The City of Grand Junction and Mesa County, on behalf of the Grand Junction Regional Communication Center (GJRCC), entered into an agreement with CityScape Consultants in May, 2015 to develop a Countywide WMP. CityScape used a three-step process to evaluate wireless coverage and develop a plan.

Identify, assess, catalogue and map existing transmission equipment; and

Design an engineered search radii template and apply it over the jurisdictional boundary of the cities and County to evaluate theoretical build-out conditions; and

(3)

Forecast future infrastructure needs based on the status of the existing deployments, population trends, and network coverage gaps.

(b)

Nine study areas were identified across the County and detailed analysis was completed for each area creating, in effect, nine mini WMPs which are presented in this article. The nine study areas are shown in Figure 8 and defined and grouped as follows:

(1)

Study Area A includes the population centers and surrounding areas of the County:

(i)

City of Grand Junction/Persigo 201 Boundary (City of Grand Junction, Appleton, Horizon, Northwest, Orchard Mesa, Pear Park and Redlands);

(ii)

Lower Valley (City of Fruita, Fruita Buffer, Loma, Mack, and Lower Valley);

(iii)

Palisade (Town of Palisade, Clifton, Palisade Buffer/East OM);

(iv)

DeBeque.

(2)

Study Area B includes four large, mostly unincorporated areas that receive significant tourists and local traffic:

Glade Park;

Gateway;

Whitewater;

Collbran (Collbran, Plateau Valley, Mesa, Powderhorn).

(3)

Study Area C includes the major highway corridors:

I-70 Highways;

Highway 50;

Highway 330;

Highway 65;

Highway 141;

Unaweep/Uncompahgre.

Figure 8: Study Areas

(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)

§ 31.12.250 PWSF inventory, analysis and mapping by study area.

Countywide, CityScape identified 142 existing transmission equipment sites and 165 towers or base stations that either currently support PWSF installations (i.e., cellular services) or have the potential for supporting PWSF in the future. Some sites have more than one facility. The Wireless Infrastructure Inventory is included as an appendix to the Master Plan. CityScape recommends that the inventory be updated as facilities are added or modified.

Most of the current wireless infrastructure is located within and around the more urban areas of the County; Grand Junction, Palisade, Fruita and the Interstate corridor have the largest concentrations of infrastructure because of the larger subscriber bases in those areas. The more rural and undeveloped areas have minimal or no infrastructure. Table 6 identifies the number of sites that are located within each study area, plus sites within 1.5 miles outside (out) of the study area that may also provide coverage. The “Projected Fill-In” column indicates the number of additional sites that would be needed in each study area to provide best-case coverage, while the “Estimated Build-Out” column shows the number of sites that are more realistically predicted to be built.

Table 6: Inventory Analysis by Study Area
Study Area	Existing Sites		Projected Fill-In (10-15 Years)	Estimated Build-Out (Including Public Safety)
Study Area	In	Out	Projected Fill-In (10-15 Years)	Estimated Build-Out (Including Public Safety)
City of Grand Junction/201 Boundary	50	5	11 – 18	11 – 18
Lower Valley	10	11	7	4
Palisade	4	8	6	6
DeBeque	2	0	3	1 – 3
Glade Park	0	29	9	1 – 4
Gateway	0	3	3	1
Whitewater	5	1	4	2 – 4
Collbran	4	39	15	2 – 4

The current infrastructure inventory and theoretical coverage mapping is provided for each study area in this article. Theoretical composite propagation modeling was used to determine the potential coverage of all existing antenna locations. Then, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) mapping techniques were used to factor in terrain, vegetative cover, and population density to create a more realistic coverage model. Next, CityScape used current and projected population data through 2030 (from the 2010 U.S. Census; Colorado State Demography Office; Regional Transportation Planning Office; and Mesa County) to illustrate the impact that future growth would have on network coverage. Finally, by adding in projected changes related to technology improvements and population growth, CityScape was able to estimate future infrastructure needs for each study area over the next 10 to 15 years. The following pages include the “mini master plans” for each study area.

(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)

§ 31.12.260 City of Grand Junction characteristics.

(a)

Urban.

(b)

63.79 square miles.

(c)

2010 population estimate 102,277.

(d)

2030 population estimate 137,145.

(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)

§ 31.12.270 City of Grand Junction theoretical root mean square maps.

Given the checkerboard effect on the city limits created when noncontiguous properties are annexed from the County into the City of Grand Junction, the Persigo 201 Boundary area was selected as the study area that best reflects the geographic area for the City. Throughout this document, the Persigo 201 Boundary is used interchangeably with the City of Grand Junction to identify the area generally corresponding to the City of Grand Junction.

Figures 9 and 10 represent a theoretical build-out of equally distributed antennas, mounted at a tower height of 118 feet, in a perfect radio frequency environment for a single service provider that excludes topographic, vegetative cover and population density considerations. The black dot within each larger circle indicates the ideal antenna location. The smaller circle within the larger circle represents the acceptable search ring for locating the tower and antennas.

Figure 9: Theoretical Low Frequency Coverage

Figure 10: Theoretical High Frequency Coverage

Figure 9 illustrates that six towers or base stations equally distributed throughout the 201 Boundary would provide complete low frequency coverage to the defined study area. Figure 10 illustrates that 21 locations would be needed to provide complete high frequency coverage to the same geographic area.

(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)

§ 31.12.280 Persigo 201 Boundary existing antenna locations.

Most of the 50 wireless transmission equipment sites considered as part of the 201 Boundary study area are located south of I-70 and north of I-70B and Highway 6. This corresponds with where most of the commercial and industrial land use zones are located. Individual and small clusters of towers and base stations are located outside the triangular boundary created by the interstate and highway network in areas of larger residential land use zones and generally at higher ground elevations. Five of the sites are located just outside the 201 Boundary and are included in the study area because their signal affects coverage within the 201 Boundary. Two sites contain both a tower and a base station which explains why the number of towers is two greater than the number of sites.

Table 7: Summary of Existing and Proposed Transmission Equipment
Existing Total Number of Towers	In	Out	Existing Total Number of Base Stations	In	Out
Eligible Tower with PWSF	17	3	Eligible Base Station with PWSF	2	0
Noneligible Tower with PWSF	2	1	Noneligible Base Station with PWSF	3	0
Eligible Tower with no PWSF	3	0	Eligible Base Station with no PWSF	1	0
Noneligible Tower with no PWSF	11	0	Noneligible Base Station with no PWSF	9	0
Proposed Eligible Tower	2	1	Proposed Eligible Base Station	0	0
Total	35	5	Total	15	0
Site numbers in the 201 Boundary: 40 – 48, 50 – 59, 61 – 76, 78 – 85, 126, 127, 129
Site numbers within 1.5 mile perimeter of the 201 Boundary: 60, 77, 86, 87, 128

Figure 11 identifies the location of the sites listed in Table 7 above and are represented as follows:

•	Black dot – Eligible towers or base stations with PWSF which have been approved through a prescribed process by the underlying zoning district.
•	Red dot – Noneligible towers or base stations (meaning infrastructure built without prior approval for construction by the underlying zoning agency).
•	Orange dot – Tower or base station that has either been approved and not yet built; or is undergoing review at the time of this publication.

Figure 11: Existing Antenna Locations

(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)

§ 31.12.290 Persigo 201 Boundary composite maps.

The service area coverage based on propagation signal strength modeling is shown for both low band frequency in yellow and high band frequency in blue on the following composite maps. The highlighted areas represent where a generally reliable signal level should be available for indoor use for both low and high bands of service.

Indoor usage is the service threshold utilized for composite modeling because it represents the lowest signal strength acceptable after considering the signal loss that occurs from building penetration. Outdoor signal strength in the same area will usually be higher than indoor signal strength. Generally the closer the subscriber is to the facility, the more reliable the service. A subscriber further from the facility will have less reliable service. As the subscriber gets closer to the edge of the yellow or blue area, the signal strength becomes more prone to degradation, particularly as usage in the area increases or environmental conditions worsen. Areas of gray on the map indicate where the subscriber will experience weak, unpredictable levels of signal strength, or no service at all. Filling in these coverage gaps would require the installation of additional antennas and corresponding construction of more towers or the identification of buildings that would serve as base stations.

Figure 12 illustrates current theoretical coverage for one service provider operating in the low or high band frequency assuming they had equipment on each site in the facility inventory. Figure 13 shows how population growth and technology changes will affect the current coverage model shown in Figure 12.

Both composite maps include the expected effects of terrain, vegetative cover, and current population density variables. The antenna mounting elevation in both figures is assumed to be at the top of the towers and base stations where the height is known or at 118 feet where unknown.

Figures 12 and 13 identify the location of the inventoried sites categorized as follows:

•	Black dot – Eligible towers or base stations with PWSF
★	Black star – Noneligible towers or base stations without PWSF

Figure 12: Current Potential Coverage

Figure 13: Current Potential Coverage Including Future Growth

(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)

§ 31.12.300 Persigo 201 Boundary propagation mapping.

