HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/25/2001 f .y, , . • .. z- { � e . ' t � k` r. "a., v ..:. . ,..: ' .::r'. Y A. l ..- ..,4
y .M. p p;, ca,.. (3 ad .r3 .1... ; ,..
1 4 .m'x r h k ✓. .. ,. . .4 , , . . ie ; . "� t .. 3 : . : M1 u::E. Y.? i k 1.
4,. . r ..: f @" rt ',(
: . . .,_, a, '✓ -, t . +a% a .. , . . .x.. F.. „aa . . .. , ; r . t k`'. ,a A r ..
'{ f. ... , . r ' i?s" � --aP^�§ a d ' -t '. F
at, ,m . < E_ s.,, r e
,. 3, � s. . sq . .R .a. , .. n. �. ..�. _:,:� >... -4, � .. 4 t ✓ ' + iFr^i. #
;r i � t §t` r vx -' N s..
� sv. s .. .:.. , t —. >• s ', .:� rn ., . . ,.. , N` s `e ;, . .� .
si ?. ., ,,,.. . h :
+r..->?.,v
`� ..r k.,:.. _ .w:. 4'as' x` ,.. xe+ .:, ,.. i u, � r�`i u� tit � 1 -'i • 1 f
��,}h+ � k t >r `tr -: t
T
7
k
MINUTES ATTACHED
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
A G E N D A
PUBLIC WORKSHOP MEETING
WEDNESDAY , JULY 25 , 2001 - 9 : 00 A. M.
County Commission Chamber
County Administration Building
184025th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Caroline D . Ginn, Chairman District 5
Ruth M . Stanbridge District 2 James E . Chandler, County Administrator
Fran B . Adams District 1 Paul G . Bangel , County Attorney
Kenneth R . Macht District 3 Kimberly Massung, Executive Aide to BCC
John W . Tippin District 4 Jeffrey K . Barton, Clerk to the Board
9 : 00 a . m . PUBLIC WORKSHOP — WIRELESS MASTER PLAN AND
TELECOMMUNICATIONS (TOWERS AND ANTENNAS )
REGULATIONS RE -WRITE .
Presentation/Discussion — Outline Attached
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 x1223 at least 48 hours in advance of
meeting .
Indian River County WebSite : http : //bccl . co . indian -river . fl . us
Full agenda back-up material is available for review in the Board of County Commission Office, Indian
River County Main Library, IRC Courthouse Law Library, and North County LibraryMeeting may be
broadcast live on AT & T Cable Channel 13 — rebroadcast continuously Thursday 1 : 00 p. m. until
Friday morning and Saturday 12 : 00 noon until S : 00 p. m.
Meeting broadcast same as above on AT & T Broadband, Channel 27 in Sebastian.
8A its X62
d , tX rt is y `T v s .� r M1 . r z
" 5 ` 4 .�.� dSv x � : 7777
r V f ✓j, f- V i v i_ r k 1
r . t a z r e i tk r fi
d' Zs sy � s `td 1x ;. r 4Y +yu t;! t st
K.'Sx, _.
s. . . , . .«< ,. � Jr,:-s ..r.,: r e .. - =:1 } ...a. .,., 1 f . _. .rt. '^ai.- ..r., t `;,< s Y ..; K . .. .n
,. ,. 'Y .. . 4 ,r w`.,. r✓^ . . K.'#,` -€}"r. .. .. 1f sem. ,6x. . P.... 'st : .w : ;,
"✓ s ,r: � .. -t , �.. �. . rtT �Xn: a ., _ ,,�,... q `''s t. J 3x 5 r� ,y, = h �^ ,
3 ' fi a e. . 'Y '. x ,Y y. ��x :' +f. i v x. rt r
^ A ., : o-:.. � t,. ,. ' i xyxi',-•' v §�#��,�. ,i� �.,. �,Lfiti� , A' a t x :. R-�; 4F as 1 q •+ :, f
� - x { ` *' 8� '� *i's �.' M
a�'{.tt , ph,�" ., 4 •''•. : .d . x'� .r,;r v u ,t, =+:'.. :L,a �v wY��ria' msp^' < a ,,_. � "# i4 Y r"Ex. 'h x � ,..5 }« d
< r _ : r >a A a �' -x .% 5 s:«, '� � 7 ".c`'`<«+5`? - W .2W A'R
ry �{� �.,. �., ,�« G{ . . v. a -. .+'Gv � .A,:. � ' ,. . � . . _ :, . � . � t{'�^�.�'$81�' NYi`� to "``✓F�R`3
'... 55�.� `�.D J
r a .
e. n.
July 25 . 2001
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County , Florida, met in Special
<f Session at the County Commission Chambers , 1840 25 ' Street , Vero Beach , Florida , on
Wednesday , July 25 , 2001 at 9 : 00 a . m . Present were Chairman Caroline D . Ginn ; Vice
Chairman Ruth M . Stanbridge ; Fran B . Adams ; and John W . Tippin . Commissioner Kenneth
R . Macht was absent on County business . Also present were Assistant County Administrator
Joseph Baird ; County Attorney Paul G . Bangel ; and Deputy Clerk Patricia "PJ " Jones .
