§ 20.33.070. Co-location.

To minimize adverse visual impacts associated with the proliferation of WCFs and other antenna support structures, co-location is required, except as provided for in this chapter. The county may deny an application to construct new facilities if the applicant has not made a diligent and good faith effort to accommodate the facilities on an existing or "applied for" antenna support structure or other suitable structure within one mile of the proposed site or one-half of the proposed facility's radio frequency coverage area, whichever is greater.

1.

Evaluation Criteria. An application for a WCF/antenna support structure may only be approved subsequent to a determination by the approval authority that the proposed facilities cannot be accommodated on any existing, approved or applied for antenna support structure or other suitable structure within one mile of the proposed site or one-half of the proposed facility's radio frequency coverage area, whichever is greater, for one or more of the following reasons:

a.

The site is not suitable in terms of service area coverage;

b.

The proposed equipment would exceed the structural capacity of all existing, approved, or applied for antenna support structures that are otherwise suitable to provide the service sought, as documented by a qualified engineer; and the existing, approved, or applied for structures cannot be reinforced, modified, or replaced to accommodate planned or equivalent equipment, or the cost of such work significantly exceeds the cost of a new antenna support structure;

c.

The proposed equipment would cause interference materially impacting the usability of the current user's existing or planned equipment on the antenna support structure, as documented by a qualified engineer, and the interference cannot be prevented at a reasonable cost;

d.

Existing or approved antenna support structures cannot accommodate the planned equipment at the necessary height, as documented by a qualified engineer, or would exceed FAA height limits;

e.

Sufficient area is not available to accommodate ground equipment;

f.

Co-location/attachment to an existing structure is not available at a market rate cost. In the event that the applicant is unable to obtain a lease on an otherwise suitable structure, she/he shall document the reason(s) why that is the case; or

g.

Any other substantial reason that precludes co-location or attachment to an existing structure, as determined by the approval authority.

2.

Burden of Proof. The burden of proof is upon the applicant to demonstrate that all reasonable alternatives to the erection of a new antenna support structure have been fully explored and are not technically or economically feasible, consistent with the criteria listed above.

3.

Third Party Review. The county shall require independent verification third party review per Section 20.33.060, at the applicant's expense, of the applicant's analysis pertaining to unavoidable electromagnetic interference and the adequacy of the potential co-location structure's height. The county also shall require independent verification of other aspects of the analysis, at applicant's expense, that staff does not have expertise or experience to evaluate.

4.

Waiver. The approval authority may waive co-location if she/he determines that the added tower height and facilities would significantly degrade a scenic view listed in Section 20.33.080(2)(b), violate FAA height hazard requirements, or would be impractical on a camouflaged WCF/antenna support structure.

(Ord. 13058 § 2 (part), 2003)