In propagation mapping the gradation of colors from yellow to blue indicates the level of propagation signal strength. The geographic areas in yellow identify superior signal strength; green equates to areas with average signal strength; shades of blue symbolize acceptable signal strength; and gray shades show marginal or no signal strength.

Generally, the closer the proximity to the antenna the brighter the shades of yellow within the geographic service area which means the better quality of wireless communications between the elevated antenna and the wireless handset. As distance increases between the handset and the antenna, the green, blue, and gray shades appear, indicating geographic service areas with average, acceptable, and no signal strength respectively. Table 8 provides further explanation of the color coding relative to propagation signals.

Table 8: Signal Strength
SIGNAL STRENGTH
COLOR	TITLE	DESCRIPTION
Yellow	Superior	Signal strength strong enough to receive signal in many buildings
Green	Average	Signal strength strong enough to receive signal in a car, but not inside most buildings
Blue	Acceptable	Signal strength strong enough to receive signal outside for many handsets, but no expectation of receiving a signal in a car or building
Gray	No Service	Signal strength is marginal or no service

Figure 14 illustrates various levels of propagation signal coverage including terrain, network capacity and environmental variables. While the industry standards identify green and blue shades as “average” and “acceptable” coverage, customers tend to find otherwise. Most 21st century wireless subscribers demand superior signal strength (yellow) in their residences, schools, offices, and places frequented for shopping and entertainment. As consumers continue the trend of terminating traditional landline phone services and using the wireless handset as the primary mode of communication, having superior signal strength inside buildings becomes paramount to meeting their expectations. Therefore the industry’s “average” and “acceptable” coverage variables do not meet customer demands and expectations.

Figure 14 shows that significant gaps in coverage can be expected over the next 10 to 15 years with the existing infrastructure in the Persigo 201 Boundary. More than 50 percent of the projected signal coverage quality from existing infrastructure will be marginalized or eliminated based on technology changes anticipated with 5G networks. A significant amount of additional infrastructure will be needed to improve the quality of network coverage shown in areas with hues of green to blue and in all gray areas.

Figure 14: Propagation Map

(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)

§ 31.12.310 Persigo 201 Boundary estimation of future antenna sites.

Due to the urban characteristics of the City of Grand Junction, CityScape estimates that the largest number of new sites constructed over the next 10 to 15 years will be built in and around the Persigo 201 Study Area. Approximately 11 to 19 new towers or base stations will be needed to fill in the anticipated coverage gaps. These estimates are based on the expected changes in population density, subscriber base and usage, daily transient movement through the study area and the number of calls a facility can service at any given time. The projections consider coverage, capacity, and broadband network objectives and take into consideration terrain, population and proposed maximum infrastructure height variables. The projection model that CityScape designed assumes that all existing tower and base station locations will be used for maximum co-location opportunities in an effort to reduce the number of new towers and base stations required within a given geographic area. Should the industry not maximize the use of existing facilities, a greater number of towers will need to be constructed over this same time period. It should also be noted that even with this increase in new facilities, some areas within the study area will still be underserved due to the terrain and rural characteristics around the periphery of the study area.

(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)

§ 31.12.320 Public properties as fill-in sites for network gaps.

(a)

When publicly owned property is used for new tower or base station construction, the community, represented by their local government agency, is assured that their preferences for tower types and concealment technology are followed. As public properties are developed, the infrastructure installed becomes the precedent for how future sites should be developed on both public and private land. For example, many slick sticks and flagpole towers are available to the industry as are other creative concealment techniques. Some are more aesthetically pleasing and more practical than other types. As the local government adopts preferred products on publicly owned property, their application becomes the standard for future tower sites developed on public and private land within their zoning jurisdiction. Leasing public properties to tower builders and tenant carriers for new wireless infrastructure can also create new sources of public revenue. Additionally, having a tower on public property results in an asset for the local government that is available for emergency services radio and wireless broadband equipment use.

(b)

The City of Grand Junction has affirmed their interest in the use of City owned properties within the Persigo 201 Boundary and has established the following minimal criteria for each property:

(1)

The property shall be located within the Grand Junction Persigo 201 Boundary or can be included in the Grand Junction Persigo 201 Boundary.

(2)

The property shall be one acre minimum in lot size.

(3)

The property shall have vehicular access to an improved public right-of-way.

(4)

The property shall have access to utilities.

(5)

The property shall be outside the 100-year floodplain.

(6)

The cellular facility shall meet all City development standards and be subject to all regulations of the zoning code including but not limited to, “in residential zoning districts and in mixed use zoning districts that include residential uses, new concealed towers shall not be permitted on lots where the primary use or principal structure is single-family or two-family residential, group living, day care, or a multifamily structure of fewer than three stories. Examples of land uses/structure types in residential areas where the site may include a concealed tower are: school, religious assembly, fire station, stadium tower or stand, or other similar institutional/civic uses/structures.”

(7)

Concealment is required and the owner of the property must identify the type of concealment proposed with the understanding that if accepted by the City, then any type of concealment aside from what is proposed and accepted at the time of the Master Plan vetting process would require a conditional use permit (CUP).

(c)

The City has reviewed and qualified a total of 15 of the 19 fill-in locations. The City has identified site-specific concealment infrastructure required on each property. These properties are referenced as public priority site locations and if developed according to the recommendations in Table 9 and the City’s zoning codes, are entitled to a streamlined administrative approval process.

(d)

Additionally, the City invited private property owners to submit their land as potential priority site locations; provided, that the properties met the same criteria as the City-owned priority sites. Private property owners seeking inclusion of their property as a priority site in the Master Plan submitted an application to the City of Grand Junction for review. The selected nonpublic priority sites, which includes property that is not for profit, are also listed in Table 9. During the vetting process, the Orchard Mesa Irrigation District, a public property land owner, requested that three of their properties be reviewed and added to the public priority site list. All three properties are included in Table 9 as sites Q, R and S. Additionally, The Museum of Western Colorado vetted two properties and they are listed as sites T and U in Table 9 under Non Public Priority heading.

(e)

Public properties not owned by the City of Grand Junction but which could potentially be used as fill-in sites are listed in Table 9. These properties have not been vetted since they are not owned by the City of Grand Junction. However, as potential fill-in sites they are listed in Table 9 with a not determined recommendation. Use of these public fill-in sites is encouraged and promoted in the City’s ordinance, but will require conditional use approval.

Table 9: Grand Junction Potential Fill-In Public and Nonpublic Properties
Public Priority Site ID	Owner	Location	Address	Parcel Number	Acreage	Site-Specific Recommendation
I1	City of Grand Junction	Grand Junction City Limits	727 24 1/2 Road	2701-333-00-941 Zoned CRS	35.595	Canyon View Park Entry or Art Feature; Slick Stick
I2	City of Grand Junction	Grand Junction City Limits	728 24 Road	2701-333-00-942 Zoned CSR	39.741	Canyon View Park Entry or Art Feature; Slick Stick
I4	City of Grand Junction	Grand Junction City Limits	730 24 Road	2701-333-00-948 Zoned CSR	36.793	Canyon View Park Entry or Art Feature; Slick Stick
J1	City of Grand Junction	Grand Junction City Limits	773 Old Orchard Street	2701-352-51-945 Zoned CSR	31.653	Saccomanno Park Slick Stick; Concealed 3-Legged Pole
J2	City of Grand Junction	Grand Junction City Limits	822 Lanai Drive	2701-264-14-941 Zoned CSR	2.817	Paradise Hills Park Banner Pole
J3	City of Grand Junction	Grand Junction City Limits	731 27 Road	2701-354-00-949 Zoned CSR	12.643	Horizon Park Banner Pole
K1	City of Grand Junction	Grand Junction City Limits	2155 Broadway	2947-231-17-944 Zoned CSR	3.269	Fire Station 5 Slick Stick; Flagpole; Concealed 3-Legged Pole
L	City of Grand Junction	Grand Junction City Limits	2400 Blue Heron Road	2945-093-00-945 Zoned CSR	46.519	Colorado Riverfront Trail Slick Stick; Banner Pole
N1	City of Grand Junction	Grand Junction City Limits	405 Ridges Boulevard	2945-174-24-944 Zoned PD	1.926	Open Space Banner Pole
N2	City of Grand Junction	Grand Junction City Limits	407 Saddle Court	2945-174-29-941 Zoned PD	28.041	Open Space Banner Pole
N3	City of Grand Junction	Grand Junction City Limits	406 Ridges Boulevard #F1	2945-212-13-944 Zoned PD	3.207	Open Space Banner Pole
N4	City of Grand Junction	Grand Junction City Limits	585 Hidden Valley Court	2945-212-14-944 Zoned PD	7.028	Open Space Banner Pole
Q	Orchard Mesa Irrigation District (OMID)	Mesa County	158 29 1/2 Road	2943-321-00-946 Zoned RSF-R	1.672	Slick Stick; Flagpole; Concealed 3-Legged Pole
R	USA c/o OMID	Grand Junction City Limits	2962 A 1/2 Road	2943-321-00-913; 2943-321-00-175[1] Zoned RSF-4	4.725	Slick Stick; Flagpole; Concealed 3-Legged Pole
S	USA c/o OMID	Mesa County	121 31 Road	2943-334-00-948 Zoned AFT	19.89	Slick Stick; Flagpole; Concealed 3-Legged Pole