Chairman Ginn called the meeting to order .
Planning Director Stan Boling introduced the members of the Planning & Zoning
Commission and noted that the meeting has been advertised .
Proof of Publication Is On File In The Office
Of The Clerk To The Board
The Board reviewed the following Workshop Agenda of July 25 , 2001 :
WORKSHOP AGENDA
Indian River County
July 25 , 2001 , gam — 12 : 00noon
Attendees : Anthony T . Lepore and Melissa Murray ( Legal , CityScape ) , Dan
Collins ( Engineering , CityScape ) , Kay Miles ( Administration , Cityscape )
PowerPoint presentation will be given by Cityscape , leading into a Question and
Answer period for general consensus discussions facilitated by CityScape .
INTRODUCTION :
DEFINING TWO DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENTS
Rural/Agricultural Areas
Urban/Tourism Areas i fc
33
JULY 259 2001 _ 1 _
1 6 IJ O
. r�'�ay,s.#,a<.:."�xc..,:r,J.-..n:a�.,..n:... ,,NT- ', ":.n,'.u.= y4e�t„t>.'2.a.yd.!�..:�U.3rb-F.n.uc.cts?J'+)•x”.S.qs.4r:;`�:,�j_' �t v vA" x''tt_s4z.19M
g�'.Iha+r �..s, c. Fi' }:' s. -x.�.,-.=,.,..x,t><«..;r.#.,,t' iats s,. ✓v. x.ez:,.:i._,.. t.KA.,,`..xy ume •p t � dx ?
„..v',...':a,.:,r, r r . >a;,F..„., Y a,. .e."sr,..:�'i . ✓ a „s- .�,.r:;. :": 4 7 e , ...«,.'e: '1t si rsfs-
s ,t.C..°��';. t . ?at'r.,xs...�.,x..,.. .,,<%...t bt'iY C'.v,, t ,r. t s t;t- x�4,x.x.s�r^�:,`.. m l
d.sunis„{,xs..y."'zg."i4§a"; 3.;e✓' r'c�t re,,#:..�xN..+x
v. x 2 x
'3
zg'��r� ` .« n•. �,, . } , q� � m �.„ 4, N,;b. .-�% rsrsy„ .'+, : ' � � �s k s F,
t , 'r � ae � n
. . -.`. . .a, ., . n. . t4 %:F 'w.. . she,., -... 6 �:,'.4: Y :,:xat tiff. .. t 4 e .. # c t 9 s:,* ...
. .�. Y t Xa � •. "pfd to '•zt_.F xt $F# 4 �`ta „ t-�"2 S`r
.t"k�:
<c fn �„q+ki '�. .,r '�'�..v ��'n�5.,u��i���”kCrs��xr�°7r„3.%§:...t.�t °.�.""`, -.+'KP.�' ?"�,.�".. �,. ,'` „x. ,eF� ., ..xt .F ,... 5'sr.,.z�
. .. . .'` . .. < , s:.���, t . .. .,. . rx _ ,,. rr. . . . . ..xi�5 , .. 1. �t ?:pl , rrt> , .t. . . •G', s•`.mss
`z^'p.. �'.;,, � '.. .x . .w .. f =r?u ;` E � � . -c .
:rs.¢mu w.
'S' ; .".w . .
, . c
Y t it 5 i .IAF F 2 -a3 # h t k h k '� k `F. . w ), .'. � R't" Is < .^x. t ,Yf X
.... .
� ..,,:«:. � , �: i l u �.! :.,.. . r, ,.. . : n r v�-, rk � n .L r # tr txs "
C S rc4.U'��'X a,u� y*i'::'
t. :., , . ..,,.. _ .., ss -+ + t•IS .,:. . k .;:�i + Utz vY a.. . + .�r,�.;,�.�
c MP
� :::.� x : F '4 T .E r .,; .;�' a` v' �s,
;,rY r :C . . `.: '.i'- ..t. � � i .: �x ix. } � c 'a a' _ ys r y, � }
WWI9, a r ..r., ' r V x £s Y t r .S, -;."arv^`h� +rSrcb, x 111-1110_
tL
1 . CARRIER DEPLOYMENT
a. Coverage Issues (for some carriers is still coverage based , notably in the
central and western portions of the County)
b . Capacity Issues (specifically on eastern portion of County)
i . Wireless Consumer Growth Rate
c. New Carriers and other Services
i . Evolving Technologies
2. LOCAL REGULATORY LIMITATIONS
a. Telecommunications Act (and requirements of the County to permit
providers ' buildout)
b . RF Radiation Requirements .
i . RF Standards
ii . Examples and Illustrations (complexity of multi-carrier sites)
c. Local Zoning (County retains authority over placement and appearance
of facifitios) .
d . Failure to Facilitate Deployment
3 . OPPORTUNITIES TO MITIGATE WIRELESS BUILDOUT
Location Opportunities
a. Taller structures needed in the western portion of the County.
