BOA agenda 101016 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

1 Michael Harvey: The geotechnical report was not a requirement in 1996. What I will state is, obviously, a 2 building permit was issued to authorize for the tower to be erected. We have the original recorded SUP 3 indicating that the project was in compliance with the ordinances as it existed at that time. We have 2 4 structural analysis’ contained on pages 200 to 341, indicating that the tower’s compliant with applicable 5 State building codes. So we offer that into evidence to make it an affirmative finding in this answer. 6 7 Page 112; existing cell sites (latitude, longitude, power levels) to which this proposed site will be a handoff 8 candidate. We’ve also again made the same recommendation, however, to address Mr. Bryan’s concern 9 according to the original permit findings of fact in this case, pages 205 to 240, *inaudible* that information’s 10 not changed to our knowledge so that is the closest tower of an existing cell site to which this is a proposed 11 candidate for handoff. So, if you make it an affirmative finding there’s information contained on pages 205 12 thru 240 of the supplemental material that will get you the ability to make an affirmative finding. Propagation 13 studies; page 113, staff has recommended that finding provision is not applicable; the State no longer 14 allows us to require propagation studies. The ordinance is going to have to be amended to remove that so 15 we’re comfortable making the recommendation we have based on current guidelines and State law. It 16 cannot be irrational to deny a telecommunication tower permit so we were reviewing this 17 telecommunication tower permit today, some of you might remember with Curly Road- the applicant wasn’t 18 required to submit propagation studies, for the reasons that I’ve already testified to. Page 114; the search 19 ring utilized to find the proposed site. We are making reference back to the original SUP application as well 20 as the recorded SUP. The original application demonstrated the need for the telecommunication tower in 21 this area and the Board after holding the required public hearing made the determination that they could 22 issue the permit, indicating it was necessary. I’ll just stipulate again, as nothing associated with the 23 relocation of this access driveway alters the operational parameters of the approved and constructed tower, 24 this information is still viable. The number type, height, and model of the proposed antennas. I’m going to 25 refer you all to the supplemental material, especially the structural analysis to provide a breakdown of the 26 antennas that are on the tower. Page 115; the make, model and manufacturer of the tower. That’s also 27 contained in the SUP application and the SUP itself that is recorded. The frequency, modulation and class 28 of service of radio or other transmitting equipment. I’m going to refer you to the entire supplemental 29 package. Specifically, the structural analysis reports that provide that information on pages 323 thru 341. 30 And questions before I move on? Page 116; the maximum transmission power capability of all radios, as 31 designed, if the applicant is a cellular facility. Again, I’m going to refer you to the supplemental material. 32 Specific to pages 323 thru 341. This also goes for the actual antenna transmission and the maximum 33 effective radiated power of the antenna. Also contained in the structural reports we have provided to you. 34 Directions of maximum lobes and associated radiation of the antenna. Again, that’s also provided in the 35 structural analysis reports. Certification that the NIER levels at the proposed site are within the threshold 36 level adopted by the FCC. We’re indicating a finding amount applicable for the reason stated. Having said 37 that, if you look at the structural analysis reports contained in the supplemental package material you will 38 find that the project’s been found to comply with FCC standards. If the Board chooses to make it an 39 affirmative finding then you would make it consistent with the structural analysis information that’s been 40 entered into the record, indicating the project complies with applicable FCC standards. Page 118; 41 certification that the proposed antennas will not cause interference with other telecommunications devices. 42 As no antennas are proposed we are providing you the structural analysis and the supplemental 43 information is proof that there’s space left on the tower to handle additional antenna. A written affidavit 44 stating why the proposed site is necessary for their communications service. There’s application 2 of the 45 current application that indicates why the driveway needs to be moved and we’re also going to refer you 46 back to the original SUP as to why the tower should’ve been built in the first place. A copy of the FCC 47 license applicable for the intended use of the facility as well as a copy of the 5 and 10 year building out plan 48 required by the FCC. We’re recommending that that’s not applicable because the tower’s already 49 18