Other Public Priority Site ID	Owner	Location	Address	Parcel Number	Acreage	Site-Specific Recommendation
H1	Mesa County	GJ 201 Boundary	651 Railhead Circle	2945-062-16-938	9.194	Not Determined
H2	State of Colorado	GJ 201 Boundary	Walter Walker Wildlife Area	2947-142-00-922	470.112	Not Determined
I3	Caprock Bldg Association	Grand Junction City Limits	Caprock Elementary	2701-334-00-940 Zoned R-5	7.683	Not Determined
K2	District 51 Master Lease Association	GJ 201 Boundary	Redlands Middle School	2947-231-00-949	20.239	Not Determined
M	Colorado Game Fish and Parks Department	Grand Junction City Limits	711 Independent Avenue	2945-104-00-922	9.88	Not Determined
O	State Highway Department	Grand Junction City Limits	606 S 9th Street	2945-231-03-928	5.085	Not Determined
P	Mesa County	GJ 201 Boundary	275 1/2 Coulson Drive #B	2943-302-47-935	7.495	Not Determined

Nonpublic Priority Site ID*	Owner	Location	Address	Parcel Number	Acreage	Site-Specific Recommendation
T	Museum of Western Colorado	Grand Junction City Limits	462 Ute Avenue	2945-143-28-992 Zoned B-2	1.15	Concealed Base Station on Observation Station
U	Museum of Western Colorado	Mesa County	3065 Patterson Road	2943-091-00-993 Zoned RSF-4	22.34	Farm Entry; Art Feature; Slick Stick; Flagpole; Concealed 3-Legged Pole

*Nonpublic also includes property that is not for profit

Figure 15 illustrates the potential solutions that will need to be considered to fill in the gaps identified in Figure 14. The area colored with yellow to green gradients shows the theoretical coverage from existing towers and base stations with PWSF. The areas colored with light to dark shades of red gradients show the projected theoretical coverage from existing towers and base stations without current PWSF that could be utilized or upgraded for co-locations. The areas colored with light to dark orange gradient would be filled with new infrastructure that has already been submitted for review. The areas colored with pink gradient represent areas where new fill-in sites would need to be located to provide the required coverage.

Figure 15: High Frequency Coverage with Future Fill-in

[1]

Editor's Note: The reference to parcel number 2943-321-00-914 has been updated to be to 2943-321-00-175.

(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)

§ 31.12.330 Lower Valley characteristics.

(a)

Rural;

(b)

139.85 square miles;

(c)

2010 population estimate 18,437;

(d)

2030 population estimate 26,900.

(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)

§ 31.12.340 Lower Valley theoretical root mean square maps.

Figure 16 illustrates that 14 towers or base stations equally distributed throughout the Lower Valley would provide complete low frequency coverage to the defined study area. Figure 17 illustrates that 40 locations would be needed to provide complete high frequency coverage to the same geographic area.

Figure 16: Theoretical Low Frequency

Figure 17: Theoretical High Frequency

(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)

§ 31.12.350 Lower Valley existing antenna locations.

Almost half of the 21 total sites in and around the Lower Valley are located within a 1.5 mile perimeter of the actual study area and nine of those 10 sites are within the Persigo 201 Boundary. Of the 10 sites within the Lower Valley study area only four currently have PWSF on them. Three of the sites (35, 36 and 37) are located parallel to I-70 and two of the sites (39 and 131) are located in the eastern half of the Lower Valley. Sites 136 through 139 all support wireless Internet facilities. This pattern of deployment is very common for the industry. The greatest concentration of towers and base stations is closer to the urban area along the major transportation networks.

Table 10: Summary of Existing and Proposed Transmission Equipment
Existing Total Number of Towers	In	Out	Existing Total Number of Base Stations	In	Out
Eligible Tower with PWSF	4	3	Eligible Base Station with PWSF	0	1
Noneligible Tower with PWSF	0	0	Noneligible Base Station with PWSF	0	0
Eligible Tower with no PWSF	0	2	Eligible Base Station with no PWSF	0	0
Noneligible Tower with no PWSF	6	2	Noneligible Base Station with no PWSF	0	2
Proposed Eligible Tower	0	1	Proposed Eligible Base Station	0	0
Total	10	8	Total	0	3
Site numbers in the Lower Valley: 34 – 39, 136 – 139
Site numbers within 1.5 mile perimeter of the Lower Valley: 40, 41, 47, 50 – 55, 80, 131

Figure 18 identifies the location of the sites listed in Table 10 above and are represented as follows:

•	Black dot – Eligible towers or base stations with PWSF which have been approved through a prescribed process by the appropriate local government agency.
•	Red dot – Noneligible towers or base stations (meaning infrastructure built without prior approval for construction by the appropriate local government agency).
•	Orange dot – Tower or base station that has either been approved but not yet built; or is undergoing review at the time of this publication.

Figure 18: Existing Antenna Locations

(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)

§ 31.12.360 Lower Valley composite maps.

Indoor usage is the service threshold utilized for composite modeling because it represents the lowest signal strength acceptable after considering the signal loss that occurs from building penetration. Outdoor signal strength in the same area will usually be higher than indoor signal strength. Generally the closer the subscriber is to the facility the more reliable the service. A subscriber further from the facility will have less reliable service. As the subscriber gets closer to the edge of the yellow or blue area, the signal strength becomes more prone to degradation, particularly as usage in the area increases or environmental conditions worsen. Areas of gray on the map indicate where the subscriber will experience weak, unpredictable levels of signal strength, or no service at all. Filling in these coverage gaps would require the installation of additional antennas and corresponding construction of more towers or the identification of buildings that would serve as base stations.

Figure 19 illustrates current theoretical coverage for one service provider operating in the low or high band frequency assuming they had equipment on each site in the facility inventory. Figure 20 shows how population growth and technology changes will affect the current coverage model shown in Figure 19.

Figures 19 and 20 identify the location of the inventory sites categorized as follows:

•	Black dot – Eligible towers or base stations with PWSF
★	Black star – Noneligible towers or base stations without PWSF

Figure 19: Current Potential Coverage

Figure 20: Current Potential Coverage Including Future Growth

(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)

§ 31.12.370 Lower Valley estimation of future antenna sites.

Due to the rural characteristics of the Lower Valley, CityScape estimates that the largest number of new sites constructed over the next 10 to 15 years will be built along the I-70 corridor. Approximately seven new towers or base stations will be needed to fill in anticipated coverage gaps. However, only four of the seven sites have been turned on in the gap analysis map in Figure 20 because CityScape believes it is unlikely that the industry will add all seven facilities over the next 10 to 12 years.

These estimates are based on the expected changes in population density, subscriber base and usage, daily transient movement throughout the study area and the number of calls a facility can service at any given time. The projections consider coverage, capacity, and broadband network objectives and take into consideration terrain, population and proposed maximum infrastructure height variables. The projection model that CityScape designed assumes that all existing tower and base station locations will be used for maximum co-location opportunities in an effort to reduce the number of new towers and base stations required within a given geographic area. Should the industry not maximize the use of existing facilities, a greater number of towers will need to be constructed over this same time period. It should also be noted that even with this increase in new facilities, some areas within the study area will still be underserved due to the terrain and to the rural characteristics of portions of the study area.

CityScape has reviewed the gaps in network coverage in comparison to the location of publicly owned properties and considered the impact that placing a tower on those properties would have on network and public safety coverage. When publicly owned property is used for new tower or base station construction, the community, represented by their local government agency, is assured that their preferences for tower types and concealment technology are followed. As public properties are developed, the infrastructure installed becomes the precedent for how future sites should be developed on both public and private land. For example, many slick sticks and flagpole towers are available to the industry as are other creative concealment techniques. Some are more aesthetically pleasing and more practical than other types. As the local government adopts preferred products on publicly owned property, their application becomes the standard for future tower sites developed on public and private land within their zoning jurisdiction. Leasing public properties to tower builders and tenant carriers for new wireless infrastructure can also create new sources of public revenue. Additionally, having a tower on public property results in an asset for the local government that is available for emergency services radio and wireless broadband equipment use.

