Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-01-20 SpecialJanuary 20, 1999 (Special Meeting) (Page 1) A special meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on January 20, 1999, at 6:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. This meeting was called by notice from the Chairman, dated January 14, 1999. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris and Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Mr. Larry W. Davis, and Chief of Community Development, Mr. David Benish. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 6:03 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Martin. Agenda Item No. 2. Work Session: Wireless Telecommunications Policy, Presentation by Kreines & Kreines. Mr. William Fritz, Senior Planner, made a brief presentation. He pointed out that there were several maps on display showing opportunities for locating towers, as well as existing power lines, churches and water tanks. The maps did not show existing towers. The County has been working with its consultant, Mr. Ted Kreines, in an effort to develop a Wireless Telecommunications Policy. To-date, two public meetings have been held with the consultant. The first meeting was with representatives of the personal wireless service providers, and the second meeting was with members of the general public. In addition to these meet- ings, staff has met with Mr. Kreines to discuss various issues to increase staff's overall knowledge of the industry and trends in regulation. The initial concept for a Wireless Telecommunications Policy for the County centered on determining a minimum level of service for the County. This minimum level of service was to be based on either signal strength or call capacity. By using this minimum level of service approach, the County would be able to determine the areas of the County where improved service was required. After determining the areas of the County where improved service was needed, the location and number of required new facilities could be determined. Following the review of recent advances in technology, industry trends, and various Court decisions from around the country, staff no longer supports the minimum level of service approach. As personal Wireless service providers seek to increase subscription, they will be moving into higher call density areas. These areas will include developed and developing commercial and industrial areas, and, most importantly, developed and developing residential areas. Trends in the industry indicate that personal wireless service providers are aiming to replace the conventional land line phone provider in the residential market with both voice and data (Internet) service. In order to provide this service, facilities providing connection to the wireless system will become smaller, lower and closer to residential areas. This trend indicates that service providers will require improved service throughout the entire county. The number of sites that will be required to achieve the objectives of each service provider is, therefore, difficult, if not impossi- ble to determine. A reasonable approach to a Wireless Telecommunications Policy will be to state that all portions of the County should have reasonable access to personal pireless services provided that the facilities providing those services satisfy development standards. The first step in developing stan- dards will be the identification of resources that should not be impacted by personal wireless wervices facilities. Mr. Fritz then pointed to the maps on display, noting that some of the resources which have been identified for protection are shown on the maps. The maps showed the following resources: Historic, Agricultural/Forestal District, Entrance Corridor Districts, Wetlands, County Parks, and lands in Conservation Easements. Following the identification of-these resources, design standards can be developed that will allow for the construction of facilities that do not adversely impact the County. Design standards could January 20, 1999 (Special Meeting) (Page 2) 000257 allow the service providers to select sites that meet the criteria for facility location, and allow the service providers to develop their networks. Staff will identify and map additional resources to be considered in the placement of facilities. These additional resources which have been identi- fied but not yet mapped include: mountain resource areas (as identified in the Comprehensive Plan), wildlife habitats, streams, forested areas, public property, existing wireless service facilities, and structures which can support new facilities. Mr. Fritz advised the Board that during the work s~ssion, Mr. Kreines would discuss various types of facilities that are feasible. Any or all of the discussed facilities types may be included in standards developed for the County. In preparing standards, staff will incorporate the concerns that were stated at the two meetings previously held with the consultant. Staff has received comments from the public indicating that they rely upon wireless phone service for business and that they want reliable, affordable service. Staff has also heard members of the public who do not want service at all in rural portions of the County. To balance these conflicting opinions, staff will propose development standards that allow for the provision of service throughout the County while not adversely impacting the general population. Staff is aware that these design standards will require the industry to utilize technology that is not commonly used in some markets, like Albemarle County, and that the use of this technology may have the effect of increasing the cost of personal wireless services. Following the work session, staff will work with the consultant to generate development standards. Following preparation of draft development standards, staff will hold a more formal work session or public hearing with the Planning Commission. Following that meeting, the consultant and staff will prepare and present development standards to the Board. The consultant will at that time also present all work required by the contract. Staff will present a Wireless Telecommunications Policy for the Board's consideration, and then for a public hearing at a later date. Mr. Fritz then asked the Board to endorse a Resolution of Intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan to include a policy on wireless telecommunication facilities, and then to go to public hearing. He said staff hopes to present such a