Coverage issue , possible public safety collocation opportunities in
remote areas .
b . Capacity sites on the eastern portion of the County will be typically
shorter structures , but may have fewer collocation opportunities .
c. Alternative structures and designs . (Attachment A — Examples of
structures and designs)
d . Practical approaches to siting given geography and topography.
e. County/Public-owned Property. Use of County/public property and
facilities , including parks and schools allows for facilities to collocate
adjacent to neighborhoods without undue penetration .
i . Parks
ii . Schools
iii . Libraries
iv. Hospitals
v. Water Plants
vi . Sewage
vii . Rights of Ways
viii . Public Safety Facilities
f . Private -owned Property.
i . Electrical Transmission Lines ( note : typically , location on power
line poles is undesirable from the carrier standpoint due to access
issue)
ii . Billboard/Signs
iii . Utility Structures
iv. Tall Building Properties
v. Religious Establishments
vi . Other Government Entity Properties
g . Ownership . County/public ownership versus private companies on
County/public property .
4 . DISCUSSION/CONSENSUS FROM BOARD
a . Siting Issues
i . Proliferation . How many telecommunications sites will there be ?
ii . Structure Guidelines . What are the appropriate designs and acceptable
structure heights in urban and rural areas ?
a. Structure Heights
IP196
JULY 25 , 2001 - 2 -
7 l` ; y . 3 'i
4 ^„ `A .a'.; . Y-
tv fix .3+ 6k k ? IW � >
x.<. �.. :. f'a.. . ":$': s.�,. '`t5r,: rF� .,.. ' s., +1' a✓u, .+ . . ., . -a " .i`Y,'- rt =d ' " , :. '�.,�,
x . r : r
am a .er i
r a -c . +F '¢ ♦ ' s y x .a .. 1 4 r
h' '� : :'� a j4�yY di�� ,ss�/c� i Fd 'u.tw,..m, s, ��"�• � `` ":
ala
a<t R. k. �..,. "" � $ ew , +F•yc t '<i* a
-r.;.xa�a ,
n
.,.�—.� . tr��r n ea. 7x
Fr<= J , , , ,e. . ,. ,, , . A..a S-:$h".,, 2 .:- :ta _ ., ,,, z : � x r
,y t.^H4 A4 Nn'f ���} At F✓'Y i'MS... . '°i:ri SYi' p+ T Y12 '! 1,
-. :.. . ;:i ''3 ,d5' . 'i\=,�t�� v'" ... ,�,y. . w .er,� .. ,•,.. ei- ru.... .. . ; . +. , -a � a :'
'.f` � ",< � . re xy°. , � � i f rs a' 3 #a "' y, � ',r ix ,; .Ha;.;: 2 �
r x .:x 5,!^'1^r t,in , s�^.� 2 + ,: r l ..n .:'1>r7 'z "' 'n aa ... @ z a- - z *\ t 5 �'
c. '2, Y ..tr>•✓ >
`"� �',y r `' . �"f ra ,H�.�v r # is z�$"``skt✓is "`ry^�`>n r ksff x- s f � v.: 'i � r 'J.
,. 'a a. t xdr .rf
1
17
5 .
} a'i' � ii s ��'. .rf Ya ! +� +.{a%" ; fi4�✓ t '.3-';; �4'B..W;t,: y F �{ y^£«' a: *``n1 'tib X e t.:': s d ,. � r z ':ter
s + ?. _'. {,
b . Stealth Designs ( acceptable preferences and guidelines for
stealth technologies , i . e . , flagpoles , light stanchions )
c . Visual Impacts and Sensitivity (exposed areas to wireless
development)
iii . Areas of Development . In what areas would the County want to prohibit ,
encourage , and conditionally allow new tower development (cannot
prevent deployment so it must be reasonable ) ?
a . Prohibited Areas ( allows co- location on existing facilities only)
b . Encouraged Areas ( allow new towers of various heights and
types)
c . Conditional Areas ( co- location plus stealth or other acceptable
alternatives )
b . New Communication Facilities
i . Wireless Applications . What information does the commission and staff
wish to see for new telecommunications applications ?
ii . Uniformed Standards . What is the value to commission and staff of
requiring an independent review and uniformed set of technical
standards to evaluate new applications ?
c . Public Involvement
i . Participation in master planning development . At what point and to what
extent does the County wish to involve carriers and , more importantly ,
the public in developing a final master plan ?
Anthony T . Lepore , of the Legal Department, CityScape , stated that CityScape is
here to assist the County in the development of a master wireless plan . He then introduced
Kay Miles , Melissa Murray and Dan Collins , all from CityScape .