Figure 21 indicates how certain geographic areas would benefit with improved network coverage from the addition of the publicly owned properties. Table 11 identifies potential public property fill-in sites. Tower type preferences are not provided in the recommendation column because the property has not been vetted by the local planning agency.

Table 11: Lower Valley Potential Fill-In Public Property
Public Site ID	Owner	Location	Address	Parcel Number	Acreage	Site-Specific Recommendation
D	State of Colorado		Highline State Park	2691-053-00-922	325.442	Not Determined
E1	Lower Valley Protection District	Loma	1341 13 Road	2691-334-04-498	0.79	Not Determined
E2	State Department of Highways	Loma	1346 13 3/10 Road	2691-342-00-924	9.762	Not Determined
F1	City of Fruita	Fruita	324 N Coulson Street	2697-172-00-940	1.398	Not Determined
F2	City of Fruita	Fruita	300 W Ottley Avenue	2697-172-00-946	6.04	Not Determined
F3	Lower Valley Protection District	Fruita	168 N Mesa Street	2697-172-53-944	0.675	Not Determined
F4	District 51	Fruita	Fruita Middle School	2697-172-28-942	12.725	Not Determined
F5	City of Fruita	Fruita	210 Frontage Road	2697-173-09-945	3.51	Not Determined
G	Mesa County	Fruita	916 19 1/2 Road	2697-224-00-939	5.281	Not Determined

Figure 21: Coverage with Future Fill-In

(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)

§ 31.12.380 Palisade characteristics.

(a)

Rural;

(b)

35.21 square miles;

(c)

2010 population estimate 18,642;

(d)

2030 population estimate 24,247.

(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)

§ 31.12.390 Palisade theoretical root mean square maps.

The following maps represent a theoretical build-out of equally distributed antennas, mounted at a tower height of 118 feet, in a perfect radio frequency environment for a single service provider that excludes topographic, vegetative cover and population density considerations. The black dot within each larger circle indicates the ideal antenna location. The smaller circle within the larger circle represents the acceptable search ring for locating the tower and antennas. Figure 22 illustrates that six towers or base stations equally distributed throughout the Palisade area would provide complete low frequency coverage to the defined study area. Figure 23 illustrates that 15 locations would be needed to provide complete high frequency coverage to the same geographic area.

Figure 22: Theoretical Low Frequency Coverage

Figure 23: Theoretical High Frequency Coverage

(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)

§ 31.12.400 Palisade existing antenna locations.

There are 12 transmission equipment facilities in and around the Palisade Study Area. Two-thirds of these are located within a 1.5 mile perimeter of the actual study area. These outlying sites are either in the 201 Persigo Boundary or along I-70, Highway 6 or Highway 50. Three of the four sites within the Palisade Study Area are near the western boundary in close proximity to the 201 Boundary. Only one site (site 6) is not in either of these vicinities. This pattern of deployment is very common for the industry. The greatest concentration of towers and base stations are closer to the urban area along the major transportation networks.

Table 12: Summary of Existing and Proposed Transmission Equipment
Existing Total Number of Towers	In	Out	Existing Total Number of Base Stations	In	Out
Eligible Tower with PWSF	3	5	Eligible Base Station with PWSF	0	1
Noneligible Tower with PWSF	0	0	Noneligible Base Station with PWSF	0	0
Eligible Tower with no PWSF	0	0	Eligible Base Station with no PWSF	0	0
Noneligible Tower with no PWSF	0	1	Noneligible Base Station with no PWSF	0	1
Proposed Eligible Tower	1	0	Proposed Eligible Base Station	0	0
Total	4	6	Total	0	2
Site Numbers in the Palisade Study Area: 6, 60, 77, 128
Site Numbers within the 1.5 mile perimeter of the Palisade Study Area: 5, 48, 49, 59, 67, 68, 87, 132

Figure 24 identifies the location of the sites listed in Table 12 above and are represented by:

•	Black dot – Eligible towers or base stations with PWSF which have been approved through a prescribed process by the appropriate local government agency.
•	Red dot – Noneligible towers or base stations (meaning infrastructure built without prior approval for construction by the appropriate local government agency).
•	Orange dot – Tower or base station that has either been approved but not yet built; or is undergoing review at the time of this publication.

Figure 24: Existing Antenna Locations

(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)

§ 31.12.410 Palisade composite maps.

Indoor usage is the service threshold utilized for composite modeling because it represents the lowest signal strength acceptable after considering the signal loss that occurs from building penetration. Outdoor signal strength in the same area will usually be higher than indoor signal strength. Generally the closer the subscriber is to the facility the more reliable the service. A subscriber further from the facility will have less reliable service. As the subscriber gets closer to the edge of the yellow or blue area, the signal strength becomes more prone to degradation, particularly as usage in the area increases or environmental conditions worsen. Areas of gray on the map indicate where the subscriber will experience weak, unpredictable levels of signal strength, or no service at all. Filling in these coverage gaps would require the installation of additional antennas and corresponding construction of more towers or the identification of buildings that would serve as base stations.

Figure 25 illustrates current theoretical coverage for one service provider operating in the low or high frequency assuming they had equipment on each inventoried facility. Figure 26 shows how population growth and technology changes will affect the current coverage model shown in Figure 25.

Both composite maps have included the expected effects of terrain, vegetative cover, and current population density variables. The antenna mounting elevation in both figures is assumed to be at the top of the towers and base stations where the height is known or at 118 feet where unknown.

Figures 25 and 26 identify the location of the inventory sites categorized as follows:

•	Black dot – Eligible towers or base stations with PWSF
★	Black star – Noneligible towers or base stations without PWSF

Figure 25: Current Potential Coverage

Figure 26: Current Potential Coverage Including Future Growth

(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)

§ 31.12.420 Palisade estimation of future antenna sites.

Due to the rural characteristics of the Palisade Study Area, CityScape estimates that about six new towers or base stations will be needed over the next 10 to 15 years located along the corridors of I-70, Highway 141 and Highway 50. The fill-in map, shown in Figure 27, includes the six new sites which will provide almost complete coverage for the Palisade Study Area.

CityScape has reviewed the gaps in network coverage in comparison to the location of publicly owned properties and considered the impact that placing a tower on those properties would have on network and public safety coverage. When publicly owned property is used for new tower or base station construction, the community, represented by their local government agency, is assured that their preferences for tower types and concealment technology are followed. As public properties are developed, the infrastructure installed becomes the precedent for how future sites should be developed on both public and private land. For example, many slick sticks and flagpole towers are available to the industry as are other creative concealment techniques. Some are more aesthetically pleasing and more practical than other types. As the local government adopts preferred products on publicly owned property, their application become the standard for future tower sites developed on public and private land within their zoning jurisdiction. Leasing public properties to tower builders and tenant carriers for new wireless infrastructure can also create new sources of public revenue. Additionally, having a tower on public property results in an asset for the local government that is available for emergency services radio and wireless broadband equipment use.

Figure 27 indicates how certain geographic areas would benefit with improved network coverage from the addition of the publicly owned properties. Table 13 identifies potential public property fill-in sites. Tower type preferences are not provided in the recommendation column because the property has not been vetted by the local planning agency.

Table 13: Palisade Potential Fill-In Public Properties
Public Site ID	Owner	Location	Address	Parcel Number	Acreage	Site-Specific Recommendation
Q	Colorado Department of Highways	Palisade	816 35 8/10 Road	2937-063-00-924	10.241	Not Determined
R1	Town of Palisade	Palisade	175 E Third Street	2937-091-04-941	0.95	Not Determined
R2	Town of Palisade	Palisade	120 W Eighth Street	2937-093-36-941	2.476	Not Determined
R3	Town of Palisade	Palisade	571 W Fifth Street	2937-093-00-940	2.875	Not Determined
R4	Town of Palisade	Palisade	711 Iowa Avenue	2937-093-37-943	3.189	Not Determined
S	East Orchard Fire Protection District	Palisade	544 35 1/2 Road	2941-084-00-944	1.108	Not Determined

Figure 27: Coverage with Future Fill-In

(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)

§ 31.12.430 DeBeque characteristics.

(a)

Rural.

(b)

30.34 square miles.

(c)

2010 population estimate 808.

(d)

2030 population estimate 1,096.

(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)

§ 31.12.440 DeBeque theoretical root mean square maps.

The following maps represent a theoretical build-out of equally distributed antennas, mounted at a tower height of 118 feet, in a perfect radio frequency environment for a single service provider that excludes topographic, vegetative cover and population density considerations. The black dot within each larger circle indicates the ideal antenna location. The smaller circle within the larger circle represents the acceptable search ring for locating the tower and antennas. Figure 28 illustrates that three towers or base stations equally distributed throughout the DeBeque Study Area would provide complete low frequency coverage to the defined study area. Figure 29 illustrates nine locations would be needed to provide complete high frequency coverage to the same geographic area.