policy to the Board in April. He then introduced Mr. Ted Kreines, President of Kreines & Kreines. Mr. Kreines said he wanted to be sure they were moving in the right direction. The County is trying to protect resources so that they are not destroyed like they have been in other parts of the country. He presented photographs that showed that towers do not have to stick up high into the air to be effective. There are also options other than towers. He showed examples of cell sites that can clamp onto any pole, as well as other devices that do not look like towers. There are five limitations imposed by the Wireless Telecommunications Act. He said the Board needs to have specific standards in place. Mr. Kreines said towers do not have to be higher than trees. The higher the company can go, the higher the signal can go, plus companies want to put other things on the towers. Shorter towers can be used in some cases, but this must be decided on a case-by-case basis. Companies'often say towers have to be in a particular location, and at a particular height, but in the end, they often do not. Smaller towers could require additional facilities, but not necessarily more towers. He added that companies phase in coverage. Ms. Thomas said companies want to locate on highways. Mr. Kreines said companies want towers to be located on highways to get maximum coverage. They hope to put wireless phones in 50 percent of homes in the relatively near future. He said he recently did a site acquisition for one company in California. Sprint had said carriers want to go where the people are, but their applications call for location up high in order to get coverage with the minimum number of facilities. He said companies just want to get a foot in the door. Sites will eventually maximize, then companies will have to split cells and put more facilities in between existing ones. Mr. Kreines said case-by-case reviews need to look at alternatives. What works on one site may not be best for another. Mr. Perkins asked what the smaller towers cost. Mr. Kreines said they might have to be augmented January 20, 1999 (Special Meeting) (Page 3) 000255 with additional ones, so the cost is hard to demonstrate. If towers cannot go into the trees, companies will require more sites. They'can use dual- or cross-polarization towers since they use the same kind of panel antenna closer to the pole. These can be located right in the trees. He said local govern- ment has the right to rule on this. Mr. Kreines said adequate service should not be a standard of review. It would be hard for local government to know whose standard to use, since every company has its own standard. All companies have their own threshold of signal strength. It is unclear who becomes liable if service levels are not maintained. The County could find itself in a position similar to the FCC, setting standards, but not monitoring compliance. He then showed examples of signal strength and the corresponding service level, and demonstrated that different carriers use different measures. Some plaintiffs say monopoles are necessary to meet their goal of providing "land- line quality" service, but at least one judge disagreed. A company cannot tell the County what the needs are. Mr. Kreines said this is a business decision having to do with land development, etc. In Virginia Beach, an appeal panel said experts will always say what they think is needed, but government has to make their own decision. Congress has refused to abolish local authority over zoning decisions. Ninety percent of communities let companies do whatever they want. Some have workshops. He hopes Albemarle County will develop a policy that ulti- mately could be adopted into the Comprehensive Plan. He suggested the County may want to develop a wireless master plan. The County has to set standards in order to make decisions. Some standards already exist in the Comprehensive Plan, as handled through special use permits. He wants to expand that approach, and said standards are the key. There are three kinds of standards: submittal standards, performance standards, and operations standards. Mr. Bowerman asked about the difference in standards. Mr. Kreines said operations standards refer to monitoring and maintaining a site at a level of performance the County sets. This could affect visibility. The County needs to develop a visibility standard. Visibility is not the same as aesthetics. He said that, in New Hampshire, a locality achieved a settlement with a carrier that wanted to use a system that had a large visual impact. They eventually settled on a different type of tower that had less visual impact. Typical cell sites cost anywhere from $100,000 to $1,000,000. They bring in anywhere from $50,000 to $250,000 per month in gross revenue. Mr. Kreines did a cash flow showing sources of income and expenses over a period of 30 years. Companies usually sign five-year leases with agreements to renew for five more terms, so they are looking at an annual return of about $1.0 million. If the tower is made shorter, the company;s revenue may be reduced, and they will have to put another tower in place. However, this cost would probably be saved by using the fewest towers possible. There is more costs up-front, but they eventually make more money. Without regulation, Mr. Kreines said companies will do anything they want. He said there are three things the County needs to know in order to regulate towers: land use, environmental impact, and infrastructure knowl- edge. Board members do not have to be technological experts. The case-by-case approach does not provide any unity, so it is hard to see what it ~adds up to". There is a lot of cell splitting in place now. If the County has different carriers with different service areas and different levels of performance, and they all want to locate in the same area, this will result in organized chaos in the long run. The companies already know what they want; the County needs to know how to plan. Mr. Kreines said ~adequate service" means different things to different people. A judge in one case said a locality has the right to determine adequate service and whether it will be delivered in their locality. Ms. Thomas asked why Mr. Kreines is talking about ~level of service", if it is not applicable. Mr. Kreines said the County needs to determine what is acceptable. Companies will say they need to fill in all.the gaps. The County should not use the company's chart; it should use land use considerations, the impact on the