vequircum am wed is Stenon
1.1307(b) of dee FCC's ruin. 47 C.F.R. J1.1307(b), for Q seavim PCS bu a rvtoe
specific RF emi,99ou provision in Section 24M of the FCC's enter, 47 C.FJL f 24.52
Additional inion concerning RF emf dm herds can be obmined through it vmiety of
9oeerc�
(t) Informadm concerning RF bawds can be nbWned cm the World Wade Web at
bttp:llwww. =S*vi*eb qe. RF nfi*y questions are answered and father RF
doamma and informadon an contained under the Cellular Tdephoay Sesiaa.
(2) OST &illetias S6 sad 6S coneeming dheft sad potential RF huw& can be
roquamed duough the Radivf ru qui► Safes► Program at 202-413-2464. AAdldonaily.
any Specific quatkm emmmics RF bends cera be w wad by Ming dw FCC
at this phone number.
Ma FCC maiotains a Cos IUMIXtioas sad Crisis MatMA tmt Center wWoh is staffed 24
lava a day. seven days a weds. lad* event of an anagency, each as a radiofregoe c7
bard dusaftmg FubHe oft or baW you may call 202-632-6975. The wiftb offlm
mho answers at that number on contagia out compliance personiW in your arca send dispatch
diem vAthin a tinalter of bougie.
Upon the conclusion of Mr. Steinburg's presentation, Chairman
Adams wondered who is doing the research on RF emissions because
she understood that research funds had been jerked from the federal
agencies.
Mr. Steinburg advised that it was being done mainly by the
carriers.
Chairman Adams asked if any of the officials from the
municipalities who were in the audience had any questions. There
were none.
37
NOVEMBER 13, 1996
BOOK U F'l+.E40
floex 99 PA"a 847
[W.11 t1i 69A I
Cliff Hertz, attorney for AT&T Wireless, advised that
representatives from 5 carriers were in attendance and, as
spokesman, he would show a video by AT&T Wireless covering many
informative aspects of cellular transmission facilities. He
assured the Commission that the carriers are working together and
that co -location is one of the major topics of discussion.
At the conclusion of the video presentation by Mr. Hertz,
Chairman Adams opened the meeting to questions and answers and the
following representatives participated:
Cliff Hertz, attorney for AT&T Wireless
Jeff Sluggett for Sprint and Nextel
Fred Ogline, engineer from BellSouth
Sue Delagough, attorney representing PrimeCo and others -
Gilberto Pastoriza, attorney for BellSouth Mobility
Sheri Brower representing Amateur Radio
Jim Randall from AT&T Wireless Service
Will Collins, IRC Deputy County Attorney
Bruce Barkett, attorney representing BellSouth
Commissioner Bird asked if a state-of-the-art ordinance had
been developed anywhere in the country that we could use so we
wouldn't have to reinvent the wheel, and Mr. Hertz emphasized that
it is a matter of what is appropriate for Indian River County.
Chairman Adams asked if digital means fewer antennae, and Fred
Ogline, engineer from BellSouth, believed that the move to digital
could mitigate the growth of antennae.
Chairman Adams asked if it was more advantageous to have
digital, and Mr. Hertz from AT&T Wireless advised that there is
competition to digital.
Chairman Adams understood then that new or additional towers
wouldn't be needed with digital technology and that they could all
work off the same towers.
Commissioner Macht felt we all realize the need for this
service, but our concern is controlling the siting of the towers
and limiting the number of the towers. He wondered if it would be
feasible for the carriers to develop a master plan for the County
to use in determining criteria for permitting towers, but Chairman
Adams believed that would be like having the fox guard the chicken
coop.
38
NOVEMBER 13, 1996
M M
Jeff Sluggett, representing Sprint, believed that Sprint would
feel pretty comfortable with 5-7 sites in their original deployment
in Indian River County and are looking at having 9-12 sites in 5
years. He stressed that not all of those would be new towers; they
could be co -locations with American Towers System sites..
Bruce Barkett, attorney representing BellSouth felt the
problem is determining how many customers there will be in the
future because the number of customers drives the need for more
towers. If the County can project where the county's population is
going to be in 5 years and how many people are willing to buy the
service, then the carriers could determine where their coverage is
going to be required.
Commissioner Bird still felt the decisions will have to be
made on a site by site location with consideration given to the
need for a tower in that area.
Director Keating requested further direction from the Board as
to what they would find acceptable and what they would not. If
hanging antennae on poles is acceptable, then staff can go on from
there. For example, does the Board want to see a tower with
pulsating red lights since towers over 200 ft. must flash?
Chairman Adams asked if towers would be necessary to provide
coverage in spotty areas along I-95. She emphasized that we are
giving the carriers an opportunity to tell us where they need the
towers, but they are asking us to first give them the population
numbers for specific areas.