Figure 28: Theoretical Low Frequency Coverage

Figure 29: Theoretical High Frequency Coverage

(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)

§ 31.12.450 DeBeque existing antenna locations.

Of the three geographic regions included in Study Area A, the DeBeque Study Area is the least populated. There are two equipment communication facilities within the DeBeque Study Area and both of the towers are equipped with PWSF. Both towers are located parallel to I-70 with the intent of serving that corridor.

Table 14: Summary of Existing and Proposed Transmission Equipment
Existing Total Number of Towers	In	Out	Existing Total Number of Base Stations	In	Out
Eligible Tower with PWSF	2	0	Eligible Base Station with PWSF	0	0
Noneligible Tower with PWSF	0	0	Noneligible Base Station with PWSF	0	0
Eligible Tower with no PWSF	0	0	Eligible Base Station with no PWSF	0	0
Noneligible Tower with no PWSF	0	0	Noneligible Base Station with no PWSF	0	0
Proposed Eligible Tower	0	0	Proposed Eligible Base Station	0	0
Total	2	0	Total	0	0
Site Numbers in the DeBeque Study Area: 1, 2
Site numbers within the 1.5 mile perimeter of the DeBeque Study Area: None

Figure 30 identifies the location of the sites listed in Table 14 above and are represented by:

•	Black dot – Eligible towers or base stations with PWSF which have been approved through a prescribed process by the appropriate local government agency.
•	Red dot – Noneligible towers or base stations (meaning infrastructure built without prior approval for construction by the appropriate local government agency).
•	Orange dot – Tower or base station that has either been approved but not yet built; or is undergoing review at the time of this publication.

Figure 30: Existing Antenna Locations

(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)

§ 31.12.460 DeBeque composite maps.

Indoor usage is the service threshold utilized for composite modeling because it represents the lowest signal strength acceptable after considering the signal loss that occurs from building penetration. Outdoor signal strength in the same area will usually be higher than indoor signal strength. Generally the closer the subscriber is to the facility the more reliable the service. A subscriber further from the facility will have less reliable service. As the subscriber gets closer to the edge of the yellow or blue area, the signal strength becomes more prone to degradation, particularly as usage in the area increases or environmental conditions worsen. Areas of gray on the map indicate where the subscriber will experience weak, unpredictable levels of signal strength, or no service at all. Filling in these coverage gaps would require the installation of additional antennas and corresponding construction of more towers or the identification of buildings that would serve as base stations.

Figure 31 illustrates current theoretical coverage for one service provider operating in the low or high band frequency assuming they had equipment on each facility. Figure 32 shows how population growth and technology changes will affect the current coverage model shown in Figure 31.

Figures 31 and 32 identify the location of the inventory sites categorized as follows:

•	Black dot – Eligible towers or base stations with PWSF
★	Black star – Noneligible towers or base stations without PWSF

Figure 31: Current Potential Coverage

Figure 32: Current Potential Coverage Including Future Growth

(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)

§ 31.12.470 DeBeque estimation of future antenna sites.

Due to the rural characteristics of the DeBeque Study Area, CityScape estimates that approximately three new sites will be needed in the next 10 to 15 years: one along the I-70 corridor, one in the town of DeBeque and one in the northwest quadrant of the study area. It is likely that the I-70 site will be constructed first, with the other two sites possibly being added in the distant future. The fill-in map in Figure 33 illustrates great improvement to the I-70 corridor coverage with one new site and almost complete coverage for the study area with the construction of all three sites.

Figure 33 indicates how certain geographic areas would benefit with improved network coverage from the addition of the publicly owned properties. Table 15 identifies potential public property fill-in sites. Tower type preferences are not provided in the recommendation column because the property has not been vetted by the local planning agency.

Table 15: DeBeque Potential Fill-In Public Properties
Public Site ID	Owner	Location	Address	Parcel Number	Acreage	Site-Specific Recommendation
A	Joint School District 49	DeBeque		2445-213-00-942	20.575	Not Determined
B1	DeBeque Fire Protection District	DeBeque	4580 I70 Frontage Road	2445-274-00-944	5.86	Not Determined
B2	Town of DeBeque	DeBeque	414 Rouse Avenue	2445-272-00-943	61.767	Not Determined

Figure 33: Coverage with Future Fill-In

(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)

§ 31.12.480 Glade Park characteristics.

(a)

Undeveloped.

(b)

387.86 square miles.

(c)

2010 population estimate 1,664.

(d)

2030 population estimate 1,956.

(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)

§ 31.12.490 Glade Park theoretical root mean square maps.

Figure 34 illustrates that 26 towers or base stations equally distributed throughout the Glade Park Study Area would provide complete low frequency coverage to the defined study area. Figure 35 illustrates that 89 locations would be needed to provide complete high frequency coverage to the same geographic area.

Figure 34: Theoretical Low Frequency Coverage

Figure 35: Theoretical High Frequency Coverage

(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)

§ 31.12.500 Glade Park existing antenna locations.

There are no towers or base stations within the Glade Park Study Area. All 26 sites listed below are outside the study area and within either the Persigo 201 Boundary or in a tower cluster located on Blackridge above the Colorado National Monument. The low population density and seasonal tourist and recreational visitors do not meet industry criteria for additional infrastructure within the study area at this time.

Table 16: Summary of Existing and Proposed Transmission Equipment
Existing Total Number of Towers	In	Out	Existing Total Number of Base Stations	In	Out
Eligible Tower with PWSF	0	4	Eligible Base Station with PWSF	0	1
Noneligible Tower with PWSF	0	0	Noneligible Base Station with PWSF	0	0
Eligible Tower with no PWSF	0	1	Eligible Base Station with no PWSF	0	0
Noneligible Tower with no PWSF	0	21	Noneligible Base Station with no PWSF	0	2
Proposed Eligible Tower	0	0	Proposed Eligible Base Station	0	0
Total	0	26	Total	0	3
Site numbers in the Glade Park Study Area: None
Site numbers within the 1.5 mile perimeter of the Glade Park Study Area: 71 – 75, 81 – 85, 88 – 102, 141

Figure 36 identifies the location of the sites listed in Table 16 above and are represented by:

•	Black dot – Eligible towers or base stations with PWSF which have been approved through a prescribed process by the appropriate local government agency.
•	Red dot – Noneligible towers or base stations (meaning infrastructure built without prior approval for construction by the appropriate local government agency).
•	Orange dot – Tower or base station that has either been approved but not yet built; or is undergoing review at the time of this publication.

Figure 36: Existing Antenna Locations

(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)

§ 31.12.510 Glade Park composite maps.

Indoor usage is the service threshold utilized for composite modeling because it represents the lowest signal strength acceptable after considering the signal loss that occurs from building penetration. Outdoor signal strength in the same area will usually be higher than indoor signal strength. Generally the closer the subscriber is to the facility the more reliable the service. A subscriber further from the facility will have less reliable service. As the subscriber gets closer to the edge of the yellow or blue area, the signal strength becomes more prone to degradation, particularly as usage in the area increases or environmental conditions worsen. Areas of gray on the map indicate where the subscriber will experience weak, unpredictable levels of signal strength, or no service at all. Filling in these coverage gaps would require the installation of additional antennas and corresponding construction of more towers or the identification of buildings that would serve as base stations.

Figure 37 illustrates current theoretical coverage for one service provider operating in the low or high frequency assuming they had equipment on each facility. Figure 38 shows how population growth and technology changes will affect the current coverage model shown in Figure 37. There appears to be very little difference between Figures 37 and 38 due to the scale of the map and the height of the existing tower.

Figures 37 and 38 identify the location of the inventory sites categorized as follows:

•	Black dot – Eligible towers or base stations with PWSF
★	Black star – Noneligible towers or base stations without PWSF

Figure 37: Current Potential Coverage

Figure 38: Current Potential Coverage Including Future Growth

(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)

§ 31.12.520 Glade Park estimation of future antenna sites.

CityScape understands the residents’ and visitors’ desire to have service coverage in the Glade Park Study Area. A study was recently completed to identify possible locations for additional emergency services infrastructure. Three of these sites are located in this study area and have been added to the fill-in map in Figure 39 and are identified by a red triangle. CityScape has identified an additional six locations that would maximize the effectiveness of new infrastructure but anticipates that only one of those facilities (site T) may be constructed over the next 10 to 15 years. These fill-in sites are shown with green and black triangles. The majority of the population lives in the Northwest corner of the study area and services for these residents could be improved by a facility in that area. However, the sparsity of the subscribers and the division between multiple providers makes this area too small of a footprint for most major service providers to justify a new facility. Due to the unique circumstances found in this study area, CityScape recommends that residents and local government agencies work with the service providers to create a coordinated effort to develop new sites.

Figure 39 indicates how certain geographic areas would benefit with improved network coverage from the addition of the publicly owned properties. Table 17 identifies potential public property fill-in sites. Tower type preferences are not provided in the recommendation column because the property has not been vetted by the local planning agency.