environment, etc., to make decisions, and develop performance standards. Gaps in service are not dead spots; the signal is just too weak, or there are too many callers. The company needs to install another facility. January 20, 1999 (Special Meeting) (Page 4) 000259 This can be micro cells or repeaters. It does not necessarily mean another tower. The County needs to know what to do when a company says they need. coverage. They can use two capacity sites or several residential sites instead of one large tower, and the County might decide they want to see several shorter towers instead of one large one. They could even look like telephone poles. Mr. Kreines said coverage is never achieved. As a company becomes successful and puts service areas out there, with a facility in the middle, the more subscribers demand use, and the quicker the cell sites will fill up during busy times. The strongest signal will get on, and weaker ones will not. There are now gaps in coverage due to demand.' Companies need to split cell sites and put in small sites, since the issue is capacity, not coverage. Mr. Kreines said digital technology's quality of reception is always inferior to analog. There must be cell sites that are close enough to one another in order to make wireless telecommunication service comparable. Companies are not going to talk about residential cell sites at this point, because there are going to be many of them in the future. Stanford, Connecti- cut put them on light poles, and developed a planning program for them. One criteria of proper zoning is that it is based on a plan. The County needs to engage in a mapping process, identifying ~avoidance areas" which have already been determined by the FCC, then develop a four-tier review process to be followed by the companies. Albemarle County has already done mapping of the avoidance areas, which are shown in green on the second map. They need to look at opportunity sites, such as rooftops, rights-of-way utility poles, and wooded areas. These could get in under Tier 1 or 2. An opportunity site may negate an avoidance area, so the two can work together when reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Tier 3 is for the tougher applications. They would be reviewed by staff, who would then present them to the Planning Commission for review. Mr. Bowerman said this strategy makes sense to him. There is a logical flow and rationale upon which the Board can make decisions. This system could be incorporated so that staff can handle many of the applications. Mr. Kreines said he th~ght Tier l's could be administratively reviewed, which would reduce the/amount of.time the Board has to spend on this issue. Hopefully the industry will try to come in with Tier 1 requests. Mr. Bowerman asked about the cost. Mr. Kreines said if the County does not handle requests administratively, the process will not be cost-effective. The County should not have to hold a public hearing for every application. It should move to capacity at the beginning, which might mean more sites at first, including in the urban areas. Ms. Thomas said she likes the direction this presentation took. She has concerns that the County is rural, and carriers seem to be interested in the interstate highway. The County does not anticipate residential density where the carriers want coverage. Most of the highways are in entrance corridors, and the Board wants to protect the appearance of those area. She is not sure small boxes on top of existing telephone phones are reasonable, if they do not work for residential demand. Mr. Kreines said the issue will be residential demand if the highway is highly traveled. Ms. Thomas asked if there will be enough phones just along the highways to create a high level of demand. Mr. Kreines said he is convinced the need will be there. These would look much like VDoT lighting. The question is whether the County or VDoT will have oversight of these. He suggests more, frequent intervals of small sites. In rural areas, companies are going to ask for service that'will require some- thing very tall. They are not that interested in the rural areas, if they get the urban areas. Mr. Bowerman asked what the carriers' goals are. Mr. Kreines said that within ten years of getting their PCS license, a carrier has to be able to serve two-thirds of their population. They will likely sacrifice the other one-third, because it is not cost-effective to pursue them. The County needs to also deal with the question of whether customers have the right to expect the same service in rural areas as in urban areas. Ms. Thomas asked if there will be a lot of consolidation of companies. Mr. Kreines said companies are already positioning themselves so that they can January 20, 1999 (Special Meeting) (Page 5) 000260 be bought out for huge sums of money. He added that wireless service will be used everywhere, and will eventually be used more for data than voice. Mr. perkins asked why the County cannot say that carriers have to come to the Board with a plan, rather than the County spending the money to develop the plan. Mr. Kreines said the Board needs to develop a.policy, not a plan. The Board should not be in the job of "putting dots on the map". Companies do not want to put a lot of money into a plan unless they are committed to it. Their plans will be based on level of service and determination of need, but these should not guide the County. Neither should the Board get involved in technology decisions. Companies should be provided standards. They will always have the option of submitting a plan to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. ~ Ms. Thomas then moved to adopt a Resolution of Intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan to include a Wireless Telecommunication Facility Policy. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall and Ms. Humphris. RESOLUTION OF INTENT BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby adopt a Resolution of Intent to consider amending the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan to include a wireless telecommunications policy; and FURTHER REQUESTS the Albemarle County Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on said intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan, and does request that the Planning Commission send its recommendation to this Board at the earliest possible date. Agenda Item No. 3. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, Mr. Martin adjourned the meeting at 7:15 p.m. Chairman Approved by Board Init/als