Dan Collins , of the Engineering Department, CityScape , gave a Power PointTM
presentation as follows :
Carrier Deployment
What are the issues of wireless
Wireless Master communications and what
Plan Workshop can Indian River County expect .'
Indian R Counh'
JON z5.s, 2001
CDM { YLTIMY ^mow-r�•—
H
0X 9 1 PY 5
JULY 259 2001 _ 3 _
7777 ,;7 7777IT'
Q
44 1,%, 4 1
.+ ' �, a ✓ '�' - ," : t r
JT,
�.. . . � r rri„ >s^`15`�° 2*t r.. �x� ,.. ski. `..x. h.."f, `fir: r. fit,, xb� +':.-am „ v. s� . > '.� _.. , > .. `”' e . . „ ^ r
. .. .- . . `' . _ . .. .. , ... .. „ ,. . , ,. . , . ., sJ,'4 . ,, .4 , . s,> �_ .. w v , . P•-: '.f:5 .-a.;..
4. . L . . , _ ,
\ U
`� 4x', k" ✓ , } n.A;a 'F 's t �xs4 h7z Ars £" e :" 'r ~x X ` t ✓ +_ 3 z
{ r ,rI L
rAZ I
t
� e,. u � �..s`' + A�a �'� x • . :�f a �> n , '= ` ,�' ° .�r '� asa:+ .v R,.,:iM' `s
'Ssxf� sPOI�55-,✓"2Fr
Defining Two Different Environments Wireless Engineering
Rural/Agricultural Impact on Site
Q Location
■ Wireless phone
providers require
7 Fpm numerous ,cell sites'
Urbatt/Tourism ■ Understanding their
engineering
ta.awi... ees, em requirements helps local '
n"_ die a governments contain
rypee o/lari4rla deploYe/ willrenereLy eependdi.no.Nb.trni.ee tower proliferation
I on elude remense, repulsion drill and I emrtiiq bywr
uinnmernrffie
Grid Pattern Wireless Tower Locations
Wireless engineering theory
uses a hexagonal grid Towers must be located with
(4• IJ pattern to approximate precision — generally
on pr ' I" 111'" real coverage : tva accepted "rule of
zRcosx.r
■ Hexagons approximate a circle; thumb" :
fit together without holes, and R ■ The location must be within 114
R ao• their centers are evenly spaced
Ov hl of the designed coverage radius
location from the "perfect'•
As traffic grows, hexagon
sizes continue to decrease wham „ xy •....ne�- ■ That "perfect location” is
adleamma � was MAr defined by the wireless 1.grid
■ Example: AT&T uses about 2 pattern. •'
mi "centers' in high traffic
areas
Propagation Studies Further Engineering Issues
Propagation
prediction software
Defensible. reliable ---= =• o
results IMC
rbm<adam.r.q
Ip
•�• TMNorM m4va
r
Il�ge �npnlub
EMR Compliance intermod Studies
s
Antenna Choices
5C�
"Coverage" Site (Phase n Tower Height Impacts
Wireless systems need
continuous coverage PCs - Raising antennas
with minimal overlap �r�®� trom too• to iso'
■—_■�=��� adds about Cl mi to the
to provide "hole free" MOm®��� cwaage radius
service
itittetttt�teta� ��,.
• A site every 4-8 miles for
eel lular (Phase l). i .nm
■�s�e���u�■�i
■ A site every 2-4 miles for N%aa
PCS ( Phase 1 ). ^ sass m..m re u.. eao Min, r tie. a
alk, w an Am Wr
IF Less in high-demand areas !y ^
11 11 11 1 1
maim Cellular - Raising m " •� u > I
Lai AM
Buildings and terrain conditions can reduce coverage antennas horn 100' to lamina �m . 4, �.m „a
VI
iso• m
adds about 0.9 mi to the mm n.. em ' •' am an ,
coverage radius "" ^' _m. .". am %Ie .o . .gym
C
mm
Ell
i d
60
JULY 25 , 2001 4 -
All,
AI
z w..� ~:l !. r .M777M�11 I,
f t t ^+ tANA 2
t, y`'s §"naY' kM -Y2A Kzi d$ + r .rti' c 2 s t,- d`64 + 'b .. , 4 y �� y
t, s i.. a r - -.
s
1s
., '4"'r '
#` ,rR i€ & ., w"`r' t �,b; "' 'o ' .#., ' uu. •».5ds t ` *u' mn.s n ,�
,. k - rpt z. _ ... v • ". o,ii` t ,"�E§ r °'�'SCb �ir���"t* i r .: �. .,,r , ,.:% , „�, f...c + r? `w'�.. f'"
� 1 s �"�.`t ,y�.TS� ..,3�sy�"�a' �n«� ,-�`�" 7�' , v� XeGn� YA .✓�". C `S�' 6
"Traffic" or Capacity Site (Phase II)
Future Site Requirements
ouN�d"'p0H4JY Wireless sites have capacih
•• 2
limitations aDF. ec000 °
ars ma,u,w a aos oec 3,en. .re ov
a SneS accommodate 50- 150
82
S singnesit Cally' Personal wireless currently ••enjoys " a 24D'orvr
• A 00-30 site serves . rs areragc. growth rate
I ll(1U-3000 subscribers
■ Wireless •'rule of thumb" : cell site accommodates about
As "success" comes, carriers require 2500 subscribers
more towers .' ■ For a medium size market, the estimate above shows the
■ But the height can and will be reduced
number of sites required over a five-year period
the future m • New carriers, services likely to expand these results
r�C� cru
No
New Carriers and other Services
Wireless Technology
Traditional distinctions between telecommunication A recent mailing on 11-commerce .