Table 17: Glade Park Potential Fill-In Public Property
Public Site ID	Owner	Location	Address	Parcel Number	Acreage	Site-Specific Recommendation
T	County of Mesa	Glade Park	16430 DS Road	2959-243-02-932	2.089	Not Determined

Figure 39: Coverage with Future Fill-In

(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)

§ 31.12.530 Gateway characteristics.

(a)

Undeveloped.

(b)

3.69 square miles.

(c)

2010 population estimate 142.

(d)

2030 population estimate 342.

(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)

§ 31.12.540 Gateway theoretical root mean square maps.

Figure 40 illustrates that two towers or base stations centrally located in the Gateway Study Area would provide complete low frequency coverage to the defined study area. Figure 41 illustrates that it would take four locations to provide complete high frequency coverage to the same geographic area.

Figure 40: Theoretical Low Frequency Coverage

Figure 41: Theoretical High Frequency Coverage

(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)

§ 31.12.550 Gateway existing antenna locations.

The Gateway Study Area has no communication equipment within the study boundary. There are three sites located to the west on Lee’s Point which provide some service to Gateway and the Highway 141 corridor. Gateway, a remote, rural community, has a minimal subscriber base which explains the lack of wireless infrastructure in this region of the County. There is a resort located in Gateway which is likely the reason a PWSF was constructed on Lee’s Point.

Table 18: Summary of Existing and Proposed Transmission Equipment
Existing Total Number of Towers	In	Out	Existing Total Number of Base Stations	In	Out
Eligible Tower with PWSF	0	0	Eligible Base Station with PWSF	0	0
Noneligible Tower with PWSF	0	1	Noneligible Base Station with PWSF	0	0
Eligible Tower with no PWSF	0	0	Eligible Base Station with no PWSF	0	0
Noneligible Tower with no PWSF	0	2	Noneligible Base Station with no PWSF	0	0
Proposed Eligible Tower	0	0	Proposed Eligible Base Station	0	0
Total	0	3	Total	0	0
Site numbers in the Gateway Park Study Area: None
Site numbers within the 1.5 mile perimeter of the Gateway Park Study Area: 133 – 135

Figure 42 identifies the location of the sites listed in Table 18 above and are represented by:

•	Black dot – Eligible towers or base stations with PWSF which have been approved through a prescribed process by the appropriate local government agency.
•	Red dot – Noneligible towers or base stations (meaning infrastructure built without prior approval for construction by the appropriate local government agency).
•	Orange dot – Tower or base station that has either been approved but not yet built; or is undergoing review at the time of this publication.

Figure 42: Existing Antenna Locations

(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)

§ 31.12.560 Gateway composite maps.

Indoor usage is the service threshold utilized for composite modeling because it represents the lowest signal strength acceptable after considering the signal loss that occurs from building penetration. Outdoor signal strength in the same area will usually be higher than indoor signal strength. Generally the closer the subscriber is to the facility the more reliable the service. A subscriber further from the facility will have less reliable service. As the subscriber gets closer to the edge of the yellow or blue area, the signal strength becomes more prone to degradation, particularly as usage in the area increases or environmental conditions worsen. Areas of gray on the map indicate where the subscriber will experience weak, unpredictable levels of signal strength, or no service at all. Filling in these coverage gaps would require the installation of additional antennas and corresponding construction of more towers or the identification of buildings that would serve as base stations.

Figure 43 illustrates current and future theoretical coverage for one service provider operating in the low or high band frequency assuming they have equipment on each facility. This composite map includes the expected effects of terrain, vegetative cover, and current population density variables. The antenna mounting elevation is assumed to be at the top of the towers and base stations where the height is known or at 118 feet where unknown.

(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)

§ 31.12.570 Gateway estimation of future antenna sites.

Due to the undeveloped characteristics of the Gateway rural community, CityScape estimates that only one to three new sites may be built over the next 10 to 15 years. Any sites built will parallel Highway 141. The most likely location for a new facility would be in or near the town, which would improve wireless access for the citizens, resort visitors and travelers on Highway 141.

Figure 43 indicates how certain geographic areas would benefit with improved network coverage from the addition of the publicly owned properties. Table 19 identifies potential public property fill-in sites. Tower type preferences are not provided in the recommendation column because the property has not been vetted by the local planning agency.

Table 19: Gateway Potential Fill-In Public Property
Public Site ID	Owner	Location	Address	Parcel Number	Acreage	Site-Specific Recommendation
X	Mesa County	Gateway	42700 Highway 141	3477-153-01-936	7.663	Not Determined

Figure 43: Coverage with Future Fill-In

(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)

§ 31.12.580 Whitewater characteristics.

(a)

Rural/Undeveloped.

(b)

49.49 square miles.

(c)

2010 population estimate 1,864.

(d)

2030 population estimate 2,391.

(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)

§ 31.12.590 Whitewater theoretical root mean square maps.

Figure 44 illustrates that five towers or base stations equally distributed throughout the Whitewater Study Area would provide complete low frequency coverage to the defined study area. Figure 45 illustrates that 14 locations would be needed to provide complete high frequency coverage to the same geographic area.

Figure 44: Theoretical Low Frequency Coverage

Figure 45: Theoretical Low Frequency Coverage

(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)

§ 31.12.600 Whitewater existing antenna locations.

There are five communication facilities within the Whitewater Study Area located parallel to Highway 50. Only one of the three facilities is equipped with a PWSF. One additional facility is located west of the boundary area.

Table 20: Summary of Existing and Proposed Transmission Equipment
Existing Total Number of Towers	In	Out	Existing Total Number of Base Stations	In	Out
Eligible Tower with PWSF	1	0	Eligible Base Station with PWSF	0	0
Noneligible Tower with PWSF	1	1	Noneligible Base Station with PWSF	0	0
Eligible Tower with no PWSF	0	0	Eligible Base Station with no PWSF	0	0
Noneligible Tower with no PWSF	3	0	Noneligible Base Station with no PWSF	0	0
Proposed Eligible Tower	0	0	Proposed Eligible Base Station	0	0
Total	5	1	Total	0	0
Site numbers in the Whitewater Study Area: 87, 103, 104
Site numbers within the 1.5 mile perimeter of the Whitewater Study Area: 86

Figure 46 identifies the location of the sites listed in Table 20 above and are represented by:

•	Black dot – Eligible towers or base stations with PWSF which have been approved through a prescribed process by the appropriate local government agency.
•	Red dot – Noneligible towers or base stations (meaning infrastructure built without prior approval for construction by the appropriate local government agency).
•	Orange dot – Tower or base station that has either been approved but not yet built; or is undergoing review at the time of this publication.

Figure 46: Existing Antenna Locations

(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)

§ 31.12.610 Whitewater composite maps.

Indoor usage is the service threshold utilized for composite modeling because it represents the lowest signal strength acceptable after considering the signal loss that occurs from building penetration. Outdoor signal strength in the same area will usually be higher than indoor signal strength. Generally the closer the subscriber is to the facility the more reliable the service. A subscriber further from the facility will have less reliable service. As the subscriber gets closer to the edge of the yellow or blue area, the signal strength becomes more prone to degradation, particularly as usage in the area increases or environmental conditions worsen. Areas of gray on the map indicate where the subscriber will experience weak, unpredictable levels of signal strength, or no service at all. Filling in these coverage gaps would require the installation of additional antennas and corresponding construction of more towers or the identification of buildings that would serve as base stations.

Figure 47 illustrates current theoretical coverage for one service provider operating in the low or high frequency assuming they had equipment on each facility. Figure 48 shows how population growth and technology changes will affect the current coverage model shown in Figure 47.

Figures 47 and 48 identify the location of the inventory sites categorized as follows:

•	Black dot – Eligible towers or base stations with PWSF
★	Black star – Noneligible towers or base stations without PWSF

Figure 47: Current Potential Coverage

Figure 48: Current Potential Coverage Including Future Growth

(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)

§ 31.12.620 Whitewater estimation of future antenna sites.

The three existing towers in the Whitewater Study Area, if occupied by the same wireless service provider would offer very good service coverage along the Highway 50 corridor. CityScape has identified the need for four additional towers or base stations in this study area by 2030. Figure 49 illustrates three of the four sites turned on. In all likelihood, the first two sites added will be parallel to the highway.

Figure 49 indicates how certain geographic areas would benefit with improved network coverage from the addition of the publicly owned properties. Table 21 identifies potential public property fill-in sites. Tower type preferences are not provided in the recommendation column because the property has not been vetted by the local planning agency.

