Compton City Zoning Code
§ 30-46.10
Alternative Analysis and Comparison.
[Ord. #2121, § 1]
Each application for PWSF should also contain at least two alternatives that differ from the PWSF proposed in the application. These requirements do not apply to proposals for new utility poles in the right-of-way.
a.
Differences. The alternatives need not be totally different from the proposed PWSF; however, the alternatives should contain measurable differences, such as:
1.
Height. An alternative can be identical to the proposed PWSF except to be for a shorter height.
2.
Number. An alternative could be for two or more PWSFs that are shorter than the proposed PWSF.
3.
Location. An alternative could be located on a different property than the proposed PWSF.
4.
Siting. An alternative could be in a different place on the same property as the proposed PWSF.
5.
Design. An alternative could be of the same height, location and siting as the proposed PWSF, but be designed to appear differently.
6.
Technology. An alternative could be the use of a Distributed Antenna System instead of the proposed PWSF.
b.
Submittal Requirements for Alternatives. The materials submitted for each alternative should show only the differences between each of the alternatives and the proposed PWSF.
c.
City of Compton Provision of Alternatives.
1.
The City staff shall prepare at least one alternative.
d.
Comparison of Proposed PWSF and Alternatives. The City of Compton Architectural Review Board staff shall compare the proposed PWSF to the alternatives on the basis of the following:
1.
Change in community scale, as exhibited in relative height, mass or proportion of the PWSF within its proposed surroundings.
2.
New visible elements proposed on a contrasting background.
3.
Different colors and textures proposed against a contrasting background.
4.
Use of materials that are foreign to the existing built environment.
5.
Conservation of opportunities to maintain community scale, not compromising buffering areas and low-lying buildings so as to start a trend away from the existing community scale.
6.
Amount and diversity of landscaping and/or natural vegetation.
7.
Preservation of view corridors, vistas, and viewsheds.
8.
Continuation of existing colors, textures and materials.
e.
Ranking of Proposed PWSF and Alternatives. The City staff shall rank the proposed PWSF and each alternative based on the criteria listed in subsection 30-46.10d above. The ranking of the proposed PWSF and each alternative shall be submitted to the Architectural Review Board and/or Planning Commission along with each application for review by the Architectural Review Board and/or Planning Commission. The Architectural Review Board and/or Planning Commission shall consider the alternatives along with the proposed PWSF.