service providers are becoming blurred, as these services
move to digital and how the "Jast mile" is seryiced. n
n - r.,
mj'� p
business isout [rhri 5, gdbo^ b
.4s this mote continues, site locations become more critical.'
Wireless Technology
Wireless Technology
Commercial Mobile Radio Service "r""" °
� ,
(CMRS) 14
• 1
DY,e ,• .: 1
ro. DIYeYM 46
Dn,wn, o YYDs ,
Pot is
,
sol EY.n Muw.., 1.YI4q FwnnWA"
FnMnu. �• 1110 1 -
nay m„[cit e -_yam
Over 259 million people, or almost 91 . of the total U.S. population,
have access to three or more different operaton (cellular, broadband.
� PCS, and/or digital SNIR providers) offering mobile telephone service
_ . . C�r; • - ' in the counties in which they live.
What is it, and where is it Evolving Technologies
going' Fare
ulatory
Cellular/PCS - the first wave
Evolution of dispatch and ::'�`.. tions
paging a
SMS / E-Mail e
River County 's
Wireless Internetulatin w 'g treless
M-Commerce (Mobile ations ?
Commerce)
The Federal Communications Commission continues
to auction Doperating carriers in Indian River Countyotenria( ,.
PG 9 6
JULY 259 2001 - 5 -
i � f
)
{
X
j
It
xCtsg.'i">'� h ` =x :y . '.x?.. my;` .; :; CLir iag•` - 5 . .. � L. .vx•Y ii e ,r... _ If ,
,hG . ?a.c: „v &..
�'f"fi „a. . .:: ' ;a x9;�Sr' } .RR. . . .-�Uxt ✓mL}!Ory4 ) , Y.,�'�P,5., t .Cj�..p J..ui r4i` ^N`iMb.};?lxR .r Ak
�� ,d .�i ,��," s'�, y 'fl • # x�
Fru ,y --s ' � �' , .
- ,
Telecommunications Act of 1996
Foe
hat Cannot be Regulated
-+ The Telecommunications Act of 1996 $
defined which areas a local pp����government could not regulateandates personal wireless companies build
(federa/�urisAiction/, but did leavezoning (with restrictions) as one they ir systems so that adequate service iscould.
ed to the public. (Cannot prohibit provisioning
personal wireless services )Cities and counties lighting and markings are exclusipely
must provide equal (FAA/FCC urisdiction• if so required.
access to ) J"functionally igh intensity strobes to residential areas as
, Iequivalent services" by local zoning will require environmental
(Cellular/PCS/Data) ents by providers . )
RF Radiation Requirements
` FCC Standards
RF Emissions FCC Standards
- Radio Frequency Carriers must determine
Emissionsare I their base station
exclusively regulated compliance with FCC r
by federal standards I ....� : .�._ , regulations.
( local governments This is simply I <_
have no jurisdiction. ) ! accomplished for single-
� ,r. � � provider, or multiple I, ,
wireless ss tamer, sites -
opt t • It becomes complex in theIJI
case of multiple providers 4� �
� —IMMEMENUMMMMA of different radio services ! . 'r — I
i
J
Local Zoning What Can be Regulated
• Telecom 96 leavesThis ? Shared Use
in place the I f, w You can
authority that local �I mandate
l� Lf shared use
g
zonin authorities t
facilities
have over the Nr
where
placement of ethnically
personal wireless Cir feasible thus ,t
facilities. reducing the
total number
-i of towers.
Orlhis?
What You Can Do Failure to Facilitate Deployment
Federal Fact Sheet # 1 Federal Fact Sheet
Mus[ allow for the carriers to deploc their
Four County can and #2
Fe
ystems
should require an
"independent analysis ` - The FCC suggests
of the requested site. carriers share their ust act expeditiously in these requests
"big picture" build Must treat providers a ually
out plans (however P q
for competitive ( Wamme on moratoriums : H one tamer is already there.
to me 300 reasons. they prefer others could challenge ! )
feet is a bit not not to make them part
excessive for nis 14,J ofthe public record . ) Must provide written reasons for all rejected
� .fi(�Af i applications
( Question: is the reason legally defensible ' ) , .