Table 21: Whitewater Potential Fill-In Public Property
Public Site ID	Owner	Location	Address	Parcel Number	Acreage	Site-Specific Recommendation
U1	Mesa County	Whitewater	527 Desert Road	2967-231-00-939	116.554	Not Determined
U2	City of Grand Junction	Whitewater	33129 Mill Tailing Road	2967-243-00-944	138.554	Not Determined
V1	City of Grand Junction	Whitewater	2080 Purdy Mesa Road	2969-251-00-944	216.145	Not Determined
V2	City of Grand Junction	Whitewater	7630 Reeder Mesa Road	2969-242-00-948	1333.34	Not Determined
V3	City of Grand Junction	Whitewater	3330 Purdy Mesa Road	2971-363-00-941	47.659	Not Determined
W1	City of Grand Junction	Whitewater	3280 Purdy Mesa Road	2971-361-00-940	1057.746	Not Determined
W2	City of Grand Junction	Whitewater	8570 Kannah Creek Road	3199-051-00-944	20.48	Not Determined
W3	City of Grand Junction	Whitewater	9470 Kannah Creek Road	2937-334-00-941	26.649	Not Determined

Figure 49: Coverage with Future Fill-In

(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)

§ 31.12.630 Town of Collbran characteristics.

(a)

Rural/Undeveloped.

(b)

251.49 square miles.

(c)

2010 population estimate 2,359.

(d)

2030 population estimate 3,008.

(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)

§ 31.12.640 Town of Collbran theoretical root mean square maps.

Figure 50 illustrates that 19 towers or base stations equally distributed throughout the Town of Collbran Study Area would provide complete low frequency coverage to the defined study area. Figure 51 illustrates that 60 locations would be needed to provide complete high frequency coverage to the same geographic area.

Figure 50: Theoretical Low Frequency Coverage

Figure 51: Theoretical High Frequency Coverage

(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)

§ 31.12.650 Town of Collbran existing antenna locations.

A total of four transmission towers are located within the Town of Collbran Study Area. Only one has PWSF installed. There are tower clusters just west of the study area boundary at Land’s End and Palisade Point. The clusters consist of 37 towers but only two contain PWSF equipment. The majority of the cluster towers contain either broadcast equipment for radio and television or microwave use. Aside from Glade Park, the Town of Collbran Study Area contains the most acreage with the lowest population density. For this reason, the wireless industry has not deployed much infrastructure except at the Powderhorn Ski Resort. This is very similar to the situation in Gateway where the resort and the tourist traffic have provided enough business incentive for the carriers to provide limited service.

Table 22: Summary of Existing and Proposed Transmission Equipment
Existing Total Number of Towers	In	Out	Existing Total Number of Base Stations	In	Out
Eligible Tower with PWSF	0	1	Eligible Base Station with PWSF	0	0
Noneligible Tower with PWSF	1	1	Noneligible Base Station with PWSF	0	0
Eligible Tower with no PWSF	0	0	Eligible Base Station with no PWSF	0	0
Noneligible Tower with no PWSF	3	37	Noneligible Base Station with no PWSF	0	0
Proposed Eligible Tower	0	0	Proposed Eligible Base Station	0	0
Total	4	39	Total	0	0
Site numbers in the Town of Collbran Study Area: 4, 33, 130, 142
Site numbers within the 1.5 mile perimeter of the Town of Collbran Study Area: 7 – 30

Figure 52 identifies the location of the sites listed in Table 22 above and are represented by:

•	Black dot – Eligible towers or base stations with PWSF which have been approved through a prescribed process by the appropriate local government agency.
•	Red dot – Noneligible towers or base stations (meaning infrastructure built without prior approval for construction by the appropriate local government agency).
•	Orange dot – Tower or base station that has either been approved but not yet built; or is undergoing review at the time of this publication.

Figure 52: Existing Antenna Locations

(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)

§ 31.12.660 Town of Collbran composite maps.

Indoor usage is the service threshold utilized for composite modeling because it represents the lowest signal strength acceptable after considering the signal loss that occurs from building penetration. Outdoor signal strength in the same area will usually be higher than indoor signal strength. Generally the closer the subscriber is to the facility the more reliable the service. A subscriber further from the facility will have less reliable service. As the subscriber gets closer to the edge of the yellow or blue area, the signal strength becomes more prone to degradation, particularly as usage in the area increases or environmental conditions worsen. Areas of gray on the map indicate where the subscriber will experience weak, unpredictable levels of signal strength, or no service at all. Filling in these coverage gaps would require the installation of additional antennas and corresponding construction of more towers or the identification of buildings that would serve as base stations.

Figure 53 illustrates current and future theoretical coverage for one service provider operating in the low or high band frequency assuming they had equipment on each facility.

This map includes the expected effects of terrain, vegetative cover, and current population density variables. The antenna mounting elevation in both figures is assumed to be at the top of the towers and base stations where the height is known or at 118 feet where unknown.

Figure 53 identifies the location of the inventory sites categorized as follows:

•	Black dot – Eligible towers or base stations with PWSF
★	Black star – Noneligible towers or base stations without PWSF

Figure 53: Current Potential Coverage Including Future Growth

(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)

§ 31.12.670 Town of Collbran estimation of future antenna sites.

There are three concentrations in populations in the Town of Collbran Study Area: Town of Collbran, Mesa Community and Powderhorn Resort. The Town and County desire to have services to connect the residents and vehicular activity between the three places. Recently, a study was completed to identify possible locations for additional emergency services infrastructure. Two of these sites are located in this study area and one is located just east of the Town’s limits. All three sites have been added to the map in Figure 54, identified by red triangles. Temporary towers, often referred to as Cell On Wheels (COW), have been used by the oil and gasoline industries in this region. Unfortunately once a project is finished the COW is removed resulting in a sudden loss of service. In order to provide long-term solutions to network gaps CityScape has identified an additional 12 locations that would provide a blanket of coverage along the Highway 330 corridor and the Town of Collbran. But, CityScape anticipates that only two of those facilities may be constructed over the next 10 to 15 years. Due to the unique circumstances found in this study area, CityScape recommends that residents and local government agencies work with the service providers to create a coordinated effort to develop new sites.

Figure 54 indicates how certain geographic areas would benefit with improved network coverage from the addition of the publicly owned properties. Table 23 identifies potential public property fill-in sites. Tower type preferences are not provided in the recommendation column because the property has not been vetted by the local planning agency.

Table 23: Town of Collbran Potential Fill-In Public Property
Public Site ID	Owner	Location	Address	Parcel Number	Acreage	Site-Specific Recommendation
C	Town of Collbran	Town of Collbran	61416 E Hwy 330	2665-203-00-941	1.196	Not Determined

Figure 54: Coverage with Future Fill-In

(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)

§ 31.12.680 Mesa County Study Area C – Overview.

The third study area specified in the RFP for analysis is identified as Corridors: I-70, Highway 50, Highway 330, Highway 60 and Highway 141. Due to the large geographic area covered by these corridors, Study Area C has been divided into four sections. Since much of the corridor analysis is included in the other study areas, the estimated future antenna sites focus only on the projected fill-in analysis shown in Figure 55, as insets 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Indoor usage is the service threshold utilized for composite modeling because it represents the lowest signal strength acceptable after considering the signal loss that occurs from building penetration. Outdoor signal strength in the same area will usually be higher than indoor signal strength. Generally the closer the subscriber is to the facility the more reliable the service. A subscriber further from the facility will have less reliable service. As the subscriber gets closer to the edge of the yellow or blue area, the signal strength becomes more prone to degradation, particularly as usage in the area increases or environmental conditions worsen. Areas of gray on the map indicate where the subscriber will experience weak, unpredictable levels of signal strength, or no service at all. Filling in these coverage gaps would require the installation of additional antennas and corresponding construction of more towers or the identification of buildings that would serve as base stations.

Figure 56 illustrates current and future theoretical coverage for one service provider operating in the low or high band frequency assuming they had equipment on each inventoried facility. This map includes the expected effects of terrain, vegetative cover, and current population density variables. The antenna mounting elevation is assumed to be at the top of the towers and base stations where the height is known or at 118 feet where unknown.

CityScape has reviewed the gaps in network coverage, as shown in Figures 57 through 60, in comparison to the location of publicly owned properties and considered the impact that placing a tower on those properties would have on network and public safety coverage. When publicly owned property is used for new tower or base station construction, the community, represented by their local government agency, is assured that their preferences for tower types and concealment technology are followed. As public properties are developed, the infrastructure installed becomes the precedent for how future sites should be developed on both public and private land. For example, many slick sticks and flagpole towers are available to the industry as are other creative concealment techniques. Some are more aesthetically pleasing and more practical than other types.

As the local government adopts preferred products on publicly owned property, their application becomes the standard for future tower sites developed on public and private land within their zoning jurisdiction. Leasing public properties to tower builders and tenant carriers for new wireless infrastructure can also create new sources of public revenue. Additionally, having a tower on public property results in an asset for the local government that is available for emergency services radio and wireless broadband equipment use.

