P ORD-2002-030 Telecommunications Tower Ordinance Amendments

Browse Search

........ ... _........_..... _ .. ..:_.:.._ . ;_... _ .__ . _ .. _. _........ AUG.27.2002 3 :19PM ORANGE CTY MGR NO.913 P.e/ii •r 92 r Ordinance should be revised to set out a separate section altogether which simply deals with the approval process for colocation of antennas on an existing communications tower. This separate section should do the following: a. Outline exactly what information is required to be submitted in the application package. This information will not be the same as it is for a new communications tower; and b. Outline the administrative approval process. 4. UTILITY POLES. Section 6.18.2,b,' I think the intent of the last sentence of this section is to prohibit the construction of a new free standing communications tower in a utility right of way that is not part of the structure supporting the electrical wires. That is fine; however, the sentence as written could be taken out of context. i think a qualifier should be added to this sentence to clarify the intent, as follows: "por purposes of this Section 6.18.2.b, no freestanding towers constructed exclusively for personal wireless services shall be permitted without a special use permit and approval by the- appropriate board." Otherwise, this sentence could be interpreted to prohibit all new free standing communications towers. 6. GOVERNMENT FRANCHISED UTILITY POLES. Section 6.18.3.e.7. Item a under this section addresses non - stealth rooftop applications. However, item 7 thereunder takes a new direction and concerns colocation on -utility poles located in the public rights of way. This issue should be treated as a separate section. It appears to be misplaced under Section 6.18.3.e.7. Once this issue is resolved, the question presented is why. is colocation on utility poles located In public rights of way treated differently from colocations on utility poles on private property? What is the distinction? Also, to the extent that Orange County does not own the utility pole, does it still have the right to allow colocation without the participation of the utility company that may own and operate the pole? Finally, how is this section* different than Section S.18.2.b. which already addresses the use of utility poles? If the purpose of the section is to overcome past bureaucratic obstacles to this type of installation, that is fine, but distinguish more closely the parameters of eollocating on utility poles located on public versus private property.