JULY 25 , 2001 - 6 -
IJ Ifs
' If
Y/y
kfor
r
r A,r'ai a i S } ;
.
b
ratxp < { ti r i "I'll„ ary aMil
r t
4
r r ell Ir
dx
�11 11 . a:»,. ' i 'xcrAi"'k�', :s ,' el
7 � iS '' '"-'t A, ?r 'e' s 'f +a' ?"n .s.3' -. :tr . r Y< s.. r, a „�
� e �g
. o-.7 . .�- >c r ” ,.'< fi cwh w. 3"t°" " x ,,,, "•�., } uu.,�t d u
'k . €,. .�" 3 .,�' e .. 'CnA r. , i:, r ,+r'X pl S`: s.vYt2?:.M� >: ,t">afx'a` p z'ds
A 1S Q t
. .. � �' iln r,. Y,
r. �� ..
•
Opport7, eateMi 115 a Design Issues
Wirldout a- -^ � � • 1 Antenna Choice
. . ,r .
� '"°,.;,a"„ - - Minimize profile with
What are tes to towers 4r dual -polanzauon
andnt be Stealth toners
placed ctures '? ""�''�°°�\ E tween ne ers " hmrscc
Vie " ' naa *o between tattlers wherenecessaryFCC standards re human exposure to
electromagnetic
radiation
Pill
tK011121iN
„ Or�XX XnYrX,� no CIXXOr,rl' YI eul PaXf,afron 6,WN MIOM1 Noel - LIOIX m•clwn n EYI rwe -
rM•rXmWrp ln • �YpdXX river. JXduamMY BrN, R marlisee, in.
�•r R
..n Pr
�XXtXT �2 .r t i
IBV
� : Pno.rya, nz
X.I.v Btv. urW,y
llc INN Nile VW P,WXTpIr1XI�0
ONN OWII INN YXII� frp� tly iT�rXlp
colnpcuwr rXXnly Xv'Xmu XI ver d PM.nI.. AZ
Nu h .WW.: "Nets Gry
unu2n .u.py cm niiW �!
Iluur wwm%& "Ntee cloy
I
New ltej�
SOW awe;
6�""u �• Ia'�•��1TA�
- X
Y
pwnr pPe
W K -
IMXrY�Mi l • _• . ' . . . _
V•CerOT,nOtel •, ••C:
CA XVX�, •.Jirr v.ru�
G all uIIYY rvlrX'X tlw
lev lse u une.prav,e IrXXry' BdXrrX - Mwm. I^°^•�oKmXW leuw IXle.r,.wn X. XXXN
levels. a mod.. swXn BlonX.
sfru, XXXXna ,o e, G1io ronX
r���w.nwe rurr: XXXr,
61 A
PG 969
u
JULY 259 2001 - 7 -
14
t w1 1 ✓ Yry r 'Y < r11el 1 41 r
-
hk°
q` 1
le -lee r 11
s , ,
qrilsylw�-7F,
} i� IF-
fv !4 "'.-, x s, +.,. t . s .� x
x„x .,,1 �. `e. 'r^ isM'; s .i'F+" Y r -:* t
y . , . ,< "r NN �` ri rkw" "a .y'Ir ,"'�b`'€ �.'�,`s'' u} .y
.f
. ,. .R. 1
� w
4 .w
I rr
of
TNS Iaaln tllarl b NOa: Yvir�,
C/� do aanOb d a.bcabn wib
lir IiwalY
arwi w - car sa.r. rt
Vw rr mereor� w � .:u ra.
County/Public-owned Property Private-owned Property
Location Opportunities to examine: Location Opportunities to examine:
Parks Electrical Transmission Lines
Schools Billboard and signs -
Libraries Utility Structures
Hospitals Tall Building Properties
Water Plants Religious Establishments
Sewage Other Governmental Entity Properties
Rights of Ways
Public Safety Facilities
Consensus of Indian River County
Addendum to Workshop
Human Exposure
to RF Radiation
Carrier FCC Rules and Compliance
Council "4� � -
M �ZM "M
Human exposure to RF radiation Human exposure to RF radiation
RF Radiation is non-ionizing" Suburban home with PCSantennas nearby. . .
- Unlike gamma and x-rays, RF radiation has AGL.
120 '- Antennas are at
insufficient energy to dislodge Cvour) electrons from ��' 65 feet from wt 120 '
their orbits, and change you chemically - W EIRP total .
— Non-ionizing radiation simply makes all your atoms —— 60060ODoethis facility require an
move faster, resulting in tissue heating "environmental evaluation'
— Is this bad9 under new FCC rules?
— It's how microwave ovens works — Is the calculated power
density radiating the house
wuhin applicable guidehneO
rWl
8 P 970
JULY 25 , 2001F IFF
- g -
IF
l
., . . . - . . . .. . i . . . . i �.
777 .
MET
rix T v a
� : `' "7` u'otii
,•_N; j "<9 Gq # , e t ,.., a S,Y- +. yS^.wca a+ sBEgb 5va i,.