Figures 57 through 60 indicate how certain geographic areas would benefit with improved network coverage from the addition of the publicly owned properties. Table 24 identifies potential public property fill-in sites that satisfy both corridor and study area coverage gaps. Tower type preferences are not provided in the recommendation column because the property has not been vetted by the local planning agency.

Table 24: Mesa County Potential Fill-In Public Properties
Public Site ID	Owner	Location	Address	Parcel Number	Acreage	Site-Specific Recommendation
B1	DeBeque Fire Protection District	DeBeque	4580 I70 Frontage Road	2445-274-00-944	5.86	Not Determined
B2	Town of DeBeque	DeBeque	414 Rouse Avenue	2445-272-00-943	61.767	Not Determined
C	Town of Collbran	Town of Collbran	61416 E Hwy 330	2665-203-00-941	1.196	Not Determined
E1	Lower Valley Protection District	Lower Valley/Loma	1341 13 Road	2691-334-04-948	0.79	Not Determined
E2	State Department of Highways	Lower Valley/Loma	1346 13 3/10 Road	2691-342-00-924	9.762	Not Determined
G	Mesa County	Lower Valley	916 19 1/2 Road	2697-224-00-939	5.281	Not Determined
Q	Colorado Department of Highways	Palisade	816 35 8/10 Road	2937-063-00-924	10.241	Not Determined
U1	Mesa County	Whitewater	527 Desert Road	2967-231-00-939	116.554	Not Determined
U2	City of Grand Junction	Whitewater	33129 Mill Tailing Road	2967-243-00-944	138.554	Not Determined
X	Mesa County	Gateway	42700 Highway 141	3477-153-01-936	7.663	Not Determined

Figure 55: Existing Antenna Locations

Figure 56: Current Potential Coverage Including Future Growth

(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)

§ 31.12.690 Estimation of future antenna sites: Inset 1.

CityScape estimates that six new towers or base stations will be needed over the next 10 to 15 years along the I-70 corridor as shown in Figure 57.

Figure 57: Coverage with Future Fill-In Inset 1

(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)

§ 31.12.700 Estimation of future antenna sites: Inset 2.

CityScape estimates that, in addition to adding three proposed emergency service facilities, eight new towers or base stations will be needed over the next 10 to 15 years along the corridors shown in Figure 58.

Approximately 15 new sites would be needed to provide complete coverage. However, the sites along Highway 65 and Highway 330 will likely not be a high priority for the industry and therefore, four of the 15 sites have not been turned on.

Figure 58: Coverage with Future Fill-In Inset 2

(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)

§ 31.12.710 Estimation of future antenna sites: Inset 3.

Highway 330 from the Town of Collbran eastward to the County line is a secondary highway and will not likely be a high priority for the service providers over the next 10 to 15 years due to the low subscriber base. CityScape has identified seven facilities to fill in the coverage gaps along the highway but is only turning on Site C (also in the Town of Collbran Study Area) and the three tower locations identified as potential emergency management service facilities shown in Figure 59.

Figure 59: Coverage with Future Fill-In Inset 3

(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)

§ 31.12.720 Estimation of future antenna sites: Inset 4.

Providing coverage along Highway 141 will be challenging due to the topography of the area. It is not likely the industry will provide near term coverage to this corridor because of the rural and undeveloped nature of the area. CityScape included the use of seven proposed emergency service facilities in the coverage map and forecasts that seven additional towers or base stations would be needed to provide full coverage along the corridors as shown in Figure 60. CityScape anticipates that two of the seven proposed facilities may be built south of the Highway 50 and Highway 141 intersection.

Figure 60: Coverage with Future Fill-In Inset 4

(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)

§ 31.12.730 Summary.

Wireless connectivity has become an increasingly important part of our everyday lives. Wireless telecommunication technology has evolved rapidly over the past 20 years providing capabilities that have resulted in dramatically increased cellular phone and Internet use. Cellular phones used to be just a way of making a phone call when you were away from home or work. Now we use smartphones and tablets to shop, find restaurants, compare prices, buy movie tickets, bank, navigate, and to stay in touch through social media sites. First responders throughout Mesa County rely more and more on cellular data communication in the field, as do 911 callers in an emergency situation. The demand for wireless Internet and data service coverage and capacity has strained existing telecommunication network facilities and is causing cellular service providers to plan for the construction of new infrastructure.

Due to the semi-remote location of Mesa County, wireless technologies are critical for personal, business and emergency communication, and are heavily relied upon by residents and visitors. The blend of urban and undeveloped areas, year-round recreational activity, communication needs, and canyons, valleys, plateaus and ridge lines all create difficult coverage challenges for service providers. Wireless telecommunications master planning is an approach taken by communities to determine wireless service industry deployment patterns and to identify gaps in network coverage. With this information communities can develop strategies to fill in those gaps.

The benefits of a WMP are multi-faceted, addressing community, economic development, and planning needs, as well as emergency service provider requirements. A comprehensive approach to wireless development will align the needs of personal wireless and broadband service providers with optimal infrastructure solutions that will support government and community objectives, allowing for infrastructure planning and development that will accommodate multiple providers, improve public safety and help to attract and retain residents and businesses.

(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)

§ 31.12.740 Grand Junction/Persigo 201 study area.

Due to the concentration of population and urban characteristics of the City of Grand Junction, CityScape estimates that the largest number of new sites constructed over the next 10 to 15 years will be built in and around the Persigo 201 Study Area. Approximately 11 to 18 new towers or base stations will be needed to fill in the anticipated coverage gaps. The projection model that CityScape designed assumes that all existing tower and base station locations will be used for maximum co-location and/or replacement opportunities in an effort to reduce the number of new towers and base stations required within a given geographic area. Should the industry not maximize the use of existing facilities, a greater number of towers will need to be constructed over this same time period. It should also be noted that even with this increase in new facilities, some areas within the study area will still be underserved due to the terrain and rural characteristics around the periphery of the study area.

(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)

§ 31.12.750 Countywide.

CityScape estimates that five to eight co-locations, upgrades or antenna modifications (in any combination) per year can be anticipated over the next 10 years. Over the next 15 years, up to 40 new tower or base station sites will be needed Countywide to fill coverage gaps and/or increase capacity. The more populated areas of the County will likely see the development of “small cell” sites that consist of multiple concealed antennas located relatively close together on shorter towers or existing support structures like light and utility poles. Rural areas are more likely to be served by towers that can provide coverage over larger geographic areas.

(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)

§ 31.12.760 Ongoing goals and objectives to maximize the benefits of the master plan.

The City of Grand Junction and Mesa County will need to manage the development of wireless telecommunication infrastructure in order to maximize the use of existing towers and base stations and to minimize the total number of new facilities needed to fill in coverage gaps. The Wireless Master Plan recommends the following action items be implemented to meet these goals:

(a)

Maintain the wireless facilities inventory, updating it as facilities are added or modified, and make it available to the public online through the City and County websites.

(b)

Prepare amendments to the City and County development codes that update zoning requirements and review procedures for wireless telecommunications facilities to make the codes compliant with current FCC regulations.

(1)

Update the development codes as needed when regulations change.

(c)

Maintain a priority site list of fill-in sites, identifying properties that are both publicly and privately owned, that meet the criteria established for preferred cellular facilities. Properties that are on the priority site list may be eligible for expedited administrative review of wireless facilities, provided the proposed facility meets the concealment requirements identified at the time of inclusion on the priority list, and all other applicable standards of the development code. The criteria for priority sites are:

(1)

The property shall be located within the Grand Junction Persigo 201 Boundary or can be included in the Grand Junction Persigo 201 Boundary.

(2)

The property shall be one acre minimum in lot size.

(3)

The property shall have vehicular access to an improved public right-of-way.

(4)

The property shall have access to utilities.

(5)

The property shall be outside the 100-year floodplain.

(6)

The cellular facility shall meet all City development standards and be subject to all regulations of the zoning code.

(7)

Concealment is required and the owner of the property must identify the type of concealment proposed, prior to inclusion on the priority site list, with the understanding that if accepted by the City, then any type of concealment aside from what is proposed and accepted at the time of the Master Plan vetting process would require a conditional use permit (CUP).

(d)

Seek out public/private partnerships to encourage the development of wireless facilities in rural areas that are underserved and have significant coverage gaps.

(e)

Where feasible, plan for the ability to co-locate private wireless facilities on public safety communication infrastructure, in order to fill coverage gaps and provide better service to residents.

(f)

Encourage the development of broadband infrastructure that will help support the development of wireless infrastructure.

(g)

Work with economic development partners to seek out opportunities to expand wireless telecommunication facilities to support business development.

(h)

Maintain awareness of evolving concealment options so the design and planning processes of new towers will blend visually within the community they serve.

(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)

§ 31.12.770 Appendix - Wireless Infrastructure Inventory.

Wireless Infrastructure Inventory is attached to this Chapter.

(Ord. 4703, 6-1-16)