Susan Delagough, attorney representing PrimeCo, advised that
they will have 2 towers out along I-95 which will provide basic
coverage, but their second generation towers or lower towers will
be dictated by the demand. She recommended a bit of a different
approach for everyone struggling with this issue. Rather than
identifying the things that you cannot live with, approach it more
from a planning standpoint of providing options and alternatives in
the LDRs that are adopted. For instance, identify zoning
categories such as industrial and create alternatives for
industrial to come in and make certain decisions as to how they
want to site towers or antennae in that area whereby some of the
decisions would be dictated by what sort of a process the carrier
NOVEMBER 13, 1996
q,
Boa 99 PAIL. 84
BOOK 99 FA -E 849
would want to go through in order to be allowed in a certain area.
The County could create standards for conditional uses or special
exceptions within certain zoning categories where the carrier would
have to demonstrate that they meet certain criteria to be allowed
to place certain types of antennae in certain types of zoning
categories. Creating a menu of LDRs is being done in other areas,
such as Broward County where many cities are struggling with this
issue. Ms. Delagough stressed that the carriers need to know the
certainty with which they are dealing. Not that they are
guaranteed anything, because they know they are not. They would
like to know if they come in and meet certain criteria in various
zoning categories they are likely to be considered favorable. For
example, if they agree to put a stealth antenna on a roof top in a
certain zoning district, they would be considered favorably. It
would be an incentive for the carriers if they know they would be
considered favorably if they followed the criteria set out in your
LDRs with regard to co -location and stealth antennae.
Chairman Adams thanked Ms. Delagough for her suggestions.
Mr. Kreines addressed the matter of the industry developing a
master plan for Indian River County. He emphasized that it is very
refreshing to see the cooperation that was displayed here today;
however, we are asking a question similar to the one about how many
angels can dance on the head of a pin. He believed the County
should give the carriers the specific locations, but help them to
expedite their plans if they meet certain criteria.
Director Keating noted that staff recommendations and
incentives have included exactly that. The question remains on
where the towers are not wanted. The last tower application for
the Life for Youth Ranch location would have met the requirements
of the draft Comp Plan Land Use Regulations (LDRs). Staff is
trying to find out if we are trying to please everyone in this
county and whether approval is subject to a few people being
unhappy because they can see the tower from their property.
Commissioner Bird felt we have to keep in mind the tremendous
source of revenue in allowing carriers to locate antennae on County
property.
Chairman Adams didn't feel we are ready to give Director
Keating direction, but Commissioner Bird asked if the Board would
go so far as to say that we don't want 300 -ft. towers in the urban
40
NOVEMBER 13, 1996
� O �
service area, but would allow them along I-95 and in agricultural
areas.
Planning Director Stan Boling felt the best option would be to
allow poles to be mounted in residential areas on steeples, utility
poles, lights in parks and playing fields. He noted that the Life
for Youth Ranch is outside the urban service area, which is another
reason why we need to write an ordinance. He emphasized that there
is no way 300 -ft. towers can be erected and not be visible from
somewhere.
Deputy County Attorney Will Collins advised that these issues
have been wrestled with by the Professional Services Advisory
Committee and the industry and by the Planning & Zoning Commission
and the industry and they do have a draft ordinance that addresses
many of these same concerns. He felt that another workshop,would
give the opportunity to look at the work that already has been
done, and then tweak it and give Director Keating feedback on what
the Board wants to see changed. He felt that it would be a good
starting point in moving forward.
The Board indicated their agreement about receiving
information back from the carriers on what their needs are for the
next 5 years before attempting to write an ordinance. They all
agreed that they would like to see the fewest number of taller
towers possible.
Commissioner Macht asked if the ordinance could say that
towers will be made lower if they are not used, and Mr. Hertz of
AT&T Wireless explained that would depend on the type of tower. A
self -supported tower could be decreased in height and then made
taller again after getting the Board's approval.
Jim Randall of AT&T Wireless confirmed that tower heights
could be decreased and gave a very technical explanation of co -
location positions on towers.
Chairman Adams asked if staff had enough direction, and
Director Keating asked if the Board wants to hold another workshop
or address this at another Board meeting.
Bruce Barkett also suggested another workshop be held before
preparing an ordinance.
Sheri Brower, representing Amateur Radio, realized that they
are excluded from the moratorium, but advised that they would bring
41
NOVEMBER 13, 1996
500K 99 F'�u 850
BOOK 99 PACE 851
information on their needs back to the Board in the next 2 weeks.
Chairman Adams emphasized the need for the County to find out
what the carriers need on a county -wide basis before attempting to
draft an ordinance.
CONSENSUS WAS TO HOLD ANOTHER WORKSHOP THE FIRST OR SECOND
WEEK IN DECEMBER. (date to be announced)
There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded
and carried, the Board adjourned at 5:45 p.m.
ATTEST:
J. Barton, Clerk
Minutes approved
42
NOVEMBER 13, 1996
Fran B. Adams, Chairman