_. s •- . u a en k a 4
, , . , ,._� ,r
•
Human exposure to RF radiation Human exposure to RF radiation
1 hernial effects - at sufficient IeN els, hod + heating can „ E +
f n + tr densih ," in units of mN'. ; cm = , is used to
become a significant problem. PCS work. It is assumed that the point of
- obvious effects include damage to eves vital organs . exposure is in the far field" of the antenna.
-
Less obvious effects may be important , but research Is - Prolonged exposure to power densities of 10 mW cm'
mcunclusnccan cause measurable heaomz nma.n. tissue
In wITCICSS eommumeauons- erects. Il ant - still be Nlbtle . l , wdchnes in three speC: n ecnusure ctcrs at he ,o ,t
l ontrast the wireless situation wtlh broaocasnng engineers this
working with 50,000 watt "hof' towers ' — Exposure recommendations are time averaeed . meanm2
short-term exposure to let cl. _urearer man the ewdchnc
Nevertheless, new standards exist that are applicable to arc nermusnble as ion , as ine 11MIC utclaze daeS no;
cellular and PCS licensees, as vie shall see exceed the imnauon .
Human exposure to RF radiation Human exposure to RF radiation
FCC standards : m umm for c.netW Pap ahoniuncw*rouea Exposure
- Adopts Maximum Permissible Exposure ( MPE ) limits (power
revuency Eiechic fieitl Magnetic field
density ) for transmitters pange shength Sr.engm Powe' Dens'N Averaging Lme
- Adopts limits for localized ("partial body" ) absorption that Inn",i rvrnv (Alm: imv+tcmi minvieti
will apply to certain portable transmitting des ces (SAR)-
313• 614 163 ; ISI' 3G
- Specifies two sets of exposure limits : : 3A-3o slut 2 1. 9rl 1K,,F1• 3;,
300 27s 007 os K
- A more tolerant, "occupationabcontrol led" exposure. for - 1 ,C - - Scu' x
trained personnel "in the business" (many roof tops ). isca- +oo ooe -
- A stricter. " general population uncontrolled" exposure. for = neguencv �nM":
= Pbne-wave eONvvlent pawet tlensty
situations where the general public may be exposed (more
usually applicable than "controlled" limitations ).
Human exposure to RF radiation Human exposure to RF radiation
FCC standards: _-_— _ _ _ —_ What about the •'radiated" house?
- Carnets mus[ determine their _ - "Antenna mounting structures" with single carriers at this
base station compliance with power level are "categorically excluded" ! However,
FCC regulations �' _— !. - Maximum power density is 1.0 m W/cm= at 1900 MHz.
- This is simply accomplished - Simple calculation: given the EIRP of our transmitted power
_
for single-provider, or F ( 6 x IOOW = 600 W), and the distance R from the antennas
multiple wireless carrier, sites 6 � � lin cm, to preserve units ),
- It becomes complex in the i, ) , S = 0.64 x EIRP / pi R' ,
case of multiple providers of r t - '_ E _ i li where S is the power density in mw icm= �.
different radio services ! all — S = 0.031 mW/cm2 . f
Note this is well within the FCC guideline.
Human exposure to RF radiation Human exposure to RF radiation
•
NN ireless portables are subject to Compliance with SAR limits can be
routine environmental evaluation demonstrated by either laboraton
for RF exposure prior to measurement techniques or by
equipment authorization or use. computational modeling.
- The limits to be used for evaluation are - Research continues. but according to the IEFE
based on a localized specific absorption Spectrum . no repeatable eN idence exists trial
rate (" SAR" ), a measure of the rate of exposure to RF radiation at the let els produced b}
energy absorption due to exposure to an RF handheld phones has any health effects.
transminmg source . — Digital phones. and widespread deployment of
( 'DMA techniques. will limn phone output
powers and resultant exposure lusher-
[ 1, P971
JULY 259 2001ill put 1 M9
- 9 -
.r
A
r
14
„Y-
_ _ 43,
Commissioner Adamsuestioned the use of existing ower lines and why providers
q gp Y
could not use those poles .
Mr . Lepore advised there are several issues involving safety and liability and he
understood that Florida Power has an exclusive agreement with one provider .
Director Boling added that there are also issues involving the height of the existing
power poles and available sites for providers ' equipment .
Chairman Ginn quoted several excerpts from a Kreines & Kreines , Inc . Newsletter
regarding the use of " SPICE" boxes , and Mr . Lepore responded that light poles are generally
located on the main streets in a community but there is not usually space available for
equipment shelters . It is impractical to consider burying these shelters in Florida where the
water table is so high and these shelters also vary in size . He anticipated that Indian River
County would require 30 additional towers within the next 5 years .
Chairman Ginn continued that the Board does not want tower location to be driven
by the industry but wants coverage that is as aesthetically pleasing as possible , with
particular attention being paid to the boundaries between residential , rural and agricultural
areas . The Board also does not want environmental lands impacted by towers .
