Ordinance No. 20072 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

5. It is technologically possible for cellular, PCS and specialized mobile radio ~"SMR"}providers to share tower structures. There are limits, however, to how many base station transmitters a single tower can hold, and different tower structures have different limits. Moreover, there are at least three general types of transmitting and receiving antennas used today in the wireless communications technology, including whip antennas, panel antennas, and dish antennas. There also are at least three types of antenna support-structures used today to place antennas at desired heights; lattice towers, monopoles, and building-attached facilities. Lattice towers range from d0 to 200 feet in height, and generally can accommodate a variety of users, including cellular, SMR, PCS and paging companies. Monopoles range in height from 25 to 150 feet, and also can support a variety of telecommunication providers. Building-attached antennas likewise can support all three technologies, with antennas mounted an the roofs of buildings, as well as on the sides of buildings. Antennas also can be mounted on other structures such as water tanks, billboards, church steeples, and similar structures. 6. Given the range of technological options for locating antennas for the various wireless telecommunications providers, it is possible far providers to co-locate or share facilities, and to be somewhat flexible in terms of where the antennas are located. Through planning, it is possible to meet the providers' needs for antenna locations and service coverage, in a way which minimizes the impact on the community. Through proper siting and co-location, the number of towers may be minimized by providing facilities which may be shared by several providers. 1t also is possible to minimize the impact of any single tower through the use of a design which has less aesthetic impact than other designs. 7. In order to minimize the number of towers as well as the impact of any single tower, yet accommodate all wireless telecommunication providers which seek to place telecommunications facilities within the City, time is needed to study the technology and develop a plan for this area. A City-wide siting analysis is needed to determine where the telecommunications facilities should be located in order to cover the entire City while, at the same time, minimizing proliferation of towers and antennas. The siting analysis also can identify where telecommunications towers currently are located, and where these existing towers could support ca-location. There are several factors that determine feasibility of co-location, including a tower or building's structural capacity; radio frequency interference; mechanical or electrical incompatibilities; height; and technological differences among providers. To determine the full potential of co-location, an analysis of technology is required. The testimony from the public hearing certainly supports this need for information and analysis. The providers themselves apparently cannot agree on whether co-location is feasible. Several providers testified that they are interested in co-location, and that it is feasible. Another provider testifted that each provider has its own unique technology, making co-location not necessarily possible. 8. The City already has begun development of a telecommunications plan to address these and other telecommunications issues. Gn May 20, 199b, the City Council conducted a work-session an the development of a City telecommunications plan. The Council appointed a Council Committee on Telecommunications ACCT} to work with staff to develop a set of policy recommendations for the City Council, The CCT already has held two meetings, adopted scoping statements for the work, begun to develop the draft policy statements, and given direction for staff -2-