Mr . Lepore commented that there is a lot of environmental land in the western portion
of the County but service is still required in that area . There are choices between fewer,
taller towers or more smaller towers closer together .
Discussion then ensued regarding the stealth "tree " towers , with a general consensus
that these towers are usually unsightly .
Discussion then turned to concerns about the RF radiation issue and health . General
consensus was reached to avoid the areas of schools ; to require bi - annual inspections ; to
require certified data that compliance is being met ; and to steer development with land
development regulations making it easier for the providers to comply with County
regulations than to go outside the development criteria .
PG 917
JULY 259 2001 - 10 -
1 '
1
a .
f
iY
r r.
r
✓ ,., f? «.' z x , `.r'.,`s < es a. ,+ .ix r . � s3.»
•
•
Chairman Ginn questioned whether a build- out plan could be devised without towers .
and Mr . Lepore explained that was an unrealistic goal .
Director Boling cited various concerns and questions regarding the " build out " of the
County ' s wireless plan ; including whether or not the County currently has enough towers ;
whether the County needs to allow any more 300 - foot towers ; whether the existing radio
station towers can be utilized ; whether the County can require " stealth " towers in residential
areas , and asking the providers to pay for review of the required information .
Commissioner Adams questioned where the current gaps in coverage would be
located , and Mr . Collins noted the North Beach area and the I - 95 border areas in the western
portions of the County .
Chairman Ginn questioned whether the County must accept more carriers than those
presently doing business in the County , and Mr . Lepore advised that if they have a license ,
you have to allow them .
Commissioner Adams questioned coverage of conservation lands , and Mr . Collins
suggested that possibly fire watchtowers could be used , which would also serve a public
safety purpose .
Mr . Lepore stated that the plan to be presented to the Board would contain first
choices and then rate those designs which would have the most stringent requirements .
Norman Hensick, Chairman of the Planning & Zoning Commission , asked for a
clarification as to whether or not there are dangers associated with RF radiation .
Chairman Ginn stated that there are no substantiated health risks , which does not
mean there are none , but the County cannot take that issue into consideration as it is
regulated by the federal government .
Mr. Lepore noted that the County cannot legislate standards but can require providers
to meet the requirements and to certify to the County that they have met those requirements .
B ► i s PG 7 J
JULY 25 , 2001 - 11 -
Cr e
4
1,41 6f i "M1iif
J• 1Ai rt ,4If f
'XS 4x"Ifli if
. f {
Consensus was reached to eliminate schools and libraries as sites for these towers , and
general discussion ensued regarding other locations where people could be exposed to RF
radiation, such as parks , hospitals and fire stations .
George Gross , Member of the Planning and Zoning Commission , asked how many
total carriers the County might have , and Mr . Lepore stated that the industry is growing and
the list of carriers increases daily .
Mr . Gross then questioned whether the tall towers are protected against lightning , and
Mr . Collins stated that the towers do have lightning protection but are still likely to be struck .
Mr . Gross then questioned who determines the costs for co- location, and Mr . Lepore
responded that these costs are decided in private negotiation between providers or in initial
agreements with the County .
Donna Keys , Member of the Planning & Zoning Commission , wanted to be certain
that the procedures being instituted included review of applications by CityScape , and Mr .
Collins stated that CityScape will be involved in pre - meetings even before the application
is submitted .
Ms . Keys then questioned whether providers could use pre-existing water towers , and
Mr . Lepore responded that they can be used .
Dr . David Cox , Member of the Planning & Zoning Commission , inquired as to the
power output of these towers , and Mr . Collins stated that the typical radiated power level is
200 to 800 watts .
�,
JULY 259 2001 - 12 -
Y
r ,
I
•
Mr . Lepore stated that consensus had been reached that all locations will be included
except schools and libraries and providers will be required to use existing facilities rather
than new facilities if they are adequate to the need .
Deputy County Attorney Will Collins observed that landscaping and screening could
be used to mitigate the proposal in some instances .
Telecommunications Manager Terry Smith also referenced the " SPICE " box
mentioned in the Kreines & Kreines Newsletter and questioned whether a microcell
technology is available to carriers in this area .
Mr . Collins responded that he did not believe that technology was available in this
area as yet .
Dr . Cox noted that he realized that wireless communications coverage is poor in some
areas of the County but he wanted everyone to remember that the County has invested quite
a bit in protecting its natural resources and needs to protect the value of our attractions .
Mr . Lepore commented that you need to keep in mind that tourists have a very high
utilization of cell phones with an expectation that they can use them in conservation areas .
Commissioner Tippin commented that CityScape would not find a more conservative
county than Indian River and suggested they act accordingly .
Chairman Ginn thanked Mr . Lepore and Mr . Collins for the informative session .
975
JULY 259 2001 - 13 -
a
� s
U
Ilk
(73
rr CD
_.�.
41
cm
Q -
o
o U
ok
tb
Q
a �
}
U
03